RESURRECTION; FROM A LAWYER'S STANDPOINT ***






                               THE PROOFS
                                   OF
                         CHRIST’S RESURRECTION;

                       FROM A LAWYER’S STANDPOINT.

                                   BY
                          CHARLES R. MORRISON.

                             [Illustration]

                                ANDOVER:
                            WARREN F. DRAPER.
                                  1882.

        Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1882,
                          BY WARREN F. DRAPER,
       In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

                         _All Rights Reserved._




PREFACE.


The present treatise is intended to give what the author has often felt
the need of—a compact and thoroughly reliable statement of the principal
historical facts to the authenticity and integrity of the New Testament
writings concerning our Lord, and the presumptions from them which
establish his claims as our Divine Redeemer and Saviour.

The question of his Resurrection from the dead is selected as the pivot,
because everything hinges upon it. This question, whichever way it is
determined, is decisive. It is a question which greatly concerns every
one. It is a question of evidence, and as such is especially deserving
of careful inquiry by members of the legal profession. For, as Prof.
Greenleaf observed in his work hereafter cited,—“If a close examination
of the evidences of Christianity may be expected of one class of men more
than another, it would seem incumbent on us, who make the law of evidence
one of our peculiar studies.”

As the question of Christ’s Resurrection is the objective point of our
inquiries, all other questions are subordinated to it, and examined so
far only as deemed material to the main question.

The author has availed himself of a lawyer’s privilege, and made use
of the researches, arguments, and conclusions of others who may justly
be regarded as authority, and to whom he has given credit as far as
practicable, but has endeavored to form an independent judgment in view
of all accessible sources of information.

The work is, in the main, as published in a series of articles in the
_New Hampshire Journal_, and also in the _Vermont Chronicle_, from March
5, 1881, to April 1, 1882, which will explain the use of the common
version in the earlier chapters and the New Revision in the later ones.

While the proofs have been marshalled around the principal fact, those
to establish the subsidiary question of our Four Gospels and the Book
of Acts have been largely centered upon the “Memoirs” mentioned in the
confessedly genuine writings of Justin Martyr. Justin, in his First
Apology, so called, written before the year one hundred and fifty of our
era, and probably ten years earlier, has given a graphic account of the
usages in the churches generally. In this account he says that, on the
“day called Sunday,” Memoirs of Christ were read with the Prophets, in
all their assemblies. Hence, when it is ascertained that these Memoirs
were our Canonical Gospels, we make a long stride toward the conclusion
of their undoubted authenticity and genuineness.

To all questions of evidence which arise, the author applies legal
principles and presumptions derived from experience and constantly acted
upon in courts of justice. He asks of the reader a patient perusal to
the end, for he confidently believes that the vital fact of Christ’s
Resurrection, with all the grand consequences which necessarily follow
it, is as susceptible of proof, from undoubted historical facts and solid
argument, as any other event in history.

The work is written for busy men in all the walks of life, and the writer
has endeavored to make himself understood.

                                                     CHARLES R. MORRISON.

MANCHESTER, N. H., August, 1882.




CONTENTS.


    CHAPTER                                                  PAGE

       I.   SOURCES OF EVIDENCE                                 7

       II.  ADMISSIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS                        12

      III. PAPIAS AND JUSTIN MARTYR                            14

       IV.  THE MEMOIRS INTENDED BY JUSTIN MARTYR              18

        V.   QUOTATIONS AND CITATIONS                          23

       VI.  JUSTIN’S USE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL                  30

      VII. NO OTHERS PROVED                                    34

     VIII. PRESUMPTION OF PERMANENCY                           43

       IX. THE MEMOIRS OF THE YEAR ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY      45

        X.   ASCENDING THE STREAM                              50

       XI.  STILL ASCENDING THE STREAM                         57

      XII. IN THEIR PROPER REPOSITORIES                        63

     XIII. INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPELS                            67

      XIV. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS                  74

       XV. THE APOCALYPSE AND THE FOUR EPISTLES                81

      XVI. HIS PREDICTIONS CONCERNING HIMSELF                  89

     XVII. ORDER OF EVENTS                                    101

    XVIII. SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS                          110
             (_False Assumptions._)

      XIX. SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS                          120
             (_Affirmative Evidence._)

       XX. LOGICAL RESULTS                                    134

           INDEX                                              143




THE PROOFS OF CHRIST’S RESURRECTION.




CHAPTER I.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE.


It is a characteristic of all who deny this and all other miracles,
that they beg the whole question to begin with. They assume as an axiom
that a miracle is impossible, or impossible to be proved by human
testimony. Or, to put it more mildly, in the language of one of their
number (Renan[1]), “neither men of the people nor men of the world are
competent to prove it. Great precaution and a long habit of scientific
research are requisite.” If these are sound axioms, it should be a matter
of indifference who were the witnesses, or what their credibility or
means of knowledge, since at the best they were but human, and it is not
claimed that they were experts or _savans_ after the modern skeptical
school, although they might be expected to know whether one who walked
with them, and to whose instructions they listened, and from whom they
received their commission, were dead or alive.

It is also a comfortable assumption on their part that no one is a
scholar who does not agree with their opinion, and many young men who
would not be thought to be behind the times are misled by their confident
boasting. “No modern theologian,” says Strauss,[2] “who is also a
scholar, now considers any of the four Gospels to be the work of its
pretended author, or in fact to be by an Apostle or colleague of an
Apostle.” The logic of this is, that if any one does so consider them,
he is not a scholar. The same kind of scholarship and habit of thinking
that induced this wise conclusion brought him at last to the denial of
the existence of a personal God or a future life. His experience is
instructive, and shows the inevitable tendency of all reasoning that
denies the possibility of a miracle or a divine revelation. Mill’s hard
logic cannot well be resisted. “Once admit a God, and the production, by
his direct volition, of an effect which in any case owed its origin to
his creative will, is no more a purely arbitrary hypothesis to account
for the past, but must be reckoned with as a serious possibility.” If,
then, a miracle may occur, it may be proved[A] by human testimony, for
the very motive or reason for its occurrence, or, at least the principal
reason, must be its value as an attestation.

And the immense labor which the Tübingen school and every class of
skeptics have bestowed in attempts to disprove the authorship of the
Four Gospels, shows that they have not much confidence in their axioms
after all. Why so anxious as to the witnesses, if it is immaterial who
they are, or what they testify to? If a miracle cannot be proved by
_any_ evidence, why have they multiplied books to prove or disprove the
authorship of the gospels?


THE BEST EVIDENCE.

The best evidence of which the subject admits, is all that is required
in courts; and it is sufficient in matters of the highest concern, even
in cases of life and death, that a fact be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt. The best evidence to Christ’s disciples of his resurrection, was
that of their own senses. This evidence we cannot have. We are in the
position, in some respects, of jurors, who must decide not from their
own knowledge, but upon the testimony of others. We have not, however,
the witnesses upon the stand, but only what may be regarded as their
depositions, and it is made a question whether the writings produced are
their depositions.

The question, then, in this stage is, who were the writers of the Four
Gospels and the book of Acts? As to the latter, the writer claims to
have written a former treatise, and it seems to be taken by both parties
to the controversy, that the same person (whoever he was) wrote both
books, so that any evidence of Luke’s authorship of the third Gospel, is
evidence of his authorship of Acts, and _vice versa_. And the same is
true in respect to the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John.

The best evidence as to the authorship of any of these books which
the nature of the subject admits of, is from history and tradition,
including in these terms quotations, citations, harmonies, commentaries,
translations, and manuscripts.

There are two modes of presenting this evidence. One is to begin with
their present acknowledged acceptance, and ascend the stream; the
other is to strike tributaries, as near their source as we are able,
and descend to the river. The latter will be adopted here in the first
instance, and ultimately both modes of proof.


LOST TRIBUTARIES.

One hundred years from the crucifixion, churches had been established
in all the cities and in many of the villages of the Roman Empire, from
Cappadocia and Pontus on the east, to Gaul on the west, and Christians
were very numerous. Tacitus describes those at Rome at the time of Nero’s
barbarity, as “a great multitude,” and Pliny, in his letter to Trajan,
_cir._ A.D. 110, affirms that the heathen temples were almost deserted,
so that the sacred victims scarcely found any purchasers, and that the
“superstition,” as he termed it, not only infected the cities, but had
even spread into the villages, of Pontus and Bithynia (Gibbon, p. 576).
Hence persons unacquainted with the subject might suppose that it would
be easy to adduce abundant proof from writers of the first century, as to
what memoirs of our Lord, if any, were in the churches at the time Pliny
wrote his celebrated letter. Such, however, is not the fact.

There is no _direct_ historical testimony known to be earlier than the
first apology[3] of Justin Martyr to the Roman Emperor, _cir._ A.D. 139.
There are certain fragments written by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis,
which may be of an earlier date, but this is uncertain. There are also
quotations apparently from the third and fourth Gospels, by Basilides,[4]
the Gnostic heretic who flourished at Alexandria as early as A.D. 125.
There is an epistle to the Philippian church, attributed to Polycarp
which Dean Stanley thinks dates about A.D. 130. Its genuineness is not
universally admitted. There is an epistle, conceded to be genuine, from
the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, of the probable date of
A.D. 95. There are epistles attributed by some to Ignatius, who suffered
martyrdom, _cir._ A.D. 107, but their genuineness is controverted. There
are in addition three other writings known as the Epistle of Barnabas,
the Letter to Diognetus, and the Pastor Hermas. They are by unknown
authors, and of uncertain date, but were probably written in the latter
part of the first or the first part of the second century.

And these are all that have come down to us in any form from the first
one hundred years after the crucifixion. That we have no more is
easily explained. This period was one of intense activity and violent
persecutions. Five (as some reckon them) of the ten general persecutions
were within[5] this period. The first was under Nero, A.D. 64, the second
under Domitian, A.D. 95, the third under Trajan, A.D. 100, the fourth
under Antoninus the Philosopher, and the fifth under Severus, A.D. 127;
and, as some of these continued several years, there was scarcely an
intermission for three-quarters of a century. The horrible tortures and
cruel deaths under Nero are well-known, and, under Domitian, forty
thousand were supposed to have suffered martyrdom.

It is no matter of surprise, therefore, that so little has reached us
from this early period. Christians were making history, not writing
it, and of their writings the most perished. There were hundreds and
thousands who well knew what memoirs of our Lord were accepted by the
churches in this period, from whose lips no voice comes except in the
volume of universal tradition.

[1] Renan’s Life of Jesus, p. 43.

[2] The Old Faith and the New (1874), p. 45.

[A] See also _post_, c. 18.

[3] A.D. 138 or 139 is the date most usually assigned to this most
important work, although some place it as late as A.D. 150. If his
statement in it that “Christ was born 150 years ago” were to be taken
strictly, it would make its date A.D. 146 or A.D. 144, according as
we allow four or six years as the error for the beginning of the true
Christian era; but he may have used the number in a general way. His
martyrdom is variously stated at A.D. 165 and A.D. 167.

[4] That the quotations were by Basilides himself Matthew Arnold’s
reasoning seems entirely satisfactory, and “no one” he says, “who had
not a theory to serve would ever dream of doubting it.” Perhaps it may
be permitted to regard Matthew Arnold as a “scholar;” and see Abbot’s
“Fourth Gospel,” Boston (1880), p. 86. See also _post_, c. 5.

[5] Buck’s Theological Dictionary, and Vol. VII of M’Clintock and
Strong’s Cyclopedia, p. 966.




CHAPTER II.

ADMISSIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS.


With the somewhat scanty and inconclusive evidence from writings of the
first one hundred years from the crucifixion, are there any facts that
are conceded, and any presumptions from them? There are concessions,
and from what motives is immaterial, since there is no doubt of the
existence of the facts that are admitted even by those who deny the
authenticity of the Gospels. Says Renan[1]: “Not the slightest doubt has
been raised by serious criticism against the authenticity of the Epistle
to the Galatians, the two Epistles to the Corinthians, or the Epistle
to the Romans; while the arguments on which are founded the attacks on
the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, and that to the Philippians, are
without value.” And it may be added that the genuineness of the Book of
Revelations is conceded and insisted upon by most of his way of thinking.

Now, from the four Epistles against whose authenticity “not the slightest
doubt has been raised by serious criticism,” and the writings of
Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny, these facts are as well established as any
facts of history can possibly be established:—Jesus Christ was born in
Judea in the days of Herod, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He
was a most extraordinary character, and a wonderful teacher. He gathered
disciples, of whom twelve were called Apostles. After his death, his
followers were formed into numerous churches, which, in a few years,
extended into all parts of the then known world, and of which there has
been a continuous succession till now. If, from their disciples, we
know something of the life and teachings of Confucius and Socrates, we
should expect as much concerning him whose advent revolutionized the
world, within three centuries overturned the old pagan superstitions
throughout the Roman Empire, and is still the greatest moral power of the
most enlightened nations of the earth. But, if there were any accepted
memoirs of him in that first hundred years from his crucifixion, what has
become of them? It is incredible that they should have dropped out of
existence and there be no history or tradition of it. It is incredible
that they should have been lost to churches having a continuous life,
or that others should have been substituted for them, and there be no
trace of their disappearance or of a substitution. In the churches
in every period, the old and the young were together. How, then, was
displacement and substitution possible without protest? How was the loss
of accepted memoirs possible, so long as there was a continued succession
of teachers? Yet none have reached our time other than those which have
come to us through all the centuries as authentic writings of those whose
names they bear.

By the law of the “survival of the fittest,” all other productions making
any pretensions to such a character perished long ago, only fragments
of them remain, and our four Gospels are in the churches. There is,
therefore, to begin with, the strongest presumption in their favor.
“It is,” says Professor Greenleaf,[2] “for the objector to show them
spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of
proof.” And from what has appeared it is plain that this “burden” is a
very heavy one.[3]

[1] Renan’s Life of Jesus, p. 35.

[2] The Testimony of the Four Evangelists (p. 28, section 10), by Simon
Greenleaf, LL.D., 1846. His standard work on evidence is in every
lawyer’s library.

[3] See also _post_, c. 8.




CHAPTER III.

PAPIAS AND JUSTIN MARTYR.


The fact of the early reception, by the churches, of Memoirs of Christ
deemed authentic, probable in itself without any proof, is conclusively
proved by writings and to which reference has been made, particularly
those of Papias and Justin Martyr.

Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first part of the
second century of the Christian era. Though of moderate capacity, and
entertaining extravagant ideas of the millennium, he was entirely honest,
and there is no reason to question his testimony as to what he was told
in respect to Matthew and Mark. He suffered martyrdom about A.D. 163.
From fragments of his writings found in Eusebius and in the works of
Irenæus, it appears that “John the Presbyter” gave him information in
respect to the First and Second Gospels.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether this John was John
the Apostle. Eusebius held that he was not, and says that in his day
(264-340) there were two tombs at Ephesus, both of which were called
John’s. The question of identity is not very material. Papias gives,
in explanation, that he imagined that “what was to be got from books”
concerning the Lord, was not as profitable to him “as what came from
the living and abiding voice.” For this reason, he says, “If, then, any
one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their
sayings, what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by
Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the
Lord’s disciples,[1] which things Aristion and the Presbyter John, the
disciples of the Lord, say.”

From this, it is plain there were then accredited “books” concerning
our Lord. And two of these books are identified by his statement of
what he was told by John the Presbyter, that “Mark, having become the
interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of
Peter’s instructions,” whom he accompanied (it was not, however, in exact
order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ), “and Matthew put
together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted
them as best he could.” These extracts prove that the First and Second
Gospels were extant, not only when Papias wrote, and when the Presbyter
gave him the information, but also some time before. His informant, if
_not_ John the Apostle, must have been one who had seen the Apostles or
some of them, so that the testimony is very direct.

That Papias does not mention Luke’s Gospel, or John’s Gospel, proves
nothing except that he had no occasion to say anything about them, in
that connection. The Fourth Gospel may not have been _written_ at the
time of the interview with the Presbyter, for the Apostle John lived
until about the year 100, and he wrote his Gospel very late in life. It
is not quoted by Clement.

And as to the Third Gospel, the occasion for the writing of it is
distinctly stated by the author himself, who was well known. And so of
the Fourth Gospel; its authorship modestly but clearly appears upon its
face. We have mere fragments from Papias not exceeding two or three
hundred lines all told. In some of his five books (almost the whole of
which have been lost) there may have been references to both Luke and
John. Eusebius[2] states that Papias made use of testimonials from the
First Epistle of John; but as he does not say that Papias ascribed that
Epistle to John, his use of it only proves that it was extant when he
wrote. There is, however, a quotation in one of these fragments (v), “In
my Father’s house are many mansions,” which is literally as in John xiv.
2, and so, presumptively, was taken from it. It is an interesting fact
that the only _quotations_ other than this, by Papias (if those in this
fragment are indeed by him), are as in verses 25 to 28 of the 15th of
First Corinthians, a chapter which will be found to have great weight in
another part of this discussion.

Papias, therefore, probably[3] quotes the Fourth Gospel. But, without
such quotation, no inference could be drawn against Luke or John from
mere silence. Papias would still prove the First and Second Gospels,
leaving the Third and Fourth to stand upon the presumption in their favor
stated in our last chapter, and upon positive evidence from other sources.

[1] The quotations from Papias are from Vol. I, of the Ante-Nicene
Christian Library, translated by Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James
Donaldson, LL.D.; and so in respect to any of the Apostolic Fathers. The
editors say the words, “Which things, _etc._,” are usually translated,
“What Aristion and John say,” and that such translation is admissible,
but that they more naturally mean that John and Aristion, even at the
time of Justin’s writing, were telling him of the sayings of the Lord.

[2] Eusebius B. III., c. 39.

[3] The editors call it “mere guess-work” (Ante-Nicene Christian Library,
Vol. I., p. 444, note). Eusebius makes no mention of it, though his
silence is not conclusive against it.

The question is of sufficient importance to warrant the giving of the
entire passage from Irenæus in which the quotations appear. It is the
last of five short chapters of his work on Heresies. Certain passages
are printed in italics, which the reader is specially asked to consider:
“As the _presbyters_ say, then those who were deemed worthy of an abode
in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise,
and others shall possess the splendor of the city, for everywhere the
Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But
there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce
an hundred-fold, and those who produce sixty-fold, and who produce
thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second
class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and
that on this account the Lord said, ‘In my Father’s house are many
mansions;’ for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable
dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by
the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is
the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the
wedding. _The Presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles_, say that this
is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they
advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend
through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and
that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it
is said by the apostle, ‘For He must reign till He hath put all enemies
under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.’ For in
the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to
die. But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that
He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things
shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject
unto Him that put all things under Him, that the Son may be all in all.”
There being no question of the genuineness of this passage from Irenæus,
by whom were the quotations, found in it? Now while it is possible they
were by _Irenæus_, to illustrate what ‘the Presbyters, the disciples of
the Apostles,’ maintained, the more obvious and natural interpretation
is, that they were cited by those Presbyters themselves. This being so,
it is not of much consequence whether Irenæus had this information of
these views and citations, from Papias (from whom he had obtained like
information upon other subjects as to the sayings of the Presbyters),
or whether Irenæus had this information of their sayings from other
sources. In either event the quotations were made _either_ by Papias,
his contemporaries, or predecessors, “disciples of the Apostles.” And
of this opinion are Charteris (Canonicity, c. 17, of the Introduction),
and Routh, Tischendorf, Wescott, Dorner and Riggenback, as cited in
“Supernatural Religion” p. 604.




CHAPTER IV.

THE MEMOIRS INTENDED BY JUSTIN MARTYR.[1]


Great importance attaches to them in connection with other facts.

The date of Justin’s birth is uncertain, being placed as early as A.D.
85, and as late as A.D. 114; Rev. Mr. Wright says about A.D. 100. His
martyrdom was about A.D. 165. His father and grandfather were probably
of Roman origin. Before his conversion to Christianity, he studied in
the schools of the philosophers, but after that he became an Evangelist,
and a vigorous writer in defence of the Christian faith. It is probable
that he travelled much. He was not the first that wrote an Apology for
Christians, but his are the earliest extant. Besides these, he wrote
a much larger work (the Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew), a work on the
resurrection, and some others; and by some, he has been regarded as the
author of the Pastor Hermas. His first and principal Apology, of the
probable date of A.D. 138-9, was addressed as follows:

    “To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus
    Cæsar, and to his son Verissimus, the philosopher, and to
    Lucius, the philosopher, the natural son of Cæsar, and the
    adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the Sacred
    Senate, with the whole people of the Romans, I, Justin, the son
    of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, native of Flavia Neapolis
    in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf
    of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly
    abused, myself being one of them.”

Those to whom this formal address was made, would not be expected to know
anything about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John; but it was otherwise, in
respect to the Old Testament, for Jewish synagogues were in every city,
and the Septuagint had been known for three hundred years.

In this Apology he explains some of the teachings of our Lord, and the
usages of his disciples; and in respect to the last, are these passages:

    “For the Apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are
    called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined
    upon them; that Jesus took bread and when he had given thanks
    said, ‘This do ye in remembrance of me, this is my body;’ and
    that, after the same manner having taken the cup and given
    thanks, he said, ‘This is my blood;’ and he gave it to them
    alone.”... “And we afterwards continually remind each other
    of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and
    we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are
    supplied, we bless the Maker of all, through his Son Jesus
    Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called
    Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather
    together to one place, and the Memoirs of the Apostles or the
    writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits;
    then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally
    instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.
    Then we all rise together and pray, and as we before said, when
    our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and
    the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings
    according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen;
    and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of
    that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are
    absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are
    well-to-do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what
    is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the
    orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any
    other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the
    strangers sojourning among us, and in a word, takes care of
    all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all
    hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which
    God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made
    the world; and Jesus Christ, our Saviour, on the same day rose
    from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of
    Saturn (Saturday): and on the day after that of Saturn, which
    is the day of the Sun, having appeared to his apostles and
    disciples, he taught them these things, which we have submitted
    to you also for your consideration.”

This passage is a part of chapter sixty-six, and the whole of chapter
sixty-seven.

The great question is, What were these “Memoirs of the Apostles,” which
were thus read with the writings of the Prophets? It is a question of
interpretation.

By the rule adopted in courts, these words are to be construed with the
context, and in connection with other writings of Justin in relation
to the same subject, and also in the light of all the surrounding
circumstances.

These precise terms are first used in chapter sixty-seven. The same
Memoirs, evidently, in chapter sixty-six, are described as Memoirs
“composed” by the Apostles. They are not again referred to in this
Apology. They are referred to several times in the Dialogue, chapters one
hundred to one hundred and eight, by the following terms: The Memoirs of
His Apostles; The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs of His Apostles;
The Memoirs of the Apostles; _For in the Memoirs which I say were drawn
up by his Apostles and those who followed them_; The Memoirs of His
Apostles; The Memoirs; The Memoirs; The Memoirs; The Memoirs of the
Apostles; The Memoirs of Him; The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs.
Four times he calls them The Memoirs; three times The Memoirs of the
Apostles; five times The Memoirs of His Apostles; and once, The Memoirs
of Him, _i. e._, Christ, as Roberts and Donaldson interpret it,[2] and as
the context and the whole scope indicate.

It is plain that the same “Memoirs” are intended throughout, under these
various terms.

In chapter eighty-eight of the Dialogue, in mentioning the descent of the
Holy Ghost upon Jesus at his baptism, Justin says that when he came out
of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on him like a dove, as “the Apostle
of this very Christ of ours wrote.” The incident is mentioned in all four
of the Gospels.

But for his explanation elsewhere, it would be inferred that _all_ the
“Memoirs” were “composed” by the Apostles. But he carefully explains his
meaning, so that the “Memoirs,” or some of them, may have been “drawn up”
either by the Apostles, or by those who followed them.

It is obvious that these Memoirs were not biographies or sketches by
unknown or irresponsible persons, but writings well understood by the
Churches to have been “composed” or “drawn up” by the Apostles, or with
their approval.

As Mark was understood to be Peter’s interpreter, so Luke was understood
to have been Paul’s companion, and to have written under his sanction.
And Paul was an Apostle, although not one of the twelve.

Justin had informed the Roman Emperor[3] of the Apostles, and he gave
like information to Trypho.[3] He meant that all who should read should
know that what he gave of the life and teachings of Christ was not from
irresponsible sources, but from writings expressly sanctioned, if not
actually written, by those whom Christ had selected as witnesses.

These Memoirs, therefore, were doubtless understood _by Justin, and by
the church in general_, in city and country, to have been the productions
of Apostles or their companions. They were read the same as the Prophets,
and placed upon the same footing. Justin, in writing to Trypho, speaks of
having believed GOD’S VOICE SPOKEN BY THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST.

And since, in speaking of their actual composition, he uses the plural,
“Apostles,” we should look for two or more Memoirs, “drawn up,” by
Apostles.

Now what were these Memoirs? What writings will answer the description?
Matthew[4] and Mark will, according to what the Presbyter said of them.
Were there any others? There should be one more at least, that was
written by an Apostle, else wherefore, the _plural_? The four Gospels
that have come down to us, answer the description in every particular. To
use a legal phrase,—“From the time whereof the memory of man runneth not
to the contrary,” two of them have been accepted in the Church as having
been composed by Apostles, and two, by companions of Apostles.

Unless it can be shown that when Justin wrote, there were _other_ Memoirs
of Christ _that will answer to his description_, our four Gospels and no
others were intended. _Were_ there any besides these?

[1] The quotations from Justin Martyr are from Vol. II. of the
Ante-Nicene Christian Library, edited by Roberts and Donaldson.

[2] See _post_, c. 7, note 14.

[3] “For from Jerusalem there went out into the world men, twelve in
number, ... who proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by
Christ to teach all the word of God” (Ap. c. 39). “And by those things
which were published in his name among all nations by the Apostles”
(_ibid._ c. 42). “His Apostles going forth from Jerusalem preached
everywhere” (_ibid._ c. 45.) “And further there was a certain man with us
whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ” (Dia. c. 81). “For
as he (Abraham) believed the voice of God, and it was imputed to him for
righteousness, in like manner we, having believed God’s voice spoken
by the Apostles of Christ, and promulgated to us by the prophets, have
renounced even to death all the things of the world” (_ibid._ c. 119).

[4] The writer of Barnabas, in quoting as in Matthew xx. 16, had used
the authoritative Latin formula (_it is written_) for quotations from
Scripture, as follows: “Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written,
‘Many are called but few are chosen’” (_Ep. of Bar._ c. 4).




CHAPTER V.

QUOTATIONS AND CITATIONS.


The _apparent_ or seeming use of our Gospels by Justin and his
contemporaries is a fact of great weight in determining whether they are
the “Memoirs” referred to by him.

According to the Indexes of Texts by the learned editors of the
Ante-Nicene Christian Library, John’s Gospel is quoted or cited, twice in
Barnabas, once in Diognetus, twice in Hermas, once by Justin, and once
by Papias. Mark is quoted or cited, once in Barnabas, twice by Clement,
three times by Justin, and once by Polycarp: Acts is quoted or cited once
in Barnabas, once by Clement, once by Justin, and four times by Polycarp:
Luke is quoted or cited three times in Barnabas, three times by Clement,
once in Hermas, fourteen times by Justin, and twice by Polycarp: and
Matthew is quoted or cited six times in Barnabas, five times by Clement,
twice in Diognetus, nine times in Hermas, forty-seven times by Justin,
and seven times by Polycarp.

As to _citations_, passages deemed such by one, may have been overlooked
or regarded differently by another, so that there is not an entire
agreement as to the number of citations, _i. e._ of allusions or
references that are not quotations. And it should be understood that in
the _quotations_, the books from which they are taken are not stated,
except that Justin indicates that _his_, in general, are from the
“Memoirs.” Their agreement with our Gospels is sometimes literally exact,
quite often it is otherwise; and not unfrequently two or three passages
are seemingly blended, as if the author were quoting from memory and
giving the sense, merely.

It will be sufficient for the purposes of the argument to give examples
(except as to the Fourth Gospel) only from Justin, and to omit _his_
quotations from Matthew and Mark, since they are so numerous and not a
few of them of considerable length. Of his references, Rev. Mr. Wright
says[1]: “Upon examination it is found that of the one hundred and twenty
or more allusions which Justin makes to the Gospel history, nearly all
coincide as to substance with the statements of either Matthew or Luke.
Of the sixty or seventy apparently direct quotations, ten are exact,
twenty-five are only slightly variant, while there are thirty-two in
which the variation is considerable. But in respect to variations from
the original in quotation, it should be remembered that familiarity often
leads to carelessness with regard to minute points. Justin, himself, out
of one hundred and sixty-two quotations from the Old Testament, has only
sixty-four exact, while forty-four are slightly variant, and fifty-four
decidedly so.”

If the reader, with the New Testament in hand, will make a comparison in
the examples which will be given, he can form his own judgment, which it
is conceived, will be no doubtful one. The substantial agreement is very
striking even when the language is not identical.

JUSTIN FROM ACTS.

    “He was taken up into heaven while they beheld.” (Res., c. 9.)
    Acts i. 9.

FROM MARK.

    “But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist
    after the resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said,
    ‘They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be as
    the angels in heaven.’” (Res., c. 2.) Mark xi. 25.

    “And that we ought to worship God alone, he thus persuadeth us:
    ‘The greatest commandment is, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy
    God, and him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart, and with
    all thy strength the Lord God that made thee.”’” (Ap. c. 16.)
    Mark xii. 30.

    “He says, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to
    repentance.’” (Res., c. 8.) Mark ii. 17.

FROM LUKE.

    The first three are parts of long quotations from the Sermon on
    the Mount, principally as in Matthew (Ap. cc. 15, 16) Luke vi.:
    28, 29, and Matthew vi.: 7, 8, 13.

    4. “We are persuaded that every man ... will render account
    according to the power he has received from God, as Christ
    intimated when he said, ‘To whom God has given more, of him
    shall more be required.’” (Ap. c. 17.) Luke xv. 48.

    5. “And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at
    that time brought her good news, saying, ‘Behold, thou shalt
    conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shall bear a son, and he shall
    be called the Son of the Highest. And thou shalt call his name
    Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins,’ _as
    they who have recorded[2] all that concerns our Saviour Jesus
    Christ have taught_, whom we believe since by Isaiah also, whom
    we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that he
    should be born as we intimated before.” (Ap. c. 33.) Luke i.
    32, and Matthew i. 21.

    6. “As our Lord himself says, ‘He that heareth me, heareth him
    that sent me.’” (Ap. c. 63.) Luke x. 16.

    7. “And again in other words he said, ‘I give unto you power to
    tread on serpents, and on scorpions and on scolopendras, and on
    all the might of the enemy.’” (Dial. c. 76.) Luke x. 19.

    8. “For he exclaimed before his crucifixion: ‘The Son of Man
    must suffer many things, and be rejected by the scribes and
    pharisees and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’”
    (Dial. c. 76.) Luke ix. 22.

    9. “Just as our Lord also said: ‘They shall neither marry nor
    be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the
    children of the God of the resurrection.’” (Dial. c. 81.) Luke
    xx. 35, 36.

    10. “For he taught us to pray for our enemies also, saying,
    ‘Love your enemies; be kind and merciful as your heavenly
    Father’ is, for we see that the Almighty God is kind and
    merciful, causing his sun to rise on the unthankful and on the
    righteous, and sending rain on the holy and on the wicked.”
    (Dial. c. 96.) Luke vi. 35, and Matthew v. 45.

    11. “But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel
    Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of
    the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Highest would
    overshadow her; wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her
    is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to
    thy word.’” (Dial. c. 100.) Luke i. 35, 38.

    12. “For when Christ was giving up his spirit on the cross he
    said: ‘Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit,’ _as I have
    learned also from the Memoirs_.” (Dial. c. 105.) Luke xxiii. 46.

    13. “He says, ‘The children of this world marry and are given
    in marriage; but the children of the world to come neither
    marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels
    in heaven.’” (Res., c. 3.) Luke xx. 34, 35.

    14. “And wishing to confirm this, when his disciples did not
    know whether to believe he had truly risen in the body, and
    were looking upon him and doubting, he said to them, ‘Ye have
    not yet faith, see that it is I,’ and he let them handle him,
    and showed them the prints of the nails in his hands. And when
    they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was himself
    and in the body, they asked him to eat with them, that they
    might thus still more accurately ascertain that he had in
    verity risen bodily; and he did eat honeycomb and fish. And
    when he had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection
    of the flesh, and wishing to show them this also, that it is
    not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as he had said
    that our dwelling place is in heaven). ‘He was taken up into
    heaven while they beheld,’ as he was in the flesh.” (Res., c.
    9.) Luke xxiv. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and Acts i. 9.

Before presenting Justin, from the Fourth Gospel, the use of this Gospel
by his contemporaries will be considered.

In _Barnabas_ (c. 6) it is said that “He was to be manifested in flesh
and to sojourn among us.” (Com. John i. 14.) It is also said in c. 12,
in effect, that the brazen serpent was a type of Jesus. (Com. John iii.
14-18.) Another passage in c. 7, although not cited by the editors, is,
“Because they shall see him then in that day having a scarlet robe about
his body down to his feet; and they shall say, ‘is not this he whom we
once despised and _pierced_ and mocked and crucified?’” This _may_ have
had reference to what is recorded only in John, as Apollinaris,[3]
bishop of Hierapolis (_cir._ A.D. 170), afterward wrote: “The Son of God,
_pierced_ in the sacred side, who shed forth from his side the two things
again cleansing, water and blood, word and spirit.”

In _Diognetus_, c. 6, it is said that “Christians dwell in the world yet
are not of the world.” (Com. John xvii. 11, 14, 16.) In c. 11 it is said,
“This is he who was from the beginning” (Com. John i. 1); and in the same
chapter, “For who that is rightly taught and begotten by the loving Word,
would not seek to know accurately the things which have been clearly
shown by the Word to his disciples, to whom the Word being manifested has
revealed them.” (Com. John i. 14, 18.) There is but a single _quotation_
in this eloquent Letter, which is as in First Corinthians viii. 1,
“Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.”

John alone speaks of Christ as the _door_, but the figure is often used
in _Hermas_, as, “You saw, he added, the multitude who were building the
tower? I saw them, sir, I said. Those, he said, are all glorious angels,
and by them accordingly is the Lord surrounded. And the gate is the Son
of God. This is the one entrance to the Lord. In no other way, then,
shall any one enter into him except through his Son.” (Simil. ix. 12.)
John x. This book of Hermas is an allegory in which an angel, in the
guise of a shepherd, gives instruction in the doctrines and duties that
were held and required by the Church. It has not a single _quotation_
from either the Old or New Testament. But as Dr. Chartris in “Canonicity”
(p. 137) well says: “The dignity, mission, and sufferings of God’s Son
are prominent in Hermas’ teaching, and remind us of the Fourth Gospel at
every turn.”

The supposed quotation by Papias, Fragment 5 (found in Irenæus), “In
my Father’s house are many mansions,” has been given in a previous
chapter.[A]

_Basilides_, according to Hippolytus, used as proof-texts the exact
passages found in John i. 9 and John ii. 4. Hippolytus first records the
comments of Basilides on the sentence in Genesis, _Let there be light_,
and then proceeds as follows: “And this, he says, is what is said in the
Gospels, ‘The true light which lighteth every man which cometh into the
world.’ And that each thing, he says, has its own seasons, the Saviour is
a sufficient witness when he says, ‘My hour is not yet come.’” Those who
deny that these quotations[4] were by Basilides, claim that Hippolytus
sometimes mixes up the opinions of the master of a school with those of
his followers, and so it is not certain that Basilides used these texts.
The learned author of “Canonicity,” recently published, p. 173, declares
that the difficulties in the way of ascribing those quotations to any
other than Basilides, are “enormous.” The reasoning of Matthew Arnold
(who is quite far from being rigidly orthodox) is so conclusive that we
give the substance of it: “If we take all the doubtful cases of the kind
and compare them with our present case, we shall find that it is not
one of them. It is not true that here where the name of Basilides has
just come before, and where no mention of his son or of his disciples
has intervened since, there is any such ambiguity as is found in other
cases.... The author in general uses the formula, _according to them_,
when he quotes from the school, and the formula, _he says_, when he
gives the dicta of the Master. And in this particular case he manifestly
quotes the dicta of Basilides, and no one who had not a theory to serve
would ever dream of doubting it. Basilides, therefore, about the year one
hundred and twenty-five of our own era, had before him the Fourth Gospel.”

_The Epistles of Ignatius_, whether the longer or shorter or Syriac, may
be of too doubtful genuineness, or rather, the extent as to which they
are genuine is too doubtful to be relied upon, although some of them
contain numerous quotations.

[1] The Logic of Christian Evidences. By G. Frederick Wright, Andover,
A.D. 1880, p. 190.

[2] Or, as Dr. Abbott translated it, as “those who have written Memoirs
of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, whom we believe,” etc.
Fourth Gospel, p. 21.

[3] As quoted (p. 43) in The Supernatural Origin of Christianity. By
George P. Fisher, Professor of Church History in Yale College (A.D. 1870).

[A] Chap. 3.

[4] Judge Waite does not even refer to these quotations except to quote
from Dr. Davidson in respect to Basilides in general, that “His supposed
quotations from the New Testament in Hippolytus are too precarious to be
trusted.” He does not seem to have known anything of Professors Arnold
and Fisher, or Dr. Abbot, not to mention other very _respectable_ writers
within the last ten years, who have regarded the use of the Fourth Gospel
by Basilides as sufficiently attested.




CHAPTER VI.

JUSTIN’S USE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.


Christ’s pre-existence, not declared in the other Gospels, is frequently
referred to by Justin.[1] John alone calls Jesus the Word; Justin often
refers to him as such. Justin regards the elevation of the brazen serpent
in the wilderness as typical[2] of the crucifixion. He says it denoted
salvation to those who flee for refuge to him who sent his crucified
son into the world; the idea of God’s sending his Son into the world
is peculiar to John. The descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a
dove, at the baptism of Jesus, is mentioned only in the First and Fourth
Gospels. Justin (Dial. c. 88) says that when Jesus “came out of the
water, the Holy Ghost lighted on him like a dove, _as the Apostles of
this very Christ of ours wrote_.” Justin (Dial. c. 88) cites, as the
words of John the Baptist, “I am not the Christ, but the voice of one
crying.”

This declaration, “I am not the Christ,” and this application to himself
of the language of Isaiah, are attributed to the Baptist only in John
(John i. 20, 23, and iii. 28). Hilgenfeld, the latest representative of
the Tübingen skeptical school, recognizes[3] here the use of the Fourth
Gospel by Justin. And Dr. Ezra Abbot, following Professor Drummond, gives
twenty[4] instances (including the express quotation) of the apparent or
seeming use of this Gospel by Justin.

_The express quotation_ as in John iii. 3, 5, is as follows: “For Christ
also said, ‘Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom
of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born
to enter into their mothers’ womb is manifest to all.” (Ap. c. 61.) This
is as translated in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Dr. Abbot (p. 29)
translates it “Except ye be born again, ye shall in no wise enter into
the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew Arnold, “Except ye be born again ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Our common version is, “Except
a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God;” and in verse
5, “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God.” The revised version, “Except a man be born anew,”
or “from above” (margin), “he cannot see the kingdom of God.” There
is a _substantial_ agreement in the quotation with John’s Gospel, and
unmistakable reference to the interview with Nicodemus, which is found
only in John. The most _rational_ inference is that it was from that
source.

Justin, in this quotation, was as definite as when (Ap. c. 32) he wrote:
“Moses then, who was the first of the prophets, spake in these very
words, ‘The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from
between his feet, until he come for whom it is reserved; and he shall be
the desire of the nations, binding his foal to the vine, washing his robe
in the blood of the grape.’” (Com. Gen. xlix. 10, 11.) He does not state
_where_ the passage is to be found, and its divergence from Genesis is
greater than the difference in the language of Jesus, as quoted by Justin
and recorded by John.

Justin, in quoting from the Old Testament, usually gives the _name_ of
the prophet, _but nothing more_; just as he gives this quotation as the
language of Christ. He writes _Moses said_, or _Isaiah said_, and he also
writes _Christ said_.

The other Apostolic Fathers, in their quotations from the Old Testament,
do not usually give the name of the prophet, but only, “It is written,”
“God said,” “The Spirit saith,” “The Scripture saith,” and often only
“saith,” “The Scripture” in such cases being implied. And, as a rule,
they do not quote with literal accuracy or a near approximation to it.

It has been objected, that if this quotation was actually from the Fourth
Gospel, more than a single quotation from it should be expected. Let this
be tested by the four epistles confessed to be genuine. There is not a
single quotation by Justin from _either_ of these acknowledged epistles,
and it is doubtful if there is a single reference to them, certainly not
in his Apology.

Nor is this all. The epistle to the Galatians (and Renan says, “Thanks to
the Epistle to the Galatians!”) is not referred to in any way by Clement,
or in Barnabas, or Hermas; nor First Corinthians in Barnabas or Hermas
(and but once in Diognetus); nor Romans in Hermas; nor Revelation in
Barnabas, or Diognetus, or Polycarp, and but once by Clement.

To account for Justin’s silence, it has been imagined, without the
slightest evidence, that Justin was “anti-Pauline.” But how are the
omissions by other writers to be accounted for? How did it happen that
Clement made no reference to Galatians? It was not from hostility,
certainly, for he speaks of “The blessed Apostle Paul.” Yet writing
this epistle from the church at Rome, to the church at Corinth, he has
but a single quotation from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and but a
single quotation from Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, and _no_
reference to Galatians.

The well-known distinction of everyday application in courts of law and
elsewhere, between positive and negative evidence, is to be kept in mind.
Whether John’s Gospel would be quoted by any writer acquainted with it,
might depend entirely upon his object in writing; and so of Galatians, or
any of the books of the New Testament. While a single undoubted quotation
proves the existence of that which is quoted from, non-quotation may
prove nothing at all.

Justin apparently has one quotation from the Fourth Gospel, with many
implied references to it. But if there were neither the one nor the
other, to infer his ignorance of that Gospel from his silence would be
just as sensible as to infer that a lawyer had never heard of Blackstone,
or Kent, or Story, because he has not quoted from them.

If Justin in his Apology quoted once from Mark, and once from John, and
not at all from Acts, or Revelations, or Paul’s Epistles, it was because
his subject did not call for any use of those writings, beyond the use
which he made of Mark and John. And if (as was apparently the fact) he
quoted Luke six times and Matthew eighteen times in his Apology, it was
doubtless because Matthew better served his purpose, or was more firmly
fixed in his memory, from his having been born in Palestine, where
Matthew’s Gospel was published.

A like explanation accounts for the fact that the Fourth Gospel is not
quoted by Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians. Neither does he
quote or cite from Revelations.

The result so far is this: The Fourth Gospel, apparently, is quoted by
Basilides, and Justin, and Papias; and, in addition, there are many
implied references to it. There is about the same amount of evidence in
respect to Mark and the book of Acts. The evidence accumulates as to
Luke’s Gospel, and from Matthew, the quotations and citations become very
numerous.

That these quotations and citations were forgeries is an idea that cannot
be seriously entertained by anybody. There were originals from which
the quotations were taken; and presumptively, those originals were the
“Memoirs” so often referred to by Justin; and _presumptively_ our Gospels
were those _Memoirs_, since they answer the description. And unless it
can be shown that _other_ writings _that will answer the description_
were then extant, this presumption is well nigh conclusive.

[1] Ap. cc. 5, 23, 32, 42, 50, 53, 63; Dial. cc. 48, 57, 68, 76, 85, 100,
101.

[2] Ap. c. 60: Dial. cc. 7, 94, 140.

[3] Abbot, p. 45; Fisher, p. 39; Sears, “The Heart of Christ” (A.D.
1873), pp. 46-67.

[4] Abbot, pp. 40-50.




CHAPTER VII.

NO OTHERS PROVED.


The latest work in this country which denies the genuineness of our
Gospels, is “The History of the Christian religion to the year two
hundred.” (Chicago, 1881.) The author says it is the result of an
investigation extending through several years, two of which were spent
in the library of congress, “which is peculiarly rich in the department
of biblical literature.” He claims that his volume “will be found to
be the most complete record of the events connected with the Christian
religion during the first two centuries, which has ever been presented
to the public.” He shows no lack of ability or disposition to make as
strong a case as possible against our Gospels. And he understands the
issue. For, he says, the question what Gospels were used by Justin, “is
of the highest importance.” In this work, then, if anywhere, should
there be proof of _other_ writings than our Gospels, that will meet the
requirements of the case. But what do we find? It gives a list of “_forty
Gospels_,” before the decree of Pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. The only marvel
is that the list is not longer. The greater portion are the now extant
Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, which may be found in Vol.
XVI., of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Much confusion, says[1]
Dr. Ezra Abbot, has arisen from the fact that the term “Gospel” was
in ancient times applied to speculative works which gave the writer’s
view of the Gospel, _i. e._, of the doctrine of Christ, or among the
Gnostics, which set forth their _gnosis_; _e. g._, among the followers
of Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, “The Gospel is the knowledge of
supermundane things.” Of all the Apocryphal Gospels, Samuel Ives Curtiss,
the well-known German professor in the Chicago Theological Seminary,
writes:[2]—

    “I shall not waste any ink or paper to prove that the
    Protevangelium, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Acts of Pilate,
    etc., in their present forms as known to us and as quoted
    by Judge Waite, arose at a later period than our canonical
    Gospels.” ... “A knowledge of the original sources and the
    literature of the subject would have saved him from this
    pitiful blunder. I simply refer to Professor Lipsius’ article
    on the Apocryphal Gospels, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of
    Christian Biography, London, 1880, Vol. II., pp. 700, _seq._;
    and Holtzmann’s Apocryphon des Neuen Testaments, in Schenkel’s
    Bible Lexicon, Leipzig, 1869, Vol. I., pp. 170 _seq._ As
    neither of these articles are by orthodox men, or by those who
    have the slightest bias toward orthodoxy, they are calculated
    to inspire confidence in persons of every shade of belief or
    disbelief. Both are authorities; Meyer’s Conversations-Lexikon
    says of Professor Lipsius, of Jena, that he is one of the most
    eminent scholars in Germany.” (See note 2.)

With this concurring judgment of the most eminent scholars, not much
time should be spent upon these Apocryphal books. But a single quotation
is given by Judge Waite that is claimed by him to have been made by
Justin from either of them. And this (although not to be found in any
_single_ passage in our Gospels) may be gathered from different passages,
which would be in keeping with Justin’s mode. It corresponds quite
nearly, though not precisely, with a _part_[3] of the description in the
Protevangelium of the announcement to Mary. But this no more proves the
use of the Protevangelium by Justin than it proves the use of Justin’s
Apology by the writer of the Protevangelium. Aside from this quotation,
there are a few facts stated by Justin that are claimed, by some persons,
to have been taken from the Apocryphal Gospels. _One_ is, that Jesus made
ploughs and yokes, which Justin of course would infer, from the fact that
it was a part of the business of a carpenter to make ploughs and yokes.
_Another_ is, that Jesus was born in a cave. Dr. Thompson, says[4], “It
is not impossible, to say the least, but that the apartment in which our
Saviour was born was in part a cave. I have seen many such, consisting
of one or more rooms in front of and including a cavern, where the cattle
were kept.” Justin, who was a native of Judea, added a circumstance
well known from tradition, which Luke did not think it of consequence
to mention, that the manger was in a cave, _i. e._, that the stable in
which was the manger was in a cave. He had no occasion to resort to books
for such a fact. _Another_ is, that Justin refers the Roman Emperor to
“Acts of Pilate” as affording evidence of what he had stated concerning
Christ’s crucifixion, and the miracles which he had performed. According
to the usual course, Pilate should have made a report of the crucifixion.
It is supposed that he did, and that it was lost or destroyed. Justin
appeals to it, as if then in the archives of the government. Whether
he was well or ill informed upon the subject, the document to which he
appeals, clearly was not understood by him to be one of the “Memoirs”
of Christ, “drawn up” by an Apostle, or a “companion” of an Apostle.
Nothing purporting to be Pilate’s report is extant. The Apocryphal book,
known as the Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate, does not purport to
contain[5] any such report. _Another_ is, that Justin says that Christ
was of the House of David; a fact which Jesus himself had declared[6]
and which is also referred to, in Acts. The only remaining fact, in
respect to the alleged use of the Protevangelium, is in relation to the
_census_. It is claimed that Justin and the Protevangelium agree that it
was only to be taken in Judea.[7] But Justin does not so state. It also
happens, that while Justin makes mention of Cyrenius, the Protevangelium
only says, “And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus that all
in Bethlehem of Judea should be enrolled,” saying nothing of Cyrenius.
This is followed by an absurd and worthless story of occurrences, by the
way. Justin has two references to the census, which will be found in the
note.[8] Justin, in stating that there was a census in Judea, does not
exclude the idea that it was more general.

Judge Waite, following the anonymous author of “The Supernatural,” and
others, also claims that Justin’s statement that at the baptism of Jesus
“a _fire_ was kindled in the Jordan,” must have been taken either from
the “Gospel of the Hebrews,” or the “Preaching of Paul.” As to the former
(as he gives the translation from a fragment from Jerome) it is, that,
“certainly there shone around the place a great _light_,” which is not
what Justin said. There is no evidence from any quarter that this “Gospel
of the Hebrews” was in existence (other than as Matthew’s Gospel was in
existence), when Justin wrote. Nor is there any evidence that it was
in use, at _any_ period, except among the Nazarenes (a small Judaizing
sect of Christians), and the Cerinthians, and Ebionites, two heretical
sects. The very authorities quoted to prove its existence, clearly
show that it was never in _general_ use, or accepted by the churches
generally. Neither the work itself, nor Jerome’s translation of it, has
been in existence _for centuries_. From what is known of it, it seems
to have been[9] the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, “not entire and perfect,
but corrupted and curtailed.” It omitted the first two chapters. Some
of the corruptions show its true character[10] so far as it varied from
Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel; for as Papias wrote, and the Fathers generally
believed, Matthew first composed his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect.

“The Preaching of Paul” was less known, and even of less account,
than the other. Judge Waite says (p. 229) that it “was referred to by
Lactantius and others, and was generally known in the second century.”
But he furnishes no evidence of it, and Lactantius died about A.D. 325.
As to its contents, Judge Waite only says that “It contained references
to the Sybilline writings; also to the fire in Jordan at the time of
the baptism of Jesus.” There is no good reason to suppose that it was
_extant_ when Justin wrote; and most certainly, it was never received by
the churches generally. Eusebius does not seem to have known anything of
it, unless to reject it as spurious. He says (Book III., c. 25): “Among
the spurious, must be numbered both the books called ‘The Acts of Paul,’
and that called ‘Pastor,’ and ‘The Revelation of Peter.’”

Eusebius also is equally pronounced against the production called the
“Gospel according to Peter.” That this “Gospel” was referred to by
Justin in the passage before considered (_vide_ c. 4), is the fact _to
be proved_. The first _mention_ of it, was by Serapion[11], who became
Bishop of Antioch A.D. 191, fifty years after Justin wrote. He found
a few copies of it among his flock, which he replaced, substituting
Mark’s Gospel for it, for the reason that he found in it “many things
superadded to the sound faith of our Saviour; and some also attached,
that are foreign to it.” This _bishop_ seems to have had no knowledge of
its existence till that time. It favored the Docetæ, from some of whom it
had come into his parish. The pretence that Tertullian referred to it,
and intended to assert that in his day the Gospel of Mark was understood
to have this Gospel of Peter for its original, has nothing to rest upon
but another perversion of Tertullian’s meaning. The passage relied upon
is here given with such words in italics as must be _supplied_ to warrant
the use which has been attempted to be made of it: “The Gospel which
Mark published is affirmed to be” _what is known as_ “Peter’s” _Gospel_,
“whose interpreter Mark was.” This forced construction, would make Mark
the interpreter, _not_ of Peter, but of the heretical work at some time
known by some as _Peter’s Gospel_. Not Strauss himself, nor even the
author of “The Supernatural,” so interpreted Tertullian. What Tertullian
wrote was, that “The Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be
Peter’s; whose interpreter Mark was.” Marcion mutilated Luke’s Gospel,
and Judge Waite says, “Tertullian called him _a hound_.” If any one in
his day had perverted his language as to Mark’s Gospel, so as to make it
endorse the work which Serapion (who was a cotemporary of Tertullian)
suppressed as heretical, Tertullian would not have been likely to have
used a _less_ expressive word than that which he applied to Marcion.
Tertullian simply meant, as Papias had written, and the church believed,
that Mark was Peter’s _interpreter_, and in _that_ sense Mark’s Gospel
was Peter’s Gospel.

The next writer referred to for “Peter’s Gospel” is Origen, A.D. 230.
Origen says: “There are some who say the brethren of Christ were the
children of Joseph by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary;
and they are induced to this opinion by some passages in that _which
is entitled_ (the italics are ours) ‘The Gospel of Peter, or the Book
of James.’” When it is considered that Origen, in most explicit terms,
declares that our four Gospels “are the only undisputed ones in the whole
Church of God throughout the world,” and that of these, “the second is
according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained it to him, whom he
also acknowledges as his son in his General Epistle,” the perversion of
his language is apparent. Mr. Norton, whose opinion, it is conceded, “is
entitled to great weight,” upon a careful examination of the subject,
believes that this “Gospel” was not a history or biography of Christ’s
ministry at all, but only a _doctrinal_[12] treatise. _Not a single
fragment of it has come down to us._ There is no evidence from any
quarter that it was _generally_ received in the churches _at any_ period;
on the contrary, the evidence, so far as it goes, proves that it was not
so received. It was the Gospel exclusively used by the Ebionites,[13] and
neither Justin nor the majority of Christians in his time were Ebionites.
Its very suppression by Serapion is conclusive; and there is nothing to
impeach Eusebius’ judgment against it. There is no evidence that it was
even in existence when Justin wrote, for the mere fact of its being found
by Serapion forty or fifty years after is too remote. _Hence_, if Justin,
in the paragraph before quoted in chapter four, by “_him_” meant Peter,
instead of Christ (which we do not accept),[14] the Gospel of Mark, which
in a sense was understood to be Peter’s, was the one intended; and the
true construction of the words in question is of minor importance.

Judge Waite has succeeded as well as any one, in his attempt to find
_other_ writings than our Gospels, that will meet the necessities of the
case. Professor Lipsius, one of the most eminent scholars in Germany,
says,[15] “The attempt to prove that Justin Martyr and the Clementine
Homilies had one extra-canonical authority common to them both, either
in the Gospel to the Hebrews or in the Gospel of St. Peter, has
altogether failed.” Of recent writers this side of the ocean, Dr. Ezra
Abbot of Harvard College (who has already “a distinguished Continental
reputation”), states,[16] after a thorough examination of the whole
subject, as some of the results: “We have seen that there is no _direct_
evidence of any weight that Justin used either the ‘Gospel according to
the Hebrews’ (so far as this was distinguished from the Gospel according
to Matthew) or the ‘Gospel according to Peter.’ That he should have
taken either of these as the source of his quotations, or that either of
these constituted the ‘Memoirs’ read generally at public worship in the
Christian churches of his time, is in the highest degree improbable.”...
“Still less can be said in behalf of the hypothesis that any other
Apocryphal ‘Gospel’ of which we know anything, constituted the ‘Memoirs,’
which he cites, if they were one book, or was included among them, if
they were several.”

Mr. Rowe’s[17] judgment is, that the facts referred to by Justin, but
not recorded in the Gospels, stand to those which _are_ recorded, in the
proportion of only four, to one hundred and ninety-six. In other words,
that all but four out of about two hundred references, appear in the
Gospels. “It is marvellous,” he says, “when we consider the nearness
of the time when Justin lived to our Lord’s ministry, that he should
have preserved so few incidents respecting it which vary from those in
our Gospels, rather than that those to which he has referred should
present the slight variations they do; for it is an interval within which
traditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.”

[1] P. 16 of “Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,” etc. (1880).

[2] The _Daily Inter-Ocean_ of Feb. 12, 1881. To the same effect, “The
Authorship,” p. 98, note 6; The Supernatural Origin of Christianity, by
George P. Fisher, D.D., Professor of Christian History in Yale College
(1870), p. 191-2; Origin, etc., by Prof. C. E. Stowe (1867), p. 185, c. 7.

[3] “And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time,
brought her the good news, saying, ‘Behold thou shalt conceive of the
Holy Ghost and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the
Highest, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people
from their sins.’” After a dozen lines, the last clause is repeated as
follows: “Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, ‘Thou shalt
call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’”
The last clause seems to have been transferred from Matthew by Justin.
The Protevangelium (c. 11) reads as follows: “And she hearing, reasoned
with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? And
shall I bring forth, as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the
Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow
thee; wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall
be called the Son of the Most High. And thou shalt call his name Jesus,
for he shall save his people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold the
servant of the Lord before his face; let it be unto me according to
thy word. And she made the purple and the scarlet and took them to the
priest,” etc. The account is preceded by the story that it had fallen to
her lot to spin purple and scarlet for the veil of the temple, and that
when the angel spake to her she was going with a pitcher to fill it with
water. It is not easy to believe that Justin’s simple narrative came from
such a source.

[4] The Land and the Book, by W. M. Thompson, D.D., twenty-five years a
missionary of the A. B. C. F. M., in Syria and Palestine, Vol. II, p. 503.

[5] The first part contains a graphic account of the trial and
crucifixion. At the trial witnesses are represented as appearing before
Pilate and narrating different miracles which had been performed. Judge
Waite devotes considerable space in comparing these accounts with the
Gospel narratives. He argues that the Apocryphal account must have been
the earlier one, _because_ of its brevity, and because it does not
include _all_ the miracles. This is as if one should infer that the plea
of the advocate, or the charge of the judge, preceded the testimony, or
the compendium, the history.

[6] Matt. ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; Mark x. 47; xii. 35-7; Luke xx. 30-1;
xl. 6; xviii. 38-9; John vii. 42; Acts xiii. 23; Ro. i. 3.

[7] Protevangelium, p. 17; vol. 16, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, pp.
18-19.

[8] Apology, c. 34. “Now there is a village in the land of the Jews,
thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you
can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius,
your first procurator in Judea.” Dial. c. 78. “Then he was afraid and
did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was
taken in Judea under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth where he lived to
Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of
the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region.” Joseph was both
of the tribe of Judah, and of the house and lineage of David, and there
is no contradiction. It is to be noticed that the census is spoken of as
the _first_ census that was taken. Cyrenius, called then procurator, was
afterward governor.

[9] See authorities in Note 2.

[10] “Now my mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my hairs, and
brought me to the great mountain even Tabor.” “Jesus said unto him, go
sell all which thou possessest and divide among the poor, and come follow
me. But the rich man _began to scratch his head_, and it did not please
him.” Origin, _etc._, by Professor Stowe, p. 22.

[11] Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, p. 78; Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12; b. 3, c. 25.

[12] Abbott, etc., p. 79; Waite’s History, p. 11.

[13] Abbott, etc., p. 104, Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12.

[14] The entire passage is as follows: “And when it is said that he
changed the name of one of the Apostles to Peter; and when it is written
in the Memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed
the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which
means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was
he by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua) under
whose name the people who survived of those who came from Egypt were
conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.” The controversy
is, whether the personal pronouns “He” and “Him” refer to Jesus, or
whether “Him” refers to Peter. Judge Waite says that Justin has ten times
“Memoirs of the Apostles,” and five times, “Memoirs,” and not once,
“Memoirs of Christ.” It is true we do not find “Memoirs of Christ.” But
confessedly the Memoirs intended were of or concerning Christ, and not of
or concerning the Apostles, or either of them. Justin used the expression
Memoirs of the Apostles just as we say the Gospel of John. They were
concerning Christ; he is the grand subject of discourse in all Justin’s
writings. And in Ap. c. 33, Justin speaks of those “who have written
Memoirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ.” In the proper
and highest sense they should only be spoken of as “Memoirs of Christ.”

Judge Waite, after the author of “The Supernatural” (p. 337), says, to
refer to the more distant antecedent is contrary to the rule. The rule is
of but slight importance as compared to the whole scope. And to apply the
rule here, Peter would be the one who changed the names of the sons of
Zebedee; for Peter, and not Christ, would be the last antecedent.

[15] As quoted by Dr. Ezra Abbot, pp. 98, 99; see, also, _Inter-Ocean_ of
February 12, 1881.

[16] Abbot, etc., p. 103, 104; _Inter-Ocean_ of February 12.

[17] Bampton Lectures for 1877, pp. 279, 281.




CHAPTER VIII.

PRESUMPTION OF PERMANENCY.


In general, says Mr. Phillips,[1] there is a presumption in favor of the
continuance of what is once proved to have existed. It is a familiar
principle of law, says Chief Justice Parker, that a state of things
once shown to exist is presumed to continue until something is shown to
rebut the presumption. And this position, says Professor Greenleaf, is
founded “on the experienced _continuance_ or permanency of longer or
shorter duration in human affairs. When, therefore, the existence of a
person, a personal relation, or a state of things, is once established
by proof, the law presumes that the person, relation, or state of things
continues to exist as before, until the contrary is shown, or until
a different presumption is raised from the nature of the subject in
question.” With other examples of the application of this presumption,
he mentions opinions and religious convictions: “The _opinions_ also of
individuals, once entertained and expressed, and the _state_ of _mind_,
once proved to exist, are presumed to remain unchanged until the contrary
appears. Thus, all the members of a Christian community, being presumed
to entertain the common faith, no man is supposed to disbelieve the
existence and moral government of God, until it is shown from his own
declarations.” This presumption being founded in reason and experience,
is of universal application. It is not conclusive, but stands “until
something is shown to rebut it.” It is the basis of Hume’s argument
against miracles, but which he misapplies, making it conclusive instead
of presumptive evidence. As a presumption, it is strictly applicable
to the question in hand, and will be found to have great force. For,
from this natural and reasonable presumption, it should be taken,
unless the contrary is proved, that the accepted “Memoirs” of Justin’s
time _remained_ in the churches. Hence if we can ascertain with entire
certainty _what_ “Memoirs” were accepted in the churches in the year 180,
and no evidence of displacement and substitution appears, we shall have
_most satisfactory evidence_ what “Memoirs” were the ones intended by him
in his Apology.

[1] Phillips on Evidence, 4th Am. Ed., 640: 17 N. H. Rep., 409: 1
Greenleaf on Evidence, §§ 41, 42.




CHAPTER IX.

THE MEMOIRS OF THE YEAR ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY.


There is undoubted proof that within forty years from the time Justin
wrote his First Apology, our Four Gospels (and no others) with the Book
of Acts, were universally received in the church, as we now receive
them. It comes from the writings of Agrippa Castor, Apollinaris, Bishop
of Hierapolis, Apelles, Athenagoras, Basilides, Celsus, Clement of
Alexandria, Eusebius, Heracleon, Irenæus, Jerome, Marcion, Melito, Bishop
of Sardis, Origen, Pantænus, Polycarp, Serapion, Tatian, Theophilus,
Tertullian, Valentine, The Letter of the Church of Vienne and Lyons,
and the unknown authors of the Clementine Homilies, and the Muratori
Canon—Christians, Gnostics, Heretics, and Heathen, all concurring to
prove universal reception, beyond a reasonable doubt. So strong is
this proof that even Strauss does not deny such reception by the _end_
of the second century, and he admits that there is evidence of an
_earlier_ date. He says: “We learn from the works of Irenæus, of Clement
Alexandrinus, and of Tertullian, that, at the end of the second century
after Christ, our Four Gospels were recognized by the orthodox church
as the writings of the Apostles and the disciples [companions] of the
Apostles, and were separated from many other similar productions, as
authentic records of the life of Jesus. The first Gospel, according to
our Canon, is attributed [i. e. by the authors named] to Matthew, who is
enumerated among the twelve Apostles; the fourth to John, the beloved
disciple of our Lord; the second to Mark, the interpreter of Peter;[1]
and the third to Luke, the companion of Paul. We have, besides, the
authority of earlier authors, both in their own works, and in quotations
cited by others.” As a false witness sometimes admits a part, the better
to conceal what is more important, so Strauss _admits_ a state of things
as existing at the _end_ of the century, that, beyond dispute, should
be carried back to a time at least twenty years earlier. Thus Professor
Fisher, in his exhaustive work, says of John’s Gospel (which is conceded
to have been the last): “We choose to begin[2] with the unquestioned
fact of the universal reception of the Fourth Gospel as genuine in the
last quarter of the second century. At that time we find that it was
held in every part of Christendom to be the work of the Apostle John.
The prominent witnesses are Tertullian in North Africa, Clement in
Alexandria, and Irenæus in Gaul.” And Professor Abbot[3] says: “I begin
with the statement, which cannot be questioned, that our present Gospels,
and no others, were received by the great body of Christians as genuine
and sacred books during the last quarter of the second century.”

Theophilus of Antioch, _as early_ as A.D. 180, not only quotes from the
Fourth Gospel, as Scripture, but names John as its author, as follows:[4]
“As the Holy Scriptures, and all who have the Spirit, teach us, among
whom John says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God;’ signifying that God alone was in the beginning, and that the Word
was in him. And then he says, the Word was God, and all things were made
by Him, and without him there was not anything made.” Theophilus also
wrote a Commentary upon the Gospels. Before this time, also, our Gospels
and Acts had been included in a list[5] of canonical books received in
the churches. They were in their present order, and, as far as their
authorship is stated, are attributed to the persons whose names are
now assigned to them. And before[6] this date, Celsus (who anticipated
Strauss by seventeen hundred years) had cited alleged contradictions in
the Gospels, and particularly as to there being one or two angels at
the sepulchre. He attempted to ridicule the idea that blood and water
came from Jesus’ side—a fact that is stated only in John. He refers
to the fact that Christ “after his death arose, and showed the marks
of his punishment, and how his hands had been pierced.” Although he
does not _name_ the authors of the books, yet his numerous quotations
correspond with them, including Luke and John. And in respect to all of
the discrepancies, etc., he says: “All these things I have taken out of
your own books,” i. e. Scriptures. “We need,” says he, “no after witness,
for you fall upon your own swords.” His work has not come down to us
except as contained in Origen’s writings, which, however, quote so fully
from it, that it is nearly reproduced. And ten years[7] before this time,
Tatian, who had been a disciple of Justin (but after Justin’s death
became heretical), wrote a Commentary or Harmony upon the Gospels. He
called it Diatesseron, which means the Gospel of the Four. The celebrated
Syrian, Father Ephræm, who died A.D. 373, wrote a commentary on it.
Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last part of the twelfth century, was
also well acquainted with Tatian’s work; and says that it began with John
i. 1: “_In the beginning was the Word_.”

Before this date, Heracleon, a disciple of the Gnostic Valentine, wrote
a commentary upon the Fourth Gospel. The work is known[8] to us through
many fragments, which Origen has woven into his own commentary on the
same Gospel.

Quotations from the canonical Gospels _between_ the periods mentioned
are very numerous. It is unnecessary to cite them, or to give other
specific proof of a state of things existing _as early_ as 180, as shown
by most incontrovertible evidence, whatever doubt may be had as to some
items of this evidence. Indeed an earlier date might properly be assumed
than that taken as the basis of our argument. Thus Dr. Charteris, in his
recent work, says, in view of all the circumstances: “When we pass the
_middle_ of the century, and come to the works of Tatian, Athenagoras,
and Theophilus (with a quotation by name) we are out of the region of
controversy.” (Canonicity, lxxxi.) There were a few persons called the
Alogi, a nickname having the double meaning of “deniers of the doctrine
of the Logos,” and “men without reason,” who denied John’s authorship of
the Fourth Gospel. They were probably a few[9] eccentric individuals, who
attracted no attention, and none of whose names are preserved. The fact
that they appealed to no tradition in favor of their views, denied John’s
authorship of the Apocalypse likewise, and absurdly ascribed both to
Cerinthus, whom no one supposes could have been their author, shows that
they were persons of no critical judgment. They were _outside_ of the
churches of which Justin wrote. The reception of the canonical Gospels,
to the exclusion of all others, was _universal_ in those churches.

[1] Not the interpreter of “_Peter’s Gospel!_” (Page 49-50, Vol. 1, of
“The Life of Jesus,” etc., 1860).

[2] P. 39 of “The Supernatural Origin of Christianity,” (1870), by Prof.
Fisher.

[3] P. 13 of “The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel” (1880).

[4] P. 177 of Prof. Stowe’s “Origin and History of the Books of the New
Testament” (1867); Strauss’ Life of Christ, p. 52; Waite’s History, pp.
302, 354; p. 130 of Fisher’s “Supernatural Origin,” etc.

[5] A fragment of this writing was discovered by the Italian scholar
Muratori, and from him is called the Muratori Canon. It is written in
Latin, but is supposed to have been first written in Greek. The first
part of the writing is wanting, so that it begins with Luke, which it
calls the “Third book of the Gospel according to Luke.” It was found in
the Ambrosian Library, at Milan, in a manuscript containing extracts from
writings of Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others. It professes to give a list
of the writings that are recognized in the Christian Church. Judge Waite
(p. 412) assigns A.D. 190 as its date. Prof. Curtiss says of it: “_The
most eminent New Testament scholars_ in America, England and Germany,
with a few exceptions, hold that it was written in the last quarter of
the second century (the most setting the date at about 170-180 A.D.) Some
of them are: Prof. Ezra Abbot, of Harvard College; Drs. E. A. Abbott,
Canon Wescott, W. A. Sanday, Credner, Weiseler, Bleek, Reuss, Hilgenfeld,
and many others” (_Inter-Ocean_, February 12, 1881). The Fragment
contains internal evidence of the time when it was written. In reference
to the “Pastor” it says: This “did Hermas write, _very recently, in our
times_, in the city of Rome, while his brother Bishop Pius sat in the
chair in the church of Rome.” Now Pius was Bishop from A.D. 142 to 157.
Waite’s History, p. 232.

[6] In reply to Judge Waite, who assigned A.D. 210 to Celsus, Professor
Curtiss says that “Dr. Keim, who belongs to the most liberal German
school, and who made a very careful investigation of the subject (Celsus
Wahres Wort, Zurich, 1873), sets the date in the year 177 or 178, A.D.”
See also Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, London,
1877, vol. 1, p. 436; Fisher, p. 42; “Heart of Christ,” by Edmund H.
Sears, 1873, p. 148; Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, etc., p. 58. See also
Sanday, p. 262, and Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris, 1880, p. 369. Origen,
in one place, in answering his objections, speaks of him as “a man long
since dead.”

[7] Pp. 52-53 of Abbot’s Fourth Gospel.

[8] “Tischendorf’s Origin of the Four Gospels,” p. 89.

[9] Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, pp. 18, 20; Fisher, p. 69.




CHAPTER X.

ASCENDING THE STREAM.


Now consider the tremendous force of the proved fact that, within
forty years of the time when Justin wrote his First Apology, we reach
a period when it is no longer a debatable question whether our Gospels
are “the Memoirs” of Christ which were read with the Prophets in city
and country. The presumption of _continuance_ attaches. It has before
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, in the year one hundred and
forty, there were accepted “Memoirs” of our Lord, which were read with
the Prophets in all the churches. There is no evidence whatever that
those Memoirs in the intervening forty years were dropped and others
substituted for them; therefore it should be presumed that they were in
the churches in the year one hundred and eighty; and the Memoirs in the
churches at this latter period _are positively known and seen, to have
been the Canonical Gospels_. They have come closer to us, and in the
nearer vision we are able to determine their identity with the utmost
certainty. And the natural presumption that there was no substitution
within the short interval of forty years, is immensely strengthened by
the difficulties attending any attempted substitution,—difficulties so
great that they must have left unmistakable evidence of conflict upon
the page of history. The churches were very numerous, and occupied a
territory of more than two thousand miles in extent from Syria to Gaul.
Each church had its bishop or presbyter, and elders; and in each church,
once in seven days, were the Memoirs of our Lord read with the Prophets.
There were hundreds who, from their own recollections, and thousands
who, from their parents or instructors, at any given time within these
forty years, had perfect knowledge what Memoirs were thus read in the
year one hundred and forty. Young men of twenty then, were only sixty,
forty years later. Was there a substitution in those forty years, and
these bishops, and elders, and thousands of communicants every Sabbath
of all ages, not know it; or knowing it had not objected; or objecting,
and history have no record of it? Not a few of these were educated men;
and indeed all the bishops and elders may be presumed to have been as
well versed in the accepted Gospels as in the writings of the prophets.
It is to be borne in mind that we are dealing now with the question
of substitution within the short period of forty years. A _score_ of
names can be given of men living within that time or immediately after,
who, from their own recollection or from others, must have had perfect
knowledge of the whole subject: Athenagoras, a philosopher at Athens
about the year one hundred and sixty; Caius, a presbyter at Rome about
the year two hundred; Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, _cir._
173; Clement of Alexandria, who became the head of the Alexandrian
School in 187; Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who died a martyr in 173;
Hegesippus, the historian (whose works are now lost), who died in 180;
Hermas, who was prominent toward the close of the century; Irenæus,
Bishop of Lyons; Justin himself, whose martyrdom was as late as the year
165; Leonides, the martyr; Melito, Bishop of Sardis; the world-renowned
Origen, son of Leonides; Pantænus; Polycarp; Polycrates, Bishop of
Ephesus; Pothinus the predecessor of Irenæus (and whose martyrdom was
about 167); Serapion, Bishop of Antioch; Tertullian, the eloquent Roman
lawyer of Carthage; Theophilus, the predecessor of Serapion; and Victor,
Bishop of Rome.

It may be said, and with truth, that the Fourth Gospel, whenever
introduced, came in not as a substitute, but as a supplement. The
evidence, however, is conclusive that by the year one hundred and eighty,
it had obtained as permanent a footing as either of the other Gospels.
Its reception was as hearty, and the tradition of its authorship as
strong, as in respect to the others. To infer that it was the forged
product of the period now under consideration, or any other, is as
if De Soto had concluded that the mighty stream which he discovered
hastening to the Gulf, with deep and rapid current, so wide that a
man could scarcely be seen from shore to shore, had its origin not in
far-off lakes or mountains, but in some miserable crocodile swamp of the
country he was traversing, and but just out of sight. And _who_ forged
the Fourth Gospel and imposed it as John’s upon this score of persons,
and hundreds of others? Or did these men conspire together, to deceive
themselves, the churches, and the world? What name has come down to us
from _that_ age, or any other, who was _capable_ of such an undertaking?
What _forger_ wrote those discourses of Our Lord with Nicodemus? Or those
with the women of Samaria? Or those with his disciples on the eve of
his crucifixion? Or the parable of the good Shepherd? Or that memorable
prayer recorded in the seventeenth of John? That any _sane man_ should
attribute either of these to a _criminal forger_ would be incredible, if
we were not confronted with the fact. And what sort of a man was this
forger of the Fourth Gospel? We have Baur’s conception of him as “A man
of remarkable mind, of an elevated spirit, and penetrated with a warm
adoring faith in Christ as the Son of God and Saviour of the world!”
And Baur thinks it _easier_ to believe (without proof) in the existence
of this remarkable genius and elevated character, who would _invent_
fictitious discourses, _falsely_ attribute them to the Christ whom he
_adored_, and _forge_ the name of the beloved disciple, than to believe
with the whole body of the Christian Church, that the discourses and
utterances were those of our Lord![1] If John did not write the Fourth
Gospel, _who did_? Not one of those who deny his authorship, can give
an answer to this question. It is no answer to say that many in the
second century believed that Hermas (whom Paul mentions in his Epistle
to the Romans), wrote the Pastor or Shepherd of Hermas. Such was not the
universal sentiment. The work was never generally received as Scripture.
On the contrary, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, while placing
the Four Gospels in the list of canonical books universally received,
says of “The Pastor,” that it was written “very recently in our times”
by another Hermas, a brother of the Bishop of Rome, and that it was
read in “some of the churches,” not as Scripture but for “edification,”
the same as the Epistle of Clement. It was rejected by Tertullian, not
only as Apocryphal, but as hurtful. Nor is it any answer, to say that
the so-called Epistle of Barnabas was early attributed to Barnabas the
Levite. In the first place, it is by no means certain that this tradition
was unfounded. From the little we know of Barnabas, it would be rash to
conclude that he could not have written it. If uninspired, he _may_ have
written just such a book. In the second place, no one ascribed it to him
till the time of Clement of Alexandria, and it was ranked by Eusebius
among the “spurious” writings, which, however much known and read in
the church, were never regarded as authoritative. Eusebius also places
The Pastor Hermas in the list of writings whose authorship is disputed.
The Fourth Gospel rests upon an entirely different basis. There was but
_one_ tradition in respect to it, and from our first knowledge of it, it
was regarded as authoritative, and its authorship was undisputed; for
the slight exception of the few individuals, called the Alogi, is of
no account. It was included in the commentaries and harmonies to which
reference has been made; and such works would not have been written until
the books upon which they were based had been long enough in the churches
for a felt need of commentaries upon them. It was quoted as Scripture
by Theophilus, and John its author was expressly named as moved by the
Holy Ghost. In the Muratori Canon, it was placed as Scripture in the
list of Canonical books, universally received. And that it could not
have come in after the year one hundred and forty, or have been received
unless it was genuine, will be still more obvious from a more particular
consideration of some of those who accepted it. Pantænus, who was at the
head of the Alexandrian school in the year one hundred and eighty, was
(says Eusebius) distinguished for his learning. Before his conversion he
was a Stoic philosopher. After that, and before he became the head of the
Catechetical school, he traveled extensively as an Evangelist. He went as
far as the Indies, where he found that the Apostle Bartholomew, who had
preceded him, had left the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. Pantænus could
not have been ignorant of the “Memoirs,” which were accepted in Justin’s
time, and he lived until the year two hundred and twelve. We have no
_direct evidence_ from _him_; but Clement, his pupil and successor, and
noted for his learning, could not have been ignorant of the opinions
of Pantænus; and from Clement there is the strongest testimony. He
flourished between A.D. 165 and 220, and became head of the Alexandrian
School in A.D. 187. Origen, his successor, with his great genius and
acquirements, and extensive travel, and from his father Leonides, and his
predecessors Clement and Pantænus, must have been fully informed of the
“Memoirs” which were in the churches in the year one hundred and forty.
And he says, that he has “understood _from tradition_, respecting the
Four Gospels, _which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of
God throughout the world_,” that the first was by Matthew, the second by
Mark, “who composed it as Peter explained to him,” the third by Luke, the
companion of Paul, and “last of all” John “who reclined upon the breast
of Jesus,” has left one Gospel, in which he confesses that he could write
so many that the whole world could not contain them. Tertullian, the
celebrated lawyer, says, “Of the Apostles, John and Matthew published
the faith to us.” In defending the Gospel of Luke against the mutilation
of the heretic Marcion, he positively affirms that all the churches
founded by the Apostles accepted, not Marcion’s abridgment of Luke, but a
well-known form which had been “_received from its first publication_;”
and that the other Gospels had been received from the same sources in
authenticated copies. “In his abundant writings,” says Norton,[2] “there
is not a chapter in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, from which
he does not quote,” and from most of them his quotations are numerous.
Tertullian was born at Carthage about A.D. 160, and from his conversion,
about the year one hundred and eighty-five, he entered with great
earnestness and ability into a vindication of Christianity, and the
discussion of various questions connected with it. This able advocate
could not have been misinformed of the usages of the churches less than
half a century previous to the time when he entered upon his work.

The evidence of Irenæus is still more conclusive. He was born in Syria
about A.D. 120, and he was therefore twenty years old when Justin wrote.
His teacher was Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and his immediate predecessor
at Lyons was Pothinus. Polycarp, at his martyrdom, was asked to save
his life by denying Christ. “No,” he said, “eighty and six years have I
served him and he never did me any injury; how, then, can I blaspheme
my King and my Saviour?” _Pothinus_, at _his_ martyrdom, _cir._ 177,
was more than ninety years old. The lives of these two men reached far
back into the first century. They were at, or past, middle life when
Justin wrote, and presbyters of important churches; and it is utterly
incredible that they should not have known what “Memoirs” were read in
their churches in Justin’s time. And it is _equally incredible_ that
Irenæus, the disciple of the one and the immediate successor in office
of the other, and _himself_ _twenty years old_ when Justin wrote, should
not have been as well informed upon this subject. Yet Irenæus quotes[3]
from our Gospels and Acts, as Scripture, ascribes their authorship
to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and says that such was the accepted
tradition in all the churches. After referring to the others, he says of
the Fourth Gospel: “Afterwards John, the disciple of our Lord, the same
that lay upon his bosom, also published the Gospel while he was yet at
Ephesus, in Asia” (Eu. v. 8). And again[4]: “All the Elders testify, who
were conversant with John, the disciple of our Lord, in Asia, that he
delivered these things.” About A.D. 180, in a treatise against heretics,
he appeals to the canonical Gospels with as much confidence that they
are all well known and accepted by Christians, as any would do at the
present day. Tischendorf[5] says the number of passages where Irenæus has
recourse to the Gospels is about four hundred, and about eighty of these
in John. Sanday[5] estimates the quotations from John in this treatise
at seventy-three. But Clement, and Origen, and Pantænus, and Polycarp,
and Pothinus, and Tertullian, were not better informed upon this subject
than Serapion, who so promptly suppressed the heretical Gospel of Peter,
or than Theophilus, his immediate successor, who was the first after
Papias (other than the author of the Muratorian Fragment) to mention any
of the four Gospels by name, or than the author of this Fragment, or than
many intelligent officers and members of the numerous churches from the
Euphrates to the Seine.

With such evidence and from such sources, and the entire absence of any
evidence of _substitution_, it may well be regarded as morally certain,
that none occurred. What was probable, from the _seeming_ use of the
Canonical Gospels by Justin and his contemporaries, has become _a moral
certainty_. The Memoirs which, in the year one hundred and eighty, were
universally accepted, _were the same_ that forty years before were read
with the Prophets, in city and country, in all the churches every Sabbath
day. Of this there can be no doubt. The Memoirs of the year one hundred
and eighty, _were_ OUR CANONICAL GOSPELS; and the Memoirs of the year one
hundred and forty, _were_ OUR CANONICAL GOSPELS. And we take our stand
with Justin, with these Gospels in our hands, only forty years from the
death of John, the beloved disciple, and at the close of a hundred years
from the crucifixion of our Lord. And still we ascend the stream.

[1] Wright’s Logic, etc., p. 187, Tischendorf, p. 43.

[2] Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, etc., Part II. c. 1; Wright, p.
187.

[3] Wright, pp. 188, 189, Tischendorf, p. 35.

[4] Stowe’s Origin, etc., p. 176.

[5] Origin, etc., p. 35; Wright, p. 189.




CHAPTER XI.

STILL ASCENDING THE STREAM.


The evidence thus far has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at the
writing of Justin’s First Apology, the Canonical Gospels were read
with the Prophets in city and country, on “the day called Sunday,” as
authentic Memoirs of our Lord. Assuming the date[1] of this Apology to
have been A.D. 138 or 139, the time was a little over one hundred years
from the Crucifixion, and less than eighty years from the death of Mark
and Luke, and all the Apostles other than John, and only forty years from
his death. How long were these periods as they affect the argument from
the universal reception of the Gospels in Justin’s time, and from the
universal tradition in their favor which accompanied such reception? The
writer has within two days (in April, 1881) met with three persons who
saw Lafayette on his visit to New England in 1824. One of them distinctly
remembers the sentiment[2] which Lafayette gave at Concord, and another
shook hands with him. There were hundreds of Revolutionary soldiers
present, some of whom the General recognized and called by name, although
he had not seen their faces for more than forty years. This was in 1824.
Whittier’s poem describes one of these soldiers, as he now remembers him,
at the time of Monroe’s tour in 1817, _sixty-four years ago_:

    “Once a soldier, blame him not,
    That the Quaker he forgot,
    When to think of battles won,
    And the red coats on the run,
          Laughed aloud Friend Morrison.”

And throughout the country there are thousands now living[A] who well
knew men who were in active life during the War of the Revolution. In the
_Granite Monthly_ for December, 1880, was published the Diary of Rev.
Timothy Walker of Concord, for the year 1780, and there were earlier
Diaries kept by him which have been preserved by his descendants. The
Diary of Matthew Patten of Bedford, from 1750 to 1790, is in the custody
of Charles H. Woodbury, Esq., of New York. The Congregational church at
Concord, of which Timothy Walker was the first pastor, November, 1880,
celebrated its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. There are several
towns in New Hampshire, as Londonderry, Dover, Exeter and Portsmouth,
that were settled earlier than Concord; and some of them as early as
1623. The landing of the Pilgrims was _two hundred and sixty years ago_.
It seems but as yesterday. A century from the Crucifixion was no longer
than a century now; and as an event, to be remembered, the Crucifixion
was as much greater than the Landing of the Pilgrims as the glory of
the noonday sun is above that of the feeblest star in the most distant
heavens. The time that has elapsed since Timothy Walker wrote Diaries
which are now in existence is as long as from the Crucifixion to Justin’s
Apology; more than thirty years longer than from the martyrdom of Peter
and Paul to Justin’s Apology; and sixty years longer than from John’s
death to Justin’s Apology. The churches in Justin’s time were not dealing
with writings from a dim and misty past, or of limited or infrequent
use. None were as ancient as Walker’s Diary; the last had not seen half
its years; they were in all the churches, and read every Sabbath day.
The argument which proves that there was no substitution between 140
and 180 is as much more forcible to prove that there was no substitution
between the years 100 and 140, or between the years 60 and 100, as those
times were nearer the great events which the Gospels recorded. If, for
example, there were accepted Memoirs of our Lord in the churches in
the year 100, from the presumed _continuance_ of a state of things the
existence of which has been proved,[3] it should be _presumed_ that they
remained in the churches till Justin’s time, there being no evidence to
the contrary. And so there would be the same (or greater) difficulties
in the way of displacement and substitution, between the year 100 and
the year 140, as between the year 140 and the year 180. Justin and his
contemporaries had from their own recollection,[4] or from others,
whether parents, teachers, presbyters or bishops, as great facilities for
knowing what Memoirs were accepted in the churches forty years before,
as had Irenæus and his contemporaries in respect to the period of forty
years before one hundred and eighty. And there was a succession and
continued life in the churches from 100 to 140, the same as from 140 to
180. This reasoning is applicable to Clement and his contemporaries, and
shows that Memoirs which were in the churches in the year 100 could not
have displaced accepted and generally received Memoirs of any previous
period. We know from the Epistle of Clement, as clearly as from Justin’s
Apology, how Christians loved and adored their Divine Lord and Master,
and how strongly attached they must have been to any Memoirs of him,
which they accepted as authentic. And the testimony of Pliny is, that
Christians in his day were accustomed to meet before daybreak and sing a
responsive hymn to Christ as God. It is utterly incredible that accepted
Memoirs of Christ, thus worshipped, should have been thrown aside by
presbyters or bishops, and hundreds of churches, throughout the Roman
Empire, without a shock that would have left unmistakable evidences
of it in history. There being an entire absence of any evidence of
displacement and substitution, it is _morally certain there was none_.
John’s Gospel, however, stands upon a different footing, since it came
in not to displace, but to supplement. John lived to the close of the
first century. _Who dared_ to forge a spurious Gospel in his name, so
soon after his death that it had obtained such a footing in the churches,
at the end of forty years, as to be quoted as his production? _Who_,
during that period, was _capable_ of composing it? And how were hundreds
of presbyters or bishops, and churches, from Syria to Gaul, persuaded to
receive a spurious Gospel, as the genuine work of the beloved disciple
who was in life within the personal[4] recollections of many? It is a
fact to be emphasized, that neither this Gospel, nor the others, can
be assailed on historical or traditional grounds. _There is but one
history or tradition_ concerning them. The objections to them are either
negative or speculative, mere assumptions, not supported by any history
or tradition.

The first _use_ of the four Gospels of which there is any history, is in
statements of facts found to be recorded in them, and in quotations of
teachings of Christ, corresponding with them. The first _description_ of
them after Papias, is that of “Memoirs” of Christ, “drawn up” by Apostles
and companions of Apostles. The first mention of them _by the names of
the writers_, ascribes their authorship to the men whose names they now
bear. There is no history or tradition of a time when the first Gospel
was ascribed to any but Matthew, or the second to any but Mark, or the
fourth to any but John[5], or the third, with Acts, to any but Luke. The
standing objection that none of them is mentioned _by name_ till the time
of Theophilus, and Irenæus, and the writer of the Muratori Canon, is not
of the slightest consequence as opposing evidence. For, if these Gospels
were not mentioned by name, neither were any[6] others; and surely we are
not expected to believe that there were _no originals_, from which the
many quotations, from Clement of Rome, in the year 97, down, were taken.
This objection proves too much. For it proves, if it proves anything,
that there were _no_ Gospels or writings to answer to the quotations,
which, under the circumstances, is a palpable absurdity. Besides, it
is not true in respect to the First and Second Gospels, for Papias,
certainly as early as the middle of the second century, and probably
before the year 140, gave the _names_ of Matthew and Mark respectively,
as their authors, the latter being “the interpreter of Peter.”

[1] Judge Waite controverts the generally received opinion of the date
of Justin’s First Apology. Verissimus became Cæsar in 139, but he is not
addressed as Cæsar, but as “philosopher.” In reply to this, Mr. Waite
says, that the same is true of the Second Apology, “which is admitted
by all to have been written after 139.” In the first place, there is
considerable uncertainty which of the Apologies was first written, and
some critics maintain that what is called the Second was a preface to
the First, and others still that it was a continuation of the First.
(See introductory notice to Vol. II. of the A. N. C. L.) In the second
place, the address to Urbicus in the so-called Second Apology, was
not by _Justin_. He only gives it as the language of _one Lucius_, in
narrating an occurrence which, for aught that appears, may have taken
place before the year 139. Mr. Waite also says that Justin would be but
twenty-five years of age in 139. He might have written his Apology in
139, nevertheless. And there are many who put his birth earlier than the
year 114, and some as early as the year 85. There are no certain data by
which to determine the time of his birth. Again he says that Marcion did
not come to Rome till about 140, and that Justin (c. 26) refers to him
as being “even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe
in some God greater than the Creator.” But Justin meant to express his
abhorrence of his doctrines. He refers to him as “a man of Pontus,” and
again (in c. 58) as “Marcion of Pontus,” and says the devils put him
forward. He nowhere describes him as being _of_ Rome or _at_ Rome. In
his extensive travels he doubtless knew of him while he was at Pontus.
Judge Waite also says that, if in the year 139, Justin would have said
that Christ was born 140 years ago, instead of 150. But correcting the
error for the beginning of our Era, the time would have been A.D. 146,
or 144, as we allow four or six years for the error, and Justin, using
round numbers, would more naturally have taken the longer period. There
is nothing therefore in Judge Waite’s arguments to change the opinion in
what he concedes to be “the very valuable Encyclopedia of McClintock and
Strong,” and of Page, Neander, Lemisch, Roberts and Donaldson, Sears,
Fisher, Eusebius, (c. 8) and many others, assigning the year 139. See
also Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris (1880) p. lv. It is, however, not
essential to the argument from the First Apology, whether it was written
in the year 139, or 144, or 146, or even 150 of our Era. By as much as
it lengthens the period from the death of John to the date of the First
Apology, it shortens the time between that date and the year 180.

[2] “The memories of Light Infantry Poor and Yorktown Scammel.”

[A] Rev. Simeon Parmelee, D.D., celebrated his one hundredth birthday at
the house of his son-in-law Hon. E. J. Hamilton, ex-mayor of the city of
Oswego, N. Y., Jan. 16, 1882. His intellect was clear, and to those who
called he had an ever ready response, and replied happily and wittily to
the addresses. He had been in the ministry from 1808 to 1869, and, for
years after, preached occasionally. His eldest daughter is 72 years of
age, and his descendants now living, number 53. Upon his 90th birthday
he wrote a hymn of considerable merit. When 100 years old, he remembered
with vivid freshness the Inauguration of George Washington, although at
that time but in his 8th year. See _Congregationalist_, Jan. 25, 1882.

[3] See Phillips, Parker, and Greenleaf, as quoted in c. 8.

[4] Justin in his First Apology (c. 15) refers to many of sixty or
seventy years of age, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood.

[5] Prof. Fisher (p. 69) says, that besides the few individuals called
the Alogi, or men “without understanding,” there is no allusion to the
denial of John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel by any writer, before
the latter part of the fourth century.

[6] As to the controverted reference in Justin’s Apology to “Memoirs of
Him,” see c. 4, and c. 7, note 14. That, if correctly interpreted by
Judge Waite, could only have been Mark’s Gospel.




CHAPTER XII.

IN THEIR PROPER REPOSITORIES.


Certain propositions have been established by facts and arguments that
cannot be successfully controverted:

(_a_) The advent of Christ and its stupendous results.

(_b_) The formation of numerous churches which by the end of the first
century were in all parts of the Roman Empire, with presbyters or bishops
and elders in every church, and many thousands of communicants.

(_c_) They regarded him with the greatest reverence and affection,
obeying his commands as their Lord and Master, paying him divine honors,
and for his sake joyfully yielding up their lives.

(_d_) Of his disciples and followers, twelve, called Apostles, were
understood to have special authority from him in the Church.

(_e_) From the nature of the case we should look for the reception in
these numerous churches, of Memoirs of their Lord which they would
_deem_ authentic, and at so early a period, that they would be able to
_determine_ whether they were authentic or not.

(_f_) To such Memoirs, once accepted, they would be so strongly attached
that they could not be displaced and others substituted for them, in
hundreds of churches in all the Roman Empire, without such controversy as
would have left indubitable evidence of it.

(_g_) As far back as history goes, doctrines[1] were taught, facts
asserted, and quotations made, corresponding with the Canonical Gospels,
and such use was continued until a time when there is a positive
identification of them by name. Within this period there was one writer
making numerous quotations and references, who declared that the writings
from which he quoted, and to which he referred, were “Memoirs” of Christ
“drawn up” by Apostles or companions of Apostles.

(_h_) There is no proof of the existence of writings _other_ than
those Gospels answering to his description, or corresponding with the
quotations; and finally within forty years of his first reference to
these “Memoirs” they are clearly seen to be the Canonical Gospels.

(_i_) From first to last there is no evidence whatever of displacement of
Gospels previously accepted, and the substitution of others for them in
the churches generally.

(_j_) The Fourth Gospel is of such a character, and was in use so soon
after the death of its author (and who is also stated as its author in
the Gospels itself), as to make the idea of attempted and successful
_forgery_ in the highest degree improbable.

(_k_) And these Gospels within less than eighty years from the death of
the Apostles other than John, and within forty years of _his_ death, were
read with the Prophets in the churches, in city and country, every Lord’s
day, _and accepted as Apostolic_.

(_l_) From the earliest period they were where they should be if
authentic, and where they could not have been, unless _accepted_ as
authentic.

Some illustrations have already been given in chapter eleven of the brief
interval between the Apostles and Justin Martyr. Let any intelligent
reader of sixty, from his own recollection, or any young person, from
the recollections of others with whom he is acquainted, determine for
himself. The writer was admitted to the Bar almost forty years ago; he
has within a few months seen an original deed[2] of land in Londonderry
(the home of his ancestors) executed one hundred and fifty years ago;
he has in his possession certified copies of certificates of marriages
and births, in his own genealogical record—going back from one to two
hundred years, in one instance two hundred and thirty years, and these
certificates would be received as _evidence_ in any Court. They would
be received, because made by the proper custodian of public documents,
found in the proper repository for them. The presumption of law in such
case is the judgment of charity. It presumes that documents found in
their proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, are genuine.
A deed forty years old, followed by a possession agreeing with it, is
admitted in evidence without other proof of its execution. Our Gospels
in Justin’s time were where they _should_ have been, if authentic. The
Church was the proper repository for authentic Memoirs of its Founder.
_Our Gospels were there._ They were in their proper repository. And upon
every principle that rules in the administration of justice, or in the
common affairs of life, it must be presumed that they were _rightfully_
there. Their rejection is _not_ “the judgment of charity.” It reverses
the maxim that fraud is not to be presumed. It charges forgery, of
which there is no evidence, upon persons whom it finds it impossible
to discover and identify. It imputes ignorance and indifference to
multitudes who had every opportunity for knowing the truth, and who were
willing to suffer all things for their convictions of the truth. It
presses, as of vital consequence, trivial objections and alleged errors
in chronology, geography and history, which (if made out) would not for
a moment be thought sufficient to successfully impugn the authenticity
of any secular work as well supported by external evidence. It is
unnecessary to further consider such objections.[3] It is no exaggeration
to say, that the various theories and speculations of those who deny
the genuineness of the Gospels are, in the main, but ingenious attempts
at the solution of the problem: “Given, the impossibility of miracles,
what may be supposed to be the true history of Jesus Christ?” The
only consistent answer that could be made, would be that upon such an
hypothesis, it is impossible to determine what was his life or character.
But, given, the possibility of miracles (and if there is a God they
must be possible), there is no reasonable doubt of the authenticity of
the Gospels, and the book of Acts. They come to us from their proper
repositories, and must be presumed to be rightfully there. They are
proved to have been in those repositories within but a short period from
the death of the Apostles. They were accepted as Apostolic, and as having
been drawn up by Apostles or companions of Apostles. If such undoubted
reception, and use, and tradition, at so early a period, and thence
until now, cannot be _trusted_, no credit can be given to _any_ writings
or history from ancient times. They _can_ be trusted. The stream which
eighteen hundred years ago was issuing from Apostolic times and the hills
of Palestine, has flowed onward, enriching and blessing the nations.

[1] Mr. Waite assumes that Clement did not hold to a literal
resurrection. Clement’s language admits of no such construction, although
in writing to Christians who understood all about it, he was not as
definite upon this point, as Justin in _his_ address to a different
class. Clement refers to the resurrection in c. 24: “Let us consider,
beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a
future resurrection, of which he has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the
first fruits by raising him from the dead.” And again in c. 42, after
saying that the Apostles were commissioned, he adds: “Having therefore,
received their order, and being fully assured by the resurrection of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the Word of God, with full
assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom
of God was at hand.” The force of this language is not controlled by any
means, by reference to the day’s following the night, and the springing
up of the fruits of the earth, from the sowing of the seed.

[2] The deed dated June 16, 1731, was by David Morrison, one of the
grantees in the Charter of Londonderry of 1722, to his brother-in-law,
David McAlister. This deed with another from the same grantor to William
McAlister dated February 24, 1746, are now in the possession of Jonathan
McAlister, Esq., a descendant of David and an owner of the original
granted land.

[3] One other correction should be made. Judge Waite arbitrarily assigns
Cerinthus to the year 145. He gives no reason or authority for it. It is
the testimony of all antiquity that Cerinthus was contemporary with the
Apostle John, and that John died about the year 100. Irenæus, upon the
authority of Polycarp, says that John, being about to enter a bath and
finding Cerinthus within, drew back saying: “Let us even be gone lest the
bath should fall to pieces,—Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, being
within.” See Vol. II., Encyclopedia of McClintock and Strong, p. 190.




CHAPTER XIII.

INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPELS.


As stated in former chapters, this is to be presumed till the contrary is
shown. There is, however, strong confirmation from many sources.

_First._—The writings of the Apostolic Fathers present to our view the
Christ of the Gospels, in his advent and life, ministry and teaching,
death and resurrection. In particular, his resurrection from the dead is
cited by Clement (A.D. 97) as an earnest of that of his followers, and as
a proof that he came forth from God. The greatest of miracles, and the
central fact of Christianity, appears in the earliest writings (outside
of the New Testament), the date of which can be determined. Judge Waite,
in his “wonderful hundred[1] years of silence by Christian writers”
concerning the miracles of Christ, is oblivious of what he had before
stated, that aside from the Gospels, there are left of the first century
“only the Epistles of Paul, the one Epistle of Clement of Rome, some
slight notices by Jewish and heathen writers, and the few legends and
traditions preserved in the writings of the Fathers.” Such an argument
from silence, _where there are no writings extant_, is not befitting _a
judge_.

_Second._—The earliest quotations substantially agree with the Canonical
Gospels. Some of those by Justin Martyr have been given in chapters
five and six, and those by Clement may be found in the Note.[2] These
quotations by Apostolic and Christian Fathers, afford ample[3] means for
comparison, and no variations appear to indicate any changes to affect
the character or teachings of our Lord. Professor Fisher says[4] of
_Justin’s_ references, that they embrace “not more” than two sayings of
Jesus that have not substantial parallels in the four Evangelists. The
first is, “In what things I shall apprehend you, in these will I judge
you,” which is found also in Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus.
The second is, “There shall be schisms and heresies,” a prediction
referred also to Christ by Tertullian. These sayings may have come from
_tradition_. It seems not improbable that they were current expressions,
embodying what Jesus taught[5] respecting the standard by which men shall
be judged according to the light which they have received, and divisions
in the same household. (See cc. 6 to 8 _ante_).

_Third._—The facts in Christ’s history referred to by the Fathers,
with very rare exceptions (the most of which were stated and explained
in chapter seven), correspond with the Evangelists. The exceptional
facts are such as would naturally have been derived from tradition,
and they in no way change the life or character of our Lord as they
appear in the Gospels. The marvel is, that they should be so few and
unimportant, considering that some of the writers lived at a time when[6]
“traditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.”

_Fourth._—Marcion’s Gospel (written as early as the year 145), except in
intentional omissions and mutilations, for which he was sharply called to
an account by Tertullian, presents a substantial agreement with Luke’s
Gospel. Judge Waite claims that it was earlier than Luke’s; but the
almost unanimous verdict of scholars is against him. Indeed, Professor
Fisher, in the March number of the _Princeton Review_ for 1881 (p. 217),
says: “That Marcion’s Gospel was an abridgment of our Luke is _now
conceded on all hands_, even by the author of ‘Supernatural Religion.’
Dr. Sanday has not only demonstrated this by a linguistic argument, but
has proved by a comparison of texts that the Gospel of the Canon must
have been for some time in use, and have attained to a considerable
circulation, before Marcion applied to it his pruning-knife. There is
no reason to doubt that he took for his purpose a Gospel of established
authority in the Church.” Professor Curtiss also says that “the weight
of scholarship is overwhelmingly in favor of the priority of Luke.”
And he quotes from the last edition of the “Supernatural Religion,”
the admission referred to by Professor Fisher. Its anonymous author
says that Dr. Sanday’s very able examination “has convinced us that our
earlier hypothesis is untenable; that the portions of our third Synoptic,
excluded from Marcion’s Gospel, were really written by the same pen which
composed the mass of the work; and, consequently, that our third Synoptic
existed in his time, and was substantially in the hands of Marcion.”
Dr. Sanday[7] shows, as he expresses it, that Marcion’s Gospel stands
to Luke’s “entirely in the relation of _defect_. We may say entirely,
for the additions are so insignificant—some thirty words in all, and
those for the most part supported by other authority—that for practical
purposes they are not to be reckoned. With the exception of these thirty
words inserted, and also some slight alterations of phrase, Marcion’s
Gospel presents simply an _abridgment_ of our St. Luke.” That Marcion’s
Gospel was not one of Justin’s “Memoirs,” is plain from his calling
him a wolf,[7] “sent forth by the devil.” Although Marcion’s Gospel
is not in existence, except as reproduced from the works of Tertullian
and Epiphanius, its agreement with Luke (with the exceptions which they
pointed out) becomes important evidence that Luke is to-day as it was in
the year one hundred and forty-five.

_Fifth._—Our Gospels and Acts before the close of the second century of
our era were translated into other languages, and the Syriac, Coptic
and Latin versions which have come down to us with some imperfections
and slight variations, are in substantial agreement with our present
version in all that is material. A translation of a given date presumably
represents a text of greater age than itself. Hence the manuscripts from
which these translations were made were older than the year two hundred,
and probably older than the year one hundred and fifty.

_Sixth._—The early and continued multiplication of copies affords
strong evidence. Those who copied from originals deemed authentic would
certainly endeavor to make exact copies. As these Memoirs were read in
all the churches, and, doubtless, in Christian families and Christian
schools, they soon became very numerous. There was fraternal intercourse
between the churches. Any substantial difference in the copies would
be noticed. Any such differences would be transmitted in copies made
from these copies, and so on, to the manuscripts which have reached
us. The number of copies before the tenth persecution (commenced A.D.
300, and lasting ten years) must have reached many thousands.[8] So
complete was then supposed to be the extinction of Christianity, that
coins were struck and inscriptions set up, recording the fact, that the
“Christian superstition” was now utterly exterminated, and the worship
of the gods restored by Diocletian, who assumed the name of Jupiter, and
Maximian, who took that of Hercules. This persecution, in addition to
the destruction of life, was specially[9] directed to the destruction of
copies of the Scriptures.

_Seventh._—Constantine, their successor, in the year 331, caused fifty
copies of the Scriptures to be made for Byzantium, under the care of
Eusebius of Cæsarea, the church historian. The manuscript discovered by
the celebrated Tischendorf, in 1859, at the convent of St. Catherine,
on Mount Sinai, is believed to be one of those copies, and to be the
oldest[10] Greek manuscript in existence. _If_ one of the fifty, it is
more than fifteen hundred years old. It is called the Sinaitic Codex.
The second rank belongs to the Vatican Codex. Its date is probably not
later than the fourth century. The next in the order of time is the
Alexandrian Codex. Its date is the latter part of the fourth century or
the beginning of the fifth century. The Vatican has been in the Vatican
Library since 1445. The Alexandrian was sent, in 1628, by the Patriarch
of Constantinople, to Charles I., and is now in the British Museum. The
Sinaitic was presented by its discoverer to the Emperor of Russia. There
is no doubt whatever that these three manuscripts were written back of
the “dark ages,” and at a time when the true text could be known with
great exactness, and was comparatively free from errors. With these,
there are fifty manuscripts that are a thousand years old. There are, it
is estimated, more than seventeen hundred manuscripts of the whole, or
portions, of the New Testament, ranging in date from the fourth to the
sixteenth century. Providence, says Tischendorf, has ordained for the
New Testament more sources of the greatest antiquity than are possessed
by all the old Greek literature put together. The number of manuscripts
of the Greek Classics, says[11] Professor Stowe, is very small compared
with the Greek Testament manuscripts, and the oldest of them scarcely
reaches nine hundred years. There are such differences between the
Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrian manuscripts as indicate that no two
of them were taken from the same original. A little reflection will
convince any one, that while no single copy may be literally exact from
its original, the multiplication of copies adds greatly to substantial
accuracy as the result of the whole. For although there is a tendency
to a repetition of _some_ errors, by different copyists from the same
original, as where successive sentences end with the same word, yet, in
general, different copyists would make different errors, one in one part
of the instrument, and the other in another, and, where the copies are
numerous, they mutually correct each other. So it happens that in the
different manuscripts of the New Testament, with different readings of
many thousands (counting all trifles, like the omission to dot an _i_
or cross a _t_ in English chirography, as different readings), there is
substantial agreement. It is a fact to be emphasized, says[12] Professor
Fisher, “that the Scriptures are almost utterly free from wilful
corruption;” and he endorses the opinion of the great critic, Bentley,
that the real text “is competently exact in the worst manuscripts now
extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted
or lost in them.” And examining the subject in hand from a lawyer’s
standpoint, the _worst_ manuscript, or translation, or version, is
sufficient for the purposes of the argument. And to cite once more the
great authority of Professor Greenleaf,[13] to the genuineness of the
Four Gospels: “The entire text of the Corpus Juris Civilis is received
as authority in all the courts of Continental Europe, upon much weaker
evidence of its genuineness; for the integrity of the Sacred Text has
been preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects beyond any moral
possibility of corruption; while that of the Roman Civil Law has been
preserved only by tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing
school to watch over and preserve it from alteration.”

And now (1882) the New Revision, both of the text and of the translation,
by scholars who have no superior, and the careful product of ten years’
labor, has been long enough before the world to know the results. Not
a single fact or witness to the Resurrection is lost, and not a single
doctrine is changed, while many passages are better understood.

[1] He puts the date of the Epistle of Barnabas, A. D. 130, but it is
generally placed earlier.

[2] “Be merciful that ye may obtain mercy; forgive that it may be
forgiven to you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge so
shall ye be judged; as ye are kind so shall kindness be shown to you;
with what measure ye mete with the same it shall be measured to you” (c.
13). Matt. vi. 12-15; Matt. vii. 2; Luke vi. 36-38. “This people honoreth
me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (c. 15). Matt. xv. 8;
Mark vii. 6. “Woe to that man! It were better for him that he had never
been born, than that he should cast a stumbling block before one of my
elect, yea it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about
his neck, and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he
should cast a stumbling-block before any of my little ones” (c. 46).
Matt. xviii. 6; Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark ix, 42; Luke xvii. 2.

[3] The entire Gospel could be reproduced from those writings, including
Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

[4] The _Princeton Review_ for March, 1881, p. 201.

[5] Matt. x. 34-36; Luke x. 13-15; Luke xii. 47-53.

[6] Bampton Lectures for 1877, p. 221, by the Rev. C. A. Row, M. A.,
Pembroke College, Oxford, Prebendary of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

[7] Ap. I., cc. 22, 58. See also Sanday’s Gospels of the Second Century,
p. 214, and “Canonicity,” by A. H. Charteris, D. D., 1880, pp. 76, 393.

[8] Norton estimates the number by the close of the second century at
sixty thousand, which may be a large estimate.

[9] Vol. VII. of McClintock and Strong, p. 966; Neander’s Church History,
Vol. I., p. 148. Neander says that Feb. 22, A.D. 303, on one of the
great pagan festivals, at the first dawn of day, the magnificent church
of Nicomedia (then the imperial residence) was broken open, the copies
of the Bible found in it were burned, and the whole church abandoned to
plunder and then to destruction. The next day was published an edict
that all assembling of Christians for the purpose of religious worship
was forbidden; churches were to be demolished to their foundations; all
manuscripts of the Bible should be burned; those who held places of honor
and rank must renounce their faith, or be degraded; those belonging
to the lower walks of private life to be divested of their rights as
citizens and freemen; slaves were to be incapable of receiving their
freedom so long as they remained Christians; and in judicial proceedings
the torture might be used against all Christians of whatsoever rank. “It
is quite evident,” says Neander, “that the plan now was to extirpate
Christianity from the root.” But it was the darkness which preceded the
dawn, for this was the _last_ of the Pagan persecutions.

[10] A facsimile steel engraving forming the frontispiece to
Tischendorf’s New Testament, gives specimens of the Greek text in which
these three manuscripts are severally written. The difference in the
style of the text is one great means by which experts determine the age
of the manuscript. The oldest manuscripts are written in large, square,
upright capitals; and they are called Uncials. The later manuscripts are
written in flowing scripts; they are called Cursives. The proportion
of Uncial to Cursive manuscripts is about one to ten. The Cursive was
introduced in the tenth century.

[11] Origin and History of the Books of the New Testament, by Prof. C. E.
Stowe, A.D. 1867, pp. 31, 62.

[12] In Scribner’s Monthly for February, 1881, p. 617.

[13] An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the rules
of Evidence administered in Courts of Justice, etc. By Simon Greenleaf,
LL.D., Royal Professor of Law in Harvard University (A.D. 1846), p. 28.




CHAPTER XIV.

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.


The question of their credibility is before that of their inspiration.
If uninspired, they may have given us everything essential to the
determination of Christ’s resurrection. If inspired, inspiration may
have been bestowed in such a manner as to leave them subject to some of
the limitations of human testimony. If reliable accounts of the life,
teachings, death, and resurrection, of our Lord, were to be published
to the world, it was of the last importance that they should not carry
upon their face the appearance of collusion and contrivance. Let any one
who is disturbed by any seeming contradictions or errors, consider for
a moment what would be the consequence if they did not exist. If each
writer narrated the same occurrences and teachings and in the same terms,
it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to believe that they
were independent witnesses. And so, if each should give all of the same
occurrences and teachings, although in different terms, or a part of
them, but in the same terms, it would be almost as difficult to believe
that we have independent witnesses. As it is, no question can arise.
Neither of them covers the whole ground, and where the same matters
appear, it is, in general, except in brief passages easily remembered,
in different terms. We are _sure_ there was no collusion. We are sure we
have the testimony of independent writers. This is conceded. Says Judge
Waite (pp. 311, 313): That the Gospels “are not merely copied one from
the other, with changes, is the almost unanimous verdict of Biblical
scholars.” And in this, he expresses the verdict of those who reject,
not less than of those who accept the Gospels. Among the limitations
attending mere human testimony, are, that, ordinarily, no witness will
state the whole of any transaction, and no two witnesses will state it
in precisely the same terms, unless there is fraud or collusion, and
the testimony of each is but the recital of something that has been
committed to memory. Another limitation is, that even with two or more
witnesses, errors to some extent will come in. There will be some lack
of correct observation, or some misrecollection,—not only the omission
of a part, but positive misstatement by one or more of the witnesses.
The whole transaction is to be gathered _from all_ the witnesses. And
the law, having respect to human infirmities, says it is enough in all
cases to prove the _substance_ of words alleged to have been spoken, or
the substance of the issue, in any civil or criminal cause; immaterial
errors of time, or place, or distance, or other circumstance, will be
disregarded. Now it is _conceivable_ that the Evangelists, under the
guidance of the Divine Spirit, may have been left (to some extent)
subject to these limitations, in order that their testimony, conforming
to these laws of observation and memory, be the more credible. Hence,
whether the Evangelists, in this stage of the inquiry, be regarded as
inspired or uninspired, it is labor lost, to adduce alleged errors[1]
or contradictions which, if made out, could not seriously affect their
honesty and general competency. In order that a witness receive our
confidence, we should be satisfied of his means of knowledge, his
capacity to ascertain the facts, and his disposition to give a correct
account of them. Two of the writers, Matthew and John, were of the twelve
(and John was the beloved disciple) and hence they had the best possible
means of knowing the facts. Matthew, from his business of a tax-gatherer,
may be presumed to have been sharp, shrewd and observant. John, from his
most intimate association, was pre-eminently qualified to give testimony.
He gives it with solemnity equal to an oath: “And he that saw bare
record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that
ye might believe” (c. xix. 35). “And many other signs truly did Jesus
in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book;
but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name”
(c. xx. 30, 31). Again, after stating what Peter asked concerning the
disciple “whom Jesus loved,” and what followed, it is said: “This is the
disciple which testifieth of these things, and who wrote these things;
and we[2] know that his testimony is true” (c. xxi. 20-24). This Gospel,
obviously written later than the others, omits much that is contained in
them, and is, so to speak, of higher order. The first incident mentioned
in it, is the witness borne to Christ by the Baptist. It gives none of
the parables, so abundant in the Synoptics.[3] It relates but two of the
miracles recorded in them, _i. e._ the feeding of the five thousand,
and the walking upon the water, (c. vi. 1-21). It adds six miracles
not recorded in the Synoptics (among which is the raising of Lazarus),
numerous conversations and discourses of the greatest interest, and
facts relating to the crucifixion and resurrection, of great weight as
evidence. It is written in purer Greek than the others; its style[4]
is elegant and graceful; it gives every indication of calm, thoughtful
and deliberate composition, and in these respects tends to confirm the
uniform tradition that it was the ripe product of a mind and heart,
enriched, quickened, and vitalized, by familiar intercourse with our Lord
and the truths which he declared, as well as by the Spirit promised to
the Apostles. Men with favorable native gifts, become educated fast under
such influences.

It affords about the only means for a connected chronological history of
our Lord’s ministry, which is seen to have embraced a longer[5] period,
than could have been ascertained from the Synoptics.

Although Mark was not one of the twelve, the character of his Gospel in
its life-like description of events, and its omitting nothing[A] where
Peter was prominent, confirms the tradition, that he was an attendant
upon Peter’s ministry, and was his interpreter. Nine-tenths[6] of the
incidents related in Mark are also recorded in the other Gospels.

Luke was an educated man, and, as he incidentally discloses, a companion
of Paul in a part of his journeyings. His Gospel was evidently drawn
up with great care. In the prologue (c. i. 1-5) he gives a reason for
his writing, and the sources of his information. “Many have taken in
hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most
surely believed among us.” These things, he says, “were delivered unto
us by those who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of
the Word.” He was stimulated to give an additional narrative (“having
had perfect understanding of all things from the very first”) for the
satisfaction of his friend, Theophilus, and in order that he might know
“the _certainty_ of those things,” wherein he had been instructed. No
historian could enter upon his work in a better spirit, or with more
excellent qualifications and opportunities. In a subsequent treatise
which in terms refers to the former, he finds nothing to retract or
qualify. Can any one tell why Luke, as a historian, is not entitled to as
much credit as Josephus?

In comparing the Gospels with each other, or with Josephus, it should
be constantly borne in mind, that _omission_ (except under special
circumstances) _is not contradiction_. The facts of history, like the
conclusions of a jury, are to be drawn from all credible sources, and the
transaction deemed to be as shown upon _all_ the evidence. _Positive_
testimony from a single witness may prove a fact against the _negative_
testimony of any number of witnesses, who are silent upon the subject.

It is also to be remembered that the Gospels are not so much connected
histories, as reminiscences of events and teachings, with but little
regard (sometimes an utter disregard) to their chronological order.
Neither Gospel is, of itself, any approach to a connected history from
Christ’s birth to his ascension. The events, so far as known to us, are
to be gathered _from them all_. Mark begins with the Baptist at the
river Jordan, and John at about the same time. It is not to be inferred
that they knew nothing of the infancy, or childhood, or young manhood of
Jesus. Matthew omits the presentation at the temple, the vision to the
Shepherds, and other incidents; and Luke omits the visit of the Wise men,
the slaying of the children, the flight into Egypt, and other incidents.
But in so doing, neither contradicts the other; nor does Josephus, by his
silence concerning these events, contradict the Evangelists. He may have
been ignorant of some of these events, for he was not born until the year
37, and, being a Jew and not a Christian, he might not choose to mention
those which had come to his knowledge.

Luke’s Gospel may or may not have made use of writings then in existence
relating to Christ (but which never found general acceptance), and the
same is true of the First and Second Gospels. _It is no impeachment of
their credibility._ Every historian makes such use of materials that he
deems reliable, as best answers his purpose, and his history is none the
less trustworthy on that account. Hence, as a matter of evidence, it
is of no consequence how many or how few, previous manuscripts may be
traced in our Gospels, or either of them. Such writings had an ephemeral
existence, never came into general use, and the Four Gospels and no
others were the accepted Gospels in all the churches. Whatever literature
of the kind preceded them perished so early that it cannot be told when
it disappeared, or what was its character or completeness.

The Evangelists give every mark of honest witnesses. Their story is
simple, straightforward and unimpassioned, even under circumstances
calculated to arouse resentment. They seem intent upon nothing but the
giving of a truthful narrative, not sparing themselves or extenuating
their own faults. Their frequent incidental allusions to matters of
government, custom, nationality, etc., and minuteness of detail, are
such as would never be found in false witnesses. “A false witness,” says
Mr. Greenleaf, “will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his
testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there
is danger of being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts
equally circumstantial.”

It would detract nothing from the credit of the Evangelists, if, in the
multitude of their incidental references, error should be found in a
few of them, for some error is inseparable from all human productions;
and their inspiration may not have been so circumstantial as to exclude
immaterial errors.

With such differences as show most convincingly that the Evangelists are
independent witnesses, there is such unity in the character and life
of Christ, as exhibited by them, as shows the same _original_ for the
likeness. This essential unity of the Gospel is evidenced by the fact
that not a single church or communion exists, that does not accept _all_
the Gospels, if _either_.

From internal evidence, it is extremely probable that the Synoptics were
written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke was certainly written
before Acts, and the history in Acts is not carried later than the year
62, eight years before that event. As the four undisputed Epistles were
all written before the year 60, the logical order will be to present the
testimony of Paul to the Resurrection before that of the Evangelists.

[1] President Bartlett believes that notwithstanding its long line of
exposure, the outer historical difficulties seem reduced to the solitary
question of the taxing under Cyrenius. (The _Princeton Review_ for
January, 1880, p. 44.) Aside from any question of inspiration, it is
improbable that Luke made a mistake. Justin Martyr, who wrote at a very
early period, in his Apology to the Roman Emperor, refers to this taxing
as a well known event (Ap., c. 34). He again refers to it in his Dialogue
(c. 78) as being the first census taken in Judea under Cyrenius. Celsus,
who was not wanting in skill or inclination to attack at all points,
found no occasion here. It may well be that a person holding the office
which Cyrenius held at the first enrolment was called a “procurator.” Or
Luke in speaking of this enrolment may have referred to Cyrenius by the
title which he afterwards bore; or Cyrenius may have been in the office
twice. President Bartlett also concludes with Warrenton that there is not
any instance of a really inapposite quotation from the Old Testament,
although the quotations are sometimes inaccurate. He also concludes that
the instances of alleged _contradictions_ may be reduced to five, and
that there is no insurmountable difficulty in reconciling them. But, for
reasons stated in the text, the inquiry is not material to our argument.

[2] Many suppose that the “we” are the Elders at Ephesus. But if so, why
did they not sign? The “we” preceded by the unmistakable reference to
John and followed by the first person singular, in the closing verse, is
as likely to have been John.

[3] “Synoptics”—a word often used by writers at the present day to
designate the first three Gospels.

[4] The Apocalypse is quite different in style and in respect to pure
Greek. For these reasons and others some of the early Fathers denied that
the Apostle wrote it. But such was the early tradition. Justin Martyr
refers to him as the author, and as Dr. Sears, in his Heart of Christ,
well argues, these differences are sufficiently accounted for by the
highly excited state of mind in which the Apocalypse was written; and he
points out many agreements both in doctrine and mode of expression.

[5] Three years, and possibly four.

[A] Its omission of Peter’s want of faith, as recorded in Matthew 14-30,
is an exception.

[6] Wright’s Logic, etc., p. 210; Norton’s Genuineness, etc., Vol. I., p.
188; Wescott’s Introduction, cc. 3 and 4.




CHAPTER XV.

THE APOCALYPSE AND THE FOUR EPISTLES.


While all Infidels, from Celsus before the year 180 to Waite, in 1881,
have agreed that “either Jesus was not really dead, or he did not
really rise again,” some[1] of them have assumed the one, and some the
other alternative. Strauss, with Celsus, doubts the reality of the
resurrection, rather than the death. Schleiermacher, on the other hand,
held that Jesus returned again to life from a state of lethargy; and this
view, although not the position generally taken by skeptics, is still
held by a very few.

There have been two institutions in the Christian church, the Lord’s
Supper and the Lord’s day, that have testified from the beginning that
Jesus was really dead, and did really rise again from the dead. They
displaced the Jewish Passover and the Jewish Sabbath, both strongly
entrenched in the law of Moses and long established custom. Such
substitution can be accounted for, only upon the hypothesis of the
fullest conviction of the death and resurrection of our Lord. The Lord’s
day is referred to by Paul in First Corinthians (c. xvi.) under the
designation of “the first day of the week,” and is mentioned by John
in Revelation (c. i. 10), where he says, “I was in the Spirit on the
Lord’s Day.” The Lord’s Supper has great prominence given to it by Paul
in the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians. Those to whom he writes
are admonished not to eat “of that bread,” or drink “of that cup,” in
an unworthy manner, “For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this
cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” As to the origin of
this sacrament, he says, “I have received of the Lord that which I also
delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was
betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake and said,
Take, eat; this is my body broken for you; this do in remembrance of
me: and after the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped,
saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye as oft as
ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” This Epistle was written as early as
the year[2] 57, or within 27 years after the Crucifixion. It is not to be
doubted that such a command would be observed from the first formation
of any church. Both the death and resurrection of Christ appear in the
book of Revelation. He is called “The first begotten of the dead” (c.
i. 5), “He that liveth and was dead” (c. i. 88), “The Lamb as it had
been slain,” before whom the four living creatures and the elders (as
representing the whole Church) fall down, saying, “Thou art worthy to
take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and
hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue,
and people, and nation” (c. v. 6 to 10). And John says that he was in
exile, “for the Word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ”
(c. i. 9). What was this “testimony,” other than that which Luke says
in Acts (c. iv. 2) was given by Peter and John when the Sadducees were
“grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus Christ
the resurrection from the dead;” or other than that, given by Peter in
the presence of John, (c. iii. 15) that the Jews had “killed the Prince
of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead; _whereof we are witnesses_.”
Even from the book of Revelation[3] alone, were there no other proof,
should we conclude that _John_ testified that Jesus died and rose again.

This was the burden of _Paul’s_ preaching and the inspiration of his life.

Nor do we stop with Paul. From his writings we know that all the Apostles
and the whole Church from the beginning, maintained the same grand theme
with all the strength of conviction of which men are capable. He had been
preaching three years prior to the first visit to Jerusalem referred
to in Galatians (c. i. 18). At this visit he had “returned again,” to
Damascus. His leaving Damascus was probably the time when he was let
down from the wall in a basket, as stated in Second Corinthians (c. xi.
33), and the city was then held “under Aretus the King.” Fourteen years
after his conversion or his escape (it is uncertain which), he went up
to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with him. The precise date
of his conversion is unknown, but was approximately[4] in the year 36.
He writes of the last visit mentioned in Galatians, “that when James,
Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was
given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship;
that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”
From that time, then, if not before, with the full recognition of all
the Apostles, he became distinctively the Apostle to the Gentiles. And
at the first visit mentioned, he saw James, the Lord’s brother, and also
Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. Afterwards, he went into the
regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face unto the churches
of Judea, but they had heard, “That he which persecuted us in times past
now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed;” and he says, “they
glorified God in me” (c. i. 18-24). He says in the thirteenth verse, “Ye
have heard of my conversation in time past, in the Jews’ religion, how
that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted it.”

As there is no doubt what “the faith” was, which he preached after his
conversion, so there is no doubt what “the faith” was “which once he
destroyed.” Within three years after the commencement of his ministry, he
saw James the Lord’s brother, and abode with Peter fifteen days; and at
the expiration of the fourteen years, _all_ the Apostles were ready to
give him the right hand of fellowship. As there is no doubt what “faith”
_he_ preached (which was the same which he had destroyed), so there is
none as to what faith the _others_ preached, and _had_ preached from the
beginning. _His conversion was within six years of the Crucifixion._
As he from that time preached Jesus and the Resurrection, there is no
doubt but that Jesus and the Resurrection were preached during the six
years before his conversion. Hence, from Paul’s four Epistles (whose
genuineness is beyond controversy), we are inevitably carried back to
the first ministry of _any_ of the Apostles, for the time when the
doctrine of the Resurrection was _first_ proclaimed. This conclusion is
reached without recourse to the testimony of either of the Evangelists;
and believers may say with Renan, though in a different spirit, “Thanks
to the Epistle to the Galatians!” If from this Epistle the _precise_
commencement of the ministry of Peter and John cannot be determined, it
must be inferred that it was before, and apparently some time before,
Paul’s conversion, which, as has been seen, was _within six years_ of the
Crucifixion. For this reason, as well as many others, the importance of
Paul’s testimony can hardly be overestimated.

But in order that its full force may be better apprehended, it may be
useful to present it more in detail, as: In Romans “God commendeth his
love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”
(Rom. v. 8); “Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more” (Rom.
vi. 9); “Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is even
at the right hand of God” (Rom. viii. 34); “Declared to be the Son of
God, with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection
from the dead” (Rom. i. 4); “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in
thy heart, that is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart
_that God hath raised him from the dead_, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. x.
8, 9); And to the Galatians—“Paul, an Apostle, not of men, neither by
man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who _raised him from the
dead_” (Gal. i. 1); And to the Corinthians—“Now if Christ be preached
that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no
resurrection of the dead!” “But if there be no resurrection of the dead,
then is _Christ_ not risen;” “And if Christ be not risen, then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is also vain;” “Yea, and we are found
false witnesses of God because we have _testified_ of God that he raised
up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not” (1
Cor. xv. 12 to 16); “For I delivered unto you FIRST OF ALL that which
I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the
twelve; after that he was seen of about five hundred brethren at once,
of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen
asleep; after that he was seen of James; then of all the Apostles; and
last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time; for I am
the least of the Apostles and am not meet to be called an Apostle because
I persecuted the Church of God” (1 Cor. xv. 3-10).

We know not with what body Jesus appeared to Paul six years after his
ascension; nor with what body or just when his saints shall rise. But
when Paul says that Christ, having died for our sins, was _buried_ and
rose again the _third day_, and was seen by those enumerated, it would
be a most violent perversion of language to infer that it was not a
_material_ resurrection. His flesh had not then seen corruption, and he
had not yet ascended. The state of things had changed at the time he was
seen by Paul, and hence the mode of his appearance was different. Paul
could not have been ignorant that the Apostles were persuaded that they
beheld and handled the corporeal body of their risen Lord, and if he
had entertained a different idea of the character of the appearances to
them, he could not have written as we have quoted. As will be shown in
subsequent chapters, he had “received,” a corporeal resurrection, and so
he “delivered.”

These four Epistles of Paul were written about A.D. 58, or within
less than thirty years from the Crucifixion. By them, two things are
established beyond dispute. _First_, the doctrine of the Resurrection,
whether true or false, is not a _myth or legend_, in any sense in which
those words are commonly understood, or in any sense in which they
should ever be used. Nor are the appearances or _supposed_ appearances
of our risen Lord, mentioned by Paul (whether they be regarded as real
or not), _myths or legends_. The _doctrine_ of the Resurrection was not
the product of a subsequent age; it was received from the beginning. Nor
were the _appearances_ of our risen Lord, which were the basis of that
doctrine, the product of a subsequent age. A skeptic, if he will or must,
may say that the doctrine is not true, and that the appearances which
were accepted as evidence of it were not real; but he cannot without an
abuse of language say that the one, or the others, are _myths or legends_.

_Second_, the Apostles and early disciples most intensely believed the
doctrine to be true, and the appearances to be real. Even Strauss is
compelled to admit their sincerity. He concedes that the Epistle to the
Corinthians is undoubtedly genuine. And he says that on its authority,
“One must believe that many members of the primitive church who were
yet living at the time when this Epistle was written, especially the
Apostles, were convinced that they had witnessed appearances of the risen
Christ.” (Strauss’ Life, etc., p. 832.) And this is generally conceded by
all skeptics at the present day who have any claim to be even tolerably
informed upon the subject of the Resurrection, and any disposition to
deal with it in any spirit of fairness. This narrows our inquiry very
much. Thus far we rest on solid ground. We start with the fact fully
established, that we are not dealing with myths, or legends, concerning
a remote transaction. We know precisely what convictions in respect to
the Resurrection were entertained at the very time of the transaction,
by those best qualified to judge; and we also know many of the facts,
upon which these convictions were based. We may say, if we choose, that
the supposed appearances were not real; but we cannot say they are an
_afterthought_. They must have been entertained from the very beginning,
certainly as early as the day of Pentecost. The Apostles believed with
most intense earnestness, that they had seen their _Risen Lord_, and had
received from him their Commission to disciple all nations, baptizing
them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Their honesty being conceded, the only question remaining is, _were
they deceived_? Mistake on their part could only have been in one or
two things; either that he did not die upon the cross, or else that
he was not alive afterward. And here it is important to observe, that
the Evangelists do little more than give to some extent the times and
circumstances of transactions already declared, in the Epistles, to have
occurred. Of course those transactions as they were understood when the
Epistles were written, _had_ their times and circumstances. Paul declared
what he had “received,”—that Jesus _died_ and was _buried_. The Gospels
state the time and the attending circumstances. Paul declared, as he had
“received,”—that Christ _rose again the third day_. The Gospels state
the circumstances. Paul declared, as he had “received,”—that Jesus after
he rose on the third day, was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, after
that by about five hundred brethren, after that by James, and then again
by all the Apostles. The Gospels and the first chapter of Acts state the
circumstances of some, though not of all, of these several appearances.
From what we know already from Paul’s Epistles, further information
from some source should be expected; and the Evangelists afford that
information. We must believe that they state the _circumstances_, as they
were understood when Paul wrote his Epistles, and as they were understood
when the Resurrection was first proclaimed on the day of Pentecost. As
the principal facts, _i. e._ the Resurrection and subsequent visible
appearances till the Ascension, were not an afterthought, neither are
the _circumstances_ attending them as recorded by the Evangelists, an
afterthought. In respect to these circumstances, we can see and know
what the Apostles _supposed_ they saw, and heard, and knew.

The Evangelists, therefore, by stating circumstances not specified by
Paul, enable us to determine more certainly, whether the Apostles were
deceived. And what they state of Christ’s predictions of his death and
his resurrection, may also help us to determine whether the Apostles were
deceived.

[1] Strauss’ Life of Jesus, Vol. II., pp. 843-4; Godet’s Com. on St.
Luke, A.D. 1881, p. 511.

[2] Conybeare and Howson’s Life, etc., of Paul, p. 962.

[3] Judge Waite will not admit John’s authorship, and he cites Eusebius
cc. 3-39, as having attributed the Apocalypse to John the Presbyter.
This may indicate a present “tendency” by skeptical writers to shift
their ground. Eusebius, however, only states that there were two, John
the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, and that “it is probable that the
second, if it be not allowed that it was the first, saw the Revelation
ascribed to John.” Justin Martyr had long before (Dial., c. 81) in
express terms given John the Apostle as the author; and such is the
general verdict of scholars.

[4] Conybeare and Howson, pp. 438, 961, 964.




CHAPTER XVI.

HIS PREDICTIONS CONCERNING HIMSELF.


In the account of Christ’s crucifixion by Matthew and Mark, it is
recorded that they which passed by railed on him, saying,—“Thou that
destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself”; and
that witnesses had testified to the same accusation, but did not agree.
The disagreement seems to have been, that some (Mark xiv. 58) testified
that he said,—“I will destroy this temple that is made with hands and
in three days I will build another made without hands,” and the others
(Matthew xxvi. 61) “I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build
it in three days.” The Evangelists properly characterize both classes
as _false_ witnesses. Jesus had not said, “_I will_ destroy,” nor “I
am _able_ to destroy,” but, “Destroy (_thou_) this temple.” It was not
a destroying by _him_, but by _them_; and it was the temple of his own
body. It was the earliest, and in some respects the most striking of his
predictions of his death and resurrection. It was on the occasion of his
cleansing the temple at the first Passover. The Jews demanded of him,
“What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things?” Jesus
said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” The
Jews therefore said, “Forty and six years was this temple in building,
and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of
his body. When, therefore, he was raised from the dead his disciples
remembered that he spake this, and they believed the Scripture and the
word which Jesus had said.” (John ii. 13 to 22.)

It must have been soon after this Passover, and certainly before John
the Baptist was cast into prison, that Jesus said to Nicodemus, that,
as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son
of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal
life. (John iii. 14, 15.) Nicodemus does not appear again, until his mild
protest to the rest of the Sanhedrim,—“Doth our law judge a man except
it first hear from himself, and know what he doeth?”[1] They answered
and said unto him, “Art thou also of Galilee? Search and see that out
of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” He was silent. (John viii. 45 to 52.)
But when Jesus had been put to death as a malefactor, no longer afraid,
he comes with Joseph of Arimathea, bringing a mixture of myrrh and
aloes, about a hundred pounds weight, and they gave the Crucified One a
princely burial. (John xix. 39, 40, 41.) What had wrought this change in
Nicodemus? The lifting up upon the cross, was to _him_ assured proof that
Jesus was a true “prophet, and more than a prophet.”

On more than one occasion in his early ministry, Jesus in reply to a
demand for a sign from heaven had said, “There shall no sign be given
but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for as Jonah was three days and three
nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew xii. 38 to 40;
Luke xi. 29.) That he should be there only three days and three nights
implied his resurrection. To any objection that he was not in the tomb
any part of three nights, the customary[2] use of language among the Jews
is a sufficient answer. In the _Talm hieros_, it is said that a day and a
night together make up a period; and a part of such a period is counted
as the whole. It is a received[3] rule among the Jews that a part of a
day is put for the whole. Yet that the prediction was expressed in such
terms, is strong evidence of the truthfulness of the record. As Godet
well says, “Who would ever have dreamed of _falsely_ putting in the mouth
of Jesus the expression three days and three nights, when in actual fact
the time spent in the tomb did not exceed one day and two nights?”

Jesus, when called to account for healing on the Sabbath day, answered:
“My Father worketh even until now, and I work.” For this cause,
therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only
broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself
equal with God. In reply Jesus said: “For as the Father raiseth the dead,
and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will ... Verily,
verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh and now is, when the dead shall
hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live....
Marvel not at this, for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the
tomb shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done ill, unto
the resurrection of judgment.” (John v. 1 to 29.)

In his discourse in the Synagogue at Capernaum, concerning the manna, he
said to the Jews: “The bread which I give is my flesh (that is, my life),
for the life of the world.... For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood
is drink indeed.... Many therefore of his disciples when they heard,
said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can hear it?’ But Jesus knowing in
himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, ‘Doth this
cause you to stumble? _What_ then if ye behold the Son of man ascending
where he was before.’” (John vi. 30 to 63.)

His first distinct announcement that he should be put to death and
be raised from the dead, was upon Peter’s confession,— “Thou art the
Christ the Son of the living God;” and it doubtless was in consequence
of this confession. It was after John the Baptist had been put to
death, and after the third Passover, but before the time had come for
a public declaration of his Messiahship; for he charged the disciples
that they should tell no man that he was the Christ. The place was in
the coast of Cesarea Philippi, near the sources of the Jordan. With
verbal differences, the same account substantially is given by each
of the Synoptics, and as follows: “From that time began Jesus to show
unto his disciples, how that he must go into Jerusalem and suffer many
things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and the third day
be raised up.” (Matthew xvi. 21.) “And he began to teach them that the
Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and
the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days
rise again.” (Mark viii. 31.) “The Son of Man must suffer many things
and be rejected of the elders and the chief priests and scribes and be
killed, and the third day be raised up.” (Luke ix. 22.) Such is the
testimony of these three witnesses. They agree also, that he warned the
disciples not to anticipate worldly glory, but the reverse. Peter, from
_his_ conception of the Messiahship, treated Christ’s predictions of his
death as but gloomy forebodings, and began to rebuke him, saying, “Be it
far from thee, Lord; this shall never be unto thee.” But he turned and
said unto Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling block
unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men.”
(Matthew xvi. 23; Mark viii. 33.)

Six or eight days after these transactions Jesus took with him Peter
and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray; and he was
transfigured before them. As they were coming down from the mountain
“he commanded them to tell the vision to no man until the Son of Man be
risen from the dead.” (Matthew xvii. 1, 2; Mark viii. 2 to 9; Luke ix.
28 to 36.) Mark adds (doubtless from Peter), that they kept that saying,
questioning among themselves, what the rising again from the dead should
mean.

Elijah’s appearance suggested to them the question, “Why do the scribes
say that Elijah must first come?” To which Jesus replied, “Elijah is come
already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they listed.
Even so shall the Son of Man also suffer of them.” Then understood the
disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist (Matthew xvii. 10
to 13). Mark (ix. 12 to 14) puts the reference to the Son of Man in the
form of a question: “And how is it written of the Son of Man that he
should suffer many things and be set at naught? But I say unto you that
Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they listed,
even as it is written of him.” In either form his own death is predicted.

After the transfiguration he went to Capernaum, passing through Galilee.
“And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, ‘The Son of Man
shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and
the third day he shall be raised up.’ And they were exceeding sorry.”
(Matthew xvii. 22, 23.) “‘The Son of Man is delivered up into the hands
of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three
days he shall rise again.’ But they understood not the saying, and were
afraid to ask him.” (Mark ix. 30 to 32.) “‘Let these words sink into
your ears: for the Son of Man shall be delivered up into the hands of
men.’ But they understood not this saying, and it was concealed from them
that they should not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask him about
this saying.” (Luke ix. 44, 45.) It is not necessary to suppose that
it was otherwise concealed than by their dullness of apprehension, and
preconceived opinions.

At the feast of Tabernacles, Jesus said to the officers whom the
Pharisees had sent to take him: “Yet a little while am I with you, and
I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me and shall not find me: and
where I am ye cannot come.” (John vii. 32 to 35.)

He said the same to the Pharisees or the “Jews,” the day following the
feast as he taught in the temple; and they said, “Will he kill himself,
that he saith whither I go ye cannot come?” In reply, after repeating his
previous declaration, he said, “When ye have lifted up the Son of Man,
then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but
as the Father taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is
with me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the things that are
pleasing to him.” (John viii. 21 to 30.)

In the parable of the good shepherd spoken soon after the Feast, Jesus
says: “I am the good shepherd ... and I lay down my life for the
sheep.... Therefore doth the Father love me because I lay down my life
that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me, but I lay it
down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again. This commandment received I of my Father.” (John x. 11 to 18.)

He said to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth
on me, though he die yet shall he live.” (John xi. 25.)

As he was going up to Jerusalem to the Passover at which he was to
suffer, he again repeated his announcement to his disciples. “Behold we
go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief
priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall
deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, to scourge, and to crucify; and
the third day he shall be raised up.” (Matthew xx. 18, 19.) “Behold, we
go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief
priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall
deliver him unto the Gentiles; and they shall mock him, and shall spit
upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days
he shall rise again.” (Mark x. 33, 34.) “Behold we go up to Jerusalem,
and all the things that are written by the prophets shall be accomplished
unto the Son of Man; for he shall be delivered up unto the Gentiles, and
shall be mocked, and shamefully entreated, and spit upon; and they shall
scourge and kill him; and the third day he shall rise again. And they
understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them; and
they perceived not the things that were said.” (Luke xviii. 31 to 34.)

Immediately after (as it would seem), the mother of James and John came
with them with the request, that the sons might sit one on his right
hand, and one on his left hand, in his kingdom. The ten were moved with
indignation. But Jesus said, “The Son of Man came not to be ministered
unto, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matthew
xx. 20 to 28; Mark x. 45.)

Six days before the Passover, he came to Bethany, where Lazarus was whom
he had raised from the dead, and they made him a supper in the house of
Simon; and Mary (the sister of Lazarus) anointed his head and feet with
very precious ointment. This excited the anger of Judas. Jesus said, “Why
trouble ye the woman, for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye
have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always, for in that she
poured this ointment upon my body she did it to prepare me for burial.
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the
whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for
a memorial of her.” (Matthew xxvi. 6 to 13; Mark xiv. 3 to 10; John xii.
2 to 8.)

Immediately after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, on the first day of
the week of his crucifixion, he was told that certain Greeks desired to
see him. It was to him a sign of his glorification among the Gentiles,
and, therefore, of his death. He answered, “The hour is come that the Son
of Man should be glorified. Verily, verily I say unto you, except a grain
of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but
if it die, it beareth much fruit.... Now is my soul troubled; and what
shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I
unto this hour.... And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all
men unto myself.” But this he said signifying by what manner of death he
should die.” (John xii. 20 to 22.)

The parable of the wicked husbandman (to be found in all the Synoptics)
represents them as killing the son and heir, by whom, as the context
shows, our Lord was intended. And Jesus said, “Did ye never read in the
Scriptures:

    ‘The stone which the builders rejected,
    The same was made the head of the corner;
    This was from the Lord,
    And it is marvellous in our eyes.’

Therefore, say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from
you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces; but on
whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.” (Matthew xxi. 42
to 45; Mark xii. 1 to 12; Luke xx. 9 to 10.)

And every day he was teaching in the temple; every night he went out and
lodged in the Mount of Olives till the third day of the week (Tuesday)
with which his public ministry ended; and then he departed from the
temple, never to return.

When he had finished his teaching in the temple, he said unto his
disciples, “Ye know that after two days the Passover cometh, and the Son
of Man is delivered up to be crucified.” (Matthew xxvi. 2.)

Peter and John, as he had directed, made ready the Passover, and when the
hour was come, he sat down, and the Apostles with him. And he said unto
them, “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I
suffer.” (Luke xxii. 7 to 15.)

All the Evangelists state, that Jesus at the Passover supper said to the
twelve, “One of you shall betray me”; and two of the Evangelists say that
he designated the traitor, by the giving of the sop. (Matthew xxvi. 21 to
25; Mark xiv. 18 to 21; Luke xxii. 21 to 23; John xiii. 21 to 35.)

After giving him the sop, Jesus said to Judas, “That thou doest do
quickly;” and he having received the sop, went out straightway to carry
out that which he had before agreed; _and it was night_. (Luke xxii. 2 to
6; John xiii. 26 to 30.)

After Judas had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the son of man glorified,
and God is glorified in him; and to Peter he said, Whither I go thou
canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow afterwards.” (John xii.
36, 37.)

To the institution of the Lord’s Supper, there is the testimony of
the three Synoptic Gospels, and that of Paul; four witnesses; and its
constant observance from that time to the present. It was to commemorate
his death to the end of the world,—“Take, eat, this is my body.... Drink
ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant which is shed for
many unto remission of sins.” (Matthew xvii. 26 to 28.) “Take ye; this
is my body.” “This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many.”
(Mark xiv. 22 to 25.) “This is my body which is given for you; this do in
remembrance of me.... This cup is the new covenant in my blood, _even_
that which is poured out for you.” (Luke xxii. 18 to 22.) “This is my
body, which is for you; this do in remembrance of me.... This cup is the
new covenant in my blood; this do as oft as ye drink _it_ in remembrance
of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim
the Lord’s death till he come.” (1 Corinthians xi. 23 to 28.)

To his saying that he would go before them into Galilee after his
resurrection, there are _two_ witnesses. It was after they had sung
their hymn, and had gone out unto the Mount of Olives. “All ye shall be
offended in me this night; for it is written I will smite the shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am
raised up I will go before you into Galilee.” So, Matthew. Mark’s account
is: “And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended; for it is
written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered
abroad. Howbeit after I am raised up I will go before you into Galilee.”
(Matthew xxvi. 31, 32; Mark xiv. 27, 28.)

That Peter should thrice deny that he knew him, is proved by _all_ the
Evangelists. “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, that this night before
the cock crow[4] thou shalt deny me thrice.” (Matthew xxvi. 34, 35.) “I
tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, until thou shalt
thrice deny that thou knowest me.” (Luke xxii. 34.) “Verily, verily, I
say unto thee, the cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.”
(John xiii. 38.) Mark (probably from Peter himself) says that when Peter
said, “Although all should be offended, yet will not I,” Jesus said to
him, “Verily I say unto thee, that thou to-day, _even_ this night, before
the cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice.” “But he spake exceeding
vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like
manner said they all.” (Mark xiv. 26 to 31.)

Yet in the discourse which followed, Jesus again says, “Behold the hour
cometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own,
and shall leave me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is
with me.” (John x. 31, 32.)

“Yet a little while, and the world beholdeth me no more; but ye behold
me; because I live ye shall live also.” (John xiv. 19, 20.)

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you; not as the world
giveth I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be
fearful.”

“Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved
me ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father, for the Father
is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that
when it is come to pass ye may believe.” (John xiv. 27 to 31.)

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
his friends. Ye are my friends if ye do the things which I command you.”
(John xv. 13, 14.)

“But now I go unto him that sent me, and none of you asketh me, Whither
goest thou? But because I have spoken these things unto you sorrow hath
filled your heart.” (John xv. 5, 6.)

“A little while and ye behold me no more, and again a little while and ye
shall see me.” (John xv. 16.)

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the
world shall rejoice; ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be
turned into joy.” (John xvi. 20.)

“And I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to
thee.” (John xvii. 11.)

“Again the high priest asked him and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ,
the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am, and ye shall see the Son
of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of
heaven.” (Mark xiv. 62.)

To Pilate he said, “I am a king”; and “Thou wouldst have no power against
me, except it were given thee from above.” (John xviii. 33 to 37; xix.
11.)

To the penitent thief he said, “Verily, I say unto thee, to-day shalt
thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke xxiii. 43.)

When he had cried with a loud voice HE SAID, “FATHER, INTO THY HANDS
I COMMEND MY SPIRIT.” (Luke xxiii. 46.) And all the Evangelists, four
witnesses, say that he “gave up,” or “yielded up,” the ghost.

There is as much evidence of these utterances (and they are not _all_ of
his predictions, in some form, of his death and resurrection), as there
is of any of his sayings upon any subject, and they are so interwoven
with the entire narrative that is impossible to set them aside, and
leave anything to which we can safely assent as historically true of all
his recorded acts and words. There is no alternative, except to believe
that he uttered these predictions, or else to arbitrarily set aside
the testimony of the four Evangelists, as well as that of Paul. It is
impossible to save their character as honest witnesses, and deny that
Jesus at various times, and in different ways, foretold his death and the
circumstances attending it, and also his resurrection, and that after he
was raised from the dead, he would go before them into Galilee. Not that
we have the _precise_ words, neither more nor less, that he uttered. In
no instance do any two of the five witnesses give _precisely_ the same
words. Their testimony is in accordance with what usually[A] occurs, with
honest witnesses. The witness says, “I cannot give the exact words, or
all of them.” He is told to give the substance of what was said; and he
does so to the extent of his recollection, using some of the same words,
doubtless, but in the main expressing the idea in language of his own.
Yet there is sufficient certainty, for the court or jury, in matters
of the greatest concern. It is, in the highest degree, unreasonable to
demand more of the Evangelists. It is also to be borne in mind that
neither of them professes to give all of our Lord’s sayings; and John,
writing much later than the others, purposely omitted many things as
having been already sufficiently stated.

If, then (as it cannot be doubted was a fact), Jesus plainly foretold
his death, why did it take his disciples by surprise? The answer to
this question may be that not till within six months of the close of
his ministry were they thus told; those months were crowded with his
teachings and miracles, multitudes were following him; he had just before
entered Jerusalem as they might expect their Messiah would do, amidst the
hosannahs of thousands; and they were so filled with their visions of his
glory, and their false conceptions of the predicted Messiah, whom they
believed him to be, that they could not understand him. Their mistake
under the circumstances was a natural one. (See also _post_, c. 19.)

[1] Canon Farrar’s Life of Christ, c. 13; Lange, ditto, Vol. II., p. 29;
John ii. 13-22, and iii 22-25. Here, and in all _subsequent_ references,
the citations are from the Revised Version of the New Testament, unless
otherwise stated.

[2] Lange, Vol. II., p. 273, note, citing Stier, ii, 171.

[3] Lange, Vol. II., p. 273, note; Godet on Luke, p. 265; Whitby, as
quoted by Scott, on Matthew xii. 40; Genesis i. 5; Daniel viii. 14, with
Genesis vii. 4 and 17; Deuteronomy xiv. 28, with xxvi. 12; 1 Samuel xx.
12, with v. 19; 2 Chronicles x. 5, with v. 12; Matthew xxvi. 2, with
xxvii. 63 and 64; Luke ii. 21, with i. 59; 1 Kings xx. 29; Esther iv. 16;
Greenleaf on the Evangelists, etc., 268, 269 and notes.

[4] The cock crows about midnight and about three in the morning, which
was the beginning of the fourth watch. Galicinium (Cock-crowing) standing
alone means the latter time; so that the same time is referred to by all.
Greenleaf’s Testimony, etc., p. 436, and citations.

[A] See _post_, c. 19.




CHAPTER XVII.

ORDER OF EVENTS.


Whatever difficulties may exist as to minor points, all the facts
necessary to a correct decision of the question of the Resurrection
may be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the order of their
occurrence.[A]

That Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate is the testimony of
all history. That his crucifixion was the day before the Jewish Sabbath
is proved by all the Evangelists, and the constant observance of the
First Day of the week as the Lord’s Day.

Having been condemned to death, and his execution entrusted to Roman
soldiers, there is the strongest presumption that the sentence was fully
executed. This presumption is confirmed by all the Evangelists, by Paul
in all his Epistles, and by the constant teaching of all the Apostles.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter boldly said, Ye men of Israel, Jesus of
Nazareth being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God, “ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay;” and no one
called in question the fact of his death. Again, at the healing of the
lame man, he declared, “Ye denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked
for a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince of Life;”
this charge he repeated before the Sanhedrim; and there was no denial.
When Peter and John, after their release from prison, were brought before
the Council, one charge against them was: “Ye have filled Jerusalem with
your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” Stephen,
when brought before the Council, declared, “Ye have now become the
betrayers and murderers ... of the Righteous One.” If there could have
been the slightest doubt of the actual death of Christ, the Council would
have furnished the evidence.

John solemnly declares that “one of the soldiers, with a spear, pierced
his side, and straightway there came out blood and water.” It was a
thrust by a Roman soldier to make the fact of death absolutely certain.
It was such a result as would have followed, if, from excessive labors
and extreme agony, there was a collection of water about the heart,
or if from like causes, and as Dr. Stroud and other eminent surgeons
suppose,[1] the cause of his death was a rupture or breaking of the heart.

And, finally, not less than forty times, on different occasions, and in a
variety of ways, had Jesus foretold his death. He instituted a Sacrament
to commemorate it; he said to the penitent thief: “This day shalt thou be
with me in Paradise;” and in the extreme moment, “Father, into thy hands
I commend my Spirit.” It is not possible to accept the hypothesis of his
return to life from a state of lethargy, without destroying _his_ moral
character, as well as that of his disciples. Where was he, when Peter and
Stephen were charging home his death upon the guilty Jews? Where was he,
when Stephen suffered martyrdom for his sake, and when his apostles and
disciples were preaching his death and resurrection?

Even Strauss is constrained to say “The whole country-side knew that he
was dead.”

He was buried. So says Paul, and[2] all the Evangelists. As the day of
the crucifixion was drawing to its close, that the bodies should not
remain on the cross[2] upon the Sabbath (for that day[2] of the Sabbath,
was a high day), the Jews asked of Pilate that the legs of those who had
been crucified might be broken,[2] and they be taken away. The soldiers
brake the legs of the others, but not of Jesus, for they found that he
was already dead; and his death was assured by one of the soldiers.
Thereupon Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man and a counsellor, begged the
body of Jesus. Pilate, after he knew from the centurion that he was
dead, commanded it to be delivered. Joseph, with Nicodemus, wound it in
fine linen with spices, and laid it in his own new tomb, hewn out in the
rock, rolled a great stone “to,” or “against” the door, and departed.
The sepulchre was “nigh at hand,” otherwise, there would not have been
time for the burial before the coming in of the Sabbath. The next[3] day
the chief priests and Pharisees or some of them, obtained from Pilate a
guard, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone (Matthew xxvii. 62,
66).

The objection that they could not have known that Jesus had said, “After
three days I will rise again,” is well answered by Alford: “Not the
saying, but its meaning was hid from his disciples.” Judas knew it, and
may have informed the chief priests and Pharisees of it; and they may
have known it from other sources, for it was not spoken in secret. Nor
with their perverse rejection of him while they could not deny his works,
is it improbable that they might have some apprehension of the necessity
of a guard? We are not to judge them from our standpoint, but from
theirs. They did _not_ believe that he was the Messiah (Acts iii. 17; 1
Corinthians ii. 8). They said and doubtless believed, after a fashion,
“He deceiveth the people” and “casteth out devils through the prince
of the devils.” Their guilty fears were the occasion of this increased
certainty of his resurrection. The mention of a guard by Matthew
(although not by the other Evangelists), is in perfect keeping with his
previous occupation, which had led him to make, and observe, precautions
against fraud. It was, in his view, as in ours, an important fact that
their precautions against imposition had reacted upon themselves. His
narrative is unimpeached. It was published early, and his statement of
the appointment of a guard was not contradicted.

The facts must stand that Jesus died, and was buried; and at the
instance of his bitterest foes, soldiers guarded his tomb against the
little company of his frightened followers.

At a very early hour on the first day of the week it was known that the
stone had been rolled away, and the body of Jesus was not in the tomb.
Such is the testimony of all the Evangelists. This great fact is at the
threshold of our inquiry. It must be accounted for. The Christian’s
explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead, and an angel of the Lord
descended and rolled away the stone. The account which the soldiers were
induced to circulate was, that his disciples came by night and stole him
away while they slept. This story was current among the Jews when Matthew
wrote[4] his Gospel, and when, nearly a hundred years after, Justin
Martyr wrote to Trypho the Jew. It ought not to be difficult to determine
which explanation is the true one.

As soon as Mary Magdalene (who was of the company of women who came first
to see the sepulchre), saw that the stone was rolled away, she ran to
Peter and John, saying, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb
and we know not where they have laid him.” (John xx. 2.)

The other women[5] entered into the sepulchre, and found not the body of
Jesus, but saw two angels, one of whom said to them, “He is not here, he
is risen; but go your way and tell his disciples and Peter, that he goeth
before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him as he said unto you.”
(Why should the Apostles be told that Jesus would go before them into
Galilee, if he was to show himself to them that very day at Jerusalem?
Both to prepare them for the interview at Jerusalem, and in order that
the tidings might be carried to all the disciples, the most of whom were
in Galilee.)

They departed quickly with fear and great joy, and told these things unto
such of the Apostles as they found in the city; but “these words appeared
in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them.” (Luke xxiv. 11.)

As soon as Peter and John knew from Mary Magdalene, of the open
sepulchre, they ran both together, but John outran Peter and came
first to the tomb; “and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen
clothes lying; yet entered he not in. Simon Peter therefore also cometh,
following him, and enters into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen
clothes lying and the napkin that was upon his head, not lying with
the linen clothes, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then entered in
therefore the other disciple also, which came first to the tomb, and he
saw and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he must
rise again from the dead. So the disciples went away again unto their own
home.” (John xx. 1-10.)

Such is the circumstantial account given by John of the state of things
at the tomb, as they found it before Jesus appeared to any one, and
before they had received any information that he had risen from the dead.
The body was not there. It could hardly have been removed by friends, and
they both be ignorant of it. Had it been taken by enemies? There were the
linen clothes, and there, rolled up in a place by itself, was the napkin.
Who had arranged them thus? “All had been done calmly, collectedly.
Neither earthly friends nor earthly foes had done it; the one would not
have stripped the garments from the body, the other would have been at
no pains so carefully to arrange[6] and deposit them.” So John must have
reasoned and, perhaps recalling what Jesus had said, he _believed_. He
believed from what he _saw_, and not from the Scriptures, for as yet he
knew not from them, that the Christ “must rise again from the dead.” It
is not probable that he then avowed his conviction. He trusted that Jesus
would, in due time, reveal himself to them all.

The particulars of his appearance to Mary Magdalene appear in the Fourth
Gospel. She was not expecting to see him, and, blinded by her tears,
she knew not that it was Jesus until he spoke her name, doubtless in
a familiar tone. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew,
_Rabboni_, which is to say, Master. She _would_ have clung to him. Jesus
had told his disciples before his crucifixion that he was to go to the
Father. But this event was yet in the future; and when she would detain
him, Jesus saith to her, Touch me not (or Take not hold on me) for I am
not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren and say to
them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and my God, and your
God. This would remind _them_ of what he had told them; and would remind
_her_, as Peter afterwards was reminded, that she would best manifest
her love by willing service. She obeyed. But those to whom she told it,
when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved.
(Mark xvi. 17.)

The other women after delivering the message of the angels, returned.
And behold Jesus met them saying “All Hail.” And they came and took hold
of his feet and worshipped him. Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not:
go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they
see me. (Matthew xxviii. 9, 10.) Matthew, speaking in a general way,
does not distinguish this appearance from that to Mary Magdalene, but
blends the two together. The salutation was different, and the message
and the circumstances were different. Nor is it, as Strauss (p. 813)
vainly imagines, any objection to the hypothesis of separate appearances,
that it involves “a restless running to and fro of the disciples and
the women;” for under the intense excitement it could hardly have been
otherwise.[7]

Jesus joined himself to two of the disciples on their journey to Emmaus,
discoursed to them by the way, and made himself known in the breaking
of bread. One of them was Cleopas, the other (his name not given) is
supposed[8] to have been Luke. When they left Jerusalem, the woman had
reported the message from the angel. Peter and John had returned from
the tomb, but no one had seen the Risen Lord. The time of their leaving
was before Mary Magdalene had told that she had seen the Lord. The day
therefore must have been considerably advanced before Jesus appeared to
her.

It was toward evening, when Jesus sat down with them to meat. Their eyes
were opened and they knew him, and he “vanished out of their sight.”

And they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the
eleven gathered together and them that were with them, saying, “The Lord
is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.”

This, as we learn from Paul, was the first appearance to any of the
Apostles. The time and place are not mentioned. We only know that it was
before the arrival of the two disciples. Emmaus[9] was about eight miles
from Jerusalem. The narrative seems to indicate that the event had but
just occurred.

The two disciples rehearsed the things that had happened. As they spake,
Jesus himself stood in the midst of the disciples, and said, “Peace be
unto you.” But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they
beheld a spirit. He said unto them, “Why are ye troubled, and wherefore
do reasonings arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye
behold me having.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands
and his feet; and while they still disbelieved for joy and wondered, he
said unto them, “Have ye here anything to eat?” and they gave him a piece
of broiled fish. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke xxiv.
35-43.)

But Thomas, who was not with them, having said, “Except I shall see in
his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of
the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe,” Jesus
eight days after stood in their midst and said, “Peace be unto you.”
Then saith he to Thomas, “Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and
reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless,
but believing.” Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God.”
Jesus saith unto him, “Because thou hast seen me thou hast believed;
blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.” (John xx.
24-29.)

After these things Jesus manifested himself at the Sea of Tiberias, to
Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, James, John and two others. It was on this
occasion that he three times asked Simon Peter, “Lovest thou me?” and he
signified to him by what death he should glorify God. This is said to be
the _third_ time that he manifested himself to the disciples, _i. e._, to
the Apostles when they were together. (John xxi. 1-23.)

Then he appeared (says Paul) to above five hundred brethren at once,
of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep.
Paul is speaking only of manifestations to Apostles or some of them.
The Apostles surely were not absent from this great assembly. All the
circumstances indicate that it was the meeting which he had provided[10]
for, before his crucifixion, and that it occurred on a mountain in
Galilee.

Then he appeared to James. Paul is our authority. Neither time,
nor place, nor circumstance is given. It is strong confirmation of
the genuineness of our writings that there is no disclosure of the
particulars of the interview with either Peter, the first of the
Apostles, or with James, our Lord’s brother. Jesus doubtless had
something to say to each for himself alone, and none of the sacred
writers have lifted the veil.

At the end of the forty days he led the Apostles out over against
Bethany, gave them his final charge, and lifted up his hands and blessed
them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he parted from them, and
was carried up into heaven. (Luke xxiv. 50-53; Acts i. 1-12.)

Such are some of the proofs of his resurrection. Their sufficiency as
evidence of it, and its logical results, remain to be considered.

[A] And hence there is no occasion to inquire whether the Evangelists
agree precisely as to the details (as far as given) of his arrest, or
trial, or crucifixion. That he was arrested and tried and crucified is
admitted on all hands.

[1] Alford on John’s Gospel. Lange, Vol. III., pp. 333, 334. Stroud on
the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. Friedlieb, p. 167. The Last
Day of Our Lord’s Passion, by Rev. Wm. Hanna, LL.D., c. 13, and Appendix.
Barnes’ Notes, Vol. II., p. 386.

[2] 1 Corinthians xv. 3, 4; Acts xiii. 28, 29; Deuteronomy xxi. 22, 23;
John xix. 31-39; Luke xxxiii. 50-54; Mark xv. 42-46; Matthew xxvii. 57-60.

[3] It does not appear that there was a formal meeting of the Sanhedrim,
and the act may have proceeded from the more violent members of it. The
time may have been during their Sabbath, or at its close, which would
have been in season. Lange, Vol. III., p. 343; Farrar, c. 62.

[4] Matthew xxviii. 15; Dialogue, c. 108.

[5] Mary, the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod’s
steward, and other women from Galilee who beheld the sepulchre and
where he was laid. They may not have come all at the same time, but in
different companies. Matthew xvii. 55, 56, and xxviii, 1-7; Mark xv. 40,
41, 47, and xvi. 1-8; Luke xxiii. 49, 55, 56, and xxiv. 1-10; John xx. 1;
Lange, Vol. III., pp. 362, 368.

[6] The Forty Days after Our Lord’s Resurrection, by Rev. William Hanna,
LL.D., p. 53.

[7] The words “as they went to tell his disciples,” in our common
version, are wanting in the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts. Their
omission in the Revised Version removes a difficulty. The true text does
not state _when_ it was, that Jesus met them.

[8] Lange, Vol. III., p. 383.

[9] All attempts to identify this with certainty, out of the numerous
villages in the vicinity of Jerusalem, have failed. See Lange, Vol. III.;
Robinson, Vol. III., pp. 146-150; Barnes’ Notes, Vol. II., p. 107.

[10] 1 Corinthians xv. 6; Matthew xxviii. 7, 10, 16; Mark xvi. 7, 15, 18;
Lange, Vol. III., p. 411; Farrar, c. 62; Hanna’s Forty Days, c. 8, p.
185; c. 9, p. 229; Geikie, c. 64.




CHAPTER XVIII.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS (FALSE ASSUMPTIONS).


Evidence which ought to convince a reasonable man should be deemed
sufficient.

The standing objection from the days of Celsus, that Jesus should have
shown himself after his resurrection to his enemies, is unreasonable. It
is as if one should refuse to believe the transfiguration, the raising of
the daughter of Jairus, or the agony in the garden, because not witnessed
by the multitude, and by only Peter, James, and John of the Apostles.

His humiliation and sufferings were ended. Not again was he to be mocked,
and scourged, and crucified. Those who had wilfully rejected him, would
have been no more convinced than before. They had said he cast out
devils through the prince of devils. They had plotted to put Lazarus
also to death, whom he had raised up before their eyes. They had bribed
the soldiers to report that his body had been stolen. They would have
proclaimed that he was not dead, or else that his return to life was by
the agency of Satan. To return to those who had put every insult upon
him, and were ready to renew the attack, could only have been to their
swift destruction, and the time for this had not come.

And even if some of them had believed, it would have added nothing to the
proof. Any one who now refuses to accept the genuineness of the Gospel,
or the credibility of the writers, or, accepting both, refuses to believe
upon the testimony of his disciples, would not be convinced by any amount
of evidence. There would remain every question of credibility, and, in
addition, that of personal identity, as to which only those intimately
acquainted with him were fully qualified to judge.

The proofs will be found sufficient by those who are disposed to lay
aside preconceived adverse opinions, and believe the fact when it is
proved.


PROOF IS POSSIBLE.

The event _may_ have occurred. By this is meant that it cannot be said
that its occurrence is, in the nature of things, an impossibility.

The existence of the Lord God Almighty, the Jehovah of the Scriptures,
may be real, as accepted by the reason and conscience of most men in
civilized nations. It may have been within his power to raise his Son,
Jesus Christ, from the dead; and there may have been sufficient reasons
for the exercise of this power. He may have been able to do this, without
violating, or suspending, any law of his universe. The resurrection may
have been as conformable to law as the death of the body. The law of
gravitation is neither violated nor suspended, but merely overcome, in
numberless instances every day, by the introduction of what is, under the
circumstances, a greater force; and it may be a universal _law_ that the
greater force (other things being equal) shall overcome the less. If it
were true that the like had never occurred, it cannot be maintained that
God has not in any instance done something which he had not done before,
and of which consequently there had been no previous experience. “Men,”
says Dr. Taylor,[1] “are continually reaching results which the forces of
nature, left to themselves, never could have caused; and if this be so
with men, why should we deny to God the possibility of intervening in a
similar way, and so producing effects that are not merely supernatural,
but superhuman?” And why, we ask, should we deny to him the possibility
of doing something which he has not done before; “My Father _worketh_
hitherto,” said Jesus, “and I work.”

“The[2] affirmation of the impossibility of a miracle carries with
it the elimination of God out of the universe.” There is no escape
from this conclusion; and consequently there are those who admit the
possibility[3] of miracles, even while denying that they can be proved.

The event, then, _may_ have occurred. _It is a question of evidence_.

Again, if Christ did rise from the dead, he would give his disciples
sufficient evidence of it. He could give to the bodily senses and
perceptive powers which they had as other men have (and which
“experience” tells us, may be trusted when they have a fair chance), such
proofs of his resurrection that they could believe it, and rationally
believe it. This may be said to be almost a truism. To concede that
God could, and did, raise Jesus Christ from the dead, and deny that he
could, or would, afford evidence of it, if not an utter absurdity, is in
the highest degree unreasonable, and we are not trying to convince any
but reasonable men. To what end should he perform this miracle, and yet
afford no evidence of it? The question right here is not whether _we_
have sufficient evidence for our assurance, but whether his _disciples_
could reasonably be convinced of his resurrection, assuming that it
really took place.

Then if _they_ might rationally believe what actually occurred, upon
evidence furnished _them_, those to whom they declared it, and we to
whom their testimony has come, may _also_ believe it. If they were not
bound to reject the evidence of their own senses, because of previous
experience or the want of it, neither were those to whom they preached,
nor we ourselves, bound to reject it.

In other words, assuming that Christ did rise from the dead, and assuming
that satisfactory proofs of his resurrection were given to his disciples,
it is not _impossible_ that sufficient evidence of both of these facts
may be accessible to us. To deny this, is to say that Christ must die and
rise again, in every age, and in every place, where there are nations or
persons, whether few or many, who have not before witnessed such events.
Yet to this absurdity must Hume’s famous argument from experience come.

If Jesus rose from the dead, the fact was susceptible of proof to his
disciples. It was susceptible of proof to those who believed it on the
testimony of his disciples. It is susceptible of proof to one to whom
that testimony is transmitted. Assuming his resurrection to be true, it
would be more wonderful than a miracle, if all means of a rational belief
in the fact were the exclusive property of his immediate disciples; and
their contemporaries and all after them, to the end of time, be compelled
in the exercise of right reason to reject it, notwithstanding it is true.
Hence we say as the basis of further argument that the resurrection _may_
have occurred; and if it did occur, we undoubtedly have such evidence of
it as may be accepted by a reasonable man. Leaving, then, the possible
for the probable, in a matter that is but a question of evidence.


WHAT ARE THE PROOFS?

The fact of Christ’s resurrection was proclaimed by his Apostles and
disciples from the beginning of their ministry, commencing on the Day of
Pentecost, fifty days after the crucifixion. This fact was, as expressed
by Paul, that Christ “died,” and was “buried,” and was “raised on the
third day;” and by Luke that “he showed himself alive after his passion,
by many proofs,” appearing unto the Apostles whom he had chosen[4], for
forty days, “and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God;” and
by Peter, “whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death because
it was not possible that he should be holden of it:” and “Ye killed the
Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”

The evidence being conclusive that such was the proclamation, how is it
to be accounted for? The obvious explanation is, that the Apostles so
preached because they so believed, and because such was the fact, and
they had sufficient evidence of it: and this has been accepted by the
church these eighteen hundred years.

How do infidels account for the preaching of the Resurrection within
fifty days after the crucifixion? _Some_ have claimed that his death
was not real, and that he recovered from a swoon. This is disproved by
the evidence to which we have referred[4], and, although once held by
Paulus and others, has by later skeptical writers been “treated with
contempt.”[5] “The whole country-side,” says Strauss,[6] “knew that he
was dead.” Roman executioners made sure work. Pilate refused his consent
to any removal until he had instituted an inquiry, and knew that Jesus
was dead; nor is it possible to accept the hypothesis of a return from
mere lethargy or trance, without destroying his moral character. This
hypothesis may be put aside.

_Others_ have claimed that the Apostles did not believe what they
preached. To accept this view we must conclude that, without motive and
against every motive, and “amidst sufferings the most grievous to flesh
and blood, they persevered in a conspiracy to cheat the world into piety,
honesty and benevolence.” Conscience and common sense revolt against such
a theory, and it shares the fate of the other. It has, says Professor
Milligan,[7] “been abandoned by every inquirer to whom a moment’s
attention is due.”

The _final_ refuge of most infidel writers, is the theory of visions.
By this they mean that the appearances of our Lord were either optical
illusions, or mere hallucinations.

Some, like Dr. Hooykaas[8] in Holland, and Judge Waite[8] in this
country, claim that the doctrine preached was _not_ that Christ’s _body_
was raised up, but that his _spirit_ came back from Hades, or the place
of departed spirits. We have before[9] shown that such a conception
is an entire perversion of the language of Paul, as well as of the
Evangelists. And Mr. Hooykaas’ argument that we are never told that Jesus
rose “from death,” far less “from the grave,” but always “from the dead,”
does not agree with the record; and if it did, the inference would be
unwarrantable. When the angel said to the woman, “Why seek ye the living
among the dead? he is not here but is risen,” they were not looking
for him in Hades! Peter, in the passage from which we have quoted,
distinguishes between Hades and the grave, for he says, that David,
“foreseeing, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was his
soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God
raise up.”

Now, by what evidence is the theory of visions or optical illusions to
be tested? By the _whole_ evidence? By suppressing a part, and changing
the rest? Judicial fairness requires that the whole be considered, just
as it comes to us, reconciling such parts as may be reconciled, and
adopting the more probable view in case of any seeming contradictions, if
there _are_ any. Yet those who deny the resurrection adopt a course that
could not be tolerated in any judge or jury, or secular historian. They
_suppress_, or _supply_, as best suits their theory.

Thus some of them assume that there were no appearances at Jerusalem,
although the contrary is plain in all the Evangelists. Even Mark, whom
Strauss treats as giving the oldest tradition, represents the women as
going to the sepulchre. This implies that they were at Jerusalem, if the
sepulchre was at Jerusalem. Were they there alone? Mark, in saying that
“the disciples left Jesus when he was arrested, and fled,” does _not_
say that they fled from Jerusalem. On the contrary, he, in the same
chapter, speaks of Peter as following Jesus afar off, and then denying
him. And so in the Fourth Gospel, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is
said to have been so near to the cross, that Jesus could say unto him
“Behold thy mother!” They would not leave Jerusalem till the end of the
Feast. This continued one week, the first day and the last being “an holy
convocation.” Although they fled at first, they rallied; and they did not
leave Jerusalem till they had conformed to the requirements of the law.
Mark also, in giving the direction, “Go tell his disciples and Peter,”
“He goeth _before_ you into Galilee,” implies that they had not yet gone
into Galilee.

They also assume that the Apostles believed because of Mary Magdalene’s
faith. _This is pure fiction._ Peter and John knew that the tomb was
empty, before the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Matthew does not mention
her statement that she had seen the Lord, nor John the reception which
she had. Mark[10] says that they, when they heard that he was alive,
and had been seen of her, “disbelieved;” and Luke[11] (referring to all
the women) says that their words “appeared in their sight as idle talk,
and they disbelieved them.” There is not the slightest allusion to Mary
Magdalene, or to the company of women, in the Acts of the Apostles,
or either of the Epistles. How idle, then, is Renan’s boast,[12] that
“the glory of the Resurrection belongs to Mary of Magdala.” Indeed it
might appear to us that there should have been some reference to her.
The explanation, probably, is twofold: Among the Greeks,[13] women were
not competent witnesses; and Paul and the Apostles rested their faith
upon appearances to Apostles, either alone or in company with others,
they being the constituted witnesses. When one was to be substituted for
Judas, Peter[14] said that the choice must be made from those “which
have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out
among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was
received up from us; of these must one become a witness with us of his
resurrection.” And Paul makes no reference to the journey to Emmaus.

They also assume that the Apostles were in a state of mind conducive to
misleading fancies. The reverse of this is true. It must, however, be
conceded that the idea of a restoration to life of one who had been dead
was not strange to them; for three[15] such instances were recorded in
their Scriptures, and they had witnessed three miracles of the kind. But
these were in respect to persons who, after they were raised up, lived
and died as other men; and they were brought to life by some visible
agency, as by a prophet in the name of the Lord, or Jesus by his own
word. The resurrection which the disciples came to believe was, on the
contrary, to a temporary sojourning with them, and then an ascension
before their eyes; and it was accomplished by no visible hand.

And although Jesus had predicted his death and resurrection, they could
not understand the one, any more than the other, because they could
not conceive how that their Messiah could suffer death at the hands
of his enemies. The evidence upon this point is most conclusive; and
its scope was admirably put by Gilbert West,[16] four generations ago.
“This, therefore, being their settled notion of the Messiah, can we
wonder their former faith in him should be extinguished, when they saw
him suffering, crucified, and dying, and, instead of saving others, not
able to save himself? To prepare them for these events he had indeed
most circumstantially foretold[17] his own sufferings, death, and
resurrection; but the Apostles themselves assure us that they did not
understand those predictions till some time after their accomplishment;
and they made this confession at a time when they were as sensible of
their former dullness, and undoubtedly as much amazed at it as they now
pretend to be who object to it against them; so that their veracity
upon this point is not to be questioned.... They had conceived great
expectations from the persuasion that he was the Christ of God; but these
were all vanished; their promised deliverer, their expected king, was
dead and buried, and no one left to call him from the grave as he did
Lazarus. With his life, they might presume, ended his power of working
miracles; and death, perhaps, was an enemy he could not subdue, since it
was apparent he could not escape it, and hence their despair.”

And hence we say, when the third day was ushered in there was no one of
all his disciples at the sepulchre to welcome him. Those who loved him
most, came but to embalm his body. Mary Magdalene beheld _not_ her risen
Saviour, but an empty tomb; and her hurried tidings were _not_ that he
is risen, but, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we
know not where they have laid him.” When Jesus even speaks to her, she
at first supposes him to be the gardener, and says, “If thou hast borne
him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.”
Peter and John beheld no vision, but only “the linen clothes lying, and
the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but
rolled up in a place by itself.” The other women do not see Jesus until
after they have found that the sepulchre is empty, and have been told by
the angels, “He is risen, even as he said: COME SEE THE PLACE WHERE[18]
THE LORD LAY.” The two disciples, some hours after, had heard, not that
he had been _seen_, but that certain women who were early at the tomb
found not his body, and were told by angels that he was alive; and that
the absence of the body had been confirmed by those of their company who
visited the tomb. And finally, the Apostles, instead of _expecting_ to
see him, refused to believe upon the testimony of the women, and were
only convinced by the evidence of their own senses.

[1] Taylor on the Gospel Miracles (1881), p. 17.

[2] Id., p. 25.

[3] “We do not say a miracle is impossible; we say there has been no
instance, up to this time, of a proved miracle.”—Renan’s Life of Jesus,
etc., p. 57.

“What I insist on is, that a miracle cannot be established by human
testimony.”—Ingersoll, _North American Review_ for November, 1881, p.
514. The skeptical author of _Supernatural Religion_ in defending himself
against the criticism that upon his theory his historical argument is
unnecessary, in his preface to the sixth edition, says: “The preliminary
affirmation is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are
antecedently incredible. The counter allegation is that although miracles
may be antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place.
It is, therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent
incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that certain
miracles occurred, and this involves the historical inquiry into the
evidence for the Gospels. Indeed many will not acknowledge the case
to be complete until other witnesses are questioned. This would leave
the question of Christ’s Resurrection to be determined as a matter of
evidence; and of course evidence enough to induce a reasonable conviction
would be sufficient to overcome the antecedent improbability.” But he
dare not trust himself or his readers to an examination of the evidence
upon this basis. For when he is pressed with the testimony of the
Apostles to the Resurrection, and is compelled to concede their honesty,
he says (p. 1050), “The belief that a dead man rose from the dead and
appeared to several persons alive is at once disposed of upon abstract
grounds.” That is, his pretended examination of the evidence is a sham,
and when he cannot meet it, it is at once disposed of “upon abstract
grounds!”

[4] See chap. xvii. pp. 101-2, _ante_, pp. 101, 102.

[5] Milligan on the Resurrection of Our Lord, p. 76; Strauss, Vol. II.,
pp. 846-866.

[6] The Old Faith and the New (1875), p. 80.

[7] On the Resurrection, etc., p. 80.

[8] The Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 464; Waite’s History, etc., p.
26.

[9] See chap. xv, p. 85, _ante_, p. 85.

[10] Mark xvi. 11.

[11] Luke xxiv. 11.

[12] The Apostles, by Ernest Renan (1866), p. 61.

[13] Adams’ Roman Antiquities, p. 284; Condition of Women, by L. Maria
Child, Vol. II., p. 3.

[14] Acts i. 15, 21, 22.

[15] 1 Kings xvii.; 2 Kings iv.; 2 Kings xiii. 21; Matthew ix.; Luke
vii.; John xi.; Hebrews xi. 35.

[16] Gilbert West on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ. Boston, 1834 (first published in England in 1747), p. 67.

[17] See chap. xvi, p. 89, _ante_, p. 89.

[18] “The cerements were there, but the body was gone. Whither? Had it
been stolen and hidden? Who would have been the thieves? Friends or
foes? Not friends; for how could their faith be made heroic for their
crusade against the world’s unbelief by a theft and a carcase? Not
foes; for it was their interest to prevent the disappearance of the
body, that there might be ocular demonstration of the falsity of the
predicted resurrection. The fact of the actual resurrection of our Lord
is a rock-of-ages that never can be moved.”—Commentary on Mark, by James
Morrison, D.D. (1882), p. 445.




CHAPTER XIX.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS (AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE).


Holding, then, the objectors to the historical record, and keeping in
mind that the question is narrowed down to the hypothesis of visions on
the one hand, or to a true resurrection on the other, _what evidence had
the Apostles and immediate disciples that they were not deceived_?

First and foremost, they had the empty tomb. They knew[1] that the body
was neither left on the cross, in violation of the Jewish law, nor
thrown to the “dust-heap,” in violation of the Roman law which required
a delivery to the friends as soon as claimed, but was placed in the
sepulchre, as attested by all the Evangelists, as also by Paul. They knew
that _they_ had not taken it away, and that if the Jews had, they would
have been but too ready to produce it when, only a few days after, it
was boldly proclaimed, that that Jesus whom they had crucified, God had
raised from the dead. It was the absence of the body that first arrested
the attention of the women, and also of Peter and John, and which, with
the orderly arrangement of the grave clothes, induced a conviction of
the truth in the mind of John, before Jesus appeared to any, and sent
Peter to his home “wondering.” And these same facts (the good faith of
the disciples themselves being undoubted), can never be explained, in any
rational way, otherwise than by the fact of the Resurrection. There is a
great truth in Professor Keim’s expression[2] that: “It is upon an empty
tomb that the Christian Church is founded.”

They had _further_ proof, in subsequent appearances to individuals
singly, to the collective body of Apostles, and to the multitude of
believers, under circumstances that satisfied them, and should convince
us, that they were not deceived.

There are several things to be considered, in determining whether they
were deceived. First, in respect to time. There were no appearances
till after the fact that the tomb was empty was fully understood, _nor
till some hours after_. This lapse of time has been overlooked by most
writers; and, from want of attention to it, inconsistencies as to
occurrences at the sepulchre, as to the number and appearance of angels,
the companies of women, the persons composing them, the messages received
and carried, and the appearances to them, of our risen Lord, have been
imagined, that are easily explained, upon the very natural hypothesis of
several transactions of like character during the six hours or more[3]
which elapsed before the journey to Emmaus. At that time no one had seen
the Lord; for it cannot be doubted that his appearance would be reported
as soon as possible after its occurrence. When Jesus joined the two
disciples, their eyes were “holden,” until in a long discourse he had
prepared them for a revelation of himself. Peter must have meditated some
hours upon the absence of the body, before Jesus showed himself to him.
It was not till after this, and after the return of the disciples from
Emmaus, that he said to the others, “Peace be unto you.” Then a whole
week, before he returns. Then, probably after a longer interval (for they
returned to Galilee), he shows himself at the Sea of Tiberias. Then,
after some days, to above five hundred brethren, at a place to which they
had been directed to go by the angels, and by Jesus both before and after
his resurrection. Then to James. And then at Jerusalem to the Apostles,
whom he led out over against Bethany; and while he blessed them, he
parted from them and was carried up into heaven.

In all this, we see how they were prepared to exercise a sober and
intelligent judgment, so that neither they, nor we, should be in doubt
whether what they beheld was their risen Lord, or a phantom of their own
imagination.

And will any one tell us, right here, what better proof Jesus _could_
have given his disciples, of his Resurrection? If the evidence was
sufficient for them, it may be sufficient for us, unless we are prepared
to say that the miracle shall _be repeated whenever it is challenged_!
Was it essential to a reasonable conviction on their part that the
Scribes and Pharisees should also be convinced? (Nicodemus, and Joseph of
Arimathea, _were_ convinced.) It must be admitted that the disciples, of
all others, were qualified to judge, if any persons could be qualified.
What force could the belief of the Sanhedrim have added to the testimony
of their own senses?

Assume, as a hypothesis, the reality of Christ’s resurrection, we again
ask, What proof of it _should_ have been given his disciples that was
not given? They had the same kind of proof, during forty days, that
they had before his crucifixion. He walked with them, talked with them,
instructed them, ate before them, and with them (Acts. x. 41), called
things to their remembrance, opened to them the Scriptures, and gave them
their great commission to disciple all nations; and, to preclude all
questioning, said, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle
me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me have.
And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.” And to
Thomas, eight days after, he said, “Reach hither thy finger and see my
hands; and reach thy hand and put it into my side: and be not faithless
but believing.”

We do not accept Origen’s[4] view that Jesus after his resurrection
and before his ascension “existed in a body intermediate, as it were,
between the grossness of that which he had before his suffering and the
appearance of a soul uncovered by such a body,” although it now has the
support of able writers. The general[5] sentiment of the Church from the
beginning has been against it. It is not warranted by the record, and
it involves more mysteries and difficulties than it escapes. We fully
agree with Judge Waite[6] that, according to the Canonical Gospels, “The
very body in which Jesus was crucified, and which was buried by Joseph
of Arimathea, is raised from the dead, appears to the disciples, is not
only seen but felt, and Jesus himself, in the flesh, as he was before he
was crucified, calls for fish to eat to satisfy his disciples that he
was not a spirit; that his body was not spiritual, but material and human
like theirs;” and also with a very different man (Mr. Barnes), who, with
his usual good sense, says: “It was necessary _first_ to establish the
proof of his resurrection, and that could be done _only_ by his appearing
_as he was_ when he died;” and also with Drs. McClintock and Strong in
their invaluable Cyclopedia, that: “According to the Scriptures the
disciples were assured by the testimony of their own senses that the body
of Christ after his resurrection was the same identical body of human
flesh and bones which had been crucified and laid in the sepulchre.”
(Vol. VIII., A.D. 1879.) Peter’s testimony (as recorded in Acts x. 41)
that Jesus after he was raised up was made manifest, not to all the
people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us
“who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead,” seems just
as decisive as the Canonical Gospels. And so of John’s testimony (1 John
i. 1), “that which we beheld, and our hands handled.”

Our Lord was in the tomb less than thirty-six hours, and his flesh “did
not see corruption.” His body, apparently, was as human as that of
Lazarus after he was raised. The criticism that it is not said that there
was _blood_ seems frivolous, for there could be no living flesh or bones
without blood-vessels and blood. Although for the time he forbade Mary
Magdalene to touch, or rather to detain him, he permitted the other women
to take hold of his feet, and directed the Apostles to handle him. Mary
Magdalene saw him as a man, and supposed him to be the gardener, until he
called her by name. The two disciples conversed with him as a man; and
that they did not know him was only because their eyes were “holden.” His
sudden disappearance after the repast, and equally sudden appearance in
the midst of the Apostles, at most present no greater difficulties than
his transfiguration, his walking upon the sea, his passing through his
enemies when they were about to throw him down the cliff (all before his
crucifixion), or the opening of the prison doors to two of the Apostles.
The doors, even if bolted and barred, may have opened as to Peter, or
those present may have been so preoccupied that a perfectly natural but
silent withdrawal in the one case, and entrance in the other, were simply
unnoticed.

As the man Christ Jesus, he rose from the dead, and angels, as porters,
having rolled away the stone, he came forth in visible human form, and
with the same body that was crucified. He would have been seen by his
disciples, if they had been “watching and waiting” for him, and by the
guard, if they had not become “as dead men;” perhaps in order that they
might not behold him, for he had said, “Yet a little while and the world
beholdeth me no more.” (John xiv. 19.)

As the man Christ Jesus, he showed himself to his disciples forty days;
and then, with a body, until then, of flesh and blood, as human as that
of Elijah, before _he_ was taken up, ascended into the heavens.

Thus, in his rising from the dead, and in the change _at his ascension_,
he typified both the dead who shall be raised, and the living who shall
be “changed.”

And any conception of him as less corporeal from his resurrection to his
ascension than before, does not conform to the record, and, by so much
as it makes him less corporeal and tangible, it impairs the force of the
evidence.

Each one of the Apostles had as much evidence that Jesus was alive after
his crucifixion, as he had that Peter or John or Thomas was alive, and
evidence of just as high a character. And this proof by facts addressed
to their own intelligence and bodily senses of sight, and hearing, and
feeling, was continued forty days. There is no conflict in the evidence
on this point.

Every lawyer knows that omission is not contradiction. Even when
witnesses profess to give the whole, it rarely or never happens that
some will not state something which others omit, and not unfrequently a
witness is called to testify to a part only, and does not undertake to
give the whole.

This is the precise truth in respect to the Evangelists. Not one of
them professes to state all that occurred after the crucifixion, or all
the instances of our Lord’s appearing to his disciples. Each writes for
the particular object he has in view. And there is a great liability
to mistake, if one forgets that it is true in narratives in respect to
transactions subsequent to the crucifixion, as well as before, that there
is often a passing from one event to another with nothing to indicate but
that they were immediately connected in point of time, when, in fact,
there was a considerable interval between them.[A]

Of the ten specified instances of his appearing, Matthew speaks of
two, Mark of three, Luke of three, John of four, and Paul of five, or
seven;[7] but neither contradicts the other, nor Luke’s statement in his
subsequent “treatise,” that Jesus showed himself alive after his passion
“forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God.”

The instances were sufficiently numerous, the time long enough, and the
acts tangible enough, to afford as undoubted proof as that which they had
of the existence and bodily presence of each other. Peter might as well
have doubted the denial of which he had so bitterly repented, as to have
doubted that it was his Master who said unto him the third time, “Simon,
son of John, lovest thou me?” and all of them might as well have doubted
that they had ever listened to his teaching, as to have doubted the
commission which they received from him.

The evidence that was personal to themselves we cannot have. We know they
had it, and were capable of judging concerning it, and we can see that
it was of a character that might be justly deemed conclusive.

There is, besides, much that is common to us with them. The judgment was
not of one but of many, and not from a single appearance to one of their
number, but from many appearances to different persons, at various times,
and under circumstances most favorable to a true apprehension, usually in
open day; and it would be passing strange if each and all were deceived
by their own senses.

These appearances were never repeated after the ascension. None of the
disciples under any excitement ever again saw their Lord as the man
Christ Jesus walking the earth as before; or saw him coming to the earth,
although they all believed that he would speedily return in like manner
as they beheld him going into heaven. Stephen saw him not upon the earth,
but “standing on the right hand of God.” Paul saw him, and “was not
disobedient unto the heavenly vision” (Acts xxvi. 19). John saw him, in
vision, not only as “the Son of Man” in glorious array, but as “the Lion
of the tribe of Judah,” and also as a “Lamb standing as though it had
been slain,” in the “midst of the throne” (Revelation i. 12-20, and v.
5-8).

Their subsequent experience is consistent, if they had been dealing with
realities. But if all their interviews during those forty days were a
delusion, and the ascension a delusion, it is wholly inexplicable that
their imagination or senses never played them false afterward. They
believed that he would soon return, just as strongly as they believed
that he had ascended, and yet they never saw him returning, or as having
returned.

If delusions created the faith, how much more should the faith multiply
the delusions, and such appearances (as Godet[8] has well put it) “go
on increasing as the square of the belief itself.” Yet at the very time
when they should have multiplied, if they were _not_ real, they ceased
altogether!

We have, as the disciples had, our Lord’s predictions[9] of his death
_and_ resurrection (for the two events were generally referred to in the
same discourse), and the prophecies concerning him.

The greatest obstacle to their acceptance of his resurrection was their
inability to comprehend his death if he were indeed the true Messiah. And
hence we find that Jesus in the walk to Emmaus, opens to the disciples
the Scriptures concerning himself, and says, “Behoved it not the Christ
to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?” We may well suppose
that with other prophecies, he interpreted to them what Daniel had
said (c. ix. 26) that “after three score and two weeks, shall Messiah
be cut off, but not for himself;” and that wonderful chapter in Isaiah
(the fifty-third) so descriptive of his passion, that it seems “as if
written at the foot of the cross;” and all the sacrifices for fifteen
hundred years; and that it was not possible “that the blood of bulls
and goats should take away sins;” and as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so was the Son of Man “lifted up.” And so to
the Apostles he explained the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it
is written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead
the third day.” (Luke xxiv. 45, 46). He reminds them what he had said,
that all things must needs be fulfilled which were written in the law
of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning himself (Luke
xxiv. 44). The angels say to the women, “Tell his disciples and Peter
he goeth before you into Galilee, and there shall ye see him as he said
unto you” (Mark xvi. 7); and also, “Remember how he spake unto you when
he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up
into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise
again” (Luke xxiv. 6, 7). And we find that when the disciples understood
the mystery of his death, they joyfully accepted the proofs of his
resurrection; and Peter, who had said, “Be it far from thee, Lord, this
shall never be unto thee” (Matthew xvi. 23), on the day of Pentecost
could explain that Jesus (whom God had “raised up, having loosed the
pangs of death”), was delivered up to be crucified and slain “by the
determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”; and that David spake of
his resurrection. (Acts ii. 22-31.)

Not only do the prophecies point to his resurrection, but as already[9]
shown, Jesus himself foretold it as well as the manner and circumstances
of his death; and it is more rational to accept it, than to believe
that such an One as is portrayed in the Gospels was either false or
mistaken. “Which of you convicteth me of sin?” has found none to accept
the challenge in eighteen hundred years! On the contrary, as Dr. Taylor
has said,[10] “Before the portraiture which the Evangelists have painted,
men of every age have stood in rooted admiration.” And as J. S. Mill
concedes,[11] “It is of no use to say that Christ, as exhibited in the
Gospels, is not historical: for none of his disciples or their proselytes
were capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to him, or imagining the
life and character revealed in the Gospels.”

His resurrection was a moral necessity from his own character as
delineated in the Gospels, even our enemies themselves being judges.
His could not have been “the richest of human lives,” as declared by
Hooykaas,[12] nor his utterances “the most beautiful moral teaching that
humanity has received,” as avowed by Renan, if his power to lay down his
life and “to take it again” were at the best a mere delusion.

His predictions of his death and resurrection, as we have before shown,
are so interwoven with the entire narrative, that it is impossible to set
them aside and leave anything to which we can assent as true, of all his
recorded acts and words; and there is no alternative except to believe
that he uttered them, or else to arbitrarily set aside the testimony of
the four Evangelists, as well as that of Paul.

_That the Christ of the Gospels_ should rise from the dead, as he said,
_is in the highest degree probable_. Only by his resurrection could he
vindicate himself from the charge of blasphemy. Without it, the cross was
a gibbet, a monument of folly if not of crime. Without it, the sacrament
which he instituted on the eve of his crucifixion, keeps in perpetual
remembrance the falsity of his pretensions, his impotency to save himself
from his enemies. Without it, the taunt of those who mocked him, “He
saved others, himself he cannot save,” was merited. Without it, while one
might pity him for his sufferings, we should the more sympathize with the
Sanhedrim in protecting the people from a visionary enthusiast, if not
a wilful impostor, and inflicting (although by irregular methods) the
penalty for blasphemy expressly commanded by the Mosaic Law.

It cannot be too strongly stated that there is no middle ground. If he
was what he claimed, his resurrection was already assured. If he was not
what he claimed, he could not have been the exalted character eulogized
by those who deny his resurrection, and before which the world bows in
reverence.

If he was what he claimed, we can see a grand and all-sufficient reason
_why_ God (if there _be_ a God) should by miracle give the highest
possible authentication to his mission.

He said, “I am the light of the world;” and the world was in darkness. He
said that he came forth from God, and he ought to show his credentials.
He said he was the Son of God, and that he always did those things that
pleased Him; which he could not do, if he set up claims destitute of
foundation. He said, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth, may
have in him eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but
have eternal life.”

The great central truths which he declared in all his teachings, were the
_fact_ of sin, the need of a Saviour, and that he is a Saviour.

If sin, as all experience testifies, is universal, always downward,
and its end when finished death, the redemption of multitudes[B] of the
human race from its power to holiness, and bliss, and endless progress,
as “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ,” was an object _worthy_ of
divine interposition, and only an atheist should look upon such a miracle
of redemption as impossible or improbable.

    “’Twas great to speak a world from naught,
    ’Twas greater to redeem.”

Christ’s resurrection being established, the darkness over the land, the
rending of the veil, the coming[13] out of the tombs, the ministry of
the angels in the garden before his betrayal, and at the sepulchre, the
earthquake, the rolling away of the stone, and the fear that came upon
the watchers, were fitting accompaniments of the transactions which they
surrounded.

Nor, if some of them are not mentioned by other historians, are they
overthrown, for omission is not contradiction, in history any more than
in courts. Why should Josephus, who was not born till some years after
the crucifixion, and not a Christian, be expected to mention them? And
as to Greek and Roman writers, even Renan[14] says that “it is not
surprising that they paid little attention to a movement which was going
on within a narrow space foreign to them. Christianity was lost to their
vision upon the dark background of Judaism.”

And so his being seen by Stephen the first martyr, by John in the
Apocalypse, and by Paul on the way to Damascus, are in harmony with the
record of his resurrection and ascension, and may be said to confirm them.

Yet it may be questioned if Paul would have been so absolutely certain
that Jesus (against whose followers he was breathing out threatening
and slaughter) said to him, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” but
for the previous appearances. If he would, he does not rest the case
upon the one to himself. He gives the others first, and then adds, “And
last of all ... to me also.” While there is a mutual support, the most
solid basis for _our_ belief is, in the incontrovertible and tangible
appearances which preceded Paul’s conversion; and when John would declare
the _certainty_ of their faith, he says, “That which we have heard, that
which we have seen with our eyes, that which we have beheld, and our
hands handled.” (1 John i. 1).

And viewing the indubitable proofs of his resurrection, in their relation
to the prophecies concerning him, the necessity for his advent, his
predictions concerning himself, his character and works and teachings
from his incarnation to his ascension, the lives and deaths of his
Apostles, the wonderful enlargement of his little church, when the
Apostles “with great power gave their witness of the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus,” and its equally wonderful continuance, extension, moral
influence, inspirations and hopes, they rise to the sublimity of moral
certainty.

These things cannot rationally be accounted for unless there is a God,
and if there is a God, as all courts of justice everywhere assume, and
universal conscience declares, to refuse assent to the conclusion to
which they necessarily lead,—the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead,—cannot be the exercise of right reason.

Least of all should lawyers, accustomed to weigh evidence, refuse to
believe upon the testimony of others. As Gibson, the great chief justice
of Pennsylvania, said: “Give Christianity a common law trial; submit the
evidence _pro_ and _con_ to an impartial jury under the direction of a
competent court, and the verdict will assuredly be in its favor.”

We have not the witnesses before us; but it is every day’s practice to
prove historical facts by any approved and general history, and such
are our Gospels and Epistles; and they are confirmed by sacraments and
institutions that continue to our times, and will continue to the end of
the world.

Nor does the sufficiency of the proofs depend upon any question of the
_precise_ extent of the genuineness of the Gospels, or their _exact_
agreement. Men accustomed to weigh evidence know that it is enough if
the substance of the issue is proved, and that a literal agreement is
never to be expected in honest witnesses. In all the great facts of
the Resurrection, the Gospels and the Epistles concur. This has been
found satisfactory to such standard authors in the legal profession as
Blackstone and Kent and Story, such masters of the rules of evidence as
Starkie and Greenleaf, and such giants as Lord Brougham, John Marshall,
Theophilus Parsons, Jeremiah Mason and Daniel Webster, and many others
both of the dead and the living, and no historical event rests on a
firmer basis.

Some of its logical results will be suggested in the concluding chapter.

[1] See _ante_, c. 17, p. 101, and Godet’s Defence, etc., 1881, p. 106.

[2] As quoted by Godet, p. 49.

[3] See _ante_, c. 17, p. 101.

[4] Origen against Celsus, Book II., c. 42.

[5] See editor’s note to Lange’s Life of Christ; McClintock and Strong,
Vol. VIII., p. 1055; Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, p. 804;
Barnes on John xx. 21; Scott on John xx. 19.

An able article by Professor Robinson of the Union Theological Seminary,
N. Y., on the Nature of Our Lord’s Resurrection-body will be found in the
_Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1845, p. 292. He thus distributes the opinions
on the subject: “On this subject three different opinions have prevailed
more or less at various times in the church. Some have held that the
body of Christ was changed at the resurrection as to its _substance_, so
that it was in its substance a different and spiritual body. Others have
regarded the Lord as having had after the resurrection the _same_ body as
before, but glorified; or, as the earliest writers express it, changed as
to its qualities and attributes. The third and larger class have supposed
that the body with which Christ rose from the dead was the same natural
body of flesh and blood which had been taken down from the cross and laid
in the sepulchre.”

This article we had not read until after writing chapter 19, but our
convictions are confirmed by his thorough discussion of the subject. He
concludes that the evidence of the reality of our Lord’s human body,
from the Resurrection to the Ascension, is even stronger than that for
any other forty days, since Jesus was specially careful to assure his
disciples of the fact.

[6] History, etc., p. 335.

[A] For example, it is an entire misconception of Luke’s Gospel to
conclude from it that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection;
and his account in Acts makes this certain, it being conceded that both
works were by the same writer.

[7] Paul seems to have grouped appearances. We may paraphrase thus: “And
that he was seen of Cephas; then of the twelve _on three occasions_.”

[8] Defence, etc., p. 105.

[9] See _ante_, c. 16, p. 89.

[10] The Gospel Miracles, etc., p. 48.

[11] As quoted by Dr. Taylor, p. 41.

[12] The Bible, etc., p. 51; Renan, p. 135.

[B] See Rev. vii. 9-17.

[13] Those who came out of the tombs “after his resurrection,” it may be
presumed, had recently deceased (for they were recognized, as it would
seem), and they appeared only to those who, like Simeon and Anna the
Prophetess, had been looking “for the consolation of Israel;” and not
to those who had rejected him. Their coming was so overshadowed by the
principal events to which it was merely an incident, that it is mentioned
only by Matthew, and even he gives no information of who they were, or
anything of their subsequent history.

[14] The Apostles, by Ernest Renan, p. 227.




CHAPTER XX.

LOGICAL RESULTS.


Of these we mention only the following:

_First._—Since the proofs of Christ’s Resurrection are incomparably
greater than those of any other miracle, and its consequences are beyond
conception more glorious, it is the part of wisdom to force the issue
upon it. The decisive battle of the world in respect to the miraculous
in Christianity is to be fought right here, and all other engagements
are mere skirmishes. It is well it is so. Christ’s Resurrection is our
Gibraltar. If we cannot hold this position, we cannot hold any. But we
do hold it, and with it the whole field of controversy upon the subject.
Let any one who doubts or denies the reality of miracles, meet the
overwhelming proofs of this the greatest of all miracles. If he cannot do
it, he should yield; and it is no dishonor to be vanquished by the truth.
If, after examining these proofs, he still imagines that he can overcome
them, he is beyond the reach of argument.

_Second._—As it is the central fact of Christianity, the keystone in
the arch of the Christian Faith, those who reject it have no right to
the Christian name. Strauss is so far to be commended that, when by his
myths and sophistries he had brought himself to deny the one, he had the
manliness not to appropriate the other. And of those of his fellows who
still cling to it for its supposed advantages, he sarcastically says:
“Reasons they may have, but reason they have none.” Chadwick, Hooykaas,
Miln, Savage and others,[1] who talk of their “Church of the Future,”
may well follow his example. If they refuse, there is as little sense
as piety in a recognition, or _quasi_ recognition, of them as ministers
of the Gospel, when at the best they are only popular lecturers to mere
social or literary, if not infidel clubs, that choose to be called
Churches or Religious Societies. This no doubt is distasteful to those
who are looking for the time when all sects shall fraternize on a common
level of skepticism and indifference. But if we have any colors we should
stand by them. Fidelity to truth and to the Master requires a separation
uncompromising and complete from all who deny Him. It is safe to be as
tolerant as Jesus and his Apostles. (See John viii. 21; 2 Corinthians vi.
14, 15; Revelation i. 4, 5; 1 Corinthians xv. 16, 17, 18; 1 John ii. 12,
23; 1 Peter i. 3, 4; 2 Peter ii. 1, 2; Revelation ii. 6; Acts v. 30-33;
Acts iv. 11, 12.)

_Third._—It authenticates his mission and vindicates his claims to the
utmost. By it God affixed the seal of his approval, and evermore declares
as by a voice from heaven, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased: hear ye Him.”

His teachings are no longer opinions to be accepted or rejected as they
meet with our approval, but authoritative and final. They are not the
speculations of sages and philosophers, either of olden or recent times,
to be weighed in the balance of human reason, but everlasting truth to be
received and obeyed without doubting or questioning.

Since Christ’s resurrection is assured, Webster well declared,[2] as
every man in the exercise of right reason must, “I hold it my duty to
believe, not what I can comprehend or account for, but what my Master
teaches me.”

By this, of course, it is not intended that we are not to exercise our
reason as to the genuineness of the teachings ascribed to him, or their
proper meaning, or, in other words, as to textuality, inspiration,
translation, and interpretation. In each of these departments there
is and will be ample room for the greatest research, and the ripest
scholarship. In respect to all these, is doubtless true now, as when
spoken by Robinson, that, “The Lord has more truth yet to break forth out
of his holy word.”

But when in a teachable spirit, we know what Jesus taught, it is the end
of controversy.

_Fourth._—A necessary consequence from his Resurrection must be an
undoubted assurance that we have the means of knowing what his teachings
were, so far as they are essential to our guidance in this life and
preparation for that which is to come. The very idea of a revelation is
that it shall be so made known, that it can be understood, trusted in,
and obeyed, by those to whom it is given, and for whom it is intended,
so far at least, as shall be necessary for the regulation of their own
conduct.

_Beyond this_, we cannot claim, as a logical result of Christ’s
Resurrection, and do not now inquire. And we find that through all the
years since our Lord’s ascension, while the church has had essential
truth, and there has been substantial[3] agreement in different copies
and versions, there have always been and still are, unsolved questions of
genuineness, translation, interpretation, and inspiration. In respect to
the last, Ingersoll’s demand[4] that if the writers of the Gospels were
inspired there should be but one account, or, if more than one, there
should be _no_ contradiction, is unwarrantable; and his own concession
proves it. “As a rule,” he says, “where several persons testify to the
same transaction, while agreeing in the main points they will disagree
upon many minor things, and such disagreement upon minor matters is
generally considered as evidence that the witnesses have not agreed
among themselves upon the story they should tell. These differences in
statement are accounted for from the facts that all did not see alike,
and that all did not have the same opportunity for seeing, and that all
had not equally good memories. But when we claim that the witnesses
were inspired, we admit that he who inspired them did know exactly what
occurred, and consequently there should be no contradiction in the
minutest detail.” This is very poor logic. For although “He who inspired”
did know exactly what occurred, there may have been the best of reasons
for not inspiring a full record of all that occurred, or an exact record
in all respects of what is recorded; and it must be presumed that such
an inspiration would be given as would be most conducive to the end in
view. And a like answer disposes of his confident assertion, that “_one_
inspired record of all that happened ought to be enough.” _He_ would have
Divine wisdom sacrifice everything else for the sake of uniformity and
precise accuracy in incidental and immaterial matters. In other words he
would tithe “mint and anise and cummin,” at the expense of “weightier
matters.” The Gospels were separately written at different times,
according to the needs in the first instance of the particular classes
for which they were immediately intended, and ultimately for the wants of
the whole world. Each by itself was as complete and accurate as it was
best it should be; and the whole taken together are as full and exact,
as it is best they should be. And looking beyond the particular classes
to whom they were first given, to all generations and peoples, it was of
supreme importance that they should be _believed_; and in order to this,
that they should be so written as not to carry suspicion of collusion
or fabrication upon their face. Mr. Ingersoll knows that the testimony
of four witnesses agreeing in the main points, while differing in minor
matters, is more satisfactory than the testimony of one. If there were
nothing to be counted but numbers, the evidence would be four times
as strong. It is more than four times as strong. For, as Mr. Starkie
says,[5] and every lawyer knows, “The credibility of testimony frequently
depends upon the exercise of reason, on the effect of _coincidences in
testimony_, which, if collusion be excluded, cannot be accounted for
but upon the supposition that the testimony of concurring witnesses
is true; so much so that their individual character for veracity is
frequently but of secondary importance.” But to have this effect it is
_indispensable_ that _collusion_ be excluded. And it is of vastly greater
consequence that we be certain that we have (as it is conceded we have)
independent accounts of the crucifixion than it is, for instance, that
the inscriptions over the cross as given by the four Evangelists should
precisely agree, or that either should have been the exact words that
were written. In fact, while they all agree that the accusation was “_The
King of the Jews_” (which is all that is material), no two of them agree
with each other. But as Professor Greenleaf says, no greater certainty
is called for. “The same[6] verbal exactness is not necessary in
historians whose aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public
inscriptions.”

If but one account, there would be the absence of that personality
and variety, which we now have, and more especially the want of that
conclusive proof which comes from independent witnesses.

If the Gospels had been written as Mr. Ingersoll says they should have
been if inspired, the objections against them, if not insurmountable,
would have been tenfold stronger. And why should not Divine wisdom so
inspire as to secure the best possible results? And although two of the
writers were Apostles, and to the Apostles was the Holy Spirit given to
teach them “all things,” and bring to their remembrance “all things”
which Jesus had said unto them (John xiv. 26), this does not necessarily
imply an exact transmission of all the words spoken. Regard should be had
to the substance of things in this, as in other matters, and not to mere
verbal accuracy, except in those rare cases in which it is important to
know the precise language used.

It may safely be affirmed that there is _no_ discrepancy in relation to
any essential fact, or important doctrine or duty. And it is just this
degree of certainty and accuracy, that we should expect from our Lord’s
true Messiahship as proved by his Resurrection.

_Fifth_.—By it, we know that he had power to impart to his Apostles to
whom he entrusted the establishment of his church, and to Paul whom he
especially selected as an Apostle to the Gentiles, inspiration and the
gift of miracles. As the Father sent him into the world, even so he sent
them into the world (John xviii. 18); and what things soever they should
bind, or loose, on earth, should be bound or loosed in heaven (Luke
xxi. 14-16). Miracles were attestations of their Apostleship, “God also
bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold
powers and by gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.”
(Hebrews ii. 4.)

With the writings of John the volume of inspiration was complete. If any
miracles were wrought after his time (which is questioned by many[7]),
there are none sufficiently authenticated to be of any evidential value
to us.

But there is in every true Church, and will be to the end of time, what
is of greater importance than the working of miracles, the convicting and
transforming power of the Holy Ghost; and any community, by whatever name
it may be called, that has not this attestation is not a true Church of
the Lord Jesus Christ. The promise of the Comforter who shall “convict
the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment;” and “Lo! I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” are as immutable as the
throne of God.

If the Gospel had been only a “civilization,” as Mr. Chadwick terms it,
it had never been known outside of Judea. It is because it is the “wisdom
of God, and the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,”
that it has gained its marvellous victories, overturning Pagan Rome, and
in these later days transforming even Madagascar, the Sandwich Islands,
and the cannibals[8] of the Fiji Islands into Christian communities.

_Sixth_.—In our conception of Jesus as our Saviour, we should not
separate his death from his resurrection and ascension. If he died for
our sins, he rose again for our justification. He is now exalted as a
Prince and a Saviour at the right hand of the Father, to give repentance
and the remission of sins. United to him by faith, and changed into his
image, our resurrection is assured by his, and because he lives we shall
live also. As oft as we “eat this bread and drink this cup,” we do show
forth his death TILL HE COME. “Henceforth,” (said[9] the great Apostle)
“there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord, the
righteous judge, shall give to me at that day, and not only to me, _but
also to all them that leave loved his appearing_.” “And[10] the Spirit
and the Bride say, Come; and he that heareth let him say, Come; and he
that is athirst let him come; he that will, let him take the water of
Life freely.”

[1] It is one of the marvels of sin and shows the effrontery of Satan,
that Hooykaas, who is about as rank an infidel as Strauss himself, should
be pastor at Rotterdam, a Doctor of Divinity, and entitle his book, which
laboriously excludes everything miraculous or supernatural in relation
to Jesus, “The Bible for Learners.” Mr. Chadwick, while admitting that
he is not a Christian in the original sense of the word, argues against
Strauss (with whom he agrees in sentiment) the right to apply the term
to himself, but meaning by it only “a stream of tendency,” “freedom,
progress and civilization.” “It may be,” he says, “that some of you
conceive that my definition of Christianity does worse than include
those who are at pains to prove themselves not Christians. It includes
the dangerous classes of society; it includes the men of vice and crime.
There is no doubt of it.” (See _Free Religious Index_ for March 17,
1881, March 24, 1881, and March 31, 1881.) Mr. Miln recently _preached
a sermon_ upon “The Church of the Future,” from which he said all
speculative beliefs as a condition of membership will be excluded, even
the belief in a personal Deity. (See _Index_ for February 23, 1882.) He
does not believe in prayer other than communion with himself. (See _New
York Observer_ of February 23, 1882.) If Mr. Savage has not yet gone as
far, he stops but little short of it.

[2] So expressed in a creed drawn up by him in 1807. (See
_Congregationalist_ of February 15, 1882.) A copy of this creed was
read at the centennial anniversary of his birth (January 18, 1882) by
the Congregational Church of Salisbury, New Hampshire. He joined this
church on profession of faith September 13, 1807, and never removed his
connection. (See _New Hampshire Journal_ of January 28, 1882.)

[3] See chap. xiii. p. 67, _ante_.

[4] In the _North American Review_ for August, 1881, p. 118.

[5] Starkie on Evidence, Vol. II., Sec. 10, and note upon Hume.

[6] Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists, p. 478.

[7] History of God’s Church, by Enoch Pond, D.D., p. 606. And as to Judge
Waite’s “many cases of resurrection from the dead, handed down in the
ancient mythologies” and by heathen writers, it will be soon enough to
notice them whenever there shall be a serious attempt to run a parallel
between the evidence in support of them, and that which proves the
resurrection of our Lord. And so of the whole swarm of lying wonders,
whether found in heathen writers, the Apocryphal Gospels, or exhibited
by modern conjurors or spiritualists,—senseless, frivolous, for no
worthy object, and, beyond the mystery accompanying them, supported by
no reasonable proof. Our Saviour told his disciples “beforehand” that
“there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great
signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”
(Matthew xxiv. 24.) Paul told Timothy that “the Spirit saith expressly
that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisies of men
that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron.”
(1 Timothy iv. 1, 2.) This will be strange to any modern Sadducee who
believes there is “neither angel nor Spirit,” but the Christian will do
well to give heed.

[8] Within the last thirty years, through the labors of English Wesleyan
missionaries, there has been an entire moral renovation of cannibals,
once revelling and rioting in every excess of atrocity and bestial shame.
Now there are nine thousand churches and thousands of communicants,
fourteen thousand schools and nearly fifty thousand scholars: and out
of a population of about one hundred and twenty thousand, over one
hundred thousand are reckoned as regular attendants at the churches.
Cannibalism has been voluntarily abandoned, save by a single tribe, in
eighty inhabited islands: idolatry has been abjured, and all traces of
it swept away. And to-day a gentle and refined English woman, as Miss
Gordon-Cumming in her book, At Home in Fiji, testifies, can travel these
islands alone, mingling with the people, rambling through their villages,
sleeping in their huts and eating at their tables, with none to molest
her or make her afraid. (See Rev. Edward Abbott, in _Congregationalist_
of February 15, 1882.)

[9] 2 Timothy iv. 8.

[10] Revelation xxii. 17.




INDEX A.

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND ANCIENT AUTHORS AND WRITINGS.


  Absence of the body of Jesus. See Empty Tomb.

  Acts and Luke, have one author, 9, 77.

  Acts, quoted from, by Justin, 23, 24, 26.
    when written, 79.

  Acts of Peter and Paul (Apocryphal), 37, 38.

  Acts of Pilate (Apocryphal), 34, 35, 36, 41, note 5.

  Admissions and Presumptions, 9, 12, 13, 22, 43.
    See, also, Renan, Strauss, Waite.

  After-thought, Resurrection is not an, 6, 86.

  Aged disciples, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62, note 4.

  Agrippa Castor, testimony of, 45.

  Alexandrian Codex, 70, 71, 73, note 10.

  Alogi, 47, 48, 53, 60, with 62, note 5.

  Ambrose, 48, note 5.

  Ancient Deeds and Records, are evidence, 58, 59, 64, 65.

  Andrew, the Apostle, 14.

  Angels, as porters, 124.
    at the Sepulchre, 104, 106, 118, 127, 130.

  Announcement, to Mary, 25, 35, 41, note 3.

  Antoninus, 10, 18.

  Apelles, testimony of, 45.

  Apocalypse, authorship of, 12, 48, 80, note 4, 88, note 3.
    Quotations from, 32, 81, 82.

  Apocryphal Gospels, 34-42, 140, note 7.
    Justin did not use, 34-42.

  Apologies of Justin Martyr, 18-67.
    dates of, 5, 10, 11, note 3, 18, 57, 58, 61, note 1.

  Apollinaris, testimony of, 27, 29, note 3, 45.

  Apostles, sincerity of, 74, 78, 86, 114.

  Apostleship, requisite for, 116, 119, note 14.

  Appearances, of the Risen Lord, 7, 81-89, 105-109, 115-126.
    corporeal and material, 26, 66, 85, 107, 114, 122-124, 132, note 5.
    Jerusalem, 105-108, 115, 121.
    none such after Ascension, 126,
    on the mountain, 85, 87, 107, 108, 109, note 10, 121.
    Paul’s enumeration of, 85, 87, 107, 108, 125, 133, note 7.
    sea of Galilee, 108, 121, 125.
    to James, 87, 108, 121.
    to Mary Magdalene, 105, 106, 116, 117, 121, 123.
    to Peter, 85, 87, 107, 123.
    to the Eleven, 85, 87, 107, 108, 109, note 10, 113, 121.
    to the five hundred, 85, 87, 108, 109, note 10, 121, 125.
    to the two disciples, 106, 107, 116, 118, 121, 123, 124.
    to the women, 106, 109, notes 5 and 7, 115, 116, 118, 121, 123,
        125.
    to Thomas, 107, 108.
    why not to Sanhedrim, 110, 122.

  Appearance, to Paul, 130, 131.
    in the Apocalypse, 130.
    to Stephen, 126, 130.

  Aretus, the King, 83.

  Aristion, 14, 16, note 1.

  Ascending the Stream, 50-66.

  Ascension, change at, 108, 124.
    Luke’s, account of, 125.

  Athenagoras, testimony of, 45, 47, 51.

  Authority of Jesus, vindicated, 135.

  Authorship of Acts, 9, 46, 77.
    of Apocalypse, 12, 32, 48, 88, note 3.
    of the Fourth Gospel. See same.


  Barnabas and Titus, 10, 53, 83.

  Barnabas, Epistle of, 10, 23, 53.
    Date of, 10, 67, 72, note 1.
    Quotes Matthew as Scripture, 22, note 4.
    Uses the Fourth Gospel, 23, 26.

  Bar-Salibi, on Tatian, 47.

  Bartholomew, 54.

  Basilides, used the Fourth Gospel, 10, 11, note 4, 27, 28, 45.
    time of, 10, 28, 34.

  Begging the question, 7.

  Best evidence, what is, 10.

  Blasphemy, or a true Resurrection, 129.

  Bodily senses may be trusted, 124, 125.

  Brethren of Jesus, 39.

  Burial of Jesus, certainty of, 102, 103, 109, note 2.


  Cæsarea Philippi, 91.

  Caius, of Rome, testimony of, 51.

  Canon of Muratori, see Muratori Canon.

  Cappadocia and Pontus to Gaul, 9, 50.

  Cave, birth of Jesus in, 35, 36, 41, note 4.

  Celsus, first Heathen writer against Christianity, 45-48, 110.
    Date of his writing, 46, 48, note 6.
    Quoted our Gospels, 45, 46, 47.
    Theory of, 81, 88, note 1.
    Makes no reference to Cyrenius, 79, note 1.

  Census in Judea, 36, 41, note 8, 42, 79, note 1.

  Central Fact of Christianity, 134.

  Central Truths of the Gospel, 129.

  Cerinthians, 37.

  Cerinthus and John, 48, 66, note 3. time of, 66, note 3.

  Certainty in courts, 99.

  Children of Joseph, 39.

  Christian Era, true date of, 11, note 3, 12, 61, note 1.

  Christianity, supposed extinction of, 70.
    not a mere civilization, 139.

  Chronology of the Gospels, 76, 77, 80, note 5.

  Church at Lyons, 45.

  Church at Vienne, 45.
    of Rome to Corinth, 10. See Clement of Rome.

  “Church of the future,” 134, 140, note 1.

  Chuza, Herod’s Steward, 109, note 5.

  Chrysostom, 48, note 5.

  Citations by Justin and others, 23-40.

  Claudius Apollinaris, testimony of, 45, 51.

  Clement of Alexandria, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 56, 68, 72, note 3.

  Clementine Homilies, 45.

  Clement of Rome, 10, 15, 59, 60, 66, note 1, 72, note 2.
    date of his Epistle, 10.
    quotations in, 23, 32, 66, note 1, 72, note 2.
    upon the Resurrection, 66, note 1, 67.

  Cleopas and Luke, 106.

  Cock-crowing, 97, 100, note 4.

  Codex, Alexandrian, 70, 71, 73, note 10.
    Sinaitic, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7.
    Vatican, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7.

  Commentaries and Harmonies, 45, 47.

  Coming of Christ, 81, 126, 139.

  Coming out of the tombs, 130, 133, note 13.

  Confucius, 12.

  Constantine, 70.

  Copies, multiplication of, 69, 70.

  Coptic Version, 69.

  Corporeal Resurrection, 26, 66, note 1, 67, 85, 122, 123, 124, 132,
        notes 4, 5.

  Corinthian church, 10. See Clement of Rome.

  Corinthians, Epistles to,
    conceded to be genuine, 12, 86.
    quotations from, 16, 17, 18, note 3, 31, 32, 81-87.
    upon the Resurrection, 81-87.
    when written, 79, 82, 88, note 2.

  Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of the Civil Law), 72.

  Credibility of the Evangelists, 74-81, 99, 101, 108, 114, 122, 124,
        125, 131, 132, 136, 138.
    Of witnesses, tests of, 75, 77, 78, 99, 124, 131, 132, 136, 137.

  Cross, inscription upon, 138.

  Crucifixion of Jesus—conceded, 12, 101.
    differing accounts of, 101, 125.

  Crucifixion of Jesus, surrounding circumstances, 130, 133, notes 13,
        14.

  Cursive manuscripts, 73, note 10.

  Cyrenius, taxing under, 36, 41, note 8, 79, note 1.


  Damascus, Paul at, 82, 83.

  Darkness over the land, 130, 133, note 14.

  Day, how reckoned, 90, 100, notes 2, 3.

  Death of Jesus, certainty of, 101, 102, 103, 114, 117.

  Denial of Peter, predicted, 97, 98.

  Destruction of copies, 73, note 9.
    of Jerusalem, 79.

  Diatessaron of Tatian, 45, 47.

  Diocletian, 70.

  Diognetus, letter to, 10, 23, 27.

  Dionysius of Corinth, 51.

  Disagreement of witnesses against Jesus, 89.

  Docetæ, 38.

  Domitian, persecutions under, 11.


  Earlier writings, use of in Gospels, 78.

  Ebionites, 37, 39.

  Elders or Presbyters, testimony of, 17, note 3, 55, 60, 80, note 2.

  Elijah’s ascension, 124.
    His coming, 92.

  Emmaus, locality of, 107, 109, note 9.
    journey to, 106, 107, 121.
    was late in the day, 106, 107.

  Empty Tomb, must be accounted for, 104, 106, 116, 118, 119, note 18,
        120, 132, note 2.

  Ephesus, tombs at, 14.

  Ephræm (the Syrian Father), 47.

  Epistles, that are conceded, 12, 84.
    quotations from, 31, 32, 81-87.
    when written, 79, 82, 85.

  Epistle of John, 9, 15, 123.

  Epistles of Paul, 12, 31, 32, 79, 81-87.

  Errors in copying, 71, 72.
    of witnesses. See Credibility.

  Eusebius, fifty copies by, 70.
    on different subjects, 14, 15, 16, note 2, 37, 38, 53, 70, 88,
        note 3.

  Evidence, rules of, 9, 13, 22, 43, 77, 78, 124, 131, 136, 138.

  Experience, reasoning from, 12, 43, 112, 124.


  False Assumptions, corrected, 110-117.

  Fifty copies by Eusebius, 70.

  Fire in the Jordan, 37.

  Flesh, implies blood, 123.

  Flight into Egypt, 78.

  Forgery of John’s Gospel, absurdity of, 52, 60, 64.

  Fourth Gospel, early use of, by or in,
    Agrippa, Castor, 45.
    Alogi, 47, 48, 53, 60, with 62, note 5.
    Apelles, 45.
    Apollinaris, 27, 29, note 3, 45.
    Athenagoras, 45, 47.
    Barnabas, 23, 26.
    Basilides, 10, 11, note 4, 27, 28, 45.
    Caius, of Rome, 51.
    Canon of Muratori, 45, 48, note 5, 53, 56.
    Celsus, 45, 46, 47, 48, note 6.
    Church of Lyons and Vienne, 45.
    Claudius Apollinaris, 45, 51.
    Clement of Alexandria, 45, 46, 51, 54, 56, 68, 72, note 3.
    Clementine Homilies, 45.
    Commentaries and Harmonies, 45, 46, 47, 53.
    Coptic Version, 45, 69.
    Diatessaron of Tatian, 45, 47.
    Diognetus, 23, 27.
    Dionysius of Corinth, 51.
    Elders at Ephesus, 55.
    Hegesippus, 51.
    Heracleon, 45, 47, 49, note 8.
    Hermas, 23, 27, 51.
    Hippolytus, 27, 28.
    Irenæus, 45, 51, 55, 56, 72, note 3.
    Justin Martyr, 23, 30, 31, 34-67.
    Leonides, 51.
    Melito of Sardis, 45.
    Muratori Canon, 45, 48, note 5, 53, 56.
    Origen, 39, 45, 51, 54, 56, 72, note 3.
    Pantænus, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56.
    Papias, 15, 16, note 3, 23, 27, 33.
    Polycarp, 45, 51, 55, 56.
    Polycrates, 51.
    Pothinus, 51, 55, 56.
    Serapion, 38, 39, 45, 51, 56.
    Tatian, 45, 47.
    Tertullian, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56, 72, note 3.
    Theophilus of Antioch, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 56.
    Translations, 45, 51, 69, 70.
    Valentinus, 45, 47.
    Victor of Rome, 51.


  Galatians, conceded genuineness of, 12.
    evidential value of, 82-87.
    quotations from, 32, 80-87.
    when written, 79, 82, 88, note 2.

  Galicinium or cock-crowing, 97, 100, note 4.

  Galilee, appearances, 85, 87, 107, 108, 115, 121, 125, 133, note 7.
    meeting in, 97, 104, 108, 109, note 10.
    predictions of His death, 93 to 100.

  Gelasius, Decree of Canonicity, 34.

  Genuineness of Canonical Gospels, 67-73.
    legal presumption of, 13, 22, 43, 63, 64, 65.
    See, also, Credibility, Memoirs.

  Gnostic Heretics, 10, 45, 51.

  Good Shepherd, 93, 94.

  Going up to Jerusalem, 94.

  Gospel of Nicodemus (Apocryphal), 35, 36.

  Gospel of Hebrews (Apocryphal), 35, 37, 40, 42.

  Grand motive for Resurrection of Christ, 111, 129, 130.

  Grave clothes, evidence from, 105, 109, note 6, 119, note 18.

  Greek Classics, manuscripts of, 71, 73, note 11.

  Greek and Roman historians, 9, 10, 11, 130, with 133, note 14.

  Greeks, interview of, with Jesus, 95.

  Guard of soldiers, 103, 104, 109, notes 3 and 4, 124.


  Hades not the grave, 115.

  Hebrew, Matthew written in, 15, 37.

  Hebrews, (Apocryphal), Gospel of, 35, 37, 40, 42, note 10.

  Hegesippus, testimony of, 51.

  Heracleon, testimony of, 45, 47, 49, note 8.

  Heretics, testimony of, 45, 47, 51.

  Hermas, authorship of, 10, 18, 48, note 5, 52, 53.
    citations in, 27.
    date of, 10, 48, note 5.
    used John’s Gospel, 23, 27.

  Hermas, Bishop of Rome, 48, note 5.

  Hippolytus, 27, 68.

  Historical difficulties, 65, 67, 68, 79, note 1.
    See, also, Credibility.

  Historical facts, how proved, 9, 131.
    See, also, Legal Presumption.


  Ignatius, Epistles of, 10, 28.

  Inspiration, extent of, 75, 132, 136.

  Irenæus, testimony of, 14, 16, note 3, 45, 55, 56, 66, note 3, 72,
        note 3.
    on Papias, 14, 15, 16, note 3, 27.
    on Presbyters, 16, note 3, 27.
    to John’s Gospel, 45, 51, 55, 56.

  Integrity of the Gospels, 67.

  Intervals between appearances, 121, 122.


  James, appearance to, 87, 108, 121.

  James, the Apostle, 14, 83, 85.

  James, the Lord’s brother, 83, 85.

  Jairus’ daughter, 110.

  Jerome’s translation, 37.
    testimony of, 45.

  Jerusalem, appearances at, 105-108, 115, 121.

  Jewish Sabbath, displaced by Lord’s Day, 81, 82.

  Jewish Passover, displaced by Lord’s Supper, 81, 82.

  Joanna, wife of Chuza, 109, note 5.

  John and Cerinthus, 66, note 3.

  John, the Apostle, 14, 15, 102, and _passim_.
    at the Cross, 115.
    at the Sepulchre, 105, 106, 120.
    time of his death, 15, 56, 57, 58, 64, 66, note 3.
    See Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel.

  John, the Baptist, 92.

  John, the Presbyter, 13, 14, 15, 17, note 3, 21, 88, note 3.

  John’s Epistle, 9, 15, 123.

  John’s Gospel, character of, 75, 76, 78.
    See Fourth Gospel.

  Josephus, testimony from, 12.
    compared with Luke, 77, 78.
    silence of, no proof, 77, 78, 130.
    when born, 130.

  Joseph of Arimathea, 90, 103, 122.

  Justin Martyr’s writings, 14.
    birth, character and martyrdom, 14, 18, 36, 51, 61, note 1.

  Justin Martyr, on the Apocalypse, 80, note 4, 88, note 3.
    does not quote Epistles, 31, 32, 33.
    on Cyrenius, 79, note 1.
    on guard of soldiers, 104, 109, note 4.
    used the Fourth Gospel, 30-67.

  Justin’s Apologies. See Apologies, etc., and Memoirs Intended, by
        Justin.


  Lactantius, time of, 37.

  Lapse of time as evidence, 13, 22, 64, 65.

  Latin Version, 69.

  Law, the Resurrection conformable to, 111, 112.

  Lawyers should investigate, preface and 131.

  Laying down His life, 93, 94.

  Legal presumptions,
    of genuineness, 13, 22, 43, 67.
    of permanency, 13, 22, 43, 50, 59, 62, note 3.
    of rightfulness, 13, 22, 43, 65, 66.

  Leonides the martyr, 51, 54.

  Lifting up the Serpent, 30, 89, 90, 129.

  Lineage of David, 36, 42, note 9.

  Literal Resurrection, 66, note 1, 85, 112, 123, 124, 132, note 5.

  Logical Results of the Resurrection, 134.

  Lord’s Day, evidential value of, 81, 82.
    displaced the Jewish Sabbath, 81, 82.

  Lord’s Supper, evidential value of, 81, 82, 96, 97, 102, 129.
    displaced the Passover, 81, 82.

  Lost Tributaries, 9, 67.

  Lucius, time of, 61, note 1.

  Luke’s qualifications as a witness, 21, 45, 57, 77, 78.
    compared with Josephus, 77, 78.
    was a companion of Paul, 21, 45.

  Luke’s Gospel, character of, 9, 48, note 5, 76, 77, 78.
    was mutilated by Marcion, 38, 45, 54, 68, 69, 72, note 7.
    quotations from, by Justin, 25, 26, 33. See Memoirs, etc.

  Lyons and Vienne, 45.


  Manuscript copies of Gospels, 69, 70, 71, 72.

  Marcion, time of, 61, note 1, 68.
    “Wolf of Pontus,” 38, 61, note 1, 69, 72, note 7.

  Marcion’s Gospel, date of, 68.
    an abridgment of Luke’s, 38, 45, 54, 68, 69, 72, note 7.
    proves genuineness of Luke, 45, 68, 69.

  Mark as Peter’s interpreter, 15, 21, 38, 39, 45, 46, 57, 61, 76.
    character of his Gospel, 76, 77.
    See Memoirs, etc.

  Material Resurrection, 26, 66, note 1, 85, 122, 123, 124, 132, note 5.

  Martha and Lazarus, 94.

  Matthew’s qualifications, 14, 15, 75, 103.
    character of his Gospel, 15, 37, 76 to 78, 80, note 6.
    first in Hebrew, 15, 37.
    See Memoirs, etc.

  Mary Magdalen, not mentioned by Paul, 116.
    at the Sepulchre, 104, 105.
    beholds the Risen Lord, 105, 106, 117, 121, 123.
    but disciples incredulous, 105, 106, 116.
    Renan’s empty boast, 116, 119, note 12.

  Mary the Mother of James, 109, note 5.

  Maximian, 70.

  Melito of Sardis, testimony of, 45, 51.

  Memoirs Intended by Justin, 18, 34, 45, 50-67.
    of the year one hundred and eighty, 45, 64.
    no others proved, 34, 64.
    no others substituted, 50 to 57, 64.
    summary of evidence, 63, 64.
    were Our Gospels, 18 to 67.

  Miracles, cessation of, 139, 140, note 7.
    are not impossible, 7, 65, 111, 118, note 2, 3.
    conformable to law, 111, 112.
    gift of, to the Apostles, 138, 139.
    grand motive for, 111, 129, 130.
    may be proved, 8, 111, 112, 113, 118, note 2, 3.

  Mythological resurrections, 140, note 7.

  Moral necessity of Christ’s Resurrection, 128, 129.

  Multiplication of copies, insures correctness, 69, 70, 71.

  Muratori Canon, date of, 48, note 5.
    where found, 48, note 5.
    what it is, 45, 48, note 5, 53, 56.

  Myths and Legends, disproved, 86, 87, 88.


  Nazarenes, 37.

  Nero’s Persecution, 9, 11.

  Nicodemus, 31, 52, 89, 90, 103, 122.

  Nicomedia, Persecution at, 73, note 9.


  Omission is not Contradiction, 16, 16, note 3, 32, 36, 67, 77, 124,
        125.

  Opening of prison doors, 124.

  Order of Events, 101.

  Origen, 39, 45, 47, 49, 51, 54, 56, 72, note 3, 122, 132, note 4.
    against Celsus, 47, 49, 132, note 4.
    against “Peter’s Gospel,” 39, 45.
    on genuineness of Our Gospels, 45, 54, 72, note 3.
    on Resurrection Body, 122, 132, note 4.


  Pagan Nations, Christianized, 9, 10, 12, 13, 139, 141, note 8.

  Pagan Persecutions. See Ten Persecutions.

  Pantænus, testimony of, 45, 51, 53, 54, 56.

  Papias, character and martyrdom, 14, 15.

  Papias, fragments of his writings, 10, 14, and note 3 on pp. 16-17,
        37.
    on Mark’s Gospel, 14, 15, 37, 56.
    on Matthew’s Gospel, 14, 15, 37, 56.
    probably used John’s Gospel, 15, 16, note 3, 33.

  Passover and the Lord’s Supper, 81, 82.

  Passover week, 115.

  Pastor Hermas, see Hermas.

  Part of a day for the whole, 90, 100, notes 2, 3.

  Paul’s conversion, date of, 83, 88, note 2.
    testimony to the Resurrection, 81 to 87.
    visits to Jerusalem, 82, 83.

  Paul’s conceded Epistles, 12, 67, 84, 86.
    when written, 79, 82, 85, 88, note 2.
    their great value as evidence of Christ’s Resurrection, 12, 81 to
        88.

  Peter’s change of character, 127, 128.
    at the tomb, 104, 105.
    charge to, 108.
    denial, 97, 98.
    rebuked, 92, 97.
    See Appearances.

  Peter’s Gospel (Apocryphal), 20, with 22, note 2, 38, 39, 40, 42,
        note 14, 45, with 48, note 1, 62, note 6.

  Philip, the Apostle, 14.

  Philippians, Epistle to, 12.

  Physical cause of Christ’s death, 102, 108, note 1.

  Pilate, assured of Christ’s death, 103, 114.

  Pliny’s Letter to Trojan, 9, 12, 59.

  Ploughs and Yokes, 35.

  Polycarp, testimony of, 10, 23, 33, 45, 51, 55, 56.
    his Epistle, 10, 33.
    his martyrdom, 55.

  Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, 51.

  Positive and Negative Evidence, 32, 36, 67, 77, 124, 125.

  Pothinus, testimony of, 51, 55, 56.

  Preaching of the Resurrection,
    as early as Day of Pentecost, 83, 84, 101.
    disproves Myths or Legends, 85, 86.
    must be accounted for, 113, 114.
    theories upon, 113, 114.

  Preaching of Paul, (Apocryphal,) 37.

  Predictions of His Death and Resurrection,
    by Himself, 89 to 97, 102, 128, 129.
    by the Prophets, 127, 128.
    why not understood, 100.
    their great force as evidence, 102.

  Preface, 5.

  Presumptions, see Legal Presumption.

  Presentation at the Temple, 78.

  Previous Resurrections, 116, 117.

  Proclamation of the Resurrection. See Preaching, etc.

  Proof of the Resurrection possible, 111, 112.
    and sufficient, 115 to 133.

  Prophecies of the Resurrection. See Predictions, etc.

  Protevangelium (Apocryphal), 34 to 42.

  Public Ministry, termination of, 76, 80, note 5, 96.


  Quotations in the Second Century,
    from Old Testament, not exact, 24, 31.
    from Gospels, not exact, 23, 24, 31, 47.
    name of writer not given in quoting, before Theophilus, 45, 46, 47,
        53, 56, 67.
    See Barnabas, Clement, Hermas.

  Quotations by Justin Martyr,
    from Acts, 23, 24, 33.
    from John, 23, 30, 31, 32.
    from Luke, 23 to 27, 33.
    from Mark, 23, 24, 32.
    from Matthew, 23, 24, 33.

  Quotations, by Irenæus, 45, 51, 55, 56.
    by Origen, 45, 72, note 3.
    by Papias, 15, 16, note 3.
    by Presbyters, 16, note 3.
    by Theophilus, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 56.
    by Tertullian, 38, 45, 54, 55, 68, 69, 72, note 3.


  Relation of Gospel to Epistles, 87, 88.

  Reminiscences, and not connected Histories, 77.

  Rending the Veil, 130.

  Repositories for the Gospel, 63, 64.

  Resurrection of Jesus Christ, antecedently probable, 128, 129.
    sufficiently proved, 112 to 133.

  Resurrection Body, 26, 66, note 1, 67, 85, 122, 123, 124, 132, notes
        4, 5.

  Revelations, generally conceded, 12, 88, note 3.
    quotations from, 32, 81, 82.
    style differs from Gospel, 76, 80, note 4.
    sufficiently accounted for, 76, 80, note 4.

  Revised Version, 72, 100, note 1, 109, note 7.

  Roman Civil Law, text of, 72, 73, note 13.

  Romans, Epistle to, conceded, 12.
    quotations from, 31, 32, 81 to 87.
    when written, 79, 82.


  Salome, 109, note 5.

  Sanhedrim, 82, 98, 101, 103, 109, note 3, 110, 113, 120, 122.

  Saturn-day, Sunday, 19.

  Septuagint, 19.

  Serapion, testimony of, 38, 39, 45, 51, 56.

  Severus, persecution under, 10.

  Slaying of the children, 78.

  Shepherds, visit of, 78.

  Sinaitic Codex, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7.

  Sincerity of the witnesses conceded, 74, 86, 87, 114.

  Sign of Jonah, 90, 100, notes 2, 3.
    of temple of his body, 89.
    of Brazen Serpent, 89, 90, 129.

  Silence not contradiction, 16, 16, note 3, 32, 36, 67, 77, 124, 125.

  Socrates, 12.

  Soldiers’, fabrication, 103, 104, 109, note 4, 124.

  Sources of Evidence, 7 to 10.

  Spear of the Soldier, 102, 114.

  Stephen’s vision of Christ, 126, 130.

  Substitution of Gospels, disproved, 50 to 67.

  Sufficiency of the Proofs, 110 to 130, 132, 137, 138.

  Superscription on the Cross, 138, 140, note 6.

  Suppression of Evidence, 115.

  Survival of the fittest, 13.

  Sybilline writings, 37.

  Synoptics, meaning of, 76, 80, note 3.

  Syria and Cilicia, 83.

  Syriac Version, 69.


  Tabernacle predictions, 93.

  Tacitus, the Historian, 9, 12.

  Tatian, the Heretic, 45, 47, 48. See Diatessaron.

  Ten Persecutions, 11.

  Tertullian, the distinguished Lawyer, 38, 45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 68,
        72, note 3.

  Theophilus of Antioch, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 56.

  Theophilus of Antioch, quoted John by name, 46, 51, 53.

  Theophilus, the friend of Luke, 77.

  Thessalonians, Epistles to, 12.

  Thomas the Apostle, 14.

  Tiberias, appearances at, 108, 121, 125, 133, note 7.

  Time, how reckoned by the Jews, 90, 100, note 3.

  Titus and Barnabas, 83. See Barnabas.

  Toleration, rule for, 135.

  Tombs, at Ephesus, 14.

  Tradition, 9, 53, 54, 66, 67, 68.

  Trajan, persecution under, 9, 10, 12, 59.

  Transfiguration, 92, 123.

  Translations, 69, 70.

  Trypho the Jew, 18, 19, 20, 21, 104, 109, note 4.
    See Justin Martyr.


  Uncial manuscripts, 73, note 10.

  Unity of Gospels, 79.

  Usages in Justin’s time, 19.


  Valentinus, evidence from, 45, 47.

  Vatican Codex, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7.

  Victor, Bishop of Rome, 51.

  Vienne and Lyons, 45.

  Vision, theory stated, 114.
    disproved, 114 to 132.


  Walking on the Sea, 123.

  Wise men of the East, 78.

  Witnesses in Court,—see Credibility, etc.
    women not competent, 116, 119, note 13.

  Women at the Sepulchre, 104 to 106, 109, note 5, 115, 116.


  Yielding up the Ghost, 99.


  Zebedee’s Sons, 42, note 14, 90 to 100.





INDEX B.

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO MODERN AUTHORS, EVENTS, AND WRITINGS.


  Abbot, E. A., D.D., on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.

  Abbott, Rev. Edward, on Fijis, 141, note 8.

  Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel by Ezra Abbot, D.D., LL.D.
        (Boston, 1880.) Frequent citations from, 10 to 48.

  Abbott, Cyclopædia of Religious Knowledge, by Lyman Abbott, D.D.,
        LL.D., cited, 122, 132, note 5, with 122.

  Adams’ Roman Antiquities, 119, note 13.

  Alford (Dean) 103, 108, note 1, with 102.

  Ambrosian Library, 48, note 5.

  Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 16, notes 1, 3, 22, 23, 30, 34.

  Arnold, Matthew, on Basilides, 28, with 10, and 11, note 4.


  Bampton Lectures, 40 with 42, note 17, 68 with 72, note 6.

  Barnes, Albert, on site of Emmaus, 109, note 9.
    on the Resurrection Body, 123, 132, note 5.

  Bartlett, Pres., on the slight historical errors, 79, note 1.

  Baur, J. C., on Fourth Gospel, 52.

  Bentley, on genuineness of Gospels, 71.

  Blackstone, 32, 132.

  Bleek, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.

  Buck’s Theological Dictionary, 11, note 5.


  Cannibals Christianized, 139, 141, note 8.

  Canonicity,—See Charteris.

  Chadwick’s Views of Christianity, 134, 139, 140, note 1.

  Charteris, Prof. A. H., D.D., on Basilides, 28.
    date of Celsus, 49, note 6.
    date of Justin’s Apology, 61, note 1.
    early universal use of Gospels, 47.
    Fourth Gospel, 17, 27, 28, 47.
    Marcion’s Gospel, 72, note 7, with 69.
    Papias, 17.
    Pastor Hermas, 27.

  Child, L. Maria, 119, note 13.

  Congregationalist, 58, note, 140, note 2, 141, note 8.

  Conybeare and Howson’s Life of Paul, 82, 83, with 88, notes 2, 4.

  Credner, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.

  Curtiss, Prof. Samuel Ives, D.D., on Apocryphal Gospels, 34, 35, 39,
        and 40 with 42, notes 15, 16.
    date of Celsus, 48, note 6.
    date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 6.
    Judge Waite, 35, 48, note 6.

  Cursive manuscripts of Gospels, 73, note 10.


  Davidson, Samuel, cited by Waite, 29, note 4.

  De Soto, 52.

  Donaldson and Roberts, 16, notes 1, 3, 20, 22, note 1, 23, 30, 61,
        note 1.

  Dorner on use by Papias of John’s Gospel, 17.

  Drummond, Prof., on Justin’s use of John’s Gospel, 30.


  Early settlements in New Hampshire, 58.


  Farrar, (Canon), 100, note 1, 109, note 3.

  Fisher, Prof. George P., D.D., on Alogi, 62, note 5.
    date of Apocryphal Gospels, 41, note 2, with 34.
    date of Celsus, 49, note 6, with 46.
    date of Justin’s Apology, 61, note 1.
    date of Muratori Canon, 46, 48, note 5.
    genuineness of text of Gospels, 67, 71, 72, note 4, 73, note 12.
    John’s Gospel, 27, 29, note 3, 33, note 3, with 30.
    Justin’s Quotations, 46, 48, notes 2, 4, 62, note 5, 67, 68, 72,
        note 4.
    Marcion’s Gospel, 72, note 4, with 68.
    Theophilus, 46, 48, note 4.

  Free Religious Index, 140, note 1.

  Friedlieb, on physical Cause of Death, 102, 108, note 1.


  Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, by Cunningham Geikie, D.D.,
        (1880), cited page 109, note 10, with page 108.

  Gibbon’s Rome, 9.

  Gibson, Ch. Justice, 131.

  Gilbert West,—See West.

  Godet, Prof. F., D.D., 88, note 1, 90, 100, note 3, 126, 132, notes
        1, 2, 133, note 8.
    upon Possibility of Miracles, 132, notes 1, 2, with 111.
    upon Sign of Jonah, 88, note 1, 90, 100, note 3.
    upon Vision Theory, 126, 133, note 8.

  Gordon-Cumming, in Fiji, 141, note 8.

  Granite Monthly, 58.

  Greenleaf, Prof. Simon, LL.D., on cock-crowing, 100, note 4, with 97.
    credibility of witnesses, 78, 137, 138, 140, notes 3, 6.
    genuineness of Gospels, 13, 72, 73, note 13.
    presumption of Permanency, 43, 44, note 1, 66.
    presumption of Rightfulness, 13, 44, note 1, 66.
    sign of Jonah, 100, note 3, with page 90.
    superscription on the Cross, 138, 140, note 6.
    truth of Christianity, 132, 138, 140, note 6.


  Hanna, Rev. William, LL.D., on cause of death, 109, note 1, with 102.
    empty tomb, 105, 109, note 6.
    Galilee meeting, 109, note 10, with 108.

  Hilgenfeld on Justin’s use of John’s Gospel, 30, 33, note 3.
    on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.

  Hooykaas and his Bible for Learners, 114, 119, note 8, 128, 133, note
        12, 134, 140, note 1.

  Holtzmann, on Apocryphal Gospels, 35.

  Hume’s argument from experience, 43, 112.


  Ingersoll on inspiration, 136, 137, 138.
    on miracles, 112, 118, note 3.

  Inter-Ocean (Chicago), 41, note 2, 42, note 15, 16.


  Kent, Chancellor, 32, 132.

  Keim, Dr., on date of Celsus, 48, 49, note 6.
    on the empty tomb, 120, 132, note 2.


  Lafayette’s visit, 57, 62, note 2.

  Landing of the Pilgrims, 58.

  Lange’s Life of Jesus, on cause of death, 108, note 1, with 102.
    Cleopas and Luke, 106, 109, note 8.
    Galilee meeting, 108, 109, note 10.
    guard of Soldiers, 109, note 3, with 103.
    journey to Emmaus, 106, 109, note 8.
    lifting up the Serpent, 89, 90, 100, note 1.
    locality of Emmaus, 109, note 9.
    sign of Jonah, 100, notes 2, 3, with 90.
    women at the Sepulchre, 104, 109, note 5.

  Lemisch on date of Justin’s Apology, 61, note 1.

  Light Infantry Poor, 62, note 2, with 57.

  Lipsius, Prof. of Jena, on date of Apocryphal Gospels, 35.
    that Justin did not use them, 40, 42, note 15.

  Lord Brougham, 132.


  Madagascar Christianized, 139.

  Mason, Jeremiah, 132.

  Marshall, Ch. Justice, 132.

  Matthew Arnold. See Arnold.

  McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, on Cerinthus, 66, note 3.
    Pagan Persecutions, 11, note 5, 73, note 9.
    Resurrection Body of Christ, 123.

  Meyer’s Lexicon, on date of Apocryphal Gospels, 35.

  Mill, J. S. concedes, Christ Historical, 128, 133, note 11.
    miracles possible, 8.

  Miln, on “Church of the Future,” 134, 140, note 1.

  Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord, by William Milligan, D.D.,
        Prof. etc. in the University of Aberdeen. (London, 1881),
        Cited, 114, 119, notes 5, 7.

  Morrison, James, D.D., on Empty Tomb, 119, note 18.


  New Hampshire Journal, Preface and 140, note 2.

  New York Observer, 140, note 1.

  Neander, on the date of Justin’s Apology, 61, note 1.
    destruction of Church, etc., at Nicomedia, 73, note 9.

  New Revision, 72, 100, note 1.

  North American Review, 118, note 3, 140, note 4.

  Norton, on Peter’s Gospel, 39, 42, note 12, 56, note 2.
    on Genuineness of Our Gospels, 54, 56, 76, 80, note 6.
    on number of Copies of Gospels, 73, note 8, with 70.


  Page on date of Justin’s Apology, 61, note 1.

  Parker, Joel, Ch. Justice, 43.

  Parmelee, Dr. Simeon, great age of, 57.

  Parsons, Theophilus, Ch. Justice, 132.

  Patten’s Diaries, 58.

  Paulus, Theory of, 114.

  Phillips, on Presumptions, 43, 44, note 1.

  Pond, Dr. Enoch, as to cessation of Miracles, 140, note 7.

  Princeton Review, 68, 72, note 4, 79, note 1.


  Renan, Ernest, admissions by, 12, 13, note 1, 84, 112, 130, 133,
        notes 12 and 14.
    demands expert testimony, 7.
    denials, 7, 11, note 1, 112, 118, note 3.
    idle boasting, 84, 116, 119, note 12.
    upon Christ’s teachings, 128, 133, note 12.
    upon silence of Historians as to occurrences at the Crucifixion,
        130, 133, note 14.

  Reuss, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.

  Riggenback, on use by Papias of John’s Gospel, 17.

  Roberts and Donaldson, 16, notes 1 and 3, 20, 22, note 1, 23, 30, 61,
        note 1.
    that Justin did not cite Peter’s Gospel, 20.

  Robinson’s Holy Land, 109, note 9.

  Robinson, John, the Pilgrim Father, 135.

  Robinson, Prof., on the Resurrection Body, 122, 132, note 5.

  Routh, on Papias’ use of John’s Gospel, 17.

  Rowe, Prof. See Bampton Lectures.


  Salisbury Church. See Webster.

  Sanday, Dr., on quotations by Justin, 24.
    by Irenæus, 56.
    dates of Celsus, Muratori Canon, 48 and 49, notes 5, 6.
    that Marcion’s Gospel is an abridgment of Luke, 68, 69, 72, note 7.

  Sandwich Islands Christianized, 139.

  Savage, on the “Church of the Future,” 134, 140, note 1.

  Schleiermacher, theory of, 81, 88, note 1.

  Schenkel’s Lexicon, on date of Apocryphal Gospels, 35.

  Scott, Thomas, D.D., that part of the day is counted for the whole,
        90, 100, note 3.
    upon Resurrection Body, 122, 132, note 5.

  Scribner’s Monthly, 73, note 12.

  Sears’ “Heart of Christ,” 30, 33, note 3, 49, note 6, 61, note 1, 80,
        note 4.

  Smith and Wace’s Dictionary, 35.

  Spiritualists, 140, 141, note 7.

  Stanley (Dean) as to date of Polycarp’s Epistle, 10.

  Starkie, on coincidences, 137, 140, note 5.
    on Christianity, 132.

  Stier, that part of a day is counted for the whole, 90, 100, note 2.

  Story, Judge, 32, 132.

  Stowe, Prof. C. E., on Apocryphal Gospels, 35, 41, note 2.
    Elders at Ephesus, 56, note 4, with 55.
    Gospel to Hebrews, 37, 42, note 10.
    Greek Classic Copies, 71, 73, note 11.
    John’s Gospel, 48, note 4.
    Theophilus, 48, note 4.

  Strauss, David, Admissions by:
    actual death of Jesus, 81, 102, 114, 119, note 6.
    sincerity of witnesses, 86.
    universal use of the Gospels, by the end of the Second Century, 45,
        46.
    false theories of, 7, 8, 81, 88, note 1, 106, 115.
    became an atheist, 8.
    how far commended, 38, 134.
    more candid than Waite, 38.

  Stroud, on physical cause of Death, 102, 108, note 1.

  Supernatural Religion. An Inquiry into The Reality of Divine
        Revelation. (Anonymous.) Referred to pp. 17, 42, note 14, 68,
        69, 112, with 118, note 3.


  Taylor, William, D.D., on Miracles, 111, 118, note 1, 128, 133, note
        10.

  Thomson’s “Land and Book,” 35, 36, 41, note 4.

  Tischendorf, Constantine, discoverer of the Sinaitic Codex, 70.
    on Commentary of Heracleon, 47, 49, note 8.
    on difference in Manuscripts, 73, note 10.
    on number of manuscript copies, 71, 73, note 10.
    on quotations by Irenæus, 56, note 3, with 55.
    on use, by Papias, of John’s Gospel, 17.

  Tübingen School, 8, 30.


  Uncials, number of, 73, note 10.


  Waite, History of the Christian Religion to the year Two Hundred. By
        Charles B. Waite, A. M. Second Edition, Chicago (1881), 34.

  Waite, C. B., admits Gospels do not copy from each other, 74.

  Waite, C. B., his mistakes as to Apocalypse, 88, note 3.
    Apocryphal Gospels, 35, 36, 41, note 5.
    Basilides, 29, note 4.
    Clement of Rome, 32, 66, note 1, 67, 72, note 2.
    Celsus, 48, note 6.
    Cerinthus, 66, note 3.
    Justin Martyr, 5, 10, 11, note 3, 61, note 1.
    Marcion’s Gospel, 38, 45, 54, 68, 69, 72, note 7.
    Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.
    Peter’s Gospel, 20, note 2, 38, 39, 40, 42, note 14, 48, 62, note 6.
    Resurrection body, and Paul, 85, 114, 119, note 8, 122.
    with other matters too numerous to mention.

  Walker, Timothy, Diaries of, 58.

  Webster, Daniel, 132, 135, 140, note 2.
    his creed, 135, 140, note 2.
    his church membership, 140, note 2.

  Warrenton, on quotations from O. T., 80, note 1.

  Weiseler, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.

  Westcott, 17, 80, note 6.

  Wesleyan Missionaries, 141, note 8.

  West, Gilbert, on resurrection, 117, 119, note 16.

  Whitby, that a part of a day is put for the whole, 100, note 3.

  Whittier’s Poem, 57.

  Wright. The Logic of Christian Evidences. By Rev. G. Frederick
        Wright, Andover, Mass. (1880), cited or quoted, 18, 24, 28,
        note 1, 56, notes, and 80, note 6.


  Yorktown Scammel, 62, note 2.





ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS.

W. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, ANDOVER, MASS.


Among the Andover Publications will be found choice and valuable books
for intelligent readers; also works for the special use of Theological
Students and Clergymen. The Catalogue embraces works on the Evidences
and Defences of Christianity, Devotional books, Essays in Philosophy
and Theology, Church History, Discrepancies of the Bible, Hermeneutics,
Commentaries on various books of the Old and New Testaments, Harmonies of
the New Testament in Greek and in English, Grammars of the New Testament
Greek, Hebrew Lexicon and Grammars, etc.

Descriptive Catalogues sent free on application. All books sent by
mail postpaid, at the prices annexed. A special discount of twenty per
cent is given to clergymen and theological students, excepting on the
“Bibliotheca Sacra” and those books which are marked by a *.

Address

W. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, ANDOVER, MASS.


_Books Published by W. F. Draper._

=Remarks on the Internal Evidence for the Truth of Revealed Religion.= By
THOMAS ERSKINE, Esq., Advocate. Third American, from the Fifth Edinburgh
Edition. 16mo. 75 cents.

    “The entire treatise cannot fail to commend the positions which
    it advocates to intelligent and considerate minds. It is one of
    the best, perhaps _the_ best, of all the discussions of this
    momentous subject.”—_Congregationalist._

    “This argument of Erskine for the Internal Evidence of the
    Truth of Revealed Religion, is the most compact, natural, and
    convincing we have ever read from any author.”—_Christian
    Chronicle._

    “No man ought to consider himself as having studied theology
    unless he has read and pondered and read again ‘Erskine on the
    Internal Evidence.’”—_Independent._

=Five Discourses on St. Paul.= To which is added a Discourse on Fatalism.
By ADOLPHE MONOD. Translated from the French by Rev. J. H. MYERS, D.D.
12mo. 90 cents.

    “The aim of the author is to present an estimate of the
    character, labors, and writings of the Apostle Paul in the
    light of an example, and to apply the principles which actuated
    him, and which he maintained, to Christians of the present
    day.”—_Boston Journal._

    “A book unsurpassed in its department, in any language, for
    manly eloquence, thorough research, profound reflection, a most
    earnest, glowing, winning Christian spirit, united with an
    exact appreciation of the great Apostle’s character and work,
    and a wise, cautious, but bold and unflinching, application of
    his teachings to the times in which we live.”—_The Translator._

    “A masterly and most eloquent delineation of the inner life of
    the great Apostle.”—_Evangelical Quarterly._

=_Writings of Archbishop Whately._= Published under the sanction of the
author, from the latest revised edition; viz.

=Essays on some of the Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul.= 12mo.
Cloth extra, gilt tops. $1.50

    “Dr. Whately’s writings are characterized by sound thought
    and solid judgment. Clear and solid sense is his peculiar
    characteristic. He is often ingenious, generally candid, almost
    always plain and transparent.”—_Bibliotheca Sacra._

    “An excellent work.”—_New York Evangelist._

    “The Archbishop’s writings are a part of the sterling
    theological letters of the age, and ought to be possessed by
    all the studious and thoughtful.”—_Journal and Messenger._

    “This book had passed through at least eight editions in
    England before its publication in this country. Dr. Whately
    is always entitled to a hearing. Never profound, he is always
    clear; never very original, he is always instructive; never
    disgustingly dogmatic, he always seems to feel a serene
    assurance that he has exhausted the whole subject, and that
    his verdict is final; always positive and didactic, he is
    yet never extreme, but always takes the middle and moderate
    view.”—_Watchman and Reflector._

=Essays on some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion, and
Historic Doubts concerning Napoleon.= 12mo. pp. 264 and 48. Bound in 1
vol. Cloth extra, gilt tops. $1.50

=Historic Doubts concerning Napoleon.= 12mo. Paper covers. 25 cents;
cloth, 40 cents.

    About the year 1821 Whately published this Essay anonymously.
    It was designed as an answer to Hume’s objections to the
    credibility of the Christian miracles. Following Hume’s method,
    Whately gravely argued the improbability of the existence
    of the first Napoleon, and demonstrated that, on Hume’s
    principles, the testimony in relation thereto could not be
    credited.

=The Contemplations and Letters of Henry Dorney of Uley,
Gloucestershire.= 12mo. $1.00

    The Contemplations and Letters of Henry Dorney were held in
    high estimation by Madam Phebe Phillips. The copy which she
    used, came down to her as an heirloom from her pious ancestors,
    and was ranked, on her private table, next to her Bible and
    hymn-book. So highly did she esteem the work, that she copied
    out, with her own hand, a large part of the volume for the use
    of a friend. It is now reprinted as a precious memorial of one
    of the honored founders of the Theological Institution.

=Bible History of Prayer.= By C. A. GOODRICH. 12mo. $1.25

    “The aim of this little volume is to embody an account of the
    delightful and successful intercourse of believers with heaven
    for some four thousand years. The author has indulged a good
    deal in narrative, opening and explaining the circumstances
    which gave birth to the several prayers.

    “The author does not aim to write a treatise on prayer, or to
    comment on all the references to prayer in chronological order,
    but to dwell on its nature and importance, and make suggestions
    on the most important allusions to prayer, as indicated all
    along for four thousand years. He explains the circumstances
    connected with the prayers of these holy men.”—_Religious
    Union._

=Messianic Prophecy and the Life of Christ.= By Rev. W. S. KENNEDY. 12mo.
$1.25

    “The plan of the author is to collect all the prophecies of
    the Old Testament referring to the Messiah, with appropriate
    comments and reflections, and then to pursue the subject
    through the New Testament in the life of Christ as he appeared
    among men. The reader will find the results of Hengstenberg
    and Neander here gathered up, and presented in a readable
    shape.”—_The Presbyterian._

    “This work exhibits the prophetic element in the Messianic
    argument in an analytical shape, and with peculiar
    force.”—_Episcopal Recorder._

    “The general idea of the book is a very happy one, and it has,
    on the whole been well wrought out.”—_The Lutheran._

=Theologia Germanica.= Which setteth forth many fair Lineaments of
Divine Truth, and saith very lofty and lovely things touching a Perfect
Life. Edited by DR. PFEIFFER, from the only complete Manuscript yet
known. Translated from the German by SUSANNA WINKWORTH. With a Preface
by the Rev. CHARLES KINGSLEY, Rector of Eversley; and a Letter to
the Translator, by the CHEVALIER BUNSEN, D.D., D.C.L., etc.; and an
Introduction by PROF. CALVIN E. STOWE, D.D. 16mo. Cloth, $1.25; calf,
$2.50

    This treatise was discovered by Luther, who first brought it
    into notice by an edition which he published in 1516, of which
    he says: “And I will say, though it be boasting of myself, and
    ‘I speak as a fool,’ that, next to the Bible and St. Augustine,
    no book hath ever come into my hands whence I have learnt, or
    would wish to learn, more of what God and Christ, and man, and
    all things, are.” “A precious lump of pure gold in a flag of
    earth and stone.”

    “This little volume which is brought out in antique style, is,
    apart from its intrinsic value, a curiosity of literature. It
    may be regarded as the harbinger of the Protestant Reformation.
    No fewer than seventeen editions of this book appeared in
    his lifetime, and up to the present day it has continued to
    be a favorite manual of devotion in Germany, where it has
    passed through certainly as many as sixty editions.”—_Evening
    Traveller._

    “I value it _exceedingly_, so vivid and so rich is it,
    on the great ideas of _sin_, and _salvation through
    Christ_.”—_Congregational Herald._

    “A most valuable, interesting, and instructive volume, upon the
    most vital points of Christianity.”—_Lutheran Standard._

_=Haley. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.=_ By
John W. Haley, M.A. With an Introduction by Alvah Hovey, D.D., Professor
in the Newton Theological Institution. Crown 8vo. pp. xii and 473. $1.75

    =From Professor Edwards A. Park.=—“I do not know any volume
    which gives to the English reader such a compressed amount of
    suggestion and instruction on this theme as is given in this
    volume.”

    =From the Presbyterian Quarterly.=—“The book is honest, candid,
    and painstaking. It will be found useful to all students of the
    sacred volume.”

    “An able book, containing a clear and dispassionate discussion
    of a momentous subject. It stands unique in a field of its
    own.”—_Independent._

    “As an example of thorough and painstaking scholarship, as a
    serviceable handbook for all Bible students, and as a popular
    defence of revealed truth, it will take high rank, and fill an
    important place which up to this time has been conspicuously
    vacant.”—_Congregationalist._

    “It would be difficult, by any amount of labor, to produce
    anything more convincing and satisfactory.”—The _Interior._

_=Haley. The Hereafter of Sin=_: What it will be; with Answers to Certain
Questions and Objections. By Rev. John W. Haley, author of “Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible.” 16mo. 75 cents.

    “It presents, in a calm and admirable manner, the Scriptural
    doctrine of future retribution, divested, indeed, of the
    literalism with which it is sometimes presented, and
    showing its accordance with the deductions of a sound
    philosophy.”—_Zion’s Herald._

    “It is a scholarly, clear, dispassionate, and conclusive
    argument in favor of what is known as the common or orthodox
    view of future punishment. The whole discussion is conducted in
    a spirit of courtesy and fairness towards all opponents which
    does credit to our current controversial literature.”—_The
    Interior._

_=Wright. The Logic of Christian Evidences.=_ By Rev. G. Frederick
Wright. 16mo. $1.50

    “Beginning with a general statement of the principles of
    inductive and deductive logic, which are illustrated by ample
    examples drawn from the whole field of modern science, it
    advances to the consideration of the personality, wisdom, and
    benevolence of the Creator, as seen in nature; to the place of
    miracles in the Christian system; to the specific evidences
    of Christianity as discerned in the early history of the New
    Testament, and in the characteristics of the Christians of the
    first and second centuries; and to the historical probability
    of Jesus and his immediate followers having been either
    impostors or deluded enthusiasts.”—_Literary World._

    “The book would form an admirable text-book for Bible-classes
    or college classes, and will give solid comfort and strength to
    all readers who have any desire to be able to give a reason for
    believing.”—_Rev. Dr. Thomas Hill in the Bibliotheca Sacra._

_=Wright. Studies in Science and Religion.=_ By Prof. G. Frederick
Wright, author of “The Logic of Christian Evidences.” 16mo. $1.50

    “The chapter on inductive reasoning, with which the book opens,
    is as full, explanatory, and convincing as any one could wish,
    despite the fact it occupies only twenty-six pages.... The
    grand point contended for and carried is that ‘Christianity,
    in its appeal to historical evidence, allies itself with
    modern science rather than with the glittering generalities of
    transcendentalism,’ and that in its beginnings science has no
    advantage over religion in solidity of basis.”—_The Leader._

    “The article on Prehistoric Man, now appears for the first
    time. It is illustrated by a number of maps and cuts which
    enhance the interest of the story. The southern limit of the
    ice of the Glacial Epoch in North America is traced, and the
    connection of human implements therewith is shown.”—_Oberlin
    Review._