.m- 
 
# 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 
ESSAYS ON THE WOEK 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 SUPEENATUEAL EELIGION 
 
J^ 
 
ESSAYS ON THE WOEK 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 SUPEENATUEAL EELIGION 
 
 REPRINTED FROM 
 
 TEE CONTEMPORARY REVIEW. 
 
 J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D. 
 
 BISHOP OF DUKHAM. 
 
 Hontron : 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YOEK. 
 
 1889 
 All Rights reserved. 
 
dLzmbxitist: 
 
 PniNTKD BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND RONS, 
 AT THK UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 rilHIS republication of Essays which were written several 
 years ago has no reference to any present controversies. 
 Its j ustifi cation is the fact that strangers and friends in England 
 and America alike had urged me from time to time to gather 
 them together, that they might be had in a more convenient 
 form, believing that they contained some elements of permanent 
 value which deserved to be rescued from the past numbers of 
 a Review not easily procurable, and thus rendered more acces- 
 sible to students. I had long resisted these solicitations for 
 reasons which I shall explain presently ; but a few months ago, 
 when I was prostrated by sickness and my life was hanging on 
 a slender thread, it became necessary to give a final answer to 
 the advice tendered to me. This volume is the result. The 
 kind oiifices of my chaplain the Rev. J. R. Harmer, who under- 
 took the troublesome task of verifying the references, correcting 
 the press, and adding the indices, when I was far too ill to 
 attend to such matters myself, have enabled me to bring it out 
 sooner than I had hoped. 
 
 When I first took up the book entitled ' Supernatural 
 Religion', I felt, whether rightly or wrongly, that its criticisms 
 were too loose and pretentious, and too full of errors, to produce 
 any permanent effect ; and for the most part attacks of this 
 kind on the records of the Divine Life are best left alone. But 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 I found that a cruel and unjustifiable assault was made on a 
 very dear friend to whom I was attached by the most sacred 
 personal and theological ties ; and that the book which con- 
 tained this attack was from causes which need not be specified 
 obtaining a notoriety unforeseen by me. Thus I was forced to 
 break silence ; and, as I advanced with my work, I seemed to 
 see that, though undertaken to redress a personal injustice, 
 it might be made subservient to the wider interests of the 
 truth. 
 
 Paper succeeded upon paper, and I had hoped ultimately to 
 cover the whole ground, so far as regards the testimony of the 
 first two centuries to the New Testament Scriptures. But 
 my time was not my own, as I was necessarily interrupted by 
 other literary and professional duties which claimed the first 
 place ; and meanwhile I was transferred to another and more 
 arduous sphere of practical work, being thus obliged to post- 
 pone indefinitely my intention of giving something like com- 
 pleteness to the work. 
 
 In republishing these papers then, the only course open to 
 me, in justice to my adversary as well as to myself, was to 
 reprint them in succession word for word as they appeared, 
 correcting obvious misprints ; though in many cases my argu- 
 ment might have been strengthened considerably. Recently 
 discovered documents for instance have established the cer- 
 tainty of the main conclusions respecting Tatian's Diatessaron, 
 to which the criticism of the available evidence had led me. 
 Again I have since treated the Ignatian question more fully 
 elsewhere, and satisfied myself on points about which I had 
 expressed indecision in these Essays. On the other hand on 
 one or two minor questions I might have used less confident 
 language. 
 
 What shocked me in the book was not the extravagance of 
 the opinions or the divergence from my own views ; though I 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 cannot pretend to be indifferent about the veracity of the 
 records which profess to reveal Him, whom I believe to be not 
 only the very Truth, but the very Life. I have often learnt 
 very much even from extreme critics, and have freely acknow- 
 ledged my obligations; but here was a writer who (to judge from 
 his method) seemed to me, and not to me only\ where it was 
 a question of weighing probabilities, as is the case in most 
 historical investigations, to choose invariably that alternative, 
 even though the least probable, which would enable him to 
 score a point against his adversary. For the rest I disclaim any 
 personal bias, as against any personal opponent. The author of 
 ' Supernatural Religion ', as distinct from the work, is a mere 
 blank to me. I do not even know his name, nor have I 
 attempted to discover it. Whether he is living or dead, I know 
 not. He preferred to write anonymously, and so far as I am 
 concerned, I am glad that it was so ; though, speaking for 
 myself, I prefer taking the responsibility of my opinions and 
 statements on important subjects. 
 
 In several instances the author either vouchsafed an answer 
 to my criticisms, or altered the form of his statements in a 
 subsequent edition. In all such cases references are scrupulously 
 given in this volume to his later utterances. In most cases my 
 assailant had the last word. He is welcome to it. I am quite 
 willing that careful and impartial critics shall read my statements 
 and his side by side, and judge between us. It is my sole desire, 
 in great things and in small, to be found avvepyo'i rfj dXrjOela. 
 
 ^ See Salmon's Iittroductioii, to tJie New Testament p. 9. 
 
 Bournemouth, 
 May 2, 1889. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 I . Introduction 
 
 II. The Silence of Eusebius 
 
 III. The Ignatian Epistles 
 
 IV. PoLYCARP OF Smyrna 
 
 V. PaPIAS OF HiERAPOLIS. I 
 
 VI. Papias op Hierapolis. II 
 
 VII. The Later School of St 
 
 VIII. The Churches of Gaul 
 
 IX. Tatian's Diatessaron 
 
 John 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1- 
 
 -31 
 
 ,32- 
 
 -58 
 
 59- 
 
 -88 
 
 89- 
 
 -141 
 
 142- 
 
 -177 
 
 178- 
 
 -216 
 
 217- 
 
 -250 
 
 251- 
 
 -271 
 
 272- 
 
 -288 
 
 Discoveries illustrating the Acts of the Apostles 291 — 302 
 Indices 303—324 
 
SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 I. Introduction. 
 
 [December, 1874] 
 
 T"F the author of Supernatural Religion^ designed, by with- 
 • holding his name, to stimulate public curiosity and thus 
 to extend the circulation of his work, he has certainly not 
 been disappointed in his hope. When the rumour once got 
 abroad, that it proceeded from the pen of a learned and 
 venerable prelate, the success of the book was secured. For this 
 rumour indeed there was no foundation in fact. It was 
 promptly and emphatically denied, when accidentally it reached 
 the ears of the supposed author. But meanwhile the report 
 had been efficacious. The reviewers had taken the work in 
 hand and (with one exception) lavished their praises on the 
 critical portions of it. The first edition was exhausted in a few 
 months. 
 
 No words can be too strong to condemn the heartless cruelty 
 of this imputation. The venerable prelate, on whom the 
 authorship of this anonymous work was thrust, deserved least 
 of all men to be exposed to such an insult. As an academic 
 teacher and as an ecclesiastical ruler alike, he had distinguished 
 himself by a courageous avowal of his opinions at all costs. For 
 more than a quarter of a century he had lived in the full blaze 
 
 1 Supernatural Religion; An In- follows, Third and Fourth Editions 
 
 quiry into the Reality of Divine Reve- (1874), Fifth and Sixth Editions (1875), 
 
 lation. Two Vols. Second Edition, Third Volume (1877), Complete Edi- 
 
 1874. [Subsequent editions are as tion, in Three Vols. (1879).] 
 
 S, R. ' X 
 
2 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 of publicity, and on his fearless integrity no breath of suspicion 
 had ever rested. Yet now, when increasing infirmities obliged 
 him to lay down his office, he was told that his life for years 
 past had been one gigantic lie. The insinuation involved 
 nothing less than this. Throughout those many years, during 
 which the anonymous author, as he himself tells us, had been 
 preparing for the publication of an elaborate and systematic 
 attack upon Christianity, the bishop was preaching Christian 
 doctrine, confirming Christian children, ordaining Christian 
 ministers, without breathing a hint to the world that he felt any 
 misgiving of the truths which he thus avowed and taught. Yet 
 men talked as if, somehow or other, the cause of ' freethinking ' 
 had gained great moral support from the conversion of a bishop, 
 though, if the rumour had been true, their new convert had for 
 years past been guilty of the basest fraud of which a man is 
 capable. 
 
 And all the while there was absolutely nothing to recom- 
 mend this identification of the unknown author. The intel- 
 lectual characteristics of the work present a trenchant contrast 
 to the refined scholarship and cautious logic of this accomplished 
 prelate. Only one point of resemblance could be named. The 
 author shows an acquaintance with the theological critics of the 
 modern Dutch school ; and a knowledge of Dutch writers was 
 known, or believed, to have a place among the acquisitions of 
 this omniscient scholar. Truly no reputation is safe, when such 
 a reputation is traduced on these grounds. 
 
 I have been assuming however that the work entitled 
 Supernatural Religion, which lies before me, is the same work 
 which the reviewers hav€ applauded under this name. But, 
 when I remember that the St Mark of Papias cannot possibly 
 be our St Mark, I feel bound to throw upon this assumption 
 the full light of modern critical principles ; and, so tested, it 
 proves to be not only hasty and unwarrantable, but altogether 
 absurd. It is only necessary to compare the statements of 
 highly intellectual reviewers with the work itself; and every 
 unprejudiced mind must be convinced that 'the evidence is 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 fatal to the claims ' involved in this identification. Out of five 
 reviews or notices of the work which I have read, only one 
 seems to refer to our Supernatural Religion. The other four 
 are plainly dealing with some apocryphal work, bearing the 
 same name and often using the same language, but in its main 
 characteristics quite different from and much more authentic 
 than the volumes before me. 
 
 1. It must be observed in the first place, that the reviewers 
 agree in attributing to the work scholarship and criticism of the 
 highest order. ' The author,' writes one, ' is a scientifically 
 trained critic. He has learned to argue and to weigh evidence.' 
 ' The book,' adds a second, ' proceeds from a man of ability, a 
 scholar and a reasoner.' ' His scholarship,' says this same 
 reviewer again, ' is apparent throughout.' ' Along with a wide 
 and minute scholarship,' he writes in yet another place, 'the 
 unknown writer shows great acuteness.' Again a third 
 reviewer, of whose general tone, as well as of his criticisms 
 on the first part of the work, I should wish to speak with the 
 highest respect, praises the writer's ' searching and scholarly 
 criticism.' Lastly a fourth reviewer attributes to the author 
 ' careful and acute scholarship.' This testimony is explicit, and 
 it comes from four different quarters. It is moreover confirmed 
 by the rumour already mentioned, which assigned the work to a 
 bishop who has few rivals among his contemporaries as a scholar 
 and a critic. 
 
 Now, since the documents which our author has undertaken 
 to discuss are written almost wholly in the Greek and Latin 
 languages, it may safely be assumed that under the term 
 ' scholarship ' the reviewers included an adequate knowledge of 
 these languages. Starting from this as an axiom which will not 
 be disputed, I proceed to inquire what we find in the work 
 itself, which will throw any light on this point. 
 
 The example, which I shall take first, relates to a highly 
 important passage of Irenseus*, containing a reference in some 
 earlier authority, whom this father quotes, to a saying of our 
 
 1 Iren. v. 36. 1, 2. 
 
 1—2 
 
4 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Lord recorded only in St John's Gospel. The passage begins 
 thus : — 
 
 ' As the elders say, then also shall those deemed worthy of the 
 abode in heaven depart thither ; and others shall enjoy the delights 
 of paradise ; and others shall possess the splendour of the city ; for 
 everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they that see Him 
 shall be worthy.' 
 
 Then follows the important paragraph which is translated 
 differently by our author^ and by Dr Westcottl For reasons 
 which will appear immediately, I place the two renderings side 
 by side : — 
 
 Westcott. Supernatural Religion. 
 
 ' This distinction of dwelling, ' But there is to be this 
 
 they taught, exists between distinction* of dwelling (elvai 8c 
 those who brought forth a rrjv Siaa-roX-^v rairrT^v T17S oikt^ctcws) 
 hundred-fold, and those who of those bearing fruit the hun- 
 brought forth sixty-fold, and dred-fold, and of the (bearers of) 
 those who brought forth twenty- the sixty-fold, and of the (bearers 
 fold (Matt. xiii. 8). . . . of) the thirty-fold : of whom 
 
 some indeed shall be taken up 
 into the heavens, some shall live 
 And it was for this reason in Paradise, and some shall 
 the Lord said that in His Fa- inhabit the City, and for that 
 ther's House (iv tois tov Trax/oos) reason (8ia tovto — propter hoc) 
 are many mansions (John xiv. the Lord declared many mansions 
 2)^.' to be in the (heavens) of my 
 
 Father (ev rots tov Trarpos fi.ov 
 fxovds clvai TToXXas), etc. 
 
 On this extract our author remarks that ' it is impossible 
 for any one who attentively considers the whole of this passage 
 and who makes himself acquainted with the manner in which 
 Irenseus conducts his argument, and interweaves it with' texts 
 of Scripture, to doubt that the phrase we are considering is 
 
 ^ S. R. II. p. 328 sq. Trarpos fiov fiovas elvai iroWa's k.t.\. 
 
 2 Canon p. 63, note 2. "• [Tacitly corrected in ed. 4 (11. p. 
 
 3 The Greek is 'Eilvai U tt]v SiajTo- 328) where the sentence runs: 'But... 
 \t]v Tadrriv riji ok-qa e<i}^...Kal Zih tovto there is this distinction etc' See below, 
 (ip-qKivai Tbv Kipi-ov iv toTs tov p. 56.] 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 introduced by Irenseus himself, and is in no case a quotation 
 from the work of Papias\' As regards the relation of this 
 quotation from the Fourth Gospel to Papias any remarks, 
 which I have to make, must be deferred for the present""*; but on 
 the other point I venture to say that any fairly trained school- 
 boy will feel himself constrained by the rules of Greek grammar 
 to deny what our author considers it 'impossible' even 'to 
 doubt.' He himself is quite unconscious of the difference 
 between the infinitive and the indicative, or in other words 
 between the oblique and the direct narrative ; and so he boldly 
 translates elvat Trjv SiaaToX'tjv as though it were earai (or 
 /j,eWeL elvai) rj hiaardXrj, and elprjKevaL rov J^vpcov as though it 
 were ecprjKev 6 Kvpto^. This is just as if a translator from a 
 German original were to persist in ignoring the difference 
 between ' es sey ' and ' es ist ' and between ' der Herr sage ' 
 and ' der Herr sagt.' Yet so unconscious is our author of the 
 real point at issue, that he proceeds to support his view by 
 several other passages in which Irenseus ' interweaves ' his own 
 remarks, because they happen to contain the words 8id rovro, 
 though in every instance the indicative and not the infinitive is 
 used. To complete this feat of scholarship he proceeds to 
 charge Dr Westcott with what 'amounts to a falsification of 
 the textV because this scholarly writer has inserted the words 
 'they taught' to show that in the original the sentence con- 
 taining the reference to St John is in the oblique narrative and 
 therefore reports the words of others*. I shall not retort this 
 
 ^ [The author's defence is dealt falsifying the text by inserting, " say 
 
 with, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.] they.'" Tischendorf's words are, ' Und 
 
 2 [The question is discussed below, deshalb sagen sie habe der Herr den 
 p. 142 sq, where the author's subse- Ausspruch gethan.' He might have 
 quent explanation is considered.] spared the ' sagen sie,' because the 
 
 3 [This charge is withdrawn in ed. German idiom ' habe ' enables him to 
 4 (11. p. 328 n. 3), but objection is still express the main fact that the words 
 taken to the words ' they taught ' as are not Irenaeus' own, without this 
 conveying 'too positive a view of the addition. But he has not altered any 
 case.' On the character of this with- ideawhichtheoriginal contains ; where- 
 drawal see below, p. 53 sq.] as our author himself has suppressed 
 
 * Our author has already (11. p. 326) this all-important fact in his own trans- 
 accused Tischendorf of ' deliberately lation. [On this treatment of Tischen- 
 
6 ON SUPEENATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 charge of ' falsification,' because I do not think that the cause 
 of truth is served by imputing immoral motives to those from 
 whom we differ; and indeed the context shows that our author 
 is altogether blind to the grammatical necessity. But I would 
 venture to ask whether it would not have been more prudent, 
 as well as more seemly, if he had paused before venturing, 
 under the shelter of an anonymous publication, to throw out 
 this imputation of dishonesty against a writer of singular 
 candour and moderation, who has at least given to the world 
 the hostage and the credential of an honoured name. It is 
 necessary to add that our author persists in riveting this gram- 
 matical error on himself. He returns to the charge again in 
 two later footnotes^ and declares himself to have shown ' that 
 it [the reference to the Fourth Gospel] must be referred to 
 Irenasus himself, and that there is no ground for attributing it 
 to the Presbyters at all.' ' Most critics,' he continues, ' admit 
 the uncertainty^.' As it will be my misfortune hereafter to 
 dispute not a few propositions which 'most critics' are agreed 
 in maintaining, it is somewhat reassuring to find that they are 
 quite indifferent to the most elementary demands of grammar^ 
 The passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main 
 question at issue, the date of the Fourth Gospel. The second 
 example which I shall take, though less important, is not 
 without its value. As in the former instance our author 
 showed his indifference to moods, so here he is equally regard- 
 less of tenses. He is discussing the heathen Celsus, who shows 
 an acquaintance with the Evangelical narratives, and whose 
 
 dorf see below, pp. 55 sq, 128, 138. The Marcion falsely, but he actually defines 
 
 language is modified in ed. 4 (ii. p. 326) the motives for which he expunged the 
 
 'Tischendorf renders the oblique con- passage which never existed etc.... he 
 
 struction of the text by inserting "say actually repeats the same charge on 
 
 they" referring to the Presbyters of two other occasions.' 
 Papias,' where the point of grammar ^ S. R. ii. p. 334. 
 
 is silently conceded.] ^ ["On the wording of this footnote 
 
 The reader may compare S. R. ii. in ed. 4 see below, p. 58. It is omitted 
 
 p. 100, 'The lightness and inaccuracy in ed. 6, where see ii. p. 333.] 
 with which the "Great African" pro- ^ [See further on this subject below, 
 
 ceeds is all the better illustrated by pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.] 
 the fact, that not only does he accuse 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 date therefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain. 
 Origen, in the preface to his refutation of Celsus, distinctly 
 states that this person had been long dead (rj8r} koI TraXai 
 vcKpov). In his first book again he confesses his ignorance who 
 this Celsus was, but is disposed to identify him with a person 
 of the name known to have flourished about a century before 
 his own time\ But at the close of the last book^ addressing 
 his friend Ambrosius who had sent him the work, and at whose 
 instance he had undertaken the refutation, he writes (or rather, 
 he is represented by our author as writing) as follows : — 
 
 ' Know, however, that Celsus has promised to write another 
 treatise after this one. ... If, therefore, he has not fulfilled 
 his promise to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with 
 the eight books in reply to his Discourse. If however, he has 
 commenced and finished this work also, seek it and send it in order 
 that we may answer it also, and confute the false teaching in 
 it etc.^' 
 
 On the strength of the passage so translated, our author 
 supposes that Origen's impression concerning the date of 
 Celsus had meanwhile been ' considerably modified,' and 
 remarks that he now 'treats him as a contemporary.' Un- 
 fortunately however, the tenses, on which everything depends, 
 are freely handled in this translation. Origen does not say, 
 ' Celsus has promised,' but ' Celsus promises' (eTrayjeWo- 
 fievov), i.e. in the treatise before him, for Origen's knowledge 
 was plainly derived from the book itself And again, he does 
 not say ' If he has not fulfilled his promise to write,' but ' If 
 he did not write as he undertook to do' {eypayjrev VTroa'^ofjue- 
 i/o?); nor 'if he has commenced and finished,' but 'if he com- 
 menced and finished ' (dp^afjbevo'i o-u yereXeo-e)*. Thus Origen s 
 language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict 
 accordance with the earlier passages in his work. 
 
 These two examples have been chosen, not because they are 
 
 1 c. Ceh. i. 8. ^ There is also another aorist in 
 
 2 c. Gels. viii. 76. the part of the sentence, which our 
 
 3 ,S. E. II. p. 231 sq. [So also the author has not quoted, a\Xocri^j'Ta7/xa.., 
 Complete Edition (1879) n. p. 229 sq.] iv <^ diSd^ew iirTjyyelXaTo. 
 
8 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 by any means the worst specimens of our author's Greek, but 
 because in both cases an elaborate argument is wrecked on 
 this rock of grammar. If any reader is curious to see how he 
 can drive his ploughshare through a Greek sentence, he may 
 refer for instance to the translations of Basilides (ii. p. 46) \ or of 
 Valentinus (ii. p. 63)^ or of Philo (ii. p. 265 sq) \ Or he may draw 
 his inferences from such renderings as o Xoyo'i e87]'\,ov, 'Scripture 
 declares V or KaTo, Kopprj'i TrpoirrjXaKi^eiv^, ' to inflict a blow on 
 one side;' or from such perversions of meaning as 'did no 
 wrong,' twice repeated^ as a translation of ovBev ij/jLapre in an 
 important passage of Papias relating to St Mark, where this 
 Father really means that the Evangelist, though his narrative 
 was not complete, yet 'made no mistake' in what he did record. 
 Nor does our author's Latin fare any better than his Greek, 
 as may be inferred from the fact that he can translate 'nihil 
 tamen differt credentium fidei,' ' nothing nevertheless differs in 
 the faith of believers V instead of ' it makes no difference to the 
 faith of believers,' thus sacrificing sense and grammar alike®. 
 Or it is still better illustrated by the following example : — 
 
 ' Nam ex iis commentatoribus * For of the Commentators 
 
 quos habemus, Lucam videtur whom we possess, Marcion seems 
 Marcion elegisse quern caederet.' (videtur) to have selected Luke, 
 Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 2. which he mutilates.' S. E. ii. 
 
 p. 99^ 
 
 Here again tenses and moods are quite indifferent, an 
 imperfect subjunctive being treated as a present indicative; 
 
 ^ [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6 (ii. p. ^ ii. p. 193. [Corrected in ed. 6.] 
 
 46).] ^ I. p. 448, comp. p. 45o. [The 
 
 ^ [Some of the grammatical errors latter passage is struck out in ed, 6 
 
 are corrected in ed. 6 (ii. p. 63)', where (see i. p. 455) ; the former becomes 
 
 however new mistranslations are Intro- ' committed no error.' See below, p. 
 
 duced, as TroXXaxwx 'in divers parts,' 163.] 
 and ovTw fj.aKapL^erai...6Ti fii/'erai rou ^ II. p. 384, 
 
 6e6v 'becomes so blessed that he shall ^ [But in ed. 6 (ii. p. 384) I see 
 
 see God.'] that my translation is tacitly substi- 
 
 3 [to prjixa from ' Reason ' becomes tuted.] 
 'Word' in ed. 6, but ^rriffavres still " [Defended as a 'paraphrase' (see 
 
 remains ' they who inquire ' (ii. p. 265),] below, p. 129), but corrected in ed. 6, 
 
 ^ II. p. 296 sq. [Corrected in ed. 6.] which also omits the first clause.] 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 while at the same time our author fails to perceive that the 
 " commentatores " are the Evangelists themselves. His mind 
 seems to be running on the Commentaries of De Wette and 
 Alford, and he has forgotten the Commentaries of C9esar\ 
 
 Having shown that the author does not possess the 
 elementary knowledge which is indispensable in a critical 
 scholar, I shall not stop to inquire how far he exhibits those 
 higher qualifications of a critic, which are far more rare — 
 whether for instance he has the discriminating tact and nice 
 balance of judgment necessary for such a work, or whether 
 again he realizes how men in actual life do speak and write 
 now, and might be expected to speak and write sixteen or 
 seventeen centuries ago — without which qualifications the 
 most painful study and reproduction of German and Dutch 
 criticism is valueless. These qualifications cannot be weighed 
 or measured, and I must trust to my subsequent investigations 
 to put the reader in possession of data for forming a judgment 
 on these points. At present it will be sufficient to remark that 
 a scholarly writer might at least be expected not to contradict 
 himself on a highly important question of Biblical ci'iticism. 
 Yet this is what our author does. Speaking of the descent of 
 the angel at the pool of Bethesda (John v. 3, 4) in his first part, 
 he writes : ' The passage is not found in the older MSS of the 
 Fourth Gospel, and it was probably a later interpolation ^' 
 But, having occasion towards the end of his work to refer again 
 to this same passage, he entirely forgets his previously expressed 
 opinion, and is very positive on the other side. 'We must 
 believe,' he writes, 'that this passage did originally belong to 
 the text, and has from an early period been omitted from the 
 
 1 [Other errors in translation are planation of this discrepancy is given 
 
 given below, p. 129.] below, p. 124. In ed. 6 (i. p. 113) the 
 
 - I. p. 113. The last words ran sentence ends, ' and it is argued that it 
 
 ' certainly a late interpolation ' in the was probably a later interpolation,' 
 
 first edition (i. p. 103). Thus the while in the Complete Edition (i. p. 
 
 passage has undergone revision, and 113) it is further quaUfied 'argued by 
 
 yet the author has not discovered the some.'] 
 contradiction. [The author's own ex- 
 
10 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 MSS on account of the difficulty it presents \' And, to make 
 the contradiction more flagrant, he proceeds to give a reason 
 why the disputed words must have formed part of the original 
 text. 
 
 It must be evident by this time to any 'impartial mind,' 
 that the Supernatural Religion of the reviewers cannot be 
 our Supernatural Religion. The higher criticism has taught 
 me that poor foolish Papias, an extreme specimen of 'the most 
 deplorable carelessness and want of critical judgment' dis- 
 played by the Fathers on all occasions, cannot possibly have had 
 our St Mark's Gospel before him", because he says that his St 
 Mark recorded only ' some ' of our Lord's sayings and doings, 
 and did not record them in order (though by the way no 
 one maintains that everything said and done by Christ is 
 recorded in our Second Gospel, or that the events follow 
 in strict chronological sequence) ; and how then is it possible to 
 resist the conclusion, which is forced upon the mind by the 
 concurrent testimony of so many able reviewers, the leaders of 
 intellectual thought in this critical nineteenth century, to the 
 consummate scholarship of the writer, that they must be refer- 
 ring to a different recension, probably more authentic and cer- 
 tainly far more satisfactory than the book which lies before me ? 
 
 2. And the difficulty of the popular identification will be 
 found to increase as the investigation proceeds. There is a 
 second point, also, on which our critics are unanimous. Our 
 first reviewer describes the author as ' scrupulously exact in 
 stating the arguments of adversaries.' Our fourth reviewer 
 uses still stronger language : ' The author with excellent 
 candour places before us the materials on which a judgment 
 must rest, with great fulness and perfect impartiality.' The 
 testimony of the other two, though not quite so explicit, tends 
 in the same direction. 'An earnest seeker after truth,' says 
 the second reviewer, ' looking around at all particulars per- 
 taining to his inquiries.' ' The account given in the volume 
 
 ^ II. p. 421. [The argument in fa- the Complete Edition (ii. pp. 419-423).] 
 vour of the genuineness is expanded in * [See below, p. 163 sq.] 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. H 
 
 we are noticing,' writes the third, 'is a perfect mine of 
 information on this subject, alloyed indeed with no small 
 prejudice, yet so wonderfully faithful and comprehensive that 
 an error may be detected by the light of the writer's own 
 searching and scholarly criticism.' 
 
 Now this is not the characteristic of the book before me. 
 The author does indeed single out from time to time the 
 weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and on these he 
 dwells at great length ; but their weightier facts and lines of 
 reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often 
 occur in the same books and even in the same contexts which 
 he quotes. This charge will, I believe, be abundantly sub- 
 stantiated as I proceed. At present I shall do no more than 
 give a few samples. 
 
 Our author charges the Epistle ascribed to Polycarp with an 
 anachronism \ because, though in an earlier passage St Igna- 
 tius is assumed to be dead, 'in chap, xiii he is spoken of as 
 living, and information is requested regarding him " and those 
 who are with him.'" Why then does he not notice the answer 
 which he might have found in any common source of infor- 
 mation, that when the Latin version (the Greek is wanting 
 here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is retranslated into the original 
 language, rol<; crvv aurS, the 'anachronism' altogether dis- 
 appears^? Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to 
 the discussion of Papias^, why does he not even mention the 
 view maintained by Dr Westcott and others (and certainly 
 suggested by a strict interpretation of Papias' own words), that 
 this father's object in his 'Exposition' was not to construct 
 a new evangelical narrative, but to interpret and illustrate by 
 oral tradition one already lying before him in written docu- 
 ments* ? This view, if correct, entirely alters the relation of 
 Papias to the written Gospels ; and its discussion was a matter 
 of essential importance to the main question at issue. Again, 
 
 1 S.R.i.-p. 276. [And so through- ^ j, pp. 444_485. 
 
 out all the editions.] * [The subject is treated at length 
 
 ^ [See below, p. Ill,] below, p, 142 sq.] 
 
12 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 when he reproduces the Tubingen fallacy respecting 'the 
 strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St Paul\ and quotes 
 the often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which 
 this writer refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning 
 the use of the words, 'Eye hath not seen, etc.,' why does he not 
 state that these words were employed by heretical teachers 
 to justify their rites of initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' 
 writers contend that Hegesippus refers to the words, not as 
 used by St Paul, but as misapplied by these heretics ? Since, 
 according to the Tubingen interpretation, this single notice 
 contradicts everything else which we know of the opinions of 
 Hegesippus^ the view of 'apologists' might perhaps have been 
 worth a moment's consideration. And again, in the elaborate 
 examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical quotations^ in which 
 he had Credner's careful analysis to guide him, and which 
 therefore is quite the most favourable specimen of his critical 
 work, our author frequently refers to Dr Westcott's book to 
 censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are 
 discussed at great length. Why then does he not once mention 
 Dr Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin 
 Martyr's quotations from the Old Testament, as throwing some 
 light on the degree of accuracy which he might be expected to 
 show in quoting the Gospels* ? The former Justin supposed 
 to be (as one of the reviewers expresses it) 'almost automa- 
 tically inspired,' whereas he took a much larger view of the 
 inspiration of the evangelical narratives. A reader fresh from 
 the perusal of Supernatural Religion will have his eyes 
 
 1 I. p. 441. quotations are different from the text 
 
 2 [On Hegesippus see below, pp. 34 of our Gospels ; but he accounts for his 
 sq, 42.] variations on grounds which are' ['seem 
 
 3 [On Justin Martyr see below, p. tous'ed. 6] 'purely imaginary.' lean 
 43.] hardly suppose that our author had 
 
 4 In I. p. 360, there is a foot-note, read the passage to which he refers. 
 'For the arguments of apologetic criti- Otherwise the last sentence would 
 cism the reader may be referred to doubtless have run thus, 'but he 
 Canon Westcott's work On the Canon accounts for his variations by argu- 
 pp. 112—139. Dr Westcott does not at- ments which it would give me some 
 tempt to deny the fact that Justin's trouble to answer.' 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 opened as to the character of Justin's mind, when he turns 
 to Dr Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves, mis- 
 names, and mis-quotes passages from the Old Testament. It 
 cannot be said that these are unimportant points. In every 
 instance which I have selected these omitted considerations 
 vitally affect the main question at issue. 
 
 Our fourth reviewer however uses the words which I have 
 already quoted, 'excellent candour,' 'great fulness,' 'perfect 
 impartiality,' with special reference to the part of the work 
 relating to the authorship and character of the Fourth Gospel, 
 which he describes as 'a piece of keen and solid reasoning.' 
 This is quite decisive. Our author might have had his own 
 grounds for ignoring the arguments of 'apologetic' writers, or 
 he may have been ignorant of them. For reasons which will 
 appear presently, the latter alternative ought probably to be 
 adopted as explaining some omissions. But however this may 
 be, the language of the reviewer is quite inapplicable to the 
 work lying before me. It may be candid in the sense of being 
 honestly meant, but it is not candid in any other sense ; and it 
 is the very reverse of full and impartial. The arguments of 
 'apologetic' writers are systematically ignored in this part of 
 the work. Once or twice indeed he fastens on passages from 
 such writers, that he may make capital of them ; but their main 
 arguments remain wholly unnoticed. Why, for instance, when 
 he says of the Fourth Gospel that ' instead of the fierce and 
 intolerant temper of the Son of Thunder, we find a spirit 
 breathing forth nothing but gentleness and love \' does he 
 forget to add that ' apologists' have pointed to such passages as 
 'Ye are of your father the devil,' as a refutation of this state- 
 ment — passages far more 'intolerant' than anything recorded 
 in the Synoptic Gospels ^ ? Why again, when he asserts that 
 'allusion is undoubtedly made to ' St Paul in the words of the 
 Apocalypse, 'them that hold the teaching of Balaam, who 
 taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of 
 
 1 II. p. 411. saying for a wholly different purpose 
 
 2 Our author himself refers to this later on (ii. p. 416). 
 
]4 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols*,' does he forget to 
 mention that St Paul himself uses this same chapter in Jewish 
 history as a warning to those free-thinkers and free-livers, who 
 eat things sacrificed to idols, regardless of the scandal which 
 their conduct might create, and thus, so far from a direct 
 antagonism, there is a substantial agreement between the two 
 Apostles on this point " ? Why, when he is endeavouring to 
 minimize, if not to deny, the Hebraic' character of the Fourth 
 Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of Luthardt and 
 others, which (as ' apologists' venture to think) show that the 
 whole texture of the language in the Fourth Gospel is Hebraic ? 
 Why again, when he alludes to 'the minuteness of details^' in 
 this Gospel as alleged in defence of its authenticity, is he 
 satisfied with this mere caricature of the 'apologetic' argument? 
 Having set up a man of straw, he has no difficulty in knocking 
 him down. He has only to declare that ' the identification of 
 an eye-witness by details is absurd.' It would have been more 
 to the purpose if he had boldly grappled with such arguments 
 
 ^ II. p. 408. Our author says, ' It constancy of Christians was tested in 
 is clear that Paul is referred to in the this very way, St Paul's own principles 
 address to the Church of Ephesus : would require a correspondingly rigid 
 "And thou didst try them which say abstinence from even apparent com- 
 that they are Apostles and are not, and plicity in idolatrous rites. There is 
 didst find them false."' He seems to every reason therefore to believe that, 
 forget what he himself has said (p. if St Paul had been living when the 
 395), ' No result of criticism rests upon Apocalypse was written, he would have 
 a more secure basis.. .than the fact that expressed himself not less strongly on 
 the Apocalypse was written in A. D. 68, the same side. On the other hand 
 69,' i.e., after St Paul's death. This these early Gnostics who are denounced 
 theory moreover is directly at variance in the Apocalypse seem, like their 
 with the one definite fact which we successors in the next generation, to 
 know respecting the personal relations have held that a Christian might con- 
 between the two Apostles; namely, form to Gentile practices in these 
 that they gave to each other the right matters to escape persecution. St Paul 
 hands of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9). It is combats this spirit of Ucense, then in 
 surprising therefore that this extrava- its infancy, in the First Epistle to the 
 gant paradox should have been recently Corinthians. 
 
 reproduced in an English review of ^ [On the diction of the Fourth 
 
 high character. Gospel see below, p. 131 sq.] 
 
 2 1 Cor. X. 7, 8, 14, 21. When the * ii. p. 445. 
 season of persecution arrived, and the 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. I5 
 
 as he might have found in Mr Sanday's book for instance' ; 
 arguments founded not on the minuteness of details, but on the 
 thorough naturalness with which the incidents develop them- 
 selves, on the subtle and inobtrusive traits of character which 
 appear in the speakers, on the local colouring which is insepar- 
 ably interwoven with the narrative, on the presence of strictly 
 Jewish (as distinguished from Christian) ideas, more especially 
 Messianic ideas, which saturate the speeches, and the like. And, 
 if he could have brought forward any parallel to all this in the 
 literature of the time, or could even have shown a reasonable 
 probability that svich a fiction might have been produced 
 in an age which (as we are constantly reminded) was singularly 
 inappreciative and uncritical in such matters, and which certainly 
 has not left any evidence of a genius for realism, for its highest 
 conception of romance-writing does not rise above the stiffness 
 of the Clementines or the extravagance of the Protevangelium 
 — if he could have done this, he would at least have advanced 
 his argument a step^ Why again, when he is emphasizing the 
 differences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel, does 
 he content himself with stating ' that some apologetic writers' 
 are 'satisfied by the analogies which could scarcely fail to exist 
 between two works dealing with a similar (!) theme ^,' without 
 mentioning for the benefit of the reader some of these analogies, 
 as for instance, that our Lord is styled the Word of God in these 
 two writings, and these alone, of the New Testament ? He 
 recurs more than once to the doctrine of the Logos, as exhibited 
 in the Gospel, but again he is silent about the presence of this 
 nomenclature in the Apocalypse*. Why, when he contrasts the 
 Christology of the Synoptic Gospels with the Christology of 
 St John^, does he not mention that 'apologists' quote in reply 
 
 ^ [The Authorship and Historical the world in the early Christian ages? 
 
 Character of the Fourth Gospel (1872). If not, it is nothing to the purpose. 
 
 Macmillans.] ^ 11. p. 389. 'Apologists' lay stress 
 
 2 Our author (11. p. 444) speaks of on the difference of theme. [See below, 
 
 'the works of imagination of which p. 131 sq.] 
 
 the world is full, and the singular * [He does however mention the 
 
 realism of many of which is recognized term elsewhere ; see below, p. 123.] 
 
 by all.' Is this a true description of ^ 11. p. 468, and elsewhere. 
 
16 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 our Lord's words in Matt. xi. 27 sq, 'All things are delivered 
 unto me of my Father ; and no man knoweth the Son but the 
 Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and 
 he to whom soever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all 
 ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest'? 
 This one passage, they assert, covers the characteristic teaching 
 of the Fourth Gospel, and hitherto they have not been answered. 
 Again, our author says very positively that 'the Synoptics 
 clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited 
 to a single year, and his preaching is confined to Galilee and 
 Jerusalem, where his career culminates at the fatal Passover ;' 
 thus contrasting with the Fourth Gospel, which ' distributes the 
 teaching of Jesus between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, 
 makes it extend at least over three years, and refers to three 
 Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem \' Why then does he 
 not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as 
 Matt, xxiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), '0, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 
 ...how often would I have gathered thy children together'? 
 ■ Here the expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to 
 postulate other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, 
 which are not recorded in the S3nioptic Gospels themselves. 
 And it may be suggested also that the twice-repeated notice of 
 time in the context of St Luke, 'I do cures to-day and to-morrow, 
 and the third day I shall be perfected,' 'I must walk to-day and 
 to-morrow and the day following' points to the very duration of 
 our Lord's ministry, as indicated by the Fourth GospeP. If so, 
 the coincidence is the more remarkable, because it does not ap- 
 pear that St Luke himself, while recording these prophetic words, 
 was aware of their full historical import. But whatever may be 
 thought of this last point, the contention of 'apologetic' writers is 
 that here, as elsewhere, the Fourth Gospel supplies the key to 
 historical difficulties in the Synoptic narratives, which are not 
 unlocked in the course of those narratives themselves, and this 
 fact increases their confidence in its value as an authentic record^ 
 
 1 II. p. 451. a note on ii. p. 453.] 
 
 * [These passages are added without '^ [On this point see below, p. 131.] 
 
 comment in the Complete Edition in 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 Again : he refers several times to the Paschal controversy of 
 the second century as bearing on the authorship of the Fourth 
 Gospel. On one occasion he devotes two whole pages to it\ 
 Why then does he not mention that 'apologetic' writers 
 altogether deny what he states to be absolutely certain ; main- 
 taining on the contrary that the Christian Passover, celebrated 
 by the Asiatic Churches on the 14th Nisan, commemorated not 
 the Institution of the Lord's Supper, but, as it naturally would, 
 the Sacrifice on the Cross, and asserting that the main dispute 
 between the Asiatic and Roman Churches had reference to the 
 question whether the commemoration should take place always 
 on the 14th Nisan (irrespective of the day of the week) or 
 always on a Friday ? Thus, they claim the Paschal controversy 
 as a witness on their own side. This view may be right or 
 wrong ; but inasmuch as any person might read the unusually 
 full account of the controversy in Eusebius from beginning to 
 end, without a suspicion that the alternative of the 14th or 
 15th Nisan, as the day of the Crucifixion, entered into the 
 dispute at all, the onus prohandi rests with our author, and his 
 stout assertions were certainly needed to supply the place of 
 arguments ^ 
 
 The same reticence or ignorance respecting the arguments 
 of 'apologetic' writers is noticeable also when he deals with the 
 historical and geographical allusions in the Fourth Gospel. If 
 by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes 
 care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (e. g. the 
 identification of Sychar and Shechem)^, omitting altogether to 
 
 1 II. p. 472 sq; comp. pp. 186 sq, ed. 6] ' that there was no such place 
 271. [The statement stands unchanged [as Sychar, Suxap], and apologetic in- 
 in the Complete Edition (ii. p. 474 genuity is severely taxed to explain 
 sq).] the difficulty.' This is altogether un- 
 
 2 [See further, p. 99 sq.] true. Others besides 'apologists 'point 
 ^ II. p. 421. Travellers and ' apolo- to passages in the Talmud which speak 
 
 gists' alike now more commonly iden- of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar, or 
 
 tify Sychar with the village bearing Sichar);' see Neubauer La Geoi/ra^j/tie 
 
 the Arabic name Askar. This fact is du Talmud p. 169 sq. Our author refers 
 
 not mentioned by our author. He says in his note to an article by Delitzsch 
 
 moreover, 'It is admitted' ['evident' Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1856 p. 240 sq. 
 
 S. R. 2 
 
18 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 notice others \ But as a rule, he betrays no knowledge whatever 
 of his adversaries' arguments. One instance will suffice to illus- 
 trate his mode of procedure. Referring to the interpretation of 
 Siloam as 'sent,' in John ix. 7, he stigmatizes this as 'a distinct 
 error,' because the word signifies ' a spring, a fountain, a flow of 
 water;' and he adds that 'a foreigner with a slight knowledge 
 of the language is misled by the superficial analogy of sounds' 
 Does he not know (his Gesenius will teach him this) that Siloam 
 signifies a fountain, or rather, an aqueduct, a conduit, like the 
 Latin emissarium, because it is derived from the Hebrew shalach 
 'to send'? and if he does know it, why has he left his readers 
 entirely in the dark on this subject ? As the word is much 
 disguised in its Greek dress {Siloam for Shiloach), the knowledge 
 of its derivation is not unimportant, and ' apologists' claim to 
 have this item of evidence transferred to their side of the 
 account. Any one disposed to retaliate upon our author for his 
 habitual reticence would find in these volumes, ready made for 
 his purpose, a large assortment of convenient phrases ranging 
 from 'discreet reserve' to 'wilful and deliberate evasion.' I do 
 not intend to yield to this temptation. But the reader will 
 have drawn his own conclusions from this recklessness of assault 
 in one whose own armour is gaping at every joint. 
 
 But indeed, when he does stoop to notice the arguments of 
 'apologetic' writers, he is not always successful in appre- 
 hending their meaning. 
 
 Thus he writes of the unnamed disciple, the assumed author 
 of the Fourth Gospel: — 
 
 ' The assumption that the disciple thus indicated is John, rests 
 principally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other 
 Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid directly naming John, and 
 also that he only once^ distinguishes John the Baptist by the ap- 
 
 He cannot have read the article, for his meaning is given.] 
 these Talmudic references are its main ^ ii. p. 419. [This whole section 
 
 purport. is struck out in the Complete Edition 
 
 1 [The whole question of Sychar (see ii. p. 417), but the error survived 
 
 is treated at length below, p. 133 sq, ed. 6 (ii. p. 419).] 
 where also the author's explanation of * ['never once' ed. 6 (ii. p. 424).] 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 pellation o ySaTrrio-TT/?, whilst he carefully distinguishes the two 
 disciples of the name of Judas, and always speaks of the Apostle 
 Peter as ' Simon Peter,' or ' Peter,' or but rarely as ' Simon' 
 only. Without pausing to consider the slightness of this evidence, 
 etc.'' 
 
 Now the fact is, that the Fourth Evangelist never once 
 distinguishes this John as ' the Baptist,' though such is his 
 common designation in the other Gospels ; and the only person, 
 in whom the omission would be natural, is his namesake John 
 the son of Zebedee. Hence ' apologists ' lay great stress on 
 this fact, as an evidence all the more valuable, because it lies 
 below the surface, and they urge with force, that this subtle 
 indication of authorship is inconceivable as the literary device 
 of a forger in the second century. We cannot wonder, however, 
 if our author considers this evidence so slight that he will not 
 even pause upon it, when he has altogether distorted it by a 
 mis-statement of fact. But it is instructive to trace his error 
 to its source. Titrning to Credner, to whom the author gives 
 a reference in a footnote, I find this writer stating that the 
 Fourth Evangelist 
 
 ' Has not found it necessary to distinguish John the Baptist 
 from the Apostle John his namesake even so much as once (auch nur 
 ein einziges Mai) by the addition d fiaimaT-q^'^.' 
 
 So then our author has stumbled over that little word 
 ' nur,' and his German has gone the way of his Greek and 
 his Latin ^ But the error is instructive from another point of 
 view. This argument happens to be a commonplace of 'apo- 
 logists.' How comes it then, that he was not set right by one 
 or other of these many writers, even if he could not construe 
 Credner's German ? Clearly this cannot be the work which 
 the reviewers credit with an ' exhaustive ' knowledge of the 
 
 ^ n. p. 423 sq. riffrrji zu unterscheiden (i. 6, 15, 19, 26, 
 
 2 Credoaex Einl. i. p. 210 '...hat er 28, 29, 32, 35, 41; iii. 23, 24, 25, 26, 
 
 es nicht fiir nothig gefunden, den 27; iv. 1; v. 33, 86; x. 40, 41).' 
 Taufer Johannes von dem gleichnami- ^ [For the author's own explanation 
 
 gen Apostel Johannes auch nur ein of this error see below, j). 124 sq.] 
 einziges Mai durch den Zusatz 6. /3a7r- 
 
 2—2 
 
20 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 literature of the subject. I may be asked indeed to explain 
 how, on this theory of mistaken identity which I here put 
 forward, the work reviewed by the critics came to be displaced 
 by the work before me, so that no traces of the original remain. 
 But this I altogether decline to do, and I plead authority for 
 refusing, 'The merely negative evidence that our actual 
 [Supernatural Religion] is not the work described by [the 
 Reviewers] is sufficient for our purpose'.' 
 
 3. But the argument is strengthened when we come to 
 consider a third point. ' The author's discussions,' writes our 
 first reviewer, ' are conducted in a judicial method.' ' He has 
 the critical faculty in union with a calm spirit.' ' Calm and 
 judicial in tone,' is the verdict of our second reviewer. The 
 opinion of our third and fourth reviewers on this part may be 
 gathered not so much from what they say as from what they 
 leave unsaid. A fifth reviewer however, who seems certainly 
 to have had our Supernatural Religion before him, holds 
 different language. He rebukes the author — with wonderful 
 gentleness, considering the gravity of the offence — for 'now 
 and then losing patience.' 
 
 Now whether calmness of tone can be said to distinguish a 
 work which bristles with such epithets as 'monstrous,' 'im- 
 possible,' 'audacious,' 'preposterous,' 'absurd;' whether the 
 habit of reiterating as axiomatic truths what at the very best 
 are highly precarious hypotheses — as, for instance, that Papias 
 did not refer to our St Mark's Gospel — does not savour more 
 of the vehemence of the advocate than of the impartiality of 
 the judge, I must ask the reader to decide for himself But of 
 the highly discreditable practice of imputing corrupt motives 
 to those who differ from us there cannot be two opinions. We 
 have already seen how a righteous nemesis has overtaken our 
 author, and he has covered himself with confusion, while reck- 
 lessly flinging a charge of ' falsification ' at another. Unfortu- 
 nately however that passage does not stand alone. I will not 
 take up the reader's time with illustrations of a practice, of 
 
 1 S. E. I. p. 459. 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 which we have seen more than enough already. But there is 
 one example which is sufficiently instructive to deserve quoting. 
 Dr Westcott writes of Basilides as follows : — 
 
 'At the same time, he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, 
 as well as St Mark, was "an interpreter of St Peter'."' 
 
 The inverted commas are given here as they appear in 
 Dr Westcott's book. It need hardly be said that Dr Westcott 
 is simply illustrating the statement of Basilides that Glaucias 
 was an interpreter of St Peter by the similar statement of 
 Papias and others that St Mark was an interpreter of the same 
 apostle — a very innocent piece of information, one would 
 suppose. On this passage however our author remarks : — 
 
 ' Now we have here again an ilhistration of the same misleading 
 system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to, 
 in the introduction after ' Glaucias ' of the words ' who as well as St 
 Mark was an interpreter of St Peter.' The words in italics are the 
 gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only have 
 been inserted for one of two purposes : (i) to assert the fact that 
 Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition repre- 
 sented Mark to be; or (ii) to insinuate to unlearned readers that 
 Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the 
 interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been 
 the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and 
 infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal 
 of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the 
 allusion to Mark, was [unconsciously, no doubt] too strong for the 
 apologist^.' 
 
 Dr Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of 
 itself It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like 
 
 1 Ca7ion p. 264. The words of inserted in the Second Edition. A frank 
 Clement (Strom, vii. 17) to which Dr withdrawal would have been worth 
 Westcott refers, are : Ka^dTrep 6 Bact- something ; but this insertion only 
 Xeldris, Kof VXavKiav eTnypdcp7]TM StSd- aggravates the offence. [After having 
 (TKoKov, ws avxova-Lv avrol, rbv Hirpov been partly re-written in ed. 6 (ii. p. 
 ipfivviO" ^^)' the whole section is cut out in the 
 
 2 S. R. II. p. 44 sq. The words Complete Edition (see ii. p. 44).] 
 which I have enclosed in brackets were 
 
22 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 these. I only call attention to the fact that our author has 
 removed Dr Westcott's inverted commas \ and then founded on 
 the passage so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which 
 could only be sustained in their absence, and which even then 
 no one but himself would have thought of I will not retort 
 upon our author the charge of ' deliberate falsification,' which 
 he so freely levels at others, for I do not believe that he had any 
 such intention. The lesson suggested by this highly character- 
 istic passage is of another kind. It exemplifies the elaborate 
 looseness which pervades the critical portion of this book. It 
 illustrates the author's inability to look at things in a straight- 
 forward way. It emphasizes more especially the suspicious 
 temper of the work, which makes it, as even a favourable 
 reviewer has said, ' painfully sceptical ' — a temper which must 
 necessarily vitiate all the processes of criticism, and which, if 
 freely humoured elsewhere, would render life intolerable and 
 history impossible ^ 
 
 It is difficult to see what end the author proposed to attain 
 by all this literary browbeating. In the course of my examina- 
 tion I shall be constrained to adopt many a view which has 
 been denounced beforehand as impossible and absurd ; and I 
 shall give my reasons for doing so. If by an 'apologist'^ is 
 meant one who knows that he owes everything which is best 
 and truest in himself to the teaching of Christianity — not the 
 Christless Christianity which alone our author would spare, the 
 works with the mainspring broken, but the Christianity of the 
 Apostles and Evangelists — who believes that its doctrines, its 
 sanctions, and its hopes, are truths of the highest moment to the 
 wellbeing of mankind, and who, knowing and believing all this, 
 is ready to use in its defence such abilities as he has, then a 
 man may be proud to take even the lowest place among the 
 ranks of 'apologists,' and to brave any insinuations of dis- 
 honesty which an anonymous critic may fling at him. 
 
 1 [For the author's explanation of pp. 134, 137 sq.] 
 
 his language see below, p. 123 sq.] ^ [Our author's explanation of the 
 
 2 [This point is reverted to below, term is given below, p. 134.] 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 There is however another more subtle mode of intimidation 
 which plays an important part in these volumes. Long lists of 
 references are given in the notes, to modern critics who (as the 
 reader would infer from the mode of reference) support the 
 views mentioned or adopted by the author in the text. I have 
 verified these references in one or two cases, and have found 
 that several writers, at all events, do not hold the opinions 
 to which their names are attached \ But, under any circum- 
 stances, these lists will not fetter the judgment of any 
 thoughtful mind. It is strange indeed, that a writer who 
 denounces so strongly the influence of authority as represented 
 by tradition, should be anxious to impose on his readers another 
 less honourable yoke. There is at least a presumption (though 
 in individual cases it may prove false on examination) that the 
 historical sense of seventeen or eighteen centuries is larger and 
 truer than the critical insight of a section of men in one late 
 half century. The idols of our cave never present themselves in 
 a more alluring form than when they appear as the ' spirit of 
 the age.' It is comparatively easy to resist the fallacies of past 
 times, but it is most difficult to escape the infection of the 
 intellectual atmosphere in which we live. I ask myself, for 
 instance, whether one who lived in the age of the rabbis would 
 have been altogether right in resigning himself to the im- 
 mediate current of intellectual thought, because he saw, or 
 seemed to see, that it was setting strongly in one direction. 
 
 This comparison is not without its use. Here were men 
 eminently learned, painstaking, minute; eminently ingenious 
 also, and in a certain sense, eminently critical. In accumu- 
 lating and assorting facts — such facts as lay within their reach — 
 and in the general thoroughness of their work, the rabbis of 
 Jewish exegesis might well bear comparison with the rabbis of 
 neologian criticism. They reigned supreme in their own circles 
 for a time ; their work has not been without its fruits ; many 
 useful suggestions have gone to swell the intellectual and 
 moral inheritance of later ages; but their characteristic 
 
 1 [Oue such list is dealt with in full, p. 65 sq.] 
 
24 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 teaching, which they themselves would have regarded as their 
 chief claim to immortality, has long since been consigned to 
 oblivion. It might be minute and searching, but it was 
 conceived in a false vein ; it was essentially unhistorical, and 
 therefore it could not live. The modern negative school of 
 criticism seems to me to be equally perverse and unreal, though 
 in a different way ; and therefore I anticipate for it the same 
 fate. 
 
 Mr Matthew Arnold, alluding to an eccentric work of 
 rationalizing tendencies written by an English scholar, and 
 using M. Renan as his mouthpiece, expresses the opinion that 
 'an extravagance of this sort could never have come from 
 Germany where there is a great force of critical opinion con- 
 trolling a learned man's vagaries, and keeping him straight \' 
 I confess that my .experiences of the critical literature of 
 Germany have not been so fortunate. It would be difficult, I 
 think, to find among English scholars any parallel to the mass 
 of absurdities, which several intelligent and very learned 
 German critics have conspired to heap upon two simple names 
 in the Philippian Epistle, Euodia and Sjoityche ; first, Baur 
 suggesting that the pivot of the Epistle, which has a conciliatory 
 tendency, is the mention of Clement, a mythical or almost 
 mythical person, who represents the union of the Petrine and 
 Pauline parties in the Church''; then Schwegler, carrying the 
 theory a step further, and declaring that the two names, Euodia 
 and Syntyche, actually represent these two parties, while the 
 true yoke-fellow is St Peter himself^; then Volkmar, improving 
 the occasion, and showing that this fact is indicated in their 
 very names, Euodia or ' Rightway,' and Syntyche or ' Consort,' 
 denoting respectively the orthodoxy of the one party and the 
 incorporation of the other*; lastly, Hitzig lamenting that 
 interpreters of the New Testament are not more thoroughly 
 imbued with the language and spirit of the Old, and maintain- 
 
 1 Essays in Criticism p. 57. * Theolog. Jahrb. xv. p. 311 sq, xvi. 
 
 2 Paulus p. 469 sq (1st ed.). p. 147 sq. 
 ■* Nachupost. Zeitalter ii. p. 135. 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 ing that these two names are reproductions of the patriarchs 
 Asher and Gad — their sex having been changed in the 
 transition from one language to another — and represent the 
 Greek and Roman elements in the Church, while the Epistle 
 to the Philippians itself is a plagiarism from the Agricola of 
 Tacitus \ When therefore I find our author supporting some 
 of his more important judgments by the authority of ' Hitzig, 
 Volkmar and others,' or of ' Volkmar and others ^' I have my 
 own opinion of the weight which such names should carry with 
 them^ 
 
 It is not however against the eccentricities of individuals, 
 except so far as these can be charged to a vicious atmosphere 
 and training, that I would rest the chief stress of my 
 complaint. The whole tone and spirit of the school in its 
 excess of scepticism must, I venture to think, be fatal to the 
 ends of true criticism. A reviewer of Supernatural Religion 
 compares the author's handling of the reconstructive efforts of 
 certain conservative critics regarding the Fourth Gospel to 
 Sir G. C. Lewis's objections to Niebuhr's ' equally arbitrary 
 reconstruction of early Roman history.' From one point of 
 view this comparison is instructive. We have no means of 
 testing the value of that eminent writer's negative criticisms 
 of early Roman history. But where additional knowledge has 
 enabled us to apply a test to his opinions, as, for instance, 
 respecting the interpretation of the Egyptian hieroglyphic 
 language, we find that his scepticism led him signally astray. 
 
 ^ Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe. critical discoveries elsewhere. To this 
 
 Leipzig, 1870. The author's conclu- same critic we owe the suggestion, 
 
 sions are supported by an appeal to the that the name of the fabulist ^Esop is 
 
 Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and Armenian derived from Solomon's " hyssop that 
 
 languages. The learning of this curi- springeth out of the wall," 1 Kings iv. 
 
 ous pamphlet keeps pace with its ab- 33 : Die Spriiche Salomons p. xvi sq. 
 surdity. If the reader is disposed to ^ e.g. respecting the date of the 
 
 think that this writer must be laughing book of Judith, on which depends the 
 
 in his sleeve at the methods of the authenticity of Clement's Epistle (i. 
 
 modern school to which he belongs, p. 222), the date of Celsus (ii. p. 228), 
 
 he is checked by the obviously serious etc. 
 
 tone of the whole discussion. Indeed ^ [^gge further, p. l^tl.] 
 
 it is altogether in keeping with Hitzig's 
 
26 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 It seems to be assumed that, because the sceptical spirit has 
 its proper function in scientific inquiry (though even here its 
 excesses will often impede progress), therefore its exercise is 
 equally useful and equally free from danger in the domain of 
 criticism. A moment's reflection however will show that the 
 cases are wholly different. In whatever relates to morals and 
 history — in short, to human life in all its developments — where 
 mathematical or scientific demonstration is impossible, and 
 where consequently everything depends on the even balance 
 of the judicial faculties, scepticism must be at least as fatal 
 to the truth as credulity. 
 
 The author of Supernatural Religion proposes to himself 
 the task of demonstrating that the miraculous element in 
 Christianity is a delusion. The work is divided into three 
 parts. The first part undertakes to prove that miracles are not 
 only highly improbable, but antecedently incredible, so that no 
 amount of testimony can overcome the objections to them. As 
 a subsidiary aim, he endeavours to show that the sort of 
 evidence, which, under the most favourable circumstances, we 
 should be likely to obtain in the early Christian ages, ought 
 not to inspire confidence. The second and third parts are 
 occupied in examining the actual witnesses themselves, that is, 
 the four Gospels ; the second being devoted to the Synoptists, 
 and the third to St John. The main contention is that the 
 four Gospels are entirely devoid of evidence sufiicient to 
 satisfy us of their date and authorship, considering the momen- 
 tous import of their contents. These portions of the work 
 therefore are chiefly occupied in examining the external testi- 
 monies to the authenticity and genuineness of the Gospels. 
 In the case of St John the internal character of the document 
 is likewise subjected to examination. 
 
 Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in 
 the first part, the second and third are altogether superfluous \ 
 It is somewhat strange therefore, that more than three-fourths 
 
 1 [Our author objects to this conclusion ; see below, p. 138 sq.] 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 27 
 
 of the whole work should be devoted to this needless task. 
 Impressed, as it would seem, by the elaboration of these portions, 
 reviewers have singled them out for special praise, even when 
 they have condemned the first as unsatisfactory. With this 
 estimate of their value I find myself altogether unable to agree ; 
 and in the articles which will follow I hope to give my reasons 
 for dissenting. Regarded as a handbook of the critical fallacies 
 of the modern destructive school, Supernatural Religion well 
 deserves examination. 
 
 For this reason I shall hereafter occupy myself solely with 
 the two latter portions of the work, and more especially with the 
 external evidences of the Gospels ; but there is one point, 
 affecting the main question at issue, which it is impossible to 
 pass over in silence. Anyone who, with the arguments of the 
 first part fresh in his memory, will turn to the final chapter, in 
 which the author gives a confession of faith, must be struck with 
 the startling dislocation between the principles from which the 
 work starts and the manifesto with which it concludes. Our 
 author has eliminated, as he believes, the miraculous or super- 
 natural element from the Gospel. He will have nothing to say 
 to 'Ecclesiastical Christianity,' by which strange phrase is 
 meant the Christianity of the Apostles and Evangelists. He 
 will not even hear of a future life with its hopes and fears'. He 
 will purge the Gospel of all 'dogmas,' and will present it as an 
 ethical system alone. The extreme beauty, I might almost say 
 the absolute perfection, of Christ's moral teaching ^ he not only 
 allows, but insists upon. 'Morality,' he adds, 'was the essence 
 of his system ; theology was an after- thought ^' And yet 
 almost in the same breath he adopts as his 'two fundamental 
 principles. Love to God and love to man.' He commends a 
 'morality based upon the earnest and intelligent acceptance 
 of Divine Law, and perfect recognition of the brotherhood of 
 man,' as 'the highest conceivable by humanity*.' He speaks of 
 the 'purity of heart which alone "sees God^"' He enforces 
 
 1 II. p. 484. * II. p. 487 sq. 
 
 ■^ II. p. 487 sq. •* II. p. 489. 
 
 3 II. p. 486. 
 
28 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 the necessity of 'rising to higher conceptions of an infinitely 
 wise and beneficent Being .... whose laws of wondrous 
 comprehensiveness and perfection we ever perceive in operation 
 around us \' All this is well said, but is it consistent ? This 
 universal 'brotherhood of man,' what is it but a 'dogma' of 
 the most comprehensive application ? This 'Love to God' 
 springing from the apprehension of a 'wondrous perfection,' and 
 the recognition of an 'infinitely wise and beneficent Being,' — 
 in short, this belief in a Heavenly Father, which on any showing 
 was the fundamental axiom of our Lord's teaching, and which 
 our author thus accepts as a cardinal article in his own creed, 
 — what is it but a theological proposition of the most over- 
 whelming import, before which all other 'dogmas' sink into 
 insignificance ? 
 
 And what room, we are forced to ask, has he left for such a 
 dogma ? In the first portion of the work our author has been 
 careful not to define his position. He has studiously avoided 
 committing himself to a belief in a universal Father or a moral 
 Governor, or even in a Personal God. If he had done so, he 
 would have tied his hands at once. Very much of the reasoning 
 which he brings forward against the miraculous element in 
 Christianity in answer to Dr Mozley and Dean Mansel falls to 
 the ground when this proposition is assumed. His arguments 
 prove nothing, because they prove too much : for they are 
 equally efficacious, or equally inefficacious, against the doctrine 
 of a Divine providence or of human responsibility, as they are 
 against the resurrection of Christ. The truth is, that when our 
 author closes his work, he cannot face the conclusions to which 
 his premisses would inevitably lead him. They are too startling 
 for himself, as well as for his readers, in their naked deformity ; 
 and with a noble inconsistency he clutches at these 'dogmas' 
 to save himself from sinking into the abyss of moral scepticism. 
 
 Mr J. S. Mill's inexorable logic may not be without its use, 
 as holding up the mirror to such inconsistency. On his own 
 narrow premisses this eminent logician builds up his own 
 
 1 s. li. II. p. 4yo. 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 29 
 
 narrow conclusions with remorseless rigour. Our author in his 
 first part adopts this same narrow basis, and truly enough finds 
 no resting-place for Christianity upon it, as indeed there is none 
 for any theory of a providential government. But at the 
 conclusion he tacitly and (as it would seem) quite unconsciously 
 assumes a much wider standing-ground. If he had not done so, 
 he himself would have been edged off his footing, and hurled 
 down the precipice. A whole pack of 'pursuing wolves^' is 
 upon him, far more ravenous than any which beset the path of 
 the believers in revelation ; and he has left himself no shelter. 
 If he had commenced by defining what he meant by 'Nature' 
 and 'Supernatural,' he might have avoided this inconsistency, 
 though he must have sacrificed much of his argument to save his 
 creed. As it is, he has unconsciously juggled with two senses of 
 Nature. Nature in the first part, where he is arguing against 
 miracles, is the aggregate of external phenomena — the same 
 Nature against which Mr Mill prefers his terrible indictment for 
 its cruelty and injustice. But Nature in the concluding chapter 
 involves the idea of a moral Governor and a beneficent Father; 
 and this idea can only be introduced by opening flood-gates of 
 thought which refuse to be closed just at the moment when it is 
 necessary to bar the admission of the miraculous. Our author 
 has ranged himself unconsciously with the 'intuitive philo- 
 sophers,' of whom Mr Mill speaks so scornfully. He has 
 appealed, though he does not seem to be aware of it, to the inner 
 consciousness of man, to the instincts and cravings of humanity, 
 to interpret and supplement the teachings of external Nature ; 
 and he is altogether unaware how large a concession he has 
 made to believers in revelation by so doing. 
 
 Even though we should close our eyes to all other con- 
 siderations, it is vain to ignore the inevitable moral conse- 
 quences which flow from this mode of reasoning ; for they are 
 becoming every day more apparent. The demand is made that 
 we should abandon our Christianity on grounds which logically 
 involve the abandonment of any belief in the providential 
 
 1 S. R. I. p. xiv. 
 
30 ON SUPEENATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 government of the world and in the moral responsibility of 
 man. Young men are apt to be far more logical than their 
 elders. Older persons are taught by long experience to distrust 
 the adequacy of their premisses : consciously or unconsciously 
 they supplement the narrow conclusions of their logic by larger 
 lessons learnt from human life or from their own heart. But 
 generally speaking, the young man has no such distrust. His 
 teacher has appealed to Nature, and to Nature he shall go. 
 The teacher becomes frightened, struggles to retrace his steps, 
 and speaks of 'an infinitely wise and beneficent Being'; but 
 the pupil insolently points out how 
 
 Nature, red in tooth and claw, 
 
 With ravin, shrieks against his creed. 
 
 The teacher urges, 'All that is consistent with wise and 
 omnipotent Law is prospered and brought to perfection*:' and 
 the pupil replies : ' You have limited my horizon to this life, 
 and in this life the facts do not verify your statement.' The 
 teacher says, Believe that you — you personally — ' are eternally 
 cared for and governed by an omnipresent immutable power for 
 which nothing is too great, nothing too insignificant ^' The 
 pupil says : ' My Christianity did show me how this was 
 possible ; but with my Christianity I have cast it away as a 
 delusion. I could not stop short at this point consistently with 
 the principles you have laid down for my guidance. I have 
 done as you told me to do ; I have " ratified the fiat which 
 maintains the order of Nature ^" and I find Nature wholly 
 Careless of the single life. 
 
 I will therefore please myself henceforth.' The teacher speaks 
 of ' the purity which alone sees God ; ' and to him the expres- 
 sion has a real meaning, for his mind is unconsciously saturated 
 with ideas which he has certainly not learnt from his adopted 
 philosophy : but to the pupil it has lost its articulate utterance, 
 and is no better than sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. 
 Hence the pupil, having thrown off his Christianity, too often 
 
 1 II. p. 492. 2 ij. p. 492. 3 II, p. 492. 
 
I. INTRODUCTION. 31 
 
 follows out the principles of his teacher to their logical conclu- 
 sions, and divests himself also of moral restraints, except so far 
 as it may be convenient or necessary for him to submit to them. 
 Happily this has not been the case hitherto in the large 
 majority of instances. The permanence of habits formed in a 
 nobler school of teaching, the abiding presence of a loftier ideal 
 not derived from this new philosophy, and (we may add also) 
 the voice of an inward witness whose authority is denied, but 
 whose warnings nevertheless compel a hearing, all tend to 
 raise the level of men's conduct above their principles. The 
 full moral consequences of the teaching would only then be 
 seen, if ever a generation should grow up, moulded altogether 
 under its influences. 
 
II. The Silence of Eusebius. 
 [January, 1875.] 
 
 ' "FT is very important/ says the author of Supernatural Reli- 
 -*- gion, when commencing his critical investigations, 'that 
 the silence of early writers should receive as much attention as 
 any supposed allusions to the Gospels \' In the present article 
 I shall act upon this suggestion. In one province more 
 especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, 
 silence occupies a prominent place. This mysterious oracle will 
 be interrogated, and, unless I am mistaken, the response elicited 
 will not be at all ambiguous. 
 
 To Eusebius we are indebted for almost all that we know 
 of the lost ecclesiastical literature of the second century. This 
 literature was very considerable. The Expositions of Papias, in 
 five books, and the Ecclesiastical History of Hegesippus, like- 
 wise in five books, must have been full of important matter 
 bearing on our subject. The very numerous works of Melito 
 and Claudius ApoUinaris, of which Eusebius has preserved 
 imperfect lists ^ ranged over the wide domain of theology, of 
 morals, of exegesis, of apologetics, of ecclesiastical order; and 
 here again a flood of light would probably have been poured on 
 
 1 I. p. 212. The references through- alterations from the second, with which 
 
 out this article are given to the fourth I have compared it in all the passages 
 
 edition. But, with the single exception here quoted, 
 which I shall have occasion to notice - Euseb. H. E. iv. 26, 27. 
 
 at the close, I have not observed any 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 33 
 
 the history of the Canon, if time had spared these precious 
 documents of Christian antiquity. Even the extant writings of 
 the second century, however important they may be from other 
 points of view, give a very inadequate idea of the relation of 
 their respective authors to the Canonical writings. In the case 
 of Justin Martyr for instance, it is not from his Apologies or 
 from his Dialogue with Trypho that we should expect to obtain 
 the fullest and most direct information on this point. In works 
 like these, addressed to Heathens and Jews, who attributed no 
 authority to the writings of Apostles and Evangelists, and for 
 whom the names of the writers would have no meaning, we are 
 not surprised that he refers to those writings for the most part 
 anonymously and with reserve. On the other hand, if his 
 treatise against Marcion (to take a single instance) had been 
 preserved, we should probably have been placed in a position to 
 estimate with tolerable accuracy his relation to the Canonical 
 writings. But in the absence of all this valuable literature, the 
 notices in Eusebius assume the utmost importance, and it is of 
 primary moment to the correctness of our result that we should 
 rightly interpret his language. Above all, it is incumbent on 
 us not to assume that his silence means exactly what we wish 
 it to mean. Eusebius made it his business to record notices 
 throwing light on the history of the Canon. The first care of the 
 critic therefore should be to inquire with what aims and under 
 what limitations he executed this portion of his work. 
 
 Now, our author is eloquent on the silence of Eusebius. 
 His fundamental assumption is that where Eusebius does not 
 mention a reference to or quotation from any Canonical book in 
 any writer of whom he may be speaking, there the writer in 
 question was himself silent. This indeed is only the application 
 of a general principle which seems to have taken possession of 
 our author's mind. The argument from silence is courageously 
 and extensively applied throughout these volumes. It is 
 unnecessary to accumulate instances, where ' knows nothing ' is 
 substituted for 'says nothing,' as if the two were convertible 
 terms ; for such instances are countless. But in the case of 
 s. R. 3 
 
34 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Eusebius the application of the principle takes a wider sweep. 
 Not only is it maintained that A knows nothing of B, because 
 he says nothing of B ; but it is further assumed that A knows 
 nothing of B, because C does not say that A says anything of B. 
 This is obviously an assumption which men would not adopt in 
 common life or in ordinary history ; still less is it one to which 
 a competent jury would listen for a moment : and therefore a 
 prudent man may well hesitate before adopting it. 
 
 With what unflinching boldness our author asserts his 
 position, will appear from the following passages : — 
 
 Of Hegesippus he writes ^ : — 
 
 'The care with which Eusebius searches for every trace of the 
 use of the books of the New Testament in early writers, and his 
 anxiety to produce any evidence concerning their authenticity, render 
 his silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct utter- 
 ance when speaking of such a man as Hegesippus.' 
 
 And again '^ : — 
 
 'It is certain that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the 
 testimony of Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly, regard- 
 ing the Gospels and the Apocalypse^, would not have neglected to 
 have availed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus, for wliom 
 he has so much respect, had that writer furnished him with any 
 opportunity.' 
 
 1 8. R. I. p. 432. third (ii. p. 335) : ' Andrew of Cffisarea, 
 
 ^ I. p. 433 sq. I must leave it to in the preface to his Commentary on 
 
 others to reconcile the statement re- the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias 
 
 specting the Apocalypse in the text maintained 'the credibiUty' (Tdd^ciTrttr- 
 
 with another which I find elsewhere in tov) of that book, or in other words, its 
 
 this work (i. p. 483) : ' Andrew, a Apostolic origin. . . . Apologists 
 
 Cappadocian bishop of the fifth century, admit the genmneness of this statement, 
 
 mentions that Papias, amongst others nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of 
 
 of the Fathers, considered the Apoca- the acquaintance of Papias with the 
 
 lypse inspired. No reference is made Apocalypse. . . . Now he must 
 
 to this by Eusebius; but although, therefore have recognised the book as 
 
 from his Millenarian tendencies, it is the work of the Apostle John.' The 
 
 very probable that Papias regarded the italics, I ought to say, are my own, in 
 
 Apocalypse with peculiar veneration as all the three passages quoted, 
 
 a prophetic book, this evidence is too ^ ['regarding the composition of the 
 
 vagtie and isolated to be of much value.' first two Gospels' ed. 6 (i. p. 433). 
 
 The difficulty is increased when we The error is acknowledged in the 
 
 compare these two passages with a preface to that edition (p. xxi).] 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 35 
 
 And again': — 'As Hegesippus does not^ mention any 
 Canonical work of the New Testament etc' And in the second 
 volume he returns to the subject': — 
 
 'It is certain that, had he (Hegesippus) mentioned^ our Gospels, 
 and we may say particularly the Fourth, the fact would have been 
 recorded by Eusebius.' 
 
 Similarly he says of Papias^ : — 
 
 'Eusebius, who never fails to enumerate® the works of the New 
 Testament to which the Fathers refer, does not pretend^ that Papias 
 knew either the Third or Fourth Gospels.' 
 
 And again, in a later passage ^ : — 
 
 * Had he (Papias) expressed any recognition" of the Fourth 
 Gospel, Eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact, and this 
 silence of Papias is strong presumptive evidence against the Johan- 
 nine Gospel.' 
 
 And a little lower down'" : — 
 
 'The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not 
 mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth Gospel 
 in the work of Papias".' 
 
 So again, our author writes of Dionysius of Corinth*^ : — 
 
 ' No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New Testa- 
 ment occurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles still extant; nor 
 does Eusebius make mention of any such reference in the Epistles 
 which have perished '^, which he certainly would not have omitted to 
 do had they contained any.' 
 
 ^ I. p. 435. ^ [' said anything regarding the 
 
 * [' so far as we know ' inserted in composition or authorship ' ed. 6.] 
 ed. 6.] 10 n. p. 323. 
 
 3 n. p. 320. " [So also ed. 6. In the Complete 
 
 * [ 'said anything interesting about ' Edition (n. p. 321) the sentence ends 
 Complete Edition (ii. p. 318).] ' did not find anything regarding the 
 
 ° I. p. 483, Fourth Gospel in the work of Papias, 
 
 " [' to state what the Fathers say and that Papias was not acquainted 
 
 about ' ed. 6. On the ambiguity of with it.'] 
 
 this expression see below, p. 183 sq. i^ „_ p_ i64. 
 
 7 [' mention' ed. 6.] i^ [In ed. 6 the sentence ends here.] 
 
 8 II. p. 322. 
 
 3—2 
 
36 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 And lower down^ : — 
 
 'It is certain that had Dioiiysius mentioned^ books of the New 
 Testament, Eusebius would, as usual, have stated the fact.' 
 
 This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the 
 basis of his reasoning ; and the reader will not need to be 
 reminded how much of the argument falls to pieces, if this 
 basis should prove to be unsound. A wise master-builder 
 would therefore have looked to his foundations first, and assured 
 himself of their strength, before he piled up his fabric to this 
 height. This however our author has altogether neglected to do. 
 If only a small portion of the time which has been spent on 
 amassing references to modern German and Dutch critics had 
 been bestowed on investigating what Eusebius himself says and 
 what he leaves unsaid, the result, it can hardly be doubted, 
 would have been very different. 
 
 Of this principle and its wide application, as we have seen, 
 the author has no misgivings. He declares himself absolutely 
 certain about it. It is with him articulus stantis aut cadentis 
 critices. We shall therefore do well to test its value, because, 
 quite independently of the consequences directly flowing from it, 
 it will serve roughly to gauge his trustworthiness as a guide in 
 other departments of criticism, where, from the nature of the 
 case, no test can be applied. In the land of the unverifiable 
 there are no efficient critical police. When a writer expatiates 
 amidst conjectural quotations from conjectural apocryphal 
 Gospels, he is beyond the reach of refutation. But in the 
 present case, as it so happens, verification is possible, at least to 
 a limited extent ; and it is important to avail ourselves of the 
 opportunity. 
 
 In the first place then, Eusebius himself tells us what 
 method he intends to pursue respecting the Canon of Scripture. 
 After enumerating the writings bearing the name of St Peter, 
 as follows ; — (1) The First Epistle, which is received by all, and 
 was quoted by the ancients as beyond dispute ; (2) The Second 
 
 ^ II. p. 166. whole sentence is omitted in the Com- 
 
 2 ['said anything about' ed. 6. The plete Edition.] 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 37 
 
 Epistle, which tradition had not stamped in the same way as 
 Canonical (ivBtd07]Kov, 'included in the Testament'), but which 
 nevertheless, appearing useful to many, had been studied 
 (io-TrovSaa-Orj) with the other Scriptures ; (3) The Acts, Gospel, 
 Preaching, and Apocalypse of Peter, which four works he rejects 
 as altogether unauthenticated and discredited — he continues^: — 
 
 ' But, as my history proceeds, I will take care (irpovpyov ttoojo-o- 
 fiai), along with the successions (of the bishops), to indicate what 
 Church writers (who flourished) from time to time have made use of 
 any of the disputed books (avrtXeyo/^eVwi/), and what has been said 
 by them concerning the Canonical (ivSiaOiJKiav) and acknowledged 
 Scriptures, and anything that (they have said) concerning those 
 which do not belong to this class. Well, then, the books bearing 
 the name of Peter, of which I recognise (eyvoiv) one Epistle only as 
 genuine and acknowledged among the elders of former days (Tra'Aai), 
 are those just enumerated (roo-avra). But the fourteen Epistles of 
 Paul are obvious and manifest (TrpoSrjXoL koI cra^eis). Yet it is not 
 right to be ignorant of the fact that some persons have rejected the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was disputed by the Church 
 of the Romans as not being Paul's. And I will set before (my 
 readers) on the proper occasions (Kara Katpov) what has been said 
 concerning this (Epistle) also by those who lived before our time (rots 
 vpo ly/Awv).' 
 
 He then mentions the Acts of Paul, which he ' had not 
 received as handed down among the undisputed books,' and the 
 Shepherd of Hernias, which ' had been spoken against by some' 
 and therefore ' could have no place among the acknowledged 
 books,' though it had been read in churches and was used by 
 some of the most ancient writers. And he concludes : — 
 
 1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 3. The impor- of anecdotes in the case of acknow- 
 
 tant words are rtves twc Kara xp(>vov% ledged and disputed writings alike. The 
 
 iKKXTjaiacrTLKuv <Tvyypa<peu}v owoiais Ki- double relative in the first clause, rlyes 
 
 XPV^Ta.L Ti2v dvTtXeyofj.ivui', rlua re ...biroiaLs, is incapable of literal trans - 
 
 irepl tQv eydiadriKwv /cat ofioXoyov/xivwv lation in English; but this does not 
 
 ypatpQv Kcd 8<ra irepl tQv firi toioijtuv affect the question. The two modes are 
 
 avroh etp-qrai. The words spaced will well illustrated in the case of Irenjeus. 
 
 show the two diiJerent modes of treat- Eusebius gives from this Father testi- 
 
 ment ; (1) The mention of references monies to the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 
 or testimonies in the case of the dis- etc., and anecdotea respecting the Gos- 
 
 puted writings only ; (2) The record pel and Apocalypse alike. 
 
38 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 ' Let this suffice as a statement (cis Trapacnacnv . . . elptjaOw) 
 of those Divine writings which are unquestionable, and those which 
 are not acknowledged among all.' 
 
 This statement, though not so clear on minor points as we 
 could wish, is thoroughly sensible and quite intelligible in its 
 main lines. It shows an appreciation of the conditions of the 
 problem. Above all, it is essentially straightforward. It certainly 
 does not evince the precision of a lawyer, but neither on the 
 other hand does it at all justify the unqualified denunciations 
 of the uncritical character of Eusebius in which our author 
 indulges. The exact limits of the Canon were not settled when 
 Eusebius wrote. With regard to the main body of the writings 
 included in our New Testament there was absolutely no question; 
 but there existed a margin of antilegomena or disputed books, 
 about which differences of opinion existed, or had existed. 
 Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings 
 in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage. 
 Of the antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any 
 ancient writer employs any book belonging to their class (rtVe? 
 oiroiai'i Ke')(^privrai); but as regards the undisputed Canonical 
 books he only professes to mention them, when such a writer 
 has something to tell about them {rlva irepX twv evhiaOrjKwv 
 elprjTai). Any anecdote of interest respecting them, as also 
 respecting the others {twv firj toiovtmv), will be recorded. But 
 in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will allude 
 to mere quotations, however numerous and however precise \ 
 
 This statement is inserted after the record of the martyrdom 
 of St Peter and St Paul, and has immediate and special 
 reference to their writings. The Shepherd of Hermas is only 
 mentioned incidentally, because (as Eusebius himself intimates) 
 the author was supposed to be named in the Epistle to the 
 Romans. But the occasion serves as an opportunity for the 
 historian to lay down the general principles on which he intends 
 to act. Somewhat later, when he arrives at the history of the 
 
 ^ [Quoted by S. R. ed. 6, p. xiv. below, p. 178 sq.] 
 Tor his criticism upon this Essay see 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 39 
 
 last years of St John, he is led to speak of the writings of this 
 Apostle also; and as St John's Gospel completes the tetrad of 
 Evangelical narratives, he inserts at this point his account of 
 the Four Gospels. This account concludes as follows^ : — 
 
 'Thus much (ravra) we ourselves (have to say) concerning 
 these (the Four Gospels) ; but we will endeavour more particularly 
 (oLKeLOTepov) on the proper occasions (Kara Katpov) by quoting the 
 ancient writers to set forth what has been said by anyone else (tois 
 aXXots) also concerning them. Now, of the writings of John, the 
 first (former, Trporepa) of his Epistles also is acknowledged as beyond 
 question alike among our contemporaries (rots vvv) and among the 
 ancients, while the remaining two are disputed. But respecting the 
 Apocalypse opinions are drawn in opposite directions, even to the 
 present day, among most men (Tot? ttoXXois). Howbeit it also 
 shall receive its judgment (iirUpuTiv) at a proper season from the 
 testimonies of the ancients.' 
 
 After this follows the well-known passage in which he sums 
 up the results at which he has arrived respecting the Canon. 
 With this passage, important as it is in itself, I need not 
 trouble my readers. 
 
 Here again it will be seen that the same distinction as 
 before is observed. Of the Gospels the historian will only 
 record anecdotes concerning them. On the other hand, in the 
 case of the Apocalypse mere references and quotations will be 
 mentioned, because they afford important data for arriving at 
 a decision concerning its Canonical authority. 
 
 Hitherto we have discovered no foundation for the super- 
 structure which our author builds on the silence of Eusebius. 
 But the real question, after all, is not what this historian pro- 
 fesses to do, but what he actually does. The original prospectus 
 is of small moment compared with the actual balance-sheet, and 
 in this case time has spared us the means of instituting an audit 
 to a limited extent. With Papias and Hegesippus and Diony- 
 sius of Corinth, any one is free to indulge in sweeping assertions 
 with little fear of conviction; for we know nothing, or next to 
 nothing, of these writers, except what Eusebius himself has 
 
 1 H. E. iii. 24. 
 
40 ON SUPEKNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 told us. But Eusebius has also dealt with other ancient 
 writings in relation to the Canon, as, for instance, those of 
 Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of Polycarp, of Irenseus, and 
 others ; and, as these writings are still extant, we can compare 
 their actual contents with his notices. Here a definite issue is 
 raised. If our author's principle will stand this test, there is a 
 very strong presumption in its favour ; if it will not, then it is 
 worthless. 
 
 Let us take first the Epistle of Clement of Rome. This 
 Epistle contains several references to Evangelical narratives — 
 whether oral or written, whether our Canonical Gospels or not, 
 it is unnecessary for the present to discuss \ It comprises a 
 chapter relating to the labours and martyrdom of St Peter and 
 St Paul I It also, as our author himself allows (accepting the 
 statement of Tischendorf), 'here and there . , . makes use of 
 passages from Pauline Epistlesl' It does more than this; it 
 mentions definitely and by name St Paul's First Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, alluding to the parties which called themselves 
 after Paul and Cephas and Apollos*. Of all this Eusebius says 
 not a word. He simply remarks that Clement, by 
 
 ' putting forward (Trapa^ets) many thoughts of the (Epistle) to the 
 Hebrews, and even employing some passages from it word for word 
 (avToXe^et), shows most clearly that the document (avyypaixjxa) was 
 not recent (when he wrote)*.' 
 
 This is strictly true, as far as it goes ; the passages are too 
 
 1 See Lardner Credibility ii. p. 35 I refer, of course, to the quotations in 
 
 sq (1835). For the sake of econo- the Gnostic fragments preserved by 
 
 mising space I shall refer from time to Hippolytus, and in the Clementine 
 
 time to this work, in which the testi- Homilies, 
 monies of ancient writers are collected - Clem. Eom. 5. 
 
 and translated, so that they are acces- ^ S. R. i. p. 223. 
 
 sible to English readers. Any one, * Clem. Rom. 47. ' Take up the 
 
 whose ideas have been confused by Epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle, 
 
 reading Supernatural Religion, cannot What first did he write to you in the 
 
 fail to obtain a clearer view of the real beginning of the Gospel ? Of a truth he 
 
 state of the case by referring to this gave injunctions to you in the Spirit 
 
 book. It must be remembered, how- (irvev/jiaTiKus) concerning hunself and 
 
 ever, that recent discovery has added Cephas and ApoUos, because even then 
 
 to the amount of evidence, more especi- ye had made parties [TrpoaKXlaeis).' 
 ally in reference to the Fourth Gospel. ^ Euseb. II. E. iii. 37. 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 41 
 
 many and too close to leave any doubt about their source ; but 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews is not directly named, as the Epistle 
 to the Corinthians is. 
 
 The Ignatian Epistles deserve to be considered next. 
 The question of their genuineness does not affect the present 
 inquiry ; for the seven letters contained in what is commonly 
 called the Short Greek recension, whether spurious or not, were 
 confessedly the same which Eusebius read ; and to these I 
 refer. For the sake of convenience I shall call the writer 
 Ignatius, without prejudging the question of authorship. 
 Ignatius then presents some striking coincidences with our 
 Synoptic Gospels (whether taken thence or not, I need not at 
 present stop to inquire), e.g. ' Be thou wise as a serpent in all 
 things, and harmless always as a dove V ' The tree is manifest 
 by its fruit ^' 'He that receiveth, let him received' He 
 likewise echoes the language of St John, e.g. 'It (the Spirit) 
 knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth V ' Jesus Christ 
 
 in all things pleased Him that sent HimV with other 
 
 expressions. He also refers to the examples of St Peter and 
 St Paul^ He describes the Apostle of the Gentiles as ' making 
 mention of the Ephesians 'in every part of his letter' (or 'in 
 every letter' '). These letters moreover contain several passages 
 which are indisputable reminiscences of St Paul's Epistles I 
 Yet of all this Eusebius says not a word. All the information 
 which he gives respecting the relation of Ignatius to the Canon 
 is contained in this one sentence " : — 
 
 ' Writing to the Smyrnseans, he has employed expressions 
 (taken) I know not whence, recording as follows concerning 
 Christ :— 
 
 "And I myself know and believe that He exists in the flesh 
 after the resurrection. And when He came to Peter and those with 
 him (Trpos tous TTe.pl Ylirpov), He said unto them, ' Take hold, feel 
 me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit ' [literally, 
 
 1 Polyc. 2 ; comp. Matt. x. 16. ^ Rom. 4. 
 
 2 Ephes. 14 ; comp. Matt. xii. 33. ^ Exihes.^ 12. 
 
 3 Smyrn. 6 ; comp. Matt. xix. 12. ^ See Lardner ii. p. 78 sq for the 
 
 * Phllad. 7 ; comp. John iii. 8. testimonies in Ignatius generally. 
 
 * Magn. 8 ; comp. John viii. 29. » Euseb. H. E. iii, 36. 
 
42 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 ' demon,' Sat/xovLov ao-w/xarov] ; and immediately they touched Him, 
 and believed." ' 
 
 It should be added that, though Eusebius does not know the 
 source of this reference, Jerome states that it came from the 
 Gospel of the Hebrews\ 
 
 Now let us suppose that these Epistles were no longer 
 extant, and that we interpreted the silence of Eusebius on the 
 same principle which our author applies to Papias and 
 Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth. ' Here,' we should say, 
 ' is clearly a Judaising Christian — an Ebionite of the deepest 
 hue. He recognises St Peter as his great authority. He 
 altogether ignores St Paul. He knows nothing of our Canoni- 
 cal Gospels, and he uses exclusively the Gospel of the Hebrews. 
 Thus we have a new confirmation of the Tiibingen theory 
 respecting the origin of the Christian Church. The thing is 
 obvious to any impartial mind. Apologetic writers must 
 indeed be driven to straits if they attempt to impugn this 
 result.' It so happens that this estimate of Ignatius would be 
 hopelessly wrong. ' He appeals to St Paul as his great example '. 
 His Christology is wholly unlike the Ebionite, for he distinctly 
 declares the perfect deity as well as the perfect humanity of 
 Christ". And he denounces the Judaisers at length and by 
 name*. What then is the value of a principle which, when 
 applied in a simple case, leads to conclusions diametrically 
 opposed to historical facts ? 
 
 From Ignatius we pass to Polycarp. Here again the 
 genuineness of the Epistle bearing this Father's name does not 
 affect the question; for it is confessedly the same document 
 which Eusebius had before him. In Poly carp's Epistle^ also 
 there are several coincidences with our Gospels. There is 
 a hardly disputable embodiment of words occurring in the Acts. 
 There are two or three references to St Paul by name. Once 
 he is directly mentioned as writing to the Philippians. There 
 
 1 De Vir. Illustr. c. 16. * Magn. 8—10 ; comp. Philad. 6. 
 
 2 Ephes. 12 ; comp. Rom. 4. ^ See Lardner ii. p. 99 sq for the 
 
 3 Ephes. 7 ; comp. Ephes. 1, Fohjc. passages. 
 3, Eom. 6 etc. 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS, 43 
 
 are obvious quotations from or reminiscences of Romans, 1, 2 
 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, 
 not to mention other more doubtful coincidences. Of all this 
 again Eusebius ' knows nothing.' So far as regards the Canon, 
 he does not think it necessary to say more than that ' Polycarp 
 in his aforesaid {hrfKwOelarj) writing (ypacf)^) to the Philippians, 
 which is in circulation ((pepofievt]) to the present day, has used 
 certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of Peter \' 
 Here again, we might say, is a Judaiser, the very counterpart 
 of Papias. This inference indeed would be partially, though 
 only partially, corrected by the fact that Eusebius in an earlier 
 place ^, to illustrate his account of Ignatius, quotes from Poly- 
 carp's Epistle a passage in which St Paul's name happens to be 
 mentioned. But this mention (so far as regards the matter 
 before us) is purely accidental; and the sentence relating to the 
 Canon entirely ignores the Apostle of the Gentiles, with whose 
 thoughts and language nevertheless this Epistle is saturated. 
 
 When we turn from Polycarp to Justin Martyr, the 
 phenomena are similar. This Father introduces into his extant 
 writings a large number of Evangelical passages. A few of 
 these coincide exactly with our Canonical Gospels; a much 
 larger number have so close a resemblance that, without 
 referring to the actual text of our Gospels, the variations would 
 not be detected by an ordinary reader. Justin Martyr professes 
 to derive these sayings and doings from written documents, 
 which he styles Memoirs of the Apostles, and which (he tells 
 his heathen readers) 'are called Gospels'.' His expressions 
 and arguments moreover in some passages recall the language 
 of St Paul's Epistles*. Of all this again Eusebius ' knows 
 nothing.' So far as regards the Canon of the New Testament, 
 he contents himself with stating that Justin ' has made 
 mention (/jLe/j,v7]Tai) of the Apocalypse of John, clearly saying 
 that it is (the work) of the Apostle®.' 
 
 His mode of dealing with Theophilus of Antioch is still 
 
 1 H. E. iv. 14. 2 H^ E. iii. 36. =» i. Apol. 66. 
 
 * See Scmisch Justin Martyr u ^ H. E. iv. 18. 
 
44 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 more instructive. Among the writings of this Father, he men- 
 tions one work addressed To Autolycus, and another Against the 
 Heresy of Hermogenes^. The first is extant: not so the other. 
 In the extant work Theophilus introduces the unmistakeable 
 language of Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 
 1 Timothy, Titus, not to mention points of resemblance with 
 other Apostolic Epistles which can hardly have been accidental ^ 
 He has one or two coincidences with the Synoptic Gospels, and, 
 what is more important, he quotes the beginning of the Fourth 
 Gospel by name, as follows' : — 
 
 ' Whence the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired men [irvcvfxa- 
 TOffiopoi) teach us, one of whom, John, says, " In the beginning was 
 the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at the first 
 (iv TrpcoTois) God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, 
 "And the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and 
 without Him was not anything made.'" 
 
 This quotation is direct and precise. Indeed even the most 
 suspicious and sceptical critics have not questioned the ade- 
 quacy of the reference*. It is moreover the more conspicuous, 
 because it is the one solitary instance in which Theophilus 
 quotes directly and by name any book of the New Testament. 
 Here again Eusebius is altogether silent. But of the treatise 
 no longer extant he writes, that in it ' he (Theophilus) has 
 used testimonies from the Apocalypse of John^' This is all 
 the information which he vouchsafes respecting the relation of 
 Theophilus to the Canon. 
 
 One example more must suffice. Iren^us'' in his extant 
 work on heresies quotes the Acts again and again, and directly 
 ascribes it to St Luke. He likewise cites twelve out of the 
 thirteen Epistles of St Paul, the exception being the short 
 letter to Philemon. These twelve he directly ascribes to the 
 Apostle in one place or another, and with the exception of 
 1 Timothy and Titus he gives the names of the persons 
 addressed ; so that the identification is complete. The list of 
 
 1 H. E. iv. 24. " LarJner ii. p. 208 sq. ^ ^^ Autol. ii. 22. 
 
 * S. R. II. p. 474. 5 jf . ^i. iv. 24. ^ Lardner ii. p. 175 sq. 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 45 
 
 references to St Paul's Epistles alone occupies two octavo pages 
 of three columns each in the index to Stieren's Irenceus. Yet 
 of all this Eusebius 'knows nothing.' In a previous chapter 
 indeed he happens to have quoted a passage from Irenseus, 
 relating to the succession of the Roman bishops, in which this 
 Father states that Linus is mentioned by St Paul 'in the 
 Epistle to Timothy* ;' but the passage relating to the Canon 
 contains no hint that Irenseus recognised the existence of any 
 one of St Paul's Epistles ; and from first to last there is no 
 mention of the Acts. The language of Eusebius here is highly 
 characteristic as illustrating his purpose and method. He 
 commences the chapter by referring back to his original design, 
 as follows^ : — 
 
 ' Since, at the commencement of our treatise, we have made a 
 promise, saying that we should adduce at the proper opportunities 
 the utterances of the ancient elders and writers of the Church, in 
 which they have handed down in writing the traditions that I'eached 
 them concerning the Canonical {IvhiaOrjKWiv) writings, and Irenseus 
 was one of these, let me now adduce his notices also, and first those 
 relating to the sacred Gospels, as follows.' 
 
 He then quotes a short passage from the third book, giving 
 the circumstances under which the Four Gospels were written. 
 Then follow two quotations from the well-known passage in the 
 fifth book, in which Irenseus mentions the date and authorship 
 of the Apocalypse, and refers to the number of the beast. 
 Eusebius then proceeds : — 
 
 ' This is the account given by the above-named writer respecting 
 the Apocalypse also. And he has made mention too of the First 
 Epistle of John, adducing very many testimonies out of it ; and like- 
 wise also of the First (former) Epistle of Peter. And he not only 
 knows, but even receives the writing of the ' Shepherd,' saying, ' Well 
 then spake the writing ' [or ' scripture,' -q ypatfi-q] ' which says, " First 
 of all believe that God is One, even He that created all things ;" ' and 
 so forth.' 
 
 This is all the information respecting the Canon of the New 
 
 1 H. E. V. 6. 2 H^ E. V. 8, 
 
46 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Testament which he adduces from the great work of Irenseus. 
 In a much later passage', however, he has occasion to name other 
 works of this Father no longer extant ; and of one of these he 
 remarks that in it 'he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, adducing certain passages 
 from them.' 
 
 From these examples, combined with his own prefatory 
 statements, we feel justified in laying down the following canons 
 as ruling the procedure of Eusebius : — 
 
 (1) His main object was to give such information as might 
 assist in forming correct views respecting the Canon of Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 (2) This being so, he was indifferent to any quotations or 
 references which went towards establishing the canonicity of 
 those books which had never been disputed in the Church. 
 Even when the quotation was direct and by name, it had no 
 value for him. 
 
 (3) To this class belonged (i) the Four Gospels ; (ii) the 
 Acts ; (iii) the thirteen Epistles of St Paul. 
 
 (4) As regards these, he contents himself with preserving 
 any anecdotes which he may have found illustrating the 
 circumstances under which they were written, e.g. the notices of 
 St Matthew and St Mark in Papias, and of the Four Gospels in 
 Irenseus. 
 
 (5) The Catholic Epistles lie on the border-land between 
 the Homologumena and the Antilegoniena, between the uni- 
 versally acknowledged and the disputed books. Of the Epistles 
 of St John for instance, the First belonged to the one class, the 
 Second and Third to the other. Of the Epistles of St Peter 
 again, the First was acknowledged, the Second disputed. The 
 Catholic Epistles in fact occupy an exceptional position. 
 
 Respecting his treatment of this section of the Canon he is 
 not explicit in his opening statement, and we have to infer it 
 from his subsequent procedure. As this however is uniform, we 
 seem able to determine with tolerable certainty the principle on 
 
 1 H. E. V. 26. 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 47 
 
 which he acts. He subjects all the books belonging to this 
 section to the same law. For instance, he mentions any 
 references to 1 John and 1 Peter {e.g. in Papias, Polycarp, and 
 Irenaeus), though in the Church no doubt was ever entertained 
 about their genuineness and authority. He may have thought 
 that this mention would conduce to a just estimate of the 
 meaning of silence in the case of disputed Epistles, as 2 Peter 
 and 2, 3 John. 
 
 (6) The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse still 
 remain to be considered. Their claim to a place in the Canon is, 
 or has been, disputed : and therefore he records every decisive 
 notice respecting either of them, e.g. the quotations from the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews in Clement of Rome and Irenaeus, and 
 the notices of the Apocalypse in Justin and Melito^ and 
 Apollonius^ and Theophilus and Irenseus. So too, he records 
 any testimony, direct or indirect, bearing the other way, e.g. 
 that the Roman presbyter Gains mentions only thirteen Epistles 
 of St Paul, ' not reckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews with the 
 restV 
 
 (7) With regard to the books which lie altogether outside 
 the Canon, but which were treated as Scripture, or quasi- 
 scripture, by any earlier Church writer, he makes it his business 
 to record the fact. Thus he mentions the one quotation in 
 Irenaeus from the Shepherd of Hermas ; he states that Hege- 
 sippus employs the Gospel according to the Hebrews; he records 
 that Clement of Alexandria in the Stromateis has made use of 
 the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and in the Hypotyposeis 
 has commented on the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called 
 Apocalypse of Peter*. 
 
 It will have appeared from the above account, if I mistake 
 not, that his treatment of this subject is essentially frank. 
 There is no indication of a desire to make out a case for those 
 writings which he and his contemporaries received as Canonical, 
 against those which they rejected. The Shepherd of Hermas is 
 
 1 H. E. iv. 26. * H. E. vi. 20. 
 
 2 H. E. V. 18. * H. E. vi. 13, 14. 
 
48 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 somewhere about two-thirds the length of the whole body of the 
 thirteen Epistles of St Paul. He singles out the one isolated 
 passage from Hermas in Irenasus, though it is quoted anony- 
 mously ; and he says nothing about the quotations from St Paul, 
 though they exceed two hundred in number, and are very 
 frequently cited by name. 
 
 It is necessary however, not only to investigate his principles, 
 but also to ascertain how far his application of these principles 
 can be depended upon. And here the facts justify us in laying 
 down the following rules for our guidance : — 
 
 (i) As regards the anecdotes containing information relating 
 to the books of the New Testament he restricts himself to the 
 narrowest limits which justice to his subject will allow. His 
 treatment of Irenseus makes this point clear. Though he gives 
 the principal passage in this author relating to the Four 
 Gospels*, he omits to mention others which contain interesting 
 statements directly or indirectly affecting the question, e.g. that 
 St John wrote his Gospel to counteract the errors of Cerinthus 
 and the Nicolaitans^ Thus too, when he quotes a few lines 
 alluding to the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic elders who 
 were acquainted with St John^, he omits the context, from 
 which we find that this tradition had an important bearing on 
 the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, for it declared that 
 Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus 
 confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel 
 against the apparent chronology of the Synoptists. 
 
 (ii) As regards the quotations and references the case 
 stands thus. When Eusebius speaks of ' testimonies'^ in any 
 ancient writer taken from a Scriptural book, we cannot indeed 
 be sure that the quotations were direct and by name (this was 
 certainly not the case in some), but we may fairly assume that 
 they were definite enough, or numerous enough, or both, to 
 satisfy even a sceptical critic of the modern school. This is the 
 case, for instance, with the quotations from the Epistle to the 
 
 1 Iren. iii. 1. 1. ^ Iren. ii. 25, cited in Euseb. H. E. 
 
 2 Iren. iii. 11. 1. iii. 23. 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 49 
 
 Hebrews in Clement of Rome, and those from the First Epistle 
 of St Peter in Polycarp. In no instance which we can test does 
 Eusehius give a doubtful testimony. On the other hand he 
 omits several which might fairly be alleged, and have been 
 alleged by modern writers, as, for instance, the coincidence with 
 1 John in Polycarp \ He may have passed them over through 
 inadvertence, or he may not have considered them decisive. 
 
 I am quite aware that our author states the case differently ; 
 but I am unable to reconcile his language with the facts. He 
 writes as follows^ : — 
 
 ' He (Eusebius) states however, that Papias " made use of testi- 
 monies from the First Epistle of John, and likewise from that of 
 Peter." As Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages from 
 Papias, we must remain in doubt whether he did not, as else- 
 where, assume from some similarity of wording that the passages 
 were quotations from these Epistles, whilst in reality they might 
 not be. Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to a supposed 
 quotation in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^) upon very insufficient 
 grounds ^' 
 
 For the statement ' as elsewhere ' our author has given no 
 authority, and I am not aware of any. 
 
 The note to which the number in the text '^' refers is ' Ad 
 Phil, vii.; Euseb. H. E. iv. 14.' 
 
 I cannot help thinking there is some confusion here. The 
 passage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note 
 relates how Polycarp ' has employed certain testimonies from 
 the First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, 
 to which he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle of 
 St John, which has been alleged by modern writers, but is not 
 alleged by Eusebius. This same chapter, it is true, contains the 
 words ' Watch unto prayer,' which present a coincidence with 
 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this one 
 
 1 Polyc. Phil. 7. In the Complete Edition (1879) the 
 
 2 S. R. I. p. 483. words ' as elsewhere ' still remain. The 
 
 3 [The author's mode of dealing last sentence however, which survived 
 with this passage in his later editions ed. 6, is at length withdrawn, and with 
 is commented upon below, p. 191 sq. it the offending note.] 
 
 S. R. 4 
 
50 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 expression : the strong and unquestionable coincidences are 
 elsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single ' supposed 
 quotation,' whereas the quotations from 1 Peter in Polycarp 
 are numerous. Thus in c. 1 we have 'In whom, not having 
 seen, ye believe, and believing ye rejoice with joy unspeakable 
 and full of glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 8 : in c. 2, ' Girding up your 
 loins,' from 1 Pet. i. 13 (comp. Ephes. vi. 14); 'Having 
 believed on Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from 
 the dead and gave Him glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 21 ; ' Not render- 
 ing evil for evil, or railing for railing,' from 1 Pet. iii. 9 : in c. 
 5, ' Every lust warreth against the Spirit,' from 1 Pet. ii. 11 : 
 in c. 8, ' Who bore our sins with His own body (rw ISlff crco/xari) 
 on the tree,' from 1 Pet. ii. 24 ; ' Who did no sin, neither was 
 guile found in His mouth,' from 1 Pet. ii. 22 : in c. 10, ' Lovers 
 of the brotherhood,' from 1 Pet. ii. 17 ; 'Be ye all subject one 
 to another,' from 1 Pet. v. 5 ; ' Having your conversation un- 
 blamable among the Gentiles, that from your good works both 
 ye may receive praise, and the Lord may not be evil spoken of 
 in you,' from 1 Pet. ii. 12 (comp. iv. 14 in the received text). 
 I am quite at a loss to conceive how any one can speak of these 
 numerous and close coincidences as ' very insufficient grounds.' 
 And though our author elsewhere, as, for instance, in the quota- 
 tions from the Fourth Gospel in Tatian and in the Clementine 
 Homilies\ has resisted evidence which (I venture to think) 
 would satisfy any jury of competent critics, yet I cannot suppose 
 that he would hold out against such an array of passages as 
 we have here, and I must therefore believe that he has over- 
 looked the facts. I venture to say again that, in these refer- 
 ences to early writers relating to the Canon, Eusebius (where 
 we are able to test him) never overstates the case. I emphasize 
 this assertion, because I trust some one will point out my error 
 if I am wrong. If I am not shown to be wrong, I shall make 
 use of the fact hereafter^ 
 
 This investigation will have thrown some light upon the 
 author's sweeping assertions with respect to the arbitrary 
 
 1 S. R. II. pp. 374—379, 336—341. ^ [On this matter see below, p. 191 sq.] 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 51 
 
 action which he supposes to have presided over the formation 
 of the Canon, and still more on his unqualified denunciations 
 of the uncritical spirit of Eusebius. But such was not my 
 immediate purpose. 
 
 Hypotheses non fingimus. We have built no airy castles of 
 criticism on arbitrary a priori assumptions as to what the 
 silence of Eusebius must mean. We have put the man himself 
 in the witness-box ; we have confronted him with facts, and 
 cross-examined him ; thus we have elicited from him his 
 principles and mode of action. I may perhaps have fallen into 
 some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, 
 but the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable. If they 
 are not, I shall be obliged to any one who will point out the 
 fallacy in my reasoning; and I pledge myself to make open 
 retractation, when I resume these papers in a subsequent number. 
 If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part 
 of the argument in Supernatural Religion has crumbled to 
 pieces. 
 
 Our author is quite alive to the value of a system of 
 ' positively enunciating\' ' A good strong assertion,' he says, 
 becomes a powerful argument, since few readers have the 
 means of verifying its correctness^.' His own assertions, which 
 I quoted at the outset of this investigation, are certainly not 
 wanting in strength, and I have taken the liberty of verifying 
 them. Any English reader may do the same. Eusebius is 
 translated, and so are the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 
 
 I now venture on a statement which might have seemed a 
 paradox if it had preceded this investigation, but which, coming 
 at its close, will, if I mistake not, commend itself as a sober 
 deduction from facts. The silence of Eusebius respecting early 
 witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in its favour. Its 
 Apostolic authorship had never been questioned by any Church 
 ^vriter from the beginning, so far as Eusebius was aware, and 
 therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses. It was not 
 excused, because it had not been accused. In short, the silence 
 1 S. R. II. p. 62. 2 ,9_ ji_ „_ p_ (56. 
 
 4—2 
 
52 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION- 
 
 of Eusebius here means the very opposite to that which our 
 author assumes it to mean. 
 
 If any one demurs to this inference, let him try, on any other 
 hypothesis, to answer the following questions : — 
 
 (1) How is it that, while Eusebius alleges repeated testi- 
 monies to the Epistle to the Hebrews, he is silent from first to 
 last about the universally acknowledged Epistles of St Paul, 
 such as Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians ? 
 
 (2) How is it that he does not mention the precise and 
 direct testimony in Theophilus to the Gospel of St John, while 
 he does mention a reference in this same author to the Apoca- 
 lypse ? 
 
 And this explanation of the silence of Eusebius, while it is 
 demanded by his own language and practice, alone accords with 
 the known facts relating to the reception of the Fourth Gospel 
 in the second century. Its theology is stamped on the teaching 
 of orthodox apologists ; its authority is quoted for the speculative 
 tenets of the manifold Gnostic sects, Basilideans, Valentinians, 
 Ophites ; its narrative is employed even by a Judaising writer 
 like the author of the Clementines. The phenomena which 
 confront us in the last quarter of the second century are 
 inexplicable, except on the supposition that the Gospel had had 
 a long previous history. How else are we to account for such 
 facts as that the text already exhibits a number of various 
 readings, such as the alternative of ' only begotten God ' for 
 'the only begotten Son' in i. 18, and 'six' for 'five' in iv. 18, 
 or the interpolation of the descent of the angel in v. 3, 4 ; that 
 legends and traditions have grown up respecting its origin, such 
 as we find in Clement of Alexandria and in the Muratorian 
 fragment^; that perverse mystical interpretations, wholly foreign 
 to the simple meaning of the text, have already encrusted it, 
 such as we meet with in the commentary of Heracleon ? How 
 is it that ecclesiastical writers far and wide receive it without 
 misgiving at this epoch — Irenseus in Gaul, Tertullian in Africa, 
 Clement in Alexandria, Theophilus at Antioch, the anonymous 
 
 1 [See below, p. 188 sq.] 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 53 
 
 Muratorian writer perhaps in Rome ? that they not only receive 
 it, but assume its reception from the beginning ? that they 
 never betray a consciousness that any Church or Churchman 
 had ever questioned it ? The history of the first three-quarters 
 of the second century is necessarily obscure owing to the paucity 
 of remains. A flood of light is suddenly poured in during the 
 remaining years of the century. Our author is content to grope 
 in the obscurity : any phantoms may be conjured up here ; but 
 the moment the light is let in, he closes his eyes and can see 
 nothing. He refuses altogether to discuss Irenaeus, though 
 Irenseus was a disciple of Poly carp, and Polycarp was a disciple 
 of St John. Even if it be granted that the opinion of Irenseus, 
 as an isolated individual, is not worth much, yet the wide-spread 
 and traditional belief which underlies his whole language and 
 thoughts is a consideration of the highest moment: and Irengeus 
 is only one among many witnesses. The author's treatment of 
 the external evidences to the Fourth Gospel is wholly vitiated 
 by his ignoring the combined force of such facts as these. A 
 man might with just as much reason assert that a sturdy oak 
 sapling must have sprung up overnight, because circumstances 
 had prevented him from witnessing its continuous growth. 
 
 The author of Supei^natural Religion was kind enough to 
 send me an early copy of his fourth edition, and I sincerely 
 thank him for his courtesy. Unfortunately it arrived too late 
 for me to make any use of it in my previous article. With one 
 exception however, I have not noticed that my criticisms are 
 affected by any changes which may have been made. But this 
 single exception is highly important. A reader, with only the 
 fourth edition before him, would be wholly at a loss to under- 
 stand my criticism, and therefore some explanation is necessary. 
 
 In my former article^ I pointed out that the author had 
 founded a charge of 'falsification' against Dr Westcott on a 
 grammatical error of his own. He had treated the infinitive 
 and indicative moods as the same for practical purposes ; he 
 had confused the oblique with the direct narrative ; he had 
 
 1 [See above, pp. 3 sq, 5 sq.] 
 
54 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 maintained that the passage in question (containing a reference 
 to St John) was Irenseus' own, whereas the grammar showed 
 that Irenseus was repeating the words of others; and con- 
 sequently, he had wrongly accused Dr Tischendorf and Dr 
 Westcott, because in their translations they had brought out 
 the fact that the words did not belong to Irenseus himself. 
 
 I place the new note relating to Dr Westcott side by side 
 with the old^ : — 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 'Having just observed that 
 a note in this place, in previous 
 editions, has been understood as 
 an accusation against Dr West- 
 cott of deUberate falsification of 
 the text of Irenseus, we at once 
 withdraw it with unfeigned re- 
 gret that the expressions used 
 could bear an interpretation so 
 far from our intention. We 
 desired simply to object to the 
 insertion of " they taught " {On 
 the Canon p. 61, note 2), with- 
 out some indication, in the ab- 
 sence of the original text, that 
 these words were merely supple- 
 mentary and conjectural. The 
 source of the hidirect passage is, 
 of course, matter of argument, 
 and we make it so ; but it seems 
 to us that the introduction of 
 specific words like these, without 
 explanation of any kind, conveys 
 to the general reader too positive 
 a view of the case. We may 
 perhaps be permitted to say that 
 we fully recognise Dr Westcott's 
 sincere love of truth, and feel the 
 most genuine respect for his cha- 
 racter,' 
 
 ^ II. p. 328. In the quotations 
 which follow, I have italicised some 
 portious to show the diliereuce of 
 
 EARLIER EDITIONS. 
 
 ' Canon Westcott, who quotes 
 this passage in a note (On the 
 Canon p. 61, note 2), translates 
 here, " This distinction of dwell- 
 ing, they taught, exists " etc. 
 The introduction of "they taught " 
 here is most unwarrantable ; and 
 being inserted, without a word 
 of explanation or mark showing 
 its addition by the tx'anslator, in 
 a passage wpora whose interpreta- 
 tion there is difference of opinion, 
 and whose origin is in dispute, it 
 amounts to a falsification of the 
 text. Dr Westcott neither gives 
 the Greek nor the ancient Latin 
 version for comparison.' 
 
 interpretation in the earlier and later 
 editions. 
 
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 55 
 
 Considering the gravity of his accusation, I think that our 
 author might have been more explicit in his retractation. He 
 might have stated that he not only retracted his charge against 
 Dr Westcott, but also withdrew his own interpretation of the 
 passage. He might have confessed that, having in his earlier 
 editions assumed the words to be Irenseus' own, he had found 
 out his mistake^; that accordingly he acknowledged the passage 
 to be oblique ; that therefore, after all, Dr Westcott was right 
 and he was wrong; and that the only question with him now 
 was how best to break the force of the true interpretation, 
 in its bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel. 
 
 The reader will not find in this fourth edition, from 
 beginning to end, the slightest intimation of all this. He is 
 left with the impression that the author regrets having used a 
 strong expression respecting Dr Westcott, but that otherwise 
 his opinion is unchanged. Whether I have or have not rightly 
 interpreted the facts, will be seen from a juxtaposition of 
 passages from the fourth and earlier editions. 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. EARLIER EDITIONS. 
 
 ' Now, in the quotation from ' Now in the quotation from 
 
 Irenaeus given in this passage, Irenaeus given in this passage, 
 Tischendorf renders the oblique Tischendorf deliberately falsifies 
 construction by inserting "say ^/Ye ^eajf by inserting " say they ;" 
 they," referring to the Presbyters and, as he does not give the 
 of Papias ; and, as he does not original, the great majority of 
 give the original, he should at readers could never detect how 
 least have indicated that these he thus adroitly contrives to 
 words are supplementary. We strengthen his argument. As 
 shall endeavour^' etc. regards the whole statement of 
 
 the case, we must affirm that it 
 misrepresents tlie facts. We 
 shall endeavour ' etc. 
 
 Lower down he mentions how Irenijeus ' continues with a 
 quotation from Isaiah his own train of reasoning,' adding in the 
 early editions — ' and it might just as well be affirmed that 
 
 ^ I see that it was pointed out in ^ [S. R. (ed. 4) ii. p. 326.] 
 
 the Inquirer of Nov. 7th [1874]. 
 
5G ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 Irengeus found the quotation from the Prophet in Papias as that 
 which we are considering'\' As the reference to Isaiah is in the 
 indicative, whereas the clause under consideration is in the 
 infinitive, this was equivalent to saying that the one mood is 
 just as good as the other, where it is a question of the direct or 
 oblique narrative. This last sentence is tacitly removed in the 
 fourth edition. 
 
 In the translation of the infinitive ehao Se rrjv StaaroXrjv 
 we notice this difference : — 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. EARLIER EDITIONS. 
 
 ' But .... there is this dis- ' But there is to be this dis- 
 
 tinction.' tinction.' 
 
 The translation of the passage containing these oblique in- 
 finitives is followed by the author's comment, which is altered 
 thus : — 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. EARLIER EDITIONS. 
 
 ' Now it is impossible for ' Now it is impossible for 
 
 anyone who attentively considers anyone who attentively considers 
 
 the whole of this passage, and the whole of this passage, and 
 
 who makes himself acquainted who makes himself acquainted 
 
 with the manner in which Ire- with the manner in which Ire- 
 
 nseus conducts his argument, and nseus conducts his argument, and 
 
 interweaves it vnth quotations, to interweaves it with texts of Scrip- 
 
 assert that the phrase we are con- ture, to doubt that the phrase we 
 
 sidering must have been taken are considering is introduced by 
 
 from a book referred to three Irenceus himself, and is in no 
 
 chapters earlier, and was not in- case a quotation from the work 
 
 troduced by Irenoius from some of Papias.' 
 other source.' 
 
 Here the author has tacitly withdrawn an interpretation 
 which a few weeks before he declared to be beyond the reach 
 of doubt, and has substituted a wholly different one for it. He 
 then proceeds : — 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. EARLIER EDITIONS. 
 
 ' In the passage from the ' The passage from the com- 
 
 commencement of the second mencement of the second para- 
 paragraph Irenaeus enlarges upon, graph (§ 2) is an enlargement 
 
 1 [S. R. (ed. 2) 11. p. 327.] 
 
11. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. 57 
 
 and illustrates, what " the Pres- or comment on what the Pres- 
 byters say " regarding the blessed- byters say regarding the blessed- 
 ness of the Saints, by quoting ness of the Saints, and Irenseus 
 the view held as to the distinction illustrates the distinction be- 
 between those bearing fruit tween those bearing fruit thirty- 
 thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one fold, sixty-fold, and one hundred- 
 hundred-fold, and the interior eta- fold, so often represented in the 
 tion given of the saying regard- Gospel, by the saying regarding 
 ing " many mansions." ' " many mansions" being prepared 
 
 in Heaven.' 
 
 After this our author, in the earlier editions, quotes a 
 number of passages from Irengeus to support his view that the 
 words in question are direct and not obUque, because they 
 happen to begin with hta tovto. It is unfortunate that not 
 one of them is in the infinitive mood, and therefore they afford 
 no illustration of the point at issue. 
 
 'These,' he there adds, 'are all direct quotations by Irenmus, as 
 is most certainly that which we are considering, which is introduced 
 in precisely the same way. That this is the case is further shown 
 etc. . . . and it is rendered quite certain by the fact that' etc. 
 
 All these false parallels are withdrawn in the fourth edition, 
 and the sentence is rewritten. We are now told that ' the 
 source of his (Irenseus') quotation is quite indefinite, and may 
 simply he the exegesis of his own day^.' So then it was a 
 quotation after all, and the old interpretation, though declared 
 to be 'most certain' and 'quite certain' in two consecutive 
 sentences, silently vanishes to make room for the new. But 
 why does the author allow himself to spend nine octavo pages 
 over the discussion of this one passage, freely altering sentence 
 after sentence to obliterate all traces of his error, without any 
 intimation to the reader? Had not the public a right to expect 
 more distinctness of statement, considering that the author had 
 been led by this error to libel the character of more than one 
 writer? Must not anyone reading the apology to Dr Westcott, 
 contained in the note quoted above, necessarily carry off a 
 wholly false impression of the facts ? 
 
 1 [S. E. II. p. 330.J 
 
58 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 I add one other passage for 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 'We have disposed of his 
 alternative that the quotation 
 being by " the Presbyters " was 
 more ancient even than Papias, 
 by showing that it inay be re- 
 ferred to Irenceus himself quoting 
 •prohahly from contemporaries, and 
 that there is no ground for at- 
 tributing it to the Presbyters at 
 all'.' 
 
 comparison : — 
 
 EARLIER EDITIONS. 
 
 'We have disposed of his 
 alternative that the quotation, 
 being by "the Presbyters," was 
 more ancient even than Papias, 
 by showing that it nviist he attri- 
 buted to Irenceus himself, and 
 that there is no ground for attri- 
 buting it to the Presbyters at 
 all.' 
 
 Surely this writer might have paused before indulging so 
 freely in charges of ' discreet reserve,' of ' disingenuousness,' of 
 ' wilful and deliberate evasion,' and the like. 
 
 1 [S. R. II. p. 334. See above, p. 6.] 
 
III. The Ignatian Epistles. 
 [February, 1875.] 
 
 rriHE letters bearing the name of Ignatius \ with which we are 
 -^ immediately concerned, profess to have been written by 
 the saint as he was passing through Asia Minor on his way to 
 martyrdom. If their representations be true, he was condemned 
 at Antioch, and sent to Rome to suffer death in the amphitheatre 
 by exposure to the wild beasts. The exact year of the martyr- 
 dom is uncertain, but the limits of possibility are not very wide. 
 The earlier date assigned is about A.D. 107, and the later about 
 A.D. 116. These letters, with a single exception, are written to 
 different Churches of Asia Minor (including one addressed more 
 especially to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna). The exceptional 
 letter is sent to the Roman Church, apprising the Christians of 
 the metropolis that his arrival among them may soon be expect- 
 ed, declaring his eagerness for martyrdom, and intreating them 
 not to interpose and rescue him from his fate. His language 
 supposes that there were at this time members of the Roman 
 Church sufficiently influential to obtain either a. pardon or a 
 commutation of his sentence. The letters to the Asiatic 
 Churches have a more general reference. They contain ex- 
 hortations, friendly greetings, warnings against internal divisions 
 and against heretical doctrines. With some of these Churches 
 
 1 [The Essay on the Igaatian Epis- letters. His maturer opinions estab- 
 
 tles represents the writer's views at lishiug their genuineness will be found 
 
 the time when it was written. In in his volumes on the Apostolic Fathers 
 
 the course of the Essay he has stated Part ii. S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, 1885 
 
 that at one time he had entertained (London, Macmillan and Co.), to which 
 
 misgivings about the seven Vossiau he refers his readers.] 
 
60 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 he had been brought in personal contact ; with others he was 
 acquainted only through their delegates. 
 
 Of the three forms in which the Ignatian letters have been 
 handed down to us, one may be dismissed from our consideration 
 at once. The Long Recension, preserved both in the Greek 
 original and in a Latin translation, may be regarded as uni- 
 versally condemned. In the early part of the last century an 
 eccentric critic, whose Arian sympathies it seemed to favour, 
 endeavoured to resuscitate its credit, and one or two others, at 
 long intervals, have followed in his wake ; but practically it may 
 be regarded as dead. It abounds in anachronisms of fact or 
 diction ; its language diverges widely from the Ignatian 
 quotations in the writers of the first five centuries. Our author 
 places its date in the sixth century, with Ussher; I should 
 myself ascribe it to the latter half of the fourth century. This 
 however is a matter of little consequence. Only, before passing 
 on, I would enter a protest against the argument of our author 
 that, because the Ignatian letters were thus interpolated ' in 
 the sixth century,' therefore ' this very fact increases the 
 probability of much earlier interpolation also\' I am unable to 
 follow this reasoning. I venture to think that we cannot argue 
 back from the sixth, or even the fourth century, to the second ; 
 that this later forgery must not be allowed to throw any shadow 
 of suspicion on the earlier Ignatian letters ; and that the 
 question of a prior interpolation must be decided by inde- 
 pendent evidence. 
 
 The two other forms of the Ignatian letters may be described 
 briefly as follows : — 
 
 (1) The first comprises the seven letters which Eusebius 
 had before him, and in the same form in which he read them — 
 to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, 
 Smymseans, and Polycarp. It is true that other Epistles con- 
 fessedly spurious are attached to them in the MSS ; but these 
 (as will appear presently) do not properly belong to this 
 collection, and were added subsequently. This collection is 
 
 1 S. R. I. p. 263. 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 61 
 
 preserved not only in the original Greek, but also in Latin and 
 Armenian versions. Fragments also are extant of Coptic and 
 Syriac versions, from which last, and not from the original Greek, 
 the Armenian was translated. The discovery of these epistles, 
 first of all by Ussher in the Latin translation, and then by Isaac 
 Voss in the Greek original, about the middle of the seventeenth 
 century, was the death-blow to the Long Recension. Ussher's 
 dissertations had the honour of giving it the happy despatch. 
 It is usual to call this recension, which thus superseded the 
 other, the Short Greek ; but this term is for obvious reasons 
 objectionable, and I shall designate these Epistles the Vossian. 
 
 (2) The second is extant only in a Syriac dress, and 
 contains three of the Epistles alone — to Polycarp, to the 
 Ephesians, and to the Romans — in a still shorter form. These 
 Syriac Epistles were discovered among the Nitrian Mss in the 
 British Museum, and published by Cureton in 1845. I shall 
 therefore call these the Guretonian Epistles. 
 
 Cureton's discovery stirred up the Ignatian dispute anew. 
 It was soon fanned into flames by the controversy between 
 Bunsen and Baur, and is raging still. The two questions are 
 these : (1) Whether the Vossian or the Guretonian Epistles are 
 prior in time ; in other words, whether the Vossian Epistles 
 were expanded from the Guretonian by interpolation, or whether 
 the Guretonian were reduced from the Vossian by excision and 
 abridgment ; and (2) when this question has been disposed of, 
 whether the prior of these two recensions can be regarded as 
 genuine or not. 
 
 The question respecting the Ignatian letters has, from the 
 nature of the case, never been discussed exclusively on its own 
 merits. The pure light of criticism has been crossed by the 
 shadows of controversial prepossession on both sides. From the 
 era of the Reformation onward, the dispute between Episcopacy 
 and Presbyterianism has darkened the investigation; in our own 
 age the controversies respecting the Ganon of Scripture and the 
 early history of Ghristianity have interfered with equally 
 injurious effects. Besides these two main questions which are 
 
62 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 affected by the Ignatian letters, other subjects indirectly involved 
 have aided the strife and confusion. The antagonism between 
 Papal and Protestant writers materially affected the discussion 
 in the sixteenth century, and the antagonism between Arianism 
 and Catholicity in the eighteenth. But the disturbing influence 
 of these indirect questions, though not inconsiderable at the 
 time, has not been lasting. 
 
 In the present paper I shall not attempt to treat of the 
 Ignatian question as a whole. It will simply be my business to 
 analyse the statements and discuss the arguments of the author 
 of Supernatural Religion relating to this subject. I propose, 
 when I resume these papers again, to say something of the 
 Apostolic Fathers in reference to early Christian belief and to 
 the New Testament Canon ; and this cannot be done with any 
 effect until the way has been so far cleared as to indicate the 
 extent to which we can employ the Ignatian letters as valid 
 testimony. 
 
 The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts 
 the student of earlier Christian history. The literature is 
 voluminous ; the considerations involved are very wide, very 
 varied, and very intricate. A writer therefore may well be 
 pardoned if he betrays a want of familiarity with this subject. 
 But in this case the reader naturally expects that the opinions 
 at which he has arrived will be stated with some diffidence. 
 
 The author of Supernatural Religion has no hesitation on 
 the subject. ' The whole of the Ignatian literature,' he writes, 
 'is a mass of falsification and fraud \' *It is not possible,' he 
 says, 'even if the Epistle [to the Smyrnseans] were genuine, 
 which it is not, to base any such conclusion upon these words^' 
 And again: — 
 
 'We must, however, go much further, and assert that none of 
 the Epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than 
 the end of the second, or beginning of the tliird, century, even if 
 they possess any value at alP.' 
 
 And immediately afterwards : — 
 
 1 I. p. 269. '- I. p. 270. 3 I. p, 274. 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 63 
 
 'We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to 
 Rome is, for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the 
 Epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held 
 to be spurious'.' 
 
 The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not 
 use such very decided language unless he had obtained a 
 thorough mastery of his subject ; and when he finds the notes 
 thronged with references to the most recondite sources of 
 information, he at once credits the author with an 'exhaustive' 
 knowledge of the literature bearing upon it. It becomes 
 important therefore to inquire whether the writer shows that 
 accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies us in 
 attaching weight to his dicta, as distinguished from his argu- 
 ments. 
 
 I will take first of all a passage which sweeps the field of the 
 Ignatian controversy, and therefore will serve well as a test. 
 The author writes as follows : — 
 
 ' The strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which 
 space forbids our going in detail, has led the majority of critics to 
 recognise the Syriac Version as the most genuine form of the letters 
 of Ignatius extant, and this is admitted by most^ of those who 
 nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the Epistles^.' 
 
 No statement could be more erroneous, as a summary of the 
 results of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the 
 Syriac Epistles, than this. Those who maintain the genuineness 
 of the Ignatian Epistles, in one or other of the two forms, may 
 be said to be almost evenly divided on this question of priority. 
 While Cureton and Bunsen and Ritschl and Ewald and Weiss 
 accept the Curetonian letters, Uhlhorn and Denzinger and 
 Petermann and Hefele and Jacobson and Zahn still adhere to 
 the Yossian. But this is a trifling error compared with what 
 follows. The misstatement in the last clause of the sentence 
 will, I venture to think, surprise anyone who is at all familiar 
 with the literature of the Ignatian controversy. Those, who 
 
 1 I. p. 274. that edition (p. xxvi) as a misprint.] 
 
 2 ['many' ed. 6 (i. p. 264) ; the read- ^ i. p. 263 sq. 
 ing ' most ' is explained in the preface to 
 
64 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 'deny the authenticity of any of the Epistles,' almost universally 
 maintain the priority of the Vossian Epistles, and regard the 
 Curetonian as later excerpts. This is the case, for instance, 
 with Baur^ and Zeller^ and Hilgenfeld' and Merx* and Scholten®. 
 It was reserved for a critic like Volkmar® to entertain a different 
 opinion ; but, so far as I have observed, he stands alone among 
 those who have paid any real attention to the Ignatian question. 
 Indeed, it will be apparent that this position was forced upon 
 critics of the negative school. If the Ignatian letters, in either 
 form, are allowed to be genuine, the Tubingen views of early 
 Christian history fall to the ground. It was therefore a matter 
 of life and death to this school to condemn them wholly. Now 
 the seven Vossian Epistles are clearly very early ^; and, if the 
 Curetonian should be accepted as the progenitors of the Vossian, 
 the date is pushed so far back that no sufficient ground remains 
 for denying their genuineness. Hence, when Bunsen forced the 
 question on the notice of his countrymen by advocating the 
 Curetonian letters as the original work of Ignatius, Baur 
 instinctively felt the gravity of the occasion, and at once took 
 up the gauntlet. He condemned the Curetonian Epistles as 
 mere excerpts from the Vossian ; and in this he has been 
 followed almost without exception by those who advocate his 
 views of early Christian history. The case of Lipsius is especially 
 instructive, as illustrating this point. Having at one time 
 maintained the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian 
 letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, retracted his 
 former opinion on both questions alike ^. 
 
 But how has our author ventured to make this broad state- 
 
 ^ Die Ignatianischen Briefe etc., ^ Evangelien {1870} i). 63Q. 
 
 Eine Streitschrift gegen Herrn Bunsen, ^ Volkmar himself, in the passage 
 
 Tiibingen, 1848. to which the last note refers, supposes 
 
 2 Apostelgeschichte p. 51. He de- that the seven Epistles date about a.d. 
 
 clares himself ' ganz einverstanden ' 170. 
 
 with Baur's view. ^ For the earlier opinion of Lipsius, 
 
 2 Apostol. Vdter p. 189 ; Zeitschrift see Aechtheit d. Syr. Recens. d. Ign. 
 
 (1874) p. 96 sq. Briefe p. 159 ; for his later opinion, 
 
 * Meletemata Ignatiana (1861). HilgenfeUVs Zeitschrift (1874), p. 211 
 
 5 Die alt. Zeugn. p. 50. sq. 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 65 
 
 ment, when his own notes elsewhere contain references to 
 nearly all the writers whom I have named as belonging to this 
 last category, and even to the very passages in which they 
 express the opposite opinion ? To throw some light on this 
 point, I will analyse the author's general statement of the 
 course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage. 
 He writes as follows : — 
 
 'These three Syriac Epistles have been subjected to the severest 
 scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be 
 the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not 
 admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, 
 still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and consider 
 them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess <">. As 
 early as the sixteenth century however, the strongest doubts were 
 expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed 
 to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and 
 Calvin declared [p. 260] them to be spurious*^', an opinion fully 
 shared by Chemnitz, Dallseus, and others, and similar doubts, more 
 or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth century <">, 
 and onward to comparatively recent times'^', although the means of 
 forming a judgment were not then so complete as now. That the 
 Epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller examination 
 and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed 
 earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise that the authen- 
 ticity of none of these Epistles can be established, and that they can 
 only be considered later and spurious compositions ^' 
 
 The first note *^' on p. 259 is as follows: — 
 
 ' Bunsen, Ignatius v. Ant. u. s. Zeit, 1847; Die drei dcht. u. d. 
 vier undcht. Br. des Ignat., 1847; Bleek, Einl. JV. T., p. 145; 
 Bohringer, K. G. in Biograph., 2 Aufl., p. 16 ; Cureton, The Ancient 
 Striae Version of Eps. oj St Ignatius^ etc., 1845; Vindicice Tgnat., 
 1846, Corpus Ignatianum, 1849; Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Isr., vii. p. 
 313; Lipsius, Aechtheit d. Syr. Recens. d. Ign. Br. in Illgen^s Zeitschr. 
 f. hist. Theol., 1856, H. i., 1857, Ahhandl. d. deutsche-morgenl. 
 Gesellschaft. i. 5, 1859, p. 7; Milman, Hist, of Chr., ii. p. 102; 
 Ritschl, Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 403, anm. ; Weiss, Reuter's Reper- 
 torium, Sept. 1852.' [The rest of the note touches another point, 
 and need not be quoted.] 
 
 These references, it will be observed, are given to illustrate 
 
 S. R. 5 
 
66 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 more immediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement 
 that writers 'who do not admit that even these [the Curetonian 
 Epistles] are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, still 
 prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and consider 
 them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.' 
 The reader therefore will hardly be prepared to hear that 
 not one of these nine writers condemns the Ignatian letters 
 as spurious. Bleek^ alone leaves the matter in some un- 
 certainty, while inclining to Bunsen's view; the other eight 
 distinctly maintain the genuineness of the Curetonian letters^ 
 
 As regards the names which follow in the text, it must be 
 remembered that the Magdeburg Centuriators and Calvin 
 wrote long before the discovery of the Vossian letters. The 
 Ignatian Epistles therefore were weighted with all the anachron- 
 isms and impossibilities which condemn the Long Recension in 
 the judgment of modern critics of all schools. The criticisms of 
 Calvin more especially refer chiefly to those passages which are 
 found in the Long Recension alone. The clause which follows 
 contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz did not fully share 
 the opinion that they were spurious; on the contrary he quotes 
 them several times as authoritative; but he says that they 'seem 
 to have been altered in many places to strengthen the position 
 of the Papal power etc.^ ' 
 
 The note '^^ on p. 260 runs as follows : — 
 
 ' By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus, 
 Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, 
 etc., etc. ; cf. Jacobson, Patr. Ajjost, i. p. xxv ; Cureton, Vindicice 
 Ignatiance, 1846, appendix.' 
 
 Here neither alphabetical nor chronological order is observed. 
 Nor is it easy to see why an Englishman R. Cook, Vicar of 
 Leeds, should be Cocus, while a foreigner, Petavius, is Petau. 
 These however are small matters. It is of more consequence to 
 
 1 p. 142 (ed. 1862). ness of the Curetonian letters. 
 
 ^ The references in the case of Lip- ^ See Pearson's Vindicice Ignatiance 
 
 sius are to his earlier works, where he p. 28 (ed. Churton). 
 still maintains the priority and genuine- 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 67 
 
 observe that the author has here mixed up together writers who 
 lived before and after the discovery of the Vossian Epistles, 
 though this is the really critical epoch in the history of the 
 Ignatian controversy. But the most important point of all is 
 the purpose for which they are quoted. ' Similar doubts ' 
 could only, I think, be interpreted from the context as doubts 
 ' regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to 
 Ignatius.' The facts however are these \ Bochart condemns 
 the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans on account of the mention 
 of ' leopards,' of which I shall speak hereafter, but says nothing 
 about the rest, though probably he would have condemned them 
 also. Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise, 
 reject all. Humfrey (1584) considers that they have been 
 interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the 
 main. Cook (1614) pronounces them 'either supposititious 
 or shamefully corrupted.' F. Socinus (a.d. 1624) denounces 
 corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see, does not 
 question a nucleus of genuine matter. Casaubon (a.d. 1615), so 
 far from rejecting them altogether, promises to defend the 
 antiquity of some of the Epistles with new arguments. Rivet 
 explains that Calvin's objections apply not to Ignatius himself 
 but to the corrupters of Ignatius, and himself accepts the 
 Vossian Epistles as genuine ^ Petau, before the discovery of the 
 Vossian letters, had expressed the opinion that there were 
 interpolations in the then known Epistles, and afterwards on 
 reading the Vossian letters, declared it to be a prudens et justa 
 suspicio that these are the genuine work of Ignatius. 
 The next note*^' p. 260 is as follows : — 
 
 [Wotton, Free/. Clem. B. Epp., 1718]; J. Owen, Enquiry into 
 original nature, etc., Evang. Church: Works, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. 
 XX. p. 147; Oudin, Comm. de Script. Eccles. etc. 1722, p. 88; 
 
 1 The reader will find the opinions ^ [In his preface to ed. 6 (p. xxxiii) 
 
 of these writers given in Jacobson's our author admits his error in the 
 
 Patres Apostolici i. p. xxvii; or more case of Rivet, whose name is struck 
 
 fully in Pearson's Vindicice IgnatiancB out from the note on i. p. 260 in that 
 
 p. 27 sq, from whom Russel's excerpts, edition.] 
 reprinted by Jacobson, are taken. 
 
 5—2 
 
68 ON SUPEKNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Lampe, Comm. analyt. ex Evang. Joan., 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, 
 Credibility, etc., Works, ii. p. 68 f . ; Beausobre, Hist. Grit, de 
 Manichee, etc., 1734, i. p. 378, note 3 ; Ernesti, N. Theol. Bihlioth., 
 1761, ii. p. 489; [Mosheim, de Rebus Christ., p. 159 f.] ; Weismann, 
 Introd. in Memorab. Eccles., 1745, p. 137 ; Heumann, Conspect. 
 Heipub. Lit., 1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, Chr. Kircheiigesch., 1775, ii. 
 p. 341 ; Griesbach, Opuscula Academ., 1824, i. p. 26 ; Rosenmiiller, 
 ffist. Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles., 1795, i. p. 116 ; Semler, 
 Parajihr. in Epist. ii. Petri, 1784, Prsef. ; Kestner, Comm. de 
 Eusebii H. E. condit., 1816, p. 63; Henke, Ally. Gesch. chr. Kirche, 
 1818, i. p. 96 ; Neander, K. G. 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 357, anm. 
 1]; Baumgarten-Crusius. Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch., 1832, p. 83, cf. 
 Com}), chr. Dogmengesch., 1840, p. 79 ; [^Niedner, Gesch. chr. K., p. 
 196; Thiersch, Die K. im ap. Zeit, p. 322; Hagenbach, K. G., i. p. 
 115 f.] ; cf. Cureton, Vind. Ign. append. ; Ziegler, Versuch ein. prog. 
 Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungs-formen, u. s. w., 1798, p. 16 ; J. E. C. 
 Schmidt, Versuch ub. d. gedopp. Eecens. d. Br. S. Ignat. in Ilenke's 
 Mag.f. Pel. Phil, u. s. w. [1795 ; cf. Biblioth. f. Krit, u. s. w., N. 
 T., i. p. 463 fF., TJrspr. kath. Kirche, ii. i. p. 1 f.] ; Wbuch Chr. K. 
 G., i. p. 200. 
 
 The brackets are not the author's, but my own. 
 
 This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which 
 have made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, 
 as it stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all 
 the by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent 
 the gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe 
 however, that every one of these references, except those which 
 I have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cure- 
 ton's Vindicicti Ignatiance, where the passages are quoted in full. 
 Thus two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled 
 in ten minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the 
 order of the quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is 
 chronological in Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus 
 importing into his notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted 
 references ? And, if he thought fit to do so, why was the key- 
 reference to Cureton buried among the rest, so that it stands in 
 immediate connection with some additional references on which 
 it has no bearing ? 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 69 
 
 Moreover, several of the writers mentioned in this note 
 express opinions directly opposed to that for which they are 
 quoted. Wotton, for instance \ defends the genuineness of the 
 Vossian Epistles very decidedly, and at some length, against 
 Whiston, whose Arianism led him to prefer the Long Recension. 
 Weismann declares that ' the authenticity and genuineness of 
 the Epistles have been demonstrated clearly and solidly' by 
 Pearson and others, so that no valid objections remain affecting 
 the main question. Thiersch again, who wrote after the publi- 
 cation of Cureton's work, uses the three Syriac Epistles as 
 genuine, his only doubt being whether he ought not to accept 
 the Vossian Epistles and to regard the Curetonian as excerpts. 
 Of the rest a considerable number, as for instance, Lardner, 
 Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander, and 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, with different degrees of certainty or 
 uncertainty, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine 
 nucleus^. 
 
 The next note '*', which I need not quote in full, is almost as 
 unfortunate. References to twenty authorities are there given, 
 as belonging to the ' large mass of critics ' who recognise that 
 the Ignatian Epistles 'can only be considered later and 
 spurious compositions.' Of these Bleek (already cited in a 
 previous note) expresses no definite opinion. Gfrorer declares 
 that the substratum (Grundlage) of the seven Epistles is 
 genuine, though ' it appears as if later hands had introduced 
 interpolations into both recensions' (he is speaking of the Long 
 Recension and the Vossian). Harless avows that he must 
 'decidedly reject with the most considerable critics of older and 
 more recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons 
 that the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to 
 treat a passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian 
 
 1 See Jacobson Patres Apostolici i. dently leave it to those who will ex- 
 
 p. xlvi, where the passage is given. amine the passages for themselves to 
 
 * [Our author (ed. 6, p. xxxv sq) say whether he is justified in his in- 
 
 falls foul of my criticism of his refer- ferences. He however ' gives up ' 
 
 ences. It is contrary to my purpose Wotton and Weismann.] 
 to reopen the question, but I confi- 
 
70 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 letters as well as in the Long Recension \ Schliemann also says 
 that 'the external testimonies oblige him to recognise a genuine 
 substratum,' though he is not satisfied with either existing 
 recension. All these critics, it should be observed, wrote before 
 the discovery of the Curetonian letters. Of the others, Hase 
 commits himself to no opinion ; and Lechler, while stating that 
 the seven Epistles left on his mind an impression unfavourable 
 to their genuineness, and inclining to Baur's view that the Cure- 
 tonian letters are excerpts from the others, nevertheless adds, that 
 he cannot boast of having arrived at a decided conviction of the 
 spuriousness of the Ignatian letters. One or two of the remaining 
 references in this note I have been unable to verify; but, 
 judging from the names, I should expect that the rest would be 
 found good for the purpose for which they are quoted by our 
 author. 
 
 I am sorry to have delayed my readers with an investigation 
 which — if I may venture to adopt a phrase, for which I am not 
 myself responsible — ' scarcely rises above the correction of an 
 exercise^' But these notes form a very appreciable and 
 imposing part of the work, and their effect on its reception has 
 been far from inconsiderable, as the language of the reviewers 
 will show. It was therefore important to take a sample and 
 test its value. I trust that I may be spared the necessity of a 
 future investigation of the same kind. If it has wearied my 
 readers, it has necessarily been tenfold more irksome to my- 
 self. Ordinary errors, such as must occur in any writer, might 
 well have been passed over ; but the character of the notes in 
 Supernatural Religion is quite unique, so far as my experience 
 goes, in works of any critical pretensions. 
 
 In the remainder of the discussion our author seems to 
 depend almost entirely on Cureton's preface to his Ayicient 
 Syriac Version, to which indeed he makes due acknowledgment 
 from time to time. Notwithstanding the references to other 
 later writers which crowd the notes already mentioned, they 
 
 1 p. xxxiv (Reprint of 1858). 1875, p. 9. 
 
 - Fortnightly Ilevieiv, January, 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 71 
 
 appear (with the single exception of Volkmar) to have exercised 
 no influence on his discussion of the main question. One highly 
 important omission is significant. There is no- mention, from 
 first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that this 
 version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) has been 
 felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle 
 has raged fiercely since its publication. One who (like our 
 author) maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was 
 especially bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes 
 the most formidable argument to his opponents. This version 
 was given to the world by Petermann in 1849, the same year 
 in which Cureton's later work, the Corpus Ignatianum, appeared, 
 and therefore was unknown to him\ Its bearing occupies 
 a more or less prominent place in all, or nearly all, the 
 writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question 
 during the last quarter of a century. This is true of Lipsius 
 and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not less 
 than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to 
 cite. The facts established by Petermann and others are 
 these ; — (1) This Armenian version, which contains the seven 
 Vossian Epistles together with other confessedly spurious letters, 
 was translated from a previous S3friac version. Indeed frag- 
 ments of this version were published by Cureton himself, as a 
 sort of appendix to the Curetonian letters, in the Corpus Igna- 
 tianum, though he failed to see their significance. (2) This 
 Syriac version conformed so closely to the Syriac of the Cure- 
 tonian letters that they cannot have been independent. Either 
 therefore the Curetonian letters were excerpts from this complete 
 version, or this version was founded upon and enlarged from the 
 pre-existing Curetonian letters by translating and adding the 
 supplementary letters and parts of letters from the Greek. The 
 former may be the right solution, but the latter is a priori more 
 probable ; and therefore a discussion which, while assuming the 
 priority of the Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, 
 
 1 He mentions an earlier edition of in 1783, but had not seen it ; Curp. Itjn. 
 this Version printed at Constantinople p. xvi. 
 
72 ON SUPERNATUKAL RELIGION. 
 
 has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to give an 
 account. 
 
 I have no wish to depreciate the labours of Cureton. 
 Whether his own view be ultimately adopted as correct or not, 
 he has rendered inestimable service to the Ignatian literature. 
 But our author has followed him in his most untenable positions, 
 which those who have since studied the subject, whether agree- 
 ing with Cureton on the main question or not, have been 
 obliged to abandon. Thus he writes : — 
 
 'Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all 
 equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that 
 number were mentioned by EusebiusV 
 
 And again : — 
 
 'It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles 
 mentioned by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special 
 way. These Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and correspond- 
 ing ancient Latin mss with the other eight Epistles, universally 
 pronounced to be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all 
 have equal honour^.' 
 
 with more to the same effect. 
 
 This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by 
 Eusebius with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they 
 presented themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores 
 all the important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodore t, 
 a century after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other 
 Epistles, and there is no distinct trace of the use of the 
 confessedly spurious Epistles till late in the sixth century at the 
 earliest. (2) The confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in 
 style from the seven Epistles, and betray the same hand which 
 interpolated the seven Epistles. In other words, they clearly 
 formed part of the Long Recension in the first instance. 
 (3) They abound in anachronisms which point to an age later 
 than Eusebius, as the date of their composition. (4) It is not 
 strictly true that the seven Epistles are mixed up with the 
 confessedly spurious Epistles. In the Greek and Latin mss 
 
 1 I. p. 264. 2 I. p. 265. 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 73 
 
 as also in the Armenian version, the spurious Epistles come 
 after the others^; and this circumstance, combined with the 
 facts already mentioned, plainly shows that they were a later 
 addition, borrowed from the Long Recension to complete the 
 body of Ignatian letters. 
 
 Indeed our author seems hardly able to touch this question 
 at any point without being betrayed into some statement which 
 is either erroneous or misleading. Thus, summing up the 
 external evidence, he writes : — 
 
 ' It is a fact, therefore, that up to the second half of the fourth 
 century no quotation ascribed to Ignatius, except one by Eusebius, 
 exists, which is not found in the three short Syriac letters^.' 
 
 In this short statement three corrections are necessary. (I) 
 Our author has altogether overlooked one quotation in Eusebius 
 from Ephes. 19, because it happens not to be in the Ecclesiasti- 
 cal History, though it is given in Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum^. 
 (2) Of the two quotations in the Ecclesiastical History, the one 
 which he here reckons as found in the Syriac Epistles is not 
 found in those Epistles in the form in which Eusebius quotes it. 
 The quotation in Eusebius contains several words which appear 
 in the Vossian Epistles, but not in the Curetonian ; and as the 
 absence of these words produces one of those abruptnesses which 
 are characteristic of the Curetonian letters, the fact is really 
 important for the question under discussion*. (3) Though 
 Eusebius only directly quotes two passages in his Ecclesiastical 
 History, yet he gives a number of particulars respecting the 
 
 1 The Koman Epistle indeed has gether, and the confessedly spurious 
 
 been separated from its companions, Epistles follow. See Zahn Ignatius 
 
 and is embedded in the Martyrology von Antiochien p. 111. 
 
 which stands at the end of this col- ^ i. p. 262. 
 
 lection in the Latin Version, where ^ p. 164. 
 
 doubtless it stood also in the Greek, * Ign. Rom. 5, where the words iyii} 
 before the ms of this latter was muti- yivuiaKw vvv &pxofJ.ai. ixadr]T7]s dvai are 
 lated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles found in Eusebius as in the Vossian 
 come together, and are followed by the Epistles, but are wanting in the Cure- 
 confessedly spurious Epistles in the tonian. There are other smaller differ- 
 Greek and Latin mss. Li the Arme- ences. 
 niau all the Vossian Epistles are to- 
 
74 ON SUPERNATUKAL RELIGION. 
 
 places of writing, the persons named, etc., which are more 
 valuable for purposes of identification than many quotations. 
 
 Our author's misstatement however does not in this instance 
 affect the main question under discussion. The fact remains 
 true, when all these corrections are made, that the quotations in 
 the second and third centuries are confined to passages which 
 occur both in the Curetonian and in the Vossian Epistles, and 
 therefore afford no indication in favour of either recension as 
 against the other. The testimony of Eusebius in the fourth 
 century first differentiates them. 
 
 Hitherto our author has not adduced any arguments which 
 affect the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles as a whole. His 
 reasons, even on his own showing, are valid only so far as to give 
 a preference to the Curetonian letters as against the Vossian. 
 When therefore he declares the whole of the Ignatian literature 
 to be 'a mass of falsification and fraud ^' we are naturally led 
 to inquire into the grounds on which he makes this very 
 confident and sweeping assertion. These grounds we find to be 
 twofold. 
 
 (1) In the first place he conceives the incidents, as repre- 
 sented in the Epistles, to be altogether incredible. Thus he 
 says^ : — 
 
 ' The writer describes the circumstances of his journey as 
 follows : — " From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by 
 sea and by land, by night and day ; being bound amongst ten 
 leopards, which are the band of soldiers : who even when good is 
 done to them render evil." Now if this account be in the least 
 degree true, how is it possible to suppose that the martyr could have 
 found means to write so many long epistles, entering minutely into 
 dogmatic teaching, and expressing the most deliberate and advanced 
 views regarding ecclesiastical government 1 ' 
 
 And again : — 
 
 ' It is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the quotation 
 above describes would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts 
 for professing Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at 
 every stage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for 
 
 1 S. E. I. p. 269. - S. E. 1. p. 267. 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 75 
 
 which he was condemned. And not only this, but on his way to 
 martyrdom, he has, according to the epistles, perfect freedom to see 
 his friends. He receives the bishops, deacons, and members of 
 various Christian communities, who come with greetings to him, and 
 devoted followers accompany him on his journey. All this without 
 hindrance from the " ten leopards," of whose cruelty he complains, and 
 without persecution or harm to those who so openly declare them- 
 selves his friends and fellow-believers. The whole stoiy is absolutely 
 incredible.' 
 
 To this objection, plausible as it may appear at first sight, a 
 complete answer is afforded by what is known of Roman pro- 
 cedure in other cases \ As a matter of fact. Christian prisoners 
 during the early centuries were not uncommonly treated by the 
 authorities with this same laxity and indulgence which is here 
 accorded to Ignatius. An excited populace or a stern magis- 
 trate might insist on the condemnation of a Christian ; a victim 
 must be sacrificed to the wrath of the gods, or to the majesty of 
 the law; a human life must be 'butcher'd to make a Roman 
 holiday;' but the treatment of the prisoners meanwhile, even 
 after condemnation, was, except in rare instances, the reverse of 
 harsh. St Paul himself preaches the Gospel apparently with 
 almost as much effect through the long years of his imprison- 
 ment as when he was at large. During his voyage he moves 
 about like the rest of his fellow-travellers ; when he arrives at 
 Rome, he is still treated with great consideration. He writes 
 letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates 
 with churches and individuals as he desires, though the chain 
 is on his wrist and the soldier at his side all the while. Even 
 at a much later date, when the growth of the Christian Church 
 may have created an alarm among statesmen and magistrates 
 which certainly cannot have existed in the age of Ignatius, we 
 
 1 This objection is well discussed appear yet to have attracted the notice 
 
 by Zahn Ignatius von Antiochien of English writers) as the most impor- 
 
 p. 278 sq (1873), where our author's tant contribution to the Ignatian litera- 
 
 arguments are answered by anticipa- ture which has appeared since Cureton's 
 
 tion substantially as I have answered publications introduced a new era in 
 
 them in the text. I venture to call the controversy. Zahn defends the 
 
 attention to this work (which does not genuineness of the Vossian Epistles. 
 
7G ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 see the same leniency of treatment, and (what is more important) 
 the same opportunities of disseminating their opinions accorded 
 to the prisoners. Thus Saturus and Perpetua, the African 
 martyrs, who suffered under Severus^ (apparently in the year 
 202 or 203), are allowed writing materials, with which they 
 record the extant history of their sufferings ; and they too are 
 visited in prison by Christian deacons, as well as by their own 
 friends. They owed this liberty partly to the humanity of the 
 chief officers ; partly to gratuities bestowed by their friends on 
 the gaolers^ Even after the lapse of another half-century, 
 when Decius seriously contemplated the extermination of 
 Christianity, we are surprised to find the amount of commu- 
 nication still kept up with the prisoners in their dungeons. 
 The Cyprianic correspondence reveals to us the confessors 
 and martyrs writing letters to their friends, visited by large 
 numbers of people, even receiving the rites of the Church in 
 their prisons at the hands of Christian priests. 
 
 But the most powerful testimony is derived from the repre- 
 sentations of a heathen writer. The Christian career of Pere- 
 grinus must have fallen within the reign of Antoninus Pius 
 (a.d. 138 — 161). Thus it is not very far removed, in point of 
 time, from the age of Ignatius. This Peregrinus is represented 
 by Lucian, writing immediately after his death (a.d. 165), as 
 being incarcerated for his profession of Christianity, and the 
 satirist thus describes the prison scene ^ : — 
 
 ' When he was imprisoned, the Christians, regarding it as a 
 great calamity, left no stone unturned in the attempt to rescue him. 
 Then, when they found this impossible, they looked after his wants 
 in every other respect with unremitting zeal (ov Trapepyws dWa avv 
 o-TTovS^). And from early dawn old women, widows, and orphan 
 children, might be seen waiting about the doors of the prison ; while 
 their officers {ol eV reAct avrcSv) succeeded, by bribing the keepers, in 
 
 1 Euinart Acta Martyrum Sincera 144. 'Tribunus . . . jussit illos huma- 
 
 p, 134 sq. (Ratisbon, 1859.) nius haberi, ut fratribus ejus et ceteris 
 
 " Euinart p. 141. 'Praepositus car- facultas fieret introeundi et refrigerandi 
 
 ceris, qui nos magni facere coepit . . . cum eis.' 
 multos fratresad nos admittebat, ut et ^ De Norte Peregr. 12. 
 
 nos et illi invicem refrigeraremus,' p 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 77 
 
 passing the night inside with him. Then various meals were 
 brought in, and religious discourses were held between them, and 
 this excellent Peregrinus (for he still bore this name) was entitled a 
 new Socrates by them. Moreover, there came from certain cities 
 in Asia deputies sent by the Christian communities to assist and 
 advise and console the man. Indeed they show incredible despatch, 
 when any matter of the kind is undertaken as a public concern ; for, 
 in short, they spare nothing. And so large sums of money came to 
 Peregrinus at that time from them, on the plea of his fetters, and he 
 made no inconsiderable revenue out of it.' 
 
 The singular correspondence in this narrative with the 
 account of Ignatius, combined with some striking coincidences 
 of expression \ have led to the opinion that Lucian was 
 acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian 
 letters. For this view there is much to be said ; and, if it 
 be true, the bearing of the fact on the genuineness of the 
 Ignatian literature is important, since Lucian was born in 
 Syria somewhere about A.D, 120, and lived much in Asia 
 Minor. At all events it is conclusive for the matter in hand, 
 as showing that Christian prisoners were treated in the very 
 way described in these epistles. The reception of delegates 
 and the freedom of correspondence, which have been the chief 
 stumbling-blocks to modern criticism in the Ignatian letters, 
 appear quite as prominently in the heathen satirist's account of 
 Peregrinus ^ 
 
 ^ See Zahn Ignatius p. 527. Lu- tyred at the stake {Martyr. Polyc. c. 
 
 cian says of Peregrinus (now no longer 16). Similarly Lucian represents him- 
 
 a Christian, but a Cynic), c. 41, (paal self as spreading a report, which was 
 
 5^ irdffais <rxe56f rats ivdo^ois 7r6Xea-ic taken up and believed by the Cynic's 
 
 e-TTLo-ToXas Siaw^/x^aiavrdv, diadi^KasTLvas disciples, that a vulture was seen to 
 
 Kal Trapaiviaeis /cat iidfxovs' /cat rivas eirl rise from the pyre of Peregrinus when 
 
 Toi^ry TrpetrjSeuras tuv eralpwv exeiporo- he consigned himself to a voluntary 
 
 v7](Te peKpayyiXovs Kal veprepodpofiovs death by burning. It would seem that 
 
 irpocrayopevaas. This description ex- the satirist here is laughing at the 
 
 actly corresponds to the letters and credulity of these simple Christians, 
 
 delegates of Ignatius. See especially with whose history he appears to have 
 
 Polyc. 7, x^^poTov7}(ral riva had at least a superficial acquaintance. 
 
 b^ SvvriaeTaL deoSpo ixos KoXetaOai. The ^ ^g a corollary to this argument, 
 
 Christian bystanders reported that a our author says that the Epistles them- 
 
 dove had been seen to issue from the selves bear none of the marks of com- 
 
 body of Polycarp when he was mar- position under such circumstances. 
 
78 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 In the light of these facts the language of Ignatius becomes 
 quite intelligible. He was placed under the custody of a maniple 
 of soldiers. These ten men would relieve guard in turns, the 
 prisoner being always bound to one or other of them day and 
 night, according to the well-known Roman usage, as illustrated 
 by the case of St Paul. The martyr finds his guards fierce and 
 intractable as leopards. His fight with wild beasts, he intimates, 
 is not confined to the arena of the Flavian amphitheatre ; it has 
 been going on continuously ever since he left Antioch. His 
 friends manage to secure him indulgences by offering bribes, but 
 the soldiers are exorbitant and irritating in the extreme \ The 
 more they receive, the more they exact. Their demands keep 
 pace with his exigencies. All this is natural, and it fully 
 explains the language here ascribed to Ignatius. A prisoner 
 smarting under such treatment naturally dwells on the dark 
 side of the picture, without thinking how a critic, writing in his 
 study centuries afterwards, will interpret his fragmentary and 
 impulsive utterances. In short, we must treat Ignatius as a 
 man, and not as an automaton. Men will not talk mechanically, 
 as critics would have them talk, 
 
 (2) Having declared ' the whole story ' to be ' absolutely 
 incredible,' on the grounds which I have just considered, our 
 author continues^: — 
 
 It is sufficient to reply that even the and it would be strange indeed if, by 
 
 Vossian Epistles are more abrupt than bribe or entreaty, Ignatius could not 
 
 the letters written by St Paul, when have secured this indulgence from one 
 
 chained to a soldier. The abruptness or other of his guards during a journey 
 
 of the Curetonian Epistles is still which must have occupied months 
 
 greater — indeed so great as to render rather than weeks. He also describes 
 
 them almost unintelligible in parts. the Epistles as purporting to be writ- 
 
 I write this notwithstanding that our ten 'at every stage of his journey.' 
 
 author, following Cureton, has ex- 'Every stage' must be interpreted 
 
 pressed a different opinion respecting 'two stages,' for all the Seven Vossian 
 
 the style of the Curetonian letters. Epistles profess to have been written 
 
 Our author speaks also of the length either at Smyrna or at Troas. 
 of the letters. The Curetonian Letters ^ This, as more than one writer 
 occupy five large octavo pages in Cure- has pointed out, seems to be the mean- 
 ton's translation, p. 227. Even the ing of ot Kal evepyeroij/nevoi x^l^po^^ y^^ov- 
 seven Vossian Letters might have been rai, Ign. Rom. 5. 
 dictated in almost as many hours ; ^ ,9_ p_ i_ p, 268. 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 79 
 
 'This conclusion, irresistible in itself, is, however, confirmed by- 
 facts arrived at from a totally different point of view. It has been 
 demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered 
 martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December, a.d. 115<^', when 
 he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre, in 
 consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by the earthquake 
 which took place on the 13th of that month <*'.' 
 
 The two foot-notes contain no justification of this very- 
 positive statement, though so much depends upon it ; but the 
 reader is there furnished with a number of references to modem 
 critics. These references have been analysed by Dr Westcott\ 
 with results very similar to those which my analysis of the 
 author's previous notes has yielded. In some cases the writers 
 express opinions directly opposed to that for which they are 
 quoted ; in others they incline to views irreconcilable with it ; 
 and in others they suspend judgment. When the references 
 are sifted, the sole residuum on which our author rests his 
 assurance is found to be a hypothesis of Volkmar^ built upon a 
 statement of John Malalas, which I shall now proceed to 
 examine. The words of John Malalas are — 
 
 ' The same king Trajan was residing in the same city (Antioch) 
 when the visitation of God (i.e. the earthquake) occurred. And at 
 that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop of the city of Antioch, was 
 martyred (or bore testimony, iixapTvprjare) before him (i-rrl avrov) ; for he 
 was exasperated against him, because he reviled him^' 
 
 The earthquake is stated by Malalas to have occurred on the 
 13th of December, A.D. 115. On these statements, combined 
 with the fact that the day dedicated to St Ignatius at a later 
 age was the 20'th of December*, Volkmar builds his theory. It 
 will be observed that the cause of the martyr's death, as laid 
 down by Volkmar, receives no countenance from the story of 
 
 ^ A Feio Words on Supernatural Apokryphen i. pp. 49 sq, 121 sq. 
 Religion p. xx sq, a preface to the ^ p. 276 (eel. Bonn.), 
 
 fourth edition of Dr Westcott's His- * In St Chrysostom's age it appears 
 
 tory of the Canon, but published sepa- to have been kept at quite a different 
 
 lately. time of the year — in June ; see Zahn, 
 
 2 Handbuch der Einleitung in die p. 53. 
 
80 ON SUPEKNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Malalas, who gives a wholly different reason — the irritating 
 language used to the emperor. 
 
 Now this John Malalas lived not earlier than the latter half 
 of the sixth century, and possibly much later. His date there- 
 fore constitutes no claim to a hearing. His statement moreover 
 is directly opposed to the concurrent testimony of the four or 
 five preceding centuries, which, without a dissentient voice, 
 declare that Ignatius suffered at Rome. This is the case with 
 all the writers and interpolators of the Ignatian letters, of whom 
 the earliest is generally placed, even by those critics who deny 
 their genuineness, about the middle or in the latter half of the 
 second century. It is the case with two distinct martyrologies', 
 which, agreeing in little else, are united in sending the martyr to 
 Rome to die. It is the case necessarily with all those Fathers who 
 quote the Ignatian letters in any form as genuine, amongst whom 
 are Irenseus and Origen and Eusebius and Athanasius. It is the 
 case with Chrysostom, who, on the day of the mart3T:''s festival, 
 pronounces at Antioch an elaborate panegyric on his illustrious 
 predecessor in the see^ It is the case with several other writers 
 also, whom I need not enumerate, all prior to Malalas. 
 
 But John Malalas, it is said, lived at Antioch. So did 
 Chrysostom some two centuries at least before him. So did 
 Evagrius, who, if the earliest date of Malalas be adopted, was 
 his contemporary, and who, together with all preceding authori- 
 ties, places the martyrdom of Ignatius in Rome. If therefore 
 the testimony of Malalas deserves to be preferred to this cloud 
 of witnesses, it must be because he approves himself elsewhere 
 as a sober and trustworthy writer. 
 
 As a matter of fact however, his notices of early Christian 
 history are, almost without exception, demonstrably false or 
 palpably fabulous^ In the very paragraph which succeeds the 
 
 ^ The one first published by Euin- these two. 
 art from a Colbert ms, and the other ^ The authorities for these state- 
 by Dressel from a Vatican ms. The ments will be found in Cureton's Cor- 
 remaining Martyrologies, those of the -pus Ignatianum p. 158 sq. 
 Metaphrast, of the Bollandists, and of ^ See Lipsius Ueber das Verhaltniss 
 the Armenian version, have no inde- des Textes der drei Syrischen Brief e 
 pendent value, being compacted from etc. p. 7. 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 81 
 
 sentence quoted, he relates how Trajan had five Christian 
 women burnt alive ; the emperor then mingled their ashes with 
 the metal from which the vessels used for the baths were cast ; 
 the bathers were seized with swooning-fits in consequence ; the 
 vessels were again melted up ; and out of the same metal were 
 erected five pillars in honour of the five martyrs by the 
 emperor's orders. These pillars, adds Malalas, stand in the bath 
 to the present day. As if this were not enough, he goes on to 
 relate how Trajan made a furnace and ordered any Christians, 
 who desired, to throw themselves into it — an injunction which 
 was obeyed by many. Nor when he leaves the domain of 
 hagiology for that of chronology, is this author any more trust- 
 worthy. For instance, he states that Manes first propounded 
 his doctrine in the reign of Nerva, and that Marcion still 
 further disseminated the Manichean heresy under Hadrian'. 
 An anachronism of a century or more is nothing to him. 
 
 We have seen by this time what authority suffices, in our 
 author's judgment, to 'demonstrate' a fact; and no more is 
 necessary for my purpose. But it may be worth while adding 
 that the error of Malalas is capable of easy explanation. He has 
 probably misinterpreted some earlier authority, whose language 
 lent itself to misinterpretation. The words fiaprvpelv, ixaprvpla, 
 which were afterwards used especially of martyrdom, had in the 
 earlier ages a wider sense, including other modes of witnessing 
 to the faith : the expression eirl Tpalavov again is ambiguous 
 and might denote either ' during the reign of Trajan,' or ' in 
 the presence of Trajan.' A blundering writer like Malalas 
 might have stumbled over either expression^. ^ 
 
 The objections of our author have thus been met and 
 
 answered ; and difficulties which admit of this easy explanation 
 
 cannot, I venture to think, be held to have any real weight against 
 
 even a small amount of external testimony in favour of the Epistles. 
 
 The external testimony however is considerable in this case^ 
 
 ^ pp. 268, 279 (ed. Bonn.). ^ The testimonies to which I refer 
 
 ■^ The former explanation is sug- in this paragraph will be found in 
 
 gested by Lipsius, I.e.; the latter by Cm-eton's Corpus Ignatiamtm p. 158 
 
 Zahn, p. 67. sq. [The question of the credibility of 
 
 S. R. 6 
 
82 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 The Epistle of Polycarp, which purports to have been written so 
 soon after this journey of Ignatius through Asia Minor that the 
 circumstances of the martyr's death were not fully known there, 
 speaks of his letters in language which is entirely applicable to 
 the existing documents. Our author indeed declares this Epistle 
 also to be spurious. But Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, bears 
 testimony to the existence of such an Epistle ; and I pledge 
 myself to answer in a subsequent paper the objections urged 
 against its genuineness by our author and others\ Besides this, 
 Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 180 — 190, quotes a characteristic 
 and distinctive passage from the Epistle to the Romans, not 
 indeed mentioning Ignatius by name, but introducing the 
 quotation as the words of a member of the Christian brother- 
 hood. And again, in the first half of the next century Origen 
 cites two passages from these letters, ascribing them directly to 
 Ignatius. I say nothing of the later and more explicit references 
 and quotations of Eusebius, important as these are in themselves. 
 Our author indeed seems to consider this amount of testimony 
 very insufficient. But even if we set Polycarp aside, it would 
 hardly be rash to say that the external evidence for at least two- 
 thirds of the remains of classical antiquity is inferior. We 
 Christians are constantly told that we must expect to have our 
 records tested by the same standards which are applied to other 
 writings. This is exactly what we desire, and what we do not 
 get. It is not easy to imagine the havoc which would ensue, if 
 the critical principles of the Tubingen school and their admirers 
 were let loose on the classical literature of Greece and Rome. 
 
 External testimony therefore leaves a very strong presumption 
 in favour of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters in one form 
 or other ; and before rejecting them entirely, we are bound to 
 show that internal evidence furnishes really substantial and 
 valid objections to their authenticity. It is not sufficient, for 
 instance, to allege that the saint's desire for martyrdom, as 
 
 Malalas, and of the meaning of evl S. Polycarp, ii. pp. 437 — 447 (ed. 2).] 
 Tpaiavov, is treated more fully in my ^ [This pledge is fulfilled below, 
 
 Apostolic Fathers, Part ii. S. Ignatius, p. 93 sq.] 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 83 
 
 exhibited in these Epistles, is extravagant, because we have 
 ample testimony for believing that such extravagance (whether 
 commendable or not) was highly characteristic of the faith and 
 zeal of the early Christians when tried by persecution. Nor 
 again, is it of any avail to produce some eccentricities of thought 
 or language, because there is no a priori reason why St Ignatius 
 should not have indulged in such eccentricities. 
 
 Unless therefore really solid objections can be urged, we are 
 bound by all ordinary laws of literary evidence to accept as 
 genuine at all events the shortest form in which these Epistles 
 are presented to us. In other words, the Curetonian letters at 
 least must be received. And as these satisfy all the quotations 
 and references of the second and third centuries (though not 
 those of Eusebius in the first half of the fourth), perhaps not 
 more is required by the external testimony. Against the 
 genuineness of these it may be presumed that our author has 
 advanced what he considered the strongest arguments which the 
 case admits ; and I have answered them. I am quite aware 
 that other objections have been alleged by other critics ; but it 
 will be sufficient here to express a conviction that these have 
 no real force against even the slightest external testimony, and to 
 undertake to meet them if they are reproduced. Thus all the 
 supposed anachronisms have failed. Bochart, for instance, was 
 bold enough to maintain that the Ignatian Epistle to the 
 Romans could not have been written before the time of 
 Constantino the Great, because * leopards ' are mentioned in it, 
 and the word was not known until this late age. In reply to 
 Bochart, Pearson and others showed conclusively, by appealing 
 (among other documents) to the contemporary Acts of Martyr- 
 dom of Perpetua and Felicitas (who suffered when Geta was 
 Caesar, about A.D. 202), that 'leopards' were so called more than 
 a century at least before Constantine, while they gave good 
 reasons for believing that the word was in use much earlier. I 
 am able to carry the direct evidence half a century farther back. 
 The word occurs in an early treatise of Galen (written about the 
 middle of the second century), without any indication that it 
 
 6—2 
 
84 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 was then a new or unusual term. This passage, which (so far 
 as I am aware) has been hitherto overlooked, carries the use 
 back to within some forty years, or less, of the professed date of 
 the Ignatian letters; and it must be regarded as a mere accident 
 that no earlier occurrence has been noticed in the scanty remains 
 of Greek and Roman literature which bridge over the interval. 
 Of the institution of episcopacy again, it is sufficient to say that 
 its prevalence in Asia Minor at this time, whatever may have 
 been the case elsewhere, can only be denied by rejecting a large 
 amount of direct and indirect evidence on this side of the 
 question, and by substituting in its place a mere hypothesis 
 which rests on no basis of historical fact. 
 
 On the other hand, the Epistles themselves are stamped with 
 an individuality of character which is a strong testimony to 
 their genuineness. The intensity of feeling and the ruggedness 
 of expression seem to bespeak a real living man. On this point 
 however it is impossible to dwell here ; anyone who will take 
 the pains to read these Epistles continuously will be in a better 
 position to form a judgment on this evidence of style, than if he 
 had been plied with many arguments. 
 
 But if the Curetonian letters are the genuine work of Ignatius, 
 what must we say of the Yossian ? Were the additional por- 
 tions, which are contained in the latter but wanting in the 
 former, also written by the saint, or are they later interpolations 
 and additions ? This is a much more difficult question. 
 
 As a first step towards answering this question, we may 
 observe that there is one very strong reason for believing that the 
 Vossian letters cannot have been written after the middle of the 
 second century. The argument from silence has been so often 
 abused, that one is almost afraid to employ it at all. Yet here 
 it seems to have a real value. The writer of these letters, who- 
 ever he was, is evidently an orthodox Catholic Christian, and at 
 the same time a strong controversialist. It is therefore a 
 striking fact that he is altogether silent on the main contro- 
 versies which agitated the Church, and more especially the 
 Church of Asia Minor, in the middle and latter half of the 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 85 
 
 second century. There is not a word about Montanism or about 
 the Paschal controversy. It is difficult to believe that such a 
 writer could have kept clear of these ' burning ' questions, if he 
 had lived in the midst of them. Even though his sense of 
 historical propriety might have preserved him from language 
 involving a positive anachronism, he would have taken a distinct 
 side, and would have made his meaning clear by indirect means. 
 Again, there is nothing at all bearing on the great Gnostic 
 heresies of this age. The doctrines of the Marcionites, of the 
 Valentinians, even of the Basilideans, (though Basilides flourish- 
 ed under Hadrian), are not touched. On the contrary, the 
 writer several times uses language which an orthodox church- 
 man, writing in the second half of the second century or later, 
 would almost certainly have avoided. Among other expres- 
 sions he salutes the Church of the Trallians ' in the pleroma' 
 — an expression which could not escape the taint of heresy when 
 once Valentinus had promulgated his system, of which the 
 pleroma was the centre. Nor again, is it likely that such a 
 writer would have indulged in expressions which, however inno- 
 cent in themselves, would seem very distinctly to countenance 
 the Gnostic doctrine of the inherent evil of matter, as for 
 instance, where he says that he has not in him any ' matter- 
 loving {(j)L\6v\ov) fire (of passion)*,' and the like. The bearing 
 of these facts has (so far as I remember) been overlooked, and 
 yet it is highly important. 
 
 Having regard to these and similar phenomena, I do not see 
 how it is reasonable to date the Vossian Epistles after the 
 middle of the second century. But still it does not follow 
 that they are genuine ; and elsewhere I had acquiesced in 
 the earlier opinion of Lipsius, who ascribed them to an inter- 
 polator writing about A.D. 1401 Now however I am obliged 
 
 1 Ign. Rom. 7. In the Syriac version Compare Rom. 6, 'neque permateriam 
 
 the expression is watered down (per- seducatis,' a passage which is found in 
 
 haps to get rid of the Gnostic colour- the Latin translation, but has acci- 
 
 ing), and becomes 'fire for another dentally dropped out, or been inten- 
 
 love ; ' and similarly in the Long Greek tionally omitted, from the Greek. 
 <pi.\oGv tI is substituted for (piXoiiXov. " e.g. Pliilippiam p. 232 sq. 
 
86 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 to confess that I have grave and increasing doubts whether, 
 after all, they are not the genuine utterances of Ignatius him- 
 self. ' The following reasons weigh heavily in this scale. (1) 
 Petermann's investigations, which have been already mentioned, 
 respecting the Armenian version and its relation to a pre- 
 existing Syriac version, throw a new light on the Curetonian 
 letters. When it is known that there existed a complete 
 version of the Vossian letters in this language, the theory that 
 the Curetonian letters are excerpts becomes at least highly 
 plausible, since the two sets of Syriac letters were certainly 
 not independent the one of the other. (2) Notwithstanding 
 Cureton's assertions, which our author has endorsed, the abrupt- 
 ness of the Curetonian letters is very perplexing in some parts. 
 Subsequent writers, even while maintaining their genuineness, 
 have recognised this difficulty, and endeavoured to explain it. 
 It is far from easy, for instance, to conceive that the Ephesian 
 letter could have ended as it is made to end in this recension. 
 (3) Though the Vossian letters introduce many historical 
 circumstances respecting the journey of Ignatius, the condition 
 of the Church of Antioch, and the persons visiting or visited by 
 him, no contradictions have yet been made out ; but, on the 
 contrary, the several notices fit in one with another in a way 
 which at all events shows more care and ingenuity than might 
 be expected in a falsifier. (4) All the supposed anachronisms 
 to which objection has been taken in these Epistles fail on 
 closer investigation. More especially stress has been laid on 
 the fact that this writer describes Christ as God's 'eternal 
 Logos, not having proceeded from Silence*;' and objectors 
 have urged that this expression is irjtended as a refutation 
 of the Valentinian doctrine. Pearson thought it sufficient to 
 reply that the Valentinians did not represent the Logos as an 
 emanation from Silence, but from an intermediate ^on ; and 
 when the treatise of Hippolytus was discovered, an answer 
 seemed to be furnished by the fact that Silence held a con- 
 spicuous place in the tenets of the earlier sect of Simonians, 
 
 1 Ign. Magti, 8. os iaTi.v avrod Xbyos [di'Sios, ovk\ dirb crcy^s npoeXOdif, 
 
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 87 
 
 and the Ignatian expression was explained as a reference to 
 their teaching. But fresh materials for the correction of the 
 Ignatian text, which Cureton and Petermann have placed in 
 our hands, seem to show very clearly (though these editors have 
 overlooked the importance of the facts) that in the original 
 form of the passage the words ' eternal ' and ' not ' were 
 wanting ; so that the expression stood, ' Who is His Logos, 
 having proceeded from Silence.' They are omitted in the 
 Armenian version and in the passage as cited by Severus of 
 Antioch^; while the paraphrase of the Long Recension seems 
 to point in the same direction, though this is more doubtful. 
 Severus more especially comments on the quotation, so that his 
 reading is absolutely certain. Such a combination of early 
 authorities is very strong evidence in favour of the omission. 
 Moreover it is difficult to explain how the words, if genuine, 
 should have been omitted ; whereas their insertion, if they were 
 no part of the original text, is easily accounted for. In the 
 middle of the fourth century, Marcellus of Ancyra expressed his 
 Sabellianism in almost identical language^ ; he spoke of Christ 
 as the Logos issuing from Silence ; and there was every tempta- 
 tion with orthodox scribes to save the reputation of St Ignatius 
 from complicity in heretical opinions, and at the same time 
 to deprive Marcellus of the support of his great name. I call 
 attention to these facts, both because they have been overlooked, 
 and because the passage in question has furnished their main 
 argument to those who charge these Epistles with anachro- 
 nisms. 
 
 Of the character of these Epistles, it must suffice here to 
 say that the writer at all events was thoroughly acquainted with 
 the manner and teaching of St Ignatius. As regards the 
 substance, they contain many extragavances of sentiment and 
 teaching, more especially relating to the episcopal office, from 
 which the Curetonian letters are free and which one would not 
 willingly believe written by the saint himself But it remains 
 
 1 Cureton's Corp. Ign. p. 2-45. See on this subject a paper in the 
 
 ■^ Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. 9, etc. Journal of Pltilolo[/ij, "i^io, ii. p. 51 sq. 
 
88 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 a question, whether such considerations ought to outweigh the 
 arguments on the other side. At all events it cannot be shown 
 that they exhibit any different type of doctrine, though the 
 mode of representation may seem exaggerated. As regards 
 style, the Curetonian letters are more rugged and forcible than 
 the Vossian ; but as selected excerpts, they might perhaps be 
 expected to exhibit these features prominently. 
 
 For the reasons given I shall, unless I am shown to be 
 wrong, treat the Curetonian letters as the work of the genuine 
 Ignatius, while the Vossian letters will be accepted as valid 
 testimony at all events for the middle of the second century. 
 The question of the genuineness of the latter will be waived. 
 I fear that my indecision on this point will contrast disadvanta- 
 geously with the certainty which is expressed by the author of 
 Supernatural Religion. If so, I am sorry, but I cannot help it. 
 
IV. PoLYCARP OF Smyrna. 
 
 [May, 1875.] 
 
 ir)OLYCARP, Bishop of Smyrna, is the most important person 
 -*- in the history of the Christian Church during the ages im- 
 mediately succeeding the Apostles. In the eyes of his own and 
 the next generations, Clement of Rome appears to have held a 
 more prominent position, if we may judge from the legendary 
 stories which have gathered about his name ; but for ourselves 
 the interest which attaches to Polycarp is far greater. This im- 
 portance he owes to his peculiar position, rather than to any 
 marked greatness or originality of character. Two long lives 
 — those of St John and of Polycarp — span the period which 
 elapsed between the personal ministry of our Lord and the great 
 Christian teachers living at the close of the second century. 
 Polycarp was the disciple of St John, and Irenseus was the 
 disciple of Polycarp. We know enough of St John's teaching, 
 if the books ascribed to him in our Canon are accepted as 
 genuine. We are fully acquainted with the tenets of Irenaeus, 
 and of these we may say generally that on all the most important 
 points they conform to the theological standard which has 
 satisfied the Christian Church ever since. But of the inter- 
 mediate period between the close of the first century and the 
 close of the second, the notices are sparse, the literature is 
 scanty and fragmentary. Hence modern criticism has busied 
 itself with hypothetical reconstructions of Christian history 
 during this interval. It has been maintained that the greater 
 
90 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 part of the writings of our Canon were unknown and unwritten 
 at' the beginning of this period. It has been supposed that 
 there was a complete discontinuity in the career of the Christian 
 Church throughout the world. The person of Poly carp is a 
 standing protest against any such surmises. Unless Irenseus 
 was entirely mistaken as to the teaching of his master, unless 
 the extant Epistle ascribed to Polycarp is altogether spurious, 
 these views must fall to the ground. It is indispensable for the 
 advocates of the Tubingen theory respecting the origin of the 
 Christian Church and the Scriptural Canon to make good both 
 these positions alike. Otherwise it can have no standing ground. 
 My object in the following investigations is to show that neither 
 position is tenable. 
 
 Polycarp was born more than thirty years before the close of 
 the first century, and he survived to the latter half of the 
 second. The date of his birth may be fixed with some degree 
 of certainty as A.D. 69 or 70. At all events it cannot have been 
 later than this. At the time of his martyrdom, which is now 
 ascertained to have taken place A.D. 155 or 156\ he declared 
 that he had served Christ eighty-six years ^ ; and, if this 
 expression be explained as referring to the whole period of his 
 life (which is the more probable supposition), we are carried 
 back to the date which I have just given. 
 
 Thus Polycarp was born on the eve of a great crisis, which 
 was fraught with momentous consequences to the Church at 
 large, and which more especially made itself felt in the 
 Christian congregations of his own country, proconsular Asia. 
 The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the autumn of the year 70. 
 But at the final assault the Christians were no longer among the 
 besieged. The impending war had been taken as the signal for 
 their departure from the doomed city. The greater number 
 had retired beyond the Jordan, and founded Christian colonies 
 in Pella and the neighbourhood. But the natural leaders of the 
 
 1 See below, p. 103 sq. pression is somewhat ambiguous in 
 
 " Mart. Polyc. 9. dySorjKovra Kai itself, and for ^x^ dov\etjtx}v Eusebius 
 ^^ ^T-q ^x'^ dovXevui' avT<^. This ex- reads dovKevw. 
 
IV. POLYCAEP OF SMYRNA. 91 
 
 Church — the surviving Apostles and personal disciples of 
 Christ — had sought a home elsewhere. From this time 
 forward it is neither to Jerusalem nor to Pella, but to pro- 
 consular Asia, and more especially to Ephesus as its metropolis, 
 that we must look for the continuance of the original type of 
 Apostolic doctrine and practice. At the epoch of the cata- 
 strophe we find the Apostle John for a short time living in 
 exile — whether voluntary or constrained, it is unnecessary to 
 inquire — in the island of Patmos. Soon after this he takes up 
 his abode at Ephesus, which seems to have been his head- 
 quarters during the remainder of his long life\ And John was 
 not alone in choosing Asia Minor as his new home. More 
 especially the companions of his early youth seem to have been 
 attracted to this neighbourhood. Of two brother Apostles and 
 fellow-countrymen of Bethsaida this is distinctly recorded. 
 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, appears in company with 
 John in these later years, according to an account which seems 
 at least so far trustworthy ^ The presence of Philip, the special 
 friend of Andrew', in these parts is recorded on still better 
 authority*. Philip himself died at Hierapolis in Phrygia ; but 
 one of his three daughters was buried at Ephesus, where 
 perhaps he had resided at an earlier date. Among other 
 personal disciples of Christ, not otherwise known to us, who 
 dwelt in these districts of Asia Minor, Aristion and a second 
 John are mentioned, with whom Papias, the friend of Polycarp, 
 had conversed ^ 
 
 Among these influences Polycarp was brought up. His own 
 words, to which I have already alluded, seem to show that he was 
 born of Christian parentage. At all events he must have been 
 a believer from early childhood. If his parents were Christians, 
 
 ^ Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39 ; •* Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39 ; 
 
 Iren. ii. 22. 5 (and elsewhere) ; Poly- Polycrates in Euseb. H. E. iii. 31, v. 
 
 crates in Euseb. H. E. v. 24; Clem. 24; Caius (Hippolytus?) in Euseb. 
 
 Alex. Quis div. salv. 42 (p. 958) ; H. E. iii. 30. I have given reasons 
 
 ApoUonius in Euseb. H. E. v. 18. for believing that the Philip who lived 
 
 ^ Muratorian Fragment p. 33, ed. at Hierai^olis was the Apostle and not 
 
 Tregelles (written about a.d. 170—180). the Evangelist in Golossiatis p. 45 sq. 
 
 3 John i. 44, xii. 21 sq. ^ Papias, l. c. 
 
92 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 they probably received their first lessons in the Gospel from the 
 teachers of an earlier date — from St Paul who had planted the 
 Churches of Asia Minor, or from St Peter who appears to have 
 watered them', or from the immediate disciples of one or other 
 of these two Apostles. But during the childhood and youth 
 of Polycarp himself the influence of St John was paramount. 
 Irenseus reports (and there is no reason for questioning the truth 
 of his statement) that St John survived to the reign of Trajan'', 
 who ascended the imperial throne A.D. 98. Thus Polycarp would 
 be about thirty years old at the time of St John's death. When 
 therefore Irenseus relates that he was appointed bishop in Smyrna 
 ' by Apostles V the statement involves no chronological difficulty, 
 even though we interpret the term ' bishop ' in its more restricted 
 sense, and not as a synonyme for presbyter, according to its earlier 
 meaning. Later writers say distinctly that he was appointed to 
 the episcopal office by St John*. 
 
 At all events, he appears as Bishop of Smyrna in the early 
 years of the second century. When Ignatius passes through 
 Asia Minor on his way to martyrdom, he halts at Smyrna, where 
 he is received by Polycarp. At a later stage in his journey he 
 writes to his friend. The tone of his letter is altogether such 
 as might be expected from an old man writing to a younger, 
 who nevertheless held a position of great responsibility, and had 
 shown himself worthy of the trust. After expressing his thank- 
 fulness for their meeting, and commending his friend's steadfast 
 faith, which was ' founded as on an immovable rock,' he 
 proceeds : — 
 
 Vindicate thine office in all diligence, whether in things carnal or 
 in things spiritual. Have a care for unity, than which nothing is 
 better. Sustain all men, even as the Lord sustaineth thee. Suffer 
 all men in love, as also thou doest. Give thyself to unceasing prayer. 
 Ask for more wisdom than thou hast. Keep watch, and preserve a 
 wakeful spirit. ... Be thou wise as the serpent in all things, and 
 harmless always as the dove. . . . The time requireth thee, as pilots 
 
 1 1 Pet. i. 1. ^ Iren. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4. 
 
 2 Iren. iii. 3. 4. ^ e.g. Tertull. de Prcescr. Hcer. 32. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 93 
 
 require winds, or as a storm-tossed mariner a haven, so that it may 
 find God. ... Be sober, as God's athlete. . . . Stand firm as an anvil 
 under the stroke of the hammer. It becomes a great athlete to 
 endure blows and to conquer. . . . Show thyself more zealous than 
 thou art. . . . Let nothing be done without thy consent, neither do 
 thou anything without God's consent, as indeed thou doest not'. 
 
 The close of the letter is addressed mainly to the Smyrnseans, 
 enforcing their reciprocal obligations towards their bishop. 
 
 This letter, if the additional matter in the Vossian Epistles 
 may be trusted, was written from Troas, when the martyr was 
 on the point of embarking for Neapolis^ The next stage of his 
 journey would bring him to Philippi, where he halted. Thence 
 he proceeded by the great Egnatian road across the continent 
 to the Hadriatic, on his way to Rome. 
 
 Shortly after this, Polycarp himself addresses a letter to the 
 Philippians. He had been especially invited by his correspon- 
 dents to write to them, but he had also a reason of his own for 
 doing so. During this season of the year, when winter had 
 closed the high seas for navigation, all news from Rome must 
 travel through Macedonia to Asia Minor. At Smyrna they had 
 not yet received tidings of the fate of Ignatius ; and he hoped 
 to get early information from his correspondents, who were 
 some stages nearer to Rome where, as Polycarp assumed, his 
 friend had already suffered martyrdom ^ 
 
 This was the occasion of the letter, which for various reasons 
 possesses the highest interest as a document of early Christian 
 literature, though far from remarkable in itself. 
 
 Its most important feature is the profuseness of quotation 
 from the Apostolic writings. Of a Canon of the New Testa- 
 ment, strictly so called, it is not probable that Polycarp knew 
 anything*. This idea was necessarily, as Dr Westcott has 
 shown, the growth of time. But of the writings which are 
 
 ^ Ign. Polyc. 1 — 4. tent vnth his using certain writings as 
 
 ^ ib. § 8. authoritative. Thus he appeals to the 
 
 3 Polyc. Phil. 13. See below, p. Oracles of the Lord (§ 7), and he 
 
 111 sq. treats St Paul as incomparably greater 
 
 ^ This supposition is quite consis- than himself or others like him (§ 3). 
 
94 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 included in our Canon he shows a wide knowledge and an 
 ample appreciation. In this respect he may not unprofitably 
 be compared with Clement of Rome. Clement of Rome, there 
 is good reason to believe, was a Hellenist Jew^ ; he must have 
 been brought up in a familiar acquaintance with the Old 
 Testament Scriptures. On the other hand Polycarp, as we have 
 already seen, was probably the son of Christian parents ; at all 
 events he was educated from his earliest childhood in the 
 knowledge of the Gospel ; he had grown up in the society of 
 Apostles and Apostolic men. This contrast of education makes 
 itself apparent in the writings of the two Fathers. Though 
 there are clear indications in Clement that he was acquainted 
 with many of the Apostolic Epistles, yet his quotations are 
 chiefly taken from the Old Testament. Again and again he 
 cites continuous passages, and argues from them at length. 
 But with Polycarp the case is different. The New Testament 
 has exchanged places with the Old, at least so far as practical 
 use is concerned. Notwithstanding its brevity, Polycarp's 
 Epistle contains decisive coincidences with or references to 
 between thirty and forty passages in the New Testament". On 
 the other hand, with the single exception of four words from 
 the apocryphal book of Tobit^ there is no quotation taken 
 immediately from the Old Testament. Elsewhere indeed he 
 cites the words of Ps. iv. 4, but these are evidently quoted 
 
 1 The question of the Jewish or venture to think that our Clement 
 Gentile origin of Clement has been was a freedman or the son of a freed- 
 much disputed. My chief reason for man in the household of Flavius Cle- 
 the view adopted in the text is the fact mens, the cousin of Domitian, whom 
 that he shows not only an extensive the Emperor put to death for his pro- 
 knowledge of the Old Testament, but fession of Christianity. It is a curious 
 also an acquaintance with the tradi- fact, that Clement of Alexandria bears 
 tional teaching of the Jews. I find the name T. Flavins Clemens. He also 
 the name borne by a Jew in a sepul- was probably descended from some 
 chral inscription (Orell. Imcr. 2899) : dependent belonging to the household 
 D. M. CLEMETI . CAESARVM . N . of one or other of the Flavian princes. 
 N. SERVO. CASTELLARIO.AQVAE 2 Larduer Credibility Pt. 11. c. 
 . CLAVDIAE . FECIT . CLAVDIA . vi. 
 
 SABBATHIS . ET . SIBI . ET . SVIS. =* Phil. § 10. 'Eleemosyna de morte 
 
 If a conjecture may be hazarded, I liberat,' from Tobit iv. 10, xii. 9. 
 
IV. POLYCAEP OF SMYRNA. 95 
 
 from St Paul, and not directly from the Psalmist, as his context 
 shows \ 
 
 Not less remarkable than the number of his quotations from 
 the New Testament is their wide range. Of the Evangelical 
 references I shall have occasion to speak in a subsequent 
 article. Besides these there is a strong coincidence with the 
 Acts which can hardly be accidental*; and there are passages 
 or expressions taken from most of the Apostolic Epistles. 
 Among the latter the most decisive examples frequently refer 
 to those very Epistles which modern criticism has striven to 
 discredit. It cannot reasonably be questioned for instance, that 
 Polycarp was ac(j[uainted with the Epistle to the Ephesians and 
 with the two Epistles to Timothy. Of the indisputable refer- 
 ences to the First Epistle of St Peter I have already spoken in 
 a former paper^ 
 
 But the most important fact, in its bearing on recent 
 controversy, is the relation of the writer to St Paul. According 
 to the hypothesis of the Tiibingen school, there was a personal 
 antagonism between St Paul and St John, and an irreconcilable 
 feud between their respective schools. It is therefore with 
 special interest that we look to see what the most eminent 
 scholar of the beloved disciple says about the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles. Now St Paul occupies quite the most prominent 
 place in Polycarp's Epistle. This prominence is partly explained 
 by the fact that he is writing to a Church of St Paul's 
 founding, but this explanation does not detract from its value. 
 St Paul is the only Apostle who is mentioned by name ; his 
 writings are the only Apostolic writings which are referred to 
 by name ; of his thirteen Epistles, there are probable references 
 to as many as eleven* ; there are direct appeals to his example 
 
 ^ Pldl. § 12. 'Ut his scripturis die- ^ [See above, p. 49 sq.] 
 
 turn est; Irascimini, et nolite peccare, * The unrepresented Epistles are 
 
 et Sol non occidat super iramnidiam Titus and Philemon. The reference 
 
 vestravi,^ evidently taken from Ephes. to Colossians is uncertain; and in one 
 
 iv. 26. or two other cases the coincidence is 
 
 " ib. § 1. 6v -qyeipev 6 Qebs Xi^cras ras not so close as to remove all possibility 
 
 wSivas roO g.dov, from Acts ii. 24. of doubt. 
 
96 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 and his teaching alike : there is even an apology on the writer's 
 part for the presumption of seeming to set himself up as a rival 
 to the Apostle by writing to a Church to whom he had 
 addressed an Epistle \ Altogether the testimony to the respect 
 in which St Paul is held by the writer is as complete as 
 language can make it. If therefore the Epistle be accepted 
 as genuine, the position of the Tubingen school must be 
 abandoned. 
 
 From considering the phenomena of the extant Epistle, we 
 pass by a natural transition to the second point which I 
 proposed to investigate, the traditions of the author's teaching. 
 
 Polycarp was no longer a young man, when his Epistle was 
 written. But he lived on to see a new generation grow up from 
 infancy to mature age afterwards ; and as the companion of 
 Apostles and the depositary of the Apostolic tradition, his 
 influence increased with his increasing years. Before he died, 
 even unbelievers had come to regard him as the * Father of the 
 Christians.' 
 
 Of his later years a glimpse is afforded to us in the record of 
 an eye-witness. Among the disciples of his old age were two 
 youths, companions for the time, but destined to stand far apart 
 in after life — 
 
 ' Like cliffs that had been rent asunder ; ' 
 
 the elder, Florinus, who became famous afterwards as a here- 
 tical leader ; the younger, Irenseus, who stood forward as the 
 great champion of orthodoxy. The following is the remon- 
 strance addressed by Irenseus to his former associate after 
 his defection: — 
 
 These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak without harshness, 
 are not of sound judgment ; these opinions are not in harmony with 
 the Church, but involve those adopting them in the greatest impiety; 
 these opinions even the heretics outside the pale of the Church have 
 never ventured to broach ; these opinions the elders before us, who 
 also were disciples of the Apostles, did not hand down to thee. For 
 I saw thee, when I was still a boy (Trat? wv In), in Lower Asia in 
 
 1 Phil. § 3. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 97 
 
 company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring prosperously in the 
 royal court, and endeavouring to stand well with him. For I 
 distinctly remember (SLafxvrjfjiovevw) the incidents of that time better 
 than events of recent occurrence ; for the lessons received in child- 
 hood (eK TratStov), growing with the growth of the soul, become 
 identified with it ; so that I can describe the very place in which the 
 blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings out 
 and his comings in, and his manner of life, and his personal appear- 
 ance, and the discourses which he held before the people, and how he 
 would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest who had 
 seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatso- 
 ever things he had heard from them about the Lord, and about his 
 miracles, and about his teaching, Polycarp, as having received them 
 from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word^ would relate altogether 
 in accordance with the Scriptures. To these (discourses) I used to 
 listen at the time with attention by God's mercy which was bestowed 
 upon me, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart ; and by 
 tlie gi'ace of God, I constantly ruminate upon them faithfully (yv-qa-iw;). 
 And I can testify in the sight of God, that if the blessed and 
 Apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he would have 
 cried out, and stopped his ears, and said after his wont, ' O good 
 God, for what times hast Thou kept me, that I should endure such 
 things?' and would even have fled from the place where he was 
 sitting or standing when he heard such words. And indeed, this 
 can be shown from his letters which he wrote either to the neigh- 
 bouring Churches for their confirmation, or to certain of the brethren 
 for their warning and exhortation^. 
 
 Unfortunately the chronological notices are not sufficiently 
 precise to enable us to fix the date either of this intercourse 
 with Polycarp, or of the letter to Florinus in which Irenaeus 
 records it. In the year 155 or 156 Polycarp died ; in the year 
 177 Irenaeus became Bishop of Lyons. Putting these two facts 
 together, we may perhaps assume that Irengeus must have been 
 a pupil of Polycarp somewhere between A.D. 135 — 150. The 
 mention of the ' royal court ' seems at first sight to suggest the 
 
 1 Toiv avTowTwv TTjs ^wrjs Tov Aoyov. order. Possibly there is an accidental 
 
 I would gladly translate this ' the eye- transposition in the common text. The 
 
 witnesses of the Word of Life' (comp. Syriac translator has 'those who saw 
 
 1 John i. 1), as it is commonly taken ; with their eyes the living Word.' 
 but I cannot get this out of the Greek - Euseb. H. E. v. 20. 
 
 S. R. 7 
 
98 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 hope of a more precise solution ; but even if this notice be taken 
 to imply the presence of the Emperor for the time being in Asia 
 Minor, our information respecting the movements of Hadrian 
 and his successors is too scanty to afford ground for any safe 
 inference'. 
 
 Of the later career of Florinus, we are informed that he was 
 at one time a presbyter of the Roman Church ; that he after- 
 wards fell away, and taught his heresy in the metropolis ; that 
 in consequence Irenseus addressed to him this letter from which 
 I have given the extract, and which was also entitled 'On 
 Monarchy' or 'Showing that God is not the author of evil' 
 {TTOtrjrrjv KaKoov) — this being the special heresy of Florinus ; and 
 that afterwards, apparently by a rebound, he lapsed into Valen- 
 tinianism, on which occasion Irenaeus wrote his treatise on the 
 Ogdoad^ As the treatise of Irenasus on the Ogdoad can hardly 
 have been written later than his extant work on Heresies, in 
 which Valentinianism is so fully discussed as to render any such 
 
 ^ Dodwell and Grabe explain the 
 reference by a visit of Hadrian to Asia, 
 which the former places a.d. 122, and 
 the latter a.d. 129 (Grabe Proleg. sect. 
 1) ; but both these dates seem too 
 early, even if there were no other 
 objections. Massuet {Diss, in Iren. ii. 
 sect. 2) considers that the expression 
 does not imply the presence of the 
 imperial court in Asia, but signifies 
 merely that Florinus was a courtier 
 in high favour with the Emperor. 
 But Irenseus could hardly have ex- 
 pressed himself so, if he had meant 
 nothing more than this. The succeed- 
 ing Emperor, Antoninus Pius (a.d. 138 
 — 161), spent his time almost entirely 
 in Italy. Capitolinus says of him: 
 'Nee uUas expeditiones obiit, nisi 
 quod ad agros suos profectus et ad 
 Gampaniam,' Vit. Anton. 7. He ap- 
 pears however to have gone to Egypt 
 and Syria in the later years of his 
 reign (Aristid. Op. i. p. 453, ed. Dind.), 
 and the account of John Malalas 
 
 would seem to imply that he visited 
 Asia Minor on his return (p. 280, ed. 
 Bonn.). But M. Waddington {Vie du 
 Rheteur jEUus Aristide p. 259 sq) 
 shows that he was still at Antioch in 
 the early part of the year 155 ; so that 
 this visit, if it really took place, is too 
 late for our purpose. 
 
 As no known visit of a reigning 
 Emperor will suit, I venture to offer a 
 conjecture. About the year 136, T. 
 Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of Asia 
 (Waddington Pastes des provinces Asia- 
 tiques p. 724). Within two or three 
 years from his proconsulate he was 
 raised to the imperial throne, and is 
 known as Antoninus Pius. Florinus 
 may have belonged to his suite, and 
 Irenaeus in after years might well call 
 the proconsul's retinue, in a loose way, 
 the 'royal court' by anticipation. 
 This explanation gives a visit of suffi- 
 cient length, and otherwise fits in with 
 the circumstances. 
 
 2 Euseb, H. E. v. 15, 20. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 99 
 
 partial treatment superfluous, and which dates from the episco- 
 pate of Eleutherius (a.d. 177 — 190), we are led to the conclusion 
 that the letter to Florinus was one of the earliest writings of 
 this Father. 
 
 Thus we are left without any means of ascertaining the 
 exact age of Irenseus when he sat at the feet of Polycarp. But 
 beyond this uncertainty his testimony is as explicit as could 
 well be desired. All experience, if I mistake not, bears out his 
 statement respecting the vividness of the memory during this 
 period of life. In a recent trial, the most fatal blot in the 
 evidence was the inability of a pretender to give any information 
 respecting the games and studies, the companions, the familiar 
 haunts, of the school and college days of the person with whom 
 he identified himself It is the penalty which mature age pays 
 for clearer ideas and higher powers of generalisation, that the 
 recollection of facts becomes comparatively blurred. Very often 
 an old man will relate with perfect distinctness the incidents of 
 his youth and early manhood, while a haze will rest over much 
 of the intervening period. Those who have listened to a 
 Sedgwick after a lapse of sixty or seventy years repeating 
 anecdotes of the ' statesmen ' in his native dale, or describing 
 the circumstances under which he first heard the news of the 
 battle of Trafalgar, will be able to realize the vividness of the 
 stories which the aged Polycarp would tell to his youthful pupil 
 of his intercourse with the last surviving Apostle — the memory 
 of the narrator being quickened and the interest of the hearer 
 intensified, in this case, by the conviction that they were brought 
 face to face with facts such as the world had never seen before. 
 
 One incident more is recorded of this veteran preacher of the 
 Gospel. In the closing years of his life he undertook a journey 
 to Rome, where he conferred with the bishop, Anicetus. The 
 main subject of this conference was the time of celebrating the 
 Passion. Polycarp pleaded the practice of St John and the 
 other Apostles with whom he had conversed, for observing the 
 actual day of the Jewish Passover, without respect to the day of 
 the week. On the other hand.. Anicetus could point to the fact 
 
 7—2 
 
100 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 that his predecessors, at least as far back as Xystus, who suc- 
 ceeded to the see soon after the beginning of the century, had 
 always kept the anniversary of the Passion on a Friday and that 
 of the Resurrection on a Sunday, thus making the day of the 
 month give place to the day of the week. Neither convinced 
 the other, but they parted good friends. This difference of 
 usage did not interfere with the most perfect cordiality ; and, as 
 a sign of this, Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucha- 
 rist in his stead \ About forty years later, when the Paschal 
 controversy was revived, and Victor, a successor of Anicetus, ex- 
 communicated the Asiatic Churches, Irenseus, though himself an 
 observer of the Western usage, wrote to remonstrate with Victor 
 on this harsh and tyrannical measure. An extract from his 
 letter is preserved by Eusebius, in which these incidents respect- 
 ing his old master are recorded ^ Irenseus insists strongly on 
 the fact that "the harmony of the faith" has never been dis- 
 turbed hitherto by any such diversities of usage. 
 
 To this visit to Rome Ireneeus makes another reference in 
 his extant work against Heresies. The perfect confidence with 
 which he appeals to the continuity of the Apostolic tradition, 
 and to the testimony of Polycarp as the principal link in the 
 chain, gives a peculiar significance to this passage, and no apo- 
 logy is needed for quoting it at length. After speaking of the 
 succession of the Roman bishops, through whom the true 
 doctrine has been handed down to his own generation without 
 interruption, he adds — 
 
 And (so it was with) Polycarp also, who not only was taught by 
 Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse (o-wavao-rpac^ets) with 
 many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in 
 Asia from Apostles, as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna, whom we 
 too have seen in our youth (iv rfj Trpwriy ij/zwv tJXlklo), for he survived 
 long, and departed this life at a very great age, by a glorious and 
 most notable martyrdom, having ever taught these very things, 
 which he had learnt from the Apostles, which the Church hands 
 down, and which alone are true. To these testimony is borne by all 
 
 1 This at least seems to be the most evxapLariav. 
 probable meaning of Trapex'^p'jo'e ttjv - Euseb. H. E. v. 24, 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 101 
 
 the Churches in Asia, and by the successors of Polycarp up to the 
 present time, who was a much more trustworthy and safer witness of 
 the truth than Valentinus and Marcion, and all such wrong-minded 
 men. He also, when on a visit to Rome in the days of Anicetus, 
 converted many to the Church of God from following the afore- 
 named heretics, by preaching that he had received from the Apostles 
 this doctrine, and this only, which was handed down by the Church, 
 as the truth. And there are those who have heard him tell how 
 John, the disciple of the Lord, when he went to take a bath in 
 Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus Avithin, rushed away from the room 
 without bathing, with the words, ' Let us flee, lest the room should 
 indeed fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.' 
 Yea, and Polycai'p himself also on one occasion, when Marcion con- 
 fi'onted him and said, ' Dost thou recognize me?' answered, ' I recog- 
 nize the lirstborn of Satan.' Such care did the Apostles and their 
 disciples take not to hold any communication, even by word, with 
 any of those who falsify the truth, as Paul also said, ' A man that 
 is a heretic after a first and second admonition, avoid ; knowing that 
 such an one is perverted and sinneth, being self-condemned.' More- 
 over, there is an Epistle of Polycarp addressed to the Philippians, 
 which is most adequate (iKavcoTar?;), and from which both his manner 
 of life and his preaching of the truth may be learnt by those who 
 desire to learn and are anxious for their own salvation. And again, 
 the Church in Ephesus, which was founded by Paul, and where John 
 survived till the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of 
 the Apostles'. 
 
 I have given these important extracts at length because 
 they speak for themselves. If I mistake not, they will be more 
 convincing than many arguments. It is impossible to doubt 
 the sincerity of Irenseus, when he thus explicitly and repeatedly 
 maintains that the doctrines which he holds and teaches are the 
 same which Polycarp had held and taught before him. On the 
 other hand, a school of critics which has arisen in the present 
 generation maintains that Irenseus was mistaken from beginning 
 to end; that, instead of this continuity in the teaching and 
 history of the Church, there had been a violent dislocation; that 
 St John, as an Apostle of the Circumcision, must have had a 
 deep-rooted aversion to the doctrine and work of St Paul; and 
 
 ^ lien. iii. 3. 4. 
 
102 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 that Polycarp, as a disciple of St John, must have shared that 
 aversion, and cannot therefore have recognized the authority of 
 the Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 
 It is difficult to believe that those who hold this theory have 
 seriously faced the historical difficulties which it involves, or 
 have attempted to realize any combination of circumstances by 
 which this revolution could have been brought about in such a 
 manner as to escape the notice of the next succeeding generations. 
 I shall probably have occasion hereafter to speak of the solidarity 
 of the Church at this epoch. At present it is sufficient to say 
 that the direct personal testimony of Irenseus respecting Poly- 
 carp is by no means the only, or even the greatest, impediment 
 to this theory. He constantly appeals to the Asiatic elders, the 
 disciples and followers of the Apostles, in confirmation of his 
 statement. Among the Christian teachers of proconsular Asia 
 who immediately succeeded Polycarp, are two famous names, 
 Melito of Sardis and Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis. They 
 must already have reached middle life before Polycarp's martyr- 
 dom. They were not merely practical workers, but voluminous 
 writers also. The lists of their works handed down to us comprise 
 the widest range of topics; they handle questions of Christian 
 ethics, of Scriptural interpretation, of controversial divinity, of 
 ecclesiastical order, of theological metaphysics. Was there then 
 any possibility of a mistake here ? To us the history of the 
 Church during the second century is obscure, because all this 
 voluminous literature, except a few meagre fragments, has 
 been blotted out. But to the contemporaries and successors of 
 Irenseus it was legible enough. ' Who does not know,' exclaims 
 his own pupil Hippolytus, ' the books of Irenaeus and Melito 
 and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man^?' 
 
 This mission of peace to Rome must have been one of the 
 latest acts of the old man's life. The accession of Anicetus to 
 the see of Rome is variously dated ; but the earliest year is 
 about A.D. 150, and an eminent recent critic, who has paid 
 special attention to the subject, places it between A.D. 154 and 
 1 Quoted anonymously in Euseb. H, E. v. 28. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 103 
 
 A.D. 156\ In the year 155, or 156 at the latest, Polycarp fell a 
 martyr. 
 
 The details of his martyrdom are recorded in a contemporary 
 document, which takes the form of a letter from the Church of 
 Smyrna, addressed more immediately to the Church of Philo- 
 melium but challenging at the same time a wider circulation^ 
 The simplicity with which the narrators record omens and 
 occurrences easily explicable in themselves, but invested by their 
 surcharged feelings with a miraculous character, is highly 
 natural. The whole narrative is eminently touching and instruc- 
 tive ; but the details have little or no bearing on my immediate 
 purpose. It is sufficient to say that Polycarp had retired into 
 the country to escape persecution ; that the populace, not satis- 
 fied with the victims already sacrificed to their fury, demanded 
 the life of Polycarp, as the 'father of the Christians;' that his 
 hiding-place was betrayed by a boy in his service, under the 
 influence of torture ; that the magistrates urged him to save his 
 life by submitting to the usual tests, by pronouncing the 
 formula, 'Caesar is Lord,' or offering sacrifice, or swearing by 
 the fortune of the Emperor, or reviling Christ ; that he declared 
 himself unable to blaspheme a Master whom he had served for 
 eighty-six years, and from whom he had received no wrong ; and 
 that consequently he was burnt at the stake, Jews and Heathens 
 vying with each other in feeding the flames. The games were 
 already past ; otherwise he would have been condemned to the 
 wild beasts — the usual punishment for such contumacy. 
 
 Polycarp was martyred during the proconsulship of Statins 
 Quadratus. The commonly received date of his death is A.D. 
 166 or 167, as given in the Chronicon of Eusebius. Quite 
 recently however, M. Waddington has subjected the proconsular 
 fasti of Asia Minor to a fresh and rigorous scrutiny^ This 
 
 ^ Lipsius Chronologie der E'dmi- the Memoires de V Academic des Triscrip- 
 
 schen Bischofe p. 263. tioiis xxvi. p. 202 sq; and his Pastes 
 
 " See Jacobson's Patres Apostolici des provinces Asiatiques in Le Bas and 
 
 ii. p. 604. Waddington's Voyage ArcMologique en 
 
 3 See his Memoir e sur la Chronologie Grece et en Asie Mineure. 
 de la Vie du Bhiteur ^lius Aristide in 
 
104 ON SUPEKNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Statius Quadratus is mentioned by the orator Aristides ; and by 
 an investigation of the chronology of Aristides' life, with the aid 
 of newly-discovered inscriptions, M. Waddington arrives at the 
 result that Quadratus was proconsul in 154, 155 ; and, as 
 Polycarp was martyred in the early months of the year, his 
 martyrdom must be dated A.D. 155. This result is accepted by 
 M. E.enan\ and substantially also by Hilgenfeld and Lipsius""*, 
 who however (for reasons into which it is unnecessary to enter 
 here) postpones the martyrdom to the following year, A.D. 156. 
 M. Waddington's arguments seem conclusive, and this recti- 
 fication of date removes some stumbling-blocks. The relations 
 between St John and Polycarp for instance, as reported by 
 Irenseus and others, no longer present any difficulty, when the 
 period during which the lives of the two overlap each other is 
 thus extended. The author of Supernatuy^al Religion very 
 excusably adopts the received date of Polycarp's martyrdom, 
 being unaware, as it would seem, of these recent investigations. 
 
 In this account of Polycarp, I have assumed the genuineness 
 of the Epistle ascribed to him ; but the author of Supernatural 
 Religion has taken his side with those writers who condemn it 
 as spurious, and I am therefore obliged to give reasons for this 
 confidence. 
 
 So far as regards external testimony, it must be confessed 
 that the Epistle of Polycarp presents itself with credentials of 
 exceptional value. The instances are very rare indeed where a 
 work of antiquity can claim the direct testimony of a pupil of 
 the writer to whom it is ascribed. The statement of Irenseus 
 respecting the authorship of this Epistle is explicit ; and indeed, 
 as the reference is not denied either by the author of Super- 
 natural Religion or by other critics, like Lipsius and Hilgenfeld, 
 who nevertheless condemn the Epistle as spurious, I am saved 
 all trouble in establishing its adequacy. Our author indeed is 
 content to set it aside, because 'the testimony of Irenseus is not 
 
 1 L'Antechrist I). 5QQ. sensch. Theol. xvii. p. 188 (1874); 
 
 " Lipsius in the Zeitsch. f. Wis- Hilgenfeld ib. p. 325 sq. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 105 
 
 . . . entitled to much weight, inasmuch as his intercourse with 
 Polycarp was evidently confined to a short period of his extreme 
 youth, and we have no reason to suppose that he had any 
 subsequent communication with him\' I do not see how the 
 notice of Ireneeus justifies the statement that the period was 
 short; but the passage has been given above, and the reader may 
 judge for himself Nor does it seem probable, considering that 
 the communications between Asia Minor and southern Gaul 
 were close and frequent, that the pupil should altogether have 
 lost sight of the master whom he revered, when he migrated to 
 his new and distant home in the west. But, even though all 
 this be granted, the fact still remains, that the testimony is 
 exceptionally good and would in ordinary cases be regarded as 
 quite decisive. I do not say that it is impossible Irenseus could 
 have been mistaken ; there is always risk of error in human 
 testimony ; but I maintain that, unless we are required to apply 
 a wholly different standard of evidence here from that which is 
 held satisfactory in other cases, we approach this Epistle with a 
 very strong guarantee of its authenticity, which can only be 
 invalidated by solid and convincing proofs, and against which 
 hypothetical combinations and ingenious surmises are powerless ^ 
 Whether the objections adduced by the impugners of this 
 Epistle are of this character, the reader will see presently. 
 
 From the external we turn to the internal evidence. We 
 are asked to believe that this letter was forged on the confines 
 of the age of Irenseus and Clement of Alexandria. But can 
 anything be more unlike the ecclesiastical literature of this 
 later generation, whether we regard the use of the New Testa- 
 ment, or the notices of ecclesiastical order, or the statements 
 of theological doctrine ? The Evangelical quotations are still 
 given (as in Clement of Rome) with the formula, 'The Lord 
 said ;' the passages from the Apostolic Epistles are still, for the 
 
 1 S, R. I. p. 276. read in the Church of Asia; Jerome 
 
 2 It should be mentioned also that Vir. 111. 17, 'Usque hodie in Asiae 
 we have another exceptional guarantee conventu legitur.' 
 
 in the fact that Polycarp's Epistle was 
 
106 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 most part, indirect and anonymous. Though two or three 
 chapters are devoted to injunctions respecting the ministry of 
 the Church, there is not an allusion to episcopacy from begin- 
 ning to end. Though the writer's ideas of the Person of Christ 
 practically leave nothing to be desired, yet these ideas are still 
 held in solution, and have not yet crystallized into the dogmatic 
 forms which characterize the later generation. And from first to 
 last this Epistle is silent upon those questions which interested 
 the Church in the second half of the second century. Of 
 Montanism, of the Paschal controversy, of the developed Gnostic 
 heresies of this period, it says nothing. A supposed reference to 
 Marcion I shall have to discuss presently. For the moment it is 
 sufficient to say that an allusion so vague and pointless as this 
 would be must certainly have missed its aim. 
 
 But this argument from internal evidence gains strength 
 when considered from another point of view. The only in- 
 telligible theory — indeed, so far as I remember, the only attempt 
 at a theory — offered to account for this Epistle by those who 
 deny its genuineness or its integrity, connects it closely with the 
 Ignatian letters. If forged, it was forged by the same hand 
 which wrote the seven Vossian Epistles ; if interpolated, it was 
 interpolated by the person who expanded the three genuine 
 Epistles into the seven. According to either hypothesis, the 
 object was to recommend the Ignatian forgery on the authority 
 of a great name ; the motive betrays itself in the thirteenth 
 chapter, where Polycarp is represented as sending several of the 
 Ignatian Epistles to the Philippians along with his own letter. 
 This theory is at all events intelligible ; and, so far as I can see, 
 it is the only rational theory of which the case admits. 
 
 Let us ask then, whether there is any improbability in the 
 circumstances, as here represented. Ignatius had stayed at 
 Philippi on his way to martyrdom ; the Philippians had been 
 deeply impressed by their intercourse with him ; writing to 
 Polycarp afterwards, they had requested him to send them a 
 copy of the martyr's letter or letters to him ; he complies with 
 the request, and appends also copies of other letters written by 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 107 
 
 Ignatius, which he happened to have in his possession. Is this 
 at all unnatural ? Suppose on the other hand, that the letter 
 of Polycarp had contained no such reference to Ignatius and his 
 Epistles, would it not have been regarded as a highly suspicious 
 circumstance, that, writing to the Philippians so soon after 
 Ignatius had visited both Churches, Polycarp should have said 
 nothing about so remarkable a man? When I see how this 
 argument from silence is worked in other cases, I cannot 
 doubt that it would have been plied here as a formidable 
 objection either to the truth of the Ignatian story, or to the 
 genuineness of Polycarp's Epistle, or to both. My conclusion is 
 that this notice proves nothing either way, when it stands alone. 
 If the other contents of the Polycarpian Epistle are questionable, 
 then it enforces our misgivings. If not, then this use of the notice 
 is only another illustration of the over-suspicious temperament 
 of modem criticism, which, as I ventured to suggest in an earlier 
 paper, must be as fatal to calm and reasonable judgment in 
 matters of early Christian history, as it is manifestly in matters 
 of common life. The question therefore is narrowed to this 
 issue, whether the Epistle of Polycarp bears evidence in its style 
 and diction or in its modes of thought or in any other way, that 
 it was written by the same hand which penned the Ignatian 
 letters. 
 
 And here I venture to say that, however we test these 
 documents, the contrast is very striking ; more striking in fact 
 than we should have expected to find between two Christian 
 writers who wrote about the same time and were personally 
 acquainted with each other. I will apply some of these tests. 
 
 1. The stress which Ignatius lays on episcopacy as the 
 keystone of ecclesiastical order and the guarantee of theological 
 orthodoxy, is well known. Indeed it is often supposed that the 
 Ignatian Letters were written for this express purpose. In 
 Polycarp's Epistle on the other hand, as I have already said, 
 there is no mention of episcopacy. He speaks at length about 
 the duties of the presbyters, of the deacons, of the widows, and 
 others, but the bishop is entirely ignored. More especially he 
 
108 ON SUPEENATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 directs the younger men to be obedient to ' the presbyters and 
 deacons, as to God and Christ,' but nothing is said about 
 obedience to the bishop \ At a later point he has occasion to 
 speak of an offence committed by one Valens, a presbyter, but 
 here again there is the same silence. All this is quite intelligible, 
 if the letter is genuine, on the supposition either that there was 
 a vacancy in the Philipj^ian bishopric at this time, or, as seems 
 more probable, that the ecclesiastical organization there was not 
 yet fully developed ; but it is, so far as I can see, quite 
 inconceivable that a forger whose object was to recommend 
 episcopacy should have pictured a state of things so damaging 
 to his main purpose. The supposed forger indeed shows him- 
 self throughout quite indifferent on this subject. There is 
 every reason for believing that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna 
 at this time ; yet in the heading of the letter he does not assert 
 his title, but writes merely, ' Polycarp and the presbyters with 
 him.' 
 
 2. If we turn from ecclesiastical organization to doctrinal 
 statement, the contrast still remains. We meet with no such 
 strong expressions as are found in the Ignatian letters ; Polycarp 
 never speaks of ' the blood of God,' ' the passion of my God,' 
 ' Jesus Christ our God,' and the like. Even in the commoner 
 modes of designating our Lord, a difference is perceptible. 
 Thus the favourite mode of expression with Ignatius is ' Jesus 
 Christ ' simply, which occurs nearly a hundred times ; whereas 
 in Polycarp it is only found twice (one passage being a quota- 
 tion). On the other hand, the usual expression in Polycarp is 
 ' Our Lord Jesus Christ,' which apparently occurs only twice in 
 the Ignatian Epistles, and in both instances with various 
 readings. Again the combination ' God and Christ,' occurring 
 three times in Polycarp, does not appear once in the Ignatian 
 letters ^ 
 
 1 Phil. § 5. all events a careful reader will, if I 
 
 2 I believe that the facts stated in mistake not, observe a marked differ- 
 the text are strictly correct ; but I may ence in the ordinary theological Ian- 
 have overlooked some passages. At guage of the two writers. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 109 
 
 3. The divergence of the two writers as regards Scriptural 
 quotations is still more remarkable. Though the seven Igna- 
 tian letters are together at least five times as long as the 
 Epistle of Polycarp, the quotations from the Apostolic Epistles 
 in the latter are many times more numerous, as well as more 
 precise, than in the former. Whole passages in Polycarp are 
 made up of such quotations strung together, while in Ignatius 
 they are very rare, being for the most part epigrammatic 
 adaptations and isolated coincidences of language or thought. 
 Nor indeed is their range coextensive. Thus the Epistle of 
 Polycarp, as I pointed out in a former article S is pervaded with 
 the language of St Peter's First Epistle, but in the Ignatian 
 letters there is no trace of its use^ 
 
 4. But this divergence only forms part of a still broader 
 and more decisive contrast. The profuseness of quotation in 
 Polycarp 's Epistle arises from a want of originality. The writer 
 reproduces the thoughts and words of others, because his mind 
 is essentially receptive and not creative. He is altogether 
 wanting in independence of thought. On the other hand, the 
 Ignatian letters are remarkable for their individuality. Of all 
 early Christian writings they are pre-eminent in this respect. 
 They are full of idiomatic expressions, quaint images, unexpected 
 turns of thought and language. They exhibit their characteristic 
 ideas, which obviously have a high value for the writer, for he 
 recurs to them again and again, but which the reader often 
 finds it extremely difficult to grasp, owing to their singularity. 
 
 I venture to think that any one who will carefully consider 
 these contrasts — more especially the last, as extending over the 
 whole field — must be struck with the impossibility of the theory 
 which makes this letter part of the assumed Ignatian forgeries. 
 This hypothesis requires us to believe that a very uncritical 
 age produced a literary fiction, which, for subtlety and natural- 
 
 1 [See above, p. 49 sq.] ' to be subject one to another,' occurs 
 
 - Ign. Magn. 13 is given by Lardner also in Ephes. v. 21, even if any stress 
 
 (p. 88) as a coincidence with 1 Pet. v. could be laid on the occurrence of 
 
 5. But the expression in question, these few obvious words. 
 
110 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 ness of execution, leaves the most skilful forgeries of the 
 nineteenth century far behind. 
 
 And the hypothesis of interpolation is encumbered with 
 difficulties of the same kind, and hardly less considerable. This 
 hypothesis was shaped and developed by RitschP, whose theory 
 has been accepted by some later writers. He supposes that the 
 greater part of the Epistle is the genuine production of the 
 person whose name it bears, written however, not immediately 
 after the death of Ignatius, but in the later years of Polycarp's 
 long life. The three passages which relate to Ignatius, together 
 with other parts which he defines, he supposes to have been 
 interpolated by the same forger who amplified the three 
 genuine letters of the martyr of Antioch into the seven of 
 the Yossian collection. But if any one will take the passages 
 which Ritschl has struck out as interpolated, he will find that 
 the general style is the same ; that individual expressions, more 
 especially theological expressions, are the same ; that the 
 quotations are from the same range of books, as in the other 
 parts, extending even to coincidences of expression with the 
 Epistle of Clement of Rome ; and that altogether there is 
 nothing to separate one part from another, except the a priori 
 assumption that the references to Ignatius must be unhistorical. 
 I do not know whether these facts have been pointed out before, 
 and I cannot do more here than hint at lines of investigation 
 which any one may follow up for himself But when the 
 phenomena are fully recognized, I venture to think that the 
 difficulties in Ritschl's theory will be felt to be many times 
 greater than those which it is framed to remove. 
 
 Of the general character of the Epistle, as affecting the 
 question of its genuineness, the author of Supernatural Religion 
 has said nothing. But he has reproduced special objections 
 which have been urged by previous writers ; and to these I wish 
 to call attention, because they are very good, and not unfavour- 
 able, illustrations of the style of criticism which is in vogue with 
 the negative school. 
 
 ' AltTcatlwlische Kirche p. 584 sq (ed. 2). 
 
IV, POLYCARP OF SMYENA. HI 
 
 1. Our author writes in the first place : — 
 
 We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome 
 is, for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the epistles 
 purporting to be written during that journey must be held to be 
 spurious. The Epistle of Polycarp, however, not only refers to the 
 martyr-journey (c. ix), but to the Ignatian Epistles which are 
 inauthentic (c. xiii), and the manifest inference is that it also is 
 spurious. 
 
 Of the fabulous character of the martyr-journey I have 
 already disposed in my previous article on the Ignatian letters \ 
 For the present I reserve what I have to say concerning the 
 assumed reference to the ' inauthentic ' Epistles, as this objection 
 will reappear again. 
 
 2. Our author on a later page urges that — 
 
 In the Epistle itself, there are many anachronisms. In ch. ix 
 the ' blessed Ignatius ' is referred to as already a considerable time 
 dead, and he is held up with Zosimus and Ruf us, and also with Paul 
 and the rest of the Apostles, as examples of patience : men who have 
 not run in vain, but are with the Lord; but in ch. xiii he is spoken 
 of as living, and information is requested regarding him, ' and those 
 who are with him.' 
 
 To this objection I had already supplied the answer^ which 
 has been given many times before, and which, as it seemed to 
 me, the author ought in fairness to have noticed. I had pointed 
 out that we have only the Latin version here, and that the 
 present tense is obviously due to the translator. The original 
 would naturally be twv <tvv avrw, which the translator, being 
 obliged to supply a substantive verb, has carelessly rendered 
 ' his qui cum eo sunt.' If any one will consider what has been 
 just said about the general character of the Epistle, he will see 
 that this is the only reasonable explanation of the fact, whether 
 we regard the work as genuine or not. If it is not genuine, the 
 forger has executed his task with consummate skill and appre- 
 ciation ; and yet here he is charged with a piece of bungling 
 
 1 [See above, p. 63 sq.] 2 j-ggg above, p. 11.] 
 
112 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 which a schoolboy would have avoided. It is not merely an 
 anachronism, but a self-contradiction of the most patent kind. 
 The writer, on this hypothesis, has not made up his mind whether 
 Ignatius is or is not supposed to be dead at the time, and he 
 represents the fact differently in two different parts \ 
 
 But our author apparently is quite unaware that ol avv 
 avTw might mean equally well, ' those who were with him,' and 
 ' those who are with him.' At least I cannot attach any other 
 meaning to his reply, in which he retorts upon me my own 
 words used elsewhere, and speaks of my argument as being 
 ' wrecked upon this rock of grammar^.' If so, I can only refer 
 him to Thucydides or any Greek historian, where he will find 
 scores of similar instances. I need hardly say that the expression 
 itself is quite neutral as regards time, meaning nothing more 
 than ' his companions,' and that the tense must be supplied 
 according to the context or the known circumstances of the 
 case. But I am not sorry that our author has fallen into this 
 error, for it has led me to investigate the usage of Polycarp and 
 his translator, and has thus elicited the following facts : — (1) 
 Unless he departed from his ordinary usage, Polycarp would 
 have employed the short expression ol avv avrm or ol fxer 
 avTov in such a case. Thus he has ol avv avrw in the opening 
 paragraph, and roh i^ vfiwv in c. 9, with other similar instances. 
 (2) The translator, if he had the words roh avv avrw before 
 him, would almost certainly supply the substantive verb, as he 
 has done in the opening, 'qui cum eo sunt presbyteri;' in c. 3, 
 'illis qui tunc erant hominibus,' and 'quae est in Deo;' in c. 9, 
 'qui ex vobis sunt;' and probably also in c. 12, 'qui sunt sub 
 coelo ' (the Greek is wanting in this last j)assage). (3) The 
 translator, in supplying the verb, was as likely as not to give the 
 wrong tense. In fact, in the only other passage in the Epistle 
 where it was possible to make a mistake, he has gone wrong on 
 
 1 Bitscbl {I.e. p. 586), though him- cidedly that the corresponding Greek 
 
 self condemning the thirteenth chapter must have been tuv fxer ai'roO. 
 
 as an interpolation, treats this objec- " Fortnirfhtly Review, January, 
 
 tion as worthless, and says very de- 1875, p. 14. 
 
IV. POLYCAKP OF SMYRNA. 113 
 
 this very point ; he has translated rjv kol ethere . . . iv aWoif 
 roL'i i^ v/jboov mechanically by a present tense, ' quam et vidistis 
 ... in aliis qui ex vobis sunt,' though the persons are mentioned 
 in connection with St Ignatius and St Paul, and though it is 
 distinctly stated immediately afterwards that they all were 
 dead, having, as we may infer from the context, ended their life 
 by martyrdom. In fact, he has made the very same blunder 
 which I ascribe to him here. 
 
 This objection therefore may be set aside for ever. But the 
 notices which I have been considering suggest another reflection. 
 Is the historical position which the writer of this letter takes up 
 at all like the invention of a forger? Would he have thought 
 of placing himself at the moment of time when Ignatius is 
 supposed to have been martyred, but when the report of the 
 circumstances had not yet reached Smyrna ? If he had chosen 
 this moment, would he not have made it clear, instead of leaving 
 his readers to infer it by piecing together notices which are 
 scattered through the Epistle — notices moreover, which, though 
 entirely consistent with each other, are so far from obvious that 
 his translator has been led astray by them, and that modern 
 critics have woven out of them these entanglements which it 
 has taken me so much time to unravel ? 
 
 3. But our author proceeds : — 
 
 Moreover, although thus spoken of as alive, the writer already 
 knows of his Epistles, and refers, in the plural, to those written by 
 him 'to us, and all the rest which we have by us.' The reference 
 here, it will be observed, is not only to the Epistles to the Smyr- 
 nseans and to Polycarp himself, but to other spurious epistles which 
 are not included in the Syriac version. 
 
 I have already shown that Ignatius is not spoken of as alive ; 
 but, if he had been alive, I do not see why Polycarp should not 
 have known of his Epistles, seeing that of the seven Vossian 
 letters four claim to have been written from Smyrna, when the 
 saint was in some sense Polycarp's guest, and two to have been 
 written to Smyrna. Therefore of the seven Epistles, supposing 
 S. R. 8 
 
114 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 them to be genuine, Polycarp would almost necessarily have 
 been acquainted with six. 
 
 By the ' other spurious Epistles,' which the Epistle of Poly- 
 carp is supposed to recognize, I presume that our author means 
 the four of the Vossian collection, which have no place in the 
 Syriac. If so, I would reply that, supposing the three Syriac 
 Epistles to represent the only genuine letters extant, these 
 Epistles themselves bear testimony to the fact that Ignatius 
 wrote several others besides ; for in one passage in these Syriac 
 Epistles {Rom. 4) the martyr says, ' I write to all the Churches 
 and charge all men.' And again, when Polycarp writes, Ta<; iirt- 
 crroXc)? ^lyvarlov ra? 7r€/u,(f)9€iaa^ r^fjulv vir avTOV it is sufficient 
 to advert to the fact that, like the Latin epistolae, the plural 
 iTTia-ToXal is frequently used convertibly with the singular eVi- 
 (TToXrj for a single letter \ and indeed appears to be so used in an 
 earlier passage by Polycarp himself of St Paul's Epistle to the 
 Philippians^ ; so that the notice is satisfied by the single Epistle 
 to Polycarp which is included in the Syriac letters, and does not 
 necessarily imply also the Epistle to the Smymseans which has 
 no place there. But of this passage generally I would say, that 
 though it may be a question whether the language does not 
 favour the genuineness of the Vossian letters, as against the 
 Curetonian, it cannot be taken to impugn the genuineness of 
 the Epistle of Polycarp itself, authenticated, as this Epistle is, 
 by Irenseus, and exhibiting, as we have seen, every mark of 
 genuineness in itself. 
 
 4. Our author then continues : — 
 
 Dallseus pointed out long ago, that ch. xiii abruptly interrupts 
 the conclusion of the Epistle. 
 
 In what sense this chapter can be said to interrupt the con- 
 clusion it is difficult to say. It occupies exactly the place which 
 would naturally be assigned to such personal matters ; for it 
 follows upon the main purport of the letter, while it immediately 
 
 1 I have collected several instances below, p. 189.] 
 in Philippians p. 138 sq. [See also - Polyc. Pliil. § 3. 
 
. IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 115 
 
 precedes the recommendation of the bearer and the final salu- 
 tation. On the same showing the conclusion of the greater 
 number of St Paul's Epistles is ' abruptly interrupted.' 
 5. The next argument is of another kind : — 
 
 The writer vehemently denounces, as already widely spread, the 
 Gnostic heresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not exist 
 until the time of Marcion, to whom and to whose followers he refers 
 in unmistakable terms. An expression is used in ch. vii in speak- 
 ing of these heretics, which Polycarp is reported by Trenpeus to have 
 actually applied to Marcion in person, during his stay in Rome 
 about A.D. 160. He is said to have called Marcion the ' first-born of 
 Satan,' (ttpiutotokos tov ^aravd), and the same term is employed in 
 this epistle with regard to every one who holds such false doctrines. 
 The development of these heresies, therefore, implies a date for the 
 composition of the Epistle, at earliest, after the middle of the second 
 century, a date which is further confirmed by other circumstances. 
 
 I will take the latter part of this statement first, correcting 
 however one or two errors of detail. M. Waddington's investi- 
 gations, to which I have already alluded \ oblige us to place 
 Polycarp's visit to Rome some few years before 160, since his 
 death is fixed at A.D. 155 or 156. Again, Irenseus does not 
 state that the interview between Polycarp and Marcion took 
 place at Rome. It may have taken place there, but it may 
 have occurred at an earlier date in Asia Minor, of which region 
 Marcion was a native^. These however are not very important 
 matters. The point of the indictment lies in the fact that about 
 A.D. 140, earlier or later, Polycarp is reported to have applied 
 the expression ' first-bom of Satan' to Marcion, while in the 
 Epistle, purporting to have been written many years before, he 
 appears as using this same expression of other Gnostic teachers. 
 This argument is a good illustration of the reasons which satisfy 
 
 1 [See above, pp. 98, 103 sq.] point of time than the sojourn of 
 
 2 The words of Irenaeus are, Kal Polycarp in Eome mentioned in the 
 avTos 5^ 6 noXi;/cap7ros MapKiwd wore preceding sentence. I could not feel 
 ets o\piv avrf iXdoPTi k.t.X. Zahn sure of this ; but it separates this inci- 
 {Ignatius p. 496) remarks on this dent from the others, and leaves the 
 that the TTOTk refers us to another time indeterminate. 
 
 8—2 
 
116 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 even men like Lipsius and Hilgenfeld. To any ordinary judicial 
 mind, I imagine, this coincidence, so far as it goes, would appear 
 to point to Polycarp as the author of the Epistle ; for the two 
 facts come to us on independent authority — the one from oral 
 tradition through Irenaeus, the other in a written document 
 older than IrenaBus. Or, if the one statement arose out of the 
 other, the converse relation of that which this hypothesis 
 assumes is much more probable. Irenseus, as he tells us in the 
 context, was acquainted with the Epistle, and it is quite possible 
 that in repeating the story of Polycarp 's interview with Marcion 
 he inadvertently imported into it the expression which he had 
 read in the Epistle. But the independence of the two is far 
 more probable. As a fact, men do repeat the same expressions 
 again and again, and this throughout long periods of their lives. 
 Such forms of speech arise out of their idios3mcrasies, and so 
 become part of them. This is a matter of common experience, 
 and in the case of Polycarp we happen to be informed inciden- 
 tally that he had a habit of repeating favourite expressions. 
 Irena?us, in a passage already quoted, mentions his exclamation, 
 ' good God,' as one of these \ 
 
 Our author however declares that the passage in the Epistle 
 which contains this expression is directly aimed at Marcion and 
 his followers ; and, inasmuch as Marcion can hardly have pro- 
 mulgated his heresy before a.d. 130 — 140 at the earliest, this 
 fact, if it be a fact, condemns as spurious a work which professes 
 to have been written some years before. But is there anything 
 really characteristic of Marcion in the description ? Our author 
 does not explain himself, nor can I find anything which really 
 justifies the statement in the writers to whom I am referred in 
 his footnote. I turn therefore to the words themselves — 
 
 For every one who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has come in 
 the flesh, is antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the testimony 
 of the cross, is of the devil ; and whosoever perverteth the oracles of 
 the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that there is neither 
 resurrection nor judgment, this man is a first-born of Satan^ 
 
 1 In the Letter to Florinus, quoted above, p. 96 sq. " Polyc. Pliil. § 7. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 117 
 
 To illustrate the relation of these denunciations to Marcionite 
 doctrine, I will suppose a parallel. I take up a book written by 
 a Nonconformist, and I find in it an attack (I am not concerned 
 with the truth or falsehood of the opinions attacked) on the 
 doctrines of episcopal succession, of sacramental grace, of baptis- 
 mal regeneration, and the like. It is wholly silent about claims 
 to Papal domination, about infallibility, about purgatory and 
 indulgences, about the worship of the Virgin or of the Saints. 
 Am I justified in concluding that the writer is 'referring in 
 unmistakable terms' to the Church of Rome, because the 
 Church of Rome, in common with the majority of Churches, 
 holds the doctrines attacked ? Would not any reasonable man 
 draw the very opposite inference, and conclude that the writer 
 cannot mean the Church of Rome, because there is absolute 
 silence about the distinctive tenets of that Church ? 
 
 So it is here. Marcion, in common with almost all Gnostic 
 sects, held some views which are here attacked. But Marcion 
 had also doctrines of his own, sharp, trenchant, and startling. 
 Marcion taught that the God of the New Testament was a dis- 
 tinct being from the God of the Old, whom he identified with 
 the God of Nature ; that these two Gods were not only distinct but 
 antagonistic ; that there was an irreconcilable, internecine feud 
 between them ; and that Jesus Christ came from the good God 
 to rescue men from the God of Nature and of the Jews. This 
 was the head and front of his offending ; and consequently a 
 common charge against him with orthodox writers is that he 
 'blasphemes God\' Of this there is not a hint in Polycarp's 
 denunciation. Again, Marcion rejected the authority of the 
 Twelve, denouncing them as false Apostles, and he confined his 
 Canon to St Paul's Epistles and to a Pauline Gospel. Again, 
 Marcion prohibited marriage, and even refused to baptize 
 married persons. On these points also Polycarp is silent. 
 
 But indeed the case against this hypothesis is much stronger 
 than would appear from the illustration which I have used. 
 
 1 e.g. Iren. i, 27. 2, 3; iii. 12. 12. 
 
118 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 Not only is there nothing specially characteristic of Marcion 
 in the heresy or heresies denounced by Polycarp, not only were 
 the doctrines condemned held by divers other teachers besides, 
 but some of the charges are quite inapplicable to him. The 
 passage in question denounces three forms of heretical teaching, 
 which may or may not have been combined in one sect. Of 
 these the first, ' Whosoever doth not confess that Jesus Christ 
 has come in the flesh,' is capable of many interpretations. It 
 may refer, for instance, to the separationism of Cerinthus, who 
 maintained that the spiritual Being Christ descended on the 
 man Jesus after the baptism, and left Him before the crucifixion, 
 so that, while Jesus suffered, Christ remained impassible^; or it 
 may describe the pure docetism, which maintained that our 
 Lord's body was a mere phantom body, so that His birth and 
 life and death alike were only apparent, and not real'^; or it may 
 have some reference different from either. I cannot myself 
 doubt that the expression is borrowed from the First Epistle 
 of St John, and there it seems to refer to Cerinthus, the 
 contemporary of the Apostle*; but Polycarp may have used it 
 with a much wider reference. Under any circumstances, though 
 it would no doubt apply to Marcion, who held strong docetic 
 views, it would apply to almost every sect of Gnostics besides. 
 The same may be said of the second position attacked, 'Whoso- 
 
 ^ Iren. i. 26. 1. Though the passages of Irenasus and 
 
 2 This seems to be the form of Origan are only extant in Latin ver- 
 
 heresy attacked in the Ignatian letters : sions, yet the contexts clearly show that 
 
 Magn. 11 ; Trail. 9 ; Smyrn. 1. the authors themselves so read it. It 
 
 ^ 1 John iv. 2, 3, 'Every spirit is difficult to conceive that the very 
 
 that confesseth Jesus Christ come simple /xt] 6fj.o\oyei would be altered into 
 
 (iXrjXvdoTa) in the flesh is of God; Xt^et, whereas the converse change would 
 
 and every spirit that confesseth not be easy. At all events Xi^et must repre- 
 
 Jesus is not of God.' I cannot refrain sent a very early gloss, dating probably 
 
 from expressing the suspicion that the from a time when the original reference 
 
 correct reading in this second clause of St John was obvious ; and it well 
 
 may be \6ei, 'divideth' or ' dissolveth,' describes the Christology of Cerinthus. 
 
 instead of yU7) o/noXoyel, 'confesseth not.' See the apijlicatiou in Irenjeus, iii. 16, 
 
 It is the reading of the old Latin, of 8 'Sententia eorum homicidialis . . . 
 
 Irenffius, of Tertullian, and of Origen ; CmnmiiiuensetperviultadividensFilmva. 
 
 and Socrates {H. E. vii. 32) says that Dei; quos . . . loannes in praedicta epi- 
 
 it was found 'in the old copies.' stola fugere eos praecepit dicens ' etc. 
 
. IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 119 
 
 ever doth not confess the testimon}'^ of the cross,' which might 
 include not only divers Gnostic sects, but many others as well. 
 But the case is wholly different with the third, ' Whosoever 
 perverteth the oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and 
 saith that there is neither resurrection nor judgment.' To this 
 type of error, and this only, the description * first-born of Satan ' 
 is applied in the text, and of this I venture to say that it is 
 altogether inapplicable to Marcion. No doubt Marcion, like 
 every other heretical teacher of the second century, or indeed 
 of any century, did 'pervert the oracles of the Lord' by his 
 tortuous interpretations ; but he did not pervert them ' to his 
 own lusts.' The high moral character of Marcion was un- 
 impeachable, and is recognized by the orthodox writers of the 
 second century ; the worst charge which they bring against 
 him is disappointed ambition. He was an ascetic of the most 
 uncompromising and rigorous type. I cannot but regard it as 
 a significant fact that when Scholten wishes to fasten this 
 denunciation on Marcion, he stops short at ' pervert the oracles 
 of the Lord,' and takes no account of the concluding words ' to 
 his own lusts,' though these contain the very sting of the 
 accusation \ Obviously the allusion here is to that antinomian 
 license which many early Gnostic teachers managed to extract 
 from the spiritual teaching of the Gospel. We find germs of 
 this immoral doctrine a full half century before the professed 
 date of Polycarp's Epistle, in the incipient Gnosticism which 
 St Paul rebukes at Corinth'''. We have still clearer indications 
 of it in the Pastoral Epistles ; and when we reach the epoch of 
 the Apocalypse, which our author himself places somewhere in 
 the year 68 or 69, the evil is almost full blown I This in- 
 terpretation becomes more evident when we consider the 
 expression in the light of the accompanying clause, where the 
 same persons are described as saying that there was ' no resur- 
 rection nor judgment.' This can hardly mean anything else 
 than that they denied the doctrine of a future retribution, and 
 
 ^ Die dltesten Zeugnisse p. 41. sq, etc. 
 
 2 e.g. 1 Cor. vi. 12—18, viii. 1 ^ Re^. n g^ 14^ 15^ 20, 24. 
 
120 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 so broke loose from the moral restraints imposed by fear of con- 
 sequences. Here again, they had their forerunners in those 
 licentious speculators belonging to the Christian community at 
 Corinth who maintained that ' there is no resurrection of the 
 deadV and whose Epicurean lives were a logical consequence of 
 their Epicurean doctrine. And here, too, the Pastoral Epistles 
 supply a pertinent illustration. If we are at a loss to conceive 
 how they could have extracted such a doctrine out of 'the 
 oracles of the Lord,' the difficulty is explained by the parallel 
 case of Hymenseus and Philetus, who taught that ' the resurrec- 
 tion had already taken placed' or in other words, that all such 
 terms must be understood in a metaphorical sense as applying 
 to the spiritual change, the new birth or resuscitation of the 
 believer in the present world ^ Thus everything hangs together. 
 But such teaching is altogether foreign to Marcion. He did 
 indeed deny the resurrection of the flesh, and the future body 
 of the redeemed^. This was a necessary tenet of all Gnostics, 
 who held the inherent malignity of matter. In this sense only 
 he denied a resurrection ; and he did not deny a judgment at 
 all. Holding, like the Catholic Christian, that men would be 
 rewarded or punished hereafter according to their deeds in this 
 life, he was obliged to recognize a judgment in some form or 
 other. His Supreme God indeed, whom he represented as pure 
 beneficence, could not be a judge or an avenger, but he got 
 over the difficulty by assigning the work of judging and 
 punishing to the Demiurge^ To revert to my illustration, 
 this is as though our Nonconformist writer threw out a charge 
 of Erastianism against the anonymous body of Christians whom 
 he was attacking, and whom nevertheless it was sought to 
 identify with the Church of Rome. 
 
 1 1 Cor, XV. 12. p. 147 ; and to the references there 
 
 2 2 Tim. ii. 18. given add Iren. iii. 25. 2 ' Alterum 
 
 3 Iren. ii. 31. 2 ; TertuU. de Resurr. quidem judicare et alterum quidem 
 Cam. 19. salvare dixerunt,' and sect. 3, ' Marcion 
 
 ^ Iren. i. 27. 3, TertuU. adv. Marc. igitur ipse dividens Deum in duo, al- 
 V, 10, de Prcescr. Hcer. 33. terum quidem bonum et alterum jwdi- 
 
 ^ See Neander Church History ii, cialem dicens,' with the context. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 121 
 
 6. The next argument is of a wholly different kind : — 
 
 The writer evidently assumes a position in the Church to which 
 Polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life, and 
 of which we first have evidence about a.d. 160, when he was deputed 
 to Rome for the Paschal discussion. 
 
 This argument will not appeal to Englishmen with any 
 power, when they remember that the ablest and most powerful 
 Prime Minister whom constitutional England has seen assumed 
 the reins of government at the early age of twenty-four. But 
 Polycarp was not a young man at this time. M. Wadding- 
 ton's investigations here again stand us in good stead. If we 
 take the earlier date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, Polycarp 
 was now in his fortieth year at least ; if the later date, he was 
 close upon fifty. He had been a disciple, apparently a favourite 
 disciple, of the aged Apostle St John. He was specially com- 
 mended by Ignatius, who doubtless had spoken of him to the 
 Philippians. History does not point to any person after the 
 death of Ignatius whose reputation stood nearly so high among 
 his contemporaries. So far as any inference can be drawn from 
 silence, he was now the one prominent man in the Church, 
 What wonder then that the Philippians should have asked him 
 to write to them ? To this request, I suppose, our author refers 
 when he speaks of the writer 'assuming a position in the Church;' 
 for there is nothing else to justify it. On his own part Polycarp 
 writes with singular modesty. He associates his presbyters with 
 himself in the opening address ; he says that he should not have 
 ventured to write as he does, if he had not received a request 
 from the Philippians; he even deprecates any assumption of 
 superiority ^ 
 
 7. But our author continues : — 
 
 And throughout, the Epistle depicts the developed organization 
 of that period. 
 
 1 I might add also that it is direct- before his grey hairs,' as the words 
 
 ly stated in the account of his martyr- run in Eusebius, H. E. iv. 15. The 
 
 dom (§ 13), that he was treated with common texts substitute Kai irpb rrji 
 
 every honour, koL irpb ttjs ttoXloLs, 'even /laprvplas. 
 
122 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 This argument must, I think, strike any one who has read 
 the Epistle as surprising. There is, as I have said already, no 
 reference to episcopacy from beginning to end'; and in this 
 respect it presents the strongest contrast to writings of the age 
 of Irenaeus, to which it is here supposed to belong. Irenseus and 
 his contemporaries are so familiar with episcopacy as a tra- 
 ditional institution, that they are not aware of any period when 
 it was not universal ; and more especially when they are dealing 
 with heretics, they appeal to the episcopate as the depositary of 
 the orthodox and Apostolic tradition in matters of doctrine and 
 practice. The absence of all such language in Polycarp's Epistle 
 is a strong testimony to its early date. 
 
 8. Lastly, another argument is alleged : — 
 
 Hilgenfeld has pointed out another indication of the same date, in 
 the injunction ' Pray for the kings ' (Orate pro regibus), which, in 
 1 Peter ii. 17, is ' Plonour the king' (tov jBaa-tXea rt/xarc), which 
 accords with the period after Antoninus Pius had elevated Marcus 
 Aurelius to joint sovereignty (a.d. 147), or better still, with that in 
 which Marcus Aurelius appointed Lucius Verus his colleague, a.d. 161. 
 
 Here we have only to ask why Ornate pro regibus should be 
 translated 'Pray for the kings,' rather than 'Pray for kings,' and 
 the ghost of a divided sovereignty vanishes before the spell. 
 There is no reason whatever for supposing that the expres- 
 sion has anything more than a general reference. Even if the 
 words had stood in the original virep rcov ^acnXecov and not 
 VTrep^aaiXecov, the presence of the article would not, accord- 
 ing to ordinary Greek usage, necessarily limit the reference to 
 any particular sovereigns. But there is very good reason for 
 believing that the definite article had no place in the original. 
 The writer of this Epistle elsewhere shows acquaintance with 
 the First Epistle to Timothy. Thus in one place (§ 4), he 
 combines two passages which occur in close proximity in that 
 Epistle; 'The love of money is the source of all troubles (1 Tim. 
 vi. 10): knowing therefore that we brought nothing into the 
 
 1 Hilgenfeld (Apost. Vdter p. 273) evidently feels this difficulty, and apolo- 
 gizes for it. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 123 
 
 world, neither are we able to carry anything out (1 Tim. 
 vi. 7), let us arm ourselves' etc. Hence it becomes highly 
 probable that he has derived this injunction also from the 
 same Epistle; 'I exhort first of all, that supplications, prayers, 
 intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men ; for kings, and 
 for all that are in authority' (ii. 2) \ where it is virep jBaaCkeoov. 
 After his manner, Polycarp combines this with other expressions 
 that he finds in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings (Ephes. 
 vi. 18, Matt. V. 44, Phil. iii. 18), and gives the widest possible 
 range to his injunction ; ' Pray for all the saints ; pray also for 
 kings and potentates and princes, and for them that persecute 
 and hate you, and for the enemies of the cross, etc' We may 
 therefore bid farewell to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. 
 
 Our author at the outset speaks of 'some critics who affirm 
 the authenticity of the Epistle attributed to him [Polycarp], but 
 who certainly do not justify their conclusion by any arguments 
 nor attempt to refute adverse reasons.' He himself passes over 
 in silence all answers which have been given to the objections 
 alleged by him. Doubtless he considered them unworthy of 
 notice. I have endeavoured to supply this lacuna in his work ; 
 and the reader will judge for himself on which side the weight 
 of argument lies. 
 
 The author of Supernatural Religion in his Reply, which 
 appeared in the January number of the Fortnightly Review, 
 pointed out two inaccuracies in my first article. In adverting 
 to his silence respecting the occurrence of the Logos in the 
 Apocalypse ^ I ought to have confined my remark to the portion 
 of his work in which he is contrasting the doctrinal teaching of 
 this book with that of the Apocalypse, where especially some 
 mention of it was to be expected. He has elsewhere alluded, as 
 his references show, to the occurrence of the term in the Apoca- 
 lypse. The other point relates to the passage in which he 
 charges Dr Westcott with insinuating in an underhand way what 
 he knew not to be true respecting Basilides. While commenting 
 
 1 This reference to 1 Tim. ii. 2 is ^ gee above, p. 15 sq. 
 
 pointed out in Jacobson's note. 
 
124 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 on his omission of Dr Westcott's inverted commas in the 
 extract which I gave\ I overlooked the fact that he had just 
 before quoted Dr Westcott's text correctly, as it stands in 
 Dr Westcott's book. Though I find it still more difficult to 
 understand how he could have brought this most unwarrantable 
 charge when the fact of Dr Westcott's inverted commas was 
 distinctly before him, I am not the less bound to plead guilty of 
 an oversight, which I think I can explain to myself but which I 
 shall not attempt to excuse, and to accept the retort of looseness, 
 which he throws back upon me. 
 
 For the rest, I could not desire a more complete vindication of 
 my criticisms than that which is furnished by the author's reply. 
 
 I cannot, for instance, take any blame to myself for not fore- 
 seeing the misprints which our author pleads, because they must 
 have baffled far higher powers of divination than mine. Thus I 
 found ^ the author stating that the fourth Evangelist 'only once 
 distinguishes John the Baptist by the appellation 6 /SairricrT'^';^,' 
 whereas, as a matter of fact, he never does so ; and comparing 
 the whole sentence with a passage in Credner*, to which the 
 author refers in his footnote, I found that it presented a close 
 parallel, as the reader will see : — 
 
 Wahrend der Verfasser die He [the author] ojily once 
 
 beiden Apostel gleiches Namens, distinguishes John the Baptist 
 Judas, sorgfaltig unterscheidet by the appellation o /JaTrTtar?}?, 
 (vergl. 14, 22), den Ap. Thomas whilst he carefully distinguishes 
 naher bezeichnet (11, 16; 20, 24; the two disciples of the name of 
 21, 2) und den Apostel Petrus, Judas, and always speaks of the 
 nur Simon Petrus, oder Petrus, Apostle Peter as ' Simon Peter,' 
 nie Simon allein nennt (s. § 96, or 'Peter,' but rarely as 'Simon' 
 Nr. 3.), hat er es nicht fiir nothig only, 
 gefunden, den Taufer Johannes 
 von dem gleichnamigen Apostel 
 Johannes auch nur ein einziges 
 Mai durch den Zusatz 6 /SaTTTtcrTi^s 
 zu unterscheiden (1, 6. 15. 19. 
 26, etc.). 
 
 1 See above, p. 20, ^ g. R. i. p. 423. 
 
 2 See above, p, 17 sq. •* Credner Einleitung p, 209 sq. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 125 
 
 Seeing that the two passages corresponded so closely^ the 
 one to the other (the clauses however being transposed), I 
 imagined that I had traced his error to its source in the 
 correspondence of the two particular expressions which I have 
 italicized, and that he must have stumbled over Credner's 'auch 
 nur ein einziges Mai.' He has more than once gone wrong 
 elsewhere in matters of fact relating to the New Testament. 
 Thus he has stated that the saying about the first being last 
 and the last first occurs in St Matthew alone of the Synoptic 
 Gospels, though it appears also in St Mark (x. 31) and (with an 
 unimportant variation) in St Luke (xiii. 30) ^ Thus again, he 
 can remember ' no instance whatever ' where a New Testament 
 writer 'claims to have himself performed a miracle',' though 
 St Paul twice speaks of his exercising this power as a recognized 
 and patent fact*. This explanation of his mistake therefore 
 seemed to me to be tolerably evident. I could not have fore- 
 seen that, where the author wrote 'never once,' the printer 
 printed ' only once.' This error runs through all the four 
 editions- 
 
 But the other clerical error which our author pleads was still 
 further removed from the possibility of detection. I had called 
 attention^ to the fact that, in the earlier part of his book, our 
 
 1 The author, in his reply, calls merely on the ring of words and not of 
 attention to the fact that the language ideas. Strange to say, it is not found 
 of the other writers to whom he gives in either of the other Gospels; but, like 
 references in his footnote is too clear to the famous phrase which we have been 
 be misunderstood. considering, it nevertheless appears 
 
 2 I do not think I can have mis- twice quite irrelevantly, in two places 
 apprehended our author's meaning, of the first Gospel. In xix. 30, it is 
 but it is best to give his own words : quoted again with slight variation : 
 'Now even Tischendorf does not pre- "But many first shall be last, and last 
 tend that this [a saying cited in the first, "'etc. S.R. i.p. 247. The italics 
 Epistle of Barnabas] is a quotation of are my own. 
 
 Matt. XX. 16, "Thus the last shall be » S. R. i. p. 200 sq. 
 
 first, and the first last" (oCrws&o^'Tatol * Eom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12, 
 
 ^crxO'T'oi. irpu}Toi /cat oi Trpwroi S<txo-toi), The point to be observed is, that St 
 
 the sense of which is quite different, Paul treats the fact of his working 
 
 The application of the saying in this miracles as a matter of course, to 
 
 place in the first Synoptic Gospel is which a passing reference is sufficient, 
 
 evidently quite false, and depends ^ [See above, p. 9.] 
 
126 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 author had written respecting the descent of the angel at 
 Bethesda (John v. 3, 4) — 
 
 This passage is not found in the older mss of the fourth Gospel, 
 and it was probably a later interpolation \ 
 
 whereas towards the end of his second volume he had declared 
 that the passage was genuine ; and I had pointed out that the 
 last words stood ' certainly a late interpolation ' in the iirst 
 edition, so that the passage had undergone revision, while yet 
 the contradiction had been suffered to remain. 
 
 In justice to our author, I will give his reply in his own 
 words : — 
 
 The words 'it is argued that' were accidentally omitted from 
 vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, ' and it is argued 
 that it was probably a later interpolation ".' 
 
 To this the following note is appended : — 
 
 I altered ' certainly' to ' probably' in the second edition, as Dr 
 Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of exaggeration, 
 but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that I had clearly 
 shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting the critical 
 judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence of the words 
 given above. 
 
 This omission runs through four editions. 
 
 But more perplexing still is the author's use of language. 
 
 The reader will already have heard enough of the passage in 
 Irenseus, where this Father quotes some earlier authority or 
 authorities who refer to the fourth Gospel ; but I am compelled 
 to allude to it again. In my first article I had accused the 
 author of ignoring the distinction between the infinitive and 
 indicative — between the oblique and direct narrative — and 
 maintaining, in defiance of grammar, that the words might very 
 well be Irenseus' own^ In my second article I pointed out that 
 whole sentences were tacitly altered or re-written or omitted in 
 the fourth edition, and that (as I unhesitatingly inferred) he 
 had found out his mistake ^ I have read over the passage 
 
 1 S. R. I. p. 113. 3 [See above, p. 3 sq.] 
 
 2 Fortnightly Review, January, ■* See above, p. 53 sq. 
 1875, p. 9 sq. 
 
IV. POLYCAEP OF SMYRNA. 127 
 
 carefully again in its earlier form in the light of the explanation 
 which the author gives in his reply, and I cannot put any 
 different interpretation on his language. It seems to me dis- 
 tinctly to aim at proving two things : (1) That there is no reason 
 for thinking that the passage is oblique at all, or that Irenaeus 
 is giving anything else besides his own opinion (pp. 326 — 331); 
 and (2) That, even supposing it to be oblique, there is no ground 
 for identifying the authorities quoted with the presbyters of 
 Papias (pp. 331 — 334). With this last question I have not con- 
 cerned myself hitherto. It will come under discussion in a later 
 article, when I shall have occasion to treat of Papias\ It was 
 to the first point alone that my remarks referred. The author 
 however says in his reply that his meaning was the same 
 throughout, that he knew all the while Irenseus must be quoting 
 from some one else, and that he ' did what was possible to at- 
 tract attention to the actual indirect construction ^' Why then 
 did he translate the oblique construction as if it were direct ? 
 Why, after quoting as parallels a number of direct sentences in 
 Irenseus containing quotations, did he add, ' These are all direct 
 quotations by Irenaeus, as is most certainly that which we are 
 now considering, which is introduced in precisely the same way^? ' 
 Why in his fourth edition, in which he first introduces a recog- 
 nition of the oblique construction, did he withdraw all these 
 supposed parallels, which, if his opinion was unchanged, still re- 
 mained as good for his purpose (whatever that purpose might 
 be) as they had ever been ? Further discussion on this point 
 would obviously be wasted. I can only ask any reader who is 
 
 1 [See below, p. 194 sq.] that there was nothing corresponding 
 
 ^ Fortnightly Review, I. c. p. 5. to Tischendorf 's 'they say,' or Dr 
 
 The author states that he ' actually in- Westcott's ' they taught, ' in the ori- 
 
 serted in the text the opening words, ginal, and so to justify his charge of 
 
 dvai 8k T7]v 8ia(TTo\r]v ra^rrjp rrjs ol- 'falsification.' If the reader will 
 
 K-qaeus, for the express purpose of refer to the context, and more especi- 
 
 showing the construction.' The im- ally to note 4 on p. 328 of the second 
 
 pression however which his own Ian- volume of Supernatural Religion (in 
 
 guage left on my mind was quite the editions before the fourth), he 
 
 different. It suggested that he in- will see what strong justification I had 
 
 serted the words not for this purpose, for taking this view, 
 but for quite another, namely, to show ^ g^ jj_ jj_ p_ 33q_ 
 
128 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 interested in this matter to refer to the book itself, and more 
 especially to compare the fourth' with the earlier editions, that 
 he may judge for himself whether any other interpretation, ex- 
 cept that which I and others besides myself have put upon his 
 words, was natural. The author has declared his meaning, but 
 I could only judge by his language. 
 
 I now proceed to notice some other of the chief points in 
 our author's reply ; and perhaps it may be convenient in doing 
 so to follow the order adopted in my original article to which it 
 is a rejoinder. 
 
 1. In the first place then, the author is annoyed that I 
 spoke disparagingly of his scholarship^ ; and in reply he says 
 that the criticism in which I have indulged ' scarcely rises above 
 the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb*.' I 
 cannot help thinking this language unfortunate from his own 
 point of view ; but let that pass. If the reader will have the 
 goodness to refer back to my article, he will find that, so far 
 from occupying the main part of it on points of scholarship 
 which have no bearing on the questions under discussion, as 
 the author seems to hint, I have taken up about two-thirds 
 of a page only^ with such matters. In the other instances 
 which I have selected, his errors directly affect the argument 
 
 1 I ought to add that these altera- means of indicating this change except 
 
 tions do not appear to have been made by the introduction ofsome such phrases 
 
 in all copies of the fourth edition. I as those employed by Tischendorf and 
 
 am informed by a correspondent that Westcott, which simply denote the 
 
 in his copy the whole passage stands transition to be obliqua oratio. To 
 
 as in the earlier editions. neglect this is to throw the whole 
 
 ^Inquirer, Nov. 7, 1874. 'Else- passage into confusion ; and the writer's 
 
 where a blunder on the part of the attempt to fasten a suspicion of dis- 
 
 writer is made the occasion of a grave honesty on the critics whose views he is 
 
 charge against Dr Tischendorf and combating recoils in the shape of a 
 
 Canon "Westcott. They are accused of suggestion of imperfect scholarship 
 
 deliberately falsifying etc. . . . His own upon himself.' 
 
 translation however overlooks the im- This occurs in a highly favourable 
 
 portant fact that at the critical point review of the book. 
 in question Irenaus j^asses from the ^ See above, p. 3 sq. 
 
 direct to the indirect speech. This is * Fortnightly Review, I. c. p. 9. 
 
 made obvious by the employment of ^ [Corresponding to about a page 
 
 the infinitive in place of the indica- in this reprint, pp. 7, 8 ' These two 
 
 tive. The English language affords no examples... Commentaries of Cajsar.'] 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 129 
 
 for the time being at some vital point. It would have been 
 possible to multiply examples, if examples had been needed. I 
 might have quoted, for instance, such renderings as Kara/Sa^ 
 TrepiTrareLroo, ' come down let him walk about^ ;' or 'lovara rt<i 
 ev rjijbiv ian Xvpo(f)oivLKLaara, to <yevo<; l^avaviTL<i, 7)9 to OvyaTpiov 
 K.T.X. ' Justa, who is amongst us, a Syrophoenician, a Canaan- 
 ite by race, whose daughter' etc.^ Both these renderings sur- 
 vive to the fourth edition. 
 
 I must not however pass over the line of defence which our 
 author takes, though only a few words will be necessary. I do 
 not see that he has gained anything by sheltering himself 
 behind others, when he is obviously in the wrong. Not a legion 
 of Tischendorfs, for instance, can make iirayyeWofievov signify 
 'has promised ^' though it is due to Tischendorf to add that 
 notwithstanding his loose translation he has seen through the 
 meaning of Origen's words, and has not fastened an error upon 
 himself by a false interpretation, as our author has done. And 
 in other cases, where our author takes upon himself the respon- 
 sibility of his renderings, his explanations are more significant 
 than the renderings themselves. Scholars will judge whether a 
 scholar, having translated quem caederet ^ ' whom he mutilates,' 
 could have brought himself to defend it as a ' paraphrase^.' I 
 am not at all afraid that dispassionate judges hereafter will 
 charge me with having unduly depreciated his scholarship. 
 
 But our author evidently thinks that the point was not 
 worth establishing at all. I cannot agree with him. I feel 
 sure that, if he had been dealing with some indifferent matter, 
 as for instance some question of classical literature, he would not 
 have received any more lenient treatment from independent 
 reviewers ; and I do not see why the greater importance of the 
 subject should be pleaded as a claim for immunity from critical 
 
 ^ S. R. I. p. 336. [Tacitly correct- conveys exactly the same idea which 
 
 ed in ed. 6.] is conveyed in English, 'has not writ- 
 
 - S. R. II. p. 23. [Tacitly correct- ten,' as our author assumes in his 
 
 ed in ed. 6.] reply. 
 
 ^ Fortnightly Review, I. c. p. 7 sq. ^ [See above, p. 8.] 
 
 I need not stop to inquire whether ^ Fortnightly Review, I. c. p. 9, 
 
 Tischendorf 's ' nicht geschrieben hat' note. 
 
 S. R. 9 
 
130 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 examination. It does not seem to me to be a light matter that 
 an author assuming, as the author of Supernatural Religion 
 does, a tone of lofty superiority over those whom he criticizes, 
 should betray an ignorance of the very grammar of criticism. 
 But in the present case there was an additional reason why 
 attention should be called to these defects. It was necessary to 
 correct a wholly false estimate of the author's scholarship with 
 which reviewers had familiarized the public, and to divest the 
 work of a prestige to which it was not entitled. 
 
 2. In the next place I ventured to dispute the attribute of 
 impartiality with which the work entitled Supernatu7'al Religion 
 had been credited. And here I would say that my quarrel was 
 much more with the author's reviewers than with the author 
 himself I can understand how he should omit to entertain the 
 other side of the question with perfect sincerity. It appeared 
 from the book itself, and it has become still more plain from the 
 author's Reply, that he regards ' apologists ' as persons from 
 whom he has nothing to learn, and with whose arguments 
 therefore he need not for the most part concern himself But 
 the fact remains that the reader has had an ex parte statement 
 presented to him, while he has been assured that the whole 
 case is laid before him. 
 
 Of this one-sided representation I adduced several instances. 
 To these our author demurs in his reply. As regards Polycarp, 
 I believe that the present article has entirely justified my 
 allegation. Of Papias, Hegesippus, and Justin, I shall have 
 occasion to speak in subsequent articles. At present it will be 
 sufficient to challenge attention to what Dr Westcott has written 
 on the last-mentioned writer, and ask readers to judge for them- 
 selves whether our author has laid the case impartially before 
 them. 
 
 Several of my examples had reference to the Gospel of St 
 John. Of these our author has taken exception more especially 
 to three. 
 
 As regards the first, I have no complaint to make, because 
 he has quoted my own words, and I am well content that they 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 131 
 
 should tell their own tale. If our author considers the argument 
 'unsound in itself, and irrelevant to the direct purpose of the 
 workV I venture to think that discerning readers will take a 
 different view. I had directed attention^ to certain passages in 
 the Synoptic Gospels {Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Luke xiii. 34) as implying 
 other visits to Jerusalem which these Gospels do not themselves 
 record, and therefore as refuting the hypothesis that our Lord's 
 ministry was only of a single year's duration, and was exercised 
 wholly in Galilee and the neighbourhood until the closing visit 
 to Jerusalem — a hypothesis which rests solely on the arbitrary 
 assumption that the record in the Synoptists is complete and 
 continuous. Thus the supposed difficulty in St John's narrative 
 on this fundamental point of history disappears. In fact the 
 Synoptists give no continuous chronology in the history of our 
 Lord's ministry between the baptism and the passion ; the 
 incidents were selected in the first instance (we may suppose) 
 for purposes of catechetical instruction, and are massed together 
 sometimes by connection of subject, sometimes (though inciden- 
 tally) by sequence of time. In St John, on the other hand, the 
 successive festivals at Jerusalem are the vertebrae of the chrono- 
 logical backbone, which is altogether wanting to the account of 
 Christ's ministry in the Synoptists. We cannot indeed be sure 
 even here that the vertebrae are absolutely continuous ; many 
 festivals may have been omitted ; the ministry of Christ may 
 have extended over a much longer period, as indeed Irenasus 
 asserts that it did* ; but the three passovers bear testimony to 
 a duration of between two and three years at the least. 
 
 The second point has reference to the diction of the fourth 
 Gospel, as compared with the Apocalypse*. Here I am glad to 
 find that there is less difference of opinion between us than I 
 had imagined. If our author does not greatly differ from 
 
 1 Fortnightly JRevieio, I.e. p. 18. far as I am aware, which is absolutely 
 
 2 [See above, p. 16 sq.] decisive ; and it would allow of a minis- 
 2 Iren. ii. 22. 5. The passover of try of eight years. The probability is 
 
 the Passion cannot have been later that it was actually much shorter, but 
 
 than A. D. 36, because before the next it is only a probability, 
 passover Pilate had been superseded. * [See above, p. 14 sq.] 
 
 This is the only terminus ad quern, so 
 
 9—2 
 
132 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Luthardt's estimate of the language, neither do I \ On the 
 other hand, I did not deny, and (so far as I am aware) nobody has 
 denied, that there is a marked difference between the Apocalypse 
 and the Gospel, in respect of diction ; only it is contended that 
 two very potent influences must be taken into account which 
 will explain this difference. In the first place, the subjects of 
 the two books stand widely apart. The apocalyptic purport of 
 the one book necessarily tinges its diction and imagery with a 
 very strong Hebraic colouring, which we should not expect to 
 find in a historical narrative. Secondly, a wide interval of time 
 separates the two works. The Apocalypse was written, accord- 
 ing to the view which our author represents 'as universally 
 accepted by all competent critics,' about A.D. 68, 69 ^ It marks 
 the close of what we may call the Hebraic period of St John's 
 life — i.e., the period which (so far as we can gather alike from 
 the notices and from the silence of history) he had spent chiefly 
 in the East and among Aramaic-speaking peoples. The Gospel 
 on the other hand, according to all tradition, dates from the last 
 years of the Apostle's life, or, in other words, it was written (or 
 more probably dictated) at the end of the Hellenic period, after 
 an interval of twenty or thirty years, during which St John had 
 lived at Ephesus, a great centre of Greek civilization. Our 
 author appears to be astonished that Luthardt should describe 
 the 'errors' in the Apocal3'pse as not arising out of ignorance, 
 but as ' intentional emancipations from the rules of grammar.' 
 Yet it stands to reason, I think, that this must be so with some 
 of the most glaring examples at all events. A moment's 
 
 1 I am afraid however that our the context, that it ought to be read 
 
 author would not agree with me in 'Hellenistic,' [which word is tacitly 
 
 regarding it as plainly the language of substituted in ed. 6]. By ' Hellenic ' 
 
 a man accustomed to think in Hebrew. would be meant the common language, 
 
 He himself says [S. R. ii. p. 413), 'Its as ordinarily spoken by the mass of 
 
 Hebraisms are not on the whole gi-eat- the Greeks, and as distinguished from 
 
 er than was almost invariably the case a literary dialect like the Attic ; by 
 
 with Hellenic Greek.' Though the 'Hellenistic,' the language of Hellen- 
 
 word is printed 'Hellenic,' not only ists, i.e., Greek-speaking Jews. The 
 
 in the four editions, but likewise in two things are quite different, 
 the author's own extract in the Fort- ^ S. R. ii. p. 395. 
 
 nightly Review (p. 19), I infer from 
 
IV. POLYCAEP OF SMYRNA. 133 
 
 reflection will show that one who could write aTro 6 wv, k.t.X. 
 'from He that is,' etc. (Rev. i. 4), in sheer ignorance that aTro 
 does not take a nominative case, would be incapable of writing 
 any two or three consecutive verses of the Apocalypse. The book, 
 after all allowance made for solecisms, shows a very considerable 
 command of the Greek vocabulary, and (what is more important) 
 a familiarity with the intricacies of the very intricate syntax of 
 this language. 
 
 On the third point, to which our author devotes between 
 three and four pages, more explanation is required. I had 
 remarked^ on the manner in which our author deals with the 
 name 'Sychar' in the fourth Gospel, and had complained that he 
 only discusses the theory of its identification with Shechem, 
 omitting to mention more probable solutions. To this remark 
 I had appended the following note : 
 
 Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify 
 Sychar with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This 
 fact is not mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is 
 admitted that there was no such place [as Sychar, ^vxap], and 
 apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' 
 This is altogether untrue. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages 
 in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar, or 
 Sichar);' see ISTeubauer, 'La Geographie du Talmud,' p. 169 sq. 
 Our author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch ('Zeitschr. f. 
 Luth. Theol' 1856, p. 240 sq). He cannot have read the article, for 
 these Tahnudic references are its main purport. 
 
 Our author in his reply quotes this note, and italicizes the 
 passages as they are printed here. I am glad that he has done 
 so, for I wish especially to call attention to the connection 
 between the two. He adds that 'an apology is surely due to 
 the readers of the Contemporary Revieiv,' and, as he implies, to 
 himself, ' for this style of criticism,' to which he says that he is 
 not accustomed ^ 
 
 I am not sorry that this rejoinder has obliged me to rescue 
 from the obscurity of a footnote a fact of real importance in its 
 bearing on the historical character of the fourth Gospel. As for 
 
 1 [See above, p. 17 sq.] ^ FortnigJdIy Revieic, I.e. p. 20. 
 
134 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 apologizing, I will most certainly apologize, if he wishes it. But 
 I must explain myself first. I am surprised that this demand 
 should be made by the same person who penned certain sentences 
 in Supernatural Religion. I am not a little perplexed to under- 
 stand what canons of controversial etiquette he would lay down ; 
 for, while I have merely accused him, in somewhat blunt language, 
 of great carelessness, he has not scrupled to charge others with 
 'wilful and deliberate evasion,' with 'unpardonable calculation 
 upon the ignorance of his readers,' with 'a deliberate falsifica- 
 tion,' with 'disingenuousness^' and other grave moral offences of 
 the same kind. Now I have been brought up in the belief that 
 offences of this class are incomparably more heinous than the 
 worst scholarship or the grossest inaccuracy; and I am therefore 
 obliged to ask whether he is not imposing far stricter rules on 
 others than he is prepared to observe himself, when he objects 
 to what I have said. Nevertheless I will apologize ; but I 
 cannot do so without reluctance, for he is asking me to withdraw 
 an explanation which seemed to me to place his mode of pro- 
 ceeding in the most favourable light, and to substitute for it 
 another which I should not have ventured to suggest. When I 
 saw in his text the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that 
 there was no such place ^' and found in one of his footnotes on 
 the same page a reference to an article by an eminent Hebraist 
 devoted to showing that such a place is mentioned several times 
 in the Talmud, I could draw no other conclusion than that he 
 had not read the article in question, or (as I might have added), 
 having read it, had forgotten its contents. The manner in which 
 references are given elsewhere in this work, as I have shown in 
 my article on the Ignatian Epistles, seemed to justify this 
 inference. His own explanation however is quite different : — 
 My statement is, that it is admitted that there was no such place 
 
 1 S. R. I. p. 469 ; ii. pp. 56, 59, 73, through six editions, and is only 
 
 326. [The last reference should be slightly modified in the Complete 
 
 omitted : the words had been already Edition.] 
 
 withdrawn (ed. 4) before this Essay " [S. B. ii. p. 421; and so ed. 6. 
 
 was written ; but the language in the The Complete Edition substitutes ' evi- 
 
 other references remains unaltered dent' for 'admitted.'] 
 
IV. POLYCAKP OF SMYRNA. 135 
 
 as Sychar — I ought to have added, * except by apologists, who never 
 admit anything' — but I thought that in saying, 'and apologetic in- 
 genuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty,' I had sufficiently 
 excepted apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjec- 
 tures are advanced by them for that purpose. 
 
 Certainly this qualifying sentence needed to be added ; for 
 no reader could have supposed that the author intended his 
 broad statement to be understood with this all-important reser- 
 vation. Unfortunately however this explanation is not con- 
 fined to 'apologists.' As I pointed out, it is adopted by M. 
 Neubauer also, who (unless I much mistake his position) would 
 altogether disclaim being considered an apologist, but who 
 nevertheless, being an honest man, sets down his honest opinion, 
 without considering whether it will or will not tend to establish 
 the credibility of the Evangelist. 
 
 But after all, the really important question for the reader is 
 not what this or that person thinks on this question, but what 
 are the facts. And here I venture to say that, when our author 
 speaks of ' assertions and conjectures' in reference to Delitzsch's 
 article, such language is quite misleading. The points which 
 the Talmudical passages quoted by him establish are these : — 
 
 (1) A place called ' Suchar,' or ' Sychar,' is mentioned in 
 the Talmud. Our author speaks of ' some vague references in 
 the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but not identical, name.' 
 But the fact is, that the word Xvx,ap, if written in Hebrew 
 letters, would naturally take one or other of the two forms 
 which we find in the Talmud, iy\'D (Suchar) or ^^""D (Sychar). 
 In other words, the transliteration is as exact as it could be. 
 It would no doubt be possible to read the former word ' Socher,' 
 and the latter ' Sicher,' because the vowels are indeterminate 
 within these limits. But so far as identity was possible, we have 
 it here. 
 
 (2) The Talmudical passages speak not only of ' Sychar,' 
 but of ' Ajdn-Sychar,' i.e., ' the Well of Sychar.' 
 
 (3) The ' Well of Sychar' which they mention is in a corn- 
 growing country. This is clear from the incident which leads 
 
136 . ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 to the mention of the place in the two principal Talinudical 
 passages where it appears, Baba Kamma 82b, Menachoth 64b. 
 It is there stated that on one occasion, when the lands in the 
 neighbourhood of Jerusalem were laid waste by war, and no one 
 knew whence the two loaves of the Pentecostal offering, the 
 first-fruits of the wheat harvest, could be procured, they were 
 obliged ultimately to bring them from ' the valley of the Well of 
 Sychar.' Now the country which was the scene of the inter- 
 view with the Samaritan woman is remarkable in this respect — 
 'one mass of corn, unbroken by boundary or hedge^' — as it is 
 described by a modern traveller ; and indeed the prospect 
 before Him suggests to our Lord, as we may well suppose, the 
 image which occurs in the conversation with the disciples im- 
 mediately following — ' Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; 
 for they are white already to harvest V It is true that the 
 Talmudical passages do not fix the locality of their 'Ayin- 
 Sychar ;' but all the circumstances agree. It was just from such 
 a country as this (neither too near nor too far distant for the 
 notices) that the Pentecostal loaves would be likely to be pro- 
 cured in such an emergency. 
 
 The reader will draw his own conclusions. He will judge 
 for himself whether the unqualified statement, ' It is admitted 
 that there was no such place as Sychar,' is or is not misleading. 
 He will form his own opinion whether a writer, who delibe- 
 rately ignores these facts, because they are brought forward by 
 ' apologists who never admit anything,' is likely to form an 
 impartial judgment. 
 
 The identification of Sychar with Askar, to which recent 
 opinion has been tending, is a question of less importance. 
 Notwithstanding the difficulty respecting the initial Ain in the 
 latter word, an identification which has commended itself to 
 Oriental scholars like Ewald and Delitzsch and Neubauer can 
 hardly be pronounced impossible. I venture to suggest that 
 the initial Ain of ' Askar' may be explained by supposing the 
 word to be a contraction for Ayin-Sychar, the ' Well of Sychar.' 
 
 1 Stanley Sinai and Palestine p. 229. " John iv. 35. 
 
IV. POLYCAEP OF SMYRNA. 137 
 
 This corruption of the original name into a genuine Arabic 
 word would furnish another example of a process which is 
 common where one language is superposed upon another, e.g., 
 Charter-House for Chartreuse. 
 
 3. The third point to which I called attention^ was the 
 author's practice of charging those from whom he disagreed 
 with dishonesty. This seemed to me to be a very grave offence, 
 which deserved to be condemned by all men alike, whatever 
 their opinions might be. And in the present instance I con- 
 sidered that the author was especially bound to abstain from 
 such charges, because he had thought fit to shelter himself (as 
 he was otherwise justified in doing) under an anonyme. More- 
 over, the offence was aggravated by the fact that one of the 
 writers whom he had especially selected for this mode of attack 
 was distinguished for his moderation of tone, and for his 
 generous appreciation of the position and arguments of his 
 adversaries. 
 
 This is our author's reply — 
 
 Dr Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that ' Dr Westcott's honour 
 may safely be left to take care of itself.' It would have been much 
 better to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than ti'ouble it by 
 such advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, 
 it would be the tone adopted by Dr Lightfoot ; but nevertheless, I 
 again say, in the most unreserved manner, that neither in this in- 
 stance, nor in any other, have I had the most distant intention of 
 attributing ' corrupt motives ' to a man like Dr Westcott, whose 
 single-mindedness I recognize, and for whose earnest character I 
 feel genuine respect. The utmost that I have at any time intended 
 to point out is that, utterly possessed as he is by orthodox views in 
 general, and on the Canon in particular, he sees facts, I consider, 
 through a dogmatic medium, and unconsciously imparts his own 
 peculiar colouring to statements which should be more impartially 
 made^ 
 
 I am well content to bear this blame when I have elicited 
 this explanation. A great wrong had been done, and I wished 
 to see it redressed. But who could have supposed that this was 
 
 1 [See above, p. 20 sq.] ^ Fortjiightly Review, I. c. p. 13. 
 
138 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 our author's meaning ? Who could have imagined that he had 
 all along felt a ' genuine respect ' for the single-mindedness of 
 one whom he accused of ' discreet reserve/ of ' unworthy sup- 
 pression of the truth,' of ' clever evasion,' of ' ignorant ingenuity 
 or apologetic partiality,' of ' disingenuousness,' of ' what amounts 
 to falsification,' and the like, and whom in the very passage 
 which has called forth this explanation he had charged with 
 yielding to a ' temptation ' which was ' too strong for the apolo- 
 gist,' and ' insinuating to unlearned readers ' what he knew to 
 be untrue respecting Basilides ? This unfortunate use of lan- 
 guage, I contend, is no trifling matter where the honour of 
 another is concerned ; and, instead of his rebuke, I claim his 
 thanks for enabling him to explain expressions which could 
 only be understood in one way by his readers, and which have 
 so grievously misrepresented his true meaning. 
 
 I trust also that our author wishes us to interpret the 
 charges which he has brought against Tischendorf ^ in the same 
 liberal spirit. I certainly consider that Tischendorf took an 
 unfortunate step when he deserted his proper work, for which 
 he was eminently fitted, and came forward as an apologist ; and, 
 if our author had satisfied himself with attacking the weak 
 points of his apologetic armour, there would have been no 
 ground for complaint, and on some points I should have agreed 
 with him. But I certainly supposed that ' deliberate falsifica- 
 tion' meant 'deliberate falsification.' I imagined, as ordinary 
 readers would imagine, that these words involved a charge of 
 conscious dishonesty. I am content to believe now that they 
 were intended to impute to him an unconscious bias. 
 
 In our author's observations on my criticism of his general 
 argument, there is one point which seems to call for observation. 
 Of all my remarks, the one sentence which I should least have 
 expected to incur his displeasure, is the following : — 
 
 Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the 
 first part, the second and third are altogether superfluous ^ 
 
 I fancied that, in saying this, I was only translating his own 
 1 [See above, pp. 5, 55, 128.] - [See above, p. 26.] 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 139 
 
 opinion into other words. I imagined that he himself wished 
 the secqnd and third parts to be regarded as a work of superero- 
 gation. Was I altogether without ground for this belief? I 
 turn to the concluding paragraph of the first part, and I find 
 these words : — 
 
 Those who have formed any adequate conception of the amount 
 of testimony which would be requisite in order to establish the 
 reality of occurrences in violation of the order of nature, which is 
 based upon universal and invariable experience, must recognize that, 
 even if the earliest asserted origin of our four Gosj)els could be estab- 
 lished uqjon the most irrefragable grounds, the testimony of the 
 writers — men of like ignorance with their contemporaries, men of 
 like passions with ourselves — would be utterly incompetent to prove the 
 reality of miracles^ . 
 
 What does this mean, except that even though it should be 
 necessary to concede every point against which the author is 
 contending in the second and third parts, still the belief in the 
 Gospel miracles is irrational ? Is the language which I have 
 used at all stronger than our author's own on this point ? But 
 I am glad to have elicited from him an expression of opinion 
 that the question is not foreclosed by the arguments in the first 
 parti 
 
 1 S. R. I. p. 210. The italics are iu the noble passage of XenojDhanes 
 
 mine. which he quotes in the first part of his 
 
 - Towards the close of his Reply work. In another sense, our author 
 
 the author makes some remarks on a himself in his concluding chapter be- 
 
 ' Personal God,' in which he accuses trays his anthroi^omorphism ; for he 
 
 me of misunderstanding him. It may attributes to the Divine Being wisdom 
 
 be so, but then I venture to think that and beneficence and forethought, wliich 
 
 he does not quite understand himself, are conceptions derived by man from 
 
 as he certainly does not understand the studj' of himself. Indeed, I do not 
 
 me. I do not remember that he has see how it is possible to conceive of 
 
 anywhere defined the terms 'Personal' Deity except through some sort of 
 
 and 'Anthropomorphic,' as applied to anthropomorphism in this wider sense 
 
 Deity; and without definition, so many of the term, and certainly our author 
 
 various conceptions may be included has not disengaged himself from it. 
 under the terms as to entangle a dis- In spite of our author's repudiation 
 
 cussion hopelessly. No educated Chris- in his reply, I boldly claim the writer 
 
 tian, I imagine, believes in an anthro- of the concluding chapter of Super- 
 
 pomorphic Deity in the sense in which natural Religion as a believer in a 
 
 this anthropomorphism is condemned Personal God, in the only sense in 
 
140 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 For some expressions in his concluding paragraph I sincerely 
 thank the author, though I find it difficult to reconcile them 
 with either the tone or the substance of the preceding reply. I 
 trust that I have already relieved him from the apprehension 
 that I should confine myself to 'desultory efforts.' I had hoped 
 that some of the topics in my first article might have been laid 
 aside for ever, but his reply has compelled me to revert to them. 
 He does me no more than justice when he credits me with 
 earnestness. I am indeed in earnest, as I believe him to be. 
 But it seems to me that the motives for earnestness are neces- 
 sarily more intense in my case than in his ; for (to say nothing 
 else), as I read history, the morality of the coming generations 
 of Englishmen is very largely dependent on the answers which 
 they give to the questions at issue between us. As he has with- 
 held his name, he has deprived me of the pleasure of reciprocat- 
 ing any expression of personal respect. Thus he has placed me 
 at a great disadvantage. I know nothing of the man, and can 
 speak only of the book. Of the book I would wish to say that 
 one who has taken so much pains to regulate his personal belief 
 is 80 far entitled to every consideration. And, if this had been 
 all, I should have entertained and expressed the highest respect 
 for him, however faulty his processes might appear to me, and 
 however dangerous his results. But, when I observed that the 
 author, not content with ignoring the facts and reasonings, went 
 on to impugn the honesty of his opponents ; when I noticed 
 that again and again the arguments on one side of the question 
 were carefully arrayed, while the arguments on the other side 
 were altogether omitted ; when I perceived that he denied the 
 authenticity of every work, and questioned the applicability of 
 every reference, which made against him ; when in short I saw 
 that, however sincere the writer's personal convictions might be, 
 
 which I understand Personality as to a belief in a Personal God, but also 
 
 applied to the Divine Being. He dis- in a wise and beneficent Personal God 
 
 tinctly attributes will and mind to the who cares for man. On the other hand, 
 
 Divine Being, and this is the very idea the writer of the first part of the work 
 
 of personality, as I conceive the seemed to me to use arguments which 
 
 term. He not onlj' commits himself were inconsistent with these beliefs. 
 
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. 141 
 
 the critical portion of the work was stamped throughout with 
 the character of an advocate's ex parte statement, I felt that he 
 had forfeited any claim to special forbearance. For the rest, 
 I do not wish to be unjust to the book, and I am sorry if, while 
 attempting to correct an exceedingly false estimate, I have 
 seemed to any one to be so ; but I do not see any good in 
 paying empty and formal compliments which do not come from 
 the heart, and I cannot consent to tamper with truths which seem 
 to me of the highest moment. Still, I should be sorry to think 
 that so much energetic work had been thrown away. If the publi- 
 cation of this book shall have had the effect of attracting serious 
 attention to these most momentous subjects, it will have achieved 
 an important result. But I would wish to add one caution. No 
 good will ever come from merely working on the lines of modern 
 theorists. Perhaps the reader will forgive me if I add a few 
 words of explanation, for I do not wish to be misunderstood. I 
 should be most ungrateful if, in speaking of German writers, I 
 used the language of mere depreciation. If there is any recent 
 theologian from whom I have learnt more than from another, it 
 is the German Neander. Nor can I limit my obligations to 
 men of this stamp. All diligent students of early Christian 
 history must have derived the greatest advantage on special 
 points from the conscientious research, and frequently also from 
 the acute analysis, even of writers of the most extreme school. 
 But it is high time that the incubus of fascinating speculations 
 should be shaken off, and that Englishmen should learn to 
 exercise their judicial faculty independently. Any one who will 
 take the pains to read Irenseus through carefully, endeavouring 
 to enter into his historical position in all its bearings, striving to 
 realize what he and his contemporaries actually thought about 
 the writings of the New Testament and what grounds they had 
 for thinking it, and, above all, resisting the temptation to read 
 in modern theories between the lines, will be in a more favour- 
 able position for judging rightly of the early history of the 
 Canon than if he had studied all the monographs which have 
 issued from the German press during the last half century. 
 
V. — Papias of Hierapolis. 
 
 [August, 1875.] 
 
 rriWO names stand out prominently in the Churches of pro- 
 -*- consular Asia during the age immediately succeeding 
 the Apostles — Polycarp of Smjo-na, and Papias of Hierapolis. 
 Having given an account of Polycarp in my last article, I pur- 
 pose now to examine the notices relating to Papias. These two 
 fathers are closely connected together in the earliest tradition. 
 Papias, writes Irenseus, was ' a hearer of John and a companion 
 of Polycarp\' On the latter point we may frankly accept the 
 evidence of Irenseus. A pupil of Polycarp, at all events, was 
 not likely to be misinformed here. But to the former part of 
 the statement objections have been raised in ancient and modern 
 times alike ; and it will be my business in the course of this 
 investigation to inquire into its credibility. Yet, even if Papias 
 was not a personal disciple of St John, still his age and country 
 place him in more or less close connection with the traditions of 
 this Apostle ; and it is this fact which gives importance to his 
 position and teaching. 
 
 Papias wrote a work entitled, ' Exposition of Oracles of the 
 Lord,' in five books, of which a few scanty fragments and notices 
 are preserved, chiefly by Irenseus and Eusebius. The object 
 and contents of this work will be discussed hereafter ; but it is 
 necessary to quote at once an extract which Eusebius has pre- 
 served from the preface, since our estimate of the date and posi- 
 
 ^ Iren. v. 33.4 'ludi'vov /xh aKovanqs, HoXvKapTrov 8i iraipos yeyouuis. 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIEEAPOLIS. 143 
 
 tion of Papias will depend largely on the interpretation of its 
 meaning. 
 
 Papias then, addressing (as it would appear) some friend to 
 whom the work was dedicated, explains its plan and purpose as 
 follows^ : — 
 
 But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my 
 interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and remembered 
 carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing their truth. 
 For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those who have so 
 very much to say (rots to. TroXAa Xiyovcnv), but in those who teach 
 the truth ; nor in those who relate foreign commandments, but in 
 those [who record] such as were given from the Lord to tlie Faith, 
 and are derived from the Truth itself. And again, on any occasion 
 when a person came [in my way] who had been a follower of the 
 elders (et S4 irov Koi. iraprjKoXovOrjKU)'; Tt? rots TrpecrfSvTepot'i cKOut), I 
 would inquire about the discourses of the elders — what was said by 
 Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by 
 John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what 
 Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I 
 did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of 
 books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice (ov yap 
 TO. eK r<Zv /SiySXtW ToaovTov /xe wcjaXilv VTreXa/j.^avoi', ocrov ra Trapa ^w<rr]<; 
 cfiwvrj^ Kol fxevovtrrj'i.) 
 
 This passage is introduced by Eusebius with the remark that, 
 though Irenseus calls Papias a hearer of John, 
 
 Yet Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, certainly 
 does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of the 
 holy Apostles, but he shows, by the language which he uses, that he 
 received the matters of the faith from those who were their friends. 
 
 Then follows the extract which I have given ; after which 
 Eusebius resumes: — 
 
 Here it is important to observe, that he twice mentions the 
 name of John. The former of these he puts in the same list with 
 
 1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 39 Ovk <5/cv7?crw deiav, k. t. X. This same reference will 
 
 5^ (TOL /cat Sera ttot^ irapa tQv wpea^vTe- hold for all the notices from Eusebius 
 
 pu)v KaXQs iiJ.adov Kal /caXws ep.v7]ixbvQvaa which are quoted in this article, unless 
 
 avyKaTard^at. [v. 1. ffwrdfat] rats ep/Hij- otherwise stated. 
 ceiats, diajSej^aiov/jLiyos VTr^p avruv dX?}- 
 
144 ON SUPEKNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, clearly 
 intending the Evangelist ; but the second John lie mentions after an 
 interval (Siao-rciXas tov \6yov), and places among others outside the 
 number of the Apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he dis- 
 tinctly calls him an ' elder ; ' so that by these facts the account of 
 those is proved to be true who have stated that two persons in Asia 
 had the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, 
 each of which, even to the present time, bears the name of John. 
 
 Then, after speculating on the possibility that this second 
 John was the author of the Apocalypse, he continues : — 
 
 Papias avows that he has received the sayings of the Apostles 
 from those who had been their followers (twv avrols TraprjKoXovOrjKOTUiv), 
 but says that he himself was an immediate hearer of Aristion and 
 the Elder John. Certainly he mentions them many times in his 
 writings, and records their traditions. 
 
 The justice of this criticism has been disputed by many 
 recent writers, who maintain that the same John, the son of 
 Zebedee, is meant in both passages. But I cannot myself doubt 
 that Eusebius was right in his interpretation, and I am glad 
 for once to find myself entirely agreed with the author of 
 Supernatural Religion. It will be observed that John is the 
 only name mentioned twice, and that at its second occurrence the 
 person bearing it is distinguished as the 'elder' or 'presbyter,' 
 this designation being put in an emphatic jDosition before the 
 proper name. We must therefore accept the distinction be- 
 tween John the Apostle and John the Presbyter, though the 
 concession may not be free from inconvenience, as introducing 
 an element of possible confusion. 
 
 But it does not therefore follow that the statement of 
 Irenseus was incorrect. Though this passage in the preface of 
 Papias lends no support to the belief that he was a personal 
 disciple of John the son of Zebedee, yet it is quite consistent 
 with such a belief Irenseus does not state that he derived 
 his knowledge from this preface, or indeed from any part 
 of the work. Having listened again and again to Polycarp 
 while describing the sayings and doings of John the Apostle \ 
 1 See above, p. 9G sq. 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 145 
 
 he had other sources of information which were closed to 
 Eusebius. Nor indeed is there any chronological or other 
 difficulty in supposing that he may have derived the fact from 
 direct intercourse with Papias himself But the possibility still 
 remains that he was guilty of this confusion which Eusebius 
 lays to his charge ; and the value of his testimony on this point 
 is seriously diminished thereby. 
 
 It will have been noticed that in the above extract Papias 
 professes to derive the traditions of ' the elders/ with which he 
 illustrated his expositions, from two different sources. He 
 refers yirs^, to those sayings which he had heard from their own 
 lips, and secondly, to those which he had collected at second- 
 hand from their immediate followers. What class of persons he 
 intends to include under the designation of 'elders' he makes 
 clear by the names which follow. The category would include 
 not only Apostles like Andrew and Peter, but also other 
 personal disciples of Christ, such as Aristion and the second 
 John. In other words, the term with him is a synonyme for 
 the Fathers of the Church in the first generation. This 
 meaning is entirely accordant with the usage of the same title 
 elsewhere. Thus Irenteus employs it to describe the genera- 
 tion to which Papias himself belonged*. Thus again, in the 
 next age, Irenseus in turn is so designated by Hippolytus^ 
 And, when we descend as low as Eusebius, we find him using 
 the term so as to include even writers later than Irenseus, who 
 nevertheless, from their comparative antiquity, were to him and 
 his generation authorities as regards the traditions and usages 
 of the Church^. Nor indeed did Papias himself invent this 
 usage. In the Epistle to the Hebrews for instance, we read 
 that 'the elders obtained a good report*'; where the meaning is 
 defined by the list which follows, including Old Testament 
 worthies from Abel to 'Samuel and the prophets.' Thus this 
 
 1 Hcer. iv. 27. 1, 3 ; iv. 30. 1 ; iv. 81. dria uses the same phrase of Pantaenus ; 
 1 ; V. 5. 1 ; V, 33. 3 ; v. 36. 1, 2. Euseb. H. E. vi. 14. 
 
 2 Eef. Hcer. vi, 42, 55, ' The blessed ^ jj. e. iii. 3 ; v. 8 ; vi. 13. 
 elder IrensBUS.' Clement of Alexan- * Heb. xi. 2. 
 
 S. E. 10 
 
146 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 sense of 'elders' in early Christian writers corresponds very 
 nearly to our own usage of ' fathers/ when we speak of the 
 Fathers of the Church, the Fathers of the Reformation, the 
 Pilgrim Fathers, and the like. 
 
 Thus employed therefore, the term 'presbyters' or 'elders' 
 denotes not office, but authority and antiquity\ It is equiva- 
 lent to 'the ancient' or 'primitive worthiest' But at its last 
 occurrence in the extract of Papias, where it is applied to the 
 second John, this is apparently not the case. Here it seems to 
 be an official title, designating a member of the order of the 
 presbyterate. Though modern critics have stumbled over this 
 two-fold sense of the word nrpea^vTepo^; in the same context, it 
 would create no difficulty to the contemporaries of Papias, to 
 whom 'the Presbyter John' must have been a common mode of 
 designation in contradistinction to 'the Apostle John,' and to 
 whom therefore the j^roper meaning would at once suggest 
 itself Instances are not wanting elsewhere in which this word 
 is used with two senses, official and non-official, in the same 
 passage". 
 
 Of the elders with whom Papias was personally acquainted, 
 we can only name with certainty Aristion and the Presbyter 
 John ; but as regards these Eusebius is explicit. To them the 
 Apostle John may perhaps be added, as we have seen, on the 
 authority of Irenseus. Beyond these three names we have no 
 authority for extending the list, though there is a possibility 
 that in very early life he may have met with others, more 
 especially Andrew and Philip, who are known to have lived in 
 
 1 Weiffenbach Das Papias-Frag- and personal disciples whose sayings 
 
 ment (Giessen, 1874) has advocated at Papias sets liimself to collect. This 
 
 great length the view that Papias uses view demands such a violent wresting 
 
 the term as a title of office throughout, of the grammatical connection in the 
 
 p. 34 sq ; but he has not succeeded passage of Papias that it is not likely 
 
 in convincing subsequent writers. His to find much favour, 
 conclusions are opposed by Hilgenfeld ^ In illustration of this use, it may 
 
 Papias von Hierapolis p. 245 sq (in be mentioned that in the Letter of the 
 
 his Zeitschrift, 1875), and by Leim- Galilean Churches (Euseb. H. E. v. 1) 
 
 bach Das Papias-Fragment p. 63 sq. the term is applied to the Zacharias of 
 
 Weiffenbach supposes that the elders Luke i. 5 sq. 
 are distinguished from the Apostles ^ 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, 17, 19. 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIEEAPOLIS. 147 
 
 these parts. But, however this may be, it seems to follow from 
 the words of his preface that his direct intercourse with these 
 elders or personal disciples of the Lord had not been great. It 
 was probably confined to the earlier part of his life, before he 
 had any thought of writing his book ; and the information 
 thence derived was in consequence casual and fragmentary. 
 When he set himself to collect traditions for this special pur- 
 pose, he was dependent on secondary evidence, on the informa- 
 tion collected from scholars and followers of these primitive 
 elders. 
 
 We are now in a position to investigate the age of Papias ; 
 but, as a preliminary to this investigation, it is necessary to say 
 something about the authority for the one definite date which 
 is recorded in connection with him. In my article on Polycarp, 
 I pointed out that recent investigations had pushed the date of 
 this father's martyrdom several years farther back, and that some 
 chronological difficulties attaching to the commonly received 
 date had thus been removed '. A similar difficulty meets us in 
 the case of Papias ; and it disappears in like manner, as I hope 
 to show, before the light of criticism. The Chron.icon Paschale, 
 which was compiled in the first half of the seventh century^, 
 represents Papias as martyred at Pergamum about the same 
 time when Polycarp suffered at Smyrna, and places the event in 
 the year 164. If this statement were true, we could hardly date 
 his birth before A.D. 80, and even then he would have lived to 
 a very advanced age. But there is a certain difficulty^ in 
 supposing that one born at this late date should have been 
 directly acquainted with so many personal disciples of our Lord. 
 No earlier writer however mentions the date, or even the fact, of 
 the martyrdom — not even Eusebius, who has much to say both 
 about Papias and about the martyrologies of this epoch ; and this 
 absence of confirmation renders the statement highly suspicious. 
 
 1 See above, p. 103 sq. sixtieth) anniversary of the battle of 
 
 ^ See Clinton, Fast. Rom. II. p. Waterloo, the Times gave the names of 
 
 335. no fewer than seventy-six Waterloo 
 
 3 This difficulty however cannot be officers as still living. 
 
 regarded as serious. At the last (the 
 
 10—2 
 
148 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 I believe that I have traced the error to its source, which in- 
 deed is not very far to seek. The juxtaposition of the passage 
 in this Chronicle with the corresponding passage in the History 
 of Eusebius ^ will, if I mistake not, tell its own tale. 
 
 Chronicon Paschale. 
 In the 133rd year of the As- 
 cension of the Lord very severe, 
 persecutions having dismayed 
 {avacrofiriaavTMv) A sia, many 
 were martyred, among whom 
 Polycarp . 
 
 and in Fergamum others (erepoi), 
 among whom was Papias and 
 many others (aAXot), whose mar- 
 tyrdoms are extant ((fiipovTaL) 
 also in writing. 
 
 Justin, a philosopher of the 
 word received among us (tov Kad' 
 i;/tas Xoyov), having jjresented a 
 second book in defence of the 
 doctrines received among us to 
 Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus 
 Verus, the emperors, is decorated 
 not long after with the divine 
 crown of martyrdom, Grescens 
 accusing (?) him. 
 
 The sequence of events, and the correspondence of individual 
 phrases, alike show that the compiler of this Chronicle derived 
 his information from the History of Eusebiusl But either he 
 or his transcriber has substituted a well known name, Papias, for 
 a more obscure name, Papylus. If the last letters of the word 
 were blurred or blotted in his copy of Eusebius, nothing would 
 
 (ed. 
 
 Eusebius. 
 At this time very severe per- 
 secutions having disturbed (dvaOo- 
 pv/Srja-dvTwv) Asia, Polycarp is 
 perfected by martyrdom . 
 and in the same writing concern- 
 ing him were attached other 
 martyrdoms . . . and next 
 in order (e|i7s) memoirs of others 
 (aAXwv) also, who were martyred 
 in Pergamwm, a city of Asia, are 
 extant (^eperat), Carpus and 
 Papylus, and a woman Aga- 
 thonice. 
 
 And at the same time with 
 these (Kara tovtov<;) Justin also, 
 who was mentioned shortly before 
 by us, having prese7ited a second 
 book in defence of the doctrines 
 received among us to the afore- 
 mentioned rulers, is decorated tvith 
 divine martyrdom, a philosopher 
 Grescens . . . having hatched 
 the plot against him, etc. 
 
 1 Chron. Pasch. p. 481 sq 
 Bonn.) ; Euseb. H. E. iv. 15. 
 
 2 There is no indication that the 
 author of this Chronicle used any other 
 
 document in this part besides the 
 History of Eusebius and the extant 
 Martyrology of Polycarp which Euse- 
 bius here quotes. 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 149 
 
 be more natural than such a change. It is only necessary to 
 write the two names in uncials, IlAniAS IIAIIYAOS, to judge 
 of its likelihood \ This explanation indeed is so obvious, when 
 the passages are placed side by side, that one can only feel 
 surprised at its not having been pointed out before. Thus the 
 martyrdom of Papias, with its chronological perplexities (such 
 as they are), disappears from history ; and we may dismiss the 
 argument of the author of Supernatural Religion, that 'a writer 
 who suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius (c. A.D. 165) 
 can scarcely have been a hearer of the Apostles^' 
 
 Thus we are left to infer the date of Papias entirely from the 
 notices of his friends and contemporaries ; but these will assist 
 us to a very fair approximation. (1) He was a hearer of at 
 least two personal disciples of Christ, Aristion and the Presbyter 
 John. If we suppose that they were among the youngest 
 disciples of our Lord, and lived to old age, we shall be doing no 
 violence to probability. Obviously there were in their case 
 exceptional circumstances which rendered intercourse with them 
 possible. If so, they may have been born about A.D. 10 or 
 later, and have died about A.D. 90 or later. In this case their 
 intercourse with Papias may be referred to the years A.D. 85 — 95, 
 or thereabouts. (2) He was acquainted with the daughters of 
 Philip, who dwelt with their father at Hierapolis, where they 
 died in old age. Whether this Philip was the Apostle, as the 
 earliest writers affirm, or the Evangelist, as others suppose^, is a 
 question of little moment for my immediate purpose — the date 
 of Papias. In the latter case these daughters would be the 
 same who are mentioned at the time of St Paul's last visit to 
 Jerusalem, A.D. 58, aj^parently as already grown up to woman- 
 hood*. On the former supposition they would belong to the same 
 
 ^ The martyrdom of Papias is article on Papias wliich I wrote for the 
 
 combined with that of Polycarp in the Contemporary Review some years before 
 
 Syriac Epitome of the Chronicon of these Essays; but I think now that the 
 
 Eusebius (p. 216, ed. Schone). The Apostle is meant, as the most ancient 
 
 source of the error is doubtless the testimony points to him. I have given 
 
 same in both cases. my reasons for this change of opinion 
 
 " S. R. I. p. 448. in Colossians p. 45 sq. 
 
 2 I had taken the latter view in an ■* Acts xxi. 9. 
 
150 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 generation, and probably would be about the same age. As 
 a very rough approximation, we may place their birth about 
 A.D. 30, and their death about a.d. 100—110. (3) Papias is 
 called by Irenseus a 'companion' of Poly carp, whose life (as we 
 saw) extended from A.D. 69 to A.D. 155 \ The word admits a 
 certain latitude as regards date, though it suggests something 
 approaching to equality in age. But on the whole the notices 
 affecting his relations to Polycarp suggest that he was rather the 
 older man of the two. At all events Eusebius discusses him 
 immediately after Ignatius and Quadratus and Clement, i.e. in 
 connection with the fathers who flourished in the reign of 
 Trajan or before ; while the notice of Polycarp is deferred till a 
 much later point in the history, where it occurs in close proxi- 
 mity with Justin Martyr ^ This arrangement indicates at all 
 events that Eusebius had no knowledge of his having been 
 martyred at the same time with Polycarp, or indeed of his 
 surviving to so late a date. Otherwise he would naturally have 
 inserted his account of him in this place. If it is necessary to 
 put the result of these incidental notices in any definite form, we 
 may say that Papias was probably born about A.D. 60 — 70. 
 
 But his work was evidently written at a much later date. 
 He speaks of his personal intercourse with the elders, as a thing 
 of the remote past''. He did not write till false interpretations 
 of the Evangelical records had had time to increase and multiply. 
 We should probably not be wrong if we deferred its publication 
 till the years A.D. 130 — 140, or even later. Our author places 
 it at least as late as the middle of the second century*. 
 
 1 See above, p. 90. that these two persons were still living 
 ^ The chapter relating to Papias is when the inquiries were instituted. 
 
 the thirty-ninth of the third book ; But this would involve a chronological 
 those relating to Polycarp are the difficulty ; and the tense should pro- 
 fourteenth and fifteenth of the fourth bably be regarded as a historic present 
 book, where they interpose between introduced for the sake of variety, 
 chapters assigned to Justin Martyr * S. R. i. p. 444, ' About the middle 
 and events connected with him. of the second century.' Elsewhere (ii. p. 
 
 2 It is true that he uses the present 320) he speaks of Papias as ' flourish- 
 tense once, a re 'Apiariuv Kal b Trpea^tj- ing in the second half of the second 
 repos 'Iw6.vv7js...\4yov(Tiv [see above, century.' 
 
 p. 143], and hence it has been inferred 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 151 
 
 The opinions of a Christian writer who lived and wrote at 
 this early date, and had conversed with these first disciples, are 
 not without importance, even though his own mental calibre 
 may have been small. But the speculations of the Tubingen 
 school have invested them with a fictitious interest. Was he, 
 or was he not, as these critics affirm, a Judaic Christian of 
 strongly Ebionite tendencies ? The arguments which have 
 been urged in defence of this position are as follows : — 
 
 1. In the first place we are reminded that he was a millen- 
 narian. The Chiliastic teaching of his work is the subject of 
 severe comment with Eusebius, who accuses him of misinter- 
 preting figurative sayings in the Apostolic writings and assigning 
 to them a literal sense. This tendency appears also in the one 
 passage which Irenasus quotes from Papias. But the answer to 
 this is decisive. Chiliasm is the rule, not the exception, with 
 the Christian writers of the second century; and it appears 
 combined with views the very opposite of Ebionite. It is found 
 in Justin Martyr, in Irenseus, in Tertullian\ It is found even 
 in the unknown author of the epistle bearing the name of 
 Barnabas^, which is stamped with the most uncompromising 
 and unreasoning antagonism to everything Judaic. 
 
 2. A second argument is built on the fact that Eusebius 
 does not mention his quoting St Paul's Epistles or other Pauline 
 writings of the Canon. I have already disposed of this argu- 
 ment in an earlier paper on the ' Silence of Eusebius^' I have 
 shown that Papias might have quoted St Paul many times, and 
 by name, while nevertheless Eusebius would not have recorded 
 the fact, because it was not required by his principles or con- 
 sistent with his practice to do so. I have shown that this 
 interpretation of the silence of Eusebius in other cases, where 
 we are able to test it, would lead to results demonstrably and 
 hopelessly wrong. I have pointed out for instance, that it 
 would most certainly conduct us to the conclusion that the 
 
 1 Justin Martyr Dial. 51 sq (p. de Resurr. Gam. 24. 
 271 sq), 80 sq (p. 307) ; Irenfeus Hcer. ^ Ep. Barn. § 15. 
 
 V. 31 sq; TertuUian adv. Marc. iii. 24, ^ ggg above, p. 32 sq. 
 
152 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 writer of the Ignatian Epistles was an Ebionite — a conclusion 
 diametrically opposed to the known facts of the case\ 
 
 3. Lastly, it is argued that Papias was an Ebionite, because 
 he quoted the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In the first 
 place, however, the premiss is highly questionable. Eusebius 
 does not say, as in other cases, that Papias ' uses ' this Gospel, 
 or that he ' sets down facts from ' it^ but he writes that Papias 
 relates ' a story about a woman accused of many sins before the 
 Lord ' (doubtless the same which is found in our copies of St 
 John's Gospel, vii. 53 — viii. 11), and he adds 'which the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews contains^' This does not imply that 
 Papias derived it thence, but only that Eusebius found it there. 
 Papias may have obtained it, like the other stories to which 
 Eusebius alludes, ' from oral tradition ' (e/c irapahoaew'^ dypd(})ov). 
 But, even if it were directly derived thence, the conclusion does 
 not follow from the premiss. The Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews is quoted both by Clement of Alexandria and by 
 Origen, though these two fathers accepted our four Gospels 
 alone as canonical ^ It may even be quoted, as Jerome asserts 
 that it is, and as the author himself believes^ by the writer of 
 
 ^ See above, p. 41 sq. but Origea draws au absolute line of 
 
 2 These are the expressions em- demarcation between our four Gospels 
 
 ployed elsewhere of this Gospel ; H. E. and the rest. He even illustrates the 
 
 iii. 25, 27 ; iv. 22. relation of these Canonical Gospels to 
 
 * H. E. iii. 39 ijc to Kar ''E^palovi the Apocryphal by that of the true 
 
 evayyiXiov irepUx^i. prophets to the false under the Jewish 
 
 •* Clem. Strom, ii. 9 (p. 453). Our dispensation. Horn. I. in Luc. (in. p. 
 
 author says, ' Clement of Alexandria 932). Any reader unacquainted with 
 
 quotes it [the Gospel according to the the facts would carry away a wholly 
 
 Hebrews] with quite the same respect false impression from our author's 
 
 as the other Gospels' (S. R. i. p. 422), account of the use made of the Gos- 
 
 He cannot have remembered, when he pel according to the Hebrews, 
 wrote this, that Clement elsewhere ^ S. R. i. pp. 272 sq, 332 sq. 
 
 refuses authority to a saying in an The fact that Eusebius did not know 
 
 Apocryphal Gospel because ' we do not the source of this quotation (H. E. iii. 
 
 find it in the four Gospels handed 36), though he was well acquainted 
 
 down to us ' {Strom, iii. 13, p. 553). with the Gospel according to the 
 
 ' Origen,' writes our author again, Hebrews, seems to me to render this 
 
 ' frequently made use of the Gospel very doubtful, 
 according to the Hebrews ' [I. c). Yes ; 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 153 
 
 the Ignatian letters, a most determined anti-Ebionite. If 
 Papias had cited the Gospel according to the Hebrews only 
 once, Eusebius would have mentioned the fact, because he made 
 it his business to record these exceptional phenomena ; whereas 
 he would have passed over any number of quotations from the 
 Canonical Gospels in silence. 
 
 As all these supposed tokens of Ebionite tendencies have 
 failed, we are led to inquire whether any light is thrown on this 
 question from other quarters. 
 
 And here his name is not altogether unimportant. Papias 
 was bishop of Hierapolis, and apparently a native of this place. 
 At all events he seems to have lived there from youth ; for his 
 acquaintance with the daughters of Philip, who resided in this 
 city, must have belonged to the earlier period of his life. Now 
 Papias was a designation of the Hierapolitan Zeus ^; and owing 
 to its association with this god, it appears to have been a 
 favourite name with the people of Hierapolis and the neigh- 
 bourhood. It occurs several times in coins and inscriptions 
 belonging to this city and district ^ In one instance we read of 
 a ' Papias, who is also Diogenes,' this latter name ' Zeus- 
 begotten ' being apparently regarded as a rough synonyme for 
 the Phrygian word^. We find mention also in Galen of a 
 physician belonging to the neighbouring city of Laodicea, who 
 bore this name*. Altogether it points to a heathen rather than 
 a Jewish origin. 
 
 But more important than his name, from which the in- 
 ference, though probable, is still precarious^, are his friendships 
 and associations. Papias, we are told, was a companion of 
 Polycarp^ The opinions of Poly carp have been considered in a 
 previous article'; and it has there been shown that the 
 
 ^ Boeckh Corp. Tnscr. 3817, TlaTriq. ^ One Eabbi Papias is mentioned 
 
 Alt a-wT-fjpi. in the Mishna Shekalim iv. 7 ; Edaioth 
 
 ^ Boeckh 3930, 3912 a App.: Mion- vii. 6. I owe these references to Zuuz 
 
 net IV. p. 301. Namen der Judeii p. 16. 
 
 3 Boeckli 3817. ^ See above, p. 142. 
 
 * Galen Op. xii. p. 799 (ed. ^ See above, p. 89 sq. 
 
 Kiihn). 
 
154 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 hypothesis of Ebionite leanings in his case is not only 
 unsupported, but cannot be maintained except by an entire 
 disregard of the evidence, which is of different kinds, and 
 all leads to the opposite conclusion. As regards Papias 
 therefore, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of direct 
 evidence, that his views were, at all events, in general 
 accordance with his friend's. Moreover, the five books of 
 Papias were read by Irenseus and by Eusebius, as well as by 
 later writers ; and, being occupied in interpretation, they must 
 have contained ample evidence of the author's opinions on the 
 main points which distinguished the Ebionite from the Catho- 
 lic — the view of the Mosaic law, the estimate of the Apostle 
 Paul, the conception of the person of Christ. It is therefore 
 important to observe that Iren^us quotes him with the highest 
 respect, as an orthodox writer and a trustworthy channel of 
 Apostolic tradition. Eusebius again, though he is repelled 
 by his millennarianism, calling him 'a man of very mean 
 capacity,' and evidently seeking to disparage him in every way, 
 has yet no charge to bring against him on these most important 
 points of all. And this estimate of him remains to the last. 
 Anastasius of Sinai for instance, who wrote in the latter half 
 of the sixth century, and who is rigidly and scrupulously 
 orthodox, according to the standard of orthodoxy which had 
 been created by five General Councils, had the work of Papias 
 in his hands. He mentions the author by name twice ; and on 
 both occasions he uses epithets expressive of the highest 
 admiration. Papias is to him ' the great,' ' the illustrious^' 
 
 But indeed Eusebius has left one direct indication of the 
 opinions of Papias, which is not insignificant. He tells us that 
 Papias ' employed testimonies from the First Epistle of John.' 
 How far this involves a recognition of the Fourth Gospel I shall 
 
 ^ 6 Trdvv, 6 voXh. The first pas- is given) ; the second in Migne ib. 
 
 sage will be found in the original p. 961 (comp. Bouth I. c. p. 16, where 
 
 Greek in Eouth Rel. Sacr. i. p. 15 again only the Latin ' Celebris ' is 
 
 (comp. Migne Patr. Grcec. Ixxxix. p. given). 
 860, where only the Latin 'clarissimus' 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 155 
 
 have to consider hereafter. At present it is sufficient to sa}^ 
 that this Epistle belongs to the class of writings in our Canon 
 which is the most directly opposed to Ebionism. 
 
 It may be said indeed, that Papias was foolish and credulous. 
 But unhappily foolishness and credulity are not characteristic of 
 any one form of Christian belief — or unbelief either. 
 
 The work of Papias, as we saw, was entitled, * Exposition of 
 Oracles of the Lord,' or (more strictly), ' of Dominical Oracles \' 
 But what was its nature and purport ? Shall we understand 
 the word ' exposition ' to mean ' enarration,' or ' explanation ' ? 
 Was the author's main object to construct a new Evangelical 
 narrative, or to interpret and explain one or more already in 
 circulation ? This is a vital point in its bearing on the relation 
 of Papias to our Canonical Gospels. Our author, ignoring what 
 Dr Westcott and others have said on this subject, tacitly 
 assumes the former alternative without attempting to discuss 
 the question. Yet, if this assumption is wrong, a very sub- 
 stantial part of his argument is gone. 
 
 The following passage will illustrate the attitude of the 
 author of Supernatural Religion towards this question : — 
 
 This work was less based on written records of the teaching of 
 Jesus than on that which Papias had been able to collect from 
 tradition, which he considered more authentic, for, like his contem- 
 porary Hegesippus, Papias avowedly prefers tradition to any written 
 works with which he was acquainted^. 
 
 I venture to ask in passing, where our author obtained his 
 information that Hegesippus ' avowedly prefers tradition to any 
 written works with which he was acquainted.' Certainly not 
 from any fragments or notices of this writer which have been 
 hitherto published. 
 
 1 Whether the first word should ' Dominical Oracles,' not ' Oracles 
 
 be singular or plural, ' Exposition ' of the Lord.' I shall have occasion 
 
 (^fijYrjtris) or ' Expositions' (e^i?7T?(reis), hereafter to call attention to both 
 
 I need not stop to inquire. The im- these facts, which are significant, as 
 
 portant points are (1) that Papias they give a much wider range to his 
 
 uses \oyiuv, not X67W1' — ' oracles,' not subject-matter than if he had used the 
 
 ' words ' or ' sayings ' ; (2) that he has alternative expressions. 
 KvpLaKUP\oyicov,iiot\oyl(i}v TovKvplov — ^ S. R. i. p. 434 sq. 
 
156 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 After quoting the extract from the preface of Papias which 
 has been given above, our author resumes : — 
 
 It is clear from this that, even if Papias knew any of our Gospels, 
 he attached little or no value to them, and that he knew absolutely 
 nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. His work 
 was evidently intended to furnish a more complete collection of the 
 discourses of Jesus from oral tradition than any previously existing, 
 with his own expositions ; and this is plainly indicated by his own 
 words, and by the title of his work, Aoytwv KvpLaKwv i^yjyqaL?^ . 
 
 ' The natural and only reasonable course,' he adds in a note, 
 ' is to believe the express declaration of Papias, more especially 
 as it is made, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of 
 his belief He has appealed to Caesar, and to Csesar he shall 
 
 go- 
 
 What then is the natural interpretation of the title ' Exposi- 
 tion of Oracles of (or 'relating to') 'the Lord'? Would any 
 one, without a preconceived theory, imagine that ' exposition ' 
 here meant anything else but explanation or interpretation? 
 It is possible indeed, that the original word i^tjryrjai.ii might, in 
 other connections, be used in reference to a narrative, but its 
 common and obvious sense is the same which it bears when 
 adopted into English as ' exegesis.' In other words, it expresses 
 the idea of a commentary on some text. The expression has an 
 exact parallel, for instance, in the language of Eusebius when, 
 speaking of Dionysius of Corinth, he says that this writer 
 introduces into his letter to the Church of Amastris ' exposi- 
 tions of Divine Scriptures ' {jypa^wv Oelcov i^Tjyrjo-eci), or when he 
 says that Irenseus quotes a certain 'Apostolic elder' and gives 
 his ' expositions of Divine Scriptures ' (the same expression as 
 before) I It is used more than once in this sense, and it is not 
 used in any other, as we shall see presently, by Irenseus^ 
 
 1 So again, i. p. 484 sq, ' What- more reliable source of information 
 
 ever books Papias knew, however, it is regarding Evangelical history,' etc. 
 
 certain, from his own express declara- See also ii. p. 320 sq. 
 tion, that he ascribed little importance " H. E. iv. 23, v. 8. 
 
 to them, and preferred tradition as a ^ See below, p. 160. 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 157 
 
 Moreover Anastasius of Sinai distinctly styles Papias an 
 ' exegete,' meaning thereby, as his context shows, an ' inter- 
 preter ' of the Holy Scriptures \ 
 
 ' The title of his work ' therefore does not ' indicate ' any- 
 thing of the kind which our author assumes it to indicate'*. It 
 does not suggest a more authentic narrative, but a more correct 
 interpretation of an existing narrative. And the same inference 
 is suggested still more strongly, when from the title we turn to 
 the words of the preface ; ' But I will not scruple also to give a 
 place along with my interpretations {avyKaraTci^ac Tal<i epfiirj- 
 velaKi) to all that I learnt carefully and remembered carefully in 
 time past from the elders.' Here the sense of ' exegesis ' in 
 the title is explained by the use of the unambiguous word 
 'interpretations.' But this is not the most important point. 
 The interpretations must have been interpretations of some- 
 thing. Of what then ? Certainly not of the oral traditions, for 
 the interpretations are presupposed, and the oral traditions are 
 mentioned subsequently, being introduced to illustrate the 
 interpretations. The words which I have italicised leave no 
 doubt about this. The ' also,' which (by the way) our author 
 omits, has no significance otherwise. The expression 'along 
 with the interpretations ' is capable only of one meaning. In 
 other words, the only account which can be given of the 
 passage, consistently with logic and grammar, demands the 
 following sequence : — (1) The text, of which something was 
 doubtless said in the preceding passage, for it is assumed in the 
 extract itself (2) The interpretations which explained the 
 text, and which were the main object of the work. (3) The 
 oral traditions, which, as the language here shows, were 
 subordinate to the interpretations, and which Papias mentions 
 in a slightly apologetic tone. These oral traditions had ob- 
 viously a strong attraction for Papias; he introduced them 
 
 ^ The references will be found not e^rjyijcn^ but on^tja-ts, which Euse- 
 
 p. 154. bias uses several times of the anecdotes 
 
 - The proper word, if the work had related by Papias ; H. E. iii. .39. 
 been what our author supposes, was 
 
158 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 frequently to confirm and illustrate his explanations. But only 
 the most violent wresting of language can make them the text 
 or basis of these interpretations \ 
 
 A good example of the method thus adopted by Papias and 
 explained in his preface is accidentally preserved by Iren8eus^ 
 This father is discoursing on the millennial reign of Christ. 
 His starting point is the saying of our Lord at the last supper, 
 *I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that 
 day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom,' 
 (Matt. xxvi. 29.) He takes the words literally, and argues that 
 they must imply a terrestrial kingdom, since only men of flesh 
 can drink the fruit of the vine. He confirms this view by 
 appealing to two other sayings of Christ recorded in the 
 Gospels — the one the promise of a recompense in the resurrec- 
 tion of the just to those who call the poor and maimed and 
 lame and blind to their feast (Luke xiv. ,13, 14); the other the 
 assurance that those who have forsaken houses or lands for 
 Christ's sake shall receive a hundredfold now in this pr^esent 
 time (Matt. xix. 29 ; Mark x. 29, 30 ; Luke xviii. 80)', which last 
 expression, he maintains, can only be satisfied by an earthly 
 reign of Christ. He then attempts to show that the promises 
 to the patriarchs also require the same solution, since hitherto 
 
 ^ This attempt has recently been two may be safely pronounced im- 
 made by Weiffenbach Das Pcf;P^'^^'-^™i/' possible. Even if his grammatical 
 memf p. 16 sq; and it is chiefly valuable treatment could be allowed, the fact 
 as a testimony to the real significance will still remain that the interpretations 
 of the words, which can only be set are presupposed. Weiffenbach's con- 
 aside by such violent treatment. structions of this passage are justly 
 Weiffenbach is obliged to perform two rejected by the two writers who have 
 acts of violence on the sentence : (1) written on the subject since his essay 
 He supposes that there is an ana- appeared, Hilgeufeld and Leimbach. 
 coluthon, and that the Kal Saa irori ^ Hter. v. 33. 1 sq. 
 here is answered by the words e t 5 ^ ^ It may be observed in passing, as 
 irov Ka.1 irapr)Ko\ovdr]K(I)s, which occur an illustration of the looseness of 
 several lines below. (2) He interprets early quotations, that this passage, as 
 Tois ep/jL-qvelais ' the interpretations given by Irenseus, does not accord with 
 belonging to them.' Each of these by any one of the Synoptic Evangelists, 
 itself is harsh and unnatural in the but combines features from all the 
 extreme ; and the combination of the three. 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIEEAPOLIS. 159 
 
 they have not been fulfilled. These, he says, evidently refer to 
 the reign of the just in a renewed earth, which shall be blessed 
 with abundance. 
 
 As the elders relate, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, that 
 they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach concerning 
 those times, and to say, ' The days will come, in which vines shall 
 grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten 
 thousand branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, 
 and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten 
 thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and- 
 twenty measures of wine. And when any of the saints shall have 
 taken hold of one of their clusters, another shall cry, "I am a better 
 cluster ; take me, bless the Lord through me." Likewise also a grain 
 of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads,' etc. These things 
 Papias, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, 
 an ancient worthy, witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books, 
 for there are five books composed by him. And he added, saying, 
 'But these things are credible to them that believe.' And when 
 Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked, ' How shall such 
 growths be accomplished by the Lordf he relates that the Lord 
 said, ' They shall see, who shall come to these [times].' 
 
 I shall not stop to inquire whether there is any foundation 
 of truth in this story, and, if so, how far it has been transmuted, 
 as it passed through the hands of the elders and of Papias. It 
 is sufficient for my purpose to remark that we here find just 
 the three elements which the preface of Papias would lead us 
 to expect : first, the saying or sayings of Christ recorded in the 
 written Gospels : secondly, the interpretation of these sayings, 
 which is characteristically millennial ; thirdly, the illustrative 
 story, derived from oral tradition, which relates 'what John 
 said,' and to which the author 'gives a place along with his 
 interpretation ^' 
 
 1 The -view that Papias took ivritten pp. 53 sq, 454 sq. But it seems to 
 
 Gospels as the basis of his interpreta- me that he is not carrying out this 
 
 tions is maintained by no one more view to its logical conclusion, when he 
 
 strongly than by Hilgenfeld in his still interprets ^ipXia of Evangelical 
 
 recent works ; Papias von Hierapolis narratives, and talks of Papias as 
 
 {Zeitschrift, 1875) p. 238 sq ; Ein- holding these written records in little 
 
 leitung iti das Neue Testament (1875), esteem. 
 
160 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 So far everything seems clear. But if this be so, what 
 becomes of the disparagement of written Gospels, which is 
 confidently asserted by our author and others ? When the 
 preface of Papias is thus correctly explained, the 'books' which 
 he esteems so lightly assume quite a different aspect. They 
 are no longer Evangelical records, but works commenting on 
 such records. The contrast is no longer between oral and 
 written Gospels, but between oral and written aids to interpret- 
 ation. Papias judged rightly that any doctrinal statement of 
 Andrew or Peter or John, or any anecdote of the Saviour which 
 could be traced distinctly to their authority, would be far more 
 valuable to elucidate his text than the capricious interpretations 
 which he found in current books. If his critical judgment had 
 corresponded to his intention, the work would have been highly 
 important. 
 
 The leading object of Papias therefore was not to substitute 
 a correct narrative for an imperfect and incorrect, but to 
 counteract a false exegesis by a true. But where did he find 
 this false exegesis ? The opening passage of Irenseus supplies 
 the answer. This father describes the Gnostic teachers as 
 ' tampering with the oracles of the Lord (ra \6<yta Kvpiov), 
 showing themselves bad expositors of things well said' (i^ijyqTal 
 KUKol Twv Ka\o)<i elprj/xevcov ytvo/jievoLy. Here we have the 
 very title of Papias' work reproduced. Papias, like Irenseus 
 after him, undertook, we may suppose, to stem the current of 
 Gnosticism. If, while resisting the false and exaggerated 
 spiritualism of the Gnostics, he fell into the opposite error, so 
 that his Chiliastic doctrine was tainted by a somewhat gross 
 materialism, he only offended in the same way^ as Irengeus, 
 though probably to a greater degree. The Gnostic leaders were 
 in some instances no mean thinkers; but they were almost 
 
 1 H(Br. Praef. 1 ; see also i. 3. 6 : falsifying the expositions (i^Tjyria-ets), 
 
 ' Not only do they attempt to make but also from the law and the prophets ; 
 
 their demonstrations from the Evan- as . . . being able to wrest what 
 
 gelical and Apostolic [writings] by is ambiguous into many [senses] by 
 
 perverting the interpretations and their exposition ' (5ta rrjs e^r)yf)<Teus). 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 161 
 
 invariably bad exegetes. The Gnostic fragments in Ireneeus and 
 Hippolytus are crowded with false interpretations of Christ's 
 sa3dngs as recorded in the Gospels. Simonians, Ophites, Basili- 
 deans, Valentinians, Gnostics of all sects, are represented there, 
 and all sin in the same way. These remains are only the 
 accidental waifs and strays of a Gnostic literature which must 
 have been enormous in extent. As by common consent the 
 work of Papias was written in the later years of his life, a very 
 appreciable portion of this literature must have been in exist- 
 ence when he wrote. More especially the elaborate work of 
 Basilides on 'the Gospel,' in twenty-four books, must have been 
 published some years. Basilides flourished, we are told, during 
 the reign of Hadrian^ (a.D. 117 — 138). Such a lengthy work 
 would explain the sarcastic allusion in Papias to those 'who 
 have so very much to say' (roU ra TroXXn Xeyouaiuy, and who 
 are afterwards described as 'teaching foreign commandments^.' 
 There are excellent reasons for believing this to be the very 
 work from which the fragments quoted by Hippolytus, as from 
 Basilides, are taken ^ These fragments contain false interpreta- 
 tions of passages from St Luke and St John, as well as from 
 several Epistles of St Paul. But, however this may be, the 
 general character of the work appears from the fact that 
 Clement of Alexandria quotes it under the title of 'Exegetics^' 
 It is quite possible too, that the writings of Valentinus were in 
 circulation before Papias wrote, and exegesis was a highly 
 important instrument with him and his school. If we once 
 recognize the fact that Papias wrote when Gnosticism was 
 rampant, the drift of his language becomes clear and con- 
 sistent. 
 
 1 Clem. Alex. Sti^om. vii. 17, p. 898. (aWorptos) is applied several times in 
 
 2 Compare also the language of the Ignatian Epistles to the Gnostic 
 Hippolytus respecting the books of the teaching which the writer is combat- 
 Naassenes ; Har. v. 7, ' These are the ing ; Rom. inscr., Trail. 6, Philad. 3. 
 heads of very numerous discourses * Keasons are given by Dr Westcott 
 {iroWQv irdvv X67WV), which they say in the fourth edition of his History of 
 that James,' etc. the Canon p. 288. 
 
 * This same epithet ' foreign ' ^ Strom, iv. 12, p. 599. 
 
 S. R, 11 
 
162 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 This account of the 'books' which Papias disparages seems 
 to follow from the grammatical interpretation of the earlier 
 part of the sentence. And it alone is free from difficulties. It 
 is quite plain for instance, that Eusebius did not understand 
 our Gospels to be meant thereby; for otherwise he would 
 hardly have quoted this low estimate without expostulation or 
 comment. And again, the hypothesis which identifies these 
 'books' with written Evangelical records used by Papias charges 
 him with the most stupid perversity. It makes him prefer the 
 second-hand report of what Matthew had said about the Lord's 
 discourses to the account of these discourses which Matthew 
 himself had deliberately set down in writing \ Such a report 
 might have the highest value outside the written record ; but 
 no sane man could prefer a conversation repeated by another to 
 the immediate and direct account of the same events by the 
 person himself. Nor again, is it consistent with the language 
 which Papias himself uses of the one Evangelical document 
 about which (in his extant fragments) he does express an 
 opinion. Of St Mark's record he says that the author 'made no 
 mistake,' and that it was his one anxiety 'not to omit anything 
 that he had heard, or to set down any false statement therein.' 
 
 1 The following passage in Super- which I am contending, and which 
 
 natural Religion is highly instructive, elsewhere he resists ; for he states 
 
 as showing the inconsistencies involved that Papias as a sane man must, and as 
 
 in the author's view (i. p. 485) : ' It is a matter of fact did, prefer a book to 
 
 not possible that he [Papias] could oral tradition. In other words, he 
 
 have found it better to inquire " what allows that when Papias disparages 
 
 John or Matthew, or what any other of books (meaning Evangelical records, 
 
 the disciples of the Lord . . . say," such as the St Matthew of Papias was 
 
 if he had known of Gospels such as on any showing), he cannot intend all 
 
 ours,' ['and believed them to have books of this class, but only such as 
 
 been ' inserted in the Complete Edi- our author himself arbitrarily deter- 
 
 ■tion] ' actually written by them, de- mines that he shall mean. This point 
 
 liberately telling him what they had is not at all affected by the question 
 
 to say. The work of Matthew which whether the St Matthew of Papias did 
 
 he mentions being, however, a mere or did not contain doings, as well as 
 
 collection of discourses of Jesus, he sayings, of Christ. The only escape 
 
 might naturally inquire what the from these perplexities lies in suppos- 
 
 Apostle himself said of the history ing that a wholly different class of 
 
 of the Master. ' Here the author books is intended, as I have explained 
 
 practically concedes the point for in the text. 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 163 
 
 Is this tlie language of one speaking of a book to which 'he 
 attached little or no value ^' ? 
 
 But, if Papias used written documents as the text for his'2/^ 
 'expositions,' can we identify these ? To this question his own 
 language elsewhere supplies the answer at least in part. He 
 mentions Evangelical narratives written by Mark and Matthew 
 respectively ; and it is therefore the obvious inference that our 
 first two Gospels at all events were used for his work. 
 
 An obvious inference, but fiercely contested nevertheless. 
 It has been maintained by many recent critics, that the St 
 Mark of Papias was not our St Mark, nor the St Matthew 
 of Papias our St Matthew ; and as the author of Supernatural 
 Religion has adopted this view, some words will be necessary in 
 refutation of it. 
 
 The language then, which Papias uses to describe the docu- 
 ment written by St Mark, is as follows : — 
 
 And the elder said this also : Mark, having become the inter- 
 preter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remem- 
 bered, without however recording in order what was either said 
 or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he 
 follow Him ; but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted 
 his instructions to the needs [of his hearers] but had no design of 
 giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses] 
 (dW ov^ ojcnrep cruvraftv twv KvptaKuiv iroLovfxcvo<; Xoylwv or Aoywv). 
 So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some 
 things as he remembered them ; for he made it his one care not to 
 omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement 
 therein. 
 
 Eusebius introduces this passage by a statement that it 
 'refers to Mark, the writer of the Gospel;' and the authority 
 
 ^ S. B. I. p. 445. It is not likely obscuring the testimony of Papias to 
 
 that our author would appreciate the the perfect accuracy of the result of 
 
 bearing of these references to St Mark, St Mark's conscientious labours. The 
 
 because, as I pointed out in my first translation is altered in the last edition, 
 
 article [see above, p. 8], he mistrans- but the new rendering, 'committed no 
 
 lated ovdiv TJ/j-apre 'did no wrong,' error in thus writing,' is ambiguous, 
 
 instead of ' made no mistake,' thus though not incorrect. 
 
 11—2 
 
164 ON SUPEENATUEAL EELIGION. 
 
 whom Papias here quotes is apparently the Presbyter John, who 
 has been mentioned immediately before. 
 
 Now it will be plain, I think, to any reader of common 
 sense, that Papias is giving an account of the circumstances 
 under which the Evangelical narrative in question was composed. 
 There were two phenomena in it which seemed to him to call 
 for explanation. In the first place, it is not a complete narrative. 
 In the second place, the events are not recorded in strict chrono- 
 logical order. These two phenomena are explained by St 
 Mark's position and opportunities, which were necessarily 
 limited. His work was composed from reminiscences of St 
 Peter's preaching; and, as this preaching was necessarily 
 fragmentary and adapted to the immediate requirements of his 
 hearers (the preacher having no intention of giving a continuous 
 narrative), the writer could not possess either the materials for 
 a complete account or the knowledge for an accurate chrono- 
 logical arrangement. Papias obviously has before him some 
 other Gospel narrative or narratives, which contained sayings 
 or doings of Christ not recorded by St Mark, and moreover 
 related those which he did record in a different order. For 
 this discrepancy he desires to account. The motive and the 
 treatment have an exact parallel, as I shall show hereafter, in 
 the account of the Gospels given by the author of the Murato- 
 rian Canon. 
 
 This is the plain and simple inference from the passage ; 
 and we have only to ask whether this description corresponds 
 with the phenomena of our St Mark. That it does so corre- 
 spond, I think, can hardly be denied. As regards completeness, 
 it is sufficient to call attention to the fact that any one of our 
 Canonical Gospels records many doings, and above all, many 
 sayings, which are omitted in St Mark. As regards order 
 again, it may, I believe, safely be said that no writer of a ' Life 
 of Christ ' finds himself able to preserve the sequence of events 
 exactly as it stands in St Mark. His account does not profess 
 to be strictly chronological. There are indeed chronological 
 links in the narrative here and there ; but throughout consider- 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 165 
 
 able parts of our Lord's ministry the successive incidents are 
 quite unconnected by notices of time. In short, the Gospel is 
 just what we should expect, if the author had derived his 
 information in the way reported by the Presbyter. But our 
 author objects, that it 'does not depart in any important degree 
 from the order of the other two Synoptics,' and that it 
 ' throughout has the most evident character of orderly arrange- 
 ment \' Persons may differ as to what is important or unim- 
 portant ; but if the reader will refer to any one of the common 
 harmonies, those of Anger and Tischendorf for instance, he will 
 see that constant transpositions are necessary in one or other of 
 the Synoptic Gospels to bring them into accordance, and will 
 be able to judge for himself how far this statement is true. 
 ' Orderly arrangement ' of some sort, no doubt, there is ; but it 
 is just such as lay within the reach of a person obtaining his 
 knowledge at second-hand in this way. Our author himself 
 describes it lower down as 'artistic and orderly arrangement.' 
 I shall not quarrel with the phrase, though somewhat exag- 
 gerated. Any amount of ' artistic arrangement ' is compatible 
 with the notice of Papias, which refers only to historical 
 sequence. ' Artistic arrangement ' does not require the direct 
 knowledge of an eye-witness. It will be observed however, that 
 our author speaks of a comparison with ' the order of the other 
 two Synoptics.' But what, if the comparison which Papias had 
 in view was wholly different ? What, if he adduced this testi- 
 mony of the Presbyter to explain how St Mark's Gospel differed 
 not from another Synoptic narrative, but from St John ? I shall 
 return to this question at a later point in these investigations. 
 
 Our author is no stranger to the use of strong words : ' If 
 our present Gospel,' he writes, ' cannot be proved to be the 
 very work referred to by the Presbyter John, as most certainly 
 it cannot, the evidence of Papias becomes fatal to the claims of 
 the second Canonical GospeP.' The novelty of the logic in this 
 sentence rivals the boldness of the assumption. 
 
 1 I. p. 456. 
 
 - I. p. 460. [So too ed. G ; but struck out in the Complete Edition.] 
 
166 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Yet so entirely satisfied is he with the result of his 
 arguments, that he does not consider it ' necessary to account 
 for the manner in which the work to which the Presbyter John 
 referred disappeared, and the present Gospel according to Mark 
 became substituted for it\' But others are of a more inquiring 
 turn of mind. They will be haunted with this difficulty, and 
 will not be able thus to shelve the question. They will venture 
 to ask how it is that not any, even the faintest, indication of the 
 existence of this other Mark can be traced in all the remains of 
 Christian antiquity. They will observe too, that if the date 
 which our author himself adopts be correct, Irenaeus was already 
 grown up to manhood when Papias wrote his work. They will 
 remember that Irena^us received his earliest Christian education 
 from a friend of Papias, and that his great authorities in 
 everything which relates to Christian tradition are the associates 
 and fellow-countrymen of Papias. They will remark that, 
 having the work of Papias in his hands and holding it in high 
 esteem, he nevertheless is so impressed with the conviction that 
 our present four Gospels, and these only, had formed the title- 
 deeds of the Church from the beginning, that he ransacks 
 heaven and earth for analogies to this sacred number. They 
 will perhaps carry their investigations further, and discover that 
 Irenasus not only possessed our St Mark's Gospel, but possessed 
 it also with its present ending, which, though undoubtedly very 
 early, can hardly have been part of the original work. They 
 will then pass on to the Muratorian author, who probably wrote 
 some years before Irenseus, and, remembering that Irenseus 
 represents the combined testimony of Asia Minor and Gaul, 
 they will see that they have here the representative of a 
 different branch of the Church, probably the Roman, Yet the 
 Muratorian writer agrees with Irenajus in representing our four 
 Gospels, and these only, as the traditional inheritance of the 
 Church ; for though the fragment is mutilated at the beginning, 
 so that the names of the first two Evangelists have disappeared, 
 
 1 I. p. 459. 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 167 
 
 the identity cannot be seriously questioned. They will then 
 extend their horizon to Clement in Alexandria and Tertullian 
 in Africa ; and they will find these fathers also possessed by the 
 same belief. Impressed with this convergency of testimony 
 from so many different quarters, they will be utterly at a loss to 
 account for the unanimity of these early witnesses — all sharing 
 in the same delusion, all ignorant that a false Mark has been 
 silently substituted for the true Mark during their own 
 lifetime, and consequently assuming as an indisputable fact that 
 the false Mark was received by the Church from the beginning. 
 And they will end in a revolt against the attempt of our author 
 to impose upon them with his favourite commonplace about the 
 ' thoroughly uncritical character of the fathers.' 
 
 Indeed, they will begin altogether to suspect this wholesale 
 denunciation ; for they will observe that our author is convicted 
 out of his own context. They will remark how he repels an 
 inconvenient question of Tischendorf by a scornful reference to 
 ' the frivolous character of the only criticism in which they 
 [Eusebius and the other Christian Fathers] ever indulged \' 
 Yet they will remember at the same time to have read in this 
 very chapter on Papias a highly intelligent criticism of Eusebius, 
 with which this father confronts a statement of Irenseus, and 
 which our author himself adopts as conclusive^. They will 
 recall also, in this same context, a reference to a passage in 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, where this ' great Bishop ' anticipates 
 by nearly sixteen centuries the criticisms of our own age 
 concerning the differences of style between the Fourth Gospel 
 and the Apocalypse '. 
 
 From St Mark we pass to St Matthew. Papias has 
 something to tell us of this Gospel also ; but here again we are 
 asked to believe that we have a case of mistaken identity. 
 
 After the notice relating to St Mark, Eusebius continues : — 
 
 But concerning Matthew, the following statement is made [by 
 
 1 I. p. 460. [So also ed. 6 ; the - i. p. 447. This criticism is given 
 
 word ' ever ' disappears in the Com- above, p. 143 sq. 
 plete Edition.] " i. p. 447. 
 
1(38 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Papias] : ' So then Matthew (Mar^atos /xer ovv) composed the Oracles 
 in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he 
 could.' 
 
 The assumption that this statement, like the former, was 
 made on the authority of the Presbyter, depends solely on the 
 close proximity in which the two extracts stand in Eusebius. 
 It must therefore be regarded as highly precarious. In Papias' 
 own work the two extracts may have been wide apart. Indeed 
 the opening particles in the second passage prove conclusively 
 that it cannot have followed immediately on the first. Just as 
 the ft)9 e(}>r]v in the extract relating to St Mark showed that it 
 was a fragment torn from its context, so we have the similar 
 evidence of a violent severance here in the words fief ovv. The 
 ragged edge is apparent in both cases \ This fact must be 
 borne in mind in any criticisms which the passages suggest. 
 
 In this extract then Papias speaks of a state of things in 
 which each man interpreted the original Hebrew for himself. 
 There can have been no authoritative Greek Gospel of St 
 Matthew at that time, if his account be correct. So far his 
 meaning is clear. But it is equally clear that the time which 
 he is here contemplating is not the time when he writes his 
 book, but some earlier epoch. He says not ' interprets,' but 
 • interpreted.' This past tense ' interpreted,' be it observed, is 
 not the tense of Eusebius reporting Papias, but of Papias 
 himself Everything depends on this distinction ; yet our 
 author deliberately ignores it. He does indeed state the 
 grammatical argument correctly, as given by others : — 
 
 Some consider that Papias or the Presbyter use the verb in the 
 
 1 The manner in which Eusebius ipsum [tradidisse eis Joannem. Per- 
 
 will tear a part of a passage from its mansit autem cum eis usque ad Trajani 
 
 context is well illustrated by his quo- tempora]. Quidam autem eorum non 
 
 tation from Iren^us, ii. 22. 5: — 'A solum Joannem, sed et alios Apostolos 
 
 quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audi- 
 
 anno declinat jamin aetatemseniorem, erunt et testantur de hujusmodi rela- 
 
 quam habens Dominus noster docebat, tione.' Eusebius gives only the part 
 
 sicut Evangelium [et omnes seniores which I have enclosed in brackets: 
 
 testantur, qui in Asia apud Joannem H. E. iii. 23. 
 discipulum Domini convenerunt] id 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 169 
 
 past tense, ijpiJitjvevae, as contrasting the time when it was necessary 
 for each to interpret as best he could with the period when, from the 
 existence of a recognized translation, it was no longer necessary for 
 them to do so'. 
 
 Yet a few lines after, when he comes to comment upon it, 
 he can write as follows : — 
 
 The statement [of Papias] is perfectly simple and direct, and it 
 is at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that ti'anslation was 
 requisite : and, as each one translated ' as he was able,' that no re- 
 cognized translation existed to which all might have recourse. 
 There is absolutely not a syllable which warrants the conclusion 
 that Papias was acquainted with an authentic Greek version, 
 although it is possible that he may have known of the existence of 
 some Greek translations of no authority. The words used, however, 
 imply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them". 
 
 Our author has here imposed upon himself by a grammatical 
 trick. Hard pressed by the argument, he has covered his 
 retreat under an ambiguous use of tenses. The words ' each 
 one translated as he was able ' are perfectly clear in the direct 
 language of Papias ; but adopted without alteration into the 
 oblique statement of our author, they are altogether obscure. 
 ' Translation was requisite.' Yes, but at what time ? The fact 
 is that no careful reader can avoid asking why Papias writes 
 ' interpreted,' and not ' interprets.' The natural answer is that 
 the necessity of which he speaks had already passed away. In 
 other words, it implies the existence of a recognized Greek 
 translation, when Papias wrote. Whence our author got his 
 information that Papias ' had no respect for ' any such transla- 
 tion, it is difficult to say. Certainly not from ' the words 
 used ' ; for Papias says nothing about it, and we only infer its 
 existence from the suppressed contrast implied in the past 
 tense. 
 
 But, if a Greek St Matthew existed in the time of Papias, 
 we are forbidden by all considerations of historical probability 
 to suppose that it was any other than our St Matthew. As in 
 
 1 I. p. 474. 
 
 2 [i. p. 475. So also ed. 6 ; modified iu the Complete Edition.] 
 
170 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 the case of St Mark, so here the contrary hypothesis is weighted 
 with an accumulation of improbabilities. The argument used 
 there might be repeated totidem verbis here. It was enough 
 that we were asked to accept the theory of a mistaken identity 
 once ; but the same demand is renewed again. And the 
 improbability of this double mistake is very far greater than 
 the sum of the improbabilities in the two several cases, great as 
 this sum would be. 
 
 The testimony of Papias therefore may be accepted as valid 
 so far as regards the recognition of our St Matthew in his own 
 age. But it does not follow that his account of the origin was 
 correct. It may or may not have been. This is just what we 
 cannot decide, because we do not know exactly what he said. 
 It cannot be inferred with any certainty from this fragmentary 
 excerpt of Eusebius, what Papias supposed to be the exact 
 relation of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew which he had before 
 him to the Hebrew document of which he speaks. Our author 
 indeed says that our First Gospel bears all the marks of an 
 original, and cannot have been translated from the Hebrew at 
 all. This, I venture to think, is far more than the facts will 
 sustain. If he had said that it is not a homogeneous Greek 
 version of a homogeneous Hebrew original, this would have 
 been nearer to the truth. But we do not know that Papias said 
 this. He may have expressed himself in language quite 
 consistent with the phenomena. Or on the other hand he may, 
 as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which some 
 later fathers made, of thinking that the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews was the original of our St Matthew. In the absence 
 of adequate data it is quite vain to conjecture. But meanwhile 
 we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion unfavourable 
 either to the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of the 
 document itself. 
 
 Our author however maintains that the Hebrew St Matthew 
 of which Papias speaks was not a Gospel at all — i.e. not a 
 narrative of our Lord's life and ministry — but a mere collection 
 of discourses or sayings. It is urged that the expression, 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 171 
 
 ' Matthew compiled the oracles ' {^vveypd-\lraro ra Xoyia), 
 requires this interpretation. If this explanation were correct, 
 the notice would suggest that Papias looked upon the Greek 
 Gospel as not merely a translation, but an enlargement, of the 
 original document. In this case it would be vain to speculate 
 how or when or by whom he supposed it to be made ; for either 
 he did not give this information, or (if he did) Eusebius has 
 withheld it. This hypothesis was first started, I believe, by 
 Schleiermacher, and has found favour with not a few critics of 
 opposite schools. Attempts have been made from time to time 
 to restore this supposed document by disengaging those portions 
 of our First Gospel, which would correspond to this idea, from 
 their historical setting. The theory is not without its attrac- 
 tions : it promises a solution of some difficulties ; but hitherto 
 it has not yielded any results which would justify its accept- 
 ance. 
 
 Our author speaks of those critics who reject it as 'in very 
 many cases largely influenced by the desire to see in these Xoyia 
 our actual Gospel according to St. Matthew \' This is true in 
 the same sense in which it is true that those who take opposite 
 views are largely influenced in very many cases by the opposite 
 desire. But such language is only calculated to mislead. By 
 no one is the theory of a collection of discourses more strongly 
 denounced than by Bleek^ who apparently considers that 
 Papias did not here refer to a Greek Gospel at all. ' There is 
 nothing,' he writes, ' in the manner in which Papias expresses 
 himself to justify this supposition; he would certainly have 
 expressed himself as he does, if he meant an historical work like 
 our New Testament Gospels, if he were referring to a writing 
 whose contents were those of our Greek Gospel according 
 to Matthew.' Equally decided too is the language of Hilgen- 
 feld^, who certainly would not be swayed by any bias in this 
 direction. 
 
 ^ I. p. 465. there is more to the same effect. 
 
 2 Introduction to theNetv Testament, 3 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 
 
 I. p. 109 sq (Eng. TransL), where p. 456 sq. 'An eine blosse Aufzeich- 
 
172 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Indeed this theory is encumbered with the most serious 
 difficulties. In the first place, there is no notice or trace else- 
 where of any such 'collection of discourses.' In the next place, 
 all other early writers from Pantsenus and Irenseus onwards, 
 who allude to the subject, speak of St Matthew as writing a 
 Gospel, not a mere collection of sayings, in Hebrew. If they 
 derived their information in every case from Papias, it is clear 
 that they found no difficulty in interpreting his language so 
 as to include a narrative : if they did not (as seems more 
 probable, and as our author himself holds*), then their testi- 
 mony is all the more important, as of independent witnesses 
 to the existence of a Hebrew St Matthew, which was a 
 narrative, and not a mere collection of discourses. 
 
 Nor indeed does the expression itself drive us to any such 
 hypothesis. Hilgenfeld, while applying it to our First Gospel, 
 explains it on grounds which at all events are perfectly tenable. 
 He supposes that Papias mentions only the sayings of Christ, 
 not because St Matthew recorded nothing else, but because he 
 himself was concerned only with these, and St Matthew's 
 Gospel, as distinguished from St Mark's, was the great store- 
 house of materials for his purposed I do not however think 
 that this is the right explanation. It supposes that only \6<yoi 
 ('discourses' or 'sayings') could be called Xo^ca ('oracles'); but 
 usage does not warrant this restriction. Thus we are expressly 
 told that the Scriptures recognized by Ephraem, Patriarch of 
 Antioch (about A.D. 525 — 545), consisted of 'the Old Testament 
 and the Oracles of the Lord {to, KvpiaKci Xojta) and the Preach- 
 ings of the Apostles^.' Here we have the very same expression 
 which occurs in Papias; and it is obviously employed as a 
 synonyme for the Gospels. Our author does not mention this 
 
 nung der Eeden Jesu hat er nicht ein- not derive his information solely from 
 
 mal gedacht . . . Nicht eine blosse Ke- Papias may be inferred,' etc. . . . ' The 
 
 densammlung, sonderu ein vollstaudi- evidence furnished by Pautffinus is cer- 
 
 ges Evangelium lasst schon Papias den tainly independent of Papias.' 
 Matthiiushebraischgeschriebenhaben.' - Einleitung pp. 54 sq, 456 sq. 
 
 See also pp. 54 sq, 454 sq. ^ Photius Bihl. 228. 
 
 1 I. p. 470 sq, 'That Irenseus did 
 
V. PAPTAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 173 
 
 close parallel, but he alleges that 'however much the significa- 
 tion [of the expression 'the oracles,' ra \6^ia] became after- 
 wards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as well 
 as sayings'; and again, that 'there is no linguistic precedent 
 for straining the expression, used at that period, to mean 
 anything beyond a collection of sayings of Jesus which were 
 oracular or divine\' This objection, if it has any force, must 
 involve one or both of these two assumptions ; first, that books 
 which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date 
 be called oracles, unless they were occupied entirely with divine 
 sayings ; secondly, that the Gospel of St Matthew in particular 
 could not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assump- 
 tions alike are contradicted by facts. 
 
 The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St 
 Paul, for instance, describes it as the special privilege of the 
 Jews, that they had the keeping of the 'oracles of God' (Rom. 
 iii. 2). Can we suppose that he meant anything else but the 
 Old Testament Scriptures by this expression ? Is it possible 
 that he would exclude the books of Genesis, of Joshua, of 
 Samuel and Kings, or only include such fragments of them as 
 professed to give the direct sayings of God ? Would he, 
 or would he not, comprise under the term the account of the 
 creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 sq), of the wanderings in the 
 wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 sq), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21 
 sq) ? Does not the main part of his argument in the very 
 next chapter (Rom. jv.) depend much more on the narrative of 
 God's dealings than of His words ? Again, when the author of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to 'the first principles of the 
 oracles of God' (v. 12), his meaning is explained by his practice ; 
 for he elicits the divine teaching quite as much from the history 
 as from the direct precepts of the Old Testament. But, if the 
 language of the New Testament writers leaves any loophole for 
 doubt, this is not the case with their contemporary Philo, In 
 one place he speaks of the words in Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord God 
 
 1 I. p. 464. [And so jvll later editions.] 
 
174 ON SUPEKNATURAL EELIGION. 
 
 is Ms inheritance,' as an 'oracle' (Xoyiov); in another he quotes 
 as an 'oracle' (\6ytov) the narrative in Gen. iv. 15, 'The Lord 
 God set a mark upon Cain, lest any one finding him should kill 
 him\' From this and other passages it is clear that with Philo 
 an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a 'scripture'. Similarly Clement 
 of Rome writes, 'Ye know well the sacred Scriptures, and have 
 studied the oracles of God^,' and immediately he recalls to their 
 mind the account in Deut. ix. 12 sq, Exod. xxxii. 7 sq, of 
 which the point is not any divine precept or prediction, but the 
 examjyle of Moses. A few years later Polycarp speaks in 
 condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of the Lord^' 
 How much he included under this expression, we cannot say, 
 but it must be observed that he does not write to. KvpiaKo, 
 \6yia 'the Dominical oracles,' or ra \6yia 'the oracles' simply 
 — the two expressions which occur in Papias — but ra \6<yia rov 
 K.vpiov, 'the oracles of the Lord,' which form of words would 
 more directly suggest the Lord as the speaker. Again Irenseus, 
 denouncing the interpretations of the Scriptures current among 
 the Gnostics, uses the very expression of Papias, to. KvpiaKo, 
 Xoyia* ; and though he does not define his exact meaning, yet 
 as the 'oracles of God' are mentioned immediately afterwards, 
 and as the first instance of such false interpretation which he 
 gives is not a saying, but an incident in the Gospels — the 
 healing of the ruler's daughter — we may infer that he had no 
 idea of restricting the term to sayings of Christ. Again when 
 we turn to Clement of Alexandria, we find that the Scriptures 
 in one passage are called 'the oracles of truth,' while in another 
 among the good deeds attributed to Ezra is the 'discovery 
 and restoration of the inspired oracles^' Similarly Origen 
 
 1 De Gonj. erud. grat. 24 (p. 538) ; ^ Clem. Eom. 53 k-yKeK^xpaTe eh rk 
 
 de Profug. 11 (p. 555). Elsewhere he \6yia rod [GeoO]. Elsewhere (§ 45) he 
 
 says that all things which are written uses the expression iyKijirreiv els rdi 
 
 in the sacred books (of Moses) are ypacpas. 
 
 oracles (xpvi^ol) pronounced {xpy}(r6iv- ^ Polyc. Phil. 7. 
 
 T€s) through him; and he proceeds to ^ Iren. Hcer. i. 8. 1. 
 
 distinguish different kinds of Xbyia ^ Clem. Alex. Coh. ad Gent. p. 84 
 
 (Fit. Moys. iii. 23, p. 163). (ed. Potter), Strom, i. p. 392. 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 175 
 
 speaks of the teachings of the Scripture as 'the oracles/ 'the 
 oracles of God\' In the context of the latter of the two 
 passages to which I refer, he has clearly stated that he is 
 contemplating the histories, the law, and the prophets alike. 
 So too St Basil uses 'sacred' (or divine) 'oracles,' 'oracles of the 
 Spirit V as synonymes for the Scriptures. And this catena of 
 passages might be largely extended. 
 
 This wide sense of the word 'oracles' therefore in itself is 
 fully substantiated by examples both before and after the time 
 of Papias. But our author objects that it is not consistent with 
 the usage of Papias himself elsewhere. The examples alleged 
 however fail to prove this. If Papias entitled his work 'Ex- 
 position of Oracles of the Lord,' or rather 'of Dominical Oracles,' 
 there is nothing to show that he did not include narrative 
 portions of the Gospels, as well as discourses ; though from the 
 nature of the case the latter would occupy the chief place. On 
 the contrary, it is certain from the extant notices that he dealt 
 largely with incidents. And this he would naturally do. By 
 false allegory and in other ways Gnostic teachers misinter- 
 preted the facts, not less than the sayings, of the Gospels ; and 
 Papias would be anxious to supply the corrective in the one 
 case as in the other. The second example of its use in Papias 
 certainly does not favour our author's view. This father, as we 
 have seen', describes St Mark as not writing down ' in order the 
 things said or done by Christ' (ov fiivroL ra^et to. vtto tov 
 'Kpia-Tov rj Xe^Oevra i) Trpa-^devTo). This, he states, was not 
 within the Evangelist's power, because he was not a personal 
 disciple of our Lord, but obtained his information from the 
 preaching of Peter, who consulted the immediate needs of his 
 hearers and had 'no intention of giving a consecutive record of 
 the Dominical oracles' (ou% coa-irep crvvra^iv rwv KvpiaKcov 
 7roiovfjievo<; Xoylcov). Here the obvious inference is that to, 
 KvptuKa Xoyia in the second clause is equivalent to ra viro tov 
 
 1 De Princ. iv. 11 (i. p. 168, 2 ^fom. xi. 5 (n. p. 96); ib. xii. 1 
 
 Delarue), in Matth. x. § 6 (ni. p. (p. 97). 
 447). 3 See p. 163. 
 
176 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Xpt(TTov rj Xe^Oivra 77 irpaxdevTa in the first, just as the 
 (Tvvra^iv in the second clause corresponds to the ra^et in the 
 first. Our author however, following the lead of those who 
 adopt the same interpretation of 'the oracles,' explains it 
 differently \ 
 
 There is an evident contrast made. Mark wrote rj XiyOivra rj 
 irpa-^OivTa, because he had not the means of writing disconrses, but 
 Matthew composed the Xoyia. Papias clearly distinguishes the 
 work of Mark, who had written reminiscences of what Jesus had 
 said and done, from that of Matthew, who had made a collection of 
 his discourses 2. 
 
 This interpretation depends altogether on the assumption 
 that the extracts relating to St Mark and St Matthew belonged 
 to the same context ; but this is only an assumption. Moreover 
 it introduces into the extract relating to St Mark a contrast 
 which is not only not suggested by the language, but is opposed 
 to the order of the words. The leading idea in this extract is 
 the absence of strict historical sequence in St Mark's narrative. 
 Accordingly the emphatic word in the clause in question is 
 o-vvra^iv, which picks up the previous Tct^ei, and itself occupies 
 the prominent position in its own clause. If our author's 
 interpretation were correct, the main idea would be a contrast 
 between a work relating deeds as well as sayings, and a work 
 relating sayings only ; and Xoyleov, as bringing out this idea, 
 would demand the most emphatic place (ovx coa-irep twv Xojlcov 
 avvTa^iv 7roiov/jievo<i) ; whereas in its present position it is 
 entirely subordinated to other words in the clause. 
 
 The examples quoted above show that 'the oracles' (ra Xoyia) 
 can be used as co-extensive with 'the Scriptures' (at jpa(j)al) 
 in the time of Papias. Hence it follows that 'the Dominical 
 Oracles' (ra KvpiaKo. Xoyta) can have as wide a meaning as 'the 
 Dominical Scriptures' (Dominicae Scrvpturae, at KvpLaKoi lypa- 
 
 1 I. p. 466. reading of the 'best editions.' If it 
 
 2 Our author has not mentioned the were correct, it would upset his argu- 
 various reading \byoiv for \oyiiov here, ment ; but the most recent critical 
 though Hilgenfeld speaks of it as the editor, Laemmer, has adopted Xoyiwy. 
 
V. PAPIAS OF HIEEAPOLIS. 177 
 
 0ai')— an expression occurring in Irengeus and in Dionysius of 
 Corinth^ — or, in other words, that the Gospels may be so called. 
 If any difficulty therefore remains, it must lie in the second of 
 the two assumptions which I mentioned above — namely, that 
 no Evangelical record could at this early date be invested with 
 the authority implied by the use of this term, or (in other 
 words) could be regarded as Scripture. This assumption again 
 is contradicted by facts. The Gospel of St Matthew is twice 
 quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and in the first passage the 
 quotation is introduced by the common formula of Scriptural 
 reference — 'as it is written ^' To what contortions our author 
 puts his argument, when dealing with that epistle, in the vain 
 attempt to escape the grip of hard fact, I shall have occasion to 
 show when the proper time comes ^. At present it is sufficient 
 to say that the only ground for refusing to accept St Matthew 
 as the source of these two quotations, which are found there, is 
 the assumption that St Matthew could not at this early date be 
 regarded as 'Scripture.' In other words, it is a petitio principii. 
 But the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, on any showing, was 
 written before the date which our author himself assigns to the 
 Exposition of Papias. Some place it as early as A.D. 70, or 
 thereabouts ; some as late as A.D. 120 ; the majority incline to 
 the later years of the first, or the very beginning of the second 
 century. If therefore this Gospel could be quoted as Scripture 
 in Barnabas, it could a fortiori be described as 'oracles' when 
 Papias wrote. 
 
 1 Iren. Hcer. v. 20. 2 ; Dion. Cor. in the April [1875] number of the Dublin 
 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. Review, p. 403. 
 
 2 Ep. Barn. 4, 5. The bearing of » [The Essay on the Epistle of 
 this fact on the testimony of Papias is Barnabas was never written ; see the 
 pointed out in an able and scholarly Preface to this Keprint.] 
 
 article on Supernatural Religion in 
 
 S. R. 
 
 12 
 
VI. — PAPIAS of HiERAPOLlS. 
 
 Continued. 
 
 [October, 1875.] 
 
 IT has been seen that, in the meagre fragments of his work 
 which alone survive, Papias mentions by name the Evangelical 
 records of St Matthew and St Mark. With the Third and 
 Fourth Gospels the case is different. Eusebius has not recorded 
 any reference to them by Papias, and our author therefore 
 concludes that they were unknown to this early writer. I have 
 shown in a previous paper on the 'Silence of Eusebius V that 
 this inference is altogether unwarrantable. I have pointed out 
 that the assumption on which it rests is not justified by the 
 principles which Eusebius lays down for himself as his rule 
 of procedure^, while it is directly refuted by almost every 
 instance in which he quotes a writing noAV extant, and in which 
 therefore it is possible to apply a test. I have proved that, as 
 regards the four Gospels, Eusebius only pledges himself to give, 
 and (as a matter of fact) only does give, traditions of interest 
 respecting them. I have proved also that it is not consistent 
 either with his principles or with his practice to refer to mere 
 quotations, however numerous, even though they are given by 
 name. Papias therefore might have quoted the Third Gospel 
 any number of times as written by Luke the companion of Paul, 
 and the Fourth Gospel not less frequently as written by John 
 the Apostle ; and Eusebius would not have cared to record the 
 fact. 
 
 All this I have proved, and the author of Supernatural 
 1 See above, p. 34 sq. - [See above, pp. 3G sq, 46 sq.] 
 
VI. PAP IAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 179 
 
 Religion is unable to disprove it. In the preface to his last 
 edition^ he does indeed devote several pages to my argument ; 
 but I confess that I am quite at a loss to understand how any 
 writer can treat the subject as it is there treated by him. Does 
 he or does he not realize the distinction which underlies the 
 whole of my argument — the distinction between traditions about 
 the Gospels on the one hand, and quotations from the Gospels 
 on the other ? 
 
 At times it appears as if this distinction were clearly before 
 him. He quotes a passage from my article, in which it is 
 directly stated ^ and even argues upon it. I gave a large 
 number of instances where ancient authors whose writings are 
 extant do quote our Canonical Scriptures, sometimes directly, 
 sometimes indirectly, sometimes anonymously, sometimes by 
 name, and where nevertheless Eusebius does not mention 
 the circumstance. This is his mode of dealing with such 
 facts — 
 
 That he omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the 
 Corinthians in the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by 
 Theophilus to the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, 
 might be set down as much to oversight as intention^. 
 
 Does it not occur to him that he is here cutting the throat of 
 his own argument ? The reference to the First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians is the single direct reference by name to the 
 Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament in Clement ; the 
 reference to the Gospel of St John again is the single direct 
 reference by name in the extant work of Theophilus. What 
 would be said of a traveller who paid a visit to the Gorner- 
 Grat for the express purpose of observing and recording the 
 appearance of the Alps from this commanding position, and 
 returned from his survey without having noticed either the 
 Matterhorn or Monte Rosa? If Eusebius could have over- 
 looked these most obvious notices, he could have overlooked 
 
 ^ [Preface to S. B. ed. 6, pp. xi — p. 38 'Eusebius therefore proposes — 
 xxiii.] however precise. '] 
 
 2 [The passage quoted occurs above, ^ Preface to S, E. ed. 6, p. xv. 
 
 12—2 
 
180 ON SUPEENATUEAL EELIGION. 
 
 anything. His gross and habitual carelessness would then 
 cover any omission. Nor again, I venture to think, will our 
 author deceive any fairly intelligent person, who has read my 
 article with moderate care, by his convenient because cloudy 
 expression, ' other supposed quotations.' I need only remind 
 my readers that among these ' other supposed quotations ' are 
 included (to take only one instance) numerous and direct 
 references by name to the Acts of the Apostles and to eleven 
 Epistles of St Paul in IrenasusVof which Eusebius says not a 
 word, and they will judge for themselves by this example what 
 dependence can be placed on the author's use of language. 
 
 But our author speaks of the 'ability' of my article, as 
 a reason for discrediting its results. I am much obliged to him 
 for the compliment, but I must altogether decline it. It is the 
 ability of facts which he finds so inconvenient. I brought 
 to the task nothing more than ordinary sense. I found our 
 author declaring, as others had declared before him, that under 
 certain circumstances Eusebius would be sure to act in a 
 particular way. I turned to Eusebius himself, and I found that, 
 whenever we are able to test his action under the supposed 
 circumstances, he acts in precisely the opposite way. I disco- 
 vered that he not only sometimes, but systematically, ignores 
 mere quotations from the four Gospels and the Acts and 
 the thirteen Epistles of St Paul, however numerous and 
 however precise. I cannot indeed recollect a single instance 
 where he adduces a quotation for the mere purpose of authenti- 
 cating any one of these books. 
 
 But our author asks^, 
 
 Is it either possible or permissible to suppose that, had Papias 
 known anything of the other two Gospels [the third and fourth], he 
 would not have inquired about them from the presbyters and 
 recorded their information ? And is it either possible or permissible 
 to suppose that if Papias had recorded any similar information 
 regarding the composition of the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius 
 would have omitted to quote it? 
 
 To the first question I answer that it is both possible and 
 1 [See above, p. 44'sq.] ^ Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi. 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 181 
 
 permissible to make this supposition. I go beyond this, and 
 say that it is not only possible and permissible, but quite as 
 probable as the opposite alternative. In the absence of all 
 definite knowledge respecting the motive of Papias, I do not see 
 that we are justified in giving any preference to either hypo- 
 thesis over the other. There is no reason for supposing that 
 Papias made these statements respecting St Mark and St 
 Matthew in his preface rather than in the body of his work, or 
 that they were connected and continuous, or that he had any 
 intention of giving an exhaustive account of all the documents 
 with which he was acquainted. On the contrary, these notices 
 bear every mark of being incidental. If we take the passage 
 relating to St Mark for instance, the natural inference is that 
 Papias in the course of his expositions stumbled on a passage 
 where this Evangelist omitted something which was recorded 
 by another authority, or gave some incident in an order 
 different from that which he found elsewhere, and that in 
 consequence he inserted the notice of the presbyter respecting 
 the composition of this Gospel, to explain the divergence. He 
 might, or might not, have had opportunities of inquiring from 
 the presbyters respecting the Gospel of St Luke. They might, 
 or might not, have been able to communicate information 
 respecting it, beyond the fact which every one knew, and which 
 therefore no one cared to repeat, that it was written by a 
 companion of St Paul. He might, or might not, have found 
 himself confronted with a difficulty which led him to repeat his 
 information, assuming he had received any from them. 
 
 As regards the second question, I agree with our author. I 
 am indeed surprised that after ascribing such incredible care- 
 lessness to Eusebius as he has done a few pages before, he 
 should consider it impossible and impermissible to suppose him 
 guilty of any laches here. But I myself have a much higher 
 opinion of the care manifested by Eusebius in this matter. So 
 far as I can see, it would depend very much on the nature of 
 the information, whether he would care to repeat it. If Papias 
 had reported any 'similar' information respecting the two 
 
182 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 last Gospels, I should certainly expect Eusebius to record it. 
 But if (to give an illustration) Papias had merely said of the 
 fourth Evangelist that ' John the disciple of the Lord wished by 
 the publication of the Gospel to root out that error which had 
 been disseminated among men by Cerinthus, and long before 
 by those who are called Nicolaitans,' or language to that effect, 
 it would be no surprise to me if Eusebius did not reproduce 
 it ; because Irenseus uses these very words of the fourth Gospel \ 
 and Eusebius does not allude to the fact. 
 
 But our author argues that, 'if there was a Fourth Gospel 
 in his knowledge, he [Papias] must have had something to tell 
 about it I' Perhaps so, but it does not follow either that he 
 should have cared to tell this something gratuitously, or that 
 any occasion should have arisen which led him to tell it. 
 Indeed, this mode of arguing altogether ignores the relations in 
 which the immediate circle addressed by Papias stood to St 
 John. It would have been idle for Papias to have said, as 
 Irenseus says, 'John the disciple of the Lord, who also lay upon 
 His breast, published his Gospel, while living in Ephesus of 
 Asia^.' It would have been as idle as if a writer in this Review 
 were to vouchsafe the information that 'Napoleon I was a great 
 ruler of the French who made war against England.' On the 
 hypothesis of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, such 
 information would have been altogether superfluous. Papias 
 might incidentally, when quoting the Gospel, have introduced 
 his quotation in words from which a later generation could 
 gather these facts ; but he is not at all likely to have communi- 
 cated them in the form of a direct statement. And, if he did 
 not, there is no reason to think that Eusebius would have 
 quoted the passage. 
 
 So far however, our author seems to recognize the distinc- 
 tion which I drew between stories about, and quotations from, 
 
 ^ Iren. Hcer. iii. 11. 1. thew and Mark he would not also have 
 
 2 Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi. So again inquired about the Gospel of John, if 
 
 he says (ii. p. 323): ' It is scarcely pro- he had known it, aud recorded what 
 
 bable that when Papias collected from he had heard,' etc. 
 
 the presbyter the facts concerning Mat- * Iren. Hcer. iii. 1. 1. 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLI^. 183 
 
 the Gospels. But elsewhere, when the practical consequences 
 become inconvenient, he boldly ignores it. Take, for instance, 
 the follo\^dng passage : — 
 
 The only inference which I care to draw from the silence of 
 Eusebius is precisely that which Dr Lightfoot admits that, both 
 from his promise and his practice, I am entitled to deduce. When 
 any ancient writer ' has something to tell about ' the Gospels, ' any 
 anecdote of interest respecting them,' Eusebius will record it. 
 This is the only information of the slightest value to this work which 
 could be looked for in these writers'. 
 
 What ? does our author seriously maintain that, supposing 
 Papias to have quoted the Fourth Gospel several times by name 
 as the work of John the Apostle, this fact would not be of 'the 
 slightest value' in its bearing on the question at issue between 
 us — the antiquity and genuineness of that Gospel — because, 
 forsooth, he did not give any anecdote respecting its com- 
 position ? 
 
 So again a few pages later, he writes — 
 
 Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed woi-ks were 
 used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these 
 was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, 
 record a remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate 
 inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is that Hegesippus 
 did not say anything about them^. 
 
 Yes; 'did not say anything about them,' in the sense of not 
 recording any traditions respecting them, though he may have 
 quoted them scores of times and by name. If this is the only 
 inference which our author cares to draw, I cannot object. But 
 it is not the inference which his words would suggest to the 
 incautious reader ; and it is not the inference which will assist 
 his argument at all. Moreover this passage ignores another 
 distinction, which I showed to be required by the profession 
 and practice alike of Eusebius. Eusebius relates of Hegesippus 
 that he 'sets down some things from the Gospel according to 
 the Hebrews^;' but, as our author correctly says, he does not 
 
 1 Preface to ed. 6, p. xvi. 3 Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. 
 
 ^ Preface to ed. 6, p. xix. 
 
184 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 directly mention his using our four Canonical Gospels. This is 
 entirely in accordance with his procedure elsewhere. I showed 
 that he makes it his business to note every single quotation 
 from an apocryphal source, whereas he deliberately ignores any 
 number of quotations from the Canonical Gospels, the Acts, and 
 the Pauline Epistles. How else (to take a single instance) can 
 we explain the fact that, in dealing with Irenseus, he singles out 
 the one anonymous quotation from the Shepherd of HermasS 
 and is silent about the two hundred quotations (a very consider- 
 able number of them by name) from the Pauline Epistles ? 
 
 But the passage which I have just given is not the only one 
 in which the unwary reader will be entirely misled by this 
 juggle between two meanings of the preposition 'about'. Thus 
 our author has in several instances^ tacitly altered the form of 
 expression in his last edition ; but the alteration is made in 
 such a way as, while satisfying the letter of my distinction, 
 to conceal its true significance. Thus he writes of Diony- 
 sius^ — 
 
 Earlier Editions. Last Edition*. 
 
 It is certain that, had Diony- It is certain that had Diony- 
 
 sius mentioned books of the New sius said anything about books of 
 Testament, Eusebius would, as the New Testament, Eusebius 
 usual, have stated the fact. would, as usual, have stated the 
 
 fact. 
 And again of Papias^ — 
 
 Earlier Editions. Last Edition. 
 
 Eusebius, who never fails to Eusebius, who never fails to 
 
 enumerate the tvorks of the New state what the Fathers say about 
 
 Testament to which the Fathers the works of the New Testament, 
 
 refer, does not pretend that does not mention that Papias 
 
 Papias knew either the Third or knew either the Third or Fourth 
 
 Fourth Gospels. Gospels. 
 
 These alterations tell their own tale. One meaning of the 
 expression, 'say about,' is suggested to the reader by the context 
 
 1 [See above, p. 44 sq.] ' ii. p. 166. 
 
 2 [Attention has been drawn to * [The Sixth Edition.] 
 these passages above, p. 35 sq.] ^ i. p. 483. 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 185 
 
 and required by the author's argument, while another is alone 
 consistent with the facts. 
 
 Elsewhere however the distinction is not juggled away, but 
 boldly ignored. Thus he still writes — 
 
 The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not 
 mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth 
 Gospel in the work of Papias \ 
 
 I have shown that there is not any presumption — even the 
 slightest — on this side. 
 
 Elsewhere he affirms still more boldly of Hegesippus — 
 
 It is certain that had he mentioned our Gospels, and we may 
 say particularly the Fourth, the fact would have been recorded by 
 Eusebius^. 
 
 I have proved that, so far from this being certain, the proba- 
 bility is all the other way. 
 
 I confess that I cannot understand this treatment of the 
 subject. It may indeed serve an immediate purpose. It may 
 take in an unwary reader, or even a stray reviewer. I must 
 suppose that it has even deceived the writer himself. But 
 magna est Veritas. My paper on the Silence of Eusebius was 
 founded on an induction of facts ; and therefore I feel confident 
 that, unwelcome as these results are to the author of Super- 
 natural Religion, and unexpected as they may be to many 
 others, they must be ultimately accepted in the main. 
 
 The absence therefore of any direct mention by Eusebius 
 respecting the use of the Third and Fourth Gospels by Papias 
 affords no presumption one way or the other ; and we must look 
 elsewhere for light on the subject. 
 
 Unfortunately the fragments and notices of the work of 
 Papias which have been preserved are very scanty. They 
 might easily be compressed into less than two ordinary octavo 
 pages, though the work itself extended to five books. It must 
 therefore be regarded as a mere accident, whether we find in 
 these meagre reliques the indications which we seek. 
 
 1 II. p. 323. [See above, p. 35.] " n. p. 320. [See above, p. 35.] 
 
186 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 As regards St Luke, these indications are precarious and 
 inadequate. They may afford a presumption that Papias used 
 this Gospel, but they will not do more. Independent writers 
 indeed, like Credner and Hilgenfeld, are satisfied, from certain 
 coincidences of expression in the preface of Papias, that he 
 was acquainted with this Evangelist's record, though he did 
 not attach any value to it ; but I agree with the author of 
 Supernatural Religion in thinking that the inference is not 
 warranted by the expressions themselves. It seems to me 
 much more to the purpose that an extant fragment of Papias, 
 in which he speaks of the overthrow of Satan and his angels, 
 and their fall to the earth, appears to have been taken from 
 an exposition of Luke x. 18 \ At least there is no other 
 passage in the Gospels to which it can so conveniently be 
 referred. But obviously no great stress can be laid on this 
 fact. It must indeed seem highly improbable that Papias 
 should have been unacquainted with a Gospel which Marcion, a 
 contemporary and a native of Asia Minoi, thought fit to adapt 
 to his heretical teaching, and which at this time is shown by 
 the state of the text to have been no recent document ^ But 
 this is a consideration external to the evidence derivable from 
 Papias himself 
 
 The case with the Fourth Gospel however is quite different. 
 Here we have a combination of circumstantial evidence, which 
 is greater than we had any right to expect beforehand, and 
 which amounts in the aggregate to a very high degree of 
 probability. 
 
 1. In the first place, Eusebius informs us that Papias 
 'has employed testimonies from the first (former) Epistle of 
 John, and likewise from that of Peter.' The knowledge of 
 the First Epistle almost necessarily carries with it the know- 
 ledge of the Gospel. The identity of authorship in the two 
 
 1 The passage is given below, p. seems to me) unanswerable article on 
 
 200 sq. Marcion's Gospel by Mr Sanday, in 
 
 * In justification of this statement, the June [1875] number of the Fort- 
 
 I must content myself for the present nightly Review, in reply to the author 
 
 with referring to an able and (as it of Supernatural Religion. 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 187 
 
 books, though not undisputed, is accepted with such a degree 
 of unanimity that it may be placed in the category of acknow- 
 ledged facts. 
 
 But, if I mistake not, their relation is much closer than this. 
 There is not only an identity of authorship, but also an organic 
 connection between the two. The first Epistle has sometimes 
 been regarded as a preface to the Gospel. It should rather be 
 described, I think, as a commendatory postscript. This connec- 
 tion will make itself felt, if the two books are read continuously. 
 The Gospel seems to have been written or (more properly 
 speaking) dictated for an immediate circle of disciples. This 
 fact appears from special notices of time and circumstance, 
 inserted here and there, evidently for the purpose of correcting 
 the misapprehensions and solving the difficulties of the Evan- 
 gelist's hearers. It is made still more clear by the sudden 
 transition to the second person, when the narrator breaks off, 
 and looking up (as it were), addresses his hearers — ' He that saw 
 it hath borne record... that ye might believe.' 'These things are 
 written that ye might believe'.' There were gathered about 
 the Apostle, we may suppose, certain older members of the 
 Church, like Aristion and the Presbyter John, who, as eye- 
 witnesses of Christ's earthly life, could guarantee the correctness 
 of the narrative. The twenty-fourth verse of the last chapter is, 
 as it were, the endorsement of these elders — ' This is the disciple 
 which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we 
 knotv that his testimony is true.' After the narrative is thus 
 ended, comes the hortatory postscript which we call the First 
 Epistle, and which was intended (we may suppose) to be 
 circulated with the narrative. It has no opening salutation, 
 like the two Epistles proper — the second and third — which bear 
 the same Apostle's name. It begins at once with a reference 
 to the Gospel narrative which (on this h3^othesis) has pre- 
 ceded — ' That which was from the beginning, which we have 
 heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and 
 our hands handled, of the Word of Life... that which we have 
 1 John xix. 35 ; xx. 31. 
 
188 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 seen and heard declare we unto you.' The use of the plural 
 here links on the opening of the Epistle with the close of the 
 Gospel. The Apostle begins by associating with himself the 
 elders, who have certified to the authorship and authenticity of 
 the narrative. Having done this, he changes to the singular, 
 and speaks in his own name — 'I write.' The opening phrase 
 of the Epistle, 'That which was from the beginning,' is 
 explained by the opening phrase of the Gospel, ' In the 
 beginning was the Word.' The whole Epistle is a devotional 
 and moral application of the main ideas which are evolved 
 historically in the sayings and doings of Christ recorded in the 
 Gospel. The most perplexing saying in the Epistle, ' He that 
 came by water and by blood,' illustrates and itself is illustrated 
 by the most perplexing incident in the Gospel, ' There came 
 forth water and blood.' We understand at length, why in the 
 Gospel so much stress is laid on the veracity of the eye-witness 
 just at this point, when we see from the Epistle what signifi- 
 cance the writer would attach to the incident, as symbolizing 
 Christ's healing power. 
 
 This view of the composition of the Gospel and its connec- 
 tion with the Epistle has been suggested by internal consider- 
 ations ; but it is strongly confirmed by the earliest tradition 
 which has been preserved. The Muratorian fragment^ on the 
 Canon must have been written about a.d. 170. As I shall have 
 occasion to refer to this document more than once before I have 
 done, I will here give an account of the passage relating to the 
 Gospels, that it may serve for reference afterwards. 
 
 The fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the passage 
 describing the First Gospel is altogether wanting. The text begins 
 
 1 This fragment may be conveni- this translation has been written by an 
 
 ently consulted in the edition of Tre- extremely careless scribe, and is full of 
 
 gelles (Oxford, 1867), or in Westcott's clerical errors. These facts however 
 
 History of the Canon p. 514 sq (ed. do not affect the question with which 
 
 4). It must be remembered, first, that I am concerned, since on all the points 
 
 this document is an unskilful Latin at issue the bearing of the document is 
 
 translation from a lost Greek original ; clear, 
 and, secondly, that the extant coi^y of 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 189 
 
 with the closing sentence in the description of the Second Gospel — 
 obviously St Mark — which runs thus : ' At which however he was 
 present, and so he set them down.' 
 
 ' The Third Book of the Gospel ' is designated ' according to 
 Luke.' The writer relates that this Luke was a physician, who 
 after the Ascension of Christ became a follower of St Paul, and that 
 he compiled the Gospel in his own name. 'Yet,' he adds, 'neither 
 did he (nee ipse) see the Lord in the flesh, and he too set down 
 incidents as he was able to ascertain them'. So he began his 
 narrative from the birth of John.' Then he continues — 
 
 'The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John, one of the (personal) 
 disciples^ (of Christ). Being exhorted by his fellow- disciples and 
 bishops, he said, " Fast with me to-day for three days, and let us 
 relate to one another what shall have been revealed to each." The 
 same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that 
 John should write down everything in his own name, and all should 
 certify (ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta 
 describeret). And therefore, although various elements (principia) 
 are taught in the several books of the Gospels, yet it makes no 
 diflference to the faith of the believer, since all things in all of them 
 are declared by one Supreme Spirit, concerning the nativity, the 
 passion, the resurrection. His intercourse with His disciples, and His 
 two advents, the first in despised lowliness, which is already past, 
 the second with the magnificence of kingly power, which is yet to 
 come. What wonder then, if John so boldly puts forward each 
 statement in his Epistle (rat? cTrto-roXats) ^ also saying of himself, 
 
 1 I venture to offer a conjectural of any textual conjectures, 
 emendation of the text, which is ob- - 'Johannis ex discipulis' i.e. tov 
 viously corrupt or defective. It runs — e'/c tQv fxadrjTwv, where ixad-qT7]s, ' a 
 'et ide prout asequi potiiit ita et ad disciple,' is applied, as in Papias and 
 nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.' I Irenaeus, in conformity with the Ian- 
 propose to insert ' posuit ita' after guage of the Gospels, to those who had 
 'potuit ita,' supposing that the words been taught directly by Christ, 
 have dropped out owing to the homoeo- ^ The plural appears to be used 
 teleuton. The text will then stand, here, as not uncommonly, of a single 
 'et idem, prout assequi potuit, ita letter. See above, p. 114. The sentence 
 posuit. Ita et ab nativitate,' etc. (/cat runs in the Latin (when some obvious 
 a^rbs, Kadws ijdijvaTo ivapaKoKovdetv, errors of transcription are corrected): — 
 ovTws 'id-qKe, K.T.X.), 'And he too [hke 'Quid ergo mirum si Johannes singula 
 Mark] set down events according as he etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens 
 had opportunity of following them' in semet ipsum, Quae vidimus,' etc.; 
 (see Luke i. 3). But the general mean- and so I have translated it. But I can- 
 ing of the passage is quite independent not help suspecting that the order in 
 
190 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 "What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, 
 and our hands have handled, these things we have written unto 
 youl" For so he avows himself to be not only an eye-witness and a 
 hearer, but also a recorder, of all the wonderful things of the Lord 
 in order.' 
 
 After speaking of the Acts and Epistles of St Paul, this 
 anonymous writer arrives at the Catholic Epistles ; and here he 
 mentions two Epistles of St John as received in the Church. 
 
 I shall have something to say presently about the coin- 
 cidences with Papias in this passage. For the moment I wish 
 to call attention to the account which the writer gives of the 
 origin of St John's GospeP. There may be some legendary 
 matter mixed up with this account ; the interposition of Andrew 
 and the dream of John may or may not have been historical 
 facts ; but its general tenor agrees remarkably with the results 
 yielded by an examination of the Gospel itself. Yet it must be 
 regarded as altogether independent. To suppose otherwise 
 would be to ascribe to the writer in the second century an 
 amount of critical insight and investigation which would do no 
 dishonour to the nineteenth. But there is also another point of 
 importance to my immediate subject. The writer detaches the 
 First Epistle of St John from the Second and Third, and 
 connects it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some earlier 
 authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a 
 manuscript in which it occupied this position. 
 
 But our author attempts to invalidate the testimony of 
 Eusebius respecting the use of the First Epistle by Papias. He 
 wrote in his earlier editions : — 
 
 the original was, 'iKacrra irpocpipei, Kal Arnold recognises the great importance 
 iv Ta?s iirLffToXah avrov \4yu>v els eavrbv, of this tradition in the Muratorian 
 K.T.X., 'puts forward each statement 'Fragment (Contemporary Pi,eview,M&y, 
 {i.e. in the Gospel), as he says in his 1875, p. 977). Though I take a some- 
 epistle also respecting himself,' etc.; what different view of its bearing, it 
 and that the translator has wrongly at- has always seemed to me to contain in 
 tached the words /cat ev rats eiritrToXah itself a substantially accurate account 
 K.T.\. to the former part of the sen- of the circumstances under which this 
 tence. Gospel was composed. 
 1 I am glad to find that Mr Matthew 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 191 
 
 As Eusebius however does not quote the passages from Papias, 
 we must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume 
 from some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations 
 from these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius 
 made a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation 
 in the so-called Epistle of Poly carp '^' upon very insufficient grounds ^ 
 
 In my article on the Silence of Eusebius ^ I challenged him 
 to produce any justification of his assertion ' as elsewhere.' I 
 stated, and I emphasized the statement, that 'Eusebius in no 
 instance which we can test gives a doubtful testimony.' I warned 
 him that, if I were not proved to be wrong in this statement, I 
 should use the fact hereafter. In the preface to his new edition 
 he has devoted twelve pages to my article on Eusebius ; and he 
 is silent on this point. 
 
 Of his silence I have no right to complain. If he had 
 nothing to say, he has acted wisely. But there is another point 
 in the paragraph quoted above, which demands more serious 
 consideration. In my article^ I offered the conjecture that our 
 author had been guilty of a confusion here. I called attention 
 to his note ^^' which runs, ' Ad Phil. vii. ; Euseb. H. E. iv. 14,' 
 and I wrote : — 
 
 The passage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note 
 relates how Poly carp 'has employed certain testimonies from the 
 First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which 
 he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle of St John, which 
 has been alleged by modern writers, but is not alleged hy Eusebius. 
 This same chapter, it is true, contains the words 'Watch unto 
 prayer,' which presents a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one 
 would lay any stress on this one expression : the strong and 
 unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author 
 speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,' whereas the quotations from 
 1 Peter in Polycarp are numerous. 
 
 I then pointed out ten other coincidences with the First 
 Epistle of St Peter, scattered through Polycarp's Epistle. Some 
 
 1 I. p. 483. He uses similar Ian- ^ gge above, p. 49. 
 
 guage in another passage also, ii. p. ^ [See above, p. 49 sq.] 
 
 323. 
 
192 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 of these are verbal ; almost all of them are much more striking 
 and cogent than the resemblance in c. vii. Our author will not 
 allow the error, but replies in his preface : — 
 
 I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (^S*. H. i. 
 p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr Lightfoot much trouble. I 
 used the word 'quotation' in the sense of a use of the Epistle of 
 Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I 
 trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear \ 
 
 Accordingly, in the text, he substitutes for the latter sentence 
 the words : — 
 
 Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to the use of the 
 Epistle of Peter in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp, upon no more 
 definite grounds than an apparent resemblance of expressions^. 
 
 But the former part of the sentence is unaltered ; the assertion 
 ' as elsewhere ' still remains unsubstantiated ; and what is more 
 important, he leaves the note exactly as it stood before, with the 
 single reference to c. vii. Thus he has entirely misled his 
 readers. He has deliberately ignored more than nine-tenths of 
 the evidence in point of amount, and very far more than this 
 proportion in point of cogency. The note was quite appropriate, 
 supposing that the First Epistle of St John were meant, as I 
 assumed ; it is a flagrant suppressio veri, if it refers to the First 
 Epistle of St Peter, as our author asserts that it does. The 
 charge which I brought against him was only one of carelessness, 
 which no one need have been ashamed to confess. The charge 
 which his own explanation raises against him is of a far graver 
 kind. Though he regrets the trouble he has given me, I do 
 not regret it. It has enabled me to bring out the important 
 fact that Eusebius may always be trusted in these notices 
 relating to the use made of the Canonical Scriptures by early 
 writers. 
 
 2. But this is not the only reason which the fragments in 
 Eusebius supply for believing that Papias was acquainted with 
 the Fourth Gospel. The extract from the preface suggests 
 
 1 Preface to ed. 6, p. xv. passage including the note is omitted 
 
 2 [S. R. I. p. 483 (ed. 6) ; the whole in the Complete Edition.] 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 193 
 
 points of coincidence, which are all the more important because 
 they are incidental. In the words, ' What was said by Andrew, 
 or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John 
 or Matthew,' the first four names appear in the same order in 
 which they are introduced on the scene by this Evangelist. 
 As this order, which places Andrew before Peter, is anything 
 but the natural order, the coincidence has a real significance. 
 Moreover, three of these four hold a prominent place in the 
 Fourth Gospel, which they do not hold in the others — Philip 
 and Thomas being never once named by the Synoptic Evange- 
 lists, except in their lists of the Twelve. It has been said 
 indeed that the position assigned to the name of John by 
 Papias in his enumeration is inconsistent with the supposition 
 that this Apostle wrote a Gospel, or even that he resided and 
 taught in Asia Minor, because so important a personage must 
 necessarily have been named earlier. But this argument proves 
 nothing, because it proves too much. No rational account can 
 be given of the sequence, supposing that the names are arranged 
 'in order of merit.' Peter, as the chief Apostle, must have 
 stood first ; and John, as a pillar Apostle, would have been 
 named next, or (if the James here mentioned is the Lord's 
 brother) at all events next but one. This would have been 
 the obvious order in any case ; but, if Papias had any Judaic 
 sympathies, as he is supposed to have had, no other is 
 imaginable. This objection therefore is untenable. On the 
 other hand, it is a remarkable fact that the two names, which 
 S^5,^are kept to the last and associated together, are just those two 
 members of the Twelve to whom alone the Church attributes 
 written Gospels. As Evangelists, the name of John and Matthew 
 would naturally be connected. On any other hypothesis, it 
 is difficult to account for this juxtaposition. 
 
 Again, it should be noticed that when Papias speaks of 
 
 incidents in our Lord's life which are related by an eye-witness 
 
 without any intermediation between Christ and the reporter, 
 
 he describes them as 'coming from the Truth's self (aTr' auV^? 
 
 ^ [The passage is quoted above, p. 143.] 
 
 S, R 13 
 
194 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 T579 aXrjOelm). This personification of Christ as 'the Truth' is 
 confined to the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 3. When we turn from Eusebius to Irenseus, we meet with 
 other evidence pointing to the same result. I refer to a 
 passage with which the readers of these articles will be familiar, 
 for I have had occasion to refer to it more than once* ; but I 
 have not yet investigated its connection with Papias. Irenseus 
 writes"'' : — 
 
 As the elders say, then also shall they which have been deemed 
 worthy of the abode in heaven go thither, while others shall enjoy 
 the delight of paradise, and others again shall possess the brightness 
 of the city ; for in every place the Saviour shall be seen, according 
 as they shall be worthy who see him. [They say] moreover that 
 this is the distinction between the habitation of them that bring 
 forth a hundred-fold, and them that bring forth sixty-fold, and them 
 that bring forth thirty-fold ; of whom the first shall be taken up 
 into the heavens, and the second shall dwell in paradise, and the 
 third shall inhabit the city ; and that therefore our Lord has 
 said, 'In my Father's abode are many mansions' (Iv rots rov Trarpo's 
 fjuov ixovd<s elvai 7roA.Xas) ;• for all things are of God, who giveth to all 
 their appropriate dwelling, according as His Word saith that 
 allotment is made unto all by the Father, according as each man 
 is, or shall be, worthy. And this is the banqueting-table at which 
 those shall recline who are called to the marriage and take part in 
 the feast. The presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say that 
 this is the arrangement and disposal of them that are saved, and 
 that they advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit 
 to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, the Son at length 
 yielding His work to the Father, as it is said also by the Apostle, 
 'for He must reign until He putteth all enemies under his feet,' etc.^ 
 
 ^ Iren. Hcer. v. 36. 1, 2. obscure. But he has still left two 
 ^ [See above, pp. 3 sq, 52 sq, 124 strange errors, within four lines of 
 sq.] each other, in his translation of this 
 ^ After two successive alterations, passage, 11. p. 328. (1) He renders h 
 our author has at length, in his last rots rod TrarpSs fiov, 'In the (heavens) 
 [sixth] edition, translated the oblique of my Father,' thus making roh mas- 
 infinitives correctly, though from his culine, and understanding oi5payors from 
 reluctance to insert the words ' they ovpavovs which occurs a few hues before, 
 say,' or 'they teach,' which the English He seems not to be aware that to, rov 
 requires, his meaning is somewhat irarpds fiov means ' my Father's house ' 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 195 
 
 I am glad to be saved all further trouble about the grammar 
 of this passage. Our author now allows that the sentence with 
 which we are mainly concerned is oblique, and that the words 
 containing a reference to our Lord's saying in St John's Gospel 
 are attributed to the elders who are mentioned before and after. 
 He still maintains however, that ' it is unreasonable to claim ' 
 the reference ' as an allusion to the work of Papias.' He urges 
 in one place that there is 'a wide choice of presbyters, including 
 even evangelists, to whom the reference of Irenseus may with 
 equal right be ascribed ^ ; ' in another, that ' the source of the 
 quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the exegesis of 
 his own day^' To the one hypothesis it is sufficient to 
 reply that no such explanation is found in the only four 
 Evangelists whom Iren^us recognized ; to the other, that when 
 Irenseus wrote there were no ' disciples of the Apostles ' living, 
 so that he could have used the present tense in speaking of 
 them. 
 
 This reference to the tense leads to a distinction of real 
 
 importance. Critics have remarked that these reports of the 
 
 (see Lobeck Phryn. p. 100; Wetstein from thence,' ['whether this be its ori- 
 on Luke ii. 49). Thus he has made gin or not,' Compl. Ed. ii. p. 323]. A 
 the elders contradict themselves; for few pages after (p. 332), I find the 
 of the 'many mansions' which are work of Irenseus, de OgrcZoade, cited in- 
 mentioned only the first is 'in the atead oi the Epistle to Florimts, ioi the 
 heavens,' the second being in paradise, relations between Irenaus and Poly- 
 and the third on earth. [In the Com- carp. [This error is likewise tacitly 
 plete Edition the passage runs ' In the corrected in the Compl. Ed. ii. p. 
 ...(plural) of my Father.'] (2) He has 330.] It might have been supposed that 
 translated 'Omnia enim Dei sunt, qui any one who had looked into the subject 
 omnibus aptam habitationem praestat, at all must have been aware that this 
 quemadmodum verbum ejus ait, omni- locus classicus was in the Epistle to 
 hns divisum esse a. Tatre,' etc., 'For all Floriniis. But Eusebius happens to 
 things are of God, who prepares for quote the treatise de Ogdoade in the 
 all the fitting habitation as His Word same chapter ; and hence the mistake, 
 says, to be allotted ' [' that distribution Such errors survive, though these pages 
 is made,' Compl. Ed.] ' to all by the have undergone at least two special re- 
 Father,' etc. He can hardly plead that visions, and though this ' sixth ' edition 
 this is 'a paraphrase,' for indeed it is declared on the title page to be 'care- 
 is too literal. fully revised.' 
 
 A few pages before (ii. pp. 325, 326), i S. R. ii. p. 333 (334). 
 
 I find '3Iag sie aber daher stammen,' ^ g_ _r_ „. p. 329 (330). 
 
 translated 'Whether they are derived 
 
 13—2 
 
196 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 opinions of the presbyters in Irenseus must be accepted with 
 reserve ; that the reporter may unconsciously have infused his 
 own thoughts and illustrations into the account ; and that 
 therefore we cannot adduce with entire confidence the quota- 
 tions from the canonical writings which they contain. This 
 caution is not superfluous, but it must not be accepted without 
 limitation. The reports in Irenseus are of two kinds. In some 
 cases he repeats the convei^sations of his predecessors ; in others 
 he derives his information from 'published records. The hesita- 
 tion, which is prudent in the one case, would be quite misplaced 
 in the other. We shall generally find no difiiculty in drawing 
 the line between the two. Though there may be one or two 
 doubtful instances, the language of Irenseus is most commonly 
 decisive on this point. Thus, when he quotes the opinions of 
 the elder on the Two Testaments, he is obviously repeating 
 oral teaching ; for he writes, ' The presbyter used to say,' ' The 
 presbyter would entertain us with his discourse,' ' The old man, 
 the disciple of the Apostles, used to dispute \' On the other 
 hand, when in the passage before us he employs the present 
 tense, ' As the elders say,' ' The presbyters, the disciples of the 
 Apostles, say,' he is clearly referring to some document. No one 
 would write, ' Coleridge maintains,' or ' Pitt declares,' unless he 
 had in view some work or speech or biographical notice of the 
 person thus quoted. 
 
 We may therefore safely conclude that in the passage before 
 us Irenseus is citing from some hook. So far as regards the 
 main question at issue, the antiquity of the Fourth Gospel, it 
 matters little whether this book was the exegetical work of 
 Papias or not. Indeed the supposition that it was a different 
 
 1 Iren. Hcsr.iY. 27. 1 sq; iv. 30. 1; taking down his lectures as he deli- 
 
 iv. 31. 1 ; iv. 32. 1. Even in this case vered them (Op. xix. p. 11, ed. Kiihn). 
 
 there remains the possibility that we The discom-ses which Irenseus reports 
 
 have a report of lectures taken down from the lips of this anonymous elder 
 
 at the time. The early work of Hip- (perhaps Melito or Pothinus) are so 
 
 polytus on Heresies was drawn up long and elaborate, that the hypothesis 
 
 from a synopsis which he had made of of lecture notes seems almost to be 
 
 the lectures of Irenseus (Photius Bihl. required to account for them, 
 121). Galen again speaks of his pupils 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 197 
 
 work is slightly more favourable to my position, because it 
 yields additional and independent testimony of the same date 
 and character as that of Papias. But the following reasons 
 combined make out a very strong case for assigning the passage 
 to Papias. (1) It entirely accords with the method of Papias, 
 as he himself describes it in his preface \ Scriptural passages 
 are interpreted, and the sayings of the elders are interwoven 
 with the interpretations. It accords equally well with the 
 subject of his Expositions ; for we know that he had a great 
 fondness for eschatological topics, and that he viewed them in 
 this light. (2) The possibilities are limited by the language, 
 which confines our search to written documents. So far as we 
 know there was, prior to the time of Irenseus, no Christian work 
 which would treat the same subject in the same way, and 
 would at the same time satisfy the conditions implied in the 
 words, ' The elders, the disciples of the Apostles, say.' (3) The 
 connection with a previous passage is highly important in its 
 bearing on this question. In the thirty-third chapter of his 
 fifth and last book Irenseus gives the direct reference to Papias 
 which has been considered already ^ ; in the thirty-sixth and 
 final chapter occurs the passage with which we are now con- 
 cerned. Is there reason to believe that the authority in these 
 two passages is the same or different ? Several considerations 
 aid us in answering this question, and they all tend in the 
 same direction, (i) The subject of the two passages is the 
 same. They both treat of the future kingdom of Christ, and 
 both regard it from the same point of view as a visible and 
 external kingdom, (ii) In the next place the authorities in 
 the two passages are described in similar terms. In the first 
 passage they are designated at the outset ' the elders who saw 
 John, the disciple of the Lord,' while at the close we are told 
 that ' Papias records these things in writing in his fourth book.' 
 It is not clear whether these elders are the authorities whom 
 Papias quotes, or the class to whom Papias himself belongs, 
 
 1 See above, p. 143. ^ See above, p. 158 sq. 
 
198 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 and whom therefore he represents. Since Irenseus regards 
 Papias as a direct hearer of St John, this latter alternative is 
 quite tenable, though perhaps not as probable as the other. 
 But this twofold possibility does not affect the question at 
 issue. In the second passage the authorities are described in 
 the opening as ' the elders ' simply, and at the close as ' the 
 elders, the disciples of the Apostles.' Thus the two accord. 
 Moreover, in the second passage ' the elders ' are introduced 
 without any further description, as if they were already known, 
 and we therefore naturally refer back to the persons who have 
 been mentioned and described shortly before, (iii) The subject 
 is continuous from the one passage to the other, though it 
 extends over four somewhat long chapters (c. 83 — 36). The 
 discussion starts, as we have seen, from Christ's saying about 
 drinking the fruit of the vine in His kingdom \ The authority 
 of the elders, recorded in the work of Papias, is quoted to 
 support a literal interpretation of these words, as implying a 
 material recompense of the believers. Irenseus then cites those 
 prophecies of Isaiah which foretell the reign of peace on God's 
 Holy Mountain {xi. 6 sq, Ixv. 25 sq). This leads him to the 
 predictions which announce the future triumphs of Israel and 
 the glories of the New Jerusalem, all of which are interpreted 
 literally as referring to a reign of Christ on earth. Creation 
 thus renovated, he argues, will last for ever, as may be inferred 
 from the promise of the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah 
 Ixvi. 22). Then follows the passage in question, which contains 
 the interpretation, given by the elders, of Christ's saying 
 concerning the many mansions in His Father's house. A few 
 lines lower down Irenseus refers again to the words respecting 
 the fruit of the vine from which he had started ; and after two 
 or three sentences more the book ends. 
 
 These seem to be very substantial reasons for assigning the 
 words to Papias, And probably the two passages which I have 
 been considering do not stand alone. In an earlier part of this 
 same fifth book Irenseus writes': — 
 
 1 See above, p. 158. ^ Iren. Har. v. 5. 1. 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 199 
 
 Where then was the first man placed 1 In paradise plainly, 
 as it is written 'And God planted a paradise ....;' and he was cast 
 out thence into this world, owing to his disobedience. Wherefore 
 also the elders, disciples of the Apostles, say that those who were 
 translated were translated thither (for paradise was prepared for 
 righteous and inspired men, whither also the Apostle Paul was 
 carried . . . . ) and that they who are translated remain there till 
 the end of all things (ews o-uvTeXetas), preluding immortality. 
 
 On this passage our author remarks : — 
 
 It seems highly probable that these ' presbyters the disciples of 
 the Apostles ' who are quoted on paradise are the same ' presbyters 
 the disciples of the Apostles' referred to on the same subject (v. 
 36. §§ 1, 2), whom we are discussing'. 
 
 With this opinion I entirely agree. 'But,' he adds, 'there is 
 nothing whatever to connect them with Papias.' Here I am 
 obliged to join issue. It seems to me that there are several 
 things. In the first place, there is the description of the 
 authorities, 'the elders, the disciples of the Apostles,' which 
 exactly accords with the statement in Papias' own preface*. 
 Next there is the subject and its treatment. This latter point, 
 if I mistake not, presents some considerations which strongly 
 confirm my view of the source of these references in Irenseus. 
 The elders here quoted maintain that the paradise of Genesis is 
 not a terrestrial paradise ; it is some region beyond the limits of 
 this world, to which Enoch and Elijah were translated; it is the 
 abode, as Irenaeus says, of the righteous and the spiritual 
 {TTvevfiaTiKol), of whom these two respectively are types ; their 
 translation preludes the immortality of the faithful in Christ. 
 In the second passage where paradise is mentioned by these 
 elders, it is declared to be one of the 'many mansions' in the 
 Father's house. But it is clear from this latter passage that 
 the work from which these sayings of the elders are quoted 
 must have contained much more about paradise. The inter- 
 
 1 S. R. n. p. 333. ^ See above, p. 143. 
 
200 ON SUPEENATUEAL EELIGION. 
 
 mediate position there assigned to it between the celestial 
 and the terrestrial kingdom does not explain itself, and must 
 have required some previous discussion. Is there any reason 
 to think that Papias did directly occupy himself with this 
 subject ? 
 
 The work of Papias was in the hands of Anastasius of Sinai, 
 who (as we have seen) set a very high value on it*. He tells us 
 in his 'Hexaemeron*' that 'the more ancient interpreters... 
 contemplated the sayings about paradise spiritually, and 
 referred them to the Church of Christ.' They 'said that there 
 was a certain spii'itual paradise^.' Among these 'more ancient 
 interpreters/ of whom he gives a list, he names 'the great 
 Papias of Hierapolis, the scholar of John the Evangelist, and 
 Irenseus of Lyons.' Here the two are associated together as 
 dealing with this same subject in the same way. How m\ich of 
 the exegesis which Anastasius gives in the context, and attri- 
 butes to these ancient interpreters, may be due to Papias in 
 particular, it is impossible to say. But it may be observed that 
 the expression 'the delight of the paradise,' in the saying of the 
 elders reported by Irenseus, is taken from the Septuagint of 
 Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where the Prince of Tyre is addressed, 
 'Thou wast in the delight of the paradise of God ;' and that 
 Anastasius represents 'the interpreters' (among whom he had 
 previously mentioned Papias) as 'especially confirming their 
 views of a spiritual paradise' by appealing to this very passage, 
 'where God seems to reveal to us enigmatically the fall of the 
 devil from heaven,' the Prince of Tyre being interpreted as 
 Satan, and the 'stones of fire' the hosts of intelligent beings; 
 and he immediately afterwards quotes in illustration our Lord's 
 words in Luke x. 18, 'I beheld Satan as lightning fall from 
 
 ^ [See above, p. 154.] allegory, and Irenaeus, who regards it 
 
 2 Patrol. Grac. Ixxxix. p. 962 (ed. as a supramundane abode ; for both 
 Migne). are named. But they have this in 
 
 3 Under this ' spiritual ' interpre- common, that they are both opposed 
 tation, Anastasius includes views as to a terrestrial region ; and this is 
 wide apart as those of Philo, who obviously the main point which he 
 interprets paradise as a philosophical has in view. 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 201 
 
 heaven \' 'See,' he concludes, 'we have heard plainly that 
 he was cast down to the earth from some paradise of delight 
 high above, and from the cherubic coals of fire. (Ezek. 
 xxviii. 16.)' 
 
 From the Hexaemeron of Anastasius I turn to the Catena 
 on the Apocalypse, bearing the names of (Ecumenius and 
 Arethas, which was published by Cramer^, and here I find 
 fresh confirmation. On Rev. xii. 9, the compiler of this com- 
 mentary quotes the same passage of St Luke to which Ana- 
 stasius refers. He then goes on to explain that there was a 
 twofold fall of Satan — the one at the time of the creation of 
 man, the other at the Incarnation ; and he proceeds — 
 
 Seeing then that Michael, the chief captain [of the heavenly 
 hosts], could not tolerate the pride of the devil, and had long ago 
 cast him out from his own abode by warlike might, according as 
 Ezekiel says, that 'he was cast out by the cherubim from the midst 
 of the stones of fire,' that is to say, the angelic ranks, because 
 'iniquities were found in him' (xxviii. 15, 16); again at the coming 
 of Christ, as has been said ... he hath fallen more completely. This 
 is confirmed by the tradition of the fathers, especially of Papias (/cai 
 Traripwv TrapaSocn? Koi HairLov), a successor of the Evangelist John 
 who wrote this very Apocalypse with which we are concerned. 
 Indeed Papias speaks thus concerning the war in these express 
 words : 'It so befell that their array,' that is, their warlike enter- 
 prise, 'came to nought ; for the great dragon, the old serpent, who is 
 also called Satan and the devil, was cast down, yea, and was cast 
 down to the earth, he and his angels^.' 
 
 I turn again to Anastasius ; and I read in him that ' the 
 above-mentioned interpreters' gave these explanations of 
 paradise to counteract the teaching of divers heretics, among 
 
 ^ Patrol. Grcec. Ixxxix. p. 964 sq. AjDocalypse, emphasizes the fact that 
 
 2 Cramer Catena p. 358 sq. Satau was cast down to the earth, 
 
 2 Eouth {Rel. Sacr. i. p. 41) would because this shows that paradise was a 
 
 end the quotation from Papias at supramundane region. As I have said 
 
 'their array came to nought ;' but the before (p. 186), the only saying of our 
 
 concluding sentence seems to be re- Lord to which we can conveniently 
 
 quired as part of the quotation, which assign this exposition is Luke x. 18. 
 
 otherwise would be very meaningless. St Luke is also the only Evangelist 
 
 Papias, adopting the words of the who mentions paradise (xxiii. 43). 
 
202 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 whom he especially mentions the Ophites who 'offered the 
 greatest thanksgivings to the serpent, on the ground that by 
 his couQsels, and by the transgression committed by the woman, 
 the whole race of mankind had been born\' This notice again 
 confirms the view which I adopted, that it was the design of 
 Papias to supply an antidote to the false exegesis of the 
 Gnostics. Thus everything hangs together, and we seem to 
 have restored a lost piece of ancient exegesis. If this restora- 
 tion is uncertain in its details, it has at least materially 
 strengthened my position, that the two sayings of the elders 
 respecting paradise, quoted by Irenseus, must be attributed 
 to the same authority, Papias, whom Irenseus cites by name in 
 the intermediate passage relating to the millennial kingdom. 
 I must add my belief also that very considerable parts of the 
 fifth book of Irenseus, which consists mainly of exegesis, are 
 borrowed from the exegetical work of Papias. It is the 
 unpardonable sin of Papias in the eyes of Eusebius, that he has 
 misled subsequent writers, more especially Irenaeus, on these 
 eschatological subjects. This is speaking testimony to the 
 debt of Irenseus. Literary property was not an idea recognized 
 by early Christian writers. They were too much absorbed in 
 their subject to concern themselves with their obligations to 
 others, or with the obligations of others to them. Plagiarism 
 was not a crime, where the}^ had all literary things in common. 
 Hippolytus, in his chief work, tacitly borrows whole paragraphs, 
 and even chapters, almost word for word, from Irenseus. He 
 mentions his name only twice, and does not acknowledge his 
 obligations more than once I The liberties, which Hippolytus 
 takes with his master Irenseus, might well have been taken by 
 Irenseus himself with his predecessor Papias. 
 
 I have adduced three distinct reasons for believing that 
 Papias was acquainted with the Gospel of St John ; and their 
 combined force is all the greater, because each is independent 
 of the other. I will now add some other considerations pointing 
 in the same direction. 
 
 ^ Anastasius Hex. p. 963. ^ Hippolytus Bef. Hear. vi. 42, 55. 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIEEAPOLIS. 203 
 
 4. Eusebius tells us that Papias 'relates also another story 
 concerning a woman accused of many sins before the Lord,' and 
 he adds that it is 'contained in the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews.' 
 
 The story in question is allowed to be the narrative of the 
 woman taken in adultery, which appears in the common texts 
 of the Fourth Gospel, vii. 53 — viii. 11. In the oldest Greek 
 MS which contains this pericope, the Codex Bezce, the words 
 'taken in adultery' are read 'taken in sin.' In the Apostolic 
 Constitutions^, where this incident is briefly related, the woman 
 is described as 'having sinned.' And again Rufinus, who would 
 possibly be acquainted with Jerome's translation of the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, boldly substitutes 'a woman, an 
 adulteress,' for 'a woman accused of many sins,' in his version of 
 Eusebius. 
 
 But it is equally certain that this pericope is an interpo- 
 lation where it stands. All considerations of external evidence 
 are against it. It is wanting in all Greek mss before the sixth 
 century ; it was originally absent in all the oldest versions — 
 Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Gothic ; it is not referred to, as part of 
 St John's Gospel, before the latter half of the fourth century. 
 Nor is the internal evidence less fatal. It is expressed in 
 language quite foreign to St John's style, and it interrupts the 
 tenor of his narrative. The Evangelist is here relating Christ's 
 discourses on 'the last day, that great day, of the feast' of 
 Tabernacles. Our Lord seizes on the two most prominent 
 features in the ceremonial — the pouring out of the water 
 from Siloam upon the altar, and the illumination of the city 
 by flaming torches, lighted in the Temple area. Each in 
 succession furnishes Him with imagery illustrating His own 
 person and work. In the uninterrupted narrative, the one 
 topic follows directly upon the other. He states first, that 
 the streams of living water flow from Him (vii. 37 sq). He 
 speaks 'again' (ttoKlv), and declares that He is the light of 
 
 1 Apost. Const, ii. 24. 
 
204 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 the world (viii. 12 sq). But the intervention of this story 
 dislocates the whole narrative, introducing a change of time, 
 of scene, of subject. 
 
 On the other hand, it will be felt that the incident, though 
 misplaced here, must be authentic in itself Its ethical pitch is 
 far above anything which could have been invented for Him by 
 His disciples and followers, ' whose character and idiosyncrasies,' 
 as Mr Mill says, 'were of a totally different sort\' They had 
 neither the capacity to imagine nor the will to invent an 
 incident, which, while embodying the loftiest of all moral 
 teaching, would seem to them dangerously lax in its moral 
 tendencies. 
 
 But, if so, how came it to find a place in the copies of St 
 John's Gospel ? Ewald incidentally throws out a suggestion^ 
 that it was originally written on the margin of some ancient 
 manuscript, to illustrate the words of Christ in John viii. 15, 
 'Ye judge after the flesh ; I judge no man.' This hint he has 
 not followed up, but it seems to me to be highly valuable. The 
 pericope in question occurs, in most authorities which contain 
 it, after vii. 52 ; in one MS however it stands after vii. 36 ; and 
 in several it is placed at the end of the Gospel. This is just 
 what might have been expected if it was written, in the first 
 instance, on the margin of a MS containing two or three 
 columns on a page. When transferred from the margin to the 
 text, it would find a place somewhere in the neighbourhood, 
 where it least interfered with the narrative, or, if no suitable 
 place appeared, it would be relegated to the end of the book. 
 It should be added, that some good cursives give it at the end 
 of the twenty-first chapter of St Luke — the most appropriate 
 position, historically, that could be found for it. Whether 
 this was an independent insertion in St Luke, or a transference 
 from St John made on critical grounds, it is not easy to say. 
 
 But if this was the motive of the insertion, what was its 
 source ? Have we not here one of those illustrative anecdotes 
 
 1 J. S. Mill Three Essays p. 254. 
 
 - Ewald Die Johanncischcn Schriften p. 271. 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 205 
 
 which Papias derived from the report of the elders, and to which 
 he 'did not scruple to give a place along with his inter- 
 pretations ' of our Lord's sayings ? Its introduction as an 
 illustration of the words in John viii. 15 would thus be an exact 
 parallel to the treatment of the saying in Matthew xxvi. 29, as 
 described in the first part of this paper\ A reader or 
 transcriber of St John, familiar with Papias, would copy it 
 down in his margin, either from Papias himself or from the 
 Gospel of the Hebrews; and hence it would gain currency. 
 The Codex Bezce, the oldest Greek manuscript by two or three 
 centuries which contains this narrative, is remarkable for its 
 additions. May we not suspect that others besides this pericope 
 (I would name especially our Lord's saying to the man whom 
 He found working on the sabbath) were derived from this 
 exegetical work of Papias ? At all events Eusebius speaks of it 
 as containing ' some strange parables and teachings of the 
 Saviour, and some other matters more or less fabulous (fj,vOcKco- 
 T€pa),' which Papias derived from oral tradition. 
 
 5. I have already suggested^ that the notice relating to 
 St Mark in Papias might have been given to explain some 
 peculiarities in the Second Gospel, as compared with St John. 
 This conjecture, standing alone, appears to have a very slight 
 value, but it assumes a higher importance when we find that a 
 writer who was a younger contemporary of Papias speaks 
 of St Mark's Gospel in this same way and with this same 
 motive. 
 
 The extract from the Muratorian fragment relating to the 
 Gospels has been given above ^ The writer is obviously 
 desirous of accounting for the differences in the four Evangelists. 
 As the fragment is mutilated at the beginning, we cannot say 
 what he wrote about the First Gospel. But the half sentence 
 which alone survives of his account of the Second Gospel tells 
 its own tale ; ' Quibus interfuit et ita tamen posuit.' It is 
 evident that he, like Papias, describes St Mark as dependent on 
 
 1 See above, p. 158 sq. * See above, p. 188 sq. 
 
 2 [See above, p. 165.] 
 
206 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 the oral preaching of St Peter for his information respecting 
 Christ's life. He ' set down ' such facts as he knew from having 
 been 'present' when the Apostle related them to his hearers. 
 If the words themselves had left any room for doubt, it would 
 be cleared up by his account of the Third Gospel, which follows 
 immediately. St Luke, he tells us, was a follower of St Paul, 
 and so wrote his Gospel ; ' but neither did he (a'XV ouS' avro'^) 
 see the Lord in the flesh,' and so he gave such information 
 as came within his reach. On the other hand, he declares that 
 the Fourth Gospel was written by John, a personal disciple 
 of Christ, at the instance and with the sanction of other 
 personal disciples like himself Hence, he argues, though there 
 must necessarily be differences in detail, yet this does not affect 
 the faith of believers, since there is perfect accordance on the 
 main points, and all the Gospels alike are inspired by the same 
 Spirit. At the same time, the authority of the Fourth Gospel 
 is paramount, as the record of an immediate eye-witness ; and 
 this claim John asserts for himself in the opening of his Epistle, 
 when he declares that he has written what he himself had seen 
 and heard. 
 
 Probably, if the notice of St Mark had not been mutilated, 
 the coincidence would have been found to be still greater. 
 Even as it stands, this account throws great light on the notice 
 of Papias. The Muratorian writer lays stress on the secondary 
 character of St Mark's account ; so does Papias. The Murato- 
 rian writer quotes from the First Epistle of St John in evidence ; 
 so did Papias. We are not told with what object Papias 
 adduced this testimony from the Epistle; but it is at least 
 a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the 
 Muratorian writer. It should be observed also that Eusebius 
 mentions Papias as quoting not only the First Epistle of St 
 John, but also the First Epistle of St Peter. May not the two 
 have been connected together in the context of Papias, as they 
 are in the notice of Eusebius ? It is quite clear that Papias 
 had already said something of the relations existing between 
 St Peter and St Mark previously to the extract which gives an 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIEEAPOLIS. 207 
 
 account of the Second Gospel ; for he there refers back to a 
 preceding notice, ' But afterwards, as I said, he followed Peter.' 
 Would he not naturally have quoted, as illustrating these 
 relations, the reference to the Evangelist in the Apostle's own 
 letter, 'Marcus my son saluteth you' (1 Pet. v. 13)? If the 
 whole of the Muratorian writer's notice of the Second Gospel 
 had been preserved, we should not improbably have found 
 a parallelism here also. But, however this may be, the 
 resemblance is enough to suggest that the Muratorian writer 
 was acquainted with the work of Papias, and that he borrowed 
 his contrast between the secondary evidence of St Mark and the 
 primary evidence of St John from this earlier writer. 
 
 And such a contrast offers a highly natural explanation of 
 Papias' motive. The testimony of the elder respecting the 
 composition of St Mark's Gospel was introduced by him, as we 
 saw, to explain its phenomena. Though strictly accurate in its 
 relation of facts, as far as it went, this Gospel had, he tells 
 us, two drawbacks, which it owed to its secondary character. 
 The account could not be taken as complete, and the order 
 could not be assumed to be strictly chronological. In other 
 words, compared with other evangelical narratives which Papias 
 had in view, it showed omissions and transpositions. A com- 
 parison with St John's narrative would yield many instances of 
 both. We have ample evidence that within a very few years 
 after Papias wrote, the differences between St John and the 
 Synoptic Gospels had already begun to attract attention. The 
 Muratorian writer is a competent witness to this, nor does 
 he stand alone. Claudius Apollinaris, who succeeded Papias in 
 the see of Hierapolis, perhaps immediately, certainly within a 
 very few years, mentions that on the showing of some persons 
 ' the Gospels seem to be at variance with one another\' He is 
 referring especially to the account of the Crucifixion in St 
 Matthew and St John respectively. 
 
 It is much to be regretted that the Muratorian writer's 
 account of St Matthew also has not been preserved ; for here 
 1 Eouth Rel. Sacr. i. p. 160. 
 
208 ON SUPEENATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 again we should expect much light to be thrown on the corre- 
 sponding account in Papias. Why did Papias introduce this 
 notice of the Plebrew original of St Matthew ? We may 
 suspect that the same motive which induced him to dwell on 
 the secondary character of St Mark's knowledge led him also 
 to call attention to the fact that St Matthew's Gospel was not 
 an original, but a translation. I turn to an exegetical work of 
 Eusebius, and I find this father dealing with the different 
 accounts of two Evangelists in this very way. He undertakes 
 to solve the question, why St Matthew (xxviii. 1) says that the 
 resurrection was revealed to Mary Magdalene on the evening 
 of (or 'late on') the sabbath (oyire aa^^drcov), whereas St 
 John (xx. 1) places this same incident on the first day of the 
 week (t^ /una rwv aa/S/Sdrcov) ; and among other explanations 
 which he offers is the following : — 
 
 The expression ' on the evening of the sabbath ' is due to the 
 translator of the Scripture ; for the Evangelist Matthew published 
 (TrapeSwKc) his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue ; but the person who 
 rendered it into the Greek language changed it, and called the hour 
 dawning on the Lord's day 6i]/e aal3l3dTu>v\ 
 
 He adds, that each Evangelist corrects any misapprehension 
 which might arise — St Matthew by adding 'as it began to 
 dawn towards the first day of the week,' St John by a similar 
 qualifying expression 'when it was yet dark.' Being acquainted 
 with the work of Papias, Eusebius might have borrowed this 
 mode of explanation, if not this very explanation, from him. 
 
 But it may be urged that on this hypothesis the motive of 
 Papias must have appeared in the context, and that, if it had so 
 appeared, Eusebius must have quoted it. The reply is simple. 
 Papias must in any case have had some object or other in 
 
 1 Euseb. Qucsst. ad Marin. 2, iv. sermone conscrii^sit, non tam vespere 
 
 p. 941 (ed. Migne). Jerome, who seems dixisse quam sero, et eum qui inteipre- 
 
 to have had Eusebius before him, says tatus est, verbi ambiguitate deceptum, 
 
 more plainly (Epist. 120, ad Hedib. i. nou sero interpretatum esse sed ves- 
 
 p. 826): — ' Mihi videtur evangelista pere.' 
 Matthaens qui evangelium Hebraco 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 209 
 
 citing this testimony of the presbyter, and none is given. But 
 I would answer further, that under the supposed circumstances 
 Eusebius was not likely to quote the context. As a matter of 
 fact, he has not done so in a very similar case, where he tears 
 out a fragment from a passage in Irenseus which intimately 
 affects the relations of the Evangelists to one another\ He 
 commences in the middle of a sentence, and extracts just as 
 much as serves his immediate purpose, leaving out everything 
 else. On this point, I am glad that I can reckon beforehand 
 on the assent of the author of Supernatural Religion himself 
 Speaking of this extract from Irenaeus, he says, 'Nothing could 
 be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to 
 represent any discordance between the Gospels'.' I do not 
 indeed join in the vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of 
 Eusebius. Wherever I have been able to investigate the 
 charge, I have found it baseless. We have ample evidence 
 that Eusebius was prepared to face the difficulties in har- 
 monizing the Gospels, when the subject came properly before 
 him. But here he might fairly excuse himself from entering 
 upon a topic which had no bearing on his immediate purpose, 
 and which once started would require a lengthy discussion to 
 do justice to it. Moreover it is obvious that he is very impatient 
 with Papias. He tells us twice over that he has confined his 
 extracts to the very narrowest limits which bare justice to his 
 subject would allow ^ ; he warns his readers that there are a 
 great many traditions in Papias which he has passed over ; and 
 he refers them to the book itself for further information. 
 Though exceptionally long in itself compared with his notices 
 of other early Christian writers, his account of Papias is, we 
 may infer, exceptionally brief in proportion to the amount of 
 material which this father afforded for such extracts. 
 
 6. I have said nothing yet about the direct testimony of a 
 
 ^ Iren. ii. 22. 5; Euseb. H. E. iii. (j)L\ofj.adeis d,vatrifj.\pavTe% dvayKaiws 
 
 23. vvv ■n-poadrjaofj.ev, k.t.\., and again, 
 
 ^ Preface to ed. 6, p. xvii. radra 5' -TiImv dpayKalois Trpbs toTs 
 
 * Euseb. H. E. iii. 39 icp' as toi'»s eKTedeicriv eTnreTijprjcrdw. 
 
 S. R. 14 
 
210 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 late anonymous writer, which (if it could be accepted as trust- 
 worthy) would be decisive on the point at issue. 
 
 In an argument prefixed to this Gospel in a Vatican MS, 
 which is assigned to the ninth century, we read as follows : — 
 
 The Gospel of John was made known (manifestatum), and given 
 to the Churches by John while he yet remained in the body (adhuc 
 in corpore constituto) ; as (one) Papias by name, of Hierapolis, 
 a beloved disciple of John, has related in his exoteric, that is, in his 
 last five books (in exotericis, id est, in extremis quinque libris) ; but 
 he wrote down the Gospel at the dictation of John, correctly 
 (descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte). But Marcion 
 the heretic, when he had been censured (improbatus) by him, because 
 he held heretical opinions (eo quod contraria sentiebat), was cast off 
 by John. Now he had brought writings or letters to him from the 
 brethren that were in Pontus'. 
 
 No stress can be laid on testimony derived from a passage 
 which contains such obvious anachronisnas and other inaccura- 
 cies ; but the mention of Papias here courts inquiry, and time 
 will not be ill spent in the endeavour to account for it. It will 
 be worth while, at all events, to dispose of an erroneous 
 explanation which has found some favour. When attention 
 was first called to this passage by Aberle and Tischendorf, 
 Overbeck met them with the hypothesis that the notice was 
 taken from a spurious work ascribed to Papias. He supposed 
 that some one had forged five additional books in the name of 
 this father, in which he had gathered together a mass of 
 fabulous matter, and had entitled them 'Exoterica,' attaching 
 them to the genuine five books. To this work he assigned 
 also the notice respecting the four Maries which bears the 
 name of Papias I This explanation might have been left to 
 itself if it had remained as a mere hypothesis of Overbeck's, 
 
 1 This argument to St John's Gos- Wann wurden etc. 
 
 pel was published long ago by Cardinal ^ Overbeck's article is in Hilgen- 
 
 Thomasius [Op. i. p. 344) ; but it lay i'eld's Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. x. 
 
 neglected until attention was called to p. 68 sq (1867). The notice relating 
 
 it by Aberle Theolog. Quartalschr. to the four Maries will be found in 
 
 xlvi. p. 7 sq (1864), and by Tischendorf Eouth Eel. Sacr. i. p. 16. 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 211 
 
 but it has been recently accepted by Hilgenfeld. He speaks 
 of these five 'exoteric' books, as attached to 'the five esoteric 
 or genuine books ; ' and to this source he attributes not only 
 the account of the four Maries, but also a notice relating to 
 the death of St. John which is given by Georgius Hamartolos 
 on the authority of Papias \ 
 
 This however seems to be altogether a mistake. We find 
 no notice or trace elsewhere of any such spurious work attri- 
 buted to Papias. Moreover these titles are quite unintelligible. 
 There is no reason why the five genuine books should be called 
 'esoteric,' or the five spurious books 'exoteric' About the 
 notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in error. It is 
 not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of 
 Hierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin 
 lexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere 
 hypothesis, as Hilgenfeld assumes, but an indisputable fact, as 
 any one can test who will refer to the work itself, of which 
 MSS exist in some libraries, and which was printed four times 
 in the fifteenth century ^ Nor again does the passage in 
 Georgius Hamartolos give any countenance to this theory. 
 This writer, after saying that St John survived the rest of 
 the twelve and then suffered as a martyr (/xaprvplov Karrj^l- 
 corai), continues : — 
 
 For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eye-witness 
 of him, says in the second book (Aoyw) of the ' Oracles of the Lord ' 
 (twv KvptaKwv XoytW) that he was slain by the Jews, having, as is 
 
 clear, with his brother James, fulfilled the prediction of Christ 
 
 'Ye shall drink my cup,' etc.^ 
 
 Here we have an obvious error. The fate which really 
 
 1 Einleitung p. 63 (1875) ; comp. friend, and announced it in the second 
 
 Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. xviii. p. edition of his History of the Canon. 
 269 (1875). ^ This fragment was first published 
 
 - I verified this for myself ten years by Nolte Thiolog. Quartalschr. xliv. p. 
 
 ago, and published the result in the 466 (1862). It will be found in the 
 
 first edition of my Galatians, p. 459 collection of fragments of Papias given 
 
 sq (1865). About the same time Dr by Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. 
 
 Westcott ascertained the fact from a Theol. (1875), p. 258. 
 
 14—2 
 
212 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 befell James is attributed to John. Georgius Hamartolos 
 therefore cannot be quoting directly from Papias, for Papias 
 cannot have reported the martyrdom of John. But, on the 
 other hand, Papias seems plainly to have been the ultimate 
 source of his information. The work is precisely and correctly 
 quoted. The general tenor accords with the main object of 
 Papias' book — the exposition of a saying of Christ, and the 
 illustration of it by a story derived from tradition. This being 
 so, the error is most easily explained by a lacuna. In the 
 intermediate authority from whom Georgius got the reference, 
 some words must have dropped out ; a line or two may have 
 been omitted in his copy ; and the sentence may have run in 
 the original somewhat in this way; l]a7ria<;...(f)acrKet otl 
 ^loodvvT]^ [/J'SV VTro rov 'Vmixamv ^aa-tXew^ KarehiKaadr] fiap- 
 rvpwv eh Tldrfiov, 'IdKcol3o<; Se] vtto 'lovSaicov diirjpedi], 'Papias 
 says that John [was condemned by the Roman emperor (and 
 sent) to Patmos for bearing witness (to the truth) while James] 
 was slain by the Jews*.' 
 
 The hypothesis of a spurious Papias therefore is wholly 
 unsupported ; and we must seek some other explanation of the 
 statement in the Vatican MS. This passage seems to be made 
 up of notices gathered from different sources. The account of 
 Marcion, with which it closes, involves an anachronism (to say 
 nothing else), and seems to have arisen from a confusion of the 
 interview between St John and Cerinthus and that between 
 Polycarp and Marcion, which are related by Irenseus in the 
 
 1 This solution of the difficulty by jSaaiXeiJS, ws 97 irapaSoais Si8d.<7Kei, /care- 
 means of a lacuna was suggested to dcKaae rbv 'Iwawrjv ixaprvpovvra Slo, tov 
 me by a friend. In following up the t^s aX-qdeias \6yov els Udr/jLov t7)v vrjaov. 
 suggestion, I have inserted the missing It must be noticed that Georgius refers 
 words from the parallel passage in to this passage of Origen as testimony 
 Origen, to which Georgius Hamartolos that St John suffered martyrdom, thus 
 refers in this very context : in Mattli. mistaking the sense of fiaprvpovvra. 
 torn. xvi. 6 (III. p. 719 sq, Delarue), This is exactly the error which I 
 ■jreiruKaffi Si iroT-{]pLov Kal to ^dirTtaixa suggested as an explanation of the 
 ePaTTTlffdrjcrap oi tov Ze^edalov viol, blundering notice of John Malalas 
 iirdTrep"ilpib57]s ixh air^KTeivev 'Iclku^ov respecting the death of Ignatius (see 
 Ti>v 'Iwavfov fxaxalpq., 6 de 'Fco/jLalwv above p. 79). 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 213 
 
 same context \ The earlier part, referring to Papias, is best 
 explained in another way — by clerical errors and mistranslation 
 rather than by historical confusion. The word ' exotericis ' 
 ought plainly to be read ' exegeticis^' In some handwritings of 
 the seventh or eighth century, where the letters have a round 
 form, the substitution of OT for EG would be far from difficult ^ 
 In this case extremis, which should perhaps be read externis, is 
 the Latin interpretation of the false reading exotericis. Thus 
 purged of errors, the reference to Papias presents no difficulties. 
 We may suppose that Papias, having reported some saying of 
 St John on the authority of the elders, went on somewhat as 
 follows : ' And this accords with what we find in his own Gospel, 
 which he gave to the Churches when he was still in the body ' 
 (ert iv Tw acofian /cadearooTo^). In this contrast between the 
 story repeated after his death and the Gospel taken down from 
 his lips during his lifetime, we should have an explanation 
 of the words adhuc in corpore constituto, which otherwise seem 
 altogether out of place. The word constituto shows clearly, 
 I think, that the passage must have been translated from the 
 Greek. If St John's authorship of the Gospel had been men- 
 tioned in this incidental way, Eusebius would not have repeated 
 it, unless he departed from his usual practice. On the other 
 hand, the statement that Papias was the amanuensis of the 
 Evangelist can hardly be correct, though it occurs elsewhere*. 
 Whether it was derived from a misunderstanding of Papias, or 
 of some one else, it would be impossible to say. But I venture 
 
 1 See Lipsius Die Quellen der which Hilgenfeld rightly substituted 
 Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte ^.2B7 (1875). ' exegeticis.' This was before he adopt- 
 Though the notice in Clem. Alex. edOverbeck'ssuggestionof the spurious 
 Strom, vii. 17 (p. 898) makes Marcion a Papias. 
 
 contemporary of the Apostles, there is ^ The photographs, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 
 
 obviously some error in the text. All 20, in the series published by the 
 
 other evidence, which is trustworthy, Palseographical Society, will show fairly 
 
 assigns him to a later date. The what I mean. 
 
 subject is fully discussed by Lipsius in * In the Catena Patr. Grcec. in S. 
 
 the context of the passage to which I Joaiiii. Procem. (ed. Gorder), aipia-ewv 
 
 have given a reference. See also Zahn dfacpveLauiv deivuu virayopevcre to euay- 
 
 in Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol. 1873 p. 62. 76X101" riji iavrou ixadrjTri llaTri'^t eu/Stwry 
 
 ^ Aberle suggested ' exegeseos,' for {sic) t<^ 'upairoKiTri, k. t. \. 
 
214 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 to suggest a solution. Papias may have quoted the Gospel 
 ' delivered by John to the Churches, which they wrote down 
 from his lips ' (o d7rejpa<j)ov iliru rov o-To/xaTOf avrov) ; and 
 some later writer, mistaking the ambiguous aire'ypa^ov, inter- 
 preted it, '/ wrote down,' thus making Papias himself the 
 amanuensis \ The dictation of St John's Gospel is suggested, 
 as I have said already^, by internal evidence also. Here again, 
 so far as we can judge from his practice elsewhere, Eusebius 
 would be more likely than not to omit such a statement, if it 
 was made ihus casually. This seems to me the most probable 
 explanation of the whole passage. But obviously no weight 
 can be attached to such evidence. Like the statement of John 
 Malalas respecting Ignatius, which I considered in a former 
 paper^, it is discredited by its companionship with an anachro- 
 nism, though the anachronism is not so flagrant as those of 
 John Malalas, and the statement itself does not, like his, 
 contradict the unanimous testimony of all the preceding cen- 
 turies. 
 
 But the author of Supeimatural Religion closes with an 
 argument, which he seems to think a formidable obstacle to the 
 belief that Papias recognized the Fourth Gospel as the work of 
 St John : — 
 
 Andrew of Csesarea, in the preface to his commentary on the 
 Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained ' the credibility ' (to 
 diioincTTov) of that book, or in other words, its Apostolic origin... 
 Now, he must, therefore, have recognized the book as the work of 
 the Apostle John, and we shall hereafter show that it is impossible 
 that the author of the Apocalypse is the author of the Gospel ; 
 therefore, in this way also, Papias is a witness against the Apostolic 
 origin of the Fourth Gospel*. 
 
 1 Or, the confusion may have been Apostle, or even that he quoted it by 
 between airiypa'^d [aireypaipav), and name. Our author's argument there- 
 dir^ypa\f/a. fore breaks down from lack of evidence. 
 
 2 [See above, p. 187.] It seems probable however, that he 
 ^ [See above, p. 79 sq.] would ascribe it to St John, even 
 4 The passage of Andreas of Caesa- though he may not have said so dis- 
 
 rea will be found in Eouth Rel. Sacr. tinctly. Suspicion is thrown on the 
 I. p. 15. It is not there said that Papias testimony of Andreas by the fact that 
 ascribed the Apocalypse to St John the Eusebius does not directly mention its 
 
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. 215 
 
 This argument however is an anachronism. Many very 
 considerable critics of the nineteenth century, it is true, 
 maintain that the two works cannot have come from the same 
 author. I do not stop now to ask whether they are right or 
 wrong ; but the nineteenth century is not the second. In the 
 second century there is not the slightest evidence that a single 
 writer felt any difficulty on this score, or attempted to separate 
 the authorship of the two books. It is true that Eusebius 
 mentions one or two authors, whose works unfortunately are 
 lost, as using the Apocalypse, while he does not mention their 
 using the Gospel ; and this negative fact has obviously misled 
 many. But here again the inference arises from a fundamental 
 misconception of his purpose. I have shown' that his principles 
 required him to notice quotations from and references to the 
 Apocalypse in every early writer, because the authorship 
 and canonicity of the work had been questioned by Church 
 writers before his time ; whereas it would lead him to ignore all 
 such in the case of the Fourth Gospel, because no question had 
 ever been entertained within the Church respecting it. This 
 indeed is precisely what he does with Theophilus ; he refers to 
 this father's use of the Apocalypse, and he ignores his direct 
 quotations from the Gospel. The inference therefore must be 
 set aside as a fallacy. Beyond this, all the direct evidence 
 points the other way. There was indeed a small sect or section 
 of men outside the pale of the Church, before the close of the 
 second century, who rejected the Gospel, but they rejected the 
 Apocalypse also. Moreover they ascribed both to a single 
 author, and (what is more important still) this author was 
 Cerinthus, a contemporary of St John^. Thus the very oppo- 
 
 use by Papias, as his practice else- comprehended what was said by them 
 
 where would demand. But I suppose mystically and in figurative language ' 
 
 that Eusebius omitted any express {iv inroSely/xaa-i). 
 mention of this use, because he had ^ [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46.] 
 
 meant his words to be understood of "- These persons are discussed at 
 
 the Apocalypse, when, speaking of the great length by Epiphanius [Hcer. li.), 
 
 Chiliastic doctrine of Papias higher up, who calls them Alogi. They are 
 
 he said that this father ' had mistaken mentioned also, with special reference 
 
 the Apostolic statements, ' and ' had not to the Gospel, by Ireuteus (iii. 11. 9). 
 
216 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 nents of the Gospel in the second century are witnesses not 
 only to the very early date of the two writings, but also to the 
 identity of authorship. On the other hand, every Church 
 writer without exception during this century (so far as our 
 knowledge goes) who accepted the one accepted the other also. 
 The most doubtful case is Justin Martyr, who refers by name to 
 the Apocalypse ; but even Hilgenfeld says that it is difficult to 
 deny the use of the Gospel of St John in his case\ Melito 
 again commented on the Apocalypse ; and there is ample 
 evidence (as I trust to show hereafter) that he recognized 
 the Fourth Gospel also. Both books alike are used in the 
 Letter of the Gallican Churches (a.d. 177). Both alike are 
 accepted by Theophilus of Antioch, by the Muratorian writer, 
 by Irenseus, and by Clement. It is the same during the first 
 half of the third century. TertuUian and Cyprian, Hippolytua 
 and Origen, place them on an equal footing, and attribute them 
 to the same Apostle. The first distinct trace of an attempt to 
 separate the authorship of the two books appears in Dionysius 
 of Alexandria '"', who wrote about the middle or early in the 
 second half of the third century. Even he argues entirely upon 
 considerations of internal criticism, and does not pretend to any 
 traditional evidence. He accepts both works as canonical ; and 
 he questions the Apostolic authorship, not of the Gospel, but of 
 the Apocalypse. 
 
 Hippolytus wrote a work ' In defence p. 98, 1868) ; and I have not seen any 
 
 of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John,' cause smce to change this opinion, 
 
 which was apparently directed against But whether this be so or not, the 
 
 them. It may be suspected that Epi- words of Gaius reported by Eusebius 
 
 phanius is largely indebted to this work (H. E. iii. 28) seem to be wrongly 
 
 for his refutation of them. interpreted as referring to the Apoca- 
 
 1 Einleitung p. 67 ; comp. p. 733 lypse. [The important discovery of 
 sq. Prof. Gwynn {Hermathena vol. vi. p. 
 
 2 Euseb. H. E. vii. 25. Gaius the 397 sq, 1888), showing as it does that 
 Eoman Presbyter, who wrote about there was a Gaius different from 
 A.D. 220, is often cited as an earlier Hippolytus, does not allow me to speak 
 instance. I gave reasons some years now as I spoke in 1875 about the 
 ago for suspecting that the Dialogue identity of Gaius the Roman Presbyter 
 bearing this name was really written and Hippolytus.] 
 
 by Hippolytus (Journal of Philology, i. 
 
VII. The Later School of St John. 
 
 [February, 1876.] 
 
 XT has been stated in a former paper that at the fall of 
 -*- Jerusalem a remnant of the Apostolic company, together with 
 other primitive disciples, sought a new home in Asia Minor\ 
 Of this colony Ephesus was the head-quarters, and St John the 
 leader. Here he is reported to have lived and laboured for 
 more than a quarter of a century, surviving the accession of 
 Trajan, who ascended the imperial throne A.D. 98 ^ In this 
 respect his position is unique among the earliest preachers of 
 Christianity. While St Peter and St Paul converted disciples 
 and organized congregations, St John alone was the founder of 
 a school. The prolongation of his life after the Church was 
 firmly rooted, and his fixed residence in the midst of a compact 
 Christian society, combined to give a certain definiteness to his 
 personal influence, which would be wanting to the labours of 
 these more strictly missionary preachers. Hence the traditions 
 of St John are more direct, more consistent, and more trust- 
 worthy, than those which relate to the other Apostles. 
 
 Thus we may, without any great impropriety, speak of the 
 ' school of St John.' The existence of such a body of disciples 
 gathered about the veteran teacher is indicated by notices in 
 various writers. The author of the Muratorian fragment, for 
 instance, speaks of this Apostle as writing his Gospel at the 
 request not only of his fellow-disciples, but also of his 
 
 1 See above, p. 89 scj. " Iren. ii. 22. 5; iii. 3. 4. 
 
218 ON SUPERNATUKAL RELIGION. 
 
 ' bishops'.' Clement of Alexandria again, among whose teachers 
 was one from this very district, and probably of this very school^, 
 represents him as going about from place to place in the 
 neighbourhood of Ephesus, appointing bishops and providing 
 in other ways for the government of the Churches ^ More 
 especially Irenseus, who had received his earliest lessons in 
 Christianity from an immediate disciple of St John, appeals 
 again and again to such a body as preserving and handing down 
 the correct tradition of the Apostolic doctrine and practice. 
 He describes these persons in one place as ' the elders who in 
 Asia associated with John the disciple of the Lord* ; ' in another 
 as 'all the Churches which are in Asia,' specifying more 
 particularly the 'Church in Ephesus... the true witness of the 
 Apostolic tradition^;' in a third as 'those who saw John face to 
 face®,' or ' the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord^ ; ' 
 in a fourth as ' the elders who were before us, and who also were 
 pupils of the Apostles® ; ' in a fifth ' as the elders who have 
 their succession from the Apostles^ ; ' in a sixth as ' the elders, 
 disciples of the Apostles",' with similar expressions elsewhere. 
 The prominent members of this school in the first age were 
 Poly carp of Smyrna and Papias of Hierapolis, of whom the 
 former survived beyond the middle of the century, and the 
 latter probably died not many years before. In the next 
 generation the most famous names are Melito of Sardis and 
 Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who flourished in the third quarter of 
 the century. They again are succeeded by other writers, of 
 whom the most celebrated was Polycrates of Ephesus, already 
 an old man, when in the last decade of the century a controver- 
 sial question obliged him to take up his pen in defence of the 
 traditions of his Church. 
 
 1 See above, p. 189. ^ Iren. v. 30. 1. 
 
 2 Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 1 (p. 322) 7 iren. v. 33. 3. 
 
 6 /u^v iirl T^s 'EWdSoy, 6 'Iwvlkos. ^ Ep. ad Flor. in Euseb. H. E. 
 
 ' Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, v. 20. See above, p. 96. 
 p. 959. " Iren. iv. 26. 2. 
 
 * Iren. ii. 22. 5. i° Iren. v. 5. 1. 
 
 ^ Iren. iii. 3. 4. 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 219 
 
 Asia Minor appears to have been far in advance of the other 
 Churches of Christendom in literary activity, during the second 
 century. This pre-eminence was due mainly, we may suppose, 
 to the fact already mentioned, that it had become the second 
 home of the Apostles and primitive teachers of Christianity. 
 But the productiveness of the Asiatic Christians in this respect 
 was doubtless stimulated by the pressure of opposition. This 
 region was the hot-bed of heresies and the arena of controversy. 
 Nor is it unimportant to observe that the main subjects of 
 discussion were of such a kind as must necessarily have involved 
 questions intimately connected with the Canon. Montanism, 
 with its doctrine of the Paraclete and its visions of the New 
 Jerusalem, would challenge some expression of opinion respect- 
 ing the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St John, if these writings 
 were disputed. The Paschal controversy courted investigation 
 into the relations between the narratives of the Synoptists and 
 the Fourth Evangelist. Marcionism, resting as it did on the 
 paramount and sole authority of St Paul's Epistles and of the 
 Pauline Gospel, would not suffer friend or foe to preserve silence 
 on this fundamental question. And so again, though in a less 
 degree, the disputes with Cerinthians, with Ophites, with 
 Basilideans, with Valentinians, with all the various sects of 
 Gnostics, could not have been conducted, as we see plainly from 
 the treatises of Irenseus and Hippolytus, without constant 
 appeals to the testimony of written documents — thus indicating, 
 at all events roughly, the amount of authority which the writers 
 accorded to the more prominent books of our New Testament 
 Canon. To men like Irenaeus or Eusebius, who had this 
 extensive literature in their hands, the teaching of this Church 
 generally, as well as of the more prominent individual writers 
 belonging to it, could not have been open to question. Their 
 approval of its orthodoxy therefore, either by silent assent or 
 by studied panegyric, is a fact of real moment. 
 
 Over and above this relation to the books of the New 
 Testament generally, the two points to which modern contro- 
 versy directs attention, and which therefore deserve special 
 
220 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 consideration in any review of the writers belonging to the 
 school of St John, are — first, what indications the extant 
 fragments and notices contain, that they recognized or rejected 
 the Fourth Gospel ; and secondly, what can be learnt from these 
 same sources as to the degree of authority which they accorded 
 to the Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 
 Polycarp and Papias have been discussed in my earlier 
 articles \ In the case of both these fathers, a recognition of the 
 Fourth Gospel has been inferred from the use made of the First 
 Epistle ; in the case of the latter, from other indications also. 
 As regards St Paul the testimony of Polycarp is as full and 
 explicit as it well could be ; while, on the other hand, the 
 meagre fragments of Papias do not in themselves warrant any 
 inference on this point. 
 
 The next extant document in chronological order is the 
 account of Polycarp's martyrdom, written immediately after the 
 occurrence (a.d. 155), and addressed to the Churches of the 
 neighbouring province of Pontus, more especially to the 
 Christians of Philomelium. In this letter the brethren of 
 Smyrna draw a parallel between the sufferings of their 
 martyred friend and the Passion of our Lord, which is suggested 
 by some remarkable coincidences. ' Nearly all the incidents,' 
 we are told at the outset, ' which preceded (his death) came to 
 pass that the Lord might exhibit anew to us a martyrdom after 
 the pattern of the Gospel ; for Polycarp remained that he might 
 be betrayed, as did also the Lord'V This account is thus the 
 earliest instance of a favourite type of hagiology, which sees the 
 sufferings of Christ visibly reflected and imaged in detail in 
 the servants of Christ, and of which ancient and mediaeval 
 biography furnishes numerous examples. This idea of literal 
 conformity to the life and Passion of Christ runs through 
 the document. Some of the coincidences are really striking ; 
 but in other cases the parallelism is highly artificial. The 
 name of the convicting magistrate is Herod, and special stress is 
 
 1 See above, pp. 89 sq, 142 sq. ^ Martyr. PoUjc. % 1. 
 
YII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 221 
 
 naturally laid on this fact\ The time of the martyrdom is the 
 passover — ' the great sabbath,' as it is here called''. Poly carp's 
 place of refuge is ascertained from information elicited by 
 torture from a youth, apparently a slave in his employ. This 
 poor boy, much more sinned against than sinning, is cruelly 
 compared to Judas ; and we are told accordingly that Polycarp, 
 like our Lord, was ' betrayed by them of his own househokP.' 
 When apprehended, he is put upon an ass, and thus taken back 
 to the city* ; and this is of course intended as a parallel to the 
 triumphal entry into Jerusalem. His pursuers come on horse- 
 back and in arms, 'as against a robber^' When he is 
 apprehended, he prays, ' The will of God be done® ; ' and so 
 forth. These parallels, at the same time that they show the 
 idea dominant in the mind of the narrators, are a valuable 
 testimony to the truth of the narrative itself, where so much 
 violent treatment is necessary to produce the desired effect^ 
 
 Most of the incidents have their counterparts in the 
 circumstances of the Passion, as recorded by the Synoptic 
 Evangelists alone or in common with St John. This is natural ; 
 for they refer to external events, in which the Synoptic 
 narrative is rich. But there are exceptions, where the writers 
 obviously have the account of the Fourth Evangelist in their 
 mind. Thus we are told that at the crisis of Polycarp's fate a 
 voice came from heaven, saying, ' Be strong, and play the man, 
 Polycarpl' 'And the speaker,' it is added, 'no man saw; but 
 the voice those of our company that were present heard.' 
 This corresponds to the voice which St John records as 
 
 ^ ib.%6 6 KeKXrjpiofiivos TO aiiTb6vo/xa, virijpxov. 
 Upwdrjs iTri.\ey6/j.evos, where KeKX-qpuj- * ib. § 8. 
 
 /j-ivos (not Kal KXrjpovo/xos) is the right ^ ift. § 7 tjjj i-n-l Xrja-Trjv ; comp. Matt, 
 
 reading, ' who chanced to have the xxvi. 55 ; Mark xiv. 48 ; Luke xxii. 52. 
 same name,' i.e., with the tyrant of « ib. § 7; comp. Matt. xxvi. 42; 
 
 the Gospels. Acts xxi. 14. 
 
 2 ib. § 8. It is right to add how- 7 The objections which have been 
 
 ever, that the meaning of the expres- urged against this narrative are not 
 
 sion 'great sabbath' here has been serious. See above, p. 103. 
 questioned. s Martyr. Polyc. § 9: see Deut. 
 
 * ib, % & ol 7rpo5i5ocres avTou oUecoi xxxi. 7, 23. 
 
222 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 addressing our Lord from heaven, and as imperfectly appre- 
 hended by the bystanders*. Again, Polycarp, in consequence of 
 a vision, predicts that he shall be burnt alive ^ though at the 
 time the intention obviously is to throw him to the wild beasts, 
 as the games are going on. A fortuitous circumstance frustrates 
 this intention, and brings about a fulfilment of his prophecy as 
 to the manner of his death ^ Just in the same way in the 
 Fourth Gospel Jesus is represented as ' signifying by what 
 death He should die*.' Death by crucifixion seemed altogether 
 unlikely at the time, for His enemies were the Jews, and this 
 was not a Jewish mode of punishment ; but by an accidental 
 turn of circumstances He was transferred from the Jews to 
 Pilate, and so His prediction was fulfilled*. Again, it is related 
 that when the fire would not consume the body of the saint, 
 his persecutors 'ordered an executioner to go up to him 
 and thrust a small sword into him. When he had done this,' 
 we are told, ' there came forth [a dove and] a quantity of blood®.' 
 The parallel to the incident recorded in St John's account 
 of the crucifixion is obvious' ; and just as the Evangelist lays 
 stress on his own presence as an eye-witness of the scene, 
 so also do these hagiologers, when relating a strange occurrence 
 at his martyrdom. ' We saw a great marvel,' they say, ' we to 
 whom it was given to see ; and we have been saved that we 
 might relate to the rest what happened*.' And lastly, as St 
 John emphasizes the fact that everything was accomplished in 
 the death of Jesus ^, so also they declare of Polycarp, that ' every 
 
 ^ John xii. 28. rnj.'iv ovk ^^ecrriv diroKreTvai ovdiva, 
 2 Martyr. Polyc. § 5. « Martyr. Polyc. § 16 i^TjXde [jrepi- 
 
 ^ ih. § 12 ^Sei yap to tt^s . . . OTrracrias arepa /cai] ttXtj^os aifiaros. It is unneces- 
 
 TrX-qpuidTJvai fire . . . elTrec, k.t.X. sary for my purpose to inquire whether 
 
 ■* John xii. 33. the words wepia-Tepa Kal should be altered 
 
 ^ John xviii. 32iVa 6 Xo70sroC 'Itjctoi! into nepl arvpaKa according to Bishop 
 
 irXrjpwdrj, dv eTirev (rri/xaivujv k. t. \. The Wordsworth's ingenious emendation, 
 
 coincidence extends to the language or omitted altogether as in the text of 
 
 used when the change is brought Eusebius. 
 
 about. In Polycarp's case Philippus ^ John xix. 34 sq. 
 
 the Asiarch says (§ 12), /xr? elvat e^ov ^ Martyr. Polyc. § 15. 
 
 ai)r(f5, K. T. X.; in our Lord's case, the ^ John xix. 28, 30. 
 
 language of the Jews is (xviii. 31), 
 
VII. THE LATEE SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 223 
 
 word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been and shall be 
 accomplished\' To these facts it should be added that the 
 djdng prayer of Polycarp contains two coincidences with the 
 phraseology of the Fourth Gospel — ' the resurrection of life,' 
 ' the true God I' 
 
 Melito, bishop of Sardis, flourished soon after the middle of 
 the second century. This fact appears from two of his works, to 
 which we are able to assign an approximate date. His treatise 
 ' On the Paschal Festival,' he himself tells us, was written while 
 Sergius Paulus was proconsul of Asia' ; and the recent investi- 
 gations of M. Waddington into the fasti of this province have 
 led to the result that this proconsulate should probably be 
 dated about A.D. 164 — 166*. Again we are informed that 
 he addressed his 'Apology' to M. Antoninus (a.d. 161 — 180)^ 
 It appears however from an extant fragment, that L. Verus, the 
 colleague of M. Antoninus, was no longer living ; for Melito 
 speaks of prayer on behalf of the emperor's son (Commodus), 
 without mentioning his brother and co- emperor (Verus). Now 
 Verus died in the very beginning of the year 169. On the 
 other hand ancient authorities assign the Apology to the year 
 169 or 170 ; and, as there is no reason for rejecting their 
 statement, we may suppose that it was written soon after 
 the death of Verus. Probably its date was ascertainable within 
 a year or two from internal evidence. This Apology however is 
 regarded by Eusebius as the latest of Melito's writings® ; and, as 
 the catalogue of his works comprises some twenty treatises 
 at least, his literary activity must have extended over a 
 considerable period of time, so that we shall probably not be far 
 wrong if we place the commencement of his career as an author 
 
 1 Martyr. Polyc. § 16. between a.d. 163—168. 
 
 ^ ib. § 14; comp. John v. 29, ^ Euseb. Z. c. See Otto Corp. ^^oL 
 
 xvii. 3. Christ, ix. p. 377 sq. 
 
 3 Quoted in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26. ® He writes — enl Tract koL to irpos 
 
 * Pastes des Provinces Asiatiques 'kvTuvivov ^i^\iSioi>. The meaning as- 
 
 p. 731, in Le Bas and Waddington's signed in the text to eirl wda-t is 
 
 Voyage Archeologique etc. Borghesi generally accepted, but cannot be con- 
 
 [CEuvres viii. p. 507) had placed it sidered quite certain. 
 
224 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 about the middle of the century. He appears to have died soon 
 after the Apology was written. In the last decade of the 
 century Polycrates mentions him among other worthies of the 
 past who had gone to their rest\ He was buried at Sardis. 
 From the context it may be inferred that he did not suffer 
 martyrdom, like so many of his famous contemporaries, but died 
 a natural death. 
 
 These chronological notices suggest that Melito was born in 
 the early part of the second century, within a very few years 
 after the death of St John. During the greater part of his life 
 at all events, he must have been a contemporary of St John's 
 disciple Polycarp, who was martyred at an advanced age in the 
 year 155 or 156 ; and likewise of Papias, who had conversed 
 with personal disciples of Christ, and seems also to have 
 survived till towards the middle of the century. As the 
 communications between Sardis on the one hand, and Smyrna 
 and Hierapolis on the other, were easy, a prominent man like 
 Melito, whose religious zeal led him on one occasion to under- 
 take a distant journey to Palestine, would be sure to cultivate 
 the acquaintance of these older teachers, even if circumstances 
 did not throw him directly in their way. 
 
 Thus Melito is a significant link of connection with the past. 
 At the same time he holds an equally important position with 
 respect to the succeeding age. It can hardly be doubted that 
 among the Asiatic elders, whose authority Irenseus invokes 
 so constantly, Melito must have held a prominent place. It 
 may be suspected that he was the very Ionian whom Clement 
 of Alexandria mentions among his earlier teachers ^ It is quite 
 certain that his writings were widely known and appreciated in 
 the generations next succeeding his own. He is quoted or 
 referred to by Polycrates at Ephesus, by Clement and Origen at 
 Alexandria, by Tertullian at Carthage, by Hippolytus at Rome. 
 
 I have already mentioned that he was a very voluminous 
 writer. Eusebius gives a catalogue of his works, which how- 
 
 1 Quoted by Euseb. H. E. v. 24. - See above, p. 218. 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 225 
 
 ever he does not profess to be complete. The historian's know- 
 ledge was obviously limited by the contents of the library 
 which his friend Pamphilus had gathered together at Csesarea. 
 The titles of these works are as follows: — On the Paschal Fes- 
 tival (two treatises)^ On the Life of the Prophets, On the Church, 
 On the Lord's Day, On the Nature of Man, On Creation, On the 
 Obedience of Faith and on the Senses, On the Sonl and Body 
 [and Mind], On Baptism, On Truth, On the Creation and 
 Generation of Christ, On Prophecy, On Hospitality, The Key, 
 On the Devil and on the Apocalypse of John, On a Corporeal 
 Deity, An Apology to Antoninus, Selections from the Laiv and 
 the Prophets'^. Besides these works here enumerated, other 
 writings of Melito are quoted elsewhere under the titles, On the 
 Incarnation of Christ, On the Passion, On the Cross, On the 
 Faith^, though some of these may perhaps represent the same 
 works to which Eusebius refers under other names. Compris- 
 ing this wide range of subjects, doctrinal, exegetical, practical, 
 and controversial, the works of Melito must have furnished the 
 next succeeding generations with ample data for determining 
 his exact theological position. To them it must have been 
 clear, for instance, whether he did or did not accept the Gospel 
 of St John or the Epistles of St Paul. It was hardly possible 
 for him to write on the Paschal question without indicating his 
 views on the Fourth Gospel. It is almost inconceivable that 
 he should have composed a controversial treatise against 
 Marcion without declaring himself respecting the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles. The few meagre fragments which have come 
 down to us supply only incidental notices and resemblances, 
 
 1 irepl ToO Trdtrxa. The author of bius, unless otherwise stated. There 
 
 Supernatural Religion, speaks of it as is a little difficulty respecting the exact 
 
 'Melito's work on the Passion' (ii. p. titles of the works in one or two cases 
 
 180). This error survives to the sixth owing to various readings; but the 
 
 edition [but is tacitly corrected in the differences are not important enough 
 
 Complete Edition]. to be considered here. 
 
 ^ Euseb. H. E. iv. 26. This refer- ^ These titles are taken from Ana- 
 
 ence serves for all the facts relating to stasius of Sinai, and from the Syriae 
 
 Melito, which are derived from Euse- fragments. 
 
 S. R. 15 
 
226 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 from which we are left to draw our own inferences ; but where 
 we grope in the twilight, they were walking in the broad 
 noonday. 
 
 Eusebius has happily preserved Melito's preface to his 
 Selections, which is of considerable interest. The work itself 
 comprised passages from the Law and the Prophets relating to 
 the Saviour and to the Christian faith generally (irepl tov 
 Xwrrjpo^ Kol 7rao-779 r^? Tr/crreft)? vfKov), arranged in six books. 
 It seems to have been accompanied with explanatory comments 
 bringing out the prophetical import of the several passages, as 
 Melito understood them. In the preface, addressed to his 
 friend Onesimus, at whose instance the work had been under- 
 taken, he relates that having made a journey to the East and 
 visited the actual scenes of the Gospel history, he informed 
 himself respecting the books of the Old Testament, of which 
 he appends a list. The language which he uses is significant 
 from its emphasis. He writes that his friend had 'desired to 
 be accurately informed about the old books' {/xaOeiv rrjv tcov 
 iraXaiwv ^i/3\iwv i^ovXyOrji; aKpi^etav). He adds that he 
 himself during his Eastern tour had ' obtained accurate infor- 
 mation respecting the books of the Old Testament (dKpL^do<; 
 fiaOdov Ta T% TTaXata? Sia6rjK7]<; /3t/S\ta).' From these expres- 
 sions Dr Westcott argues that Melito must have been acquainted 
 with a corresponding Christian literature, which he regarded as 
 the books of the New Testament. To any such inference the 
 author of Supernatural Religion demurs \ and he devotes 
 several pages to proving (what nobody denies) that the expres- 
 sions ' Old Testament,' ' New Testament,' did not originally 
 refer to a written literature at all, and need not so refer here. 
 All this is beside the purpose, and betrays an entire misunder- 
 standing of the writer whom he ventures to criticize. The 
 contention is not that the expression ' Old Testament' here in 
 itself signifies a collection of books, and therefore implies 
 another collection called the ' New Testament,' but that the 
 
 1 S. R. II. p. 174 sq. 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 227 
 
 emphatic and reiterated mention of an old Biblical literature 
 points naturally to the existence of a new. To any one who is 
 accustomed to weigh the force of Greek sentences, as deter- 
 mined by the order of the words, this implied contrast must, 
 I think, make itself felt. It is impossible to read the clauses, 
 having regard to the genius of the language, without throwing 
 a strong emphasis on the recurrent word old, which I have 
 therefore italicized, as the only way of reproducing the same 
 effect for the English reader. Dr Westcott therefore is 
 perfectly justified in maintaining that the expression naturally 
 implies a recognized New Testament literature. 
 
 And if this reference is suggested by strict principles of 
 exegesis, it alone is consonant with historical probabilit3^ It 
 is a fact that half a century, or even more, before Melito wrote, 
 the author of the epistle bearing the name of Barnabas quotes 
 as ' Scripture' a passage found in St Matthew's Gospel, and not 
 known to have existed elsewhere \ It is a fact that about that 
 same time, or earlier, Polycarp wrote a letter which is saturated 
 with the thoughts and language of the Apostolic Epistlesl It 
 is a fact that some twenty or thirty years before Melito, Justin 
 Martyr speaks of certain Gospels (whether our Canonical 
 Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for my present purpose to 
 inquire) as being read together with the writings of the 
 prophets at the religious services of the Christians on Sundays, 
 and taken afterwards as the subject of exhortation and comment 
 by the preacherl It is a fact that about the same time when 
 Justin records this as the habitual practice of the Church, the 
 heretic Marcion, himself a native of Asia Minor, constructed a 
 Canon for himself by selecting from and mutilating the Apo- 
 stolic and Evangelical writings which he found in circulation. 
 It is a fact that Dionysius of Corinth, a contemporary of Melito, 
 speaks of certain writings as ' the Scriptures of the Lord,' or 
 
 ^ See above, p. 177. dTrofj.vriiJ,ove6fxaTa tQiv airoaToXuiv ^ ra 
 
 2 See above, p. 104 sq, where the <Tiryypafifj.aTa rCiv irpocpTjTwv dvayivio- 
 arguments of our author against the (TKerai, k.t.X., compared with ib. 66 oi 
 genuineness of the Epistle are refuted. aTrocrToXoi iv toTs yevofxivots vir avrtav 
 
 3 Justin Martyr Afol. i. 67 ra. dwonvrjixovei ixaaiv & KoKurai evayyeXia. 
 
 15—2 
 
228 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 ' the Dominical Scriptures,' and denounces those who tamper 
 with them\ It is a fact that Irengeus, who had received his 
 early education in Asia Minor, writing within some ten or 
 twenty years after the death of Melito, quotes the Four Gospels, 
 the Acts of the Apostles, the great majority of the Apostolic 
 Epistles, and the Apocalypse, as Scripture, declaring more 
 especially of the Four Gospels, that they had been received by 
 the Churches from the beginning, and treating all these 
 writings alike with the same deference which they have 
 received from subsequent generations of Christians ever since. 
 The inference from these facts (and they do not stand alone) is 
 obvious. If Melito knew nothing about books of the New 
 Testament, he must have been the only bishop of the Church 
 from the banks of the Euphrates to the pillars of Hercules, who 
 remained in this state of dense ignorance — Melito, who could 
 refer to the Hebrew and the Syriac while interpreting a 
 passage of Genesis, and who made careful inquiries respecting 
 the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures in the very land 
 where those Scriptures had their birth. 
 
 The extant fragments attributed to Melito are meagre and 
 scattered^ ; but, supposing them to be genuine, they afford 
 ample evidence of the theological views of this father, while 
 indirectly they indicate his general relation to the Canon in a 
 way which can hardly be mistaken. The genuineness of many of 
 these fragments however has been seriously questioned. In one 
 or two instances the grounds of hesitation deserve every con- 
 sideration ; but in the majority of cases the objections must be 
 set aside as groundless. Thus it is sought to throw discredit 
 on all those writings which are not named by Eusebius. The 
 author of Supernatural Religion, for instance, says that ' Euse- 
 bius gives what he evidently considers a complete list of the 
 works of Melito".' On the contrary, Eusebius carefully guards 
 himself against any such interpretation of his words. He 
 
 1 Quoted by Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. Corp. Apol. Christ, ix. p. 374 sq. 
 
 2 The only complete collection of ^ S. R. u. p. 180. 
 the fragments of Melito is in Otto 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 229 
 
 merely professes to give a list of ' those works which have come 
 to his own knowledge.' Obviously he either suspects or knows 
 that there are other writings of Melito in circulation, of which 
 he can give no account. Again, other fragments have been 
 discredited, because they contain false sentiments or foolish 
 interpretations, which are considered unworthy of a father in 
 the second century. I cannot think that this is any argument 
 at all ; and I may confidently assume that the author of Super- 
 natural Religion will agree with me here. There is much that 
 is foolish in Papias, in Justin Martyr, in Irenseus, in Tertullian, 
 even in Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Only it is fre- 
 quently mixed up with the highest wisdom, which more than 
 redeems it. Again others (and among these our author) would 
 throw doubt on the genuineness of the Greek and Syriac 
 fragments which were certainly in circulation some six centuries 
 before, because some mediseval Latin writers attach the name 
 of Melito to forgeries or to anonymous writings, such as the 
 Clavis, the Passing away of the Blessed Virgin Ma7^y, and the 
 Passion of St John\ A moment's reflection will show that the 
 two classes of writings must be considered quite apart. When 
 these groundless objections are set aside, the great majority of 
 the Greek and Syriac fragments remain untouched. Otto, the 
 most recent editor of Melito, takes a sensible view on the whole. 
 I do not agree with him on some minor points, but I am quite 
 content to take the fragments which he accepts, as representing 
 the genuine Melito ; and I refer those of my readers, who are 
 really desirous to know what this ancient father taught and 
 how he wrote, to this editor's collection. 
 
 We have fortunately the evidence of two writers, who lived 
 in the next age to Melito, and therefore before any spurious 
 works could have been in circulation — the one to his style, the 
 other to his theology. On the former point our authority is 
 Tertullian, who in a work now lost spoke of the 'elegans et 
 declamatorium ingenium ' of Melito* ; on the latter, a writer 
 
 1 For an account of these writings - Quoted by Jerome Vir. III. 24. 
 
 see Otto, p. 390 sq, p. 402 sq. 
 
230 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 quoted anonymously by Eusebius but now identified with 
 Hippolytus, who exclaims, 'Who is ignorant of the books of 
 Irenseus and Melito and the rest, which declare Christ to be 
 God and man'.' The fragments, and more especially the 
 Syriac fragments, accord fully with both these descriptions. 
 They are highly rhetorical, and their superior elegance of lan- 
 guage (compared with other Christian writings of the same age) 
 is apparent even through the medium of a Syriac version. 
 They also emphasize the two natures of Christ in many a 
 pointed antithesis. 
 
 Of the Greek fragments, not mentioned by Eusebius, the 
 following quoted by Anastasius of Sinai as from the third book 
 on the Incarnation of Christ '^ is important in its bearing on our 
 subject : — 
 
 The things done by Christ after the baptism, and especially the 
 miracles (signs), showed his Godhead concealed in the flesh, and 
 assured the world of it. For being perfect God, and perfect man at 
 the same time, He assured us of His two essences (ovo-ta?) — of His 
 Godhead by miracles in the three years after His baptism, and of 
 His manhood in the thirty seasons (xpovoi?) before His baptism, 
 during which, owing to his immaturity as regards the flesh (Sta 
 TO areXes to Kara crdpKa), He concealed the signs of His Godhead, 
 although He was true God from eternity (KatTrep ©eos aXfjOrj? irpoatw- 
 vtos VTrdp)((ov). 
 
 The genuineness of this fragment has been impugned, partly 
 on the general considerations which have been already discussed, 
 partly on special grounds. It has been said, for instance, that 
 Anastasius must here be reproducing the general substance, and 
 not the exact words, of Melito's statement ; but he at all events 
 gives it as a direct quotation. It has been urged again, that 
 linguistic reasons condemn this fragment, since the use of 
 ' seasons ' or ' times ' for ' years ' betrays a later age ; but 
 abundant instances of the use are found in earlier writers, even 
 if so very natural a device for avoiding the repetition of the 
 
 1 Euseb. H. E. v. 28. 
 
 2 Migne's Patrol. Grcec, xxxix. p. 228 sq. 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 231 
 
 same word (€To<i) needed any support at all. It has been 
 suggested that there may possibly be some confusion between 
 Melito and Meletius. But the work from which this passage 
 comes is distinctly stated by Anastasius to have been written 
 against Marcion, who by his docetism attacked the true 
 humanity of Christ. Now Melito lived in the very thick of the 
 Marcionite controversy, and must have taken his part in it. 
 On the other hand, Meletius, who held the see of Antioch in 
 the latter part of the fourth century, was one of the principal 
 figures in the Arian controversy and, as such, far too intimately 
 involved in the questions of his own day to think of writing an 
 elaborate work on a subject so comparatively dead as the 
 docetism of Marcion. Moreover, there is no instance in any 
 Greek writer, so far as I have observed, of a confusion between 
 the names Melito and Meletius. Again it is suggested that the 
 Christological views of the writer are too definite for the age of 
 Melito, and point to a later date ; but to this the distinct 
 statement of Hippolytus respecting Melito's opinions, which has 
 been already quoted, is a complete answer; and indeed the 
 Ignatian Epistles, which (even if their genuineness should 
 not be accepted) cannot reasonably be placed later than 
 the age of Melito, are equally precise in their doctrinal state- 
 ments. 
 
 But if this be a genuine fragment, the inference is obvious. 
 The author of Supernatural Religion Avill no doubt be ready 
 here, as elsewhere, to postulate any number of unknown 
 apocryphal Gospels which shall supply the facts thus assumed by 
 Melito. The convenience of drawing unlimited cheques on the 
 bank of the unknown is obvious. But most readers will find 
 themselves unable to resist the inference, that for the thirty 
 years of our Lord's silence this father is indebted to a familiar 
 passage in St Luke\ while, in fixing three years as the duration 
 of His ministry, he is thinking of the three Passovers mentioned 
 by St John. 
 
 Of the other fragments ascribed to Melito one deserves to be 
 1 St Luke iii. 23. 
 
232 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 quoted, not only because the author has made it the subject of 
 some criticisms, but because it exhibits in a concentrated form 
 Melito's views of evangelical history and doctrine \ 
 
 We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets 
 relating to those things which are declared concerning our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that we might prove to your love that He is the 
 perfect Reason, the Word of God : who was begotten before the 
 light, who was Creator together with the Father, who was the 
 fashioner of man, who was all things in all, who among the patriarchs 
 was Patriarch, who in the law was Law, among the priests Chief- 
 priest, among the kings Governor, among the prophets Prophet, 
 among the angels Archangel, and among voices^ the Word, among 
 spirits the Spirit, in the Father the Son, in God God, the King for 
 ever and ever. For this is He who was pilot to Noah, who con- 
 ducted Abraham, who was bound with Isaac, who was in exile with 
 Jacob, who was sold with Joseph, who was captain with Moses, who 
 was divider of the inheritance with Joshua the son of Nun, who 
 foretold His own sufferings in David and the prophets, who was 
 incarnate in the Virgin, who was born at Bethlehem, who was 
 wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger, who was seen of the 
 shepherds, who was glorified of the Angels, who was worshipped by 
 the Magi, who was pointed out by John, who gathered together the 
 Apostles, who preached the Kingdom, who healed the maimed, who 
 gave light to the blind, who raised the dead, who appeared in the 
 temple, who was not believed on by the people, who was betrayed by 
 Judas, who was laid hold on by the priests, who was condemned by 
 Pilate, who was transfixed in the flesh, who was hanged on the tree, 
 who was buried in the earth, who rose from the dead, who appeared 
 to the Apostles, who ascended into heaven, who sitteth on the right 
 hand of the Father, who is the rest of those that are departed, the 
 
 1 Given in Pitra's Spicil. Solesm, to have disappeared in the existing 
 
 II. p. Hx. sq, and in Cureton's Spicil. Syriac text. We have here the dis- 
 
 Syr. p. 53 sq. See also Otto, p. 420. tinction between (puivrj and \6yos, on 
 
 ^ The translators hitherto (Eenan, which writers of the second and third 
 
 Cureton, Sachau) have rendered this centuries delighted to dwell. It occurs 
 
 expression by the singular 'in voce, in as early as Ignatius Rom. 2 (the correct 
 
 the voice.' But this makes no sense; reading). They discovered this dis- 
 
 and I can hardly doubt that it should tinction in John i. 1, 14, 23, where 
 
 be translated as I have given it, though the Baptist is called <puuri pouivros, 
 
 the ribui, the sign of the plural, seems while Christ is 6 Aoyos. 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 233 
 
 recoverer of those that are lost, the light of those that are in 
 darkness, the deliverer of those that are captives, the guide of those 
 that have gone astray, the refuge of the afflicted, the Bridegroom of 
 the Church, the Charioteer of the Cherubim, the Captain of the 
 Angels, God who is of God, the Son who is of the Father, Jesus 
 Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen. 
 
 This fragment is not in any way exceptional. The references 
 to evangelical history, the modes of expression, the statements 
 of doctrine, all have close parallels scattered through the other 
 fragments ascribed to Melito. Indeed it is the remarkable 
 resemblance of these fragments to each other in thought and 
 diction (with one or two exceptions), though gathered together 
 from writers of various ages, in Greek and in Syriac, which is a 
 strong argument for their genuineness. But the special value 
 of this particular passage is that it gathers into a focus the 
 facts of the evangelical history, on which the faith of Melito 
 rested. 
 
 And I do not think it can be reasonably doubted whence 
 these facts are derived. The author of Supernatural Religion of 
 course suggests some unknown apocryphal Gospel. But this 
 summary will strike most readers as wonderfully like what 
 a writer might be expected to make who recognized our four 
 canonical Gospels as the sources of evangelical truth. And, 
 when they remember that within a very few years (some 
 twenty at most) Irenseus, who was then a man past middle life, 
 who had intimate relations with the region in which Melito 
 lived, and who appeals again and again to the Asiatic Elders as 
 his chief authorities for the traditional doctrine and practice, 
 declares in perfect good faith that the Church had received 
 these four, and these only, from the beginning, it will probably 
 seem to them irrational to look elsewhere, when the solution is 
 so very obvious. 
 
 But the author of Supernatural Religion writes that this 
 fragment taken from a treatise On Faith, together with another 
 which purports to be a work on the Soul and Body, though 
 these two works ' are mentioned by Eusebius,' must nevertheless 
 
284 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 'for every reason be pronounced spurious\' Let us see what 
 these reasons are. 
 
 1. He writes first : 
 
 They have in fact no attestation whatever except that of the 
 Syriac translation, which is unknown, and which therefore is 
 worthless. 
 
 The fact is that in a very vast number of literary remains, 
 classical and ecclesiastical, whether excerpts or entire works, we 
 are entirely dependent on the scribe for their authentication. 
 Human experience has shown that such authentication is 
 generally trustworthy, and hence it is accepted. In forty-nine 
 cases out of fifty, or probably more, it is found to be satisfactory, 
 and a priori probabilities are very strongly against the assump- 
 tion that any particular case is this fiftieth exception. If there 
 is substantial ground for suspicion, the suspicion has its weight, 
 but not otherwise. A man who would act on any other 
 principle is as unreasonable as a visitor to London, who refuses 
 to believe or trust any one there, because the place is known to 
 harbour thieves and liars. 
 
 2. We come therefore to the positive grounds of our 
 author's suspicions, and here he tells us that — 
 
 The whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike 
 anything else of Melito's time, and clearly indicate a later stage of 
 theological development. 
 
 It is to be regretted that he has not explained himself more 
 fully on this point. I have already pointed out that the 
 theology and the style of these fragments generally are exactly 
 what the notices of Hippolytus and Tertullian would lead us to 
 expect in Melito. And this is especially true of the passage 
 under consideration. What the 'later stage of theological 
 development ' indicated may be, I am unable to say. On the 
 
 1 S. R. II. p. 184. Our author has frequently confounded.' It is danger- 
 stated just before: 'It is well known ous always to state a sweeping negative ; 
 that there were many writers' ['other but I am not aware of any other 
 writers ' Compl. Ed.] ' in the early writer in the early Church bearing 
 Church bearing the names of Melito the name of Melito. 
 and Miletius or Meletius, which were 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 235 
 
 contrary, the leading conception of this passage, which sees all 
 theology through the medium of the Logos, and therefore 
 identifies all the theophanies in the Old Testament with the 
 Person of Christ, though it lingers on through the succeeding 
 ages, is essentially characteristic of the second century. The 
 apologists generally exhibit this phenomenon ; but in none is it 
 more persistent than in Justin Martyr, who wrote a quarter of a 
 century before Melito. Even the manner in which the concep- 
 tion is worked out by Melito has striking parallels in Justin. 
 Thus Justin states that this Divine Power, who was begotten by 
 God before all creation, is called sometimes ' the glory of the 
 Lord, sometimes Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes God, 
 sometimes Lord and Word, while sometimes He calls Himself 
 Chief-captain (a/a^^tcrrpaTT/^o?), appearing in the form of man 
 to Joshua the son of Nun {rS tov Navi} 'l7?o-oi))\' Elsewhere 
 he states that Christ is ' King and Priest and God and Lord and 
 Angel and Man and Chief-captain and Stone,' etc., and he 
 undertakes to show this 'from all the Scriptures ^' And again, 
 in a third passage he says that the same Person, who is called 
 Son of God in the memoirs of the Apostles, ' went forth from the 
 Father before all created things through His power and counsel,' 
 being designated ' Wisdom and Day and Orient and Sword and 
 Stone and Staff and Jacob and Israel, now in one way, and now 
 in another, in the sayings of the prophets,' and that 'He 
 became man through the Virgin^.' Nor do these passages 
 stand alone. This same conception pervades the whole of 
 Justin's Dialogue, and through it all the phenomena of the Old 
 Testament are explained. 
 
 Only on one point has our author thought fit to make a 
 definite statement. ' It is worthy of remark,' he writes, * that 
 the Virgin is introduced into all these fragments [the five Syriac 
 fragments which he has mentioned just before] in a manner 
 quite foreign to the period at which Melito lived.' What can 
 this mean ? In the passage before us the only allusion to the 
 
 1 Justin Martyr Dial. § Gl (p. 28'1). ' Justin Martyr Dial. § 100 (p. .327). 
 
 ' Justin Martyr Dial. § 3i (p. 251). 
 
236 ON SUPERNATUKAL RELIGION. 
 
 subject is in the words ' incarnate in the Virgin ' (or ' a virgin ') ; 
 and the references in the other fragments are of the same kind. 
 It is difficult to see how any one, recognizing the statements of 
 the Synoptic Gospels, could pass over the mention of the Virgin 
 more lightly. Here again, if he will turn to Justin Martyr, he 
 will find a far fuller and more emphatic reference \ 
 3. But our author states also : 
 
 In the Mechitarist Library at Venice there is a shorter version of 
 the same passage in a Syriac ms, and an Armenian version of the 
 extract as given above, in both of which the passage is distinctly 
 ascribed to Irenseus. 
 
 This is a fact of some importance, to which he has rightly 
 directed attention. It would have been well if he had been 
 a little more accurate in his statement. The extract in the 
 Armenian version (of which the shorter Syriac form is obviously 
 an abridgment), though mainly the same as our passage, 
 begins in quite a different way. While Melito commences, 
 'We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets 
 relating to those things which are declared concerning our Lord 
 Jesus Christ,' etc., as quoted above, the Armenian extract, 
 ascribed to Irena^us, runs thus : ' The Law and the Prophets and 
 the Evangelists have declared that Christ was born of a virgin 
 and suffered on the cross, and that He was raised from the dead, 
 and ascended into heaven, and was glorified and reigneth for 
 ever. The same is called the perfect Reason, the Word of 
 God,' etc.'^. Now it is obvious from a comparison of these two 
 openings, that in the former, ascribed to Melito, we have the 
 passage in its original setting, whereas in the latter, ascribed to 
 Irenseus, it has been altered to suit some other context or to 
 explain itself independently. The reference to the author and 
 the occasion of writing is omitted, while the ' Evangelists ' are 
 introduced by the side of ' the Law and the Prophets ' for the 
 sake of completeness. Melito, as we happen to know, did make 
 
 J Justin Martyr Dial. § 100 (p. 327). Syriac abridf:tment commences in the 
 2 See Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 4. The same way. See ib. p. 3. 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 237 
 
 such a collection of extracts from the Law and the Prophets as 
 is here mentioned, and for the very purpose which is here 
 stated ; and the correspondence of language in this opening 
 passage with the dedication of his collection to Onesimus, 
 referred to above, is sufficiently striking. To Melito therefore 
 evidence, internal and external alike, requires us to ascribe the 
 passage. But, if so, how came the name of Irenaeus to be 
 attached to it ? Was this mere accident ? I think not. 
 Nothing would be more natural than that Irenseus should 
 introduce a passage of Melito, as a famous Asiatic elder, either 
 anonymously or otherwise, into one of his own writings. I 
 have already had occasion to refer to the free use which the 
 early fathers made of their predecessors, frequently without any 
 acknowledgement \ In this particular case, Irenaeus may or 
 may not have acknowledged his obligation. I venture to think 
 that this solution of the double ascription will appear not only 
 plausible, but probable, when I mention another fact. In a 
 second Armenian extract I find a passage headed, ' The saying 
 of Irenaeus ".' I turn to the passage, and I find that it contains 
 not the words of Irenaeus himself, but of Papias quoted by 
 Irenaeus. In the Armenian extract the name of the original 
 author has entirely disappeared, though in this case Irenaeus 
 directly mentions Papias as his authority. 
 
 The attitude of Melito towards the Apostle of the Gentiles 
 appears clearly enough from the title of one of his works, ' On 
 the Obedience of Faith,' which is a characteristic expression of 
 St Paul^ and also from occasional coincidences of language, such 
 as ' putting on the form of a servant^' 
 
 Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, was a con- 
 temporary of Melito, but apparently a younger man, though 
 only by a very few years. His date is fixed approximately by 
 the extant notices. He addressed an Apology to the Emperor 
 M. Aurelius, who reigned from A.d. 161 — 180; and as in this 
 work he mentioned the incident of the so-called Thundering 
 
 1 See above, p. 202. 3 Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26. 
 
 ^ Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 1. * Phil. ii. 7. 
 
238 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Legion, which happened between a.d. 172 — 174, it cannot have 
 been written before that date\ At the same time there are 
 some reasons, though not conclusive, for thinking that it should 
 not be placed much later I On the other hand, when Serapion 
 writes towards the close of the century, he speaks of Apollinaris 
 as no longer living; and judging from the language used, 
 we may infer that his death had not been very recent*. 
 
 Like Melito, he was a voluminous writer. Eusebius indeed 
 only gives the titles of four works by this father, the Apology 
 (already mentioned). Against the Greeks (five treatises or 
 books). On Truth (two books). Against the Jews (two books), 
 besides referring to certain writings Against the Montanists 
 [Kara rfj^ ^pvywv aipkaewi), which he places later than the 
 others. But he is careful to say that his list comprises only 
 those works which he had seen, and that many others were 
 extant in different quarters*. Photius mentions reading three 
 works only by this father, of which one, the treatise On 
 Godliness, is not in Eusebius' list ; but he too adds, ' Other 
 writings of this author also are said to be notable, but I have 
 not hitherto met with them*.' Besides these, the author of the 
 Paschal Chronicle quotes from a treatise of Apollinaris On the 
 Paschal Festival^, and Theodoret speaks of his writing against 
 the Severians or Encratites^. As in the case of Melito, the 
 character and variety of his works, so long as they were extant, 
 must have afforded ample material for a judgment on his 
 theological views. More especially his writings against the 
 Montanists and on the Paschal Festival would indicate his 
 relations to the Canonical books of the New Testament. His 
 orthodoxy is attested by Serapion, by Eusebius, by Jerome, by 
 
 1 Euseb. H. E. iv, 27. This is the iroWois au^o/j.^vou, tcl eh r/;tias i\66vra 
 reference for all the facts relating to iarl rade. 
 
 Apollinaris given by Eusebius, unless ® Photius Bibl. 14 X^yerai 5^ avToO 
 
 otherwise mentioned. Kal erepa <xvyypd/xfji,aTa d^io/xyTjixovevTa 
 
 2 See Otto Corp. Apol. Christ, ix. elvat, oh oiiwu Tj/j.els eveTvxoft-ev. 
 
 p. 480 sq. 6 Chron. Pascli. p. 13 (ed. Dind.). 
 
 3 Quoted by Eusebius, H. E. v. 19. 7 Theodoret, H. F. i. 21. 
 * Euseb. H. E. iv. 27 iroWwv irapd 
 
yil. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 239 
 
 Theodoret, by Socrates, and by Photius\ from different points 
 of view. 
 
 Besides a reference in Eusebius to his Apology, which 
 hardly deserves the name of a quotation, only two short extracts 
 remain of these voluminous writings. They are taken from the 
 work on the Paschal Festival, and are preserved, as I have 
 already stated, in the Paschal Chronicle. 
 
 The first runs as follows : — 
 
 There are persons who from ignorance dispute about these 
 questions, acting in a way that is pardonable • for ignorance is no 
 proper subject for blame, but needs instruction. And they say that 
 on the fourteenth the Lord ate the lamb (to Trpo/Sarov) with His 
 disciples, but Himself suffered on the great day of unleavened 
 bread, and they affirm that Matthew represents it so, as they 
 interpret him. Thus their interpretation is out of harmony with 
 the law (acruju-^covos vofjui)), and on their showing the Gospels seem 
 to be at variance with one another (crTacrta^eiv Sokci Kar avTov<s rd 
 cuayyeXia). 
 
 The second fragment is taken from the same book, and 
 apparently from the same context. 
 
 The fourteenth was the true passover of the Lord, the great 
 sacrifice, the Son of God substituted for the lamb, the same that was 
 bound and Himself bound the strong man, that was judged being 
 judge of the quick and dead, and that was delivered into the hands 
 of sinners to be crucified ; the same that was lifted on the horns of 
 the unicorn, and that was pierced in His holy side ; the same that 
 poured forth again the two purifying elements, water and blood, 
 word and spirit, and that was buried on the day of the passover, the 
 stone being laid against His sepulchre. 
 
 If the publication of this work was suggested by Melito's 
 treatise on the same subject, as seems probable, it must have 
 been written about A.D. 164 — 166, or soon after. The refer- 
 ences to the Gospels are obvious. In the first extract Apolli- 
 naris has in view the difficulty of reconciling the chronology 
 
 1 Serapion, I. c. ; Eusebius, H. E. Theodoret, H. F. iii. 2 ; Socrates, 
 iv. 21; Jerome, Ep. 70 (i. p. 428); H. E. iii. 7; Photius, Z. c. 
 
240 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 of the Paschal week as given by St John with the narratives of 
 the Synoptic Evangelists ; and he asserts that the date fixed for 
 the Passion by some persons (the 15th instead of 14th) can 
 only be maintained at the expense of a discrepancy between the 
 two accounts ; whereas, if the 14th be taken, the two accounts 
 are reconcilable. At the same time he urges that their view is 
 not in harmony with the law, since the paschal lamb, the type, 
 was slain on the 14th, and therefore it follows that Christ, the 
 antitjrpe, must have been crucified on the same day. I am not 
 concerned here with the question whether Apollinaris or his 
 opponents were right. The point to be noticed is that he 
 speaks of 'the Gospels' (under which term he includes at least 
 St Matthew and St John) as any one would speak of received 
 documents to which the ultimate appeal lies. His language in 
 this respect is such as might be used by a writer in the fourth 
 century, or in the nineteenth, who was led by circumstances to 
 notice a difficulty in harmonizing the accounts of the Evange- 
 lists. The second extract bears out the impression left by the 
 first. The incident of the water and the blood is taken from 
 the Fourth Gospel ; but a theological interpretation is forced 
 upon it which cannot have been intended by the Evangelist. 
 Some time must have elapsed before the narrative could well 
 be made the subject of a speculative comment like this. Thus 
 both extracts alike suggest that the Fourth Gospel was already 
 a time-honoured book when they were written. 
 
 But the author of Supernatm^al Religion meets the infer- 
 ence by denying the genuineness of the extracts. I hardly 
 think, however, that he can have seen what havoc he was 
 making in his own ranks by this movement. He elsewhere 
 asserts very decidedly (without however giving reasons) that 
 the Quartodeciman controversy turned on the point whether 
 the 14th Nisan was the day of the Last Supper or the day of 
 the Crucifixion, the Quartodecimans maintaining the former \ 
 In other words, he believes that it was the anniversary, not of 
 the Passion, but of the Last Supper, which the Quartodecimans 
 ^ [See above, p. 17]. 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 
 
 241 
 
 kept so scrupulously on the 14th, and that therefore, as they 
 pleaded the authority of St John for their practice, the Fourth 
 Gospel cannot have been written by this Apostle, since it re- 
 presents the Passion as taking place on the 14th. As I have 
 before intimated, this view of the Paschal dispute seems to me 
 to be altogether opposed to the general tenor of the evidence. 
 But it depends, for such force or plausibility as it has, almost 
 solely on these fragments from ancient writers quoted in the 
 Paschal CJwonicle, of which the extracts from Apollinaris are 
 the most important. If therefore he refuses to accept the 
 testimony of the Paschal Chronicle to their authorship, he 
 undermines the very foundation on which his theory rests. 
 
 On this inconsistency however I need not dwell. The 
 authorship of these extracts was indeed questioned by some 
 earlier writers \ but on entirely mistaken grounds; and at the 
 
 1 Our author says (ii. p. 190) : ' The 
 two fragments have by many been con 
 jecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alex- 
 andria, a writer of the third century, 
 who composed a work on Easter ; ' and 
 in his note he gives references to four 
 persons, Tillemont, Lardner, Donald- 
 son, and Eouth, apparently as support- 
 ing this view. Eouth however mentions 
 it only to reject it, and distinctly as- 
 cribes the fragments to Apollinaris 
 [Rel. Sacr. i. p. 167). Neither have I 
 yet found any passage in Tillemont, 
 where he assigns them to Pierius. 
 Lardner indeed states this of Tille- 
 mont ; but in the only reference which 
 he gives (T. ii. P. iii. p. 91, ed. Brux- 
 elles), nothing of the kind is said. 
 Tillemont there refers in the margin 
 to 'S. Pierre d'Alex.,' because this 
 Peter of Alexandria is likewise quoted 
 in the preface of the Chronicon Pas- 
 chale, and the question of the genuine- 
 ness of the fragments ascribed to 
 Apollinaris is reserved to be discussed 
 afterwards in connection with this 
 Peter (ib. p. 268 sq). But he does not 
 ascribe them to Peter, and he does not 
 
 S. R. 
 
 mention Pierius there at all, so far as 
 I have observed. It should be added 
 that the title of Pierius' work was 
 'A Discourse relating to the Passover 
 and Hosea' (6 els to irdaxo. Kal 'Qarji 
 Xoyos); see Photius Bihl. cxix. So far 
 as we can judge from the description 
 of Photius, it seems to have been 
 wholly different in subject and treat- 
 ment from the works of Melito and 
 Apollinaris. It was perhaps an ex- 
 position of Hosea ii. 6 — 17. [In the 
 Complete Edition Tillemont and Eouth 
 are tacitly omitted from the note, and 
 ' some ' substituted for ' many ' in the 
 text. ] 
 
 Our author also by way of discredit- 
 ing the Chronicon Paschale as a witness, 
 rejects (ii. p. 190) a passage of Melito 
 quoted on the same authority (p. 482, 
 ed.Dind.); but he gives no reasons. The 
 passage bears every mark of genuine- 
 ness. It is essentially characteristic of 
 an Apologist in the second century, and 
 indeed is obviously taken from the 
 Apology of Melito, as the chronicler 
 intimates. Otto accepts it without 
 hesitation. 
 
 16 
 
242 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 present time the consensus among critics of the most opposite 
 schools is all but universal. ' On the genuineness of these 
 fragments, which Neander questioned, there is now no more 
 dispute,' writes Scholten \ Our author however is far too per- 
 sistent to let them pass. Their veracity has once been ques- 
 tioned, and therefore they shall never again be suffered to 
 enter the witness-box. 
 
 It may be presumed that he has alleged those arguments 
 against their genuineness which seemed to him to be the 
 strongest, and I will therefore consider his objections. They 
 are twofold. 
 
 1. He urges that the external testimony to their author- 
 ship is defective. His reasoning is as follows ^ : — 
 
 Eusebius was acquainted with the work of Melito on the Passion, 
 and quotes it, which must have referred to his contemporary and 
 antagonist, Apollinaris, had he written such a work as this frag- 
 ment denotes. Not only, however, does Eusebius know nothing of 
 his having composed such a work, but neither do Theodoret, Jerome, 
 Photius, nor other writers, who enumerate other of his works ; nor 
 is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria, Irenseus, nor 
 by any of those who took part in the great controversy. 
 
 Here is a tissue of fallacies and assumptions. In the first 
 place, it is a petitio 'principii, as will be seen presently, that 
 Apollinaris was an antagonist of Melito. Even, if this were so, 
 there is not the smallest evidence, nor any probability, that 
 Apollinaris would have written before Melito, so that the 
 latter could have quoted him. How, again, has our author 
 learnt that Eusebius 'knows nothing of his having composed 
 such a work ' ? It is certain, indeed, that Eusebius had not 
 seen the work when he composed his list of the writings of 
 Apollinaris ; but it nowhere appears that he was unaware of its 
 existence. The very language in which he disclaims any pre- 
 tension of giving a complete list seems to imply that he had 
 observed other books quoted in other writers, which he had not 
 
 1 Die (ilt. Zeugn. p. 105, quoted by ^ ^ jj_ jj p jgO. [This paragraph 
 
 Otto. is rewritten in the Complete Edition.] 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 243 
 
 read or seen himself. Theodoret does not ' enumerate other 
 of his works,' as the looseness of the English would suggest to 
 the reader. He only mentions incidentally, when describing 
 the sects of the Severians and Montanists respectively, that 
 Apollinaris had written against them\ There is not the 
 smallest reason why he should have gone out of his way m 
 either passage to speak of the work on the Paschal Festival, 
 supposing him to have known of it. And if not, where else 
 does our author find in Theodoret any notice which can be 
 made to yield the inference that he was unacquainted with this 
 treatise ? Nor again does Jerome, in the passage to which our 
 author refers in his note^, allude to a single work by this 
 writer, but simply mentions him by name among those versed 
 in profane as well as sacred literature. Elsewhere indeed he 
 does give a catalogue of Apollinaris' writings*, but there he 
 simply copies Eusebius. With regard to Photius again, the 
 statement, though not so directly inaccurate, is altogether mis- 
 leading. Photius simply mentions three works of Apollinaris, 
 which he read during his embassy, but he does not profess to 
 give a list ; and he says distinctly that there were other famous 
 works by the same author which he had not seen. Who the 
 'other writers' may be, who 'enumerate other of his works,' I 
 am altogether at a loss to imagine. But the last sentence, 
 ' Nor is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria, 
 Irenseus, etc.,' is the most calculated to mislead the reader. Of 
 the treatise of Clement on the Paschal Festival only two short 
 fragments are preserved. He does not mention any person in 
 these, nor could he have done so without going out of his way. 
 For the rest, Clement is reported by Eusebius to have stated in 
 his work that he was prompted to write it by Melito's treatise 
 on the same subject*. Eusebius is there discussing Melito, 
 and any mention of Apollinaris would have been quite out 
 of place. What ground is there then for the assumption 
 
 1 Theodoret H. F. i. 21 ; iii. 2. ' Jerome Vir. III. 26. . 
 
 2 'Epist. ad Magnum Ep. p. 83.' * Euseb. H. E. iv. 26. 
 
 16—2 
 
244 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 that Clement did not mention Apollinaris, because Eusebius 
 has not recorded the fact? When at a later point Eusebius 
 comes to speak of Clement, he says of this father that in the 
 treatise of which we are speaking he ' mentions Melito and 
 Irenseus and certain others, whose explanations also he has 
 given \' Why may not Apollinaris have been included among 
 these ' certain others' whom Clement quoted ? The same 
 fallacy underlies our author's reference to Irenseus. The 
 work of Irenseus is lost. Eusebius, it is true, preserves some 
 very meagre fragments^; but in these not a single writer on 
 either side in the Quartodeciman controversy is mentioned, 
 not even Melito. Irenceus may have quoted Apollinaris by 
 name in this lost treatise, just as he quotes Papias by name 
 in his extant work on heresies, where nevertheless Eusebius 
 does not care to record the fact. All this assumed silence 
 of writers whose works are lost is absolutely valueless against 
 the direct and explicit testimony of the Paschal Chronicle. 
 
 2. But secondly ; our author considers that the contents of 
 these fragments are inconsistent with their attribution to 
 Apollinaris. His argument is instructive I 
 
 It is stated that all the Churches of Asia, including some of the 
 most distinguished members of the Church, such as Polycarp, and 
 his own contemporary Melito, celebrated the Christian festival on 
 the 1 4th Nisan, the practice almost universal, therefore, in the 
 country in which Claudius Apollinaris is supposed to write this 
 fragment. How is it possible, therefore, that this isolated convert 
 to the views of Victor and the Roman Church could write of so 
 vast and distinguished a majority as ' some who through ignorance 
 raised contentions' on this point, when notably all the Asiatic 
 Churches at that time were agreed to keep the fourteenth of Nisan, 
 and in doing so raised no new contention at all, but, as Polycrates 
 represented, followed the tradition handed down to them from 
 their fathers, and authorized by the practice of the Apostle John 
 himself 1 
 
 with more to the same effect. 
 
 1 Euseb. H. E. vi. 13. ^ S. R. ii. p. 189. [Eowritten in 
 
 2 Euseb. H. E. v. 2-1. the Complete Edition.] 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 245 
 
 I will hand over this difficulty to those who share our 
 author's views on the point at issue in the Quartodeciman con- 
 troversy. Certainly I cannot suggest any satisfactory mode of 
 escape from the dilemma which is here put. But what, if the 
 writer of these fragments was not an 'isolated convert to the 
 views of Victor,' but a Quartodeciman himself? What, if the 
 Quartodecimans kept the 14th, not as the commemoration of 
 the Last Supper, but of the Passion, so that Melito himself 
 would have heartily assented to the criticisms in these frag- 
 ments' ? This is the obvious view suggested by the account of 
 the controversy in Eusebius, and in Irenseus as quoted by 
 Eusebius; and it gains confirmation from these fragments of 
 Apollinaris. It seems to me highly improbable that Apollinaris 
 should have been an exception to the practice of the Asiatic 
 Churches. So far I agree with our author. But this is a 
 reason for questioning the soundness of his own views on the 
 Quartodeciman controversy, rather than for disputing the 
 genuineness of the fragments attributed to Apollinaris. 
 
 After this account of Melito and Apollinaris, the two chief 
 representatives of the later school of St John, it will be worth 
 while to call attention to a statement of Irenyeus in which he 
 professes to record the opinion of the Asiatic elders on a point 
 intimately affecting the credibility of the Fourth Gospel, the 
 chronology of our Lord's life and ministry ^ 
 
 The Valentinians, against whom this father is arguing, 
 sought for analogies to the thirty aeons of their pleroma, or 
 supra-sensual world, in the Gospel history. Among other 
 examples they alleged the thirty years' duration of our Lord's 
 life. This computation of the Gospel chronology they derived 
 
 1 Our author himself says else- dentally quoting the words of ApoUi- 
 
 where (ii. p. 472): 'A violent discussion naris (to aX-qOtvov rod Kvpiov Trdcrxa), he 
 
 arose as to the day upon which 'the has unconsciously borne testimony to 
 
 true Passover of the Lord' should be the true interpretation of the passage, 
 
 celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor though himself taking the opposite 
 
 maintaining that it should be observed view. 
 on the 14th Nisan, etc' This is ex- 2 i^-eu. Hcer. ii. 22. 
 
 actly what Apollinaris does. Hy inci- 
 
246 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 from the notices in St Luke as interpreted by themselves. At 
 the commencement of His ministry, so they maintained, He 
 had completed His twenty ninth and was entering upon His 
 thirtieth year, and His ministry itself did not extend beyond a 
 twelve-month, ' the acceptable year of the Lord' foretold by the 
 prophet. Irenseus expresses his astonishment that persons 
 professing to understand the deep things of God should have 
 overlooked the commonest facts of the evangelical narrative, 
 and points to the three passovers recorded in St John's Gospel 
 during the term of our Lord's ministry. Independently of the 
 chronology of the Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus has an a priori 
 reason of his own, why the Saviour must have lived more than 
 thirty years. He came to sanctify every period of life — 
 infancy, childhood, youth, declining age. It was therefore 
 necessary that He should have passed the turn of middle life. 
 From thirty to forty, he argues, a man is still reckoned young 
 {juvenis). 
 
 But from his fortieth and fiftieth year he is already declining 
 into older age, which was the case witli our Lord when He taught, 
 as the Gospel and all the elders who associated with John the 
 disciple of the Lord in Asia testify that John delivered this account. 
 For he remained with them till the times of Trajan. But some of 
 them saw not only John, but other Apostles also, and heard these 
 same things from . their lips, and bear testimony to such an ac- 
 count. 
 
 Irenseus then goes on to argue that the same may be 
 inferred from the language of our Lord's Jewish opponents, who 
 asked : ' Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen 
 Abraham ? ' This, he maintains, could not properly be said 
 of one who was only thirty years of age, and must imply that 
 the person so addressed had passed his fortieth year at least, 
 and probably that he was not far off his fiftieth. 
 
 On this passage it must be remarked that the Valentinian 
 chronology was derived from a prima facie interpretation of the 
 Synoptic narrative ; whereas the Asiatic reckoning, which 
 Irenaeus maintains, was, or might well have been, founded on 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 247 
 
 the Fourth Gospel, but could not possibly have been elicited 
 from the first three Gospels independently of the fourth. 
 
 On this question generally I have spoken already in a former 
 paper \ Though it seems probable that our Lord's ministry 
 was confined to three years, yet there is not a single notice in 
 any of the four Gospels inconsistent with the hypothesis that it 
 extended over a much longer period, and that He was some 
 forty years old at all events at the time of the Passion. The 
 Synoptic narratives say absolutely nothing about the interval 
 which elapsed between the Baptism and the Passion. St John 
 mentions three passovers, but he nowhere intimates that he has 
 given an exhaustive list of these festivals. The account of 
 Irenteus therefore is not so unreasonable after all ; and we need 
 not have hesitated to accept it, if there had been any definite 
 grounds for doing so. 
 
 It will be seen however, that Irenseus, while maintaining 
 that our Lord was forty years old, grounds his opinion mainly 
 on a false inference from John viii. 57. At the same time he 
 adduces the testimony of the Gospel and ' all the elders,' not for 
 this particular view of our Lord's age, but for the more general 
 statement that He was past middle life ; and this vagueness of 
 language suggests that, though their testimony was distinctly 
 on his side as against the Valentinians, it did not go beyond 
 this. It is very far from improbable indeed, that he borrowed 
 this very interpretation of John viii. 57 from one of these 
 Asiatic elders, just as we have seen him^ elsewhere borrowing an 
 interpretation of another passage of this Gospel (xiv. 2) from 
 the same source. But, as he has here forced the testimony of 
 the Fourth Gospel to say more than it really does say, so also 
 he may have strained the testimony of ' all the elders ' in the 
 same direction. Yet the broad fact remains that he confidently 
 appeals to them in support of a chronology suggested by the 
 Fourth Gospel, but certainly not deducible from the Synoptic 
 narratives. 
 
 And the extant remains of this school support the appeal so 
 ' See above, p. 131. "^ [See above, p. 4 sq.] 
 
248 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 qualified. We have seen that its two most famous authors, 
 Melito and Apollinaris, distinctly follow the chronology of the 
 Fourth Evangelist, the one in the duration of the Lord's 
 ministry, the other in the events of the Paschal week\ 
 
 Of the special references to these fathers of the Asiatic 
 Church, which appear elsewhere in Irenasus, it is sufficient 
 to say that in one instance an elder is represented as quoting a, 
 saying of our Lord contained only in the Gospel of St John'^ 
 while the words ascribed to another are most probably sug- 
 gested by the language of the same Evangelist ^ This latter 
 elder, whose speculations are given at great length, also 
 introduces two direct quotations from St Paul's Epistles, and 
 treats the Apostle's authority throughout as beyond dispute*. 
 
 The last father of the Asiatic school, whom it will be 
 necessary to mention, is Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. 
 When Victor of Rome in the closing years of the second 
 century attempted to force the Western usage with respect to 
 Easter on the Asiatic Christians, Polycrates wrote to remon- 
 strate. The letter is unhappily lost, but a valuable extract 
 is preserved by Eusebius^. In this the writer claims to speak 
 authoritatively on the subject of dispute, owing to the special 
 opportunities which he had enjoyed. He states that he had 
 received the observance of the 14th by tradition from his 
 relations, of whom seven had been bishops ; he says that he had 
 conferred with the brethren from all parts of the world ; and he 
 adds that he had ' gone through every holy scripture.' When 
 we remember the question at issue, and recall the language of 
 Apollinaris respecting the Gospels, in writing on the same 
 subject, we see what is implied in this last sentence. The 
 
 1 I observe also that Melito, while the Asiatic elders, 
 
 comiuenting on the sacrifice of Isaac, ^ gee above, p. 194. Eeasons are 
 
 lays stress on the fact that our Lord there given for identifying this elder 
 
 was rAetos, not p^os, at the time of the with Papias. 
 
 Passion, as if he too had some adver- ^ Iren. Hcer. iv. 31. 1. See John 
 
 sary in view; Fragm. 12 (p. 418). viii. 56. 
 
 This is an incidental confirmation of * Iren. Hicr. iv. 27 sq. 
 
 the statement of Irenseus respecting ^ Euseb. H. E. v. 24. 
 
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. 249 
 
 extract, which is short, contains only two references to the 
 writings of the New Testament. The one is to the Fourth 
 Gospel ; St John is described in the very words of this Gospel, 
 as ' he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord ' (o evrt ru aTf]6o<; 
 Tov Kvpiov dvuTreacovy. The other is to a book of the Pauline 
 cycle, the Acts of the Apostles ; ' They that are greater than I,' 
 writes Polycrates, 'have said, We must obey God rather than 
 men^.' 
 
 We have now reached the close of the second century, and 
 it is not necessary to pursue the history of the School of 
 St John in their Asiatic home beyond this point. But in 
 the meantime a large and flourishing colony had been esta- 
 blished in the cities of southern Gaul, and no account of the 
 traditions of the school would be adequate which failed to take 
 notice of this colony. This part of the subject however must 
 be left for a subsequent paper. Meanwhile the inferences from 
 the notices passed under review cannot, I think, be doubtful. 
 Out of a very extensive literature, by which this school was 
 once represented, the extant remains are miserably few and 
 fragmentary ; but the evidence yielded by these meagre relics 
 is decidedly greater, in proportion to their extent, than we had 
 any right to expect. As regards the Fourth Gospel, this is 
 especially the case. If the same amount of wi'itten matter — 
 occup3dng a very few pages in all — were extracted accidentally 
 from the current theological literature of our own day, the 
 chances, unless I am mistaken, would be strongly against our 
 finding so many indications of the use of this Gospel. In every 
 one of the writers, from Polycarp and Papias to Polycrates, we 
 have observed phenomena which bear witness directly or in- 
 directly, and with different degrees of distinctness, to its 
 recognition. It is quite possible for critical ingenuity to find 
 a reason for discrediting each instance in turn. An objector 
 may urge in one case, that the writing itself is a forgery ; in a 
 second, that the particular passage is an interpolation ; in a 
 
 1 John xxi. 20; comp. xiii. 25. ^ Acts v. 29. 
 
250 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 third, that the supposed quotation is the original and the 
 language of the Evangelist the copy ; in a fourth, that the 
 incident or saying was not deduced from this Gospel but from 
 some apocryphal work, containing a parallel narrative. By 
 a sufficient number of assumptions, which lie beyond the range 
 of verification, the evidence may be set aside. But the early 
 existence and recognition of the Fourth Gospel is the one 
 simple postulate which explains all the facts. The law of 
 gravitation accounts for the various phenomena of motion, the 
 falling of a stone, the jet of a fountain, the orbits of the 
 planets, and so forth. It is quite possible for any one, who is 
 so disposed, to reject this explanation of nature. Provided that 
 he is allowed to postulate a new force for every new fact with 
 which he is confronted, he has nothing to fear. He will then 
 
 " gird the sphere 
 With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er. 
 Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb," 
 
 happy in his immunity. But the other theory will prevail 
 nevertheless by reason of its simplicity. 
 
VIII. The Churches of Gaul. 
 
 [August, 1876.] 
 
 TN the preceding papers I have investigated the testimony 
 -*- borne by the Churches of Asia Minor to the Canonical 
 Gospels, and more especially to the Fourth Evangelist. The 
 peculiar value of this testimony is due to the close personal 
 relations of these communities with the latest surviving Apo- 
 stles, more particularly with St John. At the same time I took 
 occasion incidentally to remark on their attitude towards St 
 Paul and his writings, because an assumed antagonism between 
 the Apostle of the Gentiles and the Twelve has been adopted 
 by a modern school of critics as the basis for a reconstruction of 
 early Christian history. I purpose in the present paper extend- 
 ing this investigation to the Churches of Gaul. The Chris- 
 tianity of Gaul was in some sense the daughter of the Chris- 
 tianity of Asia Minor. 
 
 Of the history of the Galilean Churches before the middle 
 of the second century we have no certain information. It 
 seems fairly probable indeed that, when we read in the Apo- 
 stolic age of a mission of Crescens to ' Galatia' or ' GauP,' the 
 western country is meant rather than the Asiatic settlement 
 which bore the same name ; and, if so, this points to some 
 relations with St Paul himself. But, even though this expla- 
 nation should be accepted, the notice stands quite alone. 
 Later tradition indeed supplements it with legendary matter, 
 
 1 2 Tim. iv. 10. Gaul was almost at this time and for many generations 
 universally called 'Galatia' in Greek afterwards. 
 
252 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 but it is impossible to say what substratum of fact, if any, 
 underlies these comparatively recent stories. 
 
 The connection between the southern parts of Gaul and 
 the western districts of Asia Minor had been intimate from 
 very remote times. Gaul was indebted for her earliest civili- 
 zation to her Greek settlements like Marseilles, which had 
 been colonized from Asia Minor some six centuries before the 
 Christian era ; and close relations appear to have been main- 
 tained even to the latest times. During the Roman period the 
 people of Marseilles still spoke the Greek language familiarly 
 along with the vernacular Celtic of the native population and 
 the official Latin of the dominant power \ When therefore 
 Christianity had established her head-quarters in Asia Minor, it 
 was not unnatural that the Gospel should flow in the same 
 channels which had already conducted the civilization and the 
 commerce of the Asiatic Greeks westward. 
 
 At all events, whatever we may think of the antecedent 
 probabilities, the fact itself can hardly be disputed. In the 
 year A.D. 177, under Marcus Aurelius, a severe persecution broke 
 out on the banks of the Rhone in the cities of Vienne and 
 Lyons — a persecution which by its extent and character bears 
 a noble testimony to the vitality of the Churches in these 
 places. To this incident we owe the earliest extant historical 
 notice of Christianity in Gaul. A contemporary record of the 
 martyrdoms on this occasion is preserved in the form of a letter 
 from the persecuted Churches, addressed to ' the brethren 
 that are in Asia and Phrygia*^ .' The communities thus ad- 
 dressed, it will be observed, belong to the district in which St 
 John's influence Avas predominant, and which produced all the 
 writers of his school who have been discussed in the preceding 
 papers — Polycarp, Papias, Melito, Apollinaris, Polycrates. Of 
 the references to the Canonical Scriptures in this letter I shall 
 speak presently. For the moment it is sufficient to say that 
 
 1 They are called ' trilingues,' Eusebius, H. E. v. 1, and may be read 
 Varro in Isid. Etyni. xv. 1. conveniently in Eouth Rel. Sacr. i. p. 
 
 2 It is preserved in great part by 295 sq. 
 
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. 253 
 
 the very fact of their addressing the communication to these 
 distant Churches shows the closeness of the ties which con- 
 nected the Christians in Gaul with their Asiatic brethren. 
 Moreover, in the body of the letter it is incidentally stated of 
 two of the sufferers, that they came from Asia Minor — Attains 
 a Pergamene by birth, and Alexander a physician from Phrygia 
 who ' had lived many years in the provinces of Gaul ; ' while 
 nearly all of them bear Greek names. Among these martyrs 
 the most conspicuous was Pothinus, the aged bishop of Lyons, 
 who was more than ninety years old when he suffered. A later 
 tradition makes him a native of Asia Minor ^ ; and this would 
 be a highly probable supposition, even if unsupported by any 
 sort of evidence. Indeed it is far from unlikely that the fact 
 was stated in the letter itself, for Eusebius has not preserved 
 the whole of it. But whether an Asiatic Greek or not, he must 
 have been a growing boy when St John died ; and through him 
 the Churches of Southern Gaul, when they first appear in the 
 full light of history, are linked directly with the Apostolic age. 
 
 Immediately after this persecution the intimate alliance 
 between these distant parts of Christendom was manifested in 
 another way. The Montanist controversy was raging in the 
 Church of Phrygia, and the brethren of Gaul communicated to 
 them their views on the controverted points^ To this com- 
 munication they appended various letters of the martyrs, 
 'which they penned, while yet in bonds, to the brethren in 
 Asia and Phrygia.' About the same time the martyrs sent 
 Irenseus, then a presbyter, as their delegate with letters of 
 recommendation to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, for the sake of 
 conferring with him on this same subject^ 
 
 Some twenty years later, as the century was drawing to a 
 close, another controversy broke out, relating to the observance 
 of Easter, in which again the Asiatic Churches were mainly 
 concerned ; and here too we find the Christians of Gaul inter- 
 posing with their counsels. When Victor of Rome issued his 
 
 1 See the references in Tillemont ^ Euseb. H. E. v. 3. 
 
 Memoires ii. p. 343. ^ Euseb. H. E. v. 4. 
 
254 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 edict of excommunication against the Churches of Asia Minor, 
 Irenffius wrote to remonstrate. The letter sent on this occasion 
 however did not merely represent his own private views, for we 
 are especially told that he wrote ' in the name of the brethren 
 in Gaul over whom he presided.' Nor did he appeal to the 
 Roman bishop alone, but he exchanged letters also with ' very 
 many divers rulers of the Churches concerning the question 
 which had been stirred'.' 
 
 Bearing these facts in mind, and inferring from them, as we 
 have a right to infer, that the Churches of Gaul for the most 
 part inherited the traditions of the Asiatic school of St John, 
 we look with special interest to the documents emanating from 
 these communities. 
 
 The Epistle of the brotherhoods in Vienne and Lyons, 
 already mentioned, is the earliest of these. The main business 
 of the letter is a narrative of contemporary facts, and any 
 allusions therefore to the Canonical writings are incidental. 
 
 But, though incidental, they are unequivocal. Of the 
 references to St Paul, for instance, there can be no doubt. 
 Thus the martyrs and confessors are mentioned as 'showing 
 in very truth that the sufferings of this present time are not 
 worthy to he comjxired tuith the glory which shall be revealed in 
 us,' where a sentence containing fourteen words in the Greek is 
 given verbatim as it stands in Rom. viii. 18. Thus again, they 
 are described as ' imitators of Christ, who being in the form of 
 God thought it not robbery to be equal with God' where in like 
 manner a sentence of twelve words stands verbatim as we find 
 it Phil. ii. 6. No one, I venture to think, will question the 
 source of these passages, though they are given anonymously 
 and without any signs of quotation. Nor can there be any 
 reasonable doubt that when Attalus the martyr is called * the 
 pillar and ground ' {arvXav kuI eSpatofia) of the Christians at 
 Lyons, the expression is taken from 1 Tim. iii. 15; or that 
 when Alcibiades, who had hitherto lived on bread and water, 
 
 1 Euseb. H. E. v, 24. 
 
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. 255 
 
 received a revelation rebuking him for ' not using the creatures 
 of God,' in obedience to which he ' partook of all things freely 
 and gave thanJcs to God,' there is a reference to 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. 
 These passages show the attitude of the author or authors of 
 this letter towards St Paiil ; but I have cited them also as exhi- 
 biting the manner of quotation which prevails in this letter, and 
 thus indicating what we are to expect in other cases. 
 
 From the third and fourth Gospels then we find quotations 
 analogous to these. 
 
 Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told, that 
 though young he ' rivalled the testimony borne to the elder 
 Zacharias {avve^caovaOat ry tov Trpea^vrepov Za')(^apiov fiap- 
 Tvpta), for verily (yovv) he had lualked in all the commandments 
 and ordinances of the Lord blameless.' Here we have the same 
 words and in the same order, which are used of Zacharias and 
 Elisabeth in St Luke (i. 6). Moreover, it is stated lower down 
 of this same martyr, that he was 'called the paraclete (or 
 advocate) of the Christians, having the Paraclete in himself, the 
 Spirit more abundantly than Zacharias.' This may be compared 
 with Luke i. 67, ' And Zacharias his father was filled with the 
 Holy Ghost.' 
 
 The meaning of the expression 'the testimony of Zacharias' 
 {ttj tov 7iaj(^apiov /Maprvpla) has been questioned. It might 
 signify either ' the testimony borne to Zacharias,' i.e. his recorded 
 character, or ' the testimony borne by Zacharias,' i.e. his martyr- 
 dom. I cannot doubt that the former explanation is correct ; 
 for the connecting particle (jovv) shows that the assertion is 
 intended to find its justification in words which immediately 
 follow, 'he walked in all the commandments,' etc. I need not 
 however dwell on this point, for the author of Supernatural 
 Religion himself adopts this rendering\ Yet with an inconsis- 
 
 1 S. R. II. p. 201. In earlier edi- tation therefore is deliberate. [In the 
 
 tions the words are translated 'the Complete Edition (ii. p. 199 sq) the 
 
 testimony of the elder Zacharias;' rendering 'borne by the elder Zacha- 
 
 but in the sixth I find substituted ' the rias ' is substituted for the above, and 
 
 testimony borne to the elder Zacha- defended at some length.] 
 rias.' The adoption of this interpre- 
 
256 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 tency, of which his book furnishes not a few examples, though 
 he not only adopts this rendering himself, but silently ignores 
 the alternative, he proceeds at once to maintain a hypothesis 
 which is expressly built upon the interpretation thus tacitly 
 rejected. 
 
 An early tradition or conjecture identified the Zacharias, 
 who is mentioned in the Gospels as having been slain between 
 the temple and the altar (Matt, xxiii. 35), with this Zacharias the 
 father of the Baptist. And in the extravagant romance called 
 the Protevangelium, which is occupied mainly with the birth, 
 infancy, and childhood of our Lord, the Baptist's father is 
 represented as slain by Herod ' at the vestibule of the temple of 
 the Lord'.' Our author therefore supposes that these Christians 
 of Gaul are quoting not from St Luke, but from some apo- 
 cryphal Gospel which gave a similar account of the martyrdom 
 of Zacharias. 
 
 Whether this identification which I have mentioned is true 
 or false it is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire. Nor again 
 do I care to discuss the question whether or not the authors of 
 this letter accepted it, and so believed the Baptist's father to 
 have fallen a martyr. I am disposed on the whole to think 
 that they did. This supposition, which however must remain 
 uncertain, would give more point to the parallelism with 
 Vettius Epagathus. But it is a matter of little or no moment 
 as regards the point at issue. The quotation found in St Luke's 
 Gospel has (according to the interpretation which our author 
 rightly receives) no reference whatever to the martyrdom ; and 
 therefore affords no ground for the assumption that the docu- 
 ment from which it is taken contained any account of or any 
 reference to the death of the Baptist's father. 
 
 But, granting that the writers of this letter assumed the 
 identification (and this assumption, whether true or false, was 
 very natural), our Third Gospel itself does furnish such a 
 reference ; and they would thus find within the limits of this 
 
 ^ Proteii. 23. See Tischendorf Evang. Apocr. p. 44. 
 
VIIL THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. 257 
 
 Gospel everything which they required relating to Zacharias. 
 The author of Supernatural Religion indeed represents the 
 matter otherwise ; but then he has overlooked an important 
 passage. With a forgetfulness of the contents of the Gospels 
 which ought surely to suggest some reflections to a critic who 
 cannot understand how the Fathers, ' utterly uncritical ' though 
 they were, should ever quote any writing otherwise than with 
 the most literal accuracy, he says, ' There can be no doubt that 
 the reference to Zacharias in Matthew, in the Protevangelium, 
 and in this Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, is not based upon 
 Luke, in which there is no mention of his death^.' Here and 
 throughout this criticism he appears to have forgotten Luke xi. 51, 
 ' the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and 
 the temple.' If the death of the Baptist's father is mentioned 
 in St Matthew, it is mentioned in St Luke also. 
 
 But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the Third 
 Gospel in this way, what will he say to those with the Acts ? 
 In this same letter of the Gallican Churches we are told that 
 the sufferers prayed for their persecutors ' like Stephen the 
 perfect martyr. Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.' Will he 
 boldly maintain that the writers had before them another 
 
 1 S. R. II. p. 203. So previously easily explained as a fiction founded 
 
 (p. 202), 'his martyrdom, which Luke on the notice in Luke xi. 51, the 
 
 does net mention. ' I have already had writer assuming the identity of this 
 
 occasion to jjoiut out instances where Zacharias with the Baptist's father, 
 
 our author's forgetfulness of the con- I have some doubts about the very 
 
 tents of the New Testament leads him early date sometimes assigned to the 
 
 into error; see above, p. 125. Yet ProtevaiujeUum (though it may have 
 
 he argues throughout on the assump- been written somewhere about the 
 
 tion that the memory of early Christ- middle of the second century) ; but, 
 
 ian writers was perfect. [The whole the greater its antiquity, the more 
 
 section is struck out in the Complete important is its testimony to the 
 
 Edition.] Canonical Gospels. At the end of 
 
 The Protevangeliuvi bears all the § 19 the writer obviously borrows the 
 
 characteristics of a romance founded language of St Thomas in John xx. 25. 
 
 partly on notices in the Canonical This, as it so happens, is the part of 
 
 Gospels. Some passages certainly are the Protevangelium to which Clement 
 
 borrowed from St Luke, from which of Alexandria (Strom, vii. p. 889) refers, 
 
 the very words are occasionally taken and therefore we have better evidence 
 
 {e.ff. §§ 11, 12) ; and the account of for the antiquity of this, than of any 
 
 the martyrdom of Zacharias is most other portion of the work. 
 
 S. R. 17 
 
258 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Acts containing words identical with our Acts, just as he 
 supposes them to have had another Gospel containing words 
 identical with our Third Gospel ? Or will he allow this account 
 to have been taken from Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides ? 
 But in this latter case, if they had the second treatise which 
 bears the name of St Luke in their hands, why should they not 
 have had the first also ? 
 
 Our author however does not stop here. He maintains that 
 these same writers quoted not only from a double of St Luke, 
 but from a double of St John also\ ' That was fulfilled,' they 
 write, ' which was spoken by the Lord, saying, There shall come 
 a time in which whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God 
 service,' where the words of St John (xvi. 2) are exactly 
 reproduced, with the exception that for ' There cometh an hour 
 when ' (^epx^rai &pa Xva) they substitute ' There shall come a 
 time in which ' {iXevo-erai Kaipd^ iv c5). This substitution, 
 which was highly natural in a quotation from memory, is 
 magnified by our author into ' very decided variations from the 
 Fourth Gospel.' He would therefore assign the quotation to 
 some apocr3^hal gospel which has perished. No such gospel 
 however is known to have existed. Moreover this passage 
 occurs in a characteristic discourse of the Fourth Gospel, and 
 the expression itself is remarkable — far more remarkable than it 
 appears in the English version (Xarpeiav 7rpo(X(f>€petv tm Sew, not 
 ' to do God service,' but ' to offer a religious service to God '). I 
 may add also that the mention of the Spirit as the Paraclete, 
 already quoted, points to the use of this Gospel by the writers, 
 and that the letter presents at least one other coincidence with 
 St John. Our author certainly deserves credit for courage. 
 Here, as elsewhere, he imagines that, so long as he does not 
 advance anything which is demonstrably impossible, he may 
 pile one improbability upon another without endangering the 
 stability of his edifice. 
 
 But even if his account of these evangelical quotations 
 
 1 ,S'. E. II. p. 381. 
 
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. 259 
 
 could survive this accumulation of improbabilities, it will 
 appear absolutely untenable in the light of contemporary fact. 
 Irenseus was the most prominent and learned member of the 
 Church from which this letter emanated, at the very time when 
 it was written. According to some modern critics he was the 
 actual composer of the letter ; but for this there is no evidence 
 of any kind. According to our author himself he was the 
 bearer of it' ; but this statement again is not borne out by 
 facts. There can be no doubt however, that Irenaeus was 
 intimately mixed up with all the incidents, and he cannot have 
 been ignorant of the contents of the letter. Now this letter 
 was written A.D. 177 or, as our author prefers, A.D. 178, while 
 Irenaeus published his third book before A.D. 190 at all events, 
 and possibly some years earlier. Irenseus in this book assumes 
 that the Church from the beginning has recognized our four 
 Canonical Gospels, and these only. The author of Supernatural 
 Religion maintains on the other hand that only twelve years 
 before, at the outside, the very Church to which Irenseus 
 belonged, in a public document with which he was acquainted, 
 betrays no knowledge of our Canonical Gospels, but quotes from 
 one or more Apocryphal Gospels instead. He maintains this 
 though the quotations in question are actually found in our 
 Canonical Gospels. 
 
 1 S. R. 11. p. 200; 'The two com- Epistle, 
 munities [of Vienne and Lyons] some This is a confusion of two wholly 
 
 time after addressed an Epistle to distinct letters — the letter to the 
 
 their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, Churches of Phrygia and Asia, con- 
 
 and also to Eleutherus, Bishop of taining an account of the persecution, 
 
 Eome, relating the events which had which is in great part preserved by 
 
 occurred... This Epistle has in great Eusebius, but of which Irenseus was 
 
 part been preserved by Eusebius ; ' and certainly not the bearer ; and the letter 
 
 again, n. p. 210; 'We know that he to Eleutherus, of which Irenaus was 
 
 [Irenaeus] was deputed by the Church the bearer, but which had reference to 
 
 of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then the Montanist controversy, and of which 
 
 Bishop of Eome, the Epistle of that Eusebius has preserved only a single 
 
 Christian community describing their sentence recommending Irenaeus to the 
 
 sufferings during the persecution,' etc. Koman Bishop. This latter contained 
 
 [So also in the Complete Edition.] references to the persecutions, but was 
 
 Accordingly in the index, pp. 501, 511, a distinct composition : Euseb. H. E. 
 
 Irenffius is made the bearer of the v. 3, 4. 
 
 17—2 
 
260 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Here then the inference cannot be doubtful. But what 
 must be the fate of a writer who can thus ride roughshod 
 over plain facts, when he comes to deal with questions which 
 demand a nice critical insight and a careful weighing of proba- 
 bilities ? 
 
 From this letter relating to the martyrdoms in Vienne and 
 Lyons, we are led to speak directly of the illustrious Gallican 
 father, whose name has already been mentioned several times, 
 and who is the most important of all witnesses to the Canonical 
 v/ritings of the New Testament. 
 
 The great work of Iren^us is entitled Refutation and Over- 
 throiu of Knowledge falsely so called, and consists of five books. 
 The third book was published during the episcopate of Eleu- 
 therus, who was Bishop of Rome from about A.D. 175 to a.d. 
 190; for he is mentioned in it as still living ^ It must there- 
 fore have been written before a.d. 190. On the other hand it 
 contains a mention of Theodotion's version of the LXX^ ; and 
 Theodotion's version is stated not to have been published till 
 the reign of Commodus (a.d. 182 — 190). Unfortunately Epi- 
 phanius, the authority mainly relied on by our author and 
 others for this statement, contradicts himself in this same 
 passage, which is full of the grossest chronological and his- 
 torical blunders^. No stress therefore can be laid on his 
 
 1 Iren. iii. 3. 3. dotion published his translation ; with 
 
 2 Iren. iii. 21. 1. more of the same kind. The Chroni- 
 
 3 De Pond, et Mens. 16, 17. Epi- con Paschale also assigns this version 
 phanius states that Antoninus Pius to the reign of Commodus, and even 
 was succeeded by Caracalla, who also names the year a.d. 184 ; but the cora- 
 bore the names of Geta and M. Aure- piler's testimony is invalidated by the 
 lius Verus, and who reigned seven fact that he repeats the words of Epi- 
 years ; that L. Aurelius Commodus phanius, from whom he has obviously 
 likewise reigned these same seven borrowed. 
 
 years ; that Pertinax succeeded next, I should be sorry to say (without 
 
 and was followed by Severus ; that in thoroughly sifting the matter), that. 
 
 the time of Severus Symmaehus trans- even in this mass of confusion thor(> 
 
 lated the lxx ; that 'immediately may not be an element of truth ; but 
 
 after him, that is, in the reign of the it is strange to see how our author's 
 
 second Commodus, who reigned for habitual scepticism deserts him just 
 
 thirteen years after the before-men- where it would be most in place, 
 tioncd L. Aurelius Commodus,' Theo- 
 
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. 261 
 
 statement ; nor indeed can we regard its truth or falsehood as 
 of any real moment for our purpose. It is immaterial whether 
 the third book dates from the earlier or later years of Eleutherus. 
 As the several books were composed and published separately, 
 the author of Supernatural Religion has a right to suppose, 
 though he cannot prove, that the fourth and fifth were written 
 during the episcopate of Victor (A.D. 190 — 198 or 199). But 
 in his partiality for late dates he forgets that the weapon which 
 he wields is double-edged. If the fourth and fifth books ' must,' 
 as he confidently asserts, have been written some years after 
 the third, it follows by parity of reasoning, that the first and 
 second must have been written some years before it. Yet, with 
 a strange inconsistency, he assumes in the very same sentence 
 that the two first books cannot have been written till the 
 latest years of Eleutherus, because on his showing the third 
 must date from that epoch \ 
 
 With the respective dates of the several books however we 
 need not concern ourselves ; for they all exhibit the same j)heno- 
 mena, so far as regards the attitude of the author towards the 
 Canonical writings of the New Testament. On this point, it is 
 sufficient to say that the authority which Irenseus attributes to 
 the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St 
 Paul, several of the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, falls 
 short in no respect of the estimate of the Church Catholic in 
 the fourth or the ninth or the nineteenth century. He treats 
 them as on a level with the Canonical books of the Old Testa- 
 ment ; he cites them as Scripture in the same way; he attributes 
 them to the respective authors whose names they bear ; he 
 regards them as writings handed down in the several Churches 
 from the beginning ; he fills his pages with quotations from 
 them ; he has not only a very thorough knowledge of their 
 
 ^ S. i?. II. p. 213, 'We are therefore been wi-itten, and the rest must be 
 
 brought towards the end of the episco- assigned to a later period under the 
 
 pate of Eleutherus as the earliest date episcopate of Victor (+ 198-199.)' [So 
 
 at which the first three books of his also in the Complete Edition.] The 
 
 work against Heresies can well have italics are my own. 
 
262 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 contents himself, but he assumes an acquaintance with and a 
 recognition of them in his readers \ 
 
 In the third book especially he undertakes to refute the 
 opinions of his Valentinian opponents directly from the Scrip- 
 tures. This leads him to be still more explicit. He relates 
 briefly the circumstances under which our Four Gospels were 
 written. He points out that the writings of the Evangelists 
 arose directly from the oral Gospel of the Apostles. He shows 
 that the traditional teaching of the Apostles has been preserved 
 by a direct succession of elders which in the principal Churches 
 can be traced man by man, and he asserts that this teaching 
 accords entirely with the Evangelical and Apostolic writings. 
 He maintains on the other hand, that the doctrine of the 
 heretics was of comparatively recent growth. He assumes 
 throughout, not only that our four Canonical Gospels alone 
 were acknowledged in the Church in his own time, but that 
 this had been so from the beginning. His Valentinian antago- 
 nists indeed accepted these same Gospels, paying especial 
 deference to the Fourth Evangelist ; and accordingly he argues 
 
 1 Our author sums up thus (ii. p. the words which is not directly contra- 
 203 sq) ; 'The state of the case, then, dictory to the facts, and must there- 
 is as follows : We find a coincidence fore suppose that we have here again 
 in a few words in connection with one of those extraordinary misprints, 
 Zacharias between the Epistle [of the which our author has pleaded on for- 
 Churches of Vienna and Lyons] and mer occasions. As a matter of fact, 
 our Third Gospel ; but so far from the the references to the Third and Fourth 
 Gospel being in any way indicated as Gospels in this letter are all but uni- 
 their source, the words in question versally allowed, even by critics the 
 are, on the contrary, in association least conservative. They are expressly 
 with'['connected with'Compl. Ed.] 'a affirmed, for instance, by Hilgenfeld 
 reference to events unknown to our (Einleitung p. 73) and by Scholten 
 Gospel, but which were indubitably {Die dltesten Zeugnisse p. 110 sq). 
 chronicled elsewhere. It follows clear- [In the Complete Edition the last 
 ly, and feio venture to doubt the fact, sentence is considerably modified and 
 that the allusion in the Epistle is to a runs as follows ; ' As part of the 
 Gospel different from ours, and not to passage in the Epistle, therefore, could 
 our third Synoptic at all.' Of 'the not have been derived from our third 
 events unknown to our Gospel ' I have Synoptic, the natural inference is that 
 disposed in the text. But the state- the whole emanates from a Gospel, dif- 
 ment which I have italicized is still ferent from ours, which likewise con- 
 more extraordinary. I am altogether tained that part.'] 
 unable to put any interpretation upon 
 
VITI. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. 263 
 
 with them on this basis. But they also superadded other 
 writings, to which they appealed, while heretics of a different 
 type, as Marcion for instance, adopted some one Gospel to the 
 exclusion of all others. He therefore urges not only that four 
 Gospels alone have been handed down from the beginning, but 
 that in the nature of things there could not be more nor less 
 than four. There are four regions of the world, and four 
 principal winds ; and the Church therefore, as destined to be 
 conterminous with the world, must be supported by four 
 Gospels, as four pillars. The Word again is represented as 
 seated on the Cherubim, who are described by Ezekiel as four 
 living creatures, each different from the other. These symbol- 
 ize the four Evangelists, with their several characteristics. 
 The predominance of the number four again appears in another 
 way. There are four general covenants, of Noah, of Abraham, 
 of Moses, of Christ. It is therefore an act of audacious folly to 
 increase or diminish the number of the Gospels. As there is 
 fitness and order in all the other works of God, so also we may 
 expect to find it in the case of the Gospel. 
 
 What is the historical significance of this phenomenon ? 
 Can we imagine that the documents which Irenseus regards in 
 this light had been produced during his own lifetime ? that they 
 had sprung up suddenly full-armed from the earth, no one 
 could say how ? and that they had taken their position at once 
 by the side of the Law and the Psalmist and the Prophets, as 
 the very voice of God ? 
 
 The author of Supernatural Religion seems to think that no 
 explanation is needed. ' The reasons,' he writes, ' which he 
 [Irenseus] gives for the existence of precisely that number [four 
 Gospels] in the Canon of the Church illustrate the thoroughly 
 uncritical character of the Fathers, and the slight dependence 
 which can be placed upon their judgments \' Accordingly he 
 does not even discuss the testimony of Irenseus, but treats it as 
 if it were not. He does not see that there is all the difference 
 in the world between the value of the same man's evidence as 
 1 s. R. II. p. 474. 
 
264 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 to matters of fact, and his opinions as to the causes and 
 bearings of his facts. He does not observe that these fanciful 
 arguments and shadowy analogies are pro tanto an evidence of 
 the firm hold which this quadruple Gospel, as a fact, had 
 already obtained when he wrote. Above all, I must suppose 
 from his silence that he regards this testimony of Irenseus as 
 the isolated opinion of an individual writer, and is unconscious 
 of the historical background which it implies. It is this last 
 consideration which led me to speak of Iren^us as the most 
 important witness to the early date and authorship of the 
 Gospels, and to which I wish to direct attention. 
 
 The birth of Irengeus has been placed as early as A.D. 97 by 
 Dodwell, and as late as A.D. 140 by our author and some others, 
 while other writers again have adopted intermediate positions. 
 I must frankly say that the very early date seems to me quite 
 untenable. On the other hand, those who have placed it as late 
 as A.D. 140 have chosen this date on the ground of the relation 
 of Irenyeus to Poly carp in his old age\ and on the supposition 
 that Polycarp was martyred about A.D. 167. Since however it 
 has recently been shown that Polycarp suffered A.D. 155 or 156'', 
 it may be presumed that these critics would now throw the 
 date of his pupil's birth some ten or twelve years farther back, 
 i.e. to about a.d. 128 or 130. But there is no reason why it 
 should not have been some few years earlier. If the suggestion 
 which I have thrown out in a previous paper deserves atten- 
 
 1 Iren. iii. 3. 4, 'Whom we also his martyrdom. A comparison with a 
 
 saw in early life [h rrj irpwrri ijfiQv parallel expression relating to St John 
 
 ijXiKiq.) ; for he survived long (eTmroXi/ in ii. 22. 5, wapi/xeive yap aiiTols p.ixP'- 
 
 yap wapi/jLeive), and departed this life k.t.X., will show that the inference, 
 
 at a very great age (ttclpv yrjpaXeos) by even when thus limited, is precarious, 
 
 a glorious and most notable martyr- and that the yap does not necessarily 
 
 dom.' This passage suggests the in- imply as much. Extreme views with 
 
 ference that, if Polycarp had not had respect to the bearing of this passage 
 
 a long life, Irenasus could not have are taken on the one hand by Ziegler 
 
 been his hearer ; but it cannot be Irenceus der Bischof von Lyon p. 15 sq, 
 
 pressed to mean that Polycarp was and on the other by Leimbach Wann 
 
 already in very advanced years when ist Irendus gehorcn p. 622 sq (in Stud. 
 
 Irenaeus saw him, since the words irdvv u. Krit. 1873), in answer to Ziegler. 
 yrjpaXios refer, not to the period of - See above, p. 103 sq. 
 
 their intercourse, but to the time of 
 
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. 265 
 
 tion\ he was probably born about A.D. 120. But the exact date 
 of his birth is a matter of comparatively little moment. The 
 really important fact is, that he was connected directly with the 
 Apostles and the Apostolic age by two distinct personal links, 
 if not more. 
 
 Of his connection with Polycarp I have already spokenl 
 Polycarp was the disciple of St John ; and, as he was at least 
 eighty-six years old when he suffered martyrdom (A.D. 155), he 
 must have been close upon thirty when the Apostle died. 
 Irenseus was young when he received instruction from Polycarp. 
 He speaks of himself in one passage as ' still a boy,' in another 
 as ' in early life.' If we reckon his age as from fifteen to 
 eighteen, we shall probably not be far wrong, though the ex- 
 pressions themselves would admit some latitude on either side. 
 At all events, he says that he had a vivid recollection of his 
 master's conversations ; he recalled not only the substance of his 
 discourses, but his very expressions and manner; more especially 
 he states that he remembers distinctly his descriptions of his 
 intercourse with John and other personal disciples of Christ 
 together with their account of the Lord's life and teaching ; and 
 he adds that these were ' altogether in accordance with the 
 Scriptures 'l' 
 
 But Irengeus was linked with the Apostolic age by another 
 companionship also. He was the leading presbyter in the Church 
 of Lyons, of which PoTHiNUS was bishop, and succeeded to this 
 see on the martyrdom of the latter in A.D. 177 or 178. With 
 Pothinus therefore he must have had almost daily intercourse. 
 But Pothinus lived to be more than ninety years old, and must 
 have been a boy of ten at least, when the Apostle St John died. 
 Moreover there is every reason to believe, as we have already 
 seen*, that like Irenaeus himself Pothinus came originally from 
 Asia Minor. Under any circumstances, his long life and influen- 
 tial position would give a special value to his testimony re- 
 
 1 See above, p. 98, note 1. passage is given in full. 
 
 * See above, p. 96 sq. * See above, p. 253. 
 
 3 See the last reference, where the 
 
266 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 specting the past history of the Church ; and, whether he was 
 uncritical or not (of which we are ignorant), he must have 
 known whether certain writings attributed to the Evangelists 
 and Apostles had been in circulation as long as he could re- 
 member, or whether they came to his knowledge only the 
 other day, when he was already advanced in life. 
 
 In one passage in his extant work, Irenseus gives an account 
 of elaborate discourses which he had heard from an elder who 
 had himself ' listened to those who had seen the Apostles and to 
 those who had been disciples,' i.e. personal followers of Christ \ 
 It seems most natural to identify this anonymous elder with 
 Pothinus. In this case the 'disciples' whom he had heard 
 would be such persons as Aristion and John the presbyter, who 
 are mentioned in this same way by Papias ; while Under the 
 designation of 'those who had seen the Apostles' Polycarp 
 more especially might be intended. But, if he were not 
 Pothinus, then he forms a third direct link of connection 
 between Irenseus and the Apostolic age. Whoever he was, it is 
 clear that the intercourse of Irenseus with him was frequent and 
 intimate. ' The elder,' writes Irenseus, ' used to say,' ' The elder 
 used to refresh us with such accounts of the ancient worthies,' 
 ' The elder used to discuss.' Indeed the elaborate character of 
 these discourses suggests, as I have stated in a former paper ^, 
 that Irenseus is here reproducing notes of lectures which he 
 had heard from this person. With the references direct or 
 indirect to the Canonical writings in this anonymous teacher I 
 am not concerned here ; nor indeed is it necessary to add any- 
 thing to what has been said in a previous paper I I wish now 
 merely to call attention to these discourses as showing, that 
 through his intercourse with this elder Irenseus could not fail 
 to have ascertained the mind of the earlier Church with regard 
 to the Evangelical and Apostolic writings. 
 
 Nor were these the only exceptional advantages which 
 Irenseus enjoyed. When he speaks of the recognition of the 
 
 1 Ireu. iv. 27. 1 sq. ^ See above, p. 247 sq. 
 
 2 See above, p. 196, note. 
 
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. 267 
 
 Canonical writings his testimony must be regarded as directly 
 representing three Churches at least. In youth he was brought 
 up, as we saw, in Asia Minor. In middle life he stayed for 
 some time in Rome, having gone there on an important public 
 mission \ Before and after this epoch he for many years held 
 a prominent position in the Church of Gaul. He was more- 
 over actively engaged from the beginning to the end of his 
 public career in all the most important controversies of the day. 
 He gave lectures as we happen to know; for Hippolytus at- 
 tended a course on ' All the Heresies,' delivered perhaps during 
 one of his sojourns at Rome^ He was a diligent letter- writer, 
 interesting himself in the difficulties and dissensions of distant 
 Churches, and more than one notice of such letters is pre- 
 served. He composed several treatises more or less elaborate, 
 whose general character may be estimated from his extant 
 work. The subjects moreover, with which he had to deal, must 
 have forced him to an examination of the points with which we 
 are immediately concerned. He took a chief part in the Mon- 
 tanist controversy ; and the Montanist doctrine of the Paraclete 
 as I have before had occasion to remark^, directly suggested an 
 investigation of the promise in the Fourth Gospel. He was 
 equally prominent in the Paschal dispute, and here again the 
 relation between the narratives of St John and the Synoptists 
 
 ^ See above, p. 253. The author of time of the martyrdom of Polycarp, 
 
 Supernatural Religion himseli (n. p. taught many, ' and that it was recorded 
 
 211) writes : 'It is not known how in his writings how at the precise time 
 
 long Irenseus remained in Kome, but of his rhaster's death he heard a voice 
 
 there is every probability that he must announcing the occurrence. This 
 
 have made a somewhat protracted stay, story is not unhkely to have had some 
 
 for the purpose of making himself foundation in fact, 
 
 acquainted with the various tenets of ^ Photius Bibl. 121 ; see above, p. 
 
 Gnostic and other heretics,' etc. 196. It is not stated where these 
 
 There is reason to think that this lectures were delivered ; but inasmuch 
 
 was not his first visit to Kome. The as we know Hippolytus only as the 
 
 notice at the end of the Moscow ms of Bishop of Portus and as dwelling in 
 
 the Martyrium Polycarpi, recently col- Rome and the neighbourhood, the 
 
 lated by Gebhardt (see Zeitschr. f. metropolis is the most likely place, in 
 
 Hist. Theol. 1875, p. 362 sq), states the absence of direct evidence, 
 
 that Iren^us, 'being in Rome at the ^ [See above, p. 219.] 
 
268 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 must have entered largely into the discussion. He was con- 
 tending all his life with Gnostics, or reactionists against Gnos- 
 ticism, and how large a part the authority and contents of the 
 Gospels and Epistles must have played in these controversies 
 generally we see plainly from his surviving work against the 
 Valentinians. 
 
 Thus Irenjfius does not present himself before us as an 
 isolated witness, but is backed by a whole phalanx of past and 
 contemporaneous authority. All this our author ignores. He 
 forecloses all investigation by denouncing, as usual, the uncriti- 
 cal character of the fathers ; and Irenseus is not even allowed 
 to enter the witness-box. 
 
 The truth is that, speaking generally, the fathers are neither 
 more nor less uncritical on questions which involve the histori- 
 cal sense, than other writers of their age. Now and then we 
 meet with an exceptional blunderer; but for the most part 
 Christian writers will compare not unfavourably with their 
 heathen contemporaries. If Clement of Rome believes in the 
 story of the phoenix, so do several classical writers of repute. 
 If Justin Martyr affirms that Simon Magus received divine 
 honours at Rome, heathen historians and controversialists make 
 statements equally false and quite as ridiculous with reference 
 to the religion and history of the Jews\ Even the credulity of 
 
 1 It is only necessary to refer to ed an image of an ass in theii- temple, 
 the account of Jews given by an in- because a herd of these animals had 
 telligent aiithor like Tacitus {Hist. v. 1 disclosed to them copious springs of 
 sq). It is related, he says, that the water in their wanderings ; these wan- 
 Jews migrated to Libya from Ida in derings lasted six days continuously; 
 Crete, about the time when Saturn was on the seventh they obtained posses- 
 expelled from his kingdom by Jupiter, sion of the land, where they built their 
 and were thence called ludcei, i.e. city and temple ; with more to the 
 Idcei. Some persons, he adds, say same effect. All this he writes, though 
 that Egypt being over-populated in at the time the Jews in Rome counted 
 the reign of Isis, a multitude, led by by tens of thousands, any one of whom 
 their chieftains Hierosolymus and would have set him right. The com- 
 Judas, settled in the neighbouring paratively venial error of Justin, who 
 lands. He states it, moreover, as an mistook the Sabine deity Semo Sancus 
 account in which 'plurimi auctores for Simo Sanctus, cannot be judged 
 consentiunt,' that the Jews consecrat- harshly in the face of these facts. 
 
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. 269 
 
 a Papias may be more than matched by the credulity of an 
 Apion or an ^lian. The work of the sceptical Pliny himself 
 abounds in impossible stories. On the other hand individual 
 writers may be singled out among the Christian fathers, whom 
 it would be difficult to match in their several excellences from 
 their own or contiguous generations. No heathen contemporary 
 shows such a power of memory or so wide an acquaintance with 
 the classical literature of Greece in all its branches as Clement 
 of Alexandria. No heathen contemporary deserves to be named 
 in the same day with Origen for patience and accuracy in 
 textual criticism, to say nothing of other intellectual capacities, 
 which, notwithstanding all his faults, distinguish him as the 
 foremost writer of his age. And again, the investigations of 
 Theophilus of Antioch, the contemporary of Irenseus, in com- 
 parative chronology are far in advance of anything which 
 emanates from heathen writers of his time, however inadequate 
 they may appear in this nineteenth century, which has dis- 
 covered so many monuments of primeval history. There are in 
 fact as many gradations among the Christian fathers as in any 
 other order of men ; and here, as elsewhere, each writer must 
 be considered on his own merits. It is a gross injustice to class 
 the authors whom I have named with such hopeless blunderers 
 as Epiphanius and John Malalas, for whom nothing can be said, 
 but in whom nevertheless our author places the most implicit 
 confidence, when their statements serve his purpose. 
 
 Now Irenseus is not one whose testimony can be lightly set 
 aside. He possessed, as we have seen, exceptional opportunities 
 of forming an opinion on the point at issue. His honesty is, I 
 think, beyond the reach of suspicion. He is a man of culture 
 and intelligence. He possesses a considerable knowledge of 
 classical literature, though he makes no parade of it. He 
 argues against his opponents with much patience. His work is 
 systematic, and occasionally shows great acuteness. His tradi- 
 tions, no doubt, require sifting, like other men's, and sometimes 
 dissolve in the light of criticism. He has his weak points also, 
 whether in his interpretations or in his views of things. But 
 
270 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 what then ? Who refuses to listen to the heathen rhetorician 
 Aristides or the apostate Emperor Julian on matters of fact, 
 because they are both highly superstitious — the one paying a 
 childish deference to dreams, the other showing himself a 
 profound believer in magic ? In short, Irenseus betrays no 
 incapacity which affects his competency as a witness to a broad 
 and comprehensive fact, such as that with which alone we are 
 concerned. 
 
 And his testimony is confirmed by evidence from all sides. 
 The recognition of these four Gospels from a very early date 
 is the one fact which explains the fragmentary notices and 
 references occurring in previous writers. Moreover his con- 
 temporaries in every quarter of the Church repeat the same 
 story independently. The old Latin version, already existing 
 when Irenseus published his work and representing the Canon 
 of the African Christians, included these four Gospels, and these 
 only. The author of the Muratorian fragment, writing a few 
 years before him, and apparently representing the Church of 
 Rome, recognizes these, and these alone. Clement, writing a 
 few years later, as a member of the Alexandrian Church, who 
 had also travelled far and wide, and sat at the feet of divers 
 teachers, in Greece, in Asia Minor, in Palestine, in Italy, doubts 
 the authenticity of a story told in an apocryphal writing, on 
 the ground that it was not related in any of the four Gospels 
 handed down by the Church*. What is the meaning of all this 
 coincidence of view ? It must be borne in mind that the Canon 
 of the New Testament was not made the subject of any 
 conciliar decree till the latter half of the fourth century. When 
 therefore we find this agreement on all sides in the closing 
 years of the second, without any formal enactment, we can only 
 explain it as the convergence of independent testimony showing 
 that, though individual writers might allow themselves the use 
 of other documents, yet the general sense of the Church had 
 for some time past singled out these four Gospels by tacit 
 consent, and placed them in a position of exceptional authority. 
 >■ Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 13, p. 553. 
 
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. 271 
 
 One other remark on the testimony of Irenseus suggests 
 itself before closing. Irenseus is the first extant writer in whom, 
 from the nature of his work, we have a right to expect explicit 
 information on the subject of the Canon. Earlier writings, 
 which have been preserved entire, are either epistolary, like the 
 letters of the Apostolic Fathers, where any references to the 
 Canonical books must necessarily be precarious and incidental 
 (to say nothing of the continuance of the oral tradition at this 
 early date as a disturbing element) ; or devotional, like the 
 Shepherd of Hermas, which is equally devoid of quotations from 
 the Old Testament and from the New; or historical, like the 
 account of the martyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons, where any 
 such allusion is gratuitous ; or apologetic, like the great mass of 
 the extant Christian writings of the second century, where the 
 reserve of the writer naturally leads him to be silent about 
 authorities which would carry no weight with the Jewish or 
 heathen readers whom he addressed. But the work of Irenseus 
 is the first controversial treatise addressed to Christians on 
 questions of Christian doctrine, where the appeal lies to 
 Christian documents. And here the testimony to our four 
 Gospels is full and clear and precise. 
 
 If any reader is really in earnest on this matter, I will ask 
 him to read Irenseus and judge for himself. He will find many 
 things for which perhaps he is not prepared, and which will jar 
 with his preconceived ideas ; but on the one point at issue I 
 have no fear that I shall be accused of exaggeration. Indeed it 
 is impossible to convey in a few paragraphs the whole force of 
 an impression which is deepened by each successive page of a 
 long and elaborate work. 
 
IX. Tatian's Diatessaron*. 
 
 [May, 1877.] 
 
 A LL that is known of the life of Tatian can be soon told. 
 -^^ He was an Assyi'ian by birth, as he himself distinctly 
 states. If other writers call him a Syrian, the discrepancy may 
 be explained by the common confusion between the two nation- 
 alities ; or possibly it should be accounted for by his place of 
 residence during the later years of his life. As a heathen he 
 exercised the profession of a sophist, and in this capacity 
 travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned towards 
 Christianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed him 
 greatly. As a Christian he became the hearer — in some sense 
 the disciple — of Justin Martyr, doubtless at Rome ; and when 
 Crescens, the cynic, succeeded in bringing about his master's 
 death, Tatian's life also was imperilled by the plots of this 
 machinator. While he remained in the metropolis he had 
 among his disciples Rhodon, who in later years undertook to 
 refute one of his heretical works. Subsequently he left Rome, 
 and seems to have spent the remainder of his life in the East, 
 more especially in Syria and the neighbouring countries. 
 
 After the death of Justin Martyr — how soon after we do 
 not know — his opinions underwent a change. Hitherto he had 
 been regarded as strictly orthodox ; but now he separated 
 himself from the Church, and espoused views closely allied 
 to those of the Encratites. A leading tenet of his new ascetic 
 creed was the rejection of marriage as an abomination. But 
 he is stated also to have adopted opinions from Gnostic teachers, 
 
 ^ [See the note at tlie close of this Essay.] 
 
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON. 273 
 
 more especially the doctrine of iEons, Avhich he derived from 
 the Valentinian school \ The author of Supernatural Religion 
 further says that, ' although Tatian may have been acquainted 
 with some of his (St Paul's) Epistles, it is certain that he did 
 not hold the Apostle in any honour, and permitted himself the 
 liberty of altering his phraseology^.' Where did he learn this 
 ' certain' piece of information that Tatian thought lightly of 
 St Paul ? Assuredly not from any ancient writer. It is quite 
 true that Tatian is stated to have mutilated some of St Paul's 
 Epistles and rejected others. But so did Marcion, who held 
 the Apostle in extravagant honour. And the motive was the 
 same in both cases. The Apostle's actual language did not 
 square with their favourite tenets in all respects, and therefore 
 they assumed that his text must have been corrupted or inter- 
 polated. So far from its being at all doubtful, as our author 
 seems to suggest, whether Tatian was acquainted with any 
 of St Paul's Epistles, we have positive evidence that he did 
 receive some^; and moreover one or two coincidences in his 
 extant work point to an acquaintance with the Apostle's 
 writings. His leanings, like those of Marcion and Valentinus, 
 were generally in the opposite direction to Judaism. His 
 tendency would be not to underrate but to overrate St Paul. 
 At the same time such passages as 1 Tim. iv. 3, where the 
 prohibition of marriage is denounced as a heresy, were a 
 stumbling-block. They must therefore be excised as inter- 
 polations, or the Epistles containing them must be rejected as 
 spurious. 
 
 1 The principal ancient authorities ^ All the references to Super- 
 ior the life of Tatian are the follow- natural Religion in this article will 
 ing : — Tatian Orat. ad Grcec. 19, 29, he found in ii. pp. 148 sq, 374 sq. 
 35, 42 ; IrensBus i. 28. 1 ; Ehodon, in ^ gg^ Clement of Alexandria [I.e. 
 Euseb. H. E. v. 13 ; Clement of Alex- p. 547) gives Tatian's comment on 
 andria Strom, iii. 12, p. 547 ; Exc. 1 Cor. vii. 5 ; and Jerome writes 
 Theod. 38, p. 999; Eusebius H. E. iv. [Prcef. ad. Tit. vii. p. 686), 'Tatianus, 
 16, 28, 29 ; Epiphanius Hcer. xlvi. ; Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse 
 Theodoret Hcer. Fab. i. 20. The state- nonnuUas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, 
 ments in the text are justified by one hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad Titum, 
 or other of these references. apostoii pronuntiandam credidit.' 
 
 S. R. 18 
 
274 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 The date of Tatian is a matter of some uncertainty. He 
 was a hearer, as we have seen, of Justin Martyr in Rome ; and 
 if the chronology of this father had been established beyond 
 the reach of doubt, we should be treading on firm ground. 
 On this point however there has been much variety of opinion. 
 The prevailing view is, or was, in favour of placing Justin's 
 death as late as A.D. 163 — 165, on the authority of Eusebius ; 
 but the most careful investigations of recent criticism have 
 tended towards a much earlier date\ The literary activity of 
 Tatian seems to have begun about the time of Justin Martyr's 
 death ; and after this we have to allow for his own career, first 
 as an orthodox Christian, and then as a heretic. When 
 Irenseus wrote his first book, Tatian was no longer living, as 
 may be inferred from the language of this father^ : and this 
 book must have been written before A.D. 190, and may have 
 been written as early as A.D. l78^ Again, if we may assume 
 that the ' Ass3n:"ian,' whom the Alexandrian Clement mentions 
 among his teachers^, was Tatian, as seems highly probable, we 
 have another indication of date. The first book of the Stroma- 
 teis, in which this fact is recorded, was itself written about 
 A.D. 194 or 195 ; and Clement there speaks of the Assyrian as 
 one of his earlier masters, whom he had met with in the East, 
 before he settled down under the tuition of Pantoenus at 
 Alexandria. In like manner Tatian's connection with Rhodon 
 would point roughly to the same conclusion. On the whole, we 
 shall perhaps not be far wrong if we place the literary activity 
 of Tatian at about A.D. 155 — 170. It may have begun some 
 few years earlier, or it may have extended some few years 
 later. 
 
 Tatian was a voluminous writer; but of several writings 
 mentioned by the ancients only one has come down to us, his 
 Apology or Address to the Greeks. It was written after the 
 death of Justin, but apparently not very long after. At all 
 
 ^ Hort [Journal of Philology, iii. ^ Iren. i. 28. 1. 
 
 p. 155 sq, Onthe date of Justin Martyr) '^ See above, ]). 260 sq. 
 
 places it as early as a.d. 148. * Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 1 (p. 322). 
 
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON. 275 
 
 events it would seem to have been composed before he had 
 separated from the Church and set himself up as a heretical 
 teacher. Its date therefore is dependent on the uncertain 
 chronology of Justin. The author of Supernatural Religion 
 speaks of it as 'generally dated between A.D. 170 — 175,' and 
 seems himself to acquiesce in this view. Though I think this 
 date probably several years too late, the point is not worth 
 contending for. 
 
 As a rule, the early Apologies abstain from quotations, 
 whether from the Old Testament or from the New. The 
 writers are dealing with Gentiles, who have no acquaintance 
 with and attribute no authority to their sacred books, and there- 
 fore they make little or no use of them\ Thus the Apologe- 
 ticus of Tertullian does not contain a single passage from the 
 New Testament, though his writings addressed to Christians 
 teem with quotations from our Canonical books. Hence it is 
 not in this extant work that we should expect to obtain infor- 
 mation as to Tatian's Canon of the Scriptures. Any allusion 
 to them will be purely incidental. As regards our Synoptical 
 Gospels, the indications in Tatian's Apology are not such that 
 we can lay much stress on them. But the evidence that he 
 knew and accepted the Fourth Gospel is beyond the reach of 
 any reasonable doubt. 
 
 The passages are here placed side by side : — 
 
 Tatian. St John. 
 
 'God is a Spirit' [Trv^v^ia 6 'God is a Spirit' {Trvevjxa 6 
 
 ©€os), § 4. ®eo9), iv. 24. 
 
 'And this then is the saying 'And the. light shineth in the 
 
 {to €ipy]ixivov) ; The darkness darkness, and the darkness com- 
 
 comprehendeth not the light' (77 prehended it not' {koX i} (tkotm 
 
 (TKOTca TO <^W9 ov KaTokajx^av^t), avro ov KaTeXa^ev), i. 5. 
 §13. 
 
 1 See Westcott History of Canon been drawn from the reserve of the 
 p. 116 sq, where this point is brought Apologists by writers who have over- 
 out. Many erroneous deductions have looked it. 
 
 18—2 
 
276 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 'Follow ye the only God. All 'All things were made through 
 
 things have been made by Him, Him, and apart from Him was 
 
 and apart from Him hath been made no one thing' (Travra 8t' 
 
 made no one thing' (Travra vir" avroC cyevero Kai ^(copis aOToCtyeveTO 
 
 avTOv Kol X'^P'5 avTov yeyovev ovSe ovSc cv), i. 3. 
 ^, § 19. 
 
 In the last passage from St John I have stopped at the 
 words ovSe ev, because the earliest Christian writers universally 
 punctuated in this way, taking o yeyovev k.t.X. with the 
 following sentence, ' That which hath been made was life in 
 Him.' 
 
 Besides these passages there are other coincidences of 
 exposition, with which however I need not trouble the reader, 
 as they may fairly be disputed. 
 
 It is difficult to see how any one can resist coincidences like 
 these ; and yet the author of Supernatural Religion does resist 
 them. 
 
 The first passage our author has apparently overlooked, for 
 he says nothing about it. If it had stood alone I should 
 certainly not have regarded it as decisive. But the epigram- 
 matic form is remarkable, and it is a characteristic passage of 
 the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 Of the second passage it should be noticed that Tatian 
 introduces it with the expression {rb elprj/juivov) which is used in 
 the New Testament in quoting the Scriptures (Luke ii. 24, 
 Acts ii. 16, xiii. 40, E,om. iv. 18); that in the context he explains 
 'the Word' (Logos) to be 'the light of God,' and 'the dark- 
 ness' to be 'the unintelligent soul ;' that this use of KaraXafi- 
 ^aveiv is very peculiar, and has caused perplexity to interpreters 
 of St John, being translated variously 'comprehended' or 'sur- 
 prised' or 'overcame ;' that the passage in the Fourth Gospel here 
 again is highly characteristic, and occurs in its most characteristic 
 part; and lastly, that the changes made by Tatian are just such 
 as a writer would make when desiring to divest the saying of its 
 context and present it in the briefest form. On the other hand, 
 the author of Supernatural Religion has nothing to allege 
 
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON. 277 
 
 against this coincidence ; he can produce nothing like it else- 
 where ; but he falls back on 'the constant use of the same 
 similitude of light and darkness/ and other arguments of the 
 kind, which are valueless because they do not touch the point 
 of the resemblance. 
 
 On the third passage he remarks that, unlike the author of 
 the Fourth Gospel, 'Tatian here speaks of God, and not of the 
 Logos.' Just so ; but then he varies the preposition accord- 
 ingly, substituting viro for the Evangelist's hia to suit his 
 adaptation. Our author also refers to 'the first chapters of 
 Genesis ;' but where is there any language in the first chapters 
 of Genesis which presents anything like the same degree of 
 parallelism 1 Here again, he is unable to impugn the coinci- 
 dence, which is all the more remarkable because the words are 
 extremely simple in themselves, and it is their order and adapta- 
 tion which gives a character of uniqueness to the expression. 
 
 So much for the individual coincidences. But neither here 
 nor elsewhere does our author betray any consciousness of the 
 value of cumulative evidence. It is only necessary to point to 
 the enormous improbability that any two writers should exhibit 
 accidentally three such resemblances as in the passages quoted ; 
 and the inference will be plain. 
 
 It is not however in this testimony which his extant work 
 bears to the Fourth Gospel, however decisive this may be, that 
 the chief importance of Tatian consists. Ancient writers speak 
 of him as the author of a Harmony or Digest of the four 
 Gospels, to which accordingly he gave the name of Diatessaron. 
 This statement however has been called in question by some 
 recent critics, among whom the author of Supernatural Religion 
 is, as usual, the most uncompromising. It is necessary there- 
 fore to examine the witnesses : — 
 
 1. In the first place then, Eusebius states definitely* — 
 
 'Tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know 
 
 not how, of the Gospels, and called it the Diatessaron {avvd(f)eidv 
 
 TLva KOI crvfaycoyrju ovic olB' ovrci)? t(ov euayyeXiWv a-vvdel<i to Sid 
 
 1 Euseb. H.E. iv. 29. 
 
278 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 reaaapoiv rouro Trpoacovofiaaev). This work is current in some 
 quarters (with some persons) even to the present day.' 
 
 This statement is explicit; yet our author endeavours to set 
 it aside on the ground that 'not only is it based upon mere 
 hearsay, but it is altogether indefinite as to the character of the 
 contents, and the writer admits his own ignorance {ovk olS" ottw?) 
 regarding them'.' 
 
 His inference however from the expression ' I know not how ' 
 is altogether unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius 
 had no personal knowledge of the work, it is constantly used 
 by writers in speaking of books where they are perfectly 
 acquainted with the contents, but do not understand the prin- 
 ciples or do not approve the method. In idiomatic English it 
 signifies 'I cannot think what he was about,' and is equivalent 
 to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so that, if anything, it implies 
 knowledge rather than ignorance of the contents. I have 
 noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in the treatise of 
 Origen against Celsus alone '"', where it commonly refers to 
 Celsus' work which he had before him, and very often to passages 
 which he himself quotes in the context. It is not ignorance of 
 the contents, but disparagement of the plan of Tatian's work, 
 which the expression of Eusebius implies. The Diatessaron 
 was commonly current, as we shall see presently, in the neigh- 
 bouring districts: and it would be somewhat strange if 
 Eusebius, who took a special interest in apocryphal literature, 
 should have remained unacquainted with it. 
 
 2. Our next witness is overlooked by the author of Super- 
 natural Religion. Yet the testimony is not unimportant. In 
 the Doctrine of Addai, an apocryphal Syriac work, which pro- 
 fesses to give an account of the foundation and earliest history 
 of Christianity at Edessa, the new converts are represented as 
 meeting together to hear read, along with the Old Testament, 
 ' the New (Testament) of the Diatessaron^.' It seems clear 
 
 1 [This sentence is omitted in the iii. 35; iv. 14, 68, 86, 98; v. 8, 58; vi. 
 
 Complete Edition, where see i. p. 150.] 65, 81; vii. 8, 56; viii. 42, 45, 48, 59. 
 
 "^ The references are : Pref. l;i. 14, ^ This work first appeared in a 
 
 38, 42, 49, 50, 58; ii. 15, 44, 48, 49; mutilated form in Cureton's posthu- 
 
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON. 279 
 
 from this notice that, at the time when the writer composed 
 this fiction, the form in which the Evangelical narratives were 
 commonly read in the churches with which he was best ac- 
 quainted was a Diatessaron, or Harmony of Four Gospels. From 
 internal evidence however it is clear that the work emanated 
 from Edessa or its neighbourhood. The date of the fiction is 
 less certain ; but it is obviously an early writing. The St Peters- 
 burgh MS containing it is assigned to the sixth century, and the 
 British Museum MSS to the fifth or sixth century^; while there 
 exists an Armenian version said to have been made as early as 
 the fifth century. The work itself therefore must have been 
 written much earlier than this. There is indeed no good 
 reason for doubting that it is the very Syriac document to 
 which Eusebius refers as containing the correspondence of our 
 Lord with Abgarus, and preserved among the archives of Edessa, 
 and which therefore cannot have been very recent when he 
 wrote, about a.d. 325 ^ At the same time it contains gross 
 anachronisms and misstatements respecting earlier Christian 
 history, which hardly allow us to place it much earlier than the 
 middle of the third century ^ Whatever may be its date, the 
 fact is important that the writer uses Diatessaron, adopted 
 from the Greek into the Syriac, as the familiar name for the 
 Gospel narrative which was read in public. Of the authorship 
 
 mous volume, Ancient Syriac Docu- substituted. This would seem to be a 
 
 ments p. 6 sq (London, 1864), from still further corruption; and, if so, it 
 
 MSS in the British Museum, and has presents a parallel to the Diapente in 
 
 recently been published entire by Dr the text of Victor of Capua, mentioned 
 
 Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai (Lon- below. 
 
 don 1876), from a St Petersburgh ms. ^ Wright's Catalogue pp. 1082, 
 
 In the British Museum ms which 1083. 
 contains this part, the word is cor- - Euseb. H. E. i. 13. 
 
 rupted into Ditornon which has no ^ See a valuable article by Zahn in 
 
 meaning; hut Cureton conjectured the Gutting. Gelehrte Anzeigen, Feb- 
 
 that the reading was Diatessaron (see ruary 0, 1877, p. 161 sq. On this 
 
 pp. 15, 158), and his conjecture is document I am unable to accept the 
 
 confirmed by the St Petersburgh conclusion of Cureton and of Dr 
 
 MS, which distinctly so reads (see Phillips, that the work itself is a much 
 
 Philhps, p. 94). In the Armenian ver- earlier and authentic document, and 
 
 sion {Lettrc d'Abgare, Venise, 1868, that the passages containing these 
 
 p. 41), a mention of the Trinity is anachronisms are interpolations. 
 
280 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 of this work however he says nothing. This information we 
 have to seek from other sources. Nor is it far to seek. 
 
 3. We are told that the most famous of the native Syrian 
 fathers, Ephraem, the deacon of Edessa (who died A.D. 373'), 
 wrote a commentary on the Diatessaron of Tatian. Our infor- 
 mant is Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of 
 the twelfth century, and died A.D. 1207. In his own Commen- 
 tary on the Gospels, he writes as fellows'* : — 
 
 Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr, 
 selected and patched together from the Four Gospels and constructed 
 a Gospel, which he called Diatessaron, that is Miscellanies. On this 
 work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition ; and its commencement 
 was — hi the beginning was the Word. Elias of Salamia, who is also 
 called Aphthonius, constructed a Gospel after the likeness of the 
 Diatessaron of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to 
 the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that 
 Diatessaron and could not find it, and in consequence constructed 
 this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with several 
 things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in them, 
 and rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not 
 often met with. 
 
 This statement is explicit and careful. The writer distin- 
 guishes two older works, bearing the name of Diatessaron, 
 composed respectively by Tatian and Ammonius. In addition 
 he mentions a third, composed at a later date by this Elias. Of 
 the work of Ammonius of Alexandria (about A.D. 220) Eusebius, 
 as Bar-Salibi correctly states, gives an account in his Letter 
 to Carpianus, prefixed to his Canons. It was quite different in 
 its character from the Diatessaron of Tatian. The Diatessaron of 
 Tatian was a patchwork of the Four Gospels, commencing with 
 the preface of St John. The work of Ammonius took the 
 Gospel of St Matthew as its standard, preserving its continuity, 
 
 1 The exact date of his death is sq. The English reader should be 
 given in a Syriac ms in the British warned that Assemani's translations 
 Museum (Wright's Catalogue p. 947) are loose and often misleading. More 
 as 'Ann. Grffic. G84.' correct renderings are given here. 
 
 2 Assem. Bibl. Orient, ii. p. 159 
 
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON. 
 
 281 
 
 and placed side by side with it. the parallel passages from the 
 other Gospels \ The principle of the one work was amalgama- 
 tion ; of the other, comparison. No one who had seen the two 
 works could confuse them, though they bore the same name, 
 Diatessaron. Eusebius keeps them quite distinct. So does 
 Bar-Salibi. Later on in his commentary, we are told, he quotes 
 both works in the same place ^ When therefore he relates 
 that Ephraem wrote a commentary on the Diatessaron of Tatian, 
 he is worthy of all credit. From the last witness we have 
 learnt that the Diatessaron was commonly read in the churches 
 of Edessa ; and it was therefore most natural that this famous 
 Edessan father should choose it for commenting upon. 
 
 It is quite true that other Syrian writers have confused 
 these two Diatessarons^. But this fact is only valid to show 
 
 1 Euseb. Op. iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne) 
 
 'A/A/Awi'ios n.ev 6 'AXe^avSpeys rh dca 
 
 Teffffdpuv ri/Mi> KaTaKiXoiirev evayyiXiov, 
 ry Kara Mar^ato^ rds o/xoipuivovs tQ)v 
 Xoiiruv evayyeXiffTQv TrepiKoiras irapaOeis, 
 us €^ dvdyKrjs (TVfx^rjvai. tov ttjs aKoXovdias 
 eipfwv tQv Tpiwv Siacpdapfivai, ocrov iirl 
 Ttf) v(pei dvayvuiaews — i.e. 'He placed 
 side by side with the Gospel according 
 to Matthew the corresponding passages 
 of the other Evangelists, so that as a 
 necessary result the connection of 
 sequence in the three was destroyed, 
 so far as regards the order (texture) of 
 reading.' 
 
 ^ Assem. Bibl. Orient, ii. p. 158. 
 See Hilgenfeld Einleitiing p. 77. 
 
 ^ The confusion of later Syrian 
 writers may be explained without diffi- 
 culty : — 
 
 (i) Bar-Hebrfeus in the latter half 
 of the thirteenth century (Assem. Bibl. 
 Orient, i, p. 57 sq) writes: 'Eusebius 
 of Caesarea, seeing the corruptions 
 which Ammonius of Alexandria intro- 
 duced into the Gospel of the D iatessaron, 
 that is Miscellanies, which commenced, 
 In the beginning luas the Word, and 
 which Mar Ephraem expounded, kept 
 
 the Four Gospels in their integrity, 
 etc' It is tolerably plain, I think, 
 from the language of this writer, that 
 he had before him the passage of Bar- 
 Salibi (or some corresponding passage), 
 and that he misunderstood him, as if 
 he were speaking of the same work 
 throughout. From the coincidence in 
 the strange interpretation of Diatessa- 
 ron, it is clear that the two passages 
 are not independent. Assemani has 
 omitted this interpretation in his 
 translation in both cases, and has thus 
 obliterated the resemblance. 
 
 (ii) To the same source also we may 
 refer the error of Ebed-Jesu in the begin- 
 ning of the fourteenth century, who not 
 only confuses the books but the men. 
 He writes (Assem. Bibl. Orient, iii. p. 
 12) : 'A Gospel which was compiled by 
 a man of Alexandria, Ammonius, who 
 is also Tatian ; and he called it Diates- 
 saron.' He too supposed the two inde- 
 pendent sentences of Bar-Salibi to refer 
 to the same thing. In the preface to his 
 collection of canons however, he gives 
 a description of Tatian's work which is 
 substantially correct : ' Tatiauus qui- 
 dam philosophus cum evangelistarum 
 
282 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 that confusion was possible ; it is powerless to impugn the 
 testimony of this particular author, who shows himself in this 
 passage altogether trustworthy. Who would think of throwing 
 discredit on Lord Macaulay or Mr Freeman, because Robertson 
 or Hume may be inaccurate ? 
 
 4 Our next witness is more important than any. The 
 famous Greek father Theodoret became bishop of Cyrus or 
 Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, in the year 420 or 423 according 
 to different computations, and held this see till his death, which 
 occurred a.d. 457 or 458. In the year 453 he wrote his treatise 
 on Heresies, in which he makes the following statement : — 
 
 He (Tatian) composed the Gospel which is called Diatessaron, 
 cutting out the genealogies ' and such other passages as show the 
 Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh. This 
 work was in use not only among persons belonging to his sect, but 
 also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as they did not 
 perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in all 
 
 loquentium sensum suo intellectu cepis- 
 set, et scopum scriptionis illorum 
 divinae in mente sua fixisset, unum ex 
 quatuor illis admirabile coUegit evan- 
 gelium, quod et Diatessaron nominavit, 
 in quo cum cautissime seriem rectam 
 eorum, quae a Salvatore dicta ac gesta 
 fuere, servasset, ne unam quidem 
 dictionem e suo addidit ' (Mai Script. 
 Vet. Nov. Coll. X. pp. 23, 191). 
 
 (iii) In Bar-Bahlul's Syriac Lexi- 
 con, s. V. (see Payne Smith Thes. Syr. 
 p. 870), Diatessaron is defined as ' the 
 compiled Gospel (made) from the four 
 Evangelists,' and it is added : ' This 
 was composed in Alexandria, and was 
 written by Tatian the Bishop.' The 
 mention of Alexandria suggests that 
 here also there is some confusion with 
 Ammonius, though neither Ammouius 
 nor Tatian was a bishop. Bar-Bahlul 
 flourished in the latter half of the 
 tenth century ; and if this notice were 
 really his, we should have an example 
 (doubtful however) of this confusion, 
 
 earlier than Bar-Salibi. But these 
 Syrian Lexicons have grown by accre- 
 tion ; the Mss, I am informed, vary 
 considerably ; and we can never be 
 sure that any word or statement 
 emanated from the original compiler. 
 
 Since writing the above, I am able 
 to say, through the kindness of Dr 
 Hoffmann, that in the oldest known 
 MS of Bar-Bahlul, dated a.h. 611, i.e., 
 A.D. 1214, this additional sentence 
 about Tatian is wanting, as it is also 
 in another ms of which he sends me 
 an account through Professor Wright. 
 It is no part therefore of the original 
 Bar-Bahlul. Thus all the instances of 
 confusion in Syriac writers are later 
 than Bar-Salibi, and can be traced to a 
 misunderstanding of his language. 
 
 1 H. F. i. 20. The Syrian lexico- 
 grapher Bar Ali also, who flourished 
 about the end of the ninth centui'y, 
 mentions that Tatian omitted both the 
 genealogies : see Payne Smith's Thes. 
 Syr. s. V. p. 869 sq. 
 
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSAEON. 283 
 
 simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more than 
 two hundred such copies held in respect in the churches in our parts 
 (rats Trap' ^/juv cK/cAT/crtats). All these I collected and put away, and I 
 replaced them by the Gospels of the Four Evangelists. 
 
 The churches to which he refers were doubtless those belong- 
 ing to his diocese of Cyrrhestice, which contained eight hundred 
 parishes\ The proportion of copies will give some idea of the 
 extent of its circulation in these parts. 
 
 It is vain, in the teeth of these facts, to allege the uncritical 
 character of the father as discrediting the evidence. The 
 materials before Theodoret were ample ; the man himself was 
 competent to form a judgment ; and the judgment is explicit. 
 Neither can there be any reasonable doubt, considering the 
 locality, that the Diatessaron here mentioned is the same which 
 is named in the Doctrine of Addai, and the same which was 
 commented on by Ephraem Syrus. When the author of 
 Supernatural Religion argues that Theodoret does not here 
 regard this Diatessaron as patched together from the four 
 canonical Gospels, it is unnecessary to follow him. This point 
 may be safely left to the intelligence of the reader. 
 
 Here then we have the testimony of four distinct witnesses, 
 all tending to the same result. Throughout large districts of 
 Syria there was in common circulation from the third century 
 down to the middle of the fifth a Diatessaron bearing the name 
 of Tatianl It was a compilation of our Four Gospels, which 
 recommended itself by its concise and convenient form, and so 
 superseded the reading of the Evangelists themselves in some 
 churches. It commenced, as it naturally could commence, with 
 the opening words of the Fourth Gospel — a gospel which, as we 
 have seen, Tatian quotes in his extant work. It was probably in 
 
 1 Theodoret Epist. 113 (iv. p. 1190, says, ' And Christ is also the Word 
 ed. Schulze). and the Speech of the Lord, as it is 
 
 2 Zahn {Gott. Gel. Anz. p. 184) written in the beginning of the Gospel 
 points out that Aphraates also, a some- of our Saviour — In the beginning tvas 
 whatolder Syrian father than Ephraem, the Word.' The date of this Homily 
 appears to have used this Diatessaron. is a.d. 337. 
 
 In his first Homily (p. 13, ed. Wright) he 
 
284 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 the main a fairly adequate digest of the evangelical narratives, 
 for otherwise it would not have maintained its grounds ; but 
 passages which offended Tatian's Encratic and Gnostic views, 
 such as the genealogies, were excised ; and this might easily be 
 done without attracting notice under cover of his general plan. 
 All this is consistent and probable in itself Moreover the range 
 of circulation attributed to it is just what might have been 
 expected ; for Syria and Mesopotamia are especially mentioned 
 as the scene of Tatian's labours \ 
 
 In this general convergence of testimony however, there are 
 two seemingly discordant voices, of which the author of Sujjer- 
 natural Religion makes much use. Let us see what they really 
 mean. 
 
 1. Epiphanius was bishop of Oonstantia, in Cyprus, in the 
 latter half of the fourth century. In his book on Heresies, 
 which he commenced A.D. 374, he writes of Tatian, 'The 
 Diatessaron Gospel is said to have been composed by him ; it is 
 called by some according to the Hebrews^.' 
 
 Here then our author supposes that he has discerned the 
 truth. This Diatessaron was not a digest of our four Gospels, 
 but a distinct evangelical narrative, the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews. Of this Gospel according to the Hebrews he says 
 that 'at one time it was exclusively used by the fathers.' I 
 challenge him to prove this assertion in the case of one single 
 father, Greek or Latin or Syrian. But this by the way. If 
 indeed this Hebrew Gospel had been in its contents anything 
 like what our author imagines it, it would have borne some 
 resemblance at all events to the Diatessaron ; for, wherever he 
 meets with any evangelical passage in any early writer, which is 
 found literally or substantially in any one of our four Gospels 
 (whether characteristic of St Matthew, or of St Luke, or of 
 St John, it matters not) he assigns it without misgiving to this 
 Hebrew Gospel. But his Hebrew Gospel is a pure effort of the 
 imagination. The only 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' 
 known to antiquity was a very different document. It was not 
 1 Epipliaa. IJcer. xlvi. 1. - See the reference iu the last note. 
 
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON. 285 
 
 co-extensive with our four Gospels ; but was constructed on the 
 lines of the first alone. Indeed so closely did it resemble the 
 canonical St Matthew — though with variations, omissions, and 
 additions — that Jerome, who translated it, supposed it to be the 
 Hebrew original, of which Papias speaks. Such a Gospel does 
 not answer in any single particular, unless it be the omission of 
 the genealogy (which however does not appear to have been 
 absent from all copies of this Gospel), to the notices of Tatian's 
 Diatessaron. More especially the omission of all reference to 
 the Davidic descent of Christ would be directly opposed to 
 the fundamental principle of this Gospel, which, addressing 
 itself to the Jews, laid special stress on His Messianic claims. 
 
 How then can we explain the statement of Epiphanius ? It 
 is a simple blunder, not more egregious than scores of other 
 blunders which deface his pages. He had not seen the Diates- 
 saron : this our author himself says. But he had heard that it 
 was in circulation in certain parts of Syria ; and he knew also that 
 the Gospel of the Hebrews was current in these same regions, 
 there or thereabouts. Hence he jumped at the identification. 
 To a writer who can go astray so incredibly about the broadest 
 facts of history, as we have seen him do in the succession of the 
 Roman Emperors^, such an error would be the easiest thing in 
 the world. Yet it was perfectly consistent on the part of our 
 author, who in another instance prefers John Malalas to the 
 concurrent testimony of all the preceding centuries^ to set aside 
 the direct evidence of a Theodoret, and to accept without hesi- 
 tation the hearsay of an Epiphanius. 
 
 2. 'Tatian's Gospel,' writes the author of Supernatural 
 Religion, 'was not only called Diatessaron, but according to 
 Victor of Capua, it was also called Diapente {Sia irevre) "by 
 five," a complication which shows the incorrectness of the eccle- 
 siastical theory of its composition.' 
 
 1 All the remains of the Hebrew - See above, p. 260, where this 
 
 Gospel, and the passages of Jerome re- specimen of his blundering is given, 
 lating to it, will be found in Westcott's ^ See above, p. 79 sq. 
 
 Introduction to the Gospels p. 462 sq. 
 
286 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 This is not a very accurate statement. If our author had 
 referred to the actual passage in Victor of Capua, he would have 
 found that Victor does not himself call it Diapente, but says 
 that Eusebius called it Diapente. This makes all the differ- 
 ence. 
 
 Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble 
 upon an anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels \ and 
 began in consequence to investigate the authorship. He found 
 two notices in Eusebius of such Harmonies ; one in the Epistle 
 to Garpianus prefixed to the Canons, relating to the work of 
 Ammonius ; another in the Ecclesiastical Histor^y, relating to 
 that of Tatian. Assuming that the work which he had dis- 
 covered must be one or other, he decides in favour of the latter, 
 because it does not give St Matthew continuously and append 
 the passages of the other evangelists, as Eusebius states Ammo- 
 nius to have done. All this Victor tells us in the preface to 
 this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin 
 dress. 
 
 There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the 
 authorship ; for, though the work is constructed on the same 
 general plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but 
 with Luke i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs 
 therefore, at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to 
 Ammonius. 
 
 But we are concerned only with the passage relating to 
 Tatian, which commences as follows : — 
 
 Ex historia quoque ejus (i.e. Eusebii) comperi quod Tatianus vir 
 eruditissimus et orator illius temporis clarus unum ex quatuor com- 
 paginaverit Evangelium cui titulum Diapente imposuit. 
 
 Thus Victor gets his information directly from Eusebius, 
 whom he repeats. He knows nothing about Tatian's Diatessaron, 
 except what Eusebius tells him. But we ourselves have this 
 
 ^ Patrol. Lat. Ixviii. p. 253 (ed. lias been published more than once ; 
 Migue). An old Frankish translation e.g. by Schmeller (Vienna, 1841). 
 of this Harmony is also extant. It 
 
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON. 287 
 
 same passage of Eusebius before us, and find that Eusebius 
 does not call it Diapente but Diatessaron. This is not only the 
 reading of all the Greek mss without exception, but likewise 
 of the Syriac Version', which was probably contemporary with 
 Eusebius and of which there is an extant MS belonging to the 
 sixth century, as also of the Latin Version which was made by 
 Rufinus a century and a half before Victor wrote. About the 
 text of Eusebius therefore there can be no doubt. Moreover 
 Victor himself, who knew Greek, says ex quatuor, which requires 
 Diatessaron, and the work which he identifies with Tatian's 
 Harmony is made up of passages from our Four Gospels alone. 
 Therefore he can hardly have written Diapente himself; and the 
 curious reading is probably due to the blundering or the officious- 
 ness of some later scribe^. 
 
 Thus we may safely acquiesce in the universal tradition, or 
 as our author, ovk olS" oTrco<i, prefers to call it, the ' ecclesiastical 
 theory,' respecting the character and composition of Tatian's 
 Diatessaron^. 
 
 1 The Syriac version is not yet how anyother explanation is consistent 
 published, but I have ascertained this with the facts. 
 
 by inquiry. ^ ^j^j^ important monograph on 
 
 2 This seems to be Hilgenfeld's Tatian's Diatessaron by Zahn has been 
 opinion also {Einleitung p. 79); and piiblished since this Article was written 
 curious as the result is, I do not see (Erlangen, 1881).] 
 
 [The actual Diatessaron of Tatian has since been discovered, 
 though not in the original language, so that no doubt can now 
 remain on the subject. The history of this discovery has been 
 given in the careful and scholarly work of Prof. Hemphill of 
 Dublin [The Diatessaron of Tatian 1888), where (see esp. p, xx sq) 
 full information will be found. Ephraem's Commentary exists in an 
 Armenian translation of some works of this Syrian father, which had 
 been published in Venice as early as 1836. I had for some years 
 possessed a copy of this work in four volumes, and the thouglit had 
 more than once crossed my mind that possibly it might throw light 
 on Ephraem's mode of dealing with the Gospels, as I knew that it 
 contained notes on St Paul's epistles or some portion of them. I did 
 not however then possess sufficient knowledge of Armenian to sift 
 its contents, but I hoped to investigate the matter when I had 
 
288 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 mastered enough of the language. Meanwhile a Latin translation 
 was published by Moesinger under the title of Evangelii concordantis 
 expositio facta a Sancto Ephraemo doctors Syro Venet. 1876, just 
 about the time when I wrote the above article ; but it was not 
 known in England till some years after. Later still an Arabic 
 translation of the Diatessaron itself has been discovered and 
 published in Rome by Ciasca (Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae 
 Arahice nunc priniuni etc., 1888). On the relation of Victor's 
 Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be inde- 
 pendent of Tatian, and for the quotations in Aphraates, etc., see 
 Hemphill's Diatessaron. Thus the ' ecclesiastical theory ' — the only 
 theory which was supported by any sound continuous tradition — is 
 shown to be unquestionably true, and its nineteenth century 
 critical rivals must all be abandoned.] 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 S. R. 
 
 19 
 
The following fafer has no reference to the work entitled '■Super- 
 natural Religio7i ' / hut, as it is kindred in subject and appeared in 
 the same Review, I have given it a place here. 
 
Discoveries illustrating the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 [Mat, 1878.] 
 
 TN a former volume M. Renan declared his opinion that ' the 
 -*- author of the Third Gospel and the Acts was verily and 
 indeed (hien r^ellement) Luke, a disciple of St Paul\' In the 
 last instalment of his work he condemns as untenable the view 
 that the first person plural of the later chapters is derived 
 from some earlier document inserted by the author, on the 
 ground that these portions are identical in style with the rest 
 of the work^ Such an expression of opinion, proceeding from 
 a not too conservative critic, is significant ; and this view of the 
 authorship, I cannot doubt, will be the final verdict of the 
 future, as it has been the unbroken tradition of the past. But 
 at a time when attacks on the genuineness of the work have 
 been renewed, it may not be out of place to call attention to 
 some illustrations of the narrative which recent discoveries 
 have brought to light. No ancient work affords so many tests 
 of veracity ; for no other has such numerous points of contact in 
 all directions with contemporary history, politics, and topo- 
 graphy, whether Jewish or Greek or Roman. In the publi- 
 cations of the year 1877 Cyprus and Ephesus have made im- 
 portant contributions to the large mass of evidence already 
 existing. 
 
 1. The government of the Roman provinces at this time 
 was peculiarly dangerous ground for the romance-writer to 
 venture upon. When Augustus assumed the supreme power 
 
 ^ Les Apotres p. xviii. - Les Evangiles p. 436. 
 
 19—2 
 
292 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 he divided the provinces under the Roman dominion with the 
 Senate. From that time forward there were two sets of pro- 
 vincial governors. The ruler of a senatorial province was styled 
 a proconsul {dvdvrrraTo'i), while the officer to whom an impera- 
 torial province was entrusted bore the name of proprjetor (avri- 
 aTpdT7j'yo<i) or legate {irpea-^evTrj'i). Thus the use of the terms 
 'proconsul' and 'propraetor' was changed; for, whereas in repub- 
 lican times they signified that the provincial governors bearing 
 them had previously held the offices of consul and prsetor re- 
 spectively at home, they were now employed to distinguish the 
 superior power under which the provinces were administered 
 without regard to the previous rank of the governors adminis- 
 tering them. Moreover, the original subdivision of the pro- 
 vinces between the Emperor and Senate underwent constant 
 modifications. If disturbances broke out in a senatorial province 
 and military rule was necessary to restore order, it would be 
 transferred to the Emperor as the head of the army, and the 
 Senate would receive an imperatorial province in exchange. 
 Hence at any given time it would be impossible to say without 
 contemporary, or at least very exact historical knowledge, 
 whether a particular province was governed by a proconsul or a 
 propraetor. The province of Achaia is a familiar illustration of 
 this point. A very few years before St Paul's visit to Corinth, 
 and some years later, Achaia was governed by a propraetor. 
 Just at this time, however, it was in the hands of the Senate, 
 and its ruler therefore was a proconsul, as represented by St 
 Luke. 
 
 Cyprus is a less familiar, but not less instructive, example of 
 the same accuracy. Older critics, even when writing on the 
 apologetic side, had charged St Luke with an incorrect use of 
 terms ; and the origin of their mistake is a significant comment 
 on the perplexities in which a later forger would find himself 
 entangled in dealing with these official designations. They fell 
 upon a passage in Strabo' where this writer, after mentioning 
 the division of the provinces between the Emperor and the 
 
 1 xvii. p. 840. 
 
APPENDIX. 293 
 
 Senate, states that the Senate sent consuls to the two pro- 
 vinces of Asia and Africa but praetors to the rest on their list, — 
 among which he mentions Cyprus ; and they jumped at the 
 conclusion — very natural in itself — that the governor of Cyprus 
 would be called a propraetor. Accordingly Baronio' suggested 
 that Cyprus, though a praetorian province, was often handed 
 over honoris causa to be administered by the proconsul of 
 Cilicia, and he assumed therefore that Sergius Paulus held this 
 latter office ; while Grotius found a solution in the hypothesis 
 that proconsul was a title bestowed by flatterers on an official 
 whose proper designation was propraetor. The error illustrates 
 the danger of a little learning, not the less dangerous when it 
 is in the hands of really learned men. Asia and Africa, the two 
 great prizes of the profession, exhausted the normal two consuls 
 of the preceding year ; and the Senate therefore were obliged to 
 send ex-praetors and other magistrates to govern the remaining 
 provinces under their jurisdiction. But it is now an unques- 
 tioned and unquestionable fact that all the provincial governors 
 who represented the Senate in imperial times, whatever magis- 
 tracy they might have held previously, were styled officially 
 proconsuls ^ 
 
 The circumstances indeed, so far as regards Cyprus, are 
 distinctly stated by Dion Cassius. At the original distribution 
 of the provinces (b.c. 27) this island had fallen to the Empe- 
 ror's share ; but the historian, while describing the assignment 
 of the several countries in the first instance, adds that the 
 Emperor subsequently gave back Cyprus and Gallia Narbo- 
 nensis to the Senate, himself taking Dalmatia in exchange''; 
 and at a later point, when he arrives at the time in question 
 (B.C. 22), he repeats the information respecting the transfer. 
 ' And so,' he adds, ' proconsuls began to be sent to those nations 
 
 1 Sub ann. 46. and he therefore supposes that Strabo 
 
 - See Becker u. Marquardt Rom. and Dion Cassius are at variance. 
 
 Alterth. iii. i. p. 294 sq. Even De De Wette's error stands uncorrected 
 
 Wette has not escaped the pitfall, for by his editor, Overbeck. 
 
 he states that 'according to Strabo •"* Dion Cassius liii. 12. 
 
 Cyprus was governed by propraetors,' 
 
294 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 also'.' Of the continuance of Cyprus under the jurisdiction of 
 the Senate, about the time to which St Luke's narrative refers, 
 we have ample evidence. Contemporary records bear testi- 
 mony to the existence of proconsuls in Cyprus not only before 
 and after but during the reign of Claudius. The inscriptions 
 mention by name two proconsuls who governed the province in 
 this Emperor's time (a.d. 51, 52)^; while a third, and perhaps 
 a fourth, are recorded on the coins ^ At a later date, under 
 Hadrian, we come across a propraetor of Cyprus'*. The change 
 would probably be owing to the disturbed state of the province 
 consequent on the insurrection of the Jews. But at the close 
 of the same century (a.d. 198) — under Severus — it is again 
 governed by a proconsul® ; and this was its normal condition. 
 
 Thus the accuracy of St Luke's designation is abundantly 
 established ; but hitherto no record had been found of the par- 
 ticular proconsul mentioned by him. This defect is supplied by 
 one of General Cesnola's inscriptions. It is somewhat muti- 
 lated indeed, so that the meaning of parts is doubtful ; but for 
 our purpose it is adequate. A date is given as EIH-IIAYAOY- 
 [ANQJYHATOY, 'in the proconsulship of Paulus.' On this 
 Cesnola remarks: 'The proconsul Paulus may be the Sergius 
 Paulus of the Acts of the Apostles (chap, xiii), as instances of 
 the suppression of one of two names are not rare^' An 
 example of the suppression in this very name Sergius Paulus 
 will be given presently, thus justifying the identification of the 
 proconsul of the Acts with the proconsul of this inscription. 
 
 Of this Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, Dean Alford 
 says that ' nothing more is known.' But is it certain that he is 
 not mentioned elsewhere ? In the index of contents and autho- 
 rities which forms the first book of Pliny's Natural History, this 
 
 1 Dion Cassius liv. 4. p. 39. 
 
 " Q. Julius Cordus and L, Annius * Corp. Inscr. Lat. iii. 6072, an 
 
 Bassus in Boeckli Corp. Inscr. Grcec. Ephesian inscription discovered by Mr 
 
 2631, 2632. Wood. 
 
 3 Cominius Proclus, and perhaps ^ Corp. Inner. Lat. iii. 218. • 
 
 Quadratus: see Akerman's Numismatic ^ Cesnola's Cyprus p. 425. 
 
 Illustrations of the New Testament 
 
APPENDIX. 295 
 
 writer twice names one Sergius Paulus among the Latin authors 
 to whom he was indebted. May not this have been the same 
 person ? The name is not common. So far as I have observed, 
 only one other person bearing it^ — probably a descendant of 
 this Cyprian proconsul — is mentioned, of whom I shall have 
 something to say hereafter; and he flourished more than a 
 century later. Only one test of identity suggests itself The 
 Sergius Paulus of Pliny is named as an authority for the second 
 and eighteenth books of that writer. Now on the hypothesis 
 that the proconsul of Cyprus is meant, it would be a natural 
 supposition that, like Sir J. Emerson Tennent or Sir Ruther- 
 ford Alcock, this Sergius Paulus would avail himself of the 
 opportunities afforded by his official residence in the East to tell 
 his Roman fellow-countrymen something about the region in 
 which he had resided. We therefore look with interest to see 
 whether these two books of Pliny contain any notices respecting 
 Cyprus, which might reasonably be explained in this way ; and 
 our curiosity is not disappointed. In the second book, besides 
 two other brief notices (cc. 90, 112) relating to the situation of 
 Cyprus, Pliny mentions (c. 97) an area in the temple of Venus 
 at Paphos on which the rain never falls. In the eighteenth book 
 again, besides an incidental mention of this island (c. 57), he 
 gives some curious information (c. 12) with respect to the 
 Cyprian corn, and the bread made therefrom. It should be 
 added that for the second book, in which the references to 
 Cyprus come late, Sergius Paulus is the last-mentioned Latin 
 authority ; whereas for the eighteenth, where they are early, he 
 occupies an earlier, though not very early, place in the list. 
 
 1 Dean Alford indeed (on Acts xiii. placed by Muratori (p. cccxiv. 3) and 
 
 7), following some previous writers, others under the year 94 ; but there is 
 
 mentions a Sergius Paulus, inter- good reason to believe that it refers to 
 
 mediate in date between the two the friend of Galen, and must be as- 
 
 others — the authority of Pliny and signed to the year when he was consul 
 
 the friend of Galen — whom he de- for the first time, as suffectus, i.e. 
 
 scribes as ' one of the consules suffecti about a.d. 150. See Mariui Atti c 
 
 in A.D. 94.' This however is a mis- Monumenti de' Fratelli Arvali p. 198 ; 
 
 take. A certain inscription, mention- Waddington Pastes cles Provinces Asia- 
 
 ing L, Sergius Paullus as cousul, is tiques p. 731. 
 
296 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 These facts may be taken for what they are worth. In a work, 
 which contains such a multiplicity of details as Pliny's Natural 
 History, we should not be justified in laying too much stress on 
 coincidences of this kind. 
 
 From the Sergius Paulus of Luke the physician we turn to 
 the Sergius Paulus of Galen the physician. Soon after the 
 accession of M. Aurelius (a.d. 161) Galen paid his first visit to 
 Rome, where he stayed for three or four years. Among other 
 persons whom he met there was L. Sergius Paulus, who had 
 been already consul suffectus about A.d. 150, and was hereafter 
 to be consul for the second time in a.d. 168 (on this latter occa- 
 sion as the regular consul of the year), after which time he held 
 the Prefecture of the City\ He is probably also the same 
 person who is mentioned elsewhere as proconsul of Asia in 
 connection with a Christian martyrdom^. This later Sergius 
 Paulus reproduces many features of his earlier namesake. Both 
 alike are public men ; both alike are proconsuls ; both alike 
 show an inquisitive and acquisitive disposition. The Sergius 
 Paulus of the Acts, dissatisfied (as we may suppose) alike with 
 the coarse mythology of popular religion and with the lifeless 
 precepts of abstract philosophies, has recourse first to the magic 
 of the sorcerer Elymas, and then to the theology of the Apostles 
 
 1 This person is twice mentioned I do not know on what authority this 
 
 by Galen de Anat. Admin, i. 1 {Op. ii. latter reading rests, but the change in 
 
 p. 218, ed. Kiihn) : Tov8e tov vvv eTrdpxov order is absolutely necessary for the 
 
 TTJs 'Pw/iatoi;' TToXewj, di/dpos to. iravTo. sense; for (1) in this passage nothing 
 
 TTpuTevovTos ^pyois re koI \6yois tols ev more is said about Sergius as distinct 
 
 <pi\o(TO(j)iq., l,epylov HavXov vwaTov: de from Paulus, whereas Paulus is again 
 
 Prceiiot. 2 (Op. ii. p. 612), d<f)lKovTo and again mentioned, so that plainly 
 
 "Siipyios T€ 6 Kal liavXos, 6s ov /xera woXiv one person alone is intended. (2) In 
 
 Xpovov virapxos (1. ^Trapxos) iyivero t^s the parallel passage Sergius Paulus is 
 
 TToXews, Kal <i>Xdpios, virariKos fikv Civ TJdrj mentioned, and the same description 
 
 Kal avTos, icrirevKws 8i irepl t7)v ' Apiaro- is given of him as of Paulus here. 
 
 tAous <pi\offo(f>lav, uiatrep Kal 6 IlauXos, The alternative would be to omit Kal 6 
 
 oh dirjyrja-dfievos k. t. X. In this latter altogether, as the passage is tacitly 
 
 passage the words stand 2^pyi6s re quoted in Borghesi (Euvres viii. p. 
 
 Kal 6 HauXos in Kiihn and other earlier 504. 
 
 printed editions which I have con- - Melito in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26: 
 
 suited, but they are quoted Zepyioi re see Waddington Pastes des Provinces 
 
 6 Kal IlaCXos by Wetstein and others. Asiatiques p. 731. [See above, p. 223.] 
 
APPENDIX. 297 
 
 Barnabas and Saul, for satisfaction. The Sergius Paulus of 
 Galen is described as ' holding the foremost place in practical 
 life as well as in philosophical studies ;' he is especially men- 
 tioned as a student of the Aristotelian philosophy ; and he 
 takes a very keen interest in medical and anatomical learning. 
 Moreover, if we may trust the reading, there is another striking 
 coincidence between the two accounts. The same expression, 
 ' who is also Paul ' (6 koL IlauX-o?), is used to describe Saul of 
 Tarsus in the context of the Acts, and L. Sergius in the account 
 of Galen. Not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample 
 on chronology as to maintain that the author of the Acts 
 borrowed from these treatises of Galen ; and conversely I have 
 no desire to suggest that Galen borrowed from St Luke. But 
 if so, the facts are a warning against certain methods of criticism 
 which find favour in this age. To sober critics, the coincidence 
 will merely furnish an additional illustration of the permanence 
 of type which forms so striking a feature in the great Roman 
 families. One other remark is suggested by Galen's notices of 
 his friend. Having introduced him to us as ' Sergius who is 
 also Paulus,' he drops the former name altogether in the sub- 
 sequent narrative, and speaks of him again and again as Paulus 
 simply. This illustrates the newly-published Cyprian inscription, 
 in which the proconsul of that province is designated by the one 
 name Paulus only. 
 
 2. The transition from General Cesnola's Cyprus to Mr 
 Wood's Ephesus carries us forward from the first to the third 
 missionary journey of St Paul. Here, again, we have illustrative 
 matter of some importance. The main feature in the narrative 
 of the Acts is the manner in which the cultus of the Ephesian 
 Artemis dominates the incidents of the Apostle's sojouru in 
 that city. As an illustration of this feature, it would hardly be 
 possible to surpass one of the inscriptions in the existing 
 collection^ We seem to be reading a running commentary on 
 
 1 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. GrcBC. 2354. clear. The document bears only too 
 The first sentence which I have quoted close a resemblance to the utterances of 
 is slightly mutilated ; but the sense is Lourdss in our own day. 
 
298 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 the excited appeal of Demetrius the silversmith, when we are 
 informed that ' not only in this city but everywhere temples are 
 dedicated to the goddess, and statues erected and altars 
 consecrated to her, on account of the manifest epiphanies which 
 she vouchsafes ' (Ta9 vir avrrj^ yetvofMeva^ ivapyetf; e'KK^avela^) ; 
 that ' the greatest proof of the reverence paid to her is the fact 
 that a month bears her name, being called Artemision among 
 ourselves, and Artemisius among the Macedonians and the other 
 nations of Greece and their respective cities ;' that during this 
 month ' solemn assemblies and religious festivals are held, and 
 more especially in this our city, which is the nurse of its own 
 Ephesian goddess ' {ry Tpo(j)a} Tr/9 lSia<; Oeov Tr}<i 'E^ecrta?) ; and 
 that therefore ' the people of the Ephesians, considering it meet 
 that the whole of this month which bears the divine name {top 
 iirwvvixov Tov deiov 6v6/jbaTo<i) should be kept holy, and dedicated 
 to the goddess,' has decreed accordingly. ' For so,' concludes 
 this remarkable document, ' the cultus being set on a better 
 footing, our city will continue to grow in glory and to be 
 prosperous to all time,' The sense of special proprietorship in 
 this goddess of world-wide fame, which pervades the narrative 
 in the Acts, could not be better illustrated than by this decree. 
 But still the newly-published inscriptions greatly enhance the 
 effect. The patron deity not only appears in these as ' the great 
 goddess Artemis,' as in the Acts, but sometimes she is styled 
 'the supremely great goddess (?; /jLejiari] 6e6<^) Artemis.' To 
 her favour all men are indebted for all their choicest possessions. 
 She has not only her priestesses, but her temple-curators, her 
 essenes, her divines {deo\6yot), her choristers (ufjuvcoSol), her 
 vergers {aKTjirrovxot), her tire-women or dressers (Koa/xr]Telpat), 
 and even her ' acrobats,' whatever may be meant by some of these 
 terms. Fines are allocated to provide adornments for her ; en- 
 dowments are given for the cleaning and custody of her images ; 
 decrees are issued for the public exhibition of her treasures. Her 
 birthday is again and again mentioned. She is seen and heard 
 everywhere. She is hardly more at home in her own sanctuary 
 than in the Great Theatre. This last-mentioned place — the 
 
APPENDIX. 299 
 
 scene of the tumult in the Acts — is brought vividly before our 
 eyes in Mr Wood's inscriptions. The theatre appears as the 
 recognized place of public assembly. Here edicts are pro- 
 claimed, and decrees recorded, and benefactors crowned. When 
 the mob, under the leadership of Demetrius, gathered here for 
 their demonstration against St Paul and his companions, they 
 would find themselves surrounded by memorials which might 
 stimulate their zeal for the goddess. If the ' town-clerk ' had 
 desired to make good his assertion, ' What man is there that 
 knoweth not that the city of the Ephesians is sacristan of the 
 great goddess Artemis ? ' he had only to point to the inscriptions 
 which lined the theatre for confirmation. The very stones 
 would have cried out from the walls in response to his appeal. 
 
 Nor is the illustration of the magistracies which are named 
 by St Luke less complete. Three distinct officers are mentioned 
 in the narrative — the Roman proconsul (dvOviraTo^), the go- 
 vernor of the province and supreme administrator of the law, 
 translated ' deputy ' in our version ; the recorder {ypa/j./jiaT6v<;) 
 or chief magistrate of the city itself, translated ' town-clerk ; ' 
 and the Asiarchs {'AaLap')(^al), or presidents of the games and of 
 other religious ceremonials, translated ' the chief of Asia.' All 
 these appear again and again in the newly-discovered inscriptions. 
 Sometimes two of the three magistracies will be mentioned on 
 the same stone. Sometimes the same person will unite in 
 himself the two offices of recorder and Asiarch, either simul- 
 taneously or not. The mention of the recorder is especially 
 frequent. His name is employed to authenticate every decree 
 and to fix every date. 
 
 But besides these more general illustrations of the account 
 in the Acts, the newly- discovered inscriptions throw light on 
 some special points in the narrative. Thus where the chief 
 magistrate pronounces St Paul and his companions to be 
 'neither sacrilegious (lepoavXov;) nor blasphemers of our 
 goddess V we discover a special emphasis in the term on 
 finding from these inscriptions that certain offences (owing to 
 1 Acts xix. 37 where iepocrvXovi is oddly translated ' robbers of churches.' 
 
300 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 the iJiutilation of the stone, we are unable to determine the 
 special offences) were treated as constructive sacrilege against 
 the goddess. ' Let it be regarded as sacrilege and impiety ' 
 {ecTTw lepoa-vXia Kol dae^eia), says an inscription found in this 
 very theatre', though not yet set up at the time when the 
 ' town-clerk ' spoke. So again, where the same speaker describes 
 the city of Ephesus as the ' neocoros,' the ' temple sweeper,' or 
 'sacristan of the great goddess Artemis,' we find in these 
 inscriptions for the first time a direct example of this term so 
 applied. Though the term ' neocoros ' in itself is capable of 
 general application, yet as a matter of fact, when used of 
 Ephesus on coins and inscriptions (as commonly in the case of 
 other Asiatic cities), it has reference to the cultus not of the 
 patron deity, but of the Roman emperors. In this sense 
 Ephesus is described as ' twice ' or ' thrice sacristan,' as the case 
 may be, the term being used absolutely. There was indeed 
 every probability that the same term would be employed also 
 to describe the relation of the city to Artemis. By a plausible 
 but highly precarious conjecture it had been introduced into the 
 lacuna of a mutilated inscription I By a highly probable but 
 not certain interpretation it had been elicited from the legend 
 on a coin^ There were analogies too which supported it. 
 Thus the Magnesians are styled on the coins 'sacristans of 
 Artemis* ;' and at Ephesus itself an individual priest is desig- 
 nated by the same term 'sacristan of Artemis^' Nor did it 
 seem unlikely that a city which styled itself 'the nurse of 
 Artemis ' should also claim the less audacious title of ' sacristan ' 
 to this same goddess. Still probability is not certainty ; and (so 
 far as I am aware) no direct example was forthcoming. Mr 
 Wood's inscriptions supply this defect. On one of these 'the 
 city of the Ephesians ' is described as ' twice sacristan of the 
 
 1 In.'icr. vi. 1, p. 14. NEQKOPON • KAI . THS • APTEMI- 
 
 2 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 2972, T[ors AOS. 
 
 veojKopuiv Twv ^ePdffTwp, ij.6vw]v aira- * Mionnet, iii. p. 153, Suppl. vi. pp. 
 
 [o-wj'] 5^ TVS 'ApTe>5os. 245, 247, 250, 253. 
 
 3 Eckhel Doctr. Num. ii. p. 520. ^ Xen. Anab. v. 3, 6. 
 The legend is— E^ESIfiN . TPIS • 
 
APPENDIX. 301 
 
 August! according to the decrees of the Senate and sacristan of 
 Artemis \' 
 
 One other special coincidence deserves notice. The recorder, 
 desirous of pacifjdug the tumult, appeals to the recognized forms 
 of law. ' If Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen,' he says, ' have 
 a matter against any one, assizes are held, and there are 
 proconsuls I Let them indict one another. But if you have 
 any further question (i.e., one which does not fall within the 
 province of the courts of justice), it shall be settled in the 
 lawful (regular) assembly.' By a ' lawful (regular) assembly ' 
 {evvo/jLo<i eKKkr^aia) he means one of those which were held on 
 stated days already predetermined by the law, as opposed to those 
 which were called together on special emergencies out of the 
 ordinary course, though in another sense these latter might be 
 equally ' lawful.' An inscription, found in this very theatre in 
 which the words were uttered, illustrates this technical sense of 
 'lawful.' It provides that a certain silver image of Athene 
 shall be brought and 'set at every lawful (regular) assembly 
 (Kara irdaav vofiifxov eKKknr}cri,av) above the bench where the 
 boys sit I' 
 
 With these facts in view, we are justified in saying that 
 ancient literature has preserved no picture of the Ephesus 
 of imperial times — the Ephesus which has been unearthed 
 by the sagacity and perseverance of Mr Wood — comparable for 
 its life-like truthfulness to the narrative of St Paul's sojourn 
 there in the Acts. 
 
 I am tempted to add one other illustration of an ancient 
 Christian writer, which these inscriptions furnish. Ignatius, 
 writing to the Ephesians from Smyrna in the early years of the 
 
 1 Inscr. vi. 6, p. 50. consuls' is a rhetorical plural, just as 
 
 2 Acts xix. 38, aydpaioL [sc. Tjixepai] e.g. in Euripides {Iph. Tanr. 1359) 
 ayovraL kuI avOvwarol elaiv, translated Orestes and Pylades are upbraided for 
 ' the law is open, and there are ' stealing from the land its images and 
 deputies,' in the Authorised Version, priestesses' (KXeTTTovres €k yrjs ^oai-a kuI 
 but the margin, 'the court days are dvrjwoXovs), though there was only one 
 kept,' gives the right sense of the first image and one priestess. 
 
 clause. In the second clause 'pro- * Inscr. vi. 1, p. 38. 
 
802 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 second century, borrows an image from the sacred pageant of 
 some heathen deity, where the statues, sacred vessels, and 
 other treasures, of the temple are borne in solemn procession. 
 He tells his Christian readers that they all are marching in 
 festive pomp along the Via Sacra — the way of love — which 
 leads to God ; they all are bearers of treasures committed to 
 them, — for they carry their God, their Christ, their shrine, their 
 sacred things, in their hearth The image was not new. It is 
 found in Stoic writers. It underlies the surname Theophorus, 
 the ' God-bearer,' which Ignatius himself adopted. But he had 
 in his company several Ephesian delegates when he wrote ; and 
 the newly discovered inscriptions inform us that the practice 
 which supplies the metaphor had received a fresh impulse 
 at Ephesus shortly before this letter was written. The most 
 important inscriptions in Mr Wood's collection relate to a gift of 
 numerous valuable statues, images, and other treasures to the 
 temple of Artemis, by one C. Vibius Salutaris, with an endow- 
 ment for their custody. In one of these (dated a.d. 104) it 
 is ordained that the treasures so given shall be carried in 
 solemn procession from the temple to the theatre and back ' at 
 every meeting of the assembly, and at the gymnastic contests, 
 and on any other days that may be directed by the Council and 
 the People.' Orders are given respecting the persons forming 
 the procession, as well as respecting its route. It must pass 
 through the length of the city, entering by the Magnesian Gate 
 and leaving by the Coressian^ 
 
 1 Ign. Ephes. 9. - Inscr. vi. 1, p. 42. 
 
INDICES. 
 
I. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 II. INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Aberle, 210, 213 n 
 Abgarus, 279 
 
 Achaia, vicissitudes as a Koman pro- 
 vince, 292 
 Acts of Peter, 37 
 
 Acts of the Apostles; Eusebius' me- 
 thod with regard to, 46 ; used by 
 Polycarp, 95; by Polycrates, 249; 
 ascribed by Irenaeus to St Luke, 44 ; 
 quoted in the Letter of the GalUcan 
 Churches, 257 ; Kenan on its author- 
 ship, 291 ; recent discoveries illus- 
 trating, 291 sq 
 Addai ; see Doctrine of Addai 
 ^lian, credulity of, 269 
 ^sop, Hitzig's derivation of the name, 
 
 25 n 
 African martyrs, 76, 83 
 Agathonice, 148 
 Alcibiades, 254 
 Alexander, 253 
 Alford, 9, 294, 295 n 
 Alogi, 215 n 
 
 Ambrosius, the friend of Origen, 7 
 Ammonius of Alexandria ; his date, 
 280 ; his Harmony of the Gospels, 
 280 ; Eusebius' account of it, 280 ; 
 its scope distinct from Tatian's Dia- 
 tessaron, 280 sq ; but confused with 
 it by Syrian writers, 281 sq 
 Anastasius of Sinai ; his high estimate 
 of Papias, 154, 157, 200 sq ; quotes 
 Mehto, 225 n, 230 sq 
 Andreas of Csesarea, mentions Pa- 
 pias, 34 n, 214 
 
 S. R. 
 
 Andrew (St), at Ephesus, 91, 143, 145, 
 146, 160, 189, 193 
 
 Anger, 165 
 
 Anicetus, 99, 100, 101, 102 
 
 Anthropomorphism, 139 n 
 
 Antinomianism, 119 sq 
 
 Antioch ; Trajan at, 79 ; Antoninus 
 Pius at, 98 n ; earthquake at, 79 sq 
 
 Antoninus Pius ; proconsul of Asia as 
 T. Aurelius Fulvus, 98 n ; his move- 
 ments as emperor, 98 n 
 
 Aphraates, his acquaintance with Ta- 
 tian's Diatessaron, 283 n, [288] 
 
 Aphthonius, 280 
 
 Apion, as a critic, 269 
 
 Apocalypse ; its date, 14 n, 132 ; its 
 differences from the Fourth Gospel, 
 15, 131 sq, 214 sq ; the term Logos 
 in, 15, 123 ; supposed allusions to 
 St Paul in, 13 sq ; the form of Gnos- 
 ticism denounced in, 14 n ; its posi- 
 tion in the Canon of Eusebius, 47 ; 
 Eusebius' treatment of patristic 
 notices of, 37 n, 39, 43, 47, 215 sq ; 
 Papias on its authorship, 34 n, 214 ; 
 Justin Martyr, 43, 216 ; Irenaeus, 
 45, 47, 216; Eusebius, 144; the 
 Johannine authorship admitted by 
 the early fathers, 214 sq ; notices in 
 Justin Martyr, 43, 47, 216; in Melito, 
 47; his commentary on it, 216; in 
 the Muratorian Canon, 216 ; in 
 Theophilus, 44, 47, 52, 216; in 
 Apollonius, 47 
 Apocalypse of Peter, 37, 47 
 
 20 
 
306 
 
 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 Apollinaris, Claudius, of Hierapolis ; a 
 contemporary of Melito, 237 ; bis 
 date, 237 sq ; his literary activity, 
 32, 102, 207, 238 ; his orthodoxy, 
 238 sq; his writings, 238, 242 sq ; 
 Eusebius' list of them incomplete, 
 238, 242 sq; bis Apology, 237; his 
 work against the Montanists, 238, 
 
 243 ; against the Severians, 243 ; on 
 the Paschal Festival, 238 sq, 242 sq; 
 the assumed silence of the fathers 
 on this work considered, 242 sq ; 
 not an antagonist of Melito, 242, 
 244, 245 ; but a Quartodeciman, 
 
 244 sq ; genuineness of the extant 
 fragments of, 239 sq ; references to 
 the Gospels in them, 239, 240 ; to 
 the Fourth Gospel, 240 ; follows the 
 chronology of the Fourth Gospel, 
 248 ; mentions the miracle of the 
 Thundering Legion, 237 ; bis pro- 
 minence in the School of St John, 
 218 
 
 Apollonius; notice of the Apocalypse 
 in, 47 ; extracts in Eusebius from, 
 91 n 
 
 Apologies, absence of scriptural quo- 
 tations in Christian, 33, 271, 275 
 
 Arethas, 201 
 
 Arianism, and the Ignatian contro- 
 versy, 60, 62, 69 
 
 Aristides, the rhetorician, 98 n, 104, 
 270 
 
 Aristion, and Papias, 91, 143, 144 sq, 
 149, 150 n, 187, 266 
 
 Arnold, Matthew, 24, 190 n 
 
 Artemis, cultus of the Ephesian, 297 sq 
 
 Asia Minor ; imperial visits to, 98 ; the 
 proconsulate of, 293 ; the procon- 
 sular fasti of, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 
 295 n ; its connexion with Southern 
 Gaul, 105, 252 
 
 Asia Minor, the Churches of; import- 
 ance of, 91 sq, 217 sq ; Apostles 
 resident in, 91, 217; episcopacy in, 
 84, 218; solidarity of, 102; the arena 
 of controversy, 84, 219; literary acti- 
 vity of, 219, 249 ; testimony to the 
 Fourth Gospel from, 249; the Church 
 
 of Southern Gaul a colony of, 249; 
 intimate relations between them, 
 105, 252 sq ; Polycarp's Epistle pub- 
 licly read in, 105 n 
 
 Asiarchs, 222 n, 299 
 
 Askar and Sychar, 17 n, 133 sq 
 
 Assemani, 280 n, 281 n 
 
 Athanasius, quotes the Ignatian Epi- 
 stles, 80 
 
 Attalus, the Pergamene martyr, 253, 
 254 
 
 Anbertin, 66, 67 
 
 Augustus, the division of Roman pro- 
 vinces by, 291 sq 
 
 Balaam, as a type of St Paul, 13 
 
 Bar-Ali, the lexicographer; his date, 
 282 n ; mentions Tatian, 282 n 
 
 Bar-Bahlul ; his date, 282 n ; Ammo- 
 nius and Tatian confused in late 
 Mss of his lexicon, 282 n 
 
 Bar-Hebraeus ; his date, 281 n ; con- 
 fuses Ammonius and Tatian, 281 n 
 
 Bar-Salibi ; his date, 280; his testi- 
 mony to Tatian's Diatessaron, 
 280 sq 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle of; its date, 177; 
 quotes St Matthew's Gospel as 
 'Scripture,' 177, 227; employed by 
 Clement of Alexandria, 47 ; Chiliasm 
 in, 151 
 
 Baronio, 293 
 
 Basil (St), 175 
 
 Basilides ; bis date, 85, 161 ; his work 
 On the Gospel, 161; fragments pre- 
 served in Hippolytus, 161 ; his appeal 
 to the Fourth Gospel, 52, 219; the 
 Vossian Epistles silent on, 85; his 
 allusion to Glaucias, 21, 123 
 
 Basnoge, 66, 67 
 
 Bassus, L. Annius, proconsul of Cy- 
 prus, 294 n 
 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, 68, 69 
 
 Baur, 24, 61, 64, 70 
 
 Beausobre, 68, 69 
 
 Bethesda, the pool of, 9, 126 
 
 Bleek, 65, 66, 69, 171 
 
 Blondel, 66, 67 
 
 Bochart, 66, 67, 83 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 307 
 
 Bohringer, 65 
 
 Borghesi, 296 n 
 
 Bunsen, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66 
 
 Calvin, and the Ignatian controversy, 
 65,66 
 
 Carpus, 148 
 
 Capitolinus, 98 n 
 
 Casaubon, 66, 67 
 
 Celsus, 6 sq, 25 n 
 
 Cerinthus; encountered by St John, 
 101, 212 ; his separation ism, 118 ; 
 attacked in St John's First Epistle, 
 118 ; according to Irenaaus, the 
 Fourth Gospel aimed at, 48, 182; 
 the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse 
 ascribed to, 215 ; the question of the 
 Canon involved in the controversy 
 with, 219; confused with Marcion, 
 210, 212 
 
 Cesnola's explorations in Cyprus, 294, 
 297 
 
 Chemnitz, 65, 66 
 
 Chiliasm; of Papias, 151 sq, 158 sq, 
 160, 197, 215 n; of the early Church 
 generally, 151 
 
 Christian literature ; compared with the 
 classics as regards external evidence 
 for documents, 82 ; plagiarisms in, 
 202 
 
 Christian martyrs; coincidence with 
 the Passion of Christ in the suffer- 
 ings of, 220; zeal for martyrdom 
 exhibited by, 82 sq 
 
 Christian prisoners, the treatment of, 
 74 sq 
 
 Christology ; of the Synoptists and 
 Fourth Gospel, 15 sq; of Cerinthus, 
 118; of Ignatius, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231; 
 of Polycarp, 106, 108; of Justin 
 Martyr, 235; of Melito, 230, 231, 
 234 sq 
 
 Christ's ministry, the duration of, 10 
 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq 
 
 Chronicon Paschale; see Paschal Chro- 
 nicle 
 
 Chrysostom, the panegyric on Ignatius 
 of, 80 
 
 [Ciasca, 288] 
 
 Claudius ApoUinaris ; see Apolli- 
 naris 
 
 Clemens, Flavins, cousin of Domitian, 
 94 n 
 
 Clement of Alexandria ; coincidence in 
 the name, 94 n; a pupil of Pantsenus, 
 274 ; perhaps of Melito, 218, 224 ; 
 perhaps also of Tatian, 274 ; quotes 
 from Tatian, 273 n ; his wide learn- 
 ing, 269 ; compared with his heathen 
 contemporaries, 269; his travels, 270; 
 his testimony to the Four Gospels, 
 270 ; to St Mark, 167 ; to the Fourth 
 Gospel, 52 ; to the labours of St 
 John, 218; accepts the identity of 
 authorship of the Fourth Gospel and 
 Apocalypse, 216; employs the Epistle 
 of Clement of Rome, 47 ; the Epistle 
 of Barnabas, 47; the Apocalypse of 
 Peter, 47; the Gospel according to 
 the HehreiDS, 152; quotes Basilides, 
 161 ; his treatise on the Paschal 
 Festival, 243 sq ; date of his Stroma- 
 teis, 274 ; his use of the word ' oracles,' 
 174 
 
 Clement of Eome ; his name, 94 n ; 
 probably a Hellenist Jew, 94 ; and a 
 freedman, 94 ; his position comj^ared 
 with that of Polycarp, 89 ; scriptural 
 quotations in his Epistle, 40, 105, 110; 
 Eusebius' method tested on it, 40, 
 47, 179 ; its testimony to the Epistle 
 of the Hebrews, 40, 47, 49; employed 
 by Clement of Alexandria, 47; its 
 date and that of the book of Judith, 
 25 n ; his use of the Canon and that 
 of Polycarp, 94, 105 ; his use of the 
 word ' oracles, ' 174 ; the story of the 
 phoenix in, 268; his place in modern 
 German theories, 24 
 
 Clementines ; as a romance, 15 ; Gnostic 
 fragments preserved in the, 40 n; 
 quote and employ the narrative of 
 the Fourth Gospel, 50, 52 
 
 Cook, 06, 67 
 
 Cordus, Q. Julius, proconsul of Cyprus, 
 294 n 
 
 Cramer's Catena, 201 
 
 Credner, 12, 19, 124 sq, 186 
 
 20—2 
 
308 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Crescens, the Cynic, 148, 272 
 
 Cureton, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 71 sq, 81 n, 
 86, 232 n, 278 n, 279 n 
 
 Curetonian Epistles, 61 sq; see also 
 Ignatian Epistles 
 
 Cyprian; his correspondence, 76; ac- 
 cepts identity of aiathorship of the 
 Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 
 216 
 
 Cyprus; its vicissitudes as a Eoman 
 province, 292 sq; the evidence of 
 inscrii^tions on this, 294 ; source of 
 Pliny's information regarding, 295; 
 proconsuls and proprtetors of, 294 ; 
 recent excavations at, 291 sq 
 
 Cyrrhestice, 282, 283 
 
 Dallasus, 65, 114 
 
 De Wette, 9, 293 n 
 
 Decian persecution, 76 
 
 Delitzsch, 17, 133, 135, 136 
 
 Demetrius, the silversmith of Ephesus, 
 298, 299, 301 
 
 Denzinger, 63, 71 
 
 Diapente, 279 n, 285 sq 
 
 Diatessaroii ; see Tatian 
 
 Dion Cassius, 293 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria; his critical 
 insight, 167 ; assigns the Fourth 
 Gospel to St John, 216; but separates 
 the authorship of the Apocalypse, 
 167, 216 
 
 Dionysius of Corinth ; his evidence to 
 the Canon, 156, 177, 227 ; the silence 
 of Eusebius respecting, 35 sq, 39, 
 184 
 
 Docetism, attacked in the Ignatian 
 Epistles, 118 n 
 
 Doctrine of Addai ; discovery of the 
 document, 278 n ; its subject, 278 ; 
 its date, 279; its country, 279 ; noticed 
 in Eusebius, 279; mentions Tatian's 
 Diatessaron, 278; the Armenian ver- 
 sion, 279 
 
 Dodwell, 98 n, 264 
 
 Dogma and morality, 27 sq 
 
 Donaldson, 241 n 
 
 Dressel, 80 n 
 
 Dutch school of criticism, 2, 9, 36 
 
 Ebionism; no trace in the Ignatian 
 Epistles, 42; nor in Polycarp, 43, 
 102 sq, 153 sq ; nor in Papias, 42, 
 43, 151 sq 
 
 Edessa, 278 sq 
 
 Elders ; quoted by Papias, 4 sq, 143, 
 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 194, 197 sq; 
 by Irenaeus, 4, 6, 48, 54, 58, 102, 145, 
 
 195 sq, 218, 233, 245, 247 sq; who 
 both reports their conversations, 
 and cites their works, 196 sq ; identi- 
 fication of some of them, 194 sq, 
 
 196 n, 224, 248 n, 266 
 Eleutherus, Bishop of Eome, 99, 261; 
 
 Irenseus sent as delegate to, 253, 
 259 n 
 
 Elias of Salamia ; his Diatessaron, 280 ; 
 his name Aphthonius, 280 
 
 Encratites ; Apollinaris' treatises a- 
 gaiust the, 238, 243; Tatian's con- 
 nexion with the, 272, 284 
 
 Ephesus; St John at, 91, 101, 142 sq, 
 217 sq ; other Apostles at, 91 ; Wood's 
 excavations at, 291, 294 n, 297 sq; 
 cultus of Artemis at, 297 sq; the great 
 theatre at, 298 sq ; the designation 
 of magistrates, 299 ; the title neoco- 
 ros, 300 ; the lawful assemblies, 301 ; 
 image-processions at, 301 sq ; gates 
 of, 302 
 
 Ephraem of Antioch, 172 
 
 Ephraem Syrus; date of his death, 280 ; 
 his commentary ou Tatian's Diates- 
 saron, 280 sq ; [an Armenian version 
 discovered, 287] 
 
 Epiphanius ; date of his work on Here- 
 sies, 284 ; his treatise against the 
 Alogi, 215 n ; his obligations to 
 Hippolytus, 216 n ; his historical 
 blunders, 260, 269, 285; confuses 
 Tatian's Diatessaron with the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, 284 
 
 Episcopacy; in the time of St John, 
 218 ; in Asia Minor in the time of 
 Ignatius, 84; stress laid upon it in 
 the Ignatian Epistles, 107; especially 
 in the Vossian Letters, 87; the 
 Ignatian controversy centres round 
 the question of, 61; not mentioned 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 309 
 
 in the Epistle of Polycarp, lOG, 
 107 sq, 122 ; prominent in the 
 writings of Irenasus, 122 
 
 Ernesti, 68 
 
 Euodia and Syntyche, extravagant 
 German theories respecting, 24 sq 
 
 Eusebius ; sources of his history, 32 sq ; 
 his rule of procedui'e in dealing with 
 the Canon, 36 sq, 46 sq, 178 sq, 190 
 sq,215 sq; tested on extant literature, 
 40 sq; what his silence means, 32 
 sq; its value as a direct testimony, 
 51 ; his trustworthiness and modera- 
 tion, 49 sq, 209 ; his habit of in- 
 complete and combined quotations, 
 168, 209 ; on the Ignatian Epistles, 
 72 sq, 80, 82; on Papias, 142 sq, 
 147, 151 sq, 154, 167, 186, 190 sq ; 
 his estimate of Papias, 209 ; on 
 John the Presbyter, 143 sq ; his 
 lists of the works of Melito not 
 exhaustive, 224 sq, 228 ; nor those 
 of the works of ApoUinaris, 238, 
 242 ; dependent upon Pamphilus' li- 
 brary, 225; on the Paschal contro- 
 versy, 17, 245 ; attempts to harmonize 
 the Gospel narrative, 208, 209; for 
 this purpose perhaps borrows from 
 Papias, 208 
 
 Evagrius, 80 
 
 Ewald, 63, 65, 136, 204 
 
 iirl Tpa'iavov, 81 
 
 eirLO-ToXai, of a single letter, 114, 189 
 
 i^Tj-yqaii, 155 n, 156, 160 n, 175 sq ; 
 and diT^yrjais, 157 n 
 
 Fathers, early ; compared in historical 
 accuracy with classical writers, 268 
 sq; considered as critics, 167, 229, 
 263, 268 ; the dearth of scriptural 
 quotations in their works accounted 
 for, 33, 271 ; explanation of their 
 literary plagiarisms, 202, 237 
 
 Felicitas, 83 
 
 Florinus ; a pupil of Polycarp, 96 sq ; 
 Irenffius letter to, 96 sq, 195 n ; date 
 of his connexion with the royal court, 
 97 sq; his subsequent history, 98 
 
 Four Gospels ; that number only re- 
 
 cognized in the Muratorian Canon, 
 166, 270 ; in IreniBUS, 45, 48, 166, 
 233, 263 sq; in Eusebius, 39 
 Fourth Gospel ; its spirit, 13 ; its He- 
 braic character, 14 ; the minuteness 
 of its details, 14 sq ; the narrative of 
 an eye-witness, 14 sq; compared with 
 the Apocalypse, in diction, 15, 34 n, 
 131 sq, 214 sq; in Christology, 15 
 sq ; the bearing of Montauism on 
 this question, 219, 238, 267; com- 
 pared with the Synoptists in chron- 
 ology and narrative, 16, 48, 131, 
 240, 245 sq ; the relation of the 
 Paschal controversy to this question, 
 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267; historical 
 and geographical allusions con- 
 sidered, 17 sq; the personality of 
 its author, 18 sq; association of 
 others with him in the work, 187; 
 anecdotes with regard to its composi- 
 tion, 48, 52, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217; 
 probably dictated, 187, 214; its 
 wide acceptance among orthodox 
 and heretics, 52 sq ; testimony given 
 by the growth of various readings 
 and interpolations, 9 sq, 52; by the 
 commentary of Heracleon, 52; the 
 evidence of the Ignatian Epistles, 
 41 ; of Papias, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 186 
 sq ; of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 
 221 sq ; of the elders in Ii-enffius, 
 48; of the Muratorian Canon, 52, 
 189 sq, 206 sq ; of Claudius Apol- 
 linaris, 240 ; of the School of St 
 John generally, 249 sq; of the Letter 
 of the Galilean Churches, 258; of 
 Tatian, 275 sq, 280 sq; of Origen, 
 216 ; of Gaius, 216 n ; Irenjeus on 
 its purpose, 48, 182 ; quoted by 
 Theophilus of Antioch, 44, 52, 179, 
 215, 216 ; significance of the silence 
 of Eusebius, 33 sq, 51 sq; ascribed 
 to Cerinthus, 215 ; its connexion 
 with the First Epistle of St John, 
 186 sq, 190, 220 
 
 Gaius ; on the authorship of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, 47 ; of the Apocalypse 
 
310 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 and Fourth Gospel, 216 n; his date 
 216 n ; his relation to Hippolytus 
 considered, 91 n, 216 n 
 
 Galen, 83, 153, 196 n, 295 n, 296 sq 
 
 Gallican Churches ; a colony from the 
 Churches of Asia Minor, 249, 251 sq; 
 intimate connexion between the two 
 bodies, 105, 249, 252 sq; persecuted 
 under M. Aurelius, 252 sq; their 
 letter to the brethren in Asia and 
 Phrygia, 146 n, 216, 252 sq, 259 n, 
 271 ; its date, 259 ; scriptural quota- 
 tions in it, 254 sq ; their letters on 
 the Montanist controversy, 258; their 
 letter to Victor on the Paschal con- 
 troversy, 253 sq 
 
 Gaul, called Galatia, 251 
 
 Georgius Hamartolos, 211 sq 
 
 Gfrorer, 69 
 
 Glaucias, 21 
 
 Gnosticism ; the development of anti- 
 nomian, 119 ; the literature of, 160 
 sq ; the exegesis of, 160 sq, 175, 
 202 ; the opponents of, 160 sq, 219, 
 268 ; the scene of the conflict with, 
 219 ; attacked in St Paul's Epistles, 
 119 ; in the Apocalypse, 14 n, 119 ; 
 in the Epistle of Polycarp, 116 sq ; 
 not alluded to in the Ignatiau Epi- 
 stles, 85 ; an appeal to the Canon 
 requisite in the conflict with, 219 
 
 Gobarus, 12 
 
 Gosjpcl of Peter, 37 
 
 Gospel according to the Hehreius ; see 
 Hehrexos, Gospel, according to the 
 
 Gospels ; see Matthew's (St) Gospel, 
 Mark's (St) Gospel, Luke's (St) Gos- 
 pel, Fourth Gospel, Four Gospels 
 
 Grabe, 98 n 
 
 Griesbach, 68, 69 
 
 [Gwynn's (Prof.) discovery of a Gaius 
 distinct from Hippolytus, 216 n] 
 
 Hadrian, 98 
 Hagenbach, 68 
 Harless, 69 
 Hase, 70 
 
 Hebrews, Gospel according to the; em- 
 ployed by Hegesippus, 47, 183; by 
 
 other fathers, 152 ; perhaps quoted 
 by Ignatius, 41 sq, 153 ; Papias not 
 proved to have employed, 152, 203 
 sq; translated by Jerome, 203, 285; 
 statements of Jerome about it, 42, 
 152 ; confused with the Hebrew 
 original of St Matthew, 170, 285; 
 with Tatian's Diatessaron, 284; dis- 
 tinct scope of the last-named work, 
 285 
 
 Hebrews, Epistle to the ; in the notices 
 of Eusebius, 37, 46, 47, 49, 52; the 
 testimony of Clement of Rome, 40, 
 47, 49 ; of Iren^us, 46, 47 ; of Gaius, 
 47 
 
 Hefele, 63 
 
 Hegesippus ; his lost ecclesiastical 
 history, 32, 39 ; the silence of Euse- 
 bius respecting, 34 sq, 183, 185 ; his 
 attitude towards St Paul, 12; to- 
 wards tradition, 155; employs the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews, 47, 
 183 
 
 'Hellenic' and 'Hellenistic,' 132 n 
 
 [Hemphill, 287, 288] 
 
 Henke, 68 
 
 Heracleon's commentary on the Fourth 
 Gospel, 52 
 
 Hernias, the Shepherd of; its devotional 
 character, 271 ; hence does not quote 
 Scripture, 271 ; the citations in Eu- 
 sebius, 37, 38, 47 sq ; quoted by 
 Irenffius, 45, 47, 184 
 
 Herodes, the magistrate, 220, 221 
 
 Heumann, 68 
 
 Hierapolis, 91, 102, 142, 153, 207, 218, 
 224 
 
 Hilgenfeld, 64, 71, 104, 116, 122, 146 u, 
 158 n, 159 n, 170, 171, 172, 176 n, 
 186, 211, 216, 262 n, 287 n 
 
 Hippolytus ; pupil of Irenaaus, 102, 
 145, 196 n, 267 ; probably at Rome, 
 267 n ; oj^poses Gnosticism, 216 n, 
 219 ; defends the Fourth Gospel 
 against the Alogi, 216 n ; plagiarisms 
 of, 202 ; plagiarisms from, 216 n ; 
 Gnostic fragments preserved in, 40, 
 161 ; his relation to Gaius considered, 
 91 n, 216 n 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 311 
 
 Hitzig, 24 sq 
 Hoffmann, 282 n 
 
 Hort, on the date of Justin Martyr, 
 274 n 
 
 Ignatian Epistles; date, place of wri- 
 ting and subject, 59, 93; three 
 forms : (1) Long Eecension, 60 ; 
 documents, GO ; date of the forgery, 
 GO; (2) Vossian Epistles, GO sq; mss 
 and Versions, 61; history of their 
 discovery, 61 ; (3) Curetonian Epi- 
 stles, 61 ; their discovery, 61 ; ques- 
 tions raised (a) whether the Vossian 
 or Curetonian Epistles are prior, 61; 
 the view of S. R., 63, 74 ; the real 
 balance of modern authorities, 63 sq ; 
 arguments against the priority of the 
 Curetonian Epistles from (i) the 
 Armenian Version, 60 ; a translation 
 from the Syriac Version of the 
 Curetonian Epistles, 71, 86; (ii) the 
 abruptness of the Curetonian Epi- 
 stles, 77 n, 86 ; the counter-argu- 
 ment from the confessedly spurious 
 letters answered, 60, 71, 72 sq; the 
 argument from quotations consi- 
 dered, 73 sq; (b) whether any form 
 is genuine, 61 ; denied by S. R., 62, 
 74 ; (i) internal evidence considered, 
 (a) Ignatius' treatment as a prisoner, 
 74 sq ; (b) the journey to Eome, 79 
 sq; (c) Ignatius' zeal for martyrdom, 
 82 ; (d) supposed anachronisms, 83 ; 
 (e) evidence of style, 84 ; (ii) exter- 
 nal evidence, 82 ; result, 84, 88 ; re- 
 lation of the Vossian Epistles, 84 sq ; 
 argument from silence, 84 sq ; 
 limit of their date, 85; arguments 
 for their genuineness, 86 sq ; result, 
 88, [59 u] ; scriptural quotations in 
 the, 41 ; Eusebius' method tested on 
 the, 41; theological controversies 
 which have centred round, 61 sq ; 
 Cliristology of, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231 ; 
 a metaphor of image -processions 
 illustrated, 302 
 
 Ignatius ; the name Theophorus, 302 ; 
 his letters (see Ignatian Ejjistles) ; 
 
 his journey to Eome, 59 ; its proba- 
 bility considered, 63, 79 sq. 111; his 
 route, 93, 113; his treatment as a 
 prisoner, 74 sq ; his intercourse with 
 Polycarp, 92 sq, 106 sq, 113 ; thenotice 
 in the Epistle of Polycarp, 11, 82, 113 
 sq; his zeal for martyrdom, 82 ; not 
 martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214 ; 
 date of his martyrdom, 59 ; days 
 of commemoration of, 79; extant 
 martyrologies of, 73 n, 80 
 Irenaeus ; date of his birth, 98 n, 264 ; 
 a pupil of Polycari), date, 89, 97 sq ; 
 his letter to Florinus, 96 sq, 195 n ; 
 represents three Churches, 267 ; his 
 connexion with the Letter of the 
 Gallican Cliurches, 259 ; sent as 
 delegate to Eome, 253, 259 n, 267 ; at 
 Eome more than once, 267 n ; his 
 lectures there, 267 ; his 23up)il Hippo- 
 lytus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267 ; date of 
 his episcopate, 97 ; his remonstrance 
 addressed to Victor, 100 ; his lite- 
 rary activity, 267 ; date of his Refu- 
 tation, 259, 260 ; the first great con- 
 troversial treatise, 271 ; its import- 
 ance as evidence to the Canon, 271 ; 
 his profuse scriptural quotations, 
 44 sq, 180, 184, 228, 261 ; Eusebius' 
 method illustrated, 45, 46, 184 ; 
 importance of his testimony to the 
 Canon, 53, 89, 99, 166, 264 sq; 
 appeals to the elders (see Elders) ; 
 his evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 
 3 sq, 52, 53, 54 sq ; to the motive 
 of the Fourth Gospel, 48, 182; to 
 four Gospels, 45, 48, 166, 233, 
 263 sq ; to the Ignatian Epistles, 
 80, 82 ; to the Epistle of Polycarp, 
 82, 101, 104 sq; his appeal to the 
 Gospels against the Valentinians, 
 219, 245 sq, 262; his coutrover- 
 sial treatises, 267 ; his conflict 
 with Gnosticism, 160, 219 ; on the 
 Paschal question, 242, 244 sq, 267 ; 
 on the duration of Christ's minis- 
 try, 246; on His age at the time 
 of the Passion, 246 sq ; on the 
 Apocalypse, 45, 47, 216; on the 
 
;i2 
 
 ON SUPERNATUEAL RELIGION. 
 
 old age of St John, 48, 92, 101; on 
 Polycarp, 96 sq, 115, 116 ; on Papias, 
 4 sq, 127, 142 sq, 154, 158 sq, 166, 
 194 sq, 248 u ; on the Hebrew original 
 of St Matthew, 172; his Chihasm, 
 151, 197 ; his evidence for episco- 
 pacy, 122 ; his use of the word 
 ' oracles,' 174 ; his literary obliga- 
 tions to Papias, 202 ; to Mehto, 
 236 sq ; considered as a critic, 268 sq 
 
 Jacobson, 63, 66, 67 n, 69, 103 n, 
 123 n 
 
 Jerome ; on the Hebrew original of St 
 Matthew, 208 n, 285 ; on the Gospel 
 according to the Hehrnos, 42, 152, 208, 
 285 ; on the public reading of Poly- 
 carp's Epistle, 105 n ; on Tatian's 
 treatment of St Paul's Epistles, 
 273 n ; on Apollinaris, 242, 243 
 
 Jerusalem, results to the Christian 
 Church from the fall of, 90 sq, 217 
 
 John (St) ; at Ephesus, 91, 101, 142 sq ; 
 his church organisation, 218 ; the 
 founder of a school, 217 sq; the 
 repositary of Apostolic doctrine and 
 practice, 218 ; his encounter with 
 Cerinthus, 101, 212 ; his connex- 
 ion with Polycarp, 89, 92; with 
 Papias, 142 sq, 160, 193, 198, 
 
 210 sq; with his namesake John the 
 Presbyter, 143 sq, 187; his longe- 
 vity, 48, 89, 91, 92, 101, 217, 246; a 
 story of his martyrdom explained, 
 
 211 sq; traditions respecting him, 
 48, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217 ; see also 
 Fourth Gospel 
 
 John (St), the Epistles of; their posi- 
 tion in the Canon of Eusebius, 39, 
 46 sq; two mentioned in the Mura- 
 torian Canon, 190 ; the First Epistle 
 employed by Polycarp, 49 sq, 118, 
 191 sq, 220; by Papias, 49, 154, 
 186, 190 sq, 206, 220; by Irenffius, 
 45 ; a postscript to the Fourth Gospel, 
 186 sq, 190, 220; the evidence of 
 Papias, and of the Muratoriau 
 Canon, to this fact, 189, 206 
 
 John Malalas; rejiresents Ignatius as 
 
 martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 
 214;hishistoricalblunders,80sq,214, 
 269, 285; on a visit of Antoninus 
 Pius to Asia Minor, 98 n 
 John the Baptist; his designation in 
 the Fourth Gospel, 18 sq, 124 sq; 
 his father Zacharias, 146 n, 256 sq ; 
 the (puv-q, 232 n 
 John the Presbyter; in Asia Minor, 
 91 ; his connexion with Papias, 
 143 sq, 149, 150 n, 164, 165 sq, 266 ; 
 with Pothinus, 266 ; with the Apostle 
 St John, 143 sq, 187 
 Judith, date of the book of, 25 n 
 Julian, the Emperor, 270 
 Justa, the Syroi^hcenician, 129 
 Justin Martyr; his pupil Tatian, 272, 
 274; his accuser Crescens, 148, 272; 
 his martyrdom, 148, 274 ; the ac- 
 count in Eusebius, 150; his evan- 
 gelical quotations, 43; looseness of 
 his quotations from the 0. T., 12, 43 ; 
 his lost writings, 33 ; Eusebius' 
 method tested upon his extant works, 
 43 ; his Chiliasm, 151 ; his error as 
 to Simon Magus, 268 ; his Logos 
 doctrine comj^ared with Melito, 235; 
 his references to the Virgin Mary, 
 236; his evidence to the authorship 
 of the Apocalypse, 43 ; to the public 
 use of the Gospels, 227 
 
 Kestner, 68, 69 
 
 Lampe, 68 
 
 Lardner, 40, 41 n, 42 n, 68, 69, 94 n, 
 109 n, 241 n 
 
 Lechler, 70 
 
 Leimbach, 158 n, 264 n 
 
 Linus, 45 
 
 Lipsius, 64, 65, 71, 80 n, 81 n, 85, 
 103 n, 104, 116, 213 n 
 
 Logos; the expression common to 
 the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 
 15 ; as distinct from (pcjvrj, 232 n ; 
 the doctrine in the Ignatian Epistles, 
 86 sq; in Justin Martyr, 235; in 
 Valentinus, 86; in Melito, 232, 
 234 sq; in Marcellus of Ancyra, 87; 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 313 
 
 its importance a characteristic of 
 the second century, 235 
 
 Lucian; illustrates the Ignatian Epi- 
 stles, 76 sq; the Epistle of Polycarp, 
 77 n 
 
 Luke's (St) Gospel; the source of 
 Mai'cion's Gospel, 8, 186; Papias 
 acquainted with, 178 sq, 186; the 
 evidence of the Muratorian Canon, 
 189; quoted in the Letter of the 
 Gallican Churches, 255 sq; Eenan 
 on its authorship, 291 
 
 Luthardt, 14, 132 
 
 AeoTTapSos, 67, 83 
 
 A67ia, 155 n, 160, 163, 171, 172 sq 
 
 Magdeburg Centuriators, 65, 66 
 
 Malalas ; see Joh7i Malalas 
 
 Manes, 81 
 
 Mansel, 28 
 
 Marcellus of Ancyra, the Logos doc- 
 trine of, 87 
 
 Marcion; his date, 81, 116, 213 n; 
 confused with Cerinthus, 210, 212; 
 his GosiJel, 6 n, 8, 186; his Canon, 
 117, 227, 263, 273; Papias' acquaint- 
 ance with it, 186; his attitude to- 
 wards St Paul, 273 ; his high moral 
 character, 119; his distinctive views, 
 117 sq ; not alluded to in the Igna- 
 tian Epistles, 85; nor in Polycarp's 
 Epistle, 101, 115, 212; a supposed 
 allusion considered, 106, 115 sq; 
 opposed by Justin Martyr, 33; by 
 Melito, 231; scene of his heresy, 
 219, 227, 231; the question of the 
 Canon raised by it, 219, 225; his 
 views on the resurrection and judg- 
 ment, 120 
 
 Maries, the four, in Papias the lexi- 
 cographer, 210 sq 
 
 Mark's (St) Gospel; the account and 
 criticism of Papias, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 
 175 sq, 181, 205 sq; the motive of 
 Papias' allusion, 207 ; compared by 
 Papias with the Fourth Gospel, 165, 
 205 sq ; identification of Papias' St 
 Mark, 2, 10, 20, 46, 163 sq; evidence of 
 the Muratorian Canon to, 189, 205 sq 
 
 Marseilles, 252 
 
 Martyrdom of Polycarp ; see Polycarp, 
 Martyrdom of 
 
 Massuet, 98 n 
 
 Matthew (St), and Papias, 143, 193 
 
 Matthew's (St) Gospel; the account in 
 Papias, 163, 167 sq, 181 ; his testi- 
 mony to the Hebrew original, 168, 
 172; its character, 170 sq; a Greek 
 St Matthew in existence in his day, 
 168 sq; identical with the extant 
 Gospel, 169 sq; relation of the 
 Hebrew to the Greek Gospel, 170; 
 confused with the Gospel according 
 to the Hebreivs, by Jerome, 285; 
 perhaps by Papias, 170; motive of 
 Papias' allusion, 208; quoted in the 
 Epistle of Barnabas as 'Scripture,' 
 227 
 
 Meletius, confused with Melito, 231 
 
 Melito ; his date, 223, 224 ; a contem- 
 porary of Polycarp and Papias, 224 ; 
 perhaps one of the elders quoted in 
 Irenffius, 196 n, 224; perhaps a 
 teacher of Clement of Alexandria, 
 218, 224; his travels, 224, 226; his 
 learning, 228; his orthodoxy, 230; 
 range of his literary works, 32, 102, 
 224; their popularity, 102,224,230; 
 his lost works, 223, 225, 229; his 
 Apology, 223, 241 n ; the preface to 
 his Selections, 226; (1) the extant 
 Greek fragments, their genuineness 
 228 sq ; supported by the evidence 
 of TertuUian and Hippolytus to his 
 style, 229 sq, 234 ; not the work of 
 Meletius, 231 ; their direct evidence 
 to the Gospels, 231; (2) the Syriac 
 fragments, 232 sq; their theology, 
 234 sq; his doctrine of the Logos, 
 234 ; his references to the Virgin 
 Mary, 235 sq; passages from his 
 works incorporated into Irenaeus, 
 236 sq ; Armenian version of a frag- 
 ment and its Syriac abridgment, 
 236 sq; a quotation in Chronicon 
 Pasclmle, 241 n; his work on the 
 Paschal controversy, 223, 225, 241 n, 
 242 sq; evidence to the Fourth 
 
314 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Gospel therefrom, 248 ; notice of the 
 Apocalypse in, 47, 216; coincidences 
 with St Paul's Epistles, 237; his 
 treatise against Marcion, 231 ; date 
 and manner of his death, 224 
 
 Merx, 64, 71 
 
 Mill (J. S.), 28 sq, 204 
 
 Milman, 65 
 
 Ministry, the duration of our Lord's, 
 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq 
 
 Miracles, 26 sq 
 
 [Moesinger, 288] 
 
 Moutanism; its centre in Asia Minor, 
 219; corresjoondence between the 
 Chui-ches of Asia and Gaul relating 
 to, 253; Irena3us' mission to Rome 
 respecting, 253, 259 n; not referred 
 to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85 ; nor 
 in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106 ; op- 
 posed by Apollinaris, 238; by 
 Irenffius, 267; the question of the 
 Canon involved in the controversy 
 with, 219, 238, 267 
 
 Morality and dogma, 27 sq 
 
 Mosheim, 68 
 
 Mozley, 28 
 
 Muratori, 295 n 
 
 Muratorian Canon ; date, 188 ; orig- 
 inal language, 188 n; English trans- 
 lation, 189 sq ; emendations in the 
 text, 189 n ; represents the Church 
 of Rome, 53, 270; its evidence to St 
 Mark's Gospel, 189, 205 sq; to St 
 Luke's Gospel, 189, 206; to the 
 Fourth Gospel, 52 sq, 91, 189 sq, 
 206, 216; to four Gospels, 164, 
 188 sq, 205 sq, 270; its testimony 
 compared with that of Papias, 
 205 sq; perhaps borrowed from him, 
 207 ; Matthew Ax-nold's estimate of, 
 190 n 
 
 Naassenes, 161 n 
 
 Nature; two meanings of the term, 
 
 29 sq; its relation to a Personal 
 
 God, 28 sq 
 Neander, 68, 69, 120 n, 141, 242 
 Neocoros, 300 
 Neubauer, 17 n, 133, 135, 136 
 
 Nicolaitans, 48, 182 
 Niebuhr, 25 
 Nolte, 211 n 
 
 (Ecumenius, 201 
 
 Onesimus, the friend of Melito, 226 
 
 Ophites, 52, 161, 202, 219 
 
 Origen; on Celsus, 7; on the author- 
 ship of the Fourth Gospel, 216; 
 of the Apocalypse, 216; uses the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
 152 n; quotes the Ignatian Epi- 
 stles, 80, 82 ; his accuracy in textual 
 criticism, 269; his use of the word 
 ' oracles ', 174 
 
 Otto, 223 n, 228 n, 229, 238 n, 241 n 
 
 Oudin, 67 
 
 Overbeck, 210, 213 n, 293 n 
 
 Owen, 67 
 
 ovK oW OTTOJS, 277 sq 
 
 Pamphilus, 225 
 
 Pantienus, 145 n, 172, 274 
 
 Papias; his date, 142, 147 sq; his 
 name and namesakes, 153, 211; of 
 heathen origin, 153; a companion 
 of Polycarp, 142, 150, 153,218; per- 
 haps not a hearer of St John, 142, 
 143 sq, 146, 193, 198, 210 sq; his 
 Expositions, 32, 39, 142; its title, 
 155 n, 156, 171 sq, 175 sq ; its date, 
 150; its nature, 11, 155; directed 
 against Gnostic exegesis, 160 sq, 
 175, 202; as affecting his atti- 
 tude towards the written Gospels, 
 156, 159 n, 160; the extant Gospels 
 the text for his exegesis, 163 sq ; his 
 method illustrated, 143, 158 sq, 194, 
 197; his informants the 'elders', 
 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 
 197 sq ; especially Aristion and John 
 the Presbyter, 143 sq, 149, 150 n, 
 164 sq, 266; his Chiliasm, 151 sq, 
 158 sq, 160, 197 sq, 215 n; not an 
 Ebionite, 151 sq ; his attitude towards 
 St Paul, 151 sq ; his use of the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews considered, 
 152, 203 sq; his orthodoxy, 154; 
 story of his martyrdom explained, 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 315 
 
 147 sq, 211 sq; his mention of St 
 Matthew's Gospel, 163, 1G7 sq, 181, 
 208; character of the original 
 Hebrew, 170 sq, 207 sq; the Greek 
 extant in his time, 168, 208; his 
 mention of St Mark's Gospel, 8, 10, 
 19, 162 sq, 175 sq, 181, 205 sq; his 
 acquaintance with St Luke's Gos- 
 pel, 178 sq, 186; with the Fourth 
 Gospel, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 178 sq ; evi- 
 denced by his acquaintance with 1 
 John, 186 sq, 190 sq; by other 
 indications, 192 sq, 203 sq ; Eusebius' 
 method illustrated upon, 34 sq, 151, 
 178 sq; his testimony to the Apoca- 
 lypse, 34 n, 214; his testimony to 
 the Canon supported by that of the 
 Muratorian fragment, 205 sq ; which 
 perhaps borrowed from him, 207; 
 obligations of Ireuajus to, 202 ; of 
 Eusebius, 208; not the amanuensis 
 of the Fourth Gospel, 210 sq, 213 sq; 
 nor author of exoteric books, 210 sq ; 
 confusion of the name, 148 sq, 211 ; 
 quotations in Irensus, 4 sq, 127, 
 194, 248 n; the pericope adiUterae 
 and other interpolations in the Gos- 
 pels perhaps from his work, 203 sq ; 
 his position as an authority, 10, 218 ; 
 his credulity considered, 269 
 Papias, the lexicographer, 211 
 Papylus, confused with Papias, 148 sq 
 Paraclete ; the Montanist doctrine of 
 the, 219, 267; in the Letter of the 
 GalUcan Churches, 255, 258 
 Parker, 66, 67 
 
 Paschal Chronicle ; confuses Papias 
 and Papylus, 148 sq; preserves quo- 
 tations from Apollinaris, 238, 239 
 sq; from Melito, 241 n; sources of 
 its information, 148 n, 260 n ; on 
 the date of Theodotion's version of 
 the Lxx, 260 n 
 Paschal controversy ; silence of the 
 Ignatian Epistles upon, 85; of the 
 Epistle of Poly carp, 106 ; Asia Minor 
 the scene of, 219 ; Polycarp's visit to 
 Eome respecting, 99 sq, 121 ; the 
 account in Eusebius, 17, 245 ; the 
 
 treatise of Melito on, 223, 225, 241 n, 
 242 sq; of Apollinaris, 238 sq; of 
 Clement of Alexandria, 243 sq ; of 
 Pierius of Alexandria, 241 n ; of 
 IrensBUS, 242, 244 sq, 267 ; action 
 of the Galilean Churches with respect 
 to, 253 sq; the attitude of Victor 
 upon, 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq; 
 remonstrance of Irena3us, 100; of 
 Polycrates, 248 ; the error of S. R. 
 regarding its character, 17, 240 sq, 
 245; its relation to the Canon, 17, 
 219, 225, 239 sq, 267 
 
 Paul (St); in Cyprus, 294 sq; at 
 EjDhesus, 299 sq; his attack on 
 Gnosticism, 119 sq; his treatment 
 as a prisoner, 75, 78; his claim to 
 work miracles, 125; his directions 
 as to idol-sacrifices, 14 ; his con- 
 nexion with Gaul, 251 ; not aimed 
 at in the Apocalypse, 13 sq ; attitude 
 of Clement of Eome towards, 40 ; of 
 the Ignatian Epistles, 41, 42; of 
 Polycarp, 42 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq; of 
 Hegesippus, 12; of Papias, 151 sq; 
 of Marcion, 117, 219, 225, 273; of 
 the elders in Irena3us, 248 ; of 
 Melito, 237 ; of Tatian, 273 ; of the 
 School of St John generally, 251 ; 
 of the Churches in Gaul, 255 ; posi- 
 tion of his writings in the Canon of 
 Eusebius, 37, 38, 46 sq ; see also 
 Tubingen School 
 
 Paul, Acts of, 37 
 
 Pearson, in the Ignatian controversy, 
 83, 86 
 
 Pella, 90, 91 
 
 Peregrinus Proteus, 76 sq 
 
 Pergamum, 147, 148 
 
 Pericope Adulterae, an insertion from 
 Papias, 203 sq 
 
 Perpetua, 76, 83 
 
 Petau, 66, 67 
 
 Peter, Acts of, 37 
 
 Peter, Apocalypse of, 37, 47 
 
 Peter, Gospel of, 37 
 
 Peter, Preaching of, 37 
 
 Peter (St), the Epistles of ; their posi- 
 tion in the Canon of Eusebius, 36 
 
316 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 sq, 46 ; Eusebius' method tested on, 
 43, 45, 47, 49; the First Epistle 
 largely quoted by Polycarp, 43, 49 
 sq, 95, 109, 191 sq; emijloyed by 
 Papias, 186, 206 sq ; by Irenseus, 
 45 
 
 Peter of Alexandria, 241 n 
 
 Petermaun, 63, 71, 86 sq 
 
 Philip (St), the AjDostle; at Hierapolis, 
 
 91, 143, 149; his daughters, 91, 149, 
 153; his intercourse with Papias, 
 143, 146, 149, 193; his identity, 
 91 n 
 
 Philip, the Asiarch, 222 n 
 
 Philippi, the Church at ; Ignatius' visit 
 to, 93, 106; Polycarp's correspond- 
 ence with, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 121 
 (see Poly carp, Ejyistle of) ; ej^iscopacy 
 at, 106, 108 
 
 Philippians, German theories as to the 
 Pauline Epistle to the, 24 sq 
 
 Phillips, 279 n 
 
 Philo, 173 sq, 200 n 
 
 Photius, 196 n, 238, 239, 241 n, 242, 
 243, 267 n 
 
 Pierius of Alexandria, 241 n 
 
 Pliny; his credulity and that of the 
 early fathers, 269; his informant 
 Sez'gius Paulus, 294 sq 
 
 Polycarp of Smyrna ; date of his birth, 
 90 ; born at a crisis, 90 sq ; of Chris- 
 tian parents, 94 ; reared in the centre 
 of Christianity, 91 sq ; under the in- 
 fluence of St John, 89, 92 ; bishop 
 of Smyrna, 92 ; entertains Ignatius, 
 
 92, 113 ; his age at this time, 121 ; 
 his letter to the Philippians (see 
 Polycarp, Epistle of) ; a companion 
 of Papias, 142, 150, 153, 218 ; his 
 old age, 96 ; his pupils Florinus and 
 Irenseus, 96 sq, 264, 265 ; his journey 
 to Rome, 99 sq, 121 ; preaches at 
 Rome, 101 ; his encounter with Mar- 
 cion, 101, 115, 212 ; his attitude in 
 the Paschal controversy, 99 sq ; date 
 of his martyrdom, 90, 97, 103 sq, 
 147, 264 ; details of it, 77 n, 103, 
 220 sq ; document preserving it (see 
 Polycarp, Martyrdom of) ; his posi- 
 
 tion and that of Clement of Eome, 
 89, 94 ; the depositary of Apostolic 
 tradition, 89 sq, 96 ; the link with 
 Irenffius, 89, 100 sq ; the reverence 
 inspired by, 121 n ; characteristic 
 expressions of, 97, 115 sq; his use 
 of the word ' oracles', 174 
 
 Polycarp, Epistle of; date and circum- 
 stances of writing, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 
 121 ; incomplete in the Greek, 11 ; its 
 genuineness, 104 sq ; (1) external 
 evidence for, 104; (2) internal evi- 
 dence, 105 sq ; from (i) its formula 
 of evangelical quotations, 105, 109 ; 
 (ii) its picture of Church order, 
 106, 107 sq, 122; (iii) its Christo- 
 logy, 106, 108 ; (iv) the argument 
 from silence, 106 ; (v) its style and 
 subject-matter compared with the 
 Ignatian Epistles, 106 sq ; Ritschl's 
 theory of interpretations consider- 
 ed, 110 sq ; further objections dealt 
 with, (a) the martyr journey of 
 Ignatius, 111 ; (b) alleged anachro- 
 nisms, 11, 111 sq, 122 ; (c) the Ig- 
 natian Epistles appended, 113 sq ; 
 (d) the thirteenth chapter, 114 ; (e) 
 a supposed reference to Marcion, 
 115 sq ; (/) the age of the writer, 
 121 ; scriptural quotations in, 42 sq, 
 49 sq, 93 sq, 109, 118, 227 ; Eusebius' 
 method tested on, 42 sq, 49 ; the 
 quotations from 1 Peter, 43, 49 sq, 
 95, 109, 191 sq ; coincidence with 
 1 John, 49 ; relation to the Pauline 
 Epistles, 95 sq, 101 sq ; its testi- 
 mony to the Ignatian Epistles, 11, 
 82, 113 sq 
 
 Polycarp, Martyrdom of; the docu- 
 ment, 103, 220 ; its date, 220 ; em- 
 phasizes the coincidences with the 
 Passion, 220 sq ; its evidence to the 
 Fourth Gospel, 221 sq ; employed by 
 the Paschal Chronicle, 148 n 
 
 Polycrates of Ephesus ; his place in 
 the School of St John, 218; his 
 work on the Paschal controversy, 
 244, 248 sq ; scriptural quotations in 
 his letter to Victor, 248, 249 ; quotes 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 317 
 
 the Fourth Gospel, 249 ; his refer- 
 ence to Melito, 224 
 
 Pontius Pilate, date of the termination 
 of the procuratorship of, 131 n 
 
 Pothinus ; probably a native of Asia 
 Minor, 253, 265 ; date of his martyr- 
 dom, 253, 265 ; perhaps one of the 
 elders of Irenteus, 196 n, 266 
 
 Presbyter John ; see John the Pres- 
 byter 
 
 Presbyters in Irenaeus ; see Elders 
 
 Proclus, Cominius, proconsul of Cy- 
 prus, 294 n 
 
 Proconsuls ; the title in imperial 
 times, 292 sq ; the Greek equivalent, 
 292 ; of Cyprus, 294 
 
 Propr£etors ; the title in imperial times, 
 292 ; the Greek equivalent, 292 
 
 Protevangelium, 15, 256 sq 
 
 Quadratus, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n 
 Quadratus, Statius, the Asiatic pro- 
 consulship of, 103 sq 
 Quartodeciman ; see Paschal contro- 
 versy 
 
 Eenan, 104, 232 n, 291 
 
 Ehodon, 272, 273 n, 274 
 
 Eitschl, 63, 65, 110 sq 
 
 Rivetus, 66, 67 
 
 Eoman Church, its influence in the 
 time of Ignatius, 59 
 
 Eoman prisoners, treatment of, 75 sq 
 
 Eoman provinces; Augustus' division 
 of, 291 sq; the titles of their gover- 
 nors, 292; interchange of imperial 
 and senatorial provinces, 292 ; Asia 
 and Africa the most sought after, 293 
 
 Eosenmiiller, 68 
 
 Eouth, 154 n, 201 n, 214 n, 241 n, 252 n 
 
 Eufinus, 203 
 
 Eufus, 111 
 
 Euinart, 76 n, 80 
 
 Sachau, 232 n 
 
 Salutaris, C. Vibius, 302 
 
 Sanday; on the Fourth Gospel, 15; 
 
 on Marcion's Gospel, 186 n 
 Saturus, 76 
 
 Saumaise, 66 
 
 Schleiermacher, 171 
 
 Schliemann, 70 
 
 Schmidt, 68 
 
 Scholten, 64, 119, 242, 262 n 
 
 Schroeckh, 68, 69 
 
 Schwegler, 24 
 
 Second century ; its voluminous eccle- 
 siastical literature, 32, 102; meagre 
 literary remains of the first three 
 quarters, 33, 53, 89, 102; small 
 bearing on the Canon of the extant 
 works, 33, 271 ; importance of Irenae- 
 us at the close of the century, 53, 
 89 
 
 Semler, 68 
 
 Serapion, 238 
 
 Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus; 
 perhaps an informant of PLiny, 
 
 294 sq; Cyprian inscription mention- 
 ing him, 294, 297 
 
 Sergius Paulus, L. ; the friend of 
 Galen, 296 ; proconsul of Asia, 223, 
 296 ; his date, 223 ; his cursus ho- 
 norum, 296 ; his resemblance in 
 character to his namesake in the 
 Acts, 296 ; his scientific studies, 
 297; identification of an unknown, 
 
 295 n 
 
 Severians, Apollinaris' treatise against 
 the, 238, 243 
 
 Severus of Antioch, 87 
 
 Shechem and Sychar, 17, 133 sq 
 
 Silence, its place in the Gnostic 
 Systems, 86 sq 
 
 Siloam, 18, 203 
 
 Simon Magus, 268 
 
 Simonians, 86, 161 
 
 Smyrnaans, Letter of the ; see Poly- 
 carp, Martyrdom of 
 
 Socinus, 66, 67 
 
 Socrates, the historian, 239 
 
 Stephauus Gobarus, 12 
 
 Strabo, 292, 293 n 
 
 Supernatural Religion; criticisms on 
 his grammar and scholarship, 3 sq, 
 53 sq, 126 sq; on his impartiality, 
 9 sq, 20 sq, 180 sq, 140 sq, 191 sq; 
 on the plan of his book, 26, 138 sq; 
 
31 S 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 his charges against opponents, 20 sq, 
 137 sq; his lists of references, 23, 
 65 sq; his theological position, 
 139 n; on the silence of Eusebius, 
 33 sq; on the Paschal controversy, 
 17, 240 sq, 245; clerical and other 
 errors, and ambiguities in, 124 sq, 
 182 sq, 257 
 
 Supernatural, meaning of the term, 
 29 sq 
 
 Sychar, identification of, 17 sq, 133 
 sq 
 
 Synoptists ; their points of contrast 
 with the Fourth Gospel, 15 sq ; re- 
 cognized by the early fathers, 207 
 sq, 239 ; their chronology compared, 
 16, 48, 131, 239 sq, 245 sq ; see also 
 Fourth Gonpel 
 
 Tacitus, 25, 268 n 
 
 Tatian ; an Assyrian, 272 ; a heathen 
 sophist, 272 ; his travels, 272 ; his 
 conversion, 272 ; a pupil of Justin 
 Martyr, 272, 274 ; his disciples at 
 Eome, 272, 274 ; removes to the 
 East, 272 ; his subsequent heretical 
 opinions, 272 ; his attitude towards 
 St Paul and the Paiiline Epistles, 
 273, 284; his views anti- Judaic, 273; 
 date of his literary activity, 274; 
 his extant Apology, 274 ; its date, 
 275 ; quotes from the Fourth Gospel, 
 50, 275 ; his formula of quotation, 
 276 ; his Diatessaron, 277 sq ; its 
 description in Eusebius, 277; who 
 knew but disparaged it, 278 ; the 
 evidence of the Doctrine of Addcii, 
 278 sq ; the commentary of Ephraem 
 Syrus, 280, 283 ; [discovery of an 
 Armenian Version, 288;] Bar-Salibi's 
 statements, 280 sq ; Theodoret's 
 testimony to its circulation, 282 sq, 
 summary of evidence, 283 sq ; coun- 
 ter-statement of Epiphanius, 284 sq; 
 of Victor of Capua, 285 sq ; read in 
 the Churches of Edessa, 278 sq; 
 of Cyrrhestice, 282 sq ; its oldening 
 words, 280, 281 u, 283; its plan, 
 280 sq ; other than that of Am- 
 
 monius' Diatessaron, 280 sq, 283 ; 
 confusion of the two works, 281 n ; 
 Aphraates' knowledge of it, 283 n, 
 [288]; the range of its circulation, 
 284 ; confused with the Gospel ac- 
 cording to the HebreiDS, 284 sq ; 
 [recent discovery of an Arabic Ver- 
 sion, 288] 
 
 TertuUian ; gives evidence to the Fourth 
 Gospel, 52 ; his Apologeticum, 275 ; 
 on the episcojiate of Polycarp, 92 n ; 
 on the style of Melito, 229 ; Chiliasm 
 of, 151 
 
 Theodoret ; date of his episcopate, 282 ; 
 his treatise on Heresies, 282 ; his 
 evidence for the Ignatian Epistles, 
 72; for Ta,tia,n's Diatessaron, 282 sq; 
 for Apollinaris, 238, 239, 242 sq 
 
 Theodotion's Version of the lxx, 260 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch ; his works, 
 extant and lost, 44 ; quotes the 
 Fourth Gospel, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216 ; 
 Eusebius' method tested on his Au- 
 tolycus, 4:4:, 52, 215 ; his testimony 
 to the Apocalypse, 44, 47, 216 ; his 
 investigations in comparative chron- 
 ology, 269 
 
 Thiersch, 68 
 
 Thomas (St), 143, 193 
 
 Thomasius, 210 n 
 
 Tillemont, 241 n, 253 n 
 
 Tischendorf ; defended against S. iJ.'s 
 charges, 5 sq, 54 sq, 125 n, 127 n, 
 128 n, 138 ; other references to, 4, 
 129, 165, 167, 210 
 
 Tiibingen School, criticised, 12, 24, 42, 
 64, 82, 89 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq, 110 sq, 
 151 sq, 251 
 
 Uhlhorn, 63, 71 
 Ussher, 60, 61 
 
 Valens, the Presbyter, 108 
 
 Valentinianism ; its expressions antici- 
 pated in the Ignatian Epistles, 85, 
 86 sq; opposed by IrenKus, 98, 101, 
 219, 245 sq, 262 ; by Hippolytus, 
 161 ; its appeal to the Canon, 219, 
 262, 268; to the Fourth Gospel, 52; 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 319 
 
 to uncanonical books, 263 ; its bear- 
 ing on the chi'onology of our Lord's 
 Life, 245 sq ; its exegesis, 161 
 
 Vettius Epagathus, 255, 256 
 
 Victor of Capua ; his date, 286 ; dis- 
 covers an anonymous Harmony of 
 the Gospel, 286; Frankish transla- 
 tion of this Harmony, 286 n ; as- 
 signs it to Tatian, 286; [perhaps 
 rightly, 288 ;] the word Diapente in 
 his notice of Tatian, 279 n, 285 sq 
 
 Victor of Eome ; his date, 261 ; his 
 attitude in the Paschal controversy, 
 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq 
 
 Vienne and Lyons, Churches of; see 
 Galilean Churches 
 
 Virgin Mary, character of the allusions 
 in Justin Martyr and Melito to the, 
 235 sq 
 
 Volkmar, 24 sq, 64, 71, 79 sq 
 
 Voss, 61 
 
 Vossian Epistles ; see Ignatian Epi- 
 stles 
 
 Waddington, 98 n, 103 sq, 115, 121, 
 223, 295 n, 296 n 
 
 Weiffenbach, 146 n, 158 n 
 
 Weismann, 68, 69 
 
 Weiss, 63, 65, 71 
 
 Westcott; defended against the attacks 
 of S.Ii., 4 sq, 12 sq, 21 sq, 53 sq, 
 123 sq, 128 n, 137 sq; other refer- 
 ences to, 93, 130, 155, 161 n, 211 n, 
 226 sq, 275 n ; his reply to S.B. , 79 n 
 
 Whiston, 69 
 
 Wisdoin of Solomon, 46 
 
 Wood's discoveries at Ephesus, 294 n, 
 297 sq 
 
 Wordsworth, Bishop Charles, 222 n 
 
 Wright, 282 n 
 
 Zacharias, 146 n, 255 sq, 262 n 
 Zahn, 63, 71, 75 n, 77 n, 79 n, 81 n, 
 
 115 n, 213 n, 279 n, 283 n, [287] 
 Zeller, 64 
 Ziegler, 68, 264 n 
 Zosimus, 111 
 Zunz, 153 n 
 
INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Genesis 
 
 iv. 15 
 
 174 St Luke i. 1 
 
 
 286 
 
 Exodus 
 
 xxxii. 7 sq 
 
 174 
 
 i. 3 
 
 
 189 
 
 Deuteronomj 
 
 ' ix. 12 sq 
 
 174 
 
 i. 5 sq 
 
 
 146 
 
 
 X. 9 
 
 173 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 255 
 
 
 xxxi. 7, 23 
 
 221 
 
 1.67 
 
 
 255 
 
 1 Kings 
 
 iv. 33 
 
 25 
 
 ii. 24 
 
 
 276 
 
 Psalms 
 
 iv. 4 
 
 94 
 
 iii. 23 
 
 
 231 
 
 Isaiah 
 
 xi. 6 sq 
 
 198 
 
 X. 18 
 
 186, 
 
 200, 201 
 
 
 Ixv. 25 sq 
 
 198 
 
 xi. 51 
 
 
 257 
 
 
 Ixvi. 22 
 
 55, 198 
 
 xiii. 30 
 
 
 125 
 
 Ezekiel 
 
 xxviii. 13 
 
 200 
 
 xiii. 32, 33 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 xxviii. 15, 16 
 
 201 
 
 xiii. 34 
 
 
 16, 131 
 
 Hosea 
 
 ii. 6-17 
 
 241 
 
 xiv. 13, 14 
 
 
 158 
 
 Tobit 
 
 iv. 10 
 
 94 
 
 xviii. 30 
 
 
 158 
 
 
 xii. 9 
 
 94 
 
 xxi. 38 
 
 
 204 
 
 St Matthew 
 
 v. 44 
 
 123 
 
 xxii. 52 
 
 
 221 
 
 
 X. 16 
 
 41 
 
 xxiii. 43 
 
 
 201 
 
 
 xi. 27 sq 
 
 16 St John i. 1 
 
 44, 
 
 232, 280, 
 
 
 xii. 33 
 
 41 
 
 
 281 
 
 , 283, 286 
 
 
 xiii. 8 
 
 4 
 
 1.3 
 
 
 276 
 
 
 xix. 12 
 
 41 
 
 i. 5 
 
 
 275 
 
 
 xix. 29 
 
 158 
 
 1.18 
 
 
 52 
 
 
 xix. 30 
 
 125 
 
 i. 44 
 
 
 91 
 
 
 XX. 16 
 
 125 
 
 iil. 8 
 
 
 41 
 
 
 xxiii. 35 
 
 256 
 
 iv. 5 
 
 
 17, 133 
 
 
 xxiii. 37 
 
 16, 131 
 
 iv. 18 
 
 
 52 
 
 
 xxvi. 29 
 
 158, 205 
 
 iv. 24 
 
 
 275 
 
 
 xxvi. 42 
 
 221 
 
 iv. 35 
 
 
 136 
 
 
 xxvi. 55 
 
 221 
 
 v. 3, 4 
 
 
 9, 52, 126 
 
 
 xxviii. 1 
 
 208 
 
 V. 29 
 
 
 223 
 
 St Mark 
 
 X. 29, 30 
 
 158 
 
 vii. 36 
 
 
 204 
 
 
 X. 31 
 
 125 
 
 vii. 37 sq 
 
 
 203 
 
 
 xiv. 48 
 
 221 
 
 vii. 52 
 
 
 204 
 
INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 321 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 St John 
 
 vii. 53 — viii. 11 
 
 203 
 
 1 Corinthians xv. 12 
 
 
 120 
 
 
 viii. 15 
 
 204, 205 
 
 2 Corinthians xii. 12 
 
 
 125 
 
 
 viii. 12 sq 
 
 204 
 
 Galatians 
 
 ii. 9 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 viii. 29 
 
 41 
 
 
 iv. 21 sq 
 
 
 173 
 
 
 viii. 44 
 
 13 
 
 Ephesians 
 
 iv. 26 
 
 
 95 
 
 
 viii. 56 
 
 248 
 
 
 V. 21 
 
 
 109 
 
 
 viii. 57 
 
 246, 247 
 
 
 vi. 14 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 ix. 7 
 
 18 
 
 
 vi. 18 
 
 
 123 
 
 
 xii. 21 sq 
 
 91 
 
 Philippians 
 
 ii. 6 
 
 
 254 
 
 
 xii. 28 
 
 222 
 
 
 ii. 7 
 
 
 237 
 
 
 xii. 33 
 
 222 
 
 
 iii. 18 
 
 
 123 
 
 
 xiii. 25 
 
 249 
 
 
 iv. 2 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 xiv. 2 4, 54, 
 
 194, 247 
 
 1 Timothy 
 
 ii. 2 
 
 
 123 
 
 
 xvi. 2 
 
 258 
 
 
 iii. 15 
 
 
 254 
 
 
 xvii. 3 
 
 223 
 
 
 iv. 3 
 
 
 273 
 
 
 xviii. 31, 32 
 
 222 
 
 
 iv. 3, 4 
 
 
 255 
 
 
 xix. 28, 30 
 
 222 
 
 
 v. 1, 2, 17, 19 
 
 
 146 
 
 
 xix. 84 sq 
 
 222 
 
 
 vi. 7 
 
 
 123 
 
 
 xix. 35 
 
 187 
 
 
 vi. 10 
 
 
 122 
 
 
 XX. 1 
 
 208 
 
 2 Timothy 
 
 ii. 18 
 
 
 120 
 
 
 XX. 25 
 
 257 
 
 
 iv. 10 
 
 
 251 
 
 
 XX. 31 
 
 187 
 
 Hebrews 
 
 v. 12 
 
 
 173 
 
 
 xxi. 20 
 
 249 
 
 
 xi. 2 
 
 
 145 
 
 Acts 
 
 ii. 16 
 
 276 
 
 1 Peter 
 
 i. 1 
 
 
 92 
 
 
 ii. 24 
 
 95 
 
 
 i. 8 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 v. 29 
 
 249 
 
 
 i. 13 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 vii. 60 
 
 257 
 
 
 i. 21 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 xiii. 7 292, 
 
 294, 295 
 
 
 ii. 11, 12 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 xiii. 40 
 
 276 
 
 
 ii. 17 
 
 50, 
 
 , 122 
 
 
 xix. 24 sq 
 
 297 
 
 
 ii. 22, 24 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 xix. 31 
 
 299 
 
 
 iii. 9 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 xix. 35 
 
 299, 300 
 
 
 iv. 7 
 
 49, 
 
 191 
 
 
 xix. 37, 38 
 
 299, 301 
 
 
 iv. 14 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 xxi. 9 
 
 149 
 
 
 V. 5 
 
 50, 
 
 , 109 
 
 
 xxi. 14 
 
 221 
 
 
 V. 13 
 
 
 207 
 
 Koiiians 
 
 i. 5 
 
 237 
 
 1 John 
 
 i. 1 
 
 97, 
 
 490 
 
 
 iii. 2 
 
 173 
 
 
 iv. 2, 3 
 
 
 118 
 
 
 iv. 1 sq 
 
 173 
 
 Eevelation 
 
 i. 4 
 
 
 133 
 
 
 iv. 18 
 
 276 
 
 
 ii. 2 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 viii. 18 
 
 254 
 
 
 ii. 6, 14, 15, 20 
 
 ,24 
 
 119 
 
 
 XV. 19 
 
 125 
 
 
 ii. 14 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 xvi. 26 
 
 237 
 
 
 xii. 9 
 
 
 201 
 
 1 Corinthians vi. 12 — 18 
 
 119 
 
 
 xix. 13 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 vii. 5 
 
 273 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 viii. 1 sq 
 
 119 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X. 1 sq 
 
 173 
 
 Anastasius of Sinai 154, 
 
 200, 
 
 201, 
 
 
 X. 7, 8, 14, 21 
 
 14 
 
 
 202, 
 
 225, 
 
 230 
 
 
 xi. 8 sq 
 
 173 
 
 Andreas of Cssarea 
 
 
 214 
 
 S. R. 
 
 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 
322 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 Apbraates 
 
 Horn. i. p. 13 (ed. Wright) 283 
 
 Apost. Constit. ii. 24 203 
 
 Aristides Op. i. p. 453 (ed. Dind.) 98 
 
 Barnahce Ep. 4, 5 177 
 
 15 151 
 
 Basil (St) Horn. xi. 5 175 
 
 Horn. xii. 1 175 
 
 Capitol. Vit. Anton. 7 98 
 
 Chronicon Pasch. p. 13 (ed. Dind.) 238 
 
 p. 481 148 
 
 Claudius Apollinaris 207 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus 
 
 Coh. ad Gent. p. 84 (ed. Pot- 
 ter) 174 
 Exc. Theod. 38 273 
 Strom, i. 1 218, 274 
 Strom, i. p. 392 174 
 Strom, ii. 9 152 
 Strom, iii. 12 270 
 Strom, iii. 13 152, 270 
 Strom, iv. 12 161 
 /Strom, vii. p. 889 257 
 Strom, vii. 17 21, 161, 213 
 Quis Biv. Salv. 42 91, 218 
 Clem. Eom. 5 40 
 25 268 
 45 174 
 47 40 
 53 174 
 Dion Cassius liii. 12 293 
 liv. 4 294 
 Euripides Iph. Taur. 1. 1359 301 
 Epiphanius 
 
 De Pond, et Mens. 16, 17 260 
 
 Hcer. xlvi. 1 273, 284 
 
 Har. Ii. 1 sq 215 
 Eusebius 
 
 Chron. (Syr. epit.) p. 216 (ed. 149 
 
 Scbone) 
 
 Eccl. Theol. ii. 9 87 
 
 Hist. Eccl. i. 13 279 
 
 iii. 3 37, 145 
 
 iii. 23 48, 168, 209 
 
 iii. 24 39 
 
 iii. 25, 27 152 
 
 iii. 30, 31 91 
 
 iii. 36 41. 43, 152 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Hist. Eccl. iii. 37 40 
 
 iii. 39 91, 143, 150 
 
 152, 157, 193, 
 
 209 
 
 iv. 14 43, 49, 150, 191 
 
 iv. 15 77, 90, 121, 
 
 148, 150, 220 sq 
 
 iv. 16 273 
 
 iv. 18 43 
 
 iv. 21 . 239 
 
 iv. 22 152, 183 
 
 iv. 23 156, 177, 228 
 
 iv. 24 44 
 
 iv. 26 32, 47, 223, 
 
 225, 243, 296 
 
 iv. 27 32, 238 
 
 iv. 28 273 
 
 iv. 29 273, 277 
 
 V. 1 146, 252 
 
 V. 3, 4 253, 259 
 
 V. 6 45 
 
 V. 8 45, 145, 156 
 
 V. 13 273 
 
 V. 15 98 
 
 V. 18 47, 91 
 
 V. 19 238 
 
 V. 20 97, 98, 116, 
 
 218, 265 
 
 V. 24 91, 100, 224, 
 
 244, 248, 254 
 
 V. 26 46 
 
 V. 28 102, 230 
 
 vi. 13 47, 145, 244 
 
 vi. 14 47, 145 
 
 vi. 20 47 
 
 vii. 25 216 
 
 Qucest. ad Marin. 2, iv. 208 
 
 Qucest. ad Steph. 1 73 
 
 Op. IV. p. 1276 (ed. Migue) 281 
 
 Galen de Anat. Admin, i. 1 296 
 
 de Prccnot. 2 296 
 
 Op. XIX. p. 11 (ed. Kiihn) 196 
 
 Hippolytus 
 
 Ref. Her. v. 7 161 
 
 Ref. Hcer. vi. 42, 55 145, 202 
 
 Ignatius Ephes. 1 42 
 
 Ephes. 7 42 
 
 Ephes. 9 302 
 
INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 323 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ignatius Ephcs. 12 
 
 41, 42 
 
 Ha 
 
 ■r. iv. 30. 1 
 
 
 145, 196 
 
 Ephes. 14 
 
 41 
 
 
 iv. 31. 1 
 
 145, 
 
 196, 248 
 
 Ephes. 19 
 
 73 
 
 
 iv. 32. 1 
 
 
 196 
 
 Magn. 8 
 
 41, 42, 86 
 
 
 V. 5. 1 
 
 145, 
 
 198, 218 
 
 Magn. 11 
 
 118 
 
 
 V. 20. 2 
 
 
 177 
 
 Magn. 13 
 
 109 
 
 
 V. 30. 1 
 
 
 218 
 
 Trail. 6 
 
 161 
 
 
 V. 31. 1 sq 
 
 
 151 
 
 Tra/L 9 
 
 118 
 
 
 V. 33. 1 
 
 
 158 
 
 Rom. inscr. 
 
 161 
 
 
 V. 33. 3 
 
 
 145, 218 
 
 iJom. 2 
 
 232 
 
 
 V. 33. 4 
 
 
 142 
 
 Rom. 4 
 
 41, 42, 114 
 
 
 V. 36. 1, 2 
 
 3: 
 
 , 54, 126, 
 
 JRo)?i. 5 
 
 73, 74, 78 
 
 
 
 145, 
 
 194, 199 
 
 iiojn. 6 
 
 42, 85 
 
 Jerome 
 
 
 
 
 Rom. 7 
 
 85 
 
 de 
 
 Vir. must. 16 
 
 
 42 
 
 P/»7rt(i. 3 
 
 161 
 
 de Vir. Illust. 17 
 
 
 105 
 
 Philad. 6 
 
 42 
 
 de Vir. Illust. 24 
 
 
 229 
 
 P/i!7a(i. 7 
 
 41 
 
 de Vir. Illust. 26 
 
 
 243 
 
 Smyrn. 1 
 
 118 
 
 Ep. 
 
 . ad Magnuvi (p. 
 
 83) 
 
 243 
 
 Smyrn. 6 
 
 41 
 
 Ep. 
 
 . 70 (i. p. 428) 
 
 
 239 
 
 Po??/c. 1-4 
 
 93 
 
 Ep. 
 
 , 120 ad Hedib. (i 
 
 [. p. i 
 
 326) 208 
 
 Po??/c. 2 
 
 41 
 
 prmf. ad Tit. vii. 
 
 
 273 
 
 PoZ(/c. 3 
 
 42, 93 
 
 John Malalas p. 276 (ed. 
 
 Bonn.) 79 
 
 Po/2/c. 7 
 
 77,93 
 
 
 p. 280 
 
 
 98 
 
 Irenseus 
 
 
 Justin : 
 
 Martyr Apol. i. 26 
 
 268 
 
 Ifcer. pref. i. 
 
 160 
 
 
 Apol. i. 66, 67 
 
 43, 227 
 
 i. 3. 6 
 
 160 
 
 
 Dial. 34 
 
 
 235 
 
 i. 8. 1 
 
 174 
 
 
 Dial. 51 
 
 sq 
 
 151 
 
 i. 26. 1 
 
 118 
 
 
 Dial. 61 
 
 
 235 
 
 i. 27. 2 
 
 117 
 
 
 Dial. 80 
 
 sq 
 
 151 
 
 i. 27. 3 
 
 317, 120 
 
 
 Dial. 100 
 
 235, 236 
 
 i. 28. 1 
 
 273, 274 
 
 Lucian de Morte Peregr. 
 
 12 
 
 76 
 
 ii. 22. 5 
 
 48, 91, 92, 131, 
 
 
 de Morte Peregr. 
 
 41 
 
 77 
 
 
 168, 209, 217, 
 
 Martyr. Polyc. 1 
 
 
 220 
 
 
 218, 245, 264 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 222 
 
 ii. 31. 2 
 
 120 
 
 
 6,7,8 
 
 
 221 
 
 iii. 1. 1 
 
 48, 182 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 90, 221 
 
 iii. 3. 3 
 
 260 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 222 
 
 iii. 3. 4 
 
 92, 101, 115, 217, 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 121 
 
 
 218, 264 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 223 
 
 iii. 11. 1 
 
 48, 182 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 222 
 
 iii. 11. 9 
 
 215 
 
 
 16 
 
 77: 
 
 , 222, 223 
 
 iii. 12. 12 
 
 117 
 
 Origen 
 
 c. Cels. pref. etc. 
 
 
 278 
 
 iii. 16. 8 
 
 118 
 
 
 c. Cels. i. 8 
 
 
 7 
 
 iii. 21. 1 
 
 260 
 
 
 c. Cels. viii. 76 
 
 
 7 
 
 iii. 25. 2 
 
 120 
 
 
 de Princ. iv. 11 
 
 
 175 
 
 iii. 25. 3 
 
 120 
 
 
 in Mattli. X. 6 
 
 
 175 
 
 iv: 26. 2 
 
 218 
 
 
 in Matth. xvi. 6 
 
 
 212 
 
 iv.27.1sq 
 
 145,196,248,266 
 
 
 in Luc. Horn. i. 
 
 
 152 
 
324 
 
 ON SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Phiio de Conj. Eritd. Grat. 24 174 
 
 de Profug. 11 174 
 
 Vit. Moys. iii. 23 174 
 
 Photius Bibl. 14 238, 239 
 
 Bibl. 119 241 
 
 Bibl. 121 196, 267 
 
 Pliny Nat. Hist. ii. 90, 97, 112 295 
 
 Nat. Hist, xviii. 12, 57 295 
 
 Polycarp Phil. 1 
 Phil. 2 
 Phil. 3 
 P/((7. 4 
 P/a7. 5 
 P/ii/. 7 
 
 Phil. 8 
 P/(iL 9 
 P/»7. 10 
 Phil. 12 
 P/»7. 13 
 Protevangelimn 11, 12 
 23 
 
 50,95 
 
 50 
 
 93, 96, 112, 114 
 
 122 
 
 50, 108 
 
 49, 93, 116, 116, 
 
 174, 191 
 
 50 
 
 111, 112 
 
 50, 94 
 
 95, 112, 122 
 
 11,93, 111, 114 
 
 257 
 
 256 
 
 Socrates Hist. Eccl. iii. 7 
 
 VII. 32 
 Tacitus Hist. v. 1 sq 
 Tatian Oral, ad Grcec. 4, 13 
 Oj-at. ad Grcec. 19 
 
 PAGE 
 
 239 
 
 118 
 
 268 
 
 275 
 
 273, 276 
 
 Orat. ad Gnec. 29, 35, 42 273 
 
 TertiiUian adv. Marc. iii. 24 151 
 
 adv. Marc. iv. 2 8 
 
 adv. Marc. v. 10 120 
 
 de Prcescr. Hcer. 32 92 
 
 de Prcpscr. Hcer. 33 120 
 
 de Eesurr. Cam. 19 120 
 
 de Resxirr. Carn. 24 151 
 
 Theodoret Har. Fab. i. 20 273, 282 
 
 Ha:r. Fab. i. 21 238, 243 
 
 Hcer. Fab. iii. 2 239, 243 
 
 Ep. 113 283 
 
 Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 22 44 
 
 Victor Cap. Prcef. ad Anon. Harm. 
 
 Evang. 286 
 
 Xenophon Anab. v. 3, 6 300 
 
 ri.a'^ 
 
 CAMBKIDGE : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 / '-' ^ 
 
 5-: 
 
 
 
 .^jtsmim^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^^iiiiii'itify' 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 mmmmm^ 
 
 
 
 
 -smm^ 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "'0 ' 
 
 
 
 
 Sf 
 
 
 
 .-^ -.. ^^^. 
 
 iff' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •♦I^PwP**^ 
 
 jfjwf 
 
 
 
 
 yf 
 
 .qc; 
 
 
 Wl 
 
 
 ulU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (|)