— THE JAMHS K, MOFFITT FUND. LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. GIFT OF i JAMES KENNEDY MOFFITT OF THE CLASS OF '86. Accession No,, Class No. . ■ • Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/fourgospelsashisOOIondrich THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS WILLIAMS AND NORGATE 14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON AND 20 SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH 1895 [AU rights resefved] T^^v^f tHOfflTf Edinburgh : T. and A. Constabi^e, Printers to Her Majesty :k. PREFACE I HAVE had no other object in the present work than the ascertainment of fact. Nothing wholesome can be obtained from that which is not true. The traditionary beUefs of EngHsh- speaking men depend largely, if not wholly, on statements which are not true but which are held to be beyond doubt or question. The soundness of the foundation on which these popular beliefs are said to rest can be determined only by a complete examination of the history contained, or supposed to be contained, in the New Testament writings. I have entered on such an examination in this volume ; and I have done so, I hope and believe, in a reverent and temperate spirit. ^ Are these things so ? ' is the only question which I have cared to answer ; and they who feel that their first and last duty is to the truth will ask no other. 109288 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Obligations of the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England The Teaching of the Church of England Judgements of the Sovereign in Council The Principle of the Royal Supremacy The Teaching of the Traditional Schools Spiritual Interpretations of some alleged Historical Propo sitions in the Creeds .... Theology of the Nicene Creed The Guidance of the Spirit into all Truth The Position of the Traditional Schools in the Church of England Interpretation of the Fourth Article . The Right Hand of God The Language of the Eucharist The Sixth Article Judgement of the Court of Arches in the Case of Essays and Reviews The Theology of the Nicene Creed the Theology of the Church of England Need of a rigorous Examination of the History said to be con- tained in the New Testament Writings . Tactics of the Traditional Parties in the Church of England Ambiguous Teaching Its Mischievous Effects The Perfect Picture of a Perfect Life The Idea of such a Picture a Delusion The Divine Work a Revelation or LTnveiling PAGE 1 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 13 15 16 18 CONTENTS The Manifestation of the Father in the Eternal Son The Office and Work of the Eternal Son The Agony of Creation The Incarnation and Conflict of the Eternal Son The Death and Eesurrection of the Eternal Son The Sacrifice and Ascension of the Eternal Son The Eevealing Spirit The Three Persons . The Catholic Church The one Baptism for the Eemission of Sins The Eternal Wisdom Infallible Books and Churches Theology and Science Signs, Wonders, Prodigies, and Marvels Purpose of the Present Volume PAGE 18 19 •20 21 22 22 23 23 23 23 25 26 27 27 BOOK I EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE GOSPELS CHAPTER I EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES The Trustworthiness of the Gospel History dependent on that of the Acts of the Apostles Means for Testing the Trustworthiness of the Latter . Account of the Doings of the Apostle Paul after his conversion as given in the Acts .... Paul's First Journey to Jerusalem, according to the Acts His Second Journey ..... Controversy on the Circumcision of Gentile Converts . General Council of the Church in Jerusalem . Formal Decree of the Council Account given by Paul himself of his Relations with the Church at Jerusalem .... His Defence as given in his Letter to the Galatians . Complete Antagonism with the Apostles at Jerusalem His Sojourn in Arabia .... 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 32 34 34 35 CONTENTS His First Journey to Jerusalem The History in the Acts garbled with a Purpose His Second Visit to Jerusalem The Second Visit in the Acts a fiction The Narrative of the Council in the Acts unhistorical His Charges against the False Brethren The Peter of Acts, and the Peter of Paul's Letter to the Galatians The Difference between Peter and Paul one of Fundamental Principle .... Peter at Antioch .... The Council of Jerusalem mythical The whole Narrative in Acts incredible Peter's reference in the Council to the story of Cornelius The Story. of the Council irreconcileable with that of Corneliuf The Lessons inferred by the Story of Cornelius The Story of Cornelius composed by the Writer of Acts Supposed' References of Paul to the Story of Stephen . This Story inconsistent with Paul's narrative in his Letter to the Galatians ..... The Speech of Stephen .... The Persecution after the Death of Stephen . The Gifts of Tongues at Pentecost The Articulate Speaking of Languages never learnt Paul's Description of the Gift of Tongues Gifts of Healing ..... The Signs of an Apostle .... Paul's Comparison of the Gift of Tongues and of Prophecy The Gift of Tongues not the utterance of Articulated Speech Peter's mode of meeting the Charge of Drunkenness at Pentecost The Tongues at Pentecost not the utterance of Articulated Sentences ..... Alleged Community of Goods in the Church at Jerusalem The Story of Ananias and Sapphira . External Evidence for the Existence of the Book of Acts The Prefaces to the Third Synoptic Gospel and to the Acts The Author of Acts anonymous The Author of Acts not a companion of Paul . The Book of Acts entirely discredited as a History viii CONTENTS CHAPTER II EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES ^^^^ Thaumaturgy of the Acts of the Apostles . . .61 Complete Discrediting of the Acts . . .62 Impossibility of maintaining the Credit of the Gospel History on that of the History of the Acts . . . .63 Paley's Twelve Witnesses . . . . .63 The Four Independent Evangelists . . . .65 The Synoptic Gospels . . . .65 The Johannine Gospel . . . . .65 The Conditions of Independent Reporting . . .66 Supplement to the Johannine Gospel . . .66 Sources of the Synoptic Gospels . . . .67 Supposed Citations from our Gospels in Early Christian Writings 67 Alleged Nature of these Citations . . . .67 Preface to the Third Synoptic Gospel . . .69 Sources of Citations from the Words of Jesus . . 70 Futility of referring them in all cases to our Canonical Gospels 70 Historical Sayings of Jesus the common property of all who heard them .... Extent of Testimony afforded by these Citations History of the Texts of Gospels Papias and the Gospel of Mark Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles The Epistle of Clement — Question of Date and Genuineness of this Epistle References to Book of Judith The Epistle of Barnabas — Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard The Shepherd of Hermas — No Sign of Acquaintance with our Gospels The Epistles of Ignatius — Must, if genuine, date from the Reign of Trajan The Seven Letters mentioned by Eusebius The Long and Short Recensions The Syriac version of the Letters to the Ephesians, the Romans, and to Polycarp . . .76 71 72 72 72 73 74 74 75 75 75 76 76 CONTENTS IX Dates of the MSS. of the Syriac Version The Journey from Antioch to Rome The Epistle of Polycarp Apologies of Justin Martyr — Date of the larger Apology Citations from the Scriptures Dialogue with Tryphon Memoirs of the Apostles The Apocalypse of John References to the History of Jesus The Genealogy of Jesus The Birth in a Cave The Baptism in Jordan The Arrest on Olivet The Flight of the Disciples The Bribing of the Soldiers References to the Teaching of Jesus Not drawn from our Gospels The Memoirs of Hegesippos — Judgement of Eusebius Lifetime of Hegesippos . The Silence of Eusebius The Gospel of the Hebrews The Martyrdom of James Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis — His Reference to Gospels of Matthew and Mark His Opinion of Real Tradition . . . • His Exposition of the Master's Sayings . His Account of the Composition of the Gospel of Mark . Contradictory Legends as to Peter and Mark The Preaching of Peter .... Not an Orderly Narrative, and therefore not our Second Synoptic Gospel . . . • • Complete Absence of Petrine Influence from our Second Synoptic ....•• Papias does not speak of the Writing of Mark as a Gospel ...... There is, therefore, no Substitution of one Gospel for another ....•• PAGE 76 76 77 77 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 79 79 79 80 81 82 82 82 82 83 83 83 84 85 85 85 86 86 86 87 CONTENTS The Logia of the Master The Gospel of Matthew The Hebrew Original .... Our First Synoptic is not a Translation Date of Composition of our First Synoptic Gospel The Clementine Homilies — Their probable Date, and the Value of their Testimony Supposed Keferences to our Gospels The True and False Things of Scripture Basileides — His supposed Twenty-four Books on the Gospels Meaning attached by Basileides to the term Gospel No Eeason for accepting the Statements of Hippolytos as applying personally to Basileides Valentinus — His Work in Alexandria and Eome Supposed Reference to our Fourth Gospel Irenaeus on the Story of the Daughter of laeiros Looseness of the Language of Irenseus . /Markion — ^ His Gospel . . Statements of Tertullian and Epiphanios Charge of Mutilating our Third Synoptic Gospel The alterations of Markion not made for the Reasons assigned by Tertullian , . Impossibility of determining what the Gospel of Markion was . . . . No Evidence that Markion had any Knowledge of our Canonical Gospels .... Tatian — His Address to the Greeks Parable of the Treasure in the Field The Diatessaron .... His Gospel ..... Theodoret of Cyrus .... Dionysios of Corinth — His Letter to Soter, Bishop of Rome His References to the Scriptures The Preface to our Third Gospel CONTENTS Y Meliton, Bishop of Sardeis — Date of his Apology .... The Old Books .... His Journey to get the List of them Scriptures of the Old Covenant . The New Covenant of Paul not a Written Book at all Ignorance of Meliton of any canon of New Testament Scriptures ..... Claudius Apollinaris — Date of his Apology .... His Fragments on the Paschal Controversy Athenagoras — Supposed Eeferences to the Discourses in our Gospels The Kiss of Peace .... Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons The Testimony of Zacharias The Protevangelion of James Ptolemaios and Herakleon — Date of the Work of Irenseus on Heresies Celsus — Question of his Lifetime The ' Logos Alethes ' . Origen's Opinions about Celsus . The Canon of Muratori Not known to Papias, Hegesippos, or Eusebius . The Work a Fragment which has been Interpolated Supposed Reference to the Shepherd of Hermas . Its Testimony of no value for the Existence of our Gospels in the Second Century PAGE 98 98 98 98 99 99 100 100 100 100 101 101 101 102 102 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 CHAPTER III THE AGE AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL The Testimony for the Johannine Gospel weaker than that for the Synoptics . . . . .105 Supposed Reference to the Johannine Gospel in the Epistle of Barnabas . . . . . .106 The Shepherd of Hermas . . . . .106 The Epistles of Ignatius .... . 106 CONTENTS The Epistle of Polycarp Polycarp and the Paschal Controversy Appeal to the Testimony of Justin Justin's Theology of the Logos Its Sources .... The Divine Wisdom in the Old Testament Scriptures Difference between Justin's Theology and that of the Fourtl Gospel ...... Differences between Justin's Evangelic History and that of the Fourth Gospel ..... Jesus ' not a Sophist ' . . . . HegesLppos ...... Papias ...... Silence of Eusebius . . . . Purpose of Eusebius ..... Papias and the Apocalypse .... The Clementine Homilies .... The Epistle to Diognetos . . ^ . Basileides and Valentinus .... Tatian . . . . . . ^ Dionysios of Corinth, Meliton, and Claudius Apoliinaris The Epistle to Flora ..... Celsus ...... The Canon of Muratori .... No mention of the Johanniue Gospel down to the second half of the Second Century . John, the Son of Zebedee, the supposed Author of five of our Canonical Scriptures Dionysios of Alexandria on the Authorship of the Apocalypse Acceptance of the Apocalypse as the Work of John the Apostle by Papias and Justin Martyr .... Date of the Composition of the Apocalypse . The Writer of the Fourth Gospel anonymous John, the Son of Zebedee, an Apostle of the Jews Characteristics of the Writer of the Fourth Gospel The Fourth Gospel represents the Jews as the Enemies of the Christ ....... The Author of the Fourth Gospel ignorant of the Customs and Manners of the Jews ..... PAGE 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 109 110 110 110 110 110 111 111 112 113 113 113 113 113 114 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 117 117 117 CONTENTS xiii PAGE Idea of the Jews as Lawless . . . . .117 Language of the Discourses in the Fourth Gospel . . 118 Geographical and other Errors in the Fourth Gospel . . 118 Johannine Description of the Author of the Fourth Gospel con- tradicted by that of the Synoptics . . .119 Supposed Age of John at the time of the Composition of the Fourth Gospel . . . . . .119 Theory of the Changes introduced by Amanuenses in the Lan- guage of the Fourth Gospel . . . .119 The Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel . . .120 The Fourth Gospel and the Chiliastic Literature of the First Two Centuries . . . . . .121 Effects of the Lapse of Time on Memory . . .122 Impossibility of recollecting Conversations and Discourses accurately for more than a short time . . .122 The Teaching of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and in the Synoptics 123 Thaumaturgy of the Johannine Gospel . . .124 The so-called Johannine Epistles . . . .124 The Fourth Gospel and the Paschal Controversy . .125 The Testimony of Papias . . . .125 The Gospels in the Time of Irenseus . . . .125 No direct contemporary Testimony for any of the Four Canonical Gospels . . . . .125 Lack of Information as to the Personal Followers of Jesus . 125 The Argument of Paley from the twelve incorruptible and infallible Witnesses . . . . .126 The Nature of Human Testimony . . . .127 Paley's Description imaginary . . . .128 Conditions of Jewish Life and Thought in the First Century . 129 Distinction drawn between Scriptural and other Marvels, "Wonders, or Miracles . . . . .129 The Question of Miracles really a Question of the narratives of those Miracles . . . . . .130 CHAPTER IV MIRACLES OR WONDERS IN THE FOUR GOSPELS Absence of Contemporary Attestation for the Four Gospels . 131 ^ The Narrative of the Acts discredited by the Pauline Epistles 131 CONTENTS It is also discredited by the Apocalypse The Council of Jerusalem, the Conversion of Cornelius, and the Death of Stephen are imaginary Incidents The ultimate Test of the credibility of alleged Historical Nar- ratives ....... TJie Early History of Eome ..... •/Fictions and Forgeries . * . . . Application of this Test to the Acts of the Apostles . The Question of Marvels or Wonders virtually answered already The Jews in the First Century not trustworthy Witnesses of fact Traditional Notions of the Evidences of Christianity Jewish Demon ology and Superstition generally Greed for Marvels, with rapid forgetfulness of them Types of Miracles and Marvels Diabolical Possession Witchcraft ..... True and False Miracles . . The Age of Miracles .... Assertion that Miracles are still wrought Supposed evidential Miracles . Alleged raisings of physically Dead Bodies //Testimony of Augustine His Testimony genuine : that of the Gospels not genuine Slight Effects of his Testimony Evidential Value of Miracles or Wonders Butler on the Evidences of Christianity Employment of undefined Terms Direct Revelation Miracles and Discourses of the Fourth Gospel These Miracles and Discourses not Historical ' Ambiguous ' Miracles * Secret Miracles ' . Spiritual Realities and visible Wonders Ecclesiastical Miracles Pious Frauds Science and Religion Miracles the alleged Basis of Christian Belief Christianity the Religion of the Empire Hereditary Belief in Marvels . PAGE 132 132 133 133 133 133 133 134 135 135 135 136 136 137 138 139 139 140 140 141 142 143 143 145 145 146 146 147 148 148 148 149 149 150 150 151 151 CONTENTS XV PAGE Multiplication of Stories of Marvels . . . .151 Translation of Spiritual Language into concrete Incidents . 152 The Gospel Wonders for the most part the result of such Transmutation . . . . . .152 CHAPTEE V THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS Contradictory Legends .... Apocryphal Gospels ..... Appeal to the Canon of Scripture Supposed Original Apostolic Writings Supposed Early Loss of these Writings Supposed Early Knowledge of the Canon of New Testament Writings ..... Supposed Continuous Testimony to the Books of the Canon General Character of this Testimony . The Appeal to Authority .... Extent of the Authority of the Canon . * . 153 153 154 154 154 155 155 156 157 157 BOOK II THE NATIVITY t CHAPTER I THE GENEALOGIES OF THE FIRST AND THIRD GOSPELS Connexion of the Genealogies with the Gospels . . 159 Question of the natural Descent . . . .160 The Three Series of Fourteen Generations . . .160 Explanations of Jerome and Augustine . . .161 Defects in the Genealogies . . . . .161 The Line between David and Josiah . . . .162 Admissions of Jerome . . . . .163 The Genealogy in the Third Gospel . . . .163 Hypotheses of Levirate Marriages . . . .164 The Davidic Descent traced back from Joseph, not Mary . 165 Character of the Genealogy in the Third Gospel . . 165 The Genealogies probably interpolated . . .166 XVI CONTENTS Effects of the'Acceptance of these Genealogies General Question of the Davidic Descent of Jesus The Genealogies unhistorical CHAPTER II THE NARRATIVES OF THE NATIVITY The Nativity Story of the First Gospel The Topography of this Story Sanction of the Science of Astrology Supposed Application of Prophecy The Star of the Magi The Slaughter of the Innocents Astronomical Explanations The Sign of Ahaz The Recall from Egypt Invention of Prophecy The Dreams of Joseph The Virgin Birth . Narrative of the Third Gospel Points of difference from the Story of Matthew Topography and Thaumaturgy of the Tale The Journey from Jerusalem to Nazareth The Annunciation and Conception The Visit of Mary to Elisabeth The Story of Zacharias Question of the Birthplace of Jesus . Notes of Time. The Census of Quirinus The Baptism of Jesus and the Fourth Gospel The Narratives of the Nativity altogether unhistorical PAGE 167 167 169 170 171 172 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 178 179 180 181 182 183 183 184 185 186 189 192 193 BOOK III THE MINISTRY CHAPTER I THE FIRST VISIT TO THE TEMPLE The Answer of Jesus to His Parents in the Temple Pertinence of this Answer 194 194 CONTENTS xvn Forgetfulness of Signs and Wonders Learning of the Child Jesus Sources of this Learning The Return to Nazareth Difficulties of the Story The Narrative unhistorical Possible Suggestions for the framing of the Story PAGE 195 196 196 197 197 198 199 CHAPTER II THE RELATIONS OF JESUS WITH JOHN THE BAPTIST Section I — The Mission of John the Baptist. The Home at Nazareth .... The Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes . Influence of Alexandrine or other foreign Jews . Date of the First Appearance of John the Baptist Notes of Time in the First Gospel Duration of the Career of «Tohn the Baptist The alleged School founded by the Baptist The Narrative unhistorical Section II. — John as the Forerunner of the Messiah Messianic Ideas of the Time The Baptism of Water Kinship of Jesus and the Baptist The Baptist's alleged Ignorance of Jesus The Narrative unhistorical Section III. — The Acknowledgement of the Messiah ship of Jesus by the Baptist. Extent of the Evidence . Messianic Expectations of the Baptist The Narrative of the Fourth Gospel Language of John in reference to Jesus . Johannine Account of this Language The Mission of the two Disciples of the Baptist The Character of the Narrative . Translation from the Spiritual into the Concrete Chronology of the Story b 200 200 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 205 205 206 207 207 209 20^ 209 210 211 211 212 213 CONTENTS PAGE Motives for the Mission . . . .213 Position of John in his Imprisonment . . .214 Report of the "Works of Jesus . . . .214 Doubts of John and his Disciples . . .215 Estimate of John by Jesus . . . .216 The Causes of his Imprisonment . . .217 Results of the Inquiry ; the Narrative unhistorical . 218 Section IV. — The Deputation from Jerusalem to John THE Baptist. Supposed Messiahship of John the Baptist . . 218 Disposition of the Sanhedrim . . . .219 Its Bearing on the Story of the Deputation . . 219 Dilemma involved in the Narrative . . .219 The Narrative unhistorical . . . .219 Section V. — The Incidents of the Baptism of Jesus. Question of the Trustworthiness of the Narrative . 220 Comparison with the Nativity Stories . . .220 Narrative of Justin Martyr . . . .221 The opening of the Heavens, and the Voice ., . 221 The Presence of all the People . . . .222 The Narrative unhistorical . . .223 Possible Materials suggesting the Story . . .223 Section VI. — The Execution of John the Baptist. Contradictory Motives for the Execution of John the Baptist . . . . . .224 The Place of Execution . . . . .224 The Account of the First Gospel partially historical . 225 CHAPTER III THE TEMPTATION, OR TRYING, OF JESUS Accounts of the Temptation in the Synoptic Gospels . . 226 The Silence of the Fourth Gospel . . . .227 The Temptation excluded by the Chronology of the Fourth Gospel ....... 227 The Story of the Temptation unhistorical and impossible . 228 The Forty Days' Fast . . . . .228 The Visible Tempter, and the Course of Human Temptation . 229 CONTENTS XIX Judgement of the Author of the Epistle of James Satan and the Vritra of the Eig Veda Explanations of the Temptation Zoroastrian and Christian Dualism Supposed Manoeuvres of the Sanhedrim The Scenes of the Temptation The Three Suggestions Possible Groundwork of the Story The Story unhistorical PAGE 229 229 230 231 232 232 232 233 233 CHAPTER IV DURATION OF THE MINISTRY Popular Chronology .... Scenes of Action in the Ministry The Synoptic Chronology The Johannine Chronology . The two mutually exclusive . Journeys in Judsea and Galilee Pharisaic Influence in Galilee The Synagogue at Nazareth . Variations in the Versions of the Incidents at Nazareth Purpose of the Synoptics Duration of the Ministry in the Fourth Gospel Chronology of the Third Gospel 234 235 235 235 236 236 237 237 237 238 238 239 CHAPTER V THE CALLING OF THE DISCIPLES Defective Notes of Time The Johannine Narrative of the Calls The Calling of Andrew and Simon The Call of Philip and Nathanael The Greeting of Nathanael . The Narrative untrustworthy The Call of Andrew and Simon in the Synoptics Complete Contradiction of the two Narratives Both Narratives unhistorical 240 241 241 241 242 242 243 244 244 CONTENTS Insight of Jesus into Human Character Influence of Old Testament Traditions Faith in Jesus as Messiah Confession of Andrew- Supposed Kepetitions of Calls Wonders connected with the Calls The Stories of the Calling of Peter unhistorical The Calling of the Publicans The Twelve Apostles or Missioners . Relative Positions of Peter and John in the Fourth Gospel The Mission of the Seventy .... CHAPTER VI THE MESSIANIC MISSION OF JESUS Belief of Jesus in his Mission as Messiah Claim to be the Judge of the World . His Language in the Fourth Gospel . Contradictions between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel Alleged Claims of Pre-existence . . . ^ Question of Political Purposes The Law and the Prophets .... Jesus and the Samaritans .... CHAPTER VII DISCOURSES IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS ^/Section I. — The Sermons on the Mount and the Plain. Time at which the Sermon on the Mount was delivered General Character of the Sermon No sign of this Sermon in the Fourth Gospel Topics of the Discourse . Versions of the First and Third Gospels The Woes of the Third Gospel . Similes of Salt and Light Relation of Jesus to the Law The Lord's Prayer The Request of the Disciples for a Form of Prayer Miscellaneous Subjects in the Discourse . CONTENTS Section II. — Addresses to the Twelve and the Seventy. Unhistorical Sequences ..... Charge to the Twelve ..... Directions for Conduct ..... The Commission of the Seventy Section III. — The Parables. General Character of the Parables Genuineness of the Parables The First Series of Parables Explanations of the Parables Ebionite Parables : the Rich Man and Lazarus The Parables of the Talents The Parable of the Marriage Feast The Present Form of the Parables Section IV. — Miscellaneous Discourses. The Imitation of Children Verbal Connexions in the Synoptics Discourses on the Life to Come . Discourse on the Son of David . Defeat of the Sadducees and Pharisees . Discourse on Outward and Inward Cleansing The Discourse unhistorical Denunciation of the Pharisees The Blood of all the Prophets . PAGE 257 257 260 260 261 261 261 262 264 265 265 266 267 267 269 269 269 270 270 271 272 CHAPTEE VIII the JOHANNINE discourses of JESUS Section I. — General Character of the Johannine" Dis- courses. Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels Contrast of the Johannine Discourses Impossibility of reconciling the two Series The Hearers in the Fourth Gospel Question as to the real Teaching of Jesus Section II. — The Conversation with the Woman of Samaria. Antitheses in the Fourth Gospel 273 273 274 274 275 276 CONTENTS Preaching of Jesus in Samaria The Conversation with the historical Samaritan Woman un- Section III. — The Conversation with Nicodemus. Declarations of Jesus in the Conversation with Nicodemus Knowledge of the Divine Logos . Character and Position of Nicodemus The higher ranks of Jewish Society The Inquiries of Nicodemus Predictions of the Death of Jesus Limits of the Discourse with Nicodemus Question as to the Reports of this Conversation Section IV. — The Discourse after the Cure at the Pool of Bethesda. The Work of the Eternal Son .... The Johannine Form of Thought and Speech Section V. — The Discourse on the Living Bread. ^ Carnal Interpretations of the Jews Method of the Teaching of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel . Section VI. — Discourses on the Person of the Christ AND OTHER SUBJECTS. Relations of the Eternal Son with the Father The supposed Parable of the Good Shepherd The Prophet in his own Country Later Discourses of Jesus Reports of these Discourses PAGE 279 280 280 280 281 281 281 282 282 283 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 CHAPTER IX FURTHER COMPARISON OF THE JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTIC GOSPELS Section I. — The Question of Eye-witness. Characteristics of the Synoptic Gospels . Their Relation to the Fourtli Gospel 292 292 CONTENTS Section II. — The Kinsfolk of Jesus. page Alleged Disposition of the Kinsfolk of Jesus . .294 Implied Disposition of Mary . . .295 Truth of the Narratives . . . .296 Replies of Jesus to his Mother and his Kinsfolk . . 297 Section III. — The Disputes for Precedency. The Synoptic Narratives of these Disputes . . 297 Time and Motive of these Disputes . . 297 Section TV. — The Purification of the Temple. Alleged Time (or Times) of the Purification . . 298 The False Witness at the Trial of Jesus . .299 Action of Jesus in the Cleansing of the Temple . . 299 Question of one or two Purifications . . . 300 Unlikelihood of the Johannine Narrative . . 300 The Commerce in the Temple . . . .301 The Destruction and Restoration of the Temple . . 302 Section Y. — The Anointing of Jesus. Objections made to the Anointing ... 302 Question of one or more Anointings . . 303 . Simon the Leper and Simon the Pharisee . . 305 The Plan of the Johannine Gospel . . . 305 Effects of Oral Transmission .... 305 Story of the Woman taken in Adultery . . .306 Age of the Narrative ..... 306 Character of the History of the Four Gospels . . 307 Teaching of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels . . 308 Order and Sequence in the Synoptic Gospels . . 308 Sources of Information open to the Fourth Evangelist 309 Lack of Contemporary Testimony . . . 309 CHAPTER X the narratives of marvels, wonders, or miracles in the four gospels Section I. — Character of the Wonders in the New Testament Writings. Alternative Views of the Gospel Narratives . . 310 PAGE 311 311 311 312 313 xxiv CONTENTS Narratives of Extraordinary Events Inconsistencies in these Narratives Types and Antitypes .... Alleged Claims of Jesus to Wonder-working Power The Casting-out of Demons Section II. — The Expulsion of the Evil Spirit at Capernaum. Contradictions in the Synoptic Narratives . . 314 The Rebuking of the Demon . . . .314 Section III. — The Demoniacs of Gadara. Statements of the Synoptic Narratives . . .314 The Demons and the Swine . . . .315 References to so-called Natural Visitations . . 316 Section IV. — The Lunatic Healed after the Trans- figuration. Time assigned to this Event . . . .316 The Power of Faith . . . .^ .316 Section V. — Cures of the Leprous and the Blind. Nature of Physical Leprosy . . . .317 Congenital Blindness . . . . .317 The Blind Man in the Fourth Gospel . . .317 Section VI. — The Connexion between Sin and Disease. State of Jewish Feeling on this Subject . . .318 The Destruction of the Galilajans . . .319 The Beatitudes in the Third Gospel . . .319 Section VII. — Involuntary Cures. Question of the Effluence of Power . . .320 Conveyance of Power by Cloths . . . .320 Section VIII. — Cures wrought at a Distance. Cases of Involuntary Action . . . .321 Synoptic Versions of Cures at a Distance . . 321 Questions of one Cure or of many , . .321 Parallels in the Old Testament Writings . . 322 CONTENTS XXV Section IX. — Cures wrought on the Sabbath Day. Position of Jesus in Eeference to the Law The Cure at the Pool of Bethesda Historical Value of the Narratives of Marvellous Healings Section X. — The Eesuscitation of the Physically Dead. Conditions of Bodily Death Recovery from Bodily Death Alleged Instances of such Recovery The Widow's Son at Nain Subsequent History of Persons recalled after Bodily Death The Death of Lazarus . Questioning of the Jews The Silence of the Synoptic Writers Explanations given of this Silence The Cause of this Silence Wonders of Elijah and Elisha Section XL — Wonders or Miracles connected with the Sea. Operations on Inanimate Things The Rebuking of the Sea The Walking on the Sea The Finding of the Tribute Money Section XII. — Marvels or Miracles of Multiplication The P'eedings of the Multitudes . The Multiplication of Food Naturalistic Interpretations Parallels in the Old Testament Scriptures The Feeding of the Prophets by Elisha . The Miracle at the Marriage Feast of Cana Time assigned for the Wonder . The Action of Mary Her Prescience .... The Event related as a Wonder The Change of Water into Wine Miracles of Luxury Naturalistic Interpretations Parallels in the Old Testament Writings PAGE 322 322 323 323 324 324 326 326 327 327 328 328 329 329 330 330 330 331 331 332 333 333 334 334 335 335 336 336 337 337 337 338 CONTENTS Section XIII. — The Punitive Marvel of the Fig-tree. pack The Influence exercised on the Fig-tree . . .339 Metaphysical Difficulties . . . .340 Alleged Motives for the Wonder . . .340 The Wonder unhistorical . .340 Possible Origination of the Story . . .341 Section XIV.— The Transfiguration. Construction of plausible Narratives . . .342 Ignoring of Difficulties . . . . .343 Declaration of the Messiahship of Jesus . . .343 Accounts of the Fourth Gospel . . . .343 These Accounts unhistorical . . . .344 The Circumstances of the Transfiguration . .344 Mental Condition of the Disciples . . • . 345 The Conversation on the Descent from the Mountain . 345 Credibility of the Synoptic Narratives . . .346 The Plan of the Fourth Gospel . . . .346 Naturalistic Interpretations . . . .346 Consequences of such Interpretations . ./ . 347 The Appearance of Moses and Elias . . .347 John the Eye-witness . . . . .348 The Coming of Elias . . . . .349 Difficulties of the Narrative . .349 The Growth of the Story . . .350 The Story unhistorical . .350 General Value of the Narratives of Wonder . . 351 BOOK IV THE PASSION AND RESUREECTION CHAPTER I closing scenes of the ministry Announcement of the coming End of the Ministry The Idea of Necessity The Last Journey to Jerusalem The Conduct of the Samaritans 352 353 353 354 CONTENTS PAGE Johannine Narrative of the Last Journey .355 The Entry into Jerusalem . . . . .355 Supposition of Two Entries . . . .356 The Supposition not tenable . . . . .357 The Ass and the Colt . . .357 Wonders involved in the Story . . .358 CHAPTER II PREDICTIONS OF JESUS RESPECTING HIS DEATH The Mode and Details of the Passion . . .359 The Johannine and Synoptic Narratives . .359 The Alternatives . . . . . .360 Types and Prophecies . . . . .361 Attempts to Explain the Predictions of Jesus . . 361 The Narrative throughout Unhistorical . . .362 Jewish Ideas of the Messiah . . . . .363 The Teaching of the Hebrew Prophets . . .363 Worship of Tammuz in the Temple at Jerusalem . . 364 The Misapprehensions of the Apostles . . .365 CHAPTER III PREDICTIONS OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS Unbelief of the Disciples . . . . .367 Their Ignorance of the Meaning of the Resurrection from the Dead ....... 368 Preparation for Embalming . . . . .368 The Alternative Conclusion . . . . .369 Action of the Scribes and Pharisees . . . .369 Futility of Metaphorical Interpretations . . .369 The Sign of Jonah . . . . . .370 CHAPTER IV PREDICTIONS RESPECTING THE SECOND ADVENT Question of the Genuineness of these Discourses . . 371 The Discourse in Matthew xxiv. . . . .371 Question of the Fulfilment of the Predictions 372 Conditions of the Inquiry . . . . .373 CONTENTS Arguments of Apologists Absence of Notes of Time Hermeneutic Difficulties Supposed Meaning of the Word ' Generation ' Employment of Equivocal Phrases Uncertainty of the Evangelic Narratives Probable Time of the Composition of these Discourses Character of the Writer . . . , PAGE 374 374 375 376 376 376 377 378 CHAPTER V THE ENEMIES OF JESUS 1/^ Complete Contradiction between the Johannine and the Syn optic Narratives Causes of Offence as recorded in the Fourth Gospel Designs for putting Jesus to Death The Adherents of Jesus The Johannine Account unhistorical . 379 380 381 381 382 CHAPTER VI THE TREACHERY OF JUDAS Alleged Causes of the Treason of Judas Judas the Purse-bearer The Johannine Story This Story unhistorical The Predestination of Judas The Alternative Conclusion Possible Motives of Judas The Betrayal in the Synoptic Gospels Possible Origination of the Story Alleged Fulfilment of Prophecy Stories of the Death of Judas The Field of Blood . Action of the Sanhedrim Story told by Papias The Version given by Peter Akeldama The whole story of Judas a Fiction 383 383 384 384 385 386 386 387 387 388 389 389 389 390 391 392 393 CONTENTS CHAPTER VII THE PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER The Upper Eoom Marvels in the Narrative The Johannine Account of the Last Meal Theological Basis of this Story The Synoptic Account The Einal Discourses in the Fourth Gospel Efforts of Apologists . The Alternative The Passover, or not the Passover The Testimony of Matthew . Predictions of the Treachery of Judas The Institution of the Eucharist CHAPTER VIII THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN The Agony not mentioned in the Fourth Gospel The Synoptic Accounts The Strengthening Angel Silence of Matthew and Mark The Sleep of the Disciples The Threefold Prayer The Johannine and Synoptic Jesus . The Final Prayer in the Fourth Gospel The Authorship of this Prayer CHAPTER IX THE ARREST IN THE GARDEN General Character of the Narratives of the Passion The Entrance of Judas into the Garden Judas in the Fourth Gospel . The Majesty of Jesus The Smiting of Malchus The Chief Priests and Elders in the Garden The Young Man in the Linen Garment The Flight of all the Disciples PAGE 394 394 395 395 396 396 396 397 397 398 399 399 401 401 401 402 403 403 404 405 406 407 407 407 408 410 410 411 411 xkx CONTENTS CHAPTER X THE TRIALS BEFORE THE CHIEF PRIESTS Jesus ill the House of Annas . Annas and Caiaphas . The Denials of Peter . The Trial before the Sanhedrim Bearing of this Trial on the earlier History of Jesus The Witness as to the destroying and setting up of the Tempi The Ill-treatment of Jesus Peter and John in the House of Annas The Beloved Disciple and the High Priest PAGE 412 413 414 415 415 415 417 417 419 CHAPTER XI THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE Need of careful Examination of the Narrative Jesus in the Praetorium The Beginning of the Trial Pilate's Asseverations of the Innocence of Jesus Pilate as a Roman Judge The Soldiers of Pilate and their Master The Transfer of Jesus to Herod The Story of this Transfer a Fiction . The Dream of Pilate's Wife . The Washing of Pilate's Hands All the Incidents of the Trial fictitious The Scourging and the Scarlet or Purple Robe The Mocking of Jesus 420 421 421 422 422 423 423 424 424 425 426 427 428 CHAPTER XII THE CRUCIFIXION •^General unhistorical Character of the Narrative The Bearing of the Cross The Lamentation of the Women The Nailing of the Hands and Feet . The Gall and the Vinegar The Sponge of Vinegar 429 429 429 430 430 431 CONTENTS The Sayings on the Cross .... The Two Malefactors .... The Title on the Cross .... The Dividing of the Garments The Mocking of the Chief Priests and Elders . The Mother of Jesus and the beloved or nameless Disciple The Cry of Desolation .... All the Incidents of the Narratives of the Crucifixion unhis torical ...... PAGE 431 432 433 434 434 436 437 438 CHAPTER XIII THE DEATH AND BURIAL OF JESUS The Darkness and the Earthquake These Incidents unhistorical . The Taking Down from the Cross The Rending of the Veil The Rising of the Multitude of Saints The Exclamation of the Centurion The Spear Wound The Burial of Jesus . The Grave or Tomb . 439 439 440 441 441 443 443 444 445 CHAPTER XIV THE WATCH AT THE GRAVE The Story of the Guards at the Tomb Statements implied in the Story The Story both absurd and false 446 447 449 CHAPTER XV THE BODILY RESURRECTION The Narrative in the First Gospel The Narrative in the Second Gospel . The Narrative in the Third Gospel The Narrative in the Fourth Gospel . The Synoptic and Johannine Stories exclude each other The whole Narrative unhistorical 451 451 452 452 453 454 XXXll CONTENTS CHAPTER XVI APPEARANCES OF JESUS AFTER THE BODILY RESURRECTION PACK Duration of the Christophanies . . . . 45G The Command to return to Galilee . . . .456 The charge of the Angels to the "Women . .456 Manifestations to the Apostles . . . .457 Time of the Ascension ..... 458 The Journey of the two Disciples to Emmaus . 458 The Ascension in the Third Gospel . .45^ The Command to tarry in Jerusalem . .461 The Narratives contradictory . . .461 The Manifestations in the Fourth Gospel .461 The Imparting of the Holy Spirit .... 462 Manifestations in Jerusalem ... . . . 462 The Narratives irreconcileable . . .463- The ' Appendix ' to the Fourth Gospel .463 The Threefold Questioning of Peter . . . .463 The Story in the Acts . . . .464 The Visible Ascension from Olivet . . <^. .464 Astronomical Difficulties in the Story . . . 465 Further Inquiry superfluous . . . . .466 Multiplication of Christophanies in Judaea . . .467 Contradictory Narratives . . . . .468 Nature of the Risen Body of Jesus . . . .468 The Form of Baptism in the Gospels and Acts . . 469 Possible Origin of these Stories . . . .470 CHAPTER XVII ALLEGED WITNESS OF THE APOSTLE PAUL TO THE FACT OF THE HISTORICAL RESURRECTION Passages relied on for the Testimony of the Apostle Paul . 471 Supposed Genuineness of these Passages . . .471 Paul does not profess here to speak from his own Knowledge . 472* The Passages a mere Statement of the Reports of Others . 472 The Doctrine of Necessity . . .473 Order of the Christophanies . . . . .474 Character of these Manifestations . . . .474 CONTENTS xxxiii PAGE 475 476 477 477 478 479 480 The Manifestation to the Five Hundred The Eeliance to be placed on Paul's Judgement His Visions ..... The Last of the Christophanies in the List Question of Genuineness of the Text . Extent of Interpolations The Testimony is not that of the Apostle Paul APPENDICES Appendix A. — The Growth of Miracles, or of Narratives of Thaumaturgy . . . .483 „ B. — The so-called Historical Framework of Tradi- tional Christianity . . .492 „ C. — The Parables . . . .509 „ D. — Apocryphal Gospels. The * Gospel of Peter ' . 516 „ E. — Miracles, and the Evidence of Miracles or Marvels ..... 524 „ F. — The Eschatology of the Synoptic Gospels . 530 Index 535 THE FOUE GOSPELS AS HISTOKICAL RECORDS INTEODUCTION What is the theology and what is the real faith of the Church of England? 'No more momentous question than this can be ad- dressed to the English nation generally. A majority of the people profess, it is said, to be members of the National Church ; and all these are under precisely the same obligations. In this sense there is no distinction between the clergy and the laity ; and the plea that the former have signed away a freedom which cannot be taken from the latter is not true in fact, and is worth nothing. The clergy have, it is true, made certain promises at their ordina- tion ; but the clergy and the laity are alike bound in the same degree to the language of the formularies, whatever this measure of obligation may be declared to be. The three Creeds are recited by clergy and laity alike; and, so long as they profess to be members of the Church of England, they are bound to assent to them. In the Baptismal Office the sponsors are called upon catechetically to declare their acceptance of every proposition in the Apostles' Creed ; and in this catechetical form some of the pro- positions are put into a shape different from that which they bear in the Creed as used in the daily services. Whatever, again, the clergy may recite, the laity make their own by the solemn Amen which declares their assent to the terms of the prayer. It is idle, therefore, to speak of any members of the Church of England (so long as they profess to be such) as possessing or A 2 THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS enjoying a freedom which does not belong to those who, being members, are also its officers. The supposition that any such difference exists is at bottom monstrous. Years have passed since Dean Stanley, dealing with the question of Essays and Reviews, protested against the temper of certain critics who passed by the lay contributor to that volume as ' comparatively blameless,* while they insisted that the truth or falsehood of statements made by the contributors in ' holy orders ' was a matter of no consequence, as they had chosen to resign their natural liberty. For Dean Stanley there was something peculiarly malignant in such charges ; and he protested with all his might against the notion ' that truth was made for the laity and falsehoo4 for the clergy, — that truth is tolerable everywhere except in the mouths of the ministers of the God of truth, — that falsehood, driven from every other quarter of the educated world, may find an honoured refuge behind the con- secra,ted bulwarks of the sanctuary.' Such a theory of the National Church he denounced as godless; and he declared emphatically that, if such charges could be substantiated, it would be the bounden duty of all, both clergy and laity, ' in the naine of religion and of common sense, to rise as one man and tear to shreds such barriers between the teachers and the taught, between Him whose name is truth and those whose worship is only acceptable if offered to him in spirit and in truth.' The clergy and the laity of the Church of England have therefore the same duties, and are under the same obligations ; and if they profess that the foundation of their religion is strictly historical, the first work which they have to do is to determine whether, and how far, this conviction is tenable. Are then all the members of the Church of England bound to admit, and still more to maintain, the proposition, that the cardinal dogmas or truths of Christianity are also historical events ? I deny the proposition. But we cannot stop here, for they who make this claim for what they declare Catholic truth assert also, for the most part, that they who call it into question have no right to claim the title of Christians, and, more especially, that all who, INTEODUCTION 3 questioning it, hold office in the Church of England, are, in plain words, traitors and apostates. That the conditions of the fight are laid down with sufficient clearness it is impossible to deny ; and the answer which I have to give is given in the name of the whole body, clerical and lay, of the members of the Church of England. My purpose, then, is to put into the plainest form what I believe to be the essence of the teaching of the Church of England, and so, if it be possible, to bring to a final issue the great question on which must depend our conceptions of the nature of the divine work on this our earth and in the universe. The conclusions here reached are justified and upheld, directly or by legitimate inference, by the series of Judgements which have been delivered by the Sovereign in Council as the final interpreter of the standards and formularies of the Church of England. These decisions, it is well known, have given deep offence to one or other of the great parties or schools comprised within its limits. It was known that they must do so. But this was not regarded as a reason for withholding them, the very object of these decisions being, for the most part, to define the degree of freedom allowed to the clergy and laity. The Judgement in the Gorham case, for example, declared that the position of the defendant in the Church of England was tenable ; but it did not declare that the position of Dr. Phillpotts, the Bishop of Exeter, was not tenable. It is impossible to speak of schools or parties in a religious body without using names which those parties might repudiate ; and if we apply to them the terms ' high,' ' low,' or ' broad,' we do so only because it is not easy to speak of them in any other way. It is, indeed, a fact of the greatest moment that the position of all these three parties is perfectly tenable in the Church of England. Any one of them has as much right to be where it is as has either of the other two. But not one of them can silence or exclude the others, and all three together do not constitute the Church of England ; and therefore, even the unanimity of all members of all the three parties or schools could not prove the position of some one thinker, not belonging to any of them, to be untenable within 4 THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS its limits, until it has been decided so to be by the Sovereign in Council. It must not be forgotten that, apart from and beyond these divisions, the jurisdiction of the Sovereign in Council is the funda- mental principle of the Church of England, and that the inter- pretation of its standards and formularies, and therefore of its real theology and its real faith, belongs to the Sovereign in Council, and not to convocations, synods, or any other ecclesiastical assemblies whatsoever. It follows that they who accept these interpretations are they whose position in the Church of England is most of all legitimate and assured. There is actually no Church of England apart from the body of which the Sovereign in Council is the interpreter. This principle of the Eoyal Supremacy I assert heartily. It is not, perhaps, invidious to say that a large proportion of the members of the Church of England, and especially of the clergy, do not. From this special point of view they who think with me are loyal members of that Church, and they who dissent are not. In saying this I am simply claiming a freedom to which every member of the Church of England has an equal right with myself. They may avail themselves of it or not, as they may judge best. All that is here maintained is that the conclusions set forward in this volume are in themselves tenable, and are declared to be ten- able by the whole series of judgements delivered in the final Court of Appeal by the Sovereign, and that, in fact, they represent the theology of the Church of England more exactly than does the theology of the great High Church or Low Church parties. These convictions differ very widely from the beliefs avowed by the members of these parties; but the point on which it is most of all necessary to insist is that, probably without a single exception, all who belong to these schools admit in certain cases the great principle at stake, by giving a strictly spiritual inter- pretation to propositions which seem to denote historical facts, and which certainly carry on their face only a sensuous or material meaning. Among these propositions one of the most notable is INTRODUCTION 5 the assertion of the visible or bodily ascent of the Eternal Son into a local heaven, followed by session at the right hand of God. It matters not by what methods attempts may be made to get over the difficulty ; but the fact will not be disputed that this assertion is spiritualised or, as some would say, explained away. The child who is being instructed in the Creeds is told that God is a Spirit, formless, yet present everywhere, and therefore that we cannot, except by a figure, speak of him as having hands or feet, eyes or ears. One such instance is as effectual as a hundred. The principle of spiritual interpretation is conceded ; and if this pro- position is not to be taken literally, the same may be said of the propositions which speak of the Eternal Son as born of the Virgin Mary, or as tried before Pontius Pilate. But this is not the only instance in which th6 most pronounced traditionalists interpret spiritually propositions which in the letter are gross, material, and carnal. 'No clergyman could or would, in so many words, tell a child that the graves of the churchyard will all one day be opened, when the angel's trumpet summons man- kind to judgement, — that the material particles laid in the coffin will all be used again by the living agent, or spirit, or self, or man, who had laid them aside, — that there will be any visible great assize at which all men will simultaneously appear, any vision of angelic forms in our sensible atmosphere, still less a material trumpet sounding from our aerial heavens in the ears of the physically living and the so-called physically dead. The child may be left to imagine that it will be thus, and may be so taught as to make it likely that he will so think. The extent of wrong thus done may not be easily measured ; but the sensuous or literal meaning cannot be baldly propounded as the real one. Here, then, we have a series of propositions dealing with matters of faith, which seem to say one thing and are universally admitted to mean another, and in which the letter is discarded for the spirit : and these matters include subjects not less momentous than the uprising and the judging of the quick and the dead. It becomes, therefore, logically impossible to say that, although the 6 THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS letter by itself is killing or mischievous, yet the spirit in some instances carries the letter along with it, and is true because, and only because, it does so. To assert this proposition would be in effect to maintain that the theology and the faith of the Church of England rest on a number of historical incidents, in such sense that, if these incidents should not have occurred at some particular time or place, that faith and theology would fall or crumble away. No such pro- position is found or can be extracted from the Prayer-Book or Articles; and it is not easy to see precisely how it could be formulated. I do, indeed, maintain the converse ; and even from the little that has been said already, it follows of necessity that I, and they who may think and speak as I do, represent the true mind of the Church of England more nearly and faithfully than they who may oppose us. I believe that this mind is most fully expressed by the Creed known as the Nicene; and with this Creed I find myself in thorough accord. I accept as true every sentence contained in it in its real spiritual signification. This Creed is the expression of the doctrine of the Eternal Word (Logos, Sophia, Wisdom), and needs no other evidence than that which may be adduced for these doctrines, — that is, evidence simply spiritual ; and for eternal truth is not this the only evidence which we can have or even conceive ? If things be thus in the Church of England, there is manifestly a great work to be forthwith done within it, a worli which is indispensably necessary, and immediately needed. Whatever be the merits or the demerits of their faith, the English are certainly a religious people ; and the Church of England is unquestionably the most important of all the religious bodies in this country. It is a prime necessity, therefore, that this great body should be in the van of English thought. I am but expressing my deep convic- tion, when I say that the result must sooner or later be disastrous, if the Church of England should be guided by either of the two great schools or parties within it. It cannot be said that either of these parties lays any stress on the search for truth. Both assert INTEODUCTION 7 at they are in possession of it. I deny the assertion. They may issess some of it; they are blind to much more, and therefore il to see that the promise of spiritual guidance into all truth is a ocess to which we can assign no end. By an absurdity, the travagance of which could not easily be exceeded, these con- rvative theologians assume that it was a work done once for all, a few hours or a few minutes, for the apostolic or missionary liege at Jerusalem, and that its fruits have been handed down er since by the laying on of hands through the long series of eir successors, who therefore, if not infallible, are at the least iefectible, in their possession and defence of this truth. But these parties, happily, whether taken singly or collectively, not constitute the Church of England, though they are included it ; nor are those doctrines as to which they may be unanimously reed necessarily doctrines of the Church of England. The evalent or popular High Church ideas as to the apostolic suc- 3sion or the power of the keys, for example, are simply the ideas a school or party, and nothing more. They may be held within e Church of England ; they cannot be inforced on any who may ject them. They affect to deny that the Church of England eaks in the last resort through the Sovereign ; but nevertheless ly from the Sovereign in Council comes the decisive interpreta- •n which determines the meaning of the standards and formularies, le schools or parties may, and often do, reject these interpreta- ins ; but their rejection of them cannot affect those who accept em ; and if such words are to be used, the latter are properly e orthodox members of the Church of England, and the ad- rents of the great parties are not. No one is called upon now do more than express his general approval of the doctrine (not ctrines) and discipline of the Church of England ; and until it n be shown that my assertions run counter to the fundamental inciples and essential teaching of that Church, the man who ikes them (whether I or any other) cannot be condemned. This at once sweeps away all obligation of adhering to each parate proposition of any particular Article ; and still less, there- 8 THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS fore, can any particular proposition found in the Creeds be isolated and urged against him. The Articles relating to faith can and must be interpreted spiritually, and are indeed without strength or meaning if interpreted in any other way. We may take the fourth Article, on the uprising. Here the real assertion of essential truth is that the Eternal Son of God is truly risen. This is absolutely true. He is risen, for he is eternally dead to sin, and eternally risen from the death of sin. It is impossible that he should be holden of this death, which is the only real death. This is the burden of the teaching of the great apostle of the Gentiles: it is the fundamental teaching of the Church of England. It may be said that this is mysticism. I deny this utterly, except in the sense in which all theological language is mystical. If by the expression, ' the right hand of God,' we mean the greatest height and the profoundest depth of his goodness, his truth, and his love, then we are using this phrase mystically ; and if we do not use it in this mystical or spiritual sense, it has no meaning whatever. It is the same with every theological term. If we speak of God as the Father of all mankind, we are using the words not in the sense of the fatherhood of human generation, but in quite another and higher sense, — that is, in its mystical or spiritual, and therefore in its only true and real sense. If any should be assailed on the ground of contravening this fourth Article, the reply is that there is absolutely no one who adheres, or professes to adhere, throughout to its letter. There is not one who ventures, or dares venture, to say that a visible human form is sitting in a certain place, and that this place or throne is at the right hand of God the Eternal Father. But, as I have already said, if one clause or sentence is to be interpreted spiritually or mystically, why not every other ? Who is to restrict the application of the only method which invests any theological term with any life, force, or meaning ? Taken literally, the phrase 'the right hand of God' is a gross anthropomorphism. So in the Eucharistic phrases, ' Take, eat — this is my body,' ' Drink — this is my blood,' we have, as Dean Stanley INTRODUCTION 9 plainly said, the language of a cannibal feast, if the words are to be taken in their literal meaning. They cease to be gross, carnal, and in the highest degree offensive, only when they are understood mystically, — that is, in the only sense which will make them even tolerable to any decently minded man. To suppose that the literal meaning could be inforced by the law of the Church of England would be mere madness ; and if this be so, another mass of terms relating to the highest act of Christian worship is to be taken in a sense totally different from that which in their literal signification they would assuredly convey. It is of no use now, since the change in the form of subscription, to fall back on any one Article. It would have been of no use, even before that change, to fall back upon the sixth Article, in order to obtain a sanction for the common notions of which the traditional schools are apt to speak as the doctrines of Chris- tianity. The subject of this Article is not, as it is generally supposed to be, the authority of the Holy Scriptures, but their efficacy for salvation. In other words, this Article affirms that a man may get from them all the moral instruction and spiritual comfort which he needs ; and who would deny this ? The word ' authority ' is used in the Article later on ; but no attempt is made to define the term, which may here mean ' potency or efficacy for instruction in things pertaining to spiritual health and strength.' This also no one would wish to dispute. But a man may have authority who may yet go wrong and do wrong ; and the Scriptures may have authority without being right in all their statements.^ For the members of the Church of England, however, the whole ^ This is asserted with all plainness in the Clementine Homilies, ii. 31, iii. 50, xviii. 20, the passage quoted being one which runs parallel with xii. 24 of our Gospel according to Mark. The latter speaks of those who err because they do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. The Homilies utterly upset the common notion of the infallibility of Holy Writ, which is read into the sentence. According to this writer, the Great Teacher was not upholding the authority of the writings of the Old Testament (none others were as yet in existence), but was warning his hearers against their fallibility. The verse in the Clementine Homilies is followed by the words, ' And Peter said, If therefore of the scriptures some are true and some are false, our Teacher rightly said, Be ye trusty money-changers, as in the writings there are some approved sayings and some spurious.' 10 THE FOUE GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS subject has been set at rest by Dr. Lushington's well-known Judge- ment. Some of his rulings were appealed against, and all so appealed against were reversed; but the portions not appealed against (and this is among them) are law. Briefly, Dr. Lushington declared that any clergyman is at liberty to reject certain state- ments in certain books of the Holy Scriptures, and even whole books, whether it be on the ground that they are historically inaccurate and untrustworthy, or that their teaching is wrong. This is sweeping language, which admits of no exception in favour of any book over the rest. Nor can any positive conclusion be drawn from the declaration that the Articles contain the doctrine of the Church of England, and that this doctrine is agreeable to God's Word. There is no question as to the first proposition, and there is no definition of the second. It is nowhere said that God's Word is the Bible, or that the Bible is God's Word ; and any proposition laid down for the purpose of inforcing such a conclusion has been summarily and in terms swept away by the Judgement of Dr. Lushington. According to this Judgement the 'Holy Scriptures' are writings which are intended to instruct and comfort men and to lead them to God ; and to that extent, he says, they have the sanction of the Almighty, but nothing more. We can hardly imagine a declaration more momentous than this, if it is to be acted upon ; and for those who feel it to be their duty to ascertain the truth of facts, so far as it may be possible to do so, the supreme question is whether the principle so laid down is to be acted upon or not. The natural instinct of those who maintain -a traditional theology will be to keep that Judgement a mere letter, inert and inoperative. It may probably be said with truth, that the most far-reaching propositions which any clergyman has since that time laid down are virtually nothing more than repetitions of the Judgement, or necessary inferences from it. If it be said, for instance, (1) that the divine work in the world is in no way necessarily bound up with, or dependent upon, the historical accuracy of any written record, or (2) that religion in no way INTKODUCTION 11 depends on the truth or falsity of the narratives or precepts of the Hebrew or any other Scriptures, this has been practically asserted by that Judgement a quarter of a century ago. But if such propo- sitions be true in the general, they are true also in the particular ; and the principle on which they rest must be acted upon every- where, if men are to be really awakened to the importance of it. In other words, there must be a serious and thorough examina- tion of the ba,sis, not only of what is passed off as the theology of the Church of England, but of the whole mass of unauthoritative and often extravagant and mischievous notions and superstitions which are habitually passed off as the common creed of Christen- dom. The waters which are flowing in a back eddy must be made to move forwards. Except on the assumption that all the recorded incidents of the four Gospels are veritable facts of history, this onward movement is indispensable and immediately necessary ; and it is useless to argue that, if religion does not depend on the historical accuracy of the jSTew Testament narratives, it can make no difference whether the Gospel histories be trustworthy or not. They who insist on the scrutiny would still be mere units against myriads, struggling desperately under the burdens of a crushing traditional system. Should a fresh trial be followed by another Judgement similar to, or more explicit even than, that of Dr. Lushington, they would still set to work to ignore that Judgement, and to keep the people at large as ignorant of it as they are now kept ignorant of like Judgements. What then would be the gain ? None, unless the question turned on points as to which they might feel that they could not hold their peace, — in other words, on points which might rouse men to think and to search for them- selves. In all likelihood, if so stirred, they would make use of hard words, and would throw out insinuations or open charges of bad faith on their opponents. Charges of treachery are easily made ; but they who make them might be confronted by the fact of their opponents maintaining that the theology of the Nicene Creed is a true theology, and that it is the theology of the Church of 12 THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS England, — a perfectly spiritual theology resting on a purely spiritual basis. The battle can no longer be fought on any except essential questions. The Judgement in the case of Essays and Eevieivs makes it impossible to institute a prosecution against any who might assert that the narrative of the Book of Joshua is untrue in every particular, and deliberately fictitious, such a person as Joshua never having lived ; or, again, that the Book of Deuteronomy was written in the time of Josiah, or that the Books of Chronicles are a wilful and systematic falsification of the history of the Books of Kings. The events of the last fifty years have at least inforced this lesson. But the scrutiny must be carried further, if it should appear that there is need of so doing ; and in my conviction the need is supreme. In spite of decisions which have gone against them, the tyranny of traditional opinions continues much what it was, and we are little, if at all, nearer to the settlement of the great debate. We can approach this settlement only by pushing to its logical consequences the principle sanctioned by the Judgement of Dr. Lushington, that is, by an impartial and complete examina- tion of the history of the ISTew Testament from beginning to end. In theory, the freedom of the clergy and laity of the Church of England is won. But the acknowledgement of this victory has not been made by the members of the great traditional schools. On the contrary, the more the right to this freedom has been assured by the decisions of the Ecclesiastical Courts and the Judge- ments of the Sovereign in Council, with the greater pertinacity is the claim to the possession of an infallible authority, whether of a Church, or of a book, or of a set of books, asserted. Nor is this assertion made on the ground of the tenability of their position in a Church which has been founded on, and which exists by, com- promise. It is insisted upon with the vehemence which implies that they who dissent from it do so to their never-ending loss, — that they are enemies of the faith, of religion, of truth, of morality, of all that is right and all that is good, and that, therefore, if they are not placed beyond the pale of all decent fellowship, they ought INTKODUCTION 13 to be. It is indispensably necessary, therefore, that they shall be compelled to admit the existence of this compromise, to acknow- ledge that the great parties popularly known as those of High Churchmen and Low Churchmen are parties who are enabled to continue to work in the same religious body only by virtue of this compromise, which embraces the broadest as well as the highest and the lowest. They must be made to acknowledge that the posi- tion of the broadest is as tenable in the Church of England as is that of any others, and that, in point of fact, it is they who repre- sent most nearly the true mind of the body to which they belong. No room must be left to traditionalists for the iteration of large- sounding concessions which they instantly withdraw by re-stating, in different words, the propositions which their concessions had seemed to yield up. Such a result cannot be brought about, or even hoped for, if the truth, so far as it has been ascertained, be not proclaimed with what may be called startling clearness. No doubt they would vehemently deprecate such disquieting language. It is enough to say that their opponents see the absolute and indis- pensable need of it, and have an equal right to express their convictions. It is useless to repeat demands which involve a complete begging of the whole question. Except in the eyes of those who in whatever form maintain the opinions of the tradi- tional schools, the present state of things is pre-eminently and intolerably unwholesome. On the strength of dogmatic proposi- tions, which have no authority whatever, the people generally are still under the dominion of strangely material, gross, and carnal ideas, and their minds are not clearly and properly awake. They must be made to see that their leaders do, in fact, yield to their opponents a great deal more than they are usually supposed to yield. In short, the average folk (by their own fault, no doubt) are left very much in the dark, and their guides find the state of things not an inconvenient one for themselves. Among the bishops and the clergy generally, not a few make use of two different forms of expression at different times and before different hearers. They have, for instance, as we have seen, really given up 14 THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTOEICAL EECORDS the notion that Jesus left the earth from the summit of a small Judaean hill, and that he sits on a throne by the right hand of God — in the merely literal sense of all these words. Yet to their congregations they will speak as though the historical /ac^ of the visible ascent from Olivet was beyond all doubt and all question. It is here, and in all the points to which this leads, that they must be made to avow their conclusions in the face of day, honestly, without dissimulation and without evasion. What it comes to is this, that they are clinging (or allowing those who choose so to think to suppose that they are clinging) to a terribly material interpretation of spiritual truths, while they know that some of the popular beliefs are untrue, and even admit to educated opponents that they are untrue. They cannot but be aware that if they give up the material or visible ascent from Olivet, they give up also the idea of the material, visible, or sensible resurrec- tion. On the theory, so fiercely insisted upon by traditionalists, that the framework of Christianity is strictly historical, — that is to say, sensible or material, — the visible ascent was a corporeal necessity, for a visible body must be either here or not here. The writer of the so-called Acts of the Apostles, having stated that Jesus was here for forty days after his resurrection, has to account for the fact that he was here no longer ; and he accounts for it by making him go up into the air in the sight of all the disciples. It is undoubtedly meant to be pictured as a final leave-taking. If they who give up this final visible ascent from the hill-top say that after his resurrection he could come and go at will, pass through closed doors and vanish instantaneously from a supper- table, they do so at a dreadful cost, for they reduce the narrative in Acts to a bit of stage-play. According to this theory, he had ascended already many times, and might do so any number of times more. But in the narrative of Acts this visible ascent from Olivet is the only ascent after the resurrection, and messengers from heaven are made to appear in order to announce his formal visible return when the time of the great consummation has come. INTRODUCTION 15 Can they for whom the ascertainment of truth is the first object and the last rest content with such contradictory representations as these ? They cannot do so. The theology of the Creed called the Nicene is merely killed by the traditional or historical readings which have been introduced into it, and have been allowed to overlie it. With these readings there comes in, of necessity, a constant confusion or collision of two antagonistic sets of ideas. There may possibly have been something of this confusion in the minds of some or most of those who took part in the formulating of this Creed. But there can be little doubt, or rather there can be none, that men like Gregory of Nyssa knew well that they were dealing with spiritual truths only. The language here applied to God the Son (God the Kevealed) is absolutely without meaning if restricted to one man who appeared, according to our fourth Gospel for two or three years, and according to the Synoptics for a few months only, in Judsea and Galilee. A further consequence of this so-called historical traditionalism is the necessity of asserting that in the Gospels we have the picture of an absolutely perfect life, and then of proving in detail that this is so. There is, happily, no need of entering into the question of absolute perfection. It is enough to say that, if we can conceive it, it is beyond the power of mortal man to exhibit it at work in all the relations of practical life. Unless it be in terms denied that the Evangelists, whoever they were, were men of like passions and infirmities with ourselves, it is certain that any portrait which they might draw would reflect those feelings and weaknesses in greater or less measure. This would be the case even if they were eye-witnesses of all that they relate ; but no one pretends that more than two of the Evangelists were personal followers of the Great Teacher, and no one could venture to maintain that either of them set down his recollections in writing within less than five-and-twenty or thirty years after the time with which they deal, or that the fourth Gospel was put together till the Evangelist was eighty or ninety years of age — that is, at least half a century after the time of which it is supposed 16 THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS to be a record. It is folly to put out of sight the natural action of time upon the strongest memory, even when aided by habits of the most exact thought; and deep as the impression of their Master's goodness may have been on the minds of Matthew and of John, this impression, as the years went by, must have been modified indefinitely by the gradual change wrought in their own intellectual and spiritual condition. Of the authors or compilers of the second and third Synoptics, all that can be said is that their evidence admittedly comes to us at second hand, and that those writers, and all who like them tried to furnish a picture of perfect life in thought, word, and deed, would inevitably paint a picture, the atmosphere of which would be their own. We may endow the Evangelists themselves with faculties far beyond those of the ordinary folk of their own day, although we have no special grounds for so doing ; but we cannot forget that the words of Jesus, as given in all the Gospels, speak of his disciples generally as among the dullest and grossest of the most dull and stupid peasantry in the world. But Englishmen, even of the most thoughtful kind, never stop to think of the moral and intellectual conditions under which the whole Jewish people lived at the time when the Christian Church first began to take shape. It was, in truth, an age of the most degraded and deadening superstition, — an age in which an order of the universe was a conception unknown to all except two or three minds at the most, and to them present most dimly and imperfectly, — an age in which men were as ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted as they were super- stitious, and therefore as prejudiced and cruel as they were intolerant. How would it be possible for men born and bred under such conditions to hand down the picture of a life which would appear perfect in the eyes of a remote posterity ? They might write under the most profound conviction that they were doing so, and they might strive to the utmost of their power to realise their idea. But there would remain a multitude of state- ments which nineteen or twenty centuries later would appear inadequate, imperfect, mistaken; others which would seem ill INTEODUCTION 17 judged or wrong, and others, again, which would be set aside as altogether repulsive. There is absolutely nothing in all this which needs in the smallest degree to reflect on the character of the Great Master; but if beings higher than ourselves can watch the drama of human life, it must assuredly be to them one of the saddest sights to see sincere and conscientious men striving vainly to justify all the details of the picture so drawn — striving to show that things im- perfect, wrong, and repulsive are not wrong or repulsive or im- perfect, merely because they will not take the trouble to look into all the circumstances and conditions under which that picture was produced. The prodigy of the swine and the devils in the Gadarene country is repulsive ; the finding of the tribute-coin in the mouth of the fish is grotesque ; the multiplication of the loaves and fishes implies a thousand insuperable difficulties of which they who framed the narrative never dreamed. The fierce denunciation of the Pharisees in the house of a Pharisee who had offered the hospitality of his roof scarcely agrees with our ideas of ordinary courtesy, and would never be thought now so to agree but for theories of Biblical or other infallibility which must be maintained at all costs. It cannot, therefore, be too often or too earnestly repeated that we say not one word in disparagement of the Great Teacher, if we criticise, as we must criticise, the pictures which the Evangelists have left us of him. These pictures come to us from unknown hands ; and it is impossible to say how far any of the features, may be faithfully drawn, although we know that many of theni are distorted, and some may be actually unsightly. If we choose- to take such portraiture as absolutely faultless, it is we only who. are to blame, and we must pay the penalty ; and this penalty is: the necessity of speaking to the ignorant or half-educated, or the unthinking, in terms which for us involve a habit of dishonesty. Such a habit of speaking must eventually be fatal in any religious body. It is not merely fatal but without excuse in the Church of England, which imposes no such necessity upon any of its members j B 18 THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS and in turning away from these traditional notions to the real teaching of the English Church, we seem to pass from a vitiated and choking atmosphere into clear and wholesome air. This teaching asserts that there is a revelation (or as we Englishmen should rather say, an unfolding or unveiling) of truth going on before men, and in all men in all times and in all places. This work is the work of God ; but God in himself, in his wisdom and his power, is both unrevealed and unrevealable. No finite or bounded mind can comprehend or apprehend his infinite perfection. He is ' everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.' He is in all things, and all things are in him; for in him all live, and are moved, and are. Human language, which is a poor vehicle for the expression of any spiritual truth, is utterly inadequate when applied to the one living God, the eternal Mind, in whose life alone we have life ; and so, being driven to use a sign miserably poor and weak, we speak of God in himself, unrevealed and un- revealable, as God the Father. But God is, nevertheless, manifest or being manifested. He is made known in all his works, in the laws which sustain and guide all worlds, in the hearts and consciences of all men ; and the name by which we speak of God thus being manifested is God the Son.^ 1 In a paper published in the Christian Reformer (February 1886), Dr. Martineau says that for the men under whom the Trinitarian theology grew up God the Father is ' God as he exists in himself, ere he at all appears,' and then adds : ' Let now the silence be broken, let the thought burst into expression, fling out the poem of creation, evolving its idea in the drama of history, and reflecting its own image in the soul of man, then this manifested phase of the Divine existence is the Son, i.e. it is the Logos, Verbum, Word. . . . The one fundamental idea by which the two personalities are meant to be distinguished is simply this, that the first is God in his primeval essence — infinite meaning without finite indications ; the second is God speaking out in phenomena and fact, and leaving his sign wherever anything comes up from the deep of things or merges back again. ' This, in Dr. Martineau 's judgment, explains the fact that the Creeds or Symbols have very little to say of the Father. ' You cannot fail,' he says, ' to remark that one thing only is said respecting him in the Nicene Creed, viz. that he is Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible, and that even this does not distinguish him from the Second Person, of whom it is affirmed that by him all things were made.' But inasmuch as 'it is of the very essence of bis perfection not to remain self-enclosed,' and as ' a manifest- INTRODUCTION 19 All that we can say of him flows necessarily from this one asser- tion. God the Son is God being made plain and clear to us, and he must, therefore, be the very brightness of the Father's glory and the very character of his substance. He must be co-equal with him and co-eternal. If we use the word or sign ' begotten ' to express in some sense our conception of God as being unfolded before us and in us, we must of necessity speak of him as begotten before all worlds, as God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, — as being (to use another weak sign) of one substance with the Father. We must speak of all things as being made and sustained by him, without whom nothing has been made that is made. In the conception thus formed of him he is the Son, the Son who is the only begotten, in whom God the Father is seen by his children ; and the path, so pointed out, at once leads to and accounts for the language which attempts (however poorly) to express his relation to the Father and the Father's work. He is the way, the truth, and the life, and except in and through him we cannot come to the Father (John xiv. 6). He alone has seen and sees the Father by whom he is sent and comes (or is made manifest) to us. The Father's work is therefore his work ; the ing universe is the everlasting efflux of his will,' it follows that * the Word is eternal as himself. This then is what is meant by the assertion that the Son is co-eternal with the Father ; and, so understood, it is an attempt to correct our first and false impression that God existed for a period before he acted. ... It denies that the difference is one of time, brings the two in that respect into coalescence, and for the relation of after and before bids us substitute that of ever-rising phenomena and ever-abiding ground. . . . The moment anything arises, it is the Son, upon whom, therefore, all the finite facts and objects which express and exemplify for us the divine nature and providence crowd to form and fill up his attributes.' On this point Dr. Martineau rightly lays the greatest stress. The Nicene theology would be idolatry ' if the Trinitarian, speaking of the Son, intended the historical Jesus of Palestine ; if, taking up that image and starting from that point of chronology, he began to expand it till he enthroned it in the heavens and let it pass as an equal element into the previous light of God. But his way of thought is, in fact, the reverse of this method. The Son comes before him not as an historical personage at all, but is God's eternal expression of himself, the thought he puts forth in all his works and ways, manifested through all ages by nature and history, but concentrated with unique brilliancy in the character and existence, the holy life and redeeming work of Jesus, in whom the Spirit so dwelt without measure that he was the very Word made flesh. ' 20 THE FOCJR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS Father's will is his will. He judges not of himself, because his judgement is the judgement of his Father ; and they who come to him can come only by the will, the working, the drawing of the Father.^ As being thus manifested for man and to man, he is said to come down from the heavens. He must so come down, for otherwise he could not be manifested or made known to us at all. He must be unfolded to our senses and our mind, to our hearts and to our consciences : in other words, he must lower himself to the measure of the faculties which he himself has given to us. He must draw all men to himself (John xi. 32); and thus the work which God the Son has to do is the work of advancing and bringing about the kingdom of the Father, the kingdom of truth, righteousness, and love. To this kingdom all his creatures are to be brought ; and not until they are so brought can sin and evil be destroyed and God be the all in all. Weak and ignorant now, they are to be made strong and filled with wisdom. Imperfect and diseased, they are to be made sound and whole. As doing this work in them and for them, he is the anointed one, the healer (Jesus the Christ), of whom we think as leaving the heavens to stoop down to our poor minds and our narrow abode. Having reached this point, we come to another class of signs which may seem to express conceptions which outwardly are not altogether in accordance with some others (already noticed) which seek to set forth the work and the office of the Eternal Son. In himself, in the infinitude of his perfection, the Father is unknown to us, and must be so always. In himself, the Father is without body, parts, or passions. But to us the Kosmos, or Universe, which declares the glory of God and sets forth what we call his handiwork, is full of a bitter agony. It is groaning and struggling in pain together from the beginning until now. On this earth in which we live there is weakness of body and of mind ; there is 1 John vi. 44. The contradiction between this sentence and John xiv. 6 is apparent. In the latter none can come to the Father but through the Son, the only way. In the former none can come to the Son except by the act of the Father. The two propositions are both logical inferences from the conception of the unrevealable God and God the revealed. INTKODUCTION 21 blindness, perversity, obstinacy, disobedience, rebellion, foul un- cleanness, cruelty, and unutterable wrong. This wrong is to be conquered and put out for ever. Truth is to destroy falsehood, righteousness is to vanquish all iniquity ; and this extinction of evil, and of the misery and death which come of it, will be the consummation of the Divine work in the universe. This is the work of the Father, and it is, therefore, also the work of the Son. ' My Father works always, and I work.' It is the Father's work as made known to us in the working of the Son. It is a conflict in which it may be said that the Son humbles himself, is tried or tempted, suffers and conquers, so that his work may become apprehensible by beings as weak and dull-sighted as men. But the life of men is the life of God, who is the source and the support of all life. All live to him and in him ; and therefore they live also in the life of the Eternal Son, who knows all their want and all their weakness more fully than they can know them themselves. He thus unites their imperfect nature with the fulness of his own perfection ; and the manhood and the Godhead are hence joined together in an inseparable union. His creatures form in him one organic whole. He takes up his tabernacle in their flesh, and they are thus enabled to behold his glory, full of grace and truth (John i. 14). He is thus (if we must use Latin rather than English words) incarnate ; and the blessings of his incarnation are assured to, and will in the end become the lot of, all his rational and moral creatures. The world, the universe, is full of struggle and pain, of the wear and tear of life ; and it was made subject to this waste or vanity, not of its own will, but by the will of the Father, who has so made it subject on the footing of hope (that is, in truth, of a fixed purpose), because the whole creation shall in the end be brought to the freedom of the glory of the children of God.i ^ I believe that these words fairly give the meauing of Rom. viii. 20, 21. The R.V. translates ev' iXiridL on by the words ' in hope that.' It is hard to see how oTL can express anything but a reason or fact. The sentence does not express a hope that something may take place, but declares that the present state of things is the result of a will which has brought it about on the footing of a sure expectation, on the ground that the whole creation shall one day be set free. 22 THE FOUE GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS So, becoming man, he undergoes the conflict with evil, and is tried as they are tried, only (of necessity) without sin, for he is absolutely and eternally dead to all sin. Were he not so dead, he could not be the Eternal Son of the infinitely perfect Father. This death to sin^ is the absolute rejection of all sin, the eternal choosing of truth over falsehood, of righteousness over wrong. But this choice is the choosing of life and light. It is itself life and light ; and therefore the death of the Eternal Son is also in itself the uprising to life, — in Greek and Latin phrase, a Kesurrection and an Anastasis. But this his death and this his life are death and life for all. There is not one of his moral and responsible children who must not be partaker of his death in order that he may be a sharer of his life. This death and this life are both blessings coming from him and flowing out from him to all. In his death and in his life he is spotless ; and his death is, therefore (in the familiar Latin phraseology), the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world or Kosmos, — for all sin. So being dead; and so living, he ascends to heaven by an eternal ascent to the glory of the unrevealed and unrevealable Father. So triumph follows conflict and is assured by it. Truth, righteousness, and love are doing battle now with all that is opposed to them ; and this is the first coming of the Eternal Son in lowliness and weakness. When the battle is over and evil is extinguished for ever, he will have come for the second time in power and great glory, and all his children, being cleansed and made sound and whole, shall shine forth as the stars in heaven. 1 It is a favourite, and may be a necessary, practice with self-styled Catholic theologians to attempt to shut up their opponents to a dilemma presenting only one alternative. The writer of the essay on ' The Incarnation as the Basis of Dogma,' in Lux Mundi, asserts (p. 235) that the Anastasis of Jesus ' must stand its ground as a mere historical event. ' * All will be overthrown if this fact be not fact.' But for this fact all historical evidence fails us utterly; and it follows that the writers in Lux Mundi are on a wrong quest. What the writer of Romans vi. 10 says is that the Eternal Son dies eternally to sin and lives eternally to God ; and with this plain assertion the dilemma of the essayist vanishes. INTEODUCTION 23 The divine work is thus a work for and in every man. It is a process and a training, for which there must be a teacher and trainer, ever abiding in them, ever guiding and raising them ; and this guide and strengthener (or comforter) is the revealing and unfolding Spirit, God the revealer, God the Holy Ghost, the divine and quickening breath of the life of the unrevealed and unrevealable Father, who is manifested to our thought in the life, the work, the conflict, the death, the uprising of God the revealed, of God the Eternal Son. These three are one, — one eternal, living, and true God, in whom all live and are moved and are.^ It is enough, therefore, to speak of God the revealer as we speak of God the unrevealable and of God the revealed ; and as we speak of God the revealer we think of the Giver of life who must come (or proceed) from, or be the spirit or breath of, God the Eternal Father and God the Eternal Son, — of the divine teacher who speaks always and in all places by the mouth of all prophets and righteous men, guiding all towards all truth, not at once or by an instantaneous act, or by leaps, or by the conferring upon any vicars or vicegerents of an official immunity from errors, mistakes, blunders, and falsehoods, but by a training which is sure to attain the end proposed, and which has for its object the building up of one society or fellowship, universal and indivisible, of those who love the truth, and, loving the truth, love God, — one catholic and apostolic Church, which acknowledges one baptism only for the putting away (in Latin remission) of sin and evil, the baptism into the death of the Eternal Son, the death to sin, absolutely and for ever. This one individual fellowship or society has one faith, or 1 The later Creed which bears the name of Athanasius introduces the Latin term persona with a connotation which the word did not originally carry ; and a perfect labyrinth of confusion, and of equivocation more or less disingenuous, running on often into downright shiftiness and falsehood, has been the result. The history of the word has been given by Professor Max Midler in hia Biograj^hies of Words ; and the theological contradictions and absurdities which have come up from the modern meanings atfeched to it are disposed of effec- tually, if we go back to the meaning of the word in the later ages of the Roman repuijlic. It is enough to cite the words of Cicero: ' Tres personas unus sustineo, meam, accusatoris, judicis.' — Whately, Logic, s.v. Persona. 24 THE FOUE GOSPELS AS HISTOEICAL EECORDS trust, or hope. It looks for the uprising of the dead, — the raising of all who are dead in sin from the death of sin to the life of righteousness, and for the life (and tlie life only) of the world to come, — of the world in which all shall be cleansed from their impurity, — in which all shall have their w^ounds healed and the misery of evil assuaged for ever, — in which not one single creature that shares (as all share) the life of God shall be left in the dark- ness and anguish of sin, because all sin and all evil shall have been brought to an end for ever. In this faith we await the change which will take us away from this world of the outward senses, and of which we speak as the uprising of the body, the living power ^ which here makes use of the sensible particles which, when it has done with them, it lays aside altogether. I have here given what I believe to be, in its essence, the theology and the faith of the Church of England. I have striven to give it as briefly as possible, not at all as meaning to exclude inferences legitimately flowing from any of these statements, but as purposing deliberately to reject all that is not, by implication at least, contained in them. It would be rash, and indeed it would not be honest, to maintain that the whole of this theology is peculiar to the Church of England, or to Christendom generally. Much of it is older than Christianity in any shape; and many factors have worked together to bring out this form of thought as I have tried here to set it down. The conception of the Eternal Wisdom has given place to the conception of the Eternal Son ; but the language applied to the former is applicable, with but slight modification, to the latter. To a still greater degree the theology which found expression in the ISTicene Creed has been affected by the phraseology belonging to the ancient systems of sacrifice. It is not necessary here to trace in detail the various steps of the refining process which has got rid of very foul dross and left a large measure of pure ore. In so far as the idea of a gross material offering, intended to appease the wrath of an angry demon, or to satiate his appetite for blood, has 1 Butler, Analogy, Part i. ch. i. INTEODUCTION 25 given place to the idea of the spiritual submission of a contrite heart longing only to grow in goodness, this is the work of God the revealer, the Holy Ghost or breath ; but there is no room for surprise or wonder if the terminology of the old practices has survived in the language of the newer and higher faith. The death of the Eternal Son is the death to sin, which is for all creatures the pledge that all shall in the end die the same death and therefore rise to his eternal life. But as so dying and so living on their behalf, he is spoken of as humbling himself to death, and as being in this immolation himself the victim and himself the priest. We thus find ourselves brought at once to the language of the Eucharistic Office, in which the terms ' flesh ' and ' blood/ ' bread ' and ' wine,' are employed to denote the nourish- ment of the spiritual life. In a like way the words which expressed the old ideas of baptismal purifications kept their ground, when the baptism to which they pointed became the baptism into the death of the Eternal Son. In no sense can it be said that either in Christendom or any- where else has an indefectible heritage of truth (that is, of a definite body of final propositions) been possessed and maintained intact, unchanged, unmodified through a long series of centuries. This is the great fallacy of those who have misconceived the nature of that universal church or fellowship of which the Nicene Creed speaks. The idea of such immobility is in direct antagonism with the office and work of God the revealer, the Holy Spirit, in bis abiding presence within the hearts of all men. The outward societies known as Christian churches have life only so far as they are growing in the truth ; and they can so grow only by getting rid of that which is defective, erroneous, or false, so soon as it is seen to be such. In other words, if their existence is to be justified at all, their work must be to modify, so far as it may be needful to modify, the views popularly taken of Christianity and of the education of mankind generally. Not one of them has fully and fearlessly discharged this duty; many of them may never have attempted it. But the Church of England 26 THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS certainly essayed the task, and in part achieved it at the Ee- formation. Much more of like work is needed still. But even now, in this outline of the faith and the theology of the Church of England, there is nothing which should come into collision with the thought or the scientific method of the nineteenth or any other century. This theology does not oppose itself to the method of the historical critic, for it has nothing to do with any incidents of history. It cannot come into conflict with science in any of its myriad branches, because it does not deny, and has no motive for disput- ing, any facts which are proved to be facts, nor does it demand submission to any propositions which involve a rejection of these facts. But it does involve the rejection of a crowd of popular notions which form in a strange jumble the traditional creed of the vast majority of Christians. It does imply the falsehood of the idea which deludes them into the notion that they possess a literature of sacred books, gathered into a single volume, exact, flawless, free from all blemish and from all possibility of error. It does imply the summary rejection of many of those books, or of portions of them, as being both inexact and inaccurate, and sometimes erroneous, wilfully false and mischievous. It does sanction the duty of casting aside as unhistorical whatever may come to us without sufficient historical attestation. In saying all this I need scarcely add that I have not dreamed of lessening by the smallest fraction the liberties of any of the schools or parties within the limits of the Church of England. I am not called upon to uphold positively the whole of the vast number of propositions contained in the Thirty-nine Articles ; but there are few of them which I care to impugn, or should wish flatly to deny. I can say honestly that I approve the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England; and I am far from having any quarrel with the statements made in the Articles with reference to the writings of the Old Testament or the New. It is of vital importance to mark that these statements speak not of the authority of Holy Scripture, but only of their sufficiency for what is INTEODUCTION 27 termed salvation. I have already said that in the body of these books all may find 'sufficient' instruction, comfort, and guidance in the training which is to heal them from the plague and wounds of sin. But it can scarcely be necessary to say that the tyranny based on their supposed ' authority ' has become an unbearable burden, of which Christendom must be rid before anything like a full and free growth can be looked for. Here, then, is the broad issue — on the one side an iron and deadening bondage to a series of books, or to classes of men as guardians or interpreters of those books ; on the other, a living faith or trust in the indwelling and the abiding work of the Divine Spirit — of the love which is stronger than the death of disobedience, uncleanness, and sin, and which will, therefore, in the end deliver us from that death. This faith or trust is at present choked by an overgrowth of narrow and debasing superstitions with which the Church of England has nothing whatever to do. These superstitions rest on, and are nourished by, the fallacy that the evidence for Christianity is to be found in what are termed signs, wonders, prodigies, miracles, or in the utterances of men whose words have been interpreted so as to suit events or incidents of ages long subsequent to their death. No fallacy can in the present age be more mischievous, or, indeed, more fatal. On this ground, then, as members of the Church of England, whether clergy or laity, we may take our stand. As such, our first duty is to fix the attention of Englishmen on questions which cannot be put out of sight or out of mind. If there be no books anywhere which have a title to be exempted from the vigorous scrutiny and impartial judgement to which all books are subjected, it follows that the New Testament writings must be weighed in the same critical balance with those of the Old. The present volume lays bare the process, and gives the result of this strictly historical scrutiny ; and we have to take all possible care that the bearings of this investigation on the liberties of the members of the Church of England shall not be misunderstood, and the controversy diverted to any false issue. In spite of all that has been done, we have to deal with books which are still held by 28 THE FOUR GOSPELS AS HISTORICAL RECORDS vast numbers to be in every way infallible. In this controversy all that we have to do is to ascertain whether certain alleged events took place as they are said to have taken place, or whether they did not. The books which record these events leave the question of their own authority absolutely untouched ; and no distinction in kind is ever claimed for or by any of them over the rest, or indeed over any other writings.^ But the plea is still vehemently urged by the adherents of the traditional schools generally, that the ordinary methods of historical inquiry are not applicable to the writings comprised in the Canon of the New Testament, and that the attempt so to apply them involves the tremendous risk of shattering the faith of Christendom. This plea has been met and refuted by a statement of the faith and theology of the Church of England, and by the demonstration that this faith and this theology do not rest on any events or incidents of history. If there be a danger to the faith of Christendom in the Divine righteousness, goodness, and love, the danger lies in reliance on a supposed historical foundation, which on examination is found to have no solidity. But it is well, and indeed it is necessary, to show that the true force of the theology of the Church of England is only then brought out when it is spiritually interpreted. The Eucharist is by common acknowledgment the most solemn act of Christian worship. Into the question of its relation to the rites of other religious systems which may be more ancient we are not called upon here to enter. The traditional belief binds it all up in the wrappings of supposed historical incidents, and makes the death of the Eternal Son an event which took place on a particular day and in a particular spot. Here, then, we have a crucial test. If on examination the incidents of the Gospel narratives become misty and shadowy, we do but show that the stripping away of their supposed historical vesture is the only possible means for bringing into clearer light whatever of life- giving and life-sustaining power this faith and theology may possess. ^ The last sentences of the Apocalypse anathematise all who mutilate the text of that composite book by adding to or taking away any of the reports of visions contained in it ; but it says nothing of any other books. BOOK I EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS CHAPTEE I EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES The book commonly known under the title of the Acts of the Apostles relates, or professes to relate, the history of Christianity and of the Christian Church in the first stages of its growth. The subject is of the greatest possible moment, for, if the narrative of the Acts be found to be generally self-consistent, and if it be borne out by the statements of known contemporary writers, our con- fidence in its truthfulness will rest on a sure foundation. More than this, we shall be able to start with a presumption in favour of the books which tell us of the life and teaching of the great Master whose name was said to be borne by the new society. But if it shall be found that the picture of the Early Church drawn for us in the Acts of the Apostles is not borne out by facts otherwise ascertained, then not only is the book itself deprived of historical authority, but a strong suspicion is cast upon earlier documents (if they be earlier) which the book of Acts is supposed to confirm. The testing of this book of Acts is, therefore, a matter of supreme importance ; and the power of testing it is furnished by the only undisputedly genuine writings contained in the Canon of the New Testament Scriptures.^ 1 Substantially, the letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians are allowed by universal consent to have been written by Paul ; but it does not follow that the whole of these letters severally are also acknowledged by 30 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book L The book of Acts gives a minute and circumstantial account of the history of the apostle Paul after his conversion, and of his relations to the rulers and members of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. We are told that after the incidents which are said to have brought about the sudden change in his life, he remained blind, without food or drink, for three days, after which he was baptized and then at once ^ entered on the task of pointing out the differences which at this time distinguished the Christians from the Jews. This work, begun, we may say, within a week after his conversion,^ he carried on in the various synagogues of Damascus (ix. 20) : and the work itself, whatever it was, differed in no respect from that of the other disciples. In this task many days^ were spent, — but not more, probably, than two or three months at furthest, — when a plot of the Jews to kill him led to his hurried escape from the city and to his first journey to Jerusalem after his conversion. Thus within a few weeks or months after the great change, Paul finds himself among the chief missioners (apostles) of the body which held that the Messiah had universal consent as coming from his hand. The Epistles have been largely interpolated ; and the passages so inserted are in the eyes of many among the most important in the New Testament writings. 1 ei)diw$. Acts ix. 20. 2 He is said to have spent some days [ijfi^pas riy as) with the disciples before he began to preach ; but the word evdiujs, coming immediately after, limits the time to a week, or at the utmost to a fortnight (ix. 19, 20). 3 Tjfi^pat 'iKavai (ix. 23). We shall find that in this instance there is a motive for so interpreting this phrase as to cover a period of three or more years. But the expression occurs in other passages in this book. Peter sojourns ijfiipas IKavai in the house of Simon the tanner (ix. 43). No one probably will suppose that he spent three years under his roof. In xviii. 11, Paul spends eighteen months in Corinth before he is brought up in the presence of the proconsul Gallio. After this he remains in Corinth ijfiipas 'iKavds (xviii. 18). Here the words mean, in any case, a time less than eighteen months, and probably mean five or six weeks at furthest. In Acts xxvii. 6 Paul embarks at the Lykian port Myra, and has a slow voyage eV iKavais ijfjL^pais by Cnidos and Crete ; but this certainly does not mean that it took more than three years, or even eighteen months, to sail along half the southern coast of Asia Minor. The Septuagint translators use the phrase, in 1 Kings ii. 38, to denote a sojourn extended over three years. But it is clear that in Acts ix. 43, xxiii. 18, xxvii. 6, the phrase denotes a period of not more than a few weeks or months ; and it seems somewhat rash to interpret it differently in ix. 23. The point, however, is of very little consequence. I Chap. I.] FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 31 already come, and risen to glory after his humiliation and passion. So short, indeed, had been the time, that, although there was constant communication between Jerusalem and Damascus, he was regarded by the disciples with a simple feeling of fear. They had heard nothing of his wonderful history, and they refused to believe that he was a disciple at all, until Barnabas vouched for his trustworthiness. Their suspicions being thus removed, Paul carried on with boldness and zeal the work which he had begun at Damascus, and remained going in and out at Jerusalem (ix. 28). The expression seems to point to missionary journeys in Judgea; and this supposition is fully borne out by the words put into Paul's mouth in his pleadings before Agrippa. Here (xxvi. 20) Paul says that, having first spoken at Damascus, he then preached at Jerusalem and throughout all the coasts of Judsea. Throughout he is in perfect harmony with the apostolic or missionary body in the holy city ; and there is no sign that he had any motives and aims which were not shared by them all. Of the Gentiles nothing is said here ; but while Paul was at Tarsus, whither he had been conveyed to screen him from the plots of Hellenist Jews (ix. 29, 30), the ministry of Simon Peter was employed to make known to all that the blessings of the divine kingdom were designed not less for the Gentile than for the Jew. Not long after the calling of Cornelius, Barnabas, having joined Paul at Tarsus, brings him to Antioch and returns with him to Jerusalem with contributions for those who might be suffering from the famine (xi. 30). This, then, is the second journey of Paul to Jerusalem after his conversion. Of this visit no further notice is taken; but after his return to Antioch (xiv. 26) we are for the first time informed of a controversy which is said to have roused no small discussion and questioning. By some who came from Judsea (and in Judoea we must include Jerusalem) the Christian society at Antioch was curtly informed that they could have no spiritual life and strength unless they submitted to circumcision after the manner of Moses. To deal with this question Paul is sent along with Barnabas and others to Jerusalem, 32 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book I. this being his third journey to the holy city after his conversion. Here he is received by the whole body of the apostles and elders (xv. 4), to whom he relates the result of his work among the Gentiles, and from whom he receives an invitation to attend a formal council, the first General Council of the Christian Church. In this solemn assembly Peter treats the matter as virtually foreclosed. He himself had been already chosen as the one who was to throw open the door of the divine kingdom to the Gentiles, and he now spoke of the covenant-ordinance of Judaism as a yoke which neither they nor their forefathers were able to bear. After this speech Paul and Barnabas again relate the results of work done by them among the Gentiles ; and then the Council, having heard the judgement of James, passes a formal decree which releases Gentile converts from the obligations insisted upon by certain of the sect of the Pharisees (xv. 5). In all this there is complete harmony between Paul and the missioners or apostles in Jerusalem. Peter uses language scarcely less strong and clear than that of Paul himself; and Paul, having appeared simply as ambassador from the society at Antioch, returns quietly to that city. Of Peter and his colleagues we hear no more. They become silent after the point at which they are brought into thorough agreement with Paul. Paul is not spoken of as actually an apostle or missionary ; but in work, in motive, and in aim they are all one. There is not the faintest hint that either then or thereafter was there the least breach of concord between them. But it so happens that Paul has also left us an account of his relations with the Christian Church in Jerusalem and with the chief men in it ; and the circumstances under which it was drawn up invest it with the greatest importance, and (on the supposition that Paul was an honest and truth-speaking man) with supreme authority. The picture brought before us by his words stands out in astounding contrast indeed with that which we have been looking upon in the narrative of the Acts. Instead of appearing as the delegate of others, and hearing his own language from the lips of Peter or other missioners, we see a solitary champion, fighting, single-handed, a Chap. L] FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 33 battle with a compact phalanx which looks upon him as little better than a seducer and a traitor. Instead of being united with them in motive and aim, he sees that he has one work to do, and that they are doing another. With the bitterness which a man can scarcely help feeling when he finds himself struggling with a force beyond his powers of resistance, he shows the depth of the antagonism which separates him from them. He is preaching one gospel, the good tidings of a love which embraces all men alike, be they Jew or Gentile, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free ; and they are preaching another, which, because it sets the Jew before or above others, is no gospel at all. As to this he is in no doubt himself, and he cannot allow any over whom he may have influence to remain in doubt. Were he himself to set bounds to the universality of his message, he should be a liar. It is not a question of high place, or power, or authority. If an angel from heaven come and say that there is in the divine mind preference or partiality for one man over another, let him be anathema. In truth, all the power and influence, which resided in the whole Judaic Christian body, had been, and was being, exercised against him. Were he seeking to please men, were he anxious to win the favour of those with whom he was connected by the strongest ties of education and association, his course would be clear. He would only have to say that all Gentiles must continue to bear the burden which, in the formal Council at Jerusalem, Peter is represented as saying that neither they nor their fathers had strength to carry, and all would be well. All the weight of their authority would then be on his side ; but the penalty which he would have to pay would be that he could no longer call himself a slave of Christ (Gal. i. 10), a slave of the great Healer who is lifting up and taking away the sin of the whole universe. He knows, however, that there is misrepresentation, deliberate misrepresentation, at work. He has thought and striven and spoken by himself, and it has been said that he had received from the missioners at Jerusalem a charge to which it could scarcely be held that he had been faithful. He had displayed a spirit of 34 EXTEENAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUE GOSPELS [Book I. determined independence ; and there had been suggestions, and more than suggestions, that he had been afraid to run counter to the feeling and opinion prevalent at Jerusalem. To do away with all these false impressions he must lay before his Galatian disciples the truth, and the whole truth. He will hold back nothing. He will show them the whole extent, as well as the nature, of his relations with the Church and its officers at Jerusalem; and he does this under the most solemn asseveration that he is speaking truthfully and with absolute sincerity. ' In the things which I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying or false ' (i. 20). He then goes on to tell his tale, when he had shown them first under what authority he had been writing and speaking. He had been preaching the gospel of the Eternal Son of God ; but he had not received it from men, or from Jiny human teaching, but from his direct revelation.^ The thought of this charge given to himself from above carries him back to the time when his faith was bounded as that of the apostles or missioners at Jerusalem was bounded still. The very contrast shows him that his life had been an education in which God was the teacher. He had been blind ; but the manifestation of the divine love had been to him as the falling of scales from his eyes ; but not even by the use of such a phrase does he give us any warrant for supposing that the great change had come, as it is said to have come, in the narrative of Acts (ix.). Nowhere does Paul himself make even the most distant allusion to the incidents which are there said to have preceded or accompanied his conversion. They are, rather, discredited by the words in which he speaks of God as being pleased to reveal 1 This at once discredits the whole story of the intervention of Ananias (Acts ix. 10-17). Paul's distinct declaration is that on his conversion, or rather after the revelation or unveiling of the Son of God in himself, he would have nothing to do with flesh and blood (Gal. i. 16) ; and this excludes Ananias as well as all others. But the ministrations of Ananias were needed on account of Paul's helplessness ; and this helplessness is the result of the bodily blindness caused by the light from heaven which had struck him to the earth on the journey to Damascus. If Ananias did not go to Paul, then these previous occurrences become unhistorical ; and, further, Paul never makes the least reference to them in any of his letters. The narrative in the Acts is nothing more than the outward or concrete representation of a purely spiritual change. Chap. I.] FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 35 his Son in himself, and of his resolution to sever himself from all human counsels. When, then, the true nature of the divine kingdom had been made known to him, he did not hurry at once into the synagogues of Damascus, as he is said to have done in Acts. He preached to none ; he disputed with none. More particularly he is careful to say that he did not go up to Jerusalem within a few weeks or a few months after the great change which had passed over him. He had no wish to see those who were apostles before him : he had no desire to ask their sanction for the course which he proposed to take. He must think over the work which God himself had given him to do ; and to this end he w^ent into Arabia (it matters little, or not at all, where this Arabia may be), and thence returned to Damascus, after how long a sojourn we cannot say. But he does distinctly say that three years had passed away before he undertook his first journey to Jerusalem after his conversion, and that he went with the purpose, not of preaching in the synagogues or of disputing with Hellenists, but of seeing Peter. With him he remained for fifteen days, and he left Jerusalem without seeing any other member of the apostolic body except James, the Master's brother. According to the narrative of Acts, he did not leave Jerusalem until the Christian society there had become familiarised with his presence. According to Paul himself, he remained unknown to them by face, during his sojourn in Syria and Cilicia, although they now knew the great spiritual change which had transformed his life (Gal. i. 23). Such, according to Paul, were the circumstances of his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion ; and in every particular his story is irreconcilable with that of the Acts. If his tale be true, then that of the Acts is not historical.^ But the main point ^ Paul flatly contradicts the narrative of the Acts in the following particulars. He says that he did not preach to the Damascene Jews immediately on his con- version ; and the Jews had no opportunity of expressing in his presence their astonishment at the change which had come over him. He did not at this time go up to Jerusalem. He did not make any attempts to introduce himself to the missioners there, and these missioners did not express any fear or suspicion 36 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book L is that while the writer of the Acts garbles the history, he does so with a purpose. It is clear that, during the three years which had passed before he went to the holy city, Paul was becoming more and more aware of the gulf which was widening between himself and the other apostles, and that he was resolved to debate the matter at issue with Peter alone. In the letter to the Galatians Paul asserts his own independence: in Acts he is strictly sub- ordinate. In the former he declares that he will take his own course : in the latter the reader is left to suppose that Paul was at all events ready to follow the directions of his colleagues, or rather of his superiors. The manifest purpose of the narrative of this first visit in Acts discredits it quite as much as do its perversions of the real facts. Before Paul's next visit to Jerusalem fourteen more years had passed away.^ But in the interval the Acts records another visit, when, with Barnabas, he went up with alms for the relief of sufferers from the famine in the time of Claudius. Of this visit Paul takes no notice ; and there is no gap in his narrative into which it may be inserted. The plea has been urged that there was nothing in the visit to invest it with any special importance ; but it cannot be maintained. The impression that he was acting, or had acted, in subordination to the apostles at Jerusalem, must before all things be removed; and if, in order to remove it, he went into the question of his relations to them, it is clear that his of him, nor did Barnabas vouch for the reality of his conversion. Paul did not at Jerusalem address himself to the Jews, and the Jews did not seek to kill him. He was not taken to Ceesarea. He did not preach throughout the coasts of Judsea. He did not go from Palestine to Tarsus, and he was not brought back from Tarsus by Barnabas to Antioch. He was not sent with alms to Jerusalem during the famine said to have been foretold by Agabus {i.e. according to the chronology of Acts, about nine years after his conversion) ; and he was not set apart in the following year by ' certain prophets and teachers ' for a joint mission with Barnabas to the Gentiles. 1 Gal. ii. 1. This visit would, therefore, be more than seventeen years after his conversion. The time may be reduced by three years, if we choose to count the fourteen years as meaning from his conversion. It is a matter of little conse- quence ; but the natural meaning of Paul's words seems to be that the fourteen years had passed since his return from his first journey to Jerusalem, Chap. I.] FUENISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 37 purpose would be entirely defeated unless he gave a complete account of all those relations. The omission of any visit, however insignificant in itself, would have laid him open to the retort that he had had opportunities of intercourse with the apostles, which he had not chosen to enumerate ; and his mere silence would have been turned to his discredit. If he omits none, then his second visit in Acts (xi. 30) is unhistorical. It follows that Paul's second journey to Jerusalem is the third in the narrative of Acts, for no attempt has been made to identify it with any later visit. In Acts XV. 2 Paul and Barnabas are elected and sent as delegates of the church at Antioch. In his letter (Gal. ii. 2) he goes in obedience to a revelation, or, in other words, by no human appointment ; and his companions are Barnabas and Titus, the latter of whom, for a reason which will soon become plain, is not here mentioned in Acts. But as before, in his purpose of subjecting Peter to examination, Paul has no intention of seeking a public reception or obtaining a public audience. Instead of being welcomed by the whole body of missioners and elders, he con- fines himself to private conversations with those who were of chief repute, and to these ^ he gave an account of his own labours as an apostle or missionary, not as wishing to obtain their sanction for the gospel which he had preached to Gentiles, but simply as justifying himself for the discharge of a duty imposed on him directly from God. Then follows the recital of incidents, of which the narrative in Acts gives no inkling — incidents which had left on the apostle's mind memories so bitter, that in the expres- sion of his feelings his language becomes involved and his grammar confused. His thoughts outrun his speech ; but every word that he utters shows that the narrative in Acts of the first public reception and audience given to Paul and Barnabas, and of ^ There is not the slightest room to doubt that the words aveOifiriv avroh are merely explained by the following toU 8oKo0ai. Nothing but the exigencies of a hopeless position would lead any to suppose that the aurols refers to the formal reception of the first day, and the rots doKovai, to private interviews on sub- sequent days. The private interviews were superfluous if everything had been debated and decided in previous public assemblies. 38 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOE THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book I. the subsequent Council with its formal debate and still more formal and solemn decree, is merely the result of a settled purpose to keep out of sight facts as disgraceful as they are painful, and to parade a fellow-feeling and harmony which never existed. Is it possible that, if the Council with its large-hearted utterances in debate, and the definite concessions of its decree, had been realities, Paul would know nothing about them, or, knowing them, should have said nothing about them ? Such a supposition is the very acme of absurdity. Had Peter and James spoken as they are said to have spoken in this Council, and had the decrees been passed, then the terrible contention of which Paul goes on to speak could never have taken place. According to the narrative of Acts, the whole body of the church at Jerusalem, assembled in solemn council, had defined the obligations to be imposed on Gentile con- verts, the covenant rite of circumcision being expressly excluded from the number. Yet at this very time, when the decree was literally a thing only of yesterday, a violent attempt was made to inforce the rite upon a Gentile convert. Paul had been assuring his disciples that, if they submitted to circunicision, Christ should profit them nothing ; and now here, in Jerusalem, after the passing of a decree which absolved them from this obligation, something like main force was used to get it carried out in the person of Paul's companion Titus. As he writes his letter to the Galatians, he cannot think of this attempt without a vehement indignation, which shows itself in the very construction, or mis- construction, of his sentences. He says indeed that the attempt failed ; but he does not hesitate to speak of those who made it as false brethren, whose purpose it was to enslave every Gentile convert ; and then, having declared that he would not yield to them even for an hour, he goes on to speak of the attitude of the apostles and chief men towards himself. But in all that he says there is not the remotest reference either to the Council or to its decree ; and without going further, we are justified in treating both the Council and the decree as unhistorical, if they should not rather be termed fictions with a Chap. I.] FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 39 purpose. Had Paul heard the speech of Peter at that solemn assembly, he must, if he had never been made acquainted with the story of Cornelius, have asked for the meaning of the statement that he, Peter, had some years before been chosen by God as the instrument through whom the Gentiles should, on confessing their faith in Jesus as the Christ, be admitted to the full benefits of the Abrahamic covenant. He must, if he had known them, have pinned Peter to his own words before the household of Cornelius, and still more must he have pointed to the decree of the Council on which the ink was scarcely yet dry. But in his letter to the Galatians, he knows nothing of the story of Cornelius, nothing of the Council, nothing of its decree. The only possible inference is that all these were put together by the writer of the book for the one purpose which is betrayed throughout the whole of the narrative. The words which follow are a strange comment indeed on that picture of Paul's perfect subordination, exhibited in the narrative of Acts, to the chief men of the Church in Jerusalem. In the narrative of the council, Peter declares plainly that he had learnt, years before, the absolute equality of Jew and Gentile in the sight of God (Acts XV. 8, 9). In the letter to the Galatians he has no more learnt this lesson than if the conversion of Cornelius had never taken place, and if he himself had had nothing to do with it. Of the alleged authority of the apostles Paul speaks only with a biting irony or sarcasm. They might be spoken of as men of repute (ol BoKovvre^;); but whether they seemed to be anything or not, it made no difference to him, as God accepts no man's person ; and whatever they might appear, they imparted nothing to him, and offered him no help in his work. All that they saw was the distinction between the gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision ; and on the basis of this distinction they were willing to give him the right hand of fellowship, the under- standing being that their paths w^ere thencelbrth to diverge. Paul with Barnabas was to deal with the Gentiles, while the whole apostolic or missionary body (whatever their number might be) 40 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book I. were to confine their ministry to the circumcision. Paul was to go on almost single-handed in the battle with human sin and misery everywhere, while their whole force was to be employed within the narrow limits of Jewry. It seems an amazing sequel to the command, that they should all of them go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Paul started with this conviction : the others seemingly never reached it. In short, there is virtual unanimity throughout between Paul and the chiefs of the church at Jerusalem in the narrative of Acts : there is the widest divergence between them, whenever Paul speaks of them in his own letters, whether to the Galatians or the Corinthians. Nor is the difference superficial. It involves a fundamental distinction of principle. Once only it seems that, under the influence of Paul, Peter was induced to hold some- thing like free communion with the Gentile Christians who had not submitted to the covenant rite of Judaism ; and this occurred at Antioch some time (it may be months or years) after that visit to Jerusalem during which, according to Acts, the first General Council of the Church met and issued its decree. But how does Peter here behave ? Is he here the man who spoke with all the freedom of Paul in the house of Cornelius, and who avowed the same convic- tions in the Council-chamber at Jerusalem"? His liberalism at Antioch is a brief passing phase, and nothing more. He can eat with Gentiles so long as he is not under the eye of Jewish Christians from the holy city. As soon as some of these, armed apparently with the authority of James, present themselves at Antioch, he withdraws himself at once from their fellowship. The timidity of Peter clearly attests the strength of the Judaic exclusiveness among the Christians at Jerusalem ; and this exclusiveness rests not less clearly on the supposed paramount need of circumcision for all who professed themselves believers in the gospel of the Son of God. Here then was Peter insisting on the closest theory of Jewish privilege, and here was Paul withstanding him to the face, because he stood self-condemned (Gal. ii. 11), but without making the slightest reference to Peter's declarations before Cornelius, or. Chap. L] FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 41 again, in the Council at Jerusalem. The decree of that Council had settled the question solemnly, in the name and under the professed sanction of the Holy Spirit, for all Gentile converts. The silence of Paul and his failure to avail himself of the benefits of that decree are complete proof, were other proof wanting, that the Council and its decree are both mythical. It would, indeed, be wellnigh impossible to imagine any narrative more absolutely incredible than is that of the Acts, when compared with the genuine statements of Paul. In the letter to the Galatians we have a vehement dispute on the very question of the relation of the Gentiles to the society of the Judaic Christians at Jerusalem ; and, throughout, Paul never gives a hint that the whole question had been formally discussed, and solemnly decided by the society gathered in a regular council, at which he had himself been present, and had recounted the results of his work among the Gentiles. Instead of taking his stand on the acts and decree of the Council, all that Paul can do is to assert his own principles and to demand that they shall be respected by Peter. He knows that the conduct of Peter has been both inconsistent and timid ; and he charges him with this cowardice in language sufficiently clear. He allows that, as a Jew, Peter must regard the covenant rite of circumcision as of supreme importance : nevertheless Peter had at Antioch associated freely with Gentile Christians who were not circumcised; and, having so done, he withdraws into his old exclusiveness on the coming of 'certain from James.' He, therefore, confronts Peter with himself, while to the emissaries from Jerusalem he has nothing to say. Yet, according to the story in the Acts, Peter and these emissaries were alike bound by the decree of a Council, solemnly passed with their own approbation and vote, which defined the terms of communion for the Gentile Christians. That ,Paul should not have insisted on obedience to this decree, and have charged them with disobedience and treachery if they refused [to obey it, is beyond all belief. He did not take this course, ^because he knew nothing of the Council or its decree; and he was 42 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book I. ignorant of them, simply because the Council had never been con- vened, and the decree had never been passed. The result is not merely that the writer of Acts is discredited as a historian. The picture which he has drawn of the internal harmony of the Church vanishes into air. The fabric which he has taken pains to build up falls to the ground ; and we see clearly that, if it had not been for Paul, the society of Judaic Christians at Jerusalem would have remained a mere Jewish sect, or more probably would have come to a speedy end. The apostles or missioners of Jerusalem were assuredly all of one mind ; but they were united in the resolution to allow no full communion to Gentile converts, except through the door of the covenant rite. If this point were not yielded, Paul might carry on his work by himself. As they could not hinder him, they would tolerate him, and, as tolerating him, they would clasp him by the hand ; but beyond this they would not go (Gal. ii. 9). Even wdth this scant measure of fellowship Paul was content. It was no part of his purpose to provoke a quarrel or carry on a controversy with those of whom he speaks as pillar apostles or, at all events, as seeming pillars. Against these personally he never inveighs; but for those who act under them he has no indulgence. Throughout his whole narrative, however, this much is clear— that the apostles, or missioners, of Jerusalem did what they could to counteract the work of Paul, although they would not in set terms condemn and denounce it. The emissaries who issued from the holy city came with letters of commendation from them ; and although Paul undertook the journey to Jerusalem for the express purpose of winning their more active approval (Gal. ii. 2), he could obtain from them nothing beyond a cold assent to the continuance of his work among the Gentiles, while they confined their ministrations to the Jews or to such as were willing to submit to the covenant rite. In short, the narrative in Acts is contradicted in every particular by the narrative of Paul. But we are still scarcely beyond the threshold of our inquiry, and each step discovers some fresh feature in the story, which the Chap. L] FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 43 writer of Acts wishes to pass off as the true version of the earliest stage in the history of the Christian Church. Not only had Peter in the formal Council declared that God had put no difference between Jew and Gentile (Acts xv. 9), and that there was no reason or excuse for laying upon the latter a yoke which had long been unbearable, but he had spoken of certain events at some previous time, with which he supposes all his hearers to be familiarly acquainted. 'Ye know,' he says, 'how that a good while ago, God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe.' The marks of time in this book are often indefinite ; but it is clearly implied that some years had passed since the events here referred to, whatever they were, had taken place. The longer the interval, the more wonderful becomes the fact which is immediately forced on our notice. If Peter was justified in speaking of those events, and of his own part in them, then how is it possible to put the smallest trust in any part of the narrative of this Council or of the circumstances which led to it? If the great Searcher of hearts had obliterated all difference between Jew arid Gentile, bestowing his Holy Spirit on the latter as on the former, then this fact must have been known to Paul as to all his other hearers. But, in this case, is it conceivable that Paul would have allowed himself to be elected as a delegate for the discussion of a question long since closed with the utmost solemnity ? It is not credible. Eather, his letter to the Galatians is the proof, that when the * certain men who came down from Judaea ' declared that Gentile converts must submit to the covenant rite (Acts xv. 1), Paul would have started up at once with an indignant protest against the re-opening of a question settled years ago by the instrumentality of Peter himself. He must have denounced the treachery which thus bade defiance to lessons plainly taught by the Holy Spirit, whose sanction the Council claimed for its decree ; and he must have refused to go to Jerusalem on any such unholy errand. The events to which Peter referred are astonishing indeed, and are heralded and accom- 44 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book L panied by wonders on both sides. The church at Jerusalem was growing up in the tranquil conviction, not merely that circumcision was a matter of obligation upon all converts, but that the preach- ing of the gospel, whatever this might be, was to be confined to the Jews. That they had ever heard of the command which bade them go into all the world and bear the good news to all creatures there is not the faintest sign. The duty is first brought home to Peter by the vision vouchsafed to him while he tarried in the house of the tanner, Simon. According to the writer of Acts (x. 28), this vision was to disabuse his mind of a more than Mosaic exclusiveness. So strong was the distinction between clean and unclean, that in his opinion it was unlawful for a Jew to keep .company with or to come to any one of any other nation. Without going further, we see at once that we are not reading a strictly historical narrative. Such isolation was altogether impracticable for the trafficking Hebrew; nor was it eitlier enjoined upon or expected from them ; and Peter had already been guilty of some- thing approaching to a real infringement of law or custom by taking up his abode with a tanner. Of the great importance of the lesson conveyed by these inci- dents, the double vision of Peter and Cornelius leaves us in no doubt at all. The vision said to be sent to Peter would seem to show that the distinction between clean and unclean meats was done away; but the alleged decree of the Council of Jerusalem takes no notice of this fact. So far, however, as it touches the difference between Jew and Gentile, the lesson taught by the vision is decisive. Peter is convinced by it that God is no respecter of persons, and that in every nation he who fears God and works righteousness is accepted with him. Paul never maintained any- thing beyond this ; and the conviction thus impressed on the mind of Peter is shared also by all ' them of the circumcision ' which believed, that is, by the whole Christian church at Jerusalem (Acts X. 45). The whole question was settled at once and for ever. Cornelius was nothing more than the first-fruits of the great harvest of Gentile Christians who were to be admitted to Chap. I.] FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 45 all the privileges of the Abrahamic covenant without undergoing the covenant rite. How, then, comes it about that of this wonderful story no one, when the Judaic emissaries reached Antioch years afterwards (Acts XV. 1), knows anything? It is not said even here that Paul had ever heard of it, and in his genuine letters he is beyond doubt absolutely ignorant of it. Is it possible that if he had learnt the lesson then, Peter could have behaved as he did behave when Paul withstood him to the face ? Still more, is it credible that Paul could have treated the matter as a subject for controversy, when he could have appealed to a divine decision which Peter could not have dared to question ? Cornelius himself is never named again ; and the reference to his conversion, made by Peter in the Council (Acts XV. 7), goes for nothing, because Paul is represented as letting it pass without notice. Peter speaks of the believing Jews, that is, of the whole Christian Church at Jerusalem, as knowing both the story and its lessons ; but, nevertheless, those of them who went down to Antioch ignored both the one and the other. The episode of Cornelius has no effect whatever ; and with Paul a silence which can be the result only of ignorance is conclusive proof that the whole story is nothing more than a composition by the writer of Acts, or by some from whom he received it. But in this story Paul, seemingly some years after the Council of Jerusalem, is represented (Acts xxii. 20) as referring to a narra- tive of incidents, which had occurred many years before that Council was held, and even before the conversion of Cornelius, and in which Paul had himself played a prominent part. Accord- ing to this statement, Paul declares that he had not only been present at the trial of Stephen, but had approved and urged his tumultuary condemnation, and kept the clothes of those who carried out the sentence. In the circumstances which attended this event there was everything not merely to impress the memory but to kindle the affections of such a man as Paul. Whatever may have been Paul's failings, lack of generosity has never been supposed to be one of them. Stephen, according to the history 46 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book I. of the Acts, had been suddenly seized and charged before the Council or Sanhedrim with treating the Mosaic customs or law as things which were to be changed (Acts vi. 14). So deeply was his heart filled with the divine love, that all who looked upon him are said to have been struck with the superhuman beauty of his countenance ; and in the defence which we are told that he was suffered to make, he showed at least that the whole training of the Jewish people, or of the thinkers among them, pointed to a purely spiritual faith, even if his words did not actually formulate the universalis m said to have been avowed by Peter on the conversion of Cornelius, and set forth by Paul as the sum and substance of the Christian gospel. Paul had heard from Stephen words the memory of which in later days or years must have made his heart burn within him. But for all this he never makes any mention of Stephen. There could be no one for whose utterances he would have a more grateful remembrance ; and yet he never notices him, even when (if these words be genuine) he speaks of himself as having beyond measure persecuted the Church of God. On the supposition that he had taken part in his trial and execution, his silence is as incredible as is his appearance at the Council at Jeru- salem to debate a question which had been solemnly settled years before by a divine interposition. But if we are thus driven to ascribe his silence to ignorance, then the whole story of the Proto- martyr crumbles away, and Stephen himself vanishes into mist. He is mentioned in no other part of the New Testament writings ; and thus we have no contemporary evidence of his existence, while, if we look to the story of the trial, we are at once driven to ask how his speech has been preserved. He had been hurried to the judgment-seat without a moment for preparation ; nor could the spectators have known that he would make any speech at all. The assertion that it was reported by Paul himself is a mere guess which is worth nothing. The inferences to be drawn from Stephen's defence are abundantly clear ; but Paul not only never speaks of him, but declares emphatically that he received from neither flesh nor blood the gospel which it was his life's work to preach (Gal. i. 16). Chap. I.] FUENISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 47 But what are the characteristics of the speech in itself ? The question carries us to a consideration of all the speeches found in the Acts, and involves an inquiry into which we cannot enter. Nor is there any need to do so.^- For the speeches given in his history, Thucydides makes no claim beyond that of a general fidelity to the thoughts, and therefore in some measure to the words, of the actors. The speakers in the Acts not merely speak alike, but think alike. The minds of all move in tlie same groove. They employ the same arguments, and for the most part express them in the same words. Even when the clothing is not the same, the search for any essential differences under the outward form is vain. The broad conclusion that all the speeches in Acts are the composition of the author of the Acts has not been answered, and is in fact unanswerable. The speech of Stephen, in particular, is one which it is almost impossible to think that the accused could make on the spur of the moment ; nor is it to be supposed that his hearers should be able to follow his spiritual interpreta- tion of facts which had hitherto left on their minds a very different impression. There was, therefore, no alternative but to charge them openly, after a certain point, with wilful and determined blindness ; and when this point was reached, the patience of his hearers was exhausted also. The tumultuous accusation is followed by a tumultuous condemnation ; and as soon as the purpose of the tumult is attained the rioters again become orderly. In short, we find ourselves wandering about in a marsh ; and the experience of previous inquiries leaves us with little hope of finding any firm ground. Every statement is a tax on our powers of belief The death of Stephen is followed (Acts viii. 1) by a persecution, which scatters the whole Christian community at Jerusalem, leaving the apostles only undisturbed. What other efforts for repressing opinion have ever left the leaders unmolested 1 This task has been exhaustively accomplished by the author of the work entitled Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. part iv. It is useless to go into the linguistic analysis, unless we carry it out thoroughly. To do so would be only to reproduce what has been done already with a fulness and force to which sub- stantially and practically no reply has been made. 48 EXTEENAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book I. and pressed only on tlieir followers ? In the sequel Peter goes to Samaria in order that the converts there made by Philip the deacon may receive the Holy Spirit ; but to this mission, or to the conversion of the Ethiopian which follows it, Peter nowhere again makes any reference. Events are forgotten, seemingly, as soon as they have occurred. But the narrative of Acts brings before us not merely certain wonderful incidents which compelled Peter himself to acknow- ledge that the love of God was all-embracing, and that in his sight there was and is no distinction of Jew or Gentile. It tells us also of special means provided for the leaders of the church in Jerusalem (if not for others) to smooth their work in converting all the nations. Not only are they to set about the work as one which might occupy the life of generations ; but they are endowed with extraordinary powers which shall remove from their path diffi- culties which might otherwise be insurmountable. The curse of Babel had placed barriers between man and man : the blessing of Pentecost should undo the mischief.^ In short, men shall be en- abled to speak many languages, and some languages without having had the trouble of learning them ; and in a moment, by the action of a divine power, a knot of ignorant Galil^eans are enabled to address Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Cretes, Arabians, and others, each in the articulate and grammatically constructed words of their several languages. No such power had been accorded to any before : no such power is known now. Nay, it never has been 1 It is surely unnecessary to say, that, whatever be the antecedent probability or improbability of wonders, prodigies, signs, tokens, miracles (or whatever other names we choose to give them), we should never dream of believing a man who, having recounted some event of this kind, should be convicted of misrepresenting or falsifying ordinary matters of fact. On what ground, then, are we to accept the stories of sudden death inflicted by a word and a look, of prison doors flying open, of chains dropping off" from the hands of captives, when we find that the writer who tells these tales gives an account of the relations of the two principal actors in the history which is utterly denied by one of those actors themselves ? We know that the author of the Acts has not left us a true account of the Council of Jerusalem, where we can check him by the evidence of a contemporary writer ; it is the veriest excess of credulity, if we accept his extraordinary narratives in which we cannot check him at all. Chap. I.] FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 49 known or mentioned in any other book than in this of the Acts of the Apostles. Of any results produced by it we never hear. Some of those who received the gift are said to have written books in- cluded in the Canon of our New Testament writings ; but those books are written by people who seem to have had no small diffi- culty in expressing their thoughts in the language which they use. In truth, this gift or power of intelligibly speaking actual languages without having learnt them is nowhere mentioned ex- cept in a solitary chapter of the solitary book of the Acts : and yet this single and unsupported statement in an anonymous and non-contemporary writing has sufficed to convince wellnigh the whole Christian world, from the time of its composition to the present day, that this gift is strictly historical fact. But this statement is not only unsupported ; it is contradicted and denied by the only contemporary witness who can be cited. That a gift of tongues, as it was called, was known at all events in some parts of the primitive Christian Church is beyond doubt ; and Paul, who has left us an elaborate description of it, claims to have been en- dowed with it in pre-eminent measure. His account of it is, indeed, of inestimable value. It is the account of a zealot or enthusiast, if we choose to call him so ; but his very enthusiasm adds to the weight of his evidence. The gift itself is, he tells us, one only of a large number which are all ranged under the one class of powers, signs, or wonders. Nor only this. These gifts are all spoken of as coming from the Spirit, the Spirit of God. The naming which follows (1 Cor. xii. 8-11) is most significant. Among them ar© faith, the word of wisdom, and the word of knowledge ; and these are gifts which may be seen among us now as clearly as ever they were seen then. With these are joined gifts of healings, of works of powers (wrongly translated by the word 'miracles'), of prophecy or preaching, of the discerning of spirits. Last of all comes the mention of tongues, or kinds of tongues, and of the interpretation of them. The possession of all these gifts Paul unequivocally claims for himself; and for that of tongues he expressly thanks God that he can speak with them, and has spoken with them, more D 50 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book I. abundantly than any others, be they who they might. But unless an exception be made for this one gift or power (and such an ex- ception would imply its severest condemnation), he does not hint that any of them belong to what we speak of as the sensible or material world. He does not imply that the power exercised in the gifts of healing was a power of working visible wonders or prodigies. He does not say that it meant the healing of broken or paralysed bodily limbs or the curing of bodily diseases. He leaves it manifestly to be understood that the healing was the moral healing and spiritual strengthening of those who were bruised in heart and sick in soul. If we are to regard the epistles to the Philippians and to Timothy as genuine utterances of the apostle of the Gentiles, it is certain that these powers were not (or possibly could not be) exercised in the cases of Epaphroditos (Phil. ii. 27) or of Trophimos (2 Tim. iv. 20). If they were tried and failed, the fact of failure should have been mentioned ; but there is not the slightest warrant for supposing that any such mere bodily cures were ever so much as looked for. The imagination, or it may be the lack of imagination, which characterised the seventy disciples, led them, on their return from the mission with which they are said to have been charged, to speak of the very devils as being subject to them in their Master's name (Luke x. 17). They meant, however, nothing less than this, that the most hateful of tempers, and the most vindictive of dispositions, had been brought into subjection and tamed by them so long as they worked in the spirit of the Great Teacher whose force was the force of love. It is to these triumphs of a divine love, to which (and to which alone) Paul refers when he asserts that the signs of an apostle had indeed been wrought among them, in all patience, in wonders and mighty deeds (2 Cor. xii. 12). Would there have been the least ground for this appeal, if one had been relieved of epilepsy, another of leprosy, another of bodily deafness or blindness, the spiritual conditions of all remaining unchanged ? It is clear that the credentials to which Paul appealed were entirely spiritual, and that they were found in the moral changes, the spiritual cleansings and healings Chap. I.] FUENISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 51 wrought by his teaching and his life. The moral result of his labours won for Gregory, bishop of ISTeo-Csesarea, the title of Thaumatourgos, or the wonder-worker ; the fancy of the age soon invented and ascribed to him a multitude of sensible prodigies, and buried under a mass of fictions the true meaning of the name. With the gift of tongues Paul, our only witness, deals happily far more fully and explicitly than with any other of the powers ex- ercised by himself or by any one else. His own use of it constrains him to admit its reality, and he clearly does his best to appreciate such good as might come from it ; but he has no hesitation in criticising the gift itself and passing his judgement upon it. He takes it along with the gift of prophecy : and prophecy is simply the preaching (predicating) or setting forth of anything. With this gift or power of preaching he compares and contrasts the kinds of tongues with a candour which is mercilessly severe. Both these gifts are used, or are supposed to be used, for the benefit of the whole Church, and therefore for the bettering of all mankind ; and he insists pointedly that if any prophesy or teach, and there comes in one who believes not, or is unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, and the secrets of his heart being thus made manifest, he worships God and reports that God is in them of a truth (1 Cor. xiv. 25). Everything here is clear and intelligible. The appeal is made straight from the heart and sense of one man to the heart and the sense of another. But what of the kinds of tongues ? This is a gift which, apart from the good which possibly it may bring to him who is endowed with it, is, he •declares (not without some vehemence), of not the slightest use in itself. It may, he 'admits (and without denying the reality of the gift he could not do otherwise), be made useful, if the man who has the gift will interpret what he says, or if he can find any one to do this work for him : but otherwise it is worse than worth- less, — it is eminently mischievous, as fostering a confusion and disorder which made the Corinthian Church a scandal lo the world without. No one but the speaker or the interpreter could -extract any meaning from a series of unintelligible ravings ; but f2 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOE THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book L how or why the speaker or the interpreter should deserve to be trusted, Paul does not explain. The question involved a difficulty with which for obvious reasons he could not deal ; but, short of handling this question, he did all that he possibly could to put the truth before his disciples. To bring the matter within our comprehension he has left absolutely nothing wanting. He has, in fact, little or no patience with the power or gift as exercised in public. ' I had rather,' he says, ' speak five words with my under- standing, that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue ' (1 Cor. xiv. 19). The inference is that the speaker in the tongues cannot always, or often, understand himself, and that the interpreter has to make an appeal from the senseless or frenzied zealot to the more sober thinker before he can reduce his cries to a form which may carry some meaning for the hearers generally. Nor does Paul stay even here. The gift may possibly (he scarcely affirms, though he does not in terms deny, this) edify the possessor, but it is sure to disgust strangers. * If the whole church,' he asks, * be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned or un- believers, will they not say that ye are mad?' (1 Cor. xiv. 23.) Not a word more is needed. The judgement is absolutely decisive. Whatever the gift was, it was manifested in a mere utterance of strange and unintelligible sounds, not articulate, not belonging to any earthly language, sounds flowing from some uncontrollable excitement, of which Paul, while he says that he shared it himself, clearly saw the dangers. A grammatical and correct utterance of known or real languages it most certainly was not, and never pretended to be. A more complete contradiction to the story of the day of Pentecost in Acts cannot possibly be imagined. There we have the distinct declaration that the disciples suddenly spoke correctly and intelligibly the dialects of Persians, Arabians, Greeks, Eomans, and other peoples; and it is also perfectly clear that the power so given was not confined to the apostles. The whole Church was gathered together, and the number was at least the 120 mentioned Chap. I.] FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 53 in the first chapter (Acts i. 1 5). The immediate consequence was a general amazement and wonder ; but the feeling took two forms of expression. The fact of the bestowal of new powers of speech had no sooner been perceived than it was noised abroad, the result being that the crowd came together (Acts ii. 6). This crowd, we must suppose, consisted, in part at least, of the devout persons ' out of every nation under heaven/ mentioned in the preceding sentence, and probably of some others who received a different impression from what they heard. The devout foreigners from Phrygia, Pamphylia, Persia and the other countries, heard the disciples (so we are told) speak, each in his own tongue, the wonderful works of God. But in the crowd were others, who did not, or would not, recognise in these sounds the articulate utter- ances of their own languages. The former asked with wonder the meaning of the power which thus enabled a company of Galilaeans to speak in languages of which thus far they had been ignorant. The latter declared positively that the speakers were filled through and through with new wine. Without going further, one thing stands out as clear as the unclouded sun at noontide. Had the disciples been articulately speaking the languages of all the strangers there assembled, the reply to this charge of drunkenness must have taken the form of an indignant appeal to those who recognised in their utterances each his own native speech. Beyond all possibility of doubt, Peter must have bidden them, in common fairness and common justice, • to stand forth and to say that sounds not intelligible to Jews of Jerusalem were really good Greek or good Latin, good Arabic or good Persian. Of any such course we have not a hint ; or rather kthe sequel shows (if the whole story be not a fiction) that no such course could have been taken. When Peter obtains a hearing, he tells the men of Judsea and all who dwelt at Jerusalem, not that the disciples are beyond doubt possessed of the power of speaking languages of which thus far they had known not one word, but merely that ' these men are not drunken, as ye suppose, 54 EXTEENAL EVIDENCE FOE THE FOUE GOSPELS [Book I. cite from the book of Joel some sentences which say nothing whatever about the bestowal of any such power, although they specify some manifestations of quite other sorts. The words put into Peter's mouth virtually admit that the sounds produced in this assembly at Jerusalem were precisely like those of which Paul speaks as produced among the Christians of Corinth. In either case they were inarticulate, incoherent, and unintelligible ; and the alleged power of speaking real languages without any previous acquaintance with them is thus proved beyond all question to have existed only in the imagination of the writer or writers of this anonymous book. The narrative which affirms the bestowal of this power is altogether untrue ; and another link is added to the chain of evidence which proves the untrust- worthiness of the whole work as a historical record. The Council at Jerusalem was never held : the decree ascribed to it was never passed. Of the conversion of Cornelius and of Peter's utterances after it Paul knew nothing ; and the stories in the Acts relating his own conversion and the martyrdom of Stephen run counter to all that we receive from the one witness who really belongs to the time ; and this witness, we need scarcely say, is Paul himself. As Paul's account of himself in his letter to the Galatians discredits the story of the intervention of Ananias, so his description of the power of tongues as exhibited in himself and in the church of Corinth shows the unhistorical character not only of the mani- festations on the day of Pentecost, but of the picture of a golden age of faith which immediately follows. According to this story there was a universal community of goods in the new society (Acts ii. 44, 45). But this narrative seems to be convicted of exaggeration (to say the least) by details given later on. In Acts ii. 44 the surrender of all private pro- perty is stated to be a condition of communion. Yet at a time when not one member of the Church retained any property in houses, lands, or moveable goods, the reply of Peter to Ananias for keeping back part of the purchase-moneys of land is that whilst it remained it was his own, and that even after it was Chap. I.] FURNISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 55 sold, the price was still in his own power — in other words, that the guilt lay not in departing from the practice of a community of goods, which was not treated as essential, but in representing the produce of the sale as less than it really was. The story itself is inherently incredible, and can have no claim on our belief as occurring in a book which we have seen to be wholly unhistorical. The whole society must have been gathered in one room, and must there have remained, with the exception of the young men who carried out the body of Ananias and buried it. Otherwise his wife could not have remained for three hours in ignorance, not only of his death but of his burial. She could not, of course, have come across the young men as they carried away the body of her husband. Thus in a small knot of people two instances of sudden death occurred in three hours, — the persons being landowners, and therefore not altogether insignificant. Yet no information is given of their deaths to any one in authority, and the bodies are carried away at once for burial. Nor is any notice taken of these events by the chief priests and rulers, who had here a golden opportunity for crushing men whom, according to the story, they both feared and hated. A previous chapter had related how for curing a lame man the apostles had been im- prisoned and charged to speak no more in the name of the Christ ; and in the immediate sequel the priests and rulers again lay hands on them for performing certain works which, if done, were unquestionably beneficial. But when after a miraculous or por- tentous deliverance from the prison the apostles are again brought before the Sanhedrim, not one word is said of this mysterious disappearance of persons scarcely of such little worth as to be thus unceremoniously passed by. Are we to suppose that Jerusalem was without any police at all ? The mere celebration of the Eucharist sufficed, we are told, at a later time as a ground for charges of cannibalism. It is strange, therefore, that nothing should be said of an event, which they might, nay nmst, if they had known it, have characterised as a double murder, and which would certainly be investigated as such, if it took place in a 56 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book L revival meeting at the present day. The narrative itself speaks of the events as striking terror into the hearts of the disciples, and as being freely talked of in the city (Acts v. 11). There was nothing to hinder this; but that the priests and rulers should give no heed to these reports is altogether beyond belief. The narrative is explained by its purpose. Peter had by his denial fallen lower than any of the apostles, except Judas ; and his authority must be vindicated by some striking display of power which shall place him on a level even higher than that of the great apostle of the Gentiles. It follows that on all historical grounds the writer of Acts and his work are alike discredited ; and were he to relate nothing but what is known in the ordinary course of human things, his testi- mony must be set aside as worthless. But we have not said all, when we have said that his history goes into tatters at the touch. He not only ascribes to Paul a line of action which Paul em- phatically repudiates for himself; but he sets down a series of incidents as attending and following his conversion of which Paul, to say the least, takes no notice whatever. These incidents are marvellous and portentous. They are prodigies, or miracles, or wonders. It matters not much by what name we describe them. They are, at all events, occurrences to which we should give credit only on the evidence of strictly contemporary witnesses, whose trustworthiness and accuracy have been tested and everywhere found good in the relating of ordinary matters. But it is just here that the author of Acts fails utterly. His book has been written with a purpose. This purpose made it necessary for him to dis- tort all the events with which he had to deal, and to invent much which never took place at all. If, then, we can put no faith in him as a narrator of things of everyday life, what is to be said of the astounding multitude of extraordinary and in themselves in- credible incidents with which his narrative is garnished at every step ? It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that, in comparison with the Acts of the Apostles and its exuberance of miraculous or wonder-stirring incidents, the Gospels are sober histories. We Chap. I.] FUENISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 57 are, therefore, wholly freed from any duty of exaraining all or any of the astounding occurrences which meet us in his pages at every turn. As works of history, the books of Chronicles in the Old Testament Canon and the Acts of the Apostles in that of the New stand on precisely the same level. All that we need say further is that no clear evidence even of the existence of this book is found for more than a century and a half after the time when Paul abandoned the exclusiveness of Judaism for the task of preaching a gospel which knew no dis- tinction of race or condition. Efforts innumerable have been made to discover references to this work in the epistles which bear the names of Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius, in the Shepherd of Hernias and in the Canon of Muratori. But the authority of all these is, as we shall see later on, questionable, and some are certainly spurious. Clement assuredly needs not to be regarded as referring to Acts, when he speaks of seven imprisonments of the apostle of the Gentiles, and of his reaching the extremity of the west in his work as a missionary. The paragraph in the Canon of Muratori speaks of a book which contained the acts of all the apostles. Our book of Acts certainly does not contain them. The writer speaks of Luke as the author ; but this, as well as the belief of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Irenseus, and others, proves only that towards the end of the second century the idea of the authorship of Luke was more or less widely spread. That the book, as it now stands, professes to be the continuation of a work written for the use of Theophilus (whatever or whoever this may be) is certain. But it is scarcely less certain that the pre- faces to the third Synoptic Gospel and to the Acts do not come from the writer or writers of the books to which they are prefixed. That they both come from one and the same person is by no means unlikely ; but even the supposition that this person was the author of Acts would prove nothing for their genuineness. The preface to the third Gospel makes the frank admission that many generations had passed away from the time of which it pro- fesses to treat. No one would speak now of a tradition coming 58 EXTEKNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book L down from those who had been eye-witnesses from the begin- ning, if by this he was referring only to the days of George iv. Nor can anything be gained by laying stress on the sentence in the epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, which speaks of the sufferers under persecution as praying for their tormentors, 'like Stephen, the perfect martyr, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.' This prayer is certainly uttered by Stephen in the Acts ; but Stephen is a historical personage, or he is not. If he be, then a knowledge of his trial and death might be gained from other sources besides the Acts ; and only on the supposition that he was brought into being in the mind of the writer of the Acts, and in no other way, can we assert that the letter of the Gallic Churches implies a knowledge of the book. But the date of this epistle is about 177-8 ; and from this we could gather only that the book of the Acts was known then, while we should learn nothing more of the author or of the time when he wrote. In truth, so long as we lack earlier evidence, it matters nothing whether ten or a thousand writers towards the close of the second century make distinct references to the book. The author is anonymous ; and we have no means of learning who he was. ■ The belief that it is written by Luke, and that Luke was a companion of Paul, had taken shape by the end of the second century ; but we can scarcely venture to say that Paul knew anything about him. We certainly cannot do so except by affirming the genuineness of the letters to the Colossians and to Philemon and of the Pastoral Epistles also; but if we grant them to be genuine, they show only that a man named Luke was with Paul in Eome, but give no hint that he had travelled with the apostle, or had written a Gospel, or had composed anything like a memoir of Paul and his labours.^ Had ^ I have been able to give a few sentences only to this subject for which the author of the inquiry into Su2^ernatural Religion admits that some chapters leave him but scant space. There are many points which I cannot notice at all. But of the sections in which the travelling companion of Paul speaks of himself and the apostle in the first person, a few words must be said. There is nothing whatever to show that these sections were written by Luke ; and if they were, they do not in any way bear out the statements of the book on any matter of the least importance. These sections are full of the most minute details ; but the Chap. I.] FUENISHED BY THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 59 the author of Acts been really an intimate friend and the constant travelling companion of Paul, he must have known the apostle's mind as well as the circumstances of his history. As we have seen, he knows neither ; and the epistle to the Galatians stands out in glaring contradiction with the whole narrative in Acts. According to Paul, his relations with the church at Jerusalem involved one constant and ceaseless battle ; according to Acts, there was no battle at all. If we believe Paul, he never submitted himself to the leaders of the party of the circumcision: if we trust the wTiter of the Acts, he was never in opposition to them.^ It is quite impossible that any close friend and trusted companion could have thus misunderstood and misrepresented his character and motives ; and therefore, if Luke was his companion and friend, it follows conclusively that he was not the author of the Acts of the Apostles. Had he been sent, and had Paul intrusted details are merely commonplace, and the narrative is out of all proportion with the rest of the story. The passages are seemingly extracts from a diary ; but we know neither by whom they were written, nor the purpose for which they were embodied in the Acts. 1 The history of the supposed Council of Jerusalem and its formal decree would suffice to show this ; but the ' Acts ' provides even for the instances of Paul's subordination to the missionaries or apostles of Jerusalem. He makes many journeys to Jerusalem to attend the feasts (xviii. 21, xix. 21, xx. 16, xxiv. 11, 18). He shaves his head at Kenchreai, because he was a Jew (xviii. 18). He complies with the request made to him to go through a Nazarite purification in the temple (xxi. 23). He circumcises Timothy (xvi. 1-3), although the story, strangely enough, says that they knew that his father was a Greek. This would be a reason for not circumcising him. The author should have said that they knew that his mother was a Jewess. But with still greater boldness (if we look to the letter to the Galatians) he speaks of Paul as invariably confining his ministrations to the Jews until they determinately reject him. (xviii. 6) ; and to crown the picture, the Jews of Rome, when Paul calls them together, declare their utter ignorance of him some thirty years after his conversion. They had received no letters from Judaea about him, and certainly they had heard no harm of him, although they were well acquainted with the existence of the Christian society, which was for them a sect everywhere spoken against (xxviii. 22). But Paul's epistle to the Romans was evidently written before he had been at Rome ; and after they had received it, he could not possibly be a stranger to them. It is simply incredible that on reaching Rome he should not go to the Christian Jews to whom he had written with so much affection, until the non-Christian Jews had rejected him. The Acts gives no hint that there had already long existed in Rome a society of believers or Christian Jews ' whose faith was spoken of through the whole world' (Rom. i. 8). 60 EXTEENAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR GOSPELS [Book I. him with the task of defending the character of his life and work, it must surely be said that he could scarcely have betrayed his trust more effectually. Of those facts on which Paul lays most stress he takes no notice ; but his narrative is full of incidents of the most momentous kind, of which Paul is absolutely ignorant. 'Nor is this all, for they are incidents which, if known to Paul, must have made his Epistle to the Galatians impossible. The question, in brief, is : Are we to believe Paul, or are we to give him the lie by putting faith in some unknown writer, or writers, of whom no mention is made till towards the close of the second century of the Christian era ? We shall do so at the cost of giving credit to a narrative which has been convicted of untrustworthiness in all its stages, and which was put together with a set purpose, which Paul, if he wrote the letter to the Galatians, would have denounced with indignant reprobation. No professed history has been rejected on grounds more overwhelmingly conclusive. CHAPTEE II EXTEKNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES In the Acts of the Apostles we have the only professedly- historical narrative of the New Testament Scriptures which we can submit to a comparison with genuine writings belonging to the time described in it and included in the same Canon of Scripture.^ The results of this examination have been given in the preceding chapter. We have seen that the express statements of Paul not only invalidate the testimony of the writer of the Acts on all points which concern the apostle, but destroy all confidence in him when he relates any other events. When the author of Acts has been convicted of deliberately misrepresenting the great apostle of the Gentiles, the remainder of his narrative can scarcely be regarded as trustworthy, even if it were thoroughly self- consistent, thoroughly free from contradiction, and borne out by the direct or incidental statements of writers known to be con- temporary with the events recorded. But as though the compiler of the Acts had been smitten by judicial blindness, the human and natural sequence, which to a certain extent characterises his narrative of Paul's labours, is lost in an atmosphere of incongruous and superfluous miracle, whenever he speaks of the acts of others. Even in the case of Paul the author cannot forego an opportunity for multiplying wonders. Handkerchiefs taken from his body 1 We can also compare the Apocalypse with the Acts and with the letters of Paul : but the Apocalypse is not a narrative ; and the little that needs to be said of it will be said further on. 62 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book L heal diseases. But in other cases prodigies are still more wantonly introduced. Prison-doors fly open to set free prisoners who are brought back again the next day (Acts v. 26), or to deliver an apostle whose escape is followed by the slaughter of the keepers who had nothing to do with his flight. Yet the miracles or prodigies, of which there is no lack when they are not wanted, fail to deliver Stephen from the stones of the Jews, or James, the brother of John, from the sword of Herod. If we are to give any credit to such narratives as these, it is absurd to speak of the duty of examining the evidence for any historical narrative whatever. Sir Cornewall Lewis has shown that down to the Punic wars the history of Eome is full of contradictions, and that of the alleged chronicles, family inscriptions, and popular epics, from which it is said to have been compiled, we have no knowledge whatever. Yet the contradictions of early Eoman history are certainly not greater than those which are brought to light on a comparison of the writings of Paul with the books of the New Testament Scriptures. In Paul, and in Paul alone (unless indeed we must make an exception for the authors of the Apocalypse) we have one who may be regarded as a strictly contemporary writer. We may therefore compare Paul with Thucydides ; but we have to test the statements of both. Thus, when in the midst of a narrative in which the sequence is as thoroughly human as that of Napier's Peninsular War we come across an event (the Melian conference) which is treated ethically, we begin to doubt whether that event took place precisely as the historian has narrated it. When we see, further, that this event is the crisis of the war, and that the tide of Athenian victory, thus far constant, was now followed by an ebb, not less constant, of failures and disasters, we are at once led to examine the arguments urged by the Athenians in their controversy with the Melians. When, further, we find that these arguments are not at all those which the Athenians had been in the habit of maintaining, we begin to suspect that Thucydides has been tempted into making pictures ; and the suspicion is converted into certainty when we compare the narrative with the history of Ohap. II.] IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES 63 Herodotus and find that the Melian conference presents a turning- point precisely 'analogous to the attack of the Persians on Delphi. If, then, this rigid scrutiny is to be applied to historical narratives, when in the chain of political sequences we pass suddenly to an event treated ethically, what is to be said of narratives which display an almost incessant series of extraordinary and marvellous interferences, and fairly realise, as Cardinal Newman admitted that he longed to realise, the conditions of the Arabian Nights fiction ? We have no warrant, therefore, for giving credence to any one statement in the Acts on the authority of the writer himself. If we believe that Paul laboured at Antioch or at Ephesus, or journeyed through Asia Minor, we do so not because the author of the Acts tells us that he did, but because we have the facts from Paul himself. Hence the book known as the Acts in the New Testament Canon possesses no credit which can be transferred or extended to any other writings; and statements in the Gospels would, therefore, receive no corroboration, even if they were in harmony with statements in the Acts. But we shall see that they are not in harmony. We need scarcely say, then, that from a book which, describing the events of a later time, is found to be throughout untrust- worthy, no authority can be derived for writings which, like the Gospels, go back to a much earlier period. If the latter are to be credited, it must be because they are self-consistent, or borne out by the statements of contemporary writers, or in general agreement with the known history of the age. But the great traditional argument in favour of the popular belief has lain in the alleged testimony of twelve independent and incorruptible witnesses, who have no motive to deceive others and could not be deceived themselves, who persist in their testimony in the face of imprison- ment, tortures, and death, and who by their labours sealed the doom of heathenism. Of these witnesses it is admitted that we have no knowledge, unless it be obtained from the Acts ; and the Acts, apart from the fact of its lying discredited, does not even L 64 EXTEKNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book I. profess to say anything except about three or four, and the main point connected with these is their flat refusal to preach to any but to Jews. We have seen that, in fact, we have not from this book the genuine testimony of any one of them. In its place we have the allegations of some unknown writer, who for his own purposes has deliberately misrepresented the character not only of Paul but of Peter also. In the Acts these two apostles alone have any substantive existence. The rest, with but one or two exceptions, are mere nameless shadows that flit across the scene, when their presence is needed at a council or for public worship. So far as this book is concerned, of their real lives and characters we know nothing; and the argument of Paley, which has led myriads to regard as a rock-built castle that which is a mere house of cards or of sand, receives its death-blow. It is a mere work of superero- gation to carry the battle further by showing that these apostles, if they lived at all, lived in an atmosphere steeped in prejudice and credulity, that they knew nothing of a natural order, and saw in everything the signs of supernatural or miraculous, in other words, of arbitrary and capricious action.^ It is, indeed, needless, for the purposes of the present argument, to show that they accepted stories of the most astonishing interferences with the sequence of phenomena as unconcernedly and as calmly as we should hear of a division in the House of Commons. We have no evidence which may legitimately satisfy us of their existence ; far less can we pretend to the power of discerning their characteristic features. But even if the idea of the testimony of a complete society of twelve men to certain extraordinary historical incidents (not, it must be remembered, to any spiritual truths) must be given up, 1 Neither here, nor elsewhere, am I concerned with the question of the possibihty or impossibility of what are commonly called miracles. The super- stition of the ancient Jews generally is a plain fact, which must be weighed with the utmost seriousness. To ascribe to them our modes of judgement is merely ludicrous. The picture drawn of it in Supernatural Religion, Part i. ch. iv., is under-coloured. For men living in such a state, the historical faculty can scarcely be said to have any existence. Chap. II.] IN THE FIEST AND SECOND CENTURIES 65 there still remains, it may be urged, the testimony of four in- dependent evangelists, two of these being of the number of the twelve, while the writer of the second Gospel is stated to have been the personal attendant of Peter, and the author of the third a close and trusted companion of Paul. The reply is plain. Peter may have had a coadjutor, Mark, and Paul a coadjutor, Luke ; but this does not show that that Mark and that that Luke wrote the two Gospels which bear their names. In fact, it is quite clear that the first three Gospels are founded on one or more common documents. Internal evidence proves that no one of the three writes from personal knowledge; and one of them admits the existence of a tradition extending over some generations before his own day (Luke i. 1-4). Nor, indeed, had Paul any personal knowledge of the life of Jesus to communicate to Luke, while Mark adds little to Matthew, or Matthew to Mark. The three Synoptic Gospels are manifestly not three independent narratives, but merely different versions flowing out of a common tradition ; and what can such versions be worth ? Here, then, the subject divides into two streams. The matter of the fourth Gospel is substantially different from that of the other three. There is throughout it the stamp of distinct author- ship except in the comparatively few passages which relate to events recorded in some or all of the other Gospels. We have then before us two inquiries, — one which must determine the time when the fourth Gospel was written, or, at all events, when it was first heard of ; and another, which must settle whether the other Gospels are really three narratives or varying forms of one original tradition. If for the former it be proved that the time of composi- tion could not be earlier than the middle of the second century and that it may be later, the testimony of one more witness is lost, for it could not in that case be the work of John the son of Zebedee. At best it can but exhibit the impression made by the teaching and conversation of John on the mind of some familiar disciple ; and we are left, finally, to determine whether in the other Gospels we have the testimony of three several persons, each speaking, from E 66 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book L his own knowledge, of events which had occurred in his own life- time, or from the information of men whom he knew to have taken part in these events and whose trustworthiness he had tested. Now nothing is more certain than that any number of persons, speaking of events which they have seen, will describe each event in his own way. The mode of regarding them will vary. The turn of thought and language will be different in each case, and the narrative will give play to the associations and the prejudices, the wisdom or folly of the speaker or writer. There are, of course, certain cases in which we should expect them to use the same, or nearly the same, words. If they quote from a published document or proclamation, they will quote alike, in proportion to their general accuracy of thought. If they record a speech which they may have heard, these reports will agree in proportion to the strength and fidelity of their memory ; but if we found that the letters of three or four correspondents of newspapers, describing the aspect of political affairs in Lisbon, Paris, or Vienna, contained here and there a sentence couched in precisely the same words, we should regard the circumstance as singular and suspicious. If we found two or three consecutive sentences in each exactly alike, we should conclude that all had copied from some common document, or that the original writing of one of them had been plagiarised by all the rest. If, in addition to this, we found event after event described, and question after question discussed in precisely the same phrases by each, we should dismiss the matter as too clear for an instant's thought. Yet this is the phenomenon which comes before us in the passages which are common to two or more of the four Gospels ; such passages being, of course, far more numerous in those which have received the name of Synoptic Gospels, to dis- tinsuish them from the fourth. No fact could well be more moment- ous. The supplement to the fourth Gospel informs us that if all the unrecorded acts of Jesus were reported the world would not contain the books that should be written. Whatever this state- ment may be worth, it implies at all events a belief that the wealth of material stored up in the memory of the disciples (if not Chap. II.] IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES 67 committed to writing) was great; and we know that there were many Gospels, of some of which not even the names have come down to us. Yet the Synoptists (if this barbarous word must be used) relate but a few and for the most part the same events, often in precisely the same words. On this point no room is left for doubt. Down to the subtlest turns of thought and the nicest details of expression there is a substantial identity which proves that the narratives bearing the names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are in the main one and the same tale coloured with a few peculiar touches here and there according to the taste or judgement of the composers or copyists. Thus, then, the witness of the four independent evangelists is reduced at once to the testimony of two narratives which must be authenticated, or in lack of authentication rejected, the one form- ing the nucleus of the Synoptic Gospels, the other supposed to exhibit the thoughts and convictions of the apostle John. In the case of the former the result is that we find ourselves in a strange labyrinth. That there was a story which underlies our Synoptic narratives is clear: but this very fact shows that, where other writers quote expressions or sentences found in one or more of our Synoptic Gospels, we cannot venture to say that they may not be quoted from earlier versions of the tradition, and that such quotations are, therefore, no necessary proof of the existence of our Gospels in their present shape at the time when the quota- tions were made. Much stress is laid on such alleged quotations and references in the writings attributed to Clement, Barnabas, and others, as establishing the fact that our Gospels were acknow- ledged as authoritative in the first century. The date of these writings must be ascertained before any such assertion can be made ; but the quotations themselves may be derived from the sources accessible to, or used by, the evangelists. They are in almost every instance more or less different from the corresponding passages in our Gospels ; and on the supposition that the matter of these portions is historical, they are just such traditional say- ings as might easily be retained by oral transmission for many 68 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book I. generations. It is probably to this fact of oral transmission that some at least of the inconsistencies and contradictions of our Gospels are due. The tradition may have started, conceivably, with as many versions as there were hearers, who might impart to it each his own colouring ; and until it has been committed to writing, the tendency to multiply variations is irresistible. But when we say broadly that no direct references are made to the four Gospels of the Nicene Canon for a century and a half after the occurrence of the events which they are supposed to relate, it is not meant that no words found in the Gospels as we have them are to be found also in works belonging to the first two centuries of the Christian era. Passages may be quoted from the writings ascribed to the Eoman Clement and others, which in spirit and substance agree with passages in our own Gospels ; but unless the verbal agreement is exact in the sentences which are expressly given as quotations, it cannot be allowed that the quotations are made from our Gospels as we have them, and, therefore, that these Gospels were regarded as authoritative before the close of the first century. In many cases the differences are many and serious; in almost all of them they are considerable. The favourite means adopted by traditional critics to account for these differences is the assertion that the early Christian writeri5/ were in the habit of quoting from memory, and that so they often pieced together their sentences from passages scattered over many parts of our Gospels. It is, however, to say the least, a strange and perplexing thing that writers like Justin Martyr, who are thus loose in quoting from our Gospels (i.e. from certain writ- ings of the New Testament Canon) are in the main accurate, not only in their quotations from, but in their references to, the passages which they cite from the writings of the Old Testament. The supposition that they had two sets of sacred books, one of which they treated as authoritative and from which they quoted exactly, while in their quotations from the other they patched their sentences together much as they chose, is obviously untenable and is indeed absurd. In the vastly larger number of instances tha .Chap. II] IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES 69 divergence is so great that no one could ever have thought of referring these citations to our Gospels, had not this course been forced upon orthodox writers by the exigencies of their position. It is assumed that our Gospels are contemporary documents written by the persons whose names they bear : that they were known and received as such even before the close of the first century; and that in this fact we have a sufficient warranty for their trust- worthiness. Of this fact anything is taken as evidence. The recurrence in early Christian books of such phrases as ' the last shall be first and the first last/ or ' many are called but few chosen/ or ' give to every one that asketh thee/ is at once asserted to be proof positive that the writer was referring to one or other of our Synoptic Gospels. It may be that the passages are given with quite a different context, or are manifestly meant to convey a very different meaning, or that a verbal agreement cannot be affirmed. But no difficulty is ever admitted on such grounds as these. The habit of quoting from memory accounts for and explains all these and all possible variations. It is enough to repeat that these writers cannot legitimately be accused of being in the habit of citing from memory, loosely and without verification, the passages which they quote from the Old Testament writings ; and therefore that there is no reason why they should thus systematically treat the writings of the New. But the question before us is of a wider range. The four Gospels which the Nicene Council distinguished as canonical are but a few out of a large class of such records, most of which have been lost and some of which are known only by name. How soon after the lifetime of the Great Teacher the harvest began to spring up we cannot say; but that some of them were taking shape, or had taken shape, not many years later than the life of the apostle Paul may be affirmed with tolerable safety. There is probably no reason for regarding the so-called preface to our third Gospel as part of the record to which it is prefixed ;^ but both that and the ^ Whether this preface was, or was not, written by the compiler of the Gospel which follows, or of any part of it, is a question of very slight importance. It may, 70 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book L prefatory verses of the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles set forth at least the knowledge of the writer that at the time when he wrote, the crop of Gospels was already a large one, and that the traditions embodied in them had existed for many genera- tions. No one would speak of the religious teachers of the age immediately preceding his own as those who ' from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.' It is not easy to lay too much stress on these unconscious indications of time ; but it does not follow that such prefatory sentences were written by the composer of the narratives which follow them. The Gospel which bears the name of Luke may be a century earlier than the preface attached to it ; but this preface shows that at the time when it was written this Gospel was regarded as one of a class, and that other members of the class were looked upon as more or less authoritative. Now in the Synoptic Gospels there are very many passages between which there exists a close verbal agreement, though the words may not be precisely the same. If, then, in early Christian writings we have quotations professing to give the words of Jesus, but differing in any measure from the form which they have taken in any one or more of our Gospels, it is altogether inadmissible to infer that the citation is loosely made from memory from the latter. They may in fact be taken from other Gospels which have been lost. If it be said that this fact, far from setting aside the value and authority of our Gospels, shows that a much larger number of Gospels were looked upon with reverence and trust, the answer is that, if our four Gospels do not form a class by themselves, the whole matter in dispute is from the traditional point of view con- ceded. If the early writers invariably, or almost invariably, quote or it may not, be the work of the man who introduced the narratives of the nativity into a work which had begun with what is now the third chapter ; or the author may have given its present shape to the whole Gospel. With perhaps not less likelihood it may come from some one who had nothing to do with the work to which he attached it. The history of the prefatory sentences of the fourth Gospel, which began with the record of the mission of John the Baptist, may be of a like kind. The real point .of interest with reference to these pre- faces lies in the question of literary morality connected with them. Chap. II.] IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES 71 from records differing from our own, how is this fact to be ex- plained, when we have given up the theory of loose quotations from memory ? The falsity and fallaciousness of this theory have been conclusively shown without travelling beyond our own Gospels. We have only to imagine that one or two of our three Synoptic records had been lost, and that there were found in some early writer a quotation, from some source imnamed, running thus, ' He said to them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few : pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways. Behold, I send you forth as lambs in the midst of wolves.' According to the traditional way of dealing with such passages it would be declared that this was a citation from two passages in our first Synoptic (Matt. ix. 39 and X. 16). The quotation, however, reproduces literally Luke x. 2, 3, which we have supposed had been lost. So, again, we might find a quotation standing thus, ' Take heed to yourselves of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Tor there is nothing covered up which shall not be revealed, and hid which shall not be known.' On the supposition that we had only the Gospel of Matthew these words would certainly be regarded as a free collo- cation of the two verses, xvi. 6, and x. 26 ; and yet the passage is found verbatim in Luke xii. 1, 2. One or two such instances (and they may be multiplied indefinitely) are worth as much as a thousand for proving that even slight verbal variations are a sufficient reason for refusing to refer quotations in early Christian books to our Gospels, unless these Gospels were referred to with unmistakable clearness. But the Gospels are not referred to, and in almost all cases the verbal variations and even the differences of meaning are not slight. In truth, the precipitate haste with which passages like those in our Gospels are assumed to be taken from those Gospels is very wonderful. On the supposition that the Great Teacher really lived, that his teaching made a profound impression upon his hearers, and that he organised a society for the permanent carrying on of his work, would it not follow that his words would be handed 72 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book L down by a real and widely spread tradition and be preserved in a multitude of records, crude and ill arranged, it may be, at first, but more carefully shaped out afterwards ? His maxims and sayings would be a common property of the whole body of believers, so far as their memory might serve them ; and it must iiot be forgotten that the references are in a large proportion to his words, and comparatively seldom to his acts or to any wonders wrought by him. It follows that the citations made from his sayings cannot be held to prove more than the existence of the passages so cited. It does not follow that a reference to the parable of the sower and the seed proves that the document quoted contained any other of the parables ascribed to Jesus in our Gospels. Nothing less than the quotation of the whole record could prove that that record was one of our four Gospels, for apart from the fact that the cita- tions of early Christian writer's exhibit marked and striking variations from our Gospel texts, it is altogether impossible for us to determine the extent to which all those recor4s were modi- fied during the ages for which we have no manuscripts.^ This is a fact which traditional critics commonly pass by with singular lightness, but which is really of supreme moment. That in this long interval some of the documents were interpolated is admitted, it may be said, without a dissentient voice; and these interpolations, it will probably be seen, were more serious than the most rigorous critics have thus far suspected. The changes effected during this time extended in some cases to the substitution of a whole book for another. Papias, as we shall see presently, gives an elaborate account of a Gospel which he ascribes to Mark. His description makes it certain that that Gospel was not the second of our Gospels. By unanimous admission the interpolator was at work long before the date of our oldest manuscripts ; and in the absence of manuscripts, interpolations can be detected, in the last resort, only by the experience and the judgement of the critic. But the ^ As to the extent of such modifications or corruptions of the text, see Super- rmtural Religion, i. 246, 247, 260, 267. I Chap. II.] IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES 73 reasons for rejecting passages as thrust in are in almost all cases obvious, the chief among them being that the passages so thrust in do not agree with the context, and that they violently interrupt the course of the argument or narrative, which on their removal is seen to run on with perfect coherence. On the strength of two such interpolated passages (1 Cor. xi. 23-25, and xv. 3-9), it has been vehemently maintained that we have the authority of Paul for the principal incidents of the Gospel histories, for the institu- tion of the Eucharist, for the visible or sensible Anastasis, and for the various Christophanies which are said to have followed it. We shall see further on that he could never have written these passages, and for any confirmation of the Gospel narratives we must, therefore, look elsewhere. We may see at once how little can be built on citations in such writers as Justin Martyr or (the pseudo) Ignatius, even if the citations agree word for word with passages in the four Gospels ; but of such verbal identity we have scarcely a single instance. How loose the agreement generally is will be made plain by the summary examination on which alone we can enter here, but which, as it so happens, is amply sufficient for our purpose. It is commonly supposed, or taken for granted, that a reference to our Gospels in the epistle ascribed to the Eoman Clement would prove both the existence and the authority of those Gospels before the close of the first century of our era; and the assertion is confidently advanced that such a reference is made in the following sentences. Here the writer says : ' Eemember the words of our Master Jesus, for he said, "Woe to that man; it were well for him if he had not been born than that he should make one of my chosen to stumble. It were better for him that a millstone should be fastened on him and he be drowned in the sea than that he should scandalise one of my little ones." ' Now, there is no passage in either of our Synoptics which exhibits anything like this quotation in its integrity. The nearest approach that can be found to it is furnished by taking some of the words said to have been spoken by Jesus in reference to the 74 EXTEENAL EVIDENCE FOE THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book I. betrayal of Judas (Matt. xxvi. 24), and piecing them on with some of his expressions on setting up the little child in the midst of the disciples (Matt, xviii. 6). Whether in this and the other passages in which the words of Jesus are cited the Clementine writer is quoting from an unknown record or reproducing merely oral tradition is a question of no great moment. In either case he prefers an unknown record or a tradition merely oral to the versions which have come down to us, and so shows that the latter had for him no authority, even if he was aware of their existence. But we do not know when this so-called epistle of Clement' was written. It bears no name, and professes to come simply from the church in Eome to the church in Corinth. According to Eusebius, Clement became bishop of Eome A.D. 91, and died nine years later. If so, it would seem to follow that he was not the author of the epistle, which furnishes internal evidence for a much later date. It refers the Corinthians to the letters addressed to them by Paul ' in the beginning of the gospel ' (a phrase which could not well be applied to letters written only some thirty years, even if so long, before), and speaks of ' the most ancient and steadfast church of the Corinthians,' which would be absurd if that church had existed only for one generation. It refers also to the book of Judith, which is supposed to belong to the year 117-118; and in that case the epistle of Clement cannot be earlier than 120-125. The point is one of little moment, for, whatever be its age, it cannot be shown that the writer was acquainted with our Gospels, and these Gospels can therefore derive no authority from his letter. An appeal of the like sort is made to the epistle ascribed to Barnabas, the colleague of the apostle Paul.. In this writing we have the words, ' Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, Many called, few chosen.' This is taken to be a direct reference to our Matthew and an acknowledgement of the authority of that Gospel. But the expression is just one of those which, on the supposition that it comes from the Great Teacher, would be the common property of all who heard him utter it ; and it is a very Chap. IL] IN THE FIEST AND SECOND CENTUKIES 75 singular thing, that, although it occurs twice in our first Synoptic (xx. 16, xxii. 14), in neither case has it the least connexion with the context. In the one case it is attached to the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, in which all who are called receive an equal recompense, or, in other words, all are chosen ; and in the other to the parable of the wedding guests, in which one only of the called is rejected. The phrase is clearly dragged in, as many another has been dragged in, because some scribe had written it on the margin, and another could not resist the temptation of inserting the gloss in the text. It is found only in later MSS. in Matthew xx. 1 6, and not at all in either Mark or Luke, as we have them. The other passages cited from the epistle of Barnabas are equally inconclusive; and the epistle itself cannot be older than that which is ascribed to Clement. Neither here, nor in the so-called Shepherd of Hermas have we the least evidence of the existence of our canonical Gospels in the shape in which we have them now. The quotations of passages resembling others in our Gospels, found in the epistles ascribed to Ignatius of Antioch, are not a whit more conclusive ;*but the epistles themselves lie under such a cloud of suspicion that their value for any purposes of evidence becomes in any case worthless. At best, if the fact of any such reference could be established, it would only prove that the Gospel referred to was in existence during the reign of Trajan; but such references cannot be found, and the whole Ignatian literature must be set aside as a vast mountain of forgery. Fifteen letters in all bear his name. Seven only are mentioned by Eusebius; and the remainder are therefore, it would seem, uni- versally rejected as spurious. But the process of winnowing does not stop here. These seven letters exist in two versions, a long and a short one. The long one is rejected with scarcely a dis- sentient voice, as containing nothing more than the matter of the shorter version swollen out by multitudes of interpolations. That the shorter version itself was full of interpolated matter seemed to be proved, when in 1845 Dr. Cureton published a still shorter 76 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book I. Syrian version of the epistles to the Ephesians, to the Eomans, and to Polycarp. It was natural that critics who, on the supposed authority of Eusebius, still upheld the genuineness of the shorter Greek version, should regard the Syrian version as an epitome of that version; but, in truth, there is no evidence for this. The letters read altogether more clearly, coherently, and consecutively, than in their Greek dress ; but it is noteworthy that those passages which chiefly brought the epistles into suspicion are not found in the Syrian version at all, and that the MSS. of this version are older by some centuries than the Greek. This proves only that in the Syrian we have the earliest form of the Ignatian literature which swelled out afterwards into so large a mass. The problem which lies beneath it remains unchanged. Of these three, as of all the other letters, the same account is given. Is that account worthy of the least credit ? In any shape these letters are pitiable specimens of ignorance, superstition, and intellectual degradation ; but this does not prove them to be false. The difficulty lies in the tale that they were written on his journey, by l^nd, from Antioch to Eome, where he was to be thrown to the beasts in the amphi- theatre. According to the complaint of the martyr he was treated with terrible cruelty. ' From Syria even to Eome/ he says, ' I fight with wild beasts, by sea and by land, by night and by day, being bound amongst ten leopards, which are the band of soldiers who, even receiving benefits, become worse,' in other words, are rendered more exacting by bribes. But if it be so, whence came the time and the opportunity for writing these letters, and for the inter- views which he admits that he had with his friends at the several stages of his journey ? Still more, how came it about that these guards should allow a man condemned to death for professing him- self a Christian to write letters inforcing the very doctrines which had brought down his sentence upon him ? The story of the Eoman journey is altogether incredible. There are, however, good reasons for saying that his martyrdom took place at Antioch itself, after the panic caused by the great earthquake in the year 115. But in this case not one of the epistles is genuine ; and therefore Chap. II.] IN THE FIEST AND SECOND CENTUEIES 77 even if they contained direct references to any of our Gospels, those references would be worthless, as not belonging to the age to which they are assigned ; but no such references are forthcoming. Of the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which deals with the martyrdom of Ignatius, it is enough to say that it speaks not only of his journey to Eome (which we have seen to be incredible) but also of the spurious letters not found in the Syrian version. These are, therefore, older documents than the latter, which are meant to be regarded as the earlier. Nor is this all. The letter in one chapter speaks of Ignatius as dead, holding him up, like Paul and the other apostles, as examples of patience, and in a later one treats him as living, and asks how he and they who are with him are faring. The epistle of Polycarp is, therefore, spurious; and its testimony to the existence of our Gospels, if any such could be found, would be of no value. Thus far, we have met with no evidence which supports the theory that our Synoptic Gospels were known to any who lived and wrote in the first century of our era or the earlier half of the second. The writings of Justin Martyr are of greater importance. It is true, indeed, that his authority is simply that of a man speaking in the latter half of the second century ; but he is one who speaks deliberately in answer to a serious charge, making his citations with the care needed, not so much to insure his own acquittal (for about this he was probably indifferent) as to justify his faith in the sight of his judges. He is, therefore, we might suppose, the last man against whom traditional critics would make charges of loose citations from memory, and of the patching together of passages which occur in quite different connexions in our Gospels. Of the date of his first, or larger, Apology, there is happily no doubt. The so-called second Apology has little value or interest. His martyrdom took place in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, about a.d. 166-167; and his Apology speaks of the birth of Jesus as having taken place a century and a half before the time at which he was writing. As we might expect, this treatise is full of Scriptural citations; and by Scripture Justin means 78 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOE THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book L strictly the writings of the Old Testament, to which his references are generally exact. Of references to the sayings of Jesus, and to the supposed incidents of his history, the larger Apology and the Dialogue with Tryphon furnish considerably more than a hundred. If of these it may be broadly said that not one agrees exactly with the text of our Gospels, further evidence cannot be needed to prove that the latter were not then in existence, or, if they were, that Justin deliberately preferred others to them — in other words, that they had at the time no authority. That he had a Gospel from which he claims to make precise quotations is indisputable, and of this Gospel he repeatedly speaks under the title of Memoirs of the Apostles, meaning by this not recollections of their labours, but records drawn up by them of the life and teaching of the Great Master. But although he speaks of these Memoirs as the work of the Apostles, it is only in a single instance that he mentions the name of any one as having written any of them. This instance is that of the Apocalypse, which he ascribes to John as ' one who prophesied by a revelation made to him ;'^ but <; the fact that he only names him thus, shows that he had no Gospel which he at- tributed to the same writer. As to the Gospel history followed by Justin, it may be said that it differs more or less in every par- ticular from the versions preserved to us in our canonical Gospels, just as these differ from one another. The genealogy of Jesus is traced through Mary, not through Joseph. The angel bids Mary call her child Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sins — a declaration which is not made in our third Gospel, but which in the first is addressed in the vision to Joseph. Her child is born not in a stable but in a cave ; and Justin, arguing from old prophecy that he must be so born, shows indisputably that he had this statement in the Gospel which he followed. When Jesus is baptized, a fire is kindled in Jordan, and the voice from heaven proclaims, ' Thou art my beloved Son : this day have I begotten thee ' — a citation which Justin certainly would not have made, had he had before him the version given in our first Synoptic (iii. 1 7), ^ Supernatural Religion, i. 298. k Chap. IL] IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES 79 which makes his Sonship eternal instead of dating it from the moment of his baptism. Discrepancies of the like sort run through his whole narrative. When Jesus is arrested on the Mount of Olives, Justin says that ' there was not even a single man to run to his help as a guiltless person ' — a statement which cannot be reconciled with the story of Peter and Malchus. According to our Gospels, the disciples forsake their Master and fly before his crucifixion : according to Justin they do so after that event, and the whole body of the apostles deny him as plainly as Peter. Here, if anywhere, Justin would be careful to state nothing for which he had not ample authority. The fact that he makes this statement shows that he was following not the versions of our canonical Gospels, but another which differed from them in- definitely. In our first Synoptic (xxvii. 62-66) we have a story of the Sanhedrim bribing the Eoman soldiers to tell the governor that the disciples of Jesus had stolen his body while they, the guards, were sleeping at their post. Justin has quite another tale, that the Jews selected and sent forth from Jerusalem throughout the land chosen men, saying that 'the atheistic heresy of the Christians had arisen from a certain Jesus, a Galilsean impostor, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb where he had been laid when he was unloosed from the cross, and they now deceive men, saying that he has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven.' There is not a word here about the Eoman soldiers ; but there can be no doubt, as Justin tells the story twice, that he found it in the Memoirs of the Apostles, and without going further, we can see how easily a vast crop of stories might, or rather inevitably would, spring up from the mythical matter which was taking shape in one form or another. The story of Justin is not the same story as that of the guards of Pilate in our first Gospel ; and by no process can the two be brought into agreement. But there is no reason why there should not be twenty different versions of a tale which started from the notion of stealing from the tomb the body of one who had been taken down from the cross. The crowd of evangelists mentioned in the 80 EXTEENAL EVIDENCE FOE THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book I. preface to our third Gospel was not bound to adhere to one version of the incidents rather than to another. But the astounding fact remains that, amidst the multitude of references to the teaching of Jesus and the alleged incidents of his life, there are scarcely more than one or two instances in which we can say that there is a verbal agreement between the text of Justin's citations from the Memoirs of the Apostles and the text of our canonical Gospels. Even when there is an approach to verbal agreement, we have seen that the circumstance proves, and can prove, nothing, when the citation in question refers to a saying of Jesus which may be historical. All such sayings became the common property of all who heard them, and might reappear, word for word, in a dozen different records. Three consecutive chapters (xv.-xvii.) in the first Apology of Justin are taken up with an exposition of the fundamental teaching of Jesus, in other words, with utterances preserved to us in our first and third Synoptics, in the sermons said to have been delivered from the mount and on the plain. There is undeniably a substantial agreement with both. The spirit is throughout the same, and to a certain extent there is a likeness of language. All these citations Justin professes to make from the Memoirs of the Apostles; and it is vehemently contended by theologians of the traditional schools that the Memoirs are thus proved to be identical with our canonical Gospels. Yet what are the facts ? The passages in Justin are clearly continuous, except where he himself shows that he has left one passage and gone to another. It follows that the passages which he cites continuously were found continuously in the Gospel of which he was making use ; and the result is this, that, if it be assumed that he was quoting from our Gospels, we have to admit that he picked out not only from the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain but from other parts of our Synoptics a number of passages which he (Jovetails into a coherent whole, showing not the least regard to the prder in which he finds them, frequently altering their meaning, more frequently setting at naught their context, and in almost Chap. II.] IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES 81 every single instance misquoting more or less seriously the passages themselves, — and yet, while he does this, claiming in the clearest and most formal manner to be quoting accurately. To any who do not start with the foregone conclusion that Justin must have had our Gospels before him, because to allow that he had not would damage the cause of the traditional theology, such conduct as this is really incredible. Justin nowhere names our Gospels, and nowhere quotes them. It becomes a sheer assumption, therefore, to affirm that he knew anything about them, or even that they were then in existence in their present form. We have already seen from an inspection of our Synoptic Gospels ^ how dangerous and how worthless are attempts to account for differences of words, of meanings, and of context on the hypothesis that the writer was quoting loosely and inexactly from memory, and so pieced together clauses and sentences which in our Gospels appear in different places and with different connexions. The conclusion with regard to Justin is obvious and inevitable. He does not quote from our Gospels; there- fore, he quotes from a different Gospel ; but it is no part of our duty to determine the source of his citations. He calls the records which he quotes Memoirs of the Apostles. These Memoirs may, or may not, have been the same as the Gospel of the Hebrews, or any one of the many others which have been altogether lost. The exactitude of his citations we have no right whatever to call into question. His language is invariably that of a man who knows what he is about ; and it is impossible to doubt his truth when he declares in some instances that he quotes the words of Jesus, and then goes on to make his comments and to draw his own conclusions from them. Hegesippos, a contemporary of Justin, is a man of some note, as being the first historian of the Christian Church. Coming to Kome during the pontificate of Anicetus (Aniketos), he composed five books of Memoirs, in one of which he speaks of Eleutheros as then Bishop of Kome. This book, therefore, must have been 1 See p. 69 et seq. F 82 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [Book L written after the year 177 of our era. Eusebius speaks in high terms of his authority as a contemporary with the first successors of the apostles. The expression is scarcely accurate. The deaths of the apostles, or missioners, named by the Great Teacher could scarcely have taken place more than forty years after his own ; and if we give another forty years to those whom they themselves elected, this would bring us to the year 110, when Hegesippos, if born, could have been only a child. He would, however, be only one generation later ; but this would give no value to his testimony as to the existence and the genuineness of our canonical Gospels, unless this testimony should be borne out by that of writers older than himself. Unfortunately his work is lost ; and we have only some extracts which have been preserved to us by Eusebius, together with one other fragment. But Eusebius confesses the great anxiety which he had to bring together all attainable evidence for the antiquity and authority of our canonical Gospels; and if he could have found any such evidence in the pages of Hegesippos he would beyond all doubt have embodied it in his own work. His silence is proof that they furnished none ; but Eusebius makes no attempt to hide the fact that Hegesippos made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, of which something must be said by and by. Hegesippos was a Christian of Palestine, and his Christianity had a very strong Jewish tinge. He speaks not of Peter or John, but of James, as being the chief of the apostles ; and his account of James shows how small was the difference between him and those of the circumcision. He declares that after reaching Eome he put together the records of the history of the Eoman Church to the time of Eleutheros; but with every succession, he assures us, and in every city, ' that prevails, which the Law and the Prophets and the Master enjoin.' The only written authority which he recognises is the Old Testament Scripture. Apart from this, he holds to the * infallible tradition of the apostolic preaching.' But this is an oral tradition; and of any Canon of I^ew Testament Scriptures, or even of any gathering of apostolic epistles, he clearly knows nothing. Attempts have, Chap. IL] IN THE FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES 83 nevertheless, been made to prove that Hegesippos was not only acquainted with our Synoptic Gospels, but that he also quotes them. The proof is as shadowy as in the case of Justin. Speak- ing of the martyrdom of James, Hegesippos says that, like Jesus and like Stephen, he prayed for his murderers, and gives his prayer in the words, ' I beseech thee, Lord God Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' This agrees exactly neither with the prayer of Stephen nor with that of Jesus ; but we have seen that the prayer of Jesus, on the supposition that it was historical, would become the common property of all who heard it, and might be recorded in a multitude of writings, some of which might even owe nothing to each other. From Hegesippos, therefore, we get no evidence of the existence of our canonical Gospels in his own day. A contemporary of Hegesippos, and possibly a fellow-martyr with Justin, is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, whose death is said to have taken place about 164-167. As Hegesippos is our first ecclesiastical historian, so Papias is the first who speaks of Gospels written by Matthew and Mark; and the leap is made to the conclusion that these Gospels are identical with those which bear these names in our Canon. Unlike Justin, he cares little for written records in comparison with oral tradition. His great wish, he tells us, was to know ' what Andrew or what Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or any other of the disciples of the Master, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Master, say, for I held that what was to be gotten from books did not so profit me as that which came from the living and abiding voice.' If, then, he had met with our canonical Gospels, or with any others, it is quite clear that he had no special regard for them, and that the idea of their authority never passed across his mind. The idea that he knew anything of a Canon of New Testament Scriptures is merely ridiculous. Whether the presbyter John, who is named after the unknown Aristion, was the Evangelist or some other person, is a question of not much moment. Papias