Title: The Wave of Scepticism and the Rock of Truth
Author: Habershon, Matthew Henry
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Wave of Scepticism and the Rock of Truth" ***


Transcriber's note:

Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.

Variations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained
except in obvious cases of typographical error.

In this book the transcriber has made the changes listed in the
corrections list.


       *       *       *       *       *


  _THE WAVE OF SCEPTICISM
  AND
  THE ROCK OF TRUTH._



  THE WAVE OF SCEPTICISM

  THE ROCK OF TRUTH:

  _A REPLY TO_

  "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION: AN INQUIRY INTO THE
  REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION."

  MATTHEW HENRY HABERSHON.

  "_Animus ad amplitudinem mysteriorum pro modulo suo dilatetur, non
  mysteria ad angustias animi constringantur._"--LORD BACON.

  London:
  HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
  27 & 31, PATERNOSTER ROW.
  MDCCCLXXV.



CORRECTIONS.


  Title-page. _For_ anima, _read_ animi.

     Page iv. _For_ Wann Warden, _read_ Wann Wurden.

         xii. _For_ one allowed, _read_ one version allowed.

           28 line 3. _For_ and that Paul, _read_ and that as for Paul.

           52 line 3. _For_ first century, _read_ second century.

           77 _For_ He suffered martyrdom on, _read_ He suffered martyrdom,
               it is said, on.

           77 _For_ in the amphitheatre at Antioch, _read_ in the
               amphitheatre, not at Rome, but at Antioch.

           78 line 4. _For_ letters, _read_ versions.

          109 line 8 from bottom. _For_ whoever, _read_ whomsoever.

          123 line 7. _For_ dead, _read_ read.

          177 line 7. _For_ at the name of Jesus, _read_ in the name of
               Jesus.



"_Every wave which beats against the rock of eternal truth seems to
rise out of the trough caused by some receding wave, and raises its
threatening crest as if it would wash away the rock._

"_It is of the nature of truth, that the more it is tested the more
sure it becomes under the trial. These attacks of opponents are among
the means whereby fresh evidences of the certitude of the Gospels are
called out._"

Translator of Tischendorf's
Wann Wurden Unsere Evangelien Verfasst.



PREFACE.


This volume is an amplified and expanded essay read before the members
of the Young Men's Society in connection with Park Church, Highbury,
on the evening of the 2nd of November, 1874. The original purpose of
the author was to indicate to the associates of that Christian
institution how the influence of German anti-Christian literature,
made plain to English readers by such books as the one under review,
might be withstood and neutralised, and to supply an antidote to the
poisonous insinuations respecting Christianity which many of the
periodicals of the day disseminate in noticing works of this
character. Those that are not professedly hostile to religion have a
way of treating Truth and Error as if nothing had been proved, and as
if the question were quite an open one whether Divine Revelation is,
or is not, a reality. The present design of the author has a wider
range than he first intended. He desires to induce, not only young
men, but those nearer his own age, and placed, much as himself, in the
great centres of business, who have not much time for research into
such matters, to bring their intelligence fairly alongside the bold
pretensions of the cavillers and quibblers who presume to _know_ that
there is no God, or that He has not spoken. He desires to remind those
who are doubting that "there is a knowledge that creates doubts which
nothing but a larger knowledge can satisfy," and that he who stops in
the difficulty "will be perplexed and uncomfortable for life." Having
investigated for himself, the author indicates the result, and would
like, if he can, to facilitate the inquiry which it is,
unquestionably, the duty and interest of every one to make. If to rest
on a foregone conclusion on a matter of such momentous importance is
not altogether justifiable on the Christian side of the question, how
much less so on the other! For it should be remembered that, on the
one side, looking at the question from a _primâ facie_ point of view,
we have a faith which has the endorsement of the highest civilisation,
the best morality, the truest culture, the noblest aspirations, and
the greatest happiness which humanity has ever experienced; in
contrast with a negation which has nothing to offer as a substitute,
taking away the light that illumines the path of life, and leaving it
in utter darkness.

As to the book under review, the anonymous author seems to regard the
evidences of Supernatural Religion as a region of swamp or sand, in
which solid rock is nowhere to be found upon which faith may obtain a
firm footing. He takes us in his survey here and there, and says that
what seems to be solid stone is only slightly congealed sand, which,
at the touch of his criticism, dissolves and falls away. We fix our
attention on one of these masses, and the result is, that it is not
what he alleges, but, verily, granite. If the reader who is not
prejudiced against Christianity will attentively peruse this volume to
the end, he will probably incline to this opinion. If any whose views
in regard to Christianity are hostile should be at the trouble to read
it, it is the hope of the author that the result will be to stimulate
inquiry and research, for "that which is true in religion cannot be
shaken, and that which is false, no one can desire to preserve." In so
far as the writer of "Supernatural Religion" and others have, by their
reference to early Patristic literature, shown how certain it is that
Jesus lived and taught, they have done service to the cause of
Christianity; for the writings, the traditions, and the history of
the Church are too closely identified with the Sermon on the Mount to
admit of the probability that He who could thus teach was less than
"He believed Himself to be." On such a foundation the superstructure
is so appropriate, that the "possibility" which John Stuart Mill
conceived is near to _probability_, and _probability_ to a _full
assurance of faith_.

  82, ST. MARK'S SQUARE,
  WEST HACKNEY, LONDON.
  _11th December, 1874._



CONTENTS.


                                                                     PAGE

  INTRODUCTION                                                          1


  CHAPTER I.

  _MIRACLES._

  Miracles the vital point in the investigation--Their modification to
  suit scientific theologians--Antecedent credibility--Miracles not
  super-Satanic--Profane oaths--Counterfeits--Christianity
  misrepresented--J. S. Mill--Appeal to reason--The Fourth Gospel
  ignored--Intellectual condition of the age when miracles
  occurred--Royal College of Physicians--French Academy--Priests
  ordained to forgive sins--Paul the only educated man of his
  generation--Perfection and invariability of the order of Nature in
  contrast with the wickedness of mankind--Abstract question as to the
  credibility of miracles--Matthew Arnold and J. S. Mill reject Hume's
  argument--Recent German criticisms in favour of Christianity--Dr.
  Christlieb's "Modern Doubt and Christian Belief"--Baur and the
  Tübingen School                                                     11


CHAPTER II.

_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS._

  The argument from the silence of early writers--Limits of the
  inquiry--Quotations from unknown sources and tradition--The summary of
  what the author of "Supernatural Religion" alleges his investigation
  produces--His plausibility, special pleading, and boldness of
  assertion--His line across history--Verbal testimony in the first two
  generations--Inscription over the cross--Clement of Rome--Verbatim
  quotations--Tischendorf and early translations of the New Testament
  into Latin and Syriac--Pretensions on behalf of the Synoptics--Rénan's
  views of the Gospels--Uniform plenary and verbal inspiration--
  Perversion of Scripture--Epistle of Barnabas--The ninth chapter of
  Matthew dissected and the miraculous eliminated--Tischendorf's
  opinion ridiculed--Quoting unfairly--The Pauline and Petrine
  contention--The Second Epistle of Peter--The Pastor of Hermas       41


CHAPTER III.

_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--continued._

  The Epistles of Ignatius--One Version allowed to be genuine--The Epistle
  of Polycarp to the Philippians: its acceptance as genuine by
  Irenæus--Hegesippus--Fragments only preserved of his writings--The
  impossibility of knowing what was in the portions notextant--
  Papias--His evidence respecting Mark's Gospel--His assertion
  that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and Tischendorf's opinion that he wrote
  in Greek--Justin Martyr--His reference to the Memoirs called
  Gospels--The Clementine Homilies--Important quotation from
  Matthew--Paul's Epistle to the Church at Laodicea--Construction of
  Matthew's Gospel--The Epistle to Diognetus                          75


CHAPTER IV.

_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--continued._

  Basilides--The Gospel to the Hebrews--Special pleading in regard to
  Hippolytus and the pronouns HE and THEY--Coincidence resorted
  to--Events HAPPEN to occur as predicted--Valentinus--Marcion, a critic
  of the modern sceptical sort--J. S. Mill--Tatian: his harmony of the
  four Gospels--Dionysius of Corinth--The word Scripture applied to the
  New Testament writings--The Gospel of Peter--Serapion's explanation
  why it was read at Rhossus--Melito of Sardis--The word _old_ applied
  to the Old Testament implying the existence of a New Testament--
  Claudius Apollinaris and his reference to the four Gospels--
  Athenagoras--Opposite opinions as to his quotation from Matthew--The
  Epistle of Vienne and Lyons--Ptolemæus and Heracleon--Celsus--The
  Canon of Muratori                                                   99


CHAPTER V.

_THE FOURTH GOSPEL._

  The evidence of Irenæus--Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
  genuine--"The Refutation of all Heresies" by Hippolytus--Justin
  Martyr--The internal evidence--Philo's philosophy--The doctrine of the
  triune nature of Jehovah--The Divinity of Christ--The Holy Spirit--The
  nameless, unknown author--Rénan's views in favour of the Johannine
  authorship--Linguistic difficulties--William Penn--The raising of
  Lazarus from the dead--John's memory--The Duke of Wellington--Mode of
  authorship--Men separated from their writings, and books without
  authors--The second century non-classical compared with the
  first--Facts make history, not history facts--The living voice rather
  than books the instrument for proclaiming the Gospel in the first
  century--The folly of ignoring Divine Revelation                   135


CHAPTER VI.

_CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE._

  The Apostle John the author of the Apocalypse--Importance of the
  admission--The precise date of its composition--Its allegorical
  character--"Pilgrim's Progress" and "Paradise Lost and Regained"--The
  doctrines indicated in the Apocalypse--Rome the mystical Babylon--
  Nero Cæsar--The number of the beast--The Lord's day--Prominence
  of the allusion to the Lamb slain to take away sin--Paul's epistles
  identical in doctrine with the Apocalypse--Professor Owen--Quotation
  from "The Merchant of Venice"                                      163


CHAPTER VII.

_CONCLUSION._

  An eloquent sentence analysed--Henry Rogers--John Stuart Mill--
  Priestley--Paul's admonition to Timothy--The death of apostles
  not recorded in writings alleged to have been written long after their
  decease--Verdict pronounced before the case is complete--Authority of
  Church Councils--The religion of the Bible a spiritual matter,
  requiring spiritual discernment--Summary--Peroration               183



_INTRODUCTION_.



"_There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy._"

  Shakespeare.


"_When we consider further that a gift, extremely precious, came to
us, which, though facilitated, was not necessitated, by what had gone
before, but was due, as far as appearances go, to the peculiar mental
and moral endowments of one man, and that man openly proclaimed that
it did not come from himself, but from God through him, then we are
entitled to say there is nothing so inherently or absolutely
incredible in this supposition as to preclude any one from hoping that
it may perhaps be true._"

  John Stuart Mill.



INTRODUCTION.


Nothing in these days is taken for granted. In science, philosophy,
politics, and religion, the foundations of belief are fearlessly
examined, and the facilities for the process are unprecedented.
Criticism has new and improved instruments, and they are extensively
used--often misused. It concerns us especially to know how far our
religious institutions are being affected.

Have devout men, during the three thousand years which history
chronicles, been under a delusion in believing that "there is a spirit
in man, and the Almighty giveth him understanding"?

Is popular Christianity "wide of the truth, and a disfigurement of the
truth," as an eminent writer the other day asserted? Such questions
float in our literature and find their way into our homes and our
sanctuaries.

Although no importance is to be attached to the reckless assertion
that the outworks of Evangelical Religion are in danger, and that the
very citadel itself is not impregnable, it is undoubtedly true that
its modern adversaries--reputable and otherwise--are bold, active, and
skilful, and there is need that its defenders should be alert and
vigilant. It will not do to rely altogether on the defensive lines and
tactics of our predecessors. Each generation has the stronghold
entrusted to its care, and new appliances are, from time to time,
required to resist novel as well as resuscitated modes of assault.

However certain be the ultimate triumph of His cause whose right it is
to reign, the rate of its progress depends upon the faithfulness and
heroism of His servants at their various posts of labour and conflict.

To change the figure. The mirror which reflects Divine truth has to be
preserved and kept bright by human instrumentality. Superstition, in
the murky atmosphere of sacerdotalism, clouds it; by false philosophy
it is liable to be dimmed; while crude science or unsound criticism,
removing the silver lining to make the glass more transparent, makes
it useless. He does well who is able to act as its conservator, and
in some measure cleanse the surface, that obscurity may be removed and
eternal truth discerned.

I am aware that, as a rule, it is not desirable that hostile
literature should be helped into notoriety, and that believers should
be troubled with exploded fallacies and disturbed by arguments against
the truth as it is in Jesus a hundred times answered.

As Robert Hall justly remarks:--"It is degrading to the dignity of a
revelation, established through a succession of ages by indubitable
proofs, to be adverting every moment to the hypothesis of its being an
imposture, and to be inviting every ignorant sophist to wrangle about
the title, when we should be cultivating the possession."

But there are exceptions to every rule, and as I am not addressing a
promiscuous audience, but the members of a society whose rule is to
discuss all subjects without limitation, I venture to think I am
justified in bringing under your notice a recent heterodox book which
is so well written as to be likely to mislead if it be not
neutralized. And the more so, if I can make the author not only answer
himself, but other writers whose anti-Christian arguments are not put
forth anonymously, but with the authority of well-known names and much
reputation in the world of letters and science.

Let me further premise that the Christian is occupying an exceptional
position when he descends to the neutral level of the sceptic to
discuss the internal evidences of Evangelical truth. His usual
privileged abode is more favourable for the survey than the lower
ground, for the light is brighter and the air clearer on the mountain
heights where he is wont to contemplate religious matters, than on the
plain where faith has no temple, and reason, ignoring Divine
influence, operates with the carnal instruments of a negative creed.
To appeal to the spiritual discernment of a disbeliever in Divine
illumination would be like expecting a man who is not of the mystical
craft of the Masonic brotherhood to use the signs (if such there be)
of a Freemason. Yet the argument in defence of the reality of Divine
revelation is not complete without a reference to that "Spirit of
Truth" which Jesus Christ promised to send "to testify of him," and to
"bring all things to the remembrance" of those disciples who were to
"bear witness, because they had been with him from the beginning."[1]

  [1] John xv. 26, 27.

A good cause may be injured by injudicious and feeble advocacy, but I
trust I am not presumptuously meddling with a theme which only an
erudite scholar and theologian should deal with. I beg you to bear in
mind, however, that if I or others fail in the contest for truth,
there still will remain the indubitable proofs of Divine revelation in
all their variety and superabundance.

Although the ability, scholarship, and research displayed in this
anti-Christian work are considerable, I doubt if it has really much in
it that is original. The author has only cleverly reproduced and
rearranged the anti-Christian arguments, chiefly German,[2] which are
to be found in the library of the British Museum.

  [2] "The works of Strauss, Baur, Schenkel, and Rénan are the great
  authorities for the negative criticism of the present day."--_Dr.
  Christlieb._

The "Examiner" says, in regard to three-fourths of the work, "It is
neither more nor less than a digest of recent German speculation on
the date and authorship of the Gospels; devoid of originality, and
infected with the verbosity and repetition of the authorities on which
it is based."

In the other notices of the work which have appeared so far, it has, I
think, been somewhat over-estimated.

The "Fortnightly Review" writes of it: "It is not too much to say of
the two volumes before us that they are by far the most decisive,
trenchant, and far-reaching of the direct contributions to theological
controversy that have been made in this generation."

The "Athenæum" says: "The book proceeds from a man of ability, a
scholar, and reasoner, who writes like an earnest seeker after truth,
and knows well all the German and Dutch books relating to the
criticism of the New Testament, as well as the English ones."

The "Westminster Review" asserts that "no more formidable assailant of
orthodoxy could well be imagined."

The "Spectator" designates it a "masterly but prejudiced examination
of the evidences for the antiquity of the Christian Scriptures."

"The Literary World" says: "This is, beyond all question, an important
book. The one grand pervading fault we find with it is its
partisanship. The writer plays the part of special pleader against
what he calls Ecclesiastical Christianity, and fails to represent
what could be said on the other side. It is a partisan production, a
piece of clever, ingenious, plausible, special pleading. The author
has got up his case with marvellous exclusiveness. He makes it an
absolute rule, so far as we perceive, to regard his opponents as
having no case at all."

The quarterly reviews, "Edinburgh," "Quarterly," and "British
Quarterly," have not yet pronounced an opinion on its merits.

My purpose is to show that the author of this anonymous work has not
been successful in accomplishing the two things he has attempted,
viz., to prove the _in_credibility of miracles by--

_First_, a recast of the often-exploded syllogistic fallacies of Hume;
and, _secondly_, by an elimination of the miraculous from the Gospels;
but that he has been successful, without intending it, in showing that
Supernatural Religion rests upon substantial contemporary evidence.

The work consists of three parts. The first is upon miracles, treating
the subject as an abstract question. The second, upon the Synoptic
Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The third, upon the Fourth Gospel.
And there is a summary of the supposed results of the reasoning and
the investigation. The inference arrived at is premature, for as the
New Testament does not consist only of the four Gospels, but contains
other writings of equal importance, the argument is incomplete, and
the latter will have to be dealt with before our author can reasonably
expect any reader to entertain his anti-miraculous hypothesis. Another
volume is promised, but we may safely venture to anticipate that it
will prove no more formidable than the other great waves of scepticism
which have surged against, but have not undermined, the rock upon
which our faith is built.



CHAPTER I.

_MIRACLES._


_"Seriously to raise this question, whether God can perform miracles,
would be impious if it were not absurd."_

  Rousseau.



CHAPTER I.


In the first part of the work the following topics are discussed by
the author:--"Miracles in relation to Christianity and the order of
nature--Reason in relation to the order of nature--The age of
miracles--The permanent stream of miraculous pretension--Miracles in
relation to ignorance and superstition."

In stating the main purpose of his inquiry, he says (p. 8):--"It is
obvious that the reality of miracles is the vital point in the
investigation which we have undertaken." "If the reality of miracles
cannot be established, Christianity loses the only evidence by which
its truth can be sufficiently attested."

He might have dispensed with his arguments against the views of those
who endeavour to bring the miracles of the Bible within the scope of
the laws of nature, and to modify them by explanatory interpretations
so as to satisfy the demands of scientific and philosophical
theologians.

Christianity admits of no such treatment. In its essence it is
superhuman, abnormal, phenomenal, supernatural, though not unnatural.
A series of facts divinely attested, a proclamation of mercy divinely
commissioned, a system of means divinely blessed, is the true
definition of the gospel.

Discussing the antecedent credibility of miracles, our author makes
much of the references in the Bible to the working of miracles by
Satanic as well as Divine agency. "If," says he, "miracles are
superhuman they are not super-Satanic." The answer to this obviously
is, that what was merely a superstitious notion of the Jews, and that
which is taught by Divine authority, are two very different things.
Where in the Bible do we find that God reveals His will by miracles
which are not the manifestations of His own power? Christ points to
the superhuman works that He was doing in His Father's name as
evidence of His mission; and when the Jews suggested that He cast out
devils by Beelzebub, He said, "If Satan cast out Satan he is divided
against himself: how shall his kingdom stand?"[3] The man born blind,
to whom sight was given, said, "If this man were not of God he could
do nothing;"[4] and he said it was "a marvellous thing" that the Jews
did not know _he_ was from God who had wrought the miracle.

  [3] Matt. xii. 26.

  [4] John ix. 33.

"Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, said to Jesus, Rabbi, we know that
thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles
that thou doest except God be with him."[5] "Some of the Pharisees
said, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.
Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?"[6]
"Some of the Jews said, Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?"[7]

  [5] Ibid. iii. 2.

  [6] Ibid. ix. 16.

  [7] Ibid. x. 21.

Our author's statement is certainly not supported by the passage
quoted from Deuteronomy xiii. 3, of which he says, "The false miracle
is here attributed to God Himself." The words of that passage are: "If
there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth
thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass,
whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which
thou hast not known, and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken
unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the
Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the
Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his
voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet,
or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath
spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out
of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to
thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to
walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee." I
transcribe the whole passage, that its plain meaning may be seen, and
you may understand how much reliance is to be placed on our author
when he appears as a Bible commentator. Of course the prophet referred
to is one "pretending to the Divine inspiration and authority of the
prophetic office," and "the dreamer of dreams" one who pretends that
some deity has spoken to him in a dream.

If our author be a Biblical scholar, his scholarship is greatly at
fault in the passage he refers to in Ezekiel xiv. 9: "And if the
prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have
deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and
will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel." According to the
Hebrew language, God is often said to _do_ a thing which He only
suffers or permits. How can God be understood to harden Pharaoh's
heart in any other sense? The character of God is too plainly
described in the Bible to leave any uncertainty on this point.

The passages quoted from the New Testament only _apparently_ support
his statement. He quotes Dr. Mansel in reference to them, and no doubt
his words truly apply where he says, "The supposed miracles are not
true miracles at all, _i.e._, are not the effects of Divine power, but
of human deception or some other agency." The existence and powers of
angels, good and bad, we know little about, because little is
revealed; but it is not the Bible but superstition which teaches that
the fallen spirits have more power than the faithful ones in the
affairs of this world, that Satan is more potent than Gabriel. If we
knew more about the origin of evil, this matter would probably be less
mysterious to our finite intelligence.

Our author describes (vol. i. page 47) what he supposes orthodox
Christianity includes; and among other strange assertions he says that
man was tempted into sin by Satan, "an all-powerful and persistent
enemy of God," thus making the fallen angel an _Almighty_ being.

This matter has an important bearing on the proper exhibition of
religious truth, for the more superstition is intermingled with it,
the more will unbelief be likely to be prevalent. On the one hand,
infidelity engenders superstition, and on the other, superstition
creates aversion to religion. I cannot but think that there is
something wrong in the way in which Christian men, in the pulpit and
elsewhere, often allude to the spirit of evil. He is represented in
Scripture as the "god of this world," but surely that is not to be
understood literally.

Jesus told the Jews that the devil was their father, as their deeds
being evil indicated, who was "a murderer from the beginning, and
abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the
father of it."[8] As, therefore, the devil is the father of lies, so
are we to understand he is the God of this world. Not in any other
sense. He is potent, but not omnipotent; knowing, but not omniscient;
has his representatives distributed among the scenes of sin and death
in our world, and himself goeth "to and fro in the earth,"[9] but he
is not omnipresent. It is Oriental demonology which teaches that two
equal principles--good and evil--are alike dominant, not "the truth as
it is in Jesus;" Persian superstition, Gnostical heresy, not Divine
revelation.

  [8] John viii. 44.

  [9] Job i. 7.

The frivolous use of words and matters connected with the spiritual
world and our eternal interests is greatly to be disapproved and
condemned; but surely the mention of Satan is not to be designated as
profane, as if God's holy name were taken in vain. To comment on what
are called profane oaths in such a way is not to enlighten the minds
of the vulgar, but to mystify and conceal the truth of Christianity.
It is one thing to believe that there is in existence the spiritual
being whose evil doings our Saviour's coming into our world
frustrates, whose power is great, whose emissaries are innumerable,
and whose baneful suggestions and influence the Holy Spirit alone can
withstand, and quite another thing to believe that Satan could give
miraculous attestation to a lie, as God did to the truth. If there are
some passages of Scripture that seem to favour this false view, it
behoves us to suspect, having regard to the whole tenour of Scripture
affecting the doctrine, that the correct interpretation has not been
arrived at.

The existence of Satan, and his influence, personal, and by the
legions who fell with him, are of course superhuman ideas, and in the
category of the miraculous; but there is a wide difference between the
most striking sign of his spiritual power and the Divine miracles
wrought to attest the truth. It is God "who alone doeth great
wonders."[10]

  [10] Psa. cxxxvi. 14.

"If this man were not of God he could do nothing."[11] "If I do not
the works of my Father, believe me not."[12]

  [11] John ix. 33.

  [12] Ibid x. 37.

"A miracle is a sign for our faith, to be apprehended in its Divine
intention, though it cannot be comprehended, because it is God's
especial work." When the magicians in the Court of Pharaoh saw the
miracles which Moses wrought, they said, "This is the finger of
God,"[13] which is, and intended to be, the inevitable inference.
They knew that all they could do was a sham, a pretence.

  [13] Exod. viii. 19.

Counterfeits are as prominent in the history of our race as any
feature that could be specified, and an imaginary devil is conspicuous
in the category of the spurious. If there had been no real one, the
counterfeit could scarcely have been conceived. He is the father of
lies, and how numerous his progeny! While all else is misrepresented,
parodied, travestied, burlesqued, falsified, belied, it would be
strange if he had escaped. From the Eternal Himself down to the most
insignificant thing that is worth a forgery, what a catalogue may in
an instant be specified! The Divine law with its ceremonial rites, and
the Church with its ordinances; prophets and apostles; gospels and
epistles; science and philosophy; history and biography; and,
assuredly, miracles; in short, all truth--stem, branch, twig, and
leaf--is more or less, and at one time or another, got up
artificially, and the spurious or adulterated article offered, in
competition with the genuine one, to human credulity. This, if it
makes absolute truth difficult to buy, renders the injunction to "sell
it not," when bought, true wisdom. It seems to be, and of course is,
absurd to doubt the genuineness of the currency of a nation because
spurious coins are met with, but I believe that more scepticism is
produced by the consideration of the many religious impostures in the
world than by any other influence. The inference is childish in the
ignorant and unphilosophical in the scholar, but it is often
unconsciously arrived at in many minds as a plain and easy solution of
the question which cannot be evaded--Is Divine revelation a reality?

Our author misrepresents Christianity, and uses the misrepresentation
as an argument against it, as, alas! is only too common. John Stuart
Mill actually says in his essay on Theism (p. 240) that "Christ is
never said to have declared any evidence of His mission (unless His
own interpretations of the prophecies be so considered) except
internal conviction." If Mr. Mill ever read the New Testament through,
he would have found where it is written, "Jesus answered and said unto
them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see:
the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed,
the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel
preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever is not offended in
me." And also the words, "But I have greater witness than that of
John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same
works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent
me."[14] "The Jews came round about him and said, How long dost thou
make us to doubt? If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly. Jesus
answered, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my
Father's name, they bear witness of me."[15] "Believe me for the very
works' sake."[16]

  [14] John v. 36.

  [15] Ibid x. 25.

  [16] Ibid xiv. 11.

How, in the face of such an authoritative statement why miracles were
wrought by Jesus, can our author assume that they were not intended to
be an appeal to reason, and to be tested by the intelligence and
common sense they appealed to? The miracles were wrought to convince
men that Jesus was the Messiah, and were adapted to that end. Our
author's picture of Divine revelation is very much a conception of his
own, fashioned from isolated portions of Scripture, pseudo-Judaism,
and ecclesiastical representations of Christianity.

He quotes Archbishop Trench, who, in defining the function of a
miracle, says,--"A miracle does not prove the truth of a doctrine or
the divine mission of him that brings it to pass;" and Dr. Arnold, who
says,--"It has always seemed to me that its substance is a most
essential part of its evidence, and that miracles wrought in favour of
what was foolish or wicked would only prove Manicheism:" which
passages of fallible commentators fail to express the distinction
between real miracles and spurious ones. But I ask, Why does he appeal
to what Dr. Trench and Dr. Arnold, or any other commentator says, when
he has before him our Saviour's own words? In arguing against
miracles, it is not competent for him to put his own construction upon
them in violation of the highest authority as to their purpose and
design. I understand his conclusions to be against Christianity--not
against what he is pleased to put in its place. It is in the Fourth
Gospel we find Christ's words, but that book is too important a part
of Divine revelation for any apologist to remain in the field of
discussion and continue the argument if his opponent,--whether he be
Mr. Mill or our author,--insists on assuming that on the Christian
side the question is an open one whether the Fourth Gospel is to be
accepted. The whole of the four Gospels as we have them were read in
all the Christian Churches on the three continents in the middle of
the second century, as our author well knows. He acknowledges that
Irenæus, who wrote about A.D. 180, compared the four Gospels to the
"four columns of the Church over the whole world;" and that in
writings of his which we have, and the genuineness of which no one
questions, there are hundreds of references to the Gospels, the fourth
included. There is no question as to this being the fact at that date.
It is the earlier date that the argument bears upon. The four Gospels
are held together by an inseparable bond in the archives of the
Church, and believers in them assert they will all four stand or fall
together. I can only suppose that it was because Mr. Mill ignored the
Fourth Gospel that he ignored the verses I have quoted.

If an advocate has a weak case in hand, to damage the character of the
witnesses is a well-known mode of proceeding; so our author asks who
are the men who, it is asserted, saw these amazing performances? What
were the intellectual conditions of the age when they occurred? "Did
the Jews at the time of Jesus possess such calmness of judgment and
sobriety of imagination as to inspire us with any confidence in
accounts of marvellous occurrences unwitnessed except by them, and
limited to their time, which contradict all knowledge and all
experience? Were their minds sufficiently enlightened and free from
superstition to warrant our attaching weight to their report of events
of such an astounding nature?" (Vol. i. p. 98.)

The reading of this sentence suggests a comparison between the age he
refers to and the century succeeding Harvey's discovery of the
circulation of the blood, during which our Royal College of Physicians
repudiated the discovery, some of the most eminent of the faculty
writing against it, and creating a prejudice against Harvey by which
his practice suffered considerably; and the scientific period when the
French Academy for a long time rejected the use of quinine,
vaccination, lightning-conductors, the steam-engine, &c.

To weaken the apostolic testimony, there is presented an elaborate
exhibition of the wide-spread belief among the Jews in sorcery,
dreams, portents, and numerous forms of superstition. In what age have
not these been prevalent? Are we free from them in this? If the Divine
communication had been postponed until now, and civilisation could
have attained to its present stage without its influence, would its
reception have been any different? Would the vested interests in
established usages and beliefs have raised no opposition? If there are
in this country, and in this day, thousands who believe, or pretend to
believe, that the priests who are ordained to forgive sins can really
do so, are we in a position to assume any great superiority over the
Jews, Greeks, and Romans of eighteen centuries ago? If the most
manifest and stupendous miracle were wrought to show men the folly of
drunkenness, lying, and other sins, would not the results be just the
same? Some would believe and testify, and others say that the sign,
not being of the precise sort to suit them, was not conclusive. There
must be a coming down from the cross, or something else, to satisfy
them. "If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither would they
believe though one rose from the dead." The testimony of the first
disciples, it is said, is not satisfactory, because they were
uneducated, unscientific, uncritical. Mr. Mill says Paul was the only
exception in the first generation of Christians. I remark that
Matthew, in the position of a receiver of taxes for the Roman
government, though not learned, might be shrewd to detect imposture;
that Thomas was not too credulous; and that as for Paul, if he could not
judge of the value of the testimony of the hundreds of men and women
who told him, or could have told him, what they were eye-witnesses of,
what was his education worth, and what about the miracle in his own
case? Why should it be doubted that the vision to which he refers in
his unquestioned letter to the Galatians really occurred? He therein
tells them (with an asseveration that, in the presence of God, he was
not lying)[17] that he was taught the gospel he preached by the
revelation of Jesus Christ. Whatever may be said about the authority
of the Acts of the Apostles, which relates the particulars of Paul's
miraculous conversion so minutely, we have the evidence of it in
Paul's own letter. Of course he would compare what was revealed to him
with what the eye-witnesses could tell him; and if he could mistake a
sunstroke, a trance, or a state of ecstatic dreaming for a Divine
revelation, his character, judged of by his own writings, is verily
incomprehensible. There is no such other enigma in all history. In his
equally unquestioned letter to the Corinthians he tells them that he
received from the Lord the particulars of the institution of the
Lord's Supper. Of this memorable event Paul had ample opportunities of
comparing what was revealed to him with what the disciples who were
present could tell him; and he was in such intercourse with them, that
the circumstances were highly favourable for an educated man, such as
he was, arriving at the exact and absolute truth of the matter.

  [17] 1 Gal. i. 20.

Our author's view of the question is narrowed by his refusing to
acknowledge that mankind is morally depraved by sin.

How a man, with the wickedness of such a city as London daily forced
on his notice, and a knowledge of the history of the race in his
memory, could have penned such a sentence as the following, it is
difficult to conceive. "The whole theory of this abortive design of
creation, with such important efforts to amend it, is emphatically
contradicted by the _glorious perfection and invariability_ of the
order of nature." Can he not see that the degradation and wickedness
of humanity are in striking _contrast_ to the "glorious perfection and
invariability of the order of nature"? He is bound to give some reason
for this anomaly if he will not accept what revelation makes known to
us as the cause.

The abstract question as to the credibility of miracles Paul discussed
in the year 58 at Cæsarea, in the presence of Festus and Agrippa, when
he said, "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that
God should raise the dead?" and it has been dealt with so exhaustively
by Newton, Locke, Butler, Paley, Whateley, Olinthus Gregory, Wardlaw,
Alexander, and a host of other writers, that there is really little
more to be said. The "Fortnightly Review" remarks that the arguments
on both sides are so familiar, that it is not necessary to reproduce
the present author's mode of dealing with this part of the subject.
Matthew Arnold describes it as an attempt to refute Dr. Mozley's
Bampton Lecture on Miracles--"a solid reply to a solid treatise;" but
that to engage in an _à priori_ argument to prove that miracles are
impossible, against an adversary who argues, _à priori_, that they are
possible, is the vainest labour in the world. Now, as Mr. Arnold is as
much a disbeliever in miracles as our author, the worth of his
abstract argument may be taken at Mr. Arnold's estimate, and he says:
"The author of 'Supernatural Religion' asserts again and again that
miracles are contrary to complete induction, but no such law of nature
has been, or can be, established against the Christian miracles,
therefore _a complete induction there is not_."

If the miracle-disbelieving Matthew Arnold does not accept our
author's abstract argument, and since we find Mr. Mill designating
"_two points_" in Hume's celebrated attack as "weak" and "vulnerable,"
I need not linger over this part of the work. I may assume that it is
sufficiently neutralised by men on his own side of the question as
able and learned as himself.

But it is not only Mr. Mill and Mr. Arnold who have recently shown
that Hume's celebrated argument, which our author reproduces and
defends, is not sound. It is satisfactory to know that from Germany,
where so much sceptical criticism has been promulgated, comes now the
most complete and conclusive exposure of the whole anti-Christian
argument. For the proof of this assertion I refer to a work which has
just been translated into English, and issued by Messrs. T. and T.
Clark of Edinburgh, entitled "Modern Doubt and Christian Belief,"[18]
by Theodore Christlieb, D.D., University Preacher and Professor of
Theology at Bonn; a most able, learned, and exhaustive argument on the
whole question, equal to the demands of those who desire to know all
about it, and to whom I earnestly commend the book. He mentions that
the great majority of the representatives of the present scientific
German theology are considered to have essentially decided in favour
of the faith, not only on dogmatical, but also on exegetical and
speculative grounds (p. 289).

  [18] A series of apologetic lectures addressed to earnest seekers
  after truth.

This is in strong contrast to the assertion of our author (vol. i. p.
27), that "it may broadly be said that English divines alone, at the
present day, maintain the reality and supernatural character of such
phenomena;" and that "the great majority of modern German critics
reject the miraculous altogether, and consider the question as no
longer worthy of discussion."

For the benefit of those who may not have time to read Dr.
Christlieb's work, I will transcribe a few passages bearing on the
abstract argument we are discussing.

"Things moral and spiritual cannot be mathematically demonstrated. He
who said, 'My thoughts are not as your thoughts,' has introduced in
His words and actions a far higher logic than that whose principles
Aristotle laid down." (Preface, p. xi.)

"However much, in other respects, our opponents may differ, they all
agree in the denial of miracles, and unitedly storm this bulwark of
the Christian faith; and in its defence we have to combat them all at
once. But whence this unanimity? Because, with the truth of miracles,
the entire citadel of Christianity stands or falls. For its beginning
is a miracle, its Author is a miracle, its progress depends upon
miracles, and miracles will hereafter be its consummation" (p. 285).

"If the principle of miracles be set aside, then all the heights of
Christianity will be levelled with one stroke, and nought will remain
but a heap of ruins. If we banish the supernatural from the Bible,
there is nothing left us but the covers" (p. 286).

"The negation of miracles leads to the annihilation of all religion"
(p. 286).

"Many are averse to the miraculous through fear of superstition, and
they overlook the sharp discrimination of Scripture between belief and
superstition, between miraculous power and witchcraft. Whereas the
sorcerer pretends to make supernatural powers subservient to _his_
person, the prophet or apostle accounts himself only the instrument of
God. It is God who alone works. The Son Himself seeks through His
works not His own honour, but that of His Father.[19] Notice the
unobtrusiveness of miracles in the holy Scriptures, how Christ sharply
repels the vain curiosity and vulgar thirst of His age for wonders,
and His prohibition of their publication. Compare with these features
the sensational miracles of the Roman and Oriental Churches--images of
saints who sweat blood, nod the head, roll the eyes--or the
Whitsuntide marvels among the Greeks and Armenians at Jerusalem, when
the Holy Ghost lights up candles (but not hearts), and you will
confess that such feats of legerdemain jugglery betray, in their
external pomp and straining after effect, anything but a Divine
origin. A glance at the internal evidences of the truth in miracles,
at their moral and religious character, which reflects and serves not
only the power of God, but also His truth and holiness, and must prove
pre-eminently their Divine origin, will show that it is not a very
difficult task for any one to defend his belief in the biblical
miracles against the charge of superstition" (p. 297).

  [19] John viii. 50-54.

"Those foundation-stones for the denial of all miracles which were
laid by Spinoza and Hume, and on which the critics of the present day
still take a defiant stand, have crumbled away piecemeal before our
eyes. Spinoza's axiom, that the 'laws of nature are the only
realisation of the Divine will,' stands or falls with the pantheistic
conception of the Deity--a conception which is not only unworthy of
God and of man, but also contrary to reason. The Source of all freedom
is supposed to have no freedom, but to be immured in His own laws! And
to this Spinoza adds the conclusion: 'If anything could take place in
nature contrary to its laws, God would thereby contradict Himself.' We
have seen that just the converse is true, namely, that if God
performed no miracles, and left the world to itself, He would
contradict Himself; that He must perform miracles in order to maintain
the end for which the world was created, and to bring it to the
destiny which was originally intended. His miraculous action
contradicts not nature and its laws, but the unnatural, which has
entered the world through sin, and counteracts its destructive
consequences in order to restore the life of the world to holy order.
Only those who, like Spinoza, deny the reality of sin and its
destructive power, can question the necessity of the miraculous. The
present condition, not only of the human world, but also of nature,
gives such opinions the lie at every step" (p. 327).

"Hume, in like manner, bases his attack against the miraculous on a
series of false assumptions. First: 'Miracles are violations of the
laws of nature.' This is false, since miracles, far from violating,
serve to re-establish the already violated order of the world, and do
not injure the laws of nature. Second: 'But we learn from experience
that the laws of nature are never violated.' This is false, because we
ourselves immediately interfere with our higher will in the laws of
nature, and interrupt them without their being violated. Third: 'For
miracles we have the questionable testimony of a few persons.' This is
false, because the entire Scriptures are full of miracles, and the
historical testimony for them is unquestionable, since the appearance
of Israel and of the Christian Church is perfectly incomprehensible
without miracles. 'But,' he goes on, 'against them we have universal
experience; therefore this stronger testimony nullifies the weaker and
more questionable.' The pith of Hume's argument, then, is simply this:
Because, according to universal experience, no miracles now take
place, therefore none can ever have occurred. This proposition, in the
first place, involves a begging of the question, since it is not at
all certain that no miracles are performed now-a-days; and, second, it
ignores the fact that different periods are subject to different laws,
and with their varied wants may demand varied kinds of revelatory
action on the part of God. Certainly, the negro who should affirm that
there is no snow, because in his country, according to 'universal
experience,' it never snows, would be committing an absurdity. And no
less illegitimate is it to measure all time by the universal (?)
experience or non-experience of some particular period. Finally, Hume
goes on to demand, as a condition for the credibility of miracles,
that they must be attested by an adequate number of sufficiently
educated and honest persons, who could not be suspected of intentional
deception, and that they should be done in so frequented a spot that
the detection of the illusion would be inevitable. We shall see
further (in Lectures vi. and vii.) that these conditions were all
essentially fulfilled in the case of the New Testament miracles. And
yet, in spite of the evident weakness of Hume's argument, Strauss
would have us believe that Hume's 'Essay on Miracles' is so
universally convincing, that it may be said to have settled the
question ('Leben Jesu,' page 148). The author of the 'Life of Christ'
forgets to mention that Hume has long since been refuted in detail by
the earlier and later English apologists (_e. g._, by Campbell, Adams,
Hay, Price, Douglass, Paley, Whateley, Dwight, Alexander, Wardlaw, and
Pearson), to say nothing of the Germans; but then he knows that only a
very small proportion of his readers is aware of this fact" (p. 328).

"To these objections not even our most modern philosophers have been
able to add really new ones; and as against them all we may
confidently maintain the following truths as the result of our
investigation:--

"The possibility of the miraculous rests upon the uninterrupted
activity of a living God in the world.

"Its necessity arises, on the one hand, from the Divine end and aim
of the world; and on the other, from the disturbance introduced into
its development through sin.

"Therefore, although miracles are supernatural, they are not
unnatural. Far from violating the conditions of life, of nature, or of
humanity, they re-establish the life of the world which has already
been deranged, and initiate the higher order of things for which the
universe was created" (p. 328).

Of Baur, Dr. Christlieb writes:--

"Of all modern opponents of our old faith, the greatest is Dr.
Ferdinand Christian von Baur, Professor of Theology at Tübingen (died
December 2, 1860), one of the greatest, if not the greatest
theological scholar of this century; after Neander, the most notable
historian of the Church, not only in Germany but in the world; the
most indefatigable of investigators, especially as regards the history
of Primitive Christianity, in the elucidation of which he has deserved
well of theology. He stands a head and shoulders above all our modern
opponents of the miraculous.... If human power, human diligence, and
acuteness, could ever bring about the overthrow of our faith, this man
would have accomplished it. But our present theology is daily
becoming more convinced that he was incompetent to this task, and
that, in spite of all his unutterable exertions, he did not succeed in
proving the merely natural origin of Christianity. This is one of the
surest signs that the rock upon which our faith is founded is
absolutely indestructible"[20] (p. 505).

  [20] "The Tübingen school, which has somewhat modified the views of
  Baur, its founder, has at present its chief seats in Switzerland,
  France, and Holland."--_Dr. C._, p. 516.

I must not attempt to give the points of Dr. Christlieb's critique and
refutation of the Tübingen theory, but refer the reader to his
invaluable work.



CHAPTER II.

_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS._


_"I consider the Gospels decidedly genuine, for they are penetrated by
the reflection of a majesty which proceeded from the Person of Christ;
and this is Divine, if ever Divinity appeared upon earth."_

  Goethe.



CHAPTER II.

_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS_.

CLEMENT OF ROME--THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS--THE PASTOR OF HERMAS.


The argument based on the investigation which is carried on in the
seven hundred pages of the second and third parts of our author's
work, is chiefly the negative one from "silence." He examines with
great minuteness the date, character, and authorship of all the four
Gospels, and refers to all the writings of the early Church for traces
of them; insisting upon the silence of those early writings as being
of as much importance as any "supposed allusions" to the Gospels found
in such authors as Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, and others who
lived soon after the apostolic age; the result being, in our author's
opinion, unfavourable to the view entertained by orthodox believers.

I demur to his conclusions. I notice a want of fairness in some of his
quotations and in some of his translations, and a want of accuracy in
some of his statements, as well as defects in his reasoning, which I
have no doubt others will comment upon who may review the book. Some
of these defects will appear as I proceed.

When I find him saying, as he does, vol. ii. page 387, "We must,
however, carefully restrict ourselves to the limits of our inquiry,
and resist any temptation to enter upon an exhaustive discussion of
the problem presented by the Fourth Gospel from a more _general_
literary point of view," I expect to find difficulties, which of
course there are and must be, brought into prominence and carped at,
while the general evidence upon which Divine revelation is immovably
based is "carefully" avoided.

The second part, on the Synoptic Gospels, is a long investigation,
extending over five hundred pages, and dealing with three and twenty
works by separate non-biblical authors of the first and second
centuries; and its object is to disprove that they were written solely
by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and to support the hypothesis that those
Gospels were not in existence until long after the times of the
apostles, and, therefore, that they furnish no evidence from
eye-witnesses of the miracles they record.

The third part deals with the Fourth Gospel in a similar manner, and
occupies more than two hundred pages. Our author's inquiry into the
reality of Divine revelation seems, at this point, to involve the
following questions: Does the extant literature of the close of the
first and the beginning of the second century quote from, or allude
to, the three Synoptic Gospels? And if this cannot be answered in the
affirmative, does such silence prove they were not then written; and,
if so, is the conclusion deducible that the miracles recorded are not
credible?

In the preliminary remarks with which he opens the second part, he
says: "When such writers, quoting largely from the Old Testament and
other sources, deal with subjects which would naturally be assisted by
references to our Gospels, and still more so by quoting such works as
authoritative, and yet we find that not only _they do not show any
knowledge of those Gospels_, but actually quote passages from unknown
sources, or sayings of Jesus derived from tradition, the inference
must be that our Gospels were either unknown, or not recognised as
works of any authority at the time." In reference to this sentence I
remark that many of the passages he specifies and examines are _not_
from _unknown sources_, but from the Gospels, because, if not strictly
verbatim, they are in the _sense_ identical, and almost identical in
the language; therefore such quotations are evidence that the Gospels
existed at the time. The insinuation that they are from tradition is
purely conjecture, and altogether improbable, because our Gospels
contain the passages. There is not the slightest reason for looking
away from our gospels, and imagining the quotations to be either from
unknown sources or tradition. This will appear as we proceed. I will
give in his own words the results of his examination of what he
designates "evidence for the Synoptic Gospels," and then follow him
step by step through the journey he takes into early Patristic Church
history.

He says (vol. ii. page 248): "We may now briefly sum up the results of
our examination of the evidence for the Synoptic Gospels. After having
exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we
_have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during
the first century and a half after the death of Jesus_. Only once
during the whole of that period do we find any tradition even that any
one of our Evangelists composed a Gospel at all, and that tradition,
so far from favouring our Synoptics, is fatal to the claims of the
first and second. Papias, about the middle of the second century, on
the occasion to which we refer, records that Matthew composed the
Discourses of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue, a statement which
_totally excludes the claim of our Greek Gospel to apostolic origin_.
Mark, he said, wrote down from the casual preaching of Peter the
sayings and doings of Jesus, but without orderly arrangement, as he
was not himself a follower of the Master, and merely recorded what
fell from the apostle. This description likewise shows that our actual
Second Gospel could not in its present form have been the work of
Mark. There is no other reference during the period to any writing of
Matthew or Mark, and no mention at all of any work ascribed to Luke.
If it be considered that there is any connection between Marcion's
Gospel and our Third Synoptic, any evidence so derived is of an
unfavourable character for that Gospel, as it involves a charge
against it of being interpolated and debased by Jewish elements. Any
argument for the mere existence of our Synoptics, based upon their
supposed rejection by heretical leaders and sects, has the evitable
disadvantage that the very testimony which would show their existence
would oppose their authenticity. There is no evidence of their use by
heretical leaders, however, and no direct reference to them by any
writer, heretical or orthodox, whom we have examined. We need scarcely
add that no reason whatever has been shown for accepting the testimony
of these Gospels as sufficient to establish the reality of miracles
and of a direct Divine revelation." (Here he says, in a foot-note: "A
comparison of the contents of the three Synoptics would have confirmed
the conclusion, but this is not at present necessary, and we must
hasten on.") "It is not pretended that more than one of the Synoptic
Gospels was written by an eye-witness of the miraculous occurrences
reported; and whilst no evidence has been, or can be, produced even of
the historical accuracy of the narratives, no testimony as to the
correctness of the inferences from the external phenomena exists or is
now even conceivable. The discrepancy between the amount of evidence
required and that which is forthcoming, however, is greater than under
the circumstances could have been thought possible."

There is a plausibility, combined with an assumed conclusiveness, in
this summary, which may impose for a moment on those readers of his
book who are not conversant with the question under discussion. They
will be likely to have glanced at the foot-notes indicating the great
number of books referred to, and take it for granted that an author so
learned and painstaking would scarcely have asserted conclusions so
boldly without having found good reasons for them, which, before he
has done, he will adduce and make plain. It is evident, however, that
whatever his reasons may be as a whole, when his promised further
volume has been published, it is quite certain that, so far, his
argument from the silence of early writings, supposing he had
conducted it successfully, combined with his logic on the abstract
question of the credibility of miracles, is not sufficient to justify
his assertion that the testimony of the Gospels is insufficient to
establish the reality of miracles; because the Gospels might have
existed, although no trace of them can be found in the fragments
extant of books written during the few years between the composition
of the Gospels and the period when they were generally acknowledged as
authoritative, and read everywhere in the Christian assemblies on the
Lord's Day, that is, from about A.D. 100 to 150.

The reader will be unwise if he allow himself to be impressed by the
multiplicity of selected witnesses from a selected period, other
evidence being unappealed to. If a hundred of witnesses are, in a
court of justice, produced to swear to the identity of a man, the
impression is created that it cannot but be established. We have
lately seen how from being inevitable is such an outside verdict. The
special pleading of authorship, like that of the Queen's Bench,
startles and impresses for a moment; but after the investigation of
all the facts and circumstances of the case is complete, and the judge
has dissected the evidence, the sophistry is found not to have helped
the side which used it, but has tended to strengthen the other. I
remark, before following our author in his references to the witnesses
he has selected for cross-examination, it is not conceded to him the
right to draw a line where it best suits him in Church history, and
decide the case in the absence of the evidence of witnesses on the
outside of it. He draws such a line in specifying "_the first century
and a half after the death of Christ_." If the probable date of
Christ's birth be the third year before the commencement of the
Christian era, we have this line drawn at A.D. 180, at which point the
second generation of Christians had only just passed away, when direct
tradition had not lost its freshness. While men and women were living
who had heard from eye-witnesses of the events of Christ's life on
earth, the story of His advent, death, resurrection, and ascension,
the books recording the facts for future ages were in a less prominent
position in the Church than immediately afterwards. They were then
read in all the Churches, but commentaries on them and written
references to them were not very numerous; therefore what we can trace
of such before that time is comparatively scanty. But, immediately
afterwards, in the third and fourth generation of Christians, when
there were no men living who could say, My grandfather or my venerable
teacher told me so and so of Christ, and he saw Christ in Galilee
after His resurrection, when there were not less than five hundred of
His disciples assembled, and he was present when He ascended in a
cloud--while such persons were living, the testimony of a book was to
them of lesser weight and importance, for they could say that they had
the truth, not from the written words of a disciple, but from his own
lips. As Irenæus well remembered Polycarp, so might persons living
about the middle of the second century remember the teaching of the
Apostle John. The argument from "silence," applied to the early period
restricted to the year 180, is for this and other reasons far from
being conclusive, while the evidence furnished by such writings as
those of Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of
Antioch, Tatian, Hippolytus, and Origen, who belong to the subsequent
years of the first and the opening of the second century, is much more
important than is indicated by our author. His investigation ignores
to a great extent the circumstantial evidence of this later period. He
says (vol. ii. p. 387) he "must be careful to restrict himself to the
limits of his inquiry," and to avoid the "more general literary point
of view," and he does so restrict himself. If a person really desires
to decipher an obscure antiquarian manuscript or inscription, he does
not say, I must carefully keep to this imperfectly-lighted room, and
not step into broad daylight.

Here is a specimen of the way he draws an inference. In arguing
against the authority of the four Gospels, he says, vol. ii. p. 457,
"No two of them agree even about so simple a matter of fact as the
inscription on the cross." Now the exact words, as given in each
Gospel, are as follows: Matthew gives the inscription in eight
words--"This is Jesus the King of the Jews;" Mark in five words--"The
King of the Jews;" Luke in seven words--"This is the King of the
Jews;" and John in eight words--"Jesus of Nazareth the King of the
Jews."

This needs no comment. Could anything be more natural than such slight
discrepancies? Would four shorthand reporters of the present day have
been more exact?

The first early writer he examines is Clement, Bishop of Rome, who,
towards the close of the first century, wrote an epistle to the
Corinthians. It is attached to the ancient copy of the Scriptures
known as the Codex Alexandrinus, written in the fifth century, and
preserved in the British Museum.

This writer's fame surpassed all others in the first century. His
first Epistle to the Corinthians, written in Greek, is deemed to be
genuine; but, says Dr. Mosheim, "it seems to have been corrupted and
interpolated."

Eusebius assures us it was received by all, and reverenced next to
the Holy Scriptures, and therefore publicly read in the Churches for
some ages, even till his time.[21]

  [21] "Cod." cxii. c. 38.

The epistle itself makes no mention of the author's name. It purports
to be addressed by "the Church of God which sojourns at Rome to the
Church of God sojourning at Corinth." But in the Codex Alexandrinus
the title of "The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians" is
added at the end. Internal evidence shows it was written after some
persecution of the Church, either that of Nero, A.D. 64-70, or
Domitian, at the end of the century. The epistle contains these
words:--

"Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spake
teaching gentleness and long-suffering. For thus he said, Be pitiful,
that ye may be pitied; forgive, that it may be forgiven you; as ye do,
so shall it be done to you; as ye give, so shall it be given to you;
as ye judge, so shall it be judged to you; as ye show kindness, shall
kindness be shown to you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it
shall be measured to you."

Our author himself shows that these precepts cannot be mere floating
tradition. He says such "seems impossible" (vol. i. p. 226). They are
evidently the words of Jesus taken from a written source, but he
contends that they are not a quotation from the Sermon on the Mount,
as recorded in the Gospels as we have them, but _from some other
Gospel_ which is not extant. He says: "When the great difference is
considered between the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, and
still more between these and the passage in Mark, it is easy to
understand that that other Gospel may have contained a version
differing as much from them as they do from each other."

I remark, supposing that Clement had before him all three versions,
which differ from each other, what is more natural than that he should
give the sense without adhering to the exact words of any. Only an
inquirer who has a bias against Christianity would think of disputing
the quotation.

If Epiphanius "clearly wrote without having the Gospel of Luke before
him," as our author states on page 100, and if Tertullian "evidently
quotes that Gospel from memory," as he also says on the same page; why
should it be assumed as a matter of course that Clement had the
writings before him? He also may have quoted from memory.

There is something strangely marvellous about the disappearance of
these imaginary lost records of the Sermon on the Mount. We know that
in the year A.D. 139 Justin Martyr wrote that the "Memoirs of the
Apostles," called "Evangels" (gospels), were read after the prophets
every Lord's Day in the assembly of the Christians. Where were they
then? Were they identical with these memoirs called Gospels? Where
were they about the year A.D. 180, when Irenæus proves that four
Gospels were held in the highest esteem, and were read in all the
Churches; alluding to them as the four columns of the Church, and
comparing them to the four quarters of the world, the four principal
winds, and the four figures of the Cherubim? Where were they when he
says: "So well established _are our Gospels_, that even teachers of
error themselves bear testimony to them: even they rest their
objections on the foundations of the Gospels"?[22] This hypothesis of
our author is certainly going out of the way to find the reason for a
thing. It is to be remembered that what is evidenced by Irenæus, who
wrote about A.D. 180, and was the pupil of Polycarp, is highly
important. Dr. Mosheim says his five books against heresies, the only
writings of his extant, are a splendid monument of antiquity.[23] From
the evidence of Irenæus, it is clear that the four Gospels must have
been occupying a special and authoritative place in the Church some
time before the time he wrote his five books on heresies, about the
year 180. Tischendorf, who knows as much as any man about the
Scripture manuscripts, says: "It is a well-established fact that,
already between A.D. 150 and 200, not only were the Gospels translated
into Latin and Syriac, but also that their number was defined to be
only four, neither more nor less." The Syriac version of the New
Testament called the Peshito, a work of immense value, as the language
is almost identical with that spoken by Christ, a translation
admirably executed, "is generally assigned," says Tischendorf, "to the
end of the second century, though we have not any positive proof to
offer;" and "the Latin version had acquired before this period a
certain public authority." As the man who translated Irenæus's five
books from Greek into Latin follows the Italic version, and as
Tertullian, in the quotation which he makes from the Latin
translation of Irenæus copies that translator, Tischendorf justly
argues that some time must have elapsed between that date when the
translation is known to have been in existence, and the period when
they were first separated from other Church writings, and attained a
prominent and sacred character. Thus we get to the apostolic age for
the origin of all the four Gospels, and there seems to be no interval
of time sufficient to account for our author's primitive Gospels to
have disappeared, leaving no trace of their existence. It is
enormously more probable that the four Gospels alluded to by Irenæus
and Tertullian contained the records from which Clement quoted the
passage of the Sermon on the Mount, than that there were primitive
independent writings which were soon lost, obtaining no recognition
when the separate Gospel manuscripts became associated with the Old
Testament, and were read after them in the Christian assemblies. Our
author says the passage quoted by Clement, referring to the Sermon on
the Mount, is decidedly opposed to "the pretensions made on behalf of
the Synoptics." I do not quite know what "pretensions" he alludes to,
but I am not defending pretensions, either ecclesiastical or
non-ecclesiastical. It is not necessary, in the defence of the
Gospels, to assert that the four Evangelists whose names are attached
to them wrote every word; that they only contain records of what those
disciples were either eye-witnesses of, or, in the case of Mark and
Luke, heard Peter and Paul preach. The formulæ, "according to
Matthew," "according to Mark," "according to Luke," "according to
John," do not imply that, in the most ancient opinion, these recitals
were written from beginning to end by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John.[24] It is enough to know that the writings so far emanated from
those disciples as to justify the titles they bear, and their
reception by the early Church, as the true record of the important
transactions to which they refer. That reception of them was
sufficiently near to the date of their composition to preclude the
probability that the early Christian Church had not the means of
testing their genuineness or historical data, while their internal
evidence is such as to confirm their truthfulness and authority.

  [22] "Adv. Hær." iii. 11. 7.

  [23] They were written while Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome (A.D. 177
  to 193), as is evident from his Catalogue (Lib. iii. c. 3) of the
  Bishops of Rome, for Eleutherius is the last of the twelve he
  mentions, and was then in possession of that pastorate.

  [24] See Rénan, "Life of Jesus," p. 8, cheap edition.

"As to Luke," says Rénan, "doubt is scarcely possible. It is a regular
composition, founded on anterior documents, the work of one man, who
selects, prunes, and combines. The author is certainly the same as
that of the Acts of the Apostles. Now the author of the Acts is a
companion of Paul, a title which applies to Luke exactly. The name of
Lucus (contraction of Lucanus) being very rare, we need not fear one
of those homonyms which cause so many perplexities in questions of
criticism relative to the New Testament. It is beyond doubt that the
author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts was a man of the second
generation, and that is sufficient for our object. The date can be
determined by considerations drawn from the Gospel itself. The
twenty-first chapter, inseparable from the rest of the work, was
certainly written a short time after the destruction of Jerusalem. We
are here upon solid ground, for we are concerned with a work written
entirely by the same hand, and of the most perfect unity. If the
Gospel of Luke is dated, those of Matthew and Mark are dated also; for
it is certain that the Third Gospel is posterior to the first two, and
exhibits the character of a much more advanced composition."

"Every one drew largely on the Gospel tradition then current. The Acts
of the Apostles and the ancient Fathers quote many words of Jesus
which appear authentic, and are not found in the Gospels we possess.
The life of Jesus in the Synoptics rests upon two original
documents--first, the discourses of Jesus collected by Matthew;
second, the collection of anecdotes and personal reminiscences which
Mark wrote from the recollections of Peter. We may say that we have
these two documents still, mixed with accounts from another source, in
the two first Gospels, which bear, not without reason, the name of the
Gospel according to Matthew, and of the Gospel according to Mark. It
was when tradition became weakened, in the second half of the second
century, that the texts bearing the name of the apostles took a
decisive authority, and obtained the force of law."

I have selected these passages from Rénan's "Life of Jesus," as they
bear upon the view of the origin of the Gospels which may be
entertained with consistency by those who accept their authority,
without insisting upon any such pretensions as our author seems to
combat, and which are not necessary for their defence.

I object also to the case being tried upon an indictment which
includes a uniform, plenary, and verbal inspiration. Nor is it, I
submit, necessary to defend the view that the Old and New Testaments
include no words but what are of Divine authority.

I maintain that God has supernaturally revealed His character and His
will in the Bible, but I know not where the hard and fast line is
which separates the human from the superhuman in our versions of these
sacred documents, the general characteristic of which is that they are
inspired productions; that therein "holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost."[25] "Not the words which man's wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth."[26]

  [25] 2 Pet. i. 21.

  [26] 1 Cor. ii. 13.

"God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
fathers," and having subsequently spoken by His Son, authenticates His
message, which, we cannot doubt, the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles
to record, by a special inspiration, as He did in pre-Christian times.

It is human nature for man to pervert even his best of blessings. Jews
and Christians alike have done so. When we think of the translators of
the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek altering the prophetical dates, to
mislead as to the coming of Messiah, as was done in the Septuagint
Version; of the genealogy of Joseph being fitted into three periods of
fourteen generations each, to square with Jewish notions of numerical
precision and completeness; of the verse in John's first epistle (v.
7) inserted in the text to add strength to the theological phraseology
of a creed; and of the first verses of the eighth chapter of the
Fourth Gospel being left out in several of the most ancient MSS.,
evidently owing to some great authority, such as Eusebius (who was
ordered by Constantine to prepare copies of the Scriptures), having
suppressed them; we cannot but be suspicious that human infirmity and
meddlesomeness have, to some extent, interfered with the transmission
of the Divine oracles. The fountain is undoubtedly pure, but has not
the channel been polluted through which the Divine truths have been
transmitted?

We have next a reference to the "Epistle of Barnabas" and the "Pastor
of Hermas," both of which are attached to that ancient copy of the
Scriptures known as the Codex Sinaiticus, recently found by
Tischendorf, in a monastery in the desert of Sinai, and now preserved
at St. Petersburg. It is the most ancient MS. of the Scriptures we
can refer to, and is supposed to have been written in the fourth
century.

After the New Testament, in this valuable MS., is placed the epistle
ascribed to Barnabas. It is complete. It was written some time between
the year 70 and the close of the first century, and it contains these
words:--"_Let us therefore beware lest we should be found as it is
written, Many are called, few are chosen._" These words certainly
appear to be quoted from the twenty-second chapter of Matthew, but our
author says there is a similar passage in the apocryphal book of
Ezra--"_There be many created, but few shall be saved_," and he asks
us to believe it is quoted from the latter. As we have not the same
bias as he has, we decline, for obvious reasons, to do so, although he
points out that the verse in Matthew is not in the oldest codex.
Unfortunately the one in the British Museum is defective at that part,
but the verse appears in later MSS. He says, had the Epistle of
Barnabas been seriously regarded as a work of the apostle of that
name, it could scarcely have failed to attain canonical rank. If this
be our author's opinion, there was more discrimination used by the men
who decided what writings were admissible into the canon than he has
elsewhere given them credit for. The Epistle of Barnabas also contains
the following important passage:--

"_But when he selected his own apostles, who should preach his gospel,
who were sinners above all sin, in order that he might show that he
came not to call the righteous, but sinners, then he manifested
himself to be the Son of God._"

Our author says that the words "_he came not to call the righteous,
but sinners_," very probably a pious scribe added in the margin, and
they were afterwards included in the text of the epistle.

I remark that this is quite a gratuitous assumption. I see no
probability of anything of the kind, and I agree with Tischendorf, who
asks, "Could any one mistake the words being a quotation from Matt.
ix. 13?" But our author insinuates that this chapter should be
dissected, and the miraculous eliminated. He says the words of Jesus,
"They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick,"
"evidently belong to the oldest tradition of the Gospel;" and he gives
the opinion of Ewald, who ascribed them (ver. 1214), apart from the
remainder of the chapter, originally to the _collection of
discourses_[27] from which, with two intermediate books, he considers
our present Gospel of Matthew was composed.

  [27] Spruchsammlung.

These are the sort of conjectures upon which our author builds his
argument. The ninth chapter of Matthew is too full of the miraculous
to be accepted as a whole. It records how Jesus forgave sins, to the
sick gave health, to the blind sight, to the dumb speech, and to the
dead life; all of which is out of keeping with his bias and the German
rationalism with which he has such profound sympathy.

Tischendorf finds a further analogy between the Epistle of Barnabas
and the Gospel of Matthew in the words, "_David prophesied, The Lord
said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy
footstool_;" and inquires, "Could Barnabas so write without the
supposition that his readers had Matt. xxii. 4 before them? and does
not such a supposition likewise infer the actual authority of
Matthew's Gospel?" Because the passage is in the Psalms, our author
ridicules Tischendorf's inference. It is, to say the least, quite as
probable that Barnabas quoted from the Gospel as from the Psalms, and
there is propriety in Tischendorf's opinion and inference.

In designating his argument "rabid" and "preposterous," our author
exposes himself to arrows winged with similar feathers. When he
unwarrantably pretends to _know_ that the earliest records of what
Jesus did and taught did not contain anything but what comports with
the German school of theology which he favours, and which he has done
his best to make familiar to English readers, without exposing himself
personally to the odium which attaches to such opinions in a Christian
community, he has no claim to indulgence from those who examine his
language and animadvert thereupon.

Considering that, according to his own showing, the belief was, at all
events, prevalent in the Christian Church in the middle of the second
century that these writings of the apostles were authentic, and that
he cannot account for their being so esteemed, so soon after the
events occurred to which they refer, as to be universally read in all
the Christian Churches; it is, to say the least, unbecoming in him to
exalt his conjectures into oracles. Other critics, quite as inquiring,
able, and learned, more modestly say, "_The subject presents a variety
of embarrassing circumstances, so that it is difficult to arrive at a
satisfactory conclusion_." He lays himself open to be classified with
those who "_rush in where angels fear to tread_." There is a close
analogy between those who say in their hearts there is no God, and
those who say He has never spoken; and we know what is said in the
Bible of the former.

I will give here a specimen of the way our author quotes to suit his
own argument, and you will see whether the epithet "_preposterous_" is
at all applicable to him.

In showing how much John was opposed to Paul on the question of
Gentile Christians observing Jewish rites, he says, "_Allusion is
undoubtedly made to Paul in the Epistle to the Churches_, in the
Apocalypse;" and, "_It is clear that Paul is referred to in the
address to the Church of Ephesus_." The first passage is Rev. ii. 2,
"_I know thy works and thy patience, ... and how thou hast tried them
which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them false_;"
implying that John was so opposed to Paul as to deny his being an
apostle, which is grossly improbable.[28] But the full absurdity of
the idea is more manifest in the next quotation from Rev. ii. 14: "But
I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that
hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things
sacrificed unto idols," _&c._ It would not have answered his purpose
to finish the sentence, so he stops at the word "idols," and puts
"_&c._" When I mention that the words which are represented by the
"_&c._" are "_and to commit fornication_," you will agree with me,
that not only is the idea of John saying that Paul had taught the
Christians at Pergamos to sin in this respect the climax of absurdity,
but that an author who quotes so unfairly, and reasons so strangely,
is not to be implicitly trusted, nor his conclusions accepted. He has
adopted the erroneous notion of Baur, the late eminent Professor of
Theology at Tübingen, and other German writers, that the difference
between the Jewish and Christian converts, in reference to
circumcision and other Jewish observances, amounted to a party
contest, which caused Paul and Peter and James to be seriously at
variance. Now we know the facts of the temporary disagreement, and
they certainly do not justify such a conclusion. The hypothesis of
such a Pauline and a Petrine contest needs only to be brought into
contact with the letters of Paul, in which he refers frequently to the
Gentile Churches sending help to the Jewish church at Jerusalem, and
it is at once exploded. He tells the Galatians how it was arranged at
Jerusalem, after the matters in dispute had been discussed, that he
and Barnabas, receiving the right hand of fellowship, should go to the
heathen, and James, Peter, and John to the circumcision; only the
latter stipulated that the poor at Jerusalem were to be remembered,
which Paul says, "I was forward to do." And he instructs the
Corinthians in his first epistle as to their collections on the first
day of the week before he came, that their liberality might be ready
to send to the poor saints at Jerusalem. There is here the very
opposite of such extreme hostile and disgraceful party feeling as must
have existed if John could indulge in such language regarding Paul as
our author attributes to him. There were false men, such as Simon the
sorcerer; false apostles, such as Paul alludes to; and corrupters of
morals, such as the Nicolaitanes; so that there is not the slightest
necessity to think of Paul and his dispute about Jewish rites, to make
the words of the Apocalypse intelligible.

  [28] Paul was not living when John wrote the Apocalypse.

Clement's letter, written from Rome to the Corinthians, probably about
the year 94 or 95, supplies us with evidence as to the nature of the
difference between Peter and Paul, as well as proves the epistle to be
genuine. He says, "Do take up the writings of the blessed apostle.
What did he say to you in the beginning of the Gospel? Truly, by
Divine Inspiration, he gave you directions concerning himself and
Peter and Apollos, because even then ye were splitting into parties.
But your party spirit at that time had less evil in it, because it was
exercised in favour of apostles of eminent holiness, and of _one_ much
approved of by them. But now consider _who_ they are that have
subverted you. These are shameful things, brethren, very shameful,
that the ancient and flourishing Church of Corinth have quarrelled
with their pastors, from a weak partiality for one or two persons."

Clement contrasts the eminent holy Peter and Paul and Apollos with the
persons who were subverting them, and the latter were undoubtedly the
sort of false apostles that John alludes to in the Apocalypse. The
evidence of the Second Epistle of Peter is not to be set aside because
our author includes it among the questionable writings of the New
Testament; and Peter there speaks of Paul as "our beloved brother, who
according to the wisdom given him hath written unto you."[29] It is
not convenient for such critics to allow the letter to be genuine, on
account of this very passage. But there is ample proof, from internal
evidence, as shown by Dr. Macnight, Dr. Blackwell, and Dr. A. Clarke,
that it is a genuine letter. What a weak case he must have in hand who
has to resort to such means to defend it!

  [29] 2 Pet. iii. 15.

The foregone conclusion that miracles are incredible, hampers all the
investigations of these German scholars, and compels them to resort to
all sorts of conjectures and devices to account for things which, on
the basis of Evangelical views, are neither mysterious nor
inharmonious. If it be true of Germany that her ablest theologians are
now exploding such fallacies, the argument of our author is one, the
force of which is expended, a gun brought into the field of battle
when the fight is nearly over. It may do some damage, but cannot
affect materially the issue of the contest. The outspokenness of the
sceptics has roused the believers, and the result, we cannot doubt,
will be for the furtherance of the gospel.

"The natural and spiritual miracles of the sacred narrative are only
the notes of a higher harmony which resound throughout the discords of
earthly history. To our dull sense indeed they may seem disconnected,
but the more we listen the more we perceive a connected law of higher
euphony, now presaging, and finally bringing about the solution of all
dissonance into an eternal harmony. Surely then a believer may look
down with pity upon the spirit of the age and its declaration, that
the harmony of the Kosmos is destroyed by the miracles of the Bible."
(Beyschlag.)

The "Shepherd of Hermas" is next alluded to, but as it is not
pretended that it contains any quotation from, or reference to, any
passage of the Old or New Testament, it is simply a negative witness
in this case. It is found in the Codex Sinaiticus, after the Epistle
of Barnabas. The following is Mosheim's description of the work: "The
book entitled the 'Shepherd of Hermas' (so called because an angel is
the leading character in the drama) was composed in the second
century, by Hermas, the brother of Pius, the Roman bishop. The writer,
if he was indeed sane, deemed it proper to forge dialogues held with
God and angels, in order to insinuate what he regarded as salutary
truths more effectually into the minds of his readers. But his
celestial spirits talk more insipidly than our scavengers and
porters."

What a contrast between the writings of the New Testament and those
left out of the canon does such a book as this "Shepherd of Hermas"
exhibit! Bunsen thus alludes to it: "That good but dull novel which
Niebuhr used to say he pitied the Athenian Christians for being
obliged to hear read in their meetings." "From the very dawn of
Catholic literature, beginning with 'Hermas the Shepherd,' it had been
the object of the Christian writers to render the Greek and Roman
mind, by degrees, independent of the heathen philosophers, and to
create a Catholic literature and library, more particularly for the
use of children and catechumens."[30]

  [30] "Hippolytus and his Age," vol. i., 315.

Failing to distinguish between what was intended to be true, what was
meant to be fiction, and what was fraudulently spurious, theologians
have often been misled, and important doctrines have been thereby
perverted.



CHAPTER III.

_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--CONTINUED._


_"I cannot dispense with miracles as historical explanations of
certain indubitable historical facts. I do not find that they make
rents in history, but by their aid alone am I able to get over its
gaping chasms."_

  _Rothe._



CHAPTER III.

_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--CONTINUED._

     THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS--THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP--JUSTIN
     MARTYR--HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS--THE CLEMENTINES--THE EPISTLE TO
     DIOGNETUS.


Next our author examines quotations in "the Epistles of Ignatius,"
though he says they really appertain to a very much later period, for
they are "all pronounced, by a _large mass of critics, spurious
compositions_." He suffered martyrdom, it is said, on the 20th December,
A.D. 115, when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the
amphitheatre, not at Rome, but at Antioch, in consequence of the
fanatical excitement produced by the earthquake which took place on
the thirteenth of that month.[31] If any of his fifteen letters, says
our author, could be accepted as genuine, the references to them
might be important. Dr. Mosheim says his whole epistles are extremely
dubious. The shorter of the two version of Ignatius is, however,
generally allowed to be genuine. Tischendorf says "its genuineness is
now generally admitted." In it we find, "What would a man be profited
if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" which of
course is a quotation from Matt. xvi. 26.

  [31] While Trajan was on his Parthian expedition, and spent the winter
  at Antioch. (See Davidson's "Introduction to the New Testament," p.
  370.)

The next document mentioned is the Epistle of Polycarp to the
Philippians, who, Irenæus says, was in his youth a disciple of the
Apostle John. He was Bishop of Smyrna, and ended his life by
martyrdom, A.D. 167. Irenæus knew Polycarp personally. It is said that
the epistle was written before A.D. 120. Our author ascribes it to a
later date, and says that there are potent reasons for considering it
spurious. As, however, Irenæus, Polycarp's disciple, believed it to be
genuine, we shall take the liberty of differing from our author, and
of believing it to be so. The epistle contains the following:
"Remembering what the Lord said, teaching: Judge not, that ye be not
judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven you; be pitiful, that ye may
be pitied; with what measure you mete it shall be measured to you
again; and that blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted
for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God." Also:
"Beseeching in our prayers the all-seeing God not to lead us into
temptation, as the Lord said, The spirit indeed is willing, but the
flesh is weak." Also: "If, therefore, we pray the Lord that he may
forgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive."

Our author demurs to these being quotations from our Gospels, and says
they might have been from orally current accounts of the Sermon on the
Mount, or from many of the records of the teaching of Jesus in
circulation.

Hegisippus is the next early writer referred to. He made use of the
"Gospel according to the Hebrews." Jerome says (confirming Eusebius)
"that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is written in the Chaldaic
and Syriac (Syro-Chaldaic) language, but with Hebrew characters."

We have, says our author, direct intimation that Hegesippus made use
of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. "He was one of the
contemporaries of Justin--a Palestinian Jewish Christian. In order to
make himself thoroughly acquainted with the state of the Church, he
travelled widely, and came to Rome when Anicitus was bishop.
_Subsequently he wrote a work of historical memoirs in five books_,
and thus became the first ecclesiastical historian of Christianity.
This _work is lost_, but _portions have been preserved by Eusebius_,
and one other fragment is _also extant_." It must have been written
after the succession of Eleutherius to the Roman bishopric (A.D.
177-193), as that event is mentioned in the book.

"The testimony of Hegesippus is of _great value_, not only as a man
born near the primitive Christian tradition, but also as that of an
intelligent traveller amongst many Christian communities" (p. 430).

Hegesippus says, in the fifth book of his Memoirs, that "these words
('Good things prepared for the righteous neither eye hath seen nor ear
heard, nor have they entered into the heart of man,' from 1 Cor. ii.
9) are vainly spoken, and that those who say these things give the lie
to the Divine writings and to the Lord saying, 'Blessed are your eyes
that see, and your ears that hear,'" &c. This fragment is preserved by
Stephanus Gobarus, a learned monophysite of the sixth century.

"Nothing is more certain," says our author, "than the fact that, in
spite of the opportunities for collecting information afforded him by
his travels through so many Christian communities, for the express
purpose of such inquiry, Hegesippus _did not_ find any New Testament
Canon, or, that such a rule of faith did not exist in Rome in A.D. 160
and 170."

I ask, _How in the world can our author be certain of this, when only
portions of Hegesippus are extant?_ This applies generally to his
argument that the _silence_ of the early writers is of "as much
importance as their supposed allusions to the Gospels." Such a mode of
reasoning is aptly commented upon by the Rev. Kentish Bache, in his
letter to Dr. Davidson on the Fourth Gospel. He says: "When but small
portions of a work have been preserved to our use, it is no wonder
that these portions should make no mention of many circumstances
interesting and important, which the writer must certainly have known
and told of. If I tear a few leaves from the middle of my English
History book, I shall find on _them_ (the few leaves) no record of the
Norman Conquest or of the Battle of Waterloo. Would it thence be a
fair conclusion that these events are unhistorical and fictitious?"

Papias is next referred to. He was Bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia,
in the first half of the second century, and is said to have suffered
martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius, about A.D. 160-167. About the middle
of the second century he wrote a work in five books, called,
"Exposition of the Lord's Oracles," which is lost, excepting a few
fragments preserved by Eusebius and Irenæus. We have the preface to
his book, which states: "I shall not hesitate to set beside my
interpretations all that I rightly learnt from the Presbyters, and
rightly remembered, earnestly testifying to its truth. For I have not,
like the multitude, delighted in those who spoke much, but in those
who taught the truth; nor in those who recorded alien commandments,
but in those who recall those delivered by the Lord to faith, and
which come from truth itself. If it happened that any one came who had
followed the Presbyters, I inquired minutely after the words of the
Presbyters--what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what
Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or what any other of the
disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the
disciples of the Lord, say; for I held that what was to be derived
from books was not so profitable as that from the living and abiding
voice." "It is clear (says our author) from this that even if Papias
knew any of our Gospels, he attached little or no value to them, and
that he knew absolutely nothing of the Canonical Scriptures of the New
Testament" (p. 445).

I remark that it is far from clear that he attached no value to our
Gospels from anything he says in the fragments extant, and of course
we know nothing of those portions that are lost. We know that he was
making a book, consisting of what he could gather from tradition about
"the truth," "to set beside his interpretations" about the
"commandments delivered by the Lord to faith." There were Gospel
writings in circulation, and he was supplementing what they recorded.
There is positively no evidence to make us think that our present
Gospels were unknown to him. He does not, in the fragments we have,
mention Paul's writings, nor the Gospel of Luke, nor the Fourth
Gospel, but he does allude to a book by Matthew and another by Mark,
and Eusebius tells us that Papias makes use of passages taken from
Peter's first epistle and John's first epistle. So, on the whole, the
testimony of Papias, instead of being against is in favour of the
Synoptics, and also of the Fourth Gospel; for the silence inference
applies no more to it than it does to Paul and Luke's writings, and
the statement of Eusebius about John's Epistle is not to be set aside,
for if John wrote it, it will be allowed he wrote the Gospel. His
evidence respecting Mark is important, for the fragments contain a
statement that "Mark recorded what fell from Peter, writing
accurately, and taking especial care neither to omit nor to
misrepresent anything;" and Papias says that "Peter preached with a
view to the benefit of his hearers, and not to give a history of
Christ's discourses." Our author's inference is that it is some other
person of the name of Mark that is connected with the Second Gospel,
and not the Mark that Papias refers to. This is very far-fetched and
improbable, for the description tallies well with our Second Gospel,
and quite admits of the supposition that Mark had every opportunity of
obtaining from eye-witnesses the historical materials of his Gospel.
No one supposes that every statement in the book emanated from Peter's
discourses.

Papias is the only early writer that our author acknowledges furnishes
any evidence in favour of the Synoptic Gospels. He cannot deny that
he records that Matthew composed discourses of the Lord in the Hebrew
tongue, but he says "_that totally excludes the claim of our Greek
Gospel to apostolic origin_." The boldness of this assertion can only
be properly met by an equally explicit denial that it does anything of
the kind. If the translation be a faithful one from a Hebrew version,
it is of course entitled to the epithet apostolic if the original
possessed it. Our author must have some peculiar notions about verbal
inspiration if this be the rule he lays down. But he altogether
overlooks the supposition that Matthew's Gospel was not originally
written in Hebrew, notwithstanding this statement of Papias.

Tischendorf, in his book issued by the Tract Society, entitled, "When
were our Gospels Written?" maintains that the assertion of Papias
"rests on a misunderstanding," and he briefly states his reasons for
this view. He says: "This Hebrew text must have been lost very early,
for not one even of the very oldest Church fathers had ever seen or
used it." "There were two parties among the Judaisers--the one the
Nazarenes and the other the Ebionites. Each of these parties used a
gospel according to Matthew, the one party using a Greek and the other
party a Hebrew text. That they did not scruple to tamper with the
text, to suit their creed, is probable from their very sectarian
spirit. The text, as we have certain means of proving, rested upon our
received text of Matthew, with, however, occasional departures, to
suit their arbitrary views. When then it was reported, in later times,
that these Nazarenes, who were one of the earliest Christian sects,
possessed a Hebrew version of Matthew, what was more natural than that
some person or other, thus falling in with the pretensions of this
sect, should say that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and
that the Greek was only a version from it? How far these two texts
differed from each other no one cared to inquire; and with such
separatists who withdrew themselves to the shores of the Dead Sea, it
would not have been easy to have attempted it."

"Jerome, who knew Hebrew, as other Latin and Greek fathers did not,
obtained in the fourth century a copy of this Hebrew Gospel of the
Nazarenes, and at once asserted that he had found the original. But
when he looked more closely into the matter, he confined himself to
the statement that many supposed this Hebrew text was the original of
Matthew's Gospel. He translated it into Latin and Greek, and added a
few observations of his own on it. From these observations of Jerome,
as well as from other fragments, we must conclude that this notion of
Papias cannot be substantiated; but, on the contrary, this Hebrew has
been drawn from the Greek text, and disfigured moreover here and there
with certain arbitrary changes. The same is applicable to a Greek text
of the Hebrew Gospel in use among the Ebionites. This text, from the
fact that it was in Greek, was better known to the Church than the
Hebrew version of the Nazarenes; but it was always regarded, from the
earliest times, as only another text of Matthew's Gospel."

The references to Justin Martyr occupy nearly one hundred and fifty
pages of the work. He was one of the most learned and one of the
earliest writers of the Church not long after the apostles. His
conversion took place about the year 132, and his martyrdom, A.D. 165.

In his second "Apology," A.D. 139, and in his Dialogue with Tryphon
the Jew, are many quotations of passages found in the Gospels. He
quotes from all the four Evangelists, and our author's elaborate
attempt to prove the contrary is certainly not successful. His
objection, based on slight discrepancies in the words while the sense
is identical, is frivolous in the extreme. Supposing there were in
Justin's hands a primitive work which supplied the passages, and that
work was embodied in the canonical compilation, they can be truthfully
said to be quotations from the latter. The objection to his quotations
on the grounds that they are not verbatim, is neutralized by the fact
that neither are his quotations from the Old Testament always exact.

It has been shown that "if Justin did not quote from our Gospels,
there must have been in his hands, in the second century, a variety of
accounts of Christ's life, to which he, a leading Christian apologist,
attached the greatest importance; and yet, in the course of the few
following years, those accounts must have disappeared, and four
others, of which this eminent Christian apologist knew nothing, must
have taken their place. This would have been what Canon Westcott
justly calls a 'revolution,' for it would have, in a single
generation, entirely changed the records of the life of Christ
publicly used by the Christians."[32]

  [32] "Literary World," Oct. 23, 1874.

Justin quotes from a book entitled the "Memoirs," which he says "are
called Gospels," and our author tries to make out that the passage
quoted is an interpolation. It is not the only instance where the
"wish," and not the proof, "is father to the thought."

In Justin's work, the "Apology," occur the words, "And thou shalt call
his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins;" which
are found in the apocryphal Gospel of James, as said to the Virgin
Mary, while in Matthew's Gospel they are spoken to Joseph. It is urged
that Justin must, therefore, have quoted them from a lost Gospel; but
why should it be supposed so when they are in the apocryphal Gospel of
James, which, Origen says, was everywhere known about the end of the
second century, and which, there is good ground for believing, was
written in the early part of that century?

A few other passages in Justin's work, which are not found in our
Gospels, may be accounted for by supposing them to be quotations
either from lost Gospels, genuine or apocryphal, or tradition may have
supplied them. There is no certain inference to be arrived at.

Justin tells us in his first "Apology" (A.D. 139), that the memoirs of
the apostles called evangels were read _after the prophets_ every
_Lord's Day_ in the assemblies of the Christians.

This must have reference to the writings which alone, a few years
later, were universally known as the Four Gospels, or the Acts of the
Apostles.

The second volume of the work opens with an examination of "the
evidence furnished by the apocryphal religious romance generally known
by the name of 'The Clementines,'" which includes the Homilies, the
Recognitions, and a so-called Epitome--the Homilies and Recognitions
being, he says, "the one merely a version of the other," and the
Epitome a blending of the other two. As there are in the Clementine
Homilies upwards of a hundred quotations of expressions of Jesus, or
references to His history (not less than fifty passages from the
Sermon on the Mount), it is important to ascertain, if possible, when
they were written, and from what writings they quote. The date cannot
be determined. The range of probability is from the middle of the
second century. If much later, the inquiry does not amount to much,
because we know, from ample evidence, such as that of Irenæus, that
the Four Gospels as we have them were in existence, and read in the
Churches, in the middle of the second century. We presume, therefore,
our author takes an early date for granted, or he would not have
occupied forty pages in their examination.

The first quotation which, he says, agrees with a passage in our
Synoptics, occurs in the third Homily, p. 52: "And he cried, saying,
Come unto me all ye that are weary;" which agrees with Matt. xi. 28.
Because the quotation is not continued, but the following words are an
explanation of what "Come unto me," &c., means--"that is, who are
seeking truth, and not finding it,"--we are to deem it "evident that
so short and fragmentary a phrase cannot prove anything." I exclaim,
Indeed! Not in a book that contains a hundred references to the words
of Jesus! Not, considering that they are especially the words of
Jesus, that no one else so said to the weary, "Come unto me!" Most
readers will surely think the contrary should be inferred!

Among the quotations are words resembling the text of Matthew xxv.
26-30: "Thou wicked and slothful servant: thou oughtest to have put
out my money with the exchangers, and at my coming I should have
exacted mine own."[33] If this were the only reference to the Gospels
as we have them, the quotation is sufficiently near to make the
inference certain that such writings, in some shape, must have been in
existence when the Clementine Homilies were written. This our author
acknowledges, but he says (vol. ii. p. 17): "If the variations were
the exception among a mass of quotations perfectly agreeing with the
parallels in our Gospels, it might be exaggeration to base upon such
divergences a conclusion that they were derived from a different
source. The variations being the rule, instead of the exception,
these, _however slight_, become evidence of the use of a different
Gospel from ours."[34]

  [33] "Hom." iii. 61.

  [34] "The 'Recognitions of Clemens,' which differ little from
  Clementina, are the witty and agreeable productions of an Alexandrian
  Jew, well versed in philosophy, written in the third century."--_Dr.
  Mosheim._

I remark, supposing this be so, that the author of these Homilies had,
in the year 160, other Gospel manuscripts before him, it is not
pretended that our Gospels contain all that was known of the sayings
of Jesus, and all the events of His public ministry. We are told in
the Fourth Gospel: "There are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even
the world itself could not contain the books that should be
written."[35] If the author of the Fourth Gospel did not include many
things which he knew had been previously written about, why should we
be surprised to find the authors of the Synoptic Gospels record only
portions?

  [35] John xx. 25.

We know that Paul wrote an epistle to the Church at Laodicea, which is
not preserved to us. We hold that Paul was as much an inspired writer
as any of the apostles, and instead of making all sorts of
difficulties about the books we have, we ought to be grateful that
they are extant. We read in Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 16:
"And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also
in the Church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle
from Laodicea."

I wonder whether our author has an objection to the genuineness of the
Epistle to the Colossians, because Epictetus, who was born at
Hierapolis about A.D. 50, which was within a few miles of Colosse and
Laodicea, and who would be likely to know, at that time, what was
there going on, does not refer to Paul and the Churches there?

But it is useless to disprove the assertion that there are no
quotations from the Gospels, for we are met at every turn with the
objection that those specified are probably quotations from the
numerous lost Gospels known to have been in circulation. He says: "The
great mass of intelligent critics are agreed that our Synoptics have
assumed their present form only after repeated modifications by
various editors of earlier evangelical works. The primitive Gospels
have entirely disappeared, supplanted by the later and more amplified
versions (p. 459). The first two Synoptics bear no author's name,
because they are not the work of any one man, but the collected
materials of many. The third only pretends to be a compilation for
private use, and the fourth bears no simple signature, because it is
neither the work of an apostle nor of an eye-witness of the events it
records" (p. 401). I remark, if Luke's Gospel does only pretend to be
for private use, does that affect its value? If Matthew wrote at all,
and our author acknowledges he did in Hebrew, his work would be likely
to be translated into Greek, either by himself or some one else, and
many copies circulated. Supposing the original in Hebrew to be lost,
it is not probable the Greek copies could be all collected from
various places, and all altered and supplemented. How could any one
do this? He might write and issue a new version, but he could _not_
suppress the original one unless all the existing copies were under
his own control. As we have a certain work preserved, and no other,
pretending to be Matthew's, it is highly probable that what Matthew
contributed to the Church is that Gospel. A fictitious one would be
less likely to be preserved than a real one, though we are asked to
believe the contrary. Our author suggests that if we had the original
writings we should find them minus the miracles, which is altogether
inconsistent with what he has said about the prevalence of miraculous
notions among the Jews at the time. At any rate, if the books in
circulation did not relate miracles, they would not be in harmony with
the gospel preached by Paul, and believed by the first Christians.
Supposing that there were, as Luke intimates, and as our author
asserts, many original writings, what more likely than that Matthew
should collect some of them, and embody them, with his own record, in
one book, under his own name? It is quite true that we meet with
references to apostolic writings under other titles than those in the
New Testament: we read of,--

"The Gospel according to the Hebrews."

"The Gospel according to the Egyptians."

"The Memoirs of the Apostles."

"The Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew."

"The Gospel of the Lord."

"The Discourses of Peter."

"The Collection of Discourses."

Although we do not know how these were embodied in our New Testament
Scriptures, it is probable that they were in some way included, or the
copies of the present Gospels may not all have uniformly borne the
same titles as we know them by. In our day it is not usual for an
author's name to appear in the body of his work, and often a
title-page gives more than one title.[36] How few persons can give the
exact title of the book known as "Butler's Analogy." The value of a
book does not depend essentially upon the person who wrote it. We do
not know who wrote the Book of Job, many of the Psalms, the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and other portions of the Bible, but it would be unwise
to reject their teaching on that account.

  [36] "The 'Recognitions' are conveyed to us by the ancients under
  different titles. They are sometimes styled 'St. Clemens's Acts,'
  'History Chronicle;' sometimes 'St. Peter's Acts,' 'Itinerary
  Periods,' 'Dialogues with Apion,' all which are unquestionably but
  different inscriptions, or it may be parcels, of the same book."--_Dr.
  Cave's_ "Apostalici," p. 58.

Our author says: "No reason whatever has been shown for accepting the
testimony of these Gospels as sufficient to establish the reality of
miracles" (p. 249). I remark, the question is, Do they show such
_in_sufficient testimony as to warrant the conclusion that the general
evidence based on a great variety of proofs is not to be accepted?

The Epistle to Diognetus is a short composition, which has been
ascribed to Justin Martyr, but its authorship is uncertain, and the
date of its composition. It is not quoted or mentioned by any ancient
writer. The two concluding chapters are supposed to have been written
by a different hand. To the first quarter of the second half to the
end of that century the date is variously assigned. It is written in
pure Greek, and is elegant in style. Bunsen, in his valuable book,
"Hippolytus and his Age," asserts that "the epistle is certainly the
work of a contemporary of Justin the Martyr;" that he believes he has
proved that the first part is a portion of the lost early Letter of
Marcion, of which Tertullian speaks; and that "the very beautiful and
justly admired second fragment, which in our editions of Justin's
works is given at the end of that Patristic gem, the Epistle to
Diognetus,"[37] does not belong to that letter, but is the conclusion
of the great work, in ten books, by Hippolytus, "The Refutation of all
Heresies." Our author, in the eighteen pages devoted to the Epistle to
Diognetus, says nothing of this, although it is both important and
interesting. He says the supposed allusions in the Fourth Gospel may
be all referable to Paul's epistles, that the date and author are
unknown, and that the letter is of no evidential value. His two brief
allusions to Bunsen's work show that the ignoring of that eminent
man's opinion was not unintentional; while the absence of any
reference to Bunsen's elaborate proof that Hippolytus wrote the
"Refutation," is also significant.

  [37] "Hippolytus and his Age," vol. i. 187.



CHAPTER IV.

_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--CONTINUED._


_"It remains a possibility that Christ actually was what He supposed
Himself to be."_

  John Stuart Mill.



CHAPTER IV.

_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--CONTINUED._

     BASILIDES--VALENTINUS--MARCION--TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF
     CORINTH--MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS
     APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND
     LYONS--PTOLEMÆUS, HERACLEON, CELSUS--CANON OF MURATORI.


Our author says of Basilides, "He was founder of a system of
Gnosticism, who lived at Alexandria about the year 125. With the
exception of a very few brief fragments, none of his writings have
been preserved, and all our information regarding them is derived from
writers opposed to him. Eusebius states that Agrippa Castor, who had
written a refutation of the doctrines of Basilides, 'Says that he had
composed twenty-four books upon the gospel.' This is interpreted by
Tischendorf to imply that the work was a commentary upon our four
Gospels, a conclusion the audacity of which can scarcely be exceeded"
(p. 42). I remark that by "the gospel" would be meant the gospel
which was preached by the apostles, and Tischendorf is not far wrong
in supposing that the written records of it in the hands of the first
Christians was the subject of the commentary. Our author has certainly
not proved the contrary. He says: "We know that Basilides made use of
a Gospel, written by himself it is said, but certainly called after
his own name; ... but the fragments of that work which are extant are
of a character which precludes the possibility of the work being
considered a Gospel." Neander affirmed the Gospel of Basilides to be
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. I remark that that is not only
probable, but that the Gospel to the Hebrews may have been the Hebrew
translation of the Greek Gospel of Matthew, with its additions and
modifications, to suit the Jewish Nazarene sect, who, we know, had a
Hebrew text of their own, which they did not hesitate to alter and
adapt to their own views. Basilides, says our author, expressly states
that he received his knowledge of the truth from Glaucis, the
"interpreter of Peter," whose disciple he claimed to be. Basilides
also claimed to have received from a certain Matthias the report of
private discourses which he had heard from the Saviour for his
special instruction. Canon Westcott writes: "Since Basilides lived on
the verge of the apostolic times, it is not surprising that he made
use of other sources of Christian doctrine besides the canonical
books. The belief in Divine inspiration was still fresh and real."[38]
Our author says: "It is apparent, however, that Basilides, in basing
his doctrine on these apocryphal books as inspired, and upon
tradition, and in having a special Gospel called after his own name,
ignores the canonical Gospels, offers no evidence for their existence,
but proves that he did not recognise any such works as of authority."
I remark, the question is not their authority, but, Did they exist?
Basilides wrote a book, called it a Gospel, or commentary of the
Gospel, and made as much use as suited his heretical purpose of the
canonical records, of tradition, and of other books. This seems to be
what we can arrive at. Hippolytus, writing of the Basilideans and
describing their doctrines, uses the singular pronoun "he"--"he says,"
in a passage of which our author gives an unintelligible translation.
This pronoun is an inconvenient witness. Our author wants it to be
"they," in order that the disciples of Basilides living at a later
period, when the Gospels were generally recognised, may be meant, and
not Basilides, who lived A.D. 125. Hippolytus has a sentence of
Basilides, which our author translates as follows:--"Jesus, however,
was generated according to _these_, as we have already said. But when
the generation which has already been declared had taken place, all
things regarding the Saviour, according to _them_, occurred in a
similar way as they have been written in the Gospel." This means that
the things referring to the Incarnation were as _written_ in the
Gospel, not as preached, but as written; and if Basilides, as the
founder of the sect, is referred to, the statement testifies to the
existence of the Gospels in the year 125, and the doctrine of the
Incarnation being in them. But our author says the statement is not
made in connection with Basilides, but his followers; that it is made
about A.D. 225, by Hippolytus, and affords no proof that either
Basilides or his followers used the Gospels or admitted their
authority. "The exclusive use, by any one, of the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, for instance, would be perfectly consistent with the
statement" (p. 48). "No one who considers what is known of that
Gospel, or who thinks of the use made of it in the first half of the
second century by perfectly orthodox Fathers, before we hear anything
of our Gospels, can doubt this" (p. 48). I remark, that those who
adopt Tischendorf's view, that Matthew was written in Greek, and a
corrupted version in Hebrew, used in certain countries, will not have
to resort to any such explanation as our author suggests. His
examination in detail of the several quotations is important, because
it exhibits his want of appreciation of the evidence they afford. The
first passage Tischendorf points out is found in the "Stromata" of
Clement of Alexandria, and it is certainly from our Gospel of
Matthew,[39] however that work may have been compiled (for it is not
necessary to insist that no other records than Matthew's own are
included in the book which, we contend, was at very early date read in
the Churches, and is what we now have). "They say the Lord answered,
All men cannot receive this saying. For there are eunuchs who are
indeed from birth, but others from necessity."[40] Our author says
"this passage in its affinity to, and material variation from, our
First Gospel, might be quoted as evidence for the use of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, but it is simply preposterous to point to it
as evidence for the use of Matthew. Apologists ... seem altogether to
ignore the history of the creation of written Gospels, and to forget
the very existence of the πολλοἱ of Luke." We value his
acknowledgment, and find no difficulty, notwithstanding the silence of
some apologists, in reconciling our belief in the four Gospels with
the facts or probabilities of what can be ascertained as to their
"creation." We allow that the word Luke uses (πολλοἱ) refers
to many, which is consistent with the idea that many committed to
writing what they knew, and that their records were embodied in the
Synoptic Gospels.

  [38] "On the Canon," p. 255.

  [39] See Matt. xix. 11, 12.

  [40] "Strom." iii. 1.

The next passage referred to by Tischendorf is one quoted by
Epiphanius: "And therefore he said, Cast not ye pearls before swine,
neither give that which is holy unto dogs."[41] "It is introduced in
the section of the work of Epiphanius directed against the
Basilideans. As in dealing with all these heresies there is continual
interchange of reference to the head and later followers, there is no
certainty who is referred to in these quotations, and in this
instance nothing to indicate that the passage is ascribed to Basilides
himself. His name is mentioned in the first line of the first chapter,
but not again until the fifth chapter" (p. 50).

  [41] "Hær." xxiv. 5.

I remark, it was the founder of the sect and not the followers who
wrote the book, and those who opposed the heresy would, although they
alluded to the sect, have regard to the founder when they referred to
the doctrines held, and quoted the written opinions which
distinguished the party on gospel matters. To make the matter as plain
as I can, I will suppose a case as an illustration of the point.
Supposing that in Pliny's letter to Trajan there were found these
words referring to the Christians: "They say, the rule which should be
observed in regard to an enemy is, Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
persecute you"--would it be right to assert that the quotation is no
proof that Christ so taught, but His disciples, long afterwards? This
is something like what our author's objection, referring to the
pronouns "he" and "they" in Hippolytus, amounts to. "They" does not
mean "he" when thus used; and "he," when actually used in the first
line of the first chapter, and afterwards means, "they;" that is, "He
(Basilides) says," means "They (his followers at a later date) say."

The plural pronoun is used, indicating the sect, Basilides and his
followers. Therefore our author says there is uncertainty as to who he
is when used in the same sentence. He says "Hippolytus is giving an
epitome of the views of the school with nothing more definite than a
subjectless φησἱ (he says) to indicate who is referred to.
None of the quotations which we have considered are directly referred
to Basilides himself, but they are introduced by the utterly vague
expression, 'He says' (φησἱ), without any subject accompanying the
verb."

The suggestion (p. 51) that Hippolytus "consciously or unconsciously,
in the course of transfer to his pages, corrected the text," is very
unsatisfactory. An intelligent reader cannot fail to see how an
obvious inference is avoided, and how ingenuity is taxed to make words
square with foregone conclusions.

Tischendorf asks: "Who is there so sapient as to draw the line between
what the master alone says, and that which the disciples state,
without in the least repeating the master?" (p. 59) and our author
says, "Tischendorf solves the difficulty by referring everything
indiscriminately to the master" (p. 59). To say that Tischendorf does
this is reckless assertion.

When our author has to account for such a passage in Basilides as,
"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest
shall overshadow thee," he says it _happens_ to agree with the words
in Luke i. 55; and resorts to his usual mode of avoiding the
acknowledgment that such a verbatim quotation is against his
hypothesis, by saying, "There is good reason for concluding that the
narrative to which it belongs was contained in other Gospels." The
following sentence is startling, and apt to mislead those who do not
take the trouble to be sure of his meaning. He says (p. 67): "Nothing,
however, can be clearer than the fact that this quotation, by whomsoever
made, is not taken from our Third Synoptic, inasmuch as there does not
exist a single MS. which contains such a passage." What does he mean?
We turn to Luke i. 35, and read: "The Holy _Ghost_ shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the
_Son of God_." Does he mean the whole passage is not in any MS? No: he
means the following, with the slight variation at the end, is not in
any MS. "The Holy _Spirit_ shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore the thing begotten of thee
shall be called _holy_." Only the words in italics are different in
the two passages, and the meaning is the same, the only difference
being that the latter does not include the words "the Son of God." The
remark that the quotation _happens_ to agree with the passage in Luke
i. 35, should not be unnoticed.

Happens! Mark the peculiar inappropriateness of the word. It indicates
our author's whereabouts, and is a beacon in the book to warn the
reader. Events transpire, and they _happen_ to agree with prophetic
visions which plainly foretold them! Reason being unequal to an
explanation, coincidence must be resorted to. Was it an accident that,
"at one particular point in history, and in one special individual,
the elements of a new religious development, which, _per se_, were
already extant, should have concentrated themselves in a new life?"
This, says Baur, is "the wonder in the history of the origin of
Christianity which no historical reflection can further analyse." Did
it _happen_ that the Messiah came as was predicted centuries before?

Did Paul _happen_ to have a vision just at the time when the whole
course of his life underwent a change, and from being a chief
persecutor of the faith he became a chief apostle--no less an apostle
than the most prominent among the Twelve? If the Saviour did not meet
him on the way to Damascus he could not be an apostle; and as he was
an honest man, and no impostor, could what _happened_ to him have been
other than what he asserted? Baur was in a great difficulty about the
matter, and said, "_No analysis, either psychological or didactic, can
clear up the mystery of that act in which God revealed His Son in
Paul._" Jeremiah prophesied that the Jews should return to their own
land after seventy years of exile, and they _happened_ to do so!

The artful way in which the evidence from the writings of Hippolytus
is disposed of is one of the most notable things in the book we are
reviewing. The reader's attention is taxed to keep up with the
sophistical argument, and our author finds it necessary to explain why
he has been forced to go at such a length into these questions, as to
risk "being very wearisome" to his readers (p. 73).

These remarks apply to a great extent to the examination of the
evidence of Valentinus, described as "another Gnostic leader, who,
about the year A.D. 140, came from Alexandria to Rome, and flourished
till about A.D. 160." "Very little remains of the writings of this
Gnostic, and we gain our only knowledge of them from a few quotations
in the works of Clement of Alexandria, and some doubtful fragments
preserved by others" (p. 56).

Marcion, the son of a bishop of Pontus, became a conspicuous heretic
in the second century, and there was a book called "Marcion's Gospel,"
which has long furnished a field for criticism. He was a Pauline
heretic, denouncing the Jewish party which insisted upon dragging
Jewish observances into Christianity. He went to Rome about A.D.
139-142, and taught there some twenty years. His opinions were widely
disseminated. His collection of apostolic writings, which is the
oldest of which we have any trace, includes (says our author) a single
Gospel and ten Epistles of Paul--viz., Galatians, Corinthians (2),
Romans, Thessalonians (2), Ephesians (in the superscription of which
there is, "to the Laodiceans)," Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon.

The Gospel of Marcion is not extant, but it is referred to by his
opponents, who affirmed that his evangelical work was an audaciously
mutilated version of Luke's Gospel. Our author gives a brief account
of the various opinions which have prevailed about the book during the
last hundred years, and considers the discussion upon it far from
closed. Is it a mutilation of Luke, or an independent work derived
from the same source as his, or is it a more primitive version of that
Gospel? Whence are the materials from which the portions of the text
extant are derived? Tertullian and Epiphanius denounced Marcion's
heresy. The former called him "impious and sacrilegious," which, our
author says, implies anything but fair and legitimate criticism. I
remark, Did he deserve the epithets? Would Paul, who tells the
Colossians to "beware lest any man spoil them through philosophy and
vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ," have been less emphatic in his
denunciations in such a case? Marcion was more Pauline than Petrine,
but would Paul have failed to censure in the strongest language such a
misrepresentation of Jehovah and the Old Testament economy as Marcion
disseminated?

Can our author's assertion be absolutely true that "Tertullian and
Epiphanius were only dogmatical, and not in the least critical"? How
could they be otherwise than to a certain extent critical? They were
not critics in the way of taking nothing for granted, after the modern
fashion; but they must have weighed, compared, and tested Marcion's
views while writing against them. "The spirit of the age," he says,
"was indeed so uncritical, that not even the canonical text could
awaken it into activity." This is a sentence which suggests that the
position in the Church of the canonical text was so evident, that to
question it was then unwarrantable, as, indeed, it has continued to be
to this day. The combined internal and external evidences harmonising
with the believer's consciousness, his necessities, and his
aspirations, were sufficient to preclude sceptical and captious
criticism.

The Christian contemporaries of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius
were uncritical in that they did not doubt that the foundations of
their faith were sure. The gospel which had been preached to them,
which had changed the whole course of their lives, corresponded in its
main features with the four books which were held in estimation by
the Church at that time above all other writings; and they would not
be likely to wrangle about the title instead of cultivating the faith
they possessed. They could not, perhaps, prove by the rules of logic
that "God is, and is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him;"
that Christ is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express
image of his Person; but they knew that He had said,--"Ye believe in
God believe also in me;" "In my Father's house are many mansions;"
and, "I go to prepare a place for you." "Be thou faithful unto death,
and I will give thee a crown of life." They lived in the consciousness
of these truths, and died (Bishop Pothinus, for instance) a martyr's
death rather than deny them.

There is this remark to be made in reference to the alleged uncritical
age of the Fathers. How is it that Marcion is seen to be so critical?
He is surely after the modern model. He who wrote the "Antithesis,"
and, as our author says, anticipated in some of his opinions those
held by many in our own time; he who wrote,--"If the God of the Old
Testament be good, prescient of the future, and able to avert evil,
why did he allow man, made in his own image, to be deceived by the
devil, and to fall from obedience of the law into sin and death?[42]
How came the devil, the origin of lying and deceit, to be made at
all?"[43] surely he is an instance of a man in that age possessing the
critical faculty. He has the boldness to question, and say,--"Yea,
hath God said?" "Anticipating the results of modern criticism," says
our author, "Marcion denies the applicability to Jesus of the
so-called Messianic prophecies" (p. 106).

  [42] Tertullian, "Adv. Marc." xi. 5, cf. 9.

  [43] Ibid. xi. 10.

If the research which is going on as to the Gospel of Marcion be
conducted in a proper manner, and from a proper motive, not from
antipathy to "parsons" and ecclesiastical assumptions, which was the
incentive of Strauss in attacking Christianity, good will come of it.
As Justin Martyr did not, as far as we know, suppose the book to be a
corrupted version of the Gospel according to Luke, Tertullian may have
been mistaken, and it may have been an independent work, one of the
many Luke refers to, the existence of which does not necessarily
invalidate the canonical ones. We may naturally suppose that events of
such marvellous speciality and importance as those which had "come to
pass" in those days among the Jews, would be more or less described
in letters and other writings by many persons who were eye-witnesses.
Such writings would be collected and read when the first Christians
assembled. The difference between the four canonical Gospels and other
manuscripts would consist in their being compiled by persons competent
to the task, who, like Ezra, were instruments Divinely influenced to
compile and "set forth in order a declaration of those things," for
the benefit of future ages and the religious instruction of the race.

The analysis of the text of Marcion by Hahn, Ritschl, Volkmar,
Helgenfeld, and others, who have examined and systemised the data of
the Fathers, is supposed to be sufficient to awaken in any inquirer
uncertainty, and stimulate conjecture (p. 101). I do not doubt it.
German hypercriticism is able, by a process of ratiocination, to
discredit any truth, even to persuade men that the Throne of the
universe is vacant, and that the only altar that man has the knowledge
to rear is one to the Unknown God; but

    "He sits on no precarious throne,
    Nor borrows leave to be."

They who believe in the inspiration by the Holy Ghost of the prophets
of the Old Testament see no difficulty in regard to the inspiration of
the writers of the New. If Isaiah and Jeremiah and Daniel had
supernatural communications made to them, in order that the Eternal
Creator might be manifested, why not Paul and John and Matthew? It is
the foregone conclusion, on the part of critics, that the miraculous
is impossible, which embarrasses their researches. One of John Stuart
Mill's last sentences is: "It remains a possibility that Christ
actually was what He supposed Himself to be." If this had occurred to
the great reasoner at the outset of his career instead of the close,
how much might the world have been advantaged!

Tatian is a witness whose evidence our author next tries to set aside.
He was an Assyrian by birth, a disciple of Justin Martyr at Rome, and
afterwards, having joined the sect of the Eucratites, a conspicuous
exponent of their austere and ascetic doctrines. The only one of his
writings extant is his Oration to the Greeks, written after Justin's
death, as it refers to that event, and it is generally dated A.D.
170-175. One point contested is Canon Westcott's affirmation that it
contains a "clear reference" to a parable recorded by Matthew:[44]
"The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hidden in a field, which
a man found and hid, and for his joy he goeth and selleth all that he
hath and buyeth that field." And the supposed reference by Tatian is,
"For by means of a certain hidden treasure he has taken to himself all
that we possess, for which, while we are digging, we are indeed
covered with dust, but we succeed in making it our fixed
possession."[45]

  [44] Matt. xiii. 44.

  [45] "Orat. ad Gr." § 30.

There is certainly not much similarity between the two passages,
although Tatian may be well supposed to have had the parable in his
mind when he wrote. The more important question is, Did Tatian write
"A Harmony of Four Gospels," which recognises our four Evangelists?
Was his Diatessaron such a book, or was it the Gospel according to the
Hebrews? If the latter, what is the Gospel according to the Hebrews? I
say it is probable it is the corrupted Hebrew translation of the Greek
Gospel of Matthew, and this conjecture has more in its favour than our
author's hypothesis.

Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius tells us, wrote seven epistles to
various Churches, and a letter to Chrysophora, "a most faithful
sister." Only a few short fragments exist, which are all from the
epistle to Soter, Bishop of Rome, whose date in that pastorate is A.D.
168-176. In these fragments we find the following words:--"For the
brethren having requested me to write epistles, I write them. And the
apostles of the devil have filled these with tares, both taking away
parts and adding others, for whom the woe is destined. It is not
surprising, then, if some have recklessly ventured to adulterate the
Scriptures of the Lord, when they have corrupted these, which are not
of such importance."[46] After quoting this passage, our author
reiterates his statement that "We have seen that there has not been a
trace of any New Testament Canon in the writings of the Fathers before
and during this age." Does he suppose his readers will have seen as he
sees, or rather refuse to see what is plain enough? He has his own
opinion, but he need not assume that he has convinced his readers that
he has proved what he alleges. He talks of Westcott's boldness, and of
his imagination running away with him, and that it is simply
preposterous to suppose that this passage refers to the New Testament.
I leave Canon Westcott to defend his own words, but I say it is not
preposterous to infer that when Dionysius speaks of the "Scriptures of
the Lord" he means Gospel writings, which are included in our New
Testament. If it be assumed that the defence of the authority of the
New Testament writings and of evangelical views is necessarily based
on the synodical authority of the early Church, there may be some
weight in his objections; but Christianity has a position independent
of ecclesiastical pretensions to infallibility, and the latter may be
overthrown without the great institution established by Divine mercy
for the recovery of humanity from sin and its consequences being in
the slightest degree damaged. Dr. Donaldson is quoted, who remarks:
"It is not easy to settle what this term, 'Scriptures of the Lord,'
is; but my own opinion is that it most probably refers to the Gospels,
as containing the sayings and doings of the Lord. It is not likely, as
Lardner supposes, that such a term would be applied to the whole of
the New Testament."[47] The word "Scripture," in Greek, Γραφἡ
(Graphé), in Latin, _Scriptura_, has, no doubt, a meaning
which denotes an inspired writing. It is used fifty-one times in the
New Testament in the same sense, for Christ and the authors of the
New Testament regarded the Old Testament as distinguished from all
other writings, as _the_ writing--the writing of God. By speaking of
their own books as Graphai, the apostles place them on a level with
the Old Testament, and thus assert their Divine character.[48]

  [46] Eusebius, "H. E." iv. 23.

  [47] "Hist. Christ. Lit. and Doct." ii. p. 217.

  [48] See Chr. Wordsworth, "On the Canon," p. 55. Lec. ii. and Ed.
  1851.

Dr. Davidson speaks of the New Testament writings being ranked as
"Holy Scripture" by Dionysius of Corinth, A.D. 170.

Our author asserts (p. 167) that "many works were regarded as inspired
by the Fathers besides those in our Canon," and mentions especially
the Gospel of Peter having been read at Rhossus. He says: "The fact
that Serapion, in the third century, allowed the Gospel of Peter to be
used in the Church of Rhossus shows the consideration in which it was
held, and the incompleteness of the canonical position of the New
Testament." Now, he ought to have quoted Serapion's own explanation,
which we have preserved by Eusebius. He says (in his treatise written
to confute what was false in the Gospel of Peter): "We receive Peter
and the other apostles even as Christ; but the writings falsely called
by their names, we, as competent critics, renounce, knowing that we
received not such things. For when I was with you I supposed that all
were agreed with the true faith; and, without reading the Gospel
called Peter's, which they brought forward, I said, If this is the
only thing that seems to cause you dissension, let it be read."
Serapion says he borrowed the book and read it, and found many things
agreeable to Christ's doctrine, but some discrepant additions.

Thus the reading of the Gospel of Peter at Rhossus cannot be instanced
as a proof that other Gospels besides the canonical ones were used as
inspired books, nor can any other be mentioned as having been thus
regarded, the Gospel according to the Hebrews not being apocryphal,
but a part of the New Testament, whether we take it to be, as our
author supposes, the basis of Matthew's Gospel, or, as we say, a
corrupted version of that apostle's Greek work. "To argue that because
one spurious Gospel was temporarily received among a few persons,
therefore there was no real canon of Scripture, and we cannot be sure
that any Gospel is genuine, shows about as much common sense and
logical acumen as would be displayed by a critic eighteen centuries
hence, who, discovering in one of our newspapers an account of the
conviction of a gang of coiners, should argue that because their base
half-crowns had got into circulation, and had passed current with some
persons who might have been expected to detect the fraud, therefore
there was no such thing as a legal currency of intrinsic value among
us; or if there were, still we did not know or care to inquire into
the genuineness of the coin which we accepted and passed."[49]

  [49] See Kentish Bache's "Letters to Dr. Davidson," p. 22.

Our author says (p. 16): "'The Pastor of Hermas,' which was read in
the churches, and nearly secured a permanent place in the Canon, was
quoted as inspired by Irenæus."[50]

  [50] "Adv. Hær." iv. 20, § 2; Euseb. "H. E." v. 8, and cf. iii. 3.

The word Irenæus uses is _Graphé_, which is sometimes translated, when
found in his works, _Scripture_, and at other times _writings_, as may
best suit the argument of a critic like Dr. Davidson, who does so
adapt the translation to suit his purpose.

Whatever erroneous notions might prevail as to apocryphal writings,
the discrimination of Serapion, in regard to the Gospel of Peter,
shows that such a work as the "Pastor of Hermas," in which, as
Mosheim says, the angels are made to "talk more insipidly than our
scavengers and porters," would not be put on a level with the books
whose internal evidence, as well as historical pretensions, placed
them in a much superior position. The contrast is too great for such
men as Irenæus and Tertullian, as well as Serapion, not to have
recognised the difference. The "gross forgeries" were too gross to be
at once accepted as genuine by the Fathers of the slight critical
faculty and the ready credulity of our author's argument.

Melito of Sardis, whose writings, it is generally agreed, belong to
A.D. 176, because the fragment extant has a phrase indicating that
Commodus had been admitted to share the Imperial Government with
Marcus Aurelius, is the next witness. He writes to Onesimus, "a
fellow-Christian who had urged him to make selections for him from the
Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and the faith generally,
and furthermore desired to learn the accurate account of the old
(Palaion) books." "Having gone to the East," Melito says, "and reached
the spot where each thing was preached and done, and having learned
accurately the books of the Old Testament, I have sent a list of
them." Dr. Westcott excites our author's ire because he says "that the
use of the word 'old' in this way implies that there must have been a
New Testament, and the form of language implies a familiar recognition
of its contents." This is "truly astonishing," says our author. I
remark, it is truly astonishing that any one should assert that the
use of the adjective "old" in this sentence does not plainly indicate
the existence of other books of a New Covenant or Testament. If the
Jewish Scriptures had been merely described as _old books_, we could
have understood the objection; but as the words occur, "_having
learned accurately the books of the Old Testament_," we must side with
Dr. Westcott, in spite of our author's astonishment.

Claudius Apollinaris, Eusebius says, was Bishop of Hierapolis, and
there is the fragment of a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch,
which supports the statement, and in which Apollinaris is referred to
as the "most blessed." The date of his writings, in consequence of an
allusion to the Thundering Legion of the army of Marcus Aurelius, may
be fixed at about A.D. 174. None of them are extant. We have only two
brief fragments, in which the controversy respecting the observance of
the Christian Passover is alluded to. The following passage is
important: "There are some, however, who through ignorance raise
contentions regarding these matters in a way which should be pardoned,
for ignorance must not be pursued with accusation, but requires
instruction. And they say that the Lord, together with His disciples,
ate the lamb on the great day of unleavened bread, and they state that
Matthew says precisely what they have understood; hence their
understanding of it is at variance with the law, and according to them
the Gospels seem to contradict each other." Tischendorf and Westcott
naturally adduce this passage in support of the position of the four
canonical Gospels. Our author demurs, arguing that "there is such
exceedingly slight reason for attributing these fragments to Claudius
Apollinaris, and so many strong grounds for believing that he cannot
have written them, that they have no material value as evidence for
the antiquity of the Gospels" (p. 191).

Athenagoras wrote an apology, entitled "The Embassy of Athenagoras the
Athenian, a Philosopher and a Christian, concerning Christians, to the
Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus,
Armeniaci Surmatici, and, above all, Philosophers;" and also a
"Treatise on the Resurrection of the Body." A passage from the former
occurs in the work of Methodius on the Resurrection, and is preserved
by Epiphanius and by Photius.

"For we have learnt not only not to render a blow, nor to go to law
with those who spoil and plunder us; but, to those who inflict a blow
on one side, also to present the other side of the head in return for
smiting; and to those who take away the coat, also to give besides the
cloke."[51]

  [51] "Leg. pro Christ." § 1.

Of this our author says: "No echo of the words of Matthew has lingered
in the ear of the writer, for he employs utterly different phraseology
throughout; and _nothing can be more certain than the fact_ that there
is not a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance with our Synoptics"
(p. 194).

The value of our author's conclusions may be measured by what he here
asserts. It seems to me that the reverse may be asserted. (1) That
words in Matthew _did_ "linger in the ear of the writer;" (2) that he
_does not_ "employ utterly different phraseology throughout;" and (3)
that many things "_can_ be more certain than the fact that there is
not a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance with our Synoptics."

The next passage which is referred to is as follows:--"What, then, are
those precepts in which we are instructed? I say unto you, Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that persecute you;
that ye may be sons of your Father which is in the heavens, who maketh
his sun," &c.[52]

  [52] "Leg. pro Christ." § 11. See Matt. v. 44, 45.

There is also the following:--"For if ye love, them which love you,
and lend to them which lend to you, what reward shall ye have?"[53]

  [53] "Leg. pro. Christ." § 12. Comp. with Matt. v. 46.

Of this passage, our author says it is evident that it does not agree
with either of the Synoptics. "We have seen," says he, "the persistent
variation in the quotations from the Sermon on the Mount which occur
in Justin, and there is no part of the discourses of Jesus more
certain to have been preserved by living Christian tradition, or to
have been recorded in every form of Gospel. The differences in these
passages from our Synoptics present the same features as mark the
several versions of the same discourse in our First and Third Gospel,
and indicate a distinct source" (p. 195). I remark, every step our
author takes in this sort of criticism tends to the confirmation of
our Christian faith, which is not the Christianity of a creed or a
Church, but the belief in a Person. The more independent accounts of
His life and discourses which can be traced, the greater the proof of
His advent and mission. The Sermon on the Mount cannot be accounted
for apart from the superhuman. "Never man spake like this man." The
more it is quoted the more it is established as a sublime fact in
literature, which neither the Jewish race, nor the Augustan era, nor
indeed any other race or any other age, could have originated apart
from Divine intervention.

The Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, written from the Churches in those
towns to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, about the year A.D. 177,
giving an account of the terrible persecution which had broken out, is
in part preserved by Eusebius. It contains words similar to those used
in regard to Zacharias and Elisabeth, where they are said to have
"walked in all the commandments and ordinances of God, blameless." And
it has also the words, "And himself having the Spirit more abundantly
than Zacharias," which compares with Luke i. 67: "And his father
Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied." In
reference to these passages, our author's comment is as follows: "The
state of the case is, we find a coincidence, in a few words in
connection with Zacharias, between the Epistle and our Third Gospel;
but so far from the Gospel being in any way indicated as their source,
the words in question are, on the contrary, in association with a
reference to events unknown to our Gospels, but which were indubitably
chronicled elsewhere. It follows clearly, and few will venture to
doubt the fact, that the allusion in the Epistle is to a Gospel
different from ours, and not to our Third Synoptic at all" (p. 204).
The event unknown to our Gospels is the martyrdom of Zacharias, which
our Gospels make no mention of.

Ptolemæus and Heracleon, two Gnostic leaders, are next referred to. Of
the former, Epiphanius has preserved "The Epistle to Flora," addressed
to one of his disciples, which contains passages similar to sentences
found in Matthew xii. 25, xix. 8, 6, xv. 4-8, v. 38, 39.; but our
author objects that the Epistle "was in all probability written
towards the end of the second century, and therefore it does not come
within the scope of our inquiry;" and he goes into considerable detail
to justify this statement.

Celsus wrote a work entitled "True Doctrine," which is not extant,
and of which Origen wrote a refutation. Our author says "it refers to
incidents of Gospel history and quotes some sayings which have
parallels, with more or less of variation, in our Gospels;" but
"Celsus nowhere mentions the name of any Christian book, unless we
except the Book of Enoch, and he accuses Christians, not without
reason, of interpolating the Book of the Sibyl, whose authority he
states some of them acknowledged" (p. 236). He goes into the question
of the date, which he makes out to be probably not between A.D.
150-160, as Tischendorf suggests, but much later.

In the last fragment of early literature examined--the Canon of
Muratori--the Book of Luke is alluded to as "_the third Gospel_," and
our author says (p. 241) "the statement regarding the Third Gospel
_merely_ proves the existence of that Gospel at the time the fragment
was composed," and that "the inference" that there was a first and
second Gospel is a _mere_ conjecture. I remark that if the statement
does prove that Luke's Gospel existed at the time the fragment was
composed, we gratefully accept the acknowledgment; and as to the
adverbs "_mere_" and "_merely_," which qualify the noun "_conjecture_"
and verb "_proves_," when our author's third volume appears, if it
does not furnish more than "_mere conjecture_" that the first and
second preceded it, we will allow the adverbs properly applied, and
the logic perfect.

The sentences in which such words as _certainly_, _it is certain_, _it
is undeniable_, _there is no question_, _it is impossible to suppose_,
_it is obviously mere speculation_, &c., are used, where the reasoning
does not warrant them, are innumerable; and it is only after becoming
familiar with the special pleading which is characteristic of the work
throughout, that the unsophisticated reader escapes from the
bewilderment into which the evidences of Christianity seem to get
entangled. The author seems to have got the reader into a gloomy
cavern of criticism, and it is only after the eye has become
accustomed to the partial darkness that he can make out whether what
he is taken to see are real figures, images, or ghosts. When he has
got to the middle of the second volume, however, he begins to see the
light again, and breathe more freely. He sees a way right through the
cavern, and finds that the figures of this underground chamber of
horrors are all phantoms.

The "Examiner" justly says: "For our part we see no reason why the
Synoptic[54] Gospels may not have assumed their present form by the
end of the first century;[55] and we cannot think that our author's
German oracles have succeeded in establishing their dissimilarity from
the documents quoted by the Primitive Fathers. Justin Martyr's
references to the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, appear to us to
be actually derived from Matthew. If, however, as is contended, they
were taken from the lost "Gospel of the Hebrews," this merely proves
the substantial identity of the two. The question of Justin's
acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel is more difficult. We are
nevertheless disposed to resolve it in the affirmative."

  [54] The word Synoptics, applied to Matthew, Mark, and Luke's Gospels,
  indicates abridgment--the bringing of all parts under one view.--_See
  Dr. Hyde Clark's Dictionary_.

  [55] "Negative critics, as we have seen, have been compelled again to
  raise the age of the Gospels, and to place them in the apostolic age,
  between A.D. 50 and A.D. 100."--_Dr. Christlieb_, p. 541.

This is a sensible comment on our author's general argument.



CHAPTER V.

_THE FOURTH GOSPEL._


_"Every trace has vanished of the great nameless one."_

  Baur.


_"The denial of the authenticity of John's Gospel is a source of far
greater difficulties than its acknowledgment."_

  Ritschl.


_"The doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the fundamental
doctrine of Christianity. Without it Christianity, as a theological
and as a philosophical system, cannot rank above Rabbinism and
Mahommedanism."_

  Bunsen.



CHAPTER V.

_THE FOURTH GOSPEL._


The evidence that to John the Apostle is to be ascribed the Fourth
Gospel, is worthy of the best attention we can bestow upon it. After
that apostle had been dead half a century, this book, as is
acknowledged by our author and all other critics, occupied a prominent
place among the manuscripts of the Christians, with the name of John,
as the author, attached; and the question now arises, after nearly
eighteen centuries of belief in its authorship and authority, is there
reasonable ground for doubting that it can be properly attributed to
the apostle who was the companion, disciple, and bosom friend of
Jesus? I think the question may be answered with confidence upon the
evidence within our reach.

In the first place, Irenæus believed it was the Gospel according to
John the Apostle; and who was Irenæus, that his belief in it should
be good evidence? He was not John's contemporary, but there was one
between John and Irenæus who was so intimate with both that the link
of evidence is fully to be relied upon, and that link is Polycarp.
Therefore, Irenæus, who was a hearer of Polycarp, can tell us
something about it. Now Polycarp was born in the time of Nero, so he
was for thirty-two years a contemporary of John's, and was his
disciple. And Irenæus says in a letter written to a person called
Florinus, and preserved by Eusebius: "When I was yet a youth, I saw
thee in Asia Minor, at Polycarp's house, where thou wert distinguished
at court, and obtained the regard of the bishop. I can more distinctly
recollect things which happened then than others more recent, for
events which happened in youth seem to grow with the mind, and to
become part of ourselves. So I can tell the place where the blessed
Polycarp used to sit and discourse, and his going out and coming in,
and the manner of his life, and his personal appearance, and his
discourses to the people, and how he related his intercourse _with
John_, and the rest who had seen the Lord; and how he rehearsed their
sayings, and what things there were which he had heard from them
about the Lord, and about His _miracles_, and about His doctrine; and
how Polycarp, having learned from the eye-witnesses of the Word of
Life, narrated all things agreeably with the Scriptures. And to these
things, by God's mercy bestowed on me at that time, I used diligently
to listen, writing the remembrance of them, not on paper, but in my
heart; and, by God's grace, I am always meditating affectionately upon
them."[56]

  [56] "Hist. Eccl." v. 20.

Now we may be certain that Polycarp would be likely to know the truth
of the matter, and Irenæus declares that "_John, the disciple of the
Lord who leaned on the bosom of the Lord at supper_, wrote the
Apocalypse."[57] So we have here reliable evidence that John wrote
both the Apocalypse and the book whose author leaned on our Lord's
bosom at supper. Not only this from Polycarp. There is extant "The
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians," which Irenæus believed to be
genuine, and in it we find these words: "For whosoever doth not
confess Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is antichrist." I compare
this with the words in John's Epistle: "And every spirit that
confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God,
and this is that spirit of antichrist." Our author says it is not a
verbatim quotation. I say it is a quotation, if not verbatim. It is
acknowledged that the author of the First Epistle of John and the
Fourth Gospel is the same, the ideas and style being so much alike.
"The two writings," says Rénan, "present the most complete identity of
style, the same peculiarities, the same favourite expressions."

  [57] Ibid. iv. 32.

It is impossible to doubt that Polycarp would have learned from John
himself whether he was the author of a Gospel; and if Irenæus had
never heard Polycarp allude to the Gospel as John's, he could not have
believed in it as he did, and have plainly stated that John wrote it
and the Apocalypse. There would have been in this case a justifiable
inference from "silence." If Polycarp in his teaching had never
alluded to John's Gospel, it would have been so strange that Irenæus
would have deemed it spurious altogether, and unworthy of the
estimation with which he regarded it; for it is one of the four
Gospels that he fancifully likens to the four corners of the earth,
the four principal winds, and the four wings of the Seraphim. It is to
be remembered that our author acknowledges Irenæus so regarded all
the four Gospels, for he alludes (p. 91) to "the arbitrary assumption
of exclusive originality and priority for the four Gospels" by
Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius. It is evident that this Fourth
Gospel could not have first appeared as late as A.D. 150, but must
have been in existence long before; and on the testimony of Irenæus,
through Polycarp, from John himself, its authenticity may be
considered established.

The evidence from the work of Hippolytus, entitled, "The Refutation of
all Heresies," that Basilides quoted from the Fourth Gospel, our
author dismisses in one paragraph (p. 371), having fully referred to
the testimony from that writer in treating of the Synoptics. There
are, however, two very distinct passages which cannot be objected to
as quotations, and the attempt to get rid of them by the substitution
of the plural pronoun "they" for the singular one "he," in the text of
Hippolytus, is an utter failure. The first is from John i. 9, "The
true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;" and
the words in "The Refutation," by Hippolytus, are, "And this, he says,
is that which has been stated in the Gospels, 'He was the true Light
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.'" The other is,
"Mine hour is not yet come," agreeing with John ii. 4. The discovery
of the work, "The Refutation of all Heresies," in the year 1841, at
Mount Athos, by the erudite Minoides Mynas, a Greek, in the employ of
the French Government, was important as bearing on this question, for
it proves that the Fourth Gospel was in existence thirty years earlier
than the Tübingen criticism asserted. Our author's want of
appreciation of the evidence found in Hippolytus is one of the weakest
points in his book.

Is the Fourth Gospel quoted by Justin Martyr? Our author says, No! I
say, Yes! to the question. In his Dialogue with Tryphon (p. 316) occur
the words, "I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying," which
is evidently from that Gospel, for we know of no other which makes
John the Baptist say the same. He says "the evangelical work of which
Justin made use was obviously different from our Gospels, and the
evident conclusion to which any impartial mind must arrive is, that
there is not only not the slightest ground for affirming that Justin
quoted the passage (as above) from the Fourth Gospel, from which he so
fundamentally differs, but every reason on the contrary to believe
that he derived it from a particular Gospel, in all probability the
Gospel according to the Hebrews" (p. 302). I remark, that the words,
"I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying," could not be
quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews if that supposed
independent book did not contain them, and there is no evidence that
it did. On the contrary, our Gospel of Matthew, compiled, as we
suppose, partly from it, would have in that case had the words; and as
it has not, and as only John's Gospel has them, the inference is clear
that Justin had seen the latter, as well as the other Gospel or
Gospels from which the earlier part of the sentence is taken. The
whole of Justin's sentence is as follows: "For John sat by the Jordan
and preached the baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle
and raiment of camel's hair, and eating nothing but locusts and wild
honey." Men supposed him to be the Christ, wherefore he cries to them,
"_I am not Christ_, but the voice of one crying (or preaching). For he
cometh who is greater than I, whose shoes I am not meet to bear."

We find in the second "Apology" (p. 94) these words: "Christ said,
'Except ye be born again ye may not enter into the kingdom of
heaven;" and in the very same line is continued the reference to the
conversation with Nicodemus, in these words: "But that it is
impossible for those who have been once born to enter into their
mother's womb, is plain to all." I scarce need remind you how the
statement of Christ and the question of Nicodemus are as close
together in the Fourth Gospel. The passage there is, "Except a man be
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto
him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second
time into his mother's womb and be born?" The two sentences, coming
together in both, leaves no doubt that Justin used the Fourth Gospel,
for there is nothing like them in any of the other Gospels.

It is something to have from Justin Martyr the evidence that Jesus
taught Nicodemus that a man cannot see the kingdom of God without
being born of the Holy Ghost. If Justin quoted from an earlier Gospel,
it is against our author's non-superhuman theory; and if from our
Gospels, it is equally so. But, supposing that he could prove that
Justin did not quote, that would _not_ prove that the books were not
in existence. Paul's Epistles, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1
Corinthians, and Romans, all written not later than the year 58, are
they quoted, as we might suppose they would be, by Justin? We know
nothing as to the extent of his library. He might have had copies of
all these Gospels and Epistles, or none at hand to quote verbatim
from. Was there a concordance, to help a writer to be exact, after the
modern demand?

The internal evidence of the Fourth Gospel is, perhaps, not so
appreciable by our author as the external, on account of his foregone
conclusion that the superhuman is incredible. But as "there is no
feasible explanation of the Divine origin of Christianity without
acknowledging the Divine mission of Jesus," so is there no possible
explanation of the Fourth Gospel without a recognition of the
evangelical doctrine of the triune in the Divine Nature--the threefold
manifestation of the one God. Exclude from the Fourth Gospel the idea
of the Holy Spirit having inspired John to write it, and there
naturally follows the attempt to exclude the book from its historical
and authoritative position. It has a perfectly harmonious place in the
superhuman means by which spiritual truth is exhibited and enforced
for the benefit of mankind, but that place is an advanced one. It was
the last of inspired utterances, and it presupposes the development
that it supplements, and which it designs to promote. The Holy Spirit,
"the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus,
that Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting
covenant," to make us "perfect in every good work to do His will,"
must be recognised and duly honoured if the Bible is to be understood
and Christianity successfully exhibited and defended. Let us turn to
the book. It opens with allusions to the dignity of Christ the Messiah
which no philosophy known in Alexandria had a conception of. Philo and
his Platonic school discoursed of the Logos; but their doctrine is
distinct from that of this Gospel. Justin takes up their idea, as our
author shows (p. 278), and draws a distinction between the Logos and
Jesus, describing Jesus Christ as being made flesh by the power of the
Logos; for Justin says,--"Through the power of the Word, according to
the will of God the Father and Lord of all, he was born a man of a
virgin."[58] Philo says,[59]--"The Logos of God is above all things in
the word, and is the most ancient and most universal of all things
_created_." I do not deny that Justin got ideas of the Logos from the
Old Testament and from the writings of Philo, as shown by our author,
but I submit that he confused their doctrine with the more developed
truth of the New Testament. "It is certain," he says (p. 291), "that
both Justin and Philo, unlike the prelude to the Fourth Gospel, place
the Logos in a secondary position to God the Father, indicating a less
advanced stage in the doctrine. 'He calls the Word constantly the
first-born of all _created_ beings'" (p. 292). Our author says,--"We
do not propose in this work to enter fully into the history of the
Logos doctrine" (p. 280). Had he done so, he could not have shown that
the doctrine reached to the height of the apostolic conception. There
is no allusion to the Divinity of the Logos, as John and Paul assert;
and no reference to the unquestionable statement of Scripture that, in
the Word made flesh, we have a revelation of the mysterious triune
nature of Jehovah. A vague notion of it is found in many idolatrous
systems of religious worship, and its prevalence is an indication of
the truth which tradition, from primitive revelation, has handed
down; but the mystery, as Paul says, was hidden for ages and
generations, and was not made manifest until, in the fulness of time,
the scheme of Redemption was fully unfolded. The gospel is called by
Paul "the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the
world began, but now is made manifest by a clear interpretation of the
scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the
everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of
faith."[60] To concentrate the doctrine in the Fourth Gospel and
Paul's later epistles, and then repudiate the writings, is a mode of
sustaining the denial of it which is far from being successful. This
doctrine is evidently one of the essential elements of Christian
truth. As the bread which sustains our bodily life, so the bread of
the life of the soul, may be decomposed, but none of the elements must
be left out of it if it is to be of use. In the Old Testament we find
many passages which show the plurality in the Divine nature. The
doctrine, it is true, was not so revealed as to be conspicuous at the
time, for if it had been, it would have been misunderstood, and thus
tended to interfere with the schooling which the Jews were undergoing
to cure them of their proneness to idolatry; but with the New
Testament in our hand we see what, without it, would be still hidden
in obscurity. As we read the Fourth Gospel in the light of this
doctrine, how it harmonises with the "plan of salvation" which
believers in all evangelical Churches call Christianity! The book
professes to be written that men, believing in Jesus Christ, may have
eternal life; records the testimony of John the Baptist that Jesus was
the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (i. 29); and
announces the important dogma that the supernatural influence of the
Holy Spirit is indispensable to overcome the unwillingness of the soul
of man to receive the truths of the Divine revelation. "No man can
come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (vi. 44).
"Except a man be born of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of
God." It testifies to the Divine nature of Jesus in the most explicit
manner. "Therefore the Jews sought to kill him," because he said "God
was his Father, making himself equal with God" (v. 18). "That all men
should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father" (v. 23). "If ye
had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (viii. 19).
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (viii. 58).
"It is he (the Son of God) that talketh with thee. And he (the man who
had been blind) said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him" (ix.
38). "I and my Father are one" (x. 30). "For blasphemy" (we stone
thee), "and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (x. 36).
"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that
believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever
liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (xi.
25, 26). "Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is
glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify
him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him" (xiii. 32). "He
that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (xiv. 9).

  [58] "Apol." i. 46.

  [59] "Leg." iii. § 61.

  [60] Rom. xvi. 25, 26.

The doctrine of what we call (not having a better word) the
personality of the Holy Spirit is clearly indicated in such passages
as the following:--"I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
another Comforter, that _he_ may abide with you for ever; even the
Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth _him_
not, neither knoweth _him_: but ye know _him_; for _he_ dwelleth with
you" (xiv. 17). "But the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, _he_ shall teach you all things, and bring all
things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (xiv.
26). "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send
_him_ unto you. And when _he_ is come, _he_ will reprove the world of
sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" (xvi. 7). "When _he_, the
Spirit of truth, is come, _he_ will guide you into all truth: for _he_
shall not speak of _himself_; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall
_he_ speak: and _he_ will show you things to come" (xvi. 13). The
seventeenth chapter I will not refer to in part, but specify entire,
begging the reader to meditate on its marvellous comprehensiveness and
expressiveness.

Much of the teaching of Jesus would be so far above the comprehension
of the disciples when they heard it, that it would not be likely to be
impressed on their memory. The Holy Spirit was to be sent, to bring
all things to their remembrance; and it is only by this promise being
fulfilled that we can understand the inspired words of the Fourth
Gospel.

Could Jesus have said what He is described in this book to have said,
if God had not been with Him as He never was with any other man? If
such a question be pertinent, how utterly needless the further
question, Could the book have been written by the _nameless unknown
some one_ whom the hypothesis of its non-Johannine origin substitutes
as the author?

Whatever difference there is between the composition of the Fourth
Gospel and the Apocalyse, there is, at all events, a striking analogy
between the opening verses of the former and those in the latter,
where the faithful and true witness is referred to as "the beginning
of the creation of God,"[61] and as being set down with His Father
upon His throne. In the preface to each of the addresses to the seven
Churches Christ assumes the attributes and prerogatives of the Deity.
The prominence given to the mysterious doctrine of the Divinity of
Christ is as great in the one as the other.

  [61] Rev. iii. 14.

It is somewhat singular that from Rénan, who so utterly rejects the
miraculous, we should have such a decided opinion that it is
appropriately entitled the Gospel according to John. After saying, "I
dare not be sure that the Fourth Gospel has been entirely written by
a Galilean fisherman," he writes in his introduction to the "Life of
Jesus": "No one doubts that towards the year 150, the Fourth Gospel
did exist, and was attributed to John. Explicit texts from Justin,
Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenæus, show that
from thenceforth this Gospel mixed in every controversy, and served as
corner-stone for the development of the faith. Irenæus is explicit.
Now he came from the school of John, and between him and the apostle
there was only Polycarp. The part played by this Gospel in Gnosticism,
and especially in the system of Valentinus, in Montanism, and in the
quarrel of the Quartodecimans, is not less decisive. The school of
John was the most influential in the second century, and it is only by
regarding the origin of the Gospel as coincident with the rise of the
school, that the existence of the latter can be understood at all."

"The First Epistle, attributed to John, is certainly by the same
author as the Fourth Gospel. Now this Epistle is recognised as from
John by Polycarp, Papias, and Irenæus. But it is, above all, the
perusal of the Fourth Gospel itself which is calculated to give the
impression that John must have written it. The author always speaks
as an eye-witness. He wishes to pass for the Apostle John. If, then,
this work is not really by the apostle, we must admit a fraud of which
the author convicts himself. Now, although the ideas of the time
respecting literary honesty differed essentially from ours, there is
no example in the apostolic world of a falsehood of this kind.
Besides, not only does the author wish to pass for the apostle, but we
see clearly that he writes in the interest of this apostle."

As to the difference in language and style between it and the
Apocalypse, it is not altogether unusual for an author to produce
works which differ greatly from each other. An instance is mentioned
by the Rev. Kentish Bache, in his letter to Dr. Davidson. "William
Penn, within one and the same year (1668) wrote two different works,
entitled 'The Sandy Foundation Shaken,' and 'Innocency with her Open
Face.' The former pamphlet is circulated by the Unitarians as a tract
demolishing the doctrine of the Trinity, while the latter is an
earnest defence of that very doctrine; and yet Penn protests that his
belief had undergone no change" (p. 35).

One of the difficulties in the way of the reception of the Fourth
Gospel is the raising of Lazarus from the dead, which the Synoptics do
not record. A probable explanation is suggested by Grotius, who says,
as Lazarus was living when the Synoptics were written, and as "the
chief priests consulted that they might put him to death, because that
by reason of him many of the Jews went away and believed on
Jesus,"[62] the publication of the miracle would have exposed Lazarus
to more intense hostility, and endangered his life.

  [62] John xii. 10.

Our author makes the strange assertion that "the Fourth Gospel, by
whomsoever written--even if it could be traced to the Apostle
John--has no real historical value, being at best the glorified
recollections of an old man, written down half a century after the
events recorded" (p. 467). This bold assertion ignores the fact that
the impressions of early life are, as a rule, indelibly fixed on the
memory. Of no historical value, though written by John! Our author
knows perfectly well that such an event as the raising of Lazarus from
the dead could never fade from the memory of those who witnessed it.
Does he overlook, or suppress, the consideration that John's
recollection would be daily refreshed by the teaching of the
principles of a gospel which consisted of these events and discourses?
We can as well conceive of the Duke of Wellington having forgotten,
when he was eighty years old, the campaigns of the Peninsula and the
battle of Waterloo, as John forgetting the memorable transactions in
the life of his Master with which he was so closely identified.
Besides, we do not know that the materials for John's book had not
long before been noted down. It is not probable that he who wrote the
Apocalypse in the year 68 would put nothing into writing of the
memoirs until close upon the time when the book was published. Such is
not the mode of authorship now, and was not then. Supposing the
apostle to have died, leaving behind him unarranged materials,
including notes and memoranda made at various times, and that these
were, with fidelity, but with more scholarship than John possessed,
transcribed, edited, and made a book of, entitled "The Gospel
according to John," we have an explanation of the linguistic
difficulty which does not overstep the limits of reasonable
probability.

Well may Dr. Davidson acknowledge "it is not easy to account for the
early belief of its Johannine origin;" and that "if a disciple of
John wrote it, he had learned more than his master." It _would_ have
been "strange if such an author had continued unknown." If we reject
the Johannine origin, we have to believe that during the fifty years
between John's death and the time of the book's _general acceptance as
his_ there lived some one capable of writing it, of whom history and
tradition are silent. This is certainly a large matter for sceptical
credulity to swallow. How much easier to believe that the refinement
and beauty of composition, whose charm has captivated the world, is
the work of a Grecian disciple, who wrote under the superintendence,
if not dictation, of the apostle who only could have furnished the
materials at the time when it was written. At the close of the first
century all the other apostles were dead, and for its authorship we
cannot look beyond the circle which surrounded Jesus at the
instituting of that ever-abiding memorial of Him, "The Lord's Supper."

Among the anomalies of our author's hypothesis we have to think of the
apostles living in the first century, and attaining their reputation
as writers during the second. In the first century men appear, but
without their writings. In the second century the writings come to
light, but without the men. How unnatural, says Dr. Christlieb, is
this! Who can fail to see that the hypothesis is incredible?

"We invariably find that an age which is fertile in literary
productions is followed by a conservative period, in which the
productions of the foregoing period are collected and digested--first
the classical, then the post-classical. Does the second century, in
other respects, bear the impress of a productive classical period in
literature? On the contrary, its undoubted products breathe a spirit
which bears the same relation to the New Testament writings as does
the tenour of a post-classical age bear to that of the age preceding
it. Did these writings, especially the Fourth Gospel, belong to
'unknown' authors, they would be perfectly inexplicable phenomena as
compared with all the other products of that period. It has been well
said that it were no less absurd to ascribe the most inspiriting
writings of Luther to the spiritless period of the Thirty Years' War,
than to transfer the Gospel of John to the middle of the second
century."[63]

  [63] Dr. Christlieb, p. 541.

"Notwithstanding their warm Christian life, the writings of the second
century evince such a remarkable dearth of new ideas that one plainly
sees how, after the spiritual flood-tides of the first century, the
ebb had set in."[64]

  [64] Dr. Christlieb, p. 541.

"Compare, for instance, the clear and sober-minded spirit of the New
Testament epistles, or the quiet sublimity of the Gospel of John, with
the epistles of Ignatius, the enthusiasm of which degenerates into a
well-nigh fanatic desire for martyrdom; or with the Pastor of Hermas,
and the value ascribed by him to ascetic rigour; or with the epistles
by Clement of Rome, which tell the fable of the phœnix as a fact; or,
again, with the Epistle of Barnabas, which delights in insipid
allegories, and gives the most absurd typical interpretations of the
Old Testament, justifying Neander's remark, that here we encounter
quite another spirit than that of an apostolic man."[65]

  [65] Ibid. p. 541.

Our author produces such a mass of evidence from the early writers,
confirmatory of the truths of the Gospel, that his criticism tends to
opposite conclusions. Supposing he can prove that the canon of
Scripture is not _un_assailable, he has not accomplished much. It is
of more value to have confirmation of the facts and principles of
Divine truth, than to be assured that the authorship, construction,
compilation, or arrangement of the Scriptures, are just what the
Church of Rome authoritatively pronounced. Because we cannot
positively settle certain questions of little comparative importance,
are we to surrender our faith in essentials? Are we to let the
conjectures and queries of German cavillers, with their "Yea, hath God
said," destroy our cherished faith and hope? God forbid! It is not the
preservation or infallibility of the apostolic writings which makes
His incarnation, death, and resurrection, facts in the history of our
race. The facts make the history, not the history the facts. Europe
was saved from Oriental despotism by Leonidas at Thermopylæ, and the
valour and patriotism of the Greeks; by Charles Martel in the eighth
century; and again by Prince Eugene in the seventeenth century; but it
is not because history has truly or imperfectly recorded these facts
that we enjoy to this day the great benefits resulting to civilisation
from their heroism.

The truth of Christianity does not, at all events, rest on the
_quotations of the early Fathers_, and our author would have
accomplished but little had he proved that there were none found. In
the first ages of the Church, when the events were fresh, the voice
of the preacher was the channel which conveyed the saving gospel to
the souls of men, and there was not the same necessity for reference
to the written records as in after times. When a century had elapsed
after the death of Christ, then the records of the first disciples
became of importance. They then came into prominence, and were
abundantly quoted, as our author acknowledges. As time went on that
importance increased, and about three hundred years after the events
the Emperor Constantine ordered Eusebius to have fifty copies of the
Holy Scriptures fairly inscribed on parchment, the use whereof he
tells Eusebius he "knew to be absolutely necessary to the Church."
Eusebius gives us the emperor's entire letter. They were not so
absolutely necessary when most of the Fathers wrote whom our author
has referred to. _I_ do not want any written record to prove to me
that the Spaniards in the Peninsular War, seventy years ago, poisoned
the bread of the British troops. I lived in my youth with an old
Christian soldier and his wife who were in the campaign, and used to
amuse me with their experience of such facts, as we sat round the fire
on a winter's evening. Nor of the American War of Independence do the
people of the present generation depend entirely on writings or books
for the proof that it took place. Two lives reach from date to date,
and no evidence can be stronger than such.

Until we have better reason than our author has adduced for altering
our estimate of these sacred writings, so often assailed, but
maintaining serenely, century after century, their high pretensions as
a message from heaven to culture our moral and spiritual nature, and
guide us thither, we should be foolish, oh, how foolish! to question
their authority or neglect their guidance. Because we cannot be sure
that the Bible is in every detail the perfect transcript of Divine
revelation, we are to abandon the only solace that humanity possesses,
the only theory which accounts for the wickedness which, without its
teaching, is such an anomaly to all else in creation, the only bond
which binds society in brotherhood, and makes social existence capable
of including happiness here, or the hope of life hereafter. Better a
misunderstood revelation than none at all. Better a glimpse of
immortality, than the negation which is utter darkness, and makes the
issue of existence only death.



CHAPTER VI.

_CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE._


_"Hoist with his own petard."_



CHAPTER VI.

_CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE._


We now come to the question of contemporary evidence. Our author says
the testimony of the New Testament in favour of the miraculous is
inadequate because it is not contemporary. I have to endeavour to show
that he has himself proved it to be contemporary.

The "Spectator" describes him as virtually saying: It is as if you
tried to prove some unheard-of facts of the civil war in the time of
Charles I. by testimony not to be traced higher than the reign of
George III. I say we trace the testimony to one of Cromwell's own
officers, and our author's own criticism shall be shown to prove it.

I take one piece of evidence of his own which he has elaborately
presented. I compare it with proofs of the same kind from other
sources. I refer to the authorities specified, and I accept it and
endorse it. But I make a different use of it. He uses it to prove that
because John, the apostle, wrote the Apocalypse, he cannot have
written the Fourth Gospel. I use it to prove that because John wrote
the Apocalypse _the facts of the Gospel are by contemporary testimony
substantiated_; and I contend that this evidence--clear, direct, and
irrefragable--neutralises his main argument and the object of his
book, which is to invalidate supernatural religion and the reality of
Divine revelation.

He says (on page 392 of his second volume): "The external evidence
that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse is more ancient than that
for the authorship of any other book of the New Testament, excepting
some of the epistles of Paul. Justin Martyr affirms in the clearest
and most positive manner the apostolic origin of the work. He speaks
to Tryphon of a certain man whose name was John, one of the apostles
of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation made to him, of the
Millennium and subsequent general resurrection. The genuineness of
this testimony is not called in question by any one."

"As another most important point we may mention that there is probably
not another work of the New Testament the precise date of the
composition of which, within a very few weeks, can be so positively
affirmed. No result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis, and
is now more universally accepted by all competent critics than the
fact that the Apocalypse was written A.D. 68, 69. The writer
distinctly and repeatedly mentions his name. 'The revelation of Jesus
Christ ... unto his servant John. John to the seven Churches which are
in Asia;' and he states that the work was written in the island of
Patmos, where he was 'on account of the word of God and the testimony
of Jesus'" (p. 395).

"It is clear that the writer counted fully upon being generally known
under the simple designation of John; and when we consider the
unmistakable terms of authority with which he addresses the seven
Churches, it is scarcely possible to deny that the writer either was
the apostle, or, distinctly desired to assume his personality" (p.
397).

"The whole description (of the New Jerusalem) is a mere allegory of
the strongest Jewish dogmatic character, and it is of singular value
for the purpose of identifying the author" (p. 399).

"There is no internal evidence whatever against the supposition that
the 'John' who announces himself as the author of the Apocalypse was
the apostle. On the contrary, the tone of authority adopted
throughout, and evident certainty that his identity would everywhere
be recognised, denote a position in the Church which no other person
of the name of John could possibly have held at the time when the
Apocalypse was written. The external evidence, therefore, which
indicates that Apostle John as the author is quite in harmony with the
internal testimony of the book itself" (p. 402).

I have quoted sufficient to show that our author, whose object is to
discredit the Fourth Gospel, elaborately and successfully proves that
John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse.

There is other testimony to prove this, easily got at, besides what
our author supplies.

Sir Isaac Newton long ago fixed upon the year 68 as the date.

Dr. Davidson says: "We should despair of proving the authenticity of
any New Testament book by the help of ancient witnesses, if that of
the Apocalypse be rejected."

In the present quarter's "Edinburgh Review" (October 1874) there is a
remarkable confirmation of the importance I am attaching to the
Apocalypse as a book written by the Apostle John during the nine
months' reign of the Emperor Galba, that is, between May 1, 68, and
January 15, 69. The writer of the article, which is a review of
Rénan's "Antichrist," says: "The arguments which support the
assignment of A.D. 68 as the date of its composition are absolutely
irresistible." And he adds: "Here we have a book the date of which is
positively ascertained, and the writer almost certainly known, while
its contents are of a prophetic character, and lay claim (in a marked
manner) to inspiration, yet are so peculiarly historical in their
character, and deal with a period of history so perfectly well known
down to its minutest details, that it can be checked and verified at
every turn. Might we not almost say that we have here (as in the Book
of Daniel) a _gauge_ by which to measure inspiration, a _sample_ by
which to understand prophecy, a _key_ for a full comprehension of what
Holy Scripture is and means?"

The Apocalypse is, as our author describes it, an ecstatic and
dogmatic allegory. What it is besides, which the believer in Divine
inspiration would include in the definition, is out of the range of
such a critic's comprehension, and he would not be likely to attach
much importance to the words, "Write the things which thou hast seen,
and the things which are, and the _things which shall be hereafter_."
But he seems to have overlooked how much essential evangelical
doctrine it expresses, and how much it is imbued with its spirit; that
it testifies to the resurrection of Christ and the atonement. Although
it _is_ an allegory, its author could no more have written it, if he
had known nothing of those doctrines, than Bunyan could have written
"The Pilgrim's Progress," or Milton "Paradise Lost" and "Regained." By
proving John to be the author of this "highly dogmatic treatise," as
he calls the Apocalypse, he takes us to the essence of the dogmas.
They must have either been in existence before John wrote it, or he
invented them, for they are certainly there.

He seems unconsciously to have furnished the very contemporary
evidence which such critics as himself pretend _not_ to have found,
and profess they require, before they can accept the miracles and
evangelical doctrines of the gospel.

He allows that Matthew was an _eye-witness_, but denies that he wrote
of _miracles_. He allows that Paul wrote of _miracles_, but he was
_not_ an _eye-witness_.

Now John both saw them and wrote of them, for he was the son of
Zebedee, and he wrote the Apocalypse. This being proved, we have in
it, from him, as an eye-witness of the miracles of Jesus, evidence
which confirms the Gospels. The vision is from Him "_who liveth and
was dead; the first begotten of the dead, who cometh with clouds_,"
and to one who was "_in the spirit on the Lord's day_."

It as evidently presupposes the miraculous facts of the Gospels, and
is supplementary to them, as certainly as it presupposes the
prophecies of the Old Testament, and supplements the predictions of
Daniel.

The allegory of "a Lamb as it had been slain," which is prominent in
the vision, is unmistakable. No critic could be so perverse as to deny
that this plainly indicates that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and
that His death is referred to as a sacrifice for sin in fulfilment of
the ancient types and sacrificial rites; nor can it be doubted that
the same is in harmony with the gospel which Paul preached and wrote
about in his absolutely unquestionable epistles, to which alone we
refer, avoiding, for obvious reasons, allusion to the Acts of the
Apostles, as our author seems to ignore that book altogether.

Let us turn to the sublime words of this Apocalypse, proved to have
been written by John the Apostle, and as we read, imagine, if we can,
that the author himself, and the Christians of the seven Churches of
Asia and elsewhere, knew nothing of the miraculous facts of the
Gospels and the doctrine of the atonement with which they are
inseparably connected; and imagine, if we can, that they were both
added, according to our author's hypothesis, to the original and lost
Gospels a century later. It is entitled "The Revelation of Jesus
Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things
which must _shortly come to pass_."

Among such things--"shortly to come to pass"--affecting the Church, we
cannot be wrong in understanding the attack upon Jerusalem by the
Romans to be included. If so, the saying of the angel--"Rise and
measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship
therein," implies that Jerusalem was still standing when the book was
written. Also, among the things shortly to come to pass, must be
understood the impending judgments on Rome (the mystical Babylon) for
the terrible and bloody persecution which had lately happened; for
Rome is evidently referred to in the seventeenth chapter, where we
read: "Upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the
great; and I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and of
the martyrs of Jesus." We are left in no uncertainty as to the
interpretation of this chapter, for it is given us in the last verse,
where we are told--"And the woman which thou sawest is that great city
which reigneth over the kings of the earth." "The seven heads are
seven mountains on which the woman sitteth. _And there are seven
kings, five are fallen, and one is, and the other is_ not yet come."
It is all but certain that the kings referred to are--1 Augustus, 2
Tiberius, 3 Caligula, 4 Claudius, 5 Nero, and the 6th, "_which now
is_," Galba, who reigned nine months, from 1st May, 68, till 15th
January, 69; the 7th, to come next, being Otho, who, when he cometh,
must continue a short space. It was but "a short space," for on the
20th of April in the same year Vespasian ascended the throne. The
beast which was to appear next is undoubtedly Nero; for though he was
dead, Tacitus tells us there was a wide-spread rumour, which created
great alarm, that the report of his having committed suicide, when the
senate had denounced him, was false. He is said to have been
personified by a slave, who took up his abode in an island not far
from Patmos. When we think of the Roman coins of that date having on
them the words "Nero Cæsar," the Hebrew letters for which are
identical with the "six hundred threescore and six," the number of the
beast, which "he that hath understanding is to count," we cannot avoid
the conclusion that Nero, under the symbol of a beast, is referred to.

If this be the correct interpretation, there is no uncertainty about
the date and authorship of the book.

The preface or title closes with the words, "Blessed is he that
readeth, and they that hear, the words of this prophecy, and keep
those things which are written therein; for _the time is at hand_."
And then the book opens with an apostolic salutation to the Churches,
and a fervent ascription of praise to Jehovah, and to the risen and
exalted Messiah and Redeemer.

"John to the seven Churches which are in Asia (Churches planted by
Paul years before): Grace unto you, and peace, from him which is, and
which was, and which is to come; and from Jesus Christ, the faithful
witness, the first begotten from the dead, and the prince of the kings
of the earth. Unto him who loved us, and washed us from our sins in
his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his
Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever."

"I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and
in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is
called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus
Christ." "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." (To be "in the
spirit on the Lord's day" is in harmony with evangelical Christianity,
and quite meaningless apart from it. The first day of the week is,
undoubtedly, called the Lord's day, because on that day He rose from
the dead; and bread has been broken and wine drunk on that day, in
obedience to His commands, and in remembrance of His death, ever since
the day of Pentecost.)

"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for
evermore, and have the keys of hades and of death."

"The Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to
open the book, and to loose the seals thereof."

"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne ... a Lamb as it
had been slain; and they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to
take the book, and open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and
hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue,
and people, and nation."

"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches," &c.

"Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth
upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever."

"These are they that came out of great tribulation, and washed their
robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

"And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under
the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard
I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that
sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever."

There is nothing in the Fourth Gospel, nor in any other part of
Scripture, that more emphatically proclaims the Godhead of Jesus
Christ than this worship of Him by the whole host of heaven. The
whole creation, as twice described in the second commandment, fall
down and worship Him. It is identical with the language Paul uses in
his letter to the Philippians: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted
him, and given him a name that is above every name, that in the name
of Jesus _every knee should bow_, of things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ _is Lord_, to the glory of God the Father."

This sort of language pervades the whole book. The allegory of a Lamb
slain to wash away sin by the shedding of His blood occurs a score
times.

It is not possible to read it and believe what our author insinuates.
He wants some proof that the four Gospels are not religious romances
written long after the events occurred which they record. I point out
that the author has the proof in his own argument that John wrote the
Apocalypse, and that the evidence therein given to the miracles is not
affected by any uncertainty whether the Gospels were produced by
eye-witnesses, or constructed on second-hand evidence, by such
disciples as Mark and Luke.

No criticism ever questions that Paul preached a miraculous gospel,
or ever doubts the genuineness of certain of his epistles in which the
doctrines are fully stated.

There are, at least, four which have never been questioned--viz., the
First of Thessalonians, written about the year 50; the Epistle to the
Galatians, A.D. 52; the First of Corinthians, A.D. 57; and the one to
the Romans, A.D. 58; and in all those letters the miracles and
doctrines are referred to which, years before, when he first went
forth to preach, were the themes of his ministry. His insight into
spiritual matters increased as he grew older, as his later writings
indicate; but from first to last it was the same gospel.

He writes to the Corinthians in the year 57, to remind them of the
gospel he had preached unto them. He says, "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 Peter, then of the twelve; after that he was seen of five hundred
brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present,
but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of me also, as of
one born out of due time." Now as Paul's written version of the
gospel at this time was in the main identical with John's, we get from
the evidence that John wrote the Apocalypse a very definite
conclusion.

It has been absurdly suggested by John Stuart Mill, and others,[66]
that Paul originated the dogmatic doctrines of Christianity. Now we
know that Paul, in the early years of his ministry, communicated with
James, Peter, and John, at Jerusalem, respecting that gospel which he
was preaching among the Gentiles; for he writes to that effect in his
unquestioned epistle to the Galatians, and tells them that when "those
three apostles, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was
given to him, they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of
fellowship." Would John and Peter and James have done this if the
miraculous gospel Paul told them he was preaching was inconsistent
with their own knowledge of the circumstances and events in Christ's
life of which they were all eye-witnesses?

  [66] "Nothing can be more false than the fashionable notion of our day
  that Paul was the author of Christianity. The true founder of
  Christianity was Jesus."--_Rénan_ ("The Apostles," p. 3).

We have John writing a book before the destruction of Jerusalem, and
Paul an epistle before the reign of Nero, and they both bear testimony
to the fact that Jesus was the Messiah of Jewish prophecy, who
descended into our world to be its Saviour and Redeemer by the
sacrifice of His life on the cross--His miraculous resurrection from
the dead being the attestation of His atoning work, while His promise
to come again to earth in like manner as He was seen to go away, they
both relied upon with implicit confidence.

As early as the year 52 Paul writes from Corinth to the Thessalonians,
reminding them "how they turned from idols to serve the living and
true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom He raised from the
dead, even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come;"[67] and he
charges them by the Lord that this epistle be read in all the Churches
in Macedonia.[68] Its genuineness has never been questioned.

  [67] 1 Thess. i. 9.

  [68] Ibid. i. 27.

Thus it is quite certain that Paul, at the commencement and throughout
his ministry, preached the dogmatic doctrines of the Divinity of
Christ, the resurrection, the atonement, the depravity of human
nature, justification by faith, and the work of the Holy Spirit in
renewing and sanctifying the souls of men, which constituted the
Christianity of the first three centuries, and undoubtedly
emanated--not from the depths of Paul's moral consciousness, but from
the events, Divine utterances, and superhuman circumstances which were
the theme of the earliest Christian records.[69] The Apocalypse is
absolute proof as to how they originated, and that they were prevalent
when it was written.

  [69] Paul tells the Thessalonians he is thankful that they received
  what he preached as the word of God, not as the word of men.

This, I contend, is sound argument, and neutralises that of our
author. Other objections of cavillers have their appropriate answers.
They may say that the eye-witnesses might honestly believe and teach,
but were deceived. No one would, I think, say they were dishonest, and
invented the miracles. It may be said that a single eye-witness such
as John is insufficient. But if a jury has _one_ such, and all the
circumstantial evidence in the case supports his testimony, the
verdict is easily arrived at. A tree that is grafted usually yields
fruit after the process, not before; but we have here this tree of
Christianity proved to be fully developed in the year 68, and its
fruit described, and we are asked to believe that it was grafted to
bear its evangelical dogmas a century afterwards! The fact is that the
same apostle, who describes its fruit in the year 68, was present
when it was planted, and we know from his evidence that the tree
needed no grafting to produce such fruit.

This evidence, from a hostile critic of such ability and scholarship,
to the authenticity and authorship of the book of Revelation, is
surely of considerable value. As Professor Owen could, from a single
bone of a fossil animal, show what the whole was of which the bone
formed a part, so might be used this evidence that John wrote the
Apocalypse.

The Christian apologist may show our author his own argument, and
pointing out the word _Apocalypse_, exclaim, "I thank thee, Jew, for
teaching me that word!" _Thou art hoist with thine own petard!_



CHAPTER VII.

_CONCLUSION._


_"The final and surest proof of the actuality and Divine origin of
revelation is its manifestation in individuals, as a healing,
sin-constraining power, diffusing everywhere light and life."_

  Christlieb.


_"The most important controversies are those which a man finds in his
own heart."_

  J. A. Bengel.


_"The Key to Scripture is the Person and Office of Messiah."_



CHAPTER VII.

_CONCLUSION._


At the close of his work our author attempts to console his readers
for having demolished their evangelical belief in the following
eloquent language:--

"In surrendering its miraculous element and its claims to supernatural
origin, therefore, _the religion of Jesus_ does not lose its virtue,
or the qualities which have made it a blessing to humanity. It
sacrifices none of that elevated character which has distinguished and
raised it above all human systems; it merely relinquishes a claim
which it has shared with all antecedent religions, and severs its
connection with ignorant superstition. It is too divine in its
morality to require the aid of miraculous attributes. No supernatural
halo can heighten its spiritual beauty, and no mysticism deepen its
holiness. In its perfect simplicity it is sublime, and in its
profound wisdom it is eternal" (p. 489).

This may be eloquently expressed, but it will not bear analysis. If
"the religion of Jesus" has an "_elevated character_," which has
"_distinguished and raised it above all human systems_," it must have
a superhuman "_elevated character_," and, if so, a supernatural
_character_, and, therefore, the religion of Jesus is a _supernatural
religion_. To take from the Bible all that is miraculous, and pretend
it would "_not lose its virtue_," or "_the qualities which have made
it a blessing to humanity_," is simply absurd. The teachings of
Christ, apart from His recognition of Abraham's faith in God having
spoken to him; of Moses, as divinely commissioned to give the law of
Sinai; and of David, to prophesy of Himself as the Messiah, is
inconceivable. It is not possible to strike out of the Bible all that
is supernatural and leave it intelligible. What would be left, far
from being "perfect simplicity and profound and eternal wisdom," would
be, for religious instruction, indeed, a blank.

Knowing what human nature is and has been in all ages, where, we may
ask, could such perfect and sublime morality have come from apart
from Divine interference? As Henry Rogers says in his recent work,
"The Superhuman Origin of the Bible inferred from itself," "_The Bible
is not such a book as man would have made if he could, or could have
made if he would._"

Even John Stuart Mill, in his book just published, describes Christ as
the "pattern of perfection for humanity;" and "a unique figure, not
more unlike all His precursors than all His followers, even those who
had the direct benefit of His personal teaching."

The late Dr. Priestley, the eminent Unitarian, said that the actual
resurrection of Jesus Christ is more authentically attested than any
other fact in history.[70]

  [70] See his work, "Matter and Spirit," p. 247.

The fact is, in short, just this: the whole Scripture testimony to the
work of man's redemption is, to the believer, explicit and harmonious,
while the emasculated and perverted creed of the moralist who rejects
the miraculous is sheer confusion and absurdity.

We appreciate the admonition of the apostle Paul, where he says: "Oh,
Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, so called, which,
some professing, have erred concerning the faith."

It is of importance to note that the writings which record the deaths
of some of the principal persons, such as John the Baptist, James the
Apostle, and Stephen, would, probably, have mentioned the decease of
others if they had died before the books were composed. Supposing they
originated at a later date, the writers would have had no motive for
omitting any such particulars. Surely, the Acts of the Apostles would
have told us of the death of Paul and Peter, Matthew and Barnabas, and
the other men whose doings it records. If we imagine the book a
fiction, then, we ask, where are the stories which apocryphal books
contain, such as the crucifixion of Peter, which would, certainly,
have been included? This must be accounted for before we set aside the
book as not history, but fiction.

This anonymous sceptical work has to encounter the damaging objection
that it enters a verdict before the case is complete. The judge, that
is, impartial criticism holding the balance evenly, may justly say,
How can the verdict be pronounced in the absence of witnesses of such
importance as the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul? The
final reflections at the conclusion of the second volume are
premature. Instead of it being "right not to delay a clear statement
of what the author believes to be the truth and its consequences," it
is the opposite; and we venture to predict that, when he has done his
worst, when he has made the most of the silence of primitive writers
whose works time has reduced to fragments; when he has fully exposed
the irrelevancy of many of the assertions of over-sanguine apologists
(such as Tischendorf and Canon Westcott); when he has magnified to the
utmost the difficulties inseparable from the investigation of matters
eighteen centuries distant, between which period in history and the
present time there have intervened revolutions in nations, invasions
of barbarians, cities burned, libraries destroyed, and all that is
conceivable of obliteration, falsification, fraud, and superstition,
in what are called the dark ages--his ability, learning, research, and
logic will not have convinced the majority of his readers that
Christianity is to be placed in the category of the world's religious
delusions and impostures. His complete work will be fully replied to
by critics of his own calibre and acumen, and the highest honour it
will ultimately attain will be to be relegated to the unenviable
position in literature in which are placed Spinoza, Hume, Baur,
Strauss, Rénan, Mill, and all those able doubters who have boldly but
unsuccessfully assailed the truth as it is in Jesus.

I close with the remark that the Bible is regarded by the Evangelical
Protestant Nonconformists from an independent point of view. The
authority of the councils of the Popish Church is nothing to them. The
decision of the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, furnishes evidence of
the Holy Scriptures being, in the main, what we esteem them to be; but
we do not recognise its authority.

We are in a position to welcome any light which any critic can throw
upon the records of Divine revelation, and can be grateful for any
laborious research which separates the gold from the dross, and
selects the real coin from the counterfeit. But it is undoubtedly true
that, as the religion of the Bible is a spiritual matter, it is best
discerned by those whose hearts are open to receive it.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it
be of God."[71] "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness
in himself."[72] "Filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom
and spiritual understanding."[73]

  [71] John vii. 17.

  [72] 1 John v. 10.

  [73] Col. i. 9.

On the assumption that man is not a spiritual being, the investigation
of what the Bible teaches is not likely to be successful. The most
prominent statements will be foolishness. The primary fact that God is
a Spirit will not be apprehended, and all analogous doctrines deemed
the outgrowth of superstition. It is the vainest of all inquiries from
such a foregone conclusion. Man is not placed at such a point of
observation in the universe as to be competent to conduct a
theological investigation, based on a negative hypothesis, regarding
the essential proposition of all religious truth. Among the
indispensable requisites in the pursuit of such knowledge, are, the
receptive disposition, the listening attitude, the becoming humility,
the consciousness of a tendency to go wrong, and of dependence on the
Divine illumination of the Holy Spirit. "Blind unbelief is sure to
err." The inquirer who does not lay aside pride and self-sufficiency
is not in a condition to take the first step. If intellectual power,
acuteness of perception, and the logical faculty, could ensure the
successful pursuit of spiritual truth, we may suppose that Satan's
knowledge would convince him of the folly of his opposition to the
Divine authority. That which intervenes betwixt the Almighty Creator
and the fallen angel intercepts the vision of the depraved human soul.
Only "the pure in heart can see God." The blindness is not removable
until, as in the case of Saul of Tarsus, those conditions are complied
with which are implied in the statement, "Behold he prayeth." His soul
is humbled, his eyes are opened, and he gets nearer to the truth. "The
Lord is nigh unto them who call upon him."[74]

  [74] Psa. cxlv. 18.

The summary of what I have endeavoured to make plain to you respecting
the book is briefly this:--

1. That it chiefly consists of German scepticism made plain to English
readers; of a recast of the exploded fallacies of Hume; and an
unsuccessful attempt to eliminate the miraculous from the Gospels.

2. That the assumption that there are in the Bible Satanic miracles,
thus putting Jewish superstition on a level with revealed truth, is
reasoning on false premises.

3. That the miracles of the Bible do not admit of their being
accommodated to the laws of nature, to satisfy the scientific and
philosophical theologians.

4. That the objection to the testimony of the first disciples, on the
ground of their not being learned, scientific, and critical, has no
weight, especially as applied to Paul, whose education would enable
him to weigh the evidence of the eye-witnesses, which he would compare
with the revelation to himself; and thus he was in a position to know
the exact truth.

5. That the abstract argument against miracles not having sufficient
force to merit Mr. Arnold's endorsement, its further discussion was
not necessary, the first part of the book being sufficiently
neutralised.

6. That the argument from the silence of early Church writers is not
conclusive, because we have only fragments of their writings, and that
there was not the same need to refer to written records while
tradition was fresh.

7. That the objection to a quotation because it is not verbatim is
frivolous.

8. That the hypothesis that the original records of Christ's life,
which are not our Gospels, and are lost, did not contain any miracles,
is a German conjecture, which is totally unsupported and absolutely
incredible.

9. That the assumption of uniform and verbal inspiration is not an
essential of orthodox views, and that Christianity has been more
damaged by its friends than its enemies.

10. That the author's mode of presenting his facts is not to be relied
upon, any more than his conclusions.

11. That offensive epithets and unwarrantable boldness of assertion do
not strengthen his arguments; nor is eloquent language always sense.

12. That the question is not whether the Gospels establish the reality
of miracles, so that Christianity is false if they do not sufficiently
do so; but is the general evidence, resting on a great variety of
proofs, sufficient to prove it true?

13. That special pleading is found throughout the book.

14. That whatever information is wanting, as to the exact manner in
which the four Gospels were compiled--whatever probability there may
be that Matthew's is made up of materials from several other sources,
such as the lost "Gospel of the Hebrews," as well as from that
apostle's own record of what he heard and was eye-witness of--whatever
probability there may be that the Fourth Gospel is only the Apostle
John's to the extent of his having furnished the materials, which
Grecian, rather than Jewish, pens put into elegant language and
artistic form--it is undeniable that if John the son of Zebedee, the
apostle, wrote the Apocalypse, as our author proves he did, the fact
furnishes the strongest evidence, "clear, direct, and irrefragable,"
that he knew, being an eye-witness of the events of the Gospel
records, the Resurrection of Christ to be no "cunningly devised
fable," but the fact of facts, the truth of truths, the miracle of
miracles.

15. That the religion of the Bible being spiritual, its truths are
best discerned by those whose hearts are open to receive them.

The vast expanse of evangelical Christian evidence, shining around us
like the sky on a clear night, has its nebulæ which only faith's
telescope can reach; but there are stars and constellations which are
so conspicuous that no inquirer after truth can fail to see them. John
to the seven Churches, whose angels are seven stars, is as obvious as
the Pleiades; Paul and Barnabas, as of old, are Mercurius and Jupiter;
Abraham's descendants, still distinct from all other races, in all
lands, are prominent as Sirius; Pliny's letter to Trajan is radiant as
Arcturus; the martyr-story of the Catacombs and of history is as
demonstrative as Mars; while the institution to show forth the Lord's
death, by the breaking of bread on the Lord's day, glows like Venus.
These, requiring no telescope,

    "Confirm the tidings as they roll,
    And spread the truth from pole to pole."


UNWIN BROTHERS, THE GRESHAM PRESS, CHILWORTH AND LONDON.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Wave of Scepticism and the Rock of Truth" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.