,transcriber's ,note3 ,footnotes have been relocated to the end of the text1 and footnote anchors have been labeled with the original page and footnote numbers4 ,inconsistent hyphenations by the author 7including co-extensive_/coextensive1 foot-notes_/footnotes1 hundred-fold_/hundredfold1 mis-statement_/misstatement1 re-written_/rewritten1 two-fold_/twofold7 have been retained as printed4 ,,essays ,,on ,,the ,,work ,,entitled ,,supernatural ,,religion ,reprinted from ,the ,contemporary ,review4 ,,by ,j4,b4 ,,lightfoot1 ,d4,d41 ,d4,c4,l41 ,,ll4,d4 ,,late ,,bishop ,,of ,,durham4 ,,london3 ,,macmillan ,,and ,,co4 ,,and ,,new ,,york4 #ahic ,first ,edition1 #ahhi4 ,second ,edition1 #ahic4 ,,preface4 ,this republication of ,essays which were written several years ago has no reference to any present controversies4 ,its justification is the fact that strangers and friends in ,england and ,america alike had urged me from time to time to gather them together1 that they might be had in a more convenient form1 believing that they contained some elements of permanent value which deserved to be rescued from the past numbers of a ,review not easily procurable1 and thus rendered more accessible to students4 ,i had long resisted these solicitations for reasons which ,i shall explain presently2 but a few months ago1 when ,i was prostrated by sickness and my life was hanging on a slender thread1 it became necessary to give a final answer to the advice tendered to me4 ,this volume is the result4 ,the kind offices of my chaplain the ,rev4 ,j4,r4 ,harmer1 who undertook the troublesome task of verifying the references1 correcting the press1 and adding the indices1 when ,i was far too ill to attend to such matters myself1 have enabled me to bring it out sooner than ,i had hoped4 ,when ,i first took up the book entitled ',supernatural ,religion1' ,i felt1 whether rightly or wrongly1 that its criticisms were too loose and pretentious1 and too full of errors1 to produce any permanent effect2 and for the most part attacks of this kind on the records of the ,divine ,life are best left alone4 ,but ,i found that a cruel and unjustifiable assault was made on a very dear friend to whom ,i was attached by the most sacred personal and theological ties2 and that the book which contained this attack was from causes which need not be specified obtaining a notoriety unforeseen by me4 ,thus ,i was forced to break silence2 and1 as ,i advanced with my work1 ,i seemed to see that1 though undertaken to redress a personal injustice1 it might be made subservient to the wider interests of the truth4 ,paper succeeded upon paper1 and ,i had hoped ultimately to cover the whole ground1 so far as regards the testimony of the first two centuries to the ,new ,testament ,scriptures4 ,but my time was not my own1 as ,i was necessarily interrupted by other literary and professional duties which claimed the first place2 and meanwhile ,i was transferred to another and more arduous sphere of practical work1 being thus obliged to postpone indefinitely my intention of giving something like completeness to the work4 ,in republishing these papers then1 the only course open to me1 in justice to my adversary as well as to myself1 was to reprint them in succession word for word as they appeared1 correcting obvious misprints2 though in many cases my argument might have been strengthened considerably4 ,recently discovered documents for instance have established the certainty of the main conclusions respecting ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 to which the criticism of the available evidence had led me4 ,again ,i have since treated the ,ignatian question more fully elsewhere1 and satisfied myself on points about which ,i had expressed indecision in these ,essays4 ,on the other hand on one or two minor questions ,i might have used less confident language4 ,what shocked me in the book was not the extravagance of the opinions or the divergence from my own views2 though ,i cannot pretend to be indifferent about the veracity of the records which profess to reveal ,him1 whom ,i believe to be not only the very ,truth1 but the very ,life4 ,i have often learnt very much even from extreme critics1 and have freely acknowledged my obligations2 but here was a writer who 7to judge from his method7 seemed to me1 and not to me only ,footnote3 ,see ,salmon's ,introduction to the ,new ,testament p4 #i41 where it was a question of weighing probabilities1 as is the case in most historical investigations1 to choose invariably that alternative1 even though the least probable1 which would enable him to score a point against his adversary4 ,for the rest ,i disclaim any personal bias1 as against any personal opponent4 ,the author of ',supernatural ,religion1' as distinct from the work1 is a mere blank to me4 ,i do not even know his name1 nor have ,i attempted to discover it4 ,whether he is living or dead1 ,i know not4 ,he preferred to write anonymously1 and so far as ,i am concerned1 ,i am glad that it was so2 though1 speaking for myself1 ,i prefer taking the responsibility of my opinions and statements on important subjects4 ,in several instances the author either vouchsafed an answer to my criticisms1 or altered the form of his statements in a subsequent edition4 ,in all such cases references are scrupulously given in this volume to his later utterances4 ,in most cases my assailant had the last word4 ,he is welcome to it4 ,i am quite willing that careful and impartial critics shall read my statements and his side by side1 and judge between us4 ,it is my sole desire1 in great things and in small1 to be found ,greek3 sunergos te aletheia4 ,,bournemouth1 ,may #b1 #ahhi4 ,,table ,,of ,,contents4 ,,page ,i4 ,,introduction #a--ca ,,ii4 ,,the ,,silence ,,of ,,eusebius #cb--eh ,,iii4 ,,the ,,ignatian ,,epistles #ei--hh ,,iv4 ,,polycarp ,,of ,,smyrna #hi--ada ,v4 ,,papias ,,of ,,hierapolis ,i4 #adb--agg ,,vi4 ,,papias ,,of ,,hierapolis ,,ii4 #agh--baf ,,vii4 ,,the ,,later ,,school ,,of ,,st ,,john #bag--bej ,,viii4 ,,the ,,churches ,,of ,,gaul #bea--bga ,,ix4 ,,tatian',s ,,diatessaron #bgb--bhh ,,discoveries ,,illustrating ,,the ,,acts ,,of ,,the ,,apostles #bia--cjb ,,indices #cjc--cbd ,,supernatural ,,religion4 ,i4 ,,introduction4 ,,december1 #ahgd ,if the author of ,supernatural ,religion ,footnote #a3a designed1 by withholding his name1 to stimulate public curiosity and thus to extend the circulation of his work1 he has certainly not been disappointed in his hope4 ,when the rumour once got abroad1 that it proceeded from the pen of a learned and venerable prelate1 the success of the book was secured4 ,for this rumour indeed there was no foundation in fact4 ,it was promptly and emphatically denied1 when accidentally it reached the ears of the supposed author4 ,but meanwhile the report had been efficacious4 ,the reviewers had taken the work in hand and 7with one exception7 lavished their praises on the critical portions of it4 ,the first edition was exhausted in a few months4 ,no words can be too strong to condemn the heartless cruelty of this imputation4 ,the venerable prelate1 on whom the authorship of this anonymous work was thrust1 deserved least of all men to be exposed to such an insult4 ,as an academic teacher and as an ecclesiastical ruler alike1 he had distinguished himself by a courageous avowal of his opinions at all costs4 ,for more than a quarter of a century he had lived in the full blaze of publicity1 and on his fearless integrity no breath of suspicion had ever rested4 ,yet now1 when increasing infirmities obliged him to lay down his office1 he was told that his life for years past had been one gigantic lie4 ,the insinuation involved nothing less than this4 ,throughout those many years1 during which the anonymous author1 as he himself tells us1 had been preparing for the publication of an elaborate and systematic attack upon ,christianity1 the bishop was preaching ,christian doctrine1 confirming ,christian children1 ordaining ,christian ministers1 without breathing a hint to the world that he felt any misgiving of the truths which he thus avowed and taught4 ,yet men talked as if1 somehow or other1 the cause of 'freethinking' had gained great moral support from the conversion of a bishop1 though1 if the rumour had been true1 their new convert had for years past been guilty of the basest fraud of which a man is capable4 ,and all the while there was absolutely nothing to recommend this identification of the unknown author4 ,the intellectual characteristics of the work present a trenchant contrast to the refined scholarship and cautious logic of this accomplished prelate4 ,only one point of resemblance could be named4 ,the author shows an acquaintance with the theological critics of the modern ,dutch school2 and a knowledge of ,dutch writers was known1 or believed1 to have a place among the acquisitions of this omniscient scholar4 ,truly no reputation is safe1 when such a reputation is traduced on these grounds4 ,i have been assuming however that the work entitled ,supernatural ,religion1 which lies before me1 is the same work which the reviewers have applauded under this name4 ,but1 when ,i remember that the ,st ,mark of ,papias cannot possibly be our ,st ,mark1 ,i feel bound to throw upon this assumption the full light of modern critical principles2 and1 so tested1 it proves to be not only hasty and unwarrantable1 but altogether absurd4 ,it is only necessary to compare the statements of highly intellectual reviewers with the work itself2 and every unprejudiced mind must be convinced that 'the evidence is fatal to the claims' involved in this identification4 ,out of five reviews or notices of the work which ,i have read1 only one seems to refer to our ,supernatural ,religion4 ,the other four are plainly dealing with some apocryphal work1 bearing the same name and often using the same language1 but in its main characteristics quite different from and much more authentic than the volumes before me4 #a4 ,it must be observed in the first place1 that the reviewers agree in attributing to the work scholarship and criticism of the highest order4 ',the author1' writes one1 'is a scientifically trained critic4 ,he has learned to argue and to weigh evidence4' ',the book1' adds a second1 'proceeds from a man of ability1 a scholar and a reasoner4' ',his scholarship1' says this same reviewer again1 'is apparent throughout4' ',along with a wide and minute scholarship1' he writes in yet another place1 'the unknown writer shows great acuteness4' ,again a third reviewer1 of whose general tone1 as well as of his criticisms on the first part of the work1 ,i should wish to speak with the highest respect1 praises the writer's 'searching and scholarly criticism4' ,lastly a fourth reviewer attributes to the author 'careful and acute scholarship4' ,this testimony is explicit1 and it comes from four different quarters4 ,it is moreover confirmed by the rumour already mentioned1 which assigned the work to a bishop who has few rivals among his contemporaries as a scholar and a critic4 ,now1 since the documents which our author has undertaken to discuss are written almost wholly in the ,greek and ,latin languages1 it may safely be assumed that under the term 'scholarship' the reviewers included an adequate knowledge of these languages4 ,starting from this as an axiom which will not be disputed1 ,i proceed to inquire what we find in the work itself1 which will throw any light on this point4 ,the example1 which ,i shall take first1 relates to a highly important passage of ,irenaeus #c3a1 containing a reference in some earlier authority1 whom this father quotes1 to a saying of our ,lord recorded only in ,st ,john's ,gospel4 ,the passage begins thus3-- ',as the elders say1 then also shall those deemed worthy of the abode in heaven depart thither2 and others shall enjoy the delights of paradise2 and others shall possess the splendour of the city2 for everywhere the ,saviour shall be seen according as they that see ,him shall be worthy4' ,then follows the important paragraph which is translated differently by our author #d3a and by ,dr ,westcott #d3b4 ,for reasons which will appear immediately1 ,i place the two renderings side by side3-- ,,westcott4 ,,supernatural ,,religion4 ',this distinction of dwelling1 ',but there is to be this they taught1 exists between distinction #d3d of dwelling those who brought forth a 7,greek3 einai de ten diastolen hundred-fold1 and those who tauten tes oikeseos7 of those bearing brought forth sixty-fold1 and fruit the hundred-fold1 and of the those who brought forth 7bearers of7 the sixty-fold1 and of twenty-fold 7,matt4 xiii4 #h7444 the 7bearers of7 the thirty-fold3 of whom some indeed shall be taken up into the heavens1 some shall live ,and it was for this reason in ,paradise1 and some shall the ,lord said that in ,his inhabit the ,city1 and for that ,father's ,house 7,greek3 en reason 7,greek3 dia touto-- tois tou patros7 are many propter hoc7 the ,lord declared mansions 7,john xiv4 #b74' many mansions to be in the 7heavens7 #d3c of my ,father 7,greek3 en tois tou patros mou monas einai pollas71 etc4' ,on this extract our author remarks that 'it is impossible for any one who attentively considers the whole of this passage and who makes himself acquainted with the manner in which ,irenaeus conducts his argument1 and interweaves it with texts of ,scripture1 to doubt that the phrase we are considering is introduced by ,irenaeus himself1 and is in no case a quotation from the work of ,papias #e3a4' ,as regards the relation of this quotation from the ,fourth ,gospel to ,papias any remarks1 which ,i have to make1 must be deferred for the present #e3b2 but on the other point ,i venture to say that any fairly trained schoolboy will feel himself constrained by the rules of ,greek grammar to deny what our author considers it 'impossible' even 'to doubt4' ,he himself is quite unconscious of the difference between the infinitive and the indicative1 or in other words between the oblique and the direct narrative2 and so he boldly translates ,greek3 einai ten diastolen as though it were ,greek3 estai 7or ,greek3 mellei einai7 ,greek3 he diastole1 and ,greek3 eirekenai ton ,kurion as though it were ,greek3 eireken ho ,kurios4 ,this is just as if a translator from a ,german original were to persist in ignoring the difference between 'es sey' and 'es ist' and between 'der ,herr sage' and 'der ,herr sagt4' ,yet so unconscious is our author of the real point at issue1 that he proceeds to support his view by several other passages in which ,irenaeus 'interweaves' his own remarks1 because they happen to contain the words ,greek3 dia touto1 though in every instance the indicative and not the infinitive is used4 ,to complete this feat of scholarship he proceeds to charge ,dr ,westcott with what 'amounts to a falsification of the text #e3c1' because this scholarly writer has inserted the words 'they taught' to show that in the original the sentence containing the reference to ,st ,john is in the oblique narrative and therefore reports the words of others #e3d4 ,i shall not retort this charge of 'falsification1' because ,i do not think that the cause of truth is served by imputing immoral motives to those from whom we differ2 and indeed the context shows that our author is altogether blind to the grammatical necessity4 ,but ,i would venture to ask whether it would not have been more prudent1 as well as more seemly1 if he had paused before venturing1 under the shelter of an anonymous publication1 to throw out this imputation of dishonesty against a writer of singular candour and moderation1 who has at least given to the world the hostage and the credential of an honoured name4 ,it is necessary to add that our author persists in riveting this grammatical error on himself4 ,he returns to the charge again in two later footnotes #f3a and declares himself to have shown 'that it the reference to the ,fourth ,gospel must be referred to ,irenaeus himself1 and that there is no ground for attributing it to the ,presbyters at all4' ',most critics1' he continues1 'admit the uncertainty #f3b4' ,as it will be my misfortune hereafter to dispute not a few propositions which 'most critics' are agreed in maintaining1 it is somewhat reassuring to find that they are quite indifferent to the most elementary demands of grammar #f3c4 ,the passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main question at issue1 the date of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,the second example which ,i shall take1 though less important1 is not without its value4 ,as in the former instance our author showed his indifference to moods1 so here he is equally regardless of tenses4 ,he is discussing the heathen ,celsus1 who shows an acquaintance with the ,evangelical narratives1 and whose date therefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain4 ,origen1 in the preface to his refutation of ,celsus1 distinctly states that this person had been long dead 7,greek3 ede kai palai nekron74 ,in his first book again he confesses his ignorance who this ,celsus was1 but is disposed to identify him with a person of the name known to have flourished about a century before his own time #g3a4 ,but at the close of the last book #g3b1 addressing his friend ,ambrosius who had sent him the work1 and at whose instance he had undertaken the refutation1 he writes 7or rather1 he is represented by our author as writing7 as follows3-- ',know1 however1 that ,celsus has promised to write another treatise after this one4444 ,if1 therefore1 he has not fulfilled his promise to write a second book1 we may well be satisfied with the eight books in reply to his ,discourse4 ,if however1 he has commenced and finished this work also1 seek it and send it in order that we may answer it also1 and confute the false teaching in it etc4' #g3c ,on the strength of the passage so translated1 our author supposes that ,origen's impression concerning the date of ,celsus had meanwhile been 'considerably modified'1 and remarks that he now 'treats him as a contemporary'4 ,unfortunately however1 the tenses1 on which everything depends1 are freely handled in this translation4 ,origen does not say1 ',celsus has promised1' but ',celsus promises' 7,greek3 epangellomenon71 i4e4 in the treatise before him1 for ,origen's knowledge was plainly derived from the book itself4 ,and again1 he does not say ',if he has not fulfilled his promise to write'1 but ',if he did not write as he undertook to do' 7,greek3 egrapsen huposchomenos72 nor 'if he has commenced and finished'1 but 'if he commenced and finished' 7,greek3 arxamenos sunetelese7 #g3d4 ,thus ,origen's language itself here points to a past epoch1 and is in strict accordance with the earlier passages in his work4 ,these two examples have been chosen1 not because they are by any means the worst specimens of our author's ,greek1 but because in both cases an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar4 ,if any reader is curious to see how he can drive his ploughshare through a ,greek sentence1 he may refer for instance to the translations of ,basilides 7,,ii4 p4 #df7 #h3a1 or of ,valentinus 7,,ii4 p4 #fc7 #h3b1 or of ,philo 7,,ii4 p4 #bfe sq7 #h3c4 ,or he may draw his inferences from such renderings as ,greek2 ho logos edelou1 ',scripture declares1' #h3d or ,greek3 kata korres propelakizein1 #h3e 'to inflict a blow on one side'2 or from such perversions of meaning as 'did no wrong1' twice repeated #h3f as a translation of ,greek3 ouden hemarte in an important passage of ,papias relating to ,st ,mark1 where this ,father really means that the ,evangelist1 though his narrative was not complete1 yet 'made no mistake' in what he did record4 ,nor does our author's ,latin fare any better than his ,greek1 as may be inferred from the fact that he can translate 'nihil tamen differt credentium fidei1' 'nothing nevertheless differs in the faith of believers1' #h3g instead of 'it makes no difference to the faith of believers1' thus sacrificing sense and grammar alike #h3h4 ,or it is still better illustrated by the following example3-- ',nam ex iis commentatoribus ',for of the ,commentators quos habemus1 ,lucam videtur whom we possess1 ,marcion seems ,marcion elegisse quem caederet4' 7videtur7 to have selected ,luke1 ,tertull4 adv4 ,marc4 iv4 #b4 which he mutilates4' ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ii4 #h3i ,here again tenses and moods are quite indifferent1 an imperfect subjunctive being treated as a present indicative2 while at the same time our author fails to perceive that the commentatores are the ,evangelists themselves4 ,his mind seems to be running on the ,commentaries of ,de ,wette and ,alford1 and he has forgotten the ,commentaries of ,caesar #i3a4 ,having shown that the author does not possess the elementary knowledge which is indispensable in a critical scholar1 ,i shall not stop to inquire how far he exhibits those higher qualifications of a critic1 which are far more rare--whether for instance he has the discriminating tact and nice balance of judgment necessary for such a work1 or whether again he realizes how men in actual life do speak and write now1 and might be expected to speak and write sixteen or seventeen centuries ago--without which qualifications the most painful study and reproduction of ,german and ,dutch criticism is valueless4 ,these qualifications cannot be weighed or measured1 and ,i must trust to my subsequent investigations to put the reader in possession of data for forming a judgment on these points4 ,at present it will be sufficient to remark that a scholarly writer might at least be expected not to contradict himself on a highly important question of ,biblical criticism4 ,yet this is what our author does4 ,speaking of the descent of the angel at the pool of ,bethesda 7,john v4 #c1 #d7 in his first part1 he writes3 ',the passage is not found in the older ,,mss of the ,fourth ,gospel1 and it was probably a later interpolation4' #i3b ,but1 having occasion towards the end of his work to refer again to this same passage1 he entirely forgets his previously expressed opinion1 and is very positive on the other side4 ',we must believe1' he writes1 'that this passage did originally belong to the text1 and has from an early period been omitted from the ,,mss on account of the difficulty it presents4' #aj3a ,and1 to make the contradiction more flagrant1 he proceeds to give a reason why the disputed words must have formed part of the original text4 ,it must be evident by this time to any 'impartial mind1' that the ,supernatural ,religion of the reviewers cannot be our ,supernatural ,religion4 ,the higher criticism has taught me that poor foolish ,papias1 an extreme specimen of 'the most deplorable carelessness and want of critical judgment' displayed by the ,fathers on all occasions1 cannot possibly have had our ,st ,mark's ,gospel before him #aj3b1 because he says that his ,st ,mark recorded only 'some' of our ,lord's sayings and doings1 and did not record them in order 7though by the way no one maintains that everything said and done by ,christ is recorded in our ,second ,gospel1 or that the events follow in strict chronological sequence72 and how then is it possible to resist the conclusion1 which is forced upon the mind by the concurrent testimony of so many able reviewers1 the leaders of intellectual thought in this critical nineteenth century1 to the consummate scholarship of the writer1 that they must be referring to a different recension1 probably more authentic and certainly far more satisfactory than the book which lies before me8 #b4 ,and the difficulty of the popular identification will be found to increase as the investigation proceeds4 ,there is a second point1 also1 on which our critics are unanimous4 ,our first reviewer describes the author as 'scrupulously exact in stating the arguments of adversaries4' ,our fourth reviewer uses still stronger language3 ',the author with excellent candour places before us the materials on which a judgment must rest1 with great fulness and perfect impartiality4' ,the testimony of the other two1 though not quite so explicit1 tends in the same direction4 ',an earnest seeker after truth1' says the second reviewer1 'looking around at all particulars pertaining to his inquiries4' ',the account given in the volume we are noticing1' writes the third1 'is a perfect mine of information on this subject1 alloyed indeed with no small prejudice1 yet so wonderfully faithful and comprehensive that an error may be detected by the light of the writer's own searching and scholarly criticism4' ,now this is not the characteristic of the book before me4 ,the author does indeed single out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers1 and on these he dwells at great length2 but their weightier facts and lines of reasoning are altogether ignored by him1 though they often occur in the same books and even in the same contexts which he quotes4 ,this charge will1 ,i believe1 be abundantly substantiated as ,i proceed4 ,at present ,i shall do no more than give a few samples4 ,our author charges the ,epistle ascribed to ,polycarp with an anachronism #aa3a1 because1 though in an earlier passage ,st ,ignatius is assumed to be dead1 'in chap4 xiii he is spoken of as living1 and information is requested regarding him and those who are with him4' ,why then does he not notice the answer which he might have found in any common source of information1 that when the ,latin version 7the ,greek is wanting here7 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is retranslated into the original language1 ,greek3 tois sun auto1 the 'anachronism' altogether disappears8 #aa3b ,again1 when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion of ,papias #aa3c1 why does he not even mention the view maintained by ,dr ,westcott and others 7and certainly suggested by a strict interpretation of ,papias' own words71 that this father's object in his ',exposition' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative1 but to interpret and illustrate by oral tradition one already lying before him in written documents8 #aa3d ,this view1 if correct1 entirely alters the relation of ,papias to the written ,gospels2 and its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main question at issue4 ,again1 when he reproduces the ,tuebingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prejudice' of ,hegesippus against ,st ,paul #ab3a1 and quotes the often-quoted passage from ,stephanus ,gobarus1 in which this writer refers to the language of ,hegesippus condemning the use of the words1 ',eye hath not seen1 etc4'1 why does he not state that these words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of initiation1 and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that ,hegesippus refers to the words1 not as used by ,st ,paul1 but as misapplied by these heretics8 ,since1 according to the ,tuebingen interpretation1 this single notice contradicts everything else which we know of the opinions of ,hegesippus #ab3b1 the view of 'apologists' might perhaps have been worth a moment's consideration4 ,and again1 in the elaborate examination of ,justin ,martyr's evangelical quotations #ab3c1 in which he had ,credner's careful analysis to guide him1 and which therefore is quite the most favourable specimen of his critical work1 our author frequently refers to ,dr ,westcott's book to censure it1 and many comparatively insignificant points are discussed at great length4 ,why then does he not once mention ,dr ,westcott's argument founded on the looseness of ,justin ,martyr's quotations from the ,old ,testament1 as throwing some light on the degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the ,gospels8 #ab3d ,the former ,justin supposed to be 7as one of the reviewers expresses it7 'almost automatically inspired1' whereas he took a much larger view of the inspiration of the evangelical narratives4 ,a reader fresh from the perusal of ,supernatural ,religion will have his eyes opened as to the character of ,justin's mind1 when he turns to ,dr ,westcott's book1 and finds how ,justin interweaves1 mis-names1 and mis-quotes passages from the ,old ,testament4 ,it cannot be said that these are unimportant points4 ,in every instance which ,i have selected these omitted considerations vitally affect the main question at issue4 ,our fourth reviewer however uses the words which ,i have already quoted1 'excellent candour1' 'great fulness1' 'perfect impartiality1' with special reference to the part of the work relating to the authorship and character of the ,fourth ,gospel1 which he describes as 'a piece of keen and solid reasoning4' ,this is quite decisive4 ,our author might have had his own grounds for ignoring the arguments of 'apologetic' writers1 or he may have been ignorant of them4 ,for reasons which will appear presently1 the latter alternative ought probably to be adopted as explaining some omissions4 ,but however this may be1 the language of the reviewer is quite inapplicable to the work lying before me4 ,it may be candid in the sense of being honestly meant1 but it is not candid in any other sense2 and it is the very reverse of full and impartial4 ,the arguments of 'apologetic' writers are systematically ignored in this part of the work4 ,once or twice indeed he fastens on passages from such writers1 that he may make capital of them2 but their main arguments remain wholly unnoticed4 ,why1 for instance1 when he says of the ,fourth ,gospel that 'instead of the fierce and intolerant temper of the ,son of ,thunder1 we find a spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness and love1' #ac3a does he forget to add that 'apologists' have pointed to such passages as ',ye are of your father the devil1' as a refutation of this statement--passages far more 'intolerant' than anything recorded in the ,synoptic ,gospels8 #ac3b ,why again1 when he asserts that 'allusion is undoubtedly made to' ,st ,paul in the words of the ,apocalypse1 'them that hold the teaching of ,balaam1 who taught ,balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of ,israel1 to eat things sacrificed to idols #ad3a1' does he forget to mention that ,st ,paul himself uses this same chapter in ,jewish history as a warning to those free-thinkers and free-livers1 who eat things sacrificed to idols1 regardless of the scandal which their conduct might create1 and thus1 so far from a direct antagonism1 there is a substantial agreement between the two ,apostles on this point8 #ad3b ,why1 when he is endeavouring to minimize1 if not to deny1 the ,hebraic #ad3c character of the ,fourth ,gospel1 does he wholly ignore the investigations of ,luthardt and others1 which 7as 'apologists' venture to think7 show that the whole texture of the language in the ,fourth ,gospel is ,hebraic8 ,why again1 when he alludes to 'the minuteness of details' #ad3d in this ,gospel as alleged in defence of its authenticity1 is he satisfied with this mere caricature of the 'apologetic' argument8 ,having set up a man of straw1 he has no difficulty in knocking him down4 ,he has only to declare that 'the identification of an eye-witness by details is absurd4' ,it would have been more to the purpose if he had boldly grappled with such arguments as he might have found in ,mr ,sanday's book for instance #ae3a2 arguments founded not on the minuteness of details1 but on the thorough naturalness with which the incidents develop themselves1 on the subtle and inobtrusive traits of character which appear in the speakers1 on the local colouring which is inseparably interwoven with the narrative1 on the presence of strictly ,jewish 7as distinguished from ,christian7 ideas1 more especially ,messianic ideas1 which saturate the speeches1 and the like4 ,and1 if he could have brought forward any parallel to all this in the literature of the time1 or could even have shown a reasonable probability that such a fiction might have been produced in an age which 7as we are constantly reminded7 was singularly inappreciative and uncritical in such matters1 and which certainly has not left any evidence of a genius for realism1 for its highest conception of romance-writing does not rise above the stiffness of the ,clementines or the extravagance of the ,protevangelium--if he could have done this1 he would at least have advanced his argument a step #ae3b4 ,why again1 when he is emphasizing the differences between the ,apocalypse and the ,fourth ,gospel1 does he content himself with stating 'that some apologetic writers' are 'satisfied by the analogies which could scarcely fail to exist between two works dealing with a similar 767 theme1' #ae3c without mentioning for the benefit of the reader some of these analogies1 as for instance1 that our ,lord is styled the ,word of ,god in these two writings1 and these alone1 of the ,new ,testament8 ,he recurs more than once to the doctrine of the ,logos1 as exhibited in the ,gospel1 but again he is silent about the presence of this nomenclature in the ,apocalypse #ae3d4 ,why1 when he contrasts the ,christology of the ,synoptic ,gospels with the ,christology of ,st ,john #ae3e1 does he not mention that 'apologists' quote in reply our ,lord's words in ,matt4 xi4 #bg sq1 ',all things are delivered unto me of my ,father2 and no man knoweth the ,son but the ,father2 neither knoweth any man the ,father1 save the ,son1 and he to whom soever the ,son will reveal him4 ,come unto me1 all ye that labour and are heavy laden1 and ,i will give you rest'8 ,this one passage1 they assert1 covers the characteristic teaching of the ,fourth ,gospel1 and hitherto they have not been answered4 ,again1 our author says very positively that the ,synoptics clearly represent the ministry of ,jesus as having been limited to a single year1 and his preaching is confined to ,galilee and ,jerusalem1 where his career culminates at the fatal ,passover2' thus contrasting with the ,fourth ,gospel1 which 'distributes the teaching of ,jesus between ,galilee1 ,samaria1 and ,jerusalem1 makes it extend at least over three years1 and refers to three ,passovers spent by ,jesus at ,jerusalem4' #af3a ,why then does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as ,matt4 xxiii4 #cg 7comp4 ,luke xiii4 #cd71 ',o1 ,jerusalem1 ,jerusalem1444 how often would ,i have gathered thy children together'8 ,here the expression 'how often1' it is contended1 obliges us to postulate other visits1 probably several visits1 to ,jerusalem1 which are not recorded in the ,synoptic ,gospels themselves4 ,and it may be suggested also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of ,st ,luke1 ',i do cures to-day and to-morrow1 and the third day ,i shall be perfected1' ',i must walk to-day and to-morrow and the day following1' points to the very duration of our ,lord's ministry1 as indicated by the ,fourth ,gospel #af3b4 ,if so1 the coincidence is the more remarkable1 because it does not appear that ,st ,luke himself1 while recording these prophetic words1 was aware of their full historical import4 ,but whatever may be thought of this last point1 the contention of 'apologetic' writers is that here1 as elsewhere1 the ,fourth ,gospel supplies the key to historical difficulties in the ,synoptic narratives1 which are not unlocked in the course of those narratives themselves1 and this fact increases their confidence in its value as an authentic record #af3c4 ,again3 he refers several times to the ,paschal controversy of the second century as bearing on the authorship of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,on one occasion he devotes two whole pages to it4 #ag3a ,why then does he not mention that 'apologetic' writers altogether deny what he states to be absolutely certain2 maintaining on the contrary that the ,christian ,passover1 celebrated by the ,asiatic ,churches on the #adth ,nisan1 commemorated not the ,institution of the ,lord's ,supper1 but1 as it naturally would1 the ,sacrifice on the ,cross1 and asserting that the main dispute between the ,asiatic and ,roman ,churches had reference to the question whether the commemoration should take place always on the #adth ,nisan 7irrespective of the day of the week7 or always on a ,friday8 ,thus1 they claim the ,paschal controversy as a witness on their own side4 ,this view may be right or wrong2 but inasmuch as any person might read the unusually full account of the controversy in ,eusebius from beginning to end1 without a suspicion that the alternative of the #adth or #aeth ,nisan1 as the day of the ,crucifixion1 entered into the dispute at all1 the onus probandi rests with our author1 and his stout assertions were certainly needed to supply the place of arguments4 #ag3b ,the same reticence or ignorance respecting the arguments of 'apologetic' writers is noticeable also when he deals with the historical and geographical allusions in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,if by any chance he condescends to discuss a question1 he takes care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' 7e4g4 the identification of ,sychar and ,shechem71 #ag3c omitting altogether to notice others #ah3a4 ,but as a rule1 he betrays no knowledge whatever of his adversaries' arguments4 ,one instance will suffice to illustrate his mode of procedure4 ,referring to the interpretation of ,siloam as 'sent1' in ,john ix4 #g1 he stigmatizes this as 'a distinct error1' because the word signifies 'a spring1 a fountain1 a flow of water2' and he adds that 'a foreigner with a slight knowledge of the language is misled by the superficial analogy of sound #ah3b4' ,does he not know 7his ,gesenius will teach him this7 that ,siloam signifies a fountain1 or rather1 an aqueduct1 a conduit1 like the ,latin emissarium1 because it is derived from the ,hebrew shalach 'to send'8 and if he does know it1 why has he left his readers entirely in the dark on this subject8 ,as the word is much disguised in its ,greek dress 7,siloam for ,shiloach71 the knowledge of its derivation is not unimportant1 and 'apologists' claim to have this item of evidence transferred to their side of the account4 ,any one disposed to retaliate upon our author for his habitual reticence would find in these volumes1 ready made for his purpose1 a large assortment of convenient phrases ranging from 'discreet reserve' to 'wilful and deliberate evasion4' ,i do not intend to yield to this temptation4 ,but the reader will have drawn his own conclusions from this recklessness of assault in one whose own armour is gaping at every joint4 ,but indeed1 when he does stoop to notice the arguments of 'apologetic' writers1 he is not always successful in apprehending their meaning4 ,thus he writes of the unnamed disciple1 the assumed author of the ,fourth ,gospel3-- ',the assumption that the disciple thus indicated is ,john1 rests principally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other ,apostles1 he seems studiously to avoid directly naming ,john1 and also that he only once #ah3c distinguishes ,john the ,baptist by the appellation ,greek3 ho baptistes1 whilst he carefully distinguishes the two disciples of the name of ,judas1 and always speaks of the ,apostle ,peter as ',simon ,peter1' or ',peter1' or but rarely as ',simon' only4 ,without pausing to consider the slightness of this evidence1 etc4' #ai3a ,now the fact is1 that the ,fourth ,evangelist never once distinguishes this ,john as 'the ,baptist1' though such is his common designation in the other ,gospels2 and the only person1 in whom the omission would be natural1 is his namesake ,john the son of ,zebedee4 ,hence 'apologists' lay great stress on this fact1 as an evidence all the more valuable1 because it lies below the surface1 and they urge with force1 that this subtle indication of authorship is inconceivable as the literary device of a forger in the second century4 ,we cannot wonder1 however1 if our author considers this evidence so slight that he will not even pause upon it1 when he has altogether distorted it by a mis-statement of fact4 ,but it is instructive to trace his error to its source4 ,turning to ,credner1 to whom the author gives a reference in a footnote1 ,i find this writer stating that the ,fourth ,evangelist ',has not found it necessary to distinguish ,john the ,baptist from the ,apostle ,john his namesake even so much as once 7auch nur ein einziges ,mal7 by the addition ,greek3 ho baptistes4' #ai3b ,so then our author has stumbled over that little word 'nur1' and his ,german has gone the way of his ,greek and his ,latin #ai3c4 ,but the error is instructive from another point of view4 ,this argument happens to be a commonplace of 'apologists4' ,how comes it then1 that he was not set right by one or other of these many writers1 even if he could not construe ,credner's ,german8 ,clearly this cannot be the work which the reviewers credit with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature of the subject4 ,i may be asked indeed to explain how1 on this theory of mistaken identity which ,i here put forward1 the work reviewed by the critics came to be displaced by the work before me1 so that no traces of the original remain4 ,but this ,i altogether decline to do1 and ,i plead authority for refusing4 ',the merely negative evidence that our actual ,supernatural ,religion is not the work described by the ,reviewers is sufficient for our purpose4' #bj3a #c4 ,but the argument is strengthened when we come to consider a third point4 ',the author's discussions1' writes our first reviewer1 'are conducted in a judicial method4' ',he has the critical faculty in union with a calm spirit4' ',calm and judicial in tone1' is the verdict of our second reviewer4 ,the opinion of our third and fourth reviewers on this part may be gathered not so much from what they say as from what they leave unsaid4 ,a fifth reviewer however1 who seems certainly to have had our ,supernatural ,religion before him1 holds different language4 ,he rebukes the author--with wonderful gentleness1 considering the gravity of the offence--for 'now and then losing patience4' ,now whether calmness of tone can be said to distinguish a work which bristles with such epithets as 'monstrous1' 'impossible1' 'audacious1' 'preposterous1' 'absurd2' whether the habit of reiterating as axiomatic truths what at the very best are highly precarious hypotheses--as1 for instance1 that ,papias did not refer to our ,st ,mark's ,gospel--does not savour more of the vehemence of the advocate than of the impartiality of the judge1 ,i must ask the reader to decide for himself4 ,but of the highly discreditable practice of imputing corrupt motives to those who differ from us there cannot be two opinions4 ,we have already seen how a righteous nemesis has overtaken our author1 and he has covered himself with confusion1 while recklessly flinging a charge of 'falsification' at another4 ,unfortunately however that passage does not stand alone4 ,i will not take up the reader's time with illustrations of a practice1 of which we have seen more than enough already4 ,but there is one example which is sufficiently instructive to deserve quoting4 ,dr ,westcott writes of ,basilides as follows3-- ',at the same time1 he appealed to the authority of ,glaucias1 who1 as well as ,st ,mark1 was an interpreter of ,st4 ,peter4' #ba3a ,the inverted commas are given here as they appear in ,dr ,westcott's book4 ,it need hardly be said that ,dr ,westcott is simply illustrating the statement of ,basilides that ,glaucias was an interpreter of ,st ,peter by the similar statement of ,papias and others that ,st ,mark was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of information1 one would suppose4 ,on this passage however our author remarks3-- ',now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading system which we have already condemned1 and shall further refer to1 in the introduction after ',glaucias' of the words 'who as well as ,st ,mark was an interpreter of ,st ,peter4' ,the words in italics are the gratuitous addition of ,canon ,westcott himself1 and can only have been inserted for one of two purposes3 7,i7 to assert the fact that ,glaucias was actually an interpreter of ,peter1 as tradition represented ,mark to be2 or 7,,ii7 to insinuate to unlearned readers that ,basilides himself acknowledged ,mark as well as ,glaucias as the interpreter of ,peter4 ,we can hardly suppose the first to have been the intention1 and we regret to be forced back upon the second1 and infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal of ,basilides to the uncanonical ,glaucias1 by coupling with it the allusion to ,mark1 was unconsciously1 no doubt too strong for the apologist4' #ba3b ,dr ,westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself4 ,it stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these4 ,i only call attention to the fact that our author has removed ,dr ,westcott's inverted commas #bb3a1 and then founded on the passage so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing1 which could only be sustained in their absence1 and which even then no one but himself would have thought of4 ,i will not retort upon our author the charge of 'deliberate falsification1' which he so freely levels at others1 for ,i do not believe that he had any such intention4 ,the lesson suggested by this highly characteristic passage is of another kind4 ,it exemplifies the elaborate looseness which pervades the critical portion of this book4 ,it illustrates the author's inability to look at things in a straightforward way4 ,it emphasizes more especially the suspicious temper of the work1 which makes it1 as even a favourable reviewer has said1 'painfully sceptical'--a temper which must necessarily vitiate all the processes of criticism1 and which1 if freely humoured elsewhere1 would render life intolerable and history impossible #bb3b4 ,it is difficult to see what end the author proposed to attain by all this literary browbeating4 ,in the course of my examination ,i shall be constrained to adopt many a view which has been denounced beforehand as impossible and absurd2 and ,i shall give my reasons for doing so4 ,if by an 'apologist' #bb3c is meant one who knows that he owes everything which is best and truest in himself to the teaching of ,christianity--not the ,christless ,christianity which alone our author would spare1 the works with the mainspring broken1 but the ,christianity of the ,apostles and ,evangelists--who believes that its doctrines1 its sanctions1 and its hopes1 are truths of the highest moment to the wellbeing of mankind1 and who1 knowing and believing all this1 is ready to use in its defence such abilities as he has1 then a man may be proud to take even the lowest place among the ranks of 'apologists1' and to brave any insinuations of dishonesty which an anonymous critic may fling at him4 ,there is however another more subtle mode of intimidation which plays an important part in these volumes4 ,long lists of references are given in the notes1 to modern critics who 7as the reader would infer from the mode of reference7 support the views mentioned or adopted by the author in the text4 ,i have verified these references in one or two cases1 and have found that several writers1 at all events1 do not hold the opinions to which their names are attached #bc3a4 ,but1 under any circumstances1 these lists will not fetter the judgment of any thoughtful mind4 ,it is strange indeed1 that a writer who denounces so strongly the influence of authority as represented by tradition1 should be anxious to impose on his readers another less honourable yoke4 ,there is at least a presumption 7though in individual cases it may prove false on examination7 that the historical sense of seventeen or eighteen centuries is larger and truer than the critical insight of a section of men in one late half century4 ,the idols of our cave never present themselves in a more alluring form than when they appear as the 'spirit of the age4' ,it is comparatively easy to resist the fallacies of past times1 but it is most difficult to escape the infection of the intellectual atmosphere in which we live4 ,i ask myself1 for instance1 whether one who lived in the age of the rabbis would have been altogether right in resigning himself to the immediate current of intellectual thought1 because he saw1 or seemed to see1 that it was setting strongly in one direction4 ,this comparison is not without its use4 ,here were men eminently learned1 painstaking1 minute2 eminently ingenious also1 and in a certain sense1 eminently critical4 ,in accumulating and assorting facts--such facts as lay within their reach--and in the general thoroughness of their work1 the rabbis of ,jewish exegesis might well bear comparison with the rabbis of neologian criticism4 ,they reigned supreme in their own circles for a time2 their work has not been without its fruits2 many useful suggestions have gone to swell the intellectual and moral inheritance of later ages2 but their characteristic teaching1 which they themselves would have regarded as their chief claim to immortality1 has long since been consigned to oblivion4 ,it might be minute and searching1 but it was conceived in a false vein2 it was essentially unhistorical1 and therefore it could not live4 ,the modern negative school of criticism seems to me to be equally perverse and unreal1 though in a different way2 and therefore ,i anticipate for it the same fate4 ,mr ,matthew ,arnold1 alluding to an eccentric work of rationalizing tendencies written by an ,english scholar1 and using ,m4 ,renan as his mouthpiece1 expresses the opinion that 'an extravagance of this sort could never have come from ,germany where there is a great force of critical opinion controlling a learned man's vagaries1 and keeping him straight4' #bd3a ,i confess that my experiences of the critical literature of ,germany have not been so fortunate4 ,it would be difficult1 ,i think1 to find among ,english scholars any parallel to the mass of absurdities1 which several intelligent and very learned ,german critics have conspired to heap upon two simple names in the ,philippian ,epistle1 ,euodia and ,syntyche2 first1 ,baur suggesting that the pivot of the ,epistle1 which has a conciliatory tendency1 is the mention of ,clement1 a mythical or almost mythical person1 who represents the union of the ,petrine and ,pauline parties in the ,church #bd3b2 then ,schwegler1 carrying the theory a step further1 and declaring that the two names1 ,euodia and ,syntyche1 actually represent these two parties1 while the true yoke-fellow is ,st ,peter himself #bd3c2 then ,volkmar1 improving the occasion1 and showing that this fact is indicated in their very names1 ,euodia1 or ',rightway1' and ,syntyche or ',consort1' denoting respectively the orthodoxy of the one party and the incorporation of the other #bd3d2 lastly1 ,hitzig lamenting that interpreters of the ,new ,testament are not more thoroughly imbued with the language and spirit of the ,old1 and maintaining that these two names are reproductions of the patriarchs ,asher and ,gad--their sex having been changed in the transition from one language to another--and represent the ,greek and ,roman elements in the ,church1 while the ,epistle to the ,philippians itself is a plagiarism from the ,agricola of ,tacitus #be3a4 ,when therefore ,i find our author supporting some of his more important judgments by the authority of ',hitzig1 ,volkmar and others1' or of ',volkmar and others1' #be3b ,i have my own opinion of the weight which such names should carry with them #be3c4 ,it is not however against the eccentricities of individuals except so far as these can be charged to a vicious atmosphere and training1 that ,i would rest the chief stress of my complaint4 ,the whole tone and spirit of the school in its excess of scepticism must1 ,i venture to think1 be fatal to the ends of true criticism4 ,a reviewer of ,supernatural ,religion compares the author's handling of the reconstructive efforts of certain conservative critics regarding the ,fourth ,gospel to ,sir ,g4,c4 ,lewis's objections to ,niebuhr's 'equally arbitrary reconstruction of early ,roman history4' ,from one point of view this comparison is instructive4 ,we have no means of testing the value of that eminent writer's negative criticisms of early ,roman history4 ,but where additional knowledge has enabled us to apply a test to his opinions1 as1 for instance1 respecting the interpretation of the ,egyptian hieroglyphic language1 we find that his scepticism led him signally astray4 ,it seems to be assumed that1 because the sceptical spirit has its proper function in scientific inquiry 7though even here its excesses will often impede progress71 therefore its exercise is equally useful and equally free from danger in the domain of criticism4 ,a moment's reflection however will show that the cases are wholly different4 ,in whatever relates to morals and history--in short1 to human life in all its developments-- where mathematical or scientific demonstration is impossible1 and where consequently everything depends on the even balance of the judicial faculties1 scepticism must be at least as fatal to the truth as credulity4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion proposes to himself the task of demonstrating that the miraculous element in ,christianity is a delusion4 ,the work is divided into three parts4 ,the first part undertakes to prove that miracles are not only highly improbable1 but antecedently incredible1 so that no amount of testimony can overcome the objections to them4 ,as a subsidiary aim1 he endeavours to show that the sort of evidence1 which1 under the most favourable circumstances1 we should be likely to obtain in the early ,christian ages1 ought not to inspire confidence4 ,the second and third parts are occupied in examining the actual witnesses themselves1 that is1 the four ,gospels2 the second being devoted to the ,synoptists1 and the third to ,st ,john4 ,the main contention is that the four ,gospels are entirely devoid of evidence sufficient to satisfy us of their date and authorship1 considering the momentous import of their contents4 ,these portions of the work therefore are chiefly occupied in examining the external testimonies to the authenticity and genuineness of the ,gospels4 ,in the case of ,st ,john the internal character of the document is likewise subjected to examination4 ,obviously1 if the author has established his conclusions in the first part1 the second and third are altogether superfluous #bg3a4 ,it is somewhat strange1 therefore1 that more than three-fourths of the whole work should be devoted to this needless task4 ,impressed1 as it would seem1 by the elaboration of these portions1 reviewers have singled them out for special praise1 even when they have condemned the first as unsatisfactory4 ,with this estimate of their value ,i find myself altogether unable to agree2 and in the articles which will follow ,i hope to give my reasons for dissenting4 ,regarded as a handbook of the critical fallacies of the modern destructive school1 ,supernatural ,religion well deserves examination4 ,for this reason ,i shall hereafter occupy myself solely with the two latter portions of the work1 and more especially with the external evidences of the ,gospels2 but there is one point1 affecting the main question at issue1 which it is impossible to pass over in silence4 ,anyone who1 with the arguments of the first part fresh in his memory1 will turn to the final chapter1 in which the author gives a confession of faith1 must be struck with the startling dislocation between the principles from which the work starts and the manifesto with which it concludes4 ,our author has eliminated1 as he believes1 the miraculous or supernatural element from the ,gospel4 ,he will have nothing to say to ',ecclesiastical ,christianity1' by which strange phrase is meant the ,christianity of the ,apostles and ,evangelists4 ,he will not even hear of a future life with its hopes and fears #bg3a4 ,he will purge the ,gospel of all 'dogmas1' and will present it as an ethical system alone4 ,the extreme beauty1 ,i might almost say the absolute perfection1 of ,christ's moral teaching #bg3b he not only allows1 but insists upon4 ',morality1' he adds1 'was the essence of his system2 theology was an after-thought4' #bg3c ,and yet almost in the same breath he adopts as his 'two fundamental principles1 ,love to ,god and love to man4' ,he commends a 'morality based upon the earnest and intelligent acceptance of ,divine ,law1 and perfect recognition of the brotherhood of man1' as 'the highest conceivable by humanity4' #bg3d ,he speaks of the 'purity of heart which alone sees ,god4' #bg3e ,he enforces the necessity of 'rising to higher conceptions of an infinitely wise and beneficent ,being 444 whose laws of wondrous comprehensiveness and perfection we ever perceive in operation around us4' #bh3a ,all this is well said1 but is it consistent8 ,this universal 'brotherhood of man1' what is it but a 'dogma' of the most comprehensive application8 ,this ',love to ,god' springing from the apprehension of a 'wondrous perfection1' and the recognition of an 'infinitely wise and beneficent ,being1'--in short1 this belief in a ,heavenly ,father1 which on any showing was the fundamental axiom of our ,lord's teaching1 and which our author thus accepts as a cardinal article in his own creed1--what is it but a theological proposition of the most overwhelming import1 before which all other 'dogmas' sink into insignificance8 ,and what room1 we are forced to ask1 has he left for such a dogma8 ,in the first portion of the work our author has been careful not to define his position4 ,he has studiously avoided committing himself to a belief in a universal ,father or a moral ,governor1 or even in a ,personal ,god4 ,if he had done so1 he would have tied his hands at once4 ,very much of the reasoning which he brings forward against the miraculous element in ,christianity in answer to ,dr ,mozley and ,dean ,mansel falls to the ground when this proposition is assumed4 ,his arguments prove nothing1 because they prove too much3 for they are equally efficacious1 or equally inefficacious1 against the doctrine of a ,divine providence or of human responsibility1 as they are against the resurrection of ,christ4 ,the truth is1 that when our author closes his work1 he cannot face the conclusions to which his premisses would inevitably lead him4 ,they are too startling for himself1 as well as for his readers1 in their naked deformity2 and with a noble inconsistency he clutches at these 'dogmas' to save himself from sinking into the abyss of moral scepticism4 ,mr ,j4,s4 ,mill's inexorable logic may not be without its use1 as holding up the mirror to such inconsistency4 ,on his own narrow premisses this eminent logician builds up his own narrow conclusions with remorseless rigour4 ,our author in his first part adopts this same narrow basis1 and truly enough finds no resting-place for ,christianity upon it1 as indeed there is none for any theory of a providential government4 ,but at the conclusion he tacitly and 7as it would seem7 quite unconsciously assumes a much wider standing-ground4 ,if he had not done so1 he himself would have been edged off his footing1 and hurled down the precipice4 ,a whole pack of 'pursuing wolves' #bi3a is upon him1 far more ravenous than any which beset the path of the believers in revelation2 and he has left himself no shelter4 ,if he had commenced by defining what he meant by ',nature' and ',supernatural1' he might have avoided this inconsistency1 though he must have sacrificed much of his argument to save his creed4 ,as it is1 he has unconsciously juggled with two senses of ,nature4 ,nature in the first part1 where he is arguing against miracles1 is the aggregate of external phenomena--the same ,nature against which ,mr ,mill prefers his terrible indictment for its cruelty and injustice4 ,but ,nature in the concluding chapter involves the idea of a moral ,governor and a beneficent ,father2 and this idea can only be introduced by opening flood-gates of thought which refuse to be closed just at the moment when it is necessary to bar the admission of the miraculous4 ,our author has ranged himself unconsciously with the 'intuitive philosophers1' of whom ,mr ,mill speaks so scornfully4 ,he has appealed1 though he does not seem to be aware of it1 to the inner consciousness of man1 to the instincts and cravings of humanity1 to interpret and supplement the teachings of external ,nature2 and he is altogether unaware how large a concession he has made to believers in revelation by so doing4 ,even though we should close our eyes to all other considerations1 it is vain to ignore the inevitable moral consequences which flow from this mode of reasoning2 for they are becoming every day more apparent4 ,the demand is made that we should abandon our ,christianity on grounds which logically involve the abandonment of any belief in the providential government of the world and in the moral responsibility of man4 ,young men are apt to be far more logical than their elders4 ,older persons are taught by long experience to distrust the adequacy of their premisses3 consciously or unconsciously they supplement the narrow conclusions of their logic by larger lessons learnt from human life or from their own heart4 ,but generally speaking1 the young man has no such distrust4 ,his teacher has appealed to ,nature1 and to ,nature he shall go4 ,the teacher becomes frightened1 struggles to retrace his steps1 and speaks of 'an infinitely wise and beneficent ,being'2 but the pupil insolently points out how ,nature1 red in tooth and claw1 ,with ravin1 shrieks against his creed4 ,the teacher urges1 ',all that is consistent with wise and omnipotent ,law is prospered and brought to perfection3' #cj3a and the pupil replies3 ',you have limited my horizon to this life1 and in this life the facts do not verify your statement4' ,the teacher says1 ,believe that you--you personally--'are eternally cared for and governed by an omnipresent immutable power for which nothing is too great1 nothing too insignificant4' #cj3b ,the pupil says3 ',my ,christianity did show me how this was possible2 but with my ,christianity ,i have cast it away as a delusion4 ,i could not stop short at this point consistently with the principles you have laid down for my guidance4 ,i have done as you told me to do2 ,i have ratified the fiat which maintains the order of ,nature1 #cj3c and ,i find ,nature wholly ,careless of the single life4 ,i will therefore please myself henceforth4' ,the teacher speaks of 'the purity which alone sees ,god2' and to him the expression has a real meaning1 for his mind is unconsciously saturated with ideas which he has certainly not learnt from his adopted philosophy3 but to the pupil it has lost its articulate utterance1 and is no better than sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal4 ,hence the pupil1 having thrown off his ,christianity1 too often follows out the principles of his teacher to their logical conclusions1 and divests himself also of moral restraints1 except so far as it may be convenient or necessary for him to submit to them4 ,happily this has not been the case hitherto in the large majority of instances4 ,the permanence of habits formed in a nobler school of teaching1 the abiding presence of a loftier ideal not derived from this new philosophy1 and 7we may add also7 the voice of an inward witness whose authority is denied1 but whose warnings nevertheless compel a hearing1 all tend to raise the level of men's conduct above their principles4 ,the full moral consequences of the teaching would only then be seen1 if ever a generation should grow up1 moulded altogether under its influences4 ,,ii4 ,,the ,,silence ,,of ,,eusebius4 ,,january1 #ahge4 ',it is very important1' says the author of ,supernatural ,religion1 when commencing his critical investigations1 'that the silence of early writers should receive as much attention as any supposed allusions to the ,gospels4' #cb3a ,in the present article ,i shall act upon this suggestion4 ,in one province more especially1 relating to the external evidences for the ,gospels1 silence occupies a prominent place4 ,this mysterious oracle will be interrogated1 and1 unless ,i am mistaken1 the response elicited will not be at all ambiguous4 ,to ,,eusebius we are indebted for almost all that we know of the lost ecclesiastical literature of the second century4 ,this literature was very considerable4 ,the ,expositions of ,papias1 in five books1 and the ,ecclesiastical ,history of ,hegesippus1 likewise in five books1 must have been full of important matter bearing on our subject4 ,the very numerous works of ,melito and ,claudius ,apollinaris1 of which ,eusebius has preserved imperfect lists #cb3b1 ranged over the wide domain of theology1 of morals1 of exegesis1 of apologetics1 of ecclesiastical order2 and here again a flood of light would probably have been poured on the history of the ,canon1 if time had spared these precious documents of ,christian antiquity4 ,even the extant writings of the second century1 however important they may be from other points of view1 give a very inadequate idea of the relation of their respective authors to the ,canonical writings4 ,in the case of ,justin ,martyr for instance1 it is not from his ,apologies or from his ,dialogue with ,trypho that we should expect to obtain the fullest and most direct information on this point4 ,in works like these1 addressed to ,heathens and ,jews1 who attributed no authority to the writings of ,apostles and ,evangelists1 and for whom the names of the writers would have no meaning1 we are not surprised that he refers to those writings for the most part anonymously and with reserve4 ,on the other hand1 if his treatise against ,marcion 7to take a single instance7 had been preserved1 we should probably have been placed in a position to estimate with tolerable accuracy his relation to the ,canonical writings4 ,but in the absence of all this valuable literature1 the notices in ,eusebius assume the utmost importance1 and it is of primary moment to the correctness of our result that we should rightly interpret his language4 ,above all1 it is incumbent on us not to assume that his silence means exactly what we wish it to mean4 ,eusebius made it his business to record notices throwing light on the history of the ,canon4 ,the first care of the critic therefore should be to inquire with what aims and under what limitations he executed this portion of his work4 ,now1 our author is eloquent on the silence of ,eusebius4 ,his fundamental assumption is that where ,eusebius does not mention a reference to or quotation from any ,canonical book in any writer of whom he may be speaking1 there the writer in question was himself silent4 ,this indeed is only the application of a general principle which seems to have taken possession of our author's mind4 ,the argument from silence is courageously and extensively applied throughout these volumes4 ,it is unnecessary to accumulate instances1 where 'knows nothing' is substituted for 'says nothing1' as if the two were convertible terms2 for such instances are countless4 ,but in the case of ,eusebius the application of the principle takes a wider sweep4 ,not only is it maintained that ,a knows nothing of ,b1 because he says nothing of ,b2 but it is further assumed that ,a knows nothing of ,b1 because ,c does not say that ,a says anything of ,b4 ,this is obviously an assumption which men would not adopt in common life or in ordinary history2 still less is it one to which a competent jury would listen for a moment3 and therefore a prudent man may well hesitate before adopting it4 ,with what unflinching boldness our author asserts his position1 will appear from the following passages3-- ,of ,hegesippus he writes #ce3a3-- ',the care with which ,eusebius searches for every trace of the use of the books of the ,new ,testament in early writers1 and his anxiety to produce any evidence concerning their authenticity1 render his silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct utterance when speaking of such a man as ,hegesippus4' ,and again #ce3b3-- ',it is certain that ,eusebius1 who quotes with so much care the testimony of ,papias1 a man of whom he speaks disparagingly1 regarding the ,gospels and the ,apocalypse #ce3c1 would not have neglected to have availed himself of the evidence of ,hegesippus1 for whom he has so much respect1 had that writer furnished him with any opportunity4' ,and again #ce3a3--';,as ,hegesippus does not #ce3b mention any ,canonical work of the ,new ,testament etc4' ,and in the second volume he returns to the subject #ce3c3-- ',it is certain that1 had he 7,hegesippus7 mentioned #ce3d our ,gospels1 and we may say particularly the ,fourth1 the fact would have been recorded by ,eusebius4' ,similarly he says of ,papias#ce3e3-- ',eusebius1 who never fails to enumerate #ce3f the works of the ,new ,testament to which the ,fathers refer1 does not pretend #ce3g that ,papias knew either the ,third or ,fourth ,gospels4' ,and again1 in a later passage #ce3h3-- ',had he 7,papias7 expressed any recognition #ce3i of the ,fourth ,gospel1 ,eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact1 and this silence of ,papias is strong presumptive evidence against the ,johannine ,gospel4' ,and a little lower down #ce3aj3-- ',the presumption therefore naturally is that1 as ,eusebius did not mention the fact1 he did not find any reference to the ,fourth ,gospel in the work of ,papias4' #ce3aa ,so again1 our author writes of ,dionysius of ,corinth #ce3ab3-- ',no quotation from1 or allusion to1 any writing of the ,new ,testament occurs in any of the fragments of the ,epistles still extant2 nor does ,eusebius make mention of any such reference in the ,epistles which have perished #ce3ac1 which he certainly would not have omitted to do had they contained any4' ,and lower down #cf3a3-- ',it is certain that had ,dionysius mentioned #cf3b books of the ,new ,testament1 ,eusebius would1 as usual1 have stated the fact4' ,of this principle and its wide application1 as we have seen1 the author has no misgivings4 ,he declares himself absolutely certain about it4 ,it is with him articulus stantis aut cadentis critices4 ,we shall therefore do well to test its value1 because1 quite independently of the consequences directly flowing from it1 it will serve roughly to gauge his trustworthiness as a guide in other departments of criticism1 where1 from the nature of the case1 no test can be applied4 ,in the land of the unverifiable there are no efficient critical police4 ,when a writer expatiates amidst conjectural quotations from conjectural apocryphal ,gospels1 he is beyond the reach of refutation4 ,but in the present case1 as it so happens1 verification is possible1 at least to a limited extent2 and it is important to avail ourselves of the opportunity4 ,in the first place then1 ,eusebius himself tells us what method he intends to pursue respecting the ,canon of ,scripture4 ,after enumerating the writings bearing the name of ,st ,peter1 as follows2--7l7 ,the ,first ,epistle1 which is received by all1 and was quoted by the ancients as beyond dispute2 7#b7 ,the ,second ,epistle1 which tradition had not stamped in the same way as ,canonical 7,greek3 endiathekon1 'included in the ,testament'71 but which nevertheless1 appearing useful to many1 had been studied 7,greek3 espoudasthe7 with the other ,scriptures2 7#c7 ,the ,acts1 ,gospel1 ,preaching1 and ,apocalypse of ,peter1 which four works he rejects as altogether unauthenticated and discredited--he continues #cg3a3-- ',but1 as my history proceeds1 ,i will take care 7,greek3 prourgou poiesomai71 along with the successions 7of the bishops71 to indicate what ,church writers 7who flourished7 from time to time have made use of any of the disputed books 7,greek3 antilegomenon71 and what has been said by them concerning the ,canonical 7,greek3 endiathekon7 and acknowledged ,scriptures1 and anything that 7they have said7 concerning those which do not belong to this class4 ,well1 then1 the books bearing the name of ,peter1 of which ,i recognise 7,greek3 egnon7 one ,epistle only as genuine and acknowledged among the elders of former days 7,greek3 palai71 are those just enumerated 7,greek3 tosauta74 ,but the fourteen ,epistles of ,paul are obvious and manifest 7,greek3 prodeloi kai sapheis74 ,yet it is not right to be ignorant of the fact that some persons have rejected the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 saying that it was disputed by the ,church of the ,romans as not being ,paul's4 ,and ,i will set before 7my readers7 on the proper occasions 7,greek3 kata kairon7 what has been said concerning this 7,epistle7 also by those who lived before our time 7,greek3 tois pro hemon74' ,he then mentions the ,acts of ,paul1 which he 'had not received as handed down among the undisputed books1' and the ,shepherd of ,hermas1 which 'had been spoken against by some' and therefore 'could have no place among the acknowledged books1' though it had been read in churches and was used by some of the most ancient writers4 ,and he concludes3-- ',let this suffice as a statement 7,greek3 eis parastasin 444 eirestho7 of those ,divine writings which are unquestionable1 and those which are not acknowledged among all4' ,this statement1 though not so clear on minor points as we could wish1 is thoroughly sensible and quite intelligible in its main lines4 ,it shows an appreciation of the conditions of the problem4 ,above all1 it is essentially straightforward4 ,it certainly does not evince the precision of a lawyer1 but neither on the other hand does it at all justify the unqualified denunciations of the uncritical character of ,eusebius in which our author indulges4 ,the exact limits of the ,canon were not settled when ,eusebius wrote4 ,with regard to the main body of the writings included in our ,new ,testament there was absolutely no question2 but there existed a margin of antilegomena or disputed books1 about which differences of opinion existed1 or had existed4 ,eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings in two different ways4 ,this is the cardinal point of the passage4 ,of the antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any ancient writer employs any book belonging to their class 7,greek3 tines hopoiais kechrentai72 but as regards the undisputed ,canonical books he only professes to mention them1 when such a writer has something to tell about them 7,greek3 tina peri ton endiathekon eiretai74 ,any anecdote of interest respecting them1 as also respecting the others 7,greek3 ton me toiouton71 will be recorded4 ,but in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will allude to mere quotations1 however numerous and however precise #ch3a4 ,this statement is inserted after the record of the martyrdom of ,st ,peter and ,st ,paul1 and has immediate and special reference to their writings4 ,the ,shepherd of ,hermas is only mentioned incidentally1 because 7as ,eusebius himself intimates7 the author was supposed to be named in the ,epistle to the ,romans4 ,but the occasion serves as an opportunity for the historian to lay down the general principles on which he intends to act4 ,somewhat later1 when he arrives at the history of the last years of ,st ,john1 he is led to speak of the writings of this ,apostle also2 and as ,st ,john's ,gospel completes the tetrad of ,evangelical narratives1 he inserts at this point his account of the ,four ,gospels4 ,this account concludes as follows #ci3a3-- ',thus much 7,greek3 tauta7 we ourselves 7have to say7 concerning these 7the ,four ,gospels72 but we will endeavour more particularly 7,greek3 oikeioteron7 on the proper occasions 7,greek3 kata kairon7 by quoting the ancient writers to set forth what has been said by anyone else 7,greek3 tois allois7 also concerning them4 ,now1 of the writings of ,john1 the first 7former1 ,greek3 protera7 of his ,epistles also is acknowledged as beyond question alike among our contemporaries 7,greek3 tois nun7 and among the ancients1 while the remaining two are disputed4 ,but respecting the ,apocalypse opinions are drawn in opposite directions1 even to the present day1 among most men 7,greek3 tois pollois74 ,howbeit it also shall receive its judgment 7,greek3 epikrisin7 at a proper season from the testimonies of the ancients4' ,after this follows the well-known passage in which he sums up the results at which he has arrived respecting the ,canon4 ,with this passage1 important as it is in itself1 ,i need not trouble my readers4 ,here again it will be seen that the same distinction as before is observed4 ,of the ,gospels the historian will only record anecdotes concerning them4 ,on the other hand1 in the case of the ,apocalypse mere references and quotations will be mentioned because they afford important data for arriving at a decision concerning its ,canonical authority4 ,hitherto we have discovered no foundation for the superstructure which our author builds on the silence of ,eusebius4 ,but the real question1 after all1 is not what this historian professes to do1 but what he actually does4 ,the original prospectus is of small moment compared with the actual balance-sheet1 and in this case time has spared us the means of instituting an audit to a limited extent4 ,with ,papias and ,hegesippus and ,dionysius of ,corinth1 any one is free to indulge in sweeping assertions with little fear of conviction2 for we know nothing1 or next to nothing1 of these writers1 except what ,eusebius himself has told us4 ,but ,eusebius has also dealt with other ancient writings in relation to the ,canon1 as1 for instance1 those of ,clement of ,rome1 of ,ignatius1 of ,polycarp1 of ,irenaeus1 and others2 and1 as these writings are still extant1 we can compare their actual contents with his notices4 ,here a definite issue is raised4 ,if our author's principle will stand this test1 there is a very strong presumption in its favour2 if it will not1 then it is worthless4 ,let us take first the ,epistle of ,,clement ,,of ,,rome4 ,this ,epistle contains several references to ,evangelical narratives--whether oral or written1 whether our ,canonical ,gospels or not1 it is unnecessary for the present to discuss #dj3a4 ,it comprises a chapter relating to the labours and martyrdom of ,st ,peter and ,st ,paul #dj3b4 ,it also1 as our author himself allows 7accepting the statement of ,tischendorf71 'here and there 444 makes use of passages from ,pauline ,epistles4' #dj3c ,it does more than this2 it mentions definitely and by name ,st ,paul's ,first ,epistle to the ,corinthians1 alluding to the parties which called themselves after ,paul and ,cephas and ,apollos #dj3d4 ,of all this ,eusebius says not a word4 ,he simply remarks that ,clement1 by 'putting forward 7,greek3 paratheis7 many thoughts of the 7,epistle7 to the ,hebrews1 and even employing some passages from it word for word 7,greek3 autolexei71 shows most clearly that the document ,greek3 sungramma was not recent 7when he wrote74' #dj3e ,this is strictly true1 as far as it goes2 the passages are too many and too close to leave any doubt about their source2 but the ,epistle to the ,hebrews is not directly named1 as the ,epistle to the ,corinthians is4 ,the ,,ignatian ,,epistles deserve to be considered next4 ,the question of their genuineness does not affect the present inquiry2 for the seven letters contained in what is commonly called the ,short ,greek recension1 whether spurious or not1 were confessedly the same which ,eusebius read2 and to these ,i refer4 ,for the sake of convenience ,i shall call the writer ,ignatius1 without prejudging the question of authorship4 ,ignatius then presents some striking coincidences with our ,synoptic ,gospels 7whether taken thence or not1 ,i need not at present stop to inquire71 e4g4 ',be thou wise as a serpent in all things1 and harmless always as a dove1' #da3a ',the tree is manifest by its fruit1' #da3b ',he that receiveth1 let him receive4' #da3c ,he likewise echoes the language of ,st ,john1 e4g4 ',it 7the ,spirit7 knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth1' #da3d ',jesus ,christ 444 in all things pleased ,him that sent ,him1' #da3e with other expressions4 ,he also refers to the examples of ,st ,peter and ,st ,paul4 #da3f ,he describes the ,apostle of the ,gentiles as 'making mention of' the ,ephesians 'in every part of his letter' 7or 'in every letter' #da3g74 ,these letters moreover contain several passages which are indisputable reminiscences of ,st ,paul's ,epistles #da3h4 ,yet of all this ,eusebius says not a word4 ,all the information which he gives respecting the relation of ,ignatius to the ,canon is contained in this one sentence #da3i3-- ',writing to the ,smyrnaeans1 he has employed expressions 7taken7 ,i know not whence1 recording as follows concerning ,christ3-- ,and ,i myself know and believe that ,he exists in the flesh after the resurrection4 ,and when ,he came to ,peter and those with him 7,greek3 pros tous peri ,petron71 ,he said unto them1 ',take hold1 feel me1 and see that ,i am not an incorporeal spirit' literally1 'demon1' ,greek3 daimonion asomaton2 and immediately they touched ,him1 and believed4' ,it should be added that1 though ,eusebius does not know the source of this reference1 ,jerome states that it came from the ,gospel of the ,hebrews #db3a4 ,now let us suppose that these ,epistles were no longer extant1 and that we interpreted the silence of ,eusebius on the same principle which our author applies to ,papias and ,hegesippus and ,dionysius of ,corinth4 ',here1' we should say1 'is clearly a ,judaising ,christian--an ,ebionite of the deepest hue4 ,he recognises ,st ,peter as his great authority4 ,he altogether ignores ,st ,paul4 ,he knows nothing of our ,canonical ,gospels1 and he uses exclusively the ,gospel of the ,hebrews4 ,thus we have a new confirmation of the ,tuebingen theory respecting the origin of the ,christian ,church4 ,the thing is obvious to any impartial mind4 ,apologetic writers must indeed be driven to straits if they attempt to impugn this result4' ,it so happens that this estimate of ,ignatius would be hopelessly wrong4 ,he appeals to ,st ,paul as his great example #db3b4 ,his ,christology is wholly unlike the ,ebionite1 for he distinctly declares the perfect deity as well as the perfect humanity of ,christ #db3c4 ,and he denounces the ,judaisers at length and by name #db3d4 ,what then is the value of a principle which1 when applied in a simple case1 leads to conclusions diametrically opposed to historical facts8 ,from ,ignatius we pass to ,,polycarp4 ,here again the genuineness of the ,epistle bearing this ,father's name does not affect the question2 for it is confessedly the same document which ,eusebius had before him4 ,in ,polycarp's ,epistle #db3e also there are several coincidences with our ,gospels4 ,there is a hardly disputable embodiment of words occurring in the ,acts4 ,there are two or three references to ,st ,paul by name4 ,once he is directly mentioned as writing to the ,philippians4 ,there are obvious quotations from or reminiscences of ,romans1 #a1 #b ,corinthians1 ,galatians1 ,ephesians1 #a ,thessalonians1 #a1 #b ,timothy1 not to mention other more doubtful coincidences4 ,of all this again ,eusebius 'knows nothing4' ,so far as regards the ,canon1 he does not think it necessary to say more than that ',polycarp in his aforesaid 7,greek3 delotheise7 writing 7,greek3 graphe7 to the ,philippians1 which is in circulation 7,greek3 pheromene7 to the present day1 has used certain testimonies from the ,first 7former7 ,epistle of ,peter #dc3a4 ,here again1 we might say1 is a ,judaiser1 the very counterpart of ,papias4 ,this inference indeed would be partially1 though only partially1 corrected by the fact that ,eusebius in an earlier place #dc3b1 to illustrate his account of ,ignatius1 quotes from ,polycarp's ,epistle a passage in which ,st ,paul's name happens to be mentioned4 ,but this mention 7so far as regards the matter before us7 is purely accidental2 and the sentence relating to the ,canon entirely ignores the ,apostle of the ,gentiles1 with whose thoughts and language nevertheless this ,epistle is saturated4 ,when we turn from ,polycarp to ,,justin ,,martyr1 the phenomena are similar4 ,this ,father introduces into his extant writings a large number of ,evangelical passages4 ,a few of these coincide exactly with our ,canonical ,gospels2 a much larger number have so close a resemblance that1 without referring to the actual text of our ,gospels1 the variations would not be detected by an ordinary reader4 ,justin ,martyr professes to derive these sayings and doings from written documents1 which he styles ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 and which 7he tells his heathen readers7 'are called ,gospels #dc3c4' ,his expressions and arguments moreover in some passages recall the language of ,st ,paul's ,epistles #dc3d4 ,of all this again ,eusebius 'knows nothing4' ,so far as regards the ,canon of the ,new ,testament1 he contents himself with stating that ,justin 'has made mention 7,greek3 memnetai7 of the ,apocalypse of ,john1 clearly saying that it is 7the work7 of the ,apostle4' #dc3e ,his mode of dealing with ,,theophilus ,,of ,,antioch is still more instructive4 ,among the writings of this ,father1 he mentions one work addressed ,to ,autolycus1 and another ,against the ,heresy of ,hermogenes #dd3a4 ,the first is extant3 not so the other4 ,in the extant work ,theophilus introduces the unmistakeable language of ,romans1 #a1 #b ,corinthians1 ,ephesians1 ,philippians1 #a ,timothy1 ,titus1 not to mention points of resemblance with other ,apostolic ,epistles which can hardly have been accidental #dd3b4 ,he has one or two coincidences with the ,synoptic ,gospels1 and1 what is more important1 he quotes the beginning of the ,fourth ,gospel by name1 as follows #dd3c3-- ',whence the ,holy ,scriptures and all the inspired men 7,greek3 pneumatophoroi7 teach us1 one of whom1 ,john1 says1 ,in the beginning was the ,word1 and the ,word was with ,god1 showing that at the first 7,greek3 en protois7 ,god was alone1 and the ,word in ,him4 ,then he says1 ,and the ,word was ,god2 all things were made by ,him1 and without ,him was not anything made4' ,this quotation is direct and precise4 ,indeed even the most suspicious and sceptical critics have not questioned the adequacy of the reference #dd3d4 ,it is moreover the more conspicuous1 because it is the one solitary instance in which ,theophilus quotes directly and by name any book of the ,new ,testament4 ,here again ,eusebius is altogether silent4 ,but of the treatise no longer extant he writes1 that in it 'he 7,theophilus7 has used testimonies from the ,apocalypse of ,john4' #dd3e ,this is all the information which he vouchsafes respecting the relation of ,theophilus to the ,canon4 ,one example more must suffice4 ,,irenaeus #dd3f in his extant work on heresies quotes the ,acts again and again1 and directly ascribes it to ,st ,luke4 ,he likewise cites twelve out of the thirteen ,epistles of ,st ,paul1 the exception being the short letter to ,philemon4 ,these twelve he directly ascribes to the ,apostle in one place or another1 and with the exception of #a ,timothy and ,titus he gives the names of the persons addressed2 so that the identification is complete4 ,the list of references to ,st ,paul's ,epistles alone occupies two octavo pages of three columns each in the index to ,stieren's ,irenaeus4 ,yet of all this ,eusebius 'knows nothing4' ,in a previous chapter indeed he happens to have quoted a passage from ,irenaeus1 relating to the succession of the ,roman bishops1 in which this ,father states that ,linus is mentioned by ,st ,paul 'in the ,epistle to ,timothy2' #de3a but the passage relating to the ,canon contains no hint that ,irenaeus recognised the existence of any one of ,st ,paul's ,epistles2 and from first to last there is no mention of the ,acts4 ,the language of ,eusebius here is highly characteristic as illustrating his purpose and method4 ,he commences the chapter by referring back to his original design1 as follows #de3b3-- ',since1 at the commencement of our treatise1 we have made a promise1 saying that we should adduce at the proper opportunities the utterances of the ancient elders and writers of the ,church1 in which they have handed down in writing the traditions that reached them concerning the ,canonical 7,greek3 endiathekon7 writings1 and ,irenaeus was one of these1 let me now adduce his notices also1 and first those relating to the sacred ,gospels1 as follows4' ,he then quotes a short passage from the third book1 giving the circumstances under which the ,four ,gospels were written4 ,then follow two quotations from the well-known passage in the fifth book1 in which ,irenaeus mentions the date and authorship of the ,apocalypse1 and refers to the number of the beast4 ,eusebius then proceeds3-- ',this is the account given by the above-named writer respecting the ,apocalypse also4 ,and he has made mention too of the ,first ,epistle of ,john1 adducing very many testimonies out of it2 and likewise also of the ,first 7former7 ,epistle of ,peter4 ,and he not only knows1 but even receives the writing of the ',shepherd1' saying1 ',well then spake the writing' or 'scripture1' ,greek3 he graphe 'which says1 ,first of all believe that ,god is ,one1 even ,he that created all things2' and so forth4' ,this is all the information respecting the ,canon of the ,new ,testament which he adduces from the great work of ,irenaeus4 ,in a much later passage #df3a1 however1 he has occasion to name other works of this ,father no longer extant2 and of one of these he remarks that in it 'he mentions the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 and the so-called ,wisdom of ,solomon1 adducing certain passages from them4' ,from these examples1 combined with his own prefatory statements1 we feel justified in laying down the following canons as ruling the procedure of ,eusebius3-- 7#a7 ,his main object was to give such information as might assist in forming correct views respecting the ,canon of ,scripture4 7#b7 ,this being so1 he was indifferent to any quotations or references which went towards establishing the canonicity of those books which had never been disputed in the ,church4 ,even when the quotation was direct and by name1 it had no value for him4 7#c7 ,to this class belonged 7i7 the ,four ,gospels2 7ii7 the ,acts2 7iii7 the thirteen ,epistles of ,st ,paul4 7#d7 ,as regards these1 he contents himself with preserving any anecdotes which he may have found illustrating the circumstances under which they were written1 e4g4 the notices of ,st ,matthew and ,st ,mark in ,papias1 and of the ,four ,gospels in ,irenaeus4 7#e7 ,the ,catholic ,epistles lie on the border-land between the ,homologumena and the ,antilegomena1 between the universally acknowledged and the disputed books4 ,of the ,epistles of ,st ,john for instance1 the ,first belonged to the one class1 the ,second and ,third to the other4 ,of the ,epistles of ,st ,peter again1 the ,first was acknowledged1 the ,second disputed4 ,the ,catholic ,epistles in fact occupy an exceptional position4 ,respecting his treatment of this section of the ,canon he is not explicit in his opening statement1 and we have to infer it from his subsequent procedure4 ,as this however is uniform1 we seem able to determine with tolerable certainty the principle on which he acts4 ,he subjects all the books belonging to this section to the same law4 ,for instance1 he mentions any references to #a ,john and #a ,peter 7e4g4 in ,papias1 ,polycarp1 and ,irenaeus71 though in the ,church no doubt was ever entertained about their genuineness and authority4 ,he may have thought that this mention would conduce to a just estimate of the meaning of silence in the case of disputed ,epistles1 as #b ,peter and #b1 #c ,john4 7#f7 ,the ,epistle to the ,hebrews and the ,apocalypse still remain to be considered4 ,their claim to a place in the ,canon is1 or has been1 disputed3 and therefore he records every decisive notice respecting either of them1 e4g4 the quotations from the ,epistle to the ,hebrews in ,clement of ,rome and ,irenaeus1 and the notices of the ,apocalypse in ,justin and ,melito #dg3a and ,apollonius #dg3b1 and ,theophilus and ,irenaeus4 ,so too1 he records any testimony1 direct or indirect1 bearing the other way1 e4g4 that the ,roman presbyter ,gaius mentions only thirteen ,epistles of ,st ,paul1 'not reckoning the ,epistle to the ,hebrews with the rest4' #dg3c 7#g7 ,with regard to the books which lie altogether outside the ,canon1 but which were treated as ,scripture1 or quasi-scripture1 by any earlier ,church writer1 he makes it his business to record the fact4 ,thus he mentions the one quotation in ,irenaeus from the ,shepherd of ,hermas2 he states that ,hegesippus employs the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews2 he records that ,clement of ,alexandria in the ,stromateis has made use of the ,epistles of ,barnabas and ,clement1 and in the ,hypotyposeis has commented on the ,epistle of ,barnabas and the so-called ,apocalypse of ,peter #dg3d4 ,it will have appeared from the above account1 if ,i mistake not1 that his treatment of this subject is essentially frank4 ,there is no indication of a desire to make out a case for those writings which he and his contemporaries received as ,canonical1 against those which they rejected4 ,the ,shepherd of ,hermas is somewhere about two-thirds the length of the whole body of the thirteen ,epistles of ,st ,paul4 ,he singles out the one isolated passage from ,hermas in ,irenaeus1 though it is quoted anonymously2 and he says nothing about the quotations from ,st ,paul1 though they exceed two hundred in number1 and are very frequently cited by name4 ,it is necessary however1 not only to investigate his principles1 but also to ascertain how far his application of these principles can be depended upon4 ,and here the facts justify us in laying down the following rules for our guidance3-- 7i7 ,as regards the anecdotes containing information relating to the books of the ,new ,testament he restricts himself to the narrowest limits which justice to his subject will allow4 ,his treatment of ,irenaeus makes this point clear4 ,though he gives the principal passage in this author relating to the ,four ,gospels #dh3a1 he omits to mention others which contain interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the question1 e4g4 that ,st ,john wrote his ,gospel to counteract the errors of ,cerinthus and the ,nicolaitans #dh3b4 ,thus too1 when he quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the ,asiatic elders who were acquainted with ,st ,john #dh3c1 he omits the context1 from which we find that this tradition had an important bearing on the authenticity of the ,fourth ,gospel1 for it declared that ,christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year1 thus confirming the obvious chronology of the ,fourth ,gospel against the apparent chronology of the ,synoptists4 7ii7 ,as regards the quotations and references the case stands thus4 ,when ,eusebius speaks of 'testimonies' in any ancient writer taken from a ,scriptural book1 we cannot indeed be sure that the quotations were direct and by name 7this was certainly not the case in some71 but we may fairly assume that they were definite enough1 or numerous enough1 or both1 to satisfy even a sceptical critic of the modern school4 ,this is the case1 for instance1 with the quotations from the ,epistle to the ,hebrews in ,clement of ,rome1 and those from the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,peter in ,polycarp4 ,in no instance which we can test does ,eusebius give a doubtful testimony4 ,on the other hand he omits several which might fairly be alleged1 and have been alleged by modern writers1 as1 for instance1 the coincidence with #a ,john in ,polycarp #di3a4 ,he may have passed them over through inadvertence1 or he may not have considered them decisive4 ,i am quite aware that our author states the case differently2 but ,i am unable to reconcile his language with the facts4 ,he writes as follows #di3b3-- ',he 7,eusebius7 states however1 that ,papias made use of testimonies from the ,first ,epistle of ,john1 and likewise from that of ,peter4 ,as ,eusebius1 however1 does not quote the passages from ,papias1 we must remain in doubt whether he did not1 as elsewhere1 assume from some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from these ,epistles1 whilst in reality they might not be4 ,eusebius made a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the so-called ,epistle of ,polycarp 7#e7 upon very insufficient grounds4' #di3c ,for the statement 'as elsewhere' our author has given no authority1 and ,i am not aware of any4 ,the note to which the number in the text 7#e7 refers is ',ad ,phil4 vii42 ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #ad4' ,i cannot help thinking there is some confusion here4 ,the passage of ,eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how ,polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the ,first 7former7 ,epistle of ,peter4' ,the chapter of ,polycarp1 to which he refers1 contains a reference to the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,john1 which has been alleged by modern writers1 but is not alleged by ,eusebius4 ,this same chapter1 it is true1 contains the words ',watch unto prayer1' which present a coincidence with #a ,pet4 iv4 #g4 ,but no one would lay any stress on this one expression3 the strong and unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere4 ,moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation1' whereas the quotations from ,i ,peter in ,polycarp are numerous4 ,thus in c4 #a we have ',in whom1 not having seen1 ye believe1 and believing ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory1' from #a ,pet4 i4 #h3 in c4 #b1 ',girding up your loins1' from #a ,pet4 i4 #ac 7comp4 ,ephes4 vi4 #ad72 ',having believed on ,him that raised up our ,lord ,jesus ,christ from the dead and gave ,him glory1' from #a ,pet4 i4 #ba2 ',not rendering evil for evil1 or railing for railing1' from #a ,pet4 iii4 #i3 in c4 #e1 ',every lust warreth against the ,spirit1' from #a ,pet4 ii4 #aa3 in c4 #h1 ',who bore our sins with ,his own body 7,greek3 to idio somati7 on the tree1' from #a ,pet4 ii4 #bd2 ',who did no sin1 neither was guile found in ,his mouth1' from #a ,pet4 ii4 #bb3 in c4 #aj1 ',lovers of the brotherhood1' from #a ,pet4 ii4 #ag2 ',be ye all subject one to another1' from #a ,pet4 v4 #e2 ',having your conversation unblamable among the ,gentiles1 that from your good works both ye may receive praise1 and the ,lord may not be evil spoken of in you1' from #a ,pet4 ii4 #ab 7comp4 iv4 #ad in the received text74 ,i am quite at a loss to conceive how any one can speak of these numerous and close coincidences as 'very insufficient grounds4' ,and though our author elsewhere1 as1 for instance1 in the quotations from the ,fourth ,gospel in ,tatian and in the ,clementine ,homilies #ej3a1 has resisted evidence which 7,i venture to think7 would satisfy any jury of competent critics1 yet ,i cannot suppose that he would hold out against such an array of passages as we have here1 and ,i must therefore believe that he has overlooked the facts4 ,i venture to say again that1 in these references to early writers relating to the ,canon1 ,eusebius 7where we are able to test him7 never overstates the case4 ,i emphasize this assertion1 because ,i trust some one will point out my error if ,i am wrong4 ,if ,i am not shown to be wrong1 ,i shall make use of the fact hereafter #ej3b4 ,this investigation will have thrown some light upon the author's sweeping assertions with respect to the arbitrary action which he supposes to have presided over the formation of the ,canon1 and still more on his unqualified denunciations of the uncritical spirit of ,eusebius4 ,but such was not my immediate purpose4 ,hypotheses non fingimus4 ,we have built no airy castles of criticism on arbitrary a priori assumptions as to what the silence of ,eusebius must mean4 ,we have put the man himself in the witness-box2 we have confronted him with facts1 and cross-examined him2 thus we have elicited from him his principles and mode of action4 ,i may perhaps have fallen into some errors of detail1 though ,i have endeavoured to avoid them1 but the main conclusions are1 ,i believe1 irrefragable4 ,if they are not1 ,i shall be obliged to any one who will point out the fallacy in my reasoning2 and ,i pledge myself to make open retractation1 when ,i resume these papers in a subsequent number4 ,if they are1 then the reader will not fail to see how large a part of the argument in ,supernatural ,religion has crumbled to pieces4 ,our author is quite alive to the value of a system of 'positively enunciating4' #ea3a ',a good strong assertion1' he says1 'becomes a powerful argument1 since few readers have the means of verifying its correctness4' #ea3b ,his own assertions1 which ,i quoted at the outset of this investigation1 are certainly not wanting in strength1 and ,i have taken the liberty of verifying them4 ,any ,english reader may do the same4 ,eusebius is translated1 and so are the ,ante-,nicene ,fathers4 ,i now venture on a statement which might have seemed a paradox if it had preceded this investigation1 but which1 coming at its close1 will1 if ,i mistake not1 commend itself as a sober deduction from facts4 ,the silence of ,eusebius respecting early witnesses to the ,fourth ,gospel is an evidence in its favour4 ,its ,apostolic authorship had never been questioned by any ,church writer from the beginning1 so far as ,eusebius was aware1 and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses4 ,it was not excused1 because it had not been accused4 ,in short1 the silence of ,eusebius here means the very opposite to that which our author assumes it to mean4 ,if any one demurs to this inference1 let him try1 on any other hypothesis1 to answer the following questions3-- 7#a7 ,how is it that1 while ,eusebius alleges repeated testimonies to the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 he is silent from first to last about the universally acknowledged ,epistles of ,st ,paul1 such as ,romans1 #a1 #b ,corinthians1 and ,galatians8 7#b7 ,how is it that he does not mention the precise and direct testimony in ,theophilus to the ,gospel of ,st ,john1 while he does mention a reference in this same author to the ,apocalypse8 ,and this explanation of the silence of ,eusebius1 while it is demanded by his own language and practice1 alone accords with the known facts relating to the reception of the ,fourth ,gospel in the second century4 ,its theology is stamped on the teaching of orthodox apologists2 its authority is quoted for the speculative tenets of the manifold ,gnostic sects1 ,basilideans1 ,valentinians1 ,ophites2 its narrative is employed even by a ,judaising writer like the author of the ,clementines4 ,the phenomena which confront us in the last quarter of the second century are inexplicable1 except on the supposition that the ,gospel had had a long previous history4 ,how else are we to account for such facts as that the text already exhibits a number of various readings1 such as the alternative of 'only begotten ,god' for 'the only begotten ,son' in i4 #ah1 and 'six' for 'five' in iv4 #ah1 or the interpolation of the descent of the angel in v4 #c1 #d2 that legends and traditions have grown up respecting its origin1 such as we find in ,clement of ,alexandria and in the ,muratorian fragment #eb3a2 that perverse mystical interpretations1 wholly foreign to the simple meaning of the text1 have already encrusted it1 such as we meet with in the commentary of ,heracleon8 ,how is it that ecclesiastical writers far and wide receive it without misgiving at this epoch--,irenaeus in ,gaul1 ,tertullian in ,africa1 ,clement in ,alexandria1 ,theophilus at ,antioch1 the anonymous ,muratorian writer perhaps in ,rome8 that they not only receive it1 but assume its reception from the beginning8 that they never betray a consciousness that any ,church or ,churchman had ever questioned it8 ,the history of the first three-quarters of the second century is necessarily obscure owing to the paucity of remains4 ,a flood of light is suddenly poured in during the remaining years of the century4 ,our author is content to grope in the obscurity3 any phantoms may be conjured up here2 but the moment the light is let in1 he closes his eyes and can see nothing4 ,he refuses altogether to discuss ,irenaeus1 though ,irenaeus was a disciple of ,polycarp1 and ,polycarp was a disciple of ,st ,john4 ,even if it be granted that the opinion of ,irenaeus1 as an isolated individual1 is not worth much1 yet the wide-spread and traditional belief which underlies his whole language and thoughts is a consideration of the highest moment3 and ,irenaeus is only one among many witnesses4 ,the author's treatment of the external evidences to the ,fourth ,gospel is wholly vitiated by his ignoring the combined force of such facts as these4 ,a man might with just as much reason assert that a sturdy oak sapling must have sprung up overnight1 because circumstances had prevented him from witnessing its continuous growth4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion was kind enough to send me an early copy of his fourth edition1 and ,i sincerely thank him for his courtesy4 ,unfortunately it arrived too late for me to make any use of it in my previous article4 ,with one exception however1 ,i have not noticed that my criticisms are affected by any changes which may have been made4 ,but this single exception is highly important4 ,a reader1 with only the fourth edition before him1 would be wholly at a loss to understand my criticism1 and therefore some explanation is necessary4 ,in my former article #ec3a ,i pointed out that the author had founded a charge of 'falsification' against ,dr ,westcott on a grammatical error of his own4 ,he had treated the infinitive and indicative moods as the same for practical purposes2 he had confused the oblique with the direct narrative2 he had maintained that the passage in question 7containing a reference to ,st ,john7 was ,irenaeus' own1 whereas the grammar showed that ,irenaeus was repeating the words of others2 and consequently1 he had wrongly accused ,dr ,tischendorf and ,dr ,westcott1 because in their translations they had brought out the fact that the words did not belong to ,irenaeus himself4 ,i place the new note relating to ,dr ,westcott side by side with the old #ed3a3-- ,,fourth ,,edition4 ,,earlier ,,editions4 ',having just observed that a note ',canon ,westcott1 who quotes in this place1 in previous this passage in a note 7,on the editions1 has been understood as ,canon p4 #fa1 note #b71 translates an accusation against ,dr ,westcott here1 ,this distinction of dwelling1 of deliberate falsification of they taught1 exists etc4 the text of ,irenaeus1 we at once ,the introduction of they taught withdraw it with unfeigned regret here is most unwarrantable2 and that the expressions used could being inserted1 without a word bear an interpretation so far of explanation or mark showing from our intention4 ,we desired its addition by the translator1 in simply to object to the insertion a passage upon whose interpretation of they taught 7,on the ,canon there is difference of opinion1 p4 #fa1 note #b71 without some and whose origin is in dispute1 it indication1 in the absence of the amounts to a falsification of the original text1 that these words text4 ,dr ,westcott neither gives were merely supplementary and the ,greek nor the ancient ,latin conjectural4 ,the source of the version for comparison4' indirect passage is1 of course1 matter of argument1 and we make it so2 but it seems to us that the introduction of specific words like these1 without explanation of any kind1 conveys to the general reader too positive a view of the case4 ,we may perhaps be permitted to say that we fully recognise ,dr ,westcott's sincere love of truth1 and feel the most genuine respect for his character4' ,considering the gravity of his accusation1 ,i think that our author might have been more explicit in his retractation4 ,he might have stated that he not only retracted his charge against ,dr ,westcott1 but also withdrew his own interpretation of the passage4 ,he might have confessed that1 having in his earlier editions assumed the words to be ,irenaeus' own1 he had found out his mistake #ee3a2 that accordingly he acknowledged the passage to be oblique2 that therefore1 after all1 ,dr ,westcott was right and he was wrong2 and that the only question with him now was how best to break the force of the true interpretation1 in its bearing on the authenticity of the fourth ,gospel4 ,the reader will not find in this fourth edition1 from beginning to end1 the slightest intimation of all this4 ,he is left with the impression that the author regrets having used a strong expression respecting ,dr ,westcott1 but that otherwise his opinion is unchanged4 ,whether ,i have or have not rightly interpreted the facts1 will be seen from a juxtaposition of passages from the fourth and earlier editions4 ,,fourth ,,edition4 ,,earlier ,,editions4 ',now1 in the quotation from ',now in the quotation from ,irenaeus given in this passage1 ,irenaeus given in this passage1 ,tischendorf renders the oblique ,tischendorf deliberately falsifies construction by inserting say the text by inserting say they2 they1 referring to the ,presbyters and1 as he does not give the of ,papias2 and1 as he does not original1 the great majority of give the original1 he should at readers could never detect how least have indicated that these he thus adroitly contrives to words are supplementary4 ,we strengthen his argument4 ,as shall endeavour' #ee3b etc4 regards the whole statement of the case we must affirm that it misrepresents the facts4 ,we shall endeavour' etc4 ,lower down he mentions how ,irenaeus 'continues with a quotation from ,isaiah his own train of reasoning1' adding in the early editions--'and it might just as well be affirmed that ,irenaeus found the quotation from the ,prophet in ,papias as that which we are considering4' #ef3a ,as the reference to ,isaiah is in the indicative1 whereas the clause under consideration is in the infinitive1 this was equivalent to saying that the one mood is just as good as the other1 where it is a question of the direct or oblique narrative4 ,this last sentence is tacitly removed in the fourth edition4 ,in the translation of the infinitive ,greek3 einai de ten diastolen we notice this difference3-- ,,fourth ,,edition4 ,,earlier ,,editions4 ,but 444 there is this distinction4' ',but there is to be this distinction4' ,the translation of the passage containing these oblique infinitives is followed by the author's comment1 which is altered thus3-- ,,fourth ,,edition4 ,,earlier ,,editions4 ',now it is impossible for anyone ',now it is impossible for anyone who attentively considers the whole who attentively considers the whole of this passage1 and who makes of this passage1 and who makes himself acquainted with the manner himself acquainted with the manner in which ,irenaeus conducts his in which ,irenaeus conducts his argument1 and interweaves it with argument1 and interweaves it with quotations1 to assert that the texts of ,scripture1 to doubt that phrase we are considering must the phrase we are considering is have been taken from a book introduced by ,irenaeus himself1 referred to three chapters earlier1 and is in no case a quotation and was not introduced by ,irenaeus from the work of ,papias4' from some other source4' ,here the author has tacitly withdrawn an interpretation which a few weeks before he declared to be beyond the reach of doubt1 and has substituted a wholly different one for it4 ,he then proceeds3-- ,,fourth ,,edition4 ,,earlier ,,editions4 ',in the passage from the ',the passage from the commencement commencement of the second of the second paragraph 7,sec4 #b7 is paragraph ,irenaeus enlarges upon1 an enlargement or comment on what and illustrates1 what the the ,presbyters say regarding the ,presbyters say regarding the blessedness of the ,saints1 and blessedness of the ,saints1 by ,irenaeus illustrates the distinction quoting the view held as to the between those bearing fruit distinction between those bearing thirty-fold1 sixty-fold1 and one fruit thirty-fold1 sixty-fold1 and hundred-fold1 so often represented one hundred-fold1 and the in the ,gospel1 by the saying interpretation given of the saying regarding many mansions being regarding many mansions4' prepared in ,heaven4' ,after this our author1 in the earlier editions1 quotes a number of passages from ,irenaeus to support his view that the words in question are direct and not oblique1 because they happen to begin with ,greek3 dia touto4 ,it is unfortunate that not one of them is in the infinitive mood1 and therefore they afford no illustration of the point at issue4 ',these1' he there adds1 'are all direct quotations by ,irenaeus1 as is most certainly that which we are considering1 which is introduced in precisely the same way4 ,that this is the case is further shown etc4444 and it is rendered quite certain by the fact that' etc4 ,all these false parallels are withdrawn in the fourth edition and the sentence is rewritten4 ,we are now told that 'the source of his 7,irenaeus'7 quotation is quite indefinite1 and may simply be the exegesis of his own day #eg3a4' ,so then it was a quotation after all1 and the old interpretation1 though declared to be 'most certain' and 'quite certain' in two consecutive sentences1 silently vanishes to make room for the new4 ,but why does the author allow himself to spend nine octavo pages over the discussion of this one passage1 freely altering sentence after sentence to obliterate all traces of his error1 without any intimation to the reader8 ,had not the public a right to expect more distinctness of statement1 considering that the author had been led by this error to libel the character of more than one writer8 ,must not anyone reading the apology to ,dr ,westcott1 contained in the note quoted above1 necessarily carry off a wholly false impression of the facts8 ,i add one other passage for comparison3-- ,,fourth ,,edition4 ,,earlier ,,editions4 ',we have disposed of his alternative ',we have disposed of his that the quotation being by the alternative that the quotation1 ,presbyters was more ancient even being by the ,presbyters1 was than ,papias1 by showing that it more ancient even than ,papias1 may be referred to ,irenaeus himself by showing that it must be quoting probably from attributed to ,irenaeus himself1 contemporaries1 and that there is and that there is no ground for no ground for attributing it to the attributing it to the ,presbyters ,presbyters at all4' #eh3a at all4' ,surely this writer might have paused before indulging so freely in charges of 'discreet reserve1' of 'disingenuousness1' of 'wilful and deliberate evasion1' and the like4 ,,iii4 ,,the ,,ignatian ,,epistles4 ,,february1 #ahge4 ,the letters bearing the name of ,ignatius #ei3a1 with which we are immediately concerned1 profess to have been written by the saint as he was passing through ,asia ,minor on his way to martyrdom4 ,if their representations be true1 he was condemned at ,antioch1 and sent to ,rome to stiffer death in the amphitheatre by exposure to the wild beasts4 ,the exact year of the martyrdom is uncertain1 but the limits of possibility are not very wide4 ,the earlier date assigned is about ,a4,d4 #ajg1 and the later about ,a4,d4 #aaf4 ,these letters1 with a single exception1 are written to different ,churches of ,asia ,minor 7including one addressed more especially to ,polycarp1 ,bishop of ,smyrna74 ,the exceptional letter is sent to the ,roman ,church1 apprising the ,christians of the metropolis that his arrival among them may soon be expected1 declaring his eagerness for martyrdom1 and intreating them not to interpose and rescue him from his fate4 ,his language supposes that there were at this time members of the ,roman ,church sufficiently influential to obtain either a pardon or a commutation of his sentence4 ,the letters to the ,asiatic ,churches have a more general reference4 ,they contain exhortations1 friendly greetings1 warnings against internal divisions and against heretical doctrines4 ,with some of these ,churches he had been brought in personal contact2 with others he was acquainted only through their delegates4 ,of the three forms in which the ,ignatian letters have been handed down to us1 one may be dismissed from our consideration at once4 ,the ,long ,recension1 preserved both in the ,greek original and in a ,latin translation1 may be regarded as universally condemned4 ,in the early part of the last century an eccentric critic1 whose ,arian sympathies it seemed to favour1 endeavoured to resuscitate its credit1 and one or two others1 at long intervals1 have followed in his wake2 but practically it may be regarded as dead4 ,it abounds in anachronisms of fact or diction2 its language diverges widely from the ,ignatian quotations in the writers of the first five centuries4 ,our author places its date in the sixth century1 with ,ussher2 ,i should myself ascribe it to the latter half of the fourth century4 ,this however is a matter of little consequence4 ,only1 before passing on1 ,i would enter a protest against the argument of our author that1 because the ,ignatian letters were thus interpolated 'in the sixth century1' therefore 'this very fact increases the probability of much earlier interpolation also4' #fj3a ,i am unable to follow this reasoning4 ,i venture to think that we cannot argue back from the sixth1 or even the fourth century1 to the second1 that this later forgery must not be allowed to throw any shadow of suspicion on the earlier ,ignatian letters2 and that the question of a prior interpolation must be decided by independent evidence4 ,the two other forms of the ,ignatian letters may be described briefly as follows3-- 7#a7 ,the first comprises the seven letters which ,eusebius had before him1 and in the same form in which he read them--to the ,ephesians1 ,magnesians1 ,trallians1 ,romans1 ,philadelphians1 ,smyrnaeans1 and ,polycarp4 ,it is true that other ,epistles confessedly spurious are attached to them in the ,,mss2 but these 7as will appear presently7 do not properly belong to this collection1 and were added subsequently4 ,this collection is preserved not only in the original ,greek1 but also in ,latin and ,armenian versions4 ,fragments also are extant of ,coptic and ,syriac versions1 from which last1 and not from the original ,greek1 the ,armenian was translated4 ,the discovery of these epistles1 first of all by ,ussher in the ,latin translation1 and then by ,isaac ,voss in the ,greek original1 about the middle of the seventeenth century1 was the death-blow to the ,long ,recension4 ,ussher's dissertations had the honour of giving it the happy despatch4 ,it is usual to call this recension1 which thus superseded the other1 the ,short ,greek2 but this term is for obvious reasons objectionable1 and ,i shall designate these ,epistles the ,vossian4 7#b7 ,the second is extant only in a ,syriac dress1 and contains three of the ,epistles alone--to ,polycarp1 to the ,ephesians1 and to the ,romans--in a still shorter form4 ,these ,syriac ,epistles were discovered among the ,nitrian ,,mss in the ,british ,museum1 and published by ,cureton in #ahde4 ,i shall therefore call these the ,curetonian ,epistles4 ,cureton's discovery stirred up the ,ignatian dispute anew4 ,it was soon fanned into flames by the controversy between ,bunsen and ,baur1 and is raging still4 ,the two questions are these3 7#a7 ,whether the ,vossian or the ,curetonian ,epistles are prior in time2 in other words1 whether the ,vossian ,epistles were expanded from the ,curetonian by interpolation1 or whether the ,curetonian were reduced from the ,vossian by excision and abridgment2 and 7#b7 when this question has been disposed of1 whether the prior of these two recensions can be regarded as genuine or not4 ,the question respecting the ,ignatian letters has1 from the nature of the case1 never been discussed exclusively on its own merits4 ,the pure light of criticism has been crossed by the shadows of controversial prepossession on both sides4 ,from the era of the ,reformation onward1 the dispute between ,episcopacy and ,presbyterianism has darkened the investigation2 in our own age the controversies respecting the ,canon of ,scripture and the early history of ,christianity have interfered with equally injurious effects4 ,besides these two main questions which are affected by the ,ignatian letters1 other subjects indirectly involved have aided the strife and confusion4 ,the antagonism between ,papal and ,protestant writers materially affected the discussion in the sixteenth century1 and the antagonism between ,arianism and ,catholicity in the eighteenth4 ,but the disturbing influence of these indirect questions1 though not inconsiderable at the time1 has not been lasting4 ,in the present paper ,i shall not attempt to treat of the ,ignatian question as a whole4 ,it will simply be my business to analyse the statements and discuss the arguments of the author of ,supernatural ,religion relating to this subject4 ,i propose1 when ,i resume these papers again1 to say something of the ,apostolic ,fathers in reference to early ,christian belief and to the ,new ,testament ,canon2 and this cannot be done with any effect until the way has been so far cleared as to indicate the extent to which we can employ the ,ignatian letters as valid testimony4 ,the ,ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the student of earlier ,christian history4 ,the literature is voluminous2 the considerations involved are very wide1 very varied1 and very intricate4 ,a writer therefore may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of familiarity with this subject4 ,but in this case the reader naturally expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with some diffidence4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion has no hesitation on the subject4 ',the whole of the ,ignatian literature1' he writes1 'is a mass of falsification and fraud4' #fb3a ',it is not possible1' he says1 'even if the ,epistle to the ,smyrnaeans were genuine1 which it is not1 to base any such conclusion upon these words4' #fb3b ,and again3-- ',we must1 however1 go much further1 and assert that none of the ,epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second1 or beginning of the third1 century1 even if they possess any value at all4' #fb3c ,and immediately afterwards3-- ',we have just seen that the martyr-journey of ,ignatius to ,rome is1 for cogent reasons1 declared to be wholly fabulous1 and the ,epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held to be spurious4' #fc3a ,the reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery of his subject2 and when he finds the notes thronged with references to the most recondite sources of information1 he at once credits the author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon it4 ,it becomes important therefore to inquire whether the writer shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject1 which justifies us in attaching weight to his dicta1 as distinguished from his arguments4 ,i will take first of all a passage which sweeps the field of the ,ignatian controversy1 and therefore will serve well as a test4 ,the author writes as follows3-- ',the strongest internal1 as well as other evidence1 into which space forbids our going in detail1 has led the majority of critics to recognise the ,syriac ,version as the most genuine form of the letters of ,ignatius extant1 and this is admitted by most #fc3b of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the ,epistles4' #fc3c ,no statement could be more erroneous1 as a summary of the results of the ,ignatian controversy since the publication of the ,syriac ,epistles1 than this4 ,those who maintain the genuineness of the ,ignatian ,epistles1 in one or other of the two forms1 may be said to be almost evenly divided on this question of priority4 ,while ,cureton and ,bunsen and ,ritschl and ,ewald and ,weiss accept the ,curetonian letters1 ,uhlhorn and ,denzinger and ,petermann and ,hefele and ,jacobson and ,zahn still adhere to the ,vossian4 ,but this is a trifling error compared with what follows4 ,the misstatement in the last clause of the sentence will1 ,i venture to think1 surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the literature of the ,ignatian controversy4 ,those1 who 'deny the authenticity of any of the ,epistles1' almost universally maintain the priority of the ,vossian ,epistles1 and regard the ,curetonian as later excerpts4 ,this is the case1 for instance1 with ,baur #fd3a1 and ,zeller #fd3b and ,hilgenfeld #fd3c and ,merx #fd3d and ,scholten #fd3e4 ,it was reserved for a critic like ,volkmar #fd3f to entertain a different opinion2 but1 so far as ,i have observed1 he stands alone among those who have paid any real attention to the ,ignatian question4 ,indeed1 it will be apparent that this position was forced upon critics of the negative school4 ,if the ,ignatian letters1 in either form1 are allowed to be genuine1 the ,tuebingen views of early ,christian history fall to the ground4 ,it was therefore a matter of life and death to this school to condemn them wholly4 ,now the seven ,vossian ,epistles are clearly very early #fd3g2 and1 if the ,curetonian should be accepted as the progenitors of the ,vossian1 the date is pushed so far back that no sufficient ground remains for denying their genuineness4 ,hence1 when ,bunsen forced the question on the notice of his countrymen by advocating the ,curetonian letters as the original work of ,ignatius1 ,baur instinctively felt the gravity of the occasion1 and at once took up the gauntlet4 ,he condemned the ,curetonian ,epistles as mere excerpts from the ,vossian2 and in this he has been followed almost without exception by those who advocate his views of early ,christian history4 ,the case of ,lipsius is especially instructive1 as illustrating this point4 ,having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of the ,curetonian letters1 he has lately1 if ,i rightly understand him1 retracted his former opinion on both questions alike #fd3h4 ,but how has our author ventured to make this broad statement1 when his own notes elsewhere contain references to nearly all the writers whom ,i have named as belonging to this last category1 and even to the very passages in which they express the opposite opinion8 ,to throw some light on this point1 ,i will analyse the author's general statement of the course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage4 ,he writes as follows3-- ',these three ,syriac ,epistles have been subjected to the severest scrutiny1 and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be the only authentic ,epistles of ,ignatius1 whilst others1 who do not admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from ,ignatius1 still prefer them to the version of seven ,greek ,epistles1 and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess 7#a74 ,as early as the sixteenth century however1 the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the ,epistles ascribed to ,ignatius4 ,the ,magdeburg ,centuriators first attacked them1 and ,calvin declared p4 #bfj them to be spurious 7#a71 an opinion fully shared by ,chemnitz1 ,dallaeus1 and others1 and similar doubts1 more or less definite1 were expressed throughout the seventeenth century 7#b71 and onward to comparatively recent times 7#c71 although the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now4 ,that the ,epistles were interpolated there was no doubt4 ,fuller examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed earlier doubts1 and a large mass of critics recognise that the authenticity of none of these ,epistles can be established1 and that they can only be considered later and spurious compositions 7#d74' ,the first note 7#a7 on p4 #bei is as follows3-- ',bunsen1 ,ignatius v4 ,ant4 u4 s4 ,zeit1 #ahdg2 ,die drei aecht4 u4 d4 vier unaecht4 ,br4 des ,ignat41 #ahdg2 ,bleek1 ,einl4 ,n4,t41 p4 #ade2 ,boehringer1 ,k4,g4 in ,biograph41 #b ,aufl41 p4 #af2 ,cureton1 ,the ,ancient ,syriac ,version of ,eps4 of ,st ,ignatius1 etc41 #ahde2 ,vindiciae ,ignat41 #ahdf1 ,corpus ,ignatianum1 #ahdi2 ,ewald1 ,gesch4 d4 ,v4 ,isr41 vii4 p4 #cac2 ,lipsius1 ,aechtheit d4 ,syr4 ,recens4 d4 ,ign4 ,br4 in ,illgen's ,zeitschr4 f4 hist4 ,theol41 #ahef1 ,h4 i41 #aheg1 ,abhandl4 d4 deutsche-morgenl4 ,gesellschaft4 i4 #e1 #ahei1 p4 #g2 ,milman1 ,hist4 of ,chr41 ii4 p4 #ajb2 ,ritschl1 ,entst4 altk4 ,kirche1 p4 #djc1 anm42 ,weiss1 ,reuter's ,repertorium1 ,sept4 #aheb4' ,the rest of the note touches another point1 and need not be quoted4 ,these references1 it will be observed1 are given to illustrate more immediately1 though perhaps not solely1 the statement that writers 'who do not admit that even these the ,curetonian ,epistles are genuine letters emanating from ,ignatius1 still prefer them to the version of seven ,greek ,epistles1 and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess4' ,the reader therefore will hardly be prepared to hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the ,ignatian letters as spurious4 ,bleek #ff3a alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty1 while inclining to ,bunsen's view2 the other eight distinctly maintain the genuineness of the ,curetonian letters #ff3b4 ,as regards the names which follow in the text1 it must be remembered that the ,magdeburg ,centuriators and ,calvin wrote long before the discovery of the ,vossian letters4 ,the ,ignatian ,epistles therefore were weighted with all the anachronisms and impossibilities which condemn the ,long ,recension in the judgment of modern critics of all schools4 ,the criticisms of ,calvin more especially refer chiefly to those passages which are found in the ,long ,recension alone4 ,the clause which follows contains a direct misstatement4 ,chemnitz did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious2 on the contrary he quotes them several times as authoritative2 but he says that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen the position of the ,papal power etc4' #ff3c ,the note 7#b7 on p4 #bfj runs as follows3-- ',by ,bochartus1 ,aubertin1 ,blondel1 ,basnage1 ,casaubon1 ,cocus1 ,humfrey1 ,rivetus1 ,salmasius1 ,socinus 7,faustus71 ,parker1 ,petau1 etc41 etc42 of4 ,jacobson1 ,patr4 ,apost41 i4 p4 xxv2 ,cureton1 ,vindiciae ,ignatianae1 #ahdf1 appendix4' ,here neither alphabetical nor chronological order is observed4 ,nor is it easy to see why an ,englishman ,r4 ,cook1 ,vicar of ,leeds1 should be ,cocus1 while a foreigner1 ,petavius1 is ,petau4 ,these however are small matters4 ,it is of more consequence to observe that the author has here mixed up together writers who lived before and after the discovery of the ,vossian ,epistles1 though this is the really critical epoch in the history of the ,ignatian controversy4 ,but the most important point of all is the purpose for which they are quoted4 ',similar doubts' could only1 ,i think1 be interpreted from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the ,epistles ascribed to ,ignatius4' ,the facts however are these #fg3a4 ,bochart condemns the ,ignatian ,epistle to the ,romans on account of the mention of 'leopards1' of which ,i shall speak hereafter1 but says nothing about the rest1 though probably he would have condemned them also4 ,aubertin1 ,blondel1 ,basnage1 ,r4 ,parker1 and ,saumaise1 reject all4 ,humfrey 7#aehd7 considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated1 but he believes them genuine in the main4 ,cook 7#afad7 pronounces them 'either supposititious or shamefully corrupted4' ,f4 ,socinus 7,a4,d4 #afbd7 denounces corruptions and anachronisms1 but so far as ,i can see1 does not question a nucleus of genuine matter4 ,casaubon 7,a4,d4 #afae71 so far from rejecting them altogether1 promises to defend the antiquity of some of the ,epistles with new arguments4 ,rivet explains that ,calvin's objections apply not to ,ignatius himself but to the corrupters of ,ignatius1 and himself accepts the ,vossian ,epistles as genuine #fg3b4 ,petau1 before the discovery of the ,vossian letters1 had expressed the opinion that there were interpolations in the then known ,epistles1 and afterwards on reading the ,vossian letters1 declared it to be a prudens et justa suspicio that these are the genuine work of ,ignatius4 ,the next note 7#c7 p4 #bfj is as follows3-- ,wotton1 ,praef4 ,clem4 ,r4 ,epp41 #agah2 ,j4 ,owen1 ,enquiry into original nature1 etc41 ,evang4 ,church3 ,works1 ed4 ,russel1 #ahbf1 vol4 xx1 p4 #adg2 ,oudin1 ,comm4 de ,script4 ,eccles4 etc4 #agbb1 p4 #hh2 ,lampe1 ,comm4 analyt4 ex ,evang4 ,joan41 #agbd1 i4 p4 #ahd2 ,lardner1 ,credibility1 etc41 ,works1 ii4 p4 #fh f42 ,beausobre1 ,hist4 ,crit4 de ,manichee1 etc41 #agcd1 i4 p4 #cgh1 note #c2 ,ernesti1 ,n4 ,theol4 ,biblioth41 #agfa1 ii4 p4 #dhi2 ,mosheim1 de ,rebus ,christ41 p4 #aei f42 ,weismann1 ,introd4 in ,memorab4 ,eccles41 #agde1 p4 #acg2 ,heumann1 ,conspect4 ,reipub4 ,lit41 #agfc1 p4 #dib2 ,schroeckh1 ,chr4 ,kirchengesch41 #agge1 ii4 p4 #cda2 ,griesbach1 ,opuscula ,academ41 #ahbd1 i4 p4 #bf2 ,rosenmueller1 ,hist4 ,interpr4 ,libr4 ,sacr4 in ,eccles41 #agie1 i4 p4 #aaf2 ,semler1 ,paraphr4 in ,epist4 ii4 ,petri1 #aghd1 ,praef42 ,kestner1 ,comm4 de4 ,eusebii ,h4,e4 condit41 #ahaf1 p4 #fc2 ,henke1 ,allg4 ,gesch4 chr4 ,kirche1 #ahah1 i4 p4 #if2 ,neander1 ,k4,g4 #ahdc1 ii4 p4 #aadj cf4 i4 p4 #ceg1 anm4 #a2 ,baumgarten-,crusius4 ,lehrb4 chr4 ,dogmengesch41 #ahcb1 p4 #hc1 cf4 ,comp4 chr4 ,dogmengesch41 #ahdj1 p4 #gi2 ,niedner1 ,gesch4 chr4 ,k41 p4 #aif2 ,thiersch1 ,die ,k4 im ap4 ,zeit1 p4 #cbb2 ,hagenbach1 ,k4,g41 i4 p4 #aae f42 cf4 ,cureton1 ,vind4 ,ign4 append42 ,ziegler1 ,versuch ein4 prag4 ,gesch4 d4 kirchl4 ,verfassungs-formen1 u4s4w41 #agih1 p4 #af2 ,j4,e4,c4 ,schmidt1 ,versuch ueb4 d4 gedopp4 ,recens4 d4 ,br4 ,s4 ,ignat4 in ,henke's ,mag4 f4 ,rel4 ,phil41 u4s4w4 #agie2 cf4 ,biblioth4 f4 ,krit41 u4s4w41 ,n4,t41 i4 p4 #dfc ff41 ,urspr4 kath4 ,kirche1 ,,ii4 i4 p4 ,i f42 ,h'buch ,chr4 ,k4,g41 i4 p4 #bjj4 ,the brackets are not the author's1 but my own4 ,this is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made such a deep impression on the reviewers4 ,certainly1 as it stands1 this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the ,ignatian literature1 and seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading4 ,it is important to observe however1 that every one of these references1 except those which ,i have included in brackets1 is given in the appendix to ,cureton's ,vindiciae ,ignatianae1 where the passages are quoted in full4 ,thus two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten minutes4 ,our author has here and there transposed the order of the quotations1 and confused it by so doing1 for it is chronological in ,cureton4 ,but what purpose was served by thus importing into his notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references8 ,and1 if he thought fit to do so1 why was the key-reference to ,cureton buried among the rest1 so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional references on which it has no bearing8 ,moreover1 several of the writers mentioned in this note express opinions directly opposed to that for which they are quoted4 ,wotton1 for instance #fi3a1 defends the genuineness of the ,vossian ,epistles very decidedly1 and at some length1 against ,whiston1 whose ,arianism led him to prefer the ,long ,recension4 ,weismann declares that 'the authenticity and genuineness of the ,epistles have been demonstrated clearly and solidly' by ,pearson and others1 so that no valid objections remain affecting the main question4 ,thiersch again1 who wrote after the publication of ,cureton's work1 uses the three ,syriac ,epistles as genuine1 his only doubt being whether he ought not to accept the ,vossian ,epistles and to regard the ,curetonian as excerpts4 ,of the rest a considerable number1 as for instance1 ,lardner1 ,beausobre1 ,schroeckh1 ,griesbach1 ,kestner1 ,neander1 and ,baumgarten-,crusius1 with different degrees of certainty or uncertainty1 pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus #fi3b4 ,the next note 7#d71 which ,i need not quote in full1 is almost as unfortunate4 ,references to twenty authorities are there given1 as belonging to the 'large mass of critics' who recognise that the ,ignatian ,epistles 'can only be considered later and spurious compositions4' ,of these ,bleek 7already cited in a previous note7 expresses no definite opinion4 ,gfroerer declares that the substratum 7,grundlage7 of the seven ,epistles is genuine1 though 'it appears as if later hands had introduced interpolations into both recensions' 7he is speaking of the ,long ,recension and the ,vossian74 ,harless avows that he must 'decidedly reject with the most considerable critics of older and more recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that the ,epistles are 'altogether spurious1' and proceeds to treat a passage as genuine because it stands in the ,vossian letters as well as in the ,long ,recension #gj3a4 ,schliemann also says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum1' though he is not satisfied with either existing recension4 ,all these critics1 it should be observed1 wrote before the discovery of the ,curetonian letters4 ,of the others1 ,hase commits himself to no opinion2 and ,lechler1 while stating that the seven ,epistles left on his mind an impression unfavourable to their genuineness1 and inclining to ,baur's view that the ,curetonian letters are excerpts from the others1 nevertheless adds1 that he cannot boast of having arrived at a decided conviction of the spuriousness of the ,ignatian letters4 ,one or two of the remaining references in this note ,i have been unable to verify2 but1 judging from the names1 ,i should expect that the rest would be found good for the purpose for which they are quoted by our author4 ,i am sorry to have delayed my readers with an investigation which--if ,i may venture to adopt a phrase1 for which ,i am not myself responsible--'scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise4' #gj3b ,but these notes form a very appreciable and imposing part of the work1 and their effect on its reception has been far from inconsiderable1 as the language of the reviewers will show4 ,it was therefore important to take a sample and test its value4 ,i trust that ,i may be spared the necessity of a future investigation of the same kind4 ,if it has wearied my readers1 it has necessarily been tenfold more irksome to myself4 ,ordinary errors1 such as must occur in any writer1 might well have been passed over2 but the character of the notes in ,supernatural ,religion is quite unique1 so far as my experience goes1 in works of any critical pretensions4 ,in the remainder of the discussion our author seems to depend almost entirely on ,cureton's preface to his ,ancient ,syriac ,version1 to which indeed he makes due acknowledgment from time to time4 ,notwithstanding the references to other later writers which crowd the notes already mentioned1 they appear 7with the single exception of ,volkmar7 to have exercised no influence on his discussion of the main question4 ,one highly important omission is significant4 ,there is no mention1 from first to last1 of the ,armenian version4 ,now it happens that this version 7so far as regards the documentary evidence7 has been felt to be the key to the position1 and around it the battle has raged fiercely since its publication4 ,one who 7like our author7 maintains the priority of the ,curetonian letters1 was especially bound to give it some consideration1 for it furnishes the most formidable argument to his opponents4 ,this version was given to the world by ,petermann in #ahdi1 the same year in which ,cureton's later work1 the ,corpus ,ignatianum1 appeared1 and therefore was unknown to him #ga3a4 ,its bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all1 or nearly all1 the writers who have specially discussed the ,ignatian question during the last quarter of a century4 ,this is true of ,lipsius and ,weiss and ,hilgenfeld and ,uhlhorn1 whom he cites1 not less than of ,merx and ,denzinger and ,zahn1 whom he neglects to cite4 ,the facts established by ,petermann and others are these2--7#a7 ,this ,armenian ,version1 which contains the seven ,vossian ,epistles together with other confessedly spurious letters1 was translated from a previous ,syriac version4 ,indeed fragments of this version were published by ,cureton himself1 as a sort of appendix to the ,curetonian letters1 in the ,corpus ,ignatianum1 though he failed to see their significance4 7#b7 ,this ,syriac ,version conformed so closely to the ,syriac of the ,curetonian letters that they cannot have been independent4 ,either therefore the ,curetonian letters were excerpts from this complete version1 or this version was founded upon and enlarged from the pre-existing ,curetonian letters by translating and adding the supplementary letters and parts of letters from the ,greek4 ,the former may be the right solution1 but the latter is a priori more probable2 and therefore a discussion which1 while assuming the priority of the ,curetonian letters1 ignores this version altogether1 has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to give an account4 ,i have no wish to depreciate the labours of ,cureton4 ,whether his own view be ultimately adopted as correct or not1 he has rendered inestimable service to the ,ignatian literature4 ,but our author has followed him in his most untenable positions1 which those who have since studied the subject1 whether agreeing with ,cureton on the main question or not1 have been obliged to abandon4 ,thus he writes3-- ',seven ,epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant1 all equally purporting to be by ,ignatius1 simply because only that number were mentioned by ,eusebius4' #gb3a ,and again3-- ',it is a total mistake to suppose that the seven ,epistles mentioned by ,eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way4 ,these ,epistles are mixed up in the ,medicean and corresponding ancient ,latin ,,mss with the other eight ,epistles1 universally pronounced to be spurious1 without distinction of any kind1 and all have equal honour4' #gb3b with more to the same effect4 ,this attempt to confound the seven ,epistles mentioned by ,eusebius with the other confessedly spurious ,epistles1 as if they presented themselves to us with the same credentials1 ignores all the important facts bearing on the question4 7#a7 ,theodoret1 a century after ,eusebius1 betrays no knowledge of any other ,epistles1 and there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious ,epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest4 7#b7 ,the confessedly spurious ,epistles differ widely in style from the seven ,epistles1 and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven ,epistles4 ,in other words1 they clearly formed part of the ,long ,recension in the first instance4 7#c7 ,they abound in anachronisms which point to an age later than ,eusebius1 as the date of their composition4 7#d7 ,it is not strictly true that the seven ,epistles are mixed up with the confessedly spurious ,epistles4 ,in the ,greek and ,latin ,,mss as also in the ,armenian version1 the spurious ,epistles come after the others #gc3a2 and this circumstance1 combined with the facts already mentioned1 plainly shows that they were a later addition1 borrowed from the ,long ,recension to complete the body of ,ignatian letters4 ,indeed our author seems hardly able to touch this question at any point without being betrayed into some statement which is either erroneous or misleading4 ,thus1 summing up the external evidence1 he writes3-- ',it is a fact1 therefore1 that up to the second half of the fourth century no quotation ascribed to ,ignatius1 except one by ,eusebius1 exists1 which is not found in the three short ,syriac letters4' #gc3b ,in this short statement three corrections are necessary4 7#a7 ,our author has altogether overlooked one quotation in ,eusebius from ,ephes4 #ai1 because it happens not to be in the ,ecclesiastical ,history1 though it is given in ,cureton's ,corpus ,ignatianum #gc3c4 7#b7 ,of the two quotations in the ,ecclesiastical ,history1 the one which he here reckons as found in the ,syriac ,epistles is not found in those ,epistles in the form in which ,eusebius quotes it4 ,the quotation in ,eusebius contains several words which appear in the ,vossian ,epistles1 but not in the ,curetonian2 and as the absence of these words produces one of those abruptnesses which are characteristic of the ,curetonian letters1 the fact is really important for the question under discussion #gc3d4 7#c7 ,though ,eusebius only directly quotes two passages in his ,ecclesiastical ,history1 yet he gives a number of particulars respecting the places of writing1 the persons named1 etc41 which are more valuable for purposes of identification than many quotations4 ,our author's misstatement however does not in this instance affect the main question under discussion4 ,the fact remains true1 when all these corrections are made1 that the quotations in the second and third centuries are confined to passages which occur both in the ,curetonian and in the ,vossian ,epistles1 and therefore afford no indication in favour of either recension as against the other4 ,the testimony of ,eusebius in the fourth century first differentiates them4 ,hitherto our author has not adduced any arguments which affect the genuineness of the ,ignatian ,epistles as a whole4 ,his reasons1 even on his own showing1 are valid only so far as to give a preference to the ,curetonian letters as against the ,vossian4 ,when therefore he declares the whole of the ,ignatian literature to be 'a mass of falsification and fraud1' #gd3a we are naturally led to inquire into the grounds on which he makes this very confident and sweeping assertion4 ,these grounds we find to be twofold4 7#a7 ,in the first place he conceives the incidents1 as represented in the ,epistles1 to be altogether incredible4 ,thus he says #gd3b3-- ',the writer describes the circumstances of his journey as follows3--,from ,syria even unto ,rome ,i fight with wild beasts1 by sea and by land1 by night and day2 being bound amongst ten leopards1 which are the band of soldiers3 who even when good is done to them render evil4 ,now if this account be in the least degree true1 how is it possible to suppose that the martyr could have found means to write so many long epistles1 entering minutely into dogmatic teaching1 and expressing the most deliberate and advanced views regarding ecclesiastical government8' ,and again3-- ',it is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the quotation above describes would allow a prisoner1 condemned to wild beasts for professing ,christianity1 deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his journey1 promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned4 ,and not only this1 but on his way to martyrdom1 he has1 according to the epistles1 perfect freedom to see his friends4 ,he receives the bishops1 deacons1 and members of various ,christian communities1 who come with greetings to him1 and devoted followers accompany him on his journey4 ,all this without hindrance from the ten leopards1 of whose cruelty he complains1 and without persecution or harm to those who so openly declare themselves his friends and fellow-believers4 ,the whole story is absolutely incredible4' ,to this objection1 plausible as it may appear at first sight1 a complete answer is afforded by what is known of ,roman procedure in other cases #ge3a4 ,as a matter of fact1 ,christian prisoners during the early centuries were not uncommonly treated by the authorities with this same laxity and indulgence which is here accorded to ,ignatius4 ,an excited populace or a stern magistrate might insist on the condemnation of a ,christian2 a victim must be sacrificed to the wrath of the gods1 or to the majesty of the law2 a human life must be 'butcher'd to make a ,roman holiday2' but the treatment of the prisoners meanwhile1 even after condemnation1 was1 except in rare instances1 the reverse of harsh4 ,st ,paul himself preaches the ,gospel apparently with almost as much effect through the long years of his imprisonment as when he was at large4 ,during his voyage he moves about like the rest of his fellow-travellers2 when he arrives at ,rome1 he is still treated with great consideration4 ,he writes letters freely1 receives visits from his friends1 communicates with churches and individuals as he desires1 though the chain is on his wrist and the soldier at his side all the while4 ,even at a much later date1 when the growth of the ,christian ,church may have created an alarm among statesmen and magistrates which certainly cannot have existed in the age of ,ignatius1 we see the same leniency of treatment1 and 7what is more important7 the same opportunities of disseminating their opinions accorded to the prisoners4 ,thus ,saturus and ,perpetua1 the ,african martyrs1 who suffered under ,severus #gf3a 7apparently in the year #bjb or #bjc71 are allowed writing materials1 with which they record the extant history of their sufferings2 and they too are visited in prison by ,christian deacons1 as well as by their own friends4 ,they owed this liberty partly to the humanity of the chief officers2 partly to gratuities bestowed by their friends on the gaolers #gf3b4 ,even after the lapse of another half-century1 when ,decius seriously contemplated the extermination of ,christianity1 we are surprised to find the amount of communication still kept up with the prisoners in their dungeons4 ,the ,cyprianic correspondence reveals to us the confessors and martyrs writing letters to their friends1 visited by large numbers of people1 even receiving the rites of the ,church in their prisons at the hands of ,christian priests4 ,but the most powerful testimony is derived from the representations of a heathen writer4 ,the ,christian career of ,peregrinus must have fallen within the reign of ,antoninus ,pius 7,a4,d4 #ach-afa74 ,thus it is not very far removed1 in point of time1 from the age of ,ignatius4 ,this ,peregrinus is represented by ,lucian1 writing immediately after his death 7,a4,d4 #afe71 as being incarcerated for his profession of ,christianity1 and the satirist thus describes the prison scene #gf3c3-- ',when he was imprisoned1 the ,christians1 regarding it as a great calamity1 left no stone unturned in the attempt to rescue him4 ,then1 when they found this impossible1 they looked after his wants in every other respect with unremitting zeal 7,greek3 ou parergos alla sun spoude74 ,and from early dawn old women1 widows1 and orphan children1 might be seen waiting about the doors of the prison2 while their officers 7,greek3 hoi en telei auton7 succeeded1 by bribing the keepers1 in passing the night inside with him4 ,then various meals were brought in1 and religious discourses were held between them1 and this excellent ,peregrinus 7for he still bore this name7 was entitled a new ,socrates by them4 ,moreover1 there came from certain cities in ,asia deputies sent by the ,christian communities to assist and advise and console the man4 ,indeed they show incredible despatch1 when any matter of the kind is undertaken as a public concern2 for1 in short1 they spare nothing4 ,and so large sums of money came to ,peregrinus at that time from them1 on the plea of his fetters1 and he made no inconsiderable revenue out of it4' ,the singular correspondence in this narrative with the account of ,ignatius1 combined with some striking coincidences of expression #gg3a1 have led to the opinion that ,lucian was acquainted with the ,ignatian history1 if not with the ,ignatian letters4 ,for this view there is much to be said2 and1 if it be true1 the bearing of the fact on the genuineness of the ,ignatian literature is important1 since ,lucian was born in ,syria somewhere about ,a4,d4 #abj1 and lived much in ,asia ,minor4 ,at all events it is conclusive for the matter in hand1 as showing that ,christian prisoners were treated in the very way described in these epistles4 ,the reception of delegates and the freedom of correspondence1 which have been the chief stumbling-blocks to modern criticism in the ,ignatian letters1 appear quite as prominently in the heathen satirist's account of ,peregrinus #gg3b4 ,in the light of these facts the language of ,ignatius becomes quite intelligible4 ,he was placed under the custody of a maniple of soldiers4 ,these ten men would relieve guard in turns1 the prisoner being always bound to one or other of them day and night1 according to the well-known ,roman usage1 as illustrated by the case of ,st ,paul4 ,the martyr finds his guards fierce and intractable as leopards4 ,his fight with wild beasts1 he intimates1 is not confined to the arena of the ,flavian amphitheatre2 it has been going on continuously ever since he left ,antioch4 ,his friends manage to secure him indulgences by offering bribes1 but the soldiers are exorbitant and irritating in the extreme #gh3a4 ,the more they receive1 the more they exact4 ,their demands keep pace with his exigencies4 ,all this is natural1 and it fully explains the language here ascribed to ,ignatius4 ,a prisoner smarting under such treatment naturally dwells on the dark side of the picture1 without thinking how a critic1 writing in his study centuries afterwards1 will interpret his fragmentary and impulsive utterances4 ,in short1 we must treat ,ignatius as a man1 and not as an automaton4 ,men will not talk mechanically1 as critics would have them talk4 7#b7 ,having declared 'the whole story' to be 'absolutely incredible1' on the grounds which ,i have just considered1 our author continues #gh3b3-- ',this conclusion1 irresistible in itself1 is1 however1 confirmed by facts arrived at from a totally different point of view4 ,it has been demonstrated that ,ignatius was not sent to ,rome at all1 but suffered martyrdom in ,antioch itself on the #bjth ,december1 ,a4,d4 #aae 7#c71 when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre1 in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by the earthquake which took place on the #acth of that month 7#d74' ,the two foot-notes contain no justification of this very positive statement1 though so much depends upon it2 but the reader is there furnished with a number of references to modern critics4 ,these references have been analysed by ,dr ,westcott #gi3a1 with results very similar to those which my analysis of the author's previous notes has yielded4 ,in some cases the writers express opinions directly opposed to that for which they are quoted2 in others they incline to views irreconcilable with it2 and in others they suspend judgment4 ,when the references are sifted1 the sole residuum on which our author rests his assurance is found to be a hypothesis of ,volkmar #gi3b1 built upon a statement of ,john ,malalas1 which ,i shall now proceed to examine4 ,the words of ,john ,malalas are-- ',the same king ,trajan was residing in the same city 7,antioch7 when the visitation of ,god 7i4e4 the earthquake7 occurred4 ,and at that time the holy ,ignatius1 the bishop of the city of ,antioch1 was martyred 7or bore testimony1 ,greek3 emarturese7 before him 7,greek3 epi autou72 for he was exasperated against him1 because he reviled him4' #gi3c ,the earthquake is stated by ,malalas to have occurred on the #acth of ,december1 ,a4,d4 #aae4 ,on these statements1 combined with the fact that the day dedicated to ,st ,ignatius at a later age was the #bjth of ,december #gi3d1 ,volkmar builds his theory4 ,it will be observed that the cause of the martyr's death1 as laid down by ,volkmar1 receives no countenance from the story of ,malalas1 who gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to the emperor4 ,now this ,john ,malalas lived not earlier than the latter half of the sixth century1 and possibly much later4 ,his date therefore constitutes no claim to a hearing4 ,his statement moreover is directly opposed to the concurrent testimony of the four or five preceding centuries1 which1 without a dissentient voice1 declare that ,ignatius suffered at ,rome4 ,this is the case with all the writers and interpolators of the ,ignatian letters1 of whom the earliest is generally placed1 even by those critics who deny their genuineness1 about the middle or in the latter half of the second century4 ,it is the case with two distinct martyrologies #hj3a1 which1 agreeing in little else1 are united in sending the martyr to ,rome to die4 ,it is the case necessarily with all those ,fathers who quote the ,ignatian letters in any form as genuine1 amongst whom are ,irenaeus and ,origen and ,eusebius and ,athanasius4 ,it is the case with ,chrysostom1 who1 on the day of the martyr's festival1 pronounces at ,antioch an elaborate panegyric on his illustrious predecessor in the see #hj3b4 ,it is the case with several other writers also1 whom ,i need not enumerate1 all prior to ,malalas4 ,but ,john ,malalas1 it is said1 lived at ,antioch4 ,so did ,chrysostom some two centuries at least before him4 ,so did ,evagrius1 who1 if the earliest date of ,malalas be adopted1 was his contemporary1 and who1 together with all preceding authorities1 places the martyrdom of ,ignatius in ,rome4 ,if therefore the testimony of ,malalas deserves to be preferred to this cloud of witnesses1 it must be because he approves himself elsewhere as a sober and trustworthy writer4 ,as a matter of fact however1 his notices of early ,christian history are1 almost without exception1 demonstrably false or palpably fabulous #hj3c4 ,in the very paragraph which succeeds the sentence quoted1 he relates how ,trajan had five ,christian women burnt alive2 the emperor then mingled their ashes with the metal from which the vessels used for the baths were cast2 the bathers were seized with swooning-fits in consequence2 the vessels were again melted up2 and out of the same metal were erected five pillars in honour of the five martyrs by the emperor's orders4 ,these pillars1 adds ,malalas1 stand in the bath to the present day4 ,as if this were not enough1 he goes on to relate how ,trajan made a furnace and ordered any ,christians1 who desired1 to throw themselves into it--an injunction which was obeyed by many4 ,nor when he leaves the domain of hagiology for that of chronology1 is this author any more trustworthy4 ,for instance1 he states that ,manes first propounded his doctrine in the reign of ,nerva1 and that ,marcion still further disseminated the ,manichean heresy under ,hadrian #ha3a4 ,an anachronism of a century or more is nothing to him4 ,we have seen by this time what authority suffices1 in our author's judgment1 to 'demonstrate' a fact2 and no more is necessary for my purpose4 ,but it may be worth while adding that the error of ,malalas is capable of easy explanation4 ,he has probably misinterpreted some earlier authority1 whose language lent itself to misinterpretation4 ,the words ,greek3 marturein1 marturia1 which were afterwards used especially of martyrdom1 had in the earlier ages a wider sense1 including other modes of witnessing to the faith3 the expression ,greek3 epi ,traianou again is ambiguous and might denote either 'during the reign of ,trajan1' or 'in the presence of ,trajan4' ,a blundering writer like ,malalas might have stumbled over either expression #ha3b4 ,the objections of our author have thus been met and answered2 and difficulties which admit of this easy explanation cannot1 ,i venture to think1 be held to have any real weight against even a small amount of external testimony in favour of the ,epistles4 ,the external testimony however is considerable in this case #ha3c4 ,the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 which purports to have been written so soon after this journey of ,ignatius through ,asia ,minor that the circumstances of the martyr's death were not fully known there1 speaks of his letters in language which is entirely applicable to the existing documents4 ,our author indeed declares this ,epistle also to be spurious4 ,but ,irenaeus1 the pupil of ,polycarp1 bears testimony to the existence of such an ,epistle2 and ,i pledge myself to answer in a subsequent paper the objections urged against its genuineness by our author and others #hb3a4 ,besides this1 ,irenaeus1 writing about ,a4,d4 #ahj-aij1 quotes a characteristic and distinctive passage from the ,epistle to the ,romans1 not indeed mentioning ,ignatius by name1 but introducing the quotation as the words of a member of the ,christian brotherhood4 ,and again1 in the first half of the next century ,origen cites two passages from these letters1 ascribing them directly to ,ignatius4 ,i say nothing of the later and more explicit references and quotations of ,eusebius1 important as these are in themselves4 ,our author indeed seems to consider this amount of testimony very insufficient4 ,but even if we set ,polycarp aside1 it would hardly be rash to say that the external evidence for at least two-thirds of the remains of classical antiquity is inferior4 ,we ,christians are constantly told that we must expect to have our records tested by the same standards which are applied to other writings4 ,this is exactly what we desire1 and what we do not get4 ,it is not easy to imagine the havoc which would ensue1 if the critical principles of the ,tuebingen school and their admirers were let loose on the classical literature of ,greece and ,rome4 ,external testimony therefore leaves a very strong presumption in favour of the genuineness of the ,ignatian letters in one form or other2 and before rejecting them entirely1 we are bound to show that internal evidence furnishes really substantial and valid objections to their authenticity4 ,it is not sufficient1 for instance1 to allege that the saint's desire for martyrdom1 as exhibited in these ,epistles1 is extravagant1 because we have ample testimony for believing that such extravagance 7whether commendable or not7 was highly characteristic of the faith and zeal of the early ,christians when tried by persecution4 ,nor again1 is it of any avail to produce some eccentricities of thought or language1 because there is no a priori reason why ,st ,ignatius should not have indulged in such eccentricities4 ,unless therefore really solid objections can be urged1 we are bound by all ordinary laws of literary evidence to accept as genuine at all events the shortest form in which these ,epistles are presented to us4 ,in other words1 the ,curetonian letters at least must be received4 ,and as these satisfy all the quotations and references of the second and third centuries 7though not those of ,eusebius in the first half of the fourth71 perhaps not more is required by the external testimony4 ,against the genuineness of these it may be presumed that our author has advanced what he considered the strongest arguments which the case admits2 and ,i have answered them4 ,i am quite aware that other objections have been alleged by other critics2 but it will be sufficient here to express a conviction that these have no real force against even the slightest external testimony1 and to undertake to meet them if they are reproduced4 ,thus all the supposed anachronisms have failed4 ,bochart1 for instance1 was bold enough to maintain that the ,ignatian ,epistle to the ,romans could not have been written before the time of ,constantine the ,great1 because 'leopards' are mentioned in it1 and the word was not known until this late age4 ,in reply to ,bochart1 ,pearson and others showed conclusively1 by appealing 7among other documents7 to the contemporary ,acts of ,martyrdom of ,perpetua and ,felicitas 7who suffered when ,geta was ,caesar1 about ,a4,d4 #bjb71 that 'leopards' were so called more than a century at least before ,constantine1 while they gave good reasons for believing that the word was in use much earlier4 ,i am able to carry the direct evidence half a century farther back4 ,the word occurs in an early treatise of ,galen 7written about the middle of the second century71 without any indication that it was then a new or unusual term4 ,this passage1 which 7so far as ,i am aware7 has been hitherto overlooked1 carries the use back to within some forty years1 or less1 of the professed date of the ,ignatian letters2 and it must be regarded as a mere accident that no earlier occurrence has been noticed in the scanty remains of ,greek and ,roman literature which bridge over the interval4 ,of the institution of episcopacy again1 it is sufficient to say that its prevalence in ,asia ,minor at this time1 whatever may have been the case elsewhere1 can only be denied by rejecting a large amount of direct and indirect evidence on this side of the question1 and by substituting in its place a mere hypothesis which rests on no basis of historical fact4 ,on the other hand1 the ,epistles themselves are stamped with an individuality of character which is a strong testimony to their genuineness4 ,the intensity of feeling and the ruggedness of expression seem to bespeak a real living man4 ,on this point however it is impossible to dwell here2 anyone who will take the pains to read these ,epistles continuously will be in a better position to form a judgment on this evidence of style1 than if he had been plied with many arguments4 ,but if the ,curetonian letters are the genuine work of ,ignatius1 what must we say of the ,vossian8 ,were the additional portions1 which are contained in the latter but wanting in the former1 also written by the saint1 or are they later interpolations and additions8 ,this is a much more difficult question4 ,as a first step towards answering this question1 we may observe that there is one very strong reason for believing that the ,vossian letters cannot have been written after the middle of the second century4 ,the argument from silence has been so often abused1 that one is almost afraid to employ it at all4 ,yet here it seems to have a real value4 ,the writer of these letters1 whoever he was1 is evidently an orthodox ,catholic ,christian1 and at the same time a strong controversialist4 ,it is therefore a striking fact that he is altogether silent on the main controversies which agitated the ,church1 and more especially the ,church of ,asia ,minor1 in the middle and latter half of the second century4 ,there is not a word about ,montanism or about the ,paschal controversy4 ,it is difficult to believe that such a writer could have kept clear of these 'burning' questions1 if he had lived in the midst of them4 ,even though his sense of historical propriety might have preserved him from language involving a positive anachronism1 he would have taken a distinct side1 and would have made his meaning clear by indirect means4 ,again1 there is nothing at all bearing on the great ,gnostic heresies of this age4 ,the doctrines of the ,marcionites1 of the ,valentinians1 even of the ,basilideans 7though ,basilides flourished under ,hadrian71 are not touched4 ,on the contrary1 the writer several times uses language which an orthodox churchman1 writing in the second half of the second century or later1 would almost certainly have avoided4 ,among other expressions he salutes the ,church of the ,trallians 'in the pleroma'--an expression which could not escape the taint of heresy when once ,valentinus had promulgated his system1 of which the pleroma was the centre4 ,nor again1 is it likely that such a writer would have indulged in expressions which1 however innocent in themselves1 would seem very distinctly to countenance the ,gnostic doctrine of the inherent evil of matter1 as for instance1 where he says that he has not in him any 'matter-loving 7,greek3 philouelon7 fire 7of passion71' #he3a and the like4 ,the bearing of these facts has 7so far as ,i remember7 been overlooked1 and yet it is highly important4 ,having regard to these and similar phenomena1 ,i do not see how it is reasonable to date the ,vossian ,epistles after the middle of the second century4 ,but still it does not follow that they are genuine2 and elsewhere ,i had acquiesced in the earlier opinion of ,lipsius1 who ascribed them to an interpolator writing about ,a4,d4 #adj #he3b4 ,now however ,i am obliged to confess that ,i have grave and increasing doubts whether1 after all1 they are not the genuine utterances of ,ignatius himself4 ,the following reasons weigh heavily in this scale4 7#a7 ,petermann's investigations1 which have been already mentioned1 respecting the ,armenian version and its relation to a pre-existing ,syriac version1 throw a new light on the ,curetonian letters4 ,when it is known that there existed a complete version of the ,vossian letters in this language1 the theory that the ,curetonian letters are excerpts becomes at least highly plausible1 since the two sets of ,syriac letters were certainly not independent the one of the other4 7#b7 ,notwithstanding ,cureton's assertions1 which our author has endorsed1 the abruptness of the ,curetonian letters is very perplexing in some parts4 ,subsequent writers1 even while maintaining their genuineness1 have recognised this difficulty1 and endeavoured to explain it4 ,it is far from easy1 for instance1 to conceive that the ,ephesian letter could have ended as it is made to end in this recension4 7#c7 ,though the ,vossian letters introduce many historical circumstances respecting the journey of ,ignatius1 the condition of the ,church of ,antioch1 and the persons visiting or visited by him1 no contradictions have yet been made out2 but1 on the contrary1 the several notices fit in one with another in a way which at all events shows more care and ingenuity than might be expected in a falsifier4 7#d7 ,all the supposed anachronisms to which objection has been taken in these ,epistles fail on closer investigation4 ,more especially stress has been laid on the fact that this writer describes ,christ as ,god's 'eternal ,logos1 not having proceeded from ,silence2' #hf3a and objectors1 have urged that this expression is intended as a refutation of the ,valentinian doctrine4 ,pearson thought it sufficient to reply that the ,valentinians did not represent the ,logos as an emanation from ,silence1 but from an intermediate ,a,eon2 and when the treatise of ,hippolytus was discovered1 an answer seemed to be furnished by the fact that ,silence held a conspicuous place in the tenets of the earlier sect of ,simonians1 and the ,ignatian expression was explained as a reference to their teaching4 ,but fresh materials for the correction of the ,ignatian text1 which ,cureton and ,petermann have placed in our hands1 seem to show very clearly 7though these editors have overlooked the importance of the facts7 that in the original form of the passage the words 'eternal' and 'not' were wanting2 so that the expression stood1 ',who is ,his ,logos1 having proceeded from ,silence4' ,they are omitted in the ,armenian version and in the passage as cited by ,severus of ,antioch #hg3a2 while the paraphrase of the ,long ,recension seems to point in the same direction1 though this is more doubtful4 ,severus more especially comments on the quotation1 so that his reading is absolutely certain4 ,such a combination of early authorities is very strong evidence in favour of the omission4 ,moreover it is difficult to explain how the words1 if genuine1 should have been omitted2 whereas their insertion1 if they were no part of the original text1 is easily accounted for4 ,in the middle of the fourth century1 ,marcellus of ,ancyra expressed his ,sabellianism in almost identical language #hg3b2 he spoke of ,christ as the ,logos issuing from ,silence2 and there was every temptation with orthodox scribes to save the reputation of ,st ,ignatius from complicity in heretical opinions1 and at the same time to deprive ,marcellus of the support of his great name4 ,i call attention to these facts1 both because they have been overlooked1 and because the passage in question has furnished their main argument to those who charge these ,epistles with anachronisms4 ,of the character of these ,epistles1 it must suffice here to say that the writer at all events was thoroughly acquainted with the manner and teaching of ,st ,ignatius4 ,as regards the substance1 they contain many extravagances of sentiment and teaching1 more especially relating to the episcopal office1 from which the ,curetonian letters are free and which one would not willingly believe written by the saint himself4 ,but it remains a question1 whether such considerations ought to outweigh the arguments on the other side4 ,at all events it cannot be shown that they exhibit any different type of doctrine1 though the mode of representation may seem exaggerated4 ,as regards style1 the ,curetonian letters are more rugged and forcible than the ,vossian2 but as selected excerpts1 they might perhaps be expected to exhibit these features prominently4 ,for the reasons given ,i shall1 unless ,i am shown to be wrong1 treat the ,curetonian letters as the work of the genuine ,ignatius1 while the ,vossian letters will be accepted as valid testimony at all events for the middle of the second century4 ,the question of the genuineness of the latter will be waived4 ,i fear that my indecision on this point will contrast disadvantageously with the certainty which is expressed by the author of ,supernatural ,religion4 ,if so1 ,i am sorry1 but ,i cannot help it4 ,,iv4 ,,polycarp ,,of ,,smyrna4 ,,may1 #ahge4 ,polycarp1 ,bishop of ,smyrna1 is the most important person in the history of the ,christian ,church during the ages immediately succeeding the ,apostles4 ,in the eyes of his own and the next generations1 ,clement of ,rome appears to have held a more prominent position1 if we may judge from the legendary stories which have gathered about his name2 but for ourselves the interest which attaches to ,polycarp is far greater4 ,this importance he owes to his peculiar position1 rather than to any marked greatness or originality of character4 ,two long lives--those of ,st ,john and of ,polycarp--span the period which elapsed between the personal ministry of our ,lord and the great ,christian teachers living at the close of the second century4 ,polycarp was the disciple of ,st ,john1 and ,irenaeus was the disciple of ,polycarp4 ,we know enough of ,st ,john's teaching1 if the books ascribed to him in our ,canon are accepted as genuine4 ,we are fully acquainted with the tenets of ,irenaeus1 and of these we may say generally that on all the most important points they conform to the theological standard which has satisfied the ,christian ,church ever since4 ,but of the intermediate period between the close of the first century and the close of the second1 the notices are sparse1 the literature is scanty and fragmentary4 ,hence modern criticism has busied itself with hypothetical reconstructions of ,christian history during this interval4 ,it has been maintained that the greater part of the writings of our ,canon were unknown and unwritten at the beginning of this period4 ,it has been supposed that there was a complete discontinuity in the career of the ,christian ,church throughout the world4 ,the person of ,polycarp is a standing protest against any such surmises4 ,unless ,irenaeus was entirely mistaken as to the teaching of his master1 unless the extant ,epistle ascribed to ,polycarp is altogether spurious1 these views must fall to the ground4 ,it is indispensable for the advocates of the ,tuebingen theory respecting the origin of the ,christian ,church and the ,scriptural ,canon to make good both these positions alike4 ,otherwise it can have no standing ground4 ,my object in the following investigations is to show that neither position is tenable4 ,polycarp was born more than thirty years before the close of the first century1 and he survived to the latter half of the second4 ,the date of his birth may be fixed with some degree of certainty as ,a4,d4 #fi or #gj4 ,at all events it cannot have been later than this4 ,at the time of his martyrdom1 which is now ascertained to have taken place ,a4,d4 #aee or #aef #ij3a1 he declared that he had served ,christ eighty-six years #ij3b2 and1 if this expression be explained as referring to the whole period of his life 7which is the more probable supposition71 we are carried back to the date which ,i have just given4 ,thus ,polycarp was born on the eve of a great crisis1 which was fraught with momentous consequences to the ,church at large1 and which more especially made itself felt in the ,christian congregations of his own country1 proconsular ,asia4 ,the fall of ,jerusalem occurred in the autumn of the year #gj4 ,but at the final assault the ,christians were no longer among the besieged4 ,the impending war had been taken as the signal for their departure from the doomed city4 ,the greater number had retired beyond the ,jordan1 and founded ,christian colonies in ,pella and the neighbourhood4 ,but the natural leaders of the ,church--the surviving ,apostles and personal disciples of ,christ--had sought a home elsewhere4 ,from this time forward it is neither to ,jerusalem nor to ,pella1 but to proconsular ,asia1 and more especially to ,ephesus as its metropolis1 that we must look for the continuance of the original type of ,apostolic doctrine and practice4 ,at the epoch of the catastrophe we find the ,apostle ,john for a short time living in exile--whether voluntary or constrained1 it is unnecessary to inquire--in the island of ,patmos4 ,soon after this he takes up his abode at ,ephesus1 which seems to have been his head-quarters during the remainder of his long life #ia3a4 ,and ,john was not alone in choosing ,asia ,minor as his new home4 ,more especially the companions of his early youth seem to have been attracted to this neighbourhood4 ,of two brother ,apostles and fellow-countrymen of ,bethsaida this is distinctly recorded4 ,andrew1 the brother of ,simon ,peter1 appears in company with ,john in these later years1 according to an account which seems at least so far trustworthy #ia3b4 ,the presence of ,philip1 the special friend of ,andrew #ia3c1 in these parts is recorded on still better authority #ia3d4 ,philip himself died at ,hierapolis in ,phrygia2 but one of his three daughters was buried at ,ephesus1 where perhaps he had resided at an earlier date4 ,among other personal disciples of ,christ1 not otherwise known to us1 who dwelt in these districts of ,asia ,minor1 ,aristion and a second ,john are mentioned1 with whom ,papias1 the friend of ,polycarp1 had conversed #ia3e4 ,among these influences ,polycarp was brought up4 ,his own words1 to which ,i have already alluded1 seem to show that he was born of ,christian parentage4 ,at all events he must have been a believer from early childhood4 ,if his parents were ,christians1 they probably received their first lessons in the ,gospel from the teachers of an earlier date--from ,st ,paul who had planted the ,churches of ,asia ,minor1 or from ,st ,peter who appears to have watered them1 #ib3a or from the immediate disciples of one or other of these two ,apostles4 ,but during the childhood and youth of ,polycarp himself the influence of ,st ,john was paramount4 ,irenaeus reports 7and there is no reason for questioning the truth of his statement7 that ,st ,john survived to the reign of ,trajan #ib3b1 who ascended the imperial throne ,a4,d4 #ih4 ,thus ,polycarp would be about thirty years old at the time of ,st ,john's death4 ,when therefore ,irenaeus relates that he was appointed bishop in ,smyrna 'by ,apostles1' #ib3c the statement involves no chronological difficulty1 even though we interpret the term 'bishop' in its more restricted sense1 and not as a synonyme for presbyter1 according to its earlier meaning4 ,later writers say distinctly that he was appointed to the episcopal office by ,st ,john #ib3d4 ,at all events1 he appears as ,bishop of ,smyrna in the early years of the second century4 ,when ,ignatius passes through ,asia ,minor on his way to martyrdom1 he halts at ,smyrna1 where he is received by ,polycarp4 ,at a later stage in his journey he writes to his friend4 ,the tone of his letter is altogether such as might be expected from an old man writing to a younger1 who nevertheless held a position of great responsibility1 and had shown himself worthy of the trust4 ,after expressing his thankfulness for their meeting1 and commending his friend's steadfast faith1 which was 'founded as on an immovable rock1' he proceeds3-- ,vindicate thine office in all diligence1 whether in things carnal or in things spiritual4 ,have a care for unity1 than which nothing is better4 ,sustain all men1 even as the ,lord sustaineth thee4 ,suffer all men in love1 as also thou doest4 ,give thyself to unceasing prayer4 ,ask for more wisdom than thou hast4 ,keep watch1 and preserve a wakeful spirit4444 ,be thou wise as the serpent in all things1 and harmless always as the dove4444 ,the time requireth thee1 as pilots require winds1 or as a storm-tossed mariner a haven1 so that it may find ,god4444 ,be sober1 as ,god's athlete4444 ,stand firm as an anvil under the stroke of the hammer4 ,it becomes a great athlete to endure blows and to conquer4444 ,show thyself more zealous than thou art4444 ,let nothing be done without thy consent1 neither do thou anything without ,god's consent1 as indeed thou doest not #ic3a4 ,the close of the letter is addressed mainly to the ,smyrnaeans1 enforcing their reciprocal obligations towards their bishop4 ,this letter1 if the additional matter in the ,vossian ,epistles may be trusted1 was written from ,troas1 when the martyr was on the point of embarking for ,neapolis #ic3b4 ,the next stage of his journey would bring him to ,philippi1 where he halted4 ,thence he proceeded by the great ,egnatian road across the continent to the ,hadriatic1 on his way to ,rome4 ,shortly after this1 ,polycarp himself addresses a letter to the ,philippians4 ,he had been especially invited by his correspondents to write to them1 but he had also a reason of his own for doing so4 ,during this season of the year1 when winter had closed the high seas for navigation1 all news from ,rome must travel through ,macedonia to ,asia ,minor4 ,at ,smyrna they had not yet received tidings of the fate of ,ignatius2 and he hoped to get early information from his correspondents1 who were some stages nearer to ,rome where1 as ,polycarp assumed1 his friend had already suffered martyrdom #ic3c4 ,this was the occasion of the letter1 which for various reasons possesses the highest interest as a document of early ,christian literature1 though far from remarkable in itself4 ,its most important feature is the profuseness of quotation from the ,apostolic writings4 ,of a ,canon of the ,new ,testament1 strictly so called1 it is not probable that ,polycarp knew anything #ic3d4 ,this idea was necessarily1 as ,dr ,westcott has shown1 the growth of time4 ,but of the writings which are included in our ,canon he shows a wide knowledge and an ample appreciation4 ,in this respect he may not unprofitably be compared with ,clement of ,rome4 ,clement of ,rome1 there is good reason to believe1 was a ,hellenist ,jew #id3a2 he must have been brought up in a familiar acquaintance with the ,old ,testament ,scriptures4 ,on the other hand ,polycarp1 as we have already seen1 was probably the son of ,christian parents2 at all events he was educated from his earliest childhood in the knowledge of the ,gospel2 he had grown up in the society of ,apostles and ,apostolic men4 ,this contrast of education makes itself apparent in the writings of the two ,fathers4 ,though there are clear indications in ,clement that he was acquainted with many of the ,apostolic ,epistles1 yet his quotations are chiefly taken from the ,old ,testament4 ,again and again he cites continuous passages1 and argues from them at length4 ,but with ,polycarp the case is different4 ,the ,new ,testament has exchanged places with the ,old1 at least so far as practical use is concerned4 ,notwithstanding its brevity1 ,polycarp's ,epistle contains decisive coincidences with or references to between thirty and forty passages in the ,new ,testament #id3b4 ,on the other hand1 with the single exception of four words from the apocryphal book of ,tobit #id3c1 there is no quotation taken immediately from the ,old ,testament4 ,elsewhere indeed he cites the words of ,ps4 iv4 #d1 but these are evidently quoted from ,st ,paul1 and not directly from the ,psalmist1 as his context shows #ie3a4 ,not less remarkable than the number of his quotations from the ,new ,testament is their wide range4 ,of the ,evangelical references ,i shall have occasion to speak in a subsequent article4 ,besides these there is a strong coincidence with the ,acts which can hardly be accidental #ie3b2 and there are passages or expressions taken from most of the ,apostolic ,epistles4 ,among the latter the most decisive examples frequently refer to those very ,epistles which modern criticism has striven to discredit4 ,it cannot reasonably be questioned for instance1 that ,polycarp was acquainted with the ,epistle to the ,ephesians and with the two ,epistles to ,timothy4 ,of the indisputable references to the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,peter ,i have already spoken in a former paper #ie3c4 ,but the most important fact1 in its bearing on recent controversy1 is the relation of the writer to ,st ,paul4 ,according to the hypothesis of the ,tuebingen school1 there was a personal antagonism between ,st ,paul and ,st ,john1 and an irreconcilable feud between their respective schools4 ,it is therefore with special interest that we look to see what the most eminent scholar of the beloved disciple says about the ,apostle of the ,gentiles4 ,now ,st ,paul occupies quite the most prominent place in ,polycarp's ,epistle4 ,this prominence is partly explained by the fact that he is writing to a ,church of ,st ,paul's founding1 but this explanation does not detract from its value4 ,st ,paul is the only ,apostle who is mentioned by name2 his writings are the only ,apostolic writings which are referred to by name2 of his thirteen ,epistles1 there are probable references to as many as eleven #ie3d2 there are direct appeals to his example and his teaching alike3 there is even an apology on the writer's part for the presumption of seeming to set himself up as a rival to the ,apostle by writing to a ,church to whom he had addressed an ,epistle #if3a4 ,altogether the testimony to the respect in which ,st ,paul is held by the writer is as complete as language can make it4 ,if therefore the ,epistle be accepted as genuine1 the position of the ,tuebingen school must be abandoned4 ,from considering the phenomena of the extant ,epistle1 we pass by a natural transition to the second point which ,i proposed to investigate1 the traditions of the author's teaching4 ,polycarp was no longer a young man1 when his ,epistle was written4 ,but he lived on to see a new generation grow up from infancy to mature age afterwards2 and as the companion of ,apostles and the depositary of the ,apostolic tradition1 his influence increased with his increasing years4 ,before he died1 even unbelievers had come to regard him as the ',father of the ,christians4' ,of his later years a glimpse is afforded to us in the record of an eye-witness4 ,among the disciples of his old age were two youths1 companions for the time1 but destined to stand far apart in after life-- ',like cliffs that had been rent asunder2' the elder1 ,florinus1 who became famous afterwards as a heretical leader2 the younger1 ,irenaeus1 who stood forward as the great champion of orthodoxy4 ,the following is the remonstrance addressed by ,irenaeus to his former associate after his defection3-- ,these opinions1 ,florinus1 that ,i may speak without harshness1 are not of sound judgment2 these opinions are not in harmony with the ,church1 but involve those adopting them in the greatest impiety2 these opinions even the heretics outside the pale of the ,church have never ventured to broach2 these opinions the elders before us1 who also were disciples of the ,apostles1 did not hand down to thee4 ,for ,i saw thee1 when ,i was still a boy 7,greek3 pais on eti71 in ,lower ,asia in company with ,polycarp1 while thou wast faring prosperously in the royal court1 and endeavouring to stand well with him4 ,for ,i distinctly remember 7,greek3 diamnemoneuo7 the incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence2 for the lessons received in childhood 7,greek3 ek paidon71 growing with the growth of the soul1 become identified with it2 so that ,i can describe the very place in which the blessed ,polycarp used to sit when he discoursed1 and his goings out and his comings in1 and his manner of life1 and his personal appearance1 and the discourses which he held before the people1 and how he would describe his intercourse with ,john and with the rest who had seen the ,lord1 and how he would relate their words4 ,and whatsoever things he had heard from them about the ,lord1 and about his miracles1 and about his teaching1 ,polycarp1 as having received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the ,word #ig3a1 would relate altogether in accordance with the ,scriptures4 ,to these 7discourses7 ,i used to listen at the time with attention by ,god's mercy which was bestowed upon me1 noting them down1 not on paper1 but in my heart2 and by the grace of ,god1 ,i constantly ruminate upon them faithfully 7,greek3 gnesios74 ,and ,i can testify in the sight of ,god1 that if the blessed and ,apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind1 he would have cried out1 and stopped his ears1 and said after his wont1 ',o good ,god1 for what times hast ,thou kept me1 that ,i should endure such things8' and would even have fled from the place where he was sitting or standing when he heard such words4 ,and indeed1 this can be shown from his letters which he wrote either to the neighbouring ,churches for their confirmation1 or to certain of the brethren for their warning and exhortation #ig3b4 ,unfortunately the chronological notices are not sufficiently precise to enable us to fix the date either of this intercourse with ,polycarp1 or of the letter to ,florinus in which ,irenaeus records it4 ,in the year #aee or #aef ,polycarp died2 in the year #agg ,irenaeus became ,bishop of ,lyons4 ,putting these two facts together1 we may perhaps assume that ,irenaeus must have been a pupil of ,polycarp somewhere between ,a4,d4 #ace-aej4 ,the mention of the 'royal court' seems at first sight to suggest the hope of a more precise solution2 but even if this notice be taken to imply the presence of the ,emperor for the time being in ,asia ,minor1 our information respecting the movements of ,hadrian and his successors is too scanty to afford ground for any safe inference #ih3a4 ,of the later career of ,florinus1 we are informed that he was at one time a presbyter of the ,roman ,church2 that he afterwards fell away1 and taught his heresy in the metropolis2 that in consequence ,irenaeus addressed to him this letter from which ,i have given the extract1 and which was also entitled ',on ,monarchy' or ',showing that ,god is no--the author of evil' 7,greek3 poieten kakon7--this being the special heresy of ,florinus2 and that afterwards1 apparently by a rebound1 he lapsed into ,valentinianism1 on which occasion ,irenaeus wrote his treatise on the ,ogdoad #ih3b4 ,as the treatise of ,irenaeus on the ,ogdoad can hardly have been written later than his extant work on ,heresies1 in which ,valentinianism is so fully discussed as to render any such partial treatment superfluous1 and which dates from the episcopate of ,eleutherius 7,a4,d4 #agg-aij71 we are led to the conclusion that the letter to ,florinus was one of the earliest writings of this ,father4 ,thus we are left without any means of ascertaining the exact age of ,irenaeus when he sat at the feet of ,polycarp4 ,but beyond this uncertainty his testimony is as explicit as could well be desired4 ,all experience1 if ,i mistake not1 bears out his statement respecting the vividness of the memory during this period of life4 ,in a recent trial1 the most fatal blot in the evidence was the inability of a pretender to give any information respecting the games and studies1 the companions1 the familiar haunts1 of the school and college days of the person with whom he identified himself4 ,it is the penalty which mature age pays for clearer ideas and higher powers of generalisation1 that the recollection of facts becomes comparatively blurred4 ,very often an old man will relate with perfect distinctness the incidents of his youth and early manhood1 while a haze will rest over much of the intervening period4 ,those who have listened to a ,sedgwick after a lapse of sixty or seventy years repeating anecdotes of the 'statesmen' in his native dale1 or describing the circumstances under which he first heard the news of the battle of ,trafalgar1 will be able to realize the vividness of the stories which the aged ,polycarp would tell to his youthful pupil of his intercourse with the last surviving ,apostle--the memory of the narrator being quickened and the interest of the hearer intensified1 in this case1 by the conviction that they were brought face to face with facts such as the world had never seen before4 ,one incident more is recorded of this veteran preacher of the ,gospel4 ,in the closing years of his life he undertook a journey to ,rome1 where he conferred with the bishop1 ,anicetus4 ,the main subject of this conference was the time of celebrating the ,passion4 ,polycarp pleaded the practice of ,st ,john and the other ,apostles with whom he had conversed1 for observing the actual day of the ,jewish ,passover1 without respect to the day of the week4 ,on the other hand1 ,anicetus could point to the fact that his predecessors1 at least as far back as ,xystus1 who succeeded to the see soon after the beginning of the century1 had always kept the anniversary of the ,passion on a ,friday and that of the ,resurrection on a ,sunday1 thus making the day of the month give place to the day of the week4 ,neither convinced the other1 but they parted good friends4 ,this difference of usage did not interfere with the most perfect cordiality2 and1 as a sign of this1 ,anicetus allowed ,polycarp to celebrate the ,eucharist in his stead #ajj3a4 ,about forty years later1 when the ,paschal controversy was revived1 and ,victor1 a successor of ,anicetus1 excommunicated the ,asiatic ,churches1 ,irenaeus1 though himself an observer of the ,western usage1 wrote to remonstrate with ,victor on this harsh and tyrannical measure4 ,an extract from his letter is preserved by ,eusebius1 in which these incidents respecting his old master are recorded #ajj3b4 ,irenaeus insists strongly on the fact that the harmony of the faith has never been disturbed hitherto by any such diversities of usage4 ,to this visit to ,rome ,irenaeus makes another reference in his extant work against ,heresies4 ,the perfect confidence with which he appeals to the continuity of the ,apostolic tradition1 and to the testimony of ,polycarp as the principal link in the chain1 gives a peculiar significance to this passage1 and no apology is needed for quoting it at length4 ,after speaking of the succession of the ,roman bishops1 through whom the true doctrine has been handed down to his own generation without interruption1 he adds-- ,and 7so it was with7 ,polycarp also1 who not only was taught by ,apostles1 and lived in familiar intercourse 7,greek3 sunanastrapheis7 with many that had seen ,christ1 but also received his appointment in ,asia from ,apostles1 as ,bishop in the ,church of ,smyrna1 whom we too have seen in our youth 7,greek3 en te prote hemon helikia7 for he survived long1 and departed this life at a very great age1 by a glorious and most notable martyrdom1 having ever taught these very things1 which he had learnt from the ,apostles1 which the ,church hands down1 and which alone are true4 ,to these testimony is borne by all the ,churches in ,asia1 and by the successors of ,polycarp up to the present time1 who was a much more trustworthy and safer witness of the truth than ,valentinus and ,marcion1 and all such wrong-minded men4 ,he also1 when on a visit to ,rome in the days of ,anicetus1 converted many to the ,church of ,god from following the aforenamed heretics1 by preaching that he had received from the ,apostles this doctrine1 and this only1 which was handed down by the ,church1 as the truth4 ,and there are those who have heard him tell how ,john1 the disciple of the ,lord1 when he went to take a bath in ,ephesus1 and saw ,cerinthus within1 rushed away from the room without bathing1 with the words1 ',let us flee1 lest the room should indeed fall in1 for ,cerinthus1 the enemy of the truth1 is within4' ,yea1 and ,polycarp himself also on one occasion1 when ,marcion confronted him and said1 ',dost thou recognize me8' answered1 ',i recognize the firstborn of ,satan4' ,such care did the ,apostles and their disciples take not to hold any communication1 even by word1 with any of those who falsify the truth1 as ,paul also said1 ',a man that is a heretic after a first and second admonition1 avoid2 knowing that such an one is perverted and sinneth1 being self-condemned4' ,moreover1 there is an ,epistle of ,polycarp addressed to the ,philippians1 which is most adequate 7,greek3 hikanotate71 and from which both his manner of life and his preaching of the truth may be learnt by those who desire to learn and are anxious for their own salvation4 ,and again1 the ,church in ,ephesus1 which was founded by ,paul1 and where ,john survived till the times of ,trajan1 is a true witness of the tradition of the ,apostles #aja3a4 ,i have given these important extracts at length because they speak for themselves4 ,if ,i mistake not1 they will be more convincing than many arguments4 ,it is impossible to doubt the sincerity of ,irenaeus1 when he thus explicitly and repeatedly maintains that the doctrines which he holds and teaches are the same which ,polycarp had held and taught before him4 ,on the other hand1 a school of critics which has arisen in the present generation maintains that ,irenaeus was mistaken from beginning to end2 that1 instead of this continuity in the teaching and history of the ,church1 there had been a violent dislocation2 that ,st ,john1 as an ,apostle of the ,circumcision1 must have had a deep-rooted aversion to the doctrine and work of ,st ,paul2 and that ,polycarp1 as a disciple of ,st ,john1 must have shared that aversion1 and cannot therefore have recognized the authority of the ,apostle of the ,gentiles4 ,it is difficult to believe that those who hold this theory have seriously faced the historical difficulties which it involves1 or have attempted to realize any combination of circumstances by which this revolution could have been brought about in such a manner as to escape the notice of the next succeeding generations4 ,i shall probably have occasion hereafter to speak of the solidarity of the ,church at this epoch4 ,at present it is sufficient to say that the direct personal testimony of ,irenaeus respecting ,polycarp is by no means the only1 or even the greatest1 impediment to this theory4 ,he constantly appeals to the ,asiatic elders1 the disciples and followers of the ,apostles1 in confirmation of his statement4 ,among the ,christian teachers of proconsular ,asia who immediately succeeded ,polycarp1 are two famous names1 ,melito of ,sardis and ,claudius ,apollinaris of ,hierapolis4 ,they must already have reached middle life before ,polycarp's martyrdom4 ,they were not merely practical workers1 but voluminous writers also4 ,the lists of their works handed down to us comprise the widest range of topics2 they handle questions of ,christian ethics1 of ,scriptural interpretation1 of controversial divinity1 of ecclesiastical order1 of theological metaphysics4 ,was there then any possibility of a mistake here8 ,to us the history of the ,church during the second century is obscure1 because all this voluminous literature1 except a few meagre fragments1 has been blotted out4 ,but to the contemporaries and successors of ,irenaeus it was legible enough4 ',who does not know1' exclaims his own pupil ,hippolytus1 'the books of ,irenaeus and ,melito and the rest1 which declare ,christ to be ,god and man8' #ajb3a ,this mission of peace to ,rome must have been one of the latest acts of the old man's life4 ,the accession of ,anicetus to the see of ,rome is variously dated2 but the earliest year is about ,a4,d4 #aej1 and an eminent recent critic1 who has paid special attention to the subject1 places it between ,a4,d4 #aed and ,a4,d4 #aef #ajc3a4 ,in the year #aee1 or #aef at the latest1 ,polycarp fell a martyr4 ,the details of his martyrdom are recorded in a contemporary document1 which takes the form of a letter from the ,church of ,smyrna1 addressed more immediately to the ,church of ,philomelium but challenging at the same time a wider circulation #ajc3b4 ,the simplicity with which the narrators record omens and occurrences easily explicable in themselves1 but invested by their surcharged feelings with a miraculous character1 is highly natural4 ,the whole narrative is eminently touching and instructive2 but the details have little or no bearing on my immediate purpose4 ,it is sufficient to say that ,polycarp had retired into the country to escape persecution2 that the populace1 not satisfied with the victims already sacrificed to their fury1 demanded the life of ,polycarp1 as the 'father of the ,christians2' that his hiding-place was betrayed by a boy in his service1 under the influence of torture2 that the magistrates urged him to save his life by submitting to the usual tests1 by pronouncing the formula1 ',caesar is ,lord1' or offering sacrifice1 or swearing by the fortune of the ,emperor1 or reviling ,christ2 that he declared himself unable to blaspheme a ,master whom he had served for eighty-six years1 and from whom he had received no wrong2 and that consequently he was burnt at the stake1 ,jews and ,heathens vying with each other in feeding the flames4 ,the games were already past2 otherwise he would have been condemned to the wild beasts--the usual punishment for such contumacy4 ,polycarp was martyred during the proconsulship of ,statius ,quadratus4 ,the commonly received date of his death is ,a4,d4 #aff or #afg1 as given in the ,chronicon of ,eusebius4 ,quite recently however1 ,m4 ,waddington has subjected the proconsular fasti of ,asia ,minor to a fresh and rigorous scrutiny #ajc3c4 ,this ,statius ,quadratus is mentioned by the orator ,aristides2 and by an investigation of the chronology of ,aristides' life1 with the aid of newly-discovered inscriptions1 ,m4 ,waddington arrives at the result that ,quadratus was proconsul in #aed1 #aee2 and1 as ,polycarp was martyred in the early months of the year1 his martyrdom must be dated ,a4,d4 #aee4 ,this result is accepted by ,m4 ,renan #ajd3a1 and substantially also by ,hilgenfeld and ,lipsius #ajd3b1 who however 7for reasons into which it is unnecessary to enter here7 postpones the martyrdom to the following year1 ,a4,d4 #aef4 ,m4 ,waddington's arguments seem conclusive1 and this rectification of date removes some stumbling-blocks4 ,the relations between ,st ,john and ,polycarp for instance1 as reported by ,irenaeus and others1 no longer present any difficulty1 when the period during which the lives of the two overlap each other is thus extended4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion very excusably adopts the received date of ,polycarp's martyrdom1 being unaware1 as it would seem1 of these recent investigations4 ,in this account of ,polycarp1 ,i have assumed the genuineness of the ,epistle ascribed to him2 but the author of ,supernatural ,religion has taken his side with those writers who condemn it as spurious1 and ,i am therefore obliged to give reasons for this confidence4 ,so far as regards external testimony1 it must be confessed that the ,epistle of ,polycarp presents itself with credentials of exceptional value4 ,the instances are very rare indeed where a work of antiquity can claim the direct testimony of a pupil of the writer to whom it is ascribed4 ,the statement of ,irenaeus respecting the authorship of this ,epistle is explicit2 and indeed1 as the reference is not denied either by the author of ,supernatural ,religion or by other critics1 like ,lipsius and ,hilgenfeld1 who nevertheless condemn the ,epistle as spurious1 ,i am saved all trouble in establishing its adequacy4 ,our author indeed is content to set it aside1 because 'the testimony of ,irenaeus is not 444 entitled to much weight1 inasmuch as his intercourse with ,polycarp was evidently confined to a short period of his extreme youth1 and we have no reason to suppose that he had any subsequent communication with him4' #aje3a ,i do not see how the notice of ,irenaeus justifies the statement that the period was short2 but the passage has been given above1 and the reader may judge for himself4 ,nor does it seem probable1 considering that the communications between ,asia ,minor and southern ,gaul were close and frequent1 that the pupil should altogether have lost sight of the master whom he revered1 when he migrated to his new and distant home in the west4 ,but1 even though all this be granted1 the fact still remains1 that the testimony is exceptionally good and would in ordinary cases be regarded as quite decisive4 ,i do not say that it is impossible ,irenaeus could have been mistaken2 there is always risk of error in human testimony2 but ,i maintain that1 unless we are required to apply a wholly different standard of evidence here from that which is held satisfactory in other cases1 we approach this ,epistle with a very strong guarantee of its authenticity1 which can only be invalidated by solid and convincing proofs1 and against which hypothetical combinations and ingenious surmises are powerless #aje3b4 ,whether the objections adduced by the impugners of this ,epistle are of this character1 the reader will see presently4 ,from the external we turn to the internal evidence4 ,we are asked to believe that this letter was forged on the confines of the age of ,irenaeus and ,clement of ,alexandria4 ,but can anything be more unlike the ecclesiastical literature of this later generation1 whether we regard the use of the ,new ,testament1 or the notices of ecclesiastical order1 or the statements of theological doctrine8 ,the ,evangelical quotations are still given 7as in ,clement of ,rome7 with the formula1 ',the ,lord said2' the passages from the ,apostolic ,epistles are still1 for the most part1 indirect and anonymous4 ,though two or three chapters are devoted to injunctions respecting the ministry of the ,church1 there is not an allusion to episcopacy from beginning to end4 ,though the writer's ideas of the ,person of ,christ practically leave nothing to be desired1 yet these ideas are still held in solution1 and have not yet crystallized into the dogmatic forms which characterize the later generation4 ,and from first to last this ,epistle is silent upon those questions which interested the ,church in the second half of the second century4 ,of ,montanism1 of the ,paschal controversy1 of the developed ,gnostic heresies of this period1 it says nothing4 ,a supposed reference to ,marcion ,i shall have to discuss presently4 ,for the moment it is sufficient to say that an allusion so vague and pointless as this would be must certainly have missed its aim4 ,but this argument from internal evidence gains strength when considered from another point of view4 ,the only intelligible theory--indeed1 so far as ,i remember1 the only attempt at a theory--offered to account for this ,epistle by those who deny its genuineness or its integrity1 connects it closely with the ,ignatian letters4 ,if forged1 it was forged by the same hand which wrote the seven ,vossian ,epistles2 if interpolated1 it was interpolated by the person who expanded the three genuine ,epistles into the seven4 ,according to either hypothesis1 the object was to recommend the ,ignatian forgery on the authority of a great ,dame2 the motive betrays itself in the thirteenth chapter1 where ,polycarp is represented as sending several of the ,ignatian ,epistles to the ,philippians along with his own letter4 ,this theory is at all events intelligible2 and1 so far as ,i can see1 it is the only rational theory of which the case admits4 ,let us ask then1 whether there is any improbability in the circumstances1 as here represented4 ,ignatius had stayed at ,philippi on his way to martyrdom2 the ,philippians had been deeply impressed by their intercourse with him2 writing to ,polycarp afterwards1 they had requested him to send them a copy of the martyr's letter or letters to him2 he complies with the request1 and appends also copies of other letters written by ,ignatius1 which he happened to have in his possession4 ,is this at all unnatural8 ,suppose on the other hand1 that the letter of ,polycarp had contained no such reference to ,ignatius and his ,epistles1 would it not have been regarded as a highly suspicious circumstance1 that1 writing to the ,philippians so soon after ,ignatius had visited both ,churches1 ,polycarp should have said nothing about so remarkable a man8 ,when ,i see how this argument from silence is worked in other cases1 ,i cannot doubt that it would have been plied here as a formidable objection either to the truth of the ,ignatian story1 or to the genuineness of ,polycarp's ,epistle1 or to both4 ,my conclusion is that this notice proves nothing either way1 when it stands alone4 ,if the other contents of the ,polycarpian ,epistle are questionable1 then it enforces our misgivings4 ,if not1 then this use of the notice is only another illustration of the over-suspicious temperament of modern criticism1 which1 as ,i ventured to suggest in an earlier paper1 must be as fatal to calm and reasonable judgment in matters of early ,christian history1 as it is manifestly in matters of common life4 ,the question therefore is narrowed to this issue1 whether the ,epistle of ,polycarp bears evidence in its style and diction or in its modes of thought or in any other way1 that it was written by the same hand which penned the ,ignatian letters4 ,and here ,i venture to say that1 however we test these documents1 the contrast is very striking2 more striking in fact than we should have expected to find between two ,christian writers who wrote about the same time and were personally acquainted with each other4 ,i will apply some of these tests4 #a4 ,the stress which ,ignatius lays on episcopacy as the keystone of ecclesiastical order and the guarantee of theological orthodoxy1 is well known4 ,indeed it is often supposed that the ,ignatian ,letters were written for this express purpose4 ,in ,polycarp's ,epistle on the other hand1 as ,i have already said1 there is no mention of episcopacy4 ,he speaks at length about the duties of the presbyters1 of the deacons1 of the widows1 and others1 but the bishop is entirely ignored4 ,more especially he directs the younger men to be obedient to 'the presbyters and deacons1 as to ,god and ,christ1' but nothing is said about obedience to the bishop #ajh3a4 ,at a later point he has occasion to speak of an offence committed by one ,valens1 a presbyter1 but here again there is the same silence4 ,all this is quite intelligible1 if the letter is genuine1 on the supposition either that there was a vacancy in the ,philippian bishopric at this time1 or1 as seems more probable1 that the ecclesiastical organization there was not yet fully developed2 but it is1 so far as ,i can see1 quite inconceivable that a forger whose object was to recommend episcopacy should have pictured a state of things so damaging to his main purpose4 ,the supposed forger indeed shows himself throughout quite indifferent on this subject4 ,there is every reason for believing that ,polycarp was ,bishop of ,smyrna at this time2 yet in the heading of the letter he does not assert his title1 but writes merely1 ',polycarp and the presbyters with him4' #b4 ,if we turn from ecclesiastical organization to doctrinal statement1 the contrast still remains4 ,we meet with no such strong expressions as are found in the ,ignatian letters2 ,polycarp1 never speaks of 'the blood of ,god1' 'the passion of my ,god1' ',jesus ,christ our ,god1' and the like4 ,even in the commoner modes of designating our ,lord1 a difference is perceptible4 ,thus the favourite mode of expression with ,ignatius is ',jesus ,christ' simply1 which occurs nearly a hundred times2 whereas in ,polycarp it is only found twice 7one passage being a quotation74 ,on the other hand1 the usual expression in ,polycarp is ',our ,lord ,jesus ,christ1' which apparently occurs only twice in the ,ignatian ,epistles1 and in both instances with various readings4 ,again the combination ',god and ,christ1' occurring three times in ,polycarp1 does not appear once in the ,ignatian letters #ajh3b4 #c4 ,the divergence of the two writers as regards ,scriptural quotations is still more remarkable4 ,though the seven ,ignatian letters are together at least five times as long as the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 the quotations from the ,apostolic ,epistles in the latter are many times more numerous1 as well as more precise1 than in the former4 ,whole passages in ,polycarp are made up of such quotations strung together1 while in ,ignatius they are very rare1 being for the most part epigrammatic adaptations and isolated coincidences of language or thought4 ,nor indeed is their range coextensive4 ,thus the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 as ,i pointed out in a former article #aji3a1 is pervaded with the language of ,st ,peter's ,first ,epistle1 but in the ,ignatian letters there is no trace of its use #aji3b4 #d4 ,but this divergence only forms part of a still broader and more decisive contrast4 ,the profuseness of quotation in ,polycarp's ,epistle arises from a want of originality4 ,the writer reproduces the thoughts and words of others1 because his mind is essentially receptive and not creative4 ,he is altogether wanting in independence of thought4 ,on the other hand1 the ,ignatian letters are remarkable for their individuality4 ,of all early ,christian writings they are pre-eminent in this respect4 ,they are full of idiomatic expressions1 quaint images1 unexpected turns of thought and language4 ,they exhibit their characteristic ideas1 which obviously have a high value for the writer1 for he recurs to them again and again1 but which the reader often finds it extremely difficult to grasp1 owing to their singularity4 ,i venture to think that any one who will carefully consider these contrasts--more especially the last1 as extending over the whole field--must be struck with the impossibility of the theory which makes this letter part of the assumed ,ignatian forgeries4 ,this hypothesis requires us to believe that a very uncritical age produced a literary fiction1 which1 for subtlety and naturalness of execution1 leaves the most skilful forgeries of the nineteenth century far behind4 ,and the hypothesis of interpolation is encumbered with difficulties of the same kind1 and hardly less considerable4 ,this hypothesis was shaped and developed by ,ritschl #aaj3a1 whose theory has been accepted by some later writers4 ,he supposes that the greater part of the ,epistle is the genuine production of the person whose name it bears1 written however1 not immediately after the death of ,ignatius1 but in the later years of ,polycarp's long life4 ,the three passages which relate to ,ignatius1 together with other parts which he defines1 he supposes to have been interpolated by the same forger who amplified the three genuine letters of the martyr of ,antioch into the seven of the ,vossian collection4 ,but if any one will take the passages which ,ritschl has struck out as interpolated1 he will find that the general style is the same2 that individual expressions1 more especially theological expressions1 are the same2 that the quotations are from the same range of books1 as in the other parts1 extending even to coincidences of expression with the ,epistle of ,clement of ,rome2 and that altogether there is nothing to separate one part from another1 except the a priori assumption that the references to ,ignatius must be unhistorical4 ,i do not know whether these facts have been pointed out before1 and ,i cannot do more here than hint at lines of investigation which any one may follow up for himself4 ,but when the phenomena are fully recognized1 ,i venture to think that the difficulties in ,ritschl's theory will be felt to be many times greater than those which it is framed to remove4 ,of the general character of the ,epistle1 as affecting the question of its genuineness1 the author of ,supernatural ,religion has said nothing4 ,but he has reproduced special objections which have been urged by previous writers2 and to these ,i wish to call attention1 because they are very good1 and not unfavourable1 illustrations of the style of criticism which is in vogue with the negative school4 #a4 ,our author writes in the first place3-- ,we have just seen that the martyr-journey of ,ignatius to ,rome is1 for cogent reasons1 declared to be wholly fabulous1 and the epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held to be spurious4 ,the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 however1 not only refers to the martyr-journey 7c4 ix71 but to the ,ignatian ,epistles which are inauthentic 7c4 xiii71 and the manifest inference is that it also is spurious4 ,of the fabulous character of the martyr-journey ,i have already disposed in my previous article on the ,ignatian letters #aaa3a4 ,for the present ,i reserve what ,i have to say concerning the assumed reference to the 'inauthentic' ,epistles1 as this objection will reappear again4 #b4 ,our author on a later page urges that-- ,in the ,epistle itself1 there are many anachronisms4 ,in ch4 ix the 'blessed ,ignatius' is referred to as already a considerable time dead1 and he is held up with ,zosimus and ,rufus1 and also with ,paul and the rest of the ,apostles1 as examples of patience3 men who have not run in vain1 but are with the ,lord2 but in ch4 xiii he is spoken of as living1 and information is requested regarding him1 'and those who are with him4' ,to this objection ,i had already supplied the answer #aaa3b which has been given many times before1 and which1 as it seemed to me1 the author ought in fairness to have noticed4 ,i had pointed out that we have only the ,latin version here1 and that the present tense is obviously due to the translator4 ,the original would naturally be ,greek3 ton sun auto1 which the translator1 being obliged to supply a substantive verb1 has carelessly rendered 'his qui cum eo sunt4' ,if any one will consider what has been just said about the general character of the ,epistle1 he will see that this is the only reasonable explanation of the fact1 whether we regard the work as genuine or not4 ,if it is not genuine1 the forger has executed his task with consummate skill and appreciation2 and yet here he is charged with a piece of bungling which a schoolboy would have avoided4 ,it is not merely an anachronism1 but a self-contradiction of the most patent kind4 ,the writer1 on this hypothesis1 has not made up his mind whether ,ignatius is or is not supposed to be dead at the time1 and he represents the fact differently in two different parts #aab3a4 ,but our author apparently is quite unaware that ,greek3 hoi sun auto might mean equally well1 'those who were with him1' and those who are with him4' ,at least ,i cannot attach any other meaning to his reply1 in which he retorts upon me my own words used elsewhere1 and speaks of my argument as being wrecked upon this rock of grammar4' #aab3b ,if so1 ,i can only refer him to ,thucydides or any ,greek historian1 where he will find scores of similar instances4 ,i need hardly say that the expression itself is quite neutral as regards time1 meaning nothing more than 'his companions1' and that the tense must be supplied according to the context or the known circumstances of the case4 ,but ,i am not sorry that our author has fallen into this error1 for it has led me to investigate the usage of ,polycarp and his translator1 and has thus elicited the following facts3--7#a7 ,unless he departed from his ordinary usage1 ,polycarp would have employed the short expression ,greek3 hoi sun auto or ,greek3 hoi met' autou in such a case4 ,thus he has ,greek3 ou sun auto in the opening paragraph1 and ,greek3 tois ex humon in c4 #i1 with other similar distances4 7#b7 ,the translator1 if he had the words ,greek3 tois sun auto before him1 would almost certainly supply the substantive verb1 as he has done in the opening1 'qui cum eo sunt presbyteri2' in c4 #c1 'illis qui tunc erant hominibus1' and 'quae est in ,deo2' in c4 #i1 'qui ex vobis sunt2' and probably also in c4 #ab1 'qui sunt sub coelo' 7the ,greek is wanting in this last passage74 7#c7 ,the translator1 in supplying the verb1 was as likely as not to give the wrong tense4 ,in fact1 in the only other passage in the ,epistle where it was possible to make a mistake1 he has gone wrong on this very point2 he has translated ,greek3 hen kai eidete 444 en allois tois ex humon mechanically by a present tense1 'quam et vidistis 444 in aliis qui ex vobis sunt1' though the persons are mentioned in connection with ,st ,ignatius and ,st ,paul1 and though it is distinctly stated immediately afterwards that they all were dead1 having1 as we may infer from the context1 ended their life by martyrdom4 ,in fact1 he has made the very same blunder which ,i ascribe to him here4 ,this objection therefore may be set aside for ever4 ,but the notices which ,i have been considering suggest another reflection4 ,is the historical position which the writer of this letter takes up at all like the invention of a forger8 ,would he have thought of placing himself at the moment of time when ,ignatius is supposed to have been martyred1 but when the report of the circumstances had not yet reached ,smyrna8 ,if he had chosen this moment1 would he not have made it clear1 instead of leaving his readers to infer it by piecing together notices which are scattered through the ,epistle--notices moreover1 which1 though entirely consistent with each other1 are so far from obvious that his translator has been led astray by them1 and that modern critics have woven out of them these entanglements which it has taken me so much time to unravel8 #c4 ,but our author proceeds3-- ,moreover1 although thus spoken of as alive1 the writer already knows of his ,epistles1 and refers1 in the plural1 to those written by him 'to us1 and all the rest which we have by us4' ,the reference here1 it will be observed1 is not only to the ,epistles to the ,smyrnaeans and to ,polycarp himself1 but to other spurious epistles which are not included in the ,syriac version4 ,i have already shown that ,ignatius is not spoken of as alive2 but1 if he had been alive1 ,i do not see why ,polycarp should not have known of his ,epistles1 seeing that of the seven ,vossian letters four claim to have been written from ,smyrna1 when the saint was in some sense ,polycarp's guest1 and two to have been written to ,smyrna4 ,therefore of the seven ,epistles1 supposing them to be genuine1 ,polycarp would almost necessarily have been acquainted with six4 ,by the 'other spurious ,epistles1' which the ,epistle of ,polycarp is supposed to recognize1 ,i presume that our author means the four of the ,vossian collection1 which have no place in the ,syriac4 ,if so1 ,i would reply that1 supposing the three ,syriac ,epistles to represent the only genuine letters extant1 these ,epistles themselves bear testimony to the fact that ,ignatius wrote several others besides2 for in one passage in these ,syriac ,epistles 7,rom4 #d7 the martyr says1 ',i write to all the ,churches and charge all men4' ,and again1 when ,polycarp writes1 ,greek3 tas epistolas ,ignatious tas pemphtheisas hemin hup' autou it is sufficient to advert to the fact that1 like the ,latin epistolae1 the plural ,greek3 epistolai is frequently used convertibly with the singular ,greek3 epistole for a single letter #aad3a1 and indeed appears to be so used in an earlier passage by ,polycarp himself of ,st ,paul's ,epistle to the ,philippians #aad3b2 so that the notice is satisfied by the single ,epistle to ,polycarp which is included in the ,syriac letters1 and does not necessarily imply also the ,epistle to the ,smyrnaeans which has no place there4 ,but of this passage generally ,i would say1 that though it may be a question whether the language does not favour the genuineness of the ,vossian letters1 as against the ,curetonian1 it cannot be taken to impugn the genuineness of the ,epistle of ,polycarp itself1 authenticated1 as this ,epistle is1 by ,irenaeus1 and exhibiting1 as we have seen1 every mark of genuineness in itself4 #d4 ,our author then continues3-- ,dallaeus pointed out long ago1 that ch4 xiii abruptly interrupts the conclusion of the ,epistle4 ,in what sense this chapter can be said to interrupt the conclusion it is difficult to say4 ,it occupies exactly the place which would naturally be assigned to such personal matters2 for it follows upon the main purport of the letter1 while it immediately precedes the recommendation of the bearer and the final salutation4 ,on the same showing the conclusion of the greater number of ,st ,paul's ,epistles is 'abruptly interrupted4' #e4 ,the next argument is of another kind3-- ,the writer vehemently denounces1 as already widely spread1 the ,gnostic heresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not exist until the time of ,marcion1 to whom and to whose followers he refers in unmistakable terms4 ,an expression is used in ch4 vii in speaking of these heretics1 which ,polycarp is reported by ,irenaeus to have actually applied to ,marcion in person1 during his stay in ,rome about ,a4,d4 #afj4 ,he is said to have called ,marcion 'the first-born of ,satan1' 7,greek3 prototokos tou ,satana71 and the same term is employed in this ,epistle with regard to every one who holds such false doctrines4 ,the development of these heresies1 therefore1 implies a date for the composition of the ,epistle1 at earliest1 after the middle of the second century1 a date which is further confirmed by other circumstances4 ,i will take the latter part of this statement first1 correcting however one or two errors of detail4 ,m4 ,waddington's investigations1 to which ,i have already alluded #aae3a1 oblige us to place ,polycarp's visit to ,rome some few years before #afj1 since his death is fixed at ,a4,d4 #aee or #aef4 ,again1 ,irenaeus does not state that the interview between ,polycarp and ,marcion took place at ,rome4 ,it may have taken place there1 but it may have occurred at an earlier date in ,asia ,minor1 of which region ,marcion was a native #aae3b4 ,these however are not very important matters4 ,the point of the indictment lies in the fact that about ,a4,d4 #adj1 earlier or later1 ,polycarp is reported to have applied the expression 'first-born of ,satan' to ,marcion1 while in the ,epistle1 purporting to have been written many years before1 he appears as using this same expression of other ,gnostic teachers4 ,this argument is a good illustration of the reasons which satisfy even men like ,lipsius and ,hilgenfeld4 ,to any ordinary judicial mind1 ,i imagine1 this coincidence1 so far as it goes1 would appear to point to ,polycarp as the author of the ,epistle2 for the two facts come to us on independent authority--the one from oral tradition through ,irenaeus1 the other in a written document older than ,irenaeus4 ,or1 if the one statement arose out of the other1 the converse relation of that which this hypothesis assumes is much more probable4 ,irenaeus1 as he tells us in the context1 was acquainted with the ,epistle1 and it is quite possible that in repeating the story of ,polycarp's interview with ,marcion he inadvertently imported into it the expression which he had read in the ,epistle4 ,but the independence of the two is far more probable4 ,as a fact1 men do repeat the same expressions again and again1 and this throughout long periods of their lives4 ,such forms of speech arise out of their idiosyncrasies1 and so become part of them4 ,this is a matter of common experience1 and in the case of ,polycarp we happen to be informed incidentally that he had a habit of repeating favourite expressions4 ,irenaeus1 in a passage already quoted1 mentions his exclamation1 ',o good ,god1' as one of these #aaf3a4 ,our author however declares that the passage in the ,epistle which contains this expression is directly aimed at ,marcion and his followers2 and1 inasmuch as ,marcion can hardly have promulgated his heresy before ,a4,d4 #acj-adj at the earliest1 this fact1 if it be a fact1 condemns as spurious a work which professes to have been written some years before4 ,but is there anything really characteristic of ,marcion in the description8 ,our author does not explain himself1 nor can ,i find anything which really justifies the statement in the writers to whom ,i am referred in his footnote4 ,i turn therefore to the words themselves-- ,for every one who doth not confess that ,jesus ,christ has come in the flesh1 is antichrist2 and whosoever doth not confess the testimony of the cross1 is of the devil2 and whosoever perverteth the oracles of the ,lord to 7serve7 his own lusts1 and saith that there is neither resurrection nor judgment1 this man is a first-born of ,satan #aaf3b4 ,to illustrate the relation of these denunciations to ,marcionite doctrine1 ,i will suppose a parallel4 ,i take up a book written by a ,nonconformist1 and ,i find in it an attack 7,i am not concerned with the truth or falsehood of the opinions attacked7 on the doctrines of episcopal succession1 of sacramental grace1 of baptismal regeneration1 and the like4 ,it is wholly silent about claims to ,papal domination1 about infallibility1 about purgatory and indulgences1 about the worship of the ,virgin or of the ,saints4 ,am ,i justified in concluding that the writer is 'referring in unmistakable terms' to the ,church of ,rome1 because the ,church of ,rome1 in common with the majority of ,churches1 holds the doctrines attacked8 ,would not any reasonable man draw the very opposite inference1 and conclude that the writer cannot mean the ,church of ,rome1 because there is absolute silence about the distinctive tenets of that ,church8 ,so it is here4 ,marcion1 in common with almost all ,gnostic sects1 held some views which are here attacked4 ,but ,marcion had also doctrines of his own1 sharp1 trenchant1 and startling4 ,marcion taught that the ,god of the ,new ,testament was a distinct being from the ,god of the ,old1 whom he identified with the ,god of ,nature2 that these two ,gods were not only distinct but antagonistic2 that there was an irreconcilable1 internecine feud between them2 and that ,jesus ,christ came from the good ,god to rescue men from the ,god of ,nature and of the ,jews4 ,this was the head and front of his offending2 and consequently a common charge against him with orthodox writers is that he 'blasphemes ,god4' #aag3a ,of this there is not a hint in ,polycarp's denunciation4 ,again1 ,marcion rejected the authority of the ,twelve1 denouncing them as false ,apostles1 and he confined his ,canon to ,st ,paul's ,epistles and to a ,pauline ,gospel4 ,again1 ,marcion prohibited marriage1 and even refused to baptize married persons4 ,on these points also ,polycarp is silent4 ,but indeed the case against this hypothesis is much stronger than would appear from the illustration which ,i have used4 ,not only is there nothing specially characteristic of ,marcion in the heresy or heresies denounced by ,polycarp1 not only were the doctrines condemned held by divers other teachers besides1 but some of the charges are quite inapplicable to him4 ,the passage in question denounces three forms of heretical teaching1 which may or may not have been combined in one sect4 ,of these the first1 ',whosoever doth not confess that ,jesus ,christ has come in the flesh1' is capable of many interpretations4 ,it way refer1 for instance1 to the separationism of ,cerinthus1 who maintained that the spiritual ,being ,christ descended on the man ,jesus after the baptism1 and left ,him before the crucifixion1 so that1 while ,jesus suffered1 ,christ remained impassible #aah3a2 or it may describe the pure docetism1 which maintained that our ,lord's body was a mere phantom body1 so that ,his birth and life and death alike were only apparent1 and not real #aah3b2 or it may have some reference different from either4 ,i cannot myself doubt that the expression is borrowed from the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,john1 and there it seems to refer to ,cerinthus1 the contemporary of the ,apostle #aah3c2 but ,polycarp may have used it with a much wider reference4 ,under any circumstances1 though it would no doubt apply to ,marcion1 who held strong docetic views1 it would apply to almost every sect of ,gnostics besides4 ,the same may be said of the second position attacked1 ',whosoever doth not confess the testimony of the cross1' which might include not only divers ,gnostic sects1 but many others as well4 ,but the case is wholly different with the third1 ',whosoever perverteth the oracles of the ,lord to 7serve7 his own lusts1 and saith that there is neither resurrection nor judgment4' ,to this type of error1 and this only1 the description 'first-born of ,satan' is applied in the text1 and of this ,i venture to say that it is altogether inapplicable to ,marcion4 ,no doubt ,marcion1 like every other heretical teacher of the second century1 or indeed of any century1 did 'pervert the oracles of the ,lord' by his tortuous interpretations2 but he did not pervert them 'to his own lusts4' ,the high moral character of ,marcion was unimpeachable1 and is recognized by the orthodox writers of the second century2 the worst charge which they bring against him is disappointed ambition4 ,he was an ascetic of the most uncompromising and rigorous type4 ,i cannot but regard it as a significant fact that when ,scholten wishes to fasten this denunciation on ,marcion1 he stops short at 'pervert the oracles of the ,lord1' and takes no account of the concluding words 'to his own lusts1' though these contain the very sting of the accusation #aai3a4 ,obviously the allusion here is to that antinomian license which many early ,gnostic teachers managed to extract from the spiritual teaching of the ,gospel4 ,we find germs of this immoral doctrine a full half century before the professed date of ,polycarp's ,epistle1 in the incipient ,gnosticism which ,st ,paul rebukes at ,corinth #aai3b4 ,we have still clearer indications of it in the ,pastoral ,epistles2 and when we reach the epoch of the ,apocalypse1 which our author himself places somewhere in the year #fh or #fi1 the evil is almost full blown #aai3c4 ,this interpretation becomes more evident when we consider the expression in the light of the accompanying clause1 where the same persons are described as saying that there was 'no resurrection nor judgment4' ,this can hardly mean anything else than that they denied the doctrine of a future retribution1 and so broke loose from the moral restraints imposed by fear of consequences4 ,here again1 they had their forerunners in those licentious speculators belonging to the ,christian community at ,corinth who maintained that 'there is no resurrection of the dead1' #abj3a and whose ,epicurean lives were a logical consequence of their ,epicurean doctrine4 ,and here1 too1 the ,pastoral ,epistles supply a pertinent illustration4 ,if we are at a loss to conceive how they could have extracted such a doctrine out of 'the oracles of the ,lord1' the difficulty is explained by the parallel case of ,hymenaeus and ,philetus1 who taught that 'the resurrection had already taken place1' #abj3b or in other words1 that all such terms must be understood in a metaphorical sense as applying to the spiritual change1 the new birth or resuscitation of the believer in the present world'4 ,thus everything hangs together4 ,but such teaching is altogether foreign to ,marcion4 ,he did indeed deny the resurrection of the flesh1 and the future body of the redeemed #abj3d4 ,this was a necessary tenet of all ,gnostics1 who held the inherent malignity of matter4 ,in this sense only he denied a resurrection2 and he did not deny a judgment at all4 ,holding1 like the ,catholic ,christian1 that men would be rewarded or punished hereafter according to their deeds in this life1 he was obliged to recognize a judgment in some form or other4 ,his ,supreme ,god indeed1 whom he represented as pure beneficence1 could not be a judge or an avenger1 but he got over the difficulty by assigning the work of judging and punishing to the ,demiurge #abj3e4 ,to revert to my illustration1 this is as though our ,nonconformist writer threw out a charge of ,erastianism against the anonymous body of ,christians whom he was attacking1 and whom nevertheless it was sought to identify with the ,church of ,rome4 #f4 ,the next argument is of a wholly different kind3-- ,the writer evidently assumes a position in the ,church to which ,polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life1 and of which we first have evidence about ,a4,d4 #afj1 when he was deputed to ,rome for the ,paschal discussion4 ,this argument will not appeal to ,englishmen with any power1 when they remember that the ablest and most powerful ,prime ,minister whom constitutional ,england has seen assumed the reins of government at the early age of twenty-four4 ,but ,polycarp was not a young man at this time4 ,m4 ,waddington's investigations here again stand us in good stead4 ,if we take the earlier date of the martyrdom of ,ignatius1 ,polycarp was now in his fortieth year at least2 if the later date1 he was close upon fifty4 ,he had been a disciple1 apparently a favourite disciple1 of the aged ,apostle ,st ,john4 ,he was specially commended by ,ignatius1 who doubtless had spoken of him to the ,philippians4 ,history does not point to any person after the death of ,ignatius whose reputation stood nearly so high among his contemporaries4 ,so far as any inference can be drawn from silence1 he was now the one prominent man in the ,church4 ,what wonder then that the ,philippians should have asked him to write to them8 ,to this request1 ,i suppose1 our author refers when he speaks of the writer 'assuming a position in the ,church2' for there is nothing else to justify it4 ,on his own part ,polycarp writes with singular modesty4 ,he associates his presbyters with himself in the opening address2 he says that he should not have ventured to write as he does1 if he had not received a request from the ,philippians2 he even deprecates any assumption of superiority #aba3a4 #g4 ,but our author continues3-- ,and throughout1 the ,epistle depicts the developed organization of that period4 ,this argument must1 ,i think1 strike any one who has read the ,epistle as surprising4 ,there is1 as ,i have said already1 no reference to episcopacy from beginning to end #abb3a2 and in this respect it presents the strongest contrast to writings of the age of ,irenaeus1 to which it is here supposed to belong4 ,irenaeus and his contemporaries are so familiar with episcopacy as a traditional institution1 that they are not aware of any period when it was not universal2 and more especially when they are dealing with heretics1 they appeal to the episcopate as the depositary of the orthodox and ,apostolic tradition in matters of doctrine and practice4 ,the absence of all such language in ,polycarp's ,epistle is a strong testimony to its early date4 #h4 ,lastly1 another argument is alleged3-- ,hilgenfeld has pointed out another indication of the same date1 in the injunction ',pray for the kings' 7,orate pro regibus71 which1 in #a ,peter ii4 #ag1 is ',honour the king' 7,greek3 ton basilea timate71 which accords with the period after ,antoninus ,pius had elevated ,marcus ,aurelius to joint sovereignty 7,a4,d4 #adg71 or better still1 with that in which ,marcus ,aurelius appointed ,lucius ,verus his colleague1 ,a4,d4 #afa4 ,here we have only to ask why ,orate pro regibus should be translated ',pray for the kings1' rather than ',pray for kings1' and the ghost of a divided sovereignty vanishes before the spell4 ,there is no reason whatever for supposing that the expression has anything more than a general reference4 ,even if the words had stood in the original ,greek3 huper ton basileon and not ,greek3 huper basileon1 the presence of the article would not1 according to ordinary ,greek usage1 necessarily limit the reference to any particular sovereigns4 ,but there is very good reason for believing that the definite article had no place in the original4 ,the writer of this ,epistle elsewhere shows acquaintance with the ,first ,epistle to ,timothy4 ,thus in one place 7,sec4 #d71 he combines two passages which occur in close proximity in that ,epistle2 ',the love of money is the source of all troubles 7#a ,tim4 vi4 #aj73 knowing therefore that we brought nothing into the world1 neither are we able to carry anything out 7#a ,tim4 vi4 #g71 let us arm ourselves' etc4 ,hence it becomes highly probable that he has derived this injunction also from the same ,epistle2 ',i exhort first of all1 that supplications1 prayers1 intercessions1 thanksgivings1 be made for all men2 for kings1 and for all that are in authority' 7ii4 #b7 #abc3a1 where it is ,greek3 huper basileon4 ,after his manner1 ,polycarp combines this with other expressions that he finds in the ,evangelical and ,apostolical writings 7,ephes4 vi4 #ah1 ,matt4 v4 #dd1 ,phil4 iii4 #ah71 and gives the widest possible range to his injunction2 ',pray for all the saints2 pray also for kings and potentates and princes1 and for them that persecute and hate you1 and for the enemies of the cross1 etc4' ,we may therefore bid farewell to ,marcus ,aurelius and ,lucius ,verus4 ,our author at the outset speaks of 'some critics who affirm the authenticity of the ,epistle attributed to him ,polycarp1 but who certainly do not justify their conclusion by any arguments nor attempt to refute adverse reasons4' ,he himself passes over in silence all answers which have been given to the objections alleged by him4 ,doubtless he considered them unworthy of notice4 ,i have endeavoured to supply this lacuna in his work2 and the reader will judge for himself on which side the weight of argument lies4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion in his ,reply1 which appeared in the ,january number of the ,fortnightly ,review1 pointed out two inaccuracies in my first article4 ,in adverting to his silence respecting the occurrence of the ,logos in the ,apocalypse #abc3b1 ,i ought to have confined my remark to the portion of his work in which he is contrasting the doctrinal teaching of this book with that of the ,apocalypse1 where especially some mention of it was to be expected4 ,he has elsewhere alluded1 as his references show1 to the occurrence of the term in the ,apocalypse4 ,the other point relates to the passage in which he charges ,dr ,westcott with insinuating in an underhand way what he knew not to be true respecting ,basilides4 ,while commenting on his omission of ,dr ,westcott's inverted commas in the extract which ,i gave #abd3a1 ,i overlooked the fact that he had just before quoted ,dr ,westcott's text correctly1 as it stands in ,dr ,westcott's book4 ,though ,i find it still more difficult to understand how he could have brought this most unwarrantable charge when the fact of ,dr ,westcott's inverted commas was distinctly before him1 ,i am not the less bound to plead guilty of an oversight1 which ,i think ,i can explain to myself but which ,i shall not attempt to excuse1 and to accept the retort of looseness1 which he throws back upon me4 ,for the rest1 ,i could not desire a more complete vindication of my criticisms than that which is furnished by the author's reply4 ,i cannot1 for instance1 take any blame to myself for not foreseeing the misprints which our author pleads1 because they must have baffled far higher powers of divination than mine4 ,thus ,i found #abd3b the author stating that the fourth ,evangelist 'only once distinguishes ,john the ,baptist by the appellation ,greek3 ho baptistes1' #abd3c whereas1 as a matter of fact1 he never does so2 and comparing the whole sentence with a passage in ,credner #abd3d1 to which the author refers in his footnote1 ,i found that it presented a close parallel1 as the reader will see3-- ,waehrend der ,verfasser die ,he the author only once beiden ,apostel gleiches ,namens1 distinguishes ,john the ,baptist ,judas1 sorgfaeltig unterscheidet by the appellation ,greek3 ho 7vergl4 #ad1 #bb71 den ,ap4 ,thomas baptistes1 whilst he carefully naeher bezeichnet 7#aa1 #af2 #bj1 #bd2 distinguishes the two disciples #ba1 #b7 und den ,apostel ,petrus1 of the name of ,judas1 and always nur ,simon ,petrus1 oder ,petrus1 speaks of the ,apostle ,peter as nie ,simon allein nennt 7s4 ,sec4 #if1 ',simon ,peter1' or ',peter1' but ,nr4 #c471 hat er es nicht fuer noethig rarely as ',simon' only4 gefunden1 den ,taeufer ,johannes von dem gleichnamigen ,apostel ,johannes auch nur ein einziges ,mal durch den ,zusatz ,greek3 ho baptistes zu unterscheiden 7#a1 #f4 #ae4 #ai4 #bf1 etc474 ,seeing that the two passages corresponded so closely #abe3a the one to the other 7the clauses however being transposed71 ,i imagined that ,i had traced his error to its source in the correspondence of the two particular expressions which ,i have italicized1 and that he must have stumbled over ,credner's 'auch nur ein einziges ,mal4' ,he has more than once gone wrong elsewhere in matters of fact relating to the ,new ,testament4 ,thus he has stated that the saying about the first being last and the last first occurs in ,st ,matthew alone of the ,synoptic ,gospels1 though it appears also in ,st ,mark 7x4 #ca7 and 7with an unimportant variation7 in ,st ,luke 7xiii4 #cj7 #abe3b4 ,thus again1 he can remember 'no instance whatever' where a ,new ,testament writer 'claims to have himself performed a miracle #abe3c1' though ,st ,paul twice speaks of his exercising this power as a recognized and patent fact #abe3d4 ,this explanation of his mistake therefore seemed to me to be tolerably evident4 ,i could not have foreseen that1 where the author wrote 'never once1' the printer printed 'only once4' ,this error runs through all the four editions4 ,but the other clerical error which our author pleads was still further removed from the possibility of detection4 ,i had called attention #abe3e to the fact that1 in the earlier part of his book1 our author had written respecting the descent of the angel at ,bethesda 7,john v4 #c1 #d7-- ,this passage is not found in the older ,,mss of the fourth ,gospel1 and it was probably a later interpolation #abf3a4 whereas towards the end of his second volume he had declared that the passage was genuine2 and ,i had pointed out that the last words stood 'certainly a late interpolation' in the first edition1 so that the passage had undergone revision1 while yet the contradiction had been suffered to remain4 ,in justice to our author1 ,i will give his reply in his own words3-- ,the words 'it is argued that' were accidentally omitted from vol4 i4 p4 #aac1 line #ai1 and the sentence should read1 'and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation #abf3b4' ,to this the following note is appended3-- ,i altered 'certainly' to 'probably' in the second edition1 as ,dr ,lightfoot points out1 in order to avoid the possibility of exaggeration1 but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that ,i had clearly shown ,i was merely1 for the sake of fairness1 reporting the critical judgment of others1 that ,i did not perceive the absence of the words given above4 ,this omission runs through four editions4 ,but more perplexing still is the author's use of language4 ,the reader will already have heard enough of the passage in ,irenaeus1 where this ,father quotes some earlier authority or authorities who refer to the fourth ,gospel2 but ,i am compelled to allude to it again4 ,in my first article ,i had accused the author of ignoring the distinction between the infinitive and indicative--between the oblique and direct narrative--and maintaining1 in defiance of grammar1 that the words might very well be ,irenaeus' own #abf3c4 ,in my second article ,i pointed out that whole sentences were tacitly altered or re-written or omitted in the fourth edition1 and that 7as ,i unhesitatingly inferred7 he had found out his mistake #abf3d4 ,i have read over the passage carefully again in its earlier form in the light of the explanation which the author gives in his reply1 and ,i cannot put any different interpretation on his language4 ,it seems to me distinctly to aim at proving two things3 7#a7 ,that there is no reason for thinking that the passage is oblique at all1 or that ,irenaeus is giving anything else besides his own opinion 7pp4 #cbf-cca72 and 7#b7 ,that1 even supposing it to be oblique1 there is no ground for identifying the authorities quoted with the presbyters of ,papias 7pp4 #cca-ccd74 ,with this last question ,i have not concerned myself hitherto4 ,it will come under discussion in a later article1 when ,i shall have occasion to treat of ,papias #abg3a4 ,it was to the first point alone that my remarks referred4 ,the author however says in his reply that his meaning was the same throughout1 that he knew all the while ,irenaeus must be quoting from some one else1 and that he 'did what was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction4' #abg3b ,why then did he translate the oblique construction as if it were direct8 ,why1 after quoting as parallels a number of direct sentences in ,irenaeus containing quotations1 did he add1 ',these are all direct quotations by ,irenaeus1 as is most certainly that which we are now considering1 which is introduced in precisely the same way8' #abg3c ,why in his fourth edition1 in which he first introduces a recognition of the oblique construction1 did he withdraw all these supposed parallels1 which1 if his opinion was unchanged1 still remained as good for his purpose 7whatever that purpose might be7 as they had ever been8 ,further discussion on this point would obviously be wasted4 ,i can only ask any reader who is interested in this matter to refer to the book itself1 and more especially to compare the fourth #abh3a with the earlier editions1 that he may judge for himself whether any other interpretation1 except that which ,i and others besides myself #abh3b have put upon his words1 was natural4 ,the author has declared his meaning1 but ,i could only judge by his language4 ,i now proceed to notice some other of the chief points in our author's reply2 and perhaps it may be convenient in doing so to follow the order adopted in my original article to which it is a rejoinder4 #a4 ,in the first place then1 the author is annoyed that ,i spoke disparagingly of his scholarship #abh3c2 and in reply he says that the criticism in which ,i have indulged 'scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb4' #abh3d ,i cannot help thinking this language unfortunate from his own point of view2 but let that pass4 ,if the reader will have the goodness to refer back to my article1 he will find that1 so far from occupying the main part of it on points of scholarship which have no bearing on the questions under discussion1 as the author seems to hint1 ,i have taken up about two-thirds of a page only #abh3e with such matters4 ,in the other instances which ,i have selected1 his errors directly affect the argument for the time being at some vital point4 ,it would have been possible to multiply examples1 if examples had been needed4 ,i might have quoted1 for instance1 such renderings as ,greek3 katabas peripateito 'come down let him walk about #abi3a2' or ,greek3 ,iousta tis en hemin esti ,surophoinikissa1 to genos ,chananitis1 hes to ,thugatrion k4t4l4 ',justa1 who is amongst us1 a ,syrophoenician1 a ,canaanite by race1 whose daughter' etc4 #abi3b ,both these renderings survive to the fourth edition4 ,i must not however pass over the line of defence which our author takes1 though only a few words will be necessary4 ,i do not see that he has gained anything by sheltering himself behind others1 when he is obviously in the wrong4 ,not a legion of ,tischendorfs1 for instance1 can make ,greek3 epangellomenon signify 'has promised1' #abi3c though it is due to ,tischendorf to add that notwithstanding his loose translation he has seen through the meaning of ,origen's words1 and has not fastened an error upon himself by a false interpretation1 as our author has done4 ,and in other cases1 where our author takes upon himself the responsibility of his renderings1 his explanations are more significant than the renderings themselves4 ,scholars will judge whether a scholar1 having translated quem caederet #abi3d1 'whom he mutilates1' could have brought himself to defend it as a 'paraphrase' #abi3e4 ,i am not at all afraid that dispassionate judges hereafter will charge me with having unduly depreciated his scholarship4 ,but our author evidently thinks that the point was not worth establishing at all4 ,i cannot agree with him4 ,i feel sure that1 if he had been dealing with some indifferent matter1 as for instance some question of classical literature1 he would not have received any more lenient treatment from independent reviewers2 and ,i do not see why the greater importance of the subject should be pleaded as a claim for immunity from critical examination4 ,it does not seem to me to be a light matter that an author assuming1 as the author of ,supernatural ,religion does1 a tone of lofty superiority over those whom he criticizes1 should betray an ignorance of the very grammar of criticism4 ,but in the present case there was an additional reason why attention should be called to these defects4 ,it was necessary to correct a wholly false estimate of the author's scholarship with which reviewers had familiarized the public1 and to divest the work of a prestige to which it was not entitled4 #b4 ,in the next place ,i ventured to dispute the attribute of impartiality with which the work entitled ,supernatural ,religion had been credited4 ,and here ,i would say that my quarrel was much more with the author's reviewers than with the author himself4 ,i can understand how he should omit to entertain the other side of the question with perfect sincerity4 ,it appeared from the book itself1 and it has become still more plain from the author's ,reply1 that he regards 'apologists' as persons from whom he has nothing to learn1 and with whose arguments therefore he need not for the most part concern himself4 ,but the fact remains that the reader has had an ex parte statement presented to him1 while he has been assured that the whole case is laid before him4 ,of this one-sided representation ,i adduced several instances4 ,to these our author demurs in his reply4 ,as regards ,polycarp1 ,i believe that the present article has entirely justified my allegation4 ,of ,papias1 ,hegesippus1 and ,justin1 ,i shall have occasion to speak in subsequent articles4 ,at present it will be sufficient to challenge attention to what ,dr ,westcott has written on the last-mentioned writer1 and ask readers to judge for themselves whether our author has laid the case impartially before them4 ,several of my examples had reference to the ,gospel of ,st4 ,john4 ,of these our author has taken exception more especially to three4 ,as regards the first1 ,i have no complaint to make1 because he has quoted my own words1 and ,i am well content that they should tell their own tale4 ,if our author considers the argument 'unsound in itself1 and irrelevant to the direct purpose of the work1' #aca3a ,i venture to think that discerning readers will take a different view4 ,i had directed attention #aca3b to certain passages in the ,synoptic ,gospels 7,matt4 xxiii4 #cg2 ,luke xiii4 #cd7 as implying other visits to ,jerusalem which these ,gospels do not themselves record1 and therefore as refuting the hypothesis that our ,lord's ministry was only of a single year's duration1 and was exercised wholly in ,galilee and the neighbourhood until the closing visit to ,jerusalem--a hypothesis which rests solely on the arbitrary assumption that the record in the ,synoptists is complete and continuous4 ,thus the supposed difficulty in ,st ,john's narrative on this fundamental point of history disappears4 ,in fact the ,synoptists give no continuous chronology in the history of our ,lord's ministry between the baptism and the passion2 the incidents were selected in the first instance 7we may suppose7 for purposes of catechetical instruction1 and are massed together sometimes by connection of subject1 sometimes 7though incidentally7 by sequence of time4 ,in ,st4 ,john1 on the other hand1 the successive festivals at ,jerusalem are the vertebrae of the chronological backbone1 which is altogether wanting to the account of ,christ's ministry in the ,synoptists4 ,we cannot indeed be sure even here that the vertebrae are absolutely continuous2 many festivals may have been omitted2 the ministry of ,christ may have extended over a much longer period1 as indeed ,irenaeus asserts that it did #aca3c2 but the three passovers bear testimony to a duration of between two and three years at the least4 ,the second point has reference to the diction of the fourth ,gospel1 as compared with the ,apocalypse #aca3d4 ,here ,i am glad to find that there is less difference of opinion between us than ,i had imagined4 ,if our author does not greatly differ from ,luthardt's estimate of the language1 neither do ,i #acb3a4 ,on the other hand1 ,i did not deny1 and 7so far as ,i am aware7 nobody has denied1 that there is a marked difference between the ,apocalypse and the ,gospel1 in respect of diction2 only it is contended that two very potent influences must be taken into account which will explain this difference4 ,in the first place1 the subjects of the two books stand widely apart4 ,the apocalyptic purport of the one book necessarily tinges its diction and imagery with a very strong ,hebraic colouring1 which we should not expect to find in a historical narrative4 ,secondly1 a wide interval of time separates the two works4 ,the ,apocalypse was written1 according to the view which our author represents 'as universally accepted by all competent critics1' about ,a4,d4 #fh1 #fi #acb3b4 ,it marks the close of what we may call the ,hebraic period of ,st ,john's life--i4e41 the period which 7so far as we can gather alike from the notices and from the silence of history7 he had spent chiefly in the ,east and among ,aramaic-speaking peoples4 ,the ,gospel on the other hand1 according to all tradition1 dates from the last years of the ,apostle's life1 or1 in other words1 it was written 7or more probably dictated7 at the end of the ,hellenic period1 after an interval of twenty or thirty years1 during which ,st ,john had lived at ,ephesus1 a great centre of ,greek civilization4 ,our author appears to be astonished that ,luthardt should describe the 'errors' in the ,apocalypse as not arising out of ignorance1 but as 'intentional emancipations from the rules of grammar4' ,yet it stands to reason1 ,i think1 that this must be so with some of the most glaring examples at all events4 ,a moment's reflection will show that one who could write ,greek3 apo ho on1 k4t4l41 'from ,he that is1' etc4 7,rev4 i4 #d71 in sheer ignorance that ,greek3 apo does not take a nominative case1 would be incapable of writing any two or three consecutive verses of the ,apocalypse4 ,the book1 after all allowance made for solecisms1 shows a very considerable command of the ,greek vocabulary1 and 7what is more important7 a familiarity with the intricacies of the very intricate syntax of this language4 ,on the third point1 to which our author devotes between three and four pages1 more explanation is required4 ,i had remarked #acc3a on the manner in which our author deals with the name ',sychar' in the fourth ,gospel1 and had complained that he only discusses the theory of its identification with ,shechem1 omitting to mention more probable solutions4 ,to this remark ,i had appended the following note3 ,travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify ,sychar with the village bearing the ,arabic name ,askar4 ,this fact is not mentioned by our author4 ,he says moreover1 ',it is admitted that there was no such place as ,sychar ,greek3 ,suchar1 and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty4' ,this is altogether untrue4 ,others besides 'apologists' point to passages in the ,talmud which speak of 'the well of ,suchar 7or ,sochar1 or ,sichar72' see ,neubauer1 ',la ,geographie du ,talmud1' p4 #afi sq4 ,our author refers in his note to an article by ,delitzsch 7',zeitschr4 f4 ,luth4 ,theol4' #ahef1 p4 #bdj sq74 ,he cannot have read the article1 for these ,talmudic references are its main purport4 ,our author in his reply quotes this note1 and italicizes the passages as they are printed here4 ,i am glad that he has done so1 for ,i wish especially to call attention to the connection between the two4 ,he adds that 'an apology is surely due to the readers of the ,contemporary ,review1' and1 as he implies1 to himself1 'for this style of criticism1' to which he says that he is not accustomed #acc3b4 ,i am not sorry that this rejoinder has obliged me to rescue from the obscurity of a footnote a fact of real importance in its bearing on the historical character of the fourth ,gospel4 ,as for apologizing1 ,i will most certainly apologize1 if he wishes it4 ,but ,i must explain myself first4 ,i am surprised that this demand should be made by the same person who penned certain sentences in ,supernatural ,religion4 ,i am not a little perplexed to understand what canons of controversial etiquette he would lay down2 for1 while ,i have merely accused him1 in somewhat blunt language1 of great carelessness1 he has not scrupled to charge others with 'wilful and deliberate evasion1' with 'unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his readers1' with 'a deliberate falsification1' with 'disingenuousness' #acd3a and other grave moral offences of the same kind4 ,now ,i have been brought up in the belief that offences of this class are incomparably more heinous than the worst scholarship or the grossest inaccuracy2 and ,i am therefore obliged to ask whether he is not imposing far stricter rules on others than he is prepared to observe himself1 when he objects to what ,i have said4 ,nevertheless ,i will apologize2 but ,i cannot do so without reluctance1 for he is asking me to withdraw an explanation which seemed to me to place his mode of proceeding in the most favourable light1 and to substitute for it another which ,i should not have ventured to suggest4 ,when ,i saw in his text the unqualified statement1 ',it is admitted that there was no such place1' #acd3b and found in one of his footnotes on the same page a reference to an article by an eminent ,hebraist devoted to showing that such a place is mentioned several times in the ,talmud1 ,i could draw no other conclusion than that he had not read the article in question1 or 7as ,i might have added71 having read it1 had forgotten its contents4 ,the manner in which references are given elsewhere in this work1 as ,i have shown in my article on the ,ignatian ,epistles1 seemed to justify this inference4 ,his own explanation however is quite different4-- ,my statement is1 that it is admitted that there was no such place as ,sychar--,i ought to have added1 'except by apologists1 who never admit anything'--but ,i thought that in saying1 'and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty1' ,i had sufficiently excepted apologists1 and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are advanced by them for that purpose4 ,certainly this qualifying sentence needed to be added2 for no reader could have supposed that the author intended his broad statement to be understood with this all-important reservation4 ,unfortunately however this explanation is not confined to 'apologists4' ,as ,i pointed out1 it is adopted by ,m4 ,neubauer also1 who 7unless ,i much mistake his position7 would altogether disclaim being considered an apologist1 but who nevertheless1 being an honest man1 sets down his honest opinion1 without considering whether it will or will not tend to establish the credibility of the ,evangelist4 ,but after all1 the really important question for the reader is not what this or that person thinks on this question1 but what are the facts4 ,and here ,i venture to say that1 when our author speaks of 'assertions and conjectures' in reference to ,delitzsch's article1 such language is quite misleading4 ,the points which the ,talmudical passages quoted by him establish are these3-- 7#a7 ,a place called ',suchar1' or ',sychar1' is mentioned in the ,talmud4 ,our author speaks of 'some vague references in the ,talmud to a somewhat similar1 but not identical1 name4' ,but the fact is1 that the word ,greek3 ,suchar1 if written in ,hebrew letters1 would naturally take one or other of the two forms which we find in the ,talmud1 ,hebrew3 ,sukh'r 7,suchar7 or ,hebrew3 ,sykh'r 7,sychar74 ,in other words1 the transliteration is as exact as it could be4 ,it would no doubt be possible to read the former word ',socher1' and the latter ',sicher1' because the vowels are indeterminate within these limits4 ,but so far as identity was possible1 we have it here4 7#b7 ,the ,talmudical passages speak not only of ',sychar1' but of ',ayin-,sychar1' i4e41 'the ,well of ,sychar4' 7#c7 ,the ',well of ,sychar' which they mention is in a corn-growing country4 ,this is clear from the incident which leads to the mention of the place in the two principal ,talmudical passages where it appears1 ,baba ,kamma #hb;b1 ,menachoth #fd;b4 ,it is there stated that on one occasion1 when the lands in the neighbourhood of ,jerusalem were laid waste by war1 and no one knew whence the two loaves of the ,pentecostal offering1 the first-fruits of the wheat harvest1 could be procured1 they were obliged ultimately to bring them from 'the valley of the ,well of ,sychar4' ,now the country which was the scene of the interview with the ,samaritan woman is remarkable in this respect--'one mass of corn1 unbroken by boundary or hedge'#acf3a--;as it is described by a modern traveller2 and indeed the prospect before ,him suggests to our ,lord1 as we may well suppose1 the image which occurs in the conversation with the disciples immediately following--',lift up your eyes1 and look on the fields2 for they are white already to harvest4' #acf3b ,it is true that the ,talmudical passages do not fix the locality of their ',ayin-,sychar2' but all the circumstances agree4 ,it was just from such a country as this 7neither too near nor too far distant for the notices7 that the ,pentecostal loaves would be likely to be procured in such an emergency4 ,the reader will draw his own conclusions4 ,he will judge for himself whether the unqualified statement1 ',it is admitted that there was no such place as ,sychar1' is or is not misleading4 ,he will form his own opinion whether a writer1 who deliberately ignores these facts1 because they are brought forward by 'apologists who never admit anything1' is likely to form an impartial judgment4 ,the identification of ,sychar with ,askar1 to which recent opinion has been tending1 is a question of less importance4 ,notwithstanding the difficulty respecting the initial ,ain in the latter word1 an identification which has commended itself to ,oriental scholars like ,ewald and ,delitzsch and ,neubauer can hardly be pronounced impossible4 ,i venture to suggest that the initial ,ain of ',askar' may be explained by supposing the word to be a contraction for ,ayin-,sychar1 the ',well of ,sychar4' ,this corruption of the original name into a genuine ,arabic word would furnish another example of a process which is common where one language is superposed upon another1 e4g41 ,charter-house for ,chartreuse4 #c4 ,the third point to which ,i called attention #acg3a was the author's practice of charging those from whom he disagreed with dishonesty4 ,this seemed to me to be a very grave offence1 which deserved to be condemned by all men alike1 whatever their opinions might be4 ,and in the present instance ,i considered that the author was especially bound to abstain from such charges1 because he had thought fit to shelter himself 7as he was otherwise justified in doing7 under an anonyme4 ,moreover1 the offence was aggravated by the fact that one of the writers whom he had especially selected for this mode of attack was distinguished for his moderation of tone1 and for his generous appreciation of the position and arguments of his adversaries4 ,this is our author's reply-- ,dr ,lightfoot says1 and says rightly1 that ',dr ,westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself4' ,it would have been much better to have left it to take care of itself1 indeed1 than trouble it by such advocacy4 ,if anything could check just or generous expression1 it would be the tone adopted by ,dr ,lightfoot2 but nevertheless1 ,i again say1 in the most unreserved manner1 that neither in this instance1 nor in any other1 have ,i had the most distant intention of attributing 'corrupt motives' to a man like ,dr ,westcott1 whose single-mindedness ,i recognize1 and for whose earnest character ,i feel genuine respect4 ,the utmost that ,i have at any time intended to point out is that1 utterly possessed as he is by orthodox views in general1 and on the ,canon in particular1 he sees facts1 ,i consider1 through a dogmatic medium1 and unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which should be more impartially made #acg3b4 ,i am well content to bear this blame when ,i have elicited this explanation4 ,a great wrong had been done1 and ,i wished to see it redressed4 ,but who could have supposed that this was our author's meaning8 ,who could have imagined that he had all along felt a 'genuine respect' for the single-mindedness of one whom he accused of 'discreet reserve1' of 'unworthy suppression of the truth1' of 'clever evasion1' of 'ignorant ingenuity or apologetic partiality1' of 'disingenuousness1' of 'what amounts to falsification1' and the like1 and whom in the very passage which has called forth this explanation he had charged with yielding to a 'temptation' which was 'too strong for the apologist1' and 'insinuating to unlearned readers' what he knew to be untrue respecting ,basilides8 ,this unfortunate use of language1 ,i contend1 is no trifling matter where the honour of another is concerned2 and1 instead of his rebuke1 ,i claim his thanks for enabling him to explain expressions which could only be understood in one way by his readers1 and which have so grievously misrepresented his true meaning4 ,i trust also that our author wishes us to interpret the charges which he has brought against ,tischendorf #ach3a in the same liberal spirit4 ,i certainly consider that ,tischendorf took an unfortunate step when he deserted his proper work1 for which he was eminently fitted1 and came forward as an apologist2 and1 if our author had satisfied himself with attacking the weak points of his apologetic armour1 there would have been no ground for complaint1 and on some points ,i should have agreed with him4 ,but ,i certainly supposed that 'deliberate falsification' meant 'deliberate falsification4' ,i imagined1 as ordinary readers would imagine1 that these words involved a charge of conscious dishonesty4 ,i am content to believe now that they were intended to impute to him an unconscious bias4 ,in our author's observations on my criticism of his general argument1 there is one point which seems to call for observation4 ,of all my remarks1 the one sentence which ,i should least have expected to incur his displeasure1 is the following3-- ,obviously1 if the author has established his conclusions in the first part1 the second and third are altogether superfluous #ach3b4 ,i fancied that1 in saying this1 ,i was only translating his own opinion into other words4 ,i imagined that he himself wished the second and third parts to be regarded as a work of supererogation4 ,was ,i altogether without ground for this belief8 ,i turn to the concluding paragraph of the first part1 and ,i find these words3-- ,those who have formed any adequate conception of the amount of testimony which would be requisite in order to establish the reality of occurrences in violation of the order of nature1 which is based upon universal and invariable experience1 must recognize that1 even if the earliest asserted origin of our four ,gospels could be established upon the most irrefragable grounds1 the testimony of the writers--men of like ignorance with their contemporaries1 men of like passions with ourselves--would be utterly incompetent to prove the reality of miracles #aci3a4 ,what does this mean1 except that even though it should be necessary to concede every point against which the author is contending in the second and third parts1 still the belief in the ,gospel miracles is irrational8 ,is the language which ,i have used at all stronger than our author's own on this point8 ,but ,i am glad to have elicited from him an expression of opinion that the question is not foreclosed by the arguments in the first part #aci3b4 ,for some expressions in his concluding paragraph ,i sincerely thank the author1 though ,i find it difficult to reconcile them with either the tone or the substance of the preceding reply4 ,i trust that ,i have already relieved him from the apprehension that ,i should confine myself to 'desultory efforts4' ,i had hoped that some of the topics in my first article might have been laid aside for ever1 but his reply has compelled me to revert to them4 ,he does me no more than justice when he credits me with earnestness4 ,i am indeed in earnest1 as ,i believe him to be4 ,but it seems to me that the motives for earnestness are necessarily more intense in my case than in his2 for 7to say nothing else71 as ,i read history1 the morality of the coming generations of ,englishmen is very largely dependent on the answers which they give to the questions at issue between us4 ,as he has withheld his name1 he has deprived me of the pleasure of reciprocating any expression of personal respect4 ,thus he has placed me at a great disadvantage4 ,i know nothing of the man1 and can speak only of the book4 ,of the book ,i would wish to say that one who has taken so much pains to regulate his personal belief is so far entitled to every consideration4 ,and1 if this had been all1 ,i should have entertained and expressed the highest respect for him1 however faulty his processes might appear to me1 and however dangerous his results4 ,but1 when ,i observed that the author1 not content with ignoring the facts and reasonings1 went on to impugn the honesty of his opponents2 when ,i noticed that again and again the arguments on one side of the question were carefully arrayed1 while the arguments on the other side were altogether omitted2 when ,i perceived that he denied the authenticity of every work1 and questioned the applicability of every reference1 which made against him2 when in short ,i saw that1 however sincere the writer's personal convictions might be1 the critical portion of the work was stamped throughout with the character of an advocate's ex parte statement1 ,i felt that he had forfeited any claim to special forbearance4 ,for the rest1 ,i do not wish to be unjust to the book1 and ,i am sorry if1 while attempting to correct an exceedingly false estimate1 ,i have seemed to any one to be so2 but ,i do not see any good in paying empty and formal compliments which do not come from the heart1 and ,i cannot consent to tamper with truths which seem to me of the highest moment4 ,still1 ,i should be sorry to think that so much energetic work had been thrown away4 ,if the publication of this book shall have had the effect of attracting serious attention to these most momentous subjects1 it will have achieved an important result4 ,but ,i would wish to add one caution4 ,no good will ever come from merely working on the lines of modern theorists4 ,perhaps the reader will forgive me if ,i add a few words of explanation1 for ,i do not wish to be misunderstood4 ,i should be most ungrateful if1 in speaking of ,german writers1 ,i used the language of mere depreciation4 ,if there is any recent theologian from whom ,i have learnt more than from another1 it is the ,german ,neander4 ,nor can ,i limit my obligations to men of this stamp4 ,all diligent students of early ,christian history must have derived the greatest advantage on special points from the conscientious research1 and frequently also from the acute analysis1 even of writers of the most extreme school4 ,but it is high time that the incubus of fascinating speculations should be shaken off1 and that ,englishmen should learn to exercise their judicial faculty independently4 ,any one who will take the pains to read ,irenaeus through carefully1 endeavouring to enter into his historical position in all its bearings1 striving to realize what he and his contemporaries actually thought about the writings of the ,new ,testament and what grounds they had for thinking it1 and1 above all1 resisting the temptation to read in modern theories between the lines1 will be in a more favourable position for judging rightly of the early history of the ,canon than if he had studied all the monographs which have issued from the ,german press during the last half century4 ,v4 ,,papias ,,of ,,hierapolis4 ,,august1 #ahge4 ,two names stand out prominently in the ,churches of proconsular ,asia during the age immediately succeeding the ,apostles--,polycarp of ,smyrna1 and ,papias of ,hierapolis4 ,having given an account of ,polycarp in my last article1 ,i purpose now to examine the notices relating to ,papias4 ,these two fathers are closely connected together in the earliest tradition4 ,papias1 writes ,irenaeus1 was 'a hearer of ,john and a companion of ,polycarp4' #adb3a ,on the latter point we may frankly accept the evidence of ,irenaeus4 ,a pupil of ,polycarp1 at all events1 was not likely to be misinformed here4 ,but to the former part of the statement objections have been raised in ancient and modern times alike2 and it will be my business in the course of this investigation to inquire into its credibility4 ,yet1 even if ,papias was not a personal disciple of ,st ,john1 still his age and country place him in more or less close connection with the traditions of this ,apostle2 and it is this fact which gives importance to his position and teaching4 ,papias wrote a work entitled1 ',exposition of ,oracles of the ,lord1' in five books1 of which a few scanty fragments and notices are preserved1 chiefly by ,irenaeus and ,eusebius4 ,the object and contents of this work will be discussed hereafter2 but it is necessary to quote at once an extract which ,eusebius has preserved from the preface1 since our estimate of the date and position of ,papias will depend largely on the interpretation of its meaning4 ,papias then1 addressing 7as it would appear7 some friend to whom the work was dedicated1 explains its plan and purpose as follows #adc3a3-- ,but ,i will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my interpretations to everything that ,i learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders1 guaranteeing their truth4 ,for1 unlike the many1 ,i did not take pleasure in those who have so very much to say 7,greek3 tois ta polla legosin71 but in those who teach the truth2 nor in those who relate foreign commandments1 but in those who record such as were given from the ,lord to the ,faith1 and are derived from the ,truth itself4 ,and again1 on any occasion when a person came in my way who had been a follower of the elders 7,greek3 ei de pou kai parekolouthekos tis tois presbuterois elthoi71 ,i would inquire about the discourses of the elders--what was said by ,andrew1 or by ,peter1 or by ,philip1 or by ,thomas or ,james1 or by ,john or ,matthew or any other of the ,lord's disciples1 and what ,aristion and the ,elder ,john1 the disciples of the ,lord1 say4 ,for ,i did not think that ,i could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice 7,greek3 ou gar ta ek ton ,biblion tosouton me ophelein hupelambanon1 hoson ta para zoses phones kai menouses74 ,this passage is introduced by ,eusebius with the remark that1 though ,irenaeus calls ,papias a hearer of ,john1 ,yet ,papias himself1 in the preface to his discourses1 certainly does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of the holy ,apostles1 but he shows1 by the language which he uses1 that he received the matters of the faith from those who were their friends4 ,then follows the extract which ,i have given2 after which ,eusebius resumes3-- ,here it is important to observe1 that he twice mentions the name of ,john4 ,the former of these he puts in the same list with ,peter and ,james and ,matthew and the rest of the ,apostles1 clearly intending the ,evangelist2 but the second ,john he mentions after an interval 7,greek3 diasteilas ton logon71 and places among others outside the number of the ,apostles1 putting ,aristion before him1 and he distinctly calls him an 'elder2' so that by these facts the account of those is proved to be true who have stated that two persons in ,asia had the same name1 and that there were two tombs in ,ephesus1 each of which1 even to the present time1 bears the name of ,john4 ,then1 after speculating on the possibility that this second ,john was the author of the ,apocalypse1 he continues3-- ,papias avows that he has received the sayings of the ,apostles from those who had been their followers 7,greek3 ton autois parekolouthekoton71 but says that he himself was an immediate hearer of ,aristion and the ,elder ,john4 ,certainly he mentions them many times in his writings1 and records their traditions4 ,the justice of this criticism has been disputed by many recent writers1 who maintain that the same ,john1 the son of ,zebedee1 is meant in both passages4 ,but ,i cannot myself doubt that ,eusebius was right in his interpretation1 and ,i am glad for once to find myself entirely agreed with the author of ,supernatural ,religion4 ,it will be observed that ,john is the only name mentioned twice1 and that at its second occurrence the person bearing it is distinguished as the 'elder' or 'presbyter1' this designation being put in an emphatic position before the proper name4 ,we must therefore accept the distinction between ,john the ,apostle and ,john the ,presbyter1 though the concession may not be free from inconvenience1 as introducing an element of possible confusion4 ,but it does not therefore follow that the statement of ,irenaeus was incorrect4 ,though this passage in the preface of ,papias lends no support to the belief that he was a personal disciple of ,john the son of ,zebedee1 yet it is quite consistent with such a belief4 ,irenaeus does not state that he derived his knowledge from this preface1 or indeed from any part of the work4 ,having listened again and again to ,polycarp while describing the sayings and doings of ,john the ,apostle #add3a1 he had other sources of information which were closed to ,eusebius4 ,nor indeed is there any chronological or other difficulty in supposing that he may have derived the fact from direct intercourse with ,papias himself4 ,but the possibility still remains that he was guilty of this confusion which ,eusebius lays to his charge2 and the value of his testimony on this point is seriously diminished thereby4 ,it will have been noticed that in the above extract ,papias professes to derive the traditions of 'the elders1' with which he illustrated his expositions1 from two different sources4 ,he refers first1 to those sayings which he had heard from their own lips1 and secondly1 to those which he had collected at second-hand from their immediate followers4 ,what class of persons he intends to include under the designation of 'elders' he makes clear by the names which follow4 ,the category would include not only ,apostles like ,andrew and ,peter1 but also other personal disciples of ,christ1 such as ,aristion and the second ,john4 ,in other words1 the term with him is a synonyme for the ,fathers of the ,church in the first generation4 ,this meaning is entirely accordant with the usage of the same title elsewhere4 ,thus ,irenaeus employs it to describe the generation to which ,papias himself belonged #ade3a4 ,thus again1 in the next age1 ,irenaeus in turn is so designated by ,hippolytus #ade3b4 ,and1 when we descend as low as ,eusebius1 we find him using the term so as to include even writers later than ,irenaeus1 who nevertheless1 from their comparative antiquity1 were to him and his generation authorities as regards the traditions and usages of the ,church #ade3c4 ,nor indeed did ,papias himself invent this usage4 ,in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews for instance1 we read that 'the elders obtained a good report' #ade3d2 where the meaning is defined by the list which follows1 including ,old ,testament worthies from ,abel to ',samuel and the prophets4' ,thus this sense of 'elders' in early ,christian writers corresponds very nearly to our own usage of 'fathers1' when we speak of the ,fathers of the ,church1 the ,fathers of the ,reformation1 the ,pilgrim ,fathers1 and the like4 ,thus employed therefore1 the term 'presbyters' or 'elders' denotes not office1 but authority and antiquity #adf3a4 ,it is equivalent to 'the ancient' or 'primitive worthies' #adf3b4 ,but at its last occurrence in the extract of ,papias1 where it is applied to the second ,john1 this is apparently not the case4 ,here it seems to be an official title1 designating a member of the order of the presbyterate4 ,though modern critics have stumbled over this two-fold sense of the word ,greek3 presbuteros in the same context1 it would create no difficulty to the contemporaries of ,papias1 to whom 'the ,presbyter ,john' must have been a common mode of designation in contradistinction to 'the ,apostle ,john1' and to whom therefore the proper meaning would at once suggest itself4 ,instances are not wanting elsewhere in which this word is used with two senses1 official and non-official1 in the same passage #adf3c4 ,of the elders with whom ,papias was personally acquainted1 we can only name with certainty ,aristion and the ,presbyter ,john2 but as regards these ,eusebius is explicit4 ,to them the ,apostle ,john may perhaps be added1 as we have seen1 on the authority of ,irenaeus4 ,beyond these three names we have no authority for extending the list1 though there is a possibility that in very early life he may have met with others1 more especially ,andrew and ,philip1 who are known to have lived in these parts4 ,but1 however this may be1 it seems to follow from the words of his preface that his direct intercourse with these elders or personal disciples of the ,lord had not been great4 ,it was probably confined to the earlier part of his life1 before he had any thought of writing his book2 and the information thence derived was in consequence casual and fragmentary4 ,when he set himself to collect traditions for this special purpose1 he was dependent on secondary evidence1 on the information collected from scholars and followers of these primitive elders4 ,we are now in a position to investigate the age of ,papias2 but1 as a preliminary to this investigation1 it is necessary to say something about the authority for the one definite date which is recorded in connection with him4 ,in my article on ,polycarp1 ,i pointed out that recent investigations had pushed the date of this father's martyrdom several years farther back1 and that some chronological difficulties attaching to the commonly received date had thus been removed #adg3a4 ,a similar difficulty meets us in the case of ,papias2 and it disappears in like manner1 as ,i hope to show1 before the light of criticism4 ,the ,chronicon ,paschale1 which was compiled in the first half of the seventh century #adg3b1 represents ,papias as martyred at ,pergamum about the same time when ,polycarp suffered at ,smyrna1 and places the event in the year #afd4 ,if this statement were true1 we could hardly date his birth before ,a4,d4 #hj1 and even then he would have lived to a very advanced age4 ,but there is a certain difficulty #adg3c in supposing that one born at this late date should have been directly acquainted with so many personal disciples of our ,lord4 ,no earlier writer however mentions the date1 or even the fact1 of the martyrdom--not even ,eusebius1 who has much to say both about ,papias and about the martyrologies of this epoch2 and this absence of confirmation renders the statement highly suspicious4 ,i believe that ,i have traced the error to its source1 which indeed is not very far to seek4 ,the juxtaposition of the passage in this ,chronicle with the corresponding passage in the ,history of ,eusebius #adh3a1 will1 if ,i mistake not1 tell its own tale4 ,,chronicon ,,paschale4 ,,eusebius4 ,in the #accrd year of the ,ascension ,at this time very severe of the ,lord very severe persecutions persecutions having disturbed having dismayed 7,greek3 7,greek3 anathorubesanton7 anasobesanton7 ,asia1 many were ,asia1 ,polycarp is perfected by martyred1 among whom ,polycarp4444 martyrdom 444 and in the same writing concerning him were attached other martyrdoms 444 99 99 99 99 99 and next in order 7,greek3 hexes7 memoirs of others 7,greek3 allon7 also1 who were martyred and in ,pergamum others 7,greek3 in ,pergamum1 a city of ,asia1 heteroi71 among whom was ,,papias and are extant 7,greek3 pheretai71 many others 7,greek3 alloi71 whose ,carpus and ,,papylus and a woman martyrdoms are extant 7,greek3 ,agathonice4444 pherontai7 also in writing4444 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ,justin1 a philosopher of the ,and at the same time with these word received among us 7,greek3 tou 7,greek3 kata toutous7 ,justin1 kath' hemas logou71 having also who was mentioned shortly presented a second book in defence of before by us1 having presented the doctrines received among us to a second book in defence of the ,marcus ,aurelius and ,antoninus ,verus1 doctrines received among us to the emperors1 is decorated not the aforementioned rulers1 is long after with the divine crown of decorated with divine martyrdom1 martyrdom1 ,crescens accusing 787 a philosopher ,crescens 444 him4 having hatched the plot against him1 etc4 ,the sequence of events1 and the correspondence of individual phrases1 alike show that the compiler of this ,chronicle derived his information from the ,history of ,eusebius #adh3b4 ,but either he or his transcriber has substituted a well known name1 ,papias1 for a more obscure name1 ,papylus4 ,if the last letters of the word were blurred or blotted in his copy of ,eusebius1 nothing would be more natural than such a change4 ,it is only necessary to write the two names in uncials1 ,greek3 ,,papias ,,papylos1 to judge of its likelihood #adi3a4 ,this explanation indeed is so obvious1 when the passages are placed side by side1 that one can only feel surprised at its not having been pointed out before4 ,thus the martyrdom of ,papias1 with its chronological perplexities 7such as they are71 disappears from history2 and we may dismiss the argument of the author of ,supernatural ,religion1 that 'a writer who suffered martyrdom under ,marcus ,aurelius 7c4 ,a4,d4 #afe7 can scarcely have been a hearer of the ,apostles' #adi3b4 ,thus we are left to infer the date of ,papias entirely from the notices of his friends and contemporaries2 but these will assist us to a very fair approximation4 7#a7 ,he was a hearer of at least two personal disciples of ,christ1 ,aristion and the ,presbyter ,john4 ,if we suppose that they were among the youngest disciples of our ,lord1 and lived to old age1 we shall be doing no violence to probability4 ,obviously there were in their case exceptional circumstances which rendered intercourse with them possible4 ,if so1 they may have been born about ,a4,d4 #aj or later1 and have died about ,a4,d4 #ij or later4 ,in this case their intercourse with ,papias may be referred to the years ,a4,d4 #he-ie1 or thereabouts4 7#b7 ,he was acquainted with the daughters of ,philip1 who dwelt with their father at ,hierapolis1 where they died in old age4 ,whether this ,philip was the ,apostle1 as the earliest writers affirm1 or the ,evangelist1 as others suppose #adi3c1 is a question of little moment for my immediate purpose--the date of ,papias4 ,in the latter case these daughters would be the same who are mentioned at the time of ,st ,paul's last visit to ,jerusalem1 ,a4,d4 #eh1 apparently as already grown up to womanhood #adi3d4 ,on the former supposition they would belong to the same generation1 and probably would be about the same age4 ,as a very rough approximation1 we may place their birth about ,a4,d4 #cj1 and their death about ,a4,d4 #ajj-aaj4 7#c7 ,papias is called by ,irenaeus a 'companion' of ,polycarp1 whose life 7as we saw7 extended from ,a4,d4 #fi to ,a4,d4 #aee #aej3a4 ,the word admits a certain latitude as regards date1 though it suggests something approaching to equality in age4 ,but on the whole the notices affecting his relations to ,polycarp suggest that he was rather the older man of the two4 ,at all events ,eusebius discusses him immediately after ,ignatius and ,quadratus and ,clement1 i4e4 in connection with the fathers who flourished in the reign of ,trajan or before2 while the notice of ,polycarp is deferred till a much later point in the history1 where it occurs in close proximity with ,justin ,martyr #aej3b4 ,this arrangement indicates at all events that ,eusebius had no knowledge of his having been martyred at the same time with ,polycarp1 or indeed of his surviving to so late a date4 ,otherwise he would naturally have inserted his account of him in this place4 ,if it is necessary to put the result of these incidental notices in any definite form1 we may say that ,papias was probably born about ,a4,d4 #fj-gj4 ,but his work was evidently written at a much later date4 ,he speaks of his personal intercourse with the elders1 as a thing of the remote past #aej3c4 ,he did not write till false interpretations of the ,evangelical records had had time to increase and multiply4 ,we should probably not be wrong if we deferred its publication till the years ,a4,d4 #acj-adj1 or even later4 ,our author places it at least as late as the middle of the second century #aej3d4 ,the opinions of a ,christian writer who lived and wrote at this early date1 and had conversed with these first disciples1 are not without importance1 even though his own mental calibre may have been small4 ,but the speculations of the ,tuebingen school have invested them with a fictitious interest4 ,was he1 or was he not1 as these critics affirm1 a ,judaic ,christian of strongly ,ebionite tendencies8 ,the arguments which have been urged in defence of this position are as follows3-- #a4 ,in the first place we are reminded that he was a millennarian4 ,the ,chiliastic teaching of his work is the subject of severe comment with ,eusebius1 who accuses him of misinterpreting figurative sayings in the ,apostolic writings and assigning to them a literal sense4 ,this tendency appears also in the one passage which ,irenaeus quotes from ,papias4 ,but the answer to this is decisive4 ,chiliasm is the rule1 not the exception1 with the ,christian writers of the second century2 and it appears combined with views the very opposite of ,ebionite4 ,it is found in ,justin ,martyr1 in ,irenaeus1 in ,tertullian #aea3a4 ,it is found even in the unknown author of the epistle bearing the name of ,barnabas #aea3b1 which is stamped with the most uncompromising and unreasoning antagonism to everything ,judaic4 #b4 ,a second argument is built on the fact that ,eusebius does not mention his quoting ,st ,paul's ,epistles or other ,pauline writings of the ,canon4 ,i have already disposed of this argument in an earlier paper on the ',silence of ,eusebius' #aea3c4 ,i have shown that ,papias might have quoted ,st ,paul many times1 and by name1 while nevertheless ,eusebius would not have recorded the fact1 because it was not required by his principles or consistent with his practice to do so4 ,i have shown that this interpretation of the silence of ,eusebius in other cases1 where we are able to test it1 would lead to results demonstrably and hopelessly wrong4 ,i have pointed out for instance1 that it would most certainly conduct us to the conclusion that the writer of the ,ignatian ,epistles was an ,ebionite--a conclusion diametrically opposed to the known facts of the case #aeb3a4 #c4 ,lastly1 it is argued that ,papias was an ,ebionite1 because he quoted the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 ,in the first place1 however1 the premiss is highly questionable4 ,eusebius does not say1 as in other cases1 that ,papias 'uses' this ,gospel1 or that he 'sets down facts from' it #aeb3b1 but he writes that ,papias relates 'a story about a woman accused of many sins before the ,lord' 7doubtless the same which is found in our copies of ,st ,john's ,gospel1 vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa71 and he adds 'which the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews contains' #aeb3c4 ,this does not imply that ,papias derived it thence1 but only that ,eusebius found it there4 ,papias may have obtained it1 like the other stories to which ,eusebius alludes1 'from oral tradition'7,greek3 ek paradoseos agraphou74 ,but1 even if it were directly derived thence1 the conclusion does not follow from the premiss4 ,the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews is quoted both by ,clement of ,alexandria and by ,origen1 though these two fathers accepted our four ,gospels alone as canonical #aeb3d4 ,it may even be quoted1 as ,jerome asserts that it is1 and as the author himself believes #aeb3e1 by the writer of the ,ignatian letters1 a most determined anti-,ebionite4 ,if ,papias had cited the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews only once1 ,eusebius would have mentioned the fact1 because he made it his business to record these exceptional phenomena2 whereas he would have passed over any number of quotations from the ,canonical ,gospels in silence4 ,as all these supposed tokens of ,ebionite tendencies have failed1 we are led to inquire whether any light is thrown on this question from other quarters4 ,and here his name is not altogether unimportant4 ,papias was bishop of ,hierapolis1 and apparently a native of this place4 ,at all events he seems to have lived there from youth2 for his acquaintance with the daughters of ,philip1 who resided in this city1 must have belonged to the earlier period of his life4 ,now ,papias was a designation of the ,hierapolitan ,zeus #aec3a2 and owing to its association with this god1 it appears to have been a favourite name with the people of ,hierapolis and the neighbourhood4 ,it occurs several times in coins and inscriptions belonging to this city and district #aec3b4 ,in one instance we read of a ',papias1 who is also ,diogenes1' this latter name ',zeus-begotten' being apparently regarded as a rough synonyme for the ,phrygian word #aec3c4 ,we find mention also in ,galen of a physician belonging to the neighbouring city of ,laodicea1 who bore this name #aec3d4 ,altogether it points to a heathen rather than a ,jewish origin4 ,but more important than his name1 from which the inference1 though probable1 is still precarious #aec3e1 are his friendships and associations4 ,papias1 we are told1 was a companion of ,polycarp #aec3f4 ,the opinions of ,polycarp have been considered in it previous article #aec3g2 and it has there been shown that the hypothesis of ,ebionite leanings in his case is not only unsupported1 but cannot be maintained except by an entire disregard of the evidence1 which is of different kinds1 and all leads to the opposite conclusion4 ,as regards ,papias therefore1 it is reasonable to infer1 in the absence of direct evidence1 that his views were1 at all events1 in general accordance with his friend's4 ,moreover1 the five books of ,papias were read by ,irenaeus and by ,eusebius1 as well as by later writers2 and1 being occupied in interpretation1 they must have contained ample evidence of the author's opinions on the main points which distinguished the ,ebionite from the ,catholic--the view of the ,mosaic law1 the estimate of the ,apostle ,paul1 the conception of the person of ,christ4 ,it is therefore important to observe that ,irenaeus quotes him with the highest respect1 as an orthodox writer and a trustworthy channel of ,apostolic tradition4 ,eusebius again1 though he is repelled by his millennarianism1 calling him 'a man of very mean capacity1' and evidently seeking to disparage him in every way1 has yet no charge to bring against him on these most important points of all4 ,and this estimate of him remains to the last4 ,anastasius of ,sinai for instance1 who wrote in the latter half of the sixth century1 and who is rigidly and scrupulously orthodox1 according to the standard of orthodoxy which had been created by five ,general ,councils1 had the work of ,papias in his hands4 ,he mentions the author by name twice2 and on both occasions he uses epithets expressive of the highest admiration4 ,papias is to him 'the great1' 'the illustrious' #aed3a4 ,but indeed ,eusebius has left one direct indication of the opinions of ,papias1 which is not insignificant4 ,he tells us that ,papias 'employed testimonies from the ,first ,epistle of ,john4' ,how far this involves a recognition of the ,fourth ,gospel ,i shall have to consider hereafter4 ,at present it is sufficient to say that this ,epistle belongs to the class of writings in our ,canon which is the most directly opposed to ,ebionism4 ,it may be said indeed1 that ,papias was foolish and credulous4 ,but unhappily foolishness and credulity are not characteristic of any one form of ,christian belief--or unbelief either4 ,the work of ,papias1 as we saw1 was entitled1 ',exposition of ,oracles of the ,lord1' or 7more strictly71 'of ,dominical ,oracles' #aee3a4 ,but what was its nature and purport8 ,shall we understand the word 'exposition' to mean 'enarration1' or 'explanation'8 ,was the author's main object to construct a new ,evangelical narrative1 or to interpret and explain one or more already in circulation8 ,this is a vital point in its bearing on the relation of ,papias to our ,canonical ,gospels4 ,our author1 ignoring what ,dr ,westcott and others have said on this subject1 tacitly assumes the former alternative without attempting to discuss the question4 ,yet1 if this assumption is wrong1 a very substantial part of his argument is gone4 ,the following passage will illustrate the attitude of the author of ,supernatural ,religion towards this question3-- ,this work was less based on written records of the teaching of ,jesus than on that which ,papias had been able to collect from tradition1 which he considered more authentic1 for1 like his contemporary ,hegesippus1 ,papias avowedly prefers tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted #aee3b4 ,i venture to ask in passing1 where our author obtained his information that ,hegesippus 'avowedly prefers tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted4' ,certainly not from any fragments or notices of this writer which have been hitherto published4 ,after quoting the extract from the preface of ,papias which has been given above1 our author resumes3-- ,it is clear from this that1 even if ,papias knew any of our ,gospels1 he attached little or no value to them1 and that he knew absolutely nothing of ,canonical ,scriptures of the ,new ,testament4 ,his work was evidently intended to furnish a more complete collection of the discourses of ,jesus from oral tradition than any previously existing1 with his own expositions2 and this is plainly indicated by his own words1 and by the title of his work1 ,greek3 ,logion kuriakon exegesis #aef3a4 ',the natural and only reasonable course1' he adds in a note1 'is to believe the express declaration of ,papias1 more especially as it is made1 in this instance1 as a prefatory statement of his belief4' ,he has appealed to ,caesar1 and to ,caesar he shall go4 ,what then is the natural interpretation of the title ',exposition of ,oracles of' 7or 'relating to'7 'the ,lord'8 ,would any one1 without a preconceived theory1 imagine that 'exposition' here meant anything else but explanation or interpretation8 ,it is possible indeed1 that the original word ,greek3 exegesis might1 in other connections1 be used in reference to a narrative1 but its common and obvious sense is the same which it bears when adopted into ,english as 'exegesis4' ,in other words1 it expresses the idea of a commentary on some text4 ,the expression has an exact parallel1 for instance1 in the language of ,eusebius when1 speaking of ,dionysius of ,corinth1 he says that this writer introduces into his letter to the ,church of ,amastris 'expositions of ,divine ,scriptures' 7,greek3 graphon theion exegeseis71 or when he says that ,irenaeus quotes a certain ',apostolic elder' and gives his 'expositions of ,divine ,scriptures' 7the same expression as before7 #aef3b4 ,it is used more than once in this sense1 and it is not used in any other1 as we shall see presently1 by ,irenaeus #aef3c4 ,moreover ,anastasius of ,sinai distinctly styles ,papias an 'exegete1' meaning thereby1 as his context shows1 an 'interpreter' of the ,holy ,scriptures #aeg3a4 ',the title of his work' therefore does not 'indicate' anything of the kind which our author assumes it to indicate #aeg3b4 ,it does not suggest a more authentic narrative1 but a more correct interpretation of an existing narrative4 ,and the same inference is suggested still more strongly1 when from the title we turn to the words of the preface2 ',but ,i will not scruple also to give a place along with my interpretations 7,greek3 sunkatataxai tais hermeneiais7 to all that ,i learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders4' ,here the sense of 'exegesis' in the title is explained by the use of the unambiguous word 'interpretations4' ,but this is not the most important point4 ,the interpretations must have been interpretations of something4 ,of what then8 ,certainly not of the oral traditions1 for the interpretations are presupposed1 and the oral traditions are mentioned subsequently1 being introduced to illustrate the interpretations4 ,the words which ,i have italicised leave no doubt about this4 ,the 'also1' which 7by the way7 our author omits1 has no significance otherwise4 ,the expression 'along with the interpretations' is capable only of one meaning4 ,in other words1 the only account which can be given of the passage1 consistently with logic and grammar1 demands the following sequence4--7#a7 ,the text1 of which something was doubtless said in the preceding passage1 for it is assumed in the extract itself4 7#b7 ,the interpretations which explained the text1 and which were the main object of the work4 7#c7 ,the oral traditions1 which1 as the language here shows1 were subordinate to the interpretations1 and which ,papias mentions in a slightly apologetic tone4 ,these oral traditions had obviously a strong attraction for ,papias2 he introduced them frequently to confirm and illustrate his explanations4 ,but only the most violent wresting of language can make them the text or basis of these interpretations #aeh3a4 ,a good example of the method thus adopted by ,papias and explained in his preface is accidentally preserved by ,irenaeus #aeh3b4 ,this father is discoursing on the millennial reign of ,christ4 ,his starting point is the saying of our ,lord at the last supper1 ',i will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine1 until that day when ,i drink it new with you in my ,father's kingdom4' 7,matt4 xxvi4 #bi47 ,he takes the words literally1 and argues that they must imply a terrestrial kingdom1 since only men of flesh can drink the fruit of the vine4 ,he confirms this view by appealing to two other sayings of ,christ recorded in the ,gospels--the one the promise of a recompense in the resurrection of the just to those who call the poor and maimed and lame and blind to their feast 7,luke xiv4 #ac1 #ad72 the other the assurance that those who have forsaken houses or lands for ,christ's sake shall receive a hundredfold now in this present time 7,matt4 xix4 #bi2 ,mark x4 #bi1 #cj2 ,luke xviii4 #cj7 #aeh3c1 which last expression1 he maintains1 can only be satisfied by an earthly reign of ,christ4 ,he then attempts to show that the promises to the patriarchs also require the same solution1 since hitherto they have not been fulfilled4 ,these1 he says1 evidently refer to the reign of the just in a renewed earth1 which shall be blessed with abundance4 ,as the elders relate1 who saw ,john the disciple of the ,lord1 that they had heard from him how the ,lord used to teach concerning those times1 and to say1 ',the days will come1 in which vines shall grow1 each having ten thousand shoots1 and on each shoot ten thousand branches1 and on each branch again ten thousand twigs1 and on each twig ten thousand clusters1 and on each cluster ten thousand grapes1 and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and-twenty measures of wine4 ,and when any of the saints shall have taken hold of one of their clusters1 another shall cry1 ,i am a better cluster2 take me1 bless the ,lord through me4 ,likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads1' etc4 ,these things ,papias1 who was a hearer of ,john and a companion of ,polycarp1 an ancient worthy1 witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books1 for there are five books composed by him4 ,and he added1 saying1 ',but these things are credible to them that believe4' ,and when ,judas the traitor did not believe1 and asked1 ',how shall such growths be accomplished by the ,lord8' he relates that the ,lord said1 ',they shall see1 who shall come to these times4' ,i shall not stop to inquire whether there is any foundation of truth in this story1 and1 if so1 how far it has been transmuted1 as it passed through the hands of the elders and of ,papias4 ,it is sufficient for my purpose to remark that we here find just the three elements which the preface of ,papias would lead us to expect3 first1 the saying or sayings of ,christ recorded in the written ,gospels3 secondly1 the interpretation of these sayings1 which is characteristically millennial2 thirdly1 the illustrative story1 derived from oral tradition1 which relates 'what ,john said1' and to which the author 'gives a place along with his interpretation' #aei3a4 ,so far everything seems clear4 ,but if this be so1 what becomes of the disparagement of written ,gospels1 which is confidently asserted by our author and others8 ,when the preface of ,papias is thus correctly explained1 the 'books' which he esteems so lightly assume quite a different aspect4 ,they are no longer ,evangelical records1 but works commenting on such records4 ,the contrast is no longer between oral and written ,gospels1 but between oral and written aids to interpretation4 ,papias judged rightly that any doctrinal statement of ,andrew or ,peter or ,john1 or any anecdote of the ,saviour which could be traced distinctly to their authority1 would be far more valuable to elucidate his text than the capricious interpretations which he found in current books4 ,if his critical judgment had corresponded to his intention1 the work would have been highly important4 ,the leading object of ,papias therefore was not to substitute a correct narrative for an imperfect and incorrect1 but to counteract a false exegesis by a true4 ,but where did he find this false exegesis8 ,the opening passage of ,irenaeus supplies the answer4 ,this father describes the ,gnostic teachers as 'tampering with the oracles of the ,lord 7,greek3 ta logia ,kuriou71 showing themselves bad expositors of things well said' 7,greek3 exegetai kakoi ton kalos eiremenon ginomenoi7 #afj3a4 ,here we have the very title of ,papias' work reproduced4 ,papias1 like ,irenaeus after him1 undertook1 we may suppose1 to stem the current of ,gnosticism4 ,if1 while resisting the false and exaggerated spiritualism of the ,gnostics1 he fell into the opposite error1 so that his ,chiliastic doctrine was tainted by a somewhat gross materialism1 he only offended in the same way as ,irenaeus1 though probably to a greater degree4 ,the ,gnostic leaders were in some instances no mean thinkers2 but they were almost invariably bad exegetes4 ,the ,gnostic fragments in ,irenaeus and ,hippolytus are crowded with false interpretations of ,christ's sayings as recorded in the ,gospels4 ,simonians1 ,ophites1 ,basilideans1 ,valentinians1 ,gnostics of all sects1 are represented there1 and all sin in the same way4 ,these remains are only the accidental waifs and strays of a ,gnostic literature which must have been enormous in extent4 ,as by common consent the work of ,papias was written in the later years of his life1 a very appreciable portion of this literature must have been in existence when he wrote4 ,more especially the elaborate work of ,basilides on 'the ,gospel1' in twenty-four books1 must have been published some years4 ,basilides flourished1 we are told1 during the reign of ,hadrian #afa3a 7,a4,d4 #aag-ach74 ,such a lengthy work would explain the sarcastic allusion in ,papias to those 'who have so very much to say' 7,greek3 tois ta polla legousin7 #afa3b1 and who are afterwards described as 'teaching foreign commandments #afa3c4' ,there are excellent reasons for believing this to be the very work from which the fragments quoted by ,hippolytus1 as from ,basilides1 are taken #afa3d4 ,these fragments contain false interpretations of passages from ,st ,luke and ,st ,john1 as well as from several ,epistles of ,st ,paul4 ,but1 however this may be1 the general character of the work appears from the fact that ,clement of ,alexandria quotes it under the title of ',exegetics' #afa3e4 ,it is quite possible too1 that the writings of ,valentinus were in circulation before ,papias wrote1 and exegesis was a highly important instrument with him and his school4 ,if we once recognize the fact that ,papias wrote when ,gnosticism was rampant1 the drift of his language becomes clear and consistent4 ,this account of the 'books' which ,papias disparages seems to follow from the grammatical interpretation of the earlier part of the sentence4 ,and it alone is free from difficulties4 ,it is quite plain for instance1 that ,eusebius did not understand our ,gospels to be meant thereby2 for otherwise he would hardly have quoted this low estimate without expostulation or comment4 ,and again1 the hypothesis which identifies these 'books' with written ,evangelical records used by ,papias charges him with the most stupid perversity4 ,it makes him prefer the second-hand report of what ,matthew had said about the ,lord's discourses to the account of these discourses which ,matthew himself had deliberately set down in writing #afb3a4 ,such a report might have the highest value outside the written record2 but no sane man could prefer a conversation repeated by another to the immediate and direct account of the same events by the person himself4 ,nor again1 is it consistent with the language which ,papias himself uses of the one ,evangelical document about which 7in his extant fragments7 he does express an opinion4 ,of ,st ,mark's record he says that the author 'made no mistake1' and that it was his one anxiety 'not to omit anything that he had heard1 or to set down any false statement therein4' ,is this the language of one speaking of a book to which 'he attached little or no value'8 #afc3a ,but1 if ,papias used written documents as the text for his 'expositions1' can we identify these8 ,to this question his own language elsewhere supplies the answer at least in part4 ,he mentions ,evangelical narratives written by ,mark and ,matthew respectively2 and it is therefore the obvious inference that our first two ,gospels at all events were used for his work4 ,an obvious inference1 but fiercely contested nevertheless4 ,it has been maintained by many recent critics1 that the ,st ,mark of ,papias was not our ,st ,mark1 nor the ,st ,matthew of ,papias our ,st ,matthew2 and as the author of ,supernatural ,religion has adopted this view1 some words will be necessary in refutation of it4 ,the language then1 which ,papias uses to describe the document written by ,st ,mark1 is as follows3-- ,and the elder said this also3 ,mark1 having become the interpreter of ,peter1 wrote down accurately everything that he remembered1 without however recording in order what was either said or done by ,christ4 ,for neither did he hear the ,lord1 nor did he follow ,him2 but afterwards1 as ,i said1 attended ,peter1 who adapted ,his instructions to the needs of his hearers but had no design of giving a connected account of the ,lord's oracles or discourses 7,greek3 all' ouch hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion or ,greek3 logon74 ,so then ,mark made no mistake1 while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them2 for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard1 or to set down any false statement therein4 ,eusebius introduces this passage by a statement that it 'refers to ,mark1 the writer of the ,gospel2' and the authority whom ,papias here quotes is apparently the ,presbyter ,john1 who has been mentioned immediately before4 ,now it will be plain1 ,i think1 to any reader of common sense1 that ,papias is giving an account of the circumstances under which the ,evangelical narrative in question was composed4 ,there were two phenomena in it which seemed to him to call for explanation4 ,in the first place1 it is not a complete narrative4 ,in the second place1 the events are not recorded in strict chronological order4 ,these two phenomena are explained by ,st ,mark's position and opportunities1 which were necessarily limited4 ,his work was composed from reminiscences of ,st ,peter's preaching2 and1 as this preaching was necessarily fragmentary and adapted to the immediate requirements of his hearers 7the preacher having no intention of giving a continuous narrative71 the writer could not possess either the materials for a complete account or the knowledge for an accurate chronological arrangement4 ,papias obviously has before him some other ,gospel narrative or narratives1 which contained sayings or doings of ,christ not recorded by ,st ,mark1 and moreover related those which he did record in a different order4 ,for this discrepancy he desires to account4 ,the motive and the treatment have an exact parallel1 as ,i shall show hereafter1 in the account of the ,gospels given by the author of the ,muratorian ,canon4 ,this is the plain and simple inference from the passage2 and we have only to ask whether this description corresponds with the phenomena of our ,st ,mark4 ,that it does so correspond1 ,i think1 can hardly be denied4 ,as regards completeness1 it is sufficient to call attention to the fact that any one of our ,canonical ,gospels records many doings1 and above all1 many sayings1 which are omitted in ,st ,mark4 ,as regards order again1 it may1 ,i believe1 safely be said that no writer of a ',life of ,christ' finds himself able to preserve the sequence of events exactly as it stands in ,st ,mark4 ,his account does not profess to be strictly chronological4 ,there are indeed chronological links in the narrative here and there2 but throughout considerable parts of our ,lord's ministry the successive incidents are quite unconnected by notices of time4 ,in short1 the ,gospel is just what we should expect1 if the author had derived his information in the way reported by the ,presbyter4 ,but our author objects1 that it 'does not depart in any important degree from the order of the other two ,synoptics1' and that it 'throughout has the most evident character of orderly arrangement' #afe3a4 ,persons may differ as to what is important or unimportant2 but if the reader will refer to any one of the common harmonies1 those of ,anger and ,tischendorf for instance1 he will see that constant transpositions are necessary in one or other of the ,synoptic ,gospels to bring them into accordance1 and will be able to judge for himself how far this statement is true4 ',orderly arrangement' of some sort1 no doubt1 there is2 but it is just such as lay within the reach of a person obtaining his knowledge at second-hand in this way4 ,our author himself describes it lower down as 'artistic and orderly arrangement4' ,i shall not quarrel with the phrase1 though somewhat exaggerated4 ,any amount of 'artistic arrangement' is compatible with the notice of ,papias1 which refers only to historical sequence4 ',artistic arrangement' does not require the direct knowledge of an eye-witness4 ,it will be observed however1 that our author speaks of a comparison with 'the order of the other two ,synoptics4' ,but what1 if the comparison which ,papias had in view was wholly different8 ,what1 if he adduced this testimony of the ,presbyter to explain how ,st ,mark's ,gospel differed not from another ,synoptic narrative1 but from ,st ,john8 ,i shall return to this question at a later point in these investigations4 ,our author is no stranger to the use of strong words3 ',if our present ,gospel1' he writes1 'cannot be proved to be the very work referred to by the ,presbyter ,john1 as most certainly it cannot1 the evidence of ,papias becomes fatal to the claims of the second ,canonical ,gospel' #afe3b4 ,the novelty of the logic in this sentence rivals the boldness of the assumption4 ,yet so entirely satisfied is he with the result of his arguments1 that he does not consider it 'necessary to account for the manner in which the work to which the ,presbyter ,john referred disappeared1 and the present ,gospel according to ,mark became substituted for it' #aff3a4 ,but others are of a more inquiring turn of mind4 ,they will be haunted with this difficulty1 and will not be able thus to shelve the question4 ,they will venture to ask how it is that not any1 even the faintest1 indication of the existence of this other ,mark can be traced in all the remains of ,christian antiquity4 ,they will observe too1 that if the date which our author himself adopts be correct1 ,irenaeus was already grown up to manhood when ,papias wrote his work4 ,they will remember that ,irenaeus received his earliest ,christian education from a friend of ,papias1 and that his great authorities in everything which relates to ,christian tradition are the associates and fellow-countrymen of ,papias4 ,they will remark that1 having the work of ,papias in his hands and holding it in high esteem1 he nevertheless is so impressed with the conviction that our present four ,gospels1 and these only1 had formed the title-deeds of the ,church from the beginning1 that he ransacks heaven and earth for analogies to this sacred number4 ,they will perhaps carry their investigations further1 and discover that ,irenaeus not only possessed our ,st ,mark's ,gospel1 but possessed it also with its present ending1 which1 though undoubtedly very early1 can hardly have been part of the original work4 ,they will then pass on to the ,muratorian author1 who probably wrote some years before ,irenaeus1 and1 remembering that ,irenaeus represents the combined testimony of ,asia ,minor and ,gaul1 they will see that they have here the representative of a different branch of the ,church1 probably the ,roman4 ,yet the ,muratorian writer agrees with ,irenaeus in representing our four ,gospels1 and these only1 as the traditional inheritance of the ,church2 for though the fragment is mutilated at the beginning1 so that the names of the first two ,evangelists have disappeared1 the identity cannot be seriously questioned4 ,they will then extend their horizon to ,clement in ,alexandria and ,tertullian in ,africa2 and they will find these fathers also possessed by the same belief4 ,impressed with this convergency of testimony from so many different quarters1 they will be utterly at a loss to account for the unanimity of these early witnesses--all sharing in the same delusion1 all ignorant that a false ,mark has been silently substituted for the true ,mark during their own lifetime1 and consequently assuming as an indisputable fact that the false ,mark was received by the ,church from the beginning4 ,and they will end in a revolt against the attempt of our author to impose upon them with his favourite commonplace about the 'thoroughly uncritical character of the fathers4' ,indeed1 they will begin altogether to suspect this wholesale denunciation2 for they will observe that our author is convicted out of his own context4 ,they will remark how he repels an inconvenient question of ,tischendorf by a scornful reference to 'the frivolous character of the only criticism in which they ,eusebius and the other ,christian ,fathers ever indulged #afg3a4' ,yet they will remember at the same time to have read in this very chapter on ,papias a highly intelligent criticism of ,eusebius1 with which this father confronts a statement of ,irenaeus1 and which our author himself adopts as conclusive #afg3b4 ,they will recall also1 in this same context1 a reference to a passage in ,dionysius of ,alexandria1 where this 'great ,bishop' anticipates by nearly sixteen centuries the criticisms of our own age concerning the differences of style between the ,fourth ,gospel and the ,apocalypse #afg3c4 ,from ,st ,mark we pass to ,st ,matthew4 ,papias has something to tell us of this ,gospel also2 but here again we are asked to believe that we have a case of mistaken identity4 ,after the notice relating to ,st ,mark1 ,eusebius continues3-- ,but concerning ,matthew1 the following statement is made by ,papias3 ',so then ,matthew 7,greek3 ,matthaios men oun7 composed the ,oracles in the ,hebrew language1 and each one interpreted them as he could4' ,the assumption that this statement1 like the former1 was made on the authority of the ,presbyter1 depends solely on the close proximity in which the two extracts stand in ,eusebius4 ,it must therefore be regarded as highly precarious4 ,in ,papias' own work the two extracts may have been wide apart4 ,indeed the opening particles in the second passage prove conclusively that it cannot have followed immediately on the first4 ,just as the ,greek3 hos ephen in the extract relating to ,st ,mark showed that it was a fragment torn from its context1 so we have the similar evidence of a violent severance here in the words ,greek3 men oun4 ,the ragged edge is apparent in both cases #afh3a4 ,this fact must be borne in mind in any criticisms which the passages suggest4 ,in this extract then ,papias speaks of a state of things in which each man interpreted the original ,hebrew for himself4 ,there can have been no authoritative ,greek ,gospel of ,st ,matthew at that time1 if his account be correct4 ,so far his meaning is clear4 ,but it is equally clear that the time which he is here contemplating is not the time when he writes his book1 but some earlier epoch4 ,he says not 'interprets1' but 'interpreted4' ,this past tense 'interpreted1' be it observed1 is not the tense of ,eusebius reporting ,papias1 but of ,papias himself4 ,everything depends on this distinction2 yet our author deliberately ignores it4 ,he does indeed state the grammatical argument correctly1 as given by others3-- ,some consider that ,papias or the ,presbyter use the verb in the past tense1 ,greek3 hermeneuse1 as contrasting the time when it was necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period when1 from the existence of a recognized translation1 it was no longer necessary for them to do so #afi3a4 ,yet a few lines after1 when he comes to comment upon it1 he can write as follows3-- ,the statement of ,papias is perfectly simple and direct1 and it is at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that translation was requisite3 and1 as each one translated 'as he was able1' that no recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse4 ,there is absolutely not a syllable which warrants the conclusion that ,papias was acquainted with an authentic ,greek version1 although it is possible that he may have known of the existence of some ,greek translations of no authority4 ,the words used1 however1 imply that1 if he did1 he had no respect for any of them #afi3b4 ,our author has here imposed upon himself by a grammatical trick4 ,hard pressed by the argument1 he has covered his retreat under an ambiguous use of tenses4 ,the words 'each one translated as he was able' are perfectly clear in the direct language of ,papias2 but adopted without alteration into the oblique statement of our author1 they are altogether obscure4 ',translation was requisite4' ,yes1 but at what time8 ,the fact is that no careful reader can avoid asking why ,papias writes 'interpreted1' and not 'interprets4' ,the natural answer is that the necessity of which he speaks had already passed away4 ,in other words1 it implies the existence of a recognized ,greek translation1 when ,papias wrote4 ,whence our author got his information that ,papias 'had no respect for' any such translation1 it is difficult to say4 ,certainly not from 'the words used'2 for ,papias says nothing about it1 and we only infer its existence from the suppressed contrast implied in the past tense4 ,but1 if a ,greek ,st ,matthew existed in the time of ,papias1 we are forbidden by all considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any other than our ,st ,matthew4 ,as in the case of ,st ,mark1 so here the contrary hypothesis is weighted with an accumulation of improbabilities4 ,the argument used there might be repeated totidem verbis here4 ,it was enough that we were asked to accept the theory of a mistaken identity once2 but the same demand is renewed again4 ,and the improbability of this double mistake is very far greater than the sum of the improbabilities in the two several cases1 great as this sum would be4 ,the testimony of ,papias therefore may be accepted as valid so far as regards the recognition of our ,st ,matthew in his own age4 ,but it does not follow that his account of the origin was correct4 ,it may or may not have been4 ,this is just what we cannot decide1 because we do not know exactly what he said4 ,it cannot be inferred with any certainty from this fragmentary excerpt of ,eusebius1 what ,papias supposed to be the exact relation of the ,greek ,gospel of ,st ,matthew which he had before him to the ,hebrew document of which he speaks4 ,our author indeed says that our ,first ,gospel bears all the marks of an original1 and cannot have been translated from the ,hebrew at all4 ,this1 ,i venture to think1 is far more than the facts will sustain4 ,if he had said that it is not a homogeneous ,greek version of a homogeneous ,hebrew original1 this would have been nearer to the truth4 ,but we do not know that ,papias said this4 ,he may have expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena4 ,or on the other hand he may1 as ,hilgenfeld supposes1 have made the mistake which some later fathers made1 of thinking that the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews was the original of our ,st ,matthew4 ,in the absence of adequate data it is quite vain to conjecture4 ,but meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion unfavourable either to the accuracy of ,papias or to the identity of the document itself4 ,our author however maintains that the ,hebrew ,st ,matthew of which ,papias speaks was not a ,gospel at all--i4e4 not a narrative of our ,lord's life and ministry--but a mere collection of discourses or sayings4 ,it is urged that the expression1 ',matthew compiled the oracles' 7,greek3 xunegrapsato ta logia71 requires this interpretation4 ,if this explanation were correct1 the notice would suggest that ,papias looked upon the ,greek ,gospel as not merely a translation1 but an enlargement1 of the original document4 ,in this case it would be vain to speculate how or when or by whom he supposed it to be made2 for either he did not give this information1 or 7if he did7 ,eusebius has withheld it4 ,this hypothesis was first started1 ,i believe1 by ,schleiermacher1 and has found favour with not a few critics of opposite schools4 ,attempts have been made from time to time to restore this supposed document by disengaging those portions of our ,first ,gospel1 which would correspond to this idea1 from their historical setting4 ,the theory is not without its attractions3 it promises a solution of some difficulties2 but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would justify its acceptance4 ,our author speaks of those critics who reject it as 'in very many cases largely influenced by the desire to see in these ,greek3 logia our actual ,gospel according to ,st ,matthew' #aga3a4 ,this is true in the same sense in which it is true that those who take opposite views are largely influenced in very many cases by the opposite desire4 ,but such language is only calculated to mislead4 ,by no one is the theory of a collection of discourses more strongly denounced than by ,bleek #aga3b1 who apparently considers that ,papias did not here refer to a ,greek ,gospel at all4 ',there is nothing1' he writes1 'in the manner in which ,papias expresses himself to justify this supposition2 he would certainly have expressed himself as he does1 if he meant an historical work like our ,new ,testament ,gospels1 if he were referring to a writing whose contents were those of our ,greek ,gospel according to ,matthew4' ,equally decided too is the language of ,hilgenfeld #aga3c1 who certainly would not be swayed by any bias in this direction4 ,indeed this theory is encumbered with the most serious difficulties4 ,in the first place1 there is no notice or trace elsewhere of any such 'collection of discourses4' ,in the next place1 all other early writers from ,pantaenus and ,irenaeus onwards1 who allude to the subject1 speak of ,st ,matthew as writing a ,gospel1 not a mere collection of sayings1 in ,hebrew4 ,if they derived their information in every case from ,papias1 it is clear that they found no difficulty in interpreting his language so as to include a narrative3 if they did not 7as seems more probable1 and as our author himself holds #agb3a71 then their testimony is all the more important1 as of independent witnesses to the existence of a ,hebrew ,st ,matthew1 which was a narrative1 and not a mere collection of discourses4 ,nor indeed does the expression itself drive us to any such hypothesis4 ,hilgenfeld1 while applying it to our ,first ,gospel1 explains it on grounds which at all events are perfectly tenable4 ,he supposes that ,papias mentions only the sayings of ,christ1 not because ,st ,matthew recorded nothing else1 but because he himself was concerned only with these1 and ,st ,matthew's ,gospel1 as distinguished from ,st ,mark's1 was the great storehouse of materials for his purpose #agb3b4 ,i do not however think that this is the right explanation4 ,it supposes that only ,greek3 logoi 7'discourses' or 'sayings'7 could be called ,greek3 logia 7'oracles'72 but usage does not warrant this restriction4 ,thus we are expressly told that the ,scriptures recognized by ,ephraem1 ,patriarch of ,antioch 7about ,a4,d4 #ebe-ede71 consisted of 'the ,old ,testament and the ,oracles of the ,lord 7,greek3 ta kuriaka logia7 and the ,preachings of the ,apostles' #agb3c4 ,here we have the very same expression which occurs in ,papias2 and it is obviously employed as a synonyme for the ,gospels4 ,our author does not mention this close parallel1 but he alleges that 'however much the signification of the expression 'the oracles1' ,greek3 ta logia became afterwards extended1 it was not then at all applied to doings as well as sayings'2 and again1 that 'there is no linguistic precedent for straining the expression1 used at that period1 to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of ,jesus which were oracular or divine #agc3a4' ,this objection1 if it has any force1 must involve one or both of these two assumptions2 first1 that books which were regarded as ,scripture could not at this early date be called oracles1 unless they were occupied entirely with divine sayings2 secondly1 that the ,gospel of ,st ,matthew in particular could not at this time be regarded as ,scripture4 ,both assumptions alike are contradicted by facts4 ,the first is refuted by a large number of examples4 ,st ,paul1 for instance1 describes it as the special privilege of the ,jews1 that they had the keeping of the 'oracles of ,god' 7,rom4 iii4 #b74 ,can we suppose that he meant anything else but the ,old ,testament ,scriptures by this expression8 ,is it possible that he would exclude the books of ,genesis1 of ,joshua1 of ,samuel and ,kings1 or only include such fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of ,god8 ,would he1 or would he not1 comprise under the term the account of the creation and fall 7#a ,cor4 xi4 #h sq71 of the wanderings in the wilderness 7#a ,cor4 x4 #a sq71 of ,sarah and ,hagar 7,gal4 iv4 #ba sq78 ,does not the main part of his argument in the very next chapter 7,rom4 iv47 depend much more on the narrative of ,god's dealings than of ,his words8 ,again1 when the author of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of ,god' 7v4 #ab71 his meaning is explained by his practice2 for he elicits the divine teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts of the ,old ,testament4 ,but1 if the language of the ,new ,testament writers leaves any loophole for doubt1 this is not the case with their contemporary ,philo4 ,in one place he speaks of the words in ,deut4 x4 #i1 ',the ,lord ,god is his inheritance1' as an 'oracle' 7,greek3 logion72 in another he quotes as an 'oracle' 7,greek3 logion7 the narrative in ,gen4 iv4 #ae1 ',the ,lord ,god set a mark upon ,cain1 lest anyone finding him should kill him' #agd3a4 ,from this and other passages it is clear that with ,philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a 'scripture4' ,similarly ,clement of ,rome writes1 ',ye know well the sacred ,scriptures1 and have studied the oracles of ,god1' #agd3b and immediately he recalls to their mind the account in ,deut4 ix4 #ab sq1 ,exod4 xxxii4 #g sq1 of which the point is not any divine precept or prediction1 but the example of ,moses4 ,a few years later ,polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of the ,lord4' #agd3c ,how much he included under this expression1 we cannot say1 but it must be observed that he does not write ,greek3 ta kuriaka logia 'the ,dominical oracles1' or ,greek3 ta logia 'the oracles' simply--the two expressions which occur in ,papias--but ,greek3 ta logia tou ,kuriou1 'the oracles of the ,lord1' which form of words would more directly suggest the ,lord as the speaker4 ,again ,irenaeus1 denouncing the interpretations of the ,scriptures current among the ,gnostics1 uses the very expression of ,papias1 ,greek3 ta kuriaka logia #agd3d2 and though he does not define his exact meaning1 yet as the 'oracles of ,god' are mentioned immediately afterwards1 and as the first instance of such false interpretation which he gives is not a saying1 but an incident in the ,gospels--the healing of the ruler's daughter--we may infer that he had no idea of restricting the term to sayings of ,christ4 ,again when we turn to ,clement of ,alexandria1 we find that the ,scriptures in one passage are called 'the oracles of truth1' while in another among the good deeds attributed to ,ezra is the 'discovery and restoration of the inspired oracles' #agd3e4 ,similarly ,origen speaks of the teachings of the ,scripture as 'the oracles1' 'the oracles of ,god' #age3a4 ,in the context of the latter of the two passages to which ,i refer1 he has clearly stated that he is contemplating the histories1 the law1 and the prophets alike4 ,so too ,st ,basil uses 'sacred' 7or divine7 'oracles'1 'oracles of the ,spirit1' #age3b as synonymes for the ,scriptures4 ,and this catena of passages might be largely extended4 ,this wide sense of the word 'oracles' therefore in itself is fully substantiated by examples both before and after the time of ,papias4 ,but our author objects that it is not consistent with the usage of ,papias himself elsewhere4 ,the examples alleged however fail to prove this4 ,if ,papias entitled his work ',exposition of ,oracles of the ,lord1' or rather 'of ,dominical ,oracles1' there is nothing to show that he did not include narrative portions of the ,gospels1 as well as discourses2 though from the nature of the case the latter would occupy the chief place4 ,on the contrary1 it is certain from the extant notices that he dealt largely with incidents4 ,and this he would naturally do4 ,by false allegory and in other ways ,gnostic teachers misinterpreted the facts1 not less than the sayings1 of the ,gospels2 and ,papias would be anxious to supply the corrective in the one case as in the other4 ,the second example of its use in ,papias certainly does not favour our author's view4 ,this father1 as we have seen #age3c1 describes ,st ,mark as not writing down 'in order the things said or done by ,christ' 7,greek3 ou mentoi taxei ta hupo tou ,christou e lechthenta e prachthenta74 ,this1 he states1 was not within the ,evangelist's power1 because he was not a personal disciple of our ,lord1 but obtained his information from the preaching of ,peter1 who consulted the immediate needs of his hearers and had 'no intention of giving a consecutive record of the ,dominical oracles' 7,greek3 ouch hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion74 ,here the obvious inference is that ,greek3 ta kuriaka logia in the second clause is equivalent to ,greek3 ta hupo tou ,christou e lechthenta e prachthenta the first1 just as the ,greek3 suntaxin in the second clause corresponds to the ,greek3 taxei in the first4 ,our author however1 following the lead of those who adopt the same interpretation of 'the oracles1' explains it differently #agf3a4 ,there is an evident contrast made4 ,mark wrote ,greek3 e lechthenta e prachthenta1 because he had not the means of writing discourses1 but ,matthew composed the ,greek3 logia4 ,papias clearly distinguishes the work of ,mark1 who had written reminiscences of what ,jesus had said and done1 from that of ,matthew1 who had made a collection of his discourses #agf3b4 ,this interpretation depends altogether on the assumption that the extracts relating to ,st ,mark and ,st ,matthew belonged to the same context2 but this is only an assumption4 ,moreover it introduces into the extract relating to ,st ,mark a contrast which is not only not suggested by the language1 but is opposed to the order of the words4 ,the leading idea in this extract is the absence of strict historical sequence in ,st ,mark's narrative4 ,accordingly the emphatic word in the clause in question is ,greek3 suntaxin1 which picks up the previous ,greek3 taxei1 and itself occupies the prominent position in its own clause4 ,if our author's interpretation were correct1 the main idea would be a contrast between a work relating deeds as well as sayings1 and a work relating sayings only2 and ,greek3 logion1 as bringing out this idea1 would demand the most emphatic place 7,greek3 ouch hosper ton logion suntaxin poioumenos72 whereas in its present position it is entirely subordinated to other words in the clause4 ,the examples quoted above show that 'the oracles' 7,greek3 ta logia7 can be used as co-extensive with 'the ,scriptures' 7,greek3 hai graphai7 in the time of ,papias4 ,hence it follows that 'the ,dominical ,oracles' 7,greek3 ta kuriaka logia7 can have as wide a meaning as 'the ,dominical ,scriptures' 7,dominicae ,scripturae1 ,greek3 ai kuriakai graphai7--an expression occurring in ,irenaeus and in ,dionysius of ,corinth #agg3a--or1 in other words1 that the ,gospels may be so called4 ,if any difficulty therefore remains1 it must lie in the second of the two assumptions which ,i mentioned above--namely1 that no ,evangelical record could at this early date be invested with the authority implied by the use of this term1 or 7in other words7 could be regarded as ,scripture4 ,this assumption again is contradicted by facts4 ,the ,gospel of ,st ,matthew is twice quoted in the ,epistle of ,barnabas1 and in the first passage the quotation is introduced by the common formula of ,scriptural reference--'as it is written' #agg3b4 ,to what contortions our author puts his argument1 when dealing with that epistle1 in the vain attempt to escape the grip of hard fact1 ,i shall have occasion to show when the proper time comes #agg3c4 ,at present it is sufficient to say that the only ground for refusing to accept ,st ,matthew as the source of these two quotations1 which are found there1 is the assumption that ,st ,matthew could not at this early date be regarded as ',scripture4' ,in other words1 it is a petitio principii4 ,but the ,epistle ascribed to ,barnabas1 on any showing1 was written before the date which our author himself assigns to the ,exposition of ,papias4 ,some place it as early as ,a4,d4 #gj1 or thereabouts2 some as late as ,a4,d4 #abj2 the majority incline to the later years of the first1 or the very beginning of the second century4 ,if therefore this ,gospel could be quoted as ,scripture in ,barnabas1 it could a fortiori be described as 'oracles' when ,papias wrote4 ,,vi4 ,,papias ,,of ,,hierapolis4 ,continued4 ,,october1 #ahge4 ,it has been seen that1 in the meagre fragments of his work which alone survive1 ,papias mentions by name the ,evangelical records of ,st ,matthew and ,st ,mark4 ,with the ,third and ,fourth ,gospels the case is different4 ,eusebius has not recorded any reference to them by ,papias1 and our author therefore concludes that they were unknown to this early writer4 ,i have shown in a previous paper on the ',silence of ,eusebius' #agh3a1 that this inference is altogether unwarrantable4 ,i have pointed out that the assumption on which it rests is not justified by the principles which ,eusebius lays down for himself as his rule of procedure #agh3b1 while it is directly refuted by almost every instance in which he quotes a writing now extant1 and in which therefore it is possible to apply a test4 ,i have proved that1 as regards the four ,gospels1 ,eusebius only pledges himself to give1 and 7as a matter of fact7 only does give1 traditions of interest respecting them4 ,i have proved also that it is not consistent either with his principles or with his practice to refer to mere quotations1 however numerous1 even though they are given by name4 ,papias therefore might have quoted the ,third ,gospel any number of times as written by ,luke the companion of ,paul1 and the ,fourth ,gospel not less frequently as written by ,john the ,apostle2 and ,eusebius would not have cared to record the fact4 ,all this ,i have proved1 and the author of ,supernatural ,religion is unable to disprove it4 ,in the preface to his last edition #agi3a he does indeed devote several pages to my argument2 but ,i confess that ,i am quite at a loss to understand how any writer can treat the subject as it is there treated by him4 ,does he or does he not realize the distinction which underlies the whole of my argument--the distinction between traditions about the ,gospels on the one hand1 and quotations from the ,gospels on the other8 ,at times it appears as if this distinction were clearly before him4 ,he quotes a passage from my article1 in which it is directly stated #agi3b1 and even argues upon it4 ,i gave a large number of instances where ancient authors whose writings are extant do quote our ,canonical ,scriptures1 sometimes directly1 sometimes indirectly1 sometimes anonymously1 sometimes by name1 and where nevertheless ,eusebius does not mention the circumstance4 ,this is his mode of dealing with such facts-- ,that he omitted to mention a reference to the ,epistle to the ,corinthians in the ,epistle of ,clement of ,rome1 or the reference by ,theophilus to the ,gospel of ,john1 and other supposed quotations1 might be set down as much to oversight as intention #agi3c4 ,does it not occur to him that he is here cutting the throat of his own argument8 ,the reference to the ,first ,epistle to the ,corinthians is the single direct reference by name to the ,canonical ,scriptures of the ,new ,testament in ,clement2 the reference to the ,gospel of ,st ,john again is the single direct reference by name in the extant work of ,theophilus4 ,what would be said of a traveller who paid a visit to the ,gorner-,grat for the express purpose of observing and recording the appearance of the ,alps from this commanding position1 and returned from his survey without having noticed either the ,matterhorn or ,monte ,rosa8 ,if ,eusebius could have overlooked these most obvious notices1 he could have overlooked anything4 ,his gross and habitual carelessness would then cover any omission4 ,nor again1 ,i venture to think1 will our author deceive any fairly intelligent person1 who has read my article with moderate care1 by his convenient because cloudy expression1 'other supposed quotations4' ,i need only remind my readers that among these 'other supposed quotations' are included 7to take only one instance7 numerous and direct references by name to the ,acts of the ,apostles and to eleven ,epistles of ,st ,paul in ,irenaeus #ahj3a1 of which ,eusebius says not a word1 and they will judge for themselves by this example what dependence can be placed on the author's use of language4 ,but our author speaks of the 'ability' of my article1 as a reason for discrediting its results4 ,i am much obliged to him for the compliment1 but ,i must altogether decline it4 ,it is the ability of facts which he finds so inconvenient4 ,i brought to the task nothing more than ordinary sense4 ,i found our author declaring1 as others had declared before him1 that under certain circumstances ,eusebius would be sure to act in a particular way4 ,i turned to ,eusebius himself1 and ,i found that1 whenever we are able to test his action under the supposed circumstances1 he acts in precisely the opposite way4 ,i discovered that he not only sometimes1 but systematically1 ignores mere quotations from the four ,gospels and the ,acts and the thirteen ,epistles of ,st ,paul1 however numerous and however precise4 ,i cannot indeed recollect a single instance where he adduces a quotation for the mere purpose of authenticating any one of these books4 ,but our author asks #ahj3b1 ,is it either possible or permissible to suppose that1 had ,papias known anything of the other two ,gospels the third and fourth1 he would not have inquired about them from the presbyters and recorded their information8 ,and is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if ,papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of the third and fourth ,gospels1 ,eusebius would have omitted to quote it8 ,to the first question ,i answer that it is both possible and permissible to make this supposition4 ,i go beyond this1 and say that it is not only possible and permissible1 but quite as probable as the opposite alternative4 ,in the absence of all definite knowledge respecting the motive of ,papias1 ,i do not see that we are justified in giving any preference to either hypothesis over the other4 ,there is no reason for supposing that ,papias made these statements respecting ,st ,mark and ,st ,matthew in his preface rather than in the body of his work1 or that they were connected and continuous1 or that he had any intention of giving an exhaustive account of all the documents with which he was acquainted4 ,on the contrary1 these notices bear every mark of being incidental4 ,if we take the passage relating to ,st ,mark for instance1 the natural inference is that ,papias in the course of his expositions stumbled on a passage where this ,evangelist omitted something which was recorded by another authority1 or gave some incident in an order different from that which he found elsewhere1 and that in consequence he inserted the notice of the presbyter respecting the composition of this ,gospel1 to explain the divergence4 ,he might1 or might not1 have had opportunities of inquiring from the presbyters respecting the ,gospel of ,st ,luke4 ,they might1 or might not1 have been able to communicate information respecting it1 beyond the fact which every one knew1 and which therefore no one cared to repeat1 that it was written by a companion of ,st ,paul4 ,he might1 or might not1 have found himself confronted with a difficulty which led him to repeat his information1 assuming he had received any from them4 ,as regards the second question1 ,i agree with our author4 ,i am indeed surprised that after ascribing such incredible carelessness to ,eusebius as he has done a few pages before1 he should consider it impossible and impermissible to suppose him guilty of any laches here4 ,but ,i myself have a much higher opinion of the care manifested by ,eusebius in this matter4 ,so far as ,i can see1 it would depend very much on the nature of the information1 whether he would care to repeat it4 ,if ,papias had reported any 'similar' information respecting the two last ,gospels1 ,i should certainly expect ,eusebius to record it4 ,but if 7to give an illustration7 ,papias had merely said of the fourth ,evangelist that ',john the disciple of the ,lord wished by the publication of the ,gospel to root out that error which had been disseminated among men by ,cerinthus1 and long before by those who are called ,nicolaitans1' or language to that effect1 it would be no surprise to me if ,eusebius did not reproduce it2 because ,irenaeus uses these very words of the fourth ,gospel #ahb3a1 and ,eusebius does not allude to the fact4 ,but our author argues that1 'if there was a ,fourth ,gospel in his knowledge1 he ,papias must have had something to tell about it' #ahb3b4 ,perhaps so1 but it does not follow either that he should have cared to tell this something gratuitously1 or that any occasion should have arisen which led him to tell it4 ,indeed1 this mode of arguing altogether ignores the relations in which the immediate circle addressed by ,papias stood to ,st ,john4 ,it would have been idle for ,papias to have said1 as ,irenaeus says1 ',john the disciple of the ,lord1 who also lay upon ,his breast1 published his ,gospel1 while living in ,ephesus of ,asia' #ahb3c4 ,it would have been as idle as if a writer in this ,review were to vouchsafe the information that ',napoleon ,i was a great ruler of the ,french who made war against ,england4' ,on the hypothesis of the genuineness of the ,fourth ,gospel1 such information would have been altogether superfluous4 ,papias might incidentally1 when quoting the ,gospel1 have introduced his quotation in words from which a later generation could gather these facts2 but he is not at all likely to have communicated them in the form of a direct statement4 ,and1 if he did not1 there is no reason to think that ,eusebius would have quoted the passage4 ,so far however1 our author seems to recognize the distinction which ,i drew between stories about1 and quotations from1 the ,gospels4 ,but elsewhere1 when the practical consequences become inconvenient1 he boldly ignores it4 ,take1 for instance1 the following passage3-- ,the only inference which ,i care to draw from1 the silence of ,eusebius is precisely that which ,dr ,lightfoot admits that1 both from his promise and his practice1 ,i am entitled to deduce4 ,when any ancient writer 'has something to tell about' the ,gospels1 'any anecdote of interest respecting them1' ,eusebius will record it4 ,this is the only information of the slightest value to this work which could be looked for in these writers #ahc3a4 ,what8 does our author seriously maintain that1 supposing ,papias to have quoted the ,fourth ,gospel several times by name as the work of ,john the ,apostle1 this fact would not be of 'the slightest value' in its bearing on the question at issue between us--the antiquity and genuineness of that ,gospel--because1 forsooth1 he did not give any anecdote respecting its composition8 ,so again a few pages later1 he writes-- ,eusebius fulfils his pledge1 and states what disputed works were used by ,hegesippus and what he said about them1 and one of these was the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 ,he does not1 however1 record a remark of any kind regarding our ,gospels1 and the legitimate inference1 and it is the only one ,i care to draw1 is that ,hegesippus did not say anything about them #ahc3b4 ,yes2 'did not say anything about them1' in the sense of not recording any traditions respecting them1 though he may have quoted them scores of times and by name4 ,if this is the only inference which our author cares to draw1 ,i cannot object4 ,but it is not the inference which his words would suggest to the incautious reader2 and it is not the inference which will assist his argument at all4 ,moreover this passage ignores another distinction1 which ,i showed to be required by the profession and practice alike of ,eusebius4 ,eusebius relates of ,hegesippus that he 'sets down some things from the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews' #ahc3c2 but1 as our author correctly says1 he does not directly mention his using our four ,canonical ,gospels4 ,this is entirely in accordance with his procedure elsewhere4 ,i showed that he makes it his business to note every single quotation from an apocryphal source1 whereas he deliberately ignores any number of quotations from the ,canonical ,gospels1 the ,acts1 and the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,how else 7to take a single instance7 can we explain the fact that1 in dealing with ,irenaeus1 he singles out the one anonymous quotation from the ,shepherd of ,hermas #ahd3a1 and is silent about the two hundred quotations 7a very considerable number of them by name7 from the ,pauline ,epistles8 ,but the passage which ,i have just given is not the only one in which the unwary reader will be entirely misled by this juggle between two meanings of the preposition 'about'4 ,thus our author has in several instances #ahd3b tacitly altered the form of expression in his last edition2 but the alteration is made in such a way as1 while satisfying the letter of my distinction1 to conceal its true significance4 ,thus he writes of ,dionysius #ahd3c-- ,,earlier ,,editions4 ,,last ,,edition #ahd3d4 ,it is certain that1 had ,dionysius ,it is certain that had ,dionysius mentioned books of the ,new said anything about books ,testament1 ,eusebius would1 as of the ,new ,testament1 ,eusebius usual1 have stated the fact4 would1 as usual1 have stated the fact4 ,and again of ,papias #ahd3e-- ,,earlier ,,editions4 ,,last ,,edition4 ,eusebius1 who never fails to ,eusebius1 who never fails to enumerate the works of the ,new state what the ,fathers say about ,testament to which the ,fathers the works of the ,new ,testament1 refer1 does not pretend that does not mention that ,papias ,papias knew either the ,third or knew either the ,third or ,fourth ,fourth ,gospels4 ,gospels4 ,these alterations tell their own tale4 ,one meaning of the expression1 'say about1' is suggested to the reader by the context and required by the author's argument1 while another is alone consistent with the facts4 ,elsewhere however the distinction is not juggled away1 but boldly ignored4 ,thus he still writes-- ,the presumption therefore naturally is that1 as ,eusebius did not mention the fact1 he did not find any reference to the ,fourth ,gospel in the work of ,papias #ahe3a4 ,i have shown that there is not any presumption--even the slightest--on this side4 ,elsewhere he affirms still more boldly of ,hegesippus-- ,it is certain that had he mentioned our ,gospels1 and we may say particularly the ,fourth1 the fact would have been recorded by ,eusebius #ahe3b4 ,i have proved that1 so far from this being certain1 the probability is all the other way4 ,i confess that ,i cannot understand this treatment of the subject4 ,it may indeed serve an immediate purpose4 ,it may take in an unwary reader1 or even a stray reviewer4 ,i must suppose that it has even deceived the writer himself4 ,but magna est veritas4 ,my paper on the ,silence of ,eusebius was founded on an induction of facts2 and therefore ,i feel confident that1 unwelcome as these results are to the author of ,supernatural ,religion1 and unexpected as they may be to many others1 they must be ultimately accepted in the main4 ,the absence therefore of any direct mention by ,eusebius respecting the use of the ,third and ,fourth ,gospels by ,papias affords no presumption one way or the other2 and we must look elsewhere for light on the subject4 ,unfortunately the fragments and notices of the work of ,papias which have been preserved are very scanty4 ,they might easily be compressed into less than two ordinary octavo pages1 though the work itself extended to five books4 ,it must therefore be regarded as a mere accident1 whether we find in these meagre reliques the indications which we seek4 ,as regards ,st ,luke1 these indications are precarious and inadequate4 ,they may afford a presumption that ,papias used this ,gospel1 but they will not do more4 ,independent writers indeed1 like ,credner and ,hilgenfeld1 are satisfied1 from certain coincidences of expression in the preface of ,papias1 that he was acquainted with this ,evangelist's record1 though he did not attach any value to it2 but ,i agree with the author of ,supernatural ,religion in thinking that the inference is not warranted by the expressions themselves4 ,it seems to me much more to the purpose that an extant fragment of ,papias1 in which he speaks of the overthrow of ,satan and his angels1 and their fall to the earth1 appears to have been taken from an exposition of ,luke x4 #ah #ahf3a4 ,at least there is no other passage in the ,gospels to which it can so conveniently be referred4 ,but obviously no great stress can be laid on this fact4 ,it must indeed seem highly improbable that ,papias should have been unacquainted with a ,gospel which ,marcion1 a contemporary and a native of ,asia ,minor1 thought fit to adapt to his heretical teaching1 and which at this time is shown by the state of the text to have been no recent document #ahf3b4 ,but this is a consideration external to the evidence derivable from ,papias himself4 ,the case with the ,fourth ,gospel however is quite different4 ,here we have a combination of circumstantial evidence1 which is greater than we had any right to expect beforehand1 and which amounts in the aggregate to a very high degree of probability4 #a4 ,in the first place1 ,eusebius informs us that ,papias 'has employed testimonies from the first 7former7 ,epistle of ,john1 and likewise from that of ,peter4' ,the knowledge of the ,first ,epistle almost necessarily carries with it the knowledge of the ,gospel4 ,the identity of authorship in the two books1 though not undisputed1 is accepted with such a degree of unanimity that it may be placed in the category of acknowledged facts4 ,but1 if ,i mistake not1 their relation is much closer than this4 ,there is not only an identity of authorship1 but also an organic connection between the two4 ,the first ,epistle has sometimes been regarded as a preface to the ,gospel4 ,it should rather be described1 ,i think1 as a commendatory postscript4 ,this connection will make itself felt1 if the two books are read continuously4 ,the ,gospel seems to have been written or 7more properly speaking7 dictated for an immediate circle of disciples4 ,this fact appears from special notices of time and circumstance1 inserted here and there1 evidently for the purpose of correcting the misapprehensions and solving the difficulties of the ,evangelist's hearers4 ,it is made still more clear by the sudden transition to the second person1 when the narrator breaks off1 and looking up 7as it were71 addresses his hearers--',he that saw1 it hath borne record 444 that ye might believe4' ',these things are written that ye might believe' #ahg3a4 ,there were gathered about the ,apostle1 we may suppose1 certain older members of the ,church1 like ,aristion and the ,presbyter ,john1 who1 as eye-witnesses of ,christ's earthly life1 could guarantee the correctness of the narrative4 ,the twenty-fourth verse of the last chapter is1 as it were1 the endorsement of these elders--',this is the disciple which testifieth of these things1 and wrote these things1 and we know that his testimony is true4' ,after the narrative is thus ended1 comes the hortatory postscript which we call the ,first ,epistle1 and which was intended 7we may suppose7 to be circulated with the narrative4 ,it has no opening salutation1 like the two ,epistles proper--the second and third--which bear the same ,apostle's name4 ,it begins at once with a reference to the ,gospel narrative which 7on this hypothesis7 has preceded--',that which was from the beginning1 which we have heard1 which we have seen with our eyes1 which we beheld and our hands handled1 of the ,word of ,life 444 that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you4' ,the use of the plural here links on the opening of the ,epistle with the close of the ,gospel4 ,the ,apostle begins by associating with himself the elders1 who have certified to the authorship and authenticity of the narrative4 ,having done this1 he changes to the singular1 and speaks in his own name--',i write4' ,the opening phrase of the ,epistle1 ',that which was from the beginning1' is explained by the opening phrase of the ,gospel1 ',in the beginning was the ,word4' ,the whole ,epistle is a devotional and moral application of the main ideas which are evolved historically in the sayings and doings of ,christ recorded in the ,gospel4 ,the most perplexing saying in the ,epistle1 ',he that came by water and by blood1' illustrates and itself is illustrated by the most perplexing incident in the ,gospel1 ',there came forth water and blood4' ,we understand at length1 why in the ,gospel so much stress is laid on the veracity of the eye-witness just at this point1 when we see from the ,epistle what significance the writer would attach to the incident1 as symbolizing ,christ's healing power4 ,this view of the composition of the ,gospel and its connection with the ,epistle has been suggested by internal considerations2 but it is strongly confirmed by the earliest tradition which has been preserved4 ,the ,muratorian fragment #ahh3a on the ,canon must have been written about ,a4,d4 #agj4 ,as ,i shall have occasion to refer to this document more than once before ,i have done1 ,i will here give an account of the passage relating to the ,gospels1 that it may serve for reference afterwards4 ,the fragment is mutilated at the beginning1 so that the passage describing the ,first ,gospel is altogether wanting4 ,the text begins with the closing sentence in the description of the ,second ,gospel--obviously ,st ,mark--which runs thus3 ',at which however he was present1 and so he set them down4' ',the ,third ,book of the ,gospel' is designated 'according to ,luke4' ,the writer relates that this ,luke was a physician1 who after the ,ascension of ,christ became a follower of ,st ,paul1 and that he compiled the ,gospel in his own name4 ',yet1' he adds1 'neither did he 7nec ipse7 see the ,lord in the flesh1 and he too set down incidents as he was able to ascertain them #ahi3a4 ,so he began his narrative from the birth of ,john4' ,then he continues-- ',the ,fourth ,gospel is 7the work7 of ,john1 one of the 7personal7 disciples #ahi3b 7of ,christ74 ,being exhorted by his fellow-disciples and bishops1 he said1 ,fast with me to-day for three days1 and let us relate to one another what shall have been revealed to each4 ,the same night it was revealed to ,andrew1 one of the ,apostles1 that ,john should write down everything in his own name1 and all should certify 7ut recognoscentibus cunctis ,johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret74 ,and therefore1 although various elements 7principia7 are taught in the several books of the ,gospels1 yet it makes no difference to the faith of the believer1 since all things in all of them are declared by one ,supreme ,spirit1 concerning the nativity1 the passion1 the resurrection1 ,his intercourse with ,his disciples1 and ,his two advents1 the first in despised lowliness1 which is already past1 the second with the magnificence of kingly power1 which is yet to come4 ,what wonder then1 if ,john so boldly puts forward each statement in his ,epistle 7,greek3 tais epistolais7 #ahi3c also saying of himself1 ,what we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears1 and our hands have handled1 these things we have written unto you8 ,for so he avows himself to be not only an eye-witness and a hearer1 but also a recorder1 of all the wonderful things of the ,lord in order4' ,after speaking of the ,acts and ,epistles of ,st ,paul1 this anonymous writer arrives at the ,catholic ,epistles2 and here he mentions two ,epistles of ,st ,john as received in the ,church4 ,i shall have something to say presently about the coincidences with ,papias in this passage4 ,for the moment ,i wish to call attention to the account which the writer gives of the origin of ,st ,john's ,gospel #aij3a4 ,there may be some legendary matter mixed up with this account2 the interposition of ,andrew and the dream of ,john may or may not have been historical facts2 but its general tenor agrees remarkably with the results yielded by an examination of the ,gospel itself4 ,yet it must be regarded as altogether independent4 ,to suppose otherwise would be to ascribe to the writer in the second century an amount of critical insight and investigation which would do no dishonour to the nineteenth4 ,but there is also another point of importance to my immediate subject4 ,the writer detaches the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,john from the ,second and ,third1 and connects it with the ,gospel4 ,either he himself1 or some earlier authority whom he copied1 would appear to have used a manuscript in which it occupied this position4 ,but our author attempts to invalidate the testimony of ,eusebius respecting the use of the ,first ,epistle by ,papias4 ,he wrote in his earlier editions3-- ,as ,eusebius however does not quote the passages from ,papias1 we must remain in doubt whether he did not1 as elsewhere1 assume from some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from these ,epistles1 whilst in reality they might not be4 ,eusebius made a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the so-called ,epistle of ,polycarp 7#e7 upon very insufficient grounds #aia3a4 ,in my article on the ,silence of ,eusebius #aia3b1 ,i challenged him to produce any justification of his assertion 'as elsewhere4' ,i stated1 and ,i emphasized the statement1 that ',eusebius in no instance which we can test gives a doubtful testimony4' ,i warned him that1 if ,i were not proved to be wrong in this statement1 ,i should use the fact hereafter4 ,in the preface to his new edition he has devoted twelve pages to my article on ,eusebius2 and he is silent on this point4 ,of his silence ,i have no right to complain4 ,if he had nothing to say1 he has acted wisely4 ,but there is another point in the paragraph quoted above1 which demands more serious consideration4 ,in my article #aia3c ,i offered the conjecture that our author had been guilty of a confusion here4 ,i called attention to his note 7#e7 which runs1 ',ad ,phil4 vii42 ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #ad1' and ,i wrote3-- ,the passage of ,eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how ,polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the ,first 7former7 ,epistle of ,peter4' ,the chapter of ,polycarp1 to which he refers1 contains a reference to the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,john1 which has been alleged by modern writers1 but is not alleged by ,eusebius4 ,this same chapter1 it is true1 contains the words ',watch unto prayer1' which presents a coincidence with #a ,pet4 iv4 #g4 ,but no one would lay any stress on this one expression3 the strong and unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere4 ,moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation1' whereas the quotations from #a ,peter in ,polycarp are numerous4 ,i then pointed out ten other coincidences with the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,peter1 scattered through ,polycarp's ,epistle4 ,some of these are verbal2 almost all of them are much more striking and cogent than the resemblance in c4 vii4 ,our author will not allow the error1 but replies in his preface3-- ,i regret very much that some ambiguity in my language 7,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #dhc7 should have misled1 and given ,dr ,lightfoot much trouble4 ,i used the word 'quotation' in the sense of a use of the ,epistle of ,peter1 and not in reference to any one sentence in ,polycarp4 ,i trust that in this edition ,i have made my meaning clear #aib3a4 ,accordingly1 in the text1 he substitutes for the latter sentence the words3-- ,eusebius made a similar statement with regard to the use of the ,epistle of ,peter in the so-called ,epistle of ,polycarp1 upon no more definite grounds than an apparent resemblance of expressions #aib3b4 ,but the former part of the sentence is unaltered2 the assertion 'as elsewhere' still remains unsubstantiated2 and what is more important1 he leaves the note exactly as it stood before1 with the single reference to c4 vii4 ,thus he has entirely misled his readers4 ,he has deliberately ignored more than nine-tenths of the evidence in point of amount1 and very far more than this proportion in point of cogency4 ,the note was quite appropriate1 supposing that the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,john were meant1 as ,i assumed2 it is a flagrant suppressio veri1 if it refers to the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,peter1 as our author asserts that it does4 ,the charge which ,i brought against him was only one of carelessness1 which no one need have been ashamed to confess4 ,the charge which his own explanation raises against him is of a far graver kind4 ,though he regrets the trouble he has given me1 ,i do not regret it4 ,it has enabled me to bring out the important fact that ,eusebius may always be trusted in these notices relating to the use made of the ,canonical ,scriptures by early writers4 #b4 ,but this is not the only reason which the fragments in ,eusebius supply for believing that ,papias was acquainted with the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,the extract from the preface suggests points of coincidence1 which are all the more important because they are incidental4 ,in the words1 ',what was said by ,andrew1 or by ,peter1 or by ,philip1 or by ,thomas or ,james1 or by ,john or ,matthew1' the first four names appear in the same order in which they are introduced on the scene by this ,evangelist4 ,as this order1 which places ,andrew before ,peter1 is anything but the natural order1 the coincidence has a real significance4 ,moreover1 three of these four hold a prominent place in the ,fourth ,gospel1 which they do not hold in the others--,philip and ,thomas being never once named by the ,synoptic ,evangelists1 except in their lists of the ,twelve4 ,it has been said indeed that the position assigned to the name of ,john by ,papias in his enumeration is inconsistent with the supposition that this ,apostle wrote a ,gospel1 or even that he resided and taught in ,asia ,minor1 because so important a personage must necessarily have been named earlier4 ,but this argument proves nothing because it proves too much4 ,no rational account can be given of the sequence1 supposing that the names are arranged 'in order of merit4' ,peter1 as the chief ,apostle1 must have stood first2 and ,john1 as a pillar ,apostle1 would have been named next1 or 7if the ,james here mentioned is the ,lord's brother7 at all events next but one4 ,this would have been the obvious order in any case2 but1 if ,papias had any ,judaic sympathies1 as he is supposed to have had1 no other is imaginable4 ,this objection therefore is untenable4 ,on the other hand1 it is a remarkable fact that the two names1 which are kept to the last and associated together1 are just those two members of the ,twelve to whom alone the ,church attributes written ,gospels4 ,as ,evangelists1 the name of ,john and ,matthew would naturally be connected4 ,on any other hypothesis1 it is difficult to account for this juxtaposition4 ,again1 it should be noticed that when ,papias speaks of incidents in our ,lord's life which are related by an eye-witness without any intermediation between ,christ and the reporter1 he describes them as 'coming from the ,truth's self' #aic3a 7,greek3 ap' autes tes aletheias74 ,this personification of ,christ as 'the ,truth' is confined to the ,fourth ,gospel4 #c4 ,when we turn from ,eusebius to ,irenaeus1 we meet with other evidence pointing to the same result4 ,i refer to a passage with which the readers of these articles will be familiar1 for ,i have had occasion to refer to it more than once #aid3a2 but ,i have not yet investigated its connection with ,papias4 ,irenaeus writes #aid3b3-- ,as the elders say1 then also shall they which have been deemed worthy of the abode in heaven go thither1 while others shall enjoy the delight of paradise1 and others again shall possess the brightness of the city2 for in every place the ,saviour shall be seen1 according as they shall be worthy who see him4 ,they say moreover that this is the distinction between the habitation of them that bring forth a hundred-fold1 and them that bring forth sixty-fold1 and them that bring forth thirty-fold2 of whom the first shall be taken up into the heavens1 and the second shall dwell in paradise1 and the third shall inhabit the city2 and that therefore our ,lord has said1 ',in my ,father's abode are many mansions' 7,greek3 en tois tou patros mou monas einai pollas72 for all things are of ,god1 who giveth to all their appropriate dwelling1 according as ,his ,word saith that allotment is made unto all by the ,father1 according as each man is1 or shall be1 worthy4 ,and this is the banqueting-table at which those shall recline who are called to the marriage and take part in the feast4 ,the presbyters1 the disciples of the ,apostles1 say that this is the arrangement and disposal of them that are saved1 and that they advance by such steps1 and ascend through the ,spirit to the ,son1 and through the ,son to the ,father1 the ,son at length yielding ,his work to the ,father1 as it is said also by the ,apostle1 'for ,he must reign until ,he putteth all enemies under his feet1' etc4 #aid3c ,i am glad to be saved all further trouble about the grammar of this passage4 ,our author now allows that the sentence with which we are mainly concerned is oblique1 and that the words containing a reference to our ,lord's saying in ,st ,john's ,gospel are attributed to the elders who are mentioned before and after4 ,he still maintains however1 that 'it is unreasonable to claim' the reference 'as an allusion to the work of ,papias1' ,he urges in one place that there is 'a wide choice of presbyters1 including even evangelists1 to whom the reference of ,irenaeus may with equal right be ascribed' #aie3a2 in another1 that 'the source of the quotation is quite indefinite1 and may simply be the exegesis of his own day' #aie3b4 ,to the one hypothesis it is sufficient to reply that no such explanation is found in the only four ,evangelists whom ,irenaeus recognized2 to the other1 that when ,irenaeus wrote there were no 'disciples of the ,apostles' living1 so that he could have used the present tense in speaking of them4 ,this reference to the tense leads to a distinction of real importance4 ,critics have remarked that these reports of the opinions of the presbyters in ,irenaeus must be accepted with reserve2 that the reporter may unconsciously have infused his own thoughts and illustrations into the account2 and that therefore we cannot adduce with entire confidence the quotations from the canonical writings which they contain4 ,this caution is not superfluous1 but it must not be accepted without limitation4 ,the reports in ,irenaeus are of two kinds4 ,in some cases he repeats the conversations of his predecessors2 in others he derives his information from published records4 ,the hesitation1 which is prudent in the one case1 would be quite misplaced in the other4 ,we shall generally find no difficulty in drawing the line between the two4 ,though there may be one or two doubtful instances1 the language of ,irenaeus is most commonly decisive on this point4 ,thus1 when he quotes the opinions of the elder on the ,two ,testaments1 he is obviously repeating oral teaching2 for he writes1 ',the presbyter used to say1' ',the presbyter would entertain us with his discourse1' ',the old man1 the disciple of the ,apostles1 used to dispute' #aif3a4 ,on the other hand1 when in the passage before us he employs the present tense1 ',as the elders say1' ',the presbyters1 the disciples of the ,apostles1 say1' he is clearly referring to some document4 ,no one would write1 ',coleridge maintains1' or ',pitt declares1' unless he had in view some work or speech or biographical notice of the person thus quoted4 ,we may therefore safely conclude that in the passage before us ,irenaeus is citing from some book4 ,so far as regards the main question at issue1 the antiquity of the ,fourth ,gospel1 it matters little whether this book was the exegetical work of ,papias or not4 ,indeed the supposition that it was a different work is slightly more favourable to my position1 because it yields additional and independent testimony of the same date and character as that of ,papias4 ,but the following reasons combined make out a very strong case for assigning the passage to ,papias4 7#a7 ,it entirely accords with the method of ,papias1 as he himself describes it in his preface #aig3a4 ,scriptural passages are interpreted1 and the sayings of the elders are interwoven with the interpretations4 ,it accords equally well with the subject of his ,expositions2 for we know that he had a great fondness for eschatological topics1 and that he viewed them in this light4 7#b7 ,the possibilities are limited by the language1 which confines our search to written documents4 ,so far as we know there was1 prior to the time of ,irenaeus1 no ,christian work which would treat the same subject in the same way1 and would at the same time satisfy the conditions implied in the words1 ',the elders1 the disciples of the ,apostles1 say4' 7#c7 ,the connection with a previous passage is highly important in its bearing on this question4 ,in the thirty-third chapter of his fifth and last book ,irenaeus gives the direct reference to ,papias which has been considered already #aig3b2 in the thirty-sixth and final chapter occurs the passage with which we are now concerned4 ,is there reason to believe that the authority in these two passages is the same or different8 ,several considerations aid us in answering this question1 and they all tend in the same direction4 7i7 ,the subject of the two passages is the same4 ,they both treat of the future kingdom of ,christ1 and both regard it from the same point of view as a visible and external kingdom4 7ii7 ,in the next place the authorities in the two passages are described in similar terms4 ,in the first passage they are designated at the outset 'the elders who saw ,john1 the disciple of the ,lord1' while at the close we are told that ',papias records these things in writing in his fourth book3 ,it is not clear whether these elders are the authorities whom ,papias quotes1 or the class to whom ,papias himself belongs1 and whom therefore he represents4 ,since ,irenaeus regards ,papias as a direct hearer of ,st ,john1 this latter alternative is quite tenable1 though perhaps not as probable as the other4 ,but this twofold possibility does not affect the question at issue4 ,in the second passage the authorities are described in the opening as 'the elders' simply1 and at the close as 'the elders1 the disciples of the ,apostles4' ,thus the two accord4 ,moreover1 in the second passage 'the elders' are introduced without any further description1 as if they were already known1 and we therefore naturally refer back to the persons who have been mentioned and described shortly before4 7iii7 ,the subject is continuous from the one passage to the other1 though it extends over four somewhat long chapters 7c4 #cc-cf74 ,the discussion starts1 as we have seen1 from ,christ's saying about drinking the fruit of the vine in ,his kingdom #aih3a4 ,the authority of the elders1 recorded in the work of ,papias1 is quoted to support a literal interpretation of these words1 as implying a material recompense of the believers4 ,irenaeus then cites those prophecies of ,isaiah which foretell the reign of peace on ,god's ,holy ,mountain 7xi4 #f sq1 lxv4 #be sq74 ,this leads him to the predictions which announce the future triumphs of ,israel and the glories of the ,new ,jerusalem1 all of which are interpreted literally as referring to a reign of ,christ on earth4 ,creation thus renovated1 he argues1 will last for ever1 as may be inferred from the promise of the new heavens and the new earth 7,isaiah lxvi4 #bb74 ,then follows the passage in question1 which contains the interpretation1 given by the elders1 of ,christ's saying concerning the many mansions in ,his ,father's house4 ,a few lines lower down ,irenaeus refers again to the words respecting the fruit of the vine from which he had started2 and after two or three sentences more the book ends4 ,these seem to be very substantial reasons for assigning the words to ,papias4 ,and probably the two passages which ,i have been considering do not stand alone4 ,in an earlier part of this same fifth book ,irenaeus writes #aih3b3-- ,where then was the first man placed8 ,in paradise plainly1 as it is written ',and ,god planted a paradise44442' and he was cast out thence into this world1 owing to his disobedience4 ,wherefore also the elders1 disciples of the ,apostles1 say that those who were translated were translated thither 7for paradise was prepared for righteous and inspired men1 whither also the ,apostle ,paul was carried44447 and that they who are translated remain there till the end of all things 7,greek3 heos sunteleias71 preluding immortality4 ,on this passage our author remarks3-- ,it seems highly probable that these 'presbyters the disciples of the ,apostles' who are quoted on paradise are the same 'presbyters the disciples of the ,apostles' referred to on the same subject 7v4 #cf4 ,sec4,sec4 #a1 #b71 whom we are discussing #aii3a4 ,with this opinion ,i entirely agree4 ',but1' he adds1 'there is nothing whatever to connect them with ,papias4' ,here ,i am obliged to join issue4 ,it seems to me that there are several things4 ,in the first place1 there is the description of the authorities1 'the elders1 the disciples of the ,apostles1' which exactly accords with the statement in ,papias' own preface #aii3b4 ,next there is the subject and its treatment4 ,this latter point1 if ,i mistake not1 presents some considerations which strongly confirm my view of the source of these references in ,irenaeus4 ,the elders here quoted maintain that the paradise of ,genesis is not a terrestrial paradise2 it is some region beyond the limits of this world1 to which ,enoch and ,elijah were translated2 it is the abode1 as ,irenaeus says1 of the righteous and the spiritual 7,greek3 pneumatikoi71 of whom these two respectively are types2 their translation preludes the immortality of the faithful in ,christ4 ,in the second passage where paradise is mentioned by these elders1 it is declared to be one of the 'many mansions' in the ,father's house4 ,but it is clear from this latter passage that the work from which these sayings of the elders are quoted must have contained much more about paradise4 ,the intermediate position there assigned to it between the celestial and the terrestrial kingdom does not explain itself1 and must have required some previous discussion4 ,is there any reason to think that ,papias did directly occupy himself with this subject8 ,the work of ,papias was in the hands of ,anastasius of ,sinai1 who 7as we have seen7 set a very high value on it #bjj3a4 ,he tells us in his ',hexaemeron' #bjj3b that 'the more ancient interpreters 444 contemplated the sayings about paradise spiritually1 and referred them to the ,church of ,christ4' ,they 'said that there was a certain spiritual paradise' #bjj3c4 ,among these 'more ancient interpreters1' of whom he gives a list1 he names 'the great ,papias of ,hierapolis1 the scholar of ,john the ,evangelist1 and ,irenaeus of ,lyons4' ,here the two are associated together as dealing with this same subject in the same way4 ,how much of the exegesis which ,anastasius gives in the context1 and attributes to these ancient interpreters1 may be due to ,papias in particular1 it is impossible to say4 ,but it may be observed that the expression 'the delight of the paradise1' in the saying of the elders reported by ,irenaeus1 is taken from the ,septuagint of ,ezekiel xxviii4 #ac1 where the ,prince of ,tyre is addressed1 ',thou wast in the delight of the paradise of ,god2' and that ,anastasius represents 'the interpreters' 7among whom he had previously mentioned ,papias7 as 'especially confirming their views of a spiritual paradise' by appealing to this very passage1 'where ,god seems to reveal to us enigmatically the fall of the devil from heaven1' the ,prince of ,tyre being interpreted as ,satan1 and the 'stones of fire' the hosts of intelligent beings2 and he immediately afterwards quotes in illustration our ,lord's words in ,luke x4 #ah1 ',i beheld ,satan as lightning fall from heaven' #bja3a4 ',see1' he concludes1 'we have heard plainly that he was cast down to the earth from some paradise of delight high above1 and from the cherubic coals of fire4 7,ezek4 xxviii4 #af7' ,from the ,hexaemeron of ,anastasius ,i turn to the ,catena on the ,apocalypse1 bearing the names of ,oecumenius and ,arethas1 which was published by ,cramer #bja3b1 and here ,i find fresh confirmation4 ,on ,rev4 xii4 #i1 the compiler of this commentary quotes the same passage of ,st ,luke to which ,anastasius refers4 ,he then goes on to explain that there was a twofold fall of ,satan--the one at the time of the creation of man1 the other at the ,incarnation2 and he proceeds-- ,seeing then that ,michael1 the chief captain of the heavenly hosts1 could not tolerate the pride of the devil1 and had long ago cast him out from his own abode by warlike might1 according as ,ezekiel says1 that 'he was cast out by the cherubim from the midst of the stones of fire1' that is to say1 the angelic ranks1 because 'iniquities were found in him' 7xxviii4 #ae1 #af72 again at the coming of ,christ1 as has been said 444 he hath fallen more completely4 ,this is confirmed by the tradition of the fathers1 especially of ,papias 7,greek3 kai pateron paradosis kai ,papiou71 a successor of the ,evangelist ,john who wrote this very ,apocalypse with which we are concerned4 ,indeed ,papias speaks thus concerning the war in these express words3 ',it so befell that their array1' that is1 their warlike enterprise1 'came to nought2 for the great dragon1 the old serpent1 who is also called ,satan and the devil1 was cast down1 yea1 and was cast down to the earth1 he and his angels' #bja3c4 ,i turn again to ,anastasius2 and ,i read in him that 'the above-mentioned interpreters' gave these explanations of paradise to counteract the teaching of divers heretics1 among whom he especially mentions the ,ophites who 'offered the greatest thanksgivings to the serpent1 on the ground that by his counsels1 and by the transgression committed by the woman1 the whole race of mankind had been born' #bjb3a4 ,this notice again confirms the view which ,i adopted1 that it was the design of ,papias to supply an antidote to the false exegesis of the ,gnostics4 ,thus everything hangs together1 and we seem to have restored a lost piece of ancient exegesis4 ,if this restoration is uncertain in its details1 it has at least materially strengthened my position1 that the two sayings of the elders respecting paradise1 quoted by ,irenaeus1 must be attributed to the same authority1 ,papias1 whom ,irenaeus cites by name in the intermediate passage relating to the millennial kingdom4 ,i must add my belief also that very considerable parts of the fifth book of ,irenaeus1 which consists mainly of exegesis1 are borrowed from the exegetical work of ,papias4 ,it is the unpardonable sin of ,papias in the eyes of ,eusebius1 that he has misled subsequent writers1 more especially ,irenaeus1 on these eschatological subjects4 ,this is speaking testimony to the debt of ,irenaeus4 ,literary property was not an idea recognized by early ,christian writers4 ,they were too much absorbed in their subject to concern themselves with their obligations to others1 or with the obligations of others to them4 ,plagiarism was not a crime1 where they had all literary things in common4 ,hippolytus1 in his chief work1 tacitly borrows whole paragraphs1 and even chapters1 almost word for word1 from ,irenaeus4 ,he mentions his name only twice1 and does not acknowledge his obligations more than once #bjb3b4 ,the liberties1 which ,hippolytus takes with his master ,irenaeus1 might well have been taken by ,irenaeus himself with his predecessor ,papias4 #d4 ,eusebius tells us that ,papias 'relates also another story concerning a woman accused of many sins before the ,lord1' and he adds that it is 'contained in the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4' ,the story in question is allowed to be the narrative of the woman taken in adultery1 which appears in the common texts of the ,fourth ,gospel1 vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa4 ,in the oldest ,greek ,,ms which contains this pericope1 the ,codex ,bezae1 the words 'taken in adultery' are read 'taken in sin4' ,in the ,apostolic ,constitutions #bjc3a1 where this incident is briefly related1 the woman is described as 'having sinned4' ,and again ,rufinus1 who would possibly be acquainted with ,jerome's translation of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 boldly substitutes 'a woman1 an adulteress1' for 'a woman accused of many sins1' in his version of ,eusebius4 ,but it is equally certain that this pericope is an interpolation where it stands4 ,all considerations of external evidence are against it4 ,it is wanting in all ,greek ,,mss before the sixth century2 it was originally absent in all the oldest versions--,latin1 ,syriac1 ,egyptian1 ,gothic2 it is not referred to1 as part of ,st ,john's ,gospel1 before the latter half of the fourth century4 ,nor is the internal evidence less fatal4 ,it is expressed in language quite foreign to ,st ,john's style1 and it interrupts the tenor of his narrative4 ,the ,evangelist is here relating ,christ's discourses on the last day1 that great day1 of the feast' of ,tabernacles4 ,our ,lord seizes on the two most prominent features in the ceremonial--the pouring out of the water from ,siloam upon the altar1 and the illumination of the city by flaming torches1 lighted in the ,temple area4 ,each in succession furnishes ,him with imagery illustrating ,his own person and work4 ,in the uninterrupted narrative1 the one topic follows directly upon the other4 ,he states first1 that the streams of living water flow from ,him 7vii4 #cg sq74 ,he speaks 'again' 7,greek3 palin71 and declares that ,he is the light of the world 7viii4 #ab sq74 ,but the intervention of this story dislocates the whole narrative1 introducing a change of time1 of scene1 of subject4 ,on the other hand1 it will be felt that the incident1 though misplaced here1 must be authentic in itself4 ,its ethical pitch is far above anything which could have been invented for ,him by ,his disciples and followers1 'whose character and idiosyncrasies1' as ,mr ,mill says1 'were of a totally different sort' #bjd3a4 ,they had neither the capacity to imagine nor the will to invent an incident1 which1 while embodying the loftiest of all moral teaching1 would seem to them dangerously lax in its moral tendencies4 ,but1 if so1 how came it to find a place in the copies of ,st ,john's ,gospel8 ,ewald incidentally throws out a suggestion #bjd3b that it was originally written on the margin of some ancient manuscript1 to illustrate the words of ,christ in ,john viii4 #ae1 ',ye judge after the flesh2 ,i judge no man4' ,this hint he has not followed up1 but it seems to me to be highly valuable4 ,the pericope in question occurs1 in most authorities which contain it1 after vii4 #eb2 in one ,,ms however it stands after vii4 #cf2 and in several it is placed at the end of the ,gospel4 ,this is just what might have been expected if it was written1 in the first instance1 on the margin of a ,,ms containing two or three columns on a page4 ,when transferred from the margin to the text1 it would find a place somewhere in the neighbourhood1 where it least interfered with the narrative1 or1 if no suitable place appeared1 it would be relegated to the end of the book4 ,it should be added1 that some good cursives give it at the end of the twenty-first chapter of ,st ,luke--the most appropriate position1 historically1 that could be found for it4 ,whether this was an independent insertion in ,st ,luke1 or a transference from ,st ,john made on critical grounds1 it is not easy to say4 ,but if this was the motive of the insertion1 what was its source8 ,have we not here one of those illustrative anecdotes which ,papias derived from the report of the elders1 and to which he 'did not scruple to give a place along with his interpretations' of our ,lord's sayings8 ,its introduction as an illustration of the words in ,john viii4 #ae would thus be an exact parallel to the treatment of the saying in ,matthew xxvi4 #bi1 as described in the first part of this paper #bje3a4 ,a reader or transcriber of ,st ,john1 familiar with ,papias1 would copy it down in his margin1 either from ,papias himself or from the ,gospel of the ,hebrews2 and hence it would gain currency4 ,the ,codex ,bezae1 the oldest ,greek manuscript by two or three centuries which contains this narrative1 is remarkable for its additions4 ,may we not suspect that others besides this pericope 7,i would name especially our ,lord's saying to the man whom ,he found working on the sabbath7 were derived from this exegetical work of ,papias8 ,at all events ,eusebius speaks of it as containing 'some strange parables and teachings of the ,saviour1 and some other matters more or less fabulous 7,greek3 muthikotera71' which ,papias derived from oral tradition4 #e4 ,i have already suggested #bje3b that the notice relating to ,st ,mark in ,papias might have been given to explain some peculiarities in the ,second ,gospel1 as compared with ,st ,john4 ,this conjecture1 standing alone1 appears to have a very slight value1 but it assumes a higher importance when we find that a writer who was a younger contemporary of ,papias speaks of ,st ,mark's ,gospel in this same way and with this same motive4 ,the extract from the ,muratorian fragment relating to the ,gospels has been given above #bje3c4 ,the writer is obviously desirous of accounting for the differences in the four ,evangelists4 ,as the fragment is mutilated at the beginning1 we cannot say what he wrote about the ,first ,gospel4 ,but the half sentence which alone survives of his account of the ,second ,gospel tells its own tale2 ',quibus interfuit et ita tamen posuit4' ,it is evident that he1 like ,papias1 describes ,st ,mark as dependent on the oral preaching of ,st ,peter for his information respecting ,christ's life4 ,he 'set down' such facts as he knew from having been 'present' when the ,apostle related them to his hearers4 ,if the words themselves had left any room for doubt1 it would be cleared up by his account of the ,third ,gospel1 which follows immediately4 ,st ,luke1 he tells us1 was a follower of ,st ,paul1 and so wrote his ,gospel2 'but neither did he 7,greek3 all' oud' autos7 see the ,lord in the flesh1' and so he gave such information as came within his reach4 ,on the other hand1 he declares that the ,fourth ,gospel was written by ,john1 a personal disciple of ,christ1 at the instance and with the sanction of other personal disciples like himself4 ,hence1 he argues1 though there must necessarily be differences in detail1 yet this does not affect the faith of believers1 since there is perfect accordance on the main points1 and all the ,gospels alike are inspired by the same ,spirit4 ,at the same time1 the authority of the ,fourth ,gospel is paramount1 as the record of an immediate eye-witness2 and this claim ,john asserts for himself in the opening of his ,epistle1 when he declares that he has written what he himself had seen and heard4 ,probably1 if the notice of ,st ,mark had not been mutilated1 the coincidence would have been found to be still greater4 ,even as it stands1 this account throws great light on the notice of ,papias4 ,the ,muratorian writer lays stress on the secondary character of ,st ,mark's account2 so does ,papias4 ,the ,muratorian writer quotes from the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,john in evidence2 so did ,papias4 ,we are not told with what object ,papias adduced this testimony from the ,epistle2 but it is at least a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the ,muratorian writer4 ,it should be observed also that ,eusebius mentions ,papias as quoting not only the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,john1 but also the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,peter4 ,may not the two have been connected together in the context of ,papias1 as they are in the notice of ,eusebius8 ,it is quite clear that ,papias had already said something of the relations existing between ,st ,peter and ,st ,mark previously to the extract which gives an account of the ,second ,gospel2 for he there refers back to a preceding notice1 ',but afterwards1 as ,i said1 he followed ,peter4' ,would he not naturally have quoted1 as illustrating these relations1 the reference to the ,evangelist in the ,apostle's own letter1 ',marcus my son saluteth you' 7#a ,pet4 v4 #ac78 ,if the whole of the ,muratorian writer's notice of the ,second ,gospel had been preserved1 we should not improbably have found a parallelism here also4 ,but1 however this may be1 the resemblance is enough to suggest that the ,muratorian writer was acquainted with the work of ,papias1 and that he borrowed his contrast between the secondary evidence of ,st ,mark and the primary evidence of ,st ,john from this earlier writer4 ,and such a contrast offers a highly natural explanation of ,papias' motive4 ,the testimony of the elder respecting the composition of ,st ,mark's ,gospel was introduced by him1 as we saw1 to explain its phenomena4 ,though strictly accurate in its relation of facts1 as far as it went1 this ,gospel had1 he tells us1 two drawbacks1 which it owed to its secondary character4 ,the account could not be taken as complete1 and the order could not be assumed to be strictly chronological4 ,in other words1 compared with other evangelical narratives which ,papias had in view1 it showed omissions and transpositions4 ,a comparison with ,st ,john's narrative would yield many instances of both4 ,we have ample evidence that within a very few years after ,papias wrote1 the differences between ,st ,john and the ,synoptic ,gospels had already begun to attract attention4 ,the ,muratorian writer is a competent witness to this1 nor does he stand alone4 ,claudius ,apollinaris1 who succeeded ,papias in the see of ,hierapolis1 perhaps immediately1 certainly within a very few years1 mentions that on the showing of some persons 'the ,gospels seem to be at variance with one another' #bjg3a4 ,he is referring especially to the account of the ,crucifixion in ,st ,matthew and ,st ,john respectively4 ,it is much to be regretted that the ,muratorian writer's account of ,st ,matthew also has not been preserved2 for here again we should expect much light to be thrown on the corresponding account in ,papias4 ,why did ,papias introduce this notice of the ,hebrew original of ,st ,matthew8 ,we may suspect that the same motive which induced him to dwell on the secondary character of ,st ,mark's knowledge led him also to call attention to the fact that ,st ,matthew's ,gospel was not an original1 but a translation4 ,i turn to an exegetical work of ,eusebius1 and ,i find this father dealing with the different accounts of two ,evangelists in this very way4 ,he undertakes to solve the question1 why ,st ,matthew 7xxviii4 #a7 says that the resurrection was revealed to ,mary ,magdalene on the evening of 7or 'late on'7 the sabbath 7,greek3 opse sabbaton71 whereas ,st ,john 7xx4 #a7 places this same incident on the first day of the week ,greek3 te mia ton sabbaton2 and among other explanations which he offers is the following3-- ,the expression 'on the evening of the sabbath' is due to the translator of the ,scripture2 for the ,evangelist ,matthew published ,greek3 paredoke his ,gospel in the ,hebrew tongue2 but the person who rendered it into the ,greek language changed it1 and called the hour dawning on the ,lord's day ,greek3 opse sabbaton #bjh3a4 ,he adds1 that each ,evangelist corrects any misapprehension which might arise--,st ,matthew by adding 'as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week1' ,st ,john by a similar qualifying expression 'when it was yet dark4' ,being acquainted with the work of ,papias1 ,eusebius might have borrowed this mode of explanation1 if not this very explanation1 from him4 ,but it may be urged that on this hypothesis the motive of ,papias must have appeared in the context1 and that1 if it had so appeared1 ,eusebius must have quoted it4 ,the reply is simple4 ,papias must in any case have had some object or other in citing this testimony of the presbyter1 and none is given4 ,but ,i would answer further1 that under the supposed circumstances ,eusebius was not likely to quote the context4 ,as a matter of fact1 he has not done so in a very similar case1 where he tears out a fragment from a passage in ,irenaeus which intimately affects the relations of the ,evangelists to one another #bji3a4 ,he commences in the middle of a sentence1 and extracts just as much as serves his immediate purpose1 leaving out everything else4 ,on this point1 ,i am glad that ,i can reckon beforehand on the assent of the author of ,supernatural ,religion himself4 ,speaking of this extract from ,irenaeus1 he says1 ',nothing could be further from the desire or intention of ,eusebius than to represent any discordance between the ,gospels #bji3b4' ,i do not indeed join in the vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of ,eusebius4 ,wherever ,i have been able to investigate the charge1 ,i have found it baseless4 ,we have ample evidence that ,eusebius was prepared to face the difficulties in harmonizing the ,gospels1 when the subject came properly before him4 ,but here he might fairly excuse himself from entering upon a topic which had no bearing on his immediate purpose1 and which once started would require a lengthy discussion to do justice to it4 ,moreover it is obvious that he is very impatient with ,papias4 ,he tells us twice over that he has confined his extracts to the very narrowest limits which bare justice to his subject would allow #bji3c2 he warns his readers that there are a great many traditions in ,papias which he has passed over2 and he refers them to the book itself for further information4 ,though exceptionally long in itself compared with his notices of other early ,christian writers1 his account of ,papias is1 we may infer1 exceptionally brief in proportion to the amount of material which this father afforded for such extracts4 #f4 ,i have said nothing yet about the direct testimony of a late anonymous writer1 which 7if it could be accepted as trustworthy7 would be decisive on the point at issue4 ,in an argument prefixed to this ,gospel in a ,vatican ,,ms1 which is assigned to the ninth century1 we read as follows3-- ,the ,gospel of ,john was made known 7manifestatum71 and given to the ,churches by ,john while he yet remained in the body 7adhuc in corpore constituto72 as 7one7 ,papias by name1 of ,hierapolis1 a beloved disciple of ,john1 has related in his exoteric1 that is1 in his last five books 7in exotericis1 id est1 in extremis quinque libris72 but he wrote down the ,gospel at the dictation of ,john1 correctly 7descripsit vero evangelium dictante ,johanne recte74 ,but ,marcion the heretic1 when he had been censured 7improbatus7 by him1 because he held heretical opinions 7eo quod contraria sentiebat71 was cast off by ,john4 ,now he had brought writings or letters to him from the brethren that were in ,pontus #baj3a4 ,no stress can be laid on testimony derived from a passage which contains such obvious anachronisms and other inaccuracies2 but the mention of ,papias here courts inquiry1 and time will not be ill spent in the endeavour to account for it4 ,it will be worth while1 at all events1 to dispose of an erroneous explanation which has found some favour4 ,when attention was first called to this passage by ,aberle and ,tischendorf1 ,overbeck met them with the hypothesis that the notice was taken from a spurious work ascribed to ,papias4 ,he supposed that some one had forged five additional books in the name of this father1 in which he had gathered together a mass of fabulous matter1 and had entitled them ',exoterica1' attaching them to the genuine five books4 ,to this work he assigned also the notice respecting the four ,maries which bears the name of ,papias #baj3b4 ,this explanation might have been left to itself if it had remained as a mere hypothesis of ,overbeck's1 but it has been recently accepted by ,hilgenfeld4 ,he speaks of these five 'exoteric' books1 as attached to 'the five esoteric or genuine books2' and to this source he attributes not only the account of the four ,maries1 but also a notice relating to the death of ,st ,john which is given by ,georgius ,hamartolos on the authority of ,papias #baa3a4 ,this however seems to be altogether a mistake4 ,we find no notice or trace elsewhere of any such spurious work attributed to ,papias4 ,moreover these titles are quite unintelligible4 ,there is no reason why the five genuine books should be called 'esoteric1' or the five spurious books 'exoteric4' ,about the notice of the four ,maries again ,hilgenfeld is in error4 ,it is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of ,hierapolis1 but from a genuine work of another ,papias1 a ,latin lexicographer of the eleventh century4 ,this is not a mere hypothesis1 as ,hilgenfeld assumes1 but an indisputable fact1 as any one can test who will refer to the work itself1 of which ,,mss exist in some libraries1 and which was printed four times in the fifteenth century #baa3b4 ,nor again does the passage in ,georgius ,hamartolos give any countenance to this theory4 ,this writer1 after saying that ,st ,john survived the rest of the twelve and then suffered as a martyr 7,greek3 marturiou katexiotai71 continues3-- ,for ,papias1 the bishop of ,hierapolis1 having been an eye-witness of him1 says in the second book ,greek3 logo of the ',oracles of the ,lord' 7,greek3 ton kuriakon logion7 that he was slain by the ,jews1 having1 as is clear1 with his brother ,james1 fulfilled the prediction of ,christ4444 ',ye shall drink my cup1' etc4 #baa3c ,here we have an obvious error4 ,the fate which really befell ,james is attributed to ,john4 ,georgius ,hamartolos therefore cannot be quoting directly from ,papias1 for ,papias cannot have reported the martyrdom of ,john4 ,but1 on the other hand1 ,papias seems plainly to have been the ultimate source of his information4 ,the work is precisely and correctly quoted4 ,the general tenor accords with the main object of ,papias' book--the exposition of a saying of ,christ1 and the illustration of it by a story derived from tradition4 ,this being so1 the error is most easily explained by a lacuna4 ,in the intermediate authority from whom ,georgius got the reference1 some words must have dropped out2 a line or two may have been omitted in his copy2 and the sentence may have run in the original somewhat in this way2 ,greek3 ,papias 444 phaskei hoti ,ioannes men hupo tou ,rhomaion basileos katedikasthe marturon eis ,patmon1 ,iakobos de hupo ,ioudaion anerethe1 ',papias says that ,john was condemned by the ,roman emperor 7and sent7 to ,patmos for bearing witness 7to the truth7 while ,james was slain by the ,jews' #bab3a4 ,the hypothesis of a spurious ,papias therefore is wholly unsupported2 and we must seek some other explanation of the statement in the ,vatican ,,ms4 ,this passage seems to be made up of notices gathered from different sources4 ,the account of ,marcion1 with which it closes1 involves an anachronism 7to say nothing else71 and seems to have arisen from a confusion of the interview between ,st ,john and ,cerinthus and that between ,polycarp and ,marcion1 which are related by ,irenaeus in the same context #bac3a4 ,the earlier part1 referring to ,papias1 is best explained in another way--by clerical errors and mistranslation rather than by historical confusion4 ,the word 'exotericis' ought plainly to be read 'exegeticis' #bac3b4 ,in some handwritings of the seventh or eighth century1 where the letters have a round form1 the substitution of ,,ot for ,,eg would be far from difficult #bac3c4 ,in this case extremis1 which should perhaps be read externis1 is the ,latin interpretation of the false reading exotericis4 ,thus purged of errors1 the reference to ,papias presents no difficulties4 ,we may suppose that ,papias1 having reported some saying of ,st ,john on the authority of the elders1 went on somewhat as follows3 ',and this accords with what we find in his own ,gospel1 which he gave to the ,churches when he was still in the body' ,greek3 eti en to somati kathestotos4 ,in this contrast between the story repeated after his death and the ,gospel taken down from his lips during his lifetime1 we should have an explanation of the words adhuc in corpore constituto1 which otherwise seem altogether out of place4 ,the word constituto shows clearly1 ,i think1 that the passage must have been translated from the ,greek4 ,if ,st ,john's authorship of the ,gospel had been mentioned in this incidental way1 ,eusebius would not have repeated it1 unless he departed from his usual practice4 ,on the other hand1 the statement that ,papias was the amanuensis of the ,evangelist can hardly be correct1 though it occurs elsewhere #bac3d4 ,whether it was derived from a misunderstanding of ,papias1 or of some one else1 it would be impossible to say4 ,but ,i venture to suggest a solution4 ,papias may have quoted the ,gospel 'delivered by ,john to the ,churches1 which they wrote down from his lips' 7,greek3 ho apegraphon apo tou stomatos autou72 and some later writer1 mistaking the ambiguous ,greek3 apegraphon1 interpreted it1 ',i wrote down1' thus making ,papias himself the amanuensis #bad3a4 ,the dictation of ,st ,john's ,gospel is suggested1 as ,i have said already #bad3b1 by internal evidence also4 ,here again1 so far as we can judge from his practice elsewhere1 ,eusebius would be more likely than not to omit such a statement1 if it was made thus casually4 ,this seems to me the most probable explanation of the whole passage4 ,but obviously no weight can be attached to such evidence4 ,like the statement of ,john ,malalas respecting ,ignatius1 which ,i considered in a former paper #bad3c1 it is discredited by its companionship with an anachronism1 though the anachronism is not so flagrant as those of ,john ,malalas1 and the statement itself does not1 like his1 contradict the unanimous testimony of all the preceding centuries4 ,but the author of ,supernatural ,religion closes with an argument1 which he seems to think a formidable obstacle to the belief that ,papias recognized the ,fourth ,gospel as the work of ,st ,john3-- ,andrew of ,caesarea1 in the preface to his commentary on the ,apocalypse1 mentions that ,papias maintained 'the credibility' 7,greek3 to axiopiston7 of that book1 or in other words1 its ,apostolic origin4444 ,now1 he must1 therefore1 have recognized the book as the work of the ,apostle ,john1 and we shall hereafter show that it is impossible that the author of the ,apocalypse is the author of the ,gospel2 therefore1 in this way also1 ,papias is a witness against the ,apostolic origin of the ,fourth ,gospel #bad3d4 ,this argument however is an anachronism4 ,many very considerable critics of the nineteenth century1 it is true1 maintain that the two works cannot have come from the same author4 ,i do not stop now to ask whether they are right or wrong2 but the nineteenth century is not the second4 ,in the second century there is not the slightest evidence that a single writer felt any difficulty on this score1 or attempted to separate the authorship of the two books4 ,it is true that ,eusebius mentions one or two authors1 whose works unfortunately are lost1 as using the ,apocalypse1 while he does not mention their using the ,gospel2 and this negative fact has obviously misled many4 ,but here again the inference arises from a fundamental misconception of his purpose4 ,i have shown #bae3a that his principles required him to notice quotations from and references to the ,apocalypse in every early writer1 because the authorship and canonicity of the work had been questioned by ,church writers before his time2 whereas it would lead him to ignore all such in the case of the ,fourth ,gospel1 because no question had ever been entertained within the ,church respecting it4 ,this indeed is precisely what he does with ,theophilus2 he refers to this father's use of the ,apocalypse1 and he ignores his direct quotations from the ,gospel4 ,the inference therefore must be set aside as a fallacy4 ,beyond this1 all the direct evidence points the other way4 ,there was indeed a small sect or section of men outside the pale of the ,church1 before the close of the second century1 who rejected the ,gospel1 but they rejected the ,apocalypse also4 ,moreover they ascribed both to a single author1 and 7what is more important still7 this author was ,cerinthus1 a contemporary of ,st ,john #bae3b4 ,thus the very opponents of the ,gospel in the second century are witnesses not only to the very early date of the two writings1 but also to the identity of authorship4 ,on the other hand1 every ,church writer without exception during this century 7so far as our knowledge goes7 who accepted the one accepted the other also4 ,the most doubtful case is ,justin ,martyr1 who refers by name to the ,apocalypse2 but even ,hilgenfeld says that it is difficult to deny the use of the ,gospel of ,st ,john in his case #baf3a4 ,melito again commented on the ,apocalypse2 and there is ample evidence 7as ,i trust to show hereafter7 that he recognized the ,fourth ,gospel also4 ,both books alike are used in the ,letter of the ,gallican ,churches 7,a4,d4 #agg74 ,both alike are accepted by ,theophilus of ,antioch1 by the ,muratorian writer1 by ,irenaeus1 and by ,clement4 ,it is the same during the first half of the third century4 ,tertullian and ,cyprian1 ,hippolytus and ,origen1 place them on an equal footing1 and attribute them to the same ,apostle4 ,the first distinct trace of an attempt to separate the authorship of the two books appears in ,dionysius of ,alexandria #baf3b1 who wrote about the middle or early in the second half of the third century4 ,even he argues entirely upon considerations of internal criticism1 and does not pretend to any traditional evidence4 ,he accepts both works as canonical2 and he questions the ,apostolic authorship1 not of the ,gospel1 but of the ,apocalypse4 ,,vii4 ,,the ,,later ,,school ,,of ,,st ,,john4 ,,february1 #ahgf4 ,it has been stated in a former paper that at the fall of ,jerusalem a remnant of the ,apostolic company1 together with other primitive disciples1 sought a new home in ,asia ,minor #bag3a4 ,of this colony ,ephesus was the head-quarters1 and ,st ,john the leader4 ,here he is reported to have lived and laboured for more than a quarter of a century1 surviving the accession of ,trajan1 who ascended the imperial throne ,a4,d4 #ih #bag3b4 ,in this respect his position is unique among the earliest preachers of ,christianity4 ,while ,st ,peter and ,st ,paul converted disciples and organized congregations1 ,st ,john alone was the founder of a school4 ,the prolongation of his life after the ,church was firmly rooted1 and his fixed residence in the midst of a compact ,christian society1 combined to give a certain definiteness to his personal influence1 which would be wanting to the labours of these more strictly missionary preachers4 ,hence the traditions of ,st ,john are more direct1 more consistent1 and more trustworthy1 than those which relate to the other ,apostles4 ,thus we may1 without any great impropriety1 speak of the 'school of ,st ,john4' ,the existence of such a body of disciples gathered about the veteran teacher is indicated by notices in various writers4 ,the author of the ,muratorian fragment1 for instance1 speaks of this ,apostle as writing his ,gospel at the request not only of his fellow-disciples1 but also of his 'bishops' #bah3a4 ,clement of ,alexandria again1 among whose teachers was one from this very district1 and probably of this very school #bah3b1 represents him as going about from place to place in the neighbourhood of ,ephesus1 appointing bishops and providing in other ways for the government of the ,churches #bah3c4 ,more especially ,irenaeus1 who had received his earliest lessons in ,christianity from an immediate disciple of ,st ,john1 appeals again and again to such a body as preserving and handing down the correct tradition of the ,apostolic doctrine and practice4 ,he describes these persons in one place as 'the elders who in ,asia associated with ,john the disciple of the ,lord' #bah3d2 in another as 'all the ,churches which are in ,asia1' specifying more particularly the ',church in ,ephesus 444 the true witness of the ,apostolic tradition' #bah3e2 in a third as 'those who saw ,john face to face' #bah3f1 or 'the elders who saw ,john the disciple of the ,lord' #bah3g2 in a fourth as 'the elders who were before us1 and who also were pupils of the ,apostles' #bah3h2 in a fifth 'as the elders who have their succession from the ,apostles' #bah3i2 in a sixth as 'the elders1 disciples of the ,apostles' #bah3aj1 with similar expressions elsewhere4 ,the prominent members of this school in the first age were ,polycarp of ,smyrna and ,papias of ,hierapolis1 of whom the former survived beyond the middle of the century1 and the latter probably died not many years before4 ,in the next generation the most famous names are ,melito of ,sardis and ,apollinaris of ,hierapolis1 who flourished in the third quarter of the century4 ,they again are succeeded by other writers1 of whom the most celebrated was ,polycrates of ,ephesus1 already an old man1 when in the last decade of the century a controversial question obliged him to take up his pen in defence of the traditions of his ,church4 ,asia ,minor appears to have been far in advance of the other ,churches of ,christendom in literary activity1 during the second century4 ,this pre-eminence was due mainly1 we may suppose1 to the fact already mentioned1 that it had become the second home of the ,apostles and primitive teachers of ,christianity4 ,but the productiveness of the ,asiatic ,christians in this respect was doubtless stimulated by the pressure of opposition4 ,this region was the hot-bed of heresies and the arena of controversy4 ,nor is it unimportant to observe that the main subjects of discussion were of such a kind as must necessarily have involved questions intimately connected with the ,canon4 ,montanism1 with its doctrine of the ,paraclete and its visions of the ,new ,jerusalem1 would challenge some expression of opinion respecting the ,gospel and the ,apocalypse of ,st ,john1 if these writings were disputed4 ,the ,paschal controversy courted investigation into the relations between the narratives of the ,synoptists and the ,fourth ,evangelist4 ,marcionism1 resting as it did on the paramount and sole authority of ,st ,paul's ,epistles and of the ,pauline ,gospel1 would not suffer friend or foe to preserve silence on this fundamental question4 ,and so again1 though in a less degree1 the disputes with ,cerinthians1 with ,ophites1 with ,basilideans1 with ,valentinians1 with all the various sects of ,gnostics1 could not have been conducted1 as we see plainly from the treatises of ,irenaeus and ,hippolytus1 without constant appeals to the testimony of written documents--thus indicating1 at all events roughly1 the amount of authority which the writers accorded to the more prominent books of our ,new ,testament ,canon4 ,to men like ,irenaeus or ,eusebius1 who had this extensive literature in their hands1 the teaching of this ,church generally1 as well as of the more prominent individual writers belonging to it1 could not have been open to question4 ,their approval of its orthodoxy therefore1 either by silent assent or by studied panegyric1 is a fact of real moment4 ,over and above this relation to the books of the ,new ,testament generally1 the two points to which modern controversy directs attention1 and which therefore deserve special consideration in any review of the writers belonging to the school of ,st ,john1 are--first1 what indications the extant fragments and notices contain1 that they recognized or rejected the ,fourth ,gospel2 and secondly1 what can be learnt from these same sources as to the degree of authority which they accorded to the ,apostle of the ,gentiles4 ,polycarp and ,papias have been discussed in my earlier articles #bbj3a4 ,in the case of both these fathers1 a recognition of the ,fourth ,gospel has been inferred from the use made of the ,first ,epistle2 in the case of the latter1 from other indications also4 ,as regards ,st ,paul the testimony of ,polycarp is as full and explicit as it well could be2 while1 on the other hand1 the meagre fragments of ,papias do not in themselves warrant any inference on this point4 ,the next extant document in chronological order is the account of ,polycarp's martyrdom1 written immediately after the occurrence 7,a4,d4 #aee71 and addressed to the ,churches of the neighbouring province of ,pontus1 more especially to the ,christians of ,philomelium4 ,in this letter the brethren of ,smyrna draw a parallel between the sufferings of their martyred friend and the ,passion of our ,lord1 which is suggested by some remarkable coincidences4 ',nearly all the incidents1' we are told at the outset1 'which preceded 7his death7 came to pass that the ,lord might exhibit anew to us a martyrdom after the pattern of the ,gospel2 for ,polycarp remained that he might be betrayed1 as did also the ,lord' #bbj3b4 ,this account is thus the earliest instance of a favourite type of hagiology1 which sees the sufferings of ,christ visibly reflected and imaged in detail in the servants of ,christ1 and of which ancient and mediaeval biography furnishes numerous examples4 ,this idea of literal conformity to the life and ,passion of ,christ runs through the document4 ,some of the coincidences are really striking2 but in other cases the parallelism is highly artificial4 ,the name of the convicting magistrate is ,herod1 and special stress is naturally laid on this fact #bba3a4 ,the time of the martyrdom is the passover--'the great sabbath1' as it is here called #bba3b4 ,polycarp's place of refuge is ascertained from information elicited by torture from a youth1 apparently a slave in his employ4 ,this poor boy1 much more sinned against than sinning1 is cruelly compared to ,judas2 and we are told accordingly that ,polycarp1 like our ,lord1 was 'betrayed by them of his own household' #bba3c4 ,when apprehended1 he is put upon an ass1 and thus taken back to the city #bba3d2 and this is of course intended as a parallel to the triumphal entry into ,jerusalem4 ,his pursuers come on horse-back and in arms1 'as against a robber' #bba3e4 ,when he is apprehended1 he prays1 ',the will of ,god be done' #bba3f2 and so forth4 ,these parallels1 at the same time that they show the idea dominant in the mind of the narrators1 are a valuable testimony to the truth of the narrative itself1 where so much violent treatment is necessary to produce the desired effect #bba3g4 ,most of the incidents have their counterparts in the circumstances of the ,passion1 as recorded by the ,synoptic ,evangelists alone or in common with ,st ,john4 ,this is natural2 for they refer to external events1 in which the ,synoptic narrative is rich4 ,but there are exceptions1 where the writers obviously have the account of the ,fourth ,evangelist in their mind4 ,thus we are told that at the crisis of ,polycarp's fate a voice came from heaven1 saying1 ',be strong1 and play the man1 ,polycarp' #bba3h4 ',and the speaker1' it is added1 'no man saw2 but the voice those of our company that were present heard4' ,this corresponds to the voice which ,st ,john records as addressing our ,lord from heaven1 and as imperfectly apprehended by the bystanders #bbb3a4 ,again1 ,polycarp1 in consequence of a vision1 predicts that he shall be burnt alive #bbb3b1 though at the time the intention obviously is to throw him to the wild beasts1 as the games are going on4 ,a fortuitous circumstance frustrates this intention1 and brings about a fulfilment of his prophecy as to the manner of his death #bbb3c4 ,just in the same way in the ,fourth ,gospel ,jesus is represented as 'signifying by what death ,he should die' #bbb3d4 ,death by crucifixion seemed altogether unlikely at the time1 for ,his enemies were the ,jews1 and this was not a ,jewish mode of punishment2 but by an accidental turn of circumstances ,he was transferred from the ,jews to ,pilate1 and so ,his prediction was fulfilled #bbb3e4 ,again1 it is related that when the fire would not consume the body of the saint1 his persecutors 'ordered an executioner to go up to him and thrust a small sword into him4 ,when he had done this1' we are told1 'there came forth a dove and a quantity of blood' #bbb3f4 ,the parallel to the incident recorded in ,st ,john's account of the crucifixion is obvious #bbb3g2 and just as the ,evangelist lays stress on his own presence as an eye-witness of the scene1 so also do these hagiologers1 when relating a strange occurrence at his martyrdom4 ',we saw a great marvel1' they say1 'we to whom it was given to see2 and we have been saved that we might relate to the rest what happened' #bbb3h4 ,and lastly1 as ,st ,john emphasizes the fact that everything was accomplished in the death of ,jesus #bbb3i1 so also they declare of ,polycarp1 that 'every word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been and shall be accomplished' #bbc3a4 ,to these facts it should be added that the dying prayer of ,polycarp contains two coincidences with the phraseology of the ,fourth ,gospel--'the resurrection of life1' 'the true ,god' #bbc3b4 ,,melito1 bishop of ,sardis1 flourished soon after the middle of the second century4 ,this fact appears from two of his works1 to which we are able to assign an approximate date4 ,his treatise ',on the ,paschal ,festival1' he himself tells us1 was written while ,sergius ,paulus was proconsul of ,asia #bbc3c2 and the recent investigations of ,m4 ,waddington into the fasti of this province have led to the result that this proconsulate should probably be dated about ,a4,d4 #afd-aff #bbc3d4 ,again we are informed that he addressed his ',apology' to ,m4 ,antoninus 7,a4,d4 #afa-ahj7 #bbc3e4 ,it appears however from an extant fragment1 that ,l4 ,verus1 the colleague of ,m4 ,antoninus1 was no longer living2 for ,melito speaks of prayer on behalf of the emperor's son 7,commodus71 without mentioning his brother and co-emperor 7,verus74 ,now ,verus died in the very beginning of the year #afi4 ,on the other hand ancient authorities assign the ,apology to the year #afi or #agj2 and1 as there is no reason for rejecting their statement1 we may suppose that it was written soon after the death of ,verus4 ,probably its date was ascertainable within a year or two from internal evidence4 ,this ,apology however is regarded by ,eusebius as the latest of ,melito's writings #bbc3f2 and1 as the catalogue of his works comprises some twenty treatises at least1 his literary activity must have extended over a considerable period of time1 so that we shall probably not be far wrong if we place the commencement of his career as an author about the middle of the century4 ,he appears to have died soon after the ,apology was written4 ,in the last decade of the century ,polycrates mentions him among other worthies of the past who had gone to their rest #bbd3a4 ,he was buried at ,sardis4 ,from the context it may be inferred that he did not suffer martyrdom1 like so many of his famous contemporaries1 but died a natural death4 ,these chronological notices suggest that ,melito was born in the early part of the second century1 within a very few years after the death of ,st ,john4 ,during the greater part of his life at all events1 he must have been a contemporary of ,st ,john's disciple ,polycarp1 who was martyred at an advanced age in the year #aee or #aef2 and likewise of ,papias1 who had conversed with personal disciples of ,christ1 and seems also to have survived till towards the middle of the century4 ,as the communications between ,sardis on the one hand1 and ,smyrna and ,hierapolis on the other1 were easy1 a prominent man like ,melito1 whose religious zeal led him on one occasion to undertake a distant journey to ,palestine1 would be sure to cultivate the acquaintance of these older teachers1 even if circumstances did not throw him directly in their way4 ,thus ,melito is a significant link of connection with the past4 ,at the same time he holds an equally important position with respect to the succeeding age4 ,it can hardly be doubted that among the ,asiatic elders1 whose authority ,irenaeus invokes so constantly1 ,melito must have held a prominent place4 ,it may be suspected that he was the very ,ionian whom ,clement of ,alexandria mentions among his earlier teachers #bbd3b4 ,it is quite certain that his writings were widely known and appreciated in the generations next succeeding his own4 ,he is quoted or referred to by ,polycrates at ,ephesus1 by ,clement and ,origen at ,alexandria1 by ,tertullian at ,carthage1 by ,hippolytus at ,rome4 ,i have already mentioned that he was a very voluminous writer4 ,eusebius gives a catalogue of his works1 which however he does not profess to be complete4 ,the historian's knowledge was obviously limited by the contents of the library which his friend ,pamphilus had gathered together at ,caesarea4 ,the titles of these works are as follows3--,on the ,paschal ,festival 7two treatises7 #bbe3a1 ,on the ,life of the ,prophets1 ,on the ,church1 ,on the ,lord's ,day1 ,on the ,nature of ,man1 ,on ,creation1 ,on the ,obedience of ,faith and on the ,senses1 ,on the ,soul and ,body and ,mind1 ,on ,baptism1 ,on ,truth1 ,on the ,creation and ,generation of ,christ1 ,on ,prophecy1 ,on ,hospitality1 ,the ,key1 ,on the ,devil and on the ,apocalypse of ,john1 ,on a ,corporeal ,deity1 ,an ,apology to ,antonius1 ,selections from the ,law and the ,prophets #bbe3b4 ,besides these works here enumerated1 other writings of ,melito axe quoted elsewhere under the titles1 ,on the ,incarnation of ,christ1 ,on the ,passion1 ,on the ,cross1 ,on the ,faith #bbe3c1 though some of these may perhaps represent the same works to which ,eusebius refers under other names4 ,comprising this wide range of subjects1 doctrinal1 exegetical1 practical1 and controversial1 the works of ,melito must have furnished the next succeeding generations with ample data for determining his exact theological position4 ,to them it must have been clear1 for instance1 whether he did or did not accept the ,gospel of ,st ,john or the ,epistles of ,st ,paul4 ,it was hardly possible for him to write on the ,paschal question without indicating his views on the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,it is almost inconceivable that he should have composed a controversial treatise against ,marcion without declaring himself respecting the ,apostle of the ,gentiles4 ,the few meagre fragments which have come down to us supply only incidental notices and resemblances1 from which we are left to draw our own inferences2 but where we grope in the twilight1 they were walking in the broad noonday4 ,eusebius has happily preserved ,melito's preface to his ,selections1 which is of considerable interest4 ,the work itself comprised passages from the ,law and the ,prophets relating to the ,saviour and to the ,christian faith generally 7,greek3 peri tou ,soteros kai pases tes pisteos hemon71 arranged in six books4 ,it seems to have been accompanied with explanatory comments bringing out the prophetical import of the several passages1 as ,melito understood them4 ,in the preface1 addressed to his friend ,onesimus1 at whose instance the work had been undertaken1 he relates that having made a journey to the ,east and visited the actual scenes of the ,gospel history1 he informed himself respecting the books of the ,old ,testament1 of which he appends a list4 ,the language which he uses is significant from its emphasis4 ,he writes that his friend had 'desired to be accurately informed about the old books' 7,greek3 mathein ten ton palaion biblion eboulethes akribeian74 ,he adds that he himself during his ,eastern tour had 'obtained accurate information respecting the books of the ,old ,testament 7,greek3 akribos mathon ta tes palaias diathekes biblia74' ,from these expressions ,dr ,westcott argues that ,melito must have been acquainted with a corresponding ,christian literature1 which he regarded as the books of the ,new ,testament4 ,to any such inference the author of ,supernatural ,religion demurs #bbf3a1 and he devotes several pages to proving 7what nobody denies7 that the expressions ',old ,testament1' ',new ,testament1' did not originally refer to a written literature at all1 and need not so refer here4 ,all this is beside the purpose1 and betrays an entire misunderstanding of the writer whom he ventures to criticize4 ,the contention is not that the expression ',old ,testament' here in itself signifies a collection of books1 and therefore implies another collection called the ',new ,testament1' but that the emphatic and reiterated mention of an old ,biblical literature points naturally to the existence of a new4 ,to any one who is accustomed to weigh the force of ,greek sentences1 as determined by the order of the words1 this implied contrast must1 ,i think1 make itself felt4 ,it is impossible to read the clauses1 having regard to the genius of the language1 without throwing a strong emphasis on the recurrent word old1 which ,i have therefore italicized1 as the only way of reproducing the same effect for the ,english reader4 ,dr ,westcott therefore is perfectly justified in maintaining that the expression naturally implies a recognized ,new ,testament literature4 ,and if this reference is suggested by strict principles of exegesis1 it alone is consonant with historical probability4 ,it is a fact that half a century1 or even more1 before ,melito wrote1 the author of the epistle bearing the name of ,barnabas quotes as ',scripture' a passage found in ,st ,matthew's ,gospel1 and not known to have existed elsewhere #bbg3a4 ,it is a fact that about that same time1 or earlier1 ,polycarp wrote a letter which is saturated with the thoughts and language of the ,apostolic ,epistles #bbg3b4 ,it is a fact that some twenty or thirty years before ,melito1 ,justin ,martyr speaks of certain ,gospels 7whether our ,canonical ,gospels or not1 it is unnecessary for my present purpose to inquire7 as being read together with the writings of the prophets at the religious services of the ,christians on ,sundays1 and taken afterwards as the subject of exhortation and comment by the preacher #bbg3c4 ,it is a fact that about the same time when ,justin records this as the habitual practice of the ,church1 the heretic ,marcion1 himself a native of ,asia ,minor1 constructed a ,canon for himself by selecting from and mutilating the ,apostolic and ,evangelical writings which he found in circulation4 ,it is a fact that ,dionysius of ,corinth1 a contemporary of ,melito1 speaks of certain writings as 'the ,scriptures of the ,lord1' or 'the ,dominical ,scriptures4' and denounces those who tamper with them #bbh3a4 ,it is a fact that ,irenaeus1 who had received his early education in ,asia ,minor1 writing within some ten or twenty years after the death of ,melito1 quotes the ,four ,gospels1 the ,acts of the ,apostles1 the great majority of the ,apostolic ,epistles1 and the ,apocalypse1 as ,scripture1 declaring more especially of the ,four ,gospels1 that they had been received by the ,churches from the beginning1 and treating all these writings alike with the same deference which they have received from subsequent generations of ,christians ever since4 ,the inference from these facts 7and they do not stand alone7 is obvious4 ,if ,melito knew nothing about books of the ,new ,testament1 he must have been the only bishop of the ,church from the banks of the ,euphrates to the pillars of ,hercules1 who remained in this state of dense ignorance--,melito1 who could refer to the ,hebrew and the ,syriac while interpreting a passage of ,genesis1 and who made careful inquiries respecting the ,canon of the ,old ,testament ,scriptures in the very land where those ,scriptures had their birth4 ,the extant fragments attributed to ,melito are meagre and scattered #bbh3b2 but1 supposing them to be genuine1 they afford ample evidence of the theological views of this father1 while indirectly they indicate his general relation to the ,canon in a way which can hardly be mistaken4 ,the genuineness of many of these fragments however has been seriously questioned4 ,in one or two instances the grounds of hesitation deserve every consideration2 but in the majority of cases the objections must be set aside as groundless4 ,thus it is sought to throw discredit on all those writings which are not named by ,eusebius4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion1 for instance1 says that ',eusebius gives what he evidently considers a complete list of the works of ,melito' #bbh3c4 ,on the contrary1 ,eusebius carefully guards himself against any such interpretation of his words4 ,he merely professes to give a list of 'those works which have come to his own knowledge4' ,obviously he either suspects or knows that there are other writings of ,melito in circulation1 of which he can give no account4 ,again1 other fragments have been discredited1 because they contain false sentiments or foolish interpretations1 which are considered unworthy of a father in the second century4 ,i cannot think that this is any argument at all2 and ,i may confidently assume that the author of ,supernatural ,religion will agree with me here4 ,there is much that is foolish in ,papias1 in ,justin ,martyr1 in ,irenaeus1 in ,tertullian1 even in ,clement of ,alexandria1 and ,origen4 ,only it is frequently mixed up with the highest wisdom1 which more than redeems it4 ,again others 7and among these our author7 would throw doubt on the genuineness of the ,greek and ,syriac fragments which were certainly in circulation some six centuries before1 because some mediaeval ,latin writers attach the name of ,melito to forgeries or to anonymous writings1 such as the ,clavis1 the ,passing away of the ,blessed ,virgin ,mary1 and the ,passion of ,st ,john #bbi3a4 ,a moment's reflection will show that the two classes of writings must be considered quite apart4 ,when these groundless objections are set aside1 the great majority of the ,greek and ,syriac fragments remain untouched4 ,otto1 the most recent editor of ,melito1 takes a sensible view on the whole4 ,i do not agree with him on some minor points1 but ,i am quite content to take the fragments which he accepts1 as representing the genuine ,melito2 and ,i refer those of my readers1 who are really desirous to know what this ancient father taught and how he wrote1 to this editor's collection4 ,we have fortunately the evidence of two writers1 who lived in the next age to ,melito1 and therefore before any spurious works could have been in circulation--the one to his style1 the other to his theology4 ,on the former point our authority is ,tertullian1 who in a work now lost spoke of the 'elegans et declamatorium ingenium' of ,melito #bbi3b2 on the latter1 a writer quoted anonymously by ,eusebius but now identified with ,hippolytus1 who exclaims1 ',who is ignorant of the books of ,irenaeus and ,melito and the rest1 which declare ,christ to be ,god and man' #bcj3a4 ,the fragments1 and more especially the ,syriac fragments1 accord fully with both these descriptions4 ,they are highly rhetorical1 and their superior elegance of language 7compared with other ,christian writings of the same age7 is apparent even through the medium of a ,syriac version4 ,they also emphasize the two natures of ,christ in many a pointed antithesis4 ,of the ,greek fragments1 not mentioned by ,eusebius1 the following quoted by ,anastasius of ,sinai as from the third book on the ,incarnation of ,christ #bcj3b is important in its bearing on our subject3-- ,the things done by ,christ after the baptism1 and especially the miracles 7signs71 showed his ,godhead concealed in the flesh1 and assured the world of it4 ,for being perfect ,god1 and perfect man at the same time1 ,he assured us of ,his two essences 7,greek3 ousias7--of ,his ,godhead by miracles in the three years after ,his baptism1 and of ,his manhood in the thirty seasons 7,greek3 chronois7 before ,his baptism1 during which1 owing to his immaturity as regards the flesh 7,greek3 dia to ateles to kata sarka71 ,he concealed the signs of ,his ,godhead1 although ,he was true ,god from eternity 7,greek3 kaiper ,theos alethes proaionios huparchon74 ,the genuineness of this fragment has been impugned1 partly on the general considerations which have been already discussed1 partly on special grounds4 ,it has been said1 for instance1 that ,anastasius must here be reproducing the general substance1 and not the exact words1 of ,melito's statement2 but he at all events gives it as a direct quotation4 ,it has been urged again1 that linguistic reasons condemn this fragment1 since the use of 'seasons' or 'times' for 'years' betrays a later age2 but abundant instances of the use are found in earlier writers1 even if so very natural a device for avoiding the repetition of the same word 7,greek3 etos7 needed any support at all4 ,it has been suggested that there may possibly be some confusion between ,melito and ,meletius4 ,but the work from which this passage comes is distinctly stated by ,anastasius to have been written against ,marcion1 who by his docetism attacked the true humanity of ,christ4 ,now ,melito lived in the very thick of the ,marcionite controversy1 and must have taken his part in it4 ,on the other hand1 ,meletius1 who held the see of ,antioch in the latter part of the fourth century1 was one of the principal figures in the ,arian controversy and1 as such1 far too intimately involved in the questions of his own day to think of writing an elaborate work on a subject so comparatively dead as the docetism of ,marcion4 ,moreover1 there is no instance in any ,greek writer1 so far as ,i have observed1 of a confusion between the names ,melito and ,meletius4 ,again it is suggested that the ,christological views of the writer are too definite for the age of ,melito1 and point to a later date2 but to this the distinct statement of ,hippolytus respecting ,melito's opinions1 which has been already quoted1 is a complete answer2 and indeed the ,ignatian ,epistles1 which 7even if their genuineness should not be accepted7 cannot reasonably be placed later than the age of ,melito1 are equally precise in their doctrinal statements4 ,but if this be a genuine fragment1 the inference is obvious4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion will no doubt be ready here1 as elsewhere1 to postulate any number of unknown apocryphal ,gospels which shall supply the facts thus assumed by ,melito4 ,the convenience of drawing unlimited cheques on the bank of the unknown is obvious4 ,but most readers will find themselves unable to resist the inference1 that for the thirty years of our ,lord's silence this father is indebted to a familiar passage in ,st ,luke #bca3a1 while1 in fixing three years as the duration of ,his ministry1 he is thinking of the three ,passovers mentioned by ,st ,john4 ,of the other fragments ascribed to ,melito one deserves to be quoted1 not only because the author has made it the subject of some criticisms1 but because it exhibits in a concentrated form ,melito's views of evangelical history and doctrine #bcb3a4 ,we have made collections from the ,law and the ,prophets relating to those things which are declared concerning our ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 that we might prove to your love that ,he is the perfect ,reason1 the ,word of ,god3 who was begotten before the light1 who was ,creator together with the ,father1 who was the fashioner of man1 who was all things in all1 who among the patriarchs was ,patriarch1 who in the law was ,law1 among the priests ,chief-priest1 among the kings ,governor1 among the prophets ,prophet1 among the angels ,archangel1 and among voices #bcb3b the ,word1 among spirits the ,spirit1 in the ,father the ,son1 in ,god ,god1 the ,king for ever and ever4 ,for this is ,he who was pilot to ,noah1 who conducted ,abraham1 who was bound with ,isaac1 who was in exile with ,jacob1 who was sold with ,joseph1 who was captain with ,moses1 who was divider of the inheritance with ,joshua the son of ,nun1 who foretold ,his own sufferings in ,david and the prophets1 who was incarnate in the ,virgin1 who was born at ,bethlehem1 who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger1 who was seen of the shepherds1 who was glorified of the ,angels1 who was worshipped by the ,magi1 who was pointed out by ,john1 who gathered together the ,apostles1 who preached the ,kingdom1 who healed the maimed1 who gave light to the blind1 who raised the dead1 who appeared in the temple1 who was not believed on by the people1 who was betrayed by ,judas1 who was laid hold on by the priests1 who was condemned by ,pilate1 who was transfixed in the flesh1 who was hanged on the tree1 who was buried in the earth1 who rose from the dead1 who appeared to the ,apostles1 who ascended into heaven1 who sitteth on the right hand of the ,father1 who is the rest of those that are departed1 the recoverer of those that are lost1 the light of those that are in darkness1 the deliverer of those that are captives1 the guide of those that have gone astray1 the refuge of the afflicted1 the ,bridegroom of the ,church1 the ,charioteer of the ,cherubim1 the ,captain of the ,angels1 ,god who is of ,god1 the ,son who is of the ,father1 ,jesus ,christ1 the ,king for ever and ever4 ,amen4 ,this fragment is not in any way exceptional4 ,the references to evangelical history1 the modes of expression1 the statements of doctrine1 all have close parallels scattered through the other fragments ascribed to ,melito4 ,indeed it is the remarkable resemblance of these fragments to each other in thought and diction 7with one or two exceptions71 though gathered together from writers of various ages1 in ,greek and in ,syriac1 which is a strong argument for their genuineness4 ,but the special value of this particular passage is that it gathers into a focus the facts of the evangelical history1 on which the faith of ,melito rested4 ,and ,i do not think it can be reasonably doubted whence these facts are derived4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion of course suggests some unknown apocryphal ,gospel4 ,but this summary will strike most readers as wonderfully like what a writer might be expected to make who recognized our four canonical ,gospels as the sources of evangelical truth4 ,and1 when they remember that within a very few years 7some twenty at most7 ,irenaeus1 who was then a man past middle life1 who had intimate relations with the region in which ,melito lived1 and who appeals again and again to the ,asiatic ,elders as his chief authorities for the traditional doctrine and practice1 declares in perfect good faith that the ,church had received these four1 and these only1 from the beginning1 it will probably seem to them irrational to look elsewhere1 when the solution is so very obvious4 ,but the author of ,supernatural ,religion writes that this fragment taken from a treatise ,on ,faith1 together with another which purports to be a work on the ,soul and ,body1 though these two works 'are mentioned by ,eusebius1' must nevertheless 'for every reason be pronounced spurious' #bcc3a4 ,let us see what these reasons are4 #a4 ,he writes first3 ,they have in fact no attestation whatever except that of the ,syriac translation1 which is unknown1 and which therefore is worthless4 ,the fact is that in a very vast number of literary remains1 classical and ecclesiastical1 whether excerpts or entire works1 we are entirely dependent on the scribe for their authentication4 ,human experience has shown that such authentication is generally trustworthy1 and hence it is accepted4 ,in forty-nine cases out of fifty1 or probably more1 it is found to be satisfactory1 and a priori probabilities are very strongly against the assumption that any particular case is this fiftieth exception4 ,if there is substantial ground for suspicion1 the suspicion has its weight1 but not otherwise4 ,a man who would act on any other principle is as unreasonable as a visitor to ,london1 who refuses to believe or trust any one there1 because the place is known to harbour thieves and liars4 #b4 ,we come therefore to the positive grounds of our author's suspicions1 and here he tells us that-- ,the whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything else of ,melito's time1 and clearly indicate a later stage of theological development4 ,it is to be regretted that he has not explained himself more fully on this point4 ,i have already pointed out that the theology and the style of these fragments generally are exactly what the notices of ,hippolytus and ,tertullian would lead us to expect in ,melito4 ,and this is especially true of the passage under consideration4 ,what the 'later stage of theological development' indicated may be1 ,i am unable to say4 ,on the contrary1 the leading conception of this passage1 which sees all theology through the medium of the ,logos1 and therefore identifies all the theophanies in the ,old ,testament with the ,person of ,christ1 though it lingers on through the succeeding ages1 is essentially characteristic of the second century4 ,the apologists generally exhibit this phenomenon2 but in none is it more persistent than in ,justin ,martyr1 who wrote a quarter of a century before ,melito4 ,even the manner in which the conception is worked out by ,melito has striking parallels in ,justin4 ,thus ,justin states that this ,divine ,power1 who was begotten by ,god before all creation1 is called sometimes 'the glory of the ,lord1 sometimes ,son1 sometimes ,wisdom1 sometimes ,god1 sometimes ,lord and ,word1 while sometimes ,he calls ,himself ,chief-captain 7,greek3 archistrategos71 appearing in the form of man to ,joshua the son of ,nun 7,greek3 to tou ,naue ,iesou7' #bce3a4 ,elsewhere he states that ,christ is ',king and ,priest and ,god and ,lord and ,angel and ,man and ,chief-captain and ,stone1' etc41 and he undertakes to show this 'from all the ,scriptures' #bce3b4 ,and again1 in a third passage he says that the same ,person1 who is called ,son of ,god in the memoirs of the ,apostles1 went forth from the ,father before all created things through ,his power and counsel1' being designated ',wisdom and ,day and ,orient and ,sword and ,stone and ,staff and ,jacob and ,israel1 now in one way1 and now in another1 in the sayings of the prophets1' and that ',he became man through the ,virgin' #bce3c4 ,nor do these passages stand alone4 ,this same conception pervades the whole of ,justin's ,dialogue1 and through it all the phenomena of the ,old ,testament are explained4 ,only on one point has our author thought fit to make a definite statement4 ',it is worthy of remark1' he writes1 'that the ,virgin is introduced into all these fragments the five ,syriac fragments which he has mentioned just before in a manner quite foreign to the period at which ,melito lived4' ,what can this mean8 ,in the passage before us the only allusion to the subject is in the words 'incarnate in the ,virgin' 7or 'a virgin'72 and the references in the other fragments are of the same kind4 ,it is difficult to see how any one1 recognizing the statements of the ,synoptic ,gospels1 could pass over the mention of the ,virgin more lightly4 ,here again1 if he will turn to ,justin ,martyr1 he will find a far fuller and more emphatic reference #bcf3a4 #c4 ,but our author states also3 ,in the ,mechitarist ,library at ,venice there is a shorter version of the same passage in a ,syriac ,,ms1 and an ,armenian version of the extract as given above1 in both of which the passage is distinctly ascribed to ,irenaeus4 ,this is a fact of some importance1 to which he has rightly directed attention4 ,it would have been well if he had been a little more accurate in his statement4 ,the extract in the ,armenian version 7of which the shorter ,syriac form is obviously an abridgment71 though mainly the same as our passage1 begins in quite a different way4 ,while ,melito commences1 ',we have made collections from the ,law and the ,prophets relating to those things which are declared concerning our ,lord ,jesus ,christ1' etc41 as quoted above1 the ,armenian extract1 ascribed to ,irenaeus1 runs thus3 ',the ,law and the ,prophets and the ,evangelists have declared that ,christ was born of a virgin and suffered on the cross1 and that he was raised from the dead1 and ascended into heaven1 and was glorified and reigneth for ever4 ,the same is called the perfect ,reason1 the ,word of ,god1' etc4 #bcf3b4 ,now it is obvious from a comparison of these two openings1 that in the former1 ascribed to ,melito1 we have the passage in its original setting1 whereas in the latter1 ascribed to ,irenaeus1 it has been altered to suit some other context or to explain itself independently4 ,the reference to the author and the occasion of writing is omitted1 while the ',evangelists' are introduced by the side of 'the ,law and the ,prophets' for the sake of completeness4 ,melito1 as we happen to know1 did make such a collection of extracts from the ,law and the ,prophets as is here mentioned1 and for the very purpose which is here stated2 and the correspondence of language in this opening passage with the dedication of his collection to ,onesimus1 referred to above1 is sufficiently striking4 ,to ,melito therefore evidence1 internal and external alike1 requires us to ascribe the passage4 ,but1 if so1 how came the name of ,irenaeus to be attached to it8 ,was this mere accident8 ,i think not4 ,nothing would be more natural than that ,irenaeus should introduce a passage of ,melito1 as a famous ,asiatic elder1 either anonymously or otherwise1 into one of his own writings4 ,i have already had occasion to refer to the free use which the early fathers made of their predecessors1 frequently without any acknowledgement #bcg3a4 ,in this particular case1 ,irenaeus may or may not have acknowledged his obligation4 ,i venture to think that this solution of the double ascription will appear not only plausible1 but probable1 when ,i mention another fact4 ,in a second ,armenian extract ,i find a passage headed1 ',the saying of ,irenaeus' #bcg3b4 ,i turn to the passage1 and ,i find that it contains not the words of ,irenaeus himself1 but of ,papias quoted by ,irenaeus4 ,in the ,armenian extract the name of the original author has entirely disappeared1 though in this case ,irenaeus directly mentions ,papias as his authority4 ,the attitude of ,melito towards the ,apostle of the ,gentiles appears clearly enough from the title of one of his works1 ',on the ,obedience of ,faith1' which is a characteristic expression of ,st ,paul #bcg3c1 and also from occasional coincidences of language1 such as 'putting on the form of a servant' #bcg3d4 ,,claudius ,,apollinaris1 bishop of ,hierapolis1 was a contemporary of ,melito1 but apparently a younger man1 though only by a very few years4 ,his date is fixed approximately by the extant notices4 ,he addressed an ,apology to the ,emperor ,m4 ,aurelius1 who reigned from ,a4,d4 #afa-ahj2 and as in this work he mentioned the incident of the so-called ,thundering ,legion1 which happened between ,a4,d4 #agb-agd1 it cannot have been written before that date #bch3a4 ,at the same time there are some reasons1 though not conclusive1 for thinking that it should not be placed much later #bch3b4 ,on the other hand1 when ,serapion writes towards the close of the century1 he speaks of ,apollinaris as no longer living2 and judging from the language used1 we may infer that his death had not been very recent #bch3c4 ,like ,melito1 he was a voluminous writer4 ,eusebius indeed only gives the titles of four works by this father1 the ,apology 7already mentioned71 ,against the ,greeks 7five treatises or books71 ,on ,truth 7two books71 ,against the ,jews 7two books71 besides referring to certain writings ,against the ,montanists ,greek3 kata tes ,phrugon haireseos1 which he places later than the others4 ,but he is careful to say that his list comprises only those works which he had seen1 and that many others were extant in different quarters #bch3d4 ,photius mentions reading three works only by this father1 of which one1 the treatise ,on ,godliness1 is not in ,eusebius' list2 but he too adds1 ',other writings of this author also are said to be notable1 but ,i have not hitherto met with them' #bch3e4 ,besides these1 the author of the ,paschal ,chronicle quotes from a treatise of ,apollinaris ,on the ,paschal ,festival #bch3f1 and ,theodoret speaks of his writing against the ,severians or ,encratites #bch3g4 ,as in the case of ,melito1 the character and variety of his works1 so long as they were extant1 must have afforded ample material for a judgment on his theological views4 ,more especially his writings against the ,montanists and on the ,paschal ,festival would indicate his relations to the ,canonical books of the ,new ,testament4 ,his orthodoxy is attested by ,serapion1 by ,eusebius1 by ,jerome1 by ,theodoret1 by ,socrates1 and by ,photius #bci3a1 from different points of view4 ,besides a reference in ,eusebius to his ,apology1 which hardly deserves the name of a quotation1 only two short extracts remain of these voluminous writings4 ,they are taken from the work on the ,paschal ,festival1 and are preserved1 as ,i have already stated1 in the ,paschal ,chronicle4 ,the first runs as follows3-- ,there are persons who from ignorance dispute about these questions1 acting in a way that is pardonable2 for ignorance is no proper subject for blame1 but needs instruction4 ,and they say that on the fourteenth the ,lord ate the lamb 7,greek3 to probaton7 with ,his disciples1 but ,himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread1 and they affirm that ,matthew represents it so1 as they interpret him4 ,thus their interpretation is out of harmony with the law 7,greek3 asumphonos nomo71 and on their showing the ,gospels seem to be at variance with one another 7,greek3 stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia74 ,the second fragment is taken from the same book1 and apparently from the same context4 ,the fourteenth was the true passover of the ,lord1 the great sacrifice1 the ,son of ,god substituted for the lamb1 the same that was bound and ,himself bound the strong man1 that was judged being judge of the quick and dead1 and that was delivered into the hands of sinners to be crucified2 the same that was lifted on the horns of the unicorn1 and that was pierced in ,his holy side2 the same that poured forth again the two purifying elements1 water and blood1 word and spirit1 and that was buried on the day of the passover1 the stone being laid against ,his sepulchre4 ,if the publication of this work was suggested by ,melito's treatise on the same subject1 as seems probable1 it must have been written about ,a4,d4 #afd-aff1 or soon after4 ,the references to the ,gospels are obvious4 ,in the first extract ,apollinaris has in view the difficulty of reconciling the chronology of the ,paschal week as given by ,st ,john with the narratives of the ,synoptic ,evangelists2 and he asserts that the date fixed for the ,passion by some persons 7the #aeth instead of #adth7 can only be maintained at the expense of a discrepancy between the two accounts2 whereas1 if the #adth be taken1 the two accounts are reconcilable4 ,at the same time he urges that their view is not in harmony with the law1 since the paschal lamb1 the type1 was slain on the #adth1 and therefore it follows that ,christ1 the antitype1 must have been crucified on the same day4 ,i am not concerned here with the question whether ,apollinaris or his opponents were right4 ,the point to be noticed is that he speaks of 'the ,gospels' 7under which term he includes at least ,st ,matthew and ,st ,john7 as any one would speak of received documents to which the ultimate appeal lies4 ,his language in this respect is such as might be used by a writer in the fourth century1 or in the nineteenth1 who was led by circumstances to notice a difficulty in harmonizing the accounts of the ,evangelists4 ,the second extract bears out the impression left by the first4 ,the incident of the water and the blood is taken from the ,fourth ,gospel2 but a theological interpretation is forced upon it which cannot have been intended by the ,evangelist4 ,some time must have elapsed before the narrative could well be made the subject of a speculative comment like this4 ,thus both extracts alike suggest that the ,fourth ,gospel was already a time-honoured book when they were written4 ,but the author of ,supernatural ,religion meets the inference by denying the genuineness of the extracts4 ,i hardly think1 however1 that he can have seen what havoc he was making in his own ranks by this movement4 ,he elsewhere asserts very decidedly 7without however giving reasons7 that the ,quartodeciman controversy turned on the point whether the #adth ,nisan was the day of the ,last ,supper or the day of the ,crucifixion1 the ,quartodecimans maintaining the former #bdj3a4 ,in other words1 he believes that it was the anniversary1 not of the ,passion1 but of the ,last ,supper1 which the ,quartodecimans kept so scrupulously on the #adth1 and that therefore1 as they pleaded the authority of ,st ,john for their practice1 the ,fourth ,gospel cannot have been written by this ,apostle1 since it represents the ,passion as taking place on the #adth4 ,as ,i have before intimated1 this view of the ,paschal dispute seems to me to be altogether opposed to the general tenor of the evidence4 ,but it depends1 for such force or plausibility as it has1 almost solely on these fragments from ancient writers quoted in the ,paschal ,chronicle1 of which the extracts from ,apollinaris are the most important4 ,if therefore he refuses to accept the testimony of the ,paschal ,chronicle to their authorship1 he undermines the very foundation on which his theory rests4 ,on this inconsistency however ,i need not dwell4 ,the authorship of these extracts was indeed questioned by some earlier writers #bda3a1 but on entirely mistaken grounds2 and at the present time the consensus among critics of the most opposite schools is all but universal4 ',on the genuineness of these fragments1 which ,neander questioned1 there is now no more dispute1 writes ,scholten #bdb3a4 ,our author however is far too persistent to let them pass4 ,their veracity has once been questioned1 and therefore they shall never again be suffered to enter the witness-box4 ,it may be presumed that he has alleged those arguments against their genuineness which seemed to him to be the strongest1 and ,i will therefore consider his objections4 ,they are twofold4 #a4 ,he urges that the external testimony to their authorship is defective4 ,his reasoning is as follows #bdb3b3-- ,eusebius was acquainted with the work of ,melito on the ,passion1 and quotes it1 which must have referred to his contemporary and antagonist1 ,apollinaris1 had he written such a work as this fragment denotes4 ,not only1 however1 does ,eusebius know nothing of his having composed such a work1 but neither do ,theodoret1 ,jerome1 ,photius1 nor other writers1 who enumerate other of his works2 nor is he mentioned in any way by ,clement of ,alexandria1 ,irenaeus1 nor by any of those who took part in the great controversy4 ,here is a tissue of fallacies and assumptions4 ,in the first place1 it is a petitio principii1 as will be seen presently1 that ,apollinaris was an antagonist of ,melito4 ,even1 if this were so1 there is not the smallest evidence1 nor any probability1 that ,apollinaris would have written before ,melito1 so that the latter could have quoted him4 ,how1 again1 has our author learnt that ,eusebius 'knows nothing of his having composed such a work'8 ,it is certain1 indeed1 that ,eusebius had not seen the work when he composed his list of the writings of ,apollinaris2 but it nowhere appears that he was unaware of its existence4 ,the very language in which he disclaims any pretension of giving a complete list seems to imply that he had observed other books quoted in other writers1 which he had not read or seen himself4 ,theodoret does not 'enumerate other of his works1' as the looseness of the ,english would suggest to the reader4 ,he only mentions incidentally1 when describing the sects of the ,severians and ,montanists respectively1 that ,apollinaris had written against them #bdc3a4 ,there is not the smallest reason why he should have gone out of his way in either passage to speak of the work on the ,paschal ,festival1 supposing him to have known of it4 ,and if not1 where else does our author find in ,theodoret any notice which can be made to yield the inference that he was unacquainted with this treatise8 ,nor again does ,jerome1 in the passage to which our author refers in his note #bdc3b1 allude to a single work by this writer1 but simply mentions him by name among those versed in profane as well as sacred literature4 ,elsewhere indeed he does give a catalogue of ,apollinaris' writings #bdc3c1 but there he simply copies ,eusebius4 ,with regard to ,photius again1 the statement1 though not so directly inaccurate1 is altogether misleading4 ,photius simply mentions three works of ,apollinaris1 which he read during his embassy1 but he does not profess to give a list2 and he says distinctly that there were other famous works by the same author which he had not seen4 ,who the 'other writers' may be1 who 'enumerate other of his works1' ,i am altogether at a loss to imagine4 ,but the last sentence1 ',nor is he mentioned in any way by ,clement of ,alexandria1 ,irenaeus1 etc41' is the most calculated to mislead the reader4 ,of the treatise of ,clement on the ,paschal ,festival only two short fragments are preserved4 ,he does not mention any person in these1 nor could he have done so without going out of his way4 ,for the rest1 ,clement is reported by ,eusebius to have stated in his work that he was prompted to write it by ,melito's treatise on the same subject #bdc3d4 ,eusebius is there discussing ,melito1 and any mention of ,apollinaris would have been quite out of place4 ,what ground is there then for the assumption that ,clement did not mention ,apollinaris1 because ,eusebius has not recorded the fact8 ,when at a later point ,eusebius comes to speak of ,clement1 he says of this father that in the treatise of which we are speaking he 'mentions ,melito and ,irenaeus and certain others1 whose explanations also he has given' #bdd3a4 ,why may not ,apollinaris have been included among these 'certain others' whom ,clement quoted8 ,the same fallacy underlies our author's reference to ,irenaeus4 ,the work of ,irenaeus is lost4 ,eusebius1 it is true1 preserves some very meagre fragments #bdd3b2 but in these not a single writer on either side in the ,quartodeciman controversy is mentioned1 not even ,melito4 ,irenaeus may have quoted ,apollinaris by name in this lost treatise1 just as he quotes ,papias by name in his extant work on heresies1 where nevertheless ,eusebius does not care to record the fact4 ,all this assumed silence of writers whose works are lost is absolutely valueless against the direct and explicit testimony of the ,paschal ,chronicle4 #b4 ,but secondly2 our author considers that the contents of these fragments are inconsistent with their attribution to ,apollinaris4 ,his argument is instructive #bdd3c4 ,it is stated that all the ,churches of ,asia1 including some of the most distinguished members of the ,church1 such as ,polycarp1 and his own contemporary ,melito1 celebrated the ,christian festival on the #adth ,nisan1 the practice almost universal1 therefore1 in the country in which ,claudius ,apollinaris is supposed to write this fragment4 ,how is it possible1 therefore1 that this isolated convert to the views of ,victor and the ,roman ,church could write of so vast and distinguished a majority as 'some who through ignorance raised contentions' on this point1 when notably all the ,asiatic ,churches at that time were agreed to keep the fourteenth of ,nisan1 and in doing so raised no new contention at all1 but1 as ,polycrates represented1 followed the tradition handed down to them from their fathers1 and authorized by the practice of the ,apostle ,john himself8 with more to the same effect4 ,i will hand over this difficulty to those who share our author's views on the point at issue in the ,quartodeciman controversy4 ,certainly ,i cannot suggest any satisfactory mode of escape from the dilemma which is here put4 ,but what1 if the writer of these fragments was not an 'isolated convert to the views of ,victor1' but a ,quartodeciman himself8 ,what1 if the ,quartodecimans kept the #adth1 not as the commemoration of the last ,supper1 but of the ,passion1 so that ,melito himself would have heartily assented to the criticisms in these fragments8 #bde3a ,this is the obvious view suggested by the account of the controversy in ,eusebius1 and in ,irenaeus as quoted by ,eusebius2 and it gains confirmation from these fragments of ,apollinaris4 ,it seems to me highly improbable that ,apollinaris should have been an exception to the practice of the ,asiatic ,churches4 ,so far ,i agree with our author4 ,but this is a reason for questioning the soundness of his own views on the ,quartodeciman controversy1 rather than for disputing the genuineness of the fragments attributed to ,apollinaris4 ,after this account of ,melito and ,apollinaris1 the two chief representatives of the later school of ,st ,john1 it will be worth while to call attention to a statement of ,irenaeus in which he professes to record the opinion of the ,asiatic elders on a point intimately affecting the credibility of the ,fourth ,gospel1 the chronology of our ,lord's life and ministry #bde3b4 ,the ,valentinians1 against whom this father is arguing1 sought for analogies to the thirty aeons of their pleroma1 or supra-sensual world1 in the ,gospel history4 ,among other examples they alleged the thirty years' duration of our ,lord's life4 ,this computation of the ,gospel chronology they derived from the notices in ,st ,luke as interpreted by themselves4 ,at the commencement of ,his ministry1 so they maintained1 ,he had completed ,his twenty-ninth and was entering upon ,his thirtieth year1 and ,his ministry itself did not extend beyond a twelve-month1 'the acceptable year of the ,lord' foretold by the prophet4 ,irenaeus expresses his astonishment that persons professing to understand the deep things of ,god should have overlooked the commonest facts of the evangelical narrative1 and points to the three passovers recorded in ,st ,john's ,gospel during the term of our ,lord's ministry4 ,independently of the chronology of the ,fourth ,gospel1 ,irenaeus has an a priori reason of his own1 why the ,saviour must have lived more than thirty years4 ,he came to sanctify every period of life--infancy1 childhood1 youth1 declining age4 ,it was therefore necessary that ,he should have passed the turn of middle life4 ,from thirty to forty1 he argues1 a man is still reckoned young 7juvenis74 ,but from his fortieth and fiftieth year he is already declining into older age1 which was the case with our ,lord when he taught1 as the ,gospel and all the elders who associated with ,john the disciple of the ,lord in ,asia testify that ,john delivered this account4 ,for he remained with them till the times of ,trajan4 ,but some of them saw not only ,john1 but other ,apostles also1 and heard these same things from their lips1 and bear testimony to such an account4 ,irenaeus then goes on to argue that the same may be inferred from the language of our ,lord's ,jewish opponents1 who asked3 ',thou art not yet fifty years old1 and hast thou seen ,abraham8' ,this1 he maintains1 could not properly be said of one who was only thirty years of age1 and must imply that the person so addressed had passed his fortieth year at least1 and probably that he was not far off his fiftieth4 ,on this passage it must be remarked that the ,valentinian chronology was derived from a prima facie interpretation of the ,synoptic narrative2 whereas the ,asiatic reckoning1 which ,irenaeus maintains1 was1 or might well have been1 founded on the ,fourth ,gospel1 but could not possibly have been elicited from the first three ,gospels independently of the fourth4 ,on this question generally ,i have spoken already in a former paper #bdg3a4 ,though it seems probable that our ,lord's ministry was confined to three years1 yet there is not a single notice in any of the four ,gospels inconsistent with the hypothesis that it extended over a much longer period1 and that ,he was some forty years old at all events at the time of the ,passion4 ,the ,synoptic narratives say absolutely nothing about the interval which elapsed between the ,baptism and the ,passion4 ,st ,john mentions three passovers1 but he nowhere intimates that he has given an exhaustive list of these festivals4 ,the account of ,irenaeus therefore is not so unreasonable after all2 and we need not have hesitated to accept it1 if there had been any definite grounds for doing so4 ,it will be seen however1 that ,irenaeus1 while maintaining that our ,lord was forty years old1 grounds his opinion mainly on a false inference from ,john viii4 #eg4 ,at the same time he adduces the testimony of the ,gospel and 'all the elders1' not for this particular view of our ,lord's age1 but for the more general statement that ,he was past middle life2 and this vagueness of language suggests that1 though their testimony was distinctly on his side as against the ,valentinians1 it did not go beyond this4 ,it is very far from improbable indeed1 that he borrowed this very interpretation of ,john viii4 #eg from one of these ,asiatic elders1 just as we have seen him #bdg3b elsewhere borrowing an interpretation of another passage of this ,gospel 7xiv4 #b7 from the same source4 ,but1 as he has here forced the testimony of the ,fourth ,gospel to say more than it really does say1 so also he may have strained the testimony of 'all the elders' in the same direction4 ,yet the broad fact remains that he confidently appeals to them in support of a chronology suggested by the ,fourth ,gospel1 but certainly not deducible from the ,synoptic narratives4 ,and the extant remains of this school support the appeal so qualified4 ,we have seen that its two most famous authors1 ,melito and ,apollinaris1 distinctly follow the chronology of the ,fourth ,evangelist1 the one in the duration of the ,lord's ministry1 the other in the events of the ,paschal week #bdh3a4 ,of the special references to these fathers of the ,asiatic ,church1 which appear elsewhere in ,irenaeus1 it is sufficient to say that in one instance an elder is represented as quoting a saying of our ,lord contained only in the ,gospel of ,st ,john #bdh3b while the words ascribed to another are most probably suggested by the language of the same ,evangelist #bdh3c4 ,this latter elder1 whose speculations are given at great length1 also introduces two direct quotations from ,st ,paul's ,epistles1 and treats the ,apostle's authority throughout as beyond dispute #bdh3d4 ,the last father of the ,asiatic school1 whom it will be necessary to mention1 is ,,polycrates1 bishop of ,ephesus4 ,when ,victor of ,rome in the closing years of the second century attempted to force the ,western usage with respect to ,easter on the ,asiatic ,christians1 ,polycrates wrote to remonstrate4 ,the letter is unhappily lost1 but a valuable extract is preserved by ,eusebius #bdh3e4 ,in this the writer claims to speak authoritatively on the subject of dispute1 owing to the special opportunities which he had enjoyed4 ,he states that he had received the observance of the #adth by tradition from his relations1 of whom seven had been bishops2 he says that he had conferred with the brethren from all parts of the world2 and he adds that he had 'gone through every holy scripture4' ,when we remember the question at issue1 and recall the language of ,apollinaris respecting the ,gospels1 in writing on the same subject1 we see what is implied in this last sentence4 ,the extract1 which is short1 contains only two references to the writings of the ,new ,testament4 ,the one is to the ,fourth ,gospel2 ,st ,john is described in the very words of this ,gospel1 as 'he that leaned on the bosom of the ,lord' 7,greek3 ho epi to stethos tou ,kuriou anapeson7 #bdi3a4 ,the other is to a book of the ,pauline cycle1 the ,acts of the ,apostles2 ',they that are greater than ,i1' writes ,polycrates1 'have said1 ,we must obey ,god rather than men' #bdi3b4 ,we have now reached the close of the second century1 and it is not necessary to pursue the history of the ,school of ,st ,john in their ,asiatic home beyond this point4 ,but in the meantime a large and flourishing colony had been established in the cities of southern ,gaul1 and no account of the traditions of the school would be adequate which failed to take notice of this colony4 ,this part of the subject however must be left for a subsequent paper4 ,meanwhile the inferences from the notices passed under review cannot1 ,i think1 be doubtful4 ,out of a very extensive literature1 by which this school was once represented1 the extant remains are miserably few and fragmentary2 but the evidence yielded by these meagre relies is decidedly greater1 in proportion to their extent1 than we had any right to expect4 ,as regards the ,fourth ,gospel1 this is especially the case4 ,if the same amount of written matter--occupying a very few pages in all--were extracted accidentally from the current theological literature of our own day1 the chances1 unless ,i am mistaken1 would be strongly against our finding so many indications of the use of this ,gospel4 ,in every one of the writers1 from ,polycarp and ,papias to ,polycrates1 we have observed phenomena which bear witness directly or indirectly1 and with different degrees of distinctness1 to its recognition4 ,it is quite possible for critical ingenuity to find a reason for discrediting each instance in turn4 ,an objector may urge in one case1 that the writing itself is a forgery2 in a second1 that the particular passage is an interpolation2 in a third1 that the supposed quotation is the original and the language of the ,evangelist the copy2 in a fourth1 that the incident or saying was not deduced from this ,gospel but from some apocryphal work1 containing a parallel narrative4 ,by a sufficient number of assumptions1 which lie beyond the range of verification1 the evidence may be set aside4 ,but the early existence and recognition of the ,fourth ,gospel is the one simple postulate which explains all the facts4 ,the law of gravitation accounts for the various phenomena of motion1 the falling of a stone1 the jet of a fountain1 the orbits of the planets1 and so forth4 ,it is quite possible for any one1 who is so disposed1 to reject this explanation of nature4 ,provided that he is allowed to postulate a new force for every new fact with which he is confronted1 he has nothing to fear4 ,he will then gird the sphere ,with centric and eccentric scribbled o'er1 ,cycle and epicycle1 orb in orb1 happy in his immunity4 ,but the other theory will prevail nevertheless by reason of its simplicity4 ,,viii4 ,,the ,,churches ,,of ,,gaul4 ,,august1 #ahgf4 ,in the preceding papers ,i have investigated the testimony borne by the ,churches of ,asia ,minor to the ,canonical ,gospels1 and more especially to the ,fourth ,evangelist4 ,the peculiar value of this testimony is due to the close personal relations of these communities with the latest surviving ,apostles1 more particularly with ,st ,john4 ,at the same time ,i took occasion incidentally to remark on their attitude towards ,st ,paul and his writings1 because an assumed antagonism between the ,apostle of the ,gentiles and the ,twelve has been adopted by a modern school of critics as the basis for a reconstruction of early ,christian history4 ,i purpose in the present paper extending this investigation to the ,churches of ,gaul4 ,the ,christianity of ,gaul was in some sense the daughter of the ,christianity of ,asia ,minor4 ,of the history of the ,gallican ,churches before the middle of the second century we have no certain information4 ,it seems fairly probable indeed that1 when we read in the ,apostolic age of a mission of ,crescens to ',galatia' or ',gaul' #bea3a1 the western country is meant rather than the ,asiatic settlement which bore the same name2 and1 if so1 this points to some relations with ,st ,paul himself4 ,but1 even though this explanation should be accepted1 the notice stands quite alone4 ,later tradition indeed supplements it with legendary matter1 but it is impossible to say what substratum of fact1 if any1 underlies these comparatively recent stories4 ,the connection between the southern parts of ,gaul and the western districts of ,asia ,minor had been intimate from very remote times4 ,gaul was indebted for her earliest civilization to her ,greek settlements like ,marseilles1 which had been colonized from ,asia ,minor some six centuries before the ,christian era2 and close relations appear to have been maintained even to the latest times4 ,during the ,roman period the people of ,marseilles still spoke the ,greek language familiarly along with the vernacular ,celtic of the native population and the official ,latin of the dominant power #beb3a4 ,when therefore ,christianity had established her head-quarters in ,asia ,minor1 it was not unnatural that the ,gospel should flow in the same channels which had already conducted the civilization and the commerce of the ,asiatic ,greeks westward4 ,at all events1 whatever we may think of the antecedent probabilities1 the fact itself can hardly be disputed4 ,in the year ,a4,d4 #agg1 under ,marcus ,aurelius1 a severe persecution broke out on the banks of the ,rhone in the cities of ,vienne and ,lyons--a persecution which by its extent and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the ,churches in these places4 ,to this incident we owe the earliest extant historical notice of ,christianity in ,gaul4 ,a contemporary record of the martyrdoms on this occasion is preserved in the form of a letter from the persecuted ,churches1 addressed to 'the brethren that are in ,asia and ,phrygia' #beb3b4 ,the communities thus addressed1 it will be observed1 belong to the district in which ,st ,john's influence was predominant1 and which produced all the writers of his school who have been discussed in the preceding papers--,polycarp1 ,papias1 ,melito1 ,apollinaris1 ,polycrates4 ,of the references to the ,canonical ,scriptures in this letter ,i shall speak presently4 ,for the moment it is sufficient to say that the very fact of their addressing the communication to these distant ,churches shows the closeness of the ties which connected the ,christians in ,gaul with their ,asiatic brethren4 ,moreover1 in the body of the letter it is incidentally stated of two of the sufferers1 that they came from ,asia ,minor--,attalus a ,pergamene by birth1 and ,alexander a physician from ,phrygia who 'had lived many years in the provinces of ,gaul2' while nearly all of them bear ,greek names4 ,among these martyrs the most conspicuous was ,pothinus1 the aged bishop of ,lyons1 who was more than ninety years old when he suffered4 ,a later tradition makes him a native of ,asia ,minor #bec3a2 and this would be a highly probable supposition1 even if unsupported by any sort of evidence4 ,indeed it is far from unlikely that the fact was stated in the letter itself1 for ,eusebius has not preserved the whole of it4 ,but whether an ,asiatic ,greek or not1 he must have been a growing boy when ,st ,john died2 and through him the ,churches of ,southern ,gaul1 when they first appear in the full light of history1 are linked directly with the ,apostolic age4 ,immediately after this persecution the intimate alliance between these distant parts of ,christendom was manifested in another way4 ,the ,montanist controversy was raging in the ,church of ,phrygia1 and the brethren of ,gaul communicated to them their views on the controverted points #bec3b4 ,to this communication they appended various letters of the martyrs1 'which they penned1 while yet in bonds1 to the brethren in ,asia and ,phrygia4' ,about the same time the martyrs sent ,irenaeus1 then a presbyter1 as their delegate with letters of recommendation to ,eleutherus1 bishop of ,rome1 for the sake of conferring with him on this same subject #bec3c4 ,some twenty years later1 as the century was drawing to a close1 another controversy broke out1 relating to the observance of ,easter1 in which again the ,asiatic ,churches were mainly concerned2 and here too we find the ,christians of ,gaul interposing with their counsels4 ,when ,victor of ,rome issued his edict of excommunication against the ,churches of ,asia ,minor1 ,irenaeus wrote to remonstrate4 ,the letter sent on this occasion however did not merely represent his own private views1 for we are especially told that he wrote 'in the name of the brethren in ,gaul over whom he presided4' ,nor did he appeal to the ,roman bishop alone1 but he exchanged letters also with 'very many divers rulers of the ,churches concerning the question which had been stirred' #bed3a4 ,bearing these facts in mind1 and inferring from them1 as we have a right to infer1 that the ,churches of ,gaul for the most part inherited the traditions of the ,asiatic school of ,st ,john1 we look with special interest to the documents emanating from these communities4 ,the ,epistle of the brotherhoods in ,vienne and ,lyons1 already mentioned1 is the earliest of these4 ,the main business of the letter is a narrative of contemporary facts1 and any allusions therefore to the ,canonical writings are incidental4 ,but1 though incidental1 they are unequivocal4 ,of the references to ,st ,paul1 for instance1 there can be no doubt4 ,thus the martyrs and confessors are mentioned as 'showing in very truth that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us1' where a sentence containing fourteen words in the ,greek is given verbatim as it stands in ,rom4 viii4 #ah4 ,thus again1 they are described as 'imitators of ,christ1 who being in the form of ,god thought it not robbery to be equal with ,god1' where in like manner a sentence of twelve words stands verbatim as we find it ,phil4 ii4 #f4 ,no one1 ,i venture to think1 will question the source of these passages1 though they are given anonymously and without any signs of quotation4 ,nor can there be any reasonable doubt that when ,attalus the martyr is called 'the pillar and ground' 7,greek3 stulon kai hedraioma7 of the ,christians at ,lyons1 the expression is taken from #a ,tim4 iii4 #ae2 or that when ,alcibiades1 who had hitherto lived on bread and water1 received a revelation rebuking him for 'not using the creatures of ,god1 in obedience to which he 'partook of all things freely and gave thanks to ,god1' there is a reference to #a ,tim4 iv4 #c1 #d4 ,these passages show the attitude of the author or authors of this letter towards ,st ,paul2 but ,i have cited them also as exhibiting the manner of quotation which prevails in this letter1 and thus indicating what we are to expect in other cases4 ,from the third and fourth ,gospels then we find quotations analogous to these4 ,of ,vettius ,epagathus1 one of the sufferers1 we are told1 that though young he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder ,zacharias 7,greek3 sunexisousthai te tou presbuterou ,zachariou marturia71 for verily 7,greek3 goun7 he had walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the ,lord blameless4' ,here we have the same words and in the same order1 which are used of ,zacharias and ,elisabeth in ,st ,luke 7i4 #f74 ,moreover1 it is stated lower down of this same martyr1 that he was 'called the paraclete 7or advocate7 of the ,christians1 having the ,paraclete in himself1 the ,spirit more abundantly than ,zacharias4' ,this maybe compared with ,luke i4 #fg1 ',and ,zacharias his father was filled with the ,holy ,ghost4' ,the meaning of the expression ',the testimony of ,zacharias' 7,greek3 te tou ,zachariou marturia7 has been questioned4 ,it might signify either 'the testimony borne to ,zacharias1' i4e4 his recorded character1 or 'the testimony borne by ,zacharias1' i4e4 his martyrdom4 ,i cannot doubt that the former explanation is correct2 for the connecting particle 7,greek3 goun7 shows that the assertion is intended to find its justification in words which immediately follow1 'he walked in all the commandments1' etc4 ,i need not however dwell on this point1 for the author of ,supernatural ,religion himself adopts this rendering #bee3a4 ,yet with an inconsistency1 of which his book furnishes not a few examples1 though he not only adopts this rendering himself1 but silently ignores the alternative1 he proceeds at once to maintain a hypothesis which is expressly built upon the interpretation thus tacitly rejected4 ,an early tradition or conjecture identified the ,zacharias1 who is mentioned in the ,gospels as having been slain between the temple and the altar 7,matt4 xxiii4 #ce71 with this ,zacharias the father of the ,baptist4 ,and in the extravagant romance called the ,protevangelium1 which is occupied mainly with the birth1 infancy1 and childhood of our ,lord1 the ,baptist's father is represented as slain by ,herod 'at the vestibule of the temple of the ,lord' #bef3a4 ,our author therefore supposes that these ,christians of ,gaul are quoting not from ,st ,luke1 but from some apocryphal ,gospel which gave a similar account of the martyrdom of ,zacharias4 ,whether this identification which ,i have mentioned is true or false it is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire4 ,nor again do ,i care to discuss the question whether or not the authors of this letter accepted it1 and so believed the ,baptist's father to have fallen a martyr4 ,i am disposed on the whole to think that they did4 ,this supposition1 which however must remain uncertain1 would give more point to the parallelism with ,vettius ,epagathus4 ,but it is a matter of little or no moment as regards the point at issue4 ,the quotation found in ,st ,luke's ,gospel has 7according to the interpretation which our author rightly receives7 no reference whatever to the martyrdom2 and therefore affords no ground for the assumption that the document from which it is taken contained any account of or any reference to the death of the ,baptist's father4 ,but1 granting that the writers of this letter assumed the identification 7and this assumption1 whether true or false1 was very natural71 our ,third ,gospel itself does furnish such a reference2 and they would thus find within the limits of this ,gospel everything which they required relating to ,zacharias4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion indeed represents the matter otherwise2 but then he has overlooked an important passage4 ,with a forgetfulness of the contents of the ,gospels which ought surely to suggest some reflections to a critic who cannot understand how the ,fathers1 'utterly uncritical' though they were1 should ever quote any writing otherwise than with the most literal accuracy1 he says1 ',there can be no doubt that the reference to ,zacharias in ,matthew1 in the ,protevangelium1 and in this ,epistle of ,vienne and ,lyons1 is not based upon ,luke1 in which there is no mention of his death' #beg3a4 ,here and throughout this criticism he appears to have forgotten ,luke xi4 #ea1 'the blood of ,zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple4' ,if the death of the ,baptist's father is mentioned in ,st ,matthew1 it is mentioned in ,st ,luke also4 ,but1 if our author disposes of the coincidences with the ,third ,gospel in this way1 what will he say to those with the ,acts8 ,in this same letter of the ,gallican ,churches we are told that the sufferers prayed for their persecutors 'like ,stephen the perfect martyr1 ,lord1 lay not this sin to their charge4' ,will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them another ,acts containing words identical with our ,acts1 just as he supposes them to have had another ,gospel containing words identical with our ,third ,gospel8 ,or will he allow this account to have been taken from ,acts vii4 #fj1 with which it coincides8 ,but in this latter case1 if they had the second treatise which bears the name of ,st ,luke in their hands1 why should they not have had the first also8 ,our author however does not stop here4 ,he maintains that these same writers quoted not only from a double of ,st ,luke1 but from a double of ,st ,john also #beh3a4 ',that was fulfilled1' they write1 'which was spoken by the ,lord1 saying1 ,there shall come a time in which whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth ,god service1' where the words of ,st ,john 7xvi4 #b7 are exactly reproduced1 with the exception that for ',there cometh an hour when' 7,greek3 erchetai hora hina7 they substitute ',there shall come a time in which' 7,greek3 eleusetai kairos en ho4 ,this substitution1 which was highly natural in a quotation from memory1 is magnified by our author into 'very decided variations from the ,fourth ,gospel4' ,he would therefore assign the quotation to some apocryphal gospel which has perished4 ,no such gospel however is known to have existed4 ,moreover this passage occurs in a characteristic discourse of the ,fourth ,gospel1 and the expression itself is remarkable--far more remarkable than it appears in the ,english version 7,greek3 latreian prospherein to ,theo71 not 'to do ,god service1' but 'to offer a religious service to ,god'74 ,i may add also that the mention of the ,spirit as the ,paraclete1 already quoted1 points to the use of this ,gospel by the writers1 and that the letter presents at least one other coincidence with ,st ,john4 ,our author certainly deserves credit for courage4 ,here1 as elsewhere1 he imagines that1 so long as he does not advance anything which is demonstrably impossible1 he may pile one improbability upon another without endangering the stability of his edifice4 ,but even if his account of these evangelical quotations could survive this accumulation of improbabilities1 it will appear absolutely untenable in the light of contemporary fact4 ,irenaeus was the most prominent and learned member of the ,church from which this letter emanated1 at the very time when it was written4 ,according to some modern critics he was the actual composer of the letter2 but for this there is no evidence of any kind4 ,according to our author himself he was the bearer of it #bei3a2 but this statement again is not borne out by facts4 ,there can be no doubt however1 that ,irenaeus was intimately mixed up with all the incidents1 and he cannot have been ignorant of the contents of the letter4 ,now this letter was written ,a4,d4 #agg or1 as our author prefers1 ,a4,d4 #agh1 while ,irenaeus published his third book before ,a4,d4 #aij at all events1 and possibly some years earlier4 ,irenaeus in this book assumes that the ,church from the beginning has recognized our four ,canonical ,gospels1 and these only4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion maintains on the other hand that only twelve years before1 at the outside1 the very ,church to which ,irenaeus belonged1 in a public document with which he was acquainted1 betrays no knowledge of our ,canonical ,gospels1 but quotes from one or more ,apocryphal ,gospels instead4 ,he maintains this though the quotations in question are actually found in our ,canonical ,gospels4 ,here then the inference cannot be doubtful4 ,but what must be the fate of a writer who can thus ride roughshod over plain facts1 when he comes to deal with questions which demand a nice critical insight and a careful weighing of probabilities8 ,from this letter relating to the martyrdoms in ,vienne and ,lyons1 we are led to speak directly of the illustrious ,gallican father1 whose name has already been mentioned several times1 and who is the most important of all witnesses to the ,canonical writings of the ,new ,testament4 ,the great work of ,irenaeus is entitled ,refutation and ,overthrow of ,knowledge falsely so called1 and consists of five books4 ,the third book was published during the episcopate of ,eleutherus1 who was ,bishop of ,rome from about ,a4,d4 #age to ,a4,d4 #aij2 for he is mentioned in it as still living #bfj3a4 ,it must therefore have been written before ,a4,d4 #aij4 ,on the other hand it contains a mention of ,theodotion's version of the ,,lxx #bfj3b2 and ,theodotion's version is stated not to have been published till the reign of ,commodus 7,a4,d4 #ahb-aij74 ,unfortunately ,epiphanius1 the authority mainly relied on by our author and others for this statement1 contradicts himself in this same passage1 which is full of the grossest chronological and historical blunders #bfj3c4 ,no stress therefore can be laid on his statement2 nor indeed can we regard its truth or falsehood as of any real moment for our purpose4 ,it is immaterial whether the third book dates from the earlier or later years of ,eleutherus4 ,as the several books were composed and published separately1 the author of ,supernatural ,religion has a right to suppose1 though he cannot prove1 that the fourth and fifth were written during the episcopate of ,victor 7,a4,d4 #aij-aih or #aii74 ,but in his partiality for late dates he forgets that the weapon which he wields is double-edged4 ,if the fourth and fifth books 'must1' as he confidently asserts1 have been written some years after the third1 it follows by parity of reasoning1 that the first and second must have been written some years before it4 ,yet1 with a strange inconsistency1 he assumes in the very same sentence that the two first books cannot have been written till the latest years of ,eleutherus1 because on his showing the third must date from that epoch #bfa3a4 ,with the respective dates of the several books however we need not concern ourselves2 for they all exhibit the same phenomena1 so far as regards the attitude of the author towards the ,canonical writings of the ,new ,testament4 ,on this point1 it is sufficient to say that the authority which ,irenaeus attributes to the four ,gospels1 the ,acts of the ,apostles1 the ,epistles of ,st ,paul1 several of the ,catholic ,epistles1 and the ,apocalypse1 falls short in no respect of the estimate of the ,church ,catholic in the fourth or the ninth or the nineteenth century4 ,he treats them as on a level with the ,canonical books of the ,old ,testament2 he cites them as ,scripture in the same way2 he attributes them to the respective authors whose names they bear2 he regards them as writings handed down in the several ,churches from the beginning2 he fills his pages with quotations from them2 he has not only a very thorough knowledge of their contents himself1 but he assumes an acquaintance with and a recognition of them in his readers #bfb3a4 ,in the third book especially he undertakes to refute the opinions of his ,valentinian opponents directly from the ,scriptures4 ,this leads him to be still more explicit4 ,he relates briefly the circumstances under which our ,four ,gospels were written4 ,he points out that the writings of the ,evangelists arose directly from the oral ,gospel of the ,apostles4 ,he shows that the traditional teaching of the ,apostles has been preserved by a direct succession of elders which in the principal ,churches can be traced man by man1 and he asserts that this teaching accords entirely with the ,evangelical and ,apostolic writings4 ,he maintains on the other hand1 that the doctrine of the heretics was of comparatively recent growth4 ,he assumes throughout1 not only that our four ,canonical ,gospels alone were acknowledged in the ,church in his own time1 but that this had been so from the beginning4 ,his ,valentinian antagonists indeed accepted these same ,gospels1 paying especial deference to the ,fourth ,evangelist2 and accordingly he argues with them on this basis4 ,but they also superadded other writings1 to which they appealed1 while heretics of a different type1 as ,marcion for instance1 adopted some one ,gospel to the exclusion of all others4 ,he therefore urges not only that four ,gospels alone have been handed down from the beginning1 but that in the nature of things there could not be more nor less than four4 ,there are four regions of the world1 and four principal winds2 and the ,church therefore1 as destined to be conterminous with the world1 must be supported by four ,gospels1 as four pillars4 ,the ,word again is represented as seated on the ,cherubim1 who are described by ,ezekiel as four living creatures1 each different from the other4 ,these symbolize the four ,evangelists1 with their several characteristics4 ,the predominance of the number four again appears in another way4 ,there are four general covenants1 of ,noah1 of ,abraham1 of ,moses1 of ,christ4 ,it is therefore an act of audacious folly to increase or diminish the number of the ,gospels4 ,as there is fitness and order in all the other works of ,god1 so also we may expect to find it in the case of the ,gospel4 ,what is the historical significance of this phenomenon8 ,can we imagine that the documents which ,irenaeus regards in this light had been produced during his own lifetime8 that they had sprung up suddenly full-armed from the earth1 no one could say how8 and that they had taken their position at once by the side of the ,law and the ,psalmist and the ,prophets1 as the very voice of ,god8 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion seems to think that no explanation is needed4 ',the reasons1' he writes1 'which he ,irenaeus gives for the existence of precisely that number four ,gospels in the ,canon of the ,church illustrate the thoroughly uncritical character of the ,fathers1 and the slight dependence which can be placed upon their judgments' #bfc3a4 ,accordingly he does not even discuss the testimony of ,irenaeus1 but treats it as if it were not4 ,he does not see that there is all the difference in1 the world between the value of the same man's evidence as to matters of fact1 and his opinions as to the causes and bearings of his facts4 ,he does not observe that these fanciful arguments and shadowy analogies are pro tanto an evidence of the firm hold which this quadruple ,gospel1 as a fact1 had already obtained when he wrote4 ,above all1 ,i must suppose from his silence that he regards this testimony of ,irenaeus in the isolated opinion of an individual writer1 and is unconscious of the historical background which it implies4 ,it is this last consideration which led me to speak of ,irenaeus as the most important witness to the early date and authorship of the ,gospels1 and to which ,i wish to direct attention4 ,the birth of ,irenaeus has been placed as early as ,a4,d4 #ig by ,dodwell1 and as late as ,a4,d4 #adj by our author and some others1 while other writers again have adopted intermediate positions4 ,i must frankly say that the very early date seems to me quite untenable4 ,on the other hand1 those who have placed it as late as ,a4,d4 #adj have chosen this date on the ground of the relation of ,irenaeus to ,polycarp in his old age #bfd3a1 and on the supposition that ,polycarp was martyred about ,a4,d4 #afg4 ,since however it has recently been shown that ,polycarp suffered ,a4,d4 #aee or #aef #bfd3b1 it may be presumed that these critics would now throw the date of his pupil's birth some ten or twelve years farther back1 i4e4 to about ,a4,d4 #abh or #acj4 ,but there is no reason why it should not have been some few years earlier4 ,if the suggestion which ,i have thrown out in a previous paper deserves attention #bfe3a1 he was probably born about ,a4,d4 #abj4 ,but the exact date of his birth is a matter of comparatively little moment4 ,the really important fact is1 that he was connected directly with the ,apostles and the ,apostolic age by two distinct personal links1 if not more4 ,of his connection with ,,polycarp ,i have already spoken #bfe3b4 ,polycarp was the disciple of ,st ,john2 and1 as he was at least eighty-six years old when he suffered martyrdom 7,a4,d4 #aee71 he must have been close upon thirty when the ,apostle died4 ,irenaeus was young when he received instruction from ,polycarp4 ,he speaks of himself in one passage as 'still a boy1' in another as 'in early life4' ,if we reckon his age as from fifteen to eighteen1 we shall probably not be far wrong1 though the expressions themselves would admit some latitude on either side4 ,at all events1 he says that he had a vivid recollection of his master's conversations2 he recalled not only the substance of his discourses1 but his very expressions and manner2 more especially he states that he remembers distinctly his descriptions of his intercourse with ,john and other personal disciples of ,christ together with their account of the ,lord's life and teaching2 and he adds that these were 'altogether in accordance with the ,scriptures' #bfe3c4 ,but ,irenaeus was linked with the ,apostolic age by another companionship also4 ,he was the leading presbyter in the ,church of ,lyons1 of which ,,pothinus was bishop1 and succeeded to this see on the martyrdom of the latter in ,a4,d4 #agg or #agh4 ,with ,pothinus therefore he must have had almost daily intercourse4 ,but ,pothinus lived to be more than ninety years old1 and must have been a boy of ten at least1 when the ,apostle ,st ,john died4 ,moreover there is every reason to believe1 as we have already seen #bfe3d1 that like ,irenaeus himself ,pothinus came originally from ,asia ,minor4 ,under any circumstances1 his long life and influential position would give a special value to his testimony respecting the past history of the ,church2 and1 whether he was uncritical or not 7of which we are ignorant71 he must have known whether certain writings attributed to the ,evangelists and ,apostles had been in circulation as long as he could remember1 or whether they came to his knowledge only the other day1 when he was already advanced in life4 ,in one passage in his extant work1 ,irenaeus gives an account of elaborate discourses which he had heard from an elder who had himself 'listened to those who had seen the ,apostles and to those who had been disciples1' i4e4 personal followers of ,christ #bff3a4 ,it seems most natural to identify this anonymous elder with ,pothinus4 ,in this case the 'disciples' whom he had heard would be such persons as ,aristion and ,john the presbyter1 who are mentioned in this same way by ,papias2 while under the designation of 'those who had seen the ,apostles' ,polycarp more especially might be intended4 ,but1 if he were not ,pothinus1 then he forms a third direct link of connection between ,irenaeus and the ,apostolic age4 ,whoever he was1 it is clear that the intercourse of ,irenaeus with him was frequent and intimate4 ',the elder1' writes ,irenaeus1 'used to say1' ',the elder used to refresh us with such accounts of the ancient worthies1' ',the elder used to discuss4' ,indeed the elaborate character of these discourses suggests1 as ,i have stated in a former paper #bff3b1 that ,irenaeus is here reproducing notes of lectures which he had heard from this person4 ,with the references direct or indirect to the ,canonical writings in this anonymous teacher ,i am not concerned here2 nor indeed is it necessary to add anything to what has been said in a previous paper #bff3c4 ,i wish now merely to call attention to these discourses as showing1 that through his intercourse with this elder ,irenaeus could not fail to have ascertained the mind of the earlier ,church with regard to the ,evangelical and ,apostolic writings4 ,nor were these the only exceptional advantages which ,irenaeus enjoyed4 ,when he speaks of the recognition of the ,canonical writings his testimony must be regarded as directly representing three ,churches at least4 ,in youth he was brought up1 as we saw1 in ,asia ,minor4 ,in middle life he stayed for some time in ,rome1 having gone there on an important public mission #bfg3a4 ,before and after this epoch he for many years held a prominent position in the ,church of ,gaul4 ,he was moreover actively engaged from the beginning to the end of his public career in all the most important controversies of the day4 ,he gave lectures as we happen to know2 for ,hippolytus attended a course on ',all the ,heresies1' delivered perhaps during one of his sojourns at ,rome #bfg3b4 ,he was a diligent letter-writer1 interesting himself in the difficulties and dissensions of distant ,churches1 and more than one notice of such letters is preserved4 ,he composed several treatises more or less elaborate1 whose general character may be estimated from his extant work4 ,the subjects moreover1 with which he had to deal1 must have forced him to an examination of the points with which we are immediately concerned4 ,he took a chief part in the ,montanist controversy2 and the ,montanist doctrine of the ,paraclete1 as ,i have before had occasion to remark #bfg3c1 directly suggested an investigation of the promise in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,he was equally prominent in the ,paschal dispute1 and here again the relation between the narratives of ,st ,john and the ,synoptists must have entered largely into the discussion4 ,he was contending all his life with ,gnostics1 or reactionists against ,gnosticism1 and how large a part the authority and contents of the ,gospels and ,epistles must have played in these controversies generally we see plainly from his surviving work against the ,valentinians4 ,thus ,irenaeus does not present himself before us as an isolated witness1 but is backed by a whole phalanx of past and contemporaneous authority4 ,all this our author ignores4 ,he forecloses all investigation by denouncing1 as usual1 the uncritical character of the fathers2 and ,irenaeus is not even allowed to enter the witness-box4 ,the truth is that1 speaking generally1 the fathers are neither more nor less uncritical on questions which involve the historical sense1 than other writers of their age4 ,now and then we meet with an exceptional blunderer2 but for the most part ,christian writers will compare not unfavourably with their heathen contemporaries4 ,if ,clement of ,rome believes in the story of the phoenix1 so do several classical writers of repute4 ,if ,justin ,martyr affirms that ,simon ,magus received divine honours at ,rome1 heathen historians and controversialists make statements equally false and quite as ridiculous with reference to the religion and history of the ,jews #bfh3a4 ,even the credulity of a ,papias may be more than matched by the credulity of an ,apion or an ,a,elian4 ,the work of the sceptical ,pliny himself abounds in impossible stories4 ,on the other hand individual writers may be singled out among the ,christian fathers1 whom it would be difficult to match in their several excellences from their own or contiguous generations4 ,no heathen contemporary shows such a power of memory or so wide an acquaintance with the classical literature of ,greece in all its branches as ,clement of ,alexandria4 ,no heathen contemporary deserves to be named in the same day with ,origen for patience and accuracy in textual criticism1 to say nothing of other intellectual capacities1 which1 notwithstanding all his faults1 distinguish him as the foremost writer of his age4 ,and again1 the investigations of ,theophilus of ,antioch1 the contemporary of ,irenaeus1 in comparative chronology are far in advance of anything which emanates from heathen writers of his time1 however inadequate they may appear in this nineteenth century1 which has discovered so many monuments of primeval history4 ,there are in fact as many gradations among the ,christian fathers as in any other order of men2 and here1 as elsewhere1 each writer must be considered on his own merits4 ,it is a gross injustice to class the authors whom ,i have named with such hopeless blunderers as ,epiphanius and ,john ,malalas1 for whom nothing can be said1 but in whom nevertheless our author places the most implicit confidence1 when their statements serve his purpose4 ,now ,irenaeus is not one whose testimony can be lightly set aside4 ,he possessed1 as we have seen1 exceptional opportunities of forming an opinion on the point at issue4 ,his honesty is1 ,i think1 beyond the reach of suspicion4 ,he is a man of culture and intelligence4 ,he possesses a considerable knowledge of classical literature1 though he makes no parade of it4 ,he argues against his opponents with much patience4 ,his work is systematic1 and occasionally shows great acuteness4 ,his traditions1 no doubt1 require sifting1 like other men's1 and sometimes dissolve in the light of criticism4 ,he has his weak points also1 whether in his interpretations or in his views of things4 ,but what then8 ,who refuses to listen to the heathen rhetorician ,aristides or the apostate ,emperor ,julian on matters of fact because they are both highly superstitious--the one paying a childish deference to dreams1 the other showing himself a profound believer in magic8 ,in short1 ,irenaeus betrays no incapacity which affects his competency as a witness to a broad and comprehensive fact1 such as that with which alone we are concerned4 ,and his testimony is confirmed by evidence from all sides4 ,the recognition of these four ,gospels from a very early date is the one fact which explains the fragmentary notices and references occurring in previous writers4 ,moreover his contemporaries in every quarter of the ,church repeat the same story independently4 ,the ,old ,latin ,version1 already existing when ,irenaeus published his work and representing the ,canon of the ,african ,christians1 included these four ,gospels1 and these only4 ,the author of the ,muratorian fragment1 writing a few years before him1 and apparently representing the ,church of ,rome1 recognizes these1 and these alone4 ,clement1 writing a few years later1 as a member of the ,alexandrian ,church1 who had also travelled far and wide1 and sat at the feet of divers teachers1 in ,greece1 in ,asia ,minor1 in ,palestine1 in ,italy1 doubts the authenticity of a story told in an apocryphal writing1 on the ground that it was not related in any of the four ,gospels handed down by the ,church #bgj3a4 ,what is the meaning of all this coincidence of view8 ,it must be borne in mind that the ,canon of the ,new ,testament was not made the subject of any conciliar decree till the latter half of the fourth century4 ,when therefore we find this agreement on all sides in the closing years of the second1 without any formal enactment1 we can only explain it as the convergence of independent testimony showing that1 though individual writers might allow themselves the use of other documents1 yet the general sense of the ,church had for some time past singled out these four ,gospels by tacit consent1 and placed them in a position of exceptional authority4 ,one other remark on the testimony of ,irenaeus suggests itself before closing4 ,irenaeus is the first extant writer in whom1 from the nature of his work1 we have a right to expect explicit information on the subject of the ,canon4 ,earlier writings1 which have been preserved entire1 are either epistolary1 like the letters of the ,apostolic ,fathers1 where any references to the ,canonical books must necessarily be precarious and incidental 7to say nothing of the continuance of the oral tradition at this early date as a disturbing element72 or devotional1 like the ,shepherd of ,hermas1 which is equally devoid of quotations from the ,old ,testament and from the ,new2 or historical1 like the account of the martyrdoms at ,vienne and ,lyons1 where any such allusion is gratuitous2 or apologetic1 like the great mass of the extant ,christian writings of the second century1 where the reserve of the writer naturally leads him to be silent about authorities which would carry no weight with the ,jewish or heathen readers whom he addressed4 ,but the work of ,irenaeus is the first controversial treatise addressed to ,christians on questions of ,christian doctrine1 where the appeal lies to ,christian documents4 ,and here the testimony to our four ,gospels is full and clear and precise4 ,if any reader is really in earnest on this matter1 ,i will ask him to read ,irenaeus and judge for himself4 ,he will find many things for which perhaps he is not prepared1 and which will jar with his preconceived ideas2 but on the one point at issue ,i have no fear that ,i shall be accused of exaggeration4 ,indeed it is impossible to convey in a few paragraphs the whole force of an impression which is deepened by each successive page of a long and elaborate work4 ,,ix4 ,,tatian',s ,,diatessaron #bgb3a4 ,,may1 #ahgg4 ,all that is known of the life of ,tatian can be soon told4 ,he was an ,assyrian by birth1 as he himself distinctly states4 ,if other writers call him a ,syrian1 the discrepancy may be explained by the common confusion between the two nationalities2 or possibly it should be accounted for by his place of residence during the later years of his life4 ,as a heathen he exercised the profession of a sophist1 and in this capacity travelled far and wide4 ,his mind was first turned towards ,christianity by reading the ,scriptures1 which impressed him greatly4 ,as a ,christian he became the hearer--in some sense the disciple--of ,justin ,martyr1 doubtless at ,rome2 and when ,crescens1 the cynic1 succeeded in bringing about his master's death1 ,tatian's life also was imperilled by the plots of this machinator4 ,while he remained in the metropolis he had among his disciples ,rhodon1 who in later years undertook to refute one of his heretical works4 ,subsequently he left ,rome1 and seems to have spent the remainder of his life in the ,east1 more especially in ,syria and the neighbouring countries4 ,after the death of ,justin ,martyr--how soon after we do not know--his opinions underwent a change4 ,hitherto he had been regarded as strictly orthodox2 but now he separated himself from the ,church1 and espoused views closely allied to those of the ,encratites4 ,a leading tenet of his new ascetic creed was the rejection of marriage as an abomination4 ,but he is stated also to have adopted opinions from ,gnostic teachers1 more especially the doctrine of ,a,eons1 which he derived from the ,valentinian school #bgc3a4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion further says that1 'although ,tatian may have been acquainted with some of his 7,st ,paul's7 ,epistles1 it is certain that he did not hold the ,apostle in any honour1 and permitted himself the liberty of altering his phraseology' #bgc3b4 ,where did he learn this 'certain' piece of information that ,tatian thought lightly of ,st ,paul8 ,assuredly not from any ancient writer4 ,it is quite true that ,tatian is stated to have mutilated some of ,st ,paul's ,epistles and rejected others4 ,but so did ,marcion1 who held the ,apostle in extravagant honour4 ,and the motive was the same in both cases4 ,the ,apostle's actual language did not square with their favourite tenets in all respects1 and therefore they assumed that his text must have been corrupted or interpolated4 ,so far from its being at all doubtful1 as our author seems to suggest1 whether ,tatian was acquainted with any of ,st ,paul's ,epistles1 we have positive evidence that he did receive some #bgc3c2 and moreover one or two coincidences in his extant work point to an acquaintance with the ,apostle's writings4 ,his leanings1 like those of ,marcion and ,valentinus1 were generally in the opposite direction to ,judaism4 ,his tendency would be not to underrate but to overrate ,st ,paul4 ,at the same time such passages as #a ,tim4 iv4 #c1 where the prohibition of marriage is denounced as a heresy1 were a stumbling-block4 ,they must therefore be excised as interpolations1 or the ,epistles containing them must be rejected as spurious4 ,the date of ,tatian is a matter of some uncertainty4 ,he was a hearer1 as we have seen1 of ,justin ,martyr in ,rome2 and if the chronology of this father had been established beyond the reach of doubt1 we should be treading on firm ground4 ,on this point however there has been much variety of opinion4 ,the prevailing view is1 or was1 in favour of placing ,justin's death as late as ,a4,d4 #afc-afe1 on the authority of ,eusebius2 but the most careful investigations of recent criticism have tended towards a much earlier date #bgd3a4 ,the literary activity of ,tatian seems to have begun about the time of ,justin ,martyr's death2 and after this we have to allow for his own career1 first as an orthodox ,christian1 and then as a heretic4 ,when ,irenaeus wrote his first book1 ,tatian was no longer living1 as may be inferred from the language of this father #bgd3b3 and this book must have been written before ,a4,d4 #aij1 and may have 'been written as early as ,a4,d4 #agh #bgd3c4 ,again1 if we may assume that the ',assyrian1' whom the ,alexandrian ,clement mentions among his teachers #bgd3d1 was ,tatian1 as seems highly probable1 we have another indication of date4 ,the first book of the ,stromateis1 in which this fact is recorded1 was itself written about ,a4,d4 #aid or #aie2 and ,clement there speaks of the ,assyrian as one of his earlier masters1 whom he had met with in the ,east1 before he settled down under the tuition of ,pantaenus at ,alexandria4 ,in like manner ,tatian's connection with ,rhodon would point roughly to the same conclusion4 ,on the whole1 we shall perhaps not be far wrong if we place the literary activity of ,tatian at about ,a4,d4 #aee-agj4 ,it may have begun some few years earlier1 or it may have extended some few years later4 ,tatian was a voluminous writer2 but of several writings mentioned by the ancients only one has come down to us1 his ,apology or ,address to the ,greeks4 ,it was written after the death of ,justin1 but apparently not very long after4 ,at all events it would seem to have been composed before he had separated from the ,church and set himself up as a heretical teacher4 ,its date therefore is dependent on the uncertain chronology of ,justin4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion speaks of it as 'generally dated between ,a4,d4 #agj-age1' and seems himself to acquiesce in this view4 ,though ,i think this date probably several years too late1 the point is not worth contending for4 ,as a rule1 the early ,apologies abstain from quotations1 whether from the ,old ,testament or from the ,new4 ,the writers are dealing with ,gentiles1 who have no acquaintance with and attribute no authority to their sacred books1 and therefore they make little or no use of them #bge3a4 ,thus the ,apologeticus of ,tertullian does not contain a single passage from the ,new ,testament1 though his writings addressed to ,christians teem with quotations from our ,canonical books4 ,hence it is not in this extant work that we should expect to obtain information as to ,tatian's ,canon of the ,scriptures4 ,any allusion to them will be purely incidental4 ,as regards our ,synoptical ,gospels1 the indications in ,tatian's ,apology are not such that we can lay much stress on them4 ,but the evidence that he knew and accepted the ,fourth ,gospel is beyond the reach of any reasonable doubt4 ,the passages are here placed side by side3-- ,,tatian4 ,,st ,,john4 ',god is a ,spirit' 7,greek3 pneuma ho ',god is a ,spirit' 7,greek3 pneuma ,theos71 ,sec4 #d4 ho ,theos71 iv4 #bd4 ',and this then is the saying ',and the light shineth in the 7,greek3 to eiremenon72 ,the darkness1 and the darkness darkness comprehendeth not the light' comprehended it not' 7,greek3 he skotia to phos ou 7,greek3 kai he skotia auto ou katalambanei71 ,sec4 #ac4 katelaben71 i4 #e4 ',follow ye the only ,god4 ,all things ',all things were made through have been made by ,him1 and apart ,him1 and apart from ,him was from ,him hath been made no one thing' made no one thing' 7,greek3 panta 7,greek3 panta hup' autou kai choris di' autou egeneto kai choris autou gegonen oude hen71 ,sec4 #ai4 autou egeneteo oude hen71 i4 #c4 ,in the last passage from ,st ,john ,i have stopped at the words ,greek3 oude hen1 because the earliest ,christian writers universally punctuated in this way1 taking ,greek3 ho gegonen k4t4l4 with the following sentence1 ',that which hath been made was life in ,him4' ,besides these passages there are other coincidences of exposition1 with which however ,i need not trouble the reader1 as they may fairly be disputed4 ,it is difficult to see how any one can resist coincidences like these2 and yet the author of ,supernatural ,religion does resist them4 ,the first passage our author has apparently overlooked1 for he says nothing about it4 ,if it had stood alone ,i should certainly not have regarded it as decisive4 ,but the epigrammatic form is remarkable1 and it is a characteristic passage of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,of the second passage it should be noticed that ,tatian introduces it with the expression 7,greek3 to eiremenon71 which is used in the ,new ,testament in quoting the ,scriptures 7,luke ii4 #bd1 ,acts ii4 #af1 xiii4 #dj1 ,rom4 iv4 #ah72 that in the context he explains 'the ,word' 7,logos7 to be 'the light of ,god1' and 'the darkness' to be 'the unintelligent soul2' that this use of ,greek3 katalambanein is very peculiar1 and has caused perplexity to interpreters of ,st ,john1 being translated variously 'comprehended' or 'surprised' or 'overcame2' that the passage in the ,fourth ,gospel here again is highly characteristic1 and occurs in its most characteristic part2 and lastly1 that the changes made by ,tatian are just such as a writer would make when desiring to divest the saying of its context and present it in the briefest form4 ,on the other hand1 the author of ,supernatural ,religion has nothing to allege against this coincidence2 he can produce nothing like it elsewhere2 but he falls back on 'the constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness1' and other arguments of the kind1 which are valueless because they do not touch the point of the resemblance4 ,on the third passage he remarks that1 unlike the author of the ,fourth ,gospel1 ',tatian here speaks of ,god1 and not of the ,logos4' ,just so2 but then he varies the preposition accordingly1 substituting ,greek3 hupo for the ,evangelist's ,greek3 dia to suit his adaptation4 ,our author also refers to 'the first chapters of ,genesis2' but where is there any language in the first chapters of ,genesis which presents anything like the same degree of parallelism8 ,here again1 he is unable to impugn the coincidence1 which is all the more remarkable because the words are extremely simple in themselves1 and it is their order and adaptation which gives a character of uniqueness to the expression4 ,so much for the individual coincidences4 ,but neither here nor elsewhere does our author betray any consciousness of the value of cumulative evidence4 ,it is only necessary to point to the enormous improbability that any two writers should exhibit accidentally three such resemblances as in the passages quoted2 and the inference will be plain4 ,it is not however in this testimony which his extant work bears to the ,fourth ,gospel1 however decisive this may be1 that the chief importance of ,tatian consists4 ,ancient writers speak of him as the author of a ,harmony or ,digest of the four ,gospels1 to which accordingly he gave the name of ,diatessaron4 ,this statement however has been called in question by some recent critics1 among whom the author of ,supernatural ,religion is1 as usual1 the most uncompromising4 ,it is necessary therefore to examine the witnesses3-- #a4 ,in the first place then1 ,eusebius states definitely #bgg3a--',tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation1 ,i know not how1 of the ,gospels1 and called it the ,diatessaron 7,greek3 sunapheian tina kai sunagogen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion suntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasen74 ,this work is current in some quarters 7with some persons7 even to the present day4' ,this statement is explicit2 yet our author endeavours to set it aside on the ground that 'not only is it based upon mere hearsay1 but it is altogether indefinite as to the character of the contents1 and the writer admits his own ignorance 7,greek3 ouk oid' hopos7 regarding them' #bgh3a4 ,his inference however from the expression ',i know not how' is altogether unwarranted4 ,so far from implying that ,eusebius had no personal knowledge of the work1 it is constantly used by writers in speaking of books where they are perfectly acquainted with the contents1 but do not understand the principles or do not approve the method4 ,in idiomatic ,english it signifies ',i cannot think what he was about1' and is equivalent to 'unaccountably1' 'absurdly1' so that1 if anything1 it implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the contents4 ,i have noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in the treatise of ,origen against ,celsus alone #bgh3b1 where it commonly refers to ,celsus' work which he had before him1 and very often to passages which he himself quotes in the context4 ,it is not ignorance of the contents1 but disparagement of the plan of ,tatian's work1 which the expression of ,eusebius implies4 ,the ,diatessaron was commonly current1 as we shall see presently1 in the neighbouring districts3 and it would be somewhat strange if ,eusebius1 who took a special interest in apocryphal literature1 should have remained unacquainted with it4 #b4 ,our next witness is overlooked by the author of ,supernatural ,religion4 ,yet the testimony is not unimportant4 ,in the ,doctrine of ,addai1 an apocryphal ,syriac work1 which professes to give an account of the foundation and earliest history of ,christianity at ,edessa1 the new converts are represented as meeting together to hear read1 along with the ,old ,testament1 the ,new 7,testament7 of the ,diatessaron' #bgh3c4 ,it seems clear from this notice that1 at the time when the writer composed this fiction1 the form in which the ,evangelical narratives were commonly read in the churches with which he was best acquainted was a ,diatessaron1 or ,harmony of ,four ,gospels4 ,from internal evidence however it is clear that the work emanated from ,edessa or its neighbourhood4 ,the date of the fiction is less certain2 but it is obviously an early writing4 ,the ,st ,petersburgh ,,ms containing it is assigned to the sixth century1 and the ,british ,museum ,,mss to the fifth or sixth century #bgi3a2 while there exists an ,armenian version said to have been made as early as the fifth century4 ,the work itself therefore must have been written much earlier than this4 ,there is indeed no good reason for doubting that it is the very ,syriac document to which ,eusebius refers as containing the correspondence of our ,lord with ,abgarus1 and preserved among the archives of ,edessa1 and which therefore cannot have been very recent when he wrote1 about ,a4,d4 #cbe #bgi3b4 ,at the same time it contains gross anachronisms and misstatements respecting earlier ,christian history1 which hardly allow us to place it much earlier than the middle of the third century #bgi3c4 ,whatever may be its date1 the fact is important that the writer uses ,diatessaron1 adopted from the ,greek into the ,syriac1 as the familiar name for the ,gospel narrative which was read in public4 ,of the authorship of this work however he says nothing4 ,this information we have to seek from other sources4 ,nor is it far to seek4 #c4 ,we are told that the most famous of the native ,syrian fathers1 ,ephraem1 the deacon of ,edessa 7who died ,a4,d4 #cgc #bhj3a71 wrote a commentary on the ,diatessaron of ,tatian4 ,our informant is ,dionysius ,bar-,salibi1 who flourished in the last years of the twelfth century1 and died ,a4,d4 #abjg4 ,in his own ,commentary on the ,gospels1 he writes as follows #bhj3b3-- ,tatian1 the disciple of ,justin1 the philosopher and martyr1 selected and patched together from the ,four ,gospels and constructed a ,gospel1 which he called ,diatessaron1 that is ,miscellanies4 ,on this work ,mar ,ephraem wrote an exposition2 and its commencement was--,in the beginning was the ,word4 ,elias of ,salamia1 who is also called ,aphthonius1 constructed a ,gospel after the likeness of the ,diatessaron of ,ammonius1 mentioned by ,eusebius in his prologue to the ,canons which he made for the ,gospel4 ,elias sought for that ,diatessaron and could not find it1 and in consequence constructed this after its likeness4 ,and the said ,elias finds fault with several things in the ,canons of ,eusebius1 and points out errors in them1 and rightly4 ,but this copy 7work7 which ,elias composed is not often met with4 ,this statement is explicit and careful4 ,the writer distinguishes two older works1 bearing the name of ,diatessaron1 composed respectively by ,tatian and ,ammonius4 ,in addition he mentions a third1 composed at a later date by this ,elias4 ,of the work of ,ammonius of ,alexandria 7about ,a4,d4 #bbj7 ,eusebius1 as ,bar-,salibi correctly states1 gives an account in his ,letter to ,carpianus1 prefixed to his ,canons4 ,it was quite different in its character from the ,diatessaron of ,tatian4 ,the ,diatessaron of ,tatian was a patchwork of the ,four ,gospels1 commencing with the preface of ,st ,john4 ,the work of ,ammonius took the ,gospel of ,st ,matthew as its standard1 preserving its continuity1 and placed side by side with it the parallel passages from the other ,gospels #bha3a4 ,the principle of the one work was amalgamation2 of the other1 comparison4 ,no one who had seen the two works could confuse them1 though they bore the same name1 ,diatessaron4 ,eusebius keeps them quite distinct4 ,so does ,bar-,salibi4 ,later on in his commentary1 we are told1 he quotes both works in the same place #bha3b4 ,when therefore he relates that ,ephraem wrote a commentary on the ,diatessaron of ,tatian1 he is worthy of all credit4 ,from the last witness we have learnt that the ,diatessaron was commonly read in the churches of ,edessa2 and it was therefore most natural that this famous ,edessan father should choose it for commenting upon4 ,it is quite true that other ,syrian writers have confused these two ,diatessarons #bha3c4 ,but this fact is only valid to show that confusion was possible2 it is powerless to impugn the testimony of this particular author1 who shows himself in this passage altogether trustworthy4 ,who would think of throwing discredit on ,lord ,macaulay or ,mr ,freeman1 because ,robertson or ,hume may be inaccurate8 #d4 ,our next witness is more important than any4 ,the famous ,greek father ,theodoret became bishop of ,cyrus or ,cyrrhus1 near the ,euphrates1 in the year #dbj or #dbc according to different computations1 and held this see till his death1 which occurred ,a4,d4 #deg or #deh4 ,in the year #dec he wrote his treatise on ,heresies1 in which he makes the following statement3-- ,he 7,tatian7 composed the ,gospel which is called ,diatessaron1 cutting out the genealogies #bhb3a and such other passages as show the ,lord to have been born of the seed of ,david after the flesh4 ,this work was in use not only among persons belonging to his sect1 but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine1 as they did not perceive the mischief of the composition1 but used the book in all simplicity on account of its brevity4 ,and ,i myself found more than two hundred such copies held in respect in the churches in our parts 7,greek3 tais par' hemin ekklesiais74 ,all these ,i collected and put away1 and ,i replaced them by the ,gospels of the ,four ,evangelists4 ,the churches to which he refers were doubtless those belonging to his diocese of ,cyrrhestice1 which contained eight hundred parishes #bhc3a4 ,the proportion of copies will give some idea of the extent of its circulation in these parts4 ,it is vain1 in the teeth of these facts1 to allege the uncritical character of the father as discrediting the evidence4 ,the materials before ,theodoret were ample2 the man himself was competent to form a judgment2 and the judgment is explicit4 ,neither can there be any reasonable doubt1 considering the locality1 that the ,diatessaron here mentioned is the same which is named in the ,doctrine of ,addai1 and the same which was commented on by ,ephraem ,syrus4 ,when the author of ,supernatural ,religion argues that ,theodoret does not here regard this ,diatessaron as patched together from the four canonical ,gospels1 it is unnecessary to follow him4 ,this point may be safely left to the intelligence of the reader4 ,here then we have the testimony of four distinct witnesses1 all tending to the same result4 ,throughout large districts of ,syria there was in common circulation from the third century down to the middle of the fifth a ,diatessaron bearing the name of ,tatian #bhc3b4 ,it was a compilation of our ,four ,gospels1 which recommended itself by its concise and convenient form1 and so superseded the reading of the ,evangelists themselves in some churches4 ,it commenced1 as it naturally could commence1 with the opening words of the ,fourth ,gospel--a gospel which1 as we have seen1 ,tatian quotes in his extant work4 ,it was probably in the main a fairly adequate digest of the evangelical narratives1 for otherwise it would not have maintained its grounds2 but passages which offended ,tatian's ,encratic and ,gnostic views1 such as the genealogies1 were excised2 and this might easily be done without attracting notice under cover of his general plan4 ,all this is consistent and probable in itself4 ,moreover the range of circulation attributed to it is just what might have been expected2 for ,syria and ,mesopotamia are especially mentioned as the scene of ,tatian's labours #bhd3a4 ,in this general convergence of testimony however1 there are two seemingly discordant voices1 of which the author of ,supernatural ,religion makes much use4 ,let us see what they really mean4 #a4 ,epiphanius was bishop of ,constantia1 in ,cyprus1 in the latter half of the fourth century4 ,in his book on ,heresies1 which he commenced ,a4,d4 #cgd1 he writes of ,tatian1 ',the ,diatessaron ,gospel is said to have been composed by him2 it is called by some according to the ,hebrews' #bhd3b4 ,here then our author supposes that he has discerned the truth4 ,this ,diatessaron was not a digest of our ,four ,gospels1 but a distinct evangelical narrative1 the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 ,of this ,gospel according to the ,hebrews he says that 'at one time it was exclusively used by the fathers4' ,i challenge him to prove this assertion in the case of one single father1 ,greek or ,latin or ,syrian4 ,but this by the way4 ,if indeed this ,hebrew ,gospel had been in its contents anything like what our author imagines it1 it would have borne some resemblance at all events to the ,diatessaron2 for1 wherever he meets with any evangelical passage in any early writer1 which is found literally or substantially in any one of our ,four ,gospels 7whether characteristic of ,st ,matthew1 or of ,st ,luke1 or of ,st ,john1 it matters not7 he assigns it without misgiving to this ,hebrew ,gospel4 ,but his ,hebrew ,gospel is a pure effort of the imagination4 ,the only ',gospel according to the ,hebrews' known to antiquity was a very different document4 ,it was not co-extensive with our ,four ,gospels2 but was constructed on the lines of the first alone4 ,indeed so closely did it resemble the canonical ,st ,matthew--though with variations1 omissions1 and additions--that ,jerome1 who translated it1 supposed it to be the ,hebrew original #bhe3a1 of which ,papias speaks4 ,such a ,gospel does not answer in any single particular1 unless it be the omission of the genealogy 7which however does not appear to have been absent from all copies of this ,gospel71 to the notices of ,tatian's ,diatessaron4 ,more especially the omission of all reference to the ,davidic descent of ,christ would be directly opposed to the fundamental principle of this ,gospel1 which1 addressing itself to the ,jews1 laid special stress on ,his ,messianic claims4 ,how then can we explain the statement of ,epiphanius8 ,it is a simple blunder1 not more egregious than scores of other blunders which deface his pages4 ,he had not seen the ,diatessaron3 this our author himself says4 ,but he had heard that it was in circulation in certain parts of ,syria2 and he knew also that the ,gospel of the ,hebrews was current in these same regions1 there or thereabouts4 ,hence he jumped at the identification4 ,to a writer who can go astray so incredibly about the broadest facts of history1 as we have seen him do in the succession of the ,roman ,emperors #bhe3b1 such an error would be the easiest thing in the world4 ,yet it was perfectly consistent on the part of our author1 who in another instance prefers ,john ,malalas to the concurrent testimony of all the preceding centuries #bhe3c1 to set aside the direct evidence of a ,theodoret1 and to accept without hesitation the hearsay of an ,epiphanius4 #b4 ',tatian's ,gospel1' writes the author of ,supernatural ,religion1 'was not only called ,diatessaron1 but according to ,victor of ,capua1 it was also called ,diapente 7,greek3 dia pente7 by five1 a complication which shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its composition4' ,this is not a very accurate statement4 ,if our author had referred to the actual passage in ,victor of ,capua1 he would have found that ,victor does not himself call it ,diapente1 but says that ,eusebius called it ,diapente4 ,this makes all the difference4 ,victor1 who flourished about ,a4,d4 #ede1 happened to stumble upon an anonymous ,harmony or ,digest of the ,gospels #bhf3a1 and began in consequence to investigate the authorship4 ,he found two notices in ,eusebius of such ,harmonies2 one in the ,epistle to ,carpianus prefixed to the ,canons1 relating to the work of ,ammonius2 another in the ,ecclesiastical ,history1 relating to that of ,tatian4 ,assuming that the work which he had discovered must be one or other1 he decides in favour of the latter1 because it does not give ,st ,matthew continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists1 as ,eusebius states ,ammonius to have done4 ,all this ,victor tells us in the preface to this anonymous ,harmony1 which he publishes in a ,latin dress4 ,there can be no doubt that ,victor was mistaken about the authorship2 for1 though the work is constructed on the same general plan as ,tatian's1 it does not begin with ,john i4 #a1 but with ,luke i4 #a1 and it does contain the genealogies4 ,it belongs therefore1 at least in its present form1 neither to ,tatian nor to ,ammonius4 ,but we are concerned only with the passage relating to ,tatian1 which commences as follows3-- ,ex historia quoque ejus 7i4e4 ,eusebii7 comperi quod ,tatianus vir eruditissimus et orator illius temporis clarus unum ex quatuor compaginaverit ,evangelium cui titulum ,diapente imposuit4 ,thus ,victor gets his information directly from ,eusebius1 whom he repeats4 ,he knows nothing about ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 except what ,eusebius tells him4 ,but we ourselves have this same passage of ,eusebius before us1 and find that ,eusebius does not call it ,diapente but ,diatessaron4 ,this is not only the reading of all the ,greek ,,mss without exception1 but likewise of the ,syriac version #bhg3a1 which was probably contemporary with ,eusebius and of which there is an extant ,,ms belonging to the sixth century1 as also of the ,latin version which was made by ,rufinus a century and a half before ,victor wrote4 ,about the text of ,eusebius therefore there can be no doubt4 ,moreover ,victor himself1 who knew ,greek1 says ex quatuor1 which requires ,diatessaron1 and the work which he identifies with ,tatian's ,harmony is made up of passages from our ,four ,gospels alone4 ,therefore he can hardly have written ,diapente himself2 and the curious reading is probably due to the blundering or the officiousness of some later scribe #bhg3b4 ,thus we way safely acquiesce in the universal tradition1 or as our author1 ,greek3 ouk oid' hopos1 prefers to call it1 the 'ecclesiastical theory1' respecting the character and composition of ,tatian's ,diatessaron #bhg3c4 99 99 99 99 99 ,the actual ,diatessaron of ,tatian has since been discovered1 though not in the original language1 so that no doubt can now remain on the subject4 ,the history of this discovery has been given in the careful and scholarly work of ,prof4 ,hemphill of ,dublin 7,the ,diatessaron of ,tatian #ahhh71 where 7see esp4 p4 xx sq7 full information will be found4 ,ephraem's ,commentary exists in an ,armenian translation of some works of this ,syrian father1 which had been published in ,venice as early as #ahcf4 ,i had for some years possessed a copy of this work in four volumes1 and the thought had more than once crossed my mind that possibly it might throw light on ,ephraem's mode of dealing with the ,gospels1 as ,i knew that it contained notes on ,st ,paul's ,epistles or some portion of them4 ,i did not however then possess sufficient knowledge of ,armenian to sift its contents1 but ,i hoped to investigate the matter when ,i had mastered enough of the language4 ,meanwhile a ,latin translation was published by ,moesinger under the title of ,evangelii concordantis expositio facta a ,sancto ,ephraemo doctore ,syro ,venet4 #ahgf1 just about the time when ,i wrote the above article2 but it was not known in ,england till some years after4 ,later still an ,arabic translation of the ,diatessaron itself has been discovered and published in ,rome by ,ciasca 7,tatiani ,evangeliorum ,harmoniae ,arabice nunc primum etc41 #ahhh74 ,on the relation of ,victor's ,diatessaron1 which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of ,tatian1 and for the quotations in ,aphraates1 etc41 see ,hemphill's ,diatessaron4 ,thus the 'ecclesiastical theory'--the only theory which was supported by any sound continuous tradition--is shown to be unquestionably true1 and its nineteenth century critical rivals must all be abandoned4 ,,appendix ,the following paper has no reference to the work entitled ',supernatural ,religion'2 but1 as it is kindred in subject and appeared in the same ,review1 ,i have given it a place here4 ,,discoveries ,,illustrating ,,the ,,acts ,,of ,,the ,,apostles4 ,,may1 #ahgh4 ,in a former volume ,m4 ,renan declared his opinion that 'the author of the ,third ,gospel and the ,acts was verily and indeed 7bien reellement7 ,luke1 a disciple of ,st ,paul #bia3a4 ,in the last instalment of his work he condemns as untenable the view that the first person plural of the later chapters is derived from some earlier document inserted by the author1 on the ground that these portions are identical in style with the rest of the work #bia3b4 ,such an expression of opinion1 proceeding from a not too conservative critic1 is significant2 and this view of the authorship1 ,i cannot doubt1 will be the final verdict of the future1 as it has been the unbroken tradition of the past4 ,but at a time when attacks on the genuineness of the work have been renewed1 it may not be out of place to call attention to some illustrations of the narrative which recent discoveries have brought to light4 ,no ancient work affords so many tests of veracity2 for no other has such numerous points of contact in all directions with contemporary history1 politics1 and topography1 whether ,jewish or ,greek or ,roman4 ,in the publications of the year #ahgg ,cyprus and ,ephesus have made important contributions to the large mass of evidence already existing4 #a4 ,the government of the ,roman provinces at this time was peculiarly dangerous ground for the romance-writer to venture upon4 ,when ,augustus assumed the supreme power he divided the provinces under the ,roman dominion with the ,senate4 ,from that time forward there were two sets of provincial governors4 ,the ruler of a senatorial province was styled a proconsul 7,greek3 anthupatos71 while the officer to whom an imperatorial province was entrusted bore the name of propraetor 7,greek3 antistrategos7 or legate 7,greek3 presbeutes74 ,thus the use of the terms 'proconsul' and 'propraetor' was changed2 for1 whereas in republican times they signified that the provincial governors bearing them had previously held the offices of consul and praetor respectively at home1 they were now employed to distinguish the superior power under which the provinces were administered without regard to the previous rank of the governors administering them4 ,moreover1 the original subdivision of the provinces between the ,emperor and ,senate underwent constant modifications4 ,if disturbances broke out in a senatorial province and military rule was necessary to restore order1 it would be transferred to the ,emperor as the head of the army1 and the ,senate would receive an imperatorial province in exchange4 ,hence at any given time it would be impossible to say without contemporary1 or at least very exact historical knowledge1 whether a particular province was governed by a proconsul or a propraetor4 ,the province of ,achaia is a familiar illustration of this point4 ,a very few years before ,st ,paul's visit to ,corinth1 and some years later1 ,achaia was governed by a propraetor4 ,just at this time1 however1 it was in the hands of the ,senate1 and its ruler therefore was a proconsul as represented by ,st ,luke4 ,cyprus is a less familiar1 but not less instructive1 example of the same accuracy4 ,older critics1 even when writing on the apologetic side1 had charged ,st ,luke with an incorrect use of terms2 and the origin of their mistake is a significant comment on the perplexities in which a later forger would find himself entangled in dealing with these official designations4 ,they fell upon a passage in ,strabo #bib3a where this writer1 after mentioning the division of the provinces between the ,emperor and the ,senate1 states that the ,senate sent consuls to the two provinces of ,asia and ,africa but praetors to the rest on their list1--among which he mentions ,cyprus2 and they jumped at the conclusion--very natural in itself--that the governor of ,cyprus would be called a propraetor4 ,accordingly ,baronio #bic3a suggested that ,cyprus1 though a praetorian province1 was often handed over honoris causa to be administered by the proconsul of ,cilicia1 and he assumed therefore that ,sergius ,paulus held this latter office2 while ,grotius found a solution in the hypothesis that proconsul was a title bestowed by flatterers on an official whose proper designation was propraetor4 ,the error illustrates the danger of a little learning1 not the less dangerous when it is in the hands of really learned men4 ,asia and ,africa1 the two great prizes of the profession1 exhausted the normal two consuls of the preceding year2 and the ,senate therefore were obliged to send ex-praetors and other magistrates to govern the remaining provinces under their jurisdiction4 ,but it is now an unquestioned and unquestionable fact that all the provincial governors who represented the ,senate in imperial times1 whatever magistracy they might have held previously1 were styled officially proconsuls #bic3b4 ,the circumstances indeed1 so far as regards ,cyprus1 are distinctly stated by ,dion ,cassius4 ,at the original distribution of the provinces 7,b4,c4 #bg7 this island had fallen to the ,emperor's share2 but the historian1 while describing the assignment of the several countries in the first instance1 adds that the ,emperor subsequently gave back ,cyprus and ,gallia ,narbonensis to the ,senate1 himself taking ,dalmatia in exchange #bic3c2 and at a later point1 when he arrives at the time in question 7,b4,c4 #bb71 he repeats the information respecting the transfer4 ',and so1' he adds1 'proconsuls began to be sent to those nations also' #bid3a4 ,of the continuance of ,cyprus under the jurisdiction of the ,senate1 about the time to which ,st ,luke's narrative refers we have ample evidence4 ,contemporary records bear testimony to the existence of proconsuls in ,cyprus not only before and after but during the reign of ,claudius4 ,the inscriptions mention by name two proconsuls who governed the province in this ,emperor's time 7,a4,d4 #ea1 #eb7 #bid3b2 while a third1 and perhaps a fourth1 are recorded on the coins #bid3c4 ,at a later date1 under ,hadrian1 we come across a propraetor of ,cyprus #bid3d4 ,the change would probably be owing to the disturbed state of the province consequent on the insurrection of the ,jews4 ,but at the close of the same century 7,a4,d4 #aih7--under ,severus--it is again governed by a proconsul #bid3e2 and this was its normal condition4 ,thus the accuracy of ,st ,luke's designation is abundantly established2 but hitherto no record had been found of the particular proconsul mentioned by him4 ,this defect is supplied by one of ,general ,cesnola's inscriptions4 ,it is somewhat mutilated indeed1 so that the meaning of parts is doubtful2 but for our purpose it is adequate4 ,a date is given as ,greek3 ,,epi ,,paulou ,,anth,,upatou1 'in the proconsulship of ,paulus4' ,on this ,cesnola remarks3 ',the proconsul ,paulus may be the ,sergius ,paulus of the ,acts of the ,apostles 7chap4 xiii471 as instances of the suppression of one of two names are not rare' #bid3f4 ,an example of the suppression in this very name ,sergius ,paulus will be given presently1 thus justifying the identification of the proconsul of the ,acts with the proconsul of this inscription4 ,of this ,sergius ,paulus1 the proconsul of ,cyprus1 ,dean ,alford says that 'nothing more is known4' ,but is it certain that he is not mentioned elsewhere8 ,in the index of contents and authorities which forms the first book of ,pliny's ,natural ,history1 this writer twice names one ,sergius ,paulus among the ,latin authors to whom he was indebted4 ,may not this have been the same person8 ,the name is not common4 ,so far as ,i have observed1 only one other person bearing it #bie3a--probably a descendant of this ,cyprian proconsul--is mentioned1 of whom ,i shall have something to say hereafter2 and he flourished more than a century later4 ,only one test of identity suggests itself4 ,the ,sergius ,paulus of ,pliny is named as an authority for the second and eighteenth books of that writer4 ,now on the hypothesis that the proconsul of ,cyprus is meant1 it would be a natural supposition that1 like ,sir ,j4 ,emerson ,tennent or ,sir ,rutherford ,alcock1 this ,sergius ,paulus would avail himself of the opportunities afforded by his official residence in the ,east to tell his ,roman fellow-countrymen something about the region in which he had resided4 ,we therefore look with interest to see whether these two books of ,pliny contain any notices respecting ,cyprus1 which might reasonably be explained in this way2 and our curiosity is not disappointed4 ,in the second book1 besides two other brief notices 7cc4 #ij1 #aab7 relating to the situation of ,cyprus1 ,pliny mentions 7c4 #ig7 an area in the temple of ,venus at ,paphos on which the rain never falls4 ,in the eighteenth book again1 besides an incidental mention of this island 7c4 #eg71 he gives some curious information 7c4 #ab7 with respect to the ,cyprian corn1 and the bread made therefrom4 ,it should be added that for the second book1 in which the references to ,cyprus come late1 ,sergius ,paulus is the last-mentioned ,latin authority2 whereas for the eighteenth1 where they are early1 he occupies an earlier1 though not very early1 place in the list4 ,these facts may be taken for what they are worth4 ,in a work1 which contains such a multiplicity of details as ,pliny's ,natural ,history1 we should not be justified in laying too much stress on coincidences of this kind4 ,from the ,sergius ,paulus of ,luke the physician we turn to the ,sergius ,paulus of ,galen the physician4 ,soon after the accession of ,m4 ,aurelius 7,a4,d4 #afa7 ,galen paid his first visit to ,rome1 where he stayed for three or four years4 ,among other persons whom he met there was ,l4 ,sergius ,paulus1 who had been already consul suffectus about ,a4,d4 #aej1 and was hereafter to be consul for the second time in ,a4,d4 #afh 7on this latter occasion as the regular consul of the year71 after which time he held the ,prefecture of the ,city #bif3a4 ,he is probably also the same person who is mentioned elsewhere as proconsul of ,asia in connection with a ,christian martyrdom #bif3b4 ,this later ,sergius ,paulus reproduces many features of his earlier namesake4 ,both alike are public men2 both alike are proconsuls2 both alike show an inquisitive and acquisitive disposition4 ,the ,sergius ,paulus of the ,acts1 dissatisfied 7as we may suppose7 alike with the coarse mythology of popular religion and with the lifeless precepts of abstract philosophies1 has recourse first to the magic of the sorcerer ,elymas1 and then to the theology of the ,apostles ,barnabas and ,saul1 for satisfaction4 ,the ,sergius ,paulus of ,galen is described as 'holding the foremost place in practical life as well as in philosophical studies2' he is especially mentioned as a student of the ,aristotelian philosophy2 and he takes a very keen interest in medical and anatomical learning4 ,moreover1 if we may trust the reading1 there is another striking coincidence between the two accounts4 ,the same expression1 'who is also ,paul' 7,greek3 ho kai ,paulos71 is used to describe ,saul of ,tarsus in the context of the ,acts1 and ,l4 ,sergius in the account of ,galen4 ,not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author of the ,acts borrowed from these treatises of ,galen2 and conversely ,i have no desire to suggest that ,galen borrowed from ,st ,luke4 ,but if so1 the facts are a warning against certain methods of criticism which find favour in this age4 ,to sober critics1 the coincidence will merely furnish an additional illustration of the permanence of type which forms so striking a feature in the great ,roman families4 ,one other remark is suggested by ,galen's notices of his friend4 ,having introduced him to us as ',sergius who is also ,paulus1' he drops the former name altogether in the subsequent narrative1 and speaks of him again and again as ,paulus simply4 ,this illustrates the newly-published ,cyprian inscription1 in which the proconsul of that province is designated by the one name ,paulus only4 #b4 ,the transition from ,general ,cesnola's ,cyprus to ,mr ,wood's ,ephesus carries us forward from the first to the third missionary journey of ,st ,paul4 ,here1 again1 we have illustrative matter of some importance4 ,the main feature in the narrative of the ,acts is the manner in which the cultus of the ,ephesian ,artemis dominates the incidents of the ,apostle's sojourn in that city4 ,as an illustration of this feature1 it would hardly be possible to surpass one of the inscriptions in the existing collection #big3a4 ,we seem to be reading a running commentary on the excited appeal of ,demetrius the silversmith1 when we are informed that 'not only in this city but everywhere temples are dedicated to the goddess1 and statues erected and altars consecrated to her1 on account of the manifest epiphanies which she vouchsafes' 7,greek3 tas hup' autes geinomenas enargeis epiphaneias72 that 'the greatest proof of the reverence paid to her is the fact that a month bears her name1 being called ,artemision among ourselves1 and ,artemisius among the ,macedonians and the other nations of ,greece and their respective cities2' that during this month 'solemn assemblies and religious festivals are held1 and more especially in this our city1 which is the nurse of its own ,ephesian goddess' 7,greek3 te tropho tes idias theou tes ,ephesias72 and that therefore 'the people of the ,ephesians1 considering it meet that the whole of this month which bears the divine name 7,greek3 ton eponumon tou theiou onomatos7 should be kept holy1 and dedicated to the goddess1' has decreed accordingly4 ',for so1' concludes this remarkable document1 'the cultus being set on a better footing1 our city will continue to grow in glory and to be prosperous to all time4' ,the sense of special proprietorship in this goddess of world-wide fame1 which pervades the narrative in the ,acts1 could not be better illustrated than by this decree4 ,but still the newly-published inscriptions greatly enhance the effect4 ,the patron deity not only appears in these as 'the great goddess ,artemis1' as in the ,acts1 but sometimes she is styled 'the supremely great goddess 7,greek3 he megiste theos7 ,artemis4' ,to her favour all men are indebted for all their choicest possessions4 ,she has not only her priestesses1 but her temple-curators1 her essenes1 her divines 7,greek3 theologoi71 her choristers 7,greek3 humnodoi71 her vergers 7,greek3 skeptouchoi71 her tire-women or dressers 7,greek3 kosmeteirai71 and even her 'acrobats1' whatever may be meant by some of these terms4 ,fines are allocated to provide adornments for her2 endowments are given for the cleaning and custody of her images2 decrees are issued for the public exhibition of her treasures4 ,her birthday is again and again mentioned4 ,she is seen and heard everywhere4 ,she is hardly more at home in her own sanctuary than in the ,great ,theatre4 ,this last-mentioned place--the scene of the tumult in the ,acts--is brought vividly before our eyes in ,mr ,wood's inscriptions4 ,the theatre appears as the recognized place of public assembly4 ,here edicts are proclaimed1 and decrees recorded1 and benefactors crowned4 ,when the mob1 under the leadership of ,demetrius1 gathered here for their demonstration against ,st ,paul and his companions1 they would find themselves surrounded by memorials which might stimulate their zeal for the goddess4 ,if the 'town-clerk' had desired to make good his assertion1 ',what man is there that knoweth not that the city of the ,ephesians is sacristan of the great goddess ,artemis8' he had only to point to the inscriptions which lined the theatre for confirmation4 ,the very stones would have cried out from the walls in response to his appeal4 ,nor is the illustration of the magistracies which are named by ,st ,luke less complete4 ,three distinct officers are mentioned in the narrative--the ,roman proconsul 7,greek3 anthupatos71 the governor of the province and supreme administrator of the law1 translated 'deputy' in our version2 the recorder 7,greek3 grammateus7 or chief magistrate of the city itself1 translated 'town-clerk2' and the ,asiarchs 7,greek3 ,asiarchai71 or presidents of the games and of other religious ceremonials1 translated 'the chief of ,asia4' ,all these appear again and again in the newly-discovered inscriptions4 ,sometimes two of the three magistracies will be mentioned on the same stone4 ,sometimes the same person will unite in himself the two offices of recorder and ,asiarch1 either simultaneously or not4 ,the mention of the recorder is especially frequent4 ,his name is employed to authenticate every decree and to fix every date4 ,but besides these more general illustrations of the account in the ,acts1 the newly-discovered inscriptions throw light on some special points in the narrative4 ,thus where the chief magistrate pronounces ,st ,paul and his companions to be 'neither sacrilegious 7,greek3 hierosulous7 nor blasphemers of our goddess' #bii3a1 we discover a special emphasis in the term on finding from these inscriptions that certain offences 7owing to the mutilation of the stone1 we are unable to determine the special offences7 were treated as constructive sacrilege against the goddess4 ',let it be regarded as sacrilege and impiety' 7,greek3 esto hierosulia kai asebeia71 says an inscription found in this very theatre #cjj3a1 though not yet set up at the time when the 'town-clerk' spoke4 ,so again1 where the same speaker describes the city of ,ephesus as the 'neocoros1' the 'temple sweeper1' or 'sacristan of the great goddess ,artemis1' we find in these inscriptions for the first time a direct example of this term so applied4 ,though the term 'neocoros' in itself is capable of general application1 yet as a matter of fact1 when used of ,ephesus on coins and inscriptions 7as commonly in the case of other ,asiatic cities71 it has reference to the cultus not of the patron deity1 but of the ,roman emperors4 ,in this sense ,ephesus is described as 'twice' or 'thrice sacristan1' as the case may be1 the term being used absolutely4 ,there was indeed every probability that the same term would be employed also to describe the relation of the city to ,artemis4 ,by a plausible but highly precarious conjecture it had been introduced into the lacuna of a mutilated inscription #cjj3b4 ,by a highly probable but not certain interpretation it had been elicited from the legend on a coin #cjj3c4 ,there were analogies too which supported it4 ,thus the ,magnesians are styled on the coins 'sacristans of ,artemis' #cjj3d2 and at ,ephesus itself an individual priest is designated by the same term 'sacristan of ,artemis' #cjj3e4 ,nor did it seem unlikely that a city which styled itself 'the nurse of ,artemis' should also claim the less audacious title of 'sacristan' to this same goddess4 ,still probability is not certainty2 and 7so far as ,i am aware7 no direct example was forthcoming4 ,mr ,wood's inscriptions supply this defect4 ,on one of these 'the city of the ,ephesians' is described as 'twice sacristan of the ,augusti according to the decrees of the ,senate and sacristan of ,artemis' #cja3a4 ,one other special coincidence deserves notice4 ,the recorder1 desirous of pacifying the tumult1 appeals to the recognized forms of law4 ',if ,demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen1' he says1 'have a matter against any one1 assizes are held1 and there are proconsuls #cja3b4 ,let them indict one another4 ,but if you have any further question 7i4e41 one which does not fall within the province of the courts of justice71 it shall be settled in the lawful 7regular7 assembly4' ,by a 'lawful 7regular7 assembly' 7,greek3 ennomos ekklesia7 he means one of those which were held on stated days already predetermined by the law1 as opposed to those which were called together on special emergencies out of the ordinary course1 though in another sense these latter might be equally 'lawful4' ,an inscription1 found in this very theatre in which the words were uttered1 illustrates this technical sense of 'lawful4' ,it provides that a certain silver image of ,athene shall be brought and 'set at every lawful 7regular7 assembly 7,greek3 kata pasan nomimon ekklesian7 above the bench where the boys sit' #cja3c4 ,with these facts in view1 we are justified in saying that ancient literature has preserved no picture of the ,ephesus of imperial times--the ,ephesus which has been unearthed by the sagacity and perseverance of ,mr ,wood--comparable for its life-like truthfulness to the narrative of ,st ,paul's sojourn there in the ,acts4 ,i am tempted to add one other illustration of an ancient ,christian writer1 which these inscriptions furnish4 ,ignatius1 writing to the ,ephesians from ,smyrna in the early years of the second century1 borrows an image from the sacred pageant of some heathen deity1 where the statues1 sacred vessels1 and other treasures1 of the temple are borne in solemn procession4 ,he tells his ,christian readers that they all are marching in festive pomp along the ,via ,sacra--the way of love--which leads to ,god2 they all are bearers of treasures committed to them1--for they carry their ,god1 their ,christ1 their shrine1 their sacred things1 in their heart #cjb3a4 ,the image was not new4 ,it is found in ,stoic writers4 ,it underlies the surname ,theophorus1 the ',god-bearer1' which ,ignatius himself adopted4 ,but he had in his company several ,ephesian delegates when he wrote2 and the newly-discovered inscriptions inform us that the practice which supplies the metaphor had received a fresh impulse at ,ephesus shortly before this letter was written4 ,the most important inscriptions in ,mr ,wood's collection relate to a gift of numerous valuable statues1 images1 and other treasures to the temple of ,artemis1 by one ,c4 ,vibius ,salutaris1 with an endowment for their custody4 ,in one of these 7dated ,a4,d4 #ajd7 it is ordained that the treasures so given shall be carried in solemn procession from the temple to the theatre and back 'at every meeting of the assembly1 and at the gymnastic contests1 and on any other days that may be directed by the ,council and the ,people4' ,orders are given respecting the persons forming the procession1 as well as respecting its route4 ,it must pass through the length of the city1 entering by the ,magnesian ,gate and leaving by the ,coressian #cjb3b4 ,,footnotes #a3a ,supernatural ,religion2 ,an ,inquiry into the ,reality of ,divine ,revelation4 ,two ,vols4 ,second ,edition1 #ahgd4 ,subsequent editions are as follows1 ,third and ,fourth ,editions 7#ahgd71 ,fifth and ,sixth ,editions 7#ahge71 ,third ,volume 7#ahgg71 ,complete ,edition1 in ,three ,vols4 7#ahgi74 #c3a ,iren4 v4 #cf4 #a1 #b4 #d3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #cbh sq4 #d3b ,canon p4 #fc1 note #b4 #d3c ,the ,greek is ,greek3 ,einai de ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos 444 kai dia touto eirekenai ton ,kurion en tois tou patros mou monas einai pollas k4t4l4 #d3d ,tacitly corrected in ed4 #d 7,,ii4 p4 #cbh7 where the sentence runs3 ',but 444 there is this distinction etc4' ,see below1 p4 #ef4 #e3a ,the author's defence is dealt with1 pp4 #ec sq1 #abf sq4 #e3b ,the question is discussed below1 p4 #adb sq1 where the author's subsequent explanation is considered4 #e3c ,this charge is withdrawn in ed4 #d 7,,ii4 p4 #cbh n4 #c71 but objection is still taken to the words 'they taught' as conveying 'too positive a view of the case4' ,on the character of this withdrawal see below1 p4 #ec sq4 #e3d ,our author has already 7,,ii4 p4 #cbf7 accused ,tischendorf of 'deliberately falsifying the text by inserting1 say they4' ,tischendorf's words are1 ',und deshalb sagen sie habe der ,herr den ,ausspruch gethan4' ,he might have spared the 'sagen sie1' because the ,german idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact that the words are not ,irenaeus' own1 without this addition4 ,but he has not altered any idea which the original contains2 whereas our author himself has suppressed this all-important fact in his own translation4 ,on this treatment of ,tischendorf see below1 pp4 #ee sq1 #abh1 #ach4 ,the language is modified in ed4 #d 7,,ii4 p4 #cbf7 ',tischendorf renders the oblique construction of the text by inserting say they referring to the ,presbyters of ,papias1' where the point of grammar is silently conceded4 ,the reader may compare ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ajj1 ',the lightness and inaccuracy with which the ,great ,african proceeds is all the better illustrated by the fact1 that not only does he accuse ,marcion falsely1 but he actually defines the motives for which he expunged the passage which never existed etc4444 he actually repeats the same charge on two other occasions4' #f3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ccd4 #f3b ,on the wording of this footnote in ed4 #d see below1 p4 #eh4 ,it is omitted in ed4 #f1 where see ,,ii4 p4 #ccc4 #f3c ,see further on this subject below1 pp4 #ec sq1 #abf sq4 #g3a c4 ,cels4 i4 #h4 #g3b c4 ,cels4 viii4 #gf4 #g3c ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #bca sq4 ,so also the ,complete ,edition 7#ahgi7 ,,ii4 p4 #bbi sq4 #g3d ,there is also another aorist in the part of the sentence1 which our author has not quoted1 ,greek3 allo suntagma 444 en ho didaxein epengeilato4 #h3a ,tacitly corrected in ed4 #f 7,,ii4 p4 #df74 #h3b ,some of the grammatical errors are corrected in ed4 #f 7,,ii4 p4 #fc71 where however new mistranslations are introduced1 as ,greek3 pollachos 'in divers parts'1 and ,greek3 houto makarizetai 444 hoti opsetai ton theon 'becomes so blessed that he shall see ,god'4 #h3c ,greek3 to rhema from ',reason' becomes ',word' in ed4 #f1 but ,greek3 zetesantes still remains 'they who inquire' 7ii4 p4 #bfe74 #h3d ,,ii4 p4 #bif sq4 ,corrected in ed4 #f4 #h3e ,,ii4 p4 #aic4 ,corrected in ed4 #f4 #h3f ,i4 p4 #ddh1 comp4 p4 #dee4 ,the latter passage is struck out in ed4 #f 7see ,i4 p4 #dee72 the former becomes 'committed no error'4 ,see below1 p4 #afc4 #h3g ,,ii4 p4 #chd4 #h3h ,but in ed4 #f 7,,ii4 p4 #chd7 ,i see that my translation is tacitly substituted4 #h3i ,defended as a 'paraphrase' 7see below1 p4 #abi71 but corrected in ed4 #f1 which also omits the first clause4 #i3a ,other errors in translation are given below1 p4 #abi4 #i3b ,i4 p4 #aac4 ,the last words ran 'certainly a late interpolation' in the first edition 7,i4 p4 #ajc74 ,thus the passage has undergone revision1 and yet the author has not discovered the contradiction4 ,the author's own explanation of this discrepancy is given below1 p4 #abd4 ,in ed4 #f 7,i4 p4 #aac7 the sentence ends1 'and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation1' while in the ,complete ,edition 7,i4 p4 #aac7 it is further qualified 'argued by some4' #aj3a ,,ii4 p4 #dba4 ,the argument in favour of the genuineness is expanded in the ,complete ,edition 7,,ii4 pp4 #dai-dbc74 #aj3b ,see below1 p4 #afc sq4 #aa3a ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #bgf4 ,and so throughout all the editions4 #aa3b ,see below1 p4 #aaa4 #aa3c i4 pp4 #ddd-dhe4 #aa3d ,the subject is treated at length below1 p4 #adb sq4 #ab3a ,i4 p4 #dda4 #ab3b ,on ,hegesippus see below1 pp4 #cd sq1 #db4 #ab3c ,on ,justin ,martyr see below1 p4 #dc4 #ab3d ,in ,i4 p4 #cfj1 there is a foot-note1 ',for the arguments of apologetic criticism the reader may be referred to ,canon ,westcott's work ,on the ,canon pp4 #aab-aci4 ,dr ,westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that ,justin's quotations are different from the text of our ,gospels2 but he accounts for his variations on grounds which are' 'seem to us' ed4 #f 'purely imaginary4' ,i can hardly suppose that our author had read the passage to which he refers4 ,otherwise the last sentence would doubtless have run thus1 'but he accounts for his variations by arguments which it would give me some trouble to answer4' #ac3a ,,ii4 p4 #daa4 #ac3b ,our author himself refers to this saying for a wholly different purpose later on 7,,ii4 p4 #daf74 #ad3a ,,ii4 p4 #djh4 ,our author says1 ',it is clear that ,paul is referred to in the address to the ,church of ,ephesus3 ,and thou didst try them which say that they are ,apostles and are not1 and didst find them false4' ,he seems to forget what he himself has said 7p4 #cie71 ',no result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis 444 than the fact that the ,apocalypse was written in ,a4,d4 #fh1 #fi1' i4e41 after ,st ,paul's death4 ,this theory moreover is directly at variance with the one definite fact which we know respecting the personal relations between the two ,apostles2 namely1 that they gave to each other the right hands of fellowship 7,gal4 ii4 #i74 ,it is surprising therefore that this extravagant paradox should have been recently reproduced in an ,english review of high character4 #ad3b #a ,cor4 x4 #g1 #h1 #ad1 #ba4 ,when the season of persecution arrived1 and the constancy of ,christians was tested in this very way1 ,st ,paul's own principles would require a correspondingly rigid abstinence from even apparent complicity in idolatrous rites4 ,there is every reason therefore to believe that1 if ,st ,paul had been living when the ,apocalypse was written1 he would have expressed himself not less strongly on the same side4 ,on the other hand these early ,gnostics who are denounced in the ,apocalypse seem1 like their successors in the next generation1 to have held that a ,christian might conform to ,gentile practices in these matters to escape persecution4 ,st ,paul combats this spirit of license1 then in its infancy1 in the ,first ,epistle to the ,corinthians4 #ad3c ,on the diction of the ,fourth ,gospel see below1 p4 #aca sq4 #ad3d ,,ii4 p4 #dde4 #ae3a ,the ,authorship and ,historical ,character of the ,fourth ,gospel 7#ahgb74 ,macmillans4 #ae3b ,our author 7,,ii4 p4 #ddd7 speaks of 'the works of imagination of which the world is full1 and the singular realism of many of which is recognized by all4' ,is this a true description of the world in the early ,christian ages8 ,if not1 it is nothing to the purpose4 #ae3c ,,ii4 p4 #chi4 ',apologists' lay stress on the difference of theme4 ,see below1 p4 #aca sq4 #ae3d ,he does however mention the term elsewhere2 see below1 p4 #abc4 #ae3e ,,ii4 p4 #dfh1 and elsewhere4 #af3a ,,ii4 p4 #dea4 #af3b ,these passages are added without comment in the ,complete ,edition in a note on ,,ii4 p4 #dec4 #af3c ,on this point see below1 p4 #aca4 #ag3a ,,ii1 p4 #dgb sq2 comp4 pp4 #ahf sq1 #bga4 ,the statement stands unchanged in the ,complete ,edition 7,,ii4 p4 #dgd sq74 #ag3b ,see further1 p4 #ii sq4 #ag3c ,,ii4 p4 #dba4 ,travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify ,sychar with the village bearing the ,arabic name ,askar4 ,this fact is not mentioned by our author4 ,he says moreover1 ',it is admitted' 'evident' ed4 #f 'that there was no such place as ,sychar1 ,greek3 ,suchar1 and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty4' ,this is altogether untrue4 ,others besides 'apologists' point to passages in the ,talmud which speak of 'the well of ,suchar 7or ,sochar1 or ,sichar72' see ,neubauer ,la ,geographie du ,talmud p4 #afi sq4 ,our author refers in his note to an article by ,delitzsch ,zeitschr4 f4 ,luth4 ,theol4 #ahef p4 #bdj sq4 ,he cannot have read the article1 for these ,talmudic references are its main purport4 #ah3a ,the whole question of ,sychar in treated at length below1 p4 #acc sq1 where also the author's explanation of his meaning is given4 #ah3b ,,ii4 p4 #dai4 ,this whole section is struck out in the ,complete ,edition 7see ,,ii4 p4 #dag71 but the error survived ed4 #f 7,,ii4 p4 #dai74 #ah3c 'never once' ed4 #f 7,,ii4 p4 #dbd74 #ai3a ,,ii4 p4 #dbc sq4 #ai3b ,credner ,einl4 ,i4 p4 #baj '444hat er es nicht fuer noethig gefunden1 den ,taeufer ,johannes von dem gleichnamigen ,apostel ,johannes auch nur ein einziges ,mal durch den ,zusatz ,greek3 ho baptistes zu unterscheiden 7i4 #f1 #ae1 #ai1 #bf1 #bh1 #bi1 #cb1 #ce1 #da2 iii4 #bc1 #bd1 #be1 #bf1 #bg2 iv4 #a2 v4 #cc1 #cf2 x4 #dj1 #da74' #ai3c ,for the author's own explanation of this error see below1 p4 #abd sq4 #bj3a ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #dei4 #ba3a ,canon p4 #bfd4 ,the words of ,clement 7,strom4 vii4 #ag7 to which ,dr ,westcott refers1 are3 ,greek3 ,kathaper ho ,basileides1 kan ,glaukian epigraphetai didaskalon1 hos auchousin autoi1 ton ,petrou hermenea4 #ba3b ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #dd sq4 ,the words which ,i have enclosed in brackets were inserted in the ,second ,edition4 ,a frank withdrawal would have been worth something2 but this insertion only aggravates the offence4 ,after having been partly re-written in ed4 #f 7,,ii4 p4 #dd71 the whole section is cut out in the ,complete ,edition 7see ,,ii4 p4 #dd74 #bb3a ,for the author's explanation of his language see below1 p4 #abc sq4 #bb3b ,this point is reverted to below1 pp4 #acd1 #ahg sq4 #bb3c ,our author's explanation of the term is given below1 p4 #acd4 #bc3a ,one such list is dealt with in full1 p4 #fe sq4 #bd3a ,essays in ,criticism p4 #eg4 #bd3b ,paulus p4 #dfi sq 7#ast ed474 #bd3c ,nachapost4 ,zeitalter ,,ii4 p4 #ace4 #bd3d ,theolog4 ,jahrb4 ,,xv4 p4 #caa sq1 ,,xvi4 p4 #adg sq4 #be3a ,zur ,kritik ,paulinischer ,briefe4 ,leipzig1 #ahgj4 ,the author's conclusions are supported by an appeal to the ,hebrew1 ,arabic1 ,syriac1 and ,armenian languages4 ,the learning of this curious pamphlet keeps pace with its absurdity4 ,if the reader is disposed to think that this writer must be laughing in his sleeve at the methods of the modern school to which he belongs1 he is checked by the obviously serious tone of the whole discussion4 ,indeed it is altogether in keeping with ,hitzig's critical discoveries elsewhere4 ,to this same critic we owe the suggestion1 that the name of the fabulist ,a,esop is derived from ,solomon's hyssop that springeth out of the wall1 #a ,kings iv4 #cc3 ,die ,sprueche ,salomo's p4 xvi4 sq4 #be3b e4g4 respecting the date of the book of ,judith1 on which depends the authenticity of ,clement's ,epistle 7,i4 p4 #bbb71 the date of ,celsus 7,,ii4 p4 #bbh71 etc4 #be3c ,see further1 p4 #ada4 #bg3a ,our author objects to this conclusion2 see below1 p4 #ach sq4 #bg3a ,,ii4 p4 #dhd4 #bg3b ,,ii4 p4 #dhg sq4 #bg3c ,,ii4 p4 #dhf4 #bg3d ,,ii4 p4 #dhg sq4 #bg3e ,,ii4 p4 #dhi4 #bh3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #dij4 #bi3a ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 xiv4 #cj3a ,,ii4 p4 #dib4 #cj3b ,,ii4 p4 #dib4 #cj3c ,,ii4 p4 #dib4 #cb3a ,i4 p4 #bab4 ,the references throughout this article are given to the fourth edition4 ,but1 with the single exception which ,i shall have occasion to notice at the close1 ,i have not observed any alterations from the second1 with which ,i have compared it in all the passages here quoted4 #cb3b ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bf1 #bg4 #cd3a ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #dcb4 #cd3b ,i4 p4 #dcc sq4 ,i must leave it to others to reconcile the statement respecting the ,apocalypse in the text with another which ,i find elsewhere in this work 7i4 p4 #dhc73 ',andrew1 a ,cappadocian bishop of the fifth century1 mentions that ,papias1 amongst others of the ,fathers1 considered the ,apocalypse inspired4 ,no reference is made to this by ,eusebius2 but although1 from his ,millenarian tendencies1 it is very probable that ,papias regarded the ,apocalypse with peculiar veneration as a prophetic book1 this evidence is too vague and isolated to be of much value4' ,the difficulty is increased when we compare these two passages with a third 7,,ii4 p4 #cce73 ',andrew of ,caesarea1 in the preface to his ,commentary on the ,apocalypse1 mentions that ,papias maintained 'the credibility' ,greek3 to axiopiston of that book1 or in other words1 its ,apostolic origin4444 ,apologists admit the genuineness of this statement1 nay1 claim it as undoubted evidence of the acquaintance of ,papias with the ,apocalypse4444 ,now he must therefore have recognised the book as the work of the ,apostle ,john4' ,the italics1 ,i ought to say1 are my own1 in all the three passages quoted4 #cd3c 'regarding the composition of the first two ,gospels' ed4 #f 7,i4 p4 #dcc74 ,the error is acknowledged in the preface to that edition 7p4 xxi74 #ce3a ,i4 p4 #dce4 #ce3b 'so far as we know' inserted in ed4 #f4 #ce3c ,,ii4 p4 #cbj4 #ce3d 'said anything interesting about' ,complete ,edition 7,,ii4 p4 #cah74 #ce3e ,i4 p4 #dhc4 #ce3f 'to state what the ,fathers say about' ed4 #f4 ,on the ambiguity of this expression see below1 p4 #ahc sq4 #ce3g 'mention' ed4 #f4 #ce3h ,,ii4 p4 #cbb4 #ce3i 'said anything regarding the composition or authorship' ed4 #f4 #ce3aj ,,ii4 p4 #cbc4 #ce3aa ,so also ed4 #f4 ,in the ,complete ,edition 7,,ii4 p4 #cba7 the sentence ends 'did not find anything regarding the ,fourth ,gospel in the work of ,papias1 and that ,papias was not acquainted with it4' #ce3ab ,,ii4 p4 #afd4 #ce3ac ,in ed4 #f the sentence ends here4 #cf3a ,,ii4 p4 #aff4 #cf3b 'said anything about' ed4 #f4 ,the whole sentence is omitted in the ,complete ,edition4 #cg3a ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #c4 ,the important words are ,greek3 tines ton kata chronous ekklesiastikon sungrapheon hopoiais kechrentai ton antilegomenon1 tina te peri ton endiathekon kai homologoumenon graphon kai hosa peri ton me toiouton autois eiretai4 ,the words spaced will show the two different modes of treatment2 7#a7 ,the mention of references or testimonies in the case of the disputed writings only2 7#b7 ,the record of anecdotes in the case of acknowledged and disputed writings alike4 ,the double relative in the first clause1 ,greek3 tines 444 hopoiais1 is incapable of literal translation in ,english2 but this does not affect the question4 ,the two modes are well illustrated in the case of ,irenaeus4 ,eusebius gives from this ,father testimonies to the ,epistle to the ,hebrews etc41 and anecdotes respecting the ,gospel and ,apocalypse alike4 #ch3a ,quoted by ,s4,r4 ed4 #f1 p4 xiv4 ,for his criticism upon this ,essay see below1 p4 #agh sq4 #ci3a ,h4,e4 iii4 #bd4 #dj3a ,see ,lardner ,credibility ,,ii4 p4 #ce sq 7#ahce74 ,for the sake of economising space ,i shall refer from time to time to this work1 in which the testimonies of ancient writers are collected and translated1 so that they are accessible to ,english readers4 ,any one1 whose ideas have been confused by reading ,supernatural ,religion1 cannot fail to obtain a clearer view of the real state of the case by referring to this book4 ,it must be remembered1 however1 that recent discovery has added to the amount of evidence1 more especially in reference to the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,i refer1 of course1 to the quotations in the ,gnostic fragments preserved by ,hippolytus1 and in the ,clementine ,homilies4 #dj3b ,clem4 ,rom4 #e4 #dj3c ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #bbc4 #dj3d ,clem4 ,rom4 #dg4 ',take up the ,epistle of the blessed ,paul the ,apostle4 ,what first did he write to you in the beginning of the ,gospel8 ,of a truth he gave injunctions to you in the ,spirit ,greek3 pneumatikos concerning himself and ,cephas and ,apollos1 because even then ye had made parties 7,greek3 proskliseis74 #dj3e ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #cg4 #da3a ,polyc4 #b2 comp4 ,matt4 x4 #af4 #da3b ,ephes4 #ad2 comp4 ,matt4 xii4 #cc4 #da3c ,smyrn4 #f2 comp4 ,matt4 xix4 #ab4 #da3d ,philad4 #g2 comp4 ,john iii4 #h4 #da3e ,magn4 #h2 comp4 ,john viii4 #bi4 #da3f ,rom4 #d4 #da3g ,ephes4 #ab4 #da3h ,see ,lardner ,,ii4 p4 #gh sq for the testimonies in ,ignatius generally4 #da3i ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #cf4 #db3a ,de ,vir4 ,illustr4 c4 #af4 #db3b ,ephes4 #ab2 comp4 ,rom4 #d4 #db3c ,ephes4 #g2 comp4 ,ephes4 #a1 ,polyc4 #c1 ,rom4 #f etc4 #db3d ,magn4 #h-aj2 comp4 ,philad4 #f4 #db3e ,see ,lardner ,,ii4 p4 #ii sq for the passages4 #dc3a ,h4,e4 iv4 #ad4 #dc3b ,h4,e4 iii4 #cf4 #dc3c ,i4 ,apol4 #ff4 #dc3d ,see ,semisch ,justin ,martyr ,i4 #dc3e ,h4,e4 iv4 #ah4 #dd3a ,h4,e4 iv4 #bd4 #dd3b ,lardner ,,ii4 p4 #bjh sq4 #dd3c ,ad ,autol4 ii4 #bb4 #dd3d ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #dgd4 #dd3e ,h4,e4 iv4 #bd4 #dd3f ,lardner ,,ii4 p4 #agf sq4 #de3a ,h4,e4 v4 #f4 #de3b ,h4,e4 v4 #h4 #df3a ,h4,e4 v4 #bf4 #dg3a ,h4,e4 iv4 #bf4 #dg3b ,h4,e4 v4 #ah4 #dg3c ,h4,e4 vi4 #bj4 #dg3d ,h4,e4 vi4 #ac1 #ad4 #dh3a ,iren4 iii4 #a4 #a4 #dh3b ,iren4 iii4 #aa4 #a4 #dh3c ,iren4 ii4 #be1 cited in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #bc4 #di3a ,polyc4 ,phil4 #g4 #di3b ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #dhc4 #di3c ,the author's mode of dealing with this passage in his later editions is commented upon below1 p4 #aia sq4 ,in the ,complete ,edition 7#ahgi7 the words 'as elsewhere' still remain4 ,the last sentence however1 which survived ed4 #f1 is at length withdrawn1 and with it the offending note4 #ej3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 pp4 #cgd-cgi1 #ccf-cda4 #ej3b ,on this matter see below1 p4 #aia sq4 #ea3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #fb4 #ea3b ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ff4 #eb3a ,see below1 p4 #ahh sq4 #ec3a ,see above1 pp4 #c sq1 #e sq4 #ed3a ,,ii4 p4 #cbh4 ,in the quotations which follow1 ,i have italicised some portions to show the difference of interpretation in the earlier and later editions4 #ee3a ,i see that it was pointed out in the ,inquirer of ,nov4 #gth #ahgd4 #ee3b ,s4,r4 7ed4 #d7 #aa4 p4 #cbf4 #ef3a ,s4,r4 7ed4 #b7 #aa4 p4 #cbg4 #eg3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ccj4 #eh3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ccd4 ,see above1 p4 #f4 #ei3a ,the ,essay on the ,ignatian ,epistles represents the writer's views at the time when it was written4 ,in the course of the ,essay he has stated that at one time he had entertained misgivings about the seven ,vossian letters4 ,his maturer opinions establishing their genuineness will be found in his volumes on the ,apostolic ,fathers ,part ,,ii4 ,s4 ,ignatius1 ,s4 ,polycarp1 #ahhe 7,london1 ,macmillan and ,co471 to which he refers his readers4 #fj3a ,s4,r4 i4 p4 #bfc4 #fb3a ,i4 p4 #bfi4 #fb3b ,i4 p4 #bgj4 #fb3c ,i4 p4 #bgd4 #fc3a ,i4 p4 #bgd4 #fc3b 'many' ed4 #f 7,i4 p4 #bfd72 the reading 'most' is explained in the preface to that edition 7p4 xxvi7 as a misprint4 #fc3c ,i4 p4 #bfc sq4 #fd3a ,die ,ignatianischen ,briefe etc41 ,eine ,streitschrift gegen ,herrn ,bunsen1 ,tuebingen1 #ahdh4 #fd3b ,apostelgeschichte p4 #ea4 ,he declares himself 'ganz einverstanden' with ,baur's view4 #fd3c ,apostol4 ,vaeter p4 #ahi2 ,zeitschrift 7#ahgd7 p4 #if sq4 #fd3d ,meletemata ,ignatiana 7#ahfa74 #fd3e ,die aelt4 ,zeugn4 p4 #ej4 #fd3f ,evangelien 7#ahgj7 p4 #fcf4 #fd3g ,volkmar himself1 in the passage to which the last note refers1 supposes that the seven ,epistles date about ,a4,d4 #agj4 #fd3h ,for the earlier opinion of ,lipsius1 see ,aechtheit d4 ,syr4 ,recens4 d4 ,ign4 ,briefe p4 #aei2 for his later opinion1 ,hilgenfeld's ,zeitschrift 7#ahgd71 p4 #baa sq4 #ff3a p4 #adb 7ed4 #ahfb74 #ff3b ,the references in the case of ,lipsius are to his earlier works1 where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the ,curetonian letters4 #ff3c ,see ,pearson's ,vindiciae ,ignatianae p4 #bh 7ed4 ,churton74 #fg3a ,the reader will find the opinions of these writers given in ,jacobson's ,patres ,apostolici ,i4 p4 xxvii2 or more fully in ,pearson's ,vindiciae ,ignatianae p4 #bg sq1 from whom ,russel's excerpts1 reprinted by ,jacobson1 are taken4 #fg3b ,in his preface to ed4 #f 7p4 xxxiii7 our author admits his error in the case of ,rivet1 whose name is struck out from the note on ,i4 p4 #bfj in that edition4 #fi3a ,see ,jacobson ,patres ,apostolici ,i4 p4 xlvi1 where the passage is given4 #fi3b ,our author 7ed4 #f1 p4 xxxv sq7 falls foul of my criticism of his references4 ,it is contrary to my purpose to reopen the question1 but ,i confidently leave it to those who will examine the passages for themselves to say whether he is justified in his inferences4 ,he however 'gives up' ,wotton and ,weismann4 #gj3a p4 xxxiv 7,reprint of #aheh74 #gj3b ,fortnightly ,review1 ,january1 #ahge1 p4 #i4 #ga3a ,he mentions an earlier edition of this ,version printed at ,constantinople in #aghc1 but had not seen it2 ,corp4 ,ign4 p4 xvi4 #gb3a ,i4 p4 #bfd4 #gb3b ,i4 p4 #bfe4 #gc3a ,the ,roman ,epistle indeed has been separated from its companions1 and is imbedded in the ,martyrology which stands at the end of this collection in the ,latin ,version1 where doubtless it stood also in the ,greek1 before the ,,ms of this latter was mutilated4 ,otherwise the ,vossian ,epistles come together1 and are followed by the confessedly spurious ,epistles in the ,greek and ,latin ,,mss4 ,in the ,armenian all the ,vossian ,epistles are together1 and the confessedly spurious ,epistles follow4 ,see ,zahn ,ignatius von ,antiochien p4 #aaa4 #gc3b ,i4 p4 #bfb4 #gc3c p4 #afd4 #gc3d ,ign4 ,rom4 #e1 where the words ,greek3 ego ginosko nun archomai mathetes einai are found in ,eusebius as in the ,vossian ,epistles1 but are wanting in the ,curetonian4 ,there are other smaller differences4 #gd3a ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #bfi4 #gd3b ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #bfg4 #ge3a ,this objection is well discussed by ,zahn ,ignatius von ,antiochien p4 #bgh sq 7#ahgc71 where our author's arguments are answered by anticipation substantially as ,i have answered them in the text4 ,i venture to call attention to this work 7which does not appear yet to have attracted the notice of ,english writers7 as the most important contribution to the ,ignatian literature which has appeared since ,cureton's publications introduced a new era in the controversy4 ,zahn defends the genuineness of the ,vossian ,epistles4 #gf3a ,ruinart ,acta ,martyrum ,sincera p4 #acd sq4 7,ratisbon1 #ahei47 #gf3b ,ruinart p4 #ada4 ',praepositus carceris1 qui nos magni facere coepit 444 multos fratres ad nos admittebat1 ut et nos et illi invicem refrigeraremus1' p4 #add4 ',tribunus 444 jussit illos humanius haberi1 ut fratribus ejus et ceteris facultas fieret introeundi et refrigerandi cum eis4' #gf3c ,de ,morte ,peregr4 #ab4 #gg3a ,see ,zahn ,ignatius p4 #ebg4 ,lucian says of ,peregrinus 7now no longer a ,christian1 but a ,cynic71 c4 #da1 ,greek3 phasi de pasais schedon tais endoxois polesin epistolas diapempsai auton1 diathekas tinas kai paraineseis kai nomous2 kai tinas epi touto presbeutas ton hetairon echeirotonese nekrangelous kai nerterodromous prosagoreusas4 ,this description exactly corresponds to the letters and delegates of ,ignatius4 ,see especially ,polyc4 #g1 ,greek3 cheirotonesai tina 444 hos dunesetai theodromous kaleisthai4 ,the ,christian bystanders reported that a dove had been seen to issue from the body of ,polycarp when he was martyred at the stake 7,martyr4 ,polyc4 c4 #af74 ,similarly ,lucian represents himself as spreading a report1 which was taken up and believed by the ,cynic's disciples1 that a vulture was seen to rise from the pyre of ,peregrinus when he consigned himself to a voluntary death by burning4 ,it would seem that the satirist here is laughing at the credulity of these simple ,christians1 with whose history he appears to have had at least a superficial acquaintance4 #gg3b ,as a corollary to this argument1 our author says that the ,epistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such circumstances4 ,it is sufficient to reply that even the ,vossian ,epistles are more abrupt than the letters written by ,st ,paul1 when chained to a soldier4 ,the abruptness of the ,curetonian ,epistles is still greater--indeed so great as to render them almost unintelligible in parts4 ,i write this notwithstanding that our author1 following ,cureton1 has expressed a different opinion respecting the style of the ,curetonian ,letters4 ,our author speaks also of the length of the letters4 ,the ,curetonian ,letters occupy five large octavo pages in ,cureton's translation1 p4 #bbg4 ,even the seven ,vossian ,letters might have been dictated in almost as many hours2 and it would be strange indeed if1 by bribe or entreaty1 ,ignatius could not have secured this indulgence from one or other of his guards during a journey which must have occupied months rather than weeks4 ,he also describes the ,epistles as purporting to be written 'at every stage of his journey4' ',every stage' must be interpreted 'two stages1' for all the ,seven ,vossian ,epistles profess to have been written either at ,smyrna or at ,troas4 #gh3a ,this1 as more than one writer has pointed out1 seems to be the meaning of ,greek3 oi kai euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai ,ign4 ,rom4 #e4 #gh3b ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #bfh4 #gi3a ,a ,few ,words on ,supernatural ,religion p4 xx sq1 a preface to the fourth edition of ,dr ,westcott's ,history of the ,canon1 but published separately4 #gi3b ,handbuch der ,einleitung in die ,apokryphen ,i4 pp4 #di sq1 #aba sq4 #gi3c p4 #bgf 7ed4 ,bonn474 #gi3d ,in ,st ,chrysostom's age it appears to have been kept at quite a different time of the year--in ,june2 see ,zahn1 p4 #ec4 #hj3a ,the one first published by ,ruinart from a ,colbert ,,ms1 and the other by ,dressel from a ,vatican ,,ms4 ,the remaining ,martyrologies1 those of the ,metaphrast1 of the ,bollandists1 and of the ,armenian version1 have no independent value1 being compacted from these two4 #hj3b ,the authorities for these statements will be found in ,cureton's ,corpus ,ignatianum1 p4 #aeh sq4 #hj3c ,see ,lipsius ,ueber das ,verhaeltniss des ,textes der drei ,syrischen ,briefe etc4 p4 #g4 #ha3a pp4 #bfh1 #bgi 7ed4 ,bonn474 #ha3b ,the former explanation is suggested by ,lipsius1 l4c42 the latter by ,zahn1 p4 #fg4 #ha3c ,the testimonies to which ,i refer in this paragraph will be found in ,cureton's ,corpus ,ignatianum p4 #aeh sq4 ,the question of the credibility of ,malalas1 and of the meaning of ,greek3 epi ,traianou1 is treated more fully in my ,apostolic ,fathers1 ,part ,,ii4 ,s4 ,ignatius1 ,s4 ,polycarp1 ,,ii4 pp4 #dcg-ddg 7ed4 #b74 #hb3a ,this pledge is fulfilled below1 p4 #ic sq4 #he3a ,ign4 ,rom4 #g4 ,in the ,syriac version the expression is watered down 7perhaps to get rid of the ,gnostic colouring71 and becomes 'fire for another love2' and similarly in the ,long ,greek ,greek3 philoun ti is substituted for ,greek3 philouelon4 ,compare ,rom4 #f1 'neque per materiam seducatis1' a passage which is found in the ,latin translation1 but has accidentally dropped out1 or been intentionally omitted1 from the ,greek4 #he3b e4g4 ,philippians p4 #bcb sq4 #hf3a ,ign4 ,magn4 #h4 ,greek3 hos estin autou logos aidios1 ouk apo siges proelthon4 #hg3a ,cureton's ,corp4 ,ign4 p4 #bde4 #hg3b ,euseb4 ,eccl4 ,theol4 ii4 #i1 etc4 ,see on this subject a paper in the ,journal of ,philology1 ,no4 ii4 p4 #ea sq4 #ij3a ,see below1 p4 #ajc sq4 #ij3b ,mart4 ,polyc4 #i4 ,greek3 ogdoekonta kai hex ete echo douleuon auto4 ,this expression is somewhat ambiguous in itself1 and for ,greek3 echo douleuon ,eusebius reads ,greek3 douleuo4 #ia3a ,papias in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #ci2 ,iren4 ii4 #bb4 #e 7and elsewhere72 ,polycrates in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #bd2 ,clem4 ,alex4 ,quis div4 salv4 #db 7p4 #ieh72 ,apollonius in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #ah4 #ia3b ,muratorian ,fragment p4 #cc1 ed4 ,tregelles 7written about ,a4,d4 #agj-ahj74 #ia3c ,john i4 #dd1 xii4 #ba sq4 #ia3d ,papias in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #ci2 ,polycrates in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #ca1 v4 #bd2 ,caius 7,hippolytus87 in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #cj4 ,i have given reasons for believing that the ,philip who lived at ,hierapolis was the ,apostle and not the ,evangelist in ,colossians p4 #de sq4 #ia3e ,papias1 l4c4 #ib3a #a ,pet4 i4 #a4 #ib3b ,iren4 iii4 #c4 #d4 #ib3c ,iren4 ii4 #bb4 #e1 iii4 #c4 #d4 #ib3d e4g4 ,tertull4 de ,praescr4 ,haer4 #cb4 #ic3a ,ign4 ,polyc4 #a-d4 #ic3b ib4 ,sec4 #h4 #ic3c ,polyc4 ,phil4 #ac4 ,see below1 p4 #aaa sq4 #ic3d ,this supposition is quite consistent with his using certain writings as authoritative4 ,thus he appeals to the ,oracles of the ,lord 7,sec4 #g71 and he treats ,st ,paul as incomparably greater than himself or others like him 7,sec4 #c74 #id3a ,the question of the ,jewish or ,gentile origin of ,clement has been much disputed4 ,my chief reason for the view adopted in the text is the fact that he shows not only an extensive knowledge of the ,old ,testament1 but also an acquaintance with the traditional teaching of the ,jews4 ,i find the name borne by a ,jew in a sepulchral inscription 7,orell4 ,inscr4 #bhii73 ,d4,m4 ,,clemeti4 ,,caesarvm4 ,n4,n4 ,,servo4 ,,castellario4 ,,aqvae4 ,,clavdiae4 ,,fecit4 ,,clavdia4 ,,sabbathis4 ,,et4 ,,sibi4 ,,et4 ,,svis4 ,if a conjecture may be hazarded1 ,i venture to think that our ,clement was a freedman or the son of a freedman in the household of ,flavius ,clemens1 the cousin of ,domitian1 whom the ,emperor put to death for his profession of ,christianity4 ,it is a curious fact1 that ,clement of ,alexandria bears the name ,t4 ,flavius ,clemens4 ,he also was probably descended from some dependent belonging to the household of one or other of the ,flavian princes4 #id3b ,lardner ,credibility ,pt4 ii4 c4 vi4 #id3c ,phil4 ,sec4#aj4 ',eleemosyna de morte liberat1' from ,tobit iv4 #aj1 xii4 #i4 #ie3a ,phil4 ,sec4 #ab4 ',ut his scripturis dictum est2 ,irascimini1 et nolite peccare1 et ,sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram1' evidently taken from ,ephes4 iv4 #bf4 #ie3b ib4 ,sec4 #a4 ,greek3 hon egeiren ho ,theos lusas tas odinas tou hadou1 from ,acts ii4 #bd4 #ie3c ,see above1 p4 #di sq4 #ie3d ,the unrepresented ,epistles are ,titus and ,philemon4 ,the reference to ,colossians is uncertain2 and in one or two other cases the coincidence is not so close as to remove all possibility of doubt4 #if3a ,phil4 ,sec4 #h4 #ig3a ,greek3 ton autopton tes zoes tou ,logou4 ,i would gladly translate this 'the eye-witnesses of the ,word of ,life' 7comp4 #a ,john i4 #a71 as it is commonly taken2 but ,i cannot get this out of the ,greek order4 ,possibly there is an accidental transposition in the common text4 ,the ,syriac translator has 'those who saw with their eyes the living ,word4' #ig3b ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #bj4 #ih3a ,dodwell and ,grabe explain the reference by a visit of ,hadrian to ,asia1 which the former places ,a4,d4 #abb1 and the latter ,a4,d4 #abi 7,grabe ,proleg4 sect4 #a72 but both these dates seem too early1 even if there were no other objections4 ,massuet 7,diss4 in ,iren4 ii4 sect4 #b7 considers that the expression does not imply the presence of the imperial court in ,asia1 but signifies merely that ,florinus was a courtier in high favour with the ,emperor4 ,but ,irenaeus could hardly have expressed himself so1 if he had meant nothing more than this4 ,the succeeding ,emperor1 ,antoninus ,pius 7,a4,d4 #ach-afa71 spent his time almost entirely in ,italy4 ,capitolinus says of him3 ',nec ullas expeditiones obiit1 nisi quod ad agros suos profectus et ad ,campaniam1' ,vit4 ,anton4 #g4 ,he appears however to have gone to ,egypt and ,syria in the later years of his reign 7,aristid4 ,op4 i4 p4 #dec1 ed4 ,dind471 and the account of ,john ,malalas would seem to imply that he visited ,asia ,minor on his return 7p4 #bhj1 ed4 ,bonn474 ,but ,m4 ,waddington 7,vie du ,rheteur ,a,elius ,aristide p4 #bei sq7 shows that he was still at ,antioch in the early part of the year #aee2 so that this visit1 if it really took place1 is too late for our purpose4 ,as no known visit of a reigning ,emperor will suit1 ,i venture to offer a conjecture4 ,about the year #acf1 ,t4 ,aurelius ,fulvus was proconsul of ,asia 7,waddington ,fastes des provinces ,asiatiques p4 #gbd74 ,within two or three years from his proconsulate he was raised to the imperial throne1 and is known as ,antoninus ,pius4 ,florinus may have belonged to his suite1 and ,irenaeus in after years might well call the proconsul's retinue1 in a loose way1 the 'royal court' by anticipation4 ,this explanation gives a visit of sufficient length1 and otherwise fits in with the circumstances4 #ih3b ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #ae1 #bj4 #ajj3a ,this at least seems to be the most probable meaning of ,greek3 parechorese ten eucharistian4 #ajj3b ,h4,e4 v4 #bd4 #aja3a ,iren4 iii4 #c4 #d4 #ajb3a ,quoted anonymously in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #bh4 #ajc3a ,lipsius ,chronologie der ,roemischen ,bischoefe p4 #bfc4 #ajc3b ,see ,jacobson's ,patres ,apostolici ii4 p4 #fjd4 #ajc3c ,see his ,memoire sur la ,chronologie de la ,vie du ,rheteur ,a,elius ,aristide in the ,memoires de l',academie des ,inscriptions xxvi4 p4 #bjb sq2 and his ,fastes des provinces ,asiatiques in ,le ,bas and ,waddington's ,voyage ,archeologique en ,grece et en ,asie ,mineure4 #ajd3a ,l',antechrist p4 #eff4 #ajd3b ,lipsius in the ,zeitsch4 f4 ,wissensch4 ,theol4 xvii4 p4 #ahh 7#ahgd72 ,hilgenfeld ib4 p4 #cbe sq4 #aje3a ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #bgf4 #aje3b ,it should be mentioned also that we have another exceptional guarantee in the fact that ,polycarp's ,epistle was read in the ,church of ,asia2 ,jerome ,vir4 ,ill4 #ag1 ',usque hodie in ,asiae conventu legitur4' #ajh3a ,phil4 ,sec4 #e4 #ajh3b ,i believe that the facts stated in the text are strictly correct2 but ,i may have overlooked some passages4 ,at all events a careful reader will1 if ,i mistake not1 observe a marked difference in the ordinary theological language of the two writers4 #aji3a ,see above1 p4 #di sq4 #aji3b ,ign4 ,magn4 #ac is given by ,lardner 7p4 #hh7 as a coincidence with #a ,pet4 v4 #e4 ,but the expression in question1 'to be subject one to another1' occurs also in ,ephes4 v4 #ba1 even if any stress could be laid on the occurrence of these few obvious words4 #aaj3a ,altkatholische ,kirche p4 #ehd sq 7ed4 #b74 #aaa3a ,see above1 p4 #fc sq4 #aaa3b ,see above1 p4 #aa4 #aab3a ,ritschl 7l4c4 p4 #ehf71 though himself condemning the thirteenth chapter as an interpolation1 treats this objection as worthless1 and says very decidedly that the corresponding ,greek must have been ,greek3 ton met' autou4 #aab3a ,fortnightly ,review1 ,january1 #ahge1 p4 #ad4 #aad3a ,i have collected several instances in ,philippians p4 #ach sq4 ,see also below1 p4 #ahi4 #aad3b ,polyc4 ,phil4 ,sec4 #c4 #aae3a ,see above1 pp4 #ih1 #ajc sq4 #aae3b ,the words of ,irenaeus are1 ,greek3 kai autos de ho ,polukarpos ,markioni pote eis opsin auto elthonti k4t4l4 ,zahn 7,ignatius p4 #dif7 remarks on this that the ,greek3 pote refers us to another point of time than the sojourn of ,polycarp in ,rome mentioned in the preceding sentence4 ,i could not feel sure of this2 but it separates this incident from the others1 and leaves the time indeterminate4 #aaf3a ,in the ,letter to ,florinus1 quoted above1 p4 #if sq4 #aaf3b ,polyc4 ,phil4 ,sec4 #g4 #aag3a e4g4 ,iren4 i4 #bg4 #b1 #c2 iii4 #ab4 #ab4 #aah3a ,iren4 i4 #bf4 #a4 #aah3b ,this seems to be the form of heresy attacked in the ,ignatian letters3 ,magn4 #aa2 ,trall4 #i2 ,smyrn4 #a4 #aah3c #a ,john iv4 #b1 #c1 ',every spirit that confesseth ,jesus ,christ come 7,greek3 eleluthota7 in the flesh is of ,god2 and every spirit that confesseth not ,jesus is not of ,god4' ,i cannot refrain from expressing the suspicion that the correct reading in this second clause may be ,greek3 luei1 'divideth' or 'dissolveth1' instead of ,greek3 me homologei1 'confesseth not4' ,it is the reading of the ,old ,latin1 of ,irenaeus1 of ,tertullian1 and of ,origen2 and ,socrates 7,h4,e4 vii4 #cb7 says that it was found 'in the old copies4' ,though the passages of ,irenaeus and ,origen are only extant in ,latin versions1 yet the contexts clearly show that the authors themselves so read it4 ,it is difficult to conceive that the very simple ,greek3 me homologei would be altered into ,greek3 luei1 whereas the converse change would be easy4 ,at all events ,greek3 luei must represent a very early gloss1 dating probably from a time when the original reference of ,st ,john was obvious2 and it well describes the ,christology of ,cerinthus4 ,see the application in ,irenaeus1 iii4 #af1 #h ',sententia eorum homicidialis444 ,comminuens et per multa dividens ,filium ,dei2 quos444 ,ioannes in praedicta epistola fugere eos praecepit dicens' etc4 #aai3a ,die aeltesten ,zeugnisse p4 #da4 #aai3b e4g4 #a ,cor4 vi4 #ab-ah1 viii4 #a sq1 etc4 #aai3c ,rev4 ii4 #f1 #ad1 #ae1 #bj1 #bd4 #abj3a #a ,cor4 xv4 #ab4 #abj3b #b ,tim4 ii4 #ah4 #abj3c ,iren4 ii4 #ca4 #b2 ,tertull4 de ,resurr4 ,carn4 #ai4 #abj3d ,iren4 i4 #bg4 #c1 ,tertull4 adv4 ,marc4 v4 #aj1 de ,praescr4 ,haer4 #cc4 #abj3e ,see ,neander ,church ,history ii4 p4 #adg2 and to the references there given add ,iren4 iii4 #be4 #b ',alterum quidem judicare et alterum quidem salvare dixerunt1' and sect4 #c1 ',marcion igitur ipse dividens ,deum in duo1 alterum quidem bonum et alterum judicialem dicens1' with the context4 #aba3a ,i might add also that it is directly stated in the account of his martyrdom 7,sec4 #ac71 that he was treated with every honour1 ,greek3 kai pro tes polias1 'even before his grey hairs1' as the words ran in ,eusebius1 ,h4,e4 iv4 #ae4 ,the common texts substitute ,greek3 kai pro tes marturias4 #abb3a ,hilgenfeld 7,apost4 ,vaeter p4 #bgc7 evidently feels this difficulty1 and apologises for it4 #abc3a ,this reference to #a ,tim4 ii4 #b is pointed out in ,jacobson's note4 #abc3b ,see above1 p4 #ae sq4 #abd3a ,see above1 p4 #bj4 #abd3b ,see above1 p4 #ag sq4 #abd3c ,s4,r4 #a4 p4 #dbc4 #abd3d ,credner ,einleitung p4 #bji sq4 #abe3a ,the author1 in his reply1 calls attention to the fact that the language of the other writers to whom he gives references in his footnote is too clear to be misunderstood4 #abe3b ,i do not think ,i can have misapprehended our author's meaning1 but it is best to give his own words3 ',now even ,tischendorf does not pretend that this a saying cited in the ,epistle of ,barnabas is a quotation of ,matt4 xx4 #af1 ,thus the last shall be first1 and the first last 7,greek3 outos esontai oi eschatoi protoi kai oi protoi eschatoi71 the sense of which is quite different4 ,the application of the saying in this place in the first ,synoptic ,gospel is evidently quite false1 and depends merely on the ring of words and not of ideas4 ,strange to say1 it is not found in either of the other ,gospels2 but1 like the famous phrase which we have been considering1 it nevertheless appears twice quite irrelevantly1 in two places of the first ,gospel4 ,in xix4 #cj1 it is quoted again with slight variation3 ,but many first shall be last1 and last first1' etc4 ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #bdg4 ,the italics are my own4 #abe3c ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #bjj sq4 #abe3d ,rom4 xv4 #ai2 #b ,cor4 xii4 #ab4 ,the point to be observed is1 that ,st ,paul treats the fact of his working miracles as a matter of course1 to which a passing reference is sufficient4 #abe3e ,see above1 p4 #i4 #abf3a ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #aac4 #abf3b ,fortnightly ,review1 ,january1 #ahge1 p4 #i sq4 #abf3c ,see above1 p4 #c sq4 #abf3d ,see above1 p4 #ec sq4 #abg3a ,see below1 p4 #aid sq4 #abg3b ,fortnightly ,review1 l4c4 p4 #e4 ,the author states that he 'actually inserted in the text the opening words1 ,greek3 einai de ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos1 for the express purpose of showing the construction4' ,the impression however which his own language left on my mind was quite different4 ,it suggested that he inserted the words not for this purpose1 but for quite another1 namely1 to show that there was nothing corresponding to ,tischendorf's 'they say1' or ,dr ,westcott's 'they taught1' in the original1 and so to justify his charge of 'falsification4' ,if the reader will refer to the context1 and more especially to note #d on p4 #cbh of the second volume of ,supernatural ,religion 7in the editions before the fourth71 he will see what strong justification ,i had for taking this view4 #abg3c ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ccj4 #abh3a ,i ought to add that these alterations do not appear to have been made in all copies of the fourth edition4 ,i am informed by a correspondent that in his copy the whole passage stands as in the earlier editions4 #abh3b ,inquirer1 ,nov4 #g1 #ahgd4 ',elsewhere a blunder on the part of the writer is made the occasion of a grave charge against ,dr ,tischendorf and ,canon ,westcott4 ,they are accused of deliberately falsifying etc4444 ,his own translation however overlooks the important fact that at the critical point in question ,irenaeus passes from the direct to the indirect speech4 ,this is made obvious by the employment of the infinitive in place of the indicative4 ,the ,english language affords no means of indicating this change except by the introduction of some such phrases as those employed by ,tischendorf and ,westcott1 which simply denote the transition to the obliqua oratio4 ,to neglect this is to throw the whole passage into confusion2 and the writer's attempt to fasten a suspicion of dishonesty on the critics whose views he is combating recoils in the shape of a suggestion of imperfect scholarship upon himself4' ,this occurs in a highly favourable review of the book4 #abh3c ,see above1 p4 #c sq4 #abh3d ,fortnightly ,review1 l4c4 p4 #i4 #abh3e ,corresponding to about a page in this reprint1 pp4 #g1 #h ',these two examples 444 ,commentaries of ,caesar4' #abi3a ,s4,r4 i4 p4 #ccf4 ,tacitly corrected in ed4 #f4 #abi3b ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #bc4 ,tacitly corrected in ed4 #f4 #abi3c ,fortnightly ,review1 l4c4 p4 #g sq4 ,i need not stop to inquire whether ,tischendorf's 'nicht geschrieben hat' conveys exactly the same idea which is conveyed in ,english1 'has not written1' as our author assumes in his reply4 #abi3d ,see above1 p4 #h4 #abi3e ,fortnightly ,review1 l4c4 p4 #i1 note4 #aca3a ,fortnightly ,review1 l4c4 p4 #ah4 #aca3b ,see above1 p4 #af sq4 #aca3c ,iren4 ii4 #bb4 #e4 ,the passover of the ,passion cannot have been later than ,a4,d4 #cf1 because before the next passover ,pilate had been superseded4 ,this is the only terminus ad quem1 so far as ,i am aware1 which is absolutely decisive2 and it would allow of a ministry of eight years4 ,the probability is that it was actually much shorter1 but it is only a probability4 #aca3d ,see above1 p4 #ad sq4 #acb3a ,i am afraid however that our author would not agree with me in regarding it as plainly the language of a man accustomed to think in ,hebrew4 ,he himself says 7,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #dac71 ',its ,hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with ,hellenic ,greek4' ,though the word is printed ',hellenic1' not only in the four editions1 but likewise in the author's own extract in the ,fortnightly ,review 7p4 #ai71 ,i infer from the context1 that it ought to be read ',hellenistic1' which word is tacitly substituted in ed4 #f4 ,by ',hellenic' would be meant the common language1 as ordinarily spoken by the mass of the ,greeks1 and as distinguished from a literary dialect like the ,attic2 by ',hellenistic1' the language of ,hellenists1 i4e41 ,greek-speaking ,jews4 ,the two things are quite different4 #acb3b ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #cie4 #acc3a ,see above1 p4 #ag sq4 #acc3b ,fortnightly ,review1 l4c4 p4 #bj4 #acd3a ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #dfi2 ,,ii4 pp4 #ef1 #ei1 #gc1 #cbf4 ,the last reference should be omitted3 the words had been already withdrawn 7ed4 #d7 before this ,essay was written2 but the language in the other references remains unaltered through six editions1 and is only slightly modified in the ,complete ,edition4 #acd3b ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #dba2 and so ed4 #f4 ,the ,complete ,edition substitutes 'evident' for 'admitted4' #acf3a ,stanley ,sinai and ,palestine p4 #bbi4 #acf3b ,john iv4 #ce4 #acg3a ,see above1 p4 #bj sq4 #acg3b ,fortnightly ,review1 l4c4 p4 #ac4 #ach3a ,see above1 pp4 #e1 #ee1 #abh4 #ach3b ,see above1 p4 #bf4 #aci3a ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #baj4 ,the italics are mine4 #aci3b ,towards the close of his ,reply the author makes some remarks on a ',personal ,god1' in which he accuses me of misunderstanding him4 ,it may be so1 but then ,i venture to think that he does not quite understand himself1 as he certainly does not understand me4 ,i do not remember that he has anywhere defined the terms ',personal' and ',anthropomorphic1' as applied to ,deity2 and without definition1 so many various conceptions may be included under the terms as to entangle a discussion hopelessly4 ,no educated ,christian1 ,i imagine1 believes in an anthropomorphic ,deity in the sense in which this anthropomorphism is condemned in the noble passage of ,xenophanes which he quotes in the first part of his work4 ,in another sense1 our author himself in his concluding chapter betrays his anthropomorphism2 for he attributes to the ,divine ,being wisdom and beneficence and forethought1 which are conceptions derived by man from the study of himself4 ,indeed1 ,i do not see how it is possible to conceive of ,deity except through some sort of anthropomorphism in this wider sense of the term1 and certainly our author has not disengaged himself from it4 ,in spite of our author's repudiation in his reply1 ,i boldly claim the writer of the concluding chapter of ,supernatural ,religion as a believer in a ,personal ,god1 in the only sense in which ,i understand ,personality as applied to the ,divine ,being4 ,he distinctly attributes will and mind to the ,divine ,being1 and this is the very idea of personality1 as ,i conceive the term4 ,he not only commits himself to a belief in a ,personal ,god1 but also in a wise and beneficent ,personal ,god who cares for man4 ,on the other hand1 the writer of the first part of the work seemed to me to use arguments which were inconsistent with these beliefs4 #adb3a ,iren4 v4 #cc4 #d ,greek3 ,ioannou men akoustes1 ,polukarpou de hetairos gegonos4 #adc3a ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #ci ,greek3 ,ouk okneso de soi kai hosa pote para ton presbuteron kalos emathon kai kalos emnemoneusa sunkatataxai v4l4 ,greek3 suntaxai ,greek3 tais hermeneiais1 diabebaioumenos huper auton aletheian1 k4t4l4 ,this same reference will hold for all the notices from ,eusebius which are quoted in this article1 unless otherwise stated4 #add3a ,see above1 p4 #if sq4 #ade3a ,haer4 iv4 #bg4 #a1 #c2 iv4 #cj4 #a2 iv4 #ca4 #a2 v4 #e4 #a2 v4 #cc4 #c2 v4 #cf4 #a1 #b4 #ade3b ,ref4 ,haer4 vi4 #db1 #ee1 ',the blessed elder ,irenaeus4' ,clement of ,alexandria uses the same phrase of ,pantaenus2 ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 vi4 #ad4 #ade3c ,h4,e4 iii4 #c2 v4 #h2 vi4 #ac4 #ade3d ,heb4 xi4 #b4 #adf3a ,weiffenbach ,das ,papias-,fragment 7,giessen1 #ahgd7 has advocated at great length the view that ,papias uses the term as a title of office throughout1 p4 #cd sq2 but he has not succeeded in convincing subsequent writers4 ,his conclusions are opposed by ,hilgenfeld ,papias von ,hierapolis p4 #bde sq 7in his ,zeitschrift1 #ahge71 and by ,leimbach ,das ,papias-,fragment p4 #fc sq4 ,weiffenbach supposes that the elders are distinguished from the ,apostles and personal disciples whose sayings ,papias sets himself to collect4 ,this view demands such a violent wresting of the grammatical connection in the passage of ,papias that it is not likely to find much favour4 #adf3b ,in illustration of this use1 it may be mentioned that in the ,letter of the ,gallican ,churches 7,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #a7 the term is applied to the ,zacharias of ,luke i4 #e sq4 #adf3c #a ,tim4 v4 #a1 #b1 #ag1 #ai4 #adg3a ,see above1 p4 #ajc sq4 #adg3b ,see ,clinton1 ,fast4 ,rom4 ,,ii4 p4 #che4 #adg3c ,this difficulty however cannot be regarded as serious4 ,at the last 7the sixtieth7 anniversary of the battle of ,waterloo1 the ,times gave the names of no fewer than seventy-six ,waterloo officers as still living4 #adh3a ,chron4 ,pasch4 p4 #dha sq 7ed4 ,bonn472 ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #ae4 #adh3b ,there is no indication that the author of this ,chronicle used any other document in this part besides the ,history of ,eusebius and the extant ,martyrology of ,polycarp which ,eusebius here quotes4 #adi3a ,the martyrdom of ,papias is combined with that of ,polycarp in the ,syriac ,epitome of the ,chronicon of ,eusebius 7p4 #baf1 ed4 ,schoene74 ,the source of the error is doubtless the same in both cases4 #adi3b ,s4,r4 i4 p4 #ddh4 #adi3c ,i had taken the latter view in an article on ,papias which ,i wrote for the ,contemporary ,review some years before these ,essays2 but ,i think now that the ,apostle is meant1 as the most ancient testimony points to him4 ,i have given my reasons for this change of opinion in ,colossians p4 #de sq4 #adi3d ,acts xxi4 #i4 #aej3a ,see above1 p4 #ij4 #aej3b ,the chapter relating to ,papias is the thirty-ninth of the third book2 those relating to ,polycarp are the fourteenth and fifteenth of the fourth book1 where they interpose between chapters assigned to ,justin ,martyr and events connected with him4 #aej3c ,it is true that he uses the present tense once1 ,greek3 ha te ,aristion kai ho presbuteros ,ioannes 444 legousin see above1 p4 #adc1 and hence it has been inferred that these two persons were still living when the inquiries were instituted4 ,but this would involve a chronological difficulty2 and the tense should probably be regarded as a historic present introduced for the sake of variety4 #aej3d ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #ddd1 ',about the middle of the second century4' ,elsewhere 7,,ii4 p4 #cbj7 he speaks of ,papias as 'flourishing in the second half of the second century4' #aea3a ,justin ,martyr ,dial4 #ea sq 7p4 #bga sq71 #hj sq 7p4 #cjg72 ,irenaeus ,haer4 v4 #ha sq2 ,tertullian adv4 ,marc4 iii4 #bd1 de ,resurr4 ,carn4 #bd4 #aea3b ,ep4 ,barn4 ,sec4 #ae4 #aea3c ,see above1 p4 #cb sq4 #aeb3a ,see above1 p4 #da sq4 #aeb3b ,these are the expressions employed elsewhere of this ,gospel2 ,h4,e4 iii4 #be1 #bg2 iv4 #bb4 #aeb3c ,h4,e4 iii4 #ci ,greek3 hen to kat' ,hebraious euangelion periechei4 #aeb3d ,clem4 ,strom4 ii4 #i 7p4 #dec74 ,our author says1 ',clement of ,alexandria quotes it the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews with quite the same respect as the other ,gospels' 7,s4,r4 i4 p4 #dbb74 ,he cannot have remembered1 when he wrote this1 that ,clement elsewhere refuses authority to a saying in an ,apocryphal ,gospel because 'we do not find it in the four ,gospels handed down to us' 7,strom4 iii4 #ac1 p4 #eec74 ',origen1' writes our author again1 'frequently made use of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews' 7l4c474 ,yes2 but ,origen draws an absolute line of demarcation between our four ,gospels and the rest4 ,he even illustrates the relation of these ,canonical ,gospels to the ,apocryphal by that of the true prophets to the false under the ,jewish dispensation4 ,hom4 ,i4 in ,luc4 7,,iii4 p4 #icb74 ,any reader unacquainted with the facts would carry away a wholly false impression from our author's account of the use made of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 #aeb3e ,s4,r4 ,i4 pp4 #bgb sq1 #ccb sq4 ,the fact that ,eusebius did not know the source of this quotation 7,h4,e4 iii4 #cf71 though he was well acquainted with the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 seems to me to render this very doubtful4 #aec3a ,boeckh ,corp4 ,inscr4 #chag1 ,greek3 ,papia ,dii soteri4 #aec3b ,boeckh #cicj1 #ciab;a ,app43 ,mionnet iv4 p4 #cja4 #aec3c ,boeckh #chag4 #aec3d ,galen ,op4 xii4 p4 #gii 7ed4 ,kuehn74 #aec3e ,one ,rabbi ,papias is mentioned in the ,mishna ,shekalim iv4 #g2 ,edaioth vii4 #f4 ,i owe these references to ,zunz ,namen der ,juden p4 #af4 #aec3f ,see above1 p4 #adb4 #aec3g ,see above1 p4 #hi sq4 #aed3a ,greek3 ho panu1 ho polus4 ,the first passage will be found in the original ,greek in ,routh ,rel4 ,sacr4 ,i4 p4 #ae 7comp4 ,migne ,patr4 ,graec4 lxxxix4 p4 #hfj1 where only the ,latin 'clarissimus' is given72 the second in ,migne ib4 p4 #ifa 7comp4 ,routh l4c4 p4 #af1 where again only the ,latin 'celebris' is given74 #aee3a ,whether the first word should be singular or plural1 ',exposition' 7,greek3 exegesis7 or ',expositions' 7,greek3 exegeseis71 ,i need not stop to inquire4 ,the important points are 7#a7 that ,papias uses ,greek3 logion1 not ,greek3 logon1 'oracles1' not 'words' or 'sayings'2 7#b7 that he has ,greek3 kuriakon logion1 not ,greek3 logion tou ,kuriou--',dominical ,oracles1' not ',oracles of the ,lord4' ,i shall have occasion hereafter to call attention to both these facts1 which are significant1 as they give a much wider range to his subject-matter than if he had used the alternative expressions4 #aee3b ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #dcd sq4 #aef3a ,so again1 ,i4 p4 #dhd sq1 ',whatever books ,papias knew1 however1 it is certain1 from his own express declaration1 that he ascribed little importance to them1 and preferred tradition as a more reliable source of information regarding ,evangelical history1' etc4 ,see also ,,ii4 p4 #hbj sq4 #aef3b ,h4,e4 iv4 #bc1 v4 #h4 #aef3c ,see below1 p4 #afj4 #aeg3a ,the references will be found above1 p4 #aed4 #aeg3b ,the proper word1 if the work had been what our author supposes1 was not ,greek3 exegesis but ,greek3 diegesis1 which ,eusebius uses several times of the anecdotes related by ,papias2 ,h4,e4 iii4 #ci4 #aeh3a ,this attempt has recently been made by ,weiffenbach ,das ,papias-,fragment p4 #af sq2 and it is chiefly valuable as a testimony to the real significance of the words1 which can only be set aside by such violent treatment4 ,weiffenbach is obliged to perform two acts of violence on the sentence3 7#a7 ,he supposes that there is an anacoluthon1 and that the ,greek3 kai hosa pote here is answered by the words ,greek3 ei de pou kai parekolouthekos1 which occur several lines below4 7#b7 ,he interprets ,greek3 tais hermeneiais 'the interpretations belonging to them4' ,each of these by itself is harsh and unnatural in the extreme2 and the combination of the two may be safely pronounced impossible4 ,even if his grammatical treatment could be allowed1 the fact will still remain that the interpretations are presupposed4 ,weiffenbach's constructions of this passage are justly rejected by the two writers who have written on the subject since his essay appeared1 ,hilgenfeld and ,leimbach4 #aeh3b ,haer4 v4 #cc4 #a sq4 #aeh3c ,it may be observed in passing1 as an illustration of the looseness of early quotations1 that this passage1 as given by ,irenaeus1 does not accord with any one of the ,synoptic ,evangelists1 but combines features from all the three4 #aei3a ,the view that ,papias took written ,gospels as the basis of his interpretations is maintained by no one more strongly than by ,hilgenfeld in his recent works2 ,papias von ,hierapolis 7,zeitschrift1 #ahge7 p4 #bch sq2 ,einleitung in das ,neue ,testament 7#ahge71 pp4 #ec sq1 #ded sq4 ,but it seems to me that he is not carrying out this view to its logical conclusion1 when he still interprets ,greek3 biblia of ,evangelical narratives1 and talks of ,papias as holding these written records in little esteem4 #afj3a ,haer4 ,praef4 #a2 see also i4 #c4 #f3 ',not only do they attempt to make their demonstrations from the ,evangelical and ,apostolic writings by perverting the interpretations and falsifying the expositions ,greek3 exegeseis1 but also from the law and the prophets2 as 444 being able to wrest what is ambiguous into many senses by their exposition' ,greek3 dia tes exegeseos4 #afa3a ,clem4 ,alex4 ,strom4 vii4 #ag1 p4 #hih4 #afa3b ,compare also the language of ,hippolytus respecting the books of the ,naassenes2 ,haer4 v4 #g1 ',these are the heads of very numerous discourses 7,greek3 pollon panu logon71 which they say that ,james1' etc4 #afa3c ,this same epithet 'foreign' 7,greek3 allotrios7 is applied several times in the ,ignatian ,epistles to the ,gnostic teaching which the writer is combating2 ,rom4 inscr41 ,trall4 #f1 ,philad4 #c4 #afa3d ,reasons are given by ,dr ,westcott in the fourth edition of his ,history of the ,canon p4 #bhh4 ,footnote #e ,strom4 iv4 #ab1 p4 #eii4 #afb3a ,the following passage in ,supernatural ,religion is highly instructive1 as showing the inconsistencies involved in the author's view 7,i4 p4 #dhe73 ',it is not possible that he ,papias could have found it better to inquire what ,john or ,matthew1 or what any other of the disciples of the ,lord 444 say1 if he had known of ,gospels such as ours1' 'and believed them to have been' inserted in the ,complete ,edition 'actually written by them1 deliberately telling him what they had to say4 ,the work of ,matthew which he mentions being1 however1 a mere collection of discourses of ,jesus1 he might naturally inquire what the ,apostle himself said of the history of the ,master4' ,here the author practically concedes the point for which ,i am contending1 and which elsewhere he resists2 for he states that ,papias as a sane man must1 and as a matter of fact did1 prefer a book to oral tradition4 ,in other words1 he allows that when ,papias disparages books 7meaning ,evangelical records1 such as the ,st ,matthew of ,papias was on any showing71 he cannot intend all books of this class1 but only such as our author himself arbitrarily determines that he shall mean4 ,this point is not at all affected by the question whether the ,st ,matthew of ,papias did or did not contain doings1 as well as sayings1 of ,christ4 ,the only escape from these perplexities lies in supposing that a wholly different class of books is intended1 as ,i have explained in the text4 #afc3a ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #dde4 ,it is not likely that our author would appreciate the bearing of these references to ,st ,mark1 because1 as ,i pointed out in my first article see above1 p4 #h1 he mistranslated ,greek3 ouden hemarte 'did no wrong1' instead of 'made no mistake1' thus obscuring the testimony of ,papias to the perfect accuracy of the result of ,st ,mark's conscientious labours4 ,the translation is altered in the last edition1 but the new rendering1 'committed no error in thus writing1' is ambiguous1 though not incorrect4 #afe3a ,i4 p4 #def4 #afe3b ,i4 p4 #dfj4 ,so too ed4 #f2 but struck out in the ,complete ,edition4 #aff3a ,i4 p4 #dei4 #afg3a ,i4 p4 #dfj4 ,so also ed4 #f2 the word 'ever' disappears in the ,complete ,edition4 #afg3b ,i4 p4 #ddg4 ,this criticism is given above1 p4 #adc sq4 #afg3c ,i4 p4 #ddg4 #afh3a ,the manner in which ,eusebius will tear a part of a passage from its context is well illustrated by his quotation from ,irenaeus1 ii4 #bb4 #e3--';,a quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinat jam in aetatem seniorem1 quam habens ,dominus noster docebat1 sicut ,evangelium et omnes seniores testantur1 qui in ,asia apud ,joannem discipulum ,domini convenerunt id ipsum tradidisse eis ,joannem4 ,permansit autem cum eis usque ad ,trajani tempora4 ,quidam autem eorum non solum ,joannem1 sed et alios ,apostolos viderunt1 et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt et testantur de hujusmodi relatione4' ,eusebius gives only the part which ,i have enclosed in brackets3 ,h4,e4 iii4 #bc4 #afi3a ,i4 p4 #dgd4 #afi3b ,i4 p4 #dge4 ,so also ed4 #f2 modified in the ,complete ,edition4 #aga3a ,i4 p4 #dfe4 #aga3b ,introduction to the ,new ,testament1 ,i4 p4 #aji sq 7,eng4 ,transl471 where there is more to the same effect4 #aga3c ,einleitung in das ,neue ,testament1 p4 #def sq4 ',an eine blosse ,aufzeichnung der ,reden ,jesu hat er nicht einmal gedacht4444 ,nicht eine blosse ,redensammlung1 sondern ein vollstaendiges ,evangelium laesst schon ,papias den ,matthaeus hebraeisch geschrieben haben4' ,see also pp4 #ed sq1 #ded sq4 #agb3a ,i4 p4 #dgj sq1 ',that ,irenaeus did not derive his information solely from ,papias maybe inferred1' etc4444 ',the evidence furnished by ,pantaenus in certainly independent of ,papias4' #agb3b ,einleitung pp4 #ed sq1 #def sq4 #agb3c ,photius ,bibl4 #bbh4 #agc3a ,i4 p4 #dfd4 ,and so all later editions4 #agd3a ,de ,conj4 erud4 grat4 #bd 7p4 #ech72 de ,profug4 #aa 7p4 #eee74 ,elsewhere he says that all things which are written in the sacred books 7of ,moses7 are oracles 7,greek3 chresmoi7 pronounced 7,greek3 chresthentes7 through him2 and he proceeds to distinguish different kinds of ,greek3 logia 7,vit4 ,moys4 iii4 #bc1 p4 #afc74 #agd3b ,clem4 ,rom4 #ec ,greek3 enkekuphate eis ta logia tou ,theou4 ,elsewhere 7,sec4 #de7 he uses the expression ,greek3 enkuptein eis tas graphas4 #agd3c ,polyc4 ,phil4 #g4 #agd3d ,iren4 ,haer4 i4 #h4 #a4 #agd3e ,clem4 ,alex4 ,coh4 ad ,gent4 p4 #hd 7ed4 ,potter71 ,strom4 i4 p4 #cib4 #age3a ,de ,princ4 iv4 #aa 7,i4 p4 #afh1 ,delarue71 in ,matth4 x4 ,sec4 #f 7,,iii4 p4 #ddg74 #age3b ,hom4 xi4 #e 7,,ii4 p4 #if72 ib4 xii4 #a 7p4 #ig74 #age3c ,see p4 #afc4 #agf3a ,i4 p4 #dff4 #agf3b ,our author has not mentioned the various reading ,greek3 logon for ,greek3 logion here1 though ,hilgenfeld speaks of it as the reading of the 'best editions4' ,if it were correct1 it would upset his argument2 but the most recent critical editor1 ,laemmer1 has adopted ,greek3 logion4 #agg3a ,iren4 ,haer4 v4 #bj4 #b2 ,dion4 ,cor4 in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bc4 #agg3b ,ep4 ,barn4 #d1 #e4 ,the bearing of this fact on the testimony of ,papias is pointed out in an able and scholarly article on ,supernatural ,religion in the ,april #ahge number of the ,dublin ,review1 p4 #djc4 #agg3c ,the ,essay on the ,epistle of ,barnabas was never written2 see the ,preface to this ,reprint4 #agh3a ,see above1 p4 #cd sq4 #agh3b ,see above1 pp4 #cf sq1 #df sq4 #agi3a ,preface to ,s4,r4 ed4 #f1 pp4 xi--xxiii4 #agi3b ,the passage quoted occurs above1 p4 #ch ',eusebius therefore proposes--however precise4' #agi3c ,preface to ,s4,r4 ed4 #f1 p4 xv4 #ahj3a ,see above1 p4 #dd sq4 #ahj3b ,preface to ed4 #f1 p4 xxi4 #ahb3a ,iren4 ,haer4 iii4 #aa4 #a4 #ahb3b ,preface to ed4 #f1 p4 xxi4 ,so again he says 7,,ii4 p4 #cbc73 ,it is scarcely probable that when ,papias collected from the presbyter the facts concerning ,matthew and ,mark he would not also have inquired about the ,gospel of ,john1 if he had known it1 and recorded what he had heard1' etc4 #ahb3c ,iren4 ,haer4 iii4 #a4 #a4 #ahc3a ,preface to ed4 #f1 p4 xvi4 #ahc3b ,preface to ed4 #e1 p4 xix4 #ahc3c ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bb4 #ahd3a ,see above1 p4 #dd sq4 #ahd3b ,attention has been drawn to these passages above1 p4 #ce sq4 #ahd3c ,,ii4 p4 #aff4 #ahd3d ,the ,sixth ,edition4 #ahd3e ,i4 p4 #dhc4 #ahe3a ,,ii4 p4 #cbc4 ,see above1 p4 #ce4 #ahe3b ,,ii4 p4 #cbj4 ,see above1 p4 #ce4 #ahf3a ,the passage is given below1 p4 #bjj sq4 #ahf3b ,in justification of this statement1 ,i must content myself for the present with referring to an able and 7as it seems to me7 unanswerable article on ,marcion's ,gospel by ,mr ,sanday1 in the ,june #ahge number of the ,fortnightly ,review1 in reply to the author of ,supernatural ,religion4 #ahg3a ,john xix4 #ce2 xx4 #ca4 #ahh3a ,this fragment may be conveniently consulted in the edition of ,tregelles 7,oxford1 #ahfg71 or in ,westcott's ,history of the ,canon p4 #ead sq 7ed4 #d74 ,it must be remembered1 first1 that this document is an unskilful ,latin translation from a lost ,greek original2 and1 secondly1 that the extant copy of this translation has been written by an extremely careless scribe1 and is full of clerical errors4 ,these facts however do not affect the question with which ,i am concerned1 since on all the points at issue the bearing of the document is clear4 #ahi3a ,i venture to offer a conjectural emendation of the text1 which is obviously corrupt or defective4 ,it runs--'et ide prout asequi potuit ita et ad nativitate ,johannis incipet dicere4' ,i propose to insert 'posuit ita' after 'potuit ita1' supposing that the words have dropped out owing to the homoeoteleuton4 ,the text will then stand1 'et idem1 prout assequi potuit1 ita posuit4 ,ita et ab nativitate1' etc4 7,greek3 kai autos1 kathos hedunato parakolouthein1 outos etheke1 k4t4l471 ',and he too like ,mark set down events according as he had opportunity of following them' 7see ,luke i4 #c74 ,but the general meaning of the passage is quite independent of any textual conjectures4 #ahi3b ',johannis ex4 discipulis1 i4e4 ,greek3 tou ek ton matheton1 where ,greek3 mathetes1 'a disciple1' is applied1 as in ,papias and ,irenaeus1 in conformity with the language of the ,gospels1 to those who had been taught directly by ,christ4 #ahi3c ,the plural appears to be used here1 as not uncommonly1 of a single letter4 ,see above1 p4#aad4 ,the sentence runs in the ,latin 7when some obvious errors of transcription are corrected73--',quid ergo mirum si ,johannes singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semet ipsum1 ,quae vidimus1' etc42 and so ,i have translated it4 ,but ,i cannot help suspecting that the order in the original was1 ,greek3 hekasta propherei1 kai en tais epistolais autou legon eis heauton1 k4t4l4 'puts forward each statement 7i4e4 in the ,gospel71 as he says in his epistle also respecting himself1' etc42 and that the translator has wrongly attached the words ,greek3 kai en tais epistolais k4t4l to the former part of the sentence4 #aij3a ,i am glad to find that ,mr ,matthew ,arnold recognizes the great importance of this tradition in the ,muratorian ,fragment 7,contemporary ,review1 ,may1 #ahge1 p4 #igg74 ,though ,i take a somewhat different view of its bearing1 it has always seemed to me to contain in itself a substantially accurate account of the circumstances under which this ,gospel was composed4 #aia3a ,i4 p4 #dhc4 ,he uses similar language in another passage also1 ,,ii4 p4 #cbc4 #aia3b ,see above1 p4 #di4 #aia3c ,see above1 p4 #di sq4 #aib3a ,preface to ed4 #f1 p4 xv4 #aib3b ,s4,r4 ,i4 p4 #dhc 7ed4 #f72 the whole passage including the note is omitted in the ,complete ,edition4 #aic3a ,the passage is quoted above1 p4 #adc4 #aid3a ,iren4 ,haer4 v4 #cf4 #a1 #b4 #aid3b ,see above1 pp4 #c sq1 #eb sq1 #abd sq4 #aid3c ,after two successive alterations1 our author has at length1 in his last sixth edition1 translated the oblique infinitives correctly1 though from his reluctance to insert the words 'they say1' or 'they teach1' which the ,english requires1 his meaning is somewhat obscure4 ,but he has still left two strange errors1 within four lines of each other1 in his translation of this passage1 ,,ii4 p4 #cbh4 7#a7 ,he renders ,greek3 en tois tou patros mou1 ',in the 7heavens7 of my ,father1' thus making ,greek3 tois masculine1 and understanding ,greek3 ouranois from ,greek3 ouranous which occurs a few lines before4 ,he seems not to be aware that ,greek3 ta tou patros mou means 'my ,father's house' 7see ,lobeck ,phryn4 p4 #ajj2 ,wetstein on ,luke ii4 #di74 ,thus he has made the elders contradict themselves2 for of the 'many mansions' which are mentioned only the first is 'in the heavens1' the second being in paradise1 and the third on earth4 ,in the ,complete ,edition the passage runs ',in the 444 7plural7 of my ,father4' 7#b7 ,he has translated ',omnia enim ,dei sunt1 qui omnibus aptam habitationem praestat1 quemadmodum verbum ejus ait1 omnibus divisum esse a ,patre1' etc41 ',for all things are of ,god1 who prepares for all the fitting habitation as ,his ,word says1 to be allotted' 'that distribution is made1' ,compl4 ,ed4 'to all by the ,father1' etc4 ,he can hardly plead that this is 'a paraphrase1' for indeed it is too literal4 ,a few pages before 7,,ii4 pp4 #cbe1 #cbf71 ,i find1 ',mag sie aber daher stammen1' translated ',whether they are derived from thence1' 'whether this be its origin or not1' ,compl4 ,ed4 ,,ii4 p4 #cbc4 ,a few pages after 7p4 #ccb71 ,i find the work of ,irenaeus1 de ,ogdoade1 cited instead of the ,epistle to ,florinus1 for the relations between ,irenaeus and ,polycarp4 ,this error is likewise tacitly corrected in the ,compl4 ,ed4 ,,ii4 p4 #ccj4 ,it might have been supposed that any one who had looked into the subject at all must have been aware that this locus classicus was in the ,epistle to ,florinus4 ,but ,eusebius happens to quote the treatise de ,ogdoade in the same chapter2 and hence the mistake4 ,such errors survive1 though these pages have undergone at least two special revisions1 and though this 'sixth' edition is declared on the title page to be 'carefully revised4' #aie3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ccc 7#ccd74 #aie3b ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #cbi 7#ccj74 #aif3a ,iren4 ,haer4 iv4 #bg4 #a sq2 iv4 #cj4 #a2 iv4 #ca4 #a2 iv4 #cb4 #a4 ,even in this case there remains the possibility that we have a report of lectures taken down at the time4 ,the early work of ,hippolytus on ,heresies was drawn up from a synopsis which he had made of the lectures of ,irenaeus 7,photius ,bibl4 #ab #a74 ,galen again speaks of his pupils taking down his lectures as he delivered them 7,op4 xix4 p4 #aa1 ed4 ,kuehn74 ,the discourses which ,irenaeus reports from the lips of this anonymous elder 7perhaps ,melito or ,pothinus7 are so long and elaborate1 that the hypothesis of lecture notes seems almost to be required to account for them4 #aig3a ,see above1 p4 #adc4 #aig3b ,see above1 p4 #aeh sq4 #aih3a ,see above1 p4 #aeh4 #aih3b ,iren4 ,haer4 v4 #f4 #a4 #aii3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ccc4 #aii3b ,see above1 p4 #adc4 #bjj3a ,see above1 p4 #aed4 #bjj3b ,patrol4 ,graec4 lxxxix4 p4 #ifb 7ed4 ,migne74 #bjj3c ,under this 'spiritual' interpretation1 ,anastasius includes views as wide apart as those of ,philo1 who interprets paradise as a philosophical allegory1 and ,irenaeus1 who regards it as a supramundane abode2 for both are named4 ,but they have this in common1 that they are both opposed to a terrestrial region2 and this is obviously the main point which he has in view4 #bja3a ,patrol4 ,graec4 lxxxix4 p4 #ifd sq4 #bja3b ,cramer ,catena p4 #ceh sq4 #bja3c ,routh 7,rel4 ,sacr4 ,i4 p4 #da7 would end the quotation from ,papias at 'their array came to nought2' but the concluding sentence seems to be required as part of the quotation1 which otherwise would be very meaningless4 ,papias1 adopting the words of the ,apocalypse1 emphasizes the fact that ,satan was cast down to the earth1 because this shows that paradise was a supramundane region4 ,as ,i have said before 7p4 #ahf71 the only saying of our ,lord to which we can conveniently assign this exposition is ,luke x4 #ah4 ,st ,luke is also the only ,evangelist who mentions paradise 7xxiii4 #dc74 #bjb3a ,anastasius ,hex4 p4 #ifc4 #bjb3b ,hippolytus ,ref4 ,haer4 vi4 #db1 #ee4 #bjc3a ,apost4 ,const4 ii4 #bd4 #bjd3a ,j4,s4 ,mill ,three ,essays p4 #bed4 #bjd3b ,ewald ,die ,johanneischen ,schriften p4 #bga4 #bje3a ,see above1 p4 #aeh sq4 #bje3b ,see above1 p4 #afe4 #bje3c ,see above1 p4 #ahh sq4 #bjg3a ,routh ,rel4 ,sacr4 i4 p4 #afj4 #bjh3a ,euseb4 ,quaest4 ad ,marin4 #b1 iv4 p4 #ida 7ed4 ,migne74 ,jerome1 who seems to have had ,eusebius before him1 says more plainly 7,epist4 #abj1 ad ,hedib4 ,i4 p4 #hbf73--',mihi videtur evangelista ,matthaeus qui evangelium ,hebraeo sermone conscripsit1 non tam vespere dixisse quam sero1 et eum qui interpretatus est1 verbi ambiguitate deceptum1 non sero interpretatum esse sed vespere4' #bji3a ,iren4 ii4 #bb4 #e2 ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #bc4 #bji3b ,preface to ed4 #f1 p4 xvii4 #bji3c ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #ci ,greek3 eph' has tous philomatheis anapempsantes anankaios nun prosthesomen1 k4t4l41 and again1 ,greek3 tauta d' hemin anankaios pros tois ektetheisin epiteterestho4 #baj3a ,this argument to ,st ,john's ,gospel was published long ago by ,cardinal ,thomasius 7,op4 ,i4 p4 #cdd72 but it lay neglected until attention was called to it by ,aberle ,theolog4 ,quartalschr4 xlvi4 p4 #g sq 7#ahfd71 and by ,tischendorf ,wenn wurden etc4 #baj3b ,overbeck's article is in ,hilgenfeld's ,zeitschr4 f4 ,wissensch4 ,theol4 p4 #fh sq 7#ahfg74 ,the notice relating to the four ,maries will be found in ,routh ,rel4 ,sacr4 ,i4 p4 #af4 #baa3a ,einleitung p4 #fc 7#ahge72 comp4 ,zeitschr4 f4 ,wissensch4 ,theol4 xviii4 p4 #bfi 7#ahge74 #baa3b ,i verified this for myself ten years ago1 and published the result in the first edition of my ,galatians1 p4 #dei sq 7#ahfe74 ,about the same time ,dr4 ,westcott ascertained the fact from a friend1 and announced it in the second edition of his ,history of the ,canon4 #baa3c ,this fragment was first published by ,nolte ,theolog4 ,quartalschr4 xliv4 p4 #dff 7#ahfb74 ,it will be found in the collection of fragments of ,papias given by ,hilgenfeld ,zeitschr4 f4 ,wissensch4 ,theol4 7#ahge71 p4 #beh4 #bab3a ,this solution of the difficulty by means of a lacuna was suggested to me by a friend4 ,in following up the suggestion1 ,i have inserted the missing words from the parallel passage in ,origen1 to which ,georgius ,hamartolos refers in this very context3 in ,matth4 tom4 xvi4 #f 7,,iii4 p4 #gai sq1 ,delarue71 ,greek3 pepokasi de poterion kai to baptisma ebaptisthesan hoi tou ,zebedaiou huioi1 epeiper ,herodes men apekteinen ,iakobon ton ,ioannou machaira1 ho de ,rhomaion basileus1 hos he paradosis didaskei1 katedikase ton ,ioannen marturounta dia ton tes aletheias logon eis ,patmon ten neson4 ,it must be noticed that ,georgius refers to this passage of ,origen as testimony that ,st ,john suffered martyrdom1 thus mistaking the sense of ,greek3 marturounta4 ,this is exactly the error which ,i suggested as an explanation of the blundering notice of ,john ,malalas respecting the death of ,ignatius 7see above p4 #gi74 #bac3a ,see ,lipsius ,die ,quellen der ,aeltesten ,ketzergeschichte p4 #bcg 7#ahge74 ,though the notice in ,clem4 ,alex4 ,strom4 vii4 #ag 7p4 #hih7 makes ,marcion a contemporary of the ,apostles1 there is obviously some error in the text4 ,all other evidence1 which is trustworthy1 assigns him to a later date4 ,the subject is fully discussed by ,lipsius in the context of the passage to which ,i have given a reference4 ,see also ,zahn in ,zeitschr4 f4 ,hist4 ,theol4 #ahge p4 #fb4 #bac3b ,aberle suggested 'exegeseos1' for which ,hilgenfeld rightly substituted 'exegeticis4' ,this was before he adopted ,overbeck's suggestion of the spurious ,papias4 #bac3c ,the photographs1 ,nos4 #c1 #g1 #aj1 #bj1 in the series published by the ,palaeographical ,society1 will show fairly what ,i mean4 #bac3d ,in the ,catena ,patr4 ,graec4 in ,s4 ,joann4 ,prooem4 7ed4 ,corder71 ,greek3 haireseon anaphueison deinon hupegoreuse to euangelion to heautou mathete ,papia eubioto 7sic7 ,greek3 to hierapolite1 k4t4l44 #bad3a ,or1 the confusion may have been between ,greek3 apegrapsa 7apegrapsan71 and ,greek3 apegrapsa4 #bad3b ,see above1 p4 #ahg4 #bad3c ,see above1 p4 #gi sq4 #bad3d ,the passage of ,andreas of ,caesarea will be found in ,routh ,rel4 ,sacr4 ,i4 p4 #ae4 ,it is not there said that ,papias ascribed the ,apocalypse to ,st ,john the ,apostle1 or even that he quoted it by name4 ,our author's argument therefore breaks down from lack of evidence4 ,it seems probable however1 that he would ascribe it to ,st ,john1 even though he may not have said so distinctly4 ,suspicion is thrown on the testimony of ,andreas by the fact that ,eusebius does not directly mention its use by ,papias1 as his practice elsewhere would demand4 ,but ,i suppose that ,eusebius omitted any express mention of this use1 because he had meant his words to be understood of the ,apocalypse1 when1 speaking of the ,chiliastic doctrine of ,papias higher up1 he said that this father 'had mistaken the ,apostolic statements1' and 'had not comprehended what was said by them mystically and in figurative language' ,greek3 en hupodeigmasi4 #bae3a ,see above1 pp4 #cf sq1 #df4 #bae3b ,these persons are discussed at great length by ,epiphanius 7,haer4 li471 who calls them ,alogi4 ,they are mentioned also1 with special reference to the ,gospel1 by ,irenaeus 7iii4 #aa4 #i74 ,hippolytus wrote a work ',in defence of the ,gospel and ,apocalypse of ,john1' which was apparently directed against them4 ,it may be suspected that ,epiphanius is largely indebted to this work for his refutation of them4 #baf3a ,einleitung p4 #fg2 comp4 p4 #gcc sq4 #baf3b ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 vii4 #be4 ,gaius the ,roman ,presbyter1 who wrote about ,a4,d4 #bbj1 is often cited as an earlier instance4 ,i gave reasons some years ago for suspecting that the ,dialogue bearing this name was really written by ,hippolytus 7,journal of ,philology1 ,i4 p4 #ih1 #ahfh72 and ,i have not seen any cause since to change this opinion4 ,but whether this be so or not1 the words of ,gaius reported by ,eusebius 7,h4,e4 iii4 #bh7 seem to be wrongly interpreted as referring to the ,apocalypse4 ,the important discovery of ,prof4 ,gwynn 7,hermathena1 vol4 ,,vi4 p4 #cig sq1 #ahhh71 showing as it does1 that there was a ,gaius different from ,hippolytus1 does not allow me to speak now as ,i spoke in #ahge about the identity of ,gaius the ,roman presbyter and ,hippolytus4 #bag3a ,see above1 p4 #hi sq4 #bag3b ,iren4 ii4 #bb4 #e2 iii4 #c4 #d4 #bah3a ,see above1 p4 #ahi4 #bah3b ,clem4 ,alex4 ,strom4 i4 #a 7p4 #cbb7 ,greek3 ho men epi tes ,hellados1 ho ,ionikos4 #bah3c ,clem4 ,alex4 ,quis div4 salv4 #db1 p4 #iei4 #bah3d ,iren4 ii4 #bb4 #e4 #bah3e ,iren4 iii4 #c4 #d4 #bah3f ,iren4 v4 #cj4 #a4 #bah3g ,iren4 v4 #cc4 #c4 #bah3h ,ep4 ad ,flor4 in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #bj4 ,see above1 p4 #if4 #bah3i ,iren4 iv4 #bf4 #b4 #bah3aj ,iren4 v4 #e4 #a4 #bbj3a ,see above1 pp4 #hi sq1 #adb sq4 #bbj3b ,martyr4 ,polyc4 ,sec4 #a4 #bba3a ,martyr4 ,polyc4 ,sec4 #f ,greek3 ho kekleromenos to auto onoma1 ,herodes epilegomenos1 where ,greek3 kekleromenos 7not ,greek3 kai kleronomos7 is the right reading1 'who chanced to have the same name1' i4e41 with the tyrant of the ,gospels4 #bba3b ib4 ,sec4 #h4 ,it is right to add however1 that the meaning of the expression 'great sabbath' here has been questioned4 #bba3c ib4 ,sec4 #f ,greek3 oi prodidontes auton oikeioi huperchon4 #bba3d ib4 ,sec4 #h4 #bba3e ib4 ,sec4 #g ,greek3 hos epi lesten2 comp4 ,matt4 xxvi4 #ee2 ,mark xiv4 #dh2 ,luke xxii4 #eb4 #bba3f ib4 ,sec4 #g2 comp4 ,matt4 xxvi4 #db2 ,acts xxi4 #ad4 #bba3g ,the objections which have been urged against this narrative are not serious4 ,see above1 p4 #ajc4 #bba3h ,martyr4 ,polyc4 ,sec4 #i4 see ,deut4 xxxi4 #g1 #bc4 #bbb3a ,john xii4 #bh4 #bbb3b ,martyr4 ,polyc4 ,sec4 #e4 #bbb3c ib4 ,sec4 #ab ,greek3 edei gar to tes 444 optasias plerothenai hote 444 eipen1 k4t4l4 #bbb3d ,john xii4 #cc4 #bbb3e ,john xviii4 #cb ,greek3 hina ho logos tou ',iesou plerothe1 hon eipen semainon k4t4l4 ,the coincidence extends to the language used when the change is brought about4 ,in ,polycarp's case ,philippus the ,asiarch says 7,sec4 #ab71 ,greek3 me einai exon auto1 k4t4l42 in our ,lord's case1 the language of the ,jews is 7xviii4 #ca71 ,greek3 hemin ouk exestin apokteinai oudena4 #bbb3f ,martyr4 ,polyc4 ,sec4 #af ,greek3 exelthe peristera kai plethos haimatos4 ,it is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire whether the words ,greek3 peristera kai should be altered into ,greek3 peri sturaka according to ,bishop ,wordsworth's ingenious emendation1 or omitted altogether as in the text of ,eusebius4 #bbb3g ,john xix4 #cd sq4 #bbb3h ,martyr4 ,polyc4 ,sec4 #ae4 #bbb3i ,john xix4 #bh1 #cj4 #bbc3a ,martyr4 ,polyc4 ,sec4 #af4 #bbc3b ib4 ,sec4 #ad2 comp4 ,john v4 #bi1 xvii4 #c4 #bbc3c ,quoted in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bf4 #bbc3d ,fastes des ,provinces ,asiatiques p4 #gca1 in ,le ,bas and ,waddington's ,voyage ,archeologique etc4 ,borghesi 7,oeuvres viii4 p4 #ejg7 had placed it between ,a4,d4 #afc-fh4 #bbc3e ,euseb4 l4c4 ,see ,otto ,corp4 ,apol4 ,christ4 ix4 p4 #cgg sq4 #bbc3f ,he writes--,greek3 epi pasi kai to pros ,antoninon biblidion4 ,the meaning assigned in the text to ,greek3 epi pasi is generally accepted1 but cannot be considered quite certain4 #bbd3a ,quoted by ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #bd4 #bbd3b ,see above1 p4 #bah4 #bbe3a ,greek3 peri tou pascha4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion speaks of it as ',melito's work on the ,passion' 7ii4 p4 #ahj74 ,this error survives to the sixth edition but is tacitly corrected in the ,complete ,edition4 #bbe3b ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bf4 ,this reference serves for all the facts relating to ,melito1 which are derived from ,eusebius1 unless otherwise stated4 ,there is a little difficulty respecting the exact titles of the works in one or two cases owing to various readings2 but the differences are not important enough to be considered here4 #bbe3c ,these titles are taken from ,anastasius of ,sinai1 and from the ,syriac fragments4 #bbf3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #agd sq4 #bbg3a ,see above1 p4 #agg4 #bbg3b ,see above1 p4 #ajd sq1 where the arguments of our author against the genuineness of the ,epistle are refuted4 #bbg3c ,justin ,martyr ,apol4 i4 #fg ,greek3 ta apomnemoneumata ton apostolon e ta sungrammata ton propheton anaginosketia k4t4l41 compared with ib4 #ff ,greek3 oi apostoloi en tois genomenois hup' auton apomnemoneumasin ha kaletai euangelia4 #bbh3a ,quoted by ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bc4 #bbh3b ,the only complete collection of the fragments of ,melito is in ,otto ,corp4 ,apol4 ,christ4 ix4 p4 #cgd sq4 #bbh3c ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ahj4 #bbi3a ,for an account of these writings see ,otto1 p4 #cij sq1 p4 #djb sq4 #bbi3b ,quoted by ,jerome ,vir4 ,ill4 #bd4 #bcj3a ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #bh4 #bcj3b ,migne's ,patrol4 ,graec4 xxxix4 p4 #bbh sq4 #bca3a ,st ,luke iii4 #bc4 #bcb3a ,given in ,pitra's ,spicil4 ,solesm4 ii4 p4 lix4 sq1 and in ,cureton's ,spicil4 ,syr4 p4 #ec sq4 ,see also ,otto1 p4 #dbj4 #bcb3b ,the translators hitherto 7,renan1 ,cureton1 ,sachau7 have rendered this expression by the singular 'in voce1 in the voice4' ,but this makes no sense2 and ,i can hardly doubt that it should be translated as ,i have given it1 though the ribui1 the sign of the plural1 seems to have disappeared in the existing ,syriac text4 ,we have here the distinction between ,greek3 phone and ,greek3 logos1 on which writers of the second and third centuries delighted to dwell4 ,it occurs as early as ,ignatius ,rom4 #b 7the correct reading74 ,they discovered this distinction in ,john i4 #a1 #ad1 #bc1 where the ,baptist is called ,greek3 phone boontos1 while ,christ is ,greek3 ho ,logos4 #bcd3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ahd4 ,our author has stated just before3 ',it is well known that there were many writers' 'other writers' ,compl4 ,ed4 'in the early ,church bearing the names of ,melito and ,miletius or ,meletius1 which were frequently confounded4' ,it is dangerous always to state a sweeping negative2 but ,i am not aware of any other writer in the early ,church bearing the name of ,melito4 #bce3a ,justin ,martyr ,dial4 ,sec4 #fa 7p4 #bhd74 #bce3b ,justin ,martyr ,dial4 ,sec4 #cd 7p4 #bea74 #bce3c ,justin ,martyr ,dial4 ,sec4 #ajj 7p4 #cbg74 #bcf3a ,justin ,martyr ,dial4 ,sec4 #ajj 7p4 #cbg74 #bcf3b ,see ,spicil4 ,solesm4 ,i4 p4 #d4 ,the ,syriac abridgment commences in the same way4 ,see ib4 p4 #c4 #bcg3a ,see above1 p4 #bjb4 #bcg3b ,spicil4 ,solesm4 ,i4 p4 #a4 #bcg3c ,rom4 i4 #e1 xvi4 #bf4 #bcg3d ,phil4 ii4 #g4 #bch3a ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bg4 ,this is the reference for all the facts relating to ,apollinaris given by ,eusebius1 unless otherwise mentioned4 #bch3b ,see ,otto ,corp4 ,apol4 ,christ4 ix4 p4 #dhj sq4 #bch3c ,quoted by ,eusebius1 ,h4,e4 v4 #ai4 #bch3d ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bg ,greek3 pollon para pollois sozomenon1 ta eis hemas elthonta esti tade4 #bch3e ,photius ,bibl4 #ad ,greek3 legetai de autou kai hetera sungrammata axiomnemoneuta einai1 ois oupo hemeis enetuchomen4 #bch3f ,chron4 ,pasch4 p4 #ac 7ed4 ,dind474 #bch3g ,theodoret1 ,h4,f4 i4 #ba4 #bci3a ,serapion1 l4c42 ,eusebius1 ,h4,e4 iv4 #ba2 ,jerome1 ,ep4 #gj 7,i4 p4 #dbh72 ,theodoret1 ,h4,f4 iii4 #b2 ,socrates1 ,h4,e4 iii4 #g2 ,photius1 l4c4 #bdj3a ,see above1 p4 #ag4 #bda3a ,our author says 7n4 p4 #aij73 ',the two fragments have by many been conjecturally ascribed to ,pierius of ,alexandria1 a writer of the third century1 who composed a work on ,easter2' and in his note he gives references to four persons1 ,tillemont1 ,lardner1 ,donaldson1 and ,routh1 apparently as supporting this view4 ,routh however mentions it only to reject it1 and distinctly ascribes the fragments to ,apollinaris 7,rel4 ,sacr4 ,i4 p4 #afg74 ,neither have ,i yet found any passage in ,tillemont1 where he assigns them to ,pierius4 ,lardner indeed states this of ,tillemont2 but in the only reference which he gives 7,t4 ii4 ,p4 iii4 p4 #ia1 ed4 ,bruxelles71 nothing of the kind is said4 ,tillemont there refers in the margin to ',s4 ,pierre d',alex41' because this ,peter of ,alexandria is likewise quoted in the preface of the ,chronicon ,paschale1 and the question of the genuineness of the fragments ascribed to ,apollinaris is reserved to be discussed afterwards in connection with this ,peter 7ib4 p4 #bfh sq74 ,but he does not ascribe them to ,peter1 and he does not mention ,pierius there at all1 so far as ,i have observed4 ,it should be added that the title of ,pierius' work was ',a ,discourse relating to the ,passover and ,hosea' ,greek3 ho eis to pascha kai ,osee logos2 see ,photius ,bibl4 cxix4 ,so far as we can judge from the description of ,photius1 it seems to have been wholly different in subject and treatment from the works of ,melito and ,apollinaris4 ,it was perhaps an exposition of ,hosea ii4 #f-ag4 ,in the ,complete ,edition ,tillemont and ,routh are tacitly omitted from the note1 and 'some' substituted for 'many' in the text4 ,our author also by way of discrediting the ,chronicon ,paschale as a witness1 rejects 7,,ii4 p4 #aij7 a passage of ,melito quoted on the same authority 7p4 #dhb1 ed4 ,dind472 but he gives no reasons4 ,the passage bears every mark of genuineness4 ,it is essentially characteristic of an ,apologist in the second century1 and indeed is obviously taken from the ,apology of ,melito1 as the chronicler intimates4 ,otto accepts it without hesitation4 #bdb3a ,die aelt4 ,zeugn4 p4 #aje1 quoted by ,otto4 #bdb3b ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ahi4 ,this paragraph is rewritten in the ,complete ,edition4 #bdc3a ,theodoret ,h4 ,f4 i4 #ba2 iii4 #b4 #bdc3b ',epist4 ad ,magnum ,ep4 p4 #hc4' #bdc3c ,jerome ,vir4 ,ill4 #bf4 #bdc3d ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bf4 #bdd3a ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 vi4 #ac4 #bdd3b ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #bd4 #bdd3c ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #ahi4 ,rewritten in the ,complete ,edition4 #bde3a ,our author himself says elsewhere 7,,ii4 p4 #dgb73 ',a violent discussion arose as to the day upon which the true ,passover of the ,lord should be celebrated1 the ,church in ,asia ,minor maintaining that it should be observed on the #adth ,nisan1 etc4' ,this is exactly what ,apollinaris does4 ,by incidentally quoting the words of ,apollinaris 7,greek3 to alethinon tou ,kuriou pascha71 he has unconsciously borne testimony to the true interpretation of the passage1 though himself taking the opposite view4 #bde3b ,iren4 ,haer4 ii4 #bb4 #bdg3a ,see above1 p4 #aca4 #bdg3b ,see above1 p4 #d sq4 #bdh3a ,i observe also that ,melito1 while commenting on the sacrifice of ,isaac1 lays stress on the fact that our ,lord was ,greek3 teleios1 not ,greek3 neos1 at the time of the ,passion1 as if he too had some adversary in view2 ,fragm4 #ab 7p4 #dah74 ,this is an incidental confirmation of the statement of ,irenaeus respecting the ,asiatic elders4 #bdh3b ,see above1 p4 #aid4 ,reasons are there given for identifying this elder with ,papias4 #bdh3c ,iren4 ,haer4 iv4 #ca4 #a4 ,see ,john viii4 #ef4 #bdh3d ,iren4 ,haer4 iv4 #bg sq4 #bdh3e ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #bd4 #bdi3a ,john xxi4 #bj2 comp4 xiii4 #be4 #bdi3b ,acts v4 #bi4 #bea3a #b ,tim4 iv4 #aj4 ,gaul was almost universally called ',galatia' in ,greek at this time and for many generations afterwards4 #beb3a ,they are called 'trilingues1' ,varro in ,isid4 ,etym4 xv4 #a4 #beb3b ,it is preserved in great part by ,eusebius1 ,h4,e4 v4 #a1 and may be read conveniently in ,routh ,rel4 ,sacr4 ,i4 p4 #bie sq4 #bec3a ,see the references in ,tillemont ,memoires ,,ii4 p4 #cdc4 #bec3b ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #c4 #bec3c ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #d4 #bed3a ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #bd4 #bee3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #bja4 ,in earlier editions the words are translated 'the testimony of the elder ,zacharias2' but in the sixth ,i find substituted 'the testimony borne to the elder ,zacharias4' ,the adoption of this interpretation therefore is deliberate4 ,in the ,complete ,edition 7,,ii4 p4 #aii sq7 the rendering 'borne by the elder ,zacharias' is substituted for the above1 and defended at some length4 #bef3a ,protev4 #bc4 ,see ,tischendorf ,evang4 ,apocr4 p4 #dd4 #beg3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #bjc4 ,so previously 7p4 #bjb71 'his martyrdom1 which ,luke does not mention4' ,i have already had occasion to point out instances where our author's forgetfulness of the contents of the ,new ,testament leads him into error2 see above1 p4 #abe4 ,yet he argues throughout on the assumption that the memory of early ,christian writers was perfect4 ,the whole section is struck out in the ,complete ,edition4 ,the ,protevangelium bears all the characteristics of a romance founded partly on notices in the ,canonical ,gospels4 ,some passages certainly are borrowed from ,st ,luke1 from which the very words are occasionally taken 7e4g4 ,sec4,sec4 #aa1 #ab72 and the account of the martyrdom of ,zacharias is most easily explained as a fiction founded on the notice in ,luke xi4 #ea1 the writer assuming the identity of this ,zacharias with the ,baptist's father4 ,i have some doubts about the very early date sometimes assigned to the ,protevangelium 7though it may have been written somewhere about the middle of the second century72 but1 the greater its antiquity1 the more important is its testimony to the ,canonical ,gospels4 ,at the end of ,sec4 #ai the writer obviously borrows the language of ,st ,thomas in ,john xx4 #be4 ,this1 as it so happens1 is the part of the ,protevangelium to which ,clement of ,alexandria 7,strom4 vii4 p4 #hhi7 refers1 and therefore we have better evidence for the antiquity of this1 than of any other portion of the work4 #beh3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #cha4 #bei3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #bjj2 ',the two communities of ,vienne and ,lyons some time after addressed an ,epistle to their brethren in ,asia and ,phrygia1 and also to ,eleutherus1 ,bishop of ,rome1 relating the events which had occurred4444 ,this ,epistle has in great part been preserved by ,eusebius2' and again1 ,,ii4 p4 #baj2 ',we know that he ,irenaeus was deputed by the ,church of ,lyons to bear to ,eleutherus1 then ,bishop of ,rome1 the ,epistle of that ,christian community describing their sufferings during the persecution1' etc4 ,so also in the ,complete ,edition4 ,accordingly in the index1 pp4 #eja1 #eaa1 ,irenaeus is made the bearer of the ,epistle4 ,this is a confusion of two wholly distinct letters--the letter to the ,churches of ,phrygia and ,asia1 containing an account of the persecution1 which is in great part preserved by ,eusebius1 but of which ,irenaeus was certainly not the bearer2 and the letter to ,eleutherus1 of which ,irenaeus was the bearer1 but which had reference to the ,montanist controversy1 and of which ,eusebius has preserved only a single sentence recommending ,irenaeus to the ,roman ,bishop4 ,this latter contained references to the persecutions1 but was a distinct composition3 ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #c1 #d4 #bfj3a ,iren4 iii4 #c4 #c4 #bfj3b ,iren4 iii4 #ba4 #a4 #bfj3c ,de ,pond4 et ,mens4 #af1 #ag4 ,epiphanius states that ,antoninus ,pius was succeeded by ,caracalla1 who also bore the names of ,geta and ,m4 ,aurelius ,verus1 and who reigned seven years2 that ,l4 ,aurelius ,commodus likewise reigned these same seven years2 that ,pertinax succeeded next1 and was followed by ,severus2 that in the time of ,severus ,symmachus translated the ,,lxx2 that 'immediately after him1 that is1 in the reign of the second ,commodus1 who reigned for thirteen years after the before-mentioned ,l4 ,aurelius ,commodus1' ,theodotion published his translation2 with more of the same kind4 ,the ,chronicon ,paschale also assigns this version to the reign of ,commodus1 and even names the year ,a4,d4 #ahd2 but the compiler's testimony is invalidated by the fact that he repeats the words of ,epiphanius1 from whom he has obviously borrowed4 ,i should be sorry to say 7without thoroughly sifting the matter71 that even in this mass of confusion there may not be an element of truth2 but it is strange to see how our author's habitual scepticism deserts him just where it would be most in place4 #bfa3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #bac1 ',we are therefore brought towards the end of the episcopate of ,eleutherus as the earliest date at which the first three books of his work against ,heresies can well have been written1 and the rest must be assigned to a later period under the episcopate of ,victor 7#aih-aii74' ,so also in the ,complete ,edition4 ,the italics are my own4 #bfb3a ,our author sums up thus 7,,ii4 p4 #bjc sq72 ',the state of the case1 then1 is as follows3 ,we find a coincidence in a few words in connection with ,zacharias between the ,epistle of the ,churches of ,vienne and ,lyons and our ,third ,gospel2 but so far from the ,gospel being in any way indicated as their source1 the words in question are1 on the contrary1 in association with' 'connected with' ,compl4 ,ed4 'a reference to events unknown to our ,gospel1 but which were indubitably chronicled elsewhere4 ,it follows clearly1 and few venture to doubt the fact1 that the allusion in the ,epistle is to a ,gospel different from ours1 and not to our third ,synoptic at all4' ,of 'the events unknown to our ,gospel' ,i have disposed in the text4 ,but the statement which ,i have italicized is still more extraordinary4 ,i am altogether unable to put any interpretation upon the words which is not directly contradictory to the facts1 and must therefore suppose that we have here again one of those extraordinary misprints1 which our author has pleaded on former occasions4 ,as a matter of fact1 the references to the ,third and ,fourth ,gospels in this letter are all but universally allowed1 even by critics the least conservative4 ,they are expressly affirmed1 for instance1 by ,hilgenfeld 7,einleitung p4 #gc7 and by ,scholten 7,die aeltesten ,zeugnisse p4 #aaj sq74 ,in the ,complete ,edition the last sentence is considerably modified and runs as follows2 ',as part of the passage in the ,epistle1 therefore1 could not have been derived from our third ,synoptic1 the natural inference is that the whole emanates from a ,gospel1 different from ours1 which likewise contained that part4' #bfc3a ,s4,r4 ,,ii4 p4 #dgd4 #bfd3a ,iren4 iii4 #c4 #d1 ',whom we also saw in early life 7,greek3 en te prote hemon helikia72 for he survived long 7,greek3 epipolu gar paremeine71 and departed this life at a very great age 7,greek3 panu geraleos7 by a glorious and most notable martyrdom4' ,this passage suggests the inference that1 if ,polycarp had not had a long life1 ,irenaeus could not have been his hearer2 but it cannot be pressed to mean that ,polycarp was already in very advanced years when ,irenaeus saw him1 since the words ,greek3 panu geraleos refer1 not to the period of their intercourse1 but to the time of his martyrdom4 ,a comparison with a parallel expression relating to ,st ,john in ii4 #bb4 #e1 ,greek3 paremeine gar autois mechri k4t4l1 will show that the inference1 even when thus limited1 is precarious1 and that the ,greek3 gar does not necessarily imply as much4 ,extreme views with respect to the bearing of this passage are taken on the one hand by ,ziegler ,irenaeus der ,bischof von ,lyon p4 #ae sq1 and on the other by ,leimbach ,wann ist ,irenaeus geboren p4 #fbb sq 7in ,stud4 u4 ,krit4 #ahgc71 in answer to ,ziegler4 #bfd3b ,see above1 p4 #ajc sq4 #bfe3a ,see above1 p4 #ih1 note #a4 #bfe3b ,see above1 p4 #if sq4 #bfe3c ,see the last reference1 where the passage is given in full4 #bfe3d ,see above1 p4 #bec4 #bff3a ,iren4 iv4 #bg4 #a sq4 #bff3b ,see above1 p4 #aif1 note4 #bff3c ,see above1 p4 #bdg sq4 #bfg3a ,see above1 p4 #bec4 ,the author of ,supernatural ,religion himself 7,,ii4 p4 #baa7 writes3 ',it is not known how long ,irenaeus remained in ,rome1 but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat protracted stay1 for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the various tenets of ,gnostic and other heretics1' etc4 ,there is reason to think that this was not his first visit to ,rome4 ,the notice at the end of the ,moscow ,,ms of the ,martyrium ,polycarpi1 recently collated by ,gebhardt 7see ,zeitschr4 f4 ,hist4 ,theol4 #ahge1 p4 #cfb sq71 states that ,irenaeus1 'being in ,rome at the time of the martyrdom of ,polycarp1 taught many1' and that it was recorded in his writings how at the precise time of his master's death he heard a voice announcing the occurrence4 ,this story is not unlikely to have had some foundation in fact4 #bfg3b ,photius ,bibl4 #aba2 see above1 p4 #aif4 ,it is not stated where these lectures were delivered2 but inasmuch as we know ,hippolytus only as the ,bishop of ,portus and as dwelling in ,rome and the neighbourhood1 the metropolis is the most likely place1 in the absence of direct evidence4 #bfg3c ,see above1 p4 #bai4 #bfh3a ,it is only necessary to refer to the account of ,jews given by an intelligent author like ,tacitus 7,hist4 v4 #a4 sq74 ,it is related1 he says1 that the ,jews migrated to ,libya from ,ida in ,crete1 about the time when ,saturn was expelled from his kingdom by ,jupiter1 and were thence called ,iudaei1 i4e4 ,idaei4 ,some persons1 he adds1 say that ,egypt being over-populated in the reign of ,isis1 a multitude1 led by their chieftains ,hierosolymus and ,judas1 settled in the neighbouring lands4 ,he states it1 moreover1 as an account in which 'plurimi auctores consentiunt1' that the ,jews consecrated an image of an ass in their temple1 because a herd of these animals had disclosed to them copious springs of water in their wanderings2 these wanderings lasted six days continuously2 on the seventh they obtained possession of the land1 where they built their city and temple2 with more to the same effect4 ,all this he writes1 though at the time the ,jews in ,rome counted by tens of thousands1 any one of whom would have set him right4 ,the comparatively venial error of ,justin1 who mistook the ,sabine deity ,semo ,sancus for ,simo ,sanctus1 cannot be judged harshly in the face of these facts4 #bgj3a ,clem4 ,alex4 ,strom4 iii4 #ac1 p4 #eec4 #bgb3a ,see the note at the close of this ,essay4 #bgc3a ,the principal ancient authorities for the life of ,tatian are the following3--,tatian ,orat4 ad ,graec4 #ai1 #bi1 #ce1 #db2 ,irenaeus i4 #bh4 #a2 ,rhodon1 in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #ac2 ,clement of ,alexandria ,strom4 iii4 #ab1 p4 #edg2 ,exc4 ,theod4 #ch1 p4 #iii2 ,eusebius ,h4,e4 iv4 #af1 #bh1 #bi2 ,epiphanius ,haer4 xlvi42 ,theodoret ,haer4 ,fab4 i4 #bj4 ,the statements in the text are justified by one or other of these references4 #bgc3b ,all the references to ,supernatural ,religion in this article will be found in ,,ii4 pp4 #adh sq1 #cgd sq4 #bgc3c e4g4 ,clement of ,alexandria 7l4c4 p4 #edg7 gives ,tatian's comment on #a ,cor4 vii4 #e2 and ,jerome writes 7,pref4 ad ,tit4 vii4 p4 #fhf71 ',tatianus1 ,encratitarum patriarches1 qui et ipse nonnullas ,pauli epistolas repudiavit1 hanc vel maxime1 hoc est1 ad ,titum1 apostoli pronuntiandam credidit4' #bgd3a ,hort 7,journal of ,philology1 iii4 p4 #aee sq1 ,on the date of ,justin ,martyr7 places it as early as ,a4,d4 #adh4 #bgd3b ,iren4 i4 #bh4 #a4 #bgd3c ,see above1 p4 #bfj sq4 #bgd3d ,clem4 ,alex4 ,strom4 i4 #a 7p4 #cbb74 #bge3a ,see ,westcott ,history of ,canon p4 #aaf sq1 where this point is brought out4 ,many erroneous deductions have been drawn from the reserve of the ,apologists by writers who have overlooked it4 #bgg3a ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #bi4 #bgh3a ,this sentence is omitted in the ,complete ,edition1 where see ,i4 p4 #aej4 #bgh3b ,the references are3 ,pref4 #a2 i4 #ad1 #ch1 #db1 #di1 #ej1 #eh2 ii4 #ae1 #dd1 #dh1 #di2 iii4 #ce2 iv4 #ad1 #fh1 #hf1 #ih2 v4 #h1 #eh2 vi4 #fe1 #ha2 vii4 #h1 #ef2 viii4 #db1 #de1 #dh1 #ei4 #bgh3c ,this work first appeared in a mutilated form in ,cureton's posthumous volume1 ,ancient ,syriac ,documents p4 #f sq 7,london1 #ahfd71 from ,,mss in the ,british ,museum1 and has recently been published entire by ,dr ,phillips1 ,the ,doctrine of ,addai 7,london1 #ahgf71 from a ,st ,petersburgh ,,ms4 ,in the ,british ,museum ,,ms which contains this part1 the word is corrupted into ,ditornon1 which has no meaning2 but ,cureton conjectured that the reading was ,diatessaron 7see pp4 #ae2 #aeh71 and his conjecture is confirmed by the ,st ,petersburgh ,,ms1 which distinctly so reads 7see ,phillips1 p4 #id74 ,in the ,armenian version 7,lettre d',abgare1 ,venise1 #ahfh1 p1 #da71 a mention of the ,trinity is substituted4 ,this would seem to be a still further corruption2 and1 if so1 it presents a parallel to the ,diapente in the text of ,victor of ,capua1 mentioned below4 #bgi3a ,wright's ,catalogue pp4 #ajhb1 #ajhc4 #bgi3b ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 i4 #ac4 #bgi3c ,see a valuable article by ,zahn in the ,goetting4 ,gelehrte ,anzeigen1 ,february #f1 #ahgg1 p4 #afa sq4 ,on this document ,i am unable to accept the conclusion of ,cureton and of ,dr ,phillips1 that the work itself is a much earlier and authentic document1 and that the passages containing these anachronisms are interpolations4 #bhj3a ,the exact date of his death is given in a ,syriac ,,ms in the ,british ,museum 7,wright's ,catalogue p4 #idg7 as ',ann4 ,graec4 #fhd4' #bhj3b ,assem4 ,bibl4 ,orient4 ii4 p4 #aei sq4 ,the ,english reader should be warned that ,assemani's translations are loose and often misleading4 ,more correct renderings are given here4 #bha3a ,euseb4 ,op4 iv4 p4 #abgf 7ed4 ,migne7 ,greek3 ,ammonios men ho ,alexandreus 444 to dia tessaron hemin kataleloipen euangelion1 to kata ,matthaion tas homophonous ton loipon euangeliston perikopas paratheis1 hos ex anankes sumbenai ton tes akolouthias heirmon ton trion diaphtharanai1 hoson epi to huphei anagnoseos--i4e4 ',he placed side by side with the ,gospel according to ,matthew the corresponding passages of the other ,evangelists1 so that as a necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was destroyed1 so far as regards the order 7texture7 of reading4' #bha3b ,assem4 ,bibl4 ,orient4 ii4 p4 #aeh4 ,see ,hilgenfeld ,einleitung p4 #gg4 #bha3c ,the confusion of later ,syrian writers may be explained without difficulty3-- 7i7 ,bar-,hebraeus in the latter half of the thirteenth century 7,assem4 ,bibl4 ,orient4 i4 p4 #eg sq7 writes3 ',eusebius of ,caesarea1 seeing the corruptions which ,ammonius of ,alexandria introduced into the ,gospel of the ,diatessaron1 that is ,miscellanies1 which commenced1 ,in the beginning was the ,word1 and which ,mar ,ephraem expounded1 kept the ,four ,gospels in their integrity1 etc4' ,it is tolerably plain1 ,i think1 from the language of this writer1 that he had before him the passage of ,bar-,salibi 7or some corresponding passage71 and that he misunderstood him1 as if he were speaking of the same work throughout4 ,from the coincidence in the strange interpretation of ,diatessaron1 it is clear that the two passages are not independent4 ,assemani has omitted this interpretation in his translation in both cases1 and has thus obliterated the resemblance4 7ii7 ,to the same source also we may refer the error of ,ebed-,jesu in the beginning of the fourteenth century1 who not only confuses the books but the men4 ,he writes 7,assem4 ,bibl4 ,orient4 iii4 p4 #ab73 ',a ,gospel which was compiled by a man of ,alexandria1 ,ammonius1 who is also ,tatian2 and he called it ,diatessaron4' ,he too supposed the two independent sentences of ,bar-,salibi to refer to the same thing4 ,in the preface to his collection of canons however1 he gives a description of ,tatian's work which is substantially correct3 ',tatianus quidam philosophus cum evangelistarum loquentium sensum suo intellectu cepisset1 et scopum scriptionis illorum divinae in mente sua fixisset1 unum ex quatuor illis admirabile collegit evangelium1 quod et ,diatessaron nominavit1 in quo cum cautissime seriem rectam eorum1 quae a ,salvatore dicta ac gesta fuere1 servasset1 ne unam quidem dictionem e suo addidit' 7,mai ,script4 ,vet4 ,nov4 ,coll4 x4 pp4 #bc1 #aia74 7iii7 ,in ,bar-,bahlul's ,syriac ,lexicon1 s4v4 7see ,payne ,smith ,thes4 ,syr4 p4 #hgj71 ,diatessaron is defined as 'the compiled ,gospel 7made7 from the four ,evangelists1' and it is added3 ',this was composed in ,alexandria1 and was written by ,tatian the ,bishop4' ,the mention of ,alexandria suggests that here also there is some confusion with ,ammonius1 though neither ,ammonius nor ,tatian was a bishop4 ,bar-,bahlul flourished in the latter half of the tenth century2 and if this notice were really his1 we should have an example 7doubtful however7 of this confusion1 earlier than ,bar-,salibi4 ,but these ,syrian ,lexicons have grown by accretion2 the ,,mss1 ,i am informed1 vary considerably2 and we can never be sure that any word or statement emanated from the original compiler4 ,since writing the above1 ,i am able to say1 through the kindness of ,dr ,hoffmann1 that in the oldest known ,,ms of ,bar-,bahlul1 dated ,a4,h4 #faa1 i4e41 ,a4,d4 #abad1 this additional sentence about ,tatian is wanting1 as it is also in another ,,ms of which he sends me an account through ,professor ,wright4 ,it is no part therefore of the original ,bar-,bahlul4 ,thus all the instances of confusion in ,syriac writers are later than ,bar-,salibi1 and can be traced to a misunderstanding of his language4 #bhb3a ,h4,e4 i4 #bj4 ,the ,syrian lexicographer ,bar ,ali also1 who flourished about the end of the ninth century1 mentions that ,tatian omitted both the genealogies3 see ,payne ,smith's ,thes4 ,syr4 s4v4 p4 #hfi sq4 #bhc3a ,theodoret ,epist4 #aac 7iv4 p4 #aaij1 ed4 ,schulze74 #bhc3b ,zahn 7,goett4 ,gel4 ,anz4 p4 #ahd7 points out that ,aphraates also1 a somewhat older ,syrian father than ,ephraem1 appears to have used this ,diatessaron4 ,in his first ,homily 7p4 #ac1 ed4 ,wright7 he says1 ',and ,christ is also the ,word and the ,speech of the ,lord1 as it is written in the beginning of the ,gospel of our ,saviour--,in the beginning was the ,word4' ,the date of this ,homily is ,a4,d4 #ccg4 #bhd3a ,epiphan4 ,haer4 xlvi4 #a4 #bhd3b ,see the reference in the last note4 #bhe3a ,all the remains of the ,hebrew ,gospel1 and the passages of ,jerome relating to it1 will be found in ,westcott's ,introduction to the ,gospels p4 #dfb sq4 #bhe3b ,see above1 p4 #bfj1 where this specimen of his blundering is given4 #bhe3c ,see above1 p4 #gi sq4 #bhf3a ,patrol4 ,lat4 lxviii4 p4 #bec 7ed4 ,migne74 ,an old ,frankish translation of this ,harmony is also extant4 ,it has been published more than once2 e4g4 by ,schmeller 7,vienna1 #ahda74 #bhg3a ,the ,syriac version is not yet published1 but ,i have ascertained this by inquiry4 #bhg3b ,this seems to be ,hilgenfeld's opinion also 7,einleitung p4 #gi72 and curious as the result is1 ,i do not see how any other explanation is consistent with the facts4 #bhg3c ,an important monograph on ,tatian's ,diatessaron by ,zahn has been published since this ,article was written 7,erlangen1 #ahha74 #bia3a ,les ,apotres p4 xviii4 #bia3b ,les ,evangiles p4 #dcf4 #bib3a xvii4 p4 #hdj4 #bic3a ,sub ann4 #df4 #bic3b ,see ,becker u4 ,marquardt ,roem4 ,alterth4 ,,iii4 i4 p4 #bid sq4 ,even ,de ,wette has not escaped the pitfall1 for he states that 'according to ,strabo ,cyprus was governed by propraetors1' and he therefore supposes that ,strabo and ,dion ,cassius are at variance4 ,de ,wette's error stands uncorrected by his editor1 ,overbeck4 #bic3c ,dion ,cassius liii4 #ab4 #bid3a ,dion ,cassius liv4 #d4 #bid3b ,q4 ,julius ,cordus and ,l4 ,annius ,bassus in ,boeckh ,corp4 ,inscr4 ,graec4 #bfca1 #bfcb4 #bid3c ,cominius ,proclus1 and perhaps ,quadratus3 see ,akerman's ,numismatic ,illustrations of the ,new ,testament p4 #ci4 #bid3d ,corp4 ,inscr4 ,lat4 iii4 #fjgb1 an ,ephesian inscription discovered by ,mr ,wood4 #bid3e ,corp4 ,inscr4 ,lat4 iii4 #bah4 #bid3f ,cesnola's ,cyprus p4 #dbe4 #bie3a ,dean ,alford indeed 7on ,acts xiii4 #g71 following some previous writers1 mentions a ,sergius ,paulus1 intermediate in date between the two others--the authority of ,pliny and the friend of ,galen--whom he describes as 'one of the consules suffecti in ,a4,d4 #id4' ,this however is a mistake4 ,a certain inscription1 mentioning ,l4 ,sergius ,paullus as consul1 is placed by ,muratori 7p4 cccxiv4 #c7 and others under the year #id2 but there is good reason to believe that it refers to the friend of ,galen1 and must be assigned to the year when he was consul for the first time1 as suffectus1 i4e4 about ,a4,d4 #aej4 ,see ,marini ,atti e ,monumenti de' ,fratelli ,arvali p4 #aih2 ,waddington ,fastes des ,provinces ,asiatiques p4 #gca4 #bif3a ,this person is twice mentioned by ,galen de ,anat4 ,admin4 i4 #a 7,op4 ii4 p4 #bah1 ed4 ,kuehn73 ,greek3 toude tou nun eparchou tes ,rhomaion poleos1 andros ta panta proteuontos ergois te kai logois tois en philosophia1 ,sergiou ,paulou hupatou3 de ,praenot4 #b 7,op4 ii4 p4 #fab71 ,greek3 aphikonto ,sergios te ho kai ,paulos1 hos ou meta polun chronon huparchos 7l4 ,greek3 eparchos7 egeneto tes poleos1 kai ,phlabios1 hupatikos men on ede kai autos1 espeukos de peri ten ,aristotelous philosophian1 hosper kai ho ,paulos1 hois diegesamenos1 k4t4l4 ,in this latter passage the words stand ,greek3 ,sergios te kai ho ,paulos in ,kuehn and other earlier printed editions which ,i have consulted1 but they are quoted ,greek3 ,sergios te ho kai ,paulos by ,wetstein and others4 ,i do not know on what authority this latter reading rests1 but the change in order is absolutely necessary for the sense2 for 7#a7 in this passage nothing more is said about ,sergius as distinct from ,paulus1 whereas ,paulus is again and again mentioned1 so that plainly one person alone is intended4 7#b7 ,in the parallel passage ,sergius ,paulus is mentioned1 and the same description is given of him as of ,paulus here4 ,the alternative would be to omit ,greek3 kai ho altogether1 as the passage is tacitly quoted in ,borghesi ,oeuvres viii4 p4 #ejd4 #bif3b ,melito in ,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bf3 see ,waddington ,fastes des ,provinces ,asiatiques p4 #gca4 ,see above1 p4 #bbc4 #big3a ,boeckh ,corp4 ,inscr4 ,graec4 #bied4 ,the first sentence which ,i have quoted is slightly mutilated2 but the sense is clear4 ,the document bears only too close a resemblance to the utterances of ,lourdes in our own day4 #bii3a ,acts xix4 #cg1 where ,greek3 hierosulous is oddly translated 'robbers of churches4' #cjj3a ,inscr4 vi4 #a1 p4 #ad4 #cjj3b ,boeckh ,corp4 ,inscr4 #bigb1 ,greek3 tois neokoron ton ,sebaston1 monon hapason de tes ,artemidos4 #cjj3c ,eckhel ,doctr4 ,num4 ii4 p4 #ebj4 ,the legend is--,greek3 ,,ephesion ,,tris ,,neokoron ,,kai ,,tes ,,artemidos4 #cjj3d ,mionnet1 iii4 p4 #aec1 ,suppl4 vi4 pp4 #bde1 #bdg1 #bej1 #bec4 #cjj3e ,xen4 ,anab4 v4 #c1 #f4 #cja3a ,inscr4 vi4 #f1 p4 #ej4 #cja3b ,acts xix4 #ch1 ,greek3 agoraioi sc4 ,greek3 hemerai ,greek3 agontai kai anthupatoi eisin1 translated 'the law is open1 and there are deputies1' in the ,authorised ,version1 but the margin1 'the court days are kept1' gives the right sense of the first clause4 ,in the second clause 'proconsuls' is a rhetorical plural1 just as e4g4 in ,euripides 7,iph4 ,taur4 #acei7 ,orestes and ,pylades are upbraided for 'stealing from the land its images and priestesses' 7,greek3 kleptontes ek ges xoana kai thuepolous71 though there was only one image and one priestess4 #cja3c ,inscr4 vi4 #a1 p4 #ch4 #cjb3a ,ign4 ,ephes4 #i4 #cjb3b ,inscr4 vi4 #a1 p4 #db4 ,,indices4 ,i4 ,,index ,,of ,,subjects4 ,,ii4 ,,index ,,of ,,passages4 ,,index ,,of ,,subjects4 ,aberle1 #baj1 #bac n ,abgarus1 #bgi ,achaia1 vicissitudes as a ,roman province1 #bib ,acts of ,peter1 #cg ,acts of the ,apostles2 ,eusebius' method with regard to1 #df2 used by ,polycarp1 #ie2 by ,polycrates1 #bdi2 ascribed by ,irenaeus to ,st ,luke1 #dd2 quoted in the ,letter of the ,gallican ,churches1 #beg2 ,renan on its authorship1 #bia2 recent discoveries illustrating1 #bia sq ,addai2 see ,doctrine of ,addai ,a,elian1 credulity of1 #bfi ,a,esop1 ,hitzig's derivation of the name1 #be n ,african martyrs1 #gf1 #hc ,agathonice1 #adh ,alcibiades1 #bed ,alexander1 #bec ,alford1 #i1 #bid1 #bie n ,alogi1 #bae n ,ambrosius1 the friend of ,origen1 #g ,ammonius of ,alexandria2 his date1 #bhj2 his ,harmony of the ,gospels1 #bhj2 ,eusebius' account of it1 #bhj2 its scope distinct from ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #bhj sq2 but confused with it by ,syrian writers1 #bha sq ,anastasius of ,sinai2 his high estimate of ,papias1 #aed1 #aeg1 #bjj sq2 quotes ,melito1 #bbe n1 #bcj sq ,andreas of ,caesarea1 mentions ,papias1 #cd n1 #bad ,andrew 7,st71 at ,ephesus1 #ia1 #adc1 #ade1 #adf1 #afj1 #ahi1 #aic ,anger1 #afe ,anicetus1 #ii1 #ajj1 #aja1 #ajb ,anthropomorphism1 #aci n ,antinomianism1 #aai sq ,antioch2 ,trajan at1 #gi2 ,antoninus ,pius at1 #ih n2 earthquake at1 #gi sq ,antoninus ,pius2 proconsul of ,asia as ,t4 ,aurelius ,fulvus1 #ih n2 his movements as emperor1 #ih n ,aphraates1 his acquaintance with ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #bhc n1 #bhh ,aphthonius1 #bhj ,apion1 as a critic1 #bfi ,apocalypse2 its date1 #ad n1 #acb2 its differences from the ,fourth ,gospel1 #ae1 #aca sq1 #bad sq2 the term ,logos in1 #ae1 #abc2 supposed allusions to ,st ,paul in1 #ac sq2 the form of ,gnosticism denounced in1 #ad n2 its position in the ,canon of ,eusebius1 #dg2 ,eusebius' treatment of patristic notices of1 #cg n1 #ci1 #dc1 #dg1 #bae sq2 ,papias on its authorship1 #cd n1 #bad2 ,justin ,martyr1 #dc1 #baf2 ,irenaeus1 #de1 #dg1 #baf2 ,eusebius1 #add2 the ,johannine authorship admitted by the early fathers1 #bad sq2 notices in ,justin ,martyr1 #dc1dg1 #baf2 in ,melito1 #dg2 his commentary on it1 #baf2 in the ,muratorian ,canon1 #baf2 in ,theophilus1 #dd1 #dg1 #eb1 #baf2 in ,apollonius1 #dg ,apocalypse of ,peter1 #cg1 #dg ,apollinaris1 ,claudius1 of ,hierapolis2 a contemporary of ,melito1 #bcg2 his date1 #bcg sq2 his literary activity1 #cb1 #ajb1 #bjg1 #bch2 his orthodoxy1 #bch sq2 his writings1 #bch1 #bdb sq2 ,eusebius' list of them incomplete1 #bch1 #bdb sq2 his ,apology1 #bcg2 his work against the ,montanists1 #bch1 #bdc2 against the ,severians1 #bdc2 on the ,paschal ,festival1 #bch sq1 #bdb sq2 the assumed silence of the fathers on this work considered1 #bdb sq2 not an antagonist of ,melito1 #bdb1 #bdd1 #bde2 but a ,quartodeciman1 #bdd sq2 genuineness of the extant fragments of1 #bci sq2 references to the ,gospels in them1 #bci1 #bdj2 to the ,fourth ,gospel1 #bdj2 follows the chronology of the ,fourth ,gospel1 #bdh2 mentions the miracle of the ,thundering ,legion1 #bcg2 his prominence in the ,school of ,st ,john1 #bah ,apollonius2 notice of the ,apocalypse in1 #dg2 extracts in ,eusebius from1 #ia n ,apologies1 absence of scriptural quotations in ,christian1 #cc1 #bga1 #bge ,arethas1 #bja ,arianism1 and the ,ignatian controversy1 #fj1 #fb1 #fi ,aristides1 the rhetorician1 #ih n1 #ajd1 #bgj ,aristion1 and ,papias1 #ia1 #adc1 #add sq1 #adi1 #aej n1 #ahg1 #bff ,arnold1 ,matthew1 #bd1 #aij n ,artemis1 cultus of the ,ephesian1 #big sq ,asia ,minor2 imperial visits to1 #ih2 the proconsulate of1 #bic2 the proconsular fasti of1 #ajc sq1 #aae1 #aba1 #bbc1 #bie n2 its connexion with ,southern ,gaul1 #aje1 #beb ,asia ,minor1 the ,churches of2 importance of1 #ia sq1 #bag sq2 ,apostles resident in1 #ia1 #bag2 episcopacy in1 #hd1 #bah2 solidarity of1 #ajb2 the arena of controversy1 #hd1 #bai2 literary activity of1 #bai1 #bdi2 testimony to the ,fourth ,gospel from1 #bdi2 the ,church of ,southern ,gaul a colony of1 #bdi2 intimate relations between them1 #aje1 #beb sq2 ,polycarp's ,epistle publicly read in1 #aje n ,asiarchs1 #bbb n1 #bii ,askar and ,sychar1 #ag n1 #acc sq ,assemani1 #bhj n1 #bha n ,athanasius1 quotes the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #hj ,attalus1 the ,pergamene martyr1 #bec1 #bed ,aubertin1 #ff1 #fg ,augustus1 the division of ,roman provinces by1 #bia sq ,balaam1 as a type of ,st ,paul1 #ac ,bar-,ali1 the lexicographer2 his date1 #bhb n2 mentions ,tatian1 #bhb n ,bar-,bahlul2 his date1 #bhb n2 ,ammonius and ,tatian confused in late ,,mss of his lexicon1 #bhb n ,bar-,hebraeus2 his date1 #bha n2 confuses ,ammonius and ,tatian1 #bha n ,bar-,salibi2 his date1 #bhj2 his testimony to ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #bhj sq ,barnabas1 ,epistle of2 its date1 #agg2 quotes ,st ,matthew's ,gospel as ',scripture1' #agg1 #bbg2 employed by ,clement of ,alexandria1 #dg2 ,chiliasm in1 #aea ,baronio1 #bic ,basil 7,st71 #age ,basilides2 his date1 #he1 #afa2 his work ,on the ,gospel1 #afa2 fragments preserved in ,hippolytus1 #afa2 his appeal to the ,fourth ,gospel1 #eb1 #bai2 the ,vossian ,epistles silent on1 #he2 his allusion to ,glaucias1 #ba1 #abc ,basnoge1 #ff1 #fg ,bassus1 ,l4 ,annius1 proconsul of ,cyprus1 #bid n ,baumgarten-,crusius1 #fh1 #fi ,baur1 #bd1 #fa1 #fd1 #gj ,beausobre1 #fh1 #fi ,bethesda1 the pool of1 #i1 #abf ,bleek1 #fe1 #ff1 #fi1 #aga ,blondel1 #ff1 #fg ,bochart1 #ff1 #fg1 #hc ,boehringer1 #fe ,borghesi1 #bif n ,bunsen1 #fa1 #fc1 #fd1 #fe1 #ff ,calvin1 and the ,ignatian controversy1 #fe1 #ff ,carpus1 #adh ,capitolinus1 #ih n ,casaubon1 #ff1 #fg ,celsus1 #f sq1 #be n ,cerinthus2 encountered by ,st ,john1 #aja1 #bab2 his separationism1 #aah2 attacked in ,st ,john's ,first ,epistle1 #aah2 according to ,irenaeus1 the ,fourth ,gospel aimed at1 #dh1 #ahb2 the ,fourth ,gospel and ,apocalypse ascribed to1 #bae2 the question of the ,canon involved in the controversy with1 #bai2 confused with ,marcion1 #baj1 #bab ,cesnola's explorations in ,cyprus1 #bid1 #big ,chemnitz1 #fe1 #ff ,chiliasm2 of ,papias1 #aea sq1 #aeh sq1 #afj1 #aig1 #bae n2 of the early ,church generally1 #aea ,christian literature2 compared with the classics as regards external evidence for documents1 #hb2 plagiarisms in1 #bjb ,christian martyrs2 coincidence with the ,passion of ,christ in the sufferings of1 #bbj2 zeal for martyrdom exhibited by1 #hb sq ,christian prisoners1 the treatment of1 #gd sq ,christology2 of the ,synoptists and ,fourth ,gospel1 #ae sq2 of ,cerinthus1 #aah2 of ,ignatius1 #db1 #hf sq1 #ajh1 #bca2 of ,polycarp1 #ajf1 #ajh2 of ,justin ,martyr1 #bce2 of ,melito1 #bcj1 #bca1 #bcd sq ,christ's ministry1 the duration of1 #af sq1 #dh1 #aca1 #bde sq ,chronicon ,paschale2 see ,paschal ,chronicle ,chrysostom1 the panegyric on ,ignatius of1 #hj ,ciasca1 #bhh ,claudius ,apollinaris2 see ,apollinaris ,clemens1 ,flavius1 cousin of ,domitian1 #id n ,clement of ,alexandria2 coincidence in the name1 #id n2 a pupil of ,pantaenus1 #bgd2 perhaps of ,melito1 #bah1 #bbd2 perhaps also of ,tatian1 #bgd2 quotes from ,tatian1 #bgc n2 his wide learning1 #bfi2 compared with his heathen contemporaries1 #bfi2 his travels1 #bgj2 his testimony to the ,four ,gospels1 #bgj2 to ,st ,mark1 #afg2 to the ,fourth ,gospel1 #eb2 to the labours of ,st ,john1 #bah2 accepts the identity of authorship of the ,fourth ,gospel and ,apocalypse1 #baf2 employs the ,epistle of ,clement of ,rome1 #dg2 the ,epistle of ,barnabas1 #dg2 the ,apocalypse of ,peter1 #dg2 the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 #aeb2 quotes ,basilides1 #afa2 his treatise on the ,paschal ,festival1 #bdc sq2 date of his ,stromateis1 #bgd2 his use of the word 'oracles1' #agd ,clement of ,rome2 his name1 #id n2 probably a ,hellenist ,jew1 #id2 and a freedman1 #id2 his position compared with that of ,polycarp1 #hi2 scriptural quotations in his ,epistle1 #dj1 #aje1 #aaj2 ,eusebius' method tested on it1 #dj1 #dg1 #agi2 its testimony to the ,epistle of the ,hebrews1 #dj1 #dg1 #di2 employed by ,clement of ,alexandria1 #dg2 its date and that of the book of ,judith1 #be n2 his use of the ,canon and that of ,polycarp1 #id1 #aje2 his use of the word 'oracles1' #agd2 the story of the phoenix in1 #bfh2 his place in modern ,german theories1 #bd ,clementines2 as a romance1 #ae2 ,gnostic fragments preserved in the1 #dj n2 quote and employ the narrative of the ,fourth ,gospel1 #ej1 #eb ,cook1 #ff1 #fg ,cordus1 ,q4 ,julius1 proconsul of ,cyprus1 #bid n ,cramer's ,catena1 #bja ,credner1 #ab1 #ai1 #abd sq1 #ahf ,crescens1 the ,cynic1 #adh1 #bgb ,cureton1 #fa1 #fc1 #fe1 #fh1 #gj1 #ga sq1 #ha n1 #hf1 #bcb n1 #bgh n1 #bgi n ,curetonian ,epistles1 #fa sq2 see also ,ignatian ,epistles ,cyprian2 his correspondence1 #gf2 accepts identity of authorship of the ,fourth ,gospel and ,apocalypse1 #baf ,cyprus2 its vicissitudes as a ,roman province1 #bib sq2 the evidence of inscriptions on this1 #bid2 source of ,pliny's information regarding1 #bie2 proconsuls and propraetors of1 #bid2 recent excavations at1 #bia sq ,cyrrhestice1 #bhb1 #bhc ,dallaeus1 #fe1 #aad ,de ,wette1 #i1 #bic n ,decian persecution1 #gf ,delitzsch1 #ag1 #acc1 #ace1 #acf ,demetrius1 the silversmith of ,ephesus1 #bih1 #bii1 #cja ,denzinger1 #fc1 #ga ,diapente1 #bgi n1 #bhe sq ,diatessaron2 see ,tatian ,dion ,cassius1 #bic ,dionysius of ,alexandria2 his critical insight1 #afg2 assigns the ,fourth ,gospel to ,st ,john1 #baf2 but separates the authorship of the ,apocalypse1 #afg1 #baf ,dionysius of ,corinth2 his evidence to the ,canon1 #aef1 #agg1 #bbg2 the silence of ,eusebius respecting1 #ce sq1 #ci1 #ahd ,docetism1 attacked in the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #aah n ,doctrine of ,addai2 discovery of the document1 #bgh n2 its subject1 #bgh2 its date1 #bgi2 its country1 #bgi2 noticed in ,eusebius1 #bgi2 mentions ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #bgh2 the ,armenian version1 #bgi ,dodwell1 #ih n1 #bfd ,dogma and morality1 #bg sq ,donaldson1 #bda n ,dressel1 #hj n ,dutch school of criticism1 #b1 #i1 #cf ,ebionism2 no trace in the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #db2 nor in ,polycarp1 #dc1 #ajb sq1 #aec sq2 nor in ,papias1 #db1 #dc1 #aea sq ,edessa1 #bgh sq ,elders2 quoted by ,papias1 #d sq1 #adc1 #ade1 #aei1 #afc1 #afh1 #aha1 #aid1 #aig sq2 by ,irenaeus1 #d1 #f1 #dh1 #ed1 #eh1 #ajb1 #ade1 #aie sq1 #bah1 #bcc1 #bde1 #bdg sq2 who both reports their conversations1 and cites their works1 #aif sq2 identification of some of them1 #aid sq1 #aif n1 #bbd1 #bdh n1 #bff ,eleutherus1 ,bishop of ,rome1 #ii1 #bfa2 ,irenaeus sent as delegate to1 #bec1 #bei n ,elias of ,salamia2 his ,diatessaron1 #bhj2 his name ,aphthonius1 #bhj ,encratites2 ,apollinaris' treatises against the1 #bch1 #bdc2 ,tatian's connexion with the1 #bgb1 #bhd ,ephesus2 ,st ,john at1 #ia1 #aja1 #adb sq1 #bag sq2 other ,apostles at1 #ia2 ,wood's excavations at1 #bia1 #bid n1 #big sq2 cultus of ,artemis at1 #big sq2 the great theatre at1 #bih sq2 the designation of magistrates1 #bii2 the title neocoros1 #cjj2 the lawful assemblies1 #cja2 image-processions at1 #cja sq2 gates of1 #cjb ,ephraem of ,antioch1 #agb ,ephraem ,syrus2 date of his death1 #bhj2 his commentary on ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #bhj sq2 an ,armenian version discovered1 #bhg ,epiphanius2 date of his work on ,heresies1 #bhd2 his treatise against the ,alogi1 #bae n2 his obligations to ,hippolytus1 #baf n2 his historical blunders1 #bfj1 #bfi1 #bhe2 confuses ,tatian's ,diatessaron with the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 #bhd ,episcopacy2 in the time of ,st ,john1 #bah2 in ,asia ,minor in the time of ,ignatius1 #hd2 stress laid upon it in the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #ajg2 especially in the ,vossian ,letters1 #hg2 the ,ignatian controversy centres round the question of1 #fa2 not mentioned in the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 #ajf1 #ajg sq1 #abb2 prominent in the writings of ,irenaeus1 #abb ,ernesti1 #fh ,euodia and ,syntyche1 extravagant ,german theories respecting1 #bd sq ,eusebius2 sources of his history1 #cb sq2 his rule of procedure in dealing with the ,canon1 #cf sq1 #df sq1 #agh sq1 #aij sq1 #bae sq2 tested on extant literature1 #dj sq2 what his silence means1 #cb sq2 its value as a direct testimony1 #ea2 his trustworthiness and moderation1 #di sq1 #bji2 his habit of incomplete and combined quotations1 #afh1 #bji2 on the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #gb sq1 #hj1 #hb2 on ,papias1 #adb sq1 #adg1 #aea sq1 #aed1 #afg1 #ahf1 #aij sq2 his estimate of ,papias1 #bji2 on ,john the ,presbyter1 #adc sq2 his lists of the works of ,melito not exhaustive1 #bbd sq1 #bbh2 nor those of the works of ,apollinaris1 #bch1 #bdb2 dependent upon ,pamphilus' library1 #bbe2 on the ,paschal controversy1 #ag1 #bde2 attempts to harmonize the ,gospel narrative1 #bjh1 #bji2 for this purpose perhaps borrows from ,papias1 #bjh ,evagrius1 #hj ,ewald1 #fc1 #fe1 #acf1 #bjd ,greek3 epi ,traianou1 #ha ,greek3 epistolai1 of a single letter1 #aad1 #ahi ,greek3 exegesis1 #aee n1 #aef1 #afj n1 #age sq2 and ,greek3 diegesis1 #aeg n ,fathers1 early2 compared in historical accuracy with classical writers1 #bfh sq2 considered as critics1 #afg1 #bbi1 #bfc1 #bfh2 the dearth of scriptural quotations in their works accounted for1 #cc1 #bga2 explanation of their literary plagiarisms1 #bjb1 #bcg ,felicitas1 #hc ,florinus2 a pupil of ,polycarp1 #if sq2 ,irenaeus' letter to1 #if sq1 #aie n2 date of his connexion with the royal court1 #ig sq2 his subsequent history1 #ih ,four ,gospels2 that number only recognized in the ,muratorian ,canon1 #aff1 #bgj2 in ,irenaeus1 #de1 #dh1 #aff1 #bcc1 #bfc sq2 in ,eusebius1 #ci ,fourth ,gospel2 its spirit1 #ac2 its ,hebraic character1 #ad2 the minuteness of its details1 #ad sq2 the narrative of an eye-witness1 #ad sq2 compared with the ,apocalypse1 in diction1 #ae1 #cd n1 #aca sq1 #bad sq2 in ,christology1 #ae sq2 the bearing of ,montanism on this question1 #bai1 #bch1 #bfg2 compared with the ,synoptists in chronology and narrative1 #af1 #dh1 #aca1 #bdj1 #bde sq2 the relation of the ,paschal controversy to this question1 #ag1 #bai1 #bbe1 #bci sq1 #bfg2 historical and geographical allusions considered1 #ag sq2 the personality of its author1 #ah sq2 association of others with him in the work1 #ahg2 anecdotes with regard to its composition1 #dh1 #eb1 #ahg1 #ahi sq1 #baj1 #bag2 probably dictated1 #ahg1 #bad2 its wide acceptance among orthodox and heretics1 #eb sq2 testimony given by the growth of various readings and interpolations1 #i sq1 #eb2 by the commentary of ,heracleon1 #eb2 the evidence of the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #da2 of ,papias1 #d sq1 #ce1 #ed sq1 #ahf sq2 of the ,martyrdom of ,polycarp1 #bba sq2 of the elders in ,irenaeus1 #dh2 of the ,muratorian ,canon1 #eb1 #ahi sq1 #bjf sq2 of ,claudius ,apollinaris1 #bdj2 of the ,school of ,st ,john generally1 #bdi sq2 of the ,letter of the ,gallican ,churches1 #beh2 of ,tatian1 #bge sq1 #bhj sq2 of ,origen1 #baf2 of ,gaius1 #baf n2 ,irenaeus on its purpose1 #dh1 #ahb2 quoted by ,theophilus of ,antioch1 #dd1 #eb1 #agi1 #bae1 #baf2 significance of the silence of ,eusebius1 #cc sq1 #ea sq2 ascribed to ,cerinthus1 #bae2 its connexion with the ,first ,epistle of ,st ,john1 #ahf sq1 #aij1 #bbj ,gaius2 on the authorship of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 #dg2 of the ,apocalypse and ,fourth ,gospel1 #baf n2 his date1 #baf n2 his relation to ,hippolytus considered1 #ia n1 #baf n ,galen1 #hc1 #aec1 #aif n1 #bie n1 #bif sq ,gallican ,churches2 a colony from the ,churches of ,asia ,minor1 #bdi1 #bea sq2 intimate connexion between the two bodies1 #aje1 #bdi1 #beb sq2 persecuted under ,m4 ,aurelius1 #beb sq2 their letter to the brethren in ,asia and ,phrygia1 #adf n1 #baf1 #beb sq1 #bei n1 #bga2 its date1 #bei2 scriptural quotations in it1 #bed sq2 their letters on the ,montanist controversy1 #bec2 their letter to ,victor on the ,paschal controversy1 #bec sq ,gaul1 called ,galatia1 #bea ,georgius ,hamartolos1 #baa sq ,gfroerer1 #fi ,glaucias1 #ba ,gnosticism2 the development of antinomian1 #aai2 the literature of1 #afj sq2 the exegesis of1 #afj sq1 #age1 #bjb2 the opponents of1 #afj sq1 #bai1 #bfh2 the scene of the conflict with1 #bai2 attacked in ,st ,paul's ,epistles1 #aai2 in the ,apocalypse1 #ad n1 #aai2 in the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 #aaf sq2 not alluded to in the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #he2 an appeal to the ,canon requisite in the conflict with1 #bai ,gobarus1 #ab ,gospel of ,peter1 #cg ,gospel according to the ,hebrews2 see ,hebrews1 ,gospel according to the ,gospels2 see ,matthew's 7,st7 ,gospel1 ,mark's 7,st7 ,gospel1 ,luke's 7,st7 ,gospel1 ,fourth ,gospel1 ,four ,gospels ,grabe1 #ih n ,griesbach1 #fh1 #fi ,gwynn's 7,prof47 discovery of a ,gaius distinct from ,hippolytus1 #baf n ,hadrian1 #ih ,hagenbach1 #fh ,harless1 #fi ,hase1 #gj ,hebrews1 ,gospel according to the2 employed by ,hegesippus1 #dg1 #ahc2 by other fathers1 #aeb2 perhaps quoted by ,ignatius1 #da sq1 #aec2 ,papias not proved to have employed1 #aeb1 #bjc sq2 translated by ,jerome1 #bjc1 #bhe2 statements of ,jerome about it1 #db1 #aeb2 confused with the ,hebrew original of ,st ,matthew1 #agj1 #bhe2 with ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #bhd2 distinct scope of the last-named work1 #bhe ,hebrews1 ,epistle to the2 in the notices of ,eusebius1 #cg1 #df1 #dg1 #di1 #eb2 the testimony of ,clement of ,rome1 #dj1 #dg1 #di2 of ,irenaeus1 #df1 #dg2 of ,gaius1 #dg ,hefele1 #fc ,hegesippus2 his lost ecclesiastical history1 #cb1 #ci2 the silence of ,eusebius respecting1 #cd sq1 #ahc1 #ahe2 his attitude towards ,st ,paul1 #ab2 towards tradition1 #aee2 employs the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 #dg1 #ahc ',hellenic' and ',hellenistic1' #acb n ,hemphill1 #bhg1 #bhh ,henke1 #fh ,heracleon's commentary on the ,fourth ,gospel1 #eb ,hermas1 the ,shepherd of2 its devotional character1 #bga2 hence does not quote ,scripture1 #bga2 the citations in ,eusebius1 #cg1 #ch1 #dg sq2 quoted by ,irenaeus1 #de1 #dg1 #ahd ,herodes1 the magistrate1 #bbj1 #bba ,heumann1 #fh ,hierapolis1 #ia1 #ajb1 #adb1 #aec1 #bjg1 #bah1 #bbd ,hilgenfeld1 #fd1 #ga1 #ajd1 #aaf1 #abb1 #adf n1 #aeh n1 #aei n1 #agj1 #aga1 #agb1 #agf n1 #ahf1 #baa1 #baf1 #bfb n1 #bhg n ,hippolytus2 pupil of ,irenaeus1 #ajb1 #ade1 #aif n1 #bfg2 probably at ,rome1 #bfg n2 opposes ,gnosticism1 #baf n1 #bai2 defends the ,fourth ,gospel against the ,alogi1 #baf n2 plagiarisms of1 #bjb2 plagiarisms from1 #baf n2 ,gnostic fragments preserved in1 #dj1 #afa2 his relation to ,gaius considered1 #ia n1 #baf n ,hitzig1 #bd sq ,hoffmann1 #bhb n ,hort1 on the elate of ,justin ,martyr1 #bgd n ,ignatian ,epistles2 date1 place of writing and subject1 #ei1 #ic2 three forms3 7#a7 ,long ,recension1 #fj2 documents1 #fj2 date of the forgery1 #fj2 7#b7 ,vossian ,epistles1 #fj sq2 ,,mss and ,versions1 #fa2 history of their discovery1 #fa2 7#c7 ,curetonian ,epistles1 #fa2 their discovery1 #fa2 questions raised 7,a7 whether the ,vossian or ,curetonian ,epistles are prior1 #fa2 the view of ,s4,r41 #fc1 #gd2 the real balance of modern authorities1 #fc sq2 arguments against the priority of the ,curetonian ,epistles from 7i7 the ,armenian ,version1 #fj2 a translation from the ,syriac ,version of the ,curetonian ,epistles1 #ga1 #hf2 7ii7 the abruptness of the ,curetonian ,epistles1 #gg n1 #hf2 the counter-argument from the confessedly spurious letters answered1 #fj1 #ga1 #gb sq2 the argument from quotations considered1 #gc sq2 7,b7 whether any form is genuine1 #fa2 denied by ,s4,r41 #fb1 #gd2 7i7 internal evidence considered1 7a7 ,ignatius' treatment as a prisoner1 #gd sq2 7b7 the journey to ,rome1 #gi sq2 7c7 ,ignatius' zeal for martyrdom1 #hb2 7d7 supposed anachronisms1 #hc2 7e7 evidence of style1 #hd2 7ii7 external evidence1 #hb2 result1 #hd1 #hh2 relation of the ,vossian ,epistles1 #hd sq2 argument from silence1 #hd sq2 limit of their date1 #he2 arguments for their genuineness1 #hf sq2 result1 #hh1 #ei n2 scriptural quotations in the1 #da2 ,eusebius' method tested on the1 #da2 theological controversies which have centred round1 #fa sq2 ,christology of1 #db1 #hf sq1 #ajh1 #bca2 a metaphor of image-processions illustrated1 #cjb ,ignatius2 the name ,theophorus1 #cjb2 his letters 7see ,ignatian ,epistles72 his journey to ,rome1 #ei2 its probability considered1 #fc1 #gi sq1 #aaa2 his route1 #ic1 #aac2 his treatment as a prisoner1 #gd sq2 his intercourse with ,polycarp1 #ib sq1 #ajf sq1 #aac2 the notice in the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 #aa1 #hb1 #aac sq2 his zeal for martyrdom1 #hb2 not martyred at ,antioch1 #gi sq1 #bab n1 #bad2 date of his martyrdom1 #ei2 days of commemoration of1 #gi2 extant martyrologies of1 #gc n1 #hj ,irenaeus2 date of his birth1 #ih n1 #bfd2 a pupil of ,polycarp1 date1 #hi1 #ig sq2 his letter to ,florinus1 #if sq1 #aie n2 represents three ,churches1 #bfg2 his connexion with the ,letter of the ,gallican ,churches1 #bei2 sent as delegate to ,rome1 #bec1 #bei n1 #bfg2 at ,rome more than once1 #bfg n2 his lectures there1 #bfg2 his pupil ,hippolytus1 #ajb1 #ade1 #aif n1 #bfg2 date of his episcopate1 #ig2 his remonstrance addressed to ,victor1 #ajj2 his literary activity1 #bfg2 date of his ,refutation1 #bei1 #bfj2 the first great controversial treatise1 #bga2 its importance as evidence to the ,canon1 #bga2 his profuse scriptural quotations1 #dd sq1 #ahj1 #aha1 #bbh1 #bfa2 ,eusebius' method illustrated1 #de1 #df1 #ahd2 importance of his testimony to the ,canon1 #ec1 #hi1 #ii1 #aff1 #bfd sq2 appeals to the elders 7see ,elders72 his evidence to the ,fourth ,gospel1 #c sq1 #eb1 #ec1 #ed sq2 to the motive of the ,fourth ,gospel1 #dh1 #ahb2 to four ,gospels1 #de1 #dh1 #aff1 #bcc1 #bfc sq2 to the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #hj1 #hb2 to the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 #hb1 #aja1 #ajd sq2 his appeal to the ,gospels against the ,valentinians1 #bai1 #bde sq1 #bfb2 his controversial treatises1 #bfg2 his conflict with ,gnosticism1 #afj1 #bai2 on the ,paschal question1 #bdb1 #bdd sq1 #bfg2 on the duration of ,christ's ministry1 #bdf2 on ,his age at the time of the ,passion1 #bdf sq2 on the ,apocalypse1 #de1 #dg1 #baf2 on the old age of ,st ,john1 #dh1 #ib1 #aja2 on ,polycarp1 #if sq1 #aae1 #aaf2 on ,papias1 #d sq1 #abg1 #adb sq1 #aed1 #aeh sq1 #aff1 #aid sq1 #bdh n2 on the ,hebrew original of ,st ,matthew1 #agb2 his ,chiliasm1 #aea1 #aig2 his evidence for episcopacy1 #abb2 his use of the word 'oracles1' #agd2 his literary obligations to ,papias1 #bjb2 to ,melito1 #bcf sq2 considered as a critic1 #bfh sq ,jacobson1 #fc1 #ff1 #fg n1 #fi1 #ajc n1 #abc n ,jerome2 on the ,hebrew original of ,st ,matthew1 #bjh n1 #bhe2 on the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 #db1 #aeb1 #bjh1 #bhe2 on the public reading of ,polycarp's ,epistle1 #aje n2 on ,tatian's treatment of ,st ,paul's ,epistles1 #bgc n2 on ,apollinaris1 #bdb1 #bdc ,jerusalem1 results to the ,christian ,church from the fall of1 #ij sq1 #bag ,john 7,st72 at ,ephesus1 #ia1 #aja1 #adb sq2 his church organisation1 #bah2 the founder of a school1 #bag sq2 the repositary of ,apostolic doctrine and practice1 #bah2 his encounter with ,cerinthus1 #aja1 #bab2 his connexion with ,polycarp1 #hi1 #ib2 with ,papias1 #adb sq1 #afj1 #aic1 #aih1 #baj sq2 with his namesake ,john the ,presbyter1 #adc sq1 #ahg2 his longevity1 #dh1 #hi1 #ia1 #ib1 #aja1 #bag1 #bdf2 a story of his martyrdom explained1 #baa sq2 traditions respecting him1 #dh1 #ahg1 #ahi sq1 #baj1 #bag2 see also ,fourth ,gospel ,john 7,st71 the ,epistles of2 their position in the ,canon of ,eusebius1 #ci1 #df sq2 two mentioned in the ,muratorian ,canon1 #aij2 the ,first ,epistle employed by ,polycarp1 #di sq1 #aah1 #aia sq1 #bbj2 by ,papias1 #di1 #aed1 #ahf1 #aij sq1 #bjf1 #bbj2 by ,irenaeus1 #de2 a postscript to the ,fourth ,gospel1 #ahf sq1 #aij1 #bbj2 the evidence of ,papias1 and of the ,muratorian ,canon1 to this fact1 #ahi1 #bjf ,john ,malalas2 represents ,ignatius as martyred at ,antioch1 #gi sq1 #bab n1 #bad2 his historical blunders1 #hj sq1 #bad1 #bfi1 #bhe2 on a visit of ,antoninus ,pius to ,asia ,minor1 #ih n ,john the ,baptist2 his designation in the ,fourth ,gospel1 #ah sq1 #abd sq2 his father ,zacharias1 #adf n1 #bef sq2 the ,greek3 phone1 #bcb n ,john the ,presbyter2 in ,asia ,minor1 #ia2 his connexion with ,papias1 #adc sq1 #adi1 #aej n1 #afd1 #afe sq1 #bff2 with ,pothinus1 #bff2 with the ,apostle ,st ,john1 #adc sq1 #ahg ,judith1 date of the book of1 #be n ,julian1 the ,emperor1 #bgj ,justa1 the ,syrophoenician1 #abi ,justin ,martyr2 his pupil ,tatian1 #bgb1 #bgd2 his accuser ,crescens1 #adh1 #bgb2 his martyrdom1 #adh1 #bgd2 the account in ,eusebius1 #aej2 his evangelical quotations1 #dc2 looseness of his quotations from the ,o4,t41 #ab1 #dc2 his lost writings1 #cc2 ,eusebius' method tested upon his extant works1 #dc2 his ,chiliasm1 #aea2 his error as to ,simon ,magus1 #bfh2 his ,logos doctrine compared with ,melito1 #bce2 his references to the ,virgin ,mary1 #bcf2 his evidence to the authorship of the ,apocalypse1 #dc2 to the public use of the ,gospels1 #bbg ,kestner1 #fh1 #fi ,lampe1 #fh ,lardner1 #dj1 #da n1 #db n1 #fh1 #fi1 #id n1 #aji n1 #bda n ,lechler1 #gj ,leimbach1 #aeh n1 #bfd n ,linus1 #de ,lipsius1 #fd1 #fe1 #ga1 #hj n1 #ha n1 #he1 #ajc n1 #ajd1 #aaf1 #bac n ,logos2 the expression common to the ,apocalypse and ,fourth ,gospel1 #ae2 as distinct from ,greek3 phone1 #bcb n2 the doctrine in the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #hf sq2 in ,justin ,martyr1 #bce2 in ,valentinus1 #hf2 in ,melito1 #bcb1 #bcd sq2 in ,marcellus of ,ancyra1 #hg2 its importance a characteristic of the second century1 #bce ,lucian2 illustrates the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #gf sq2 the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 #gg n ,luke's 7,st7 ,gospel2 the source of ,marcion's ,gospel1 #h1 #ahf2 ,papias acquainted with1 #agh sq1 #ahf2 the evidence of the ,muratorian ,canon1 #ahi2 quoted in the ,letter of the ,gallican ,churches1 #bee sq2 ,renan on its authorship1 #bia ,luthardt1 #ad1 #acb ,greek3 ,leopardos1 #fg1 #hc ,greek3 ,logia1 #aee n1 #afj1 #afc1 #aga1 #agb sq ,magdeburg ,centuriators1 #fe1 #ff ,malalas2 see ,john ,malalas ,manes1 #ha ,mansel1 #bh ,marcellus of ,ancyra1 the ,logos doctrine of1 #hg ,marcion2 his date1 #ha1 #aaf1 #bac n2 confused with ,cerinthus1 #baj1 #bab2 his ,gospel1 #f n1 #h1 #ahf2 his ,canon1 #aag1 #bbg1 #bfc1 #bgc2 ,papias' acquaintance with it1 #ahf2 his attitude towards ,st ,paul1 #bgc2 his high moral character1 #aai2 his distinctive views1 #aag sq2 not alluded to in the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #he2 nor in ,polycarp's ,epistle1 #aja1 #aae1 #bab2 a supposed allusion considered1 #ajf1 #aae sq2 opposed by ,justin ,martyr1 #cc2 by ,melito1 #bca2 scene of his heresy1 #bai1 #bbg1 #bca2 the question of the ,canon raised by it1 #bai1 #bbe2 his views on the resurrection and judgment1 #abj ,maries1 the four1 in ,papias the lexicographer1 #baj sq ,mark's 7,st7 ,gospel2 the account and criticism of ,papias1 #h1 #aj1 #ai1 #afb sq1 #age sq1 #aha1 #bje sq2 the motive of ,papias' allusion1 #bjg2 compared by ,papias with the ,fourth ,gospel1 #afe1 #bje sq2 identification of ,papias' ,st ,mark1 #b1 #aj1 #bj1 #df1 #afc sq2 evidence of the ,muratorian ,canon to1 #ahi1 #bje sq ,marseilles1 #beb ,martyrdom of ,polycarp2 see ,polycarp1 ,martyrdom of ,massuet1 #ih n ,matthew 7,st71 and ,papias1 #adc1 #aic ,matthew's 7,st7 ,gospel2 the account in ,papias1 #afc1 #afg sq1 #aha2 his testimony to the ,hebrew original1 #afh1 #agb2 its character1 #agj sq2 a ,greek ,st ,matthew in existence in his day1 #afh sq2 identical with the extant ,gospel1 #afi sq2 relation of the ,hebrew to the ,greek ,gospel1 #agj2 confused with the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 by ,jerome1 #bhe2 perhaps by ,papias1 #agj2 motive of ,papias' allusion1 #bjh2 quoted in the ,epistle of ,barnabas as ',scripture1' #bbg ,meletius1 confused with ,melito1 #bca ,melito2 his date1 #bbc1 #bbd2 a contemporary of ,polycarp and ,papias1 #bbd2 perhaps one of the elders quoted in ,irenaeus1 #aif n1 #bbd2 perhaps a teacher of ,clement of ,alexandria1 #bah1 #bbd2 his travels1 #bbd1 #bbf2 his learning1 #bbh2 his orthodoxy1 #bcj2 range of his literary works1 #cb1 #ajb1 #bbd2 their popularity1 #ajb1 #bbd1 #bcj2 his lost works1 #bbc1 #bbe1 #bbi2 his ,apology1 #bbc1 #bda n2 the preface to his ,selections1 #bbf2 7#a7 the extant ,greek fragments1 their genuineness1 #bbh sq2 supported by the evidence of ,tertullian and ,hippolytus to his style1 #bbi sq1 #bcd2 not the work of ,meletius1 #bca2 their direct evidence to the ,gospels1 #bca2 7#b7 the ,syriac fragments1 #bcb sq2 their theology1 #bcd sq2 his doctrine of the ,logos1 #bcd2 his references to the ,virgin ,mary1 #bce sq2 passages from his works incorporated into ,irenaeus1 #bcf sq2 ,armenian version of a fragment and its ,syriac abridgment1 #bcf sq2 a quotation in ,chronicon ,paschale1 #bda n2 his work on the ,paschal controversy1 #bbc1 #bbe1 #bda n1 #bdb sq2 evidence to the ,fourth ,gospel therefrom1 #bdh2 notice of the ,apocalypse in1 #dg1 #baf2 coincidences with ,st ,paul's ,epistles1 #bcg2 his treatise against ,marcion1 #bca2 date and manner of his death1 #bbd ,merx1 #fd1 #ga ,mill 7,j4,s471 #bh sq1 #bjd ,milman1 #fe ,ministry1 the duration of our ,lord's1 #af sq1 #dh1 #aca1 #bde sq ,miracles1 #bf sq ,moesinger1 #bhh ,montanism2 its centre in ,asia ,minor1 #bai2 correspondence between the ,churches of ,asia and ,gaul relating to1 #bec2 ,irenaeus' mission to ,rome respecting1 #bec1 #bei n2 not referred to in the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #he2 nor in the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 #ajf2 opposed by ,apollinaris1 #bch2 by ,irenaeus1 #bfg2 the question of the ,canon involved in the controversy with1 #bai1 #bch1 #bfg ,morality and dogma1 #bg sq ,mosheim1 #fh ,mozley1 #bh ,muratori1 #bie n ,muratorian ,canon2 date1 #ahh2 original language1 #ahh n2 ,english translation1 #ahi sq2 emendations in the text1 #ahi n2 represents the ,church of ,rome1 #ec1 #bgj2 its evidence to ,st ,mark's ,gospel1 #ahi1 #bje sq2 to ,st ,luke's ,gospel1 #ahi1 #bjf2 to the ,fourth ,gospel1 #eb sq1 #ia1 #ahi sq1 #bjf1 #baf2 to four ,gospels1 #afd1 #ahh sq1 #bje sq1 #bgj2 its testimony compared with that of ,papias1 #bje sq2 perhaps borrowed from him1 #bjg2 ,matthew ,arnold's estimate of1 #aij n ,naassenes1 #afa n ,nature2 two meanings of the term1 #bi sq2 its relation to a ,personal ,god1 #bh sq ,neander1 #fh1 #fi1 #abj n1 #ada1 #bdb ,neocoros1 #cjj ,neubauer1 #ag n1 #acc1 #ace1 #acf ,nicolaitans1 #dh1 #ahb ,niebuhr1 #be ,nolte1 #baa n ,oecumenius1 #bja ,onesimus1 the friend of ,melito1 #bbf ,ophites1 #eb1 #afa1 #bjb1 #bai ,origen2 on ,celsus1 #g2 on the authorship of the ,fourth ,gospel1 #baf2 of the ,apocalypse1 #baf2 uses the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 #aeb n2 quotes the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #hj1 #hb2 his accuracy in textual criticism1 #bfi2 his use of the word 'oracles'1 #agd ,otto1 #bbc n1 #bbh n1 #bbi1 #bch n1 #bda n ,oudin1 #fg ,overbeck1 #baj1 #bac n1 #bic n ,owen1 #fg ,greek3 ouk oid' hopos1 #bgg sq ,pamphilus1 #bbe ,pantaenus1 #ade n1 #agb1 #bgd ,papias2 his date1 #adb1 #adg sq2 his name and namesakes1 #aec1 #baa2 of heathen origin1 #aec2 a companion of ,polycarp1 #adb1 #aej1 #aec1 #bah2 perhaps not a hearer of ,st ,john1 #adb1 #adc sq1 #adf1 #aic1 #aih1 #baj sq2 his ,expositions1 #cb1 #ci1 #adb2 its title1 #aee n1 #aef1 #aga sq1 #age sq2 its date1 #aej2 its nature1 #aa1 #aee2 directed against ,gnostic exegesis1 #afj sq1 #age1 #bjb2 as affecting his attitude towards the written ,gospels1 #aef1 #aei n1 #afj2 the extant ,gospels the text for his exegesis1 #afc sq2 his method illustrated1 #adc1 #aeh sq1 #aid1 #aig2 his informants the 'elders'1 #d sq1 #adc1 #ade1 #aei1 #afc1 #afh1 #aha1 #aig sq2 especially ,aristion and ,john the ,presbyter1 #adc sq1 #adi1 #aej n1 #afd sq1 #bff2 his ,chiliasm1 #aea sq1 #aeh sq1 #afj1 #aig sq1 #bae n2 not an ,ebionite1 #aea sq2 his attitude towards ,st ,paul1 #aea sq2 his use of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews considered1 #aeb1 #bjc sq2 his orthodoxy1 #aed2 story of his martyrdom explained1 #adg sq1 #baa sq2 his mention of ,st ,matthew's ,gospel1 #afc1 #afg sq1 #aha1 #bjh2 character of the original ,hebrew1 #agj sq1 #bjg sq2 the ,greek extant in his time1 #afh1 #bjh2 his mention of ,st ,mark's ,gospel1 #h1 #aj1 #ai1 #afb sq1 #age sq1 #aha1 #bje sq2 his acquaintance with ,st ,luke's ,gospel1 #agh sq1 #ahf2 with the ,fourth ,gospel1 #d sq1 #ce1 #ed sq1 #agh sq2 evidenced by his acquaintance with #a ,john1 #ahf sq1 #aij sq2 by other indications1 #aib sq1 #bjc sq2 ,eusebius' method illustrated upon1 #cd sq1 #aea1 #agh sq2 his testimony to the ,apocalypse1 #cd n1 #bad2 his testimony to the ,canon supported by that of the ,muratorian fragment1 #bje sq2 which perhaps borrowed from him1 #bjg2 obligations of ,irenaeus to1 #bjb2 of ,eusebius1 #bjh2 not the amanuensis of the ,fourth ,gospel1 #baj sq1 #bac sq2 nor author of exoteric books1 #baj sq2 confusion of the name1 #adh sq1 #baa2 quotations in ,irenaeus1 #d sq1 #abg1 #aid1 #bdh n2 the pericope adulterae and other interpolations in the ,gospels perhaps from his work1 #bjc sq2 his position as an authority1 #aj1 #bah2 his credulity considered1 #bfi ,papias1 the lexicographer1 #baa ,papylus1 confused with ,papias1 #adh sq ,paraclete2 the ,montanist doctrine of the1 #bai1 #bfg2 in the ,letter of the ,gallican ,churches1 #bee1 #beh ,parker1 #ff1 #fg ,paschal ,chronicle2 confuses ,papias and ,papylus1 #adh sq2 preserves quotations from ,apollinaris1 #bch1 #bci sq2 from ,melito1 #bda n2 sources of its information1 #adh n1 #bfj n2 on the date of ,theodotion's version of the ,,lxx1 #bfj n ,paschal controversy2 silence of the ,ignatian ,epistles upon1 #he2 of the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 #ajf2 ,asia ,minor the scene of1 #bai2 ,polycarp's visit to ,rome respecting1 #ii sq1 #aba2 the account in ,eusebius1 #ag1 #bde2 the treatise of ,melito on1 #bbc1 #bbe1 #bda n1 #bdb sq2 of ,apollinaris1 #bch sq2 of ,clement of ,alexandria1 #bdc sq2 of ,pierius of ,alexandria1 #bda n2 of ,irenaeus1 #bdb1 #bdd sq1 #bfg2 action of the ,gallican ,churches with respect to1 #bec sq2 the attitude of ,victor upon1 #ajj1 #bdd1 #bde1 #bdh1 #bec sq2 remonstrance of ,irenaeus1 #ajj2 of ,polycrates1 #bdh2 the error of ,s4,r4 regarding its character1 #ag1 #bdj sq1 #bde2 its relation to the ,canon1 #ag1 #bai1 #bbe1 #bci sq1 #bfg ,paul 7,st72 in ,cyprus1 #bid sq2 at ,ephesus1 #bii sq2 his attack on ,gnosticism1 #aai sq2 his treatment as a prisoner1 #ge1 #gh2 his claim to work miracles1 #abe2 his directions as to idol-sacrifices1 #ad2 his connexion with ,gaul1 #bea2 not aimed at in the ,apocalypse1 #ac sq2 attitude of ,clement of ,rome towards1 #dj2 of the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #da1 #db2 of ,polycarp1 #db sq1 #ie sq1 #aja sq2 of ,hegesippus1 #ab2 of ,papias1 #aea sq2 of ,marcion1 #aag1 #bai1 #bbe1 #bgc2 of the elders in ,irenaeus1 #bdh2 of ,melito1 #bcg2 of ,tatian1 #bgc2 of the ,school of ,st ,john generally1 #bea2 of the ,churches in ,gaul1 #bee2 position of his writings in the ,canon of ,eusebius1 #cg1 #ch1 #df sq2 see also ,tuebingen ,school ,paul1 ,acts of1 #cg ,pearson1 in the ,ignatian controversy1 #hc1 #hf ,pella1 #ij1 #ia ,peregrinus ,proteus1 #gf sq ,pergamum1 #adg1 #adh ,pericope ,adulterae1 an insertion from ,papias1 #bjc sq ,perpetua1 #gf1 #hc ,petau1 #ff1 #fg ,peter1 ,acts of1 #cg ,peter1 ,apocalypse of1 #cg1 #dg ,peter1 ,gospel of1 #cg ,peter1 ,preaching of1 #cg ,peter 7,st71 the ,epistles of2 their position in the ,canon of ,eusebius1 #cf sq1 #df2 ,eusebius' method tested on1 #dc1 #de1 #dg1 #di2 the ,first ,epistle largely quoted by ,polycarp1 #dc1 #di sq1 #ie1 #aji1 #aia sq2 employed by ,papias1 #ahf1 #bjf sq2 by ,irenaeus1 #de ,peter of ,alexandria1 #bda n ,petermann1 #fc1 #ga1 #hf sq ,philip 7,st71 the ,apostle2 at ,hierapolis1 #ia1 #adc1 #adi2 his daughters1 #ia1 #adi1 #aec2 his intercourse with ,papias1 #adc1 #adf1 #adi1 #aic2 his identity1 #ia n ,philip1 the ,asiarch1 #bbb n ,philippi1 the ,church at2 ,ignatius' visit to1 #ic1 #ajf2 ,polycarp's correspondence with1 #ic sq1 #aja1 #ajf sq1 #aba 7see ,polycarp1 ,epistle of72 episcopacy at1 #ajf1 #ajh ,philippians1 ,german theories as to the ,pauline ,epistle to the1 #bd sq ,phillips1 #bgi n ,philo1 #agc sq1 #bjj n ,photius1 #aif n1 #bch1 #bci1 #bda n1 #bdb1 #bdc1 #bfg n ,pierius of ,alexandria1 #bda n ,pliny2 his credulity and that of the early fathers1 #bfi2 his informant ,sergius ,paulus1 #bid sq ,polycarp of ,smyrna2 date of his birth1 #ij2 born at a crisis1 #ij sq2 of ,christian parents1 #id2 reared in the centre of ,christianity1 #ia sq2 under the influence of ,st ,john1 #hi1 #ib2 bishop of ,smyrna1 #ib2 entertains ,ignatius1 #ib1 #aac2 his age at this time1 #aba2 his letter to the ,philippians 7see ,polycarp1 ,epistle of72 a companion of ,papias1 #adb1 #aej1 #aec1 #bah2 his old age1 #if2 his pupils ,florinus and ,irenaeus1 #if sq1 #bfd1 #bfe2 his journey to ,rome1 #ii sq1 #aba2 preaches at ,rome1 #aja2 his encounter with ,marcion1 #aja1 #aae1 #bab2 his attitude in the ,paschal controversy1 #ii sq2 date of his martyrdom1 #ij1 #ig1 #ajc sq1 #adg1 #bfd2 details of it1 #gg n1 #ajc1 #bbj sq2 document preserving it 7see ,polycarp1 ,martyrdom of72 his position and that of ,clement of ,rome1 #hi1 #id2 the depositary of ,apostolic tradition1 #hi sq1 #if2 the link with ,irenaeus1 #hi1 #ajj sq2 the reverence inspired by1 #aba n2 characteristic expressions of1 #ig1 #aae sq2 his use of the word 'oracles'1 #agd ,polycarp1 ,epistle of2 date and circumstances of writing1 #ic sq1 #aja1 #ajf sq1 #aba2 incomplete in the ,greek1 #aa2 its genuineness1 #ajd sq2 7#a7 external evidence for1 #ajd2 7#b7 internal evidence1 #aje sq2 from 7i7 its formula of evangelical quotations1 #aje1 #aji2 7ii7 its picture of ,church order1 #ajf1 #ajg sq1 #abb2 7iii7 its ,christology1 #ajf1 #ajh2 7iv7 the argument from silence1 #ajf2 7v7 its style and subject-matter compared with the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #ajf sq2 ,ritschl's theory of interpretations considered1 #aaj sq2 further objections dealt with1 7a7 the martyr journey of ,ignatius1 #aaa2 7b7 alleged anachronisms1 #aa1 #aaa sq1 #abb2 7c7 the ,ignatian ,epistles appended1 #aac sq2 7d7 the thirteenth chapter1 #aad2 7e7 a supposed reference to ,marcion1 #aae sq2 7f7 the age of the writer1 #aba2 scriptural quotations in1 #db sq1 #di sq1 #ic sq1 #aji1 #aah1 #bbg2 ,eusebius' method tested on1 #db sq1 #di2 the quotations from #a ,peter1 #dc1 #di sq1 #ie1 #aji1 #aia sq2 coincidence with #a ,john1 #di2 relation to the ,pauline ,epistles1 #ie sq1 #aja sq2 its testimony to the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #aa1 #hb1 #aac sq ,polycarp1 ,martyrdom of2 the document1 #ajc1 #bbj2 its date1 #bbj2 emphasizes the coincidences with the ,passion1 #bbj sq2 its evidence to the ,fourth ,gospel1 #bba sq2 employed by the ,paschal ,chronicle1 #adh n ,polycrates of ,ephesus2 his place in the ,school of ,st ,john1 #bah2 his work on the ,paschal controversy1 #bdd1 #bdh sq2 scriptural quotations in his letter to ,victor1 #bdh1 #bdi2 quotes the ,fourth ,gospel1 #bdi2 his reference to ,melito1 #bbd ,pontius ,pilate1 date of the termination of the procuratorship of1 #aca n ,pothinus2 probably a native of ,asia ,minor1 #bec1 #bfe2 date of his martyrdom1 #bec1 #bfe2 perhaps one of the elders of ,irenaeus1 #aif n1 #bff ,presbyter ,john2 see ,john the ,presbyter ,presbyters in ,irenaeus2 see ,elders ,proclus1 ,cominius1 proconsul of ,cyprus1 #bid n ,proconsuls2 the title in imperial times1 #bib sq2 the ,greek equivalent1 #bib2 of ,cyprus1 #bid ,propraetors2 the title in imperial times1 #bib2 the ,greek equivalent1 #bib ,protevangelium1 #ae1 #bef sq ,quadratus1 proconsul of ,cyprus1 #bid n ,quadratus1 ,statius1 the ,asiatic proconsulship of1 #ajc sq ,quartodeciman2 see ,paschal controversy ,renan1 #ajd1 #bcb n1 #bia ,rhodon1 #bgb1 #bgc n1 #bgd ,ritschl1 #fc1 #fe1 #aaj sq ,rivetus1 #ff1 #fg ,roman ,church1 its influence in the time of ,ignatius1 #ei ,roman prisoners1 treatment of1 #ge sq ,roman provinces2 ,augustus' division of1 #bia sq2 the titles of their governors1 #bib2 interchange of imperial and senatorial provinces1 #bib2 ,asia and ,africa the most sought after1 #bic ,rosenmueller1 #fh ,routh1 #aed n1 #bja n1 #bad n1 #bda n1 #beb n ,rufinus1 #bjc ,rufus1 #aaa ,ruinart1 #gf n1 #hj ,sachau1 #bcb n ,salutaris1 ,c4 ,vibius1 #cjb ,sanday2 on the ,fourth ,gospel1 #ae2 on ,marcion's ,gospel1 #ahf n ,saturus1 #gf ,saumaise1 #ff ,schleiermacher1 #aga ,schliemann1 #gj ,schmidt1 #fh ,scholten1 #fd1 #aai1 #bdb1 #bfb n ,schroeckh1 #fh1 #fi ,schwegler1 #bd ,second century2 its voluminous ecclesiastical literature1 #cb1 #ajb2 meagre literary remains of the first three quarters1 #cc1 #ec1 #hi1 #ajb2 small bearing on the ,canon of the extant works1 #cc1 #bga2 importance of ,irenaeus at the close of the century1 #ec1 #hi ,semler1 #fh ,serapion1 #bch ,sergius ,paulus1 proconsul of ,cyprus2 perhaps an informant of ,pliny1 #bid sq2 ,cyprian inscription mentioning him1 #bid1 #big ,sergius ,paulus1 ,l42 the friend of ,galen1 #bif2 proconsul of ,asia1 #bbc1 #bif2 his date1 #bbc2 his cursus honorum1 #bif2 his resemblance in character to his namesake in the ,acts1 #bif2 his scientific studies1 #big2 identification of an unknown1 #bie n ,severians1 ,apollinaris' treatise against the1 #bch1 #bdc ,severus of ,antioch1 #hg ,shechem and ,sychar1 #ag1 #acc sq ,silence1 its place in the ,gnostic ,systems1 #hf sq ,siloam1 #ah1 #bjc ,simon ,magus1 #bfh ,simonians1 #hf1 #afa ,smyrnaeans1 ,letter of the2 see ,polycarp1 ,martyrdom of ,socinus1 #ff1 #fg ,socrates1 the historian1 #bci ,stephanus ,gobarus1 #ab ,strabo1 #bib1 #bic n ,supernatural ,religion2 criticisms on his grammar and scholarship1 #c sq1 #ec sq1 #abf sq2 on his impartiality1 #i sq1 #bj sq1 #acj sq1 #adj sq1 #aia sq2 on the plan of his book1 #bf1 #ach sq2 his charges against opponents1 #bj sq1 #acg sq2 his lists of references1 #bc1 #fe sq2 his theological position1 #aci n2 on the silence of ,eusebius1 #cc sq2 on the ,paschal controversy1 #ag1 #bdj sq1 #bde2 clerical and other errors1 and ambiguities in1 #abd sq1 #ahb sq1 #beg ,supernatural1 meaning of the term1 #bi sq ,sychar1 identification of1 #ag sq1 #acc sq ,synoptists2 their points of contrast with the ,fourth ,gospel1 #ae sq2 recognized by the early fathers1 #bjg sq1 #bci2 their chronology compared1 #af1 #dh1 #aca1 #bci sq1 #bde sq2 see also ,fourth ,gospel ,tacitus1 #be1 #bfh n ,tatian2 an ,assyrian1 #bgb2 a heathen sophist1 #bgb2 his travels1 #bgb2 his conversion1 #bgb2 a pupil of ,justin ,martyr1 #bgb1 #bgd2 his disciples at ,rome1 #bgb1 #bgd2 removes to the ,east1 #bgb2 his subsequent heretical opinions1 #bgb2 his attitude towards ,st ,paul and the ,pauline ,epistles1 #bgc1 #bhd2 his views anti-,judaic1 #bgc2 date of his literary activity1 #bgd2 his extant ,apology1 #bgd2 its date1 #bge2 quotes from the ,fourth ,gospel1 #ej1 #bge2 his formula of quotation1 #bgf2 his ,diatessaron1 #bgg sq2 its description in ,eusebius1 #bgg2 who knew but disparaged it1 #bgh2 the evidence of the ,doctrine of ,addai1 #bgh sq2 the commentary of ,ephraem ,syrus1 #bhj1 #bhc2 discovery of an ,armenian ,version1 #bhh2 ,bar-,salibi's statements1 #bhj sq2 ,theodoret's testimony to its circulation1 #bhb sq2 summary of evidence1 #bhc sq2 counter-statement of ,epiphanius1 #bhd sq2 of ,victor of ,capua1 #bhe sq2 read in the ,churches of ,edessa1 #bgh sq2 of ,cyrrhestice1 #bhb sq2 its opening words1 #bhj1 #bha n1 #bhc2 its plan1 #bhj sq2 other than that of ,ammonius' ,diatessaron1 #bhj sq1 #bhc2 confusion of the two works1 #bha n2 ,aphraates' knowledge of it1 #bhc n1 #bhh2 the range of its circulation1 #bhd2 confused with the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 #bhd sq2 recent discovery of an ,arabic ,version1 #bhh ,tertullian2 gives evidence to the ,fourth ,gospel1 #eb2 his ,apologeticum1 #bge2 on the episcopate of ,polycarp1 #ib n2 on the style of ,melito1 #bbi2 ,chiliasm of1 #aea ,theodoret2 date of his episcopate1 #bhb2 his treatise on ,heresies1 #bhb2 his evidence for the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #gb2 for ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #bhb sq2 for ,apollinaris1 #bch1 #bci1 #bdb sq ,theodotion's ,version of the ,,lxx1 #bfj ,theophilus of ,antioch2 his works1 extant and lost1 #dd2 quotes the ,fourth ,gospel1 #dd1 #eb1 #agi1 #bae1 #baf2 ,eusebius' method tested on his ,autolycus1 #dd1 #eb1 #bae2 his testimony to the ,apocalypse1 #dd1 #dg1 #baf2 his investigations in comparative chronology1 #bfi ,thiersch1 #fh ,thomas 7,st71 #adc1 #aic ,thomasius1 #baj n ,tillemont1 #bda n1 #bec n ,tischendorf2 defended against ,s4,r4's charges1 #e sq1 #ed sq1 #abe n1 #abg n1 #abh n1 #ach2 other references to1 #d1 #abi1 #afe1 #afg1 #baj ,tuebingen ,school1 criticised1 #ab1 #bd1 #db1 #fd1 #hb1 #hi sq1 #ie sq1 #aja sq1 #aaj sq1 #aea sq1 #bea ,uhlhorn1 #fc1 #ga ,ussher1 #fj1 #fa ,valens1 the ,presbyter1 #ajh ,valentinianism2 its expressions anticipated in the ,ignatian ,epistles1 #he1 #hf sq2 opposed by ,irenaeus1 #ih1 #aja1 #bai1 #bde sq1 #bfb2 by ,hippolytus1 #afa2 its appeal to the ,canon1 #bai1 #bfb1 #bfh2 to the ,fourth ,gospel1 #eb2 to uncanonical books1 #bfc2 its bearing on the chronology of our ,lord's ,life1 #bde sq2 its exegesis1 #afa ,vettius ,epagathus1 #bee1 #bef ,victor of ,capua2 his date1 #bhf2 discovers an anonymous ,harmony of the ,gospel1 #bhf2 ,frankish translation of this ,harmony1 #bhf n2 assigns it to ,tatian1 #bhf2 perhaps rightly1 #bhh2 the word ,diapente in his notice of ,tatian1 #bgi n1 #bhe sq ,victor of ,rome2 his date1 #bfa2 his attitude in the ,paschal controversy1 #ajj1 #bdd1 #bde1 #bdh1 #bec sq ,vienne and ,lyons1 ,churches of2 see ,gallican ,churches ,virgin ,mary1 character of the allusions in ,justin ,martyr and ,melito to the1 #bce sq ,volkmar1 #bd sq1 #fd1 #ga1 #gi sq ,voss1 #fa ,vossian ,epistles2 see ,ignatian ,epistles ,waddington1 #ih n1 #ajc sq1 #aae1 #aba1 #bbc1 #bie n1 #bif n ,weiffenbach1 #adf n1 #aeh n ,weismann1 #fh1 #fi ,weiss1 #fc1 #fe1 #ga ,westcott2 defended against the attacks of ,s4,r41 #d sq1 #ab sq1 #ba sq1 #ec sq1 #abc sq1 #abh n1 #acg sq2 other references to1 #ic1 #acj1 #aee1 #afa n1 #baa n1 #bbf sq1 #bge n2 his reply to ,s4,r41 #gi n ,whiston1 #fi ,wisdom of ,solomon1 #df ,wood's discoveries at ,ephesus1 #bid n1 #big sq ,wordsworth1 ,bishop ,christopher1 #bbb n ,wright1 #bhb n ,zacharias1 #adf n1 #bee sq1 #bfb n ,zahn1 #fc1 #ga1 #ge n1 #gg n1 #gi n1 #ha n1 #aae n1 #bac n1 #bgi n1 #bhc n1 #bhg ,zeller1 #fd ,ziegler1 #fh1 #bfd n ,zosimus1 #aaa ,zunz1 #aec n ,,index ,,of ,,passages4 ,,page ,genesis iv4 #ae #agd ,exodus xxxii4 #g sq #agd ,deuteronomy ix4 #ab sq #agd x4 #i #agc xxxi4 #g1 #bc #bba #a ,kings iv4 #cc #be ,psalms iv4 #d #id ,isaiah xi4 #f sq #aih lxv4 #be sq #aih lxvi4 #bb #ee1 #aih ,ezekiel xxviii4 #ac #bjj xxviii4 #ae1 #af #bja ,hosea ii4 #f-ag #bda ,tobit iv4 #aj #id xii4 #i #id ,st ,matthew v4 #dd #abc x4 #af #da xi4 #bg sq #af xii4 #cc #da xiii4 #h #d xix4 #ab #da xix4 #bi #aeh xix4 #cj #abe xx4 #af #abe xxiii4 #ce #bef xxiii4 #cg #af1 #aca xxvi4 #bi #aeh1 #bje xxvi4 #db #bba xxvi4 #ee #bba xxviii4 #a #bjh ,st ,mark x4 #bi1 #cj #aeh x4#ca #abe xiv4 #dh #bba ,st ,luke i4 #a #bhf i4 #c #ahi i4 #e sq #adf i4 #f #bee i4 #fg #bee ii4 #bd #bgf iii4 #bc #bca x4 #ah #ahf1 #bjj1 #bja xi4 #ea #beg xiii4 #cj #abe xiii4 #cb1 #cc #af xiii4 #cd #af1 #aca xiv4 #ac1 #ad #aeh xviii4 #cj #aeh xxi4 #ch #bjd xxii4 #eb #bba xxiii4 #dc #bja ,st ,john i4 #a #dd1 #bcb1 #bhj1 #bha1 #bhc1 #bhf i4 #c #bgf i4 #e #bge i4 #ah #eb i4 #dd #ia iii4 #h #da iv4 #e #ag1 #acc iv4 #ah #eb iv4 #bd #bge iv4 #ce #acf v4 #c1 #d #i1 #eb1 #abf v4 #bi #bbc vii4 #cf #bjd vii4 #cg sq #bjc vii4 #eb #bjd vii4 #eh-viii4 #aa #bjc viii4 #ab sq #bjd viii4 #ae #bjd1 #bje viii4 #bi #da viii4 #dd #ac viii4 #ef #bdh viii4 #eg #bdf1 #bdg ix4 #g #ah xii4 #ba sq #ia xii4 #bh #bbb xii4 #cc #bbb xiii4 #be #bdi xiv4 #b #d1 #ed1 #aid1 #bdg xvi4 #b #beh xvii4 #c #bbc xviii4 #ca1 #cb #bbb xix4 #bh1 #cj #bbb xix4 #cd sq #bbb xix4 #ce #ahg xx4 #a #bjh xx4 #be #beg xx4 #ca #ahg xxi4 #bj #bdi ,acts ii4 #af #bgf ii4 #bd #ie v4 #bi #bdi vii4 #fj #beg xiii4 #g #bib1 #bid1 #bie xiii4 #dj #bgf xix4 #bd sq #big xix4 #ca #bii xix4 #ce #bii1 #cjj xix4 #cg1 #ch #bii1 #cja xxi4 #i #adi xxi4 #ad #bba ,romans i4 #e #bcg iii4 #b #agc iv4 #a sq #agc iv4 #ah #bgf viii4 #ah #bed xv4 #ai #abe xvi4 #bf #bcg #a ,corinthians vi4 #ab-ah #aai vii4 #e #bgc viii4 #a sq #aai x4 #a sq #agc x4 #g1 #h1 #ad1 #ba #ad xi4 #h sq #agc xv4 #ab #abj #b ,corinthians xii4 #ab #abe ,galatians ii4 #i #ad iv4 #ba sq #agc ,ephesians iv4 #bf #ie v4 #ba #aji vi4 #ad #ej vi4 #ah #abc ,philippians ii4 #f #bed ii4 #g #bcg iii4 #ah #abc iv4 #b #bd #a ,timothy ii4 #b #abc iii4 #ae #bed iv4 #c #bgc iv4 #c1 #d #bee v4 #a1 #b1 #ag1 #ai #adf vi4 #g #abc vi4 #aj #abb #b ,timothy ii4 #ah #abj iv4 #aj #bea ,hebrews v4 #ab #agc xi4 #b #ade #a ,peter i4 #a #ib i4 #h #ej i4 #ac #ej i4 #ba #ej ii4 #aa1 #ab #ej ii4 #ag #ej1 #abb ii4 #bb1 #bd #ej iii4 #i #ej iv4 #g #di1 #aia iv4 #ad #ej v4 #e #ej1 #aji v4 #ac #bjg #a ,john i4 #a #ig1 #aij iv4 #b1 #c #aah ,revelation i4 #d #acc ii4 #b #ad ii4 #f1 #ad1 #ae1 #bj1 #bd #aai ii4 #ad #ac xii4 #i #bja xix4 #ac #ae ,anastasius of ,sinai #aed1 #bjj1 #bja1 #bjb1 #bbe1 #bcj ,andreas of ,caesarea #bad ,aphraates ,hom4 i4 p4 #ac 7ed4 ,wright7 #bhc ,apost4 ,constit4 ii4 #bd #bjc ,aristides ,op4 ,i4 p4 #dec 7ed4 ,dind47 #ih ,barnabae ,ep4 #d1 #e #agg #ae #aea ,basil 7,st7 ,hom4 xi4 #e #age ,hom4 xii4 #a #age ,capitol4 ,vit4 ,anton4 #g #ih ,chronicon ,pasch4 p4 #ac 7ed4 ,dind47 #bch p4 #dha #adh ,claudius ,apollinaris #bjg ,clemens ,alexandrinus ,coh4 ad ,gent4 p4 #hd 7ed4 ,potter7 #agd ,exc4 ,theod4 #ch #bgc ,strom4 i4 #a #bah1 #bgd ,strom4 i4 p4 #cib #agd ,strom4 ii4 #i #aeb ,strom4 iii4 #ab #bgj ,strom4 iii4 #ac #aeb1 #bgj ,strom4 iv4 #ab #afa ,strom4 vii4 p4 #hhi #beg ,strom4 vii4 #ag #ba1 #afa1 #bac ,quis ,div4 ,salv4 #db #ia1 #bah ,clem4 ,rom4 #e #dj #be #bfh #de #agd #dg #dj #ec #agd ,dion ,cassius liii4 #ab #bic liv4 #d #bid ,euripides ,iph4 ,taur4 l4 #acei #cja ,epiphanius ,de ,pond4 et ,mens4 #af1 #ag #bfj ,haer4 xlvi4 #a #bgc1 #bhd ,haer4 li4 #a sq #bae ,eusebius ,chron4 7,syr4 epit47 p4 #baf 7ed4 ,schoene7 #adi ,eccl4 ,theol4 ii4 #i #hg ,hist4 ,eccl4 i4 #ac #bgi iii4 #c #cg1 #ade iii4 #bc #dh1 #afh1 #bji iii4 #bd #ci iii4 #be1 #bg #aeb iii4 #cj1 #ca #ia iii4 #cf #da1 #dc1 #aeb iii4 #cg #dj iii4 #ci #ia1 #adc1 #aej1 #aeb1 #aeg1 #aic1 #bji iv4 #ad #dc1 #di1 #aej1 #aia iv4 #ae #gg1 #ij1 #aba1 #adh1 #aej1 #bbj sq iv4 #af #bgc iv4 #ah #dc iv4 #ba #bci iv4 #bb #aeb1 #ahc iv4 #bc #aef1 #agg1 #bbh iv4 #bd #dd iv4 #bf #cb1 #dg1 #bbc1 #bbe1 #bdc1 #bif iv4 #bg #hb1 #bch iv4 #bh #bgc iv4 #bi #bgc1 #bgg v4 #a #adf1 #beb v4 #c1d #bec1 #bei v4 #f #de v4 #h #de1 #ade1 #aef v4 #ac #bgc v4 #ae #ih v4 #ah #dg1 #ia v4 #ai #bch v4 #bj #ig1 #ih1 #aaf1 #bah1 #bfe v4 #bd #ia1 #ajj1 #bbd1 #bdd1 #bdh1 #bed v4 #bf #df v4 #bh #ajb1 #bcj vi4 #ac #dg1 #ade1 #bdd vi4 #ad #dg1 #ade vi4 #bj #dg vii4 #be #baf ,quaest4 ad ,marin4 #b1 iv4 #bjh ,quaest4 ad ,steph4 #a #gc ,op4 ,,iv4 p4 #abgf 7ed4 ,migne7 #bha ,galen de ,anat4 ,admin4 i4 #a #bif de ,praenot4 #b #bif ,op4 ,,xix4 p4 #aa 7ed4 ,kuehn7 #aif ,hippolytus ,ref4 ,haer4 v4 #g #afa ,ref4 ,haer4 vi4 #db1 #ee #ade1 #bjb ,ignatius ,ephes4 #a #db ,ephes4 #g #db ,ephes4 #i #cjb ,ephes4 #ab #da1 #db ,ephes4 #ad #da ,ephes4 #ai #gc ,magn4 #h #da1 #db1 #hf ,magn4 #aa #aah ,magn4 #ac #aji ,trall4 #f #afa ,trall4 #i #aah ,rom4 inscr4 #afa ,rom4 #b #bcb ,rom4 #d #da1 #db1 #aad ,rom4 #e #gc1 #gd1 #gh ,rom4 #f #db1 #he ,rom4 #g #he ,philad4 #c #afa ,philad4 #f #db ,philad4 #g #da ,smyrn4 #a #aah ,smyrn4 #f #da ,polyc4 #a-d #ic ,polyc4 #b #da ,polyc4 #c #db1 #ic ,polyc4 #g #gg1 #ic ,irenaeus ,haer4 pref4 i4 #afj i4 #c4 #f #afj i4 #h4 #a #agd i4 #bf4 #a #aah i4 #bg4 #b #aag i4 #bg4 #c #aag1 #abj i4 #bh4 #a #bgc1 #bgd ii4 #bb4 #e #dh1 #ia1 #ib1 #aca1 #afh1 #bji1 #bag1 #bah1 #bde1 #bfd ii4 #ca4 #b #abj iii4 #a4 #a #dh1 #ahb iii4 #c4 #c #bfj iii4 #c4 #d #ib1 #aja1 #aae1 #bag1 #bah1 #bfd iii4 #aa4 #a #dh1ahb iii4 #aa4 #i #bae iii4 #ab4 #ab #aag iii4 #af4 #h #aah iii4 #ba4 #a #bfj iii4 #be4 #b #abj iii4 #be4 #c #abj iv4 #bf4 #b #bah iv4 #bg4 #a sq #ade1 #aif1 #bdh1 #bff iv4 #cj4 #a #ade1 #aif iv4 #ca4 #a #ade1 #aif1 #bdh iv4 #cb4 #a #aif v4 #e4 #a #ade1 #aih1 #bah v4 #bj4 #b #agg v4 #cj4 #a #bah v4 #ca4 #a sq #aea v4 #cc4 #a #aeh v4 #cc4 #c #ade1 #bah v4 #cc4 #d #adb v4 #hf4 #a1 #b #c1 #ed1 #abf1 #ade1 #aid1 #aii ,jerome de ,vir4 ,illust4 #af #db de ,vir4 ,illust4 #ag #aje de ,vir4 ,illust4 #bd #bbi de ,vir4 ,illust4 #bf #bdc ,ep4 ad ,magnum 7p4 #hc7 #bdc ,ep4 #gj 7,i4 p4 #dbh7 #bci ,ep4 #abj ad ,hedib4 7,i4 p4 #hbf7 #bjh praef4 ad ,tit4 vii4 #bgc ,john ,malalas p4 #bgf 7ed4 ,bonn47 #gi p4 #bhj #ih ,justin ,martyr ,apol4 i4 #bf #bfh ,apol4 i4 #ff1 #fg #dc1 #bbg ,dial4 #cd #bce ,dial4 #ea sq #aea ,dial4 #fa #bce ,dial4 #hj sq #aea ,dial4 #ajj #bce1 #bcf ,lucian de ,morte ,peregr4 #ab #gf de ,morte ,peregr4 #da #gg ,martyr4 ,polyc4 #a #bbj #e #bbb #f1 #g1 #h #bba #i #ij1 #bba #ab #bbb #ac #aba #ad #bbc #ae #bbb #af #gg1 #bbb1 #bbc ,origen c4 ,cels4 pref4 etc4 #bgh c4 ,cels4 i4 #h #g c4 ,cels4 viii4 #gf #g de ,princ4 iv4 #aa #age in ,matth4 x4 #f #age in ,matth4 xvi4 #f #bab in ,luc4 ,hom4 i4 #aeb ,philo de ,conj4 ,erud4 ,grat4 #bd #agd de ,profug4 #aa #agd ,vit4 ,moys4 iii4 #bc #agd ,photius ,bibl4 #ad #bch1 #bci ,bibl4 #aai #bda ,bibl4 #aba #aif1 #bfg ,pliny ,nat4 ,hist4 ii4 #ij1 #ig1 #aab #bie ,nat4 ,hist4 xviii4 #ab1 #eg #bie ,polycarp ,phil4 #a #ej1 #ie ,phil4 #b #ej ,phil4 #c #ic1 #if1 #aab1 #aad ,phil4 #d #abb ,phil4 #e #ej1 #ajh ,phil4 #g #di1 #ic1 #aae1 #aaf1 #agd1 #aia ,phil4 #h #ej ,phil4 #i #aaa1 #aab ,phil4 #aj #ej1 #id ,phil4 #ab #ie1 #aab1 #abb ,phil4 #ac #aa1 #ic1 #aaa1 #aad ,protevangelium #aa1 #ab #beg #bc #bef ,socrates ,hist4 ,eccl4 ,,iii4 #g #bci ,,vii4 #cb #aah ,tacitus ,hist4 v4 #a sq #bfh ,tatian ,orat4 ad ,graec4 #d1 #ac #bge ,orat4 ad ,graec4 #ai #bgc1 #bgf ,orat4 ad ,graec4 #bi1 #ce1 #db #bgc ,tertullian adv4 ,marc4 iii4 #bd #aea adv4 ,marc4 iv4 #b #h adv4 ,marc4 v4 #aj #abj de ,praescr4 ,haer4 #cb #ib de ,praescr4 ,haer4 #cc #abj de ,resurr4 ,carn4 #ai #abj de ,resurr4 ,carn4 #bd #aea ,theodoret ,haer4 ,fab4 i4 #bj #bgc1 #bhb ,haer4 ,fab4 i4 #ba #bch1 #bdc ,haer4 ,fab4 iii4 #b #bci1 #bdc ,ep4 #aac #bhc ,theophilus ad ,autol4 ii4 #bb #dd ,victor ,cap4 ,praef4 ad ,anon4 ,harm4 ,evang4 #bhf ,xenophon ,anab4 v4 #c1 #f #cjj