•T / xy

*

A HISTOKICAL INTEODUCTION

TO THE STUDY OF THE

BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:

BEING

AN EXPANSION OF LECTUEES

DELIVERED IN THE

DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN

BY GEOKGKE SALMON, D.D., F.E.S.,

PROVOST OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN ; SOMETIME REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.

FOURTH EDITION,

LONDON:

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1889.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH:

$ ®mtrse of Lectures

DELIVERED IN THE

DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN. 8vo. Price 12a.

Printed at THK UMVKRSITY PRESS, Dublin.

PREFACE

TO THE FIRST EDITION

THE Lectures out of which the present volume has taken its origin were written some years ago, and did not aim at giving a complete or systematic account of the subjects with which they dealt. When I decided last year on sending them to the Press, I contemplated making no other change than that of altering the division into Lectures — the original division, of necessity, having mainly had regard to the length which it was convenient to deliver at one time. Accordingly, the first three Lectures of this volume contain, with but slight alterations, what was originally the introductory Lecture of my course. But as the printing went on I found additions ne cessary, partly in order to take notice of things that had been published since the delivery of the Lectures, and partly in order to include details which want of time had obliged me to omit, but which I was un willing to pass unnoticed in my book. In this way I have been led on to re-write, and make additions (but without making any change in the style or in the arrangement), until I am now somewhat dis mayed to find that the Lectures have swelled to two or three times their original bulk.

iv PREFACE.

The additions thus made have so far completed the discussion, that I have ventured to give this volume the title of an Introduction ; but it will be seen that it does not embrace all the topics frequently included under that title. I do not enter on the criticism of the text, nor do I make any analysis of the contents of the books. My main purpose has been to discuss their date and authorship on purely historical grounds ; and to examine with sufficient completeness for a practical decision the various theories on the subject advanced by modern schools of criticism. It is in this latter respect that this Introduction will chiefly be found to differ from some valuable works on the same subject which are in the hands of students. Most of the original evidence requisite for the dis cussion has already been brought within easy reach in Canon Westcott's 'History of the New Testament Canon/ Dr. Charteris, also, in his ' Canonicity/ has rendered accessible to the English reader the collec tion of ancient testimonies made by Kirchhofer in his ' Quellensammlung.' According to the arrangement of Canon Westcott's book, each of the ancient wit nesses is treated separately, and under each name are placed the books of the New Testament to which the witness bears testimony. According to the arrange ment of Kirchhofer and Charteris, each book of the New Testament is examined in succession, and the ancient writers are cited who bear testimony to it. The latter is the arrangement I have followed. I do not always give as full a report of the evidence as the authors just mentioned have done, contenting myself with citing as many witnesses as I judge to be suf-

PREFACE. V

ficient to prove my case. But on the other hand, as I have said, I aim at giving a somewhat fuller discussion than they have done of the theories of authorship which modern sceptical writers have proposed to substitute for the traditional belief of the Christian Church. The time has passed when it could be objected that a student's time was ill-spent in becoming acquainted with such theories, on the ground that he probably would never have heard of them if he had not been asked to study the refutation. Literature in which the theories in question are treated as established facts has now obtained such extensive circulation, that a clergyman must be pronounced ill-trained for his work if he has to make his first acquaintance with these speculations when he finds them accepted among his people as the latest results of scientific inquiry.

Although my work may be described as apologetic in the sense that its results agree in the main with the traditional belief of the Church, I can honestly say that I have not worked in the spirit of an advo cate anxious to defend a foregone conclusion. I have aimed at making my investigations historical, and at asserting nothing but what the evidence, candidly weighed, seemed to warrant. It would be idle in anyone to pretend that he can wholly divest himself of bias ; but I must remark that the temptation to hold obstinately to traditional opinions is one to which those who are called apologists are not ex clusively liable. The theories which in these Lectures I have found myself obliged to reject are now some fifty years old. They are maintained by a generation of scholars who have accepted them on the authority

VI PREFACE.

of guides to whom, in their youthful days, they looked up with reverence, and whose dicta they regard it as presumptuous to dispute, receiving their doctrines with something like the blind submission which the teachers of the scholastic philosophy gave to the decisions of the Fathers. The temptation to apply unfairly the methods of historical criticism besets as strongly the opponents as the assertors of the super natural. The former have found great difficulties in maintaining their position by a priori proof of the impossibility of miracle ; for what they seek to estab lish really amounts to this : that, even if God exists, it is beyond the power of His Omnipotence to give His creatures convincing proof of His existence. Failing to gain many converts to this doctrine, they have tried another method of attaining their object : namely, by a criticism directed to show that the docu ments tendered for the establishment of miracles are so late as to be undeserving of attention. But the attempt to show this has, in my opinion, broken down, as I have endeavoured to prove in the fol lowing pages. If this result has been established, it must follow that the opponents of the supernatural will be forced to fall back on their older methods.

I have thankfully to acknowledge kind help given me in reading the proofs by my friends Professor MAHAFFY, Dr. QUARRY, and Dr. WAGE, to each of whom I owe some useful suggestions. But my chief acknowledgments are due to my colleague in our Divinity School, Dr. GWYNN, who has taken, on my behalf, an amount of trouble which, if I were not somewhat ashamed of having imposed so much

PREFACE. Vll

labour on him, would make me congratulate myself that the publication of my Lectures was delayed until I could have the benefit of his assistance. In addition to most careful reading of all the proofs, he has been ever ready to consult authorities, and verify references for me, a service which was parti cularly useful to me during three months that I was at a distance from books ; and he has, besides, made some special investigations on my account, such as those which I have particularly acknowledged, pp. 349, 549, 557, 595-

Readers who may compare the present with former editions of this work will perhaps find it convenient if I specify a few places where changes or additions are now made. I have added (p. 44) a note on Zahn's speculation concerning the date of the Latin Version of the New Testament : some slight addition is made (p. 86) to what had been said about Tatian's Diates- saron : Dr. Gwynn's discovery of fragments of Caius has made some change necessary in what had been said (p. 227) about Caius's reception of the Apocalypse, and about the Alogi : in a note (p. 255) I have dis cussed Vischer's assault on the unity of the Apoca lypse : something has been added (p. 389) with regard to the date of the formation of a collection of Pauline letters, and a fuller discussion than before of the second group of Pauline Epistles has been given (p. 403). On the other hand, I have judged it suf ficient to present, in an abridged form (p. 545), my

Vlll PREFACE.

examination of Dr. Abbott's censures of the style of 2 Peter, which in the first and subsequent editions was given with more detail than now appears to be requisite. The change of form of the book, and the consequent alteration in the paging, has rendered necessary the preparation of a new Index ; and though I have taken a good deal of pains, I fear it is too much to expect that I shall have altogether escaped misprints and false references both in the Index and elsewhere.

TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, October, 1889.

ERRATA.

Page 209, line i8,for i John v. 24, read i John v. 20. „ 326, line 5 from foot, for v. 30, read v. 39. >> 397) note line 2, for 2 Cor. i. 17, read 2 Cor. ii. 17. „ 487, note line 4, for Rom. iv. 7, read Rom. vi. 7. » 494> lme 15> for James iii., read James ii. ,, 495, line 3 from foot, for Genesis xvii., read Genesis xviii.

CO NTENTS.

LECTURE I.

INTRODUCTORY. PART I.

Page

PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION i

Subject of Lectures defined, pp. I, 2. Question of Inspiration irrelevant here, p. 3 ; amount of external evidence of authen ticity commonly required in similar cases, pp. 4 — 5 ; authenticity of N. T. books not to be denied because of the miraculous nature of their contents, pp. 6 — 8. Criticism based on the rejection of the supernatural; Strauss, Renan, author of Super natural Religion, ^.<), 10. Naturalistic explanation of Gospel Miracles: Paulus, p. II ; Strauss's Theory, p. 12.

LECTURE II.

INTRODUCTORY. PART II.

BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY .

The Tubingen (or 'Tendency') School, p. 13 ; its basis in the Clementine writings, pp. 14 — 16 ; St. Paul assailed in them under name of Simon Magus, p. 16. Marcion, ib. The Paul-Simon theory, pp. 17 — 19. Two kinds of Ebionites, pp. 18, 19. Wholesale rejection of N.T. books necessary to Baur's theory, p. 20; the search for anti-Paulinism in the Gospels, p. '2i ; unsuccessful, pp. 22, 23 ; Baur admits but five N. T. books as genuine, p. 23 ; internecine character of strife in early Church as alleged by him, p. 24 ; its speedy and complete reconciliation, p. 25.

X CONTENTS.

LECTURE III.

INTRODUCTORY. PART III.

Page

THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE . . 25

Alleged anti-Paulinism of the Epistles to the Seven Churches, pp. 26, 27; improbability of this view, pp. 28,29. The call ing of the Gentiles recognized in the Apocalypse, p. 29 ; its alleged anti-Pauline language paralleled in Paul's own writings, pp. 30, 31. Rapidity of supposed counter-revolution in favour of Paulinism, p. 32.

LECTURE IV.

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART I.

THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY ; IREN^EUS,

CLEMENT, AND TERTULLIAN . . . -33

Paul's teaching, as collected from his unquestioned Epistles, and from the Acts, p. 33 ; assumes the fact of the Resurrection, p. 34 ; includes miracle, p. 35. Facts admitted by Strauss as to reception of Gospels, ib. IREN^US, pp. 35 — 40; links connecting him with Apostolic age, p. 36 ; estimate of the Four Gospels in the Church of his age, pp. 36 — 38 ; his testi mony retrospective, pp. 38—40. CLEMENT of Alexandria, pp. 41, 42 ; various texts of the Gospels, p. 41 ; inference from this fact, p. 42; TERTULLIAN, pp. 42 — 44. Early Latin version of Scriptures, p. 42 ; rendering of title « Logos,' p. 45. Discus sion of Zahn's theory that the Latin translation is later than Tertullian, pp. 44 — 47.

LECTURE V.

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART II.

THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT ; CAIUS AND HIPPO-

LYTUS 47

THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT, pp. 48 — 54; described, pp. 48, 49 ; its date, how determined, Hernias, ib. ; conjectures as to its author, pp. 51 — 53 ; its contents, pp. 53, 54; whether

CONTENTS. XI

Page

St. Jerome was acquainted with it, p. 54. CAIUS and HIP- POLYTUS, pp. 55 — 62. Caius, p. 55 ; his estimate of the Gospels, pp. 56, 57. Hippolytus, p. 57 ; his 'Refutation of Heresies,' pp. 57, 58 ; his extracts from heretical writers, p. 58; use made by these of N. T. books, p. 59 ; especially of Fourth Gospel, ib. ; by Valentinus, pp. 59 — 61 ; by Basilides, pp. 6r, 62. First mention of St. John as author of this Gospel, p. 62 ; it tacitly claims him as such, ib. ; but does not men tion his name, ib.

LECTURE VI.

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART III.

THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY; JUSTIN

MARTYR, TATIAN 63

JUSTIN MARTYR, pp. 63—82 ; his date, p. 64 ; mentions and cites 'Memoirs' of our Lord, pp. 65, 66; his citations vary verbally from the existing Gospels, pp. 66 — 67 ; his substantial agreement with the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 67 — 70 ; his inac curacy in quoting the Old Testament, p. 69 ; improbability that he used a Gospel now lost, p. 70 ; whether he used apocryphal Gospels, p. 71 ; proofs that he knew the Fourth Gospel, pp. 71 — 80; Thoma's theory, Dr. Ezra Abbot, p. 72 ; Justin derives from Fourth Gospel his 'Logos' doctrine, pp. 72, 73; not from Philo, p. 74 ; hence also his baptismal language, pp. 74 — 76; Fourth Gospel used in the Clementines, p. 76; Strauss's failure to shake these conclusions, pp. 75—77 ; Dr. Edwin Abbott's views untenable, pp. 78, 79 ; Renan's inconsistency on this subject, pp. 78—80. TATIAN, pp. 81— 86; his date and heresy, p. 81 ; his knowledge of Fourth Gospel, ib. ; his ' Diatessaron,' pp. 82 — 86 ; recent recovery of Commen tary on it by Ephraem Syrus, pp. 84, 85 ; its ample attesta tion of the Fourth Gospel equally with the others, p. 86. Other helps towards restoring the Diatessaron, ib.

Xll CONTENTS.

LECTURE VII.

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART IV.

Page THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND CENTURY; PAPIAS,

APOSTOLIC FATHERS 87

PAPIAS, pp. 87 — 105 ; his remains scanty and fragmentary, p. 87 ; unfair inferences from the silence of Eusebius, pp. 88, 89 ; Papias's ' Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,' p. 90 ; his sources of information, pp. 90, 91 ; his witness to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, p. 92 ; recent doubts of the identity of these with our first and second Gospels, pp. 93 — 95. Argu ment from the silence of Eusebius, p. 95. Schleiermacher's theory of the 'original' Matthew and Mark, ib.\ Renan's theory of their formation, pp. 96, 97. Meaning of the word 'Logia' in Papias's account of Matthew, pp. 98, 99 ; explana tion of his apology for Mark's method, pp. 99, IOO ; probability that Papias knew Luke's Gospel, pp. 101 — 103 ; true explana tion of plan of Papias's work, pp. 103 — 105 ; whether he pre ferred his traditions to the written Gospels, p. 104 ; probability that he knew John's Gospel, p. 105. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, pp. 106—108. Clement of Rome, p. 106. The early Fathers do not cite the Gospels by name, nor verbally, ib. • Barnabas, pp. 107, 108.

LECTURE VIII.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. PART I. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THEIR ANTIQUITY . .109

Inferences from the titles of the Gospels, pp. 109 — 1 1 1 ; use of the word in the singular and in the plural number, p. no ; written Gospels necessary from the first, pp. in, 112. Our Lord's discourses as reported by the Synoptists, p. 113 ; presumption that these would be written down at an early date, pp. 114, 115 ; this presumption extends to the narrative of his actions, p. 115. These three narratives not independent, pp. 116 — 118; the sceptical criticism is tending to revert to the early date claimed for them, p. 118 ; no earlier Gospel extant, p. 119; the four

CONTENTS. Xlll

Page

took their place without authoritative decision of Church, p. 120; Luke's account explains the oral common basis of the Synoptics, ib. ; he mentions written narrations prior to his own, p. 121 ; no authentic tradition as to their publication, p. 122. Early necessity for authoritative records, pp. 123 — 125. Gospels once published and accepted not easily changed, pp. 125—127.

LECTURE IX.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. PART II. THEORIES AS TO THEIR ORIGIN , . . .127

Inquiry not precluded by belief in Inspiration, pp. 127, 128; though difficult not hopeless, p. 128. Three chief hypotheses to account for the common matter of the Synoptists, p. 129; various combinations of these, ib. ; each hypothesis to be examined irrespectively of theories of Inspiration, pp. 130 — 132. Alford's objection to First and Second Hypotheses, p. 132 ; verbal variations from documents in secular authors, p. 133; variations in narratives of St. Paul's conversion, ib. The Third hypothesis will account for agreements in narrating of incidents, p. 135 ; but the First or Second is needed to account for agreement in order of narration, pp. 136, 137 ; absence of agreement in order of discourses, p. 138. Gospels of Matthew and Luke independent of one another, p. 139. Various forms of Second hypothesis, p. 140; inadmissible modifications of it, p. 141. Modifications of Third hypo thesis, ib. Hypothesis of Hebrew common document, pp. 141, 142 ; will account for verbal variations, pp. 142, 143. Hypothesis of common Greek original required by verbal coincidences, p. 144 ; and by common citations of O. T., p. 145. Further elaboration of hypothesis of Greek original, p. 146. Rushbrooke's ' Synopticon,' p. 147. Dr. Edwin Abbott and the 'Triple Tradition,' pp. 147 — 150 ; his theory of the common documents rests on an inadmissible assump tion, p. 149. The Synoptists' narratives of the Passion, p. 150. The ' Triple Tradition ' rests on a single attestation, p. 152 ; which probably is that of Peter, pp. 153, 154; traces of his testimony in Mark, pp. 154, 155. Mark represents the original source most closely, p. 155 ; but is possibly latest in publication, p. 156; Matthew and Luke did not copy Markr ib. ; Mark's last twelve verses, pp. 156 — 164.

XIV CONTENTS.

Page

NOTE ON THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF ST. MARK'S

GOSPEL 158

Early testimony to their authenticity, pp. 158, 159. The tes timony of the two great uncials, pp. 159 — 161. Improbability involved in the rejection of the verses, pp. 163, 164. Some questions of textual criticism cannot now be decided with certainty, p. 164.

LECTURE X.

THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. THE HEBREW GOSPEL .165

Existence of an early Hebrew Gospel probable, pp. 165, 166. Early Patristic evidence that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, p. 167. "Witness of Papias, Irenseus, and Eusebius, ib. ; of Jerome and Epiphanius, p. 168. Internal counter-evidence, pp. 169, 170. No Greek text other than ours known to the Fathers, pp. 170, 171. Hypothesis of a two-fold original, p. 171. The 4 Hebrew Gospel,' p. 172; not identical with the ' Ebionite Gospel,' pp. 172 — 176; not the source of the Clementine quo tations, pp. 176, 177. Jerome's 'Nazarene' Gospel not the original of Matthew, pp. 177 — 186. Origen's evidence con cerning the 'Hebrew Gospel,' pp. 179 — i8r; Jerome's incon sistency, pp. 182 — 184; estimate of the value and age of this Gospel, pp. 184 — 186 ; first trace of it found in Ignatius, p. 186 ; it was used by Hegesippus, ib. Palestine was bilingual, pp. 187 — 189. Greek original of St. Matthew on the whole more probable, pp. 189, 190.

LECTURE XL

APOCRYPHAL AND HERETICAL GOSPELS . . .191

Hone's collection of N. T. Apocrypha, pp. 191 — 193 ; Hilgen- feld's, pp. 192, 193. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS, pp. 193 — 201. The Protevangelium, pp. 193 — 196 ; its antiquity, p. 195. The pseudo- Matthew, p. 197. The Gospel of 2"homas, pp. 197 — 199; its legends of our Lord's childhood, pp. 198, 199; its date, p. 199. The Gospel of Nicodemus and Acts of 'Pilate, pp. 200, 201. Evangelic fragments, p. 201. HERETICAL GOSPELS, pp. 202 — 208 ; were chiefly Gnostic and Encratite, p. 203. Gospel of the Egyptians, ib. Gospel of Marcion, pp. 204 — 208 ; Tertullian's examination of it, p. 205 ; reconstruction of it, pp. 205, 206 ; attempt to make it out prior to Luke's, p. 206; also to John's, pp. 207, 208.

CONTENTS. XV

LECTURE XII.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART I.

Page THE FOURTH GOSPEL . .... 209

Common authorship of this Gospel and First Epistle, p. 209 ; motive for questioning this fact, pp. 210, 211. Early ex ternal testimony to the Epistle, pp. 211, 212. Baur assigns a late date to the Gospel, p. 212 ; his followers tend to place it earlier, ib. ; Renan takes an exceptional line, pp. 212 — 214. Motives for denying its Apostolic authorship, p. 215; its witness to our Lord's Divinity, ib. ; to His self-assertion, p. 216. His self-assertion attested by the Synoptics likewise, pp. 217, 218. Apocalypse admitted to be John's, p. 218. Christology of the Apocalypse, pp. 219, 220. Christology of St. Paul's Epistles, p. 221. St. John's doctrine compared with St. Paul's, p. 222. Dr. Pfleiderer on the Christology of Apocalypse, p. 223.

LECTURE XIII.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART II.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE APOCALYPSE . .224.

Diversity of style between these two books, p. 224. Early ex ternal attestation of Apocalypse, pp. 224, 225 ; Millennarian use of it, p. 226 ; tended to discredit the book, ib. ; ascrip tion of it to Cerinthus, p. 227 ; whether Caius was responsible for this ascription, ib. Recovery of new fragments of Caius, p. 228. The Alogi, p. 229. Did they ascribe the Gospel to Cerinthus, p. 230. Dionysius of Alexandria, pp. 230, 231. His arguments against the Johannine authorship of Apocalypse, pp. 232, 233; examination of them, rpp. 234 — 242. Its coinci dences of diction with the Gospel, pp. 235, 236 ; its points of difference, pp. 237, 238. Solecisms of the Apocalypse, pp. 238—241. The Greek of the Gospel, p. 241 ; its superiority over that of the Apocalypse accounted for, pp. 241, 242.

XVI CONTENTS.

LECTURE XIV.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART III.

Page THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE .... 243

Earlier date assigned by the sceptical school, p. 243. Theory of Renan and his followers, pp. 243 — 246. Nero the 'Beast,' p. 245 ; its ' Number,' p. 246. This theory imputes failure to the predictions of the book, p. 247 ; is incredible, pp. 247, 248 ; attempts to deny that failure is imputed, pp. 249, 250. Ancient conception of Prophecy, p. 250. Modern solutions of the riddles of the book are but partial, pp. 251, 252 ; multiplicity of solutions, p. 253. Other objections to the Neronian solu tion, p. 254. Neronian date not improbable, p. 255. Vischer's theory that the book is composite, pp. 255 — 262. Sabatier's modification of Vischer's theory, p. 259. The chapters said to be purely Jewish bear marks of Christian authorship, p. 260. The date assigned by Vischer and Sabatier to the publication of the book cannot be reconciled with their interpretation of it, p. 262.

LECTURE XV.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART IV. THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE QUARTODECIMANS . 262

TheQuartodecimans alleged as witnesses against Fourth Gospel, p. 262. Real difficulty in its account of Last Supper, pp. 263 — 265 ; solutions offered, p. 264 ; a forger would have avoided raising this difficulty, p. 265. Controversy concerning Easter, p. 266 ; Baur's assumption as to the Eastern commemoration, p. 267. First recorded instance of Paschal disputes, Polycarp and Anicetus, p. 268. Probable usage of the Apostles, p. 269. Second recorded Paschal dispute, Melito' s book, p. 2 7 r . Third recorded Paschal dispute, Victor and Polycrates, p. 272. Quarto- deciman testimony to Fourth Gospel, ib. The authority of the Fourth Gospel not affected by controversies as to the day of the Passion, 273.

NOTES ON THE ASTRONOMICAL ASPECT OF THE QUES TION . . .... . , . 273

Jewish New Moon, p. 273. Table of New Moons, p. 274. Point of difference between Wieseler and Caspari, ib.

CONTENTS. XV11

LECTURE XVI.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART V.

Page

THE GOSPEL AND THE MINOR EPISTLES . . : .275

The fourth Evangelist was (i) a Jew, pp. 275 — 277 ; was (ii) a Jew of Palestine, pp. 278 — 280; was (iii) of the first century, pp. 280 — 283 ; was (iv) an eye-witness of the events he relates, pp. 284 — 286 ; and a disciple of the Baptist, p. 285 ; was John the Apostle, p. 287. Theory of another John, ' the Elder,' pp. 287 — 289 ; this theory fails to solve the questions of author ship of the Johannine Books, p. 289 ; the Minor Epistles, p. 290 — 295 ; their authenticity questioned, p. 290; established conclusively by internal evidence, pp. 291 ; they confirm the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, p. 292. The Third Epistle, St. John and Episcopacy, pp. 293. ' The Elect Lady ' of the Second Epistle, p. 294. Attempts to allegorize away parts of the Fourth Gospel, p. 295. Importance of the facts implied in the Third Epistle, ib.

LECTURE XVII.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART VI. THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS s . . 296

Omissions of the Fourth Gospel, p. 296 ; instance as regards our Lord's birthplace, p. 297 ; absurdity of Renan's view of this case, pp. 298, 299 ; St. John's manner is to assume previous knowledge in his readers, p. 300; his 'Irony,' pp. 301 — 303 ; his knowledge of previous Gospels, pp. 304, 305 ; his last chapter, p. 304 ; he wrote after Peter's death, p. 305 ; supple mental character of his Gospel, p. 306 ; his silence as to the Eucharist, ib. ; the institution of the Eucharist by our Lord involves a claim of Divinity on His part, p. 307 ; Synoptic account of institution confirmed by St. Paul, p. 308 ; early Christian belief concerning it, ib. ; the Eucharist implied in fourth Gospel, p. 309; as also baptism, p. 310; and the As cension, p. 311. The Fourth Gospel written with a purpose, ib. ; its coincidences with the Synoptics, p. 312 ; it contains facts omitted by them, p. 314; a priori probability of our Lord's earlier visits to Jerusalem recorded in it, ib. ; traces in the Synoptics of the Juclsean ministry, 316. b

XV111 CONTENTS.

LECTURE XVIII.

Page

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ,. . . . 317

Date of this book a vital matter, p. 317. External attestation of it, pp. 317 — 319. Internal evidence, p. 320. Modern theories of its compilation, p. 321. The 'we' sections, pp. 321 — 327; the author of these, p. 322. Tradition of Luke's authorship of Third Gospel and Acts, p. 323. Imagined marks of spurious- ness, p. 324. Unity of authorship of Acts inferred from its structure and contents, p. 325 ; and from its diction, p. 326. Literary skill of the author, p. 327. Motives for denying its unity, pp. 328 — 335. Its supernatural element, p. 329. Its representation of Paul's relations with the Twelve, pp. 330 — 335. The Tubingen version of Paul's History, p. 331 ; its in credibility as compared with the account in Acts, p. 332. Absence of Pauline topics from speeches ascribed to him in this book, p. 334. Supposed artificial parallelism between its narratives of Peter and of Paul, p. 335. Frequent occurrence of parallel events in history ; the supposed parallel wants its climax, p. 336. Abrupt close of the Acts, p. 337. The author's principle of selection of topics, p. 338 ; his opportu nities of gaining information, p. 339, 340 ; his account of Philip the Deacon, ib. ; he possibly used as materials a diary of his own, p. 341. His reports of Paul's speeches, pp. 342 — 347. His slight use of Paul's Epistles, p. 344 ; for example, that to Philippians, p. 345 ; Galatians, 345 ; i and 2 Corinthians, p. 346. Reports of Peter's speeches in Acts compared with his First Epistle, p. 347. External confirmations of the author's accuracy, pp. 347 — 349. Holtzmann's theory that the author followed Josephus, p. 350. Discrepancies between the Acts and Josephus, p. 351.

LECTURE XIX.

APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES . . .352

No other Acts but Luke's admitted into the Canon, p. 353. Apocryphal Acts mostly of heretical origin, pp. 353, 354 ; after wards expurgated for orthodox use, p. 354. (i) The Abgar Legend, pp. 354 — 357 ; extant form of it, p. 356. (ii) The Acts of Paul and Thecla, pp. 357—362 ; Tertullian's account of its origin, p. 357 ; tinged with Encratism, p. 358 ; its story, pp. 358 — 360; still extant, 361 ; time and place of composition, pp. 361, 362. Excesses in the direction of Encratism easily con-

CONTENTS. Xix

Page

doned by the orthodox, 362. (iii) The Acts of St. Thomas, pp. 363 — 372 ; Leucian Acts, p. 363 ; light thrown by the Acts of Thomas on Gnostic ideas, p. 364 ; narrative of this book, pp. 365 — 370 ; Ritual described in it, pp. 367 — 369 ; its doctrine, p. 371 ; date and place of composition, pp. 371 — 372. (iv) The Acts of St. Peter, the Clementines, pp. 372-374 ; the ' Circuits of Peter,' and ' Preaching of Peter,' p. 373; the Simon-Paul theory, pp. 373, 374; 'Acts of Peter and Paul,' p. 375 ; Feast of 29th June, pp. 376, 377 ; rival traditions concerning Peter,

P- 378- (v) Tne 4cts °f Sf- Jonn-> PP- 378 — 384 5 heretical character of the Leucian Acts, pp. 379, 380 ; second-century traditions concerning John, pp. 381 — 383; later legends, p. 383 ; Assumption of the B. V. M., pp. 384 — 386.

LECTURE XX. THE PAULINE EPISTLES 387

The Sceptical school not agreed which of these to reject, pp. 387, 388. Four groups of them, p. 389. A collection of Pauline Letters early made, p. 390 ; this probably set the example of making other collections of letters, p. 391. Pro bable time and place of collection of Pauline Letters, p. 392. St. Paul used by Justin Martyr, ib. Methodius and Justin, p. 393. FIRST GROUP, pp. 395 — 403 ; i Thgssalonians, pp. 395 — 398. 2 Thessalonians, pp. 398 — 402 ; its prophecy of the Man of Sin, pp. 399 — 401 ; external attestation of both Epistles, p. 401 ; precaution against forgery, ib. ; lost Epistles, p. 402. SECOND GROUP, pp. 403 — 415 ; note of early date stamped on these Epistles by the character of their contents, p. 403 ; short duration of the struggle to impose circumcision on Gentile con verts, ib. ; necessarily early date of Letters written while this struggle was going on, p. 404. Similar inference from the fact that at the time they were written Paul's Apostolic authority was disputed, ib. The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 405 ; abstract of its argument, p. 406. Comparison with Romans, pp. 407, 408 ; point of difference between the two Epistles, p. 409. The Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 409, 410. Ambiguity of name Galatian, pp. 410 — 413. No need to suppose that the ficklenessof the Galatians must be accounted for by their Celtic origin, p. 413 ; concluding chapter of Romans, pp. 413, 414. THIRD GROUP, pp. 415 — 428; Philippians,^. 415, 416; Philemon, p. 416 ; Colossians, pp. 416 — 423 ; external attestation, p. 416 ; internal evidence, pp. 417, 418 ; objections grounded on its diction, pp. 418, 419 ; on its Christology, p. 420 ; on its reference to Gnostic teaching, pp. 420 — 423 ; Ephesians, pp. 423 — 433 ; external

XX CONTENTS.

Page

evidence, pp. 423, 424; its affinities with I Peter, p. 424; its close likeness to Colossians, p. 425 ; Paley's account of this fact, ib. ; rejected by sceptical critics, ib. ; question of priority between the two, p. 426; Holtzmann's theory, p. 427; this Epistle contradicts modern theories of early Church history, p. 428 ; the Epistle was written when the admission of Gentiles was recent, p. 430 ; ruling topics of these two Epistles distinct, p. 431 ; literary excellence and influence of Ephesians, p. 432. FOURTH GROUP, pp. 433—452 ; Pastoral Epistles rejected, yet used by Renan, p. 433 ; external attestation, pp. 433 — 435 ; rejection by early heretics, p. 435 ; objections founded on — (i) their diction, p. 436 ; on (2) the controversies they deal with, pp. 436, 437 ; on (3) the difficulty of harmonizing them with the Acts, pp. 437, 438 ; their diction probably marks them as St. Paul's latest work, pp. 438, 439 ; their historical contents sug gest like conclusion, p. 440 ; they imply Paul's release from the imprisonment recorded in Acts, pp. 440 — 444 ; independent evidence of this release, pp. 442, 443 ; objections to late date, pp. 444, 445 ; internal evidence for 2 Timothy, pp. 446 — 452 ; its Pauline character, pp. 446 — 448 ; its details, pp. 448, 449 ; its genuineness carries with it that of I Timothy and Titus, pp. 451, 452 ; Kenan's estimate of all three, p. 452.

LECTURE XXI.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS . . . -453

Question of authorship, not of authenticity of Hebrews, p. 453. Use of it by Clement of Rome, pp. 453, 454. Accepted by whole Eastern Church as St. Paul's, pp. 454, 455. Testi mony of Clement of Alexandria, pp. 454, 455. View of Origen, pp. 455, 456. Western opinion adverse, pp. 456, 457. Ter- tullian ascribed it to Barnabas, pp. 457, 458. Reaction under Jerome and Augustine, p. 458. Evidence of MSS. and Ver sions, p. 459. Its canonicity well established, ib. Its anony- mousness, p. 460. Internal evidence for and against Pauline authorship, pp. 460 — 465 ; individual passages, pp. 460 — 462 ; its doctrine Pauline, p. 462 ; it uses Pauline language and mannerisms, pp. 462, 463 ; its O. T. citations, p. 463 ; its Alexandrian colouring, p. 464 ; its general style un-Pauline, pp. 464, 465. Conjectures as to authorship, pp. 465, 466 ; con siderations in favour of ascription to Barnabas, pp. 466 — 468. Probably addressed to Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, pp. 468 — 471. "Written from Italy, p. 471. Lower limit of date, p. 472 ; upper limit doubtful, pp. 472, 473. Note on the Codex Claromontanus, p. 473.

CONTENTS. XXI

LECTURE XXII.

Page THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER . . . .475

Eusebius's classification of N. T. Books, pp. 475, 476. Ex ternal attestations of / Peter, pp. 477, 478 ; it is included in all Canons except the Muratorian, p. 478. Internal difficulties alleged against it, pp. 479, 480. "Written while Christians were liable to be punished as such, p. 480. It contradicts Baur's views of early Church history, pp. 480, 481. Its Paulinism of doctrine, p. 481. Place of composition, 'Babylon,' pp. 481 — 484. Roman martyrdom of Peter, p. 484. Addressed to Chris tians dispersed in Pontus, &c., p. 485. Its coincidences with Romans, pp. 485, 486 ; with Ephesians, pp. 486 — 489. Seufert's theory, p. 488. Its coincidences with Epistle of James, p. 489. Its originality and individuality, pp. 490, 491.

LECTURE XXIII. THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES 492

This Epistle classed by Eusebius among ' Antilegomena,' p. 492. The ' Seven Catholic Epistles,' ib. ; evidence of Origen concerning it, p. 493 ; of Clement of Alexandria, pp. 493, 494 ; of Hermas, pp. 494, 495 ; probably of Clement of Rome, p. 495 ; of Irenseus, p. 496 ; other authorities, ib. Internal evi dence, pp. 497 — 501. James, 'The Lord's Brother,' first Bishop of Jerusalem, p. 497 ; probability of the usual ascrip tion of the Epistle to him, pp. 497, 498. Written for Christian Jews, p. 498 ; probably residents in Syria, p. 499. The author a personal follower of our Lord, pp. 500, 501 ; wrote before fall of Jerusalem, pp. 501, 502 ; his picture of the Jews confirmed by Josephus, p. 502. Other internal evidences of early date, pp. 503, 504 ; its doctrine not anti-Pauline, pp. 505 — 506 ; its silence as to disputes of Paul's time, p. 506 ; late date assigned to it by sceptical school, p. 507. Purity of its Greek, 508; its verbal coincidences with Romans, pp. 509, 510. Its substan tial agreement with Paul's doctrine, ib. ; its teaching closely akin to O. T. Prophets, p. 510 ; but not merely Judaic, pp. 511, 512. Character of the author as shown in it, p. 513; its moral precepts, ib. ; moral effects of Christian teaching, PP- 5 Hi 5r5- This Epistle why placed first of the Catholic Epistles, p. 515.

XX11 CONTENTS.

LECTURE XXIV.

Page

THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE ... . .516

Historical attestation of the books of N. T. unequal, p. 516; a few of them were doubted by critics in fourth century, p. 518. Cause of the, scantiness of attestation of Epistles of James and Jude, pp. 518, 519; of the two, Jude's has better external attestation, p. 519 ; especially in the West, p. 520. Jude, one of 'the Lord's brethren,' p. 521; tradition concerning his grandsons preserved by Hegesippus, ib. • doubt whether he was of the Twelve, p. 522 ; what we are to understand by 'Brethren of our Lord,' pp. 522, 523. Date of the Epistle, p. 523 ; against whom were its censures directed ? pp. 524, 525. Its use of Jewish Apocrypha, pp. 525 — 528; the 'Assumption of Moses,' pp. 525, 526; the 'Book of Enoch,' pp. 527, 528. The Syriac translation of the Catholic Epistles, p. 528.

LECTURE XXV.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER . . .529

Doubts in the Church of the authority of this Epistle, pp. 529, 530. Early opinion unfavourable to it and other of the ' Catho lic' Epistles, pp. 530, 531. General acceptance attained by them all, p. 531. Question reopened at the Reformation, ib. Opinion of Epiphanius favourable, p. 532 ; inconsistency of Jerome, ib. ; and of Didymus, ib. Evidence of MSS. and Canons, p. 533. Opinion of Origen, ib. ; of Firmilian, p. 534. Old Latin Version, ib. Doubtful use of this Epistle by Clement of Alexandria, ib. ; by Irenseus, pp. 535, 536 ; its use by pseudo-Clement, 536; by Theophilus of Antioch, p. 537. Pre diction in this Epistle of the destruction of the world by fire, PP- 537> 538- This destruction^early became a point of Chris tian belief, p. 537. Use of 2 Peter in so-called Second Epistle of Clement, p. 538. Doubtful use of 2 Peter by Hernias and Clement of Rome, ib.. Its acceptance far short of that of / Peter, ib. Grotius's theory, 539. The author claims to be Peter, ib. ; if not Peter, is a forger, p. 540 ; this alternative must be faced, 541. Relation between 2 Peter and Jude, pp. 542, 543. Difference of style between / and 2 Peter, pp. 543, 544; points of resemblance between them, pp. 544, 545. Coincidences of 2 Peter with Petrine speeches in Acts, p. 545.

CONTENTS. XX111

Page

Dr. Edwin Abbott's attack on 2 Peter, pp. 545—558. Its un- worthiness of style, pp. 545 — 547- 'Baboo' Greek, p. 545. Defects in its Greek are natural, if it was written by a Palesti nian Jew, p. 546 ; but cannot affect the question of its genuine ness, pp. 546, 547. Its faults of style not discovered by the Greek Fathers, 546. Its alleged borrowings from Josephus, ppm 547 — 558. Difficulties in accepting the Petrine authorship, p. 547. Archdeacon Farrar's opinion, pp. 548, 549. Alleged coincidences with Josephus merely verbal, p. 549. Not within brief compass, p. 550 ; nor in same sequence, ib. ; nor do they occur in the case of unusual words, p. 551. No N. T. writer keeps within the limits of Biblical language, ib. The Greek of Philo, pp. 552 — 555. Discussion of the words and combinations relied on by Dr. Abbott, pp. 554, 555. Coinci dences with Philo's writings found in / Peter, p. 557; also elsewhere in N. T., ib. Result of examination of Dr. Abbott's criticism, p. 558. Newly-discovered Stichometry, p. 559.

LECTURE XXVI. NON-CANONICAL BOOKS 560

The Apocalypse of Peter, pp. 560 — 564. Recognized1 in the Muratorian Fragment, p. 560 ; quotations from it by Clement of Alexandria, ib. ; and by Macarius, p. 561. Its use not quite extinct in the fifth century, p. 562. Whether included in the Sinaitic MS., p. 563 ; the Psalms of Solomon, ib. Conjectural ascription of passages to this Apocalypse, p. 564 ; other Apocalypses, ib. The Epistle of Barnabas, pp. 565 — 572. External attestation, pp. 565, 566. Impossibility of accepting some of the contents as inspired, pp. 566, 567. Whether it would be possible to acknowledge its Apostolic origin and deny its inspiration, p. 568 ; attitude of the writer towards Judaism, p. 569; date of the Epistle, 570; to what Church addressed, p. 571. The Epistle to Clement, pp. 572 — 579. Written in the name of the Church of Rome, p. 572. Import ance of the Bishop of Rome merged in the importance of his Church, ib. Proofs of the early use of the Epistle, p. 573 ; date of the letter, p. 574 ; varying accounts of the order of the first Roman bishops, p. 575. No good reason for doubting that Clement was really at the head of the Roman Church, ib. Whether the Church of Corinth was in his time governed by a single person, p. 576; extreme amount of disorder in Corinth, ib. The prayer of Manasses, ib. Bearing of Clement's letter on

XXIV CONTENTS.

the question of Roman supremacy, p. 577 ; Clement a Jew, ib. ; authorities for the text of Clement, p. 578. The Second Epistle of Clement, ib. The Shepherd of Hermas, pp. 579— 593- External testimony, pp. 579, 580. Disuse of non-Canonical writings after rise of Montanism, p. 579. Tertullian and the Shepherd, p. 580. Contents of the Shepherd, p. 581. The date of Hermas, p. 582. The book written in good faith, pp. 583, 584 ; and accepted as a record of real revelations, p. 586 ; written in the Episcopate of Clement, p. 587. Rejection of Muratoriaii account, p. 589. Lightfoot's hypothesis that the original of this fragment was in verse, p. 590. Church organi zation in the time of Hermas, p. 591. Prophets in the early Church, p. 592. Hermas belonged to this order, ib. ; whether he was a Jew, p. 594. Hermas and Theodotion, pp. 594 — 608. The ' Thegri' of Hermas explained by Mr. Rendel Harris from Dan. vi. 22, p. 594. Dr. Hort's further inference, ib. Preliminary consideration unfavourable to his inference, p. 595. Greek translations of the Old Testament, pp. 595 — 599. Theo- dotion's version of Daniel used in the Christian Church, pp. 596, 597- Epiphanius's account of Greek translations not trustworthy, p. 598. Theodotion's version in use before the time of Irenseus, p. 599. The version used by Hippolytus, Clement, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, respectively, p. 600. 'A silent rejection of the Septuagint not probable, p. 602. Reasons for believing that there had been a previous version, p. 603. Characteristics of the Chisian Daniel, ib. ; its affinities with the Apocryphal Esdras, ib. Did the New Testament writers make use of the Chisian version ? p. 604. Neither Clement of Rome nor Baruch recognize it, p. 607. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, pp. 609—625. External testimony, p. 609. The 'Church Ordinances,' p. 610. Barnabas and the ' Two Ways,' p. 6 1 1 . The Western form of the « Two Ways,' ib. Krawutzcky's theory, p. 612. Bryennius's 'Teaching of the Apostles,' ib. ; its account of Church organization, p. 613. Whether the author was an Ebionite, p. 615. Relations of the Didache to Barnabas and Hermas, p. 616. Dr. Taylor on the Didache, ib. Hypothesis that the Didache is founded on a pre- Christian manual for the instruction of proselytes, p. 617. Re lations of the Didache to Barnabas, p. 618 ; and to Hermas, p. 619 ; Western form of the book, ib. Whether the Didache in its present form had early circulation in the East, p. 621 ; how much of it may be referred to a pre-Christian model, p. 622 ; its instructions about baptism, ib. ; on prayer, p. 623 ; on the Eucharist, ib. ; the last chapter, p. 624; whether known to Origen, ib.

INTRODUCTORY.

PART I .

PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION.

THE subject appointed for our Lectures this Term is The Bible ; but that opens up a field so wide, that to treat adequately of all that it is desirable should be known about it would give us employment, not for one Term, but for several years. Last year you attended Lectures on Natural Religion and on Christian Evidences. I assume that you then went through the proofs that there is a God ; that there is no impossibility in His revealing His will to His creatures, using miracle or prophecy as credentials to authenticate His message ; and that you went through the proofs of our Lord's divine mission, establishing the conclusion that He was the bearer to the world of a revelation from God. Then, in logical order, follows the question, How is that revelation to be known to us ? what are the books that record it ? — in other words : What is the Canon of Scripture ?

In this investigation the determination of the New Testa ment Canon comes before that of the Old. We must first determine what the books are which contain authentic records of the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles ; because we can then use their testimony to the older books, which they reverenced as divinely inspired. Next after the question of the Canon comes that of Biblical Criticism. Supposing it to be established that certain books were written, containing an authoritative record of Divine revelations, we have still to

B

2 INTRODUCTORY. [l.

inquire whether those books have come down safely to us — how we are to remove all the errors which may have accumu lated during the process of transcription in many centuries, and so restore the texts to their original purity. Perhaps here might follow questions concerning the Translation of these texts, for without translation books written in Hebrew and Greek cannot be made available for the instruction of our people. At any rate, we have to consider questions con cerning the Interpretation of these books. May we follow the same rules as we do in interpreting any ordinary book, and be satisfied in each case with that plain meaning which it seems the writer intended ; or does the fact that the books are divine — that the real author is ngLman, but God ; that there may, therefore, often be a meaning unknown even to the human agent who was commissioned to write the words — oblige us to employ special methods of interpretation in order to discover the deeper spiritual meaning ? And, lastly, we must inquire what is involved in the Divine Inspiration we ascribe to these books. Does it exclude the supposition of the smallest inaccuracy being found in them in science, history, moral or religious teaching ? If we admit the possibility of any such inaccuracy, can we put any limits to our concession ?

The subjects I have named — the Canon, the Criticism, the Interpretation of our books, and the question of their Inspiration — are by no means all that might be discussed in treating of the Bible ; yet these alone form a programme to which it is impossible to do justice in the time at my disposal, and in practice I have found that, with whatever subject I begin, I am obliged, if I wish to treat it at all adequately, to crowd out nearly all the rest. At present I am about to take up the subject which seems in logical order the first — the question what books contain the authentic record of the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles — in other words, the question of the New Testament Canon.

I wish to keep the question I have named quite clear of any discussion as to the Inspiration of the sacred books, such discussion plainly belonging to a later stage of the investi gation. I wish to examine into the evidence for the genuine ness and authenticity of the books of the Bible in the same

I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 3

way as in the case of any ordinary books. It is clearly one question : At what date and by what authors were certain books written ? And quite another question : Is there reason to believe that the authors of these books were aided by supernatural guidance, and if so, what was the nature and extent of that supernatural assistance ? The former is, as we shall presently see, a question of vital importance in the controversy between Christians and unbelievers ; the latter is one internal among Christians, and only admits of discussion among those who are already convinced of the historic credibility of the New Testament books, and who, because they believe what these books relate about Jesus of Nazareth, find no difficulty in believing also that He endowed with special powers those whom He commissioned to write the revelation which He brought into the world.

I make these remarks at the outset, because it enables us at once to set aside certain topics as irrelevant to the present investigation. Suppose, for example, it be alleged that there are plain contradictions between the first Gospel and the fourth ; if we were engaged in an inquiry as to the Inspiration of the Gospels, it would be of the utmost im portance to examine whether and how far this allegation is true. But it may be quite possible to set it aside as entirely irrelevant, when we are only inquiring whether or not both Gospels were written by Apostles, It is the constant ex perience of anyone who has ever engaged in historical investigation to have to reconcile contradictions between his authorities ; but such contradictions must reach a high point in number and gravity before they suggest a suspicion that the opposing statements do not both proceed, 'as they profess to do, from persons having a first-hand knowledge of the matters about which they write.

I have just said that I wish to investigate the genuineness , and authenticity of the books of the Bible in the same way; as we should in the case of any uninspired book. But we are not quite permitted to do so. Those who would approve of interpreting the Bible according to the same rules by which we should interpret any other book apply very different rules in determining the authorship of its parts from what are used

B 2

4 INTRODUCTORY. [l.

in the case of other books. If we were to apply to the re mains of classical literature the same rigour of scrutiny that is used towards the New Testament, there are but few of them that could stand the test. There are many of you who count as good classical scholars, who have always received with simple faith that what you read in your printed books is the work of the author to whom it is commonly ascribed, and have never applied your minds to consider what answer you could give to anyone who should deny it. You are very familiar, for instance, with Horace. Do you know what interval separates the oldest manuscript of his works from the age of Augustus, in which the poet is said to have lived ? Can you fill up the gap by quotations from ancient authors ? Do you know what ancient authors mention him or quote his poems ? Can you tell how far the earliest quotation is separated in time from the poet himself? Can you tell what extent of his writings is covered by quotations ? Can you give separate proofs for each book of the Odes, of the Satires and Epistles, and for the Art of Poetry ? And if you are able to give a proof for every book, can you meet the requirements of a more severe critic, who might demand a distinct proof of the Horatian origin of every ode of every book ? I suppose the chances are that you would not at tempt to answer these questions ; because, though you pro bably have heard of the theory of the Jesuit Hardouin, that the Odes of Horace and other classical books were written by Benedictine monks in the dark ages, it is not likely that | you have given that theory a serious thought. Yet, if we ) were called on to refute it, by producing quotations from the Odes by any writer who lived within two centuries of the poet's death (and later testimony than that would not be thought worth looking at in the case of a New Testament book), we should be able to make only a very unsatisfactory reply. One example is often cited to show how little this kind of investigation is in practice judged to be necessary. The Roman History of Velleius Paterculus has come down to us in a single very corrupt manuscript, and the book is only once quoted by Priscian, a grammarian of the sixth century ; yet no one entertains the smallest doubt of its

I.J PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 5

genuineness.* The first six books of the Annals of Tacitus are also known to us only through a single manuscript which came to light in the fifteenth century. Not long ago an elaborate attempt was made to show that all the books of the Annals were forged in that century by an Italian scholar, Poggio. And it was asserted that 'no clear and definite! allusion to the Annals can be found until the first half of the fifteenth century.' The latest editor of the Annals, Mr. Furneaux, is what, if the subject of his labours were a New Testament book, would be called an 'apologist': that is to say, he believes that the traditional doctrine as to the authorship is true, and that the supposed discovery of forgery is a mare's nest ; yet, in answer to the assertion just quoted, he can only produce one allusion, by no means ' clear and definite,' and that of a date 300 years later than the historian. Thus you see that if the external testimony to the New Testament books, which I shall discuss in future lectures, had not been forthcoming, we might still have good reason for holding fast to the traditional theory of their authorship. But where external proof is most abundant in the case of profane authors, it falls considerably short of what can be produced in support of the chief books of the New Testament.

The reason, however, why a more stringent test is applied i to our books is on account of their contents, namely, because the books contain accounts of miracles and what purport to be prophecies. Now, at first sight, it appears unreasonable to allow this consideration to enter when we are discussing the authorship of books. The works of Livy contain ac counts of prodigies which I may perhaps think Livy credu lous for believing, yet I am not on that account in the' slightest degree inclined to doubt that Livy was the author f of the history which bears his name. Still more does the remark apply to the accounts of miracles which swarm in the writings of the monkish historians. I disbelieve the miracles, but I make no question that the histories which relate those

* This case is discussed in the controversy between Boyle and Bentley about the Epistles of Phalaris.

6 INTRODUCTORY. [l.

miracles were written by the authors to whom they are ascribed. But here is the pinch of the matter. These miraculous tales to which I refer relate for the most part to events which the narrators represent as having occurred a long time before their own date. When honest and in telligent men relate things of which they have personal knowledge, as a general rule we do not find them telling of anything miraculous. In short, it is only throwing into other words the statement that a miracle is an exceptionjo the ordinary course of nature, to say that an account of a miracle is not likely to occur in true hisjpry, and therefore that, if we meet with such an account, it is likely to proceed from persons not truthful or not well informed. So it is a canon of criticism that stories embellished with miraculous ornaments are distant in time from the age in which the scene is laid. Troy may have been really taken ; Achilles and Agamemnon may have been real persons ; but when we read in the Iliad of gods and goddesses taking part in the battles round the city, this in itself is reason enough to suspect that Homer lived at such a distance from the events which he relates as permitted him to imagine the men of former days to be very different from * such as mortals now are,' so that things might have happened to them unparalleled in his own experience. On these principles, then, it is contended that our sacred books, from the mere fact of their containing stories of miracles, are shown not to be the work of contemporaries.

If there is one narrative of the New Testament which more than another contains internal proof of having been related by an eye-witness, it is the account of the voyage and ship wreck of St. Paul. I recommend to your attention the very 'interesting monograph of Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill, who himself sailed over the entire course, and by a multitude of minute coincidences verified the accuracy of St. Luke's narrative. Yet, because the story tells of miracles performed in the island on which Paul was cast, it has been supposed, without the smallest reason of any other kind, that these things must have been added by a later hand.*

* Davidson, for instance, says (' Introduction to the New Testament/ II. 134) : 'The description of the voyage and shipwreck of Paul on his

I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 7

The same things may be said as to the prophecies which our sacred books contain. In judging of an ordinary book there is no more certain canon of criticism than that the book is later than the latest person named in it, or the last event described in it. If we read a book which contained mention of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel and of the battle of Waterloo, it would take an amazing amount of evidence to convince us that the book was written in the reign of Queen Anne. It is by taking notice of anachronisms of this kind that the spuriousness has been proved of works which had imposed on an uncritical age ; as, for example, the ' Epistles of Phalaris,' which were exposed in Bentley's'i famous essay, or the Decretal Epistles, purporting to be-' written by the early Bishops of Rome, on which so much of./ the fabric of Roman supremacy has been built. Well, the same principles of criticism have been freely applied to our sacred books. Porphyry contended that the prophecy of Daniel must have been written by some one who lived later than Antiochus Epiphanes, who is clearly described in the book : the latter half of Isaiah, it is urged, must be later than Cyrus : the Gospel of St. Luke must be later than the Destruc tion of Jerusalem, which it describes as to be ' trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,' showing, it is said, that the writer not only lived after the siege, but so long after as to have known that Jerusalem remained for a considerable time in a condition of abiding desolation.

Now, I have intimated in what I have said that I am ready, within reasonable limits, to adopt the canons of criti cism to which I have referred. But I cannot admit them to be applicable without exception. Miraculous embellishments

way to Rome is minute and accurate, proceeding from an eye-witness, in A few notices here and there betray a later hand, especially those which llj are framed to show the wonder-working power of the Apostle, such as ||| xxviii. 3-5, 8, 9.'

Dr. S. Davidson, for some time Professor in the Lancashire Indepen- •., dent College, published an Introduction to the New Testament, in three I/I volumes, 1848-51. In this the main lines of traditional opinion were III followed ; but his views show a complete alteration in the new Introduc- II tion, in two volumes, which he published in 1868. My quotation is from"' the second edition of the later book, published in 1882.

8 INTRODUCTORY. [l.

may be a ground for suspecting that the narrative is not con temporaneous with the events ; but if it is asserted that mira culous stones are never told by men contemporary with the things related, that certainly is not true. I have, at different times, read in periodicals accounts of spiritual manifestations which I entirely disbelieve, yet in many cases impute to the narrators no wilful intention to deceive, nor do I doubt that they were, as they profess, actually present at the scenes they describe. The Life of St. Martin of Tours, by his friend Sul- Apicius Severus, is full of the supernatural. I do not find that any of those who refuse to believe in the miraculous stories attempt to justify their disbelief by maintaining that Sul- picius was not the author of the Life. These are instances of what I reckon as false miracles ; but the course of lectures of last year must have been a failure if they did not establish that true miracles, though from the nature of the case_not_of common occurrence, are still possible. If so, when they actually do occur, the witnesses of them may relate them in true histories. In short, if miracle and prophecy be impos sible, there is an end of the whole matter. Your faith is vain, and our teaching is vain.

Now, this principle, namely, the absolute impossibility of miracle, is the basis of the investigations of the school, some of whose results must be examined in this course of lectures, j Two of its leading writers, Strauss and Renan, in their pre faces, make the absolute rejection of the supernatural the foundation of their whole structure. Renan* (p. Hi.) declares that he will accept a miracle as proved only if it is found that it will succeed on repetition, forgetting that in this case it would not be a miracle at all, but a newly-discovered natural

*The first edition of the 'Vie de Jesus par Ernest Renan' was published in 1863. It was followed by six successive volumes, relating the history of the ' Origines du Christianisme ' : that is to say, the formation and early history of the Christian Church. The last volume, bringing the history down to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, was published in 1882. The refe rences in these lectures are usually to an 1863 edition of the 'Life of Jesus,' which alone was available when they were written. It has not been necessary for my purpose to examine minutely the modifications introduced into later editions, because the changes in Kenan's views are sufficiently indicated in the later volumes of his series.

I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 9

law. Strauss,* equally, in his preface (p. xv) declares it to be his fundamental principle that there was nothing supernatural in the person or work of Jesus. The same thing may be said about a book which made some sensation on its publication a few years ago, ' Supernatural Religion.'! The extreme cap- tiousness of its criticism found no approval from respectable foreign reviewers, however little they might be entitled to be classed as believers in Revelation. Dates were assigned in it to some of our New Testament books so late as to shock

* D. F. Strauss (1808-1874), a pupil of Baur, published, in 1835, his * Life of Jesus,' the mythical theory propounded in which gave rise to much controversy, and stimulated other attempts to disprove the historic credi bility of the Gospel narratives. The book had rather fallen into oblivion when, in 1864, Strauss, availing himself of the labours of those who had written in the interval, published a new ' Life of Jesus,' * for the German, people.' It is to this popular Life that I refer in the text. In 1872, Strauss broke completely with Christianity, in a book called ' The Old Faith and the New.'

t This book, published, vols. i. and ii. in 1874, vo1- m- in I^77» obtained a good deal of notoriety by dint of enormous puffing, great pains having been taken to produce a belief that Bishop Thirlwall was the author. The aspect of the pages, bristling with learned references, strengthened the impression that the author must be a scholar of immense reading. The windbag collapsed when Lightfoot showed that this supposed Bishop Thirlwall did not possess even a schoolboy acquaintance with Greek and Latin, and that his references were in some cases borrowed wholesale, in others did not prove the things for which they were cited, and very often appealed to writers whose opinion is of no value. But what I wish here to remark is, that what really made the book worthless was not its want of scholarship, but its want of candour. An indifferent scholar, if he were industrious and honest, and, I must add, modest enough not to find fault with the translations of better scholars than himself, might compile a book which would only need the removal of some surface errors to be a really valu able contribution to knowledge. But want of candour vitiates abook through and through. There is no profit in examining the conclusions arrived at by a writer who never seems to care on which side lies the balance of his toric probability, but only which conclusion will be most disagreeable to the assertors of the supernatural. For myself, I find instruction in studying the results arrived at by an inquirer who strives to be candid, whether he be orthodox or not ; but I have little curiosity to find out the exact amount of evidence which would leave a captious objector without a word to say in justification of his refusal to admit it.

Lightfoot' s answers to ' Supeniatural Religion' appeared in the Con temporary Review, December, 1874 '•> January, February, May, August, October, 1875 ; February and August, 1876 ; May, 1877. In addition to their temporary object of refutation, these articles contain so much of per manent value on the criticism of the remains of the second century, that the announcement is welcome that they are at length to be republished.

' Supernatural Religion ' has also been dealt with by Westcott in a Preface to the later editions of his ' New Testament Canon.'

10

INTRODUCTORY.

[l.

(sen*

^

V

/*&

ft'

anyone who makes an attempt fairly to judge of evidence. And the reason is, that the author starts with the denial of the supernatural as his fixed principle. If that principle be, in his eyes, once threatened, all ordinary laws of probability must give way. It is necessary at the outset to call your attention to this fundamental principle of our opponents, because it explains their seeming want of candour ; why it is that they are so unreasonably rigorous in their demands of proof of the authenticity of our books ; why they meet with evasions proofs that seem to be demonstrative. It is because, to their minds, any solution of a difficulty is more probable than one which would concede that a miracle had really occurred.

Now, it has become more and more plain that, if it be granted that our Gospels were written by the persons to whom they are ascribed, two of whom were Apostles, men who had personal knowledge of the things which they relate, and whose whole narrative bears the impress of honesty, then the reality of miracles necessarily follows. No one has proved /fc this more clearly than Strauss. He has conclusively shown that anyone who has determined to begin by asserting the absolute impossibility of miracle cannot come with a per- fectly unbiassed mind to investigate the history of our sacred books, because an acceptance of the traditional account of their origin would be absolutely fatal to this first principle. Strauss begins his latest work on the life of Jesus by criticiz ing the works of his predecessors, who were as disinclined as himself to admit the reality of miracles, and who yet accepted the traditional account of the authorship of the Gospels ; and he shows that every one of them failed, and could not help failing, to maintain this inconsistent position. Paulus* may serve as a specimen of writers of this class. He receives the Gospel narratives as in some sense true ; the Evangelists do not intend to deceive ; they tell things that really occurred, but through an error of judgment they represent incidents as miraculous which -in truth are capable of a natural explana-

* Paulus (1761-1851), Professor, first at Jena, afterwards at Heidelberg, published his ' Commentary on the New Testament,' 1800-1804, and his ' Life of Jesus' in 1828.

I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. I r

tion. For example, according to him, there was nothing miraculous in Christ's feeding of the multitude. But the example of Christ and His Apostles freely distributing their scanty store among the people shamed all the rest into pro ducing and sharing with their neighbours what they had secretly brought each for himself; and so all were filled, and supposed there had been something supernatural in the mul tiplication of the food. Similarly, Paulus does not deny that our Lord seemed to walk on the water ; but, since of course He could not really have done so, he concludes that He walked on the bank of the lake, where, through an optical delusion, his movements conveyed a false impression to the spectators. He so far believes the story of the announce ment by an angel of the Saviour's Incarnation as to concede that the Virgin Mary truly told that a stranger had come in to her with this message, who represented himself to be the angel Gabriel ; but since this could not possibly be true, we must conclude that the messenger was an impostor. These few specimens are enough to give you an idea of the mass of improbabilities and absurdities which are accumulated in the working out of this scheme, so that we may fairly say that the history, as Paulus tells it, is a more miraculous one than if we take the Gospel narratives in their literal sense. It is unnecessary for me to waste words in exposing these absurdi ties, because no one has a more lively sense than Strauss himself of the failure of the attempts of his predecessors to write a non-miraculous life of Jesus ; and he owns distinctly that, if the historical character of the Gospels be ever con ceded, it will be impossible to eliminate miracle from the life of Christ.*

Strauss's own solution, you no doubt know, was to deny that the Gospels are historical. According to him, they arejj not written by eye-witnesses of the things related, but are| legends put together at a considerable interval of time after'' the supposed events. How Jesus of Nazareth succeeded in collecting a number of disciples, and in inspiring them

* ' Sind die Evangelien wirklich geschichtliche Urkunden, so 1st das Wunder aus der Lebensgeschichte Jesu nicht zu entfernen.' — Leben Jesu+ p. 17.

1 2

INTRODUCTORY. [l.

with a persuasion, not to be shaken by the unhappy end of his life, that he was the promised Messiah, Strauss very imperfectly explains. But his theory is, that a community of Jewish Christians arose who somehow or another had come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and who had all from childhood been brought up in the belief that the Messiah was to have certain distinguishing marks, that he was to be born in Bethlehem, and soforth ; that then stories circulated among them purporting to show how Jesus actually did all that according to their notions he ought to have done ; and that these stories, being in perfect accordance with their preconceived notions, when once started were readily believed, and in simple faith passed on from one to another, until in process of time they came to be recorded in the Gospels. It is not the business of this Term to expose the weakness of this theory ; and, indeed, Strauss himself appears to have become sensible what a difficult task he had set himself when he undertook to deny the truth of the Gospel histories, and yet clear the historians of conscious imposture. Certainly, there is a very perceptible shifting of ground from his original work, published in 1835, in the new popular version brought out for the use of the German people in the year 1864. But common to both is the principle of the absolute rejection of the supernatural ; and this I single out because the investiga tion in which I wish to engage you proceeds on an opposite plan, and therefore will naturally lead to a different result. My investigation aims at being purely historical. It refuses to be dominated by any philosophical or pseudo-philosophical principle. I wish to examine the evidence for the date of the Christian books on the same principles on which I would act if they were ordinary profane histories, without allowing myself to be prejudiced for or against them by a knowledge of their contents, or by fear of consequences which I shall be forced to admit if I own these works to be genuine. For I^P not hold our present experience to be the absolute rule and measure of all possibilities future and past ; nor do I deem it so incredible that God should reveal Himself to His creatures, as to refuse to listen to all evidence for such a fact when it is offered.

II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. I J

II.

PART II.

BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY.

In his new Life of Jesus, Strauss has greatly availed himself of the labours of Baur* and of the school founded by him, called sometimes, from his place of residence, the Tubingen school, or, from the nature of their theories, the Tendency school. It will be advisable to give you, by way of preface to our course, some short account of these theories : not only because of the wide acceptance they have met with from writers of the sceptical school both in Germany and of later years in England, but also because the view which they present of the history of the early Church affects the credit to be given to the testimony of that Church concerning our sacred literature. There is no use in calling a witness without making an attempt to remove prejudices which you know to be entertained, whether against his honesty or his means of information. Therefore, before producing to you evidence as to the reception of the Gospels by the early Church, it is expedient to inquire whether certain speculations are de serving of regard, which represent that Church as having altered so much and so rapidly from its original form, as to be put under a strong temptation to falsify the documents which relate its early history. According to Baur, our booksMj are not the innocent, purposeless collection of legendary tales/I for which the disciples of Strauss might take them ; all, even! those which seem least artful, are put together with a pur-)/ pose, and have a ' tendency' Just as of Mr. Dickens's novels, one is intended to expose the abuses of the Poor Law system,

* F. C. Baur (1792-1860) published in the Tubingen ' Zeitschrift' for 1831, a paper on the Christ-party in the Church of Corinth, which con tained the germs of the theory of which an account is given in the text. The fully developed theory was given in his 'Paulus,' published in 1845.

14 INTRODUCTORY. [ll.

another of the Court of Chancery, another of Ecclesiastical Courts, and so forth; so each of the Christian books, how ever innocently it may seem to profess to give straightforward narrative, is really written with a secret design to inculcate certain dogmatic views.

But what are these dogmatic views ? To answer this we must expound the history which Baur gives of the early progress of Christianity. He manufactured it mainly out of his own notions of the fitness of things, with very slender support from external authority ; and it has obliged him to condemn as forged or interpolated the great mass of exist ing ancient documents, since they are so perverse as not to be reconcilable with the critic's theory. The main pillar of the theory is a work of by no means great antiquity as com pared with the others which are to be discussed in this course of lectures, being not older than the very end of the second century. I speak of the spurious literature attributed to Clement of Rome, a favourite character with the manufac turers of apocryphal literature in the second or third century. The history of these writings is so remarkable, that I cannot employ a few minutes better than in giving you some account of them. The work originated among the Ebionites, or Jewish-Christian heretical sects. In its earliest form it contained discourses ascribed to the Apostle Peter, both in controversy with heathen, and also with heretics, of whom Simon Magus was made the representative and spokesman. This work underwent a great variety of recastings. It is doubtful whether Clement was introduced into the very earliest form of it ; but he was certainly, at a comparatively early date, made the narrator of the story ; and the account of Clement's history gradually grew into a little romance, which, no doubt, greatly helped the popularity of the work. Clement tells how he had been brought up as a rich orphan at Rome, his parents having been lost in his early childhood. He gives an affecting account of his search for religious truth, which he seeks in vain among the schools of the philosophers, but there finds nothing but strife and uncertainty. At last news is brought to Rome of the appearance of a wonder working prophet in Palestine. Clement sails in search of

II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 15

him, arrives after the death of Jesus, but meets Peter, and is instructed and converted by him. Travelling about with Peter, he finds first his mother, then his brothers, then his father ; and it is from these successive recognitions that the work called the ' Clementine Recognitions ' takes its name. This is one of two forms in which the work is still extant ; the other, called the ' Clementine Homilies,' being as respects the story substantially the same, but as respects the dis courses worked into it, and the doctrine contained in them, a good deal different. The ' Homilies ' contain the Ebionite doctrine in its strongest form ; in the ' Recognitions ' the repulsive features of Ebionitism are softened down, so as to make the book not altogether unfit for use among the ortho dox, and in fact the ' Recognitions ' are only preserved in a Latin translation made for the use of the orthodox by a Church writer, Rufinus. There is good evidence that another form, still more orthodox, which has not come down to us, was once in circulation. And though the heretical character of these Clementine writings was well known to the Fathers, who therefore rejected their doctrine, yet many of the things these writings tell about Peter passed into Church tradition. In particular, this Clementine literature has had a marvellous share in shaping the history of Christendom, by inventing the story that Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that he named Clement to succeed him in that See.

At the revival of learning these writings were at first treated with contumely as a good-for-nothing heretical fig ment. Long time passed before it was noted that, though the book be regarded as no more than a controversial novel, yet, dating as it does from the end of the second century, it must be a most valuable source of information as to the history and opinions of the sect from which it emanated. Baur, in particular, has called special attention to the anti-Paulinism of the work ; and it is quite true that when we look into it carefully, we find that Paul and his labours are passed ove in silence, Peter figuring as the Apostle of the Gentiles a well as of the Jews. In one passage in the ' Homilies ' the dislike of Paul passes the bounds of mere silence. For Simon Magus is described as ' withstanding Peter to the face,' and

16 INTRODUCTORY. [ll.

declaring that he was ' to be blamed.'* Many a reader might innocently overlook the malice of these expressions; but when attention is called to them, we can hardly deny that the coin cidence of language with that in the Epistle to the Galatians (ii. 1 1) leads to the surmise that under the character of Simon a reference to Paul is cloaked ; and that Paul is intended by the enemy, 6 e'x#/oos ai/0/ow7ros, who opposed St. Peter and St, James. We see also what interpretation is to be put on a controversy as to relative superiority between Simon Magus, who claims to have seen our Lord in vision, and Peter, who had actually seen Him in the flesh. It must be admitted that the writer shows a covert dislike to Paul; but we must remark, at the same time, that the obscurity with which he veils his assault on the Apostle shows plainly that he dared make no open attack, and that his views were, at that time, shared by no influential party in the Church.

But the Tubingen school pounced with avidity on this book. Here, they say, we have the key to the true history of the origin of Christianity. Epiphanius tells us that -the Ebionites rejected Paul's Epistles, and looked on him a,s__an apostate. This book, then, may be regarded as a specimen of the feelings towards Paul of an early section of the Christians. Baur's idea is, that in all this anti-Pauline rancour we have a ' survival ' of an earlier state of things, the memory of which had been lost, owing to its variance with the Church's sub sequent doctrine. At the beginning of the third century we have, in one corner of the Church, men who hate Paul with the utmost bitterness, though, in deference to the then general opinion, they are obliged to cloak their hatred under disguises. At the same time we have, in another corner of the Church, the Marcionites,f who recognize no Apostle but Paul, who utterly reject the Jewish religion and the Old

* In order that the coincidence with the Epistle to the Galatians may be more easily recognized, I adopt the language of the Authorized Version in translating (evavrios avdeffTrjicds /tot,5 'Kareyvuaufvov jue Ae'yets' (Horn. xvii. 19).

„ f The Chronicle of Edessa names A.D. 138 as the date of the rise of the heresy of Marcion, and this is probably as near the truth as we have the

, means of going. The heresy had reached formidable dimensions when Justin Martyr wrote his Apology.

II.]

BAUR S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY.

Testament, and who set aside all the earlier Apostles as of no authority. What, asks Baur, if these extreme views on both sides be not, as had been supposed, heretical develop ments, but survivals of a once general state of things ? Those who themselves hold our Lord to have been mere man find it natural to believe that this must have been the earliest belief of His followers. Consequently, the theory is that the whole Christian Church was originally Ebionite ; that Paul was a heresiarch, or introducer of novel doctrines violently con demned by the great mass of existing believers, of whose feelings towards Paul these Clementine writings are regarded as a fair specimen ; that the representations in the Acts of the Apostles that Paul was on good terms with the elder Apostles are altogether false, and that, on the contrary, the early Church consisted of two parties, Pauline and anti- Pauline, bitterly opposed to each other.

Such is the general outline of the theory ; but speculation has particularly run wild on the assault on Paul in the Cle mentines under the mask of Simon Magus. Sceptical critics jump at the conclusion that Simon Magus was the nickname under which Paul was generally known ; and some even go so far as to maintain that the account in Acts viii. is a covert libel on St. Paul, which St. Luke, notwithstanding his Paul- inism, has been so stupid as to perpetuate in his history ; Simon's offer of money to the Apostles representing Paul's attempt to bribe the other Apostles into recognition of his claims by the gift of money which he had collected for the poor saints at Jerusalem. I feel ashamed of repeating such nonsense ; but it is necessary that you should know the things that are said ; for you may meet these German dreams retailed as sober truth by sceptical writers in this country, many of whom imagine that it would be a confession of inability to keep pace with the progress of critical science, if they ventured to test, by English common sense, the suc cessive schemes by which German aspirants after fame seek to gain a reputation for ingenuity.

A more careful examination of the Clementines shows that they did not emanate from that body which opposed Paul in his lifetime. There appear, in fact, to have been two

c

18

INTRODUCTORY.

[II.

distinct kinds of Ebionites. One kind we may call Pharisaic Ebionites, who may be regarded as representing those who strove to combine the acknowledgment of the Messiahship, though not the Divinity, of Jesus with the maintenance of the full obligation of the Mosaic Law. They appear never to have been of much influence, and before long to have died out. But the Ebionites among whom the Clementines origi nated represented quite a different set of opinions, and appear to have been a continuation of the Jewish sect of the Essenes.* their doctrines was a fanatical horror of the rite of sacrifice, which they could not believe to have been divinely instituted. The whole Temple service was abomination in their eyes. They believed that the true prophet had ap peared in divers incarnations, Adam being the first, and Jesus the last. The story of the fall of Adam, of course, they rejected. And with these opinions it was necessary for them to reject great parts of the Old Testament. The Pentateuch alone was used by them, and of this large parts were cut out as interpolated. You will remember that Paley, in his ' Evidences,' quotes an apocryphal Gospel as ascribing to our Lord the saying, * Be_ ye goocLjnoney- changers.' This they interpreted as a direction not to be de ceived by the false coin which purported to be God's Word. This doctrine, of which the Clementine ' Homilies ' are full, would be as repulsive as Paul's own doctrine to the orthodox i Jews whom Paul had to encounter; and therefore, as I say, these Clementines have no pretence to date from the times, or to represent the feelings, of his first antagonists in the Christian Church. The true history of these people seems to have been that, after the destruction of the Temple at Jeru salem by Titus, some of the Essene communities, who lived on the other side of Jordan, and who knew that Jesus had predicted the destruction of that Temple to whose rites they always had been opposed, became willing to own Jesus to

* On these two kinds of Ebionites, see Lightfoot's ' Galatians,' p. 318. The Church History of the period is likely to be misunderstood if the identity of the latter kind with the Elkesaites is not perceived ; and if it is not recognized, how little claim these heretics have to represent any considerable body, even of Jewish Christians; and how late their origin was by their own confession.

II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 19

have been divinely sent, but retained a number of their own peculiar opinions. They appear to have made a few converts among the Jews dispersed by the fall of the capital, but not to have extended themselves very widely ; and it is not till the end of the second century, or the beginning of the third, that some of them made their way to Rome. They had among them some men of literary skill, enough at least to produce a forgery. Among the documents they brought to Rome, for instance, was one called the ' Book of Elkesai/ which pur ported to be a revelation of their peculiar doctrines, but for which, it is interesting to remark, no higher antiquity was claimed than the reign of Trajan, a time when all the Apostles were dead. They accounted for this late date by a theory that the ordinary rule of God's Providence was that error should come first, and that the truth which corrected it should be revealed later. An early book of theirs, ' The Preaching of Peter,' was improved, first into the form known as the

* Recognitions,' afterwards into the ' Homilies,' and was made to include these Elkesaite revelations. The making Simon Magus the representative of Pauline ideas has all the marks of being an after-thought. There is not a trace of it in the

* Recognitions,' through the whole of which, as well as in every part of the ' Homilies ' but the one already referred to, Simon is Simon and Paul is Paul. But, from the nature of the composition, the opinions which the writer means to combat must be put into the mouth of some of the characters in the story. When the object is to combat the doctrines of Marcion, Simon is made the exponent of these doctrines. But this furnishes no justification for the statement that there was a general practice of nicknaming Paul as Simon. As far as we can see, the author of the ' Recognitions ' is quite ignorant of it.

As the anti-Pauline party is judged of by the Ebionites of the second century, so the school of Marcion is supposed to represent the opposing party. Thus the Christian society is/i said to have included two schools — a Judaizing school and a Gnostic or philosophizing school — violently hostile to each! other. It is not exactly our experience that theological schisms heal up so rapidly and so completely that in fifty

C 2

20 INTRODUCTORY. [ll.

years no trace remains of them, nor even memory of their ex istence. But so, we are told, it happened in this case. And as in the process of time the bitterness of the dispute abated, arose the Catholic Church, in which both Peter and Paul were held in honour ; and then were attempts made to throw a veil over the early dissensions, and to represent the first preachers of Christianity as at unity among themselves.

It remains to test this whole theory of the conflict of Pau line and anti-Pauline parties in the early Church by compari son with the documentary evidence ; and the result is that it bears the test very ill, so much so that, in order to save his theory from destruction, Baur has been obliged to make a tolerably clean sweep of the documents. In four of Paul's Epistles some symptoms may be found which can be inter preted as exhibiting feelings of jealousy or soreness towards the elder Apostles. But there is nothing of the kind in the other nine. The genuineness of these, therefore, must be denied. The Acts of the Apostles represent Paul as on most friendly terms with Peter and James, and these Apostles as taking his side in the controversy as to imposing Judaism on the Gentiles. The Acts, therefore, cannot be true history. Not only the discourses ascribed to Peter in the Acts, but the

i first Epistle, which the ancient Church unanimously accepted as Peter's, is thoroughly Pauline in doctrine. We must,

i therefore, disregard ancient testimony, and reject the Epistle. The earliest uninspired Christian document, the Epistle of Clement of Rome, confessedly belongs to the conciliatory Peter and Paul being placed in it on equal terms of reverence and honour. It, too, must be discarded. So, in like manner, go the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, the former of whom writes to the Romans (ch. v.), * I do not pretend to command you, like Peter or Paul.'

Now, it is very easy to make a theory on any subject if we are at liberty to sweep away all facts which will not fall in with it. By this method the Elkesaites were able to maintain that the Old Testament did not sanction the right of sacrifice, and Marcion that the New Testament did not recognize the God of the Jews. But one has a right to suspect any theorizer if, in order to clear the ground for a foundation for his theory,

II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 21

he has to begin by getting rid of the previously accepted facts. So it is a presumption against this theory of Baur's, that we find him forced to get rid of nearly all the documents purporting to come from the Apostolic age, because, notwith standing that they have been searched with microscopic minuteness for instances of Pauline and anti-Pauline rancour, scarcely anything of the kind can be found. I will give a specimen or two of these supposed instances, which will enable you to appreciate the amazing amount of misdirected ingenuity which has been spent in elaborating this system. The first is a specimen which is thought by those who have ^ discovered it to be an exceedingly good and striking one. St. Matthew (vii. 22, 23), in the Sermon on the Mount, makes our Lord speak of men who say, 'Lord, Lord,' and who will, at the Last Day, appeal to their prophesying, their driving out devils, and their doing of miracles in the name of Jesus, but who will be rejected by Him as doers of lawlessness (avofjiia), whom He had never known. It may surprise you to hear that this sentence was coined by the Jewish Christian ( author of the record as a protest against the opposition to the Law made by Paul and his followers. And it may surprise you more to hear that St. Luke is highly complimented for the skill with which (xiii. 26) he turns this Jewish anti- Pauline saying into one of a Pauline anti-Jewish character. He substitutes the word aSi/aa, ' injustice,' for avo/ua, ' law lessness,' and he directs the saying against the Jews, who will one day appeal to having eaten and drunk in the presence of Jesus, and to His having taught in their streets, but, notwith standing, shall be told by Him to depart as doers, not of avo/u'a, but of iniquity, and shall break forth into loud weeping when they see people coming from the east and west, and north and south, and sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while themselves are shut out.

One other sample I will give you. St. Matthew says (x. 27), ' What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light ; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.' St. Luke (xii. 3) — ' Whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light ; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed on the housetops.' ^

22 INTRODUCTORY. [ll.

It is contended that, whereas St. Matthew represents the Apostles as directed to speak in the light and on the house tops, St. Luke turns the phrase into the passive — the pro clamation shall be by other than the Apostles, namely, by

Paul and his party. When, however, all ingenuity has been tried, there is no

^ escaping the acknowledgment that, if we are to look for an anti-Pauline Gospel, it cannot be any of those we have now. That Matthew's Gospel was made primarily for the use of /Jews most critics are agreed. Yet, do we find this Jewish Gospel hostile to the admission of Gentiles ? It opens (ii. i) with an account of Gentile Magi from the distant East com ing to worship the infant Saviour. In the first chapter which relates any miracle (viii. 5), we have an account of one per formed at the request of a Gentile, who is commended as exhibiting faith not to be found in Israel ; and on this occa sion there is taught the doctrine of the admission of the Gen tiles, not to equal privileges with the Jews, but to a place

* vacated by the rejection of the Jews. * Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness ; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' It is to be noted that the Gentile centurion of St. Matthew is in St. Luke made a kind of Jewish proselyte — ' He loveth our nation, and hath built us our synagogue' (vii. 5). In a later chapter of St. Matthew the same doctrine is taught even more plainly — ' The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (xxi. 43). The

/ parting command of our Saviour recorded in this Gospel is, 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations' (xxviii. 19). In the account of our Lord's death, a critic with a keen eye for

t ' tendency,' might pronounce Matthew strongly anti-Jewish. It is Luke (xxiii. 28), not Matthew, who records our Lord's words of tender pity — ' Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for

^ Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.' St. Matthew seems anxious to throw the guilt of our Lord's death off the Gentiles, and on the Jews. Pilate's wife warns her

< husband to 'have nothing to do with that just man' (xxviL

%

II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 23

19). Pilate himself washes his hands before the multitude / and declares that he is ' innocent of the blood of this just person.' The Jews accept the awful burden, and exclaim, / 'His blood be on us, and on our children' (ib. 24, 25).*' Nay, we find in our St. Matthew a trait also found in St. John's Gospel, on account of which the latter has been characterized^ as strongly anti-Jewish, namely, that the unconverted mem bers of the Jewish nation are spoken of as * the Jews,' imply ing that the Christians were an entirely separate community. •/ In the last chapter of St. Matthew (v. 15) we have, 'This saying is commonly reported among the Jews unto this day.' When it is attempted to get rid of these evidences of anti-*^ Jewish tendency by the assertion that none of these things could have been in the original Matthew, we can only reply, ' that it is open to anyone to say that the original Matthew contained just whatever he likes. But no theory can be said to 4 rest on a scientific basis which, instead of taking cognizance of all the facts, arbitrarily rejects whatever of them do not*.' happen to accord with the hypothesis.

It is plain from what I have said that, when every ingenuity has been expended on our documents, they fail to yield any sufficient evidence of the bitter hostility which, according to Baur's theory, existed between the two great sections of the early Church ; and, therefore, these documents are con demned by him and his followers as, at least in their present shape, the work of a later age, which had set to work to remove all traces of the ancient dissensions. Baur acknow-;, ledges only five of our books as genuine remains of thefi Apostolic age — four Epistles of Paul and the Apocalypse. S The four Epistles are those to the Galatians, Romans, and|| the two to the Corinthians. It is not much to be grateful for that he grants the genuineness of these, for they carry on their face such marks of strong personal feeling, and are so manifestly not the work of a forger, but the outpouring of a heart stirred to its depths by the incidents of a real life, that whoever should deny their genuineness would pronounce on himself the sentence of incapacity to distinguish true from false. But these Epistles have, in Baur's eyes, the further recommendation, that they are those in which Paul has to

24 INTRODUCTORY. [ll.

deal with his Jewish opponents, and therefore are the most likely to yield proofs of that jealousy of the elder Apostles and hostility to them which Baur's theory demands. After wards, when I come to speak of St. Paul's Epistles and of the Acts of the Apostles, I will try to show how little ground there is for the assertion that the view of Paul's relations to the heads of the Jerusalem Church, exhibited in the Epistle to the Galatians, is irreconcilable with that presented by the Acts. If, indeed, anyone imagines that the Apostles were

I not men of like passions with ourselves, and therefore counts it a thing impossible that one should feel or express dissatis-

' faction with the conduct of another ; if he cannot believe that they should be differently influenced by different aspects of the truth, or be of various opinion as to the immediate

( necessity of guarding against different forms of error ; why, then, we need not go beyond what the Epistle to the Galatians tells of the dispute between Peter and Paul at Antioch in order to convince him of his mistake. But when we have fully conceded that there was no rigid sameness of utterance among the first preachers of the Gospel, we still fall immensely short of what Baur's theory requires us to grant. In order to adopt

, his view, we must hold that the differences between St. Paul and the elder Apostles were not like those which are known to subsist at the present day between political leaders of the same party — differences which do not prevent them from sitting in the same cabinet and joining in a common policy ;

(but rather like the differences which separate the leaders of opposite parties, or even of hostile states. The most Ultra montane Roman Catholic could not think worse of Martin Luther than, if we believe our modern guides, the members of the Church of Jerusalem thought of St. Paul.* The wildest Protestant could not hate the Pope more than St. Paul's Gentile converts are imagined to have hated the Apostles

f of the circumcision.

But the most wonderful part of the theory is the alleged

j * ' Jamais, en effet, 1'Eglise chretienne ne porta dans son seiii une cause de schisme aussi profonde que celle qui 1'agitait en ce moment. Luther et le scolastique le plus routinier differaient moms que Paul et Jacques.' — Renan, St. Pattl, p. 289.

III.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 25

end of the schism, in which Peter and Paul came to be regarded as brothers, and held in equal honour. That is the same as if we Protestants held in equal honour Martin Luther and Ignatius Loyola, and as if it was our popular belief that these two great saints had loved each other as brethren. Surely, the Pauline Christians must have been the most for giving men in the world. They had been victorious along the whole line. The Judaizers had disappeared. No one dreamed of imposing the yoke of circumcision on the Gentiles. Even in the Clementines no such burden is sought to be laid on Gentile converts. Yet these Gentiles agreed in giving equal honour to the great Apostle who had gained them their liberty and to the bigoted Jews who had cast out his name as evil, nicknamed him Balaam and Simon Magus, and orga nized conspiracy against him wherever he taught ! Surely this is a theory not so recommended by probability that we can afford to condone its deficiency in documentary proof; and, for my part, I am well content to abide by the old representations made by the author of the Acts of the Apostles.

nj. PART III.

THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE.

I HAVE said that the Apocalypse is also received by Baur, and is acknowledged by him as a genuine work of the Apostle John. It is scarcely necessary to say, that he does not look upon it as containing any real prophecy, but merely antici pations of the future, which have been falsified by the event. In owning the Book of the Revelation to be Apostolic, the modern school of destructive criticism is more easy of belief than part of the early Church ; for in the third century there were many who denied the authority of this book, and I shall have occasion afterwards to speak of an argument by Diony- sius of Alexandria, that the difference in style between this book and the Gospel of St. John proves that both could not

26 INTRODUCTORY. [ill.

have the same author. This argument has been eagerly i adopted by the modern school, only with a reversal of its application. They hope now, by conceding that the Apoca lypse is the work of John, to found, upon differences of style, an argument that the fourth Gospel cannot be his ; and, in fact, it is now alleged to be one of the most certain results of criticism, that these two works cannot have the same author. This, again, suggests a topic which I will not anticipate, as the argument must be considered when I come to discuss the Gospel according to St. John. Suffice it now to say, that the =' Apocalypse is held to be strongly Jewish and anti-Pauline.

In the Epistles to the Seven Churches, Paul is held to be the enemy against whom St. John, writing in our Lord's name, warns his disciples. Indeed, one German teacher of this school (Volkmar) carries out the theory to the absurdity of imagining that by the false prophet predicted as upholding the power of the Beast we are to understand St. Paul. In the Epistle to the Church in Smyrna (ii. 9) we read: — 'I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.' And in that to the Church in Philadelphia (iii. 9) : — * I will make them of the synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews and are not, but do lie, to come and worship before thy feet.' We are asked to believe that those false Jews, with whom St. John has broken so entirely as to call them the synagogue of Satan, are St. Paul and his party. The angel of the Church of Ephesus (ii. 2) is praised because ' he has tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and has found them liars.' Here again we are asked to believe that it was Paul's claim to apostleship which was thus rejected ; and we are again and again invited by Renan to notice the remarkable fact, that in Ephesus, where St. Paul had resided so long, and laboured for a time so successfully, a few years after his departure his followers had completely disappeared, and his claims to apostleship had been generally owned to be based in falsehood. Lastly, you will remember that in the Epistle to the angel of the Church in Pergamos those are condemned (ii. 14, 15) who ' hold the doctrine of Balaam,' and also those who ' hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.' It had been con-

III.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 2J

jectured long since — and the conjecture has been received with more favour than I think it deserves — that Nicolaus, ' conqueror of the people/ was but a Greek translation of the name Balaam. The etymology seems to me a forced one ; but Renan adopts this view, with the addition, that Balaam was a nickname for St. Paul, and that the doctrine of Balaam, the teaching ' to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication ' (by which he understands marriage with Gentiles, regarded by strict Jews as fornication), was the doctrine of St. Paul. Renan would further have us believe that, in another New Testament place where Balaam is mentioned, St. Paul is intended — I mean the Epistle of Jude (v. 1 1). For though that Epistle is one for which we cannot produce as early testimony as for the rest, and is consequently not ad mitted into Baur's meagre collection of genuine Apostolic Letters, yet the temptation is great to gain some addition to the scanty evidence of anti-Pauline rancour in the early Church ; and so we have presented to us Jude, the brother of James, describing Paul as a ' filthy dreamer,' who ' defiled the flesh, despised dominion, and spoke evil of dignities' (namely, of the original twelve Apostles), and who ' ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward.'

Now we can understand easily how it was that an obscure heretic, in the end of the second century, not daring to attack Paul openly, because he knew that such attack would have condemned his book to exclusion from the whole circle of Christian readers, masked his assault under a false name ; so that while he seemed only to expose the wickedness of Simon Magus, and could even, if a question were raised by any of the orthodox, plausibly maintain that no covert mean ing was intended, he would yet be understood by the few initiated as gratifying their dislike to Paul. But Apostles such as St. John and St. Jude would have had no need to descend to such subterfuges. It is not consistent with the character of the outspoken ' son of Thunder ' (either as that character is made known to us by Scripture, or in the tra ditional story of his treatment of the heretic Cerinthus) to suppose that, if there were false teachers whom he thought it his duty to describe as the synagogue of Satan, he would

28 INTRODUCTORY. [ill.

have disguised the object of his reprehension under the veil of Balaam or Nicolaus, and never have ventured to mention the name of Paul. Why should not John, one of the pillar Apostles (Gal. ii. 9) of the Church, and Jude, the brother of one of the great three, have courage to speak plainly ? But let that pass : at least their warning must have been intelli gible at the time it was given. The Church would have known who it was that it was intended to describe ; and if so, is it credible that the tradition should have completely perished out of memory, and that Christians, by whom the great Apostle of the Gentiles was held in the highest love and veneration, should still cherish these letters to the Seven Churches, and this Epistle of St. Jude, never once dreaming that they were honouring party pamphlets of an opposing school ?

It is worth while to remark how singularly obtuse the Paulinist party were as to the meaning of the assaults levelled against their master ; or at least at what an early date all knowledge as to the true meaning of these assaults had per ished. I have already remarked how innocently the author of the Acts of the Apostles tells the story of Simon Magus, without betraying any suspicion that under the mask of this arch-heretic Paul was to be recognized. Twice in the Acts (xv. 20, 29 ; xxi. 25) the same writer goes out of his way to represent the Apostolic heads of the Church of Jerusalem as condemning the eating meat offered to idols and fornication, in evident ignorance that these two things were prominent heads of the accusation brought against the Pauline Chris tians by their Jewish opponents. Nay, St. Paul himself is represented as concurring in the condemnation, and as ac tively employed in disseminating it (xv. 25 ; xvi. 4). Once more, the author of the Second Epistle of Peter (who, if he were not Peter himself, certainly wrote at an early date, and (iii. 15) was an ardent admirer of Paul) adopts as his own (ii. 15) all that was said in Jude's Epistle about Balaam, the son of Beor, and clearly has not the smallest suspicion that under that name Peter's ' beloved brother ' Paul was in tended.

I shall have occasion to say something hereafter as to the

III.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 29

use of tradition in the interpretation of Scripture, and the present instance serves very well to illustrate what that use is. For you can see that these theories as to the reference to Paul, both in the Apocalypse and in the Epistle of Jude, might have deserved some respectful consideration had they dated from the first century instead of the nineteenth. If it had been the case that in early times there was hesitation to acknowledge the authority of these books, on the ground that they disparaged the apostleship of Paul, then we should be bound to look the possibility in the face, that tradition had preserved correctly the interpretation put on these docu ments by those to whom they were first addressed, and to inquire dispassionately whether that interpretation were the right one. But an interpretation is condemned at once by the mere fact that it was left to the nineteenth century to discover it, and we may fairly refuse to give it any respectful hearing. But I think it well not to cut the matter short, as I might ; and will go on to show that we can find parallels in Paul's Epistles for all the passages that are cited from the Apocalypse as anti-Pauline.

It must be remembered that the doctrine of the calling of the Gentiles is taught as distinctly in the Book of the Revelation as in the saying of the Gospel (x. 16) — ' Other sheep I have which are not of this fold.' We read, indeed, in the Apoca lypse of a sealing of 12,000 out of each of the tribes of Israel (vii. 4-8) ; but immediately after the account of the bringing in of this large but still finite number of Jews there follows : 4 After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.' And in the mouth of the redeemed is placed a new song unto the Lamb, ' who has redeemed them to God by His blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation ' (v. Q). The Apocalypse is said to be Jewish, because the heavenly city is described under the name of the New Jerusalem (xxi. 2) ; but this is the very language of St. Paul in his most anti-Jewish Epistle — ' Jerusalem, which is above, is freer which is the mother of us all ' (Gal. iv. 26). For the literal

30 INTRODUCTORY. [ill.

Jerusalem the Apocalypse has no more complimentary names than Sodom and Egypt (xi. 8).

I have already quoted the use made of the words ' those who say they are Jews, and are not ' — words imagined to refer to St. Paul and his school. Those who give them this refe rence have read Paul's Epistles very carelessly, and have failed to notice one of his most characteristic traits. It is, that this Apostle, who combats so strenuously the notion that the Jew was to possess exclusive privileges in Christ's king dom, and that circumcision was to be the condition of admis sion to it, still retained, as was natural in a Jew by birth, his attachment to the name of Jew and the name of circumcision. Educated as he had been to regard these as titles of honour, and to look down on the uncircumcised Gentile, it pains him to hear his disciples called by the name of the uncircumcision, and he contends that they were the true Jews — theirs the only true circumcision. In the Epistle to the Ephesians (ii. n) he speaks of his Gentile followers as those ' who were called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh, made by hands.' He tells these Gentiles (Col. ii. 1 1), 'ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting oft* the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.' In the Epistle to the Philippians, when about to give to the Jews the name of the circumcision, he checks himself, and calls them instead the 'concision'; ' for we,' he says, ' are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confi dence in the flesh' (iii. 2). In the Epistle to the Galatians he claims for those who walk according to his rule the glorious title of the ' Israel of God ' (vi. 16). And in a well- known passage in the Epistle to the Romans (ii. 28) the same doctrine is summed up. ' He is not a Jew, which is one out- " wardly ; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the x flesh : but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; and circum cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; \ whose praise is not of men, but of God.'

I suppose there is no stronger mark of genuineness in Paul's Epistles, nor any trait less likely to have occurred to a forger, than this, that his affection for the names of Jew

III.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 31

and of circumcision clings to him long after he had ceased to attach any value to the things. It need not surprise us to find the same trait in St. John, who had grown up subject to the same influences ; and we cannot hesitate to believe that those against whom the Seven Churches were warned were the unbelieving Jews, who are pronounced unworthy of the name of Jews, and whose synagogue is called the synagogue of Satan. It deserves to be mentioned that the Jews in Asia Minor long continued to be the most bitter adversaries of the Christian name, and that, when Polycarp was martyred,, the Jews were most active in collecting materials for the pyre: on which to burn him (Mart. S. Polyc. xiv.,Euseb. H. E. iv. 15).'

As little need it be supposed that in those ' who say that they are apostles, and are not,' we must recognize St. Paul. Here again we have an exact parallel in St. Paul's Epistles : 'Such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming^ themselves into the apostles of Christ' (2 Cor. xi. 13). And if any proof were needed of the falsity of the assertion that the Ephesian Church, ten years after St. Paul had founded it, rejected his claims to apostleship, it would be furnished by what immediately follows. For, according to Kenan's hy pothesis, the Church of Ephesus had at the commencement been beguiled into accepting Paul's pretensions, and there fore would be bound to look back with some shame and regret on its early simplicity. Is there any trace of this in the Apocalyptic Epistle ? Nay ; the first state of the Church is recalled as its palmy days. The Church is blamed for having left its first love, and commanded to remember whence it had fallen, and repent and do the first works (ii- 4> 5)-

I must not omit to call attention to the extraordinary rapidity ascribed to the supposed counter-revolution in favour of Paulinism. For if we are to believe this theory the elder Apostles must have persevered to the end of their lives in treating Paul as an enemy. St. John, who was their last sur vivor, must have continued to hold up Paul and his disciples to odium after the death of the Apostle of the Gentiles. No one dates the Apocalypse earlier than the year 69, at which time, according to all tradition, Paul was dead. Up to that!-

32 INTRODUCTORY. [ill.

time, therefore, those who might be regarded as having the best authority to speak had disowned Paul as a false Christian. Paul therefore must have died an excommunicated heretic. Yet, in a quarter of a century later — for that is now the re ceived date of Clement's Roman Epistle — Paul is universally regarded as one of the chief of the Apostles, and as having been the cherished partner of Peter, both in work and in suffering! (Clem. Rom. 5.)

I have spent more time than you may have thought neces sary in refuting an utterly baseless hypothesis ; but my excuse is, that this hypothesis is treated as authentic history in almost all modern works in England, Germany, and France, which profess to give the latest results of critical science as applied to our sacred books.

IV.

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

PART I.

THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. IREN^US, CLEMENT, AND TERTULLIAN.

IF I were lecturing on Christian Evidences, I should com mence my examination of the books of the New Testa ment with the Epistles of St. Paul. There are some of these which are owned to be genuine by the most sceptical critics, and these universally admitted Epistles are rich in autobio graphical details, and set Paul vividly before us as a real living, working character. In connexion with Paul's Epistles we should consider the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the latter half of which bears undeniable marks of having emanated from a companion of St. Paul. We have thus the fullest knowledge what Paul believed and taught, and to what sources of information he had access. We cannot doubt that Paul was thoroughly sincere in his belief of what he preached ; and it is certain, also, that the central topic of his preaching was Christ's Resurrection. ' He is never weary of referring to this cardinal fact. He does not defend or prove it, but constantly assumes it as a fundamental fact about which no believer has any doubt whatever.' This fact which Paul receives so confidently was in his time only a few years old ; and, without discussing Paul's claims to have himself seen his risen Master, it is unquestionable that he was on terms of intercourse with Peter, James, John, and

D

34 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV.

others who claimed to be original witnesses of the Resurrec tion. If we desire to know what else Paul taught concerning the events of our Saviour's life, we have the answer in St. Luke's Gospel, which is of indisputably common authorship with the Acts, and therefore proceeded from a member of Paul's company.

The order of taking the New Testament books which I have thus sketched offers some advantages, but, owing to inconveniences resulting from adopting it, which I will not delay to describe at length, I have fallen back on the obvious course of commencing with the Gospels. If we can establish that the Gospels contain the story told at the time by men who were eye-witnesses of what they related, and who con firmed their testimony by their sufferings, then, full of mi racles as our Gospels are, it has been found practically impossible to refuse belief to them. But if the Gospels were written a hundred years or more after the events which they describe ; if the story is not told by eye-witnesses, but has been improved by passing through several hands ; if there has been time for floating myth and legend to gather round the simple facts, and for men's preconceived notions of what the Messiah ought to do, to ornament the history of what Jesus did ; then the intrinsic improbability of every miracu lous story outweighs second-hand testimony separated from the original witnesses by so long an interval. Of the two, however, it is a more vital matter with unbelievers to reject the early date of the Gospels than for us to assert it. Bring down the date of the Gospels as low as the most courageous of our adversaries can venture to bring them, and though we thus lose the proof of the greater part of the wonderful works of the Saviour's life, the great miracle of the Resurrection remains untouched. Take St. Paul's abridged account of the Gospel he had received, as given in an unquestioned Epistle (i Cor. xv. 3-7), and, though it is so much shorter than any of the four, it contains quite as much stumbling-block for an anti-supernaturalist — 'that Christ died for our sins, accord ing to the Scriptures ; that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures ; that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ; after that He was seen of

IV.] THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 35

above five hundred brethren at once ; after that He was seen of James, then of all the Apostles.' Thus, from Paul's writings and from other historical evidence, we can still show that men who could not easily have been deceived as to the truth of what they asserted, and who proved their sincerity by their readiness to face sufferings and martyrdom in attestation of their doctrine, declared that Jesus of Nazareth, the third day after He had died on the cross, rose again from the dead. If this one fact be proved, the cardinal principle of the anti- supernaturalists, the impossibility of miracle, is demolished. Christianity thus could survive the loss of the Gospels ; but infidelity is incompatible with the admission of them, as is? evidenced by Strauss's confession, already quoted, that if thei; Gospels be recognized as historical sources, miracle cannot i> be eliminated from the life of Jesus.

In beginning our inquiry concerning the Gospels, I need not take you much later than, at the latest, the year 180. In every controversy it is always well to see what facts are un disputed which can be taken as common ground between the parties. Now, to use the words of Strauss, ' it is certain that, ^ towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have still are found recognized in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as the writings of the Apostles, and disciples of the Apostles, whose names they bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers — Irenaeus in Gaul, Clement in Alexandria, and Tertullian in Carthage. There were, indeed, current other Gospels, used not only by here tical parties, but sometimes appealed to by orthodox teachers ( — a Gospel of the Hebrews and of the Egyptians, a Gospel of Peter, of Bartholomew, of Thomas, of Matthias, of the Twelve Apostles — but the four were, at that time, and from that time downwards, considered as the peculiarly trustworthy foundation on which the Christian faith rested' (Leben Jesu § 10, p. 47). I will speak a little about each of these witnesses — viz. Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian. They are widely separated in space, and they represent the whole extent of the Christian world. They prove that, if there had been any previous doubt or uncertainty which of all the documents purporting to contain records of the Saviour's life were to be

D2

36 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iv.

regarded as of superior authority, that doubt had been re moved before the end of the second century, and that the four Gospels which we recognize had then been established in the place of pre-eminence which they have held ever since.

Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, about the year 1 80.* But Irenaeus not only represents the testimony of the Gallican Church ; he had been himself brought up in Asia Minor, from which country Gaul had, as we have every reason to believe, derived its Christianity as well as its early civilization. There remains (ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 2) a most interesting record of the connexion between the two countries in an affecting narrative of the persecution of the year 177, addressed by the Christians of Vienne and Lyons to their brethren in Asia Minor. This Epistle, though it does not quote any of the books of the New Testament by name, is so full of passages in which the writer makes the language of these books his own — weaving texts into the narrative, as you constantly hear preachers doing at the present day — that we cannot doubt that the sacred books in use in that early Church were in the main the same as the books of our own New Testament. The bishop at the time of that persecution was Pothinus, a man of about ninety years of age, who must, therefore, have been born before some at least of the books of the New Testament were written, and who must have mixed with men contemporary with St. John. His presbyter and successor, Irenaeus, was united by other links to the times of the Apostles. He tells us how well he remembered Poly- carp,! whom in his early years he had known at Smyrna : ' I can recall the very place where Polycarp used to sit and teach, his manner of speech, his mode of life, his appearance, |the style of his address to the people, his frequent references no St. John, and to others who had seen our Lord ; how he used to repeat from memory their discourses, and the things

* Lipsius, in the 'Dictionary of Christian Biography,' assigns A.D. 130 as the most probable date of the birth of Irenseus ; and the period (180-188) as that in which it is likely that the different books of his treatise against heresies were published.

f Recent investigations determine A.D. 155 as the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp, at which time he was about eighty-six years old.

IV.] IRENJEUS. 37

which he had heard from them concerning our Lord, His miracles, and His teaching; and how, being instructed him-^ self by those who were eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, there was in all that he said a strict agreement with the Scriptures' (Epistle to Florinus, ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 20). Observe this word 'Scriptures,' for it is plain that the books to which he gave this venerated title are those which contain^ the record of our Lord's life — the four Gospels.

There is a passage in the work of Irenaeus against heresies which proves that he considered these books as, in the highest sense of the word, Scriptures given by inspiration of God. The passage is interesting as bearing testimony to a New Testament reading not found in our existing Greek manuscripts ; but only in the Latin and in the Curetonian Syriac versions. It concerns the passage where we now read, in the opening of St. Matthew's Gospel, * The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise' (i. 18). Irenaeus is arguing against those who held that Jesus was at first but an ordinary man, and only became Christ when the Holy Spirit descended on Him in His baptism ; and he remarks (in. xvi. 2) that Matthew might have said that ' the birth of Jesus was on this wise,' but that the Holy Spirit, foreseeing the depravers of the truth, and guarding against their fraud, said by Matthew, * The birth of Christ was on this wise,' * showing that Christ was born ; in other words, that Jesus was Christ from His birth. Thus what might seem the accidental choice of one form of expression rather than another is ascribed to the directing care of the Holy Spirit. You see then that Irenaeus believed not only in the genuineness, but also in the inspira tion, of the Gospels.

1 dare say you have also heard of his reasons why there are exactly four Gospels, neither more nor less. He argues (in. xi. 8) that the Gospel is the pillar of the Church ; the Church is spread over the whole world ; the world has four quarters ; therefore it is fitting there should also be four Gospels. Again, the Gospel is the divine breath, or wind of

* Potuerat dicere Matthaeus, ' Jesu veto generatio sic erat' ; sed prae- videns Spiritus Sanctus depravatores et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum ait ' Christi autem generatio sic erat.'

38 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV.

life for men ; there are four chief winds ; therefore, four Gospels. He builds another argument on the fourfold appearance of the cherubim. The cherubim, he says, are fourfold, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. The first beast was like a lion, signifying His commanding and kingly dignity ; the second like a calf, signi fying His priestly office ; the third like a man, denoting His Incarnation ; the fourth like an eagle, denoting the Holy Spirit flying over the Church. Like these are the Gospels. John, who begins with the Godhead and descent from the Father, is the lion ; Luke, who begins with the priesthood and sacrifice of Zacharias, is the calf; Matthew, who begins with His human genealogy, the man ; Mark, the eagle, who commences with the announcement of the prophetic spirit — ' the beginning of the Gospel as it is written by Isaiah the prophet.' You are aware, I dare say, that this is not the apportionment of the four beasts to the Gospels which ulti mately prevailed in the West, John being usually represented as the eagle ; Matthew as the man ; Luke as the ox ; and Mark as the lion.*

Irenaeus goes on to say that Christ's dealings with the world are fourfold. To the patriarchs the word of God came directly ; to those under the Law through the priestly office ;. Christ Himself came as man ; since then He has dealt with the Church by His Spirit overshadowing the Church with His wings. Thus the Gospel also is fourfold, and those destroy its fundamental conception who make the number either greater or less ; either desiring to seem to have found out more than the truth, or rejecting part of God's dispensa tion. The main point in this quotation is, that Irenaeus considers the fourfold character of the Gospel to have been

* This apportionment seems to have been introduced into the West by St. Ambrose (in Luc. Praef. 8). It was made more widely known by St. Jerome, who professes therein to follow preceding expositors (Praef. in. Matt.; in Ezek. i. 6). St. Augustine (De Consens. Evangg. i. 9) adopts the same apportionment, except that he assigns the lion to St. Matthew, and the man to St. Mark. He mentions also the arrangement of Irenseus, but considers that this being founded merely on the manner in which the several Gospels begin, is inferior to an arrangement founded on their general contents. The three terrestrial animals, for instance, are fitly assigned to the three Gospels which are mainly occupied with our

IV.] IRENJEUS. 39

divinely arranged. We are not concerned with the validity of his mystical explanations, but with the manifest inference that the pre-eminence of four Evangelists must have been, in the time of Irenaeus, long established, else he would not thus ascribe it to divine appointment. Strauss quotes these mystical explanations of Irenaeus with a view to disparage his testimony; but he is forced to admit that the fanciful character of his reasons why there are only four Gospels does not discredit his testimony to the fact that four, and only four, were then acknowledged by the universal Church ; and he owns that the reasons given by Irenaeus are not his grounds for receiving only four Gospels, but only his mode of justifying a belief adopted on other grounds.* Thus you? see that, without producing a single other witness, we have proof that towards the end of the second century the Church held the belief that is commonly held by the Church of the present day, namely, that the four Gospels are to be venerated as inspired records of our Saviour's life, and that no others^, can be placed on a level with these.

Test by the evidence of this one witness the theory of some, that St. John's Gospel made its first appearance about the year 150 or 160. Is it credible that, if so, Irenaeus could have accepted a forgery of which, according to the hypothesis, his master, Polycarp, had never told him a word ? For Poly- carp, who, as I said just now, used to repeat from memory the discourses which he had heard from John, could not have been silent about this work, which, if genuine, would be St. John's most precious legacy to the Church ; and the fact that it had not been mentioned by Polycarp would convince Irenaeus that it was an audacious imposture. And again, it is impossible that Polycarp could have accepted as genuine

Lord's earthly life : the eagle, to the spiritual Gospel of St. John, who soars above the clouds of human infirmity, and with unwavering eyes gazes on the light of immutable truth.

* 'Diese seltsame Beweisfiihrung 1st zwar nicht so zu verstehen, als waren die angegebenen Umstande der Grund gewesen,warum Irenaus nicht mehr und nicht weniger Evangelien annahm ; vielmehr hatten sich diese vier eben damals in den Kreisen der nach Glaubenseinheit strebenden katholischen Kirche in vorzuglichen Credit gesetzt, und dieses gegebene Verhaltniss suchte sich Irenaus im Geiste seiner Zeit zurechtzulegen (§ 10, p. 48).

4-0 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV.

a work of which he had never heard his master, John, speak. There are, in short, three links in the chain — St. John, Poly- carp, Irenaeus ; and I do not see how it is possible to dissever any one of them from the other two.

Similar observations may be made about the conclusions of the author of the work called ' Supernatural Religion.' Other sceptical writers had thought they had done great things if they could bring John's Gospel as late as 150 or 160, allowing the Synoptic Gospels to date from the beginning of the century. This writer imagines that he has demolished all evidence for the existence of the Synoptic Gospels prior to the age of Irenaeus, and will only allow them to count from the very end of the second century. But it is plain that the evidence of Irenaeus, even if we had no other, takes us back a long way behind his own time. Books newly come into existence in his time could not have been venerated as he venerated the Gospels. What length of time must we allow for these books to have come into such esteem, that what might be regarded as their chance expressions should be considered as directed by the Spirit of God, and that among all the different attempts to relate the life of Christ none should seem fit to be put in comparison with these four ? I suppose fifty years would be a very moderate allowance of time for such a growth of opinion : for the credit of these books mainly rested on a belief that they were of apostolic origin, and if they had been anywhere known to have been recent modifications of an older story, they could not have superseded their progenitors ; so that we may fairly conclude that the time of their appearance was beyond then living memory. Well, then, what we have thus learned from Ire naeus is of important use when we come presently to look at the works of the generation next before him. When we find in these works what seem to be quotations from our Gospels, we shall not easily be persuaded by small verbal differences that the writers are drawing from some unknown sources, and not from books which we are certain, from Ire naeus, must in their time have existed, and have been of such credit in the Church as to be well known to these writers. The second witness to whom I have appealed gives us the

IV.] CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 41

verdict of another large portion of the Christian world. Cle ment* of Alexandria lived in what was perhaps the city in all the world where literary criticism was most cultivated. He had been there the disciple of Pantaenus, who very possibly may have been personally connected with disciples of the Apostles. And Clement travelled and learned from other in structors of various nations, whose names he does not tell us, but only their nationalities, an Ionian, an Italian, a Syrian, an Egyptian, an Assyrian, a Hebrew in Palestine. ' These men,' as he says, 'preserving the true tradition of the blessed teach ing directly from Peter and James, from John and Paul, son receiving it from father, came by God's providence even to us, to deposit among us those seeds of truth which were de rived from their ancestors and the Apostles ' (Strom, i. u). It is needless to quote particular passages from Clement : suffice it to say, that there is no more doubt as to his use of the Gospels than there is as to the place assigned them by any clergyman of the present day. He has traditions to tell concerning the composition of Mark's and of John's Gospel, both of which he regards as later than Matthew's and Luke's. That, like Irenaeus, he recognized as authoritative four Gos pels, neither more nor less, may be inferred from the manner in which he deals with a saying ascribed to our Lord (Strom. \\\. 13) — ' We have not this saying in the four Gospels which have been handed down to us ; it is found in the Gospel according to the Egyptians t Besides this Gospel according to the Egyptians, he was acquainted with other apocryphal writings — a Gospel according to the Hebrews, Traditions of Matthias, and others ; but the passage I have just cited is evi dence enough that, in his estimation, no other account of the Saviour's deeds or words stood on the level of the four Gospels.

* Clement, possibly a Greek by birth, was born about the middle of the second century, and was head of the Catechetical School in Alexandria (192-202). We last hear of him as alive in 211 (Euseb. H. E. vi. n).

t Some have doubted whether Clement had himself seen the Gospel ac cording to the Egyptians. He had said a little before that ' he thought ' (ol/xcu) that the passage under discussion was to be found in the Gospel according to the Egyptians. It has been inferred, therefore, that this was either a book which he only knew by hearsay, or else one which it was so long since he had looked into, that he did not quite like to trust his memory in speaking of it.

42 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV.

When we compare the quotations of Clement and Irenseus a new phenomenon presents itself, which throws back the date of the Gospels still further behind their own times. We become aware of the existence of various readings. In fact, in some of the texts, where the reading is now controverted, there are second century witnesses on opposite sides. And the general type of the text in use in Alexandria was different from that in use in the West. Thus you see that the Gospels were not only in existence at the end of the second century, but they had by that time been copied and re-copied so often, that errors from transcription and otherwise had time to creep in, and different families of text to establish themselves.

The third witness to whom I have appealed, Tertullian,** also lived at the end of the second century, but represents a different section of the Church, the Latin-speaking section. Nothing need be said as to his use of the Gospels, about which there is as little question as to my own use of them, but it is worth while to call attention to the evidence his writings afford, that in his time they had already been translated into Latin. In fact he finds fault with the current Latin rendering of the first verse of St. John's Gospel, in which the word ' Logos ' was translated by ' Sermo.'f Ter- tullian would have preferred ' Ratio.' I may say in passing that the difficulty here found by Tertullian — that of adequately rendering the Greek word 'Logos' — has been experienced by every translator of the New Testament. For ' Logos ' not only means the spoken word — the only sense suggested by our English version — but still more, as Tertullian renders it, reason. And so the early Greek Fathers give the double sense to the term in the Prologue of St. John, inferring that

* The data for fixing the chronology of Tertullian's writings are scanty; but we shall not be far wrong in counting that he first appeared as a Church writer about 197, and that his literary activity continued some thirty years longer. His New Testament quotations have been collected by Ronsch, Das neue Testament Tertullian ' s. The quotations from the Gospels occupy over 200 pages, and if the Greek Gospels had not come down to us, we could from this source alone obtain a knowledge of far the greater portion of their contents.

t 'Jam in usu est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis Sermo- nem dicere in primordio apud deum fuisse cum magis rationem competat antiquiorem haberi.' Adv.Prax. c. 5. Yet Tertullian himself habitually

IV.] TERTULLIAN. 43

it designates the Second Person of the Trinity not only as God's spoken Word, by which He made known His will to men, but also as having before this utterance dwelt from eter nity with the Father ; some analogy to help us to conceive such an indwelling being found in the dwelling in man of the principle of reason. So it is that the Fathers almost unani mously interpret the description of Wisdom in the 8th of Pro verbs, of the Second Person of the Trinity, whom the Collect in daily use in our own College Chapel describes as ' the Eternal Wisdom of the Father.' This interpretation was received by the Arians as well as the orthodox.

Now this fact, that Tertullian criticized renderings which nevertheless he adopts in his own quotations, throws back the range of his testimony. We must allow some consider able time for a version to acquire such currency as to mould the popular theological dialect, and to give authority to renderings which were in the judgment of good scholars capable of improvement. Towards the end of the second century it is not only the fact that our Gospels are in sole possession all over the Christian world, but translations of them have gained an established rank. That is to say, at the time when it is doubted if our Gospels were born, we find their children in vigorous life.*

I believe, then, that if anyone fairly weighs all that is in volved in the undisputed fact that Irenseus, Clement, and Tertullian show that at the end of the second century all the principal books of our New Testament were received all over the civilized world as the works of the authors to whom we still ascribe them, he will own it to be unreasonable to demand

uses ' Sermo ' as the equivalent for ' Logos,' and even in the same treatise (c. 20) when he formally quotes John i. I, he does so in the form : 'In principio erat sermo et sermo erat apud deum et deus erat sermo. Hie erat in principio apud deum.' Another passage in which Tertullian appeals from the current Latin translation to the Greek original is (De Monog. c. ii.): ' Sciamus plane non sic esse in Grasco authentico, quo- modo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut callidam aut simplicem eversionem ; Si autem dormierit "vir ejus, quasi de future sonet, ac per hoc videatur ad earn pertinere quse jam in fide virum amiserit.' But here again it is to be noted that Tertullian, when quoting the passage himself, conforms to common usage and does not introduce the correction which he suggests.

* See note at end of Lecture (p 44).

44 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV.

further evidence, when we do not dream of requiring such evidence in the case of any secular work.

The remains of the first generation of Christians are scanty, and of the few works that have come down to us, several are apologies intended for heathen readers,* to whom it would not be appropriate to cite the New Testament Scriptures. There is an advantage then in commencing with that age of which we have remains so full and abundant as to leave no room for controversy as to the sentiments of the writers ; and which at the same time is so near the age of the Apostles, that what was then the undisputed established opinion as to the authorship of their sacred books, held by common consent of distant Churches, is very likely to be a true opinion. Should a question arise some centuries hence whether Pope wrote the 'Dunciad' and the ' Rape of the Lock,' or whether Goldsmith wrote the * Deserted Village ' and the ' Vicar of Wakefield,' it would go far to settle the question, if it were proved that in our generation no doubt was entertained by anyone on the matter, even if all preceding testimony had perished.

Though, in my opinion, the testimony of the three witnesses already considered might suffice to produce conviction, we can produce trustworthy evidence of considerably earlier date, which will be the subject of future Lectures.

N o TE.

Scholars had generally agreed in inferring from the evidence here appealed to that there existed in the time of Tertullian a Latin translation that was in general use in Africa. This inference has been lately contested by Zahn Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, 1888, I. 35, sq. He admits that the reading of the Gospels then formed part of the service at Christian meetings

* From the nature of the case, references to the New Testament books are infrequent in works addressed to such readers ; for example, if only Tertullian's 'Apology' had come down to us it would not have been possible to prove that he was acquainted with the Gospels.

IV.] THE LATIN TRANSLATION. 45

for worship ; but he contends that this did not necessitate a Latin Bible. Irenaeus preached to the Celts of Gaul, but we do not hear of a Celtic Bible. We do not hear of any Punic Bible in Africa, though Christianity made many converts among those who spoke no other language. He points out that in the Jewish Synagogues the Bible was read in Hebrew, and then orally interpreted to those who did not understand the ancient language, and he cites two or three examples of a similar use of interpreters in the Christian Church. In his opinion then the needs of those who spoke no other language than Latin were at first met, not by any authorized Latin version of Scripture, but by independent oral interpretation at the Christian meetings. It may readily be conceded that, as has been often remarked, the Gospel was introduced into Rome in the colony of Jews or other foreign settlers whose ordinary language was Greek, whom Paul addressed in Greek in the Epistle to the Romans, for whose use, according to early tradition, the Greek Gospel of St. Mark was written, and whose liturgical service no doubt was Greek. Nor would such a service be unintelligible when converts were made among native Romans of higher rank ; for a knowledge of Greek was the ordinary accomplishment of a Roman gentle man. This was equally true of Africa, as Zahn illustrates from the martyrdom of Perpetua, a document not much later than the year 200. Perpetua was a lady of good position, 'honeste nata, liberaliter instituta, matronaliter nupta.' When converts of lower rank came in, it is extremely credible that the transition from liturgical service in Greek to liturgical service in Latin was bridged over by liturgical service in Greek accompanied by Latin oral interpretation. The only question is at what epoch the transition took place, and Zahn gives no sufficient evidence that a Latin service had not been fully established in the time of Tertullian. He himself admits that the context indicates that the ' agios, agios, agios,' in the martyrdom of Perpetua was derived directly from the Book of Revelation rather than from liturgical use ; but in any case it is quite conceivable that an African Latin Liturgy might retain these words in the original. At any rate, though the method of interpretation would enable persons ignorant of Greek to

46 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iV.

join intelligently in a Greek service, it presupposes clergy able to interpret. Now, though the clergy who at the end of the second century ministered to Celtic or Punic congregations are likely to have known enough either of Greek or Latin to enable them to interpret, it is not likely that Greek alone would have sufficed, or that those who ministered to rural congregations in Africa would all be such good Greek scholars as to be able to dispense with a Latin Bible. Another weak point in Zahn's comparison is that Celtic was not a literary language, and the rude people who spoke it might easily be content with such portions of Scripture as they could hear read in Church ; but among Latin-speaking Christians there would be many of such literary cultivation as to wish to read as well as hear the Scripture.

A much stronger point in Zahn's case is that Tertullian himself repeatedly quotes directly from the Greek, and not from a Latin version, as we can tell from his translating the same passage in different ways. This has been noticed before: see for example Hort (N. T., ii. 78). Tertullian was a good Greek scholar, who could not only read that language, but had even written some tracts in it. It is to be noted that far the larger part of instances of his direct use of the Greek Testament occur in his work against Marcion. Now Ter tullian must have written that work with his Greek Testament open before him, for Tertullian's object was to maintain the true text of New Testament passages which Marcion had falsified or omitted ; and as Marcion's work was certainly in Greek, it must have been with the Greek original that he compared it. Tertullian's other citations require careful examination, but I may remark that Zahn is willing (p. 58) to make an admission fatal to his case in conceding that Tertullian was acquainted with the Latin translation of Irenaeus. The proofs of this offered by Massuet in the prolegomena to his edition of Irenaeus have been accepted by many scholars as sufficient, but certainly need further sift ing. But we may dismiss as quite incredible Zahn's idea (p. 58) that Latin-speaking Christians demanded a translation of the work of Irenaeus, and of other pieces of Greek literature, before they cared to have a translation of their Greek Bible. If the

V.] MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 47

resemblances between Tertullian and the Latin translation of Irenaeus are enough to prove that Tertullian was acquainted with this translation, the differences are certainly enough to prove that, notwithstanding, he constantly preferred, instead of using it, to translate for himself. However, the question is not whether Tertullian himself used a Latin translation of the Bible — a thing which we readily grant he had no need to do — but whether he bears testimony to the existence of such a thing in his time. Now it seems to me that the practice of a number of independent interpreters, each in his own Church, could never have sufficed to establish such a ' use ' as that which is attested in the passages already cited. If Tertullian or anyone else did not like the interpretation given by his neighbours, he would have felt himself perfectly free to give a better one of his own. I am, therefore, not prepared to abandon the hitherto received opinion that in the time of Tertullian a Latin translation existed in writing. Put the matter, however, at the lowest, and it is certain that in his time the Latin translation, whether known orally through the work of different interpreters or by writing, had assumed a definite form, so as to constitute an established use. So that my assertion remains true, that in the time of Tertullian not only the Gospels existed but their children, the only dispu table point being whether or not the latter had attained their full growth.

v. PART II.

MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. CAIUS — HIPPOLYTUS.

It would take more time than I can ask you to give, if I were to bring before you all the second century testimonies to the Gospels ; and I had intended to go back at once from the three witnesses whose testimony is admitted by Strauss to Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of the second cen tury ; but I see that to do this would oblige me to omit some

48 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v.

things of which I think you ought to be told, and with which I mean to occupy the present Lecture. I call your attention, in the first place, to a very interesting document, commonly known as the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon. It is a list of the books accepted at its date as authoritative, and it is called Muratorian, because first published, in the year 1740, by the Italian scholar Muratori, from a manuscript now, as then, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, but which had origi nally belonged to the great Irish monastery of Bobbio. This manuscript is a collection of extracts from various authors, made about the eighth century, and the particular extract with which we have now to deal must have been made from what was then a mutilated manuscript, which the transcriber was desirous to preserve ; for the existing manuscript is quite perfect — no leaves are lost ; but the extract begins in the middle of a sentence, and ends quite as abruptly. It bears marks of having been a rude translation from the Greek ; and the transcriber was clearly a very indifferent Latin scholar, for his work is full of misspellings and other blunders, such as in some places quite to obscure the meaning. In fact, it was as a specimen of such blundering that Muratori first published it.

So much interest attaches to this extract, as containing the earliest extant attempt to give anything like a formal list of New Testament books, that I must not grudge the time ne cessary for laying before you the internal evidence which approximately fixes the date of the composition of the work from which the extract was taken.* In reading Paley's ' Evi-

* A monograph on the Muratorian Fragment was published by Tregelles in 1867. Considerable additional light was thrown on it by Dr. Westcott, the results of whose study of it are given in the appendix to his New Testament Canon, p. 514. As I have frequently occasion to refer to this Fragment, it is convenient to print it here entire, as restored by Westcott ; but it will be observed that some passages are too corrupt to be restored with certainty. For a transcript of the actual text I refer to Westcott's New Testament Canon, and for other sources of information to my article, MURATORIAN FRAGMENT, in Smith's 'Dictionary of Christian Biography. '

. . . quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit. Tertium Evangelii librum secundum Lucan, Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi, cum eum Paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum adsumsisset, nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit. Dominum tamen nee ipse vidit in carne, et idem

V.] MUR.ATORIAN FRAGMENT. 49

dences ' last year you must have become familiar at least with the name of the ' Shepherd of Hermas.' This work is quoted as inspired by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria ; and in the third century Origen hazarded the conjecture that it might have been written by Hermas, who is mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans ; and this, though, as I say, a compara tively late conjecture, has been accepted by some as if it were tradition. The Muratorian Fragment gives a different account of the authorship, and one which has all the air of being tra dition, and not conjecture. It would appear that, at the time this fragment was written, there was some disposition to accept the ' Shepherd ' as canonical ; for, in a passage where, notwithstanding corruption of text, the writer's general mean ing can be clearly made out, he lays down that this book may be read, but not be publicly used, with the Apostles and Prophets, whose number is complete, seeing that it was written ' very recently in our own time by Hermas, while his brother Pius sat in the chair of the See of Rome.' Now, the date when Pius was Bishop of Rome is variously given ; those who place him latest make him bishop between 142-157 ; so the question as to the date of the fragment is, How long after

prout assequi potuit, ita et a nativitate Johannis incepit dicere. Quarti evangeliorum Johannes ex discipulis. Cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit, conjejunate mihi hodie triduum et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andrese ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret. Et ideo licet varia singulis Evangeliorum libris principia doceantur, nihil tamen differt credentium fidei, cum uno ac principal! Spiritu declarata sint in omnibus omnia de nativitate, de passione, de resurrectione, de conversatione cum discipulis suis ac de gemino ejus ad- vento, primum in humilitate despectus, quod fuit, secundum potestate regali prseclarum, quod futurum est. Quid ergo minim si Johannes tarn constanter singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semetipsum, • Quae vidimus oculis nostris et auribus audivimus et manus nostrae pal- paverunt, hsec scripsimus.' Sic enim non solum visorem, sed et auditorem, sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium domini per ordinem profitetur.

Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optime Theophilo comprendit, quia sub prsesentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.

Epistulae autem Pauli, quia, a quo loco, vel qua ex causa directs sint, volentibus intellegere ipsse declarant. Primum omnium Corinthiis schisma hseresis interdicens, deinceps Galatis circumcisionem, Romanis autem ordine scripturarum, sed et principium earum esse Christum intimans, prolixius scripsit ; de quibus singulis necesse est a nobis disputari, cum

E

50 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v.

could a writer fairly describe this period as ' nuperrime tem- poribus nostris ' ? It is urged that we cannot well make this interval much more than twenty years. I have been accus tomed to speak of the definition of the dogma of Papal In fallibility at the Vatican Council of 1870 as very recent, and as an event of our own time, though I begin to doubt whether I can go on much longer with propriety in using such language ; but though the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1852 is also an event of my own time, you would think it strange if I called it very recent, seeing that it occurred before most of you were born. It is concluded, therefore, that the date of this fragment cannot be much later than 170.

There is, however, great difficulty in finding any writer of that date to whom it can be plausibly assigned, especially as internal evidence limits us to Rome or Italy as the place of composition. This consideration sets aside a very improb able guess of the late Baron Bunsen — Hegesippus, commonly called, but probably incorrectly, the earliest ecclesiastical historian. The extracts from his work which have been pre served by Eusebius, and by which alone he is now known,

ipse beatus Apostolus Paulus, sequens prodecessoris sui Johannis ordinem nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat ordine tali ; ad Corinthios (prima), ad Ephesios (secunda), ad Philippenses (tertia), ad Colossenses (quarta), ad Galatas (quinta), ad Thessalonicenses (sexta), ad Romanos (septima). Verum Corinthiis et Thessalonicensibus licet pro correptione iteretur, una tamen per omnem orbem terrae ecclesia diffusa esse dinoscitur; et Johannes enim in Apocalypsi, licet septem ecclesiis scribat, tamen omnibus dicit. Verum ad Philemonem unam, et ad Titum unam, et ad Timotheum duas, pro affectu et dilectione; in honore tamen ecclesise catholicae in ordinatione ecclesiasticae disciplinae sanctificatae sunt. Fertur etiam ad Laodicenses, alia ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine finctse ad haeresim Marcionis, et alia plura, quas in catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest : fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit.

Epistula sane Judae et superscript Johannis duas in Catholica habentur ; et Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta.

Apocalypses etiam Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt. Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae Ecclesiae Pio Episcopo fratre ejus ; et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare vero in Ecclesia populo, neque inter prophetas, completum numero, neque inter apostolos in finem temporum potest.

Arsinoi autem seu Valentini vel Metiad [ ] nihil in totum recipimus. Qui etiam novum psalmorum librum Marcioni conscripserunt, una cum Basilide, Assiano Cataphrygum constitutorem . . .

V.J MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 51

though historical in their character, are thought by the best recent critics more likely to have been taken from a doctrinal or controversial book than from a regular history. Hege- sippus lived about the right time, but he had no connexion with Italy : and besides, since Eusebius tells us that in the passages he cites from earlier writers he had particularly in view to illustrate the testimony borne by them to the New Testament Scriptures (H. E., iii. 3), I count it improbable that, if Eusebius had found in Hegesippus so remarkable an enumeration of books owned as canonical, he would not have made some mention of it. Muratori himself, when he pub lished the fragment, conjectured as its author Caius, the Roman presbyter ; and there is vastly more to be said for that guess than for Bunsen's. Caius was the author of a dialogue against the Montanists. The dialogue has been lost, but, Eusebius (H. E., vi. 20) tells us that, in rebuking the rashness and impudence of the Montanists in composing new Scrip tures, he counts only thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, omitting that to the Hebrews. Thus it seems certain that this lost ' dialogue contained a list of canonical books, which Caius set down, intending by this closed Canon to exclude Montanist additions. It is natural to ask, then, May not this Muratorian list be the very list of Caius ? Like that, it was drawn up at Rome ; and like that also, it only counts thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, leaving out the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the date has been thought a fatal objection. Caius wrote in the episcopate of Zephyrinus — we may say about the year 210; how, then, could he speak of the year 140 or 150 as very recent ? The objection is a serious, but I do not count it a fatal one. When a writer is only known to us by a single fragment, we have no means of judging of his habitual care fulness in the use of language, and so we are not safe in considering ourselves bound to put the strictest interpretation on his words. Instances have been produced where similar expressions have been used about events which happened a century or two ago. Everything is comparative. We should call Luther and Calvin quite modern writers if anyone im agined them to be contemporary with St. Augustine. Although, as I said just now, I should not dream, in ordinary

E 2

52 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v.

conversation, of describing an event of the year 1852 as quite recent ; yet, if I were writing controversially, and contrasting the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with the articles of the Apostles' Creed, it would not be in the least unnatural if I described the former as a dogma formulated ' quite re cently and in our own time.' And I might say this even if the promulgation of the doctrine had been fifty years earlier than it was. Why, even Pope Pius's Creed, which was made some three hundred years ago, is often spoken of as quite new when it is put in comparison with the Nicene Creed. Now, the object of Caius (as described by Eusebius) and of the author of the fragment clearly was controversial ; it was to draw a broad line of separation between the inspired writings of the Apostolic age and modern additions ; and, therefore, we need not press too closely the energetic language with which the author of the fragment protests against placing on a level in Church reading with the Sacred Scriptures a writing that he believed to be no older than Pope Pius I.

Now a careful examination of the * Shepherd of Hermas ' has quite convinced me that, instead of being a work of the middle of the second century, it dates from its very beginning. If the Muratorian writer has made a mistake about the date of Hermas, it is likely he was not so near a contemporary of Pius as people have thought. I have also found reason, on investigating the history of Montanism, which clearly is com bated in the Muratorian fragment, to think that it did not make its appearance in the West until a little after the year 200. On these and other grounds* I came to the conclusion that the fragment is of the same age as the dialogue of Caius ; and, then, I did not think I could fairly refuse to accept Muratori's hypothesis, although I had myself proposed to as cribe the fragment to Caius's contemporary Hippolytus, being led to that idea by finding the same note about the authorship of the ' Shepherd ' in an early list of Roman bishops which I believe to be derived from Hippolytus.f Further, the whole tone of the fragment is rather didactic than controversial —

* See Smith's 'Dictionary of Christian Biography,' ARTS, MURA TORIAN FRAGMENT and MONTANISM. t Hermathena, I. 125 (1874).

V.] MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 53

rather the lesson of a master to disciples than of a disputant with opponents, so that it scarcely seemed likely to have come from the dialogue against the Montanists. But though I ac cepted the Caius hypothesis for a time, a new difficulty has since arisen. Very little had been known of Caius, but Dr. Gwynn has lately (Hermathena, 1888), recovered some frag ments of his writings which leave no doubt that Caius rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, a work accepted in the Muratorian fragment. I return, therefore, to my former opinion that Hippolytus was probably the author of the work of which this ' fragment formed a part.

I have frankly told you my own opinion, but you must remember this is only my individual notion, and that the re ceived doctrine of scholars (orthodox and sceptical alike) is that the document is not later than 170 or 180. It is a pity that the impossibility of laying before you any view but that which, however mistakenly, I believe to be true, obliges me both to be guilty of the immodesty of setting myself in oppo sition to the received opinion of scholars, and also to forego the controversial advantage that arises from accepting the date commonly ascribed to the fragment. According to that date we gain a witness to our Canon, who, if not many years earlier than Irenaeus, would be at least an elder contemporary: according to my view, he is but a younger contemporary (for both Caius and Hippolytus* are said to have been disciples of Irenaeus), and the main value of the fragment is the testimony it gives to the wide line of distinction that at that early date was drawn between canonical books and the most valued of uninspired writings. I shall frequently have occasion to refer to this document in the course of these Lectures. At present I will merely report the account it gives of the Gospels.

The fragment begins with a few words which evidently are the end of a description of St. Mark's Gospel, for it pro ceeds to describe what it calls the third book of the Gospels, that by Luke, whom it states to have been a companion of Paul, but not to have himself seen our Lord in the flesh,

* These writers were both leading members of the Church of Rome in the first quarter of the third century. It is likely that each may have com menced his literary activity before the end of the second.

54 THE GOSPELS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. [v.

mention being made that he commenced his history from the nativity of John the Baptist. The fourth Gospel it states to have been written by St. John on the suggestion of his fellow-disciples and bishops (by which, I suppose, is meant the other Apostles), whereupon John proposed that they should all fast three days, and tell each other whatever might be revealed to any, and it was the same night revealed to Andrew that, under the revision of all, John should in his own name write an account of everything. Wherefore, it adds, although the teaching of the separate books be diver sified, it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since in all, by one guiding Spirit, are declared all things concerning our Lord's Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, conversation with His disciples, and concerning His double Advent — the first in humility, which is past ; the second in royal majesty,, which is still to come.* Thus full and clear is the testimony of the latter half of the second century, not only to the

* It would be interesting if there were clear evidence that the work from which our fragment was taken was read by any ancient author. I think it, therefore, worth while to copy the account which St. Jerome, in the preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew, gives of the four Gospels, because the coincidences with our fragment, which I have marked in Italics, seem to me more than accidental. ' Primus omnium Matthaeus est publi- canus, cognomento Levi, qui Evangelium in Judaea Hebraeo sermone edidit : ob eorum vel maxime caussam, qui in Jesum crediderant ex Judaeis, et ne- quaquam legis umbram, succedente Evangeli veritate servabant. Secundus Marcus, interpres Apostoli Petri, et Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus epis- copus ; qui Dominum Salvatorem ipse non vidtt, sed ea quae magistrum audierat praedicantem, juxta fidem magis gestorum narravit quam ordinem. Tertius Lucas medicus, natione Syrus Antiochensis, cujus laus in Evan- gelio, qui et ipse discipulus Apostoli Pauli, in Achaiae Bceotiseque partibus volumen condidit, quaedam altius repetens : et ut ipse in procemio confitetur audita magis quam visa describens. Ultimus Johannes Apostolus et Evan- gelista, quern Jesus amavit plurimum; qui supra pectus Domini recumbens, purissima doctrinarum fluenta potavit, et qui solus de cruce meruit audire, Ecce mater tua. Is quum esset in Asia, et jam tune haereticorum semina pullularent, Cerinthi, Ebionis, et caeterorum qui negant Christum in carne venisse (quos et ipse in Epistola sua Antichristos vocat, et Apostolus Paulus frequenter percutit), coactus est ab omnibus pene tune Asiez episcopis et multarum ecclesiarum legationibus de divinitate salvatoris altius scribere ; et ad ipsum (ut ita dicam) Dei Verbum, non tarn audaci, quam felici teme- ritate prorumpere. Et ecclesiastica narrat historia, quum a fratribus cogeretur ut scriberet, ita facturum se respondisse si indicto jejunio omnes Deum precarentur, quo expleto, revelatione saturatus, in illud procemium ccelo veniens eructavit : In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum ; Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.

v.] CAIUS. 55

genuineness of the four Gospels, but to their inspiration. If nothing more could be adduced, it is better evidence than that which satisfies us in the case of most classical writers.

As I have had occasion to mention these two disciples of Irenaeus — Caius and Hippolytus — I have a few words more to say about each. In point of antiquity they may be regarded as on a level with Clement and Tertullian, though but younger contemporaries of Irenaeus. And I may say in passing, that the long continuance of a large Greek element in the Roman Church is testified by the fact, that although Caius and Hippolytus both held office in that Church in the first quarter of the third century, all that remains of either is in Greek ; and Hippolytus published so many Greek books, including some sermons, that I am not without doubts whether he could use Latin at all for literary purposes.

In speaking of Irenaeus, 1 mentioned that he builds an argument on the words of a text in St. Matthew's Gospel, in such a way as to show that he was a believer in the verbal inspiration of the Evangelist : that is to say, that he looked on the choice by the Evangelist of one word rather than another as a matter to be regarded not as due to the acci dental caprice of the human writer, but as directed and over ruled by the Holy Spirit. It is plain that anyone who holds such an opinion about any book must feel himself bound to see that special care shall be used in the transcription of it, in order that no copyist may carelessly or wilfully substitute words of his own for the words dictated by the Holy Ghost. It is notorious with what care the Massoretic text of the Old Testament has been preserved by men who thought that a mystery might lie in every word, every letter of the sacred text. What kind of care was used in the time of Irenaeus we may gather from an interesting adjuration which he prefixed to a work of his own — ' Whosoever thou art who shalt tran scribe this book, I charge thee with an oath by our Lord Jesus Christ and by His glorious appearing, in which He cometh to judge the quick and dead, that thou carefully compare what thou hast transcribed, and correct it according to this copy whence thou hast transcribed it ; and that thou transcribe this oath in like manner, and place it in thy copy' (Euseb.,

56 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v.

H. E., v. 20) We may safely assume that Irenaeus would be solicitous that fully as much care and reverence should be used in perpetuating the text of the Gospels, which he vene rated so highly ; and we may, therefore, regard the end of the second -century as a time when a check was being put on the licentiousness of scribes in introducing variations into the text of the New Testament writings. It is in reference to this point that I think it worth while to make a quotation from Caius. Eusebius (H. E., v. 28) has preserved some extracts from a work directed against the followers of Artemon, who, of those calling themselves Christians, was amongst the earliest to hold our Blessed Lord to have been mere man. Internal evidence shows the work to belong to the beginning of the third century, and it has been ascribed both to Caius and Hippolytus ; but the greater weight of critical authority, and, in my opinion, also far the greater weight of evidence, is in favour of the ascription to Caius. The writer pronounces the doctrine of our Lord's simple humanity to be in contradic tion to the Holy Scriptures ; and it is plain, from the nature of the case, that the writings which he thus describes as Holy Scriptures, and as teaching the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity, must have been Scriptures of the New Testament. But from a later part of the same writing, it appears that the subject of various readings had, at that early date, given rise to controversy. Caius accuses his opponents of having tam pered with the Holy Scriptures, of having published what they called ' corrected ' copies, but which, in his judgment, were simply ruined. He appeals to the fact that different * correctors ' did not agree among themselves, and that the same man was not always consistent with himself, his later text being often at variance with his earlier ; and he adds : * I think they can hardly be ignorant themselves what impudent audacity their offence involves. For either they do not be lieve the Divine Scriptures to have been spoken by the Holy Spirit, and then they are nothing but infidels ; or else they think that they are wiser than the Holy Spirit, and who could entertain such an idea but a demoniac ? ' We have not the means of judging whether the anger of Caius was justly roused by perversions of the sacred text, wilfully made in

V.] HIPPOLYTUS. 57

order to remove its testimony to our Lord's Divinity, or whether he was but the blind champion of aTextus Receptus against more learned critical revisers. The important point for us to observe is how strongly the doctrine of Scripture Inspiration was held at the beginning of the third century ; and you will see how well justified I am in thinking it need less, in our investigation about the Gospels, to go below the age of Irenaeus, the tradition which he handed on to his dis ciples being identical with that which the Church has held ever since.

It might seem, then, needless to say anything about Hip- polytus, whose literary activity mainly belonged to the first quarter of the third century ; and so it would be needless, if the question were merely about his own opinions ; but the chief value of Hippolytus consists in the information he has preserved to us about the sentiments of earlier writers, and these, men whose testimony is of high value to us in the present investigation, namely, the heretics of the second century.

We are never so secure that a tradition has been trans mitted to us correctly as when it comes through different in dependent channels. For example, to touch by anticipation on subjects on which I shall have to speak at more length in other courses of Lectures, the value of a version as a witness in any controversy respecting the true text of the sacred writings depends on the facts that the version is, for all essential purposes, a duplicate of the manuscript from which the translation was made, and that the corruptions which the two will suffer in the process of transcription are likely to be different, since words resembling each other in one language will probably not correspond to words easily interchanged in the other. Hence things in which the version and copies of the original agree may safely be counted to be as old as the time when the translation was made. In like manner, if, in any investigation as to the liturgical usages of the Eastern Church, we find details of Eucharistic celebration common to the Catholics, the Nestorian, and the Eutychian sects, we may safely reckon these details to be at least as ancient as the time when the splitting off of these sects took place ; for

58 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v.

the simple reason, that it is very unlikely that anything sub sequently introduced in one of mutually hostile communities would be adopted by the other. Similarly, if we find books enjoying the prerogatives of Scripture in orthodox Churches and heretical sects alike, we may safely conclude that these books had gained their position before the separation of the heretical sects in question. A forgery of later date would not be likely to be accepted by both alike, and to be treated as common ground on which both could argue.

The work of Hippolytus, which has thrown a great deal of light on the Gnostic speculations of the second century, has only become known in my own time, having been preserved in only a single manuscript, which was brought from Mount Athos to Paris, and published for the first time in 1851. The title is the ' Refutation of all Heresies.' The method of refu tation which Hippolytus principally employed is one which is very convenient to us, and probably was quite enough for his orthodox readers. It consisted in simply repeating the heretics' doctrine in their own words, the object being to ex hibit its identity with heathen speculations. In this way we obtain a knowledge of several heretical writings, of which, except through this book of Hippolytus, we should not have heard. Now common to all these writings is the copious use as authoritative of our four Gospels, and in particular of that Gospel whose date has been brought down lowest, the Gospel according to St. John. We do not gain much by these cita tions when the heretics quoted are only known to us by the extracts given by Hippolytus ; for then it is open to any ob jector to say, Oh ! perhaps these writers were contemporary with Hippolytus himself, or very little older. Who can assure us that the heretical documents dragged to light by Hippo lytus had been in circulation for a dozen years before he ex posed them ? But the heretics from whose works Hippolytus gives extracts are not all of them unknown persons. I name in particular Basilides and Valentinus, who hold a prominent place in the lists of everyone who has written about the heretics of the second century. Basilides taught in the reign of Hadrian — let us say about the year 130 — and Valentinus taught in Rome between the years 140 and 150. In fact,

V.] HIPPOLYTUS. 59

both these schools of heretics are mentioned by Justin Martyr, so that they clearly belong to the first half of the second century, and chronologically come before Justin Martyr, of whom I had proposed next to speak. Now in the extracts given by Hippolytus purporting to be from Basilides and Valentinus, each of these writers not only quotes from Paul's Epistles (including that to the Ephesians, one doubted by Renan, who accepts all the rest, except the Pastoral Epistles), but each also makes use of the Gospels, in particular of the Gospel according to St. John. I may say in passing, that though the fourth Gospel is that which is most assailed by sceptical writers, yet as far as external evidence is concerned, if there be any difference between this Gospel and the others, the difference is in its favour — that is to say, I think there is even greater weight of external attestation to this than to the rest. And the use made of St. John's Gospel by all the heretics of the second century is no small argument in favour of its early date. The answer made by sceptical writers to these quotations in Hippolytus is, Can you be sure that the Valentinian and Basilidian works from which Hippo lytus quotes were really wrritten by the heresiarchs themselves ? Is it not possible that, when he professes to describe the opinions of Valentinus or Basilides, he is drawing his infor mation from the work of some disciple of each of these sects who lived nearer his own time, the ^r/o-i with which Hippo lytus introduces the quotations being merely intended to have the effect of inverted commas in an English book, and not to be pressed to mean that Valentinus himself is the speaker ? If I were to deal with this answer in a contro versial spirit I might describe it as a quite gratuitous as sumption, and a mere evasion to escape a difficulty, to imagine that Hippolytus can mean anything but what he says, or to suppose that words which he distinctly states are those of Valentinus are to be understood as spoken by some body else. But I should be sorry to press any argument the least degree further than in my own heart I considered it would justly bear ; and when I ask myself whether I can say that I regard Hippolytus as incapable of the laxity here im puted to him, I cannot say that I do. I do not think highly

60 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v.

of his critical acumen, and I cannot pronounce it impossible that he may have erroneously accepted or described a Valen- tinian book as the work of Valentinus himself. I therefore do not insist on the admission that the heretical works cited are as old as the words of Hippolytus, literally understood, would make them out to be ; and for my purpose I can be quite satisfied with the incontrovertible fact that, in the time of Hippolytus, there was no controversy between the Valen- tinians and the orthodox as to their New Testament Canon, and in particular that the Gospel of John was alike venerated by both parties.

This is a fact which we can abundantly establish by other evidence. The whole vocabulary of the system of Valentinus is founded on the prologue to St. John's Gospel. The system of Yalentinus uses as technical words, /xovoyev^s, £<o?7, dA^em, Xapis, 7rA?7peo//,a, Xoyos, <£wg. It is quite impossible to invert the order, and to suppose these words first to have been the key-words of a heretical system, and then to have been bor rowed by someone desirous to pass himself off as St. John, or to suppose that in such a case the Gospel could ever have found acceptance in the Church. You might as well conceive someone who wanted a document to be accepted as authori tative by us Protestants, stuffing it with Roman Catholic technical words — Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and such like. Putting in such words would clearly show any Protes tant that the document emanated from a hostile body ; and so, in like manner, if the theory of Valentinus had been pro mulgated before the publication of the fourth Gospel, the vocabulary of the prologue to that Gospel would have ex cluded it from Catholic use. There is abundance of other evidence that Catholics and Valentinians were agreed as to the reverence paid to this Gospel. Tertullian contrasts the methods of dealing with the New Testament pursued by Marcion, of whom I shall speak a little later, and by Valen tinus. Marcion mutilated his New Testament, rejecting all parts of it which he could not reconcile with his theories ; but Valentinus, as Tertullian says, ' integro instrumento uti vide- tur' (De Pmscrip. 38); that is to say, he did not reject the Gospels accepted by the Catholic Church, but he strove by

V.] THE VALENTINIANS. 6 1

artificial interpretation to make them teach his peculiar doc trine. How true this statement is we have extant evidence. , The earliest commentary on a New Testament book of which)] we have any knowledge is by a heretic — that by the Valen-n tinian Heracleon on St. John. It is known to us through the!' use made of it by Origen, who, when commenting on the same book, quotes Heracleon some fifty times, sometimes agreeing with him, but more usually controverting him. We have thus a very minute knowledge of Heracleon's commen tary on at least four or five chapters of St. John. And this characteristic prevails throughout, that the strongest believer in verbal inspiration at the present day could not dwell with more minuteness on the language of St. John, or draw more mysteries from what might seem the accidental use of one expression rather than another.

There is controversy as to the date of Heracleon. All we know with certainty is, that he must have been earlier than Clement of Alexandria, who quotes him twice (Strom, iv. 9; Eclog. ex Scrip. Proph. 25). Sceptical writers make Heracleon as little earlier than Clement as they can help, and say his commentary may have been as late as 180. Orthodox writers would give it thirty or forty years greater antiquity. For my , part, I think it makes little difference as far as the question of the antiquity of St. John's Gospel is concerned. Heracleon was a Valentinian, and it appears that in his time the autho rity, and I think we may say the inspiration, of John's Gospel was common ground to the Valentinians and the Catholics, How could that be possible, if it had not been acknowledged before the Valentinians separated from the orthodox? If the book had been written, subsequently to the separation, by a Valentinian, the orthodox would not have received it ; if by a Catholic the Valentinians would not have re ceived it. If it had been of unknown parentage, it is in credible that both communities should have accepted it as Apostolic.

What has been said about Valentinus may be repeated about Basilides. Hippolytus produces an extract in which the words of St. John's Gospel are twice quoted (vii. 22, 27), and which he says, as plain as words can do it, is taken from

62 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v.

a writing of Basilides.*1 Admit that Hippolytus was either misinformed on this point, or through inaccuracy said what he did not mean to say, it still remains that the extract was written by at least a disciple of Basilides. It follows that Basilidians and orthodox agreed in their reverence for St. John's Gospel ; and it follows, then, by the same argument which I have used already, that St. John's Gospel must have gained its authority before Basilides separated from the Church — that is to say, at least before 130. This evidence for the antiquity of St. John is an argument a fortiori for the antiquity of the other Gospels, which all admit to be earlier.

I may here mention the only point of any consequence on which a difference is attempted to be made between the testi mony to the fourth Gospel and to the others, viz. that though Papias, of whom I will speak presently, names Matthew and Mark as the authors of Gospels, and though there are early anonymous quotations of John's Gospel, the first to mention John by name as its author is Theophilus, who was bishop of Antioch about 170 (adAutol., ii. 22). But this point is of very small worth ; for not to say that the argument might be used equally against Luke's Gospel, the authorship of which is not seriously contested, there cannot be a doubt that any evidence which proves the antiquity of John's Gospel proves also its authorship. In other words, it is plain from the work itself that whoever composed it intended it to be received as ema nating from the beloved disciple ; and we cannot doubt that it was as such it was received by those who did accept it. Let me call your attention to the singular fact, that the name of the Apostle John is never mentioned in St. John's Gospel. If you had only that Gospel, you would never know that there was an Apostle of the name. The other Gospels, when they speak of the forerunner of our Lord, always give him the title of the Baptist, so as to prevent confusion between the two

* Wesrcott New Testament Canon, p. 288) gives strong reasons for believing the extract to be from a work of Basilides himself. So also Hort, Dictionary of Christian Biography, I. 271. The same view is taken by Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible, p. 268, quoted by Dr. Ezra Abbot (Authorship of Fourth Gospel, p. 86). But since there is room for doubt, I use an argument which does not assume the Basilidian authorship.

VI.] THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 63

Johns. This Gospel speaks of him simply as John, so that a reader not otherwise informed would never have it suggested to him that there was another of the name. This fact is worth attention in connexion with what I shall have here after to say on the omissions of the Gospel, and on the ques tion whether John is to be supposed ignorant of everything he does not record in his Gospel. I shall contend, on the contrary, that the things which John omits are things so very well known that he could safely assume his readers to be acquainted with them. It certainly is so in this instance ; for no one disputes that, if the writer were not the Apostle John, he was someone who wished to pass for him. But a forger would be likely to have made some more distinct mention of the person who played the principal part in his scheme ; and he certainly could scarcely have hit on such a note of genuine ness as that, whereas almost everyone in the Church had felt the necessity of distinguishing by some special name John the forerunner from John the Apostle, there was one person who would feel no such necessity, and who would not form this habit — namely, the Apostle himself.

VI.

PART III.

THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. JUSTIN MARTYR — TATIAN.

It may now be regarded as proved, that towards the end of the second century our four Gospels were universally accepted in the Catholic Church as the peculiarly trustworthy records of the Saviour's life, and that they were then ascribed to the same authors as those to whom we now ascribe them. Why, then, are we not to accept this testimony ? Is it because of any opposing evidence, external or internal ? Postponing for a moment the question of internal evidence, opposing ex ternal evidence there is none. All that can be said is, The

64 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi.

evidence you have produced bears date a hundred years later than the books ; we desire to have earlier testimony. Now, to take the case of a classical author, the testimony to whom bears some faint comparison with that to the Gospels ; the plays of Terence are quoted by Cicero and Horace, and we require neither more nor earlier witnesses. No one objects : Cicero and Horace wrote a hundred years after Terence ; what earlier witnesses can you produce to account for the intervening time ? In the case of the Gospels, however, we can meet what I account an unreasonable demand. I began with the end of the second century, because then first the Christian literature of the period is so abundant as to leave no room for controversy as to the Gospels accepted by that age. We can, however, go back a couple of generations and remain on ground which cannot reasonably be con tested.

The Apology of Justin Martyr was written about A.D. 150. That is the date Justin himself gives (ApoL, i. 46) ; and though, no doubt, it is only a round number, it is as near the truth as we can go. The Apology is addressed to the Emperor Antoninus, who reigned from 138-161, and it twice (cc. 29, 31) speaks of events in the preceding reign (Hadrian's) as having happened ' just now.' Hence, some place the Apology in the very beginning of the reign of Antoninus. Eusebius dates it 141. Dr. Hort, in one of his earliest writings,* tried to prove that Justin died in 148. He did not convince me that there is evidence to justify any positive assertion about the matter ; but in placing the Apology in 150, about the middle of the reign of Antoninus, we are sure that we cannot be very far wrong either way.

There has been a good deal of dispute about Justin's New Testament citations ; but, as far as the judgment of candid men is concerned, the question may now be regarded as settled. The result of very long discussions and of a good

* Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, iii. 155. 1856. On the other hand, if we can rely on the genuineness of the Acts of Justin's martyrdom, he was condemned by Rusticus ; and Borghesi, Outrages, viii. 545, has made out a probable case that Rusticus was praefectus urbi between 163 and 167.

VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 65

deal of fighting has been to leave us where we had been. Any ordinary reader would have no doubt that Justin's works contain copious quotations from our Gospels ; and the objections to accepting this conclusion made by those who professed to have gone closely into the matter have been dissipated by still closer examination. In his refe rences to the events of our Lord's life, Justin goes over all) the ground covered by our Evangelists, and almost com pletely abstains from going beyond it. He informs us also that he drew from written sources the accounts which he gives of our Lord's life. It is true, and our adversaries make the most of it, that he does not mention the names of the authors of these records. But the reason is, that he is ad dressing heathen who would not be interested in knowing the names of the Christian writers quoted ; and he purposely' avoids using Christian technical language. Thus, when he describes the Christian meetings for worship on the Lord's day, he says that they take place on the day which is called the ' day of the sun ' ; and again, he calls the Jews ' bar barians.' And so now he tells his heathen readers that he is quoting from ' memoirs ' of our Lord which are called * Gospels,' and which were composed by the Apostles and by those who followed them. Observe how accurately this! agrees with our present Gospels — two being composed by) Apostles, two by their immediate followers.

Justin adds that these memoirs were read along with the writings of the prophets at the meetings of Christians on each Sunday. Now, is it credible that the Gospels which Justin attests to have been placed by the Christian Church in equal rank with the prophets of the Old Testament, and to have been weekly read in their public assemblies, could be different from those Gospels which were confessedly a few years after wards exclusively recognized through the Christian world ? Here comes in with great force the reflex action, to which I have already referred, of the testimony of Irenaeus. In his time our four Gospels were in such long-established honour, that it is certain they must have had the same rank at least one generation earlier. In Justin's time, some Gospels were in such honour as to be placed on a level in Church use with

F

66 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi.

the Old Testament Scriptures. We never hear of any revolution dethroning one set of Gospels and replacing them by another ; and we may therefore conclude with tolerable certainty that the Gospels honoured by the Church in Justin's day were the same as those to which the same respect was paid in the days of Irenaeus, some twenty or thirty years later.

The only plausible ground on which this has been con tested is that Justin's citations frequently do not verbally correspond with our Gospels. Many of the differences that have been pointed out are trivial enough, as an example will enable you to judge. In order to show how pure was the morality taught by our Lord, Justin devotes three consecu tive chapters to quoting his precepts. No other idea than that Justin was quoting our Gospels would occur to anyone whose acuteness had not been sharpened by the exigencies of controversy. For instance, ' He said, "Give to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow turn not away ; for if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive what new thing do ye ? Even the publicans do this. Lay not up for • yourselves treasure upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where robbers break through ; but lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt. For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ? or what shall a man give in exchange for it ? Lay up treasure, therefore, in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt." And, i " Be ye kind and merciful, as your Father also is kind and merciful, and maketh His sun to rise on sinners, and the righteous and the wicked. Take no thought what ye shall eat or what ye shall put on ; are ye not better than the birds and the beasts ? and God feedeth them. Take no thought, therefore, what ye shall eat or what ye shall put on ; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But seek ye the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall \be added to you. For where his treasure is, there also is the mind of a man." And, " Do not these things to be seen of men, otherwise ye have no reward from your Father which is in heaven." ' I need not pursue the quotation. I have read enough to enable you to understand the general character of

VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 67

Justin's quotations. You will at once have recognized the words I read. If I ask you whence are they taken, you may perhaps reply, From the Sermon on the Mount. But if I go on to ask : Do you mean from the discourse recorded by St. Matthew, or from a parallel passage in St. Luke ? you examine more minutely, and perhaps you find that Justin's version does not verbally agree with one or other. Then comes the question : How do you know that Justin is quoting either : May he not be taking his account from some other Gospel now lost, which contained a record of the same discourses ? As far as the evidences of our religion are concerned, it makes no difference whether or not the hypothesis of a lost Gospel be true. It is no part of our faith to hold the doctrine of Irenseus, that it was in the nature of things impossible there should be more than four Gospels. We want to know what was the story concerning Jesus of Nazareth, in attes tation of which the first preachers of Christianity were con tent to suffer hardships, and if need be to give their lives ; and* to give us that information the Gospel used by Justin, what ever it was, answers our purpose as well as any Gospel we have. It might be uncomfortable to our feelings to believe that Christian writers for the first century and a half used a dif ferent Gospel from ours, and that the Church, A.D. 170, for some unaccountable reason, thought proper to bury its ancient text-book in oblivion, and set up our four Gospels in its room. But what would scepticism have gained, when it is also proved that this lost Gospel must have been as like to our present Gospels as the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark are to each other ?* Substantially the same facts are related in all, and told in the same way.

I will just take the account of our Lord's infancy, the sub ject above all others on which the apocryphal Gospels after wards ran wild, and you will see that Justin follows throughout the narrative of our existing Evangelists. He does not appear to have known anything more than they knew, and he tells, without doubt, what they have related. I give a summary in

* This idea has been worked out by Mr. Sadler in his book called ' The Lost Gospel.'

F2

68 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi.

Westcott's words (New Testament Canon, p. 101): — 'He tells us that Christ was descended from Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David — that the angel Gabriel was sent to announce His birth to the Virgin Mary — that this was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah (vii. 14) — that Joseph was forbidden in a vision to put away his espoused wife when he was so minded — that our Saviour's birth at Bethlehem had been foretold by Micah — that His parents went thither from Nazareth, where they dwelt, in consequence of the enrolment of Cyrenius — that as they could not find a lodging in the village, they lodged in a cave close by it, where Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a manger — that while there, wise men from Arabia, guided by a star, worshipped Him, and offered Him gold, and frankincense, and myrrh, and by revelation were commanded not to return to Herod, to whom they had first come — that He was called Jesus, as the Saviour of His people — that by the command of God His parents fled with Him to Egypt for fear of Herod, and remained there till Archelaus succeeded him — that Herod, being deceived by the wise men, commanded the children of Bethlehem to be put to death, so that the prophecy of Jere miah was fulfilled, who spoke of Rachel weeping for her children — that Jesus grew after the common manner of men, working as a carpenter, and so waited thirty years, more or less, till the coming of John the Baptist.' I need not continue Justin's account of our Saviour's life. This specimen of his account of that part of it where, if anywhere, a difference from the canonical Gospels would be likely to be found, is enough to show that the Gospel used by Justin told substan tially the same story as that related in the Gospels we have, and that, as far as controversy with unbelievers is concerned, it is quite immaterial which Gospel is appealed to.

There remains the purely literary question, Is there reason

to believe in the existence of this alleged lost Gospel ? ' Entia

non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,' and the question

II is, Are we put under a necessity of postulating the existence

I of a Gospel which has disappeared, by reason of verbal differ-

jj ences forbidding us to find in our present Gospels the source

V of Justin's quotations ? An answer to this question has been

VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 69

provided by a study of Justin's quotations from the Old Tes tament, which enables us to know what degree of accuracy is to be expected from him. In that case we know what he means to quote, and we find him quoting loosely and inaccu rately, and quoting the same 'passage differently different times.* When we think it strange that an ancient father of Justin's date should not quote with perfect accuracy, we for-| get that in those days, when manuscripts were scarce, and when concordances did not exist, the process of finding a passage in a manuscript (written possibly with no spaces between the words), and copying it, was not performed with quite as much ease as an English clergyman, writing his sermon with his Bible at his side, can turn up any text he wishes to refer to; and yet I should be sorry to vouch for the verbal accuracy of all the Scripture citations we hear in sermons at the present day. The excuse for such inaccuracy at present is one which Justin, too, may have pleaded — that exactly in proportion to a man's familiarity with a book is his disposition to trust his memory, and not verify a reference to it. And the applicability of this remark is confirmed by the fact that there is very much less accuracy in Justin's short quotations, which would be made from memory, than in his long ones, where it would be worth while or necessary for him to turn to the book.

On the whole, then, the general coincidence, in range and contents, of Justin's quotations with our Gospels is enough to show that they are the sources whence Justin drew his

* See a table of Justin's Old Testament quotations given by Westcott (New Testament Canon, p. 172). Dr. Sanday, in his Gospels in the Second Century, has shown that no greater exactness of quotation is found when we study the quotations of the Old Testament in the New, or in the Apostolic Fathers, or the quotations of the New Testament by Irenseus. I find in an unpublished Paper by the late Bishop Fitz Gerald an apposite quotation from the preface to Pearce's 'Longinus': — Neque enim aut Longino aut aliis priorum saeculorum scriptoribus videtur usi- tatum fuisse accurate fideque satis verba citare. Imo nusquam si bene memini, Longinus per totum suum Commentarium cujusvis auctoris locum iisdem verbis (modo pluribus quam duobus aut tribus consisteret) exhibuit ; nee aliter ab aliis scriptoribus factum video. Si enim sensum auctoris et praecipua citatae sententiae verba ob oculos lectoris ponerent, de caeteris minus soliciti fuere. Accurata haec citandi diligentia, qua hodie utimur, -quaeque laudabilis sane est, frustra in veteribus quaerenda est. — Praef. in Longinum, p. xix., ed. 1732.

70 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi.

information. I will give for each of the Gospels one speci men of a multitude of proofs. In relating the murder of the innocents at Bethlehem, he quotes Jeremiah's prophecy of Rachel weeping for her children, and that in a form agreeing with St. Matthew and differing from the Septuagint. Hence, even if we had no other proof, we could infer that he used St. Matthew's Gospel. Mark has so little that is not in St. Matthew or St. Luke that it might be thought difficult to identify anonymous citations with his Gospel. Yet Justin's quotations from the Gospels are so numerous, that besides some very probable references to Mark, they touch on one