,,supernatural ,,religion3 ,,an ,,inquiry ,,the ,,reality ,,of ,,divine ,,revelation ,by ,walter ,richard ,cassels ,in ,three ,volumes3 ,vol4 ,i4 ,complete ,edition4 ,carefully ,revised4 ,london3 ,longmans1 ,green1 ,and ,co41 #ahgi4 ,,pg ,,editor',s ,,note3 ,this file has been provided with an image of the original scan for each page which is linked to the page number in the html file4 ,nearly every page in the text has many ,greek passages which have been indicated where they occur by ------ as have many complex tables2 these passages may be viewed in the page images4 ,some of the pages have only a few lines of text and then the rest of the page is taken up with complex footnotes in ,english1 ,greek and ,hebrew4 ,the reader may click on the page numbers in the html file to see the entire page with the footnotes4 --,,dw ,,preface ,,to ,,the ,,complete ,,edition ,in preparing a complete edition of this work1 ,i have revised it throughout4 ,i have not hesitated to make any alterations1 omissions or additions which seemed to me likely to improve it4 ,i have endeavoured as much as possible to avoid presenting openings for side issues1 and1 with this object1 ,i have softened statements which1 however sustainable in themselves1 might give rise to discussions apart from the direct purpose of the ,inquiry4 ,wherever my argument has appeared to me either involved or insufficiently expressed ,i have as freely recast it as my limits permitted1 and ,i have in several parts introduced new data discovered or elaborated since the work was first written1 or which ,i may then have overlooked4 ,in one instance only has any alteration been requisite which demands special mention here4 ,since the sixth edition was published1 ,i have been convinced that ,marcion's ,gospel was based upon our third ,synoptic1 and ,i have accordingly so far modified my results4 ,it may not be unnecessary1 however1 plainly to repeat that1 with this exception1 which is not of material consequence1 my convictions not only remain fundamentally unchanged1 but have been confirmed and strengthened both by thorough reconsideration of my own argument1 and by careful attention to the replies made by able official apologists4 ,as regards the philosophical and other objections to miracles1 their cogency is so fully recognized that ,bampton ,lecturers and eminent ,churchmen practically abandon miracles as evidence1 and press upon their brethren the necessity of reconstructing the ,christian argument ,the necessity of reconstruction is indeed apparent1 but the materials have not yet been made manifest4 ,meanwhile1 such apologists have been forced virtually to repudiate the great ,christian representatives who have hitherto defended the ,faith4 ,the case may fairly be considered desperate when the crew throw their officers overboard by way of lightening the ship4 ,the historical argument is not in a better position4 ,the learned professors and critics who have undertaken to deal with it do not even pretend1 except perhaps in the case of ,papias1 to do more than assert the anonymous use of the ,gospels by some of the ,fathers1 and their consequent existence2 but1 if this were established1 what support could that give to the record of miracles8 ,as for ,papias1 with his ,hebrew ,matthew and fragmentary indirect ,mark1 even if secured as a solitary witness to the composition of two ,gospels1 he would prove but a fatal friend to the apologetic cause4 ,the ,conclusions have been almost entirely rewritten4 ,this was essential to the finished work2 but it was further necessary in order more adequately to convey my own views1 and to withdraw expressions regarding the ,unknowable1 hitherto used from consideration for prevalent ideas and feelings1 which ,i now recognize to have been too definite and calculated to mislead4 ,,preface ,,to ,,the ,,sixth ,,edition4 ,this work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public1 but both in this country1 and in ,america and elsewhere1 it has been subjected to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of opinion1 that ,i may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks1 and to review some of my ,reviewers4 ,i must first1 however1 beg leave to express my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed generous commendation upon the work1 and liberally encouraged its completion4 ,i have to thank others1 who1 differing totally from my conclusions1 have nevertheless temperately argued against them1 for the courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must necessarily have offended them1 and ,i can only say that1 whilst such a course has commanded my unfeigned respect1 it has certainly not diminished the attention with which ,i have followed their arguments4 ,there are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of argument of this work which ,i desire to correct4 ,some critics have objected that1 if ,i had succeeded in establishing the proposition advanced in the first part1 the second and third parts need not have been written3 in fact1 that the historical argument against miracles is only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical4 ,now ,i contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the philosophical argument1 and that both are equally requisite to completeness in dealing with the subject4 ,the preliminary affirmation is not that miracles are impossible1 but that they are antecedently incredible4 ,the counter allegation is that1 although miracles may be antecedently incredible1 they nevertheless actually took place4 ,it is1 therefore1 necessary1 not only to establish the antecedent incredibility1 but to examine the validity of the allegation that certain miracles occurred1 and this involves the historical inquiry into the evidence for the ,gospels which occupies the second and third parts4 ,indeed1 many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume4 ,the view ,i have taken is clearly supported by ,mr4 ,mill4 ,in his recently published ,essays on ,religion1 he directly replies to the question whether any evidence can suffice to prove a ,divine ,revelation1 and defines what the nature and amount of that evidence must be4 ,he shows that internal evidences1 that is to say1 the indications which the ,revelation itself is thought to furnish of its divine origin1 can only be negative4 ,the bad moral character of the doctrines of an alleged ,revelation1 he considers1 may be good reason for rejecting it1 but the excellence of their morality can never entitle us to ascribe to them a supernatural origin3 for we cannot have conclusive reason for believing that the human faculties were incompetent to find out moral doctrines of which the human faculties can perceive and recognise the excellence4 ,a ,revelation1 therefore1 he decides1 cannot be proved divine unless by external evidence2 that is1 by the exhibition of supernatural facts47#a7 ,he maintains that it is possible to prove the reality of a supernatural fact if it actually occurred2 and after showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles1 or their antecedent incredibility1 he proceeds3 ,against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions2 in other words1 the positive evidences of miracles7#b7 ,this is precisely what ,i have done4 ,in order to show that ,mr4 ,mill's estimate of the nature of this positive evidence for miracles does not essentially differ from the results of this work1 the following lines may be quoted3-- ,but the evidence of miracles1 at least to ,protestant ,christians1 is not1 in our day1 of this cogent description4 ,it is not the evidence of our senses1 but of witnesses1 and even this not at first hand1 but resting on the attestation of books and traditions4 ,and even in the case of the original eye-witnesses1 the supernatural facts asserted on their alleged testimony1 are not of the transcendent character supposed in our example1 about the nature of which1 or the impossibility of their having had a natural origin1 there could be little room for doubt4 ,on the contrary1 the recorded miracles are1 in the first place1 generally such as it would have been extremely difficult to verify as matters of fact1 and in the next place1 are hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature4 ,the second point to which ,i desire to refer is a statement which has frequently been made that1 in the second and third parts1 ,i endeavour to prove that the four canonical ,gospels were not written until the end of the second century4 ,this error is of course closely connected with that which has just been discussed1 but it is difficult to understand how any one who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of the argument1 and to state it fairly1 could have fallen into it4 ,the fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the ,gospels4 ,the evidence for them is merely examined1 and it is found that1 so far from their affording viii sufficient testimony to warrant belief in the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently incredible1 there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the ,gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to have occurred1 and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and truth4 ,this is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish some special theory of my own1 and it is because this line of argument has not been understood1 that some critics have expressed surprise at the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as evidence4 ,in a case of such importance1 no testimony which is not clear and indubitable could be of any value1 but the evidence producible for the canonical ,gospels falls very far short even of ordinary requirements1 and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of serious consideration4 ,it has been argued that1 even if there be no evidence for our special gospels1 ,i admit that gospels very similar must early have been in existence1 and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief as the canonical ,gospels3 consequently that ,i merely change1 without shaking1 the witnesses4 ,those who advance this argument1 however1 totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious belief which is in question1 but the reality of the miracles1 and the sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them4 ,what such objectors urge practically amounts to this3 that we should believe in the actual occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience1 out of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took place1 because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious age1 who give no evidence of personal knowledge1 or of careful investigation1 have written an account of them1 and other ix persons1 equally ignorant and superstitious1 have believed them4 ,i venture to say that no one who advances the argument to which ,i am referring can have realized the nature of the question at issue1 and the relation of miracles to the order of nature4 ,the last of these general objections to which ,i need now refer is the statement1 that the difficulty with regard to the ,gospels commences precisely where my examination ends1 and that ,i am bound to explain how1 if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable1 the four ,gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the second century1 and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as ,irenaeus4 ,my reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account for this4 ,no one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature in the second century1 and with the rapid circulation and ready acceptance of spurious works tending to edification1 could for a moment regard the canonical position of any ,gospel at the end of that century either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin4 ,that which concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but the beginning of the first century4 ,even if we took the statements of ,irenaeus1 and later ,fathers like the ,alexandrian ,clement1 ,tertullian1 and ,origen1 about the ,gospels1 they are absolutely without value except as personal opinion at a late date1 for which no sufficient grounds are shown4 ,of the earlier history of those ,gospels there is not a distinct trace1 except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses for miracles4 ,after having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced against this work1 ,i venture to express strengthened conviction of the truth of its conclusions4 x ,the best and most powerful reasons which able divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main argument have1 ,i submit1 not only failed to shake it1 but have1 by inference1 shown it to be unassailable4 ,very many of those who have professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically attacked nothing but some outlying fort1 which was scarcely worth defence1 whilst others1 who have seriously attempted an assault1 have shown that the ,church has no artillery capable of making a practicable breach in the rationalistic stronghold4 ,i say this solely in reference to the argument which ,i have taken upon myself to represent1 and in no sense of my own individual share in its maintenance4 ,i must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who1 with great ability and learning1 have subjected this work to the most elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and official zeal are capable4 ,i am sincerely obliged to ,professor ,lightfoot and ,dr4 ,westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my book4 ,i had myself directly attacked the views of ,dr4 ,westcott1 and of course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in reply2 and ,i am not surprised at the vigour with which ,dr4 ,lightfoot has assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred1 although ,i may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends4 ,in spite of hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability1 no flaw or error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main argument1 and ,i consider that every point yet objected to by ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 or indicated by ,dr4 xi ,westcott1 might be withdrawn without at all weakening my position4 ,these objections1 ,i may say1 refer solely to details1 and only follow side issues1 but the attack1 if impotent against the main position1 has in many cases been insidiously directed against notes and passing references1 and a plentiful sprinkling of such words as misstatements and misrepresentations along the line may have given it a formidable appearance1 and malicious effect1 which render it worth while once for all to meet it in detail4 ,the first point 7#a7 to which ,i shall refer is an elaborate argument by ,dr4 ,lightfoot regarding the ,silence of ,eusebius4 7#b7 ,i had called attention to the importance of considering the silence of the ,fathers1 under certain conditions27#c7 and ,i might1 omitting his curious limitation1 adopt ,dr4 ,lightfoot's opening comment upon this as singularly descriptive of the state of the case3 ,in one province more especially1 relating to the external evidences for the ,gospels1 silence occupies a prominent place4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot proposes to interrogate this mysterious oracle1 and he considers that the response elicited will not be at all ambiguous4 ,i might again agree with him1 but that unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for the ,gospels4 ,such silence may be very eloquent1 but after all it is only the eloquence of--silence4 ,i have not yet met with the argument anywhere that1 because none of the early ,fathers quote our ,canonical ,gospels1 or say anything with regard to them1 the fact is unambiguous xii evidence that they were well acquainted with them1 and considered them apostolic and authoritative4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot's argument from ,silence is1 for the present at least1 limited to ,eusebius4 ,the point on which the argument turns is this3 ,after examining the whole of the extant writings of the early ,fathers1 and finding them a complete blank as regards the canonical ,gospels1 if1 by their use of apocryphal works and other indications they are not evidence against them1 ,i supplement this1 in the case of ,hegesippus1 ,papias1 and ,dionysius of ,corinth1 by the inference that1 as ,eusebius does not state that their lost works contained any evidence for the ,gospels1 they actually did not contain any4 ,but before proceeding to discuss the point1 it is necessary that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main argument of my work4 ,the evident labour which ,professor ,lightfoot has expended upon the preparation of his attack1 the space devoted to it1 and his own express words1 would naturally lead most readers to suppose that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot says1 after quoting the passages in which ,i appeal to the silence of ,eusebius3 ,this indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis of his reasoning2 and the reader will not need to be reminded how much of the argument falls to pieces1 if this basis should prove to be unsound4 ,a wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his foundations first1 and assured himself of their strength1 before he piled up his fabric to this height4 ,this our author has altogether neglected to do4 7#a7 ,towards the close of his article1 after triumphantly expressing his belief that his main conclusions are irrefragable1 he further says3 xiii ,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 7#a7 ,i do not doubt that ,dr4 ,lightfoot sincerely believes this1 but he must allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the importance of the point1 and that1 as regards this work1 the representations made in the above passages are a very strange exaggeration4 ,i am unfortunately too familiar1 in connection with criticism on this book1 with instances of vast expenditure of time and strength in attacking points to which ,i attach no importance whatever1 and which in themselves have scarcely any value4 ,when writers1 after an amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that vital interests were at stake1 have1 at least in their own opinion1 proved that ,i have omitted to dot an i1 cross a t1 or insert an inverted comma1 they have really left the question precisely where it was4 ,now1 in the present instance1 the whole extent of the argument which is based upon the silence of ,eusebius is an inference regarding some lost works of three writers only1 which might altogether be withdrawn without affecting the case4 ,the object of my investigation is to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers regarding our ,gospels4 ,in the fragments which remain of the works of three writers1 ,hegesippus1 ,papias1 and ,dionysius of ,corinth1 ,i do not find any evidence of acquaintance with these ,gospels1--the works mentioned by ,papias being1 ,i contend1 different from the existing ,gospels attributed to ,matthew and ,mark4 ,whether ,i am right or not in this does not affect the present discussion4 ,it is an unquestioned fact that ,eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these xiv writers contained any reference to1 or information about1 the ,gospels1 nor have we any statement from any other author to that effect4 ,the objection of ,dr4 ,lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of ,eusebius warrants the inference that1 because he does not state that these writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical books1 the lost works did not contain any2 it does not1 however1 extend to interesting information regarding those books1 which he admits it was the purpose of ,eusebius to record4 ,to give ,dr4 ,lightfoot's statements1 which ,i am examining1 the fullest possible support1 however1 suppose that ,i abandon ,eusebius altogether1 and do not draw any inference of any kind from him beyond his positive statements1 how would my case stand8 ,simply as complete as it well could be3 ,hegesippus1 ,papias1 and ,dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the ,gospels4 ,the reader1 therefore1 will not fail to see how serious a misstatement ,dr4 ,lightfoot has made1 and how little the argument of ,supernatural ,religion would be affected even if he established much more than he has attempted to do4 ,we may now proceed to consider ,dr4 ,lightfoot's argument itself4 ,he carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared intention of ,eusebius in composing his history1 as regards the mention or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of the ,fathers1 and in order to do him full justice ,i will quote his words1 merely taking the liberty1 for facility of reference1 of dividing his statement into three paragraphs4 ,he says3 ,eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings in two different ways4 ,this is the cardinal point of the passage4 xv 7#a7 ,of the ,antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any ancient writer employs any book belonging to their class --,greek--2 7#b7 but as regards the undisputed ,canonical books he only professes to mention them1 when such a writer has something to tell about them --,greek--4 ,any anecdote of interest respecting them1 as also respecting the others --,greek--1 will be recorded4 7#c7 ,but in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will allude to mere quotations however numerous and however precise47#a7 ,in order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we can differ1 ,i will first refer to the third4 ,did ,eusebius intend to point out mere quotations of the books which he considered undisputed8 ,as a matter of fact1 he actually did point such out in the case of the #ast ,epistle of ,peter and #ast ,epistle of ,john1 which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be undisputed47#b7 ,this is admitted by ,dr4 ,lightfoot4 ,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 intention4 ,on the other hand1 that he did mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged himself to do so1 but actually fulfilled his promise4 ,although much might be said upon this point1 therefore1 ,i consider it of so little importance that ,i do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing it4 ,if my assertions with regard to the silence of ,eusebius likewise include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations of the undisputed books1 they are so far from limited to this very subsidiary testimony that ,i #b ,i regret very much that some ambiguity in my language 7,s4 ,r41 i4 p4 #dhc7 should have misled1 and given ,dr4 ,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 clear4 xvi should have no reluctance in waiving it altogether4 ,even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question1 they could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book quoted1 at the time that work was written1 but would have done nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness4 ,in the evidential destitution of the ,gospels1 apologists would thankfully have received even such vague indications1 indeed there is scarcely any other evidence1 but something much more definite is required to establish the reality of miracles and ,divine ,revelation4 ,if this point be1 for the sake of argument1 set aside1 what is the position8 ,we are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the ,gospels in the works of ,hegesippus1 ,papias1 and ,dionysius of ,corinth1 because ,eusebius does not record them2 but1 on the other hand1 we are still less entitled to infer that there were any4 ,the only inference which ,i care to draw from the silence of ,eusebius is precisely that which ,dr4 ,lightfoot admits that1 both from his promise and practice1 ,i am entitled to deduce3 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 writers4 ,so far1 therefore1 from producing the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of ,supernatural ,religion1 upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of ,eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner4 xvii ,before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under discussion1 it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of ,eusebius1 and note1 for those who care to go more closely into the matter1 how he fulfils his promise to record what the ,fathers have to tell about the ,gospels4 ,i may mention1 in the first place1 that ,eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the ,gospels and other canonical works47#a7 ,upon two occasions he quotes the account which ,clement of ,alexandria gives of the composition of ,mark's ,gospel1 and also cites his statements regarding the other ,gospels47#b7 ,in like manner he records the information1 such as it is1 which ,irenaeus has to impart about the four ,gospels and other works17#c7 and what ,origen has to say concerning them47#d7 ,interrogating extant works1 we find in fact that ,eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or interesting regarding these books from early writers4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot says that ,eusebius restricts himself to the narrowest limits which justice to his subject will allow1 and he illustrates this by the case of ,irenaeus4 ,he says3 ,though he 7,eusebius7 gives the principal passage in this author relating to the ,four ,gospels 7,irenaeus1 ,ady4 ,i,ler4 iii4 #a1 #a7 he omits to mention others which contain interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the question1 e4g4 that ,st4 ,john wrote his ,gospel to counteract the errors of ,cerinthus and the ,nicolaitans 7,irenaeus1 ,adv4 ,haer4 iii4 #aa1 #a74 ,i must explain1 however1 that the interesting statement omitted1 which is not in the context of the part quoted1 is not advanced as information derived from any authority1 but only in the course of argument1 and there is nothing to distinguish it from mere personal opinion1 so that on this ground ,eusebius may well have passed it over4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot farther says3 ,thus too when he quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the ,asiatic ,elders who were acquainted with ,st4 ,john17#f7 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 ,synoptists47#g7 ,nothing1 however1 could be further from the desire or intention of ,eusebius than to represent any discordance between the ,gospels1 or to support the one at the expense of the others4 ,on the contrary1 he enters into an elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy between them1 affirming1 and supporting his view by singular quotations1 that it was evidently the intention of the three ,synoptists only to write the doings of the ,lord for one year after xviii the imprisonment of ,john the ,baptist1 and that ,john1 having the other ,gospels before him1 wrote an account of the period not embraced by the other evangelists47#a7 ,moreover1 the extraordinary assertions of ,irenaeus not only contradict the ,synoptics1 but also the ,fourth ,gospel1 and ,eusebius certainly could not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions1 even although ,irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the ,presbyters who were acquainted with ,john4 ,it being then admitted that ,eusebius not only pledges himself to record when any ancient writer has something to tell about the undisputed canonical books1 but that1 judged by the test of extant writings which we can examine1 he actually does so1 let us sec the conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three writers with regard to whom ,i have inferred anything from the silence of ,eusebius4 ,i need scarcely repeat that ,eusebius held ,hegesippus in very high estimation4 ,he refers to him very frequently1 and he clearly shows that he not only valued1 but was intimately acquainted with1 his writings4 ,eusebius quotes from the work of ,hegesippus a very long account of the martyrdom of ,james27#b7 he refers to ,hegesippus as his authority for the statement that ,simeon was a cousin --,greek-- of ,jesus1 ,cleophas his father being1 according to that author1 the brother of ,joseph27#c7 he confirms a passage in the ,epistle of ,clement by reference to ,hegesippus27#d7 he quotes from ,hegesippus a story regarding some members of the family of ,jesus1 of the race of ,david1 who were brought before ,domitian27#e7 he cites his narrative of the martyrdom of ,simeon1 together with other matters concerning the early ,church27#f7 in another place he gives a laudatory account of ,hegesippus and his writings27#g7 shortly after1 he refers to the xix statement of ,hegesippus that he was in ,rome until the episcopate of ,eleutherus17#a7 and further speaks in praise of his work1 mentions his observation on the ,epistle of ,clement1 and quotes his remarks about the ,church in ,corinth1 the succession of ,roman bishops1 the general state of the ,church1 the rise of heresies1 and other matters47#c7 ,i mention these numerous references to ,hegesippus as ,i have noticed them in turning over the pages of ,eusebius1 but others may very probably have escaped me4 ,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 single remark of any kind regarding our ,gospels1 and the legitimate inference1 and it is the only one ,i care to draw1 is1 that ,hegesippus did not say anything about them4 ,i may simply add that1 as ,eusebius quotes the account of ,matthew and ,mark from ,papias1 a man of whom he expresses something like contempt1 and again refers to him in confirmation of the statement of the ,alexandrian ,clement regarding the composition of ,mark's ,gospel17#c7 it would be against all reason1 as well as opposed to his pledge and general practice1 to suppose that ,eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by ,hegesippus1 a writer with whom he was so well acquainted1 and of whom he speaks with so much respect4 ,i have said that ,eusebius would more particularly have quoted anything with regard to the ,fourth ,gospel1 and for those who care to go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given4 ,no one can read ,eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care with which he speaks of ,john and his writings1 and the substantially apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them4 ,apart from any doubts expressed xx regarding the ,gospel itself1 the controversy as to the authenticity of the ,apocalypse and second and third ,epistles called by his name1 with which ,eusebius was so well acquainted1 and the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same ,john having written both the ,gospel and ,apocalypse1 regarding which he so fully quotes the argument of ,dionysius of ,alexandria17#a7 evidently made him peculiarly interested in the subject1 and his attention to the fourth ,gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of the essential difference between that work and the three ,synoptics4 ,the first occasion on which he speaks of ,john1 he records the tradition that he was banished to ,patmos during the persecution under ,domitian1 and refers to the ,apocalypse4 ,he quotes ,irenaeus in support of this tradition1 and the composition of the work at the close of ,domitian's reign47#c7 ,he goes on to speak of the persecution under ,domitian1 and quotes ,hegesippus as to a command given by that ,emperor to slay all the posterity of ,david17#c7 as also ,tertullian's account17#d7 winding up his extracts from the historians of the time by the statement that1 after ,nerva succeeded ,domitian1 and the ,senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the latter1 the ,apostle ,john returned from exile in ,patmos and1 according to ecclesiastical tradition1 settled at ,ephesus47#e7 ,he states that ,john1 the beloved disciple1 apostle and evangelist1 governed the ,churches of ,asia after the death of ,domitian and his return from ,patmos1 and that he was still living when ,trajan succeeded ,nerva1 and for the truth of this he quotes passages from ,iremeus and ,clement of ,alexandria47#f7 ,he then gives an account of the writings of ,john1 and whilst asserting that the ,gospel must be universally acknowledged as genuine1 he says that it is rightly put last in order amongst the four1 of the composition of which he gives an elaborate description4 ,it is not necessary to quote his account of the fourth ,gospel and of the occasion of its composition1 which he states to have been ,john's receiving the other three ,gospels1 and1 whilst admitting their truth1 perceiving that they did not contain a narrative of the earlier history of ,christ4 ,for this reason1 being entreated to do so1 he wrote an account of the doings of ,jesus before the ,baptist was cast into prison4 ,after some very extraordinary reasoning1 ,eusebius says that no one who carefully considers the points he mentions can think that the ,gospels are at variance with each other1 and he conjectures that ,john probably omitted the genealogies because ,matthew and ,luke had given them47#g7 ,without further anticipating what ,i have to say when speaking of ,papias1 it is clear1 ,i think1 that ,eusebius1 being aware of1 and interested in1 the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings attributed to ,john1 not to put a still stronger case1 and quoting traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities1 would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any information on the subject given by ,hegesippus1 whom he so frequently lays under contribution1 had his writings contained any4 xxi ,in regard to ,papias the case is still clearer4 ,we find that ,eusebius quotes his account of the composition of ,gospels by ,matthew and ,mark17#a7 although he had already given a closely similar narrative regarding ,mark from ,clement of ,alexandria1 and appealed to ,papias in confirmation of it4 ,is it either possible or permissible to suppose that1 had ,papias known anything of the other two ,gospels1 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 ,certainly not2 and ,dr4 ,lightfoot's article proves it4 ,eusebius had not only pledged himself to give such information1 and does so in every case which we can test1 but he fulfils it by actually quoting what ,papias had to say about the ,gospels4 ,even if he had been careless1 his very reference to the first two ,gospels must have reminded him of the claims of the rest4 ,there are1 however1 special reasons which render it still more certain that had ,papias had anything to tell about the ,fourth ,gospel1--and if there was a ,fourth ,gospel in his knowledge he must have had something to tell about it1--,eusebius would have recorded it4 ,the first quotation which he makes from ,papias is the passage in which the ,bishop of ,hierapolis states the interest with which he had inquired about the words of the ,presbyters1 what ,john or ,matthew or what any other of the disciples of the ,lord said1 and what ,aristion and the ,presbyter ,john1 disciples of the ,lord1 #a ,i am much obliged to ,dr4 ,lightfoot for calling my attention to the accidental insertion of the words and the ,apocalypse 7,s4 ,e4 i4 p4 #dcc74 ,this was a mere slip of the pen1 of which no use is made1 and the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements4 ,,vol4 ,i4 xxii say47l7 ,eusebius observes1 and particularly points out1 that the name of ,john is twice mentioned in the passage1 the former1 mentioned with ,peter1 ,james1 and ,matthew1 and other ,apostles1 evidently being1 he thinks1 the ,evangelist1 and the latter being clearly distinguished by the designation of ,presbyter4 ,eusebius states that this proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of ,john in ,asia1 and that two tombs were still shown at ,ephesus bearing the name of ,john4 ,eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second of the two ,johns1 if not the first1 was the man who saw the ,revelation4 ,what an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the subject from ,papias1 who had questioned those who had been acquainted with both6 ,his attention is so pointedly turned to ,john at the very moment when he makes his quotations regarding ,matthew and ,mark1 that ,i am fully warranted1 both by the conclusions of ,dr4 ,lightfoot and the peculiar circumstances of the case1 in affirming that the silence of ,eusebius proves that ,papias said nothing about either the third or fourth ,gospels4 ,i need not go on to discuss ,dionysius of ,corinth1 for the same reasoning equally applies to his case4 ,i have1 therefore1 only a very few more words to say on the subject of ,eusebius4 ,not content with what he intended to be destructive criticism1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the constructive and1 as a sober deduction from facts1 makes the following statement1 which he prints in italics3 ,the silence of ,eusebius respecting early witnesses to the ,fourth ,gospel is an evidence in its favour47#b7 ,now1 interpreted even by the rules laid down 7xxiii7 by ,dr4 ,lightfoot himself1 what does this silence really mean8 ,it means1 not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are witnesses about anything connected with the ,fourth ,gospel1 but simply that if ,eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that ,gospel by any one1 he thereby indicates that he himself1 in the fourth century1 classed it amongst the undisputed books1 the mere use of which he does not undertake to mention4 ,the value of his opinion at so late a date is very small4 ,professor ,lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection with ,the ,ignatian ,epistles17#a7 which is equally abortive and limited to details4 ,i do not intend to complain of the spirit in which the article is written1 nor of its unfairness4 ,on the whole ,i think that readers may safely be left to judge of the tone in which a controversy is carried on4 ,unfortunately1 however1 the perpetual accusation of mis-statement brought against me in this article1 and based upon minute criticism into which few care to follow1 is apt to leave the impression that it is well-founded1 for there is the very natural feeling in most right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations4 ,it is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous4 ,now in a work like this1 dealing with so many details1 it must be obvious that it is not possible altogether to escape errors4 ,a critic or opponent is of course entitled to point these out1 although1 if he be high-minded or even alive to his own interests1 ,i scarcely think that he will do so in a spirit of unfair detraction4 ,but in doing this a writer is bound to be accurate1 for if he be liberal of such accusations xxiv and it can be shown that his charges are unfounded1 they recoil with double force upon himself4 ,i propose1 therefore1 as it is impossible for me to reply to all such attacks1 to follow ,professor ,lightfoot and ,dr4 ,westcott with some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the ,ignatian ,epistles1 and once for all to show the grave mis-statements to which they commit themselves4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon which he enters1 but it will be seen that his appreciation of its difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions4 ,he says3 ,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 writer1 therefore1 may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of familiarity with this subject ,but in this case the reader naturally expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with some diffidence47#a7 ,my critic objects that ,i express my opinions with decision4 ,i shall hereafter justify this decision1 but ,i would here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for ,dr4 ,lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question make it easy for me4 ,it requires but little logical perception to recognize that ,epistles1 the authenticity of which it is so difficult to establish1 cannot have much influence as testimony for the ,gospels4 ,the statement just quoted1 however1 is made the base of the attack1 and war is declared in the following terms3-- xxv ,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 dicta as distinguished from his arguments47l7 ,this sentence shows the scope of the discussion4 ,my dicta1 however1 play a very subordinate part throughout1 and even if no weight be attached to them1 and ,i have never desired that any should be1 my argument would not be in the least degree affected4 ,the first point attacked1 like most of those subsequently assailed1 is one of mere critical history4 ,i wrote3 ,the strongest internal1 as well as other evidence1 into which space forbids our going in detail1 has led 7#a7 the majority of critics to recognize the ,syriac version as the most genuine form of the letters of ,ignatius extant1 and 7#b7 this is admitted by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the epistles47#b7 ,upon this ,dr4 ,lightfoot remarks3-- ,no statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results of the ,ignatian controversy since the publication of the ,syriac epistles than this47#a7 ,it will be admitted that this is pretty decided language for one who is preaching diffidence4 ,when we come to details1 however1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot admits3 ,those who maintain the genuineness of the ,ignatian ,epistles in one or other of the two forms1 may be said to be almost evenly divided on this question of priority4 ,he seems to consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or six critics on either side2 but even xxvi on this modified interpretation of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained4 ,to the five names quoted as recognizing the priority of the ,syriac ,epistles may be added those of ,milman1 ,boehringer1 ,de ,pressense1 and ,dr4 ,tregelles1 which immediately occur to me4 ,but ,i must ask upon what ground he limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness8 ,i certainly do not so limit it1 but affirm that a majority prefer the three ,curetonian ,epistles1 and that this majority is made up partly of those who1 denying the authenticity of any of the letters1 still consider the ,syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the ,epistles4 ,this will be evident to any one who reads the context4 ,with regard to the latter 7#b7 part of the sentence1 ,i will at once say that most is a slip of the pen for many1 which ,i correct in this edition4 ,many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity prefer the ,curetonian version4 ,the ,tubingen school are not unanimous on the point1 and there are critics who do not belong to it4 ,bleek1 for instance1 who does not commit himself to belief1 considers the priority of the ,curetonian im hoechsten ,grade wahrscheinlich411 ,volkmar1 ,lipsius1 and ,rumpf prefer them4 ,dr4 ,light-foot says3-- ,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 alike47#b7 ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 however1 has not rightly understood him4 ,lipsius has only withdrawn his opinion that the ,syriac letters are authentic1 but whilst now asserting that in all their forms the ,ignatian ,epistles are spurious1 he still xxvii maintains the priority of the ,curetonian version4 ,he first announced this change of view emphatically in #ahgc1 when he added3 ,an dem relativ grossern ,alter der syrischen ,textgestalt gegenuber der kuerzeren griechischen halte ich ubrigens nach wie vor fest7#a7 ,in the very paper to which ,dr4 ,lightfoot refers ,lipsius also again says quite distinctly3 ,ich bin noch jetzt ueberzeugt1 dass der ,syrer in zahlreichen ,fallen den relativ urspruenglichsten ,text bewahrt hat 7vgl4 meine ,nachweise in ,niedner's ,zeitschr4 ,s4 #ae;fl747#b7 ,with regard to the whole of this 7#b7 point1 it must be remembered that the only matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny the authenticity of the ,ignatian ,epistles in all forms4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 however1 goes on to throw some light on this point by analysing my general statement of the course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage47#c7 ,the light which he throws seems to pass through so peculiar a medium1 that ,i should be much rather tempted to call it darkness4 ,i beg the reader to favour me with his attention to this matter1 for here commences a serious attack upon the accuracy of my notes and statements1 which is singularly full of error and misrepresentation4 ,the general statement referred to and quoted is as follows3-- ,those three ,syriac epistles hive 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 possess47#a7 ,as early as the sixteenth century1 however1 the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity xxviii of any of the epistles ascribed to ,ignatius4 ,the ,magdeburg ,centuriators first attacked them1 and ,calvin declared 7p4 #bfj7 them to be spurious17#a7 an opinion fully shared by ,chemnitz1 ,dallseus1 and others1 and similar doubts1 more or less definite1 were expressed throughout the seventeenth century17#b7 and onward to comparatively recent times17#c7 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 recognize that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established1 and that they can only be considered later and spurious compositions47#d77a7 ,in the first note 7#a7 on p4 #bei ,i referred to ,bunsen1 ,bleek1 ,boehringer1 ,cureton1 ,ewald1 ,lipsius1 ,milman1 ,ritschl1 and ,weiss1 and ,dr4 ,lightfoot proceeds to analyze my statements as follows3 and ,i at once put his explanation and my text in parallel columns1 italicising parts of both to call more immediate attention to the point3-- ,the ,text4 ,many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be the only authentic ,epistles of ,ignatius1 whilst others 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 possess47#a7 ,dr4 ,lightfoot's ,statement4 ,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 7the ,curetonian ,epistles7 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 possess4'7#b7 ,it must be evident to any one who reads the context7#c7 that in this sentence ,i am stating opinions expressed in favour of the ,curetonian ,epistles1 and that the note1 which is naturally put at the end of that sentence1 must be intended to represent this favourable opinion1 whether of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or xxix merely the relative priority4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot quietly suppresses1 in his comments1 the main statement of the text which the note illustrates1 and then throws light upon the point by the following remarks3-- ,dr4 ,lightfoot's ,statement3 ,the reader1 therefore1 will hardly be prepared to hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the ,ignatian letters as spurious4 ,bleek alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty while inclining to ,bunsen's view2 the other eight distinctly maintain the genuineness of the ,curetonian letters4' ,the ,truth3 ,cureton1 ,bunsen1 ,boehringer1 ,ewald1 ,milman1 ,ritschl1 and ,weiss maintain both the priority and genuineness of the ,syriac ,epistles4 ,bleek will not commit himself to a distinct recognition of the letters in any form4 ,of the ,vossian ,epistles1 he says3 ,aber auch die ,echtheit dieser ,recension ist keineswegs sicher4 ,he considers the priority of the ,curetonian in the highest degree probable4 ,lipsius rejects all the ,epistles1 as ,i have already said1 but maintains the priority of the ,syriac4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot's statement1 therefore1 is a total misrepresentation of the facts1 and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury4 ,not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate1 but would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note was totally wrong1 when in fact it is literally correct4 ,continuing his analysis1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot fights almost every inch of the ground in the very same style4 ,he cannot contradict my statement that so early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the ,epistles ascribed #a ,contemporary ,beview1 ,february1 #ahge1 p4 #cdb4 ,in a note ,dr4 ,lightfoot states that my references to ,lipsius are to his earlier works1 where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the ,curetonian ,epistles4 ,certainly they are so1 but in the right place1 two pages farther on1 ,i refer to the writings in which he rejects the authenticity1 whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority of these letters xxx to ,ignatius1 and that the ,magdeburg ,centuriators attacked them1 and ,calvin declared them to be spurious17#a7 but ,dr4 ,lightfoot says3 ,the criticisms of ,calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the ,long ,recension alone47#b7 ,of course only the ,long ,recension was at that time known4 ,rivet replies to ,campianus that ,calvin's objections were not against ,ignatius but the ,jesuits who had corrupted him47#c7 ,this is the usual retort theological1 but as ,i have quoted the words of ,calvin the reader may judge for himself4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot then says3 ,the clause which follows contains a direct misstatement4 ,chemnitz did not folly share the opinion that they were spurious2 on the contrary1 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 power1 do4' 7#d7 ,pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve1 for ,chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these ,epistles as evidence4 ,in treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts of them with respect1 ,chemnitz does nothing more than the ,magdeburg ,centuriators1 but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing them to ,ignatius himself4 ,the ,epistles in the ,long ,recension were before ,chemnitz both in the ,latin and ,greek forms4 ,he says of them3 4444 et multas habent non contemnendas sententias1 presertim sicut ,graece leguntur4 ,admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca1 quae profecto non referunt gravitatem ,apostolicam4 #a ,calvin's expressions are3 ,nihil moniis illis1 quro sub ,ignatii nomine editae sunt1 putidius4 ,quo minus tolerabilis est eorum impudentia1 qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt4 ,inst4 ,chr4 ,bel4 i4 #ac1 p#ci4 xxxi ,adulteratas enim jam esse illas epistolas1 vel inde colligitur4 ,he then shows that quotations in ancient writers purporting to be taken from the ,epistles of ,ignatius are not found in these extant epistles at all1 and says3 ,de ,epistolis igitur illis ,ignatii1 quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur1 merito dubitamus3 transformatse enim videntur in multis locis1 ad stabiliendum statum regni ,pontificii47l7 ,even when he speaks in favour of them he damns them with faint praise4 ,the whole of the discussion turns upon the word fully1 and is an instance of the minute criticism of my critic1 who evidently is not directly acquainted with ,chemnitz4 ,a shade more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes1 and here again ,i must closely follow him4 ,my note 7#b7 p4 #bfj reads as follows3-- #b ,by ,bochartus1 ,aubertin1 ,blondel1 ,basnage1 ,casaubon1 ,cocus1 ,humfrey1 ,rivetus1 ,salmasius1 ,socinus 7,faustus71 ,parker1 ,petau1 c2 c42 cf4 ,jacobson1 ,patr4 ,apost41 i4 p4 jolt42 ,cureton ,vindiciae ,ignatianae1 #ahdf1 appendix4 ,upon this ,dr4 ,lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks3 ,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 ,ignatius4'7#b7 ,as ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 in the first sentence just quoted1 recognizes what is the most important point of all1 it is a pity that1 throughout the whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question1 he persistently ignores my xxxii very careful definition of the purpose for which they are quoted4 ,it is difficult1 without entering into minute classifications1 accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of a great number of writers1 and briefly convey a fair idea of the course of critical judgment4 ,desirous1 therefore1 of embracing a large class1--for both this note and the next1 with mere difference of epoch1 illustrate the same statement in the text1--and not to overstate the case on my own side1 ,i used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase1 decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the ,epistles1 and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did not fully accept them4 ,i said1 then1 in guarded terms1--and ,i italicise the part which ,dr4 ,lightfoot chooses to suppress1--that similar doubts1 more or less definite1 were expressed by the writers referred to4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot admits that ,bochart directly condemns one ,epistle1 and would probably have condemned the rest also2 that ,aubertin1 ,blondel1 ,basnage1 ,r4 ,parker1 and ,saumaise actually rejected all2 and that ,cook pronounces them either supposititious or shamefully corrupted4 ,so far1 therefore1 there can be no dispute4 ,i will now take the rest in succession4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot says that ,humfrey considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated1 but he believes them genuine in the main4 ,dr4 ,google has so completely warped the statement in the text1 that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of the ,epistles in the note1 but had ,i intended to say that ,humfrey and all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the ,epistles ,i should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed doubts more or less definite1 which ,humfrey does4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot says that ,socinus denounces corruptions and xxxiii anachronisms1 but so far as ,i can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter4 ,his very denunciations1 however1 are certainly the expression of doubts1 more or less definite4 ,casaubon1 so far from rejecting them altogether1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot says1 promises to defend the antiquity of some of the ,epistles with new arguments4 ,but ,i have never affirmed that he rejected them altogether4 ,casaubon died before he fulfilled the promise referred to1 so that we cannot determine what arguments he might have used4 ,i must point out1 however1 that the antiquity does not necessarily involve the authenticity of a document4 ,with regard to ,rivet the case is different ,i had overlooked the fact that in a subsequent edition of the work referred to1 after receiving ,archbishop ,ushers edition of the ,short ,recension1 he had given his adhesion to that form of the ,epistles47#a7 ,this fact is also mentioned by ,pearson1 and ,i ought to have observed it47#b7 ,petau1 the last of the writers referred to1 says3 ,equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas1 ac depravatas fuisse3 turn aliquas esse supposititias3 verum nullas omnino ab ,ignatio ,epistolas esse scriptas1 id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio4 ,he then goes on to mention the recent publication of the ,vossian ,epistles and the version of ,usher1 and the learned ,jesuit ,father has no more decided opinion to express than3 ut haec prudens1 ac justa suspicio sit1 illas esse genuinas ,ignatii epistolas1 quas antiquorum consensus illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit7#c7 ,the next note 7#c71 p4 #bfj1 was only separated from the xxxiv preceding for convenience of reference1 and ,dr4 ,lightfoot quotes and comments upon it as follows3 ,the next note1 p4 #bfj1 is as follows3--7,see scanned page4 ,ed47 ,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 observe1 however1 that every one of these references1 except those which ,i have included in brackets1 is given in the appendix to ,cureton's ,vindicia ,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 bearing87#a7 ,i do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might suffice1 under some circumstances1 to compile a note1 although it is here advanced as an important xxxv point to observe1 but ,i call attention to the unfair spirit in which ,dr4 ,lightfoot's criticisms are made4 ,i ask every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to insinuate1 if not directly to say1 that1 because some of the references in a note are also given by ,cureton1 ,i simply took them from him1 and thus imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references1 and further to insinuate that ,i here and there transposed the order apparently to conceal the source8 ,this is a kind of criticism which ,i very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and reverend opponent4 ,now1 as full quotations are given in ,cureton's appendix1 ,i should have been perfectly entitled to take references from it1 had ,i pleased1 and for the convenience of many readers ,i distinctly indicate ,cureton's work1 in the note1 as a source to be compared4 ,the fact is1 however1 that ,i did not take the references from ,cureton1 but in every case derived them from the works themselves1 and if the note seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading1 it certainly does not misrepresent the fact1 for ,i took the trouble to make myself acquainted with the by-paths of ,ignatian literature4 ,now in analysing the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they illustrate the statement that doubts1 more or less definite continued to be expressed regarding the ,ignatian ,epistles4 ,i am much obliged to ,dr4 ,lightfoot for drawing my attention to ,wotton4 ,his name is the first in the note1 and it unfortunately was the last in a list on another point in my note-book1 immediately preceding this one1 and was by mistake included in it4 ,i also frankly give up ,weismann1 whose doubts ,i find ,i had exaggerated1 and proceed to examine ,dr4 ,lightfoot's further statements4 ,he says that ,thiersch xxxvi uses the ,curetonian as genuine1 and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the ,vossian4 ,thiersch1 however1 admits that he cannot quote either the seven or the three ,epistles as genuine4 ,he says distinctly3 ,these three ,syriac ,epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an older text1 but merely an epitome of the seven1 for the other notes found in the same ,,ms4 seem to be excerpts4 ,but on the other hand1 the doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven ,epistles1 in the form in which they are known since ,usher's time1 are not yet entirely removed4 ,for no ,,ms4 has yet been found which contains only the seven ,epistles attested by ,eusebius1 a ,,ms4 such as lay before ,eusebius47#a7 ,thiersch1 therefore1 does express doubts1 more or less definite4 ,dr4 ,light-foot then continues3 ,of the rest a considerable number1 as1 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 nucleus47#b7 ,the words which ,i have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my words descriptive of the doubts entertained4 ,i must point out that a leaning towards belief in a genuine nucleus on the part of some of these writers1 by no means excludes the expression of doubts1 more or less definite1 which is all ,i quote them for4 ,i will take each name in order4 ,lardner says3 ,but whether the smaller 7,vossian ,epistles7 themselves are the genuine writings of ,ignatius1 bishop of ,antioch1 is a question that has been much disputed1 and has employed the pens of the ablest critics4 ,and whatever positiveness some may have xxxvii shown on either side1 ,i must own ,i have found it a very difficult question4 ,the opinion which he expresses finally is merely3 it appears to me probable1 that they are for the main the genuine epistles of ,ignatius4 ,beausobre says3 ,je ne veux1 ni defendre1 ni combattre l'authenticite' des ,lettres de ,st4 ,ignace4 ,si elles ne sont pas veritables1 elles ne laissent pas d'etre fort anciennes2 et l'opinion1 qui me paroit la plus raisonnable1 est que les plus pures ont ete inter-poises4 ,schroeckh says that along with the favourable considerations for the shorter 7,vossian7 ,epistles many doubts arise which make them suspicious4 ,he proceeds to point out many grave difficulties1 and anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon the whole1 and he remarks that a very common way of evading these and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of ,ignatius are interpolations of a later time4 ,he concludes with the pertinent observation3 ,however probable this is1 it nevertheless remains as difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages4 ,in fact it would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly doubts1 without definitely rejecting1 all the ,epistles4 ,grtesbach and ,kestner both express doubts more or less definite1 but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy too much space4 ,neander4--,dr4 ,lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from the ,english translation of the first xxxviii edition of ,neander's ,history given by ,cureton in his ,appendix1 has not attended to the brief ,german quotation from the second edition1 and has not examined the original at all1 or he would have seen that1 so far from pronouncing in favour of a genuine nucleus1 ,neander might well have been classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the ,ignatian ,epistles1 instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who merely express doubt4 ,neander says3 ,as the account of the martyrdom of ,ignatius is very suspicious1 so also the ,epistles which suppose the correctness of this suspicious legend1 do not bear throughout the impress of a distinct individuality1 and of a man of that time who is addressing his last words to the communities4 ,a hierarchical purpose is not to be mistaken4 ,in an earlier part of the work he still more emphatically says that1 in the so-called ,ignatian ,epistles1 he recognizes a decided design 7absichtlichkeit7 and then he continues3 as the tradition regarding the journey of ,ignatius to ,rome1 there to be cast to the wild beasts1 seems to me for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious1 his ,epistles1 which pre-suppose the truth of this tradition1 can no longer inspire me with faith in their authenticity4 ,he goes on to state additional grounds for disbelief4 ,baumgarten-,crusius stated in one place1 in regard to the seven ,epistles1 that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the extant may have formed part of the original ,epistles1 and in a note he excepts only the passages quoted by the ,fathers4 xxxix ,he seems to agree with ,semler and others that the two ,recensions are probably the result of manipulations of the original1 the shorter form being more in ecclesiastical1 the longer in dogmatic interest4 ,some years later he remarked that inquiries into the ,epistles1 although not yet concluded1 had rather tended towards the earlier view that the ,shorter ,recension was more original than the ,long1 but that even the shorter may have suffered1 if not from manipulations 7,ueberarbeitungen7 from interpolations4 ,this very cautious statement1 it will be observed1 is wholly relative1 and does not in the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material of the letters cannot be ascertained4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly unfounded1 and in most cases glaringly erroneous4 #a ,dr4 ,lightfoot doubts1 and a large mass of critics recognize that the authenticity of none of these ,epistles can be established and that they can only be considered later and spurious compositions4 ,he proceeds to the next note 7#d7 with the same unhesitating vigour1 and characterizes it as equally unfortunate4 ,wherever it has been possible1 ,dr4 ,light-foot has succeeded in misrepresenting the purpose of my notes1 although he has recognized how important it is to ascertain this correctly1 and in this instance he has done so again4 ,i will put my text and his explanation1 upon the basis of which he analyses the note1 in juxtaposition1 italicising part of my own statement which he altogether disregards3-- ,further examination and more ,references to twenty authorities comprehensive knowledge of the are then given1 as belonging to the subject have confirmed earlier a large mass of critics who recognize xl that the ,ignatian ,epistles1 'can only be considered later and spurious compositions4'7#a7 ,there are here1 in order to embrace a number of references1 two approximate states of opinion represented3 the first1 which leaves the ,epistles in permanent doubt1 as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming to establish their authenticity2 and the second1 which positively pronounces them to be spurious4 ,out of the twenty authorities referred to1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming what he states to be the purpose of the note4 ,he seems to consider that a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot be defined invalidates my reference4 ,i maintain1 however1 that it does not4 ,it is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the extant1 letters cannot be established without denying that there may have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may have been based4 ,i will analyse the six references4 ,bleek4--,dr4 ,lightfoot says3 ,of these ,bleek 7already cited in a previous note7 expresses no definite opinion4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot omits to mention that ,i do not refer to ,bleek directly1 but by ,cf4 merely request consideration of his opinions4 ,i have already partly stated ,bleek's view4 ,after pointing out some difficulties1 he says generally3 ,it comes to this1 that the origin of the ,ignatian ,epistles themselves is still very doubtful4 ,he refuses xli to make use of a passage because it is only found in the ,long ,recension1 and another which occurs in the ,shorter ,recension he does not consider evidence1 because1 first1 he says1 ,the authenticity of this ,recension also is by no means certain1 and1 next1 the ,cureton ,epistles discredit the others4 ,whether this ,recension 7the ,curetonian7 is more original than the shorter ,greek is certainly not altogether certain1 but4444 in the highest degree probable4 ,in another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences in the ,ignatian ,epistles1 because it is still very doubtful how the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these ,ignatian ,epistles themselves1 in the different ,recensions in which we possess them47#a7 ,in fact he did not consider that their authenticity could be established4 ,i do not1 however1 include him here at all4 ,gfroerer4--,dr4 ,lightfoot1 again1 omits to state that ,i do not cite this writer like the others1 but by a ,cf4 merely suggest a reference to his remarks4 ,harless1 according to ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 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 ,recension4 ,this is a mistake4 ,harless quotes a passage in connection with ,paul's ,epistle to the ,ephesians with the distinct remark3 ,in this case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the ,recensions is in xlii part removed through the circumstance that both ,recensions have the passage4 ,he recognizes that the completeness of the proof that ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of ,marcion is somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of ,ignatius4 ,he did not in fact venture to consider the ,ignatian ,epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century4 ,schliemann1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot states1 says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to recognize a genuine substratum1' though he is not satisfied with either existing recension4 ,now what ,schliemann says is this3 ,certainly neither the ,shorter and still less the ,longer ,recension in which we possess these ,epistles can lay claim to authenticity4 ,only if we must1 nevertheless1 without doubt suppose a genuine substratum1 c4 ,in a note he adds3 ,the external testimonies oblige me to recognize a genuine substratum--,poly-carp already speaks of the same in ,ch4 xiii4 of his ,epistle4 ,but that in their present form they do not proceed from ,ignatius the contents sufficiently show4 ,hase1 according to ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 commits himself to no opinion4 ,if he does not deliberately and directly do so1 he indicates what that opinion is with sufficient clearness4 ,the ,long ,recension1 he says1 bears the marks of later manipulation1 and excites suspicion of an invention in favour of ,episcopacy1 and the shorter text is not fully attested either4 ,the ,curetonian ,epistles with the shortest and least hierarchical text give the impression of being an epitome4 ,but xliii even if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these ,epistles1 yet they would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the second century4 ,these last words are a clear admission of his opinion that the authenticity cannot be established4 ,lechler candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in favour of the authenticity of the ,epistles in the ,shorter ,recension1 but on reading them through1 he says that an impression unfavourable to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been able to shake off4 ,he proceeds to point out their internal improbability1 and other difficulties connected with the supposed journey1 which make it still more improbable that ,ignatius himself can really have written these ,epistles in this situation4 ,lechler does not consider that the ,curetonian ,epistles strengthen the case2 and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the possession of certainty and cheerfulness of conviction of the inauthenticity of the ,ignatian ,epistles1 he at least very clearly justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be established4 ,now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon my notes8 ,out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of ,christian literature1 it appears that--much to my regret--,i have inserted one name totally by accident1 overlooked that the doubts of another had been removed by the subsequent publication of the ,short ,recension and consequently xliv erroneously classed him1 and ,i withdraw a third whose doubts ,i consider that ,i have overrated4 ,mistakes to this extent in dealing with such a mass of references1 or a difference of a shade more or less in the representation of critical opinions1 not always clearly expressed1 may1 ,i hope1 be excusable1 and ,i can only say that ,i am only too glad to correct such errors4 ,on the other hand1 a critic who attacks such references1 in such a tone1 and with such wholesale accusations of misstatement and misrepresentation1 was bound to be accurate1 and ,i have shown that ,dr4 ,lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact1 but unfair in his statements of my purpose4 ,i am happy1 however1 to be able to make use of his own words and say3 ,i may perhaps have fallen into some errors of detail1 though ,i have endeavoured to avoid them1 but the main conclusions are1 ,i believe1 irrefragable47l7 ,there are further misstatements made by ,dr4 ,lightfoot to which ,i must briefly refer before turning to other matters4 ,he says1 with unhesitating boldness3-- ,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 him4 ,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 ,uhlhom1 whom he cites1 not less than of ,merx and ,denzinger and ,zahn1 whom he neglects to cite4 ,now first as regards the facts4 ,i do not maintain the #a ,contemporary ,review1 ,february1 #ahge1 p4 #ahc4 xlv priority of the ,curetonian ,epistles in this book myself1 indeed ,i express no personal opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general declaration of belief1 the decision of which excites the wrath of my diffident critic1 that the ,epistles in no form have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the third century1 even if they have any value at all4 ,i merely represent the opinion of others regarding those ,epistles4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the ,armenian version1 and ,i call special attention to the passages in the above quotation which ,i have taken the liberty of italicising4 ,i venture to say emphatically that1 so far from being considered the key of the position1 this version has1 with some exceptions1 played a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy1 and as ,dr4 ,lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers1 ,i will state how the case stands with regard to them4 ,weiss1 ,lipsius1 ,uhlhorn1 ,merx1 and ,zahn certainly more or less prominently deal with them4 ,denzinger1 however1 only refers to ,petermann's publication1 which appeared while his own brochure was passing through the press1 in a short note at the end1 and in again writing on the ,ignatian question1 two years after17#a7 he does not even allude to the ,armenian version4 ,beyond the barest historical reference to ,petermann's work1 ,hilgenfeld does not discuss the ,armenian version at all ,so much for the writers actually mentioned by ,dr4 ,lightfoot4 ,as for the writers who have specially discussed the ,ignatian question during the last quarter of a century3 ,cureton apparently did not think it worth while to add anything regarding the ,armenian version of ,petermann xlvi after its appearance2 ,bunsen refutes ,petermann's arguments in a few pages of his ,hippolytus27#a7 ,baur1 who wrote against ,bunsen and the ,curetonian letters1 and1 according to ,dr4 ,lightfoot's representation1 should have found this the most formidable argument against them1 does not anywhere1 subsequent to their publication1 even allude to the ,armenian ,epistles2 ,ewald1 in a note of a couple of lines17#b7 refers to ,petermann's ,epistles as identical with a post-,eusebian manipulated form of the ,epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his text2 ,dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them27#c7 ,hefele7#d7 supports them at somewhat greater length2 but ,bleek1 ,volkmar1 ,tischendorf1 ,bohringer1 ,scholten1 and others have not thought them worthy of special notice1 at any rate none of these nor any other writers of any weight have1 so far as ,i am aware1 introduced them into the controversy at all4 ,the argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to introduce into a discussion already too long and complicated1 and ,i refer the reader to ,bunsen's reply to it1 from which1 however1 ,i may quote the following lines3 ,but it appears to me scarcely serious to say3 there are the ,seven ,letters in ,armenian1 and ,i maintain1 they prove that ,coreton's text is an incomplete extract1 because1 ,i think1 ,i have found some ,syriac idioms in the ,armenian text6 ,well1 if that is not a joke1 it simply proves1 according to ordinary logic1 that the ,seven ,letters must have once been translated into ,syriac4 ,but how can it prove that the ,greek original of xlvii this supposed ,syriac version is the genuine text1 and not an interpolated and partially forged one8 7l7 ,dr4 ,lightfoot blames me for omitting to introduce this argument1 on the ground that 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 account ,now all this is sheer misrepresentation4 ,i do not assume the priority of the ,curetonian ,epistles1 and ,i examine all the passages contained in the seven ,greek ,epistles which have any bearing upon our ,gospels4 ,passing on to another point1 ,i say3 ,seven ,epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant1 all equally purporting to be by ,ignatius1 simply because only that number were mentioned by ,eusebius47#b7 ,another passage is also quoted by ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 which will be found a little further on1 where it is taken for facility of reference4 ,upon this he writes as follows3 ,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#a74 ,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#b74 ,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#c74 ,they abound in anachronisms which point to an age later than ,eusebius1 as the date of their composition47#c7 ,although ,i do not really say in the above that no other pleas are advanced in favour of the seven ,epistles1 xlviii ,i contend that1 reduced to its simplest form1 the argument for that special number rests mainly1 if not altogether1 upon their mention by ,eusebius4 ,the very first reason 7#a7 advanced by ,dr4 ,lightfoot to refute me is a practical admission of the correctness of my statement1 for the eight ,epistles are put out of court because even ,theodoret1 a century after ,eusebius1 does not betray any knowledge of them1 but the silence of ,eusebius1 the earlier witness1 is infinitely more important1 and it merely receives some increase of significance from the silence of ,theodoret4 ,suppose1 however1 that ,eusebius had referred to any of them1 how changed their position would have been6 ,the ,epistles referred to would have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has conferred upon the rest ,the fact is1 moreover1 that1 throughout the controversy1 the two divisions of ,epistles are commonly designated the prae- and post-,eusebian1 making him the turning-point of the controversy4 ,indeed1 further on1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot himself admits3 ,the testimony of ,eusebius first differentiates them47#a7 ,the argument 7#b and #c7 that the eight rejected ,epistles betray anachronisms and interpolations1 is no refutation of my statement1 for the same accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the ,vossian ,epistles4 ,the fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second paragraph quoted by ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 to which ,i refer above1 and which ,i have reserved till now as it requires more detailed notice4 ,it is this3 ,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 ,,mss4 with the other eight ,epistles1 universally pronounced to be spurious1 without distinction of any kind1 and all have equal honour47#b7 xlix ,i will at once give ,dr4 ,lightfoot's comment on this1 in contrast with the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and orthodoxy--,dr4 ,tregelles3 ,dr4 ,lightfoot4 7#d74 ,it is not strictly true that the seven ,epistles are mixed up with the confessedly spurious ,epistles4 ,in the ,greek and ,latin ,,mss41 as also in the ,armenian version1 the spurious ,epistles come after the others2 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 letters47#a7 ,dr4 ,tregelles4 ,it is a mistake to speak of seven ,ignatian ,epistles in ,greek having been transmitted to us1 for no such seven exist1 except through their having been selected by editors from the ,medicean ,,ms4 which contains so much that is confessedly spurious2--a fact which some who imagine a diplomatic transmission of seven have overlooked47#b7 ,i will further quote the words of ,cureton1 for as ,dr4 ,lightfoot advances nothing but assertions1 it is well to meet him with the testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own statement ,cureton says3 ,again1 there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the ,epistles of ,st4 ,ignatius1 as exhibited in the ,medicean ,,ms41 and in the ancient ,latin version corresponding with it1 which is1 that the ,epistles presumed to be the genuine production of that holy ,martyr are mixed up with others1 which are almost universally allowed to be spurious4 ,both in the ,greek and ,latin ,,mss4 all these are placed upon the same footing1 and no distinction is drawn between them2 and the only ground which has hitherto been a ,note to ,home's ,int4 to the ,holy ,scriptures1 #abth ed41 #ahfi1 iv4 p4 #ccb1 note #a4 ,the italics are in the original4 #a ,contemporary ,beview1 ,february1 #ahge1 p4 #cdg4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note3 ,the ,roman ,epistle indeed has been separated from its companions1 and is embedded 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 ,,ms4 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 ,zahn1 ,ignatius von ,antiochien1 p4 #aaa4 l assumed for their separation has been the specification of some of them by ,eusebius and his omission of any mention of the others4' ,the external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour of the rejected ,greek ,epistles1 with the exception of that to the ,philip-pians1 is certainly greater than that in favour of those which have been received4' ,they are found in all the manuscripts1 both ,greek and ,latin1 in the same form2 while the others exhibit two distinct and very different recensions1 if we except the ,epistle to ,polycarp1 in which the variations are very few4 ,of these two recensions the shorter has been most generally received3 the circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its reception2 and the text of the ,medicean ,codex and of the two copies of the corresponding ,latin version belonging to ,cains ,college1 ,cambridge1 and ,corpus ,christi ,college1 ,oxford1 has been adopted4444 ,in all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the former and latter ,epistles3 all are placed upon the same basis2 and there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of the ,greek recension or the translator of the ,latin version esteemed one to be better or more genuine than another4 ,nor can any prejudice result to the ,epistles to the ,tarsians1 to the ,antiochians1 and to ,hero1 from the circumstance of their being placed after the others in the collection2 for they are evidently arranged in chronological order1 and rank after the rest as having been written from ,philippi1 at which place ,ignatius is said to have arrived after he had despatched the previous ,letters4 ,so far1 therefore1 as the evidence of all the existing copies1 ,latin as well as ,greek1 of both the recensions is to be considered1 it is certainly in favour of the rejected ,epistles1 rather than of those which have been retained4 7#b7 ,proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts1 ,i will very briefly show the order in which these ,epistles have been found in some of the principal ,,mss4 ,one of the earliest published was the ancient ,latin version of eleven ,epistles edited by ,j4 ,faber ,stapulensis in #adih1 which was at least quoted in the ninth century1 and which in the subjoined table ,i shall mark ,a17#c7 and which also exhibits the order of ,cod4 ,vat #hei1 assigned to the eleventh century47#d7 ,the next 7,b7 is a ,greek ,,ms4 edited by ,valentinus ,pacaeus in #aeeg17e7 and the order at li the same time represents that of the ,cod4 ,pal4 #aej47a7 ,the third 7,c7 is the ancient ,latin translation1 referred to above1 published by ,archbishop ,usher47#b7 ,the fourth 7,d7 is the celebrated ,medicean ,,ms4 assigned to the eleventh century1 and published by ,vossiusin #afdf47c7 ,this also represents the order of the ,cod4 ,casanatensis ,g4 ,v4 #ad47d7 ,i italicise the rejected ,epistles3 7,see scanned page in the html file1 ,ed47 ,i have given the order in ,,mss4 containing the ,long ,recension as well as the ,vossian1 because1 however much some may desire to exclude them1 the variety of arrangement is notable1 and presents features which have an undeniable bearing upon this question4 ,taking the ,vossian ,,ms41 it is obvious that1 without any distinction whatever between the genuine and the spurious1 it contains lii three of the false ,epistles1 and does not contain the so-called genuine ,epistle to the ,romans at all4 ,the ,epistle to the ,romans1 in fact1 is1 to use ,dr4 ,lightfoot's own expression1 embedded in the ,martyrology1 which is as spurious as any of the epistles4 ,this circumstance alone would justify the assertion which ,dr4 ,lightfoot contradicts4 ,i must now1 in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes1 turn for a short time to consider objections raised by ,dr4 ,westcott4 ,whilst ,i have to thank him for greater courtesy1 ,i regret that ,i must point out serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my references which1 as matters of fact1 admit of practical test4 ,before proceeding to them ,i may make one or two general observations4 ,dr4 ,westcott says3 ,i may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings1 arranged1 for the most part1 alphabetically1 which have in very many cases no value whatever for a scholar1 while they can only oppress the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics are on one side4 ,the questions to be discussed must be decided by evidence and by argument and not by authority47#a7 ,now the fact is that hitherto1 in ,england1 argument and evidence have almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in this work1 and it has practically been decided by the authority of the ,church1 rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted reverence4 ,the orthodox works usually written on the subject have1 to a very great extent1 suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned and independent critics1 or treated them as insignificant1 and worthy of little more than a passing word of pious indignation4 ,at the same time1 therefore1 that ,i endeavour1 to liii the best of my ability1 to decide these questions by evidence and argument1 in opposition to mere ecclesiastical authority1 ,i refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to works where they may find them dis-4 cussed4 ,i must be permitted to add1 that ,i do not consider ,i uselessly burden my pages by references to critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them1 for it is right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion1 and recognize that belief is not so easy and matter of course a thing as they have been led to suppose1 or the unanimity quite so complete as ,english divines have often seemed to represent it ,dr4 ,westcott1 however1 omits to state that ,i as persistently refer to writers who oppose1 as to those who favour1 my own conclusions4 ,dr4 ,westcott proceeds to make the accusation which ,i now desire to investigate4 ,he says3 ,writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion which is involved in their characteristic assumptions4 ,and more than this1 the references are not unfrequently actually misleading4 ,one example will show that ,i do not speak too strongly47l7 ,dr4 ,westcott has scrutinized this work with great minuteness1 and1 as ,i shall presently explain1 he has selected his example with evident care4 ,the idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by a single instance is somewhat startling1 but to insinuate that a supposed contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work1 as he does1 if ,i rightly understand his subsequent expressions1 is scarcely worthy of ,dr4 ,westcott1 although ,i am sure he does not mean to be unfair4 ,the example selected is as follows3 ,it has been demonstrated that ,ignatius was not sent to ,rome at all1 but suffered martyrdom in ,antioch itself on the #b77th ,december1 a4d4 #aae liv 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 month4#d' ,the references in support of these statements are the following3 #h ,baur1 ,urspr4 d4 ,epiec4,tub4 ,zeitschr4 f4,theol4 #ahch1 ,h4 #c1 p4 #aee anm42 ,bretschneider1 ,probabilia1 c1 p4 #ahe2 ,bleek1 ,einl4,n4 ,t41 p4 #add2 ,guericke1 ,h99bucht ,kt 41 i p4 #adh2 ,hagenbach1 ,k4 ,g41 i4 p4 #aac f42 ,davidson1 ,introd4 ,n4 ,t41i4 p4 #ai2 ,mayerhoff1 ,eitll4 petr4 ,schr41 p4 #gi2 ,scholten1 ,die ,sit4 ,zeugnisse1 p4 #dj1 p4 #ej f42 ,volkmar1 ,der ,ursprung1 p4 #eb2 ,r'buch ,einl4 ,apocr41 i4 p4 #aba f41 p4 #acf4 #d ,volkmar1 ,wuch ,einl4 ,apocr41 i4 p4 #aba ff41 #acf f42 ,der ,ursprung1 p4 #eb ff42 ,baur1 ,ursp4 d4 ,episc4 ,tub4 ,zeitschr4 f4 ,th4 #ahch1 ,h4 #c1 p4 #adi f42 ,gesch4 chr4 ,kirehe1 #ahfc1 i4 p4 #ddj1 anm4 #a42 ,davidson1 ,introd4 ,n4 ,t41 ,lp4 #ai2 ,scholten1 ,die ,hit4 ,zeugnisse1 p4 #ea f42 cf4 ,francke1 ,zur ,gesch4 ,trojans1 u4 s4 w4 #ahdj1 p4 #bec f42 ,hilgenfeld1 ,die ap4 ,vster1 p4 #bad4 ,upon this ,dr4 ,westcott remarks3 ,such an array of authorities1 drawn from different schools1 cannot but appear overwhelming2 and the fact that about half of them are quoted twice over emphasizes the implied precision of their testimony as to the two points affirmed4 ,dr4 ,westcott1 however1 has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact that1 although some of the writers are quoted twice1 the two notes differ in almost every particular1 many of the names in note #c being absent from note #d1 other names being inserted in the latter which do not appear in the former1 an alteration being in most cases made in the place referred to1 and the order in which the authorities are placed being significantly varied4 ,for instance1 in note #c the reference to ,volkmar is the last1 but it is the first in note #d2 whilst a similar transposition of order takes place in his works1 and alterations in the pages4 ,the references in note #c1 in fact1 are given for the date occurring in the course of the sentence1 whilst those in note #d1 placed at the end1 are intended to support the whole statement which is lv made4 ,i must1 however1 explain an omission1 which is pretty obvious1 but which ,i regret may have misled ,dr4 ,westcott in regard to note #c1 although it does not affect note #d4 ,headers are probably aware that there has been1 amongst other points1 a difference of opinion not only as to the place1 but also the date of the martyrdom of ,ignatius4 ,i have in every other case carefully stated the question of date1 and my omission in this instance is1 ,i think1 the only exception in the book4 ,the fact is1 that ,i had originally in the text the words which ,i now add to the note3 ,the martyrdom has been variously dated about a4d4 #ajg1 or a4d4 #aae-aaf1 but whether assigning the event to ,home or to ,antioch a majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later date4 ,thinking it unnecessary1 under the circumstances1 to burden the text with this1 ,i removed it with the design of putting the statement at the head of note #c1 with reference to a4d4 #aae in the text1 but unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of this intention1 as well4as the addition of some fuller references to the writers quoted1 which had been omitted1 and the point1 to my infinite regret1 was overlooked4 ,the whole of the authorities in note #c1 therefore1 do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in ,antioch1 although they all confirm the date1 for which ,i really referred to them4 ,with this explanation1 and marking the omitted references7#a7 by placing them within brackets1 ,i proceed to analyze the two notes in contrast with ,dr4 ,westcott's statements4 #a ,these consist only of an additional page of ,baur's work first quoted1 and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second note1 but accidentally left out of the note #c4 lvi ,see page scan1 ,ed4 lvii ,see page scan1 ,ed4 lviii ,see page scan1 ,ed4 lix ,it will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the later date assigned to the martyrdom1 and that ,baur1 in the note in which ,dr4 ,westcott finds nothing in any way bearing upon the history except a passing supposition1 really advances a weighty argument for it and against the earlier date1 and as ,dr4 ,westcott considers1 rightly1 that argument should decide everything1 ,i am surprised that he has not perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as statements of evidence4 ,to sum up the opinions expressed1 ,i may state that whilst all the nine writers support the later date1 for which purpose they were quoted1 three of them 7,bleek1 ,guericke1 and ,mayerhoff7 ascribe the martyrdom to ,rome1 one 7,brctschneider7 mentions no place1 one 7,hagenbach7 is doubtful1 but leans to ,antioch1 and the other four declare for the martyrdom in ,antioch4 ,nothing1 however1 could show more conclusively the purpose of note #c1 which ,i have explained1 than this very contradiction1 and the fact that ,i claim for the general statement in the text1 regarding the martyrdom in ,antioch itself in opposition to the legend of the journey to and death in ,rome1 only the authorities in note #d1 which ,i shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with ,dr4 ,westcott's statements1 and here #a beg the favour of the readers attention4 7,see page scans1 lix to lxii ,ed47 lxiii ,at the close of this analysis ,dr4 ,westcott sums up the result as follows3 ,in this case1 therefore1 again1 ,volkmar alone offers any arguments in support of the statement in the text2 and the final result of the references is1 that the alleged 'demonstration' is1 at the most1 what ,scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture4'7#c7 #c ,on the ,canon1 ,preface #dth ed4 p4 xxiv4 ,dr4 ,westcott adds1 in a note1 ,it may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display of learning in connexion with ,ignatius1 ,i do not see even in the second edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of ,zahn4 ,i might reply to this that my ,,ms4 had left my hands before ,zahn's work had reached ,england1 but1 moreover1 the work contains nothing new to which reference was necessary4 lxiv ,it is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of the fact than the statement that ,volkmar alone offers any arguments in support of the statement in the text1 and it is incomprehensible upon any ordinary theory4 ,my mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate idea of the elaborate arguments of ,volkmar1 ,baur1 and ,hilgenfeld1 but ,i hope to state their main features1 a few pages on4 ,with regard to ,dr4 ,westcott's remark on the alleged 'demonstration1' it must be evident that when a writer states anything to be demonstrated he expresses his own belief4 ,it is impossible to secure absolute unanimity of opinion1 and the only question in such a case is whether ,i refer to writers1 in connection with the circumstances which ,i affirm to be demonstrated1 who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it4 ,a critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient1 but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all when the elaborate reasoning of men like ,volkmar1 ,baur and ,hilgenfeld is referred to4 ,therefore1 when he goes on to say3 ,it seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results4 ,any one who will candidly consider this analysis will1 ,i believe1 agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation1 which runs through the whole work1 is justly characterized as frivolous and misleading47#a7 ,dr4 ,westcott must excuse my retorting that1 not my annotation1 but his own criticism of it1 endorsed by ,professor ,lightfoot1 is frivolous and misleading1 and ,i venture to hope that this analysis1 tedious as it has been1 may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy of my references4 ,as ,dr4 ,westcott does not advance any further arguments lxv of his own in regard to the ,ignatian controversy1 ,i may now return to ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 and complete my reply to his objections2 but ,i must do so with extreme brevity1 as ,i have already devoted too much space to this subject1 and must now come to a close4 ,to the argument that it is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the ten leopards described in the ,epistles 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 condemned1 as well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various churches1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot advances arguments1 derived from ,zahn1 regarding the ,roman procedure in cases that are said to be known4 ,these cases1 however1 are neither analogous1 nor have they the force which is assumed4 ,that ,christians imprisoned for their religious belief should receive their nourishment1 while in prison1 from friends1 is anything but extraordinary1 and that bribes should secure access to them in many cases1 and some mitigation of suffering1 is possible4 ,the case of ,ignatius1 however1 is very different4 ,if the meaning of --,greek-- be that1 although receiving bribes1 the ten leopards only became more cruel1 the very reverse of the leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the ,roman procedure is described by the writer himself as actually taking place1 and certainly nothing approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-,ignatius can be pointed out in any known instance4 ,the case of ,saturus and ,perpetua1 even if true1 is no confirmation1 the circumstances being very different2 7l7 but in lxvi fact there is no evidence whatever that the extant history was written by either of them17#a7 but on the contrary1 ,i maintain1 every reason to believe that it was not4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot advances the instance of ,paul as a case in point of a ,christian prisoner treated with great consideration1 and who writes letters freely1 receives visits from his friends1 communicates with churches and individuals as he desires47#b7 ,it is scarcely possible to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-,ignatius and ,paul1 as narrated in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 although doubtless the story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the latter4 ,whilst ,ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a ,christian1 ,paul is not condemned at all1 but stands in the position of a ,roman citizen1 rescued from infuriated ,jews 7xxiii4 #bg71 repeatedly declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds 7xxv4 #be1 xxvi4 #ca71 and who might have been set at liberty but that he had appealed to ,caesar 7xxv4 #aa f41 xxvi4 #cb74 ,his position was one which secured the sympathy of the ,roman soldiers4 ,ignatius 'fights with beasts from ,syria even unto ,rome1' and is cruelly treated by his ten leopards1 but ,paul is represented as receiving very different treatment4 ,felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come and minister to him 7xxiv4 #bc71 and when the voyage is commenced it is said that ,julius1 who had charge of ,paul1 treated him courteously1 and gave him liberty to go to see his friends at ,sidon 7xxvii4 #c74 ,at ,rome he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him 7xxviii4 #af71 and he continued for two years in his own hired house4 lxvii ,these circumstances are totally different from those under which the ,epistles of ,ignatius are said to have been written4 ,but the most powerful testimony1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot goes on to say1 is derived from the representations of a heathen writer47#a7 ,the case of ,peregrinus1 to which he refers1 seems to me even more unfortunate than that of ,paul4 ,of ,peregrinus himself1 historically1 we really know little or nothing1 for the account of ,lucian is scarcely received as serious by any one4 ,lucian narrates that this ,peregrinus ,proteus1 a cynic philosopher1 having been guilty of parricide and other crimes1 found it convenient to leave his own country4 ,in the course of his travels he fell in with ,christians and learnt their doctrines1 and1 according to ,lucian1 the ,christians soon were mere children in his hands1 so that he became in his own person prophet1 high-priest1 and ruler of a synagogue1 and further they spoke of him as a god1 used him as a law-giver1 and elected him their chief man47#b7 ,after a time he was put in prison for his new faith1 which ,lucian says was a real service to him afterwards in his impostures4 ,during the time he was in prison1 he is said to have received those services from ,christians which ,dr4 ,lightfoot quotes4 ,peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the ,governor of ,syria1 who loved philosophy17#c7 and travelled about living in great comfort at the expense of the ,christians1 until at last they quarrelled in consequence1 ,lucian thinks1 of his eating some forbidden food4 ,finally1 ,peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself into the flames of a funeral pile during the ,olympian games4 ,an earthquake is said to have taken lxviii place at the time2 a vulture flew out from the pile crying out with a human voice2 and shortly after ,peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment unhurt by the fire4 ,now this writing1 of which ,i have given the barest sketch1 is a direct satire upon ,christians1 or even1 as ,baur affirms1 a parody of the history of ,jesus47#a7 ,there are no means of ascertaining that any of the events of the ,christian career of ,peregrinus were true1 but it is obvious that1 ,lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to prisoners1 as well as the assiduity and attention of the ,christians to ,peregrinus1 the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of the satire4 ,there is another circumstance which must be mentioned4 ,lucian's account of ,peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the ,ignatian ,epistles as evidence for them47#b7 ,the singular correspondence in this narrative with the account of ,ignatius1 combined with some striking coincidences of expression1 they argue1 show that ,lucian was acquainted with the ,ignatian history1 if not with the ,ignatian letters4 ,these are the words of ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 although he guards himself1 in referring to this argument1 by the words3 if it be true1 and does not express his own opinion2 but he goes on to say3 ,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 epistles47#c7 ,on the contrary1 it is in no case conclusive of anything4 ,if it were true that ,lucian employed1 as the basis of his satire1 the ,ignatian ,epistles and ,martyrology1 lxix it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the treatment of ,christian prisoners4 ,on the other hand1 as this cannot be shown1 his story remains a mere satire with very little historical value4 ,apart from all this1 however1 the case of ,peregrinus1 a man confined in prison for a short time1 under a favourable governor1 and not pursued with any severity1 is no parallel to that of ,ignatius condemned ad bestias and1 according to his own express statement1 cruelly treated by the ten leopards2 and further the liberty of pseudo-,ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of ,peregrinus1 if he was able to write such epistles1 and hold such free intercourse as they represent4 ,i will now1 in the briefest manner possible1 indicate the arguments of the writers referred to in the note7l7 attacked by ,dr4 ,westcott1 in which he cannot find any relevancy1 but which1 in my opinion1 demonstrate that ,ignatius was not sent to ,rome at all1 but suffered martyrdom in ,antioch itself4 ,the reader who wishes to go minutely into the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited1 and ,i will only sketch the case here1 without specifically indicating the source of each argument4 ,where ,i add any particulars ,i will1 when necessary1 give my authorities4 ,the ,ignatian ,epistles and martyrologies set forth that1 during a general persecution of ,christians1 in ,syria at least1 ,ignatius was condemned by ,trajan1 when he wintered in ,antioch during the ,parthian ,war1 to be taken to ,rome and cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre4 ,instead of being sent to ,rome by the short sea voyage1 he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more difficult land route4 ,the ten soldiers who lxx guard him are described by himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to secure kind treatment for him1 so that not in the amphitheatre only1 but all the way from ,syria to ,rome1 by night and day1 by sea and land1 he fights with beasts4 ,notwithstanding this severity1 the ,martyr freely receives deputations from the various ,churches1 who1 far from being molested1 are able to have constant intercourse with him1 and even to accompany him in his journey4 ,he not only converses with these freely1 but he is represented as writing long ,epistles to the various ,churches which1 instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr1 are filled with advanced views of ,church government1 and the dignity of the episcopate4 ,these circumstances1 at the outset1 excite grave suspicions of the truth of the documents1 and of the story which they set forth4 ,when we inquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by historical data1 the reply is emphatically adverse4 ,all that is known of the treatment of ,christians during the reign of ,trajan1 as well as of the character of the ,emperor1 is opposed to the supposition that ,ignatius could have been condemned by ,trajan himself1 or even by a provincial governor1 to be taken to ,rome and there cast to the beasts4 ,it is well known that under ,trajan there was no general persecution of ,christians1 although there may have been instances in which prominent members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular fury and superstition47#a7 #a ,dean ,milman says3 ,trajan1 indeed1 is absolved1 at least by the almost general voice of antiquity1 from the crime of persecuting the ,christians4 ,in a note1 he adds3 ,excepting of ,ignatius1 probably of ,simeon of ,jerusalem1 there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of ,trajan4--,hist1 of ,christianity1 #ahfg1 ii4 p4 #ajc4 lxxi ,an instance of this kind was the martyrdom of ,simeon1 ,bishop of ,jerusalem1 reported by ,hegesippus4 ,he was not condemned ad bestias1 however1 and much less deported to ,rome for the purpose4 ,why should ,ignatius have been so exceptionally treated8 ,in fact1 even during the persecutions under ,marcus ,aurelius1 although ,christians in ,syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts1 there is no instance recorded in which any one condemned to this fate was sent to ,rome4 ,such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of ,trajan and his principles of government4 ,neander1 in a passage quoted by ,baur1 says3 ,as he 7,trajan71 like ,pliny1 considered ,christianity mere fanaticism1 he also probably thought that if severity were combined with clemency1 if too much noise were not made about it1 the open demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by persecution1 the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down1 and the matter by degrees come to an end47#a7 ,this was certainly the policy which mainly characterized his reign4 ,now not only would such a severe sentence have been contrary to such principles1 but the agitation excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a long journey by land through ,asia1 and allowing him to pass through some of the principal cities1 hold constant intercourse with the various ,christian communities1 and address long epistles to them4 ,with the fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent1 such a journey would have been a triumphal progress1 spreading everywhere excitement and enthusiasm4 ,it may not be out of place1 as an indication of the results of impartial examination1 to lxxii point out that ,neander's inability to accept the ,ignatian epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey4 ,we do not recognize the ,emperor ,trajan in this narrative1 7the martyrology7 he says1 therefore cannot but doubt every thing which is related by this document1 as well as that1 during this reign1 ,christians can have been cast to the wild beasts47#a7 ,if1 for a moment1 we suppose that1 instead of being condemned by ,trajan himself1 ,ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor1 the story does not gain greater probability4 ,it is not credible that such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition to the spirit of the ,emperor's government ,besides1 if such a governor did pronounce so severe a sentence1 why did he not execute it in ,antioch8 ,why send the prisoner to ,rome8 ,by doing so he made all the more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the clement ,trajan4 ,the cruelty which dictated a condemnation ad bestias would have been more gratified by execution on the spot1 and there is besides no instance known1 even during the following general persecution1 of ,christians being sent for execution in ,rome4 ,the transport to ,rome is in no case credible1 and the utmost that can be admitted is1 that ,ignatius1 like ,simeon of ,jerusalem1 may have been condemned to death during this reign1 more especially if the event be associated with some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the ,christians1 to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim4 ,we are not without indications of such a cause operating in the case of ,ignatius4 lxxiii ,it is generally admitted that the date of ,trajan's visit to ,antioch is a4d4 #aae1 when he wintered there during the ,parthian ,war4 ,an earthquake occurred on the #acth ,december of that year1 which was well calculated to excite popular superstition4 ,it may not be out of place to quote here the account of the earthquake given by ,dean ,milmau1 who1 although he mentions a different date1 and adheres to the martyrdom in ,rome1 still associates the condemnation of ,ignatius with the earthquake4 ,he says3 ,nevertheless1 at that time there were circumstances which account with singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in ,antioch4444 ,at this very time an earthquake1 more than usually terrible and destructive1 shook the cities of the ,east4 ,antioch suffered its most appalling ravages--,antioch1 crowded with the legionaries prepared for the ,emperor's invasion of the ,east1 with ambassadors and tributary kings from all parts of the ,east4 ,the city shook through all its streets2 houses1 palaces1 theatres1 temples fell crashing down4 ,many were killed3 the ,consul ,pedo died of his hurts4 ,the ,emperor himself hardly escaped through a window1 and took refuge in the ,circus1 where he passed some days in the open air4 ,whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of the ,gods1 who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices8 ,this was towards the end of ,january2 early in ,february the ,christian ,bishop1 ,ignatius1 was arrested4 ,we know how1 during this century1 at every period of public calamity1 whatever that calamity might be1 the cry of the panic-stricken ,heathens was1 ',the ,christians to the lions6' ,it may be that1 in ,trajan's humanity1 in order to prevent a general massacre by the infuriated populace1 or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice1 the execution was ordered to lxxiv take place1 not in ,antioch1 but in ,rome47#a7 ,i contend that these reasons1 on the contrary1 render execution in ,antioch infinitely more probable4 ,to continue1 however3 the earthquake occurred on the #acth1 and the martyrdom of ,ignatius took place on the #bjth ,december1 just a week after the earthquake4 ,his remains1 as we know from ,chrysostom and others1 were1 as an actual fact1 interred at ,antioch4 ,the natural inference is that the martyrdom1 the only part of the ,ignatian story which is credible1 occurred not in ,rome but in ,antioch itself1 in consequence of the superstitious fury against the --,greek-- aroused by the earthquake4 ,i will now go more into the details of the brief statements ,i have just made1 and here we come for the first time to ,john ,malalas4 ,in the first place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the #ac th ,december4 ,i will quote ,dr4 ,lightfoot's own rendering of his further important statement4 ,he says3 ,the words of ,john ,malalas are3 ',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 testimony71 --,greek-- before him --,greek--2 for he was exasperated against him1 because he reviled him4'7#b7 ,dr4 ,lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement4 ,he argues that ,malalas tells foolish stories about other matters1 and1 therefore1 is not to be believed here2 but so simple a piece of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere may record stupid traditions47#c7 ,if the narrative of foolish stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything else stated by those who relate them1 the lxxv whole of the ,fathers are disposed of at one fell swoop1 for they all do so4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot also asserts that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced by ,volkmar receives no countenance from the story of ,malalas1 who gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to the emperor47l7 ,on the other hand1 it in no way contradicts it1 for ,ignatius can only have reviled ,trajan when brought before him1 and his being taken before him may well have been caused by the fury excited by the earthquake1 even if the language of the ,bishop influenced his condemnation2 the whole statement of ,malalas is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details1 and in the main1 of course1 directly supports it4 ,then ,dr4 ,lightfoot actually makes use of the following extraordinary argument3 ,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 --,greek--1 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 --,greek-- 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 expression47#b7 ,this is a favourite device4 ,in case his abuse of poor ,malalas should not sufficiently discredit him1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot attempts to explain away his language4 ,it would be difficult indeed to show that the words --,greek--1 already used in that sense in the ,new ,testament1 were not1 at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of ,ignatius which ,malalas could have had before him was written1 employed to express martyrdom1 when applied to such a case1 as ,dr4 ,lightfoot indeed has in the lxxvi first instance rendered the phrase4 ,even ,zahn1 whom ,dr4 ,lightfoot so implicitly follows1 emphatically decides against him on both points4 ,the --,greek-- together with --,greek-- can only signify 'coram ,trajano' 7'in the presence of ,trajan'71 and --,greek-- only the execution47#a7 ,let any one simply read over ,dr4 ,lightfoot's own rendering1 which ,i have quoted above1 and he will see that such quibbles are excluded1 and that1 on the contrary1 ,malalas seems excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority4 ,that the statement of ,malalas does not agree with the reports of the ,fathers is no real objection1 for we have good reason to believe that none of them had information from any other source than the ,ignatian ,epistles themselves1 or tradition4 ,eusebius evidently had not4 ,irenaeus1 ,origen1 and some later ,fathers tell us nothing about him4 ,jerome and ,chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources4 ,malalas is the first who1 by his variation1 proves that he had another and different authority before him1 and in abandoning the martyr-journey to ,rome1 his account has infinitely greater apparent probability4 ,malalas lived at ,antioch1 which adds some weight to his statement4 ,it is objected that so also did ,chrysostom1 and at an earlier period1 and yet he repeats the ,roman story4 ,this1 however1 is no valid argument against ,malalas4 ,chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of ,epistles so much tending to edification1 which were in wide circulation1 and had been quoted by earlier ,fathers4 ,it is in no way surprising that1 some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom1 he should quietly have accepted the representations of the ,epistles purporting to have been lxxvii written by the martyr himself1 and that their story should have shaped the prevailing tradition4 ,the remains of ,ignatius1 as we are informed by ,chrysostom and ,jerome1 long remained interred in the cemetery of ,antioch1 but finally1--in the time of ,theodosius1 it is said1--were translated with great pomp and ceremony to a building which1--such is the irony of events1--had previously been a ,temple of ,fortune4 ,the story told1 of course1 is that the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the ,coliseum and carried from ,rome to ,antioch4 ,after reposing there for some centuries1 the relics1 which are said to have been transported from ,rome to ,antioch1 were1 about the seventh century1 carried back from ,antioch to ,rome47#a7 ,the natural and more simple conclusion is that1 instead of this double translation1 the bones of ,ignatius had always remained in ,antioch1 where he had suffered martyrdom1 and the tradition that they had been brought back from ,rome was merely the explanation which reconciled the fact of their actually being in ,antioch with the legend of the ,ignatian ,epistles4 ,the #bjth of ,december is the date assigned to the death of ,ignatius in the ,martyrology17#b7 and ,zahn admits that this interpretation is undeniable47#c7 ,moreover1 the anniversary of his death was celebrated on that day in the ,greek ,churches and throughout the ,east4 ,in the ,latin ,church it is kept on the #ast of ,february4 ,there can be little doubt that this was the day of the translation of the relics to ,rome1 and this was evidently the #a ,i need not refer to the statement of ,nicephorus that these relics were first brought from ,rome to ,constantinople and afterwards translated to ,antioch4 lxxviii view of ,ruinart1 who1 although he could not positively contradict the views of his own ,church1 says3 ,ignatii festum ,graeci vigesima die mensis ,decembris celebrant1 quo ipsum passum fuisse ,acta testantur2 ,latini vero die prima ,februarii1 an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus reli-quiarum translationem8 plures enim fuisse constat47#a7 ,zahn7#b7 states that the ,feast of the translation in later calendars was celebrated on the #bith ,january1 and he points out the evident ignorance which prevailed in the ,west regarding ,ignatius47#c7 ,on the one hand1 therefore1 all the historical data which we possess regarding the reign and character of ,trajan discredit the story that ,ignatius was sent to ,rme to be exposed to beasts in the ,coliseum2 and all the positive evidence which exists1 independent of the ,epistles themselves1 tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in ,antioch itself4 ,on the other hand1 all the evidence which is offered for the statement that ,ignatius was sent to ,rme is more or less directly based upon the representations of the letters1 the authenticity of which is in discussion1 and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind4 ,and what is the value of any evidence emanating from the ,ignatian ,epistles and martyrologies8 ,there are three martyrologies which1 as ,ewald says1 are the one more fabulous than the other4 ,there are fifteen ,epistles all equally purporting to be by xxix ,ignatius1 and most of them handed down together in ,,mss41 without any distinction4 ,three of these1 in ,latin only1 are universally rejected1 as are also other five ,epistles1 of which there are ,greek1 ,latin1 and other versions4 ,of the remaining seven there are two forms1 one called the ,long ,recension and another shorter1 known as the ,vossian ,epistles4 ,the former is almost unanimously rejected as shamefully interpolated and falsified2 and a majority of critics assert that the text of the ,vossian ,epistles is likewise very impure4 ,besides these there is a still shorter version of three ,epistles only1 the ,cure-tonian1 which many able critics declare to be the only genuine letters of ,ignatius1 whilst a still greater number1 both from internal and external reasons1 deny the authenticity of the ,epistles in any form4 ,the second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature1 but ,i venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous than in dealing with the ,martyr of ,antioch4 ,the mere statement of the simple and acknowledged facts regarding the ,ignatian ,epistles is ample justification of the assertion1 which so mightily offends ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 that the whole of the ,ignatian literature is a mass of falsification and fraud4 ,even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as genuine more than the three short ,syriac letters7#a7 out of this mass of forgery which he rebukes me for holding so cheap4 ,documents which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove anything4 ,as ,i have shown1 however1 the ,vossian ,epistles1 whatever the value of their testimony1 so far from supporting the claims advanced in favour of our ,gospels1 rather discredit them4 lxxx ,i have now minutely followed ,professor ,lightfoot and ,dr4 ,westcott in their attacks upon me in connection with ,eusebius and the ,ignatian ,epistles1 and ,i trust that ,i have shown once for all that the charges of misrepresentation and misstatement so lightly and liberally advanced1 far from being well-founded1 recoil upon themselves4 ,it is impossible in a work like this1 dealing with such voluminous materials1 to escape errors of detail1 as both of these gentlemen bear witness1 but ,i have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair1 and ,i venture to think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made4 ,before closing1 ,i must say a few words regarding another of my critics1 who is1 however1 of a very different order4 ,my system of criticism is naturally uncongenial to ,mr4 ,matthew ,arnold1 but while he says so with characteristic vigour1 he likewise speaks of this work with equally characteristic generosity1 and ,i cordially thank him4 ,i could only be classed by mistake amongst the objectors to ,literature and ,dogma1 and however different may be the procedure in ,supernatural ,religion1 there is fundamental agreement between the two works1 and the one may be considered the complement of the other4 ,some one must do the pounding1 if religion is to be a matter of belief and not of mere shifty opinion4 ,we really address two distinct classes of readers4 ,the reader who has read and accepted ,mr4 ,matthew ,arnold's half dozen lines about the composition of the ,gospels1 and his half dozen pages about miracles1 may in one sense be just in the same position as when he has read the whole of this work17#a7 but lxxxi ,i have written for those who do not accept them1 and who1--as ,i think rightly1--distrust the conclusions merely forced upon them by ordinary reflection and experience1 and in such important matters demand evidence of a much more tangible kind4 ,i would put it to ,mr4 ,arnold whether1 in seeming to depreciate any attempt to systematize and carry to logical conclusions the whole argument regarding the reality of ,miracles and ,divine ,revelation1 he does not do himself injustice1 and enunciate a dangerous doctrine4 ,no doubt his own clear insight and wide culture have enabled him to discern truth more surely1 and with less apparent effort1 than most of those whom he addresses1 but in encouraging1 as he thus practically does1 the adoption by others of religious views with very little trouble or thought1 which have certainly cost himself years of training and study1 he both cheapens his own intellectual labour1 and advocates a superficiality which already has too many attractions4 ,whether he address readers whose belief is already established1 or those who are ready to accept it second hand from himself1 it seems to me that no work should be unwelcome which supplies evidence of the results1 which it has suited his own immediate purpose merely to assume4 ,mr4 ,matthew ,arnold objects that my book leaves the reader with the feeling that the ,bible stands before him like a fair tree all stripped1 torn and defaced1 not at all like a tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nations17#a7 but if this be the case1 ,i submit that it is a necessary process through which the ,bible must go1 before it can be successfully transplanted into that healthy soil1 in which alone its leaves can truly be for the #dd ,contemporary ,boviow1 ,october1 #ahgd1 p4 #gih4 lxxxii healing of any one4 ,under such circumstances1 destructive must precede constructive criticism4 ,it is only when we clearly recognize that the ,bible is not the word of ,god that we can worthily honour and enjoy it as the word of ,man4 ,mr4 ,matthew ,arnold finely says1 with regard to what ,jesus said and did1 that3 his reporters were incapable of rendering it1 he was so much above them2 and he rightly considers that the governing idea of our criticism of the four ,evangelists should be to make out what in their report of ,jesus1 is ,jesus1 and what is the reporters4 ,i hold1 however1 that it is only after such an examination as ,i have endeavoured to carry out1 and which for the time must seem hard and wanting in sympathetic appreciation1 that most persons educated in ,christendom can rightly put any such governing idea into practice4 ,it is only when we are entitled to reject the theory of miraculous ,divine ,revelation that the ,bible attains its full beauty1 losing the blots and anomalies which it presented in its former character1 and acquiring wondrous significance as the expression of the hopes and aspirations of humanity1 from which every man may learn wisdom and derive inspiration4 ,the value of such a ,book seems to me indestructible4 ,i heartily sympathise with ,mr4 ,arnold's desire to secure due appreciation for the venerable volume1 of the beauty of which he has so fine and delicate a perception4 ,a truer insight into its meaning may certainly be imparted by such eloquent and appreciating criticism1 and no one is a better judge than ,mr4 ,matthew ,arnold of the necessity to plead for the ,book1 with those who are inclined thoughtlessly to reject it along with the errors which have grown with and been based upon it4 ,but1 in the end1 every man who lxxxiii has a mind and a heart must love and honour the ,bible1 and he who has neither is beyond the reach of persuasion4 ,this work has been revised throughout47#a7 ,it was1 as ,i stated at the time1 originally carried through the press under very great difficulties1 and the revision of details1 upon which ,i had counted1 was not only prevented1 but1 beyond a careful revision of the ,first ,part for the second edition1 circumstances have until now even prevented my seriously reading through the work since it has been in print4 ,to those who have been good enough to call my attention to errors1 or to suggest improvements1 ,i return very sincere thanks4 ,in making this revision ,i have endeavoured to modify unimportant points1 in some of which ,i have been misunderstood1 so as to avoid as far as possible raising difficulties1 or inviting discussion without real bearing upon the main argument4 ,as ,i know the alacrity with which some critics seize upon such points as serious concessions1 ,i beg leave to say that ,i have not altered anything from change of opinion4 ,i trust that greater clearness and accuracy may have been secured4 ,march #aeth1 #ahge4 #a ,it is right to mention that1 whilst ,i have examined a great many of the references1 ,i have not had time to verify them all4 ,,preface ,,to ,,the ,,first ,,edition4 ,the present work is the result of many years of earnest and serious investigation1 undertaken in the first instance for the regulation of personal belief1 and now published as a contribution towards the establishment of ,truth in the minds of others who are seeking for it4 ,the author's main object has been conscientiously and fully to state the facts of the case1 to make no assertions the grounds for which are not clearly given1 and as far as possible to place before the reader the materials from which a judgment may be intelligently formed regarding the important subject discussed4 ,the great ,teacher is reported to have said3 ,be ye approved money-changers1 wisely discerning the gold of ,truth1 and no man need hesitate honestly to test its reality1 and unflinchingly to reject base counterfeits4 ,it is obvious that the most indispensable requisite in regard to ,religion is that it should be true4 ,no specious hopes or flattering promises can have the slightest value unless they be genuine and based upon substantial realities4 ,fear of the results of investigation1 therefore1 should deter no man1 for the issue in any case is gain3 emancipation from delusion1 or increase of assurance4 ,it is poor honour to sequester a creed from healthy handling1 or to shrink from the serious examination of its doctrines4 ,that which is true in ,religion cannot be shaken2 that which is false no one can desire to preserve4 lxxxvi ,,preface ,,to ,,the ,,second ,,edition4 ,the ,author has taken advantage of the issue of a second edition to revise this work4 ,he has re-written portions of the first part1 and otherwise re-arranged it4 ,he hopes that the argument has thus been made more clear and consecutive4 ,,introduction4 ,theoretically1 the duty of adequate inquiry into the truth of any statement of serious importance before believing it is universally admitted4 ,practically1 no duty is more universally neglected4 ,this is more especially the case in regard to ,religion1 in which our concern is so great1 yet the credentials of which so few personally examine4 ,the difficulty of such an investigation and the inability of most men to pursue it1 whether from want of opportunity or want of knowledge1 are no doubt the chief reasons for this neglect2 but another1 and scarcely less potent1 obstacle has probably been the odium which has been attached to any doubt regarding the dominant religion1 as well as the serious1 though covert1 discouragement of the ,church to all critical examination of the title-deeds of ,christianity4 ,the spirit of doubt1 if not of intelligent inquiry1 has1 however1 of late years become too strong for repression1 and1 at the present day1 the pertinency of the question of a ,german writer3 ,are we still ,christians8 receives unconscious xcii illustration from many a popular pulpit1 and many a social discussion4 ,the prevalent characteristic of popular theology in ,england1 at this time1 may be said to be a tendency to eliminate from ,christianity1 with thoughtless dexterity1 every supernatural element which does not quite accord with current opinion1 and yet to ignore the fact that1 in so doing1 ecclesiastical ,christianity has practically been altogether abandoned4 ,this tendency is fostered with profoundly illogical zeal by many distinguished men within the ,church itself1 who endeavour to arrest for a moment the pursuing wolves of doubt and unbelief which press upon it1 by practically throwing to them1 scrap by scrap1 the very doctrines which constitute the claims of ,christianity to be regarded as a ,divine ,revelation at all4 ,the moral ,christianity which they hope to preserve1 noble though it be1 has not one feature left to distinguish it as a miraculously communicated religion4 ,christianity itself distinctly pretends to be a direct ,divine ,revelation of truths beyond the natural attainment of the human intellect4 ,to submit the doctrines thus revealed1 therefore1 to criticism1 and to clip and prune them down to the standard of human reason1 whilst at the same time their supernatural character is maintained1 is an obvious absurdity4 ,christianity must either be recognized to be a ,divine ,revelation beyond man's criticism1 and in that case its doctrines must be received even though ,reason cannot be satisfied1 or the claims of ,christianity to be such a ,divine ,revelation must be disallowed1 in which case it becomes the legitimate subject of criticism like every other human system4 ,one or other of these alternatives must be adopted1 but to xciii assert that ,christianity is ,divine1 and yet to deal with it as human1 is illogical and wrong4 ,when we consider the vast importance of the interests involved1 therefore1 it must be apparent that there can be no more urgent problem for humanity to solve than the question3 ,is ,christianity a supernatural ,divine ,revelation or not8 ,to this we may demand a clear and decisive answer4 ,the evidence must be of no uncertain character which can warrant our abandoning the guidance of ,reason1 and blindly accepting doctrines which1 if not supernatural truths1 must be rejected by the human intellect as monstrous delusions4 ,we propose in this work to seek a conclusive answer to this momentous question4 ,it appears to us that at no time has such an investigation been more requisite4 ,the results of scientific inquiry and of ,biblical criticism have created wide-spread doubt regarding the most material part of ,christianity considered as a ,divine ,revelation4 ,the mass of intelligent men in ,england are halting between two opinions1 and standing in what seems to us the most unsatisfactory position conceivable3 they abandon1 before a kind of vague and indefinite1 if irresistible1 conviction1 some of the most central supernatural doctrines of ,christianity2 they try to spiritualize or dilute the rest into a form which does not shock their reason2 and yet they cling to the delusion1 that they still retain the consolation and the hope of truths which1 if not divinely revealed1 are mere human speculation regarding matters beyond reason4 ,they have1 in fact1 as little warrant to abandon the one part as they have to retain the other4 ,they build their house upon the sand1 and the waves which have already carried away so much may any day engulf the rest4 ,at the same time1 amid this general eclipse of faith1 many xciv an earnest mind1 eagerly seeking for truth1 endures much bitter pain1--unable to believe--unable freely to reject--and yet without the means of securing any clear and intelligent reply to the inquiry3 ,what is truth8 ,any distinct assurance1 whatever its nature1 based upon solid grounds1 would be preferable to such a state of doubt and hesitation4 ,once persuaded that we have attained truth1 there can be no permanent regret for vanished illusions4 ,we must1 however1 by careful and impartial investigation1 acquire the right to our belief1 whatever it may be1 and not float like a mere waif into the nearest haven4 ,flippant unbelief is much worse than earnest credulity4 ,the time is ripe for arriving at a definite conviction as to the character of ,christianity4 ,there is no lack of materials for a final decision1 although hitherto they have been beyond the reach of most ,english readers1 and a careful and honest examination of the subject1 even if it be not final1 cannot fail to contribute towards a result more satisfactory than the generally vague and illogical religious opinion of the present day4 ,even true conclusions which are arrived at either accidentally or by wrong methods are dangerous4 ,the current which by good fortune led to-day to truth may to-morrow waft us to falsehood4 ,that such an investigation cannot1 even at the present time1 be carried on in ,england without incurring much enmity and opposition need scarcely be remarked1 however loudly the duty and liberty of inquiry be theoretically proclaimed1 and the reason is obvious4 ,if we look at the singular diversity of views entertained1 not only with regard to the doctrines1 but also to the evidences1 of ,christianity1 we cannot but be struck by the helpless position in which ,divine ,revelation is now placed4 xcv ,orthodox ,christians at the present day may be divided into two broad classes1 one of which professes to base the ,church upon the ,bible1 and the other the ,bible upon the ,church4 ,the one party assert that the ,bible is fully and absolutely inspired1 that it contains ,god's revelation to man1 and that it is the only and sufficient ground for all religious belief2 and they maintain that its authenticity is proved by the most ample and irrefragable external as well as internal evidence4 ,what then must be the feeling of any ordinary mind on hearing1 on the other hand1 that men of undoubted piety and learning1 as well as unquestioned orthodoxy1 within the ,church of ,england1 admit that the ,bible is totally without literary or historical evidence1 and cannot for a moment be upheld upon any such grounds as the revealed word of ,god2 that none of the great doctrines of ecclesiastical ,christianity can be deduced from the ,bible alone27#a7 and that1 if it be impossible to accept the literary method of dealing with ,holy ,scripture1 the usual mode of arguing the truth of ,revelation1 ab extra1 merely from what are called ',evidences'--whether of ,miracles done or ,prophecies uttered thousands of years ago1--must also be insufficient487#b7 ,it cannot be much comfort to be assured by them that1 notwithstanding this absence of external and internal evidence1 this ,revelation stands upon the sure basis of the inspiration of a ,church1 which has so little ground in history for any claim to infallibility4 ,the unsupported testimony of a ,church which in every age has vehemently maintained errors and denounced truths which are now universally recognized is no xcvi sufficient guarantee of ,divine ,revelation4 ,obviously1 there is no ground for accepting from a fallible ,church and fallacious tradition doctrines which1 avowedly1 are beyond the criterion of reason1 and therefore require miraculous evidence4 ,with belief based upon such uncertain grounds1 and with such vital difference of views regarding evidence1 it is not surprising that ecclesiastical ,christianity has felt its own weakness1 and entrenched itself against the assaults of investigation4 ,it is not strange that intellectual vigour in any direction should1 almost unconsciously1 have been regarded as dangerous to the repose and authority of the ,church1 and that1 instead of being welcomed as a virtue1 religious inquiry has almost been repelled as a crime4 ,such inquiry1 however1 cannot be suppressed4 ,mere scientific questions may be regarded with apathy by those who do not feel their personal bearing4 ,it may possibly seem to some a matter of little practical importance to them to determine whether the earth revolves round the sun1 or the sun round the earth2 but no earnest mind can fail to perceive the immense personal importance of ,truth in regard to ,religion--the necessity of investigating1 before accepting1 dogmas1 the right interpretation of which is represented as necessary to salvation1--and the clear duty1 before abandoning reason for faith1 to exercise reason1 in order that faith may not be mere credulity4 ,as ,bacon remarked1 the injunction3 ,hold fast that which is good1 must always be preceded by the maxim3 ,prove all things4 ,even ,archbishop ,trench has said3 ,credulity is as real1 if not so great1 a sin as unbelief1 applying the observation to the duty of demanding a sign from any one professing to be the utterer of a revelation3 ,else might he lightly xcvii be persuaded to receive that as from ,god1 which1 indeed1 was only the word of man47#a7 ,the acceptance of any revelation or dogma1 however apparently true in itself1 without sign--without evidence satisfying the reason1 is absolute credulity4 ,even the most thorough advocate of ,faith must recognise that reason must be its basis1 and that faith can only legitimately commence where reason fails4 ,the appeal is first to reason if afterwards to faith1 and no man pretending to intellectual conscience can overlook the primary claim of reason4 ,if it is to be more than a mere question of priority of presentation whether we are to accept ,buddhism1 ,christianity1 or ,mahometanism1 we must strictly and fearlessly examine the evidence upon which they profess to stand4 ,the neglect of examination can never advance truth1 as the severest scrutiny can never retard it1 but belief without discrimination can only foster ignorance and superstition4 ,it was in this conviction that the following inquiry into the reality of ,divine ,revelation was originally undertaken1 and that others should enter upon it4 ,an able writer1 who will not be suspected of exaggeration on this subject1 has said3 ,the majority of mankind1 perhaps1 owe their belief rather to the outward influence of custom and education1 than to any strong principle of faith within2 and it is to be feared that many if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was1 would not find their belief so easy1 and so matter-of-course a thing as they appear to find it47#b7 ,to no earnest mind can such inquiry be otherwise than a serious and often a xcviii painful task1 but1 dismissing preconceived ideas and preferences derived from habit and education1 and seeking only the ,truth1 holding it1 whatever it may be1 to be the only object worthy of desire1 or capable of satisfying a rational mind1 the quest cannot but end in peace and satisfaction4 ,in such an investigation1 however1 to quote words of ,archbishop ,whately3 ,it makes all the difference in the world whether we place ,truth in the first place or in the second place4--for if ,truth acquired do not compensate for every pet illusion dispelled1 the path is thorny indeed1 although it must still be faithfully trodden4 ,,an ,,inquiry ,,into ,,the ,,reality ,,of ,,divine ,,revelation4 ,,part ,i4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,miracles ,,in ,,relation ,,to ,,christianity ,at the very outset of inquiry into the origin and true character of ,christianity we are brought face to face with the ,supernatural4 ,christianity professes to be a ,divine ,revelation of truths which the human intellect could not otherwise have discovered4 ,it is not a form of religion developed by the wisdom of man and appealing to his reason1 but a system miraculously communicated to the human race1 the central doctrines of which are either superhuman or untenable4 ,if the truths said to be revealed were either of an ordinary character or naturally attainable they would at once discredit the claim to a ,divine origin4 ,no one could maintain that a system discoverable by ,reason would be supernaturally communicated4 ,the whole argument for ,christianity turns upon the necessity of such a ,revelation and the consequent probability that it would be made4 #b ,there is nothing singular1 it may be remarked1 in the claim of ,christianity to be a direct ,revelation from ,god4 ,with the exception of the religions of ,greece and ,rome1 which1 however1 also had their subsidiary supposition of divine inspiration1 there has scarcely been any system of ,religion which has not been proclaimed to the world as a direct divine communication4 ,long before ,christianity claimed this character1 the religions of ,india had anticipated the idea4 ,to quote the words of an accomplished scholar3--,according to the orthodox views of ,indian theologians1 not a single line of the ,veda was the work of human authors4 ,the whole ,veda is in some way or other the work of the ,deity2 and even those who received it were not supposed to be ordinary mortals1 but beings raised above the level of common humanity1 and less liable1 therefore1 to error in the reception of revealed truth47#a7 ,the same origin is claimed for the religion of ,zoroaster1 whose doctrines1 beyond doubt1 exercised great influence at least upon later ,jewish theology1 and whose ,magian followers are appropriately introduced beside the cradle of ,jesus1 as the first to do honour to the birth of ,christianity4 ,in the same way ,mahomet announced his religion as directly communicated from heaven4 ,christianity1 however1 as a religion professing to be divinely revealed1 is not only supernatural in origin and doctrine1 but its claim to acceptance is necessarily based upon supernatural evidence2 for it is obvious that truths which require to be miraculously communicated do not come within the range of our intellect1 and cannot1 therefore1 be intelligently received upon internal testimony4 ,and1 certainly1 says a recent able ,bampton ,lecturer1 if it was the will of ,god to give a revelation1 there are #c plain and obvious reasons for asserting that miracles are necessary as the guarantee and voucher for that revelation4 ,a revelation is1 properly speaking1 such only by virtue of telling us something which we could not know without it4 ,but how do we know that that communication of what is undiscoverable by human reason is true8 ,our reason cannot prove the truth of it1 for it is by the very supposition beyond our reason4 ,there must be1 then1 some note or sign to certify to it and distinguish it as a true communication from ,god1 which note can be nothing else than a miracle47#a7 ,in another place the same ,lecturer stigmatizes the belief of the ,mahometan as in its very principle irrational1 because he accepts the account which ,mahomet gave of himself1 without supernatural evidence47#b7 ,the belief of the ,christian is contrasted with it as rational1 because the ,christian believes in a supernatural dispensation upon the proper evidence of such a dispensation1 viz41 the miraculous47#c7 ,mahomet is reproached with having an utterly barbarous idea of evidence1 and a total miscalculation of the claims of reason1 because he did not consider miraculous evidence necessary to attest a supernatural dispensation2 whereas the ,gospel is adapted to perpetuity for this cause especially1 with others1 that it was founded upon a true calculation1 and a foresight of the permanent need of evidence2 our ,lord admitting the inadequacy of ,his own mere word1 and the necessity of a rational guarantee to ,his revelation of ,his own nature and commission47#d7 #d ,the spontaneous offer of miraculous evidence1 indeed1 has always been advanced as a special characteristic of ,christianity1 logically entitling it to acceptance in contradistinction to all other religions4 ,it is an acknowledged historical fact1 says ,bishop ,butler1 that ,christianity offered itself to the world1 and demanded to be received1 upon the allegation1 i4 e11 as unbelievers would speak1 upon the pretence1 of miracles1 publicly wrought to attest the truth of it in such an age2444 and ,christianity1 including the dispensation of the ,old ,testament1 seems distinguished by this from all other religions47#a7 ,most of the great ,english divines have clearly recognized and asserted the necessity of supernatural evidence to establish the reality of a supernatural revelation4 ,bishop ,butler affirms miracles and the completion of prophecy to be the direct and fundamental proofs of ,christianity47#b7 ,elsewhere he says3 ,the notion of a miracle1 considered as a proof of a divine mission1 has been stated with great exactness by divines1 and is1 ,i think1 sufficiently understood by every one4 ,there are also invisible miracles1 the ,incarnation of ,christ1 for instance1 which1 being secret1 cannot be alleged as a proof of such a mission2 but require themselves to be proved by visible miracles4 ,revelation itself1 too1 is miraculous2 and miracles are the proof of it47#c7 ,paley states the case with equal clearness3 ,in what way can a revelation be made but by miracles8 ,in none which we are able to conceive47#d7 ,his argument in fact is founded upon the principle that3 nothing but miracles #e could decide the authority of ,christianity47#a7 ,in another work he asserts that no man can prove a future retribution1 but the teacher who testifies by miracles that his doctrine comes from ,god47#b7 ,bishop ,atterbury1 again1 referring to the principal doctrines of ecclesiastical ,christianity1 says3 ,it is this kind of ,truth that ,god is properly said to reveal2 ,truths1 of which1 unless revealed1 we should have always continued ignorant2 and 'tis in order only to prove these ,truths to have been really revealed1 that we affirm ,miracles to be ,necessary47#c7 ,dr4 ,heurtley1 the ,margaret ,professor of ,divinity in the ,university of ,oxford1 after pointing out that the doctrines taught as the ,christian ,revelation are such as could not by any possibility have been attained by the unassisted human reason1 and that1 consequently1 it is reasonable that they should be attested by miracles1 continues3 ,indeed1 it seems inconceivable how without miracles--including prophecy in the notion of a miracle--it could sufficiently have commended itself to men's belief8 ,who would believe1 or would be justified in believing1 the great facts which constitute its substance on the ipse dixit of an unaccredited teacher8 and how1 except by miracles1 could the first teacher be accredited8 ,paley1 then1 was fully warranted in the assertion4444 that 'we cannot conceive a revelation'--such a revelation of course as ,christianity professes to be1 a revelation of truths which transcend man's ability to discover1--' to be #f substantiated without miracles4' ,other credentials1 it is true1 might be exhibited in addition to miracles1--and such it would be natural to look for1--but it seems impossible that miracles could be dispensed with47#a7 ,dr4 ,mansel1 the late ,dean of ,st4 ,paul's1 bears similar testimony3 ,a teacher who proclaims himself to be specially sent by ,god1 and whose teaching is to be received on the authority of that mission1 must1 from the nature of the case1 establish his claim by proofs of another kind than those which merely evince his human wisdom or goodness4 ,a superhuman authority needs to be substantiated by superhuman evidence2 and what is superhuman is miraculous47#b7 ,dr4 ,j4 ,h4 ,newman1 in discussing the idea and scope of miracles1 says3 ,a ,revelation1 that is1 a direct message from ,god to man1 itself bears in some degree a miraculous character2444 ,and as a ,revelation itself1 so again the evidences of a ,revelation may all more or less be considered miraculous4444 ,it might even be said that1 strictly speaking1 no evidence of a ,revelation is conceivable which does not partake of the character of a ,miracle2 since nothing but a display of power over the existing system of things can attest the immediate presence of ,him by whom it was originally established47#c7 ,dr4 ,mozley has stated in still stronger terms the necessity that ,christianity should be authenticated by the evidence of miracles4 ,he supposes the case that a person of evident integrity and loftiness of character had appeared1 eighteen centuries ago1 announcing himself as pre-existent from all eternity1 the ,son of ,god1 ,maker #g of the world1 who had come down from heaven and assumed the form and nature of man in order to be the ,lamb of ,god that taketh away the sins of the world1 and so on1 enumerating other doctrines of ,christianity4 ,dr4 ,mozley then asks3 ,what would be the inevitable conclusion of sober reason respecting that person8 ,the necessary conclusion of sober reason respecting that person would be that he was disordered in his understanding444 ,by no rational being could a just and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing announcements4 ,miracles are the necessary complement1 then1 of the truth of such announcements1 which1 without them1 are purposeless and abortive1 the unfinished fragments of a design which is nothing unless it is the whole4 ,they are necessary to the justification of such announcements1 which indeed1 unless they are supernatural truths1 are the wildest delusions47#a7 ,he1 therefore1 concludes that3 ,christianity cannot be maintained as a revelation undiscoverable by human reason1 a revelation of a supernatural scheme for man's salvation1 without the evidence of miracles47#b7 ,in all points1 ,christianity is emphatically a ,supernatural ,religion claiming to be divine in its origin1 superhuman in its essence and miraculous in its evidence4 ,it cannot be accepted without an absolute belief in ,miracles1 and those who profess to hold the religion whilst they discredit its supernatural elements--and they are many at the present day--have widely seceded from ecclesiastical ,christianity4 ,miracles1 it is true1 are external to ,christianity in so far as they are evidential1 but inasmuch as it is admitted that miracles alone can attest the reality of ,divine ,revelation they are still inseparable #h from it2 and as the contents of the ,revelation are so to say more miraculous than its attesting miracles1 the supernatural enters into the very substance of ,christianity and cannot be eliminated4 ,it is obvious1 therefore1 that the reality of miracles is the vital point in the investigation which we have undertaken4 ,if the reality of miracles cannot be established1 ,christianity loses the only evidence by which its truth can be sufficiently attested4 ,if miracles be incredible the supernatural ,revelation and its miraculous evidence must together be rejected4 ,this fact is thoroughly recognized by the ablest ,christian divines4 ,dean ,mansel1 speaking of the position of miracles in regard to ,christianity1 says3 ,the question1 however1 assumes a very different character when it relates1 not to the comparative importance of miracles as evidences1 but to their reality as facts1 and as facts of a supernatural kind4 ,for if this is denied1 the denial does not merely remove one of the supports of a faith which may yet rest securely on other grounds4 ,on the contrary1 the whole system of ,christian belief with its evidences444 all ,christianity in short1 so far as it has any title to that name1 so far as it has any special relation to the person or the teaching of ,christ1 is overthrown at the same time47#a7 ,a little further on he says3 ,if there be one fact recorded in ,scripture which is entitled1 in the fullest sense of the word1 to the name of a ,miracle1 the ,resurrection of ,christ is that fact4 ,here1 at least1 is an instance in which the entire ,christian faith must stand or fall with our belief in the supernatural47#b7 ,he1 therefore1 properly repudiates the view1 which represents the question of the possibility #i of miracles as one which merely affects the external accessories of ,christianity1 leaving the essential doctrines untouched47#a7 ,dr4 ,mozley in a similar manner argues the inseparable union of miracles with the ,christian faith4 ,indeed not only are miracles conjoined with doctrine in ,christianity1 but miracles are inserted in the doctrine and are part of its contents4 ,a man cannot state his belief as a ,christian in the terms of the ,apostles' ,creed without asserting them4 ,can the doctrine of our ,lord's ,incarnation be disjoined from one physical miracle8 ,can the doctrine of ,his justification of us and intercession for us1 be disjoined from another8444 ,if a miracle is incorporated as an article in a creed1 that article of the creed1 the miracle1 and the proof of it by a miracle1 are all one thing4 ,the great miracles1 therefore1 upon the evidence of which the ,christian scheme rested1 being thus inserted in the ,christian ,creed1 the belief in the ,creed was of itself the belief in the miraculous evidence of it4444 ,thus miracles and the supernatural contents of ,christianity must stand or fall together47#b7 ,dr4 ,heurtley1 referring to the discussion of the reality of miracles1 exclaims3 ,it is not too much to say1 therefore1 that the question is vital as regards ,christianity47#c7 ,canon ,westcott not less emphatically makes the same statement4 ,it is evident1 he says1 that if the claim to be a miraculous religion is essentially incredible apostolic ,christianity is simply false4444 ,the essence of ,christianity lies in a miracle2 and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible1 all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous #aj in a religious point of view47#a7 ,similarly1 a recent ,hulsean lecturer1 ,dr4 ,farrar1 has said3 ,however skilfully the modern ingenuity of semi-belief may have tampered with supernatural interpositions1 it is clear to every honest and unsophisticated mind that1 if miracles be incredible1 ,christianity is false4 ,if ,christ wrought no miracles1 then the ,gospels are untrustworthy2444 ,if the ,resurrection be merely a spiritual idea1 or a mythicized hallucination1 then our religion has been founded on an error4444 7#b7 ,it has been necessary clearly to point out this indissoluble connection between ecclesiastical ,christianity and the supernatural1 in order that the paramount importance of the question as to the credibility of miracles should be duly appreciated4 ,our inquiry into the reality of ,divine ,revelation1 then1 whether we consider its contents or its evidence1 practically reduces itself to the very simple issue3 ,are miracles antecedently credible8 ,did they ever really take place8 ,we do not intend to confine ourselves merely to a discussion of the abstract question1 but shall also endeavour to form a correct estimate of the value of the specific allegations which are advanced4 #b4 ,having then ascertained that miracles are absolutely necessary to attest the reality of ,divine ,revelation we may proceed to examine them more closely1 and for the present we shall confine ourselves to the representations of these phenomena which are given in the ,bible4 ,throughout the ,old ,testament the doctrine is inculcated #aa that supernatural communications must have supernatural attestation4 ,god is described as arming his servants with power to perform wonders1 in order that they may thus be accredited as his special messengers4 ,the ,patriarchs and the people of ,israel generally are represented as demanding a sign of the reality of communications said to come from ,god1 without which1 we are led to suppose1 they not only would not have believed1 but would have been justified in disbelieving1 that the message actually came from him4 ,thus ,gideon7#a7 asks for a sign that the ,lord talked with him1 and ,hezekiah7#b7 demands proof of the truth of ,isaiah's prophecy that he should be restored to health4 ,it is1 however1 unnecessary to refer to instances1 for it may be affirmed that upon all occasions miraculous evidence of an alleged divine mission is stated to have been required and accorded4 ,the startling information is at the same time given1 however1 that miracles may be wrought to attest what is false as well as to accredit what is true4 ,in one place17#c7 it is declared that if a prophet actually gives a sign or wonder and it comes to pass1 but teaches the people1 on the strength of it1 to follow other gods1 they are not to hearken to him1 and the prophet is to be put to death4 ,the false miracle is1 here17#d7 attributed to ,god himself3 ,for the ,lord your ,god proveth you1 to know whether ye love the ,lord your ,god with all your heart and with all your soul4 ,in the book of the ,prophet ,ezekiel1 the case is stated in a still stronger way1 and ,god is represented as directly deceiving the prophet3 ,and if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing1 ,i the ,lord have deceived that prophet1 and ,i will #ab stretch out my hand upon him1 and will destroy him from the midst of my people ,israel47#a7 ,god1 in fact1 is represented as exerting his almighty power to deceive a man and then as destroying him for being deceived4 ,in the same spirit is the passage7#b7 in which ,micaiah describes the ,lord as putting a lying spirit into the mouths of the prophets who incited ,ahab to go to ,ramoth-,gilead4 ,elsewhere17#c7 and notably in the ,new ,testament1 we find an ascription of real signs and wonders to another power than ,god4 ,jesus himself is represented as warning his disciples against false prophets1 who work signs and wonders3 ,many will say to me in that day1 ,lord1 ,lord1 have we not prophesied in thy name8 and in thy name cast out devils8 and in thy name done many wonderful works8 of whom he should say3 ,i never knew you2 depart from me1 ye that work iniquity47#d7 ,and again in another place3 ,for false prophets shall arise1 and shall work signs and wonders --,greek-- to seduce1 if it were possible1 the elect47#e7 ,also1 when the ,pharisees accuse him of casting out devils by ,beelzebub the prince of the devils1 ,jesus asks3 ,by whom do your children cast them out87#f7 a reply which would lose all its point if they were not admitted to be able to cast out devils4 ,in another passage ,john is described as saying3 ,master1 we saw one casting out devils in thy name1 who followeth not us1 and we forbad him47#g7 ,without multiplying instances1 however1 there can be no doubt of the fact #ac that the reality of false miracles and lying wonders is admitted in the ,bible4 ,the obvious deduction from this representation of miracles is that the source and purpose of such supernatural phenomena must always be exceedingly uncertain47#a7 ,their evidential value is1 therefore1 profoundly affected1 it being1 as ,dr4 ,newman has said of ambiguous miracles1 antecedently improbable that the ,almighty should rest the credit of ,his ,revelation upon events which but obscurely implied ,his immediate presence47#b7 ,as it is affirmed that other supernatural beings exist1 as well as an assumed ,personal ,god1 by whose agency miracles are performed1 it is impossible to argue with reason that such phenomena are at any time specially due to the intervention of the ,deity4 ,dr4 ,newman recognizes this1 but passes over the difficulty with masterly lightness of touch4 ,after advancing the singular argument that our knowledge of spirits is only derived from ,scripture1 and that their existence cannot be deduced from nature1 whilst he asserts that the being of a ,god--a ,personal ,god be it remembered--can be so discovered1 and that1 therefore1 miracles can only properly be attributed to him1 he proceeds3 ,still it may be necessary to show that on our own principles we are not open to inconsistency4 ,that is1 it has been questioned whether1 in admitting the existence and power of ,spirits on the authority of ,revelation1 we are not in danger of #ad invalidating the evidence upon which that authority rests4 ,for the cogency of the argument for ,miracles depends on the assumption1 that interruptions in the course of nature must ultimately proceed from ,god2 which is not true1 if they may be effected by other beings without ,his sanction4 ,and it must be conceded1 that1 explicit as ,scripture is in considering ,miracles as signs of divine agency1 it still does seem to give created ,spirits some power of working them2 and even1 in its most literal sense1 intimates the possibility of their working them in opposition to the true doctrine4 7,deut4 xiii4 #a-c2 ,matt4 xxiv4 #bd2 #b ,thess4 ii4 #i-ll477#a7 ,dr4 ,newman repudiates the attempts of various writers to overcome this difficulty by making a distinction between great miracles and small1 many miracles and few1 or by referring to the nature of the doctrine attested in order to determine the author of the miracle1 or by denying the power of spirits altogether1 and explaining away ,scripture statements of demoniacal possession and the narrative of the ,lord's ,temptation4 ,without having recourse to any of these dangerous modes of answering the objection1 he says1 it may be sufficient to reply1 that1 since1 agreeably to the antecedent sentiment of reason1 ,god has adopted miracles as the seal of a divine message1 we believe ,he will never suffer them to be so counterfeited as to deceive the humble inquirer47#b7 ,this is the only reply which even so powerful a reasoner as ,dr4 ,newman can give to an objection based on distinct statements of ,scripture itself4 ,he cannot deny the validity of the objection1 he can only hope or believe in spite of it ,personal belief independent of evidence is the most common and the weakest of arguments2 at the #ae best it is prejudice masked in the garb of ,reason4 ,it is perfectly clear that miracles being thus acknowledged to be common both to ,god and to other spirits they cannot be considered a distinctive attestation of divine intervention2 and1 as ,spinoza finely argued1 not even the mere existence of ,god can be inferred from them2 for as a miracle is a limited act1 and never expresses more than a certain and limited power1 it is certain that we cannot from such an effect1 conclude even the existence of a cause whose power is infinite47#a7 ,this dual character obviously leads to many difficulties in defining the evidential function and force of miracles1 and we may best appreciate the dilemma which is involved by continuing to follow the statements and arguments of divines themselves4 ,to the question whether miracles are absolutely to command the obedience of those in whose sight they are performed1 and whether1 upon their attestation1 the doer and his doctrine are to be accepted as of ,god1 ,archbishop ,trench unhesitatingly replies3 ,it cannot be so1 for side by side with the miracles which serve for the furthering of the kingdom of ,god runs another line of wonders1 the counter-workings of him who is ever the ape of the ,most ,high47#b7 ,the deduction is absolutely logical and cannot be denied4 ,this fact1 he says1 that the kingdom of lies has its wonders no less than the kingdom of truth1 is itself sufficient evidence that miracles cannot be appealed #af to absolutely and finally1 in proof of the doctrine which the worker of them proclaims4 ,this being the case1 it is important to discover how miracles perform their function as the indispensable evidence for a ,divine ,revelation1 for with this disability they do not seem to possess much potentiality4 ,archbishop ,trench1 then1 offers the following definition of the function of miracles3 ,a miracle does not prove the truth of a doctrine1 or the divine mission of him that brings it to pass4 ,that which alone it claims for him at the first is a right to be listened to3 it puts him in the alternative of being from heaven or from hell4 ,the doctrine must first commend itself to the conscience as being good1 and only then can the miracle seal it as divine4 ,but the first appeal is from the doctrine to the conscience1 to the moral nature of man47#a7 ,under certain circumstances1 he maintains1 their evidence is utterly to be rejected4 ,but the purpose of the miracle1 he says1 being1 as we have seen1 to confirm that which is good1 so1 upon the other hand1 where the mind and conscience witness against the doctrine1 not all the miracles in the world have a right to demand submission to the word which they seal4 ,on the contrary1 the great act of faith #ag is to believe1 against1 and in despite of them all1 in what ,god has revealed to1 and implanted in the soul of the holy and the true2 not to believe another ,gospel1 though an ,angel from heaven1 or one transformed into such1 should bring it 7,deut4 xiii4 #c2 ,gal4 i4 #h72 and instead of compelling assent1 miracles are then rather warnings to us that we keep aloof1 for they tell us that not merely lies are here1 for to that the conscience bore witness already1 but that he who utters them is more than a common deceiver1 is eminently 'a liar and an ,anti-christ1' a false prophet1 --standing in more immediate connection than other deceived and evil men to the kingdom of darkness1 so that ,satan has given him his power 7,rev4 xiii4 #b71 is using him to be an especial organ of his1 and to do a special work for him47#a7 ,and he lays down the distinct principle that3 ,the miracle must witness for itself1 and the doctrine must witness for itself1 and then1 and then only1 the first is capable of witnessing for the second47#b7 ,these opinions are not peculiar to the ,archbishop of ,dublin1 but are generally held by divines1 although ,dr4 ,trench expresses them with unusual absence of reserve4 ,dr4 ,mozley emphatically affirms the same doctrine when he says3 ,a miracle cannot oblige us to accept any doctrine which is contrary to our moral nature1 or to a fundamental principle of religion47#c7 ,dr4 ,mansel speaks to the same effect3 ,if a teacher claiming to work miracles proclaims doctrines contradictory to previously established truths1 whether to the conclusions of natural religion or to the teaching of a former revelation1 such a contradiction is allowed even by the most zealous defenders of the evidential value of miracles1 to #ah invalidate the authority of the teacher4 ,but the right conclusion from this admission is not that true miracles are invalid as evidences1 but that the supposed miracles in this case are not true miracles at all2 i4 e41 are not the effects of ,divine power1 but of human deception or of some other agency47#a7 ,a passage from a letter written by ,dr4 ,arnold which is quoted by ,dr4 ,trench in support of his views1 both illustrates the doctrine and the necessity which has led to its adoption3 ,you complain1 says ,dr4 ,arnold1 writing to ,dr4 ,hawkins1 of those persons who judge of a revelation not by its evidence1 but by its substance4 ,it has always seemed to me that its substance is a most essential part of its evidence2 and that miracles wrought in favour of what was foolish or wicked would only prove ,manicheism4 ,we are so perfectly ignorant of the unseen world1 that the character of any supernatural power can only be judged by the moral character of the statements which it sanctions4 ,thus only can we tell whether it be a revelation from ,god or from the ,devil47#b7 ,in another place ,dr4 ,arnold declares3 ,miracles must not be allowed to overrule the ,gospel2 for it is only through our belief in the ,gospel that we accord our belief to them47#c7 #ai ,it is obvious that the mutual dependence which is thus established between miracles and the doctrines in connection with which they are wrought destroys the evidential force of miracles1 and that the first and the final appeal is made to reason4 ,the doctrine in fact proves the miracle instead of the miracle attesting the doctrine4 ,divines of course attempt to deny this1 but no other deduction from their own statements is logically possible4 ,miracles1 according to ,scripture itself1 are producible by various supernatural beings and may be ,satanic as well as ,divine2 man1 on the other hand1 is so ignorant of the unseen world that avowedly he cannot1 from the miracle itself1 determine the agent by whom it was performed27l7 the miracle1 therefore1 has no intrinsic evidential value4 ,how1 then1 according to divines1 does it attain any potentiality8 ,only through a favourable decision on the part of ,reason or the moral nature in man regarding the #bj character of the doctrine4 ,the result of the appeal to ,reason respecting the morality and credibility of the doctrine determines the evidential status of the miracle4 ,the doctrine1 therefore1 is the real criterion of the miracle which1 without it1 is necessarily an object of doubt and suspicion4 ,we have already casually referred to ,dr4 ,newman's view of such a relation between ,miracle and doctrine1 but may here more fully quote his suggestive remarks4 ,others by referring to the nature of the doctrine attested1 he says1 in order to determine the author of the miracle1 have exposed themselves to the plausible charge of adducing1 first the miracle to attest the divinity of the doctrine1 and then the doctrine to prove the divinity of the ,miracle47#a7 ,this argument he characterizes as one of the dangerous modes of removing a difficulty1 although he does not himself point out a safer1 and1 in a note1 he adds3 ,there is an appearance of doing honour to the ,christian doctrines in representing them as intrinsically credible1 which leads many into supporting opinions which1 carried to their full extent1 supersede the need of ,miracles altogether4 ,it must be recollected1 too1 that they who are allowed to praise have the privilege of finding fault1 and may reject1 according to their a priori notions1 as well as receive4 ,doubtless the divinity of a clearly immoral doctrine could not be evidenced by ,miracles2 for our belief in the moral attributes of ,god is much stronger than our conviction of the negative proposition1 that none but ,he can interfere with the system of nature47#c7 ,but there is always #ba the danger of extending this admission beyond its proper limits1 of supposing ourselves adequate judges of the tendency of doctrines2 and1 because unassisted ,reason informs us what is moral and immoral in our own case1 of attempting to decide on the abstract morality of actions2444 ,these remarks are in nowise inconsistent with using 7as was done in a former section7 our actual knowledge of ,god's attributes1 obtained from a survey of nature and human affairs1 in determining the probability of certain professed ,miracles having proceeded from ,him4 ,it is one thing to infer from the experience of life1 another to imagine the character of ,god from the gratuitous conceptions of our own minds47#a7 ,although ,dr4 ,newman apparently fails to perceive that he himself thus makes reason the criterion of miracles and therefore incurs the condemnation with which our quotation opens1 the very indecision of his argument illustrates the dilemma in which divines are placed4 ,dr4 ,mozley1 however1 still more directly condemns the principle which we are discussing--that the doctrine must be the criterion of the miracle--although he also1 as we have purposes for which it never was intended1 and is unfitted4 ,to rationalise in matters of ,revelation is to make our reason the standard and measure of the doctrines revealed2 to stipulate that those doctrines should be such as to carry with them their own justification2 to reject them1 if they come in collision with our existing opinions or habits of thought1 or are with difficulty harmonised with our existing stock of knowledge 7,essays1 ,crit4 and ,hist41 #ahgb1 vol4 i4 p4 #ca72 and a little further on3 ,a like desire of judging for one's self is discernible in the original fall of man4 ,eve did not believe the ,tempter any more than ,god's word1 till she perceived the fruit was good for food ' 7#gf41 p4 #cc74 ,dr4 ,newman1 of course1 wishes to limit his principle precisely to suit his own convenience1 but in permitting the rejection of a supposed ,revelation in spite of miracles1 on the ground of our disapproval of its morality1 it is obvious that the doctrine is substantially made the final criterion of the miracle4 #bb seen1 elsewhere substantially affirms it4 ,he says3 ,the position that the revelation proves the miracles1 and not the miracles the revelation1 admits of a good qualified meaning2 but taken literally1 it is a double offence against the rule1 that things are properly proved by the proper proof of them2 for a supernatural fact is the proper proof of a supernatural doctrine2 while a supernatural doctrine1 on the other hand1 is certainly not the proper proof of a supernatural fact7#a7 ,this statement is obviously true1 but it is equally undeniable that1 their origin being uncertain1 miracles have no distinctive evidential force4 ,how far1 then1 we may inquire in order thoroughly to understand the position1 can doctrines prove the reality of miracles or determine the agency by which they are performed8 ,in the case of moral truths within the limits of reason1 it is evident that doctrines which are in accordance with our ideas of what is good and right do not require miraculous evidence at all4 ,they can secure acceptance by their own merits alone4 ,at the same time it is universally admitted that the truth or goodness of a doctrine is in itself no proof that it emanates directly from ,god1 and consequently the most obvious wisdom and beauty in the doctrine could not attest the divine origin of a miracle4 ,such truths1 however1 have no proper connection with revelation at all4 ,these truths1 to quote the words of ,bishop ,atterbury1 were of themselves sufficiently obvious and plain1 and needed not a ,divine ,testimony to make them plainer4 ,but the ,truths which are necessary in this ,manner to be attested1 are those which are of ,positive ,institution2 those1 which if ,god had not pleased to reveal them1 ,human ,reason could not #bc have discovered2 and those1 which1 even now they are revealed1 ,human ,reason cannot fully account for1 and perfectly comprehend47#a7 ,how is it possible then that ,reason or the moral nature in man can approve as good1 or appreciate the fitness of1 doctrines which in their very nature are beyond the criterion of reason87#b7 ,what reply1 for instance1 can reason give to any appeal to it regarding the doctrine of the ,trinity or of the ,incarnation8 ,if doctrines the truth and goodness of which are apparent do not afford any evidence of ,divine ,revelation1 how can doctrines which ,reason can neither discover nor comprehend attest the ,divine origin of miracles8 ,dr4 ,mozley clearly recognizes that they cannot do so4 ,the proof of a revelation1 he says1 and we may add1 the proof of a miracle--itself a species of revelation--which is contained in the substance of a revelation has this inherent check or limit in it3 viz4 that it cannot reach to what is undiscoverable by reason4 ,internal evidence is itself an appeal to reason1 because at every step the test is our own appreciation of such and such an idea or doctrine1 our own perception of its fitness2 but human reason cannot in the nature of the case prove that which1 by the very hypothesis1 lies beyond human reason47#c7 ,it naturally follows that no doctrine which lies beyond reason1 and therefore requires the attestation of miracles1 can possibly afford that indication of the source and reality of miracles which is necessary to endow them with evidential value1 and the supernatural doctrine must1 therefore1 be rejected in the absence of miraculous evidence of a decisive character4 #bd ,canon ,mozley labours earnestly1 but unsuccessfully1 to restore to ,miracles as evidence some part of that potentiality of which these unfortunate limitations have deprived them4 ,whilst on the one hand he says3 ,we must admit1 indeed1 an inherent modification in the function of a miracle as an instrument of proof17#a7 he argues that this is only a limitation1 and no disproof of it1 and he contends that3 ,the evidence of miracles is not negatived because it has conditions47#b7 ,his reasoning1 however1 is purely apologetic1 and attempts by the unreal analogy of supposed limitations of natural principles and evidence to excuse the disqualifying limitation of the supernatural4 ,he is quite conscious of the serious difficulty of the position3 ,the question1 he says1 may at first sight create a dilemma--,if a miracle is nugatory on the side of one doctrine1 what cogency has it on the side of another8 ,is it legitimate to accept its evidence when we please1 and reject it when we please8 ,the only reply he seems able to give to these very pertinent questions is the remark which immediately follows them3 ,but in truth a miracle is never without an argumentative force1 although that force may be counterbalanced47#c7 ,in other words a miracle is always an argument although it is often a bad one4 ,it is scarcely necessary to go to the supernatural for bad arguments4 ,it might naturally be expected that the miraculous evidence selected to accredit a ,divine ,revelation should possess certain unique and marked characteristics4 ,it must1 at least1 be clearly distinctive of ,divine power1 and exclusively associated with ,divine truth4 ,it is inconceivable that the ,deity1 deigning thus to attest #be the reality of a communication from himself of truths beyond the criterion of reason1 should not make the evidence simple and complete1 because1 the doctrines proper to such a revelation not being appreciable from internal evidence1 it is obvious that the external testimony for them--if it is to be of any use--must be unmistakable and decisive4 ,the evidence which is actually produced1 however1 so far from satisfying these legitimate anticipations1 lacks every one of the qualifications which reason antecedently declares to be necessary4 ,miracles are not distinctive of ,divine power but are common to ,satan1 and they are admitted to be performed in support of falsehood as well as in the service of truth4 ,they bear1 indeed1 so little upon them the impress of their origin and true character1 that they arc dependent for their recognition upon our judgment of the very doctrines to attest which they are said to have been designed4 ,even taking the representation of miracles1 therefore1 which divines themselves give1 they are utterly incompetent to perform their contemplated functions4 ,if they are superhuman they are not super-satanic1 and there is no sense in which they can be considered miraculously evidential of anything4 ,to argue1 as theologians do1 that the ambiguity of their testimony is deliberately intended as a trial of our faith is absurd1 for ,reason being unable to judge of the nature either of supernatural fact or supernatural doctrine1 it would be mere folly and injustice to subject to such a test beings avowedly incapable of sustaining it4 ,whilst it is absolutely necessary1 then1 that a ,divine ,revelation should be attested by miraculous evidence to justify our believing it the testimony so called seems in all respects #bf unworthy of the name1 and presents anomalies much more suggestive of human invention than ,divine originality4 ,we are1 in fact1 prepared even by the ,scriptural account of miracles to expect that further examination will supply an explanation of such phenomena which will wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural4 #bg ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,miracles ,,in ,,relation ,,to ,,the ,,order ,,of ,,nature ,without at present touching the question as to their reality1 it may be well to ascertain what miracles are considered to be1 and how far1 and in what sense it is asserted that they are supernatural ,we have1 hitherto1 almost entirely confined our attention to the arguments of ,english divines1 and we must for the present continue chiefly to deal with them1 for it may broadly be said1 that they alone1 at the present day1 maintain the reality and supernatural character of such phenomena4 ,no thoughtful mind can fail to see that1 considering the function of miracles1 this is the only logical and consistent course47#a7 ,the insuperable difficulties in the way of admitting the reality of miracles1 however1 have driven the great majority of continental1 as well as very many ,english1 theologians who still pretend to a certain orthodoxy1 either to explain the miracles of the ,gospel naturally1 or to suppress them altogether4 ,since ,schleiermacher denounced the idea of ,divine interruptions of the order of nature1 and explained away the supernatural character #bh of miracles1 by defining them as merely relative3 miracles to us1 but in reality mere anticipations of human knowledge and power1 his example has been more or less followed throughout ,germany1 and almost every expedient has been adopted1 by would-be orthodox writers1 to reduce or altogether eliminate the miraculous elements4 ,the attempts which have been made to do this1 and yet to maintain the semblance of unshaken belief in the main points of ecclesiastical ,christianity1 have lamentably failed1 from the hopeless nature of the task and the fundamental error of the conception4 ,the endeavour of ,paulus and his school to get rid of the supernatural by a bold naturalistic interpretation of the language of the ,gospel narratives1 whilst the credibility of the record was represented as intact1 was too glaring an outrage upon common sense to be successful1 but it was scarcely more illogical than subsequent efforts to suppress the miraculous1 yet retain the creed4 ,the great majority of modern ,german critics1 however1 reject the miraculous altogether1 and consider the question as no longer worthy of discussion1 and most of those who have not distinctly expressed this view either resort to every linguistic device to evade the difficulty1 or betray1 by their hesitation1 the feebleness of their belief47#a7 ,in dealing with the #bi question of miracles1 therefore1 it is not to ,germany we must turn1 but to ,england1 where their reality is still maintained4 ,archbishop ,trench rejects with disdain the attempts of ,schleiermacher and others to get rid of the miraculous elements of miracles1 by making them relative1 which he rightly considers to be merely a decently veiled denial of the miracle altogether27#a7 and he will not accept any reconciliation which sacrifices the miracle1 which1 he logically affirms1 is1 in fact1 no miracle1 if it lay in nature already1 if it was only the evoking of forces latent therein1 not a new thing1 not the bringing in of the novel powers of a higher world2 if the mysterious processes and powers by which those works were brought about had been only undiscovered hitherto1 and not undiscoverable1 by the efforts of human inquiry47#b7 ,when ,dr4 ,trench tries to define what he considers the real character of miracles1 however1 he becomes1 as might be expected1 #cj voluminous and obscure4 ,he says3 ,an extraordinary ,divine casualty1 and not that ordinary which we acknowledge everywhere1 and in everything1 belongs1 then1 to the essence of the miracle2 powers of ,god other than those which have always been working2 such1 indeed1 as most seldom or never have been working before4 ,the unresting activity of ,god1 which at other times hides and conceals itself behind the veil of what we term natural laws1 does in the miracle unveil itself2 it steps out from its concealment1 and the hand which works is laid bare4 ,beside and beyond the ordinary operation of nature1 higher powers 7higher1 not as coming from a higher source1 but as bearing upon higher ends7 intrude and make themselves felt even at the very springs and sources of her power47#a7 ,not1 as we shall see the greatest theologians have always earnestly contended1 contra naturam1 but praeter naturam1 and supra naturam47#b7 ,further on he adds3 ,beyond nature1 beyond and above the nature which we know1 they are1 but not contrary to it47#c7 ,dr4 ,newman1 in a similar strain1 though with greater directness1 says3 ,the miracles of ,scripture are undeniably beyond nature2 and he explains them as wrought by persons consciously exercising1 under ,divine guidance1 a power committed to them for definite ends1 professing to be immediate messengers from heaven1 and to be evidencing their mission by their miracles47#d7 ,miracles are here described as beside1 and beyond1 and above nature1 but a moment's consideration must #ca show that1 in so far as these terms have any meaning at all1 they are simply evasions1 not solutions1 of a difficulty4 ,dr4 ,trench is quite sensible of the danger in which the definition of miracles places them1 and how fatal to his argument is would be to admit that they are contrary to the order of nature4 ,the miracle1 he protests1 is not thus unnatural2 nor could it be such1 since the unnatural1 the contrary to order1 is of itself the ungodly1 and can in no way1 therefore1 be affirmed of a ,divine work1 such as that with which we have to do47#a7 ,the archbishop in this2 however1 is clearly arguing from nature to miracles1 and not from miracles to nature4 ,he does not1 of course1 know what miracles really are1 but as he recognizes that the order of nature must be maintained1 he is forced to assert that miracles are not contrary to nature4 ,he repudiates the idea of their being natural phenomena2 and yet attempts to deny that they are unnatural4 ,they must either be the one or the other4 ,the archbishop1 besides2 forgets that he ascribes miracles to ,satan as well as to ,god4 ,indeed1 that his distinction is purely imaginary1 and inconsistent with the alleged facts of ,scriptural miracles1 is apparent from ,dr4 ,trench's own illustrations2 ,the whole argument is a mere quibble of words to evade a palpable dilemma4 ,dr4 ,newman does not fall into this error1 and more boldly faces the difficulty4 ,he admits that the ,scripture miracles innovate upon the impressions which are made upon us by the order and the laws of the natural world27#b7 and that walking on the sea1 or the resurrection of the dead1 is a plain reversal of its laws47#c7 #cb ,take1 for instance1 the multiplication of loaves and fishes4 ,five thousand people are fed upon five barley loaves and two small fishes3 and they took up of the fragments which remained twelve baskets full47#a7 ,dr4 ,trench is forced to renounce all help in explaining this miracle from natural analogies1 and he admits3 ,we must simply behold in the multiplying of the bread 7and fishes87 an act of ,divine omnipotence on ,his part who was the ,word of ,god1--not1 indeed1 now as at the first1 of absolute creation out of nothing1 since there was a substratum to work on in the original loaves and fishes1 but an act of creative accretion47#b7 ,it will scarcely be argued by any one that such an act of ,divine omnipotence and creative accretion as this multiplication of five baked loaves and two small fishes is not contrary to the order of nature47#c7 ,for ,dr4 ,trench has himself pointed out that there must be interposition of man's art here1 and that a grain of wheat could never by itself1 and according to the laws of natural development1 issue in a loaf of bread47#d7 ,undaunted by1 or rather unconscious of1 such contradictions1 the archbishop proceeds with his argument1 and with new definitions of the miraculous4 ,so far from being disorder of nature1 he continues with audacious precision3 the true miracle is a higher and a purer #cc nature coming down out of the world of untroubled harmonies into this world of ours1 which so many discords have jarred and disturbed1 and bringing this back again1 though it be but for one mysterious prophetic moment1 into harmony with that higher47#a7 ,in that higher and purer nature can a grain of wheat issue in a loaf of bread8 ,we have only to apply this theory to the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes to perceive how completely it is the creation of ,dr4 ,trench's poetical fancy4 ,these passages fairly illustrate the purely imaginary and arbitrary nature of the definitions which those who maintain the reality and supernatural character of miracles give of them4 ,that explanation is generally adopted which seems most convenient at the moment1 and none ever passes1 or1 indeed1 ever can pass1 beyond the limits of assumption4 ,the favourite hypothesis is that which ascribes miracles to the action of unknown law4 ,archbishop ,trench naturally adopts it3 ,we should see in the miracle1 he says1 not the infraction of a law1 but the neutralizing of a lower law1 the suspension of it for a time by a higher2 and he asks with indignation1 whence we dare conclude that1 because we know of no powers sufficient to produce miracles1 none exist4 ,they exceed the laws of our nature2 but it does not therefore follow that they exceed the laws of all nature47#b7 ,it is not easy #cd to follow the distinction here between our nature and all nature1 since the order of nature1 by which miracles are judged1 is1 so far as knowledge goes1 universal1 and we have no grounds for assuming that there is any other4 ,the same hypothesis is elaborated by ,dr4 ,mozley4 ,assuming the facts of miracles1 he proceeds to discuss the question of their referribleness to unknown law1 in which expression he includes both unknown law1 or unknown connexion with known law47#a7 ,taking first the supposition of 7unknown7 connection with known law1 ,dr4 ,mozley argues that1 as a law of nature1 in the scientific sense1 cannot possibly produce single or isolated facts1 it follows that no isolated or exceptional event can come under a law of nature by direct observation1 but1 if it comes under it at all1 it can only do so by some explanation1 which takes it out of its isolation and joins it to a class of facts1 whose recurrence indeed constitutes the law4 ,now ,dr4 ,mozley admits that no explanation can be given by which miracles can have an unknown connexion with known law4 ,taking the largest class of miracles1 bodily cures1 the correspondence between a simple command or prophetic notification and the cure is the chief characteristic of miracles1 and distinguishes them from mere marvels4 #ce ,no violation of any law of nature takes place in either the cure or the prophetic announcement taken separately1 but the two1 taken together1 are the proof of superhuman agency4 ,dr4 ,mozley concludes that no physical hypothesis can be framed accounting for the superhuman knowledge and power involved in this class of miracles1 supposing the miracles to stand as they are recorded in ,scripture47#a7 ,dr4 ,mozley then shifts the inquiry to the other and different question1 whether miracles may not be instances of laws which are as yet wholly unknown47#b7 ,this is generally called a question of higher law1 --that is to say1 a law which comprehends under itself two or more lower or less wide laws4 ,and the principle would be applicable to miracles by supposing the existence of an unknown law1 hereafter to be discovered1 under which miracles would come1 and then considering whether this new law of miracles1 and the old law of common facts1 might not both be reducible to a still more general law which comprehended them both4 ,now a law of nature1 in the scientific sense1 cannot exist without a class of facts which comes under it1 and in reality constitutes the law2 but ,dr4 ,mozley of course recognizes that the discovery of such a law of miracles would necessarily involve the discovery of fresh miracles1 for to talk of a law of miracles without miracles would be an absurdity47#c7 ,the supposition of the discovery of such a law of miracles1 however1 would be tantamount to the supposition of a future new order of nature1 from which it immediately follows that the whole supposition is irrelevant and futile as regards the present question47#d7 #cf ,for no new order of things could make the present order different1 and a miracle1 could we suppose it becoming the ordinary fact of another different order of nature1 would not be less a violation of the laws of nature in the present one47#a7 ,dr4 ,mozley also rejects this explanation4 ,we pause here to remark that1 throughout the whole inquiry into the question of miracles1 we meet with nothing from theologians but mere assumptions1 against which the invariability of the known order of nature steadily opposes itself4 ,the facts of the narrative of the miracle are first assumed1 and so are the theories by which it is explained4 ,now1 with regard to every theory which seeks to explain miracles by assumption1 we may quote words applied by one of the ablest defenders of miracles to some conclusion of straw1 which he placed in the mouth of an imaginary antagonist in order that he might refute it3 ,but the question is1 said the late ,dean of ,st4 ,paul's1 not whether such a conclusion has been asserted1 as many other absurdities have been asserted1 by the advocates of a theory1 but whether it has been established on such scientific grounds as to be entitled to the assent of all duly cultivated minds1 whatever their own consciences may say to the contrary47#b7 ,divines are very strict in demanding absolute demonstrations from men of science and others1 but we do not find them at all ready to furnish conclusions of similar accuracy regarding dogmatic theology4 ,immediately after his indignant demand for scientific accuracy of demonstration1 ,dr4 ,mansel proceeds to argue as follows3 ,in the will of man we have the solitary instance of an efficient cause1 in the highest sense of the #cg term1 acting among the physical causes of the material world1 and producing results which could not have been brought about by any mere sequence of physical causes4 ,if a man of his own will throw a stone into the air1 its motion1 as soon as it has left his hand1 is determined by a combination of purely material laws2 but by what law came it to be thrown at all8 ,the law of gravitation1 no doubt1 remains constant and unbroken1 whether the stone is lying on the ground1 or moving through the air1 but all the laws of matter could not have brought about the particular result without the interposition of the free will of the man who throws the stone4 ,substitute the will of ,god for the will of man1 and the argument becomes applicable to the whole extent of ,creation and to all the phenomena which it embraces47#a7 ,it is evident that ,dr4 ,mansel's argument merely tends to prove that every effect must have a cause1 a proposition too obvious to require any argument at all4 ,if a man had not thrown the stone1 the stone would have remained lying on the ground4 ,no one doubts this4 ,we have here1 however1 this solitary instance of an efficient cause acting among the physical causes of the material world1 producing results which are wholly determined by material laws17#b7 and incapable of producing any opposed to them4 ,if1 therefore1 we substitute1 as ,dr4 ,mansel desires1 the will of ,god for the will of man1 we arrive at no results which are not in harmony #ch with the order of nature4 ,we have no ground whatever for assuming any efficient cause acting in any other way than in accordance with the laws of nature4 ,it is1 how-fever1 one of the gross fallacies of this argument1 as applied to miracles1 to pass from the efficient cause producing results which are strictly in accordance with natural laws1 and determined by them1 to an assumed efficient cause producing effects which are opposed to natural law4 ,the restoration to life of a decomposed human body and the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes are opposed to natural laws1 and no assumed efficient cause conceivable to which they may be referred can harmonize them4 ,dr4 ,mozley continues his argument in a similar way4 ,he inquires3 ,is the suspension of physical and material laws by a ,spiritual ,being inconceivable8 ,we reply that1 however inconceivable this kind of suspension of physical law is1 it is a fact4 ,physical laws are suspended any time an animate being moves any part of its body2 the laws of matter are suspended by the laws of life47l7 ,he goes on to maintain that1 although it is true that his spirit is united with the matter in which it moves in a way in which the ,great ,spirit who acts on matter in the miracle is not1 yet the action of ,god's ,spirit in the miracle of walking on the water is no more inconceivable than the action of his own spirit in holding up his own hand4 ,antecedently1 one step on the ground and an ascent to heaven are alike incredible4 ,but this appearance of incredibility is answered in one case literally ambulando4 ,how can ,i place any reliance upon it in the other87#b7 ,from this illustration1 #ci ,dr4 ,mozley1 with a haste very unlike his previous careful procedure1 jumps at the following conclusions3 ,the constitution of nature1 then1 disproved the incredibility of the ,divine suspension of physical law2 but more than this1 it creates a presumption for it47l7 ,the laws of life of which we have experience1 he argues1 are themselves in an ascending scale4 ,first come the laws which regulate unorganized matter2 next the laws of vegetation2 then the laws of animal life1 with its voluntary motion2 and above these again1 the laws of moral being4 ,a supposed intelligent being whose experience was limited to one or more classes in this ascending scale of laws would be totally incapable of conceiving the action of the higher classes4 ,the progressive succession of laws is perfectly conceivable backward1 but an absolute mystery forward4 ,analogy1 therefore1 when in this ascending series we arrive at man1 leads us to expect that there is a higher sphere of law as much above him as he is above the lower natures in the scale1 and supplies a presumption in favour of such a belief47#b7 ,and so we arrive at the question whether there is or is not a ,god1 a ,personal ,head in nature1 whose free will penetrates the universal frame invisibly to us1 and is an omnipresent agent4 ,if there be1 ,dr4 ,mozley concludes1 then1 every miracle in ,scripture is as natural an event in the universe as any chemical experiment in the physical world47#c7 ,this is precisely the argument of ,dr4 ,mansel1 regarding the ,efficient ,cause1 somewhat elaborated1 but1 however ingeniously devised1 it is equally based upon assumption and defective in analogy4 ,the classes of #dj law to which the ,bampton ,lecturer refers work harmoniously side by side1 regulating the matter to which they apply4 ,unorganized matter1 vegetation1 and animal life1 may each have special conditions modifying phenomena1 but they are all equally subject to the same general laws4 ,man is as much under the influence of gravitation as a stone is4 ,the special operation of physical laws is less a modification of law than that law acting under different conditions4 ,the law of gravitation suffers no alteration1 whether it cause the fall of an apple or shape the orbit of a planet4 ,the reproduction of the plant and of the animal is regulated by the same fundamental principle acting through different organisms4 ,the harmonious action of physical laws1 and their adaptability to an infinite variety of forms1 constitute the perfection of that code which produces the order of nature47#a7 ,the mere superiority of man over lower forms of organic and inorganic matter does not lift him above physical laws1 and the analogy of every grade in nature forbids the presumption that higher forms may exist which are exempt from their control4 ,if in animated beings1 as is affirmed1 we had the solitary instance of an efficient cause acting among the forces of nature1 and possessing the power of initiation1 this efficient cause produces no disturbance of physical law4 ,its existence is as much a recognized part of the infinite variety of form within the order of nature as the existence of a crystal or a plant2 and although the character of the force exercised by it may not be clearly understood1 its effects are regulated by the same laws as #da govern all other forces in nature4 ,if the laws of matter are suspended by the laws of life each time an animated being moves any part of its body1 one physical law is counteracted in precisely the same manner1 and to an equivalent degree1 each time another physical law is called into action4 ,the ,law of gravitation1 for instance1 is equally neutralized by the law of magnetism each time a magnet suspends a weight in the air4 ,in each case1 a law is successfully resisted precisely to the extent of the force employed4 ,the arm that is raised by the animated being falls again1 in obedience to law1 as soon as the force which raised it is exhausted1 quite as certainly as the weight descends when the magnetic current fails4 ,this1 however1 is not the suspension of law in the sense of a miracle1 but1 on the contrary1 is simply the natural operation upon each other of co-existent laws4 ,it is a recognized part of the order of nature17#a7 and instead of #db rendering credible any supernatural suspension of laws1 the analogy of animated beings distinctly excludes it4 ,the introduction of life in no way changes the relation between cause and effect1 which constitutes the order of nature1 and is the essence of its law4 ,life favours no presumption for the suspension of law1 but1 on the contrary1 whilst acting in nature1 universally exhibits the prevalence and invariability of law4 ,the laws of life may be subtle1 but they are an integral portion of the great order of nature1 working harmoniously with the laws of matter1 and not one whit more independent of them than any one natural law is of another4 ,the supposed ,efficient ,cause1 is wholly circumscribed by law4 ,it is brought into existence by the operation of immutable physical laws1 and from the cradle to the grave it is subject to those laws4 ,so inseparably is it connected with matter1 and consequently with the laws which regulate matter1 that it cannot even become conscious of its own existence without the intervention of matter4 ,the whole process of life is dependent on obedience to natural laws1 and so powerless is this efficient cause to resist their jurisdiction1 that1 in spite of its highest efforts1 it pines or ceases to exist in consequence of the mere natural operation of law upon the matter with which it is united1 and without #dc which it is impotent4 ,it cannot receive an impression from without that is not conveyed in accordance with law1 and perceived by an exquisitely ordered organism1 in every part of which law reigns supreme2 nor can it communicate from within except through channels equally ordered by law4 ,a slight injury may derange the delicate mechanical contrivances of eye1 ear1 and vocal chords1 and may further destroy the reason and paralyze the body1 reducing the animated being1 by the derangement of those channels to which physical law limits its action1 to a mere smouldering spark of life1 without consciousness and without expression4 ,the laws of life act amongst the laws of matter1 but are not independent of them1 and the action of both classes of law is regulated by precisely the same principles4 ,dr4 ,mozley's affirmation1 that antecedently one step on the ground and an ascent to heaven are alike incredible1 does not help him4 ,in that sense it follows that there is nothing that is not antecedently incredible1 nothing credible until it has happened4 ,this argument1 however1 while it limits us to actual experience1 prohibits presumptions with regard to that which is beyond experience4 ,to argue that1 because a step on the ground and an ascent to heaven are antecedently alike incredible1 yet as we subsequently make that step1 therefore the ascent to heaven1 which we cannot make1 from incredible becomes credible1 is a contradiction in terms4 ,if the ascent be antecedently incredible1 it cannot at the same time be antecedently credible4 ,that which is incredible cannot become credible because something else quite different becomes credible4 ,it is apparent that such an argument is vicious4 ,experience comes #dd with its sober wisdom to check such reasoning4 ,we believe in our power to walk because we habitually exercise it3 we disbelieve in bodily ascensions because all experience excludes them4 ,the step is part of the recognised order of nature1 and has none of the elements in it of the miraculous4 ,but if we leap into the air on the brink of a precipice1 belief in an ascent to heaven is shattered to pieces at the bottom to which the law of gravitation infallibly drags us4 ,there is absolutely nothing in the constitution of nature1 we may say1 reversing ,dr4 ,mozley's assertion1 which does not prove the incredibility of a ,divine suspension of physical laws1 and does not create a presumption against it4 ,there is no instance producible1 or even logically conceivable1 of any power whose effects are opposed to the ultimate ruling of the laws of nature4 ,the occurrence of anything opposed to those laws is incredible4 ,dr4 ,mozley has himself shown that miracles cannot be explained either by unknown connection with known law1 or by reference to unknown law2 and he renounces the explanation of higher law4 ,his distinction between the laws of nature and the laws of the universe17#a7 by which he nevertheless endeavours to make a miracle credible1 is one which is purely imaginary1 and cannot affect us in our present position within the order of nature4 ,we know of no laws of the universe differing from the laws of nature4 ,so far as human observation can range1 these laws alone prevail4 ,for all practical purposes1 therefore1 such a distinction is futile1 and belief is necessarily limited to the actual operation of natural laws4 ,the occasional intervention of an unknown efficient cause1 producing the effects #de called miracles--effects which are not referrible to any known law--is totally opposed to experience1 and such a hypothesis to explain alleged occurrences of a miraculous character cannot find a legitimate place within the order of nature4 #b4 ,the proposition with which ,dr4 ,mozley commences these ,bampton ,lectures1 and for which he contends to their close1 is this3 ,that miracles1 or visible suspensions of the order of nature for a providential purpose1 are not in contradiction to reason47#a7 ,he shows that1 the purpose of miracles is to attest a supernatural revelation1 which1 without them1 we could not be justified in believing4 ,christianity1 he distinctly states1 cannot be maintained as a revelation undiscoverable by human reason--a revelation of a supernatural scheme for man's salvation without the evidence of miracles47#b7 ,out of this very admission he attempts to construct an argument in support of miracles3 ,hence it follows1 he continues1 that upon the supposition of the ,divine design of a revelation1 a miracle is not an anomaly or irregularity1 but part of the system of the universe2 because1 though an irregularity and an anomaly in relation to either part1 it has a complete adaptation to the whole4 ,there being two worlds1 a visible and invisible1 and a communication between the two being wanted1 a miracle is the instrument of that communication47#c7 ,here1 again1 the argument is based upon mere assumption4 #df ,the supposition of the ,divine design of a revelation is the result of a foregone conclusion in its favour1 and is not suggested by antecedent probability4 ,it is1 in fact1 derived solely from the contents of the revelation itself4 ,divines assume that a communication of this nature is in accordance with reason1 and was necessary for the salvation of the human race1 simply because they believe that it took place4 ,no attempt is seriously made independently to prove the reality of the supposed ,divine design of a revelation4 ,a revelation having1 it is supposed1 been made1 that revelation is consequently supposed to have been contemplated1 and to have necessitated and justified suspensions of the order of nature to effect it4 ,the proposition for which the evidence of miracles is demanded is viciously employed as evidence for miracles4 ,the circumstances upon which the assumption of the necessity and reasonableness of a revelation is based1 however1 are incredible1 and contrary to reason4 ,we are asked to believe that ,god made man in his own image1 pure and sinless1 and intended him to continue so1 but that scarcely had this1 his noblest work1 left the hands of the ,creator1 than man was tempted into sin by ,satan1 an all-powerful and persistent enemy of ,god1 whose existence and antagonism to a ,being in whose eyes sin is abomination are not accounted for and are incredible47#a7 ,adam's fall brought a curse upon the earth1 and incurred the penalty of death for himself and for the whole of his posterity4 ,the human race1 although created perfect and without sin1 #dg thus disappointed the expectations of the ,creator1 and became daily more wicked1 the ,evil ,spirit having succeeded in frustrating the designs of the ,almighty1 so that ,god repented that he had made man1 and at length destroyed by a deluge all the inhabitants of the earth1 with the exception of eight persons who feared him4 ,this sweeping purification1 however1 was as futile as the original design1 and the race of men soon became more wicked than ever4 ,the final and only adequate remedy devised by ,god for the salvation of his creatures1 become so desperately and hopelessly evil1 was the incarnation of himself in the person of the ,son1 the second person in a mysterious ,trinity of which the ,godhead is said to be composed1 7who was conceived by the ,holy ,ghost1 and born of the ,virgin ,mary17 and his death upon the cross as a vicarious expiation of the sins of the world1 without which supposed satisfaction of the justice of ,god his mercy could not possibly have been extended to the frail and sinful work of his own hands4 ,the crucifixion of the incarnate ,god was the crowning guilt of a nation whom ,god himself had selected as his own peculiar people1 and whom he had condescended to guide by constant direct revelations of his will1 but who1 from the first1 had displayed the most persistent and remarkable proclivity to sin against him1 and1 in spite of the wonderful miracles wrought on their behalf1 to forsake his service for the worship of other gods4 ,we are asked to believe1 therefore1 in the frustration of the ,divine design of creation1 and in the fall of man into a state of wickedness hateful to ,god1 requiring and justifying the ,divine design of a revelation1 and such a revelation as this1 as a preliminary to the further proposition that1 on the supposition of such a design1 miracles would not be contrary to reason4 #dh ,antecedently1 nothing could be more absolutely incredible or contrary to reason than these statements1 or the supposition of such a design4 ,dr4 ,mozley himself admits that1 as human announcements1 the doctrines of ,christianity would be the wildest delusions1 which we could not be justified in believing1 and that such a scheme could not be maintained without miraculous evidence4 ,the supposition of the ,divine design of the revelation is solely derived from the doctrines supposed to have been revealed1 and1 indeed1 that design forms part of them4 ,until they are proved to be ,divine truths1 these statements must obviously be considered human announcements1 and consequently they are antecedently incredible1 and the wildest delusions4 ,as ,dr4 ,mozley does not pretend that there is anything antecedently credible upon which he can base an assertion that there was actually #di any ,divine design of a revelation1 or that any communication between the two worlds was requisite1 it is therefore clear that his argument consists merely of assumptions admitted to be antecedently incredible4 ,it advances a supposition of that which is contrary to reason to justify supposed visible suspensions of the order of nature1 which are also contrary to reason4 ,incredible assumptions cannot give probability to incredible evidence- ,tertullian's audacious paradox3 ,credo quia impossible1 of which such reasoning is illustrative1 is but the cry of enthusiastic credulity4 ,the whole theory of this abortive design of creation1 with such impotent efforts to amend it1 is emphatically contradicted by the glorious perfection and invariability of the order of nature4 ,it is difficult to say whether the details of the scheme1 or the circumstances which are supposed to have led to its adoption1 are more shocking to reason or to moral sense4 ,the imperfection ascribed to the ,divine work is scarcely more derogatory to the power and wisdom of the ,creator1 than the supposed satisfaction of his justice in the death of himself incarnate1 the innocent for the guilty1 is degrading to the idea of his moral perfection4 ,the supposed necessity for repeated interference to correct the imperfection of the original creation1 the nature of the means employed1 and the triumphant opposition of ,satan1 are anthropomorphic conceptions totally incompatible with the idea of an ,infinitely ,wise and ,almighty ,being4 ,the constitution of nature1 so far from favouring any hypothesis of original perfection and subsequent deterioration1 bears everywhere the record of systematic upward progression4 ,not only is the assumption1 that any revelation of the nature of ecclesiastical ,christianity was necessary1 excluded upon #ej philosophical grounds1 but it is contradicted by the whole operation of natural laws1 which contain in themselves inexorable penalties against natural retrogression1 or even unprogressiveness1 and furnish the only requisite stimulus to improvement47#a7 ,the survival only of the fittest is the #a ,we venture to add a passage from ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer's ,social ,statics1 which we have met with for the first time since this work was published1 in illustration of this assertion4 ,mr4 ,spencer affirms the evanescence of evil and the perfectibility of man1 upon the ground that3 ,all evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions4 ,after an elaborate demonstration of this1 he resumes as follows3 ,if there be any conclusiveness in the foregoing arguments1 such a faith is well founded4 ,as commonly supported by evidence drawn from history1 it cannot be considered indisputable4 ,the inference that as adyancement has been hitherto the rule1 it will be the rule henceforth1 may be called a plausible speculation4 ,but when it is shown that this adyancement is due to the working of a universal law2 and that in virtue of that law it must continue until the state we call perfection is reached1 then the advent of such a state is removed out of the region of probability into that of certainty4 ,if any one demurs to this let him point out the error4 ,here are the several steps of the argument4 ,all imperfection is unfitness to the conditions of existence4 ,this unfitness must consist either in having a faculty or faculties in excess2 or in having a faculty or faculties deficient2 or in both4 ,a faculty in excess is one which the conditions of existence do not afford full exercise to2 and a faculty that is deficient is one from which the conditions of existence demand more than it can perform4 ,but it is an essential principle of life that a faculty to which circumstances do not allow full exercise diminishes2 and that a faculty on which circumstances make excessive demands increases4 ,and so long as this excess and this deficiency continue1 there must continue decrease on the one hand1 and growth on the other4 ,finally all excess and all deficiency must disappear1 that is1 all unfitness must disappear2 that is1 all imperfection must disappear4 ,thus the ultimate development of the ideal man is logically certain-- as certain as any conclusion in which we place the most implicit faith2 for instance1 that all men will die4 ,for why do we infer that all men will die ,p ,simply because1 in an immense number of past experiences1 death has uniformly occurred4 ,similarly then as the experiences of all people in all times--experiences that are embodied in maxims1 proverbs1 and moral precepts1 and that are illustrated in biographies and histories1 go to prove that organs1 faculties1 powers1 capacities1 or whatever else we call them grow by use and diminish from disuse1 it is inferred that they will continue to do so4 ,and if this inference is unquestionable1 then is the one above deduced from it--that humanity must in the end become completely adapted to its conditions-- unquestionable also4 ,progress1 therefore1 is not an accident1 but a necessity4 ,instead of civilization being artificial1 it is a part of nature2 all of a piece with the development of the embryo or the unfolding of a flower4 ,the modifications mankind have undergone1 and are still undergoing1 result from a law underlying the whole organic creation2 and provided the human race continues1 and the constitution of things remains the same1 those modifications must end in completeness4 ,as surely as the tree becomes bulky when it stands alone1 and slender if one of a group2 as surely as the same creature assumes the different forms of cart-horse and racehorse1 according as its habits demand strength or speed2 as surely as a blacksmith's arm grows large1 and the skin of a labourer's hand thick2 as surely as the eye tends to become long-sighted in the sailor1 and shortsighted in the student2 as surely as the blind attain a more delicate sense of touch2 as surely as a clerk acquires rapidity in writing and calculation2 as surely as the musician learns to detect an error of a semitone amidst what seems to others a very babel of sounds2 as surely as a passion grows by indulgence and diminishes when restrained2 as surely as a disregarded conscience becomes inert1 and one that is obeyed active2 as surely as there is any efficacy in educational culture1 or any meaning in such terms as habit1 custom1 practice2 so surely must the human faculties be moulded into complete fitness for the social state2 so surely must the things we call evil and immorality disappear2 so surely must man become perfect4 ,social ,statics1 stereotyped ed4 #ahfh1 p4 #gh f4 #ea stern decree of nature4 ,the invariable action of law of itself eliminates the unfit ,progress is necessary to existence2 extinction is the doom of retrogression4 ,the highest effect contemplated by the supposed ,revelation is to bring man into perfect harmony with law1 and this is ensured by law itself acting upon intelligence4 ,only in obedience to law is there life and safety4 ,knowledge of law is imperatively demanded by nature4 ,ignorance of it is a capital offence4 ,if we ignore the law of gravitation we are dashed to pieces at the foot of a precipice1 or are crushed by a falling rock2 if we neglect sanatory law1 we are destroyed by a pestilence2 if we disregard chemical laws1 we are poisoned by a vapour4 ,there is not1 in reality1 a gradation of breach of law that is not followed by an equivalent gradation of punishment4 ,civilization is nothing but the knowledge and observance of natural laws4 ,the savage must learn them or be extinguished2 the cultivated must observe them or die4 ,the balance of moral and physical development cannot be deranged with impunity4 ,in the spiritual as well as the physical sense only the fittest eventually can survive in the struggle for existence4 ,there is1 in fact1 an absolute upward impulse to the whole human race supplied by the invariable operation of the laws of nature acting upon the common instinct of self-preservation4 ,as1 on the one hand1 the highest human conception of infinite wisdom and power is derived from the universality and invariability of law1 so that universality and invariability1 on the other hand1 exclude the idea of interruption or occasional suspension of law for any purpose whatever1 and more especially for the correction of supposed original errors of design which cannot have existed1 or for the attainment of objects already provided for in the order of nature4 #eb ,upon the first groundless assumption of a ,divine design of such a revelation follows the hypothetical inference that1 for the purpose of making the communication from the unseen world1 a miracle or visible suspension of the order or nature is no irregularity1 but part of the system of the universe4 ,this1 however1 is a mere assertion1 and no argument ,an avowed assumption which is contrary to reason is followed by another which is contrary to experience4 ,it is simply absurd to speak of a visible suspension of the order of nature being part of the system of the universe4 ,such a statement has no meaning whatever within the range of human conception4 ,moreover1 it must be remembered that miracles--or visible suspensions of the order of nature--are ascribed indifferently to ,divine and to ,satanic agency4 ,if miracles are not an anomaly or irregularity on the supposition of the ,divine design of a revelation1 upon what supposition do ,satanic miracles cease to be irregularities8 ,is the order of nature1 which it is asserted is under the personal control of ,god1 at the same time at the mercy of the ,devil8 ,archbishop ,trench has1 as usual1 a singular way of overcoming the difficulty4 ,he says3--,so long as we abide in the region of nature1 miraculous and improbable1 miraculous and incredible may be admitted as convertible terms4 ,but once lift up the whole discussion into a higher region1 once acknowledge something higher than nature1 a kingdom of ,god1 and men the intended denizens of it1 and the whole argument loses its strength and the force of its conclusions4444 ,he who already counts it likely that ,god will interfere for the higher welfare of men1 who believes that there is a #ec nobler world-order than that in which we live and move1 and that it would be the blessing of blessings for that nobler to intrude into and to make itself felt in the region of this lower1 who has found that here in this world we are bound by heavy laws of nature1 of sin1 of death1 which no powers that we now possess can break1 yet which must be broken if we are truly to live1--he will not find it hard to believe the great miracle1 the coming of the ,son of ,god in the flesh1 c444 ,and as he believes that greatest miracle1 so will he believe all other miracles1 c47#a7 ,in other words1 if we already believe the premises we shall not find it difficult to adopt the conclusions--if we already believe the greatest miracle we shall not hesitate to believe the less--if we already believe the dogmas we shall not find it hard to believe the evidence by which they are supposed to be authenticated4 ,as we necessarily do abide in the #ed region of nature1 in which ,dr4 ,trench admits that miraculous and incredible are convertible terms1 it would seem rather difficult to lift the discussion into the higher region here described without having already abandoned it altogether4 #ee ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,reason ,,in ,,relation ,,to ,,the ,,order ,,of ,,nature ,the argument of those who assert the possibility and reality of miracles generally takes the shape of an attack1 more or less direct1 upon our knowledge of the order of nature4 ,to establish an exception they contest the rule4 ,dr4 ,mozley1 however1 is not content with the ordinary objections advanced by apologists but1 boldly entering into the mazes of a delicate philosophical problem1 he adopts sceptical arguments and seeks to turn the flank of the enemy upon his own ground4 ,he conducts his attack with unusual force and ability4 ,whatever difficulty there is in believing in miracles in general1 he says1 arises from the circumstance that they are in contradiction to or unlike the order of nature4 ,to estimate the force of this difficulty1 then1 we must first understand what kind of belief it is which we have in the order of nature2 for the weight of the objection to the miraculous must depend on the nature of the belief to which the miraculous is opposed47#a7 ,dr4 ,mozley defines the meaning of the phrase1 order of nature as the connection of that part of the order of nature of which we are ignorant with that part of it which we know1 the former being expected to be such and such1 because the latter is4 ,but how do we justify this expectation of #ef likeness8 ,we cannot do so1 and all our arguments are mere statements of the belief itself1 he affirms1 and not reasons to account for it4 ,it may be said1 e4g41 that when a fact of nature has gone on repeating itself a certain time1 such repetition shows that there is a permanent cause at work1 and that a permanent cause produces permanently recurring effects4 ,but what is there to show the existence of a permanent cause8 ,nothing4 ,the effects which have taken place show a cause at work to the extent of these effects1 but not further4 ,that this cause is of a more permanent nature we have no evidence4 ,why then do we expect the further continuance of these effects47#b7 ,we can only say3 because we believe the future will be like the past4 ,after a physical phenomenon has even occurred every day for years we have nothing but the past repetition to justify our certain expectation of its future repetition47#c7 ,do we think it giving a reason for our confidence in the future to say that1 though no man has had experience of what is future1 every man has had experience of what was future8 ,it is true that what is future becomes at every step of our advance what was future1 but that which is now still future is not the least altered by that circumstance2 it is as invisible1 as unknown1 and as unexplored as if it were the very beginning and the very starting-point of nature4 ,at this starting-point of nature what would a man know of its future course8 ,nothing4 ,at this moment he knows no more47#d7 ,what ground of reason1 then1 can we assign for our expectation that any part of the course of nature will the next moment be like what it has been up to this moment1 i4e41 for our belief #eg in the uniformity of nature8 ,none4 ,it is without a reason4 ,it rests upon no rational ground1 and can be traced to no rational principle47#a7 ,the belief in the order of nature being thus an unintelligent impulse of which we cannot give any rational account1 ,dr4 ,mozley concludes1 the ground is gone upon which it could be maintained that miracles1 as opposed to the order of nature1 were opposed to reason4 ,a miracle in being opposed to our experience is not only not opposed to necessary reasoning1 but to any reasoning47#b7 ,we need not further follow the ,bampton ,lecturer1 as with clearness and ability he applies this reasoning to the argument of ,experience1 until he pauses triumphantly to exclaim3 ,thus step by step has philosophy loosened the connection of the order of nature with the ground of reason1 befriending1 in exact proportion as it has done this1 the principle of miracles47#c7 ,we need not here enter upon any abstract argument regarding the permanence or otherwise of cause3 it will be sufficient to deal with these objections in a simpler and more direct way4 ,dr4 ,mozley1 of course1 acknowledges that the principle of the argument from experience is that which makes human life practicable2 which utilizes all our knowledge2 which makes the past anything more than an irrelevant picture to us2 for of what use is the experience of the past to us unless we believe the future will be like it8'7#d7 ,our knowledge in all things is relative1 and there are sharp and narrow limits to human thought4 ,it is therefore evident that1 in the absence of absolute knowledge1 our belief must be accorded to that of which we have #eh more full cognizance rather than to that which is contradicted by all that we do know4 ,it may be irrational to feel entire confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow1 or that the moon will continue to wax and wane as in the past1 but we shall without doubt retain this belief1 and reject any assertion1 however positive1 that the earth will stand still to-morrow1 or that it did so some thousands of years ago4 ,evidence must take its relative place in the finite scale of knowledge and thought1 and if we do not absolutely know anything whatever1 so long as one thing is more fully established than another1 we must hold to that which rests upon the more certain basis4 ,our belief in the invariability of the order of nature1 therefore1 being based upon more certain grounds than any other human opinion1 we must of necessity refuse credence to a statement supported by infinitely less complete testimony1 and contradicted by universal experience1 that phenomena subversive of that order occurred many years ago1 or we must cease to believe anything at all4 ,if belief based upon unvarying experience be irrational1 how much more irrational must belief be which is opposed to that experience4 ,according to ,dr4 ,mozley1 it is quite irrational to believe that a stone dropped from the hand1 for instance1 will fall to the ground4 ,it is true that all the stones we ourselves have ever dropped1 or seen dropped1 have so fallen1 and equally true that all stones so dropped as far back as historic records1 and those still more authentic and ancient records of earth's crust itself go1 have done the same1 but that does not justify our belief1 upon any grounds of reason1 that the next stone we drop will do so4 ,if we be told1 however1 that upon one occasion a stone so dropped1 instead of falling to the ground1 rose #ei up into the air and continued there1 we have only two courses open to us3 either to disbelieve the fact1 and attribute the statement to error of observation1 or to reduce the past to a mere irrelevant picture1 and the mind to a blank page equally devoid of all belief and of all intelligent reasoning4 ,dr4 ,mozley's argument1 however1 is fatal to his own cause4 ,it is admitted that miracles1 or visible suspensions of the order of nature17#a7 cannot have any evidential force unless they be supernatural1 and out of the natural sequence of ordinary phenomena4 ,now1 unless there be an actual order of nature1 how can there be any exception to it8 ,if our belief in it be not based upon any ground of reason1--as ,dr4 ,mozley maintains1 in order to assert that miracles or visible suspensions of that order are not contrary to reason1--how can it be asserted that miracles are supernatural8 ,if we have no rational ground for believing that the future will be like the past1 what rational ground can we have for thinking that anything which happens is exceptional1 and out of the common course of nature8 ,because it has not happened before8 ,that is no reason whatever2 because the fact that a thing has happened ten millions of times is no rational justification of our expectation that it will happen again4 ,if the reverse of that which had happened previously took place on the ten million and first time we should have no rational ground for surprise1 and no reason for affirming that it did not occur in the most natural manner4 ,because we cannot explain its cause8 ,we cannot explain the cause of anything4 ,our belief that there is any permanent cause is a mere unintelligent impulse4 ,we can only say that there is a cause #fj sufficient to produce an isolated effect1 but we do not know the nature of that cause1 and it is a mere irrational instinct to suppose that any cause produces continuous effects1 or is more than momentary4 ,a miracle1 consequently1 becomes a mere isolated effect from an unknown cause1 in the midst of other merely isolated phenomena from unknown causes1 and it is as irrational to wonder at the occurrence of what is new1 as to expect the recurrence of what is old4 ,in fact1 an order of nature is at once necessary1 and fatal1 to miracles4 ,if there be no order of nature1 miracles cannot be considered supernatural occurrences1 and have no evidential value2 if there be an order of nature1 the evidence for its immutability must consequently exceed the evidence for these isolated deviations from it4 ,if we are unable rationally to form expectations of the future from unvarying experience in the past1 it is still more irrational to call that supernatural which is merely different from our past experience4 ,take1 for instance1 the case of supposed exemption from the action of the law of gravitation1 which ,archbishop ,trench calls a lost prerogative of our race37#a7 we cannot rationally affirm that next week we may not be able to walk on the sea1 or ascend bodily into the air4 ,to deny this because we have not hitherto been able to do so is unreasonable2 for1 as ,dr4 ,mozley maintains1 it is a mere irrational impulse which expects that which has hitherto happened1 when we have made such attempts1 to happen again next week4 ,if we cannot rationally deny the possibility1 however1 that we may be able at some future time to walk on the sea or ascend into the air1 the statement that these phenomena have already occurred loses all its force1 and such occurrences #fa cease to be in any way supernatural4 ,if1 on the other hand1 it would be irrational to affirm that we may next week become exempt from the operation of the law of gravitation1 it can only be so by the admission that unvarying experience forbids the entertainment of such a hypothesis1 and in that case it equally forbids belief in the statement that such acts ever actually took place4 ,if we deny the future possibility on any ground of reason1 we admit that we have grounds of reason for expecting the future to be like the past1 and therefore contradict ,dr4 ,mozley's conclusion2 and if we cannot deny it upon any ground of reason1 we extinguish the claim of such occurrences in the past to any supernatural character4 ,any argument which could destroy faith in the order of nature would be equally destructive to miracles4 ,if we have no right to believe in a rule1 there can be no right to speak of exceptions4 ,the result in any case is this1 that whether the principle of the order of nature be established or refuted1 the supernatural pretensions of miracles are disallowed4 ,more than this1 however1 must inevitably be deduced from ,dr4 ,mozley's reasoning4 ,in denying1 as he does1 the doctrine of a permanent cause1 ,dr4 ,mozley must equally renounce1 as without foundation in reason1 the assumption of a permanent agent working miracles4 ,not only do the supposed miracles1 in the complete isolation of all effects1 cease to be supernatural or even exceptional1 but as it cannot be affirmed that there is any cause of a nature more permanent than its existing or known effects1 it is obvious that miracles cannot be traced to an eternal ,being of permanent omnipotence4 ,if ,dr4 ,mozley1 therefore1 be understood to adopt this reasoning as his own1 he has involved himself1 in the #fb necessary abandonment both of miracles as supernatural occurrences1 and of a permanent and unlimited cause of miracles4 ,if1 on the other hand1 he has merely snatched the sword of an adversary to turn it against him1 he has unfortunately impaled himself upon the borrowed weapon4 #b4 ,throughout the whole of his argument against the rationality of belief in the order of nature1 the rigorous precision which ,dr4 ,mozley unrelentingly demands from his antagonists is remarkable4 ,they are not permitted to deviate by a hair's breadth from the line of strict logic1 and the most absolute exactness of demonstration is required4 ,anything like an assumption or argument from analogy is excluded2 induction is allowed to add no reason to bare and isolated facts2 and the belief that the sun will rise to-morrow morning is1 with pitiless severity1 written down as mere unintelligent impulse4 ,belief in the return of day1 based upon the unvarying experience of all past time1 is declared to be without any ground of reason4 ,we find anything but fault with strictness of argument2 but it is fair that equal precision should be observed by those who assert miracles1 and that assumption and inaccuracy should be excluded4 ,hitherto1 as we have frequently pointed out1 we have met with very little or nothing but assumption in support of miracles2 but1 encouraged by the inflexible spirit of ,dr4 ,mozley's attack upon the argument from experience1 we may look for similar precision from himself4 #fc ,proceeding1 however1 from his argument against the rationality of belief in the order of nature to his more direct argument for miracles1 we are astonished to find a total abandonment of the rigorous exactness imposed upon his antagonists1 and a complete relapse into assumptions4 ,dr4 ,mozley does not conceal the fact4 ,the peculiarity of the argument of miracles1 he frankly admits1 is1 that it begins and ends with an assumption2 ,i mean relatively to that argument47#a7 ,such an argument is no argument at all2 it is a mere petitio principii1 incapable of proving anything4 ,the nature of the assumptions obviously does not in the slightest degree affect this conclusion4 ,it is true that the statement of the particular assumptions may constitute an appeal to belief otherwise derived1 and evolve feelings which may render the calm exercise of judgment more difficult1 but the fact remains absolute1 that an argument which begins and ends with an assumption is totally impotent4 ,it remains an assumption1 and is not an argument at all4 #fd ,notwithstanding this unfortunate and disqualifying peculiarity we may examine the argument4 ,it is as follows3 ,we assume the existence of a ,personal ,deity prior to the proof of miracles in the religious sense2 but with this assumption the question of miracles is at an end2 because such a ,being has necessarily the power to suspend those laws of nature which ,he has ,himself enacted47#a7 ,the question of miracles1 which ,dr4 ,mozley here asserts to be at an end on the assumption of a ,personal ,deity1 is of course merely that of the possibility of miracles2 but it is obvious that1 even with the precise definition of ,deity which is assumed1 instead of the real question being at an end1 it only commences4 ,the power to suspend the laws of nature being assumed1 the will to suspend them has to be demonstrated1 and the actual occurrence of any such suspension1 which1 it has already been shown1 is contrary to reason4 ,the subject is1 moreover1 complicated by the occurrence of ,satanic as well as ,divine suspensions of the order of nature1 and by the necessity of assuming a ,personal ,devil as well as a ,personal ,deity1 and his power to usurp that control over the laws of nature1 which is assumed as the prerogative of the ,deity1 and to suspend them in direct opposition to ,god4 ,the express ascription of miracles to the special intervention of a ,personal ,god is also1 as we have seen1 excluded by the ,scriptural admission that there are other supernatural beings capable of performing them4 ,even ,dr4 ,newman has recognized this1 and1 in a passage already quoted1 he says3 ,for the cogency of the argument from ,miracles depends on the assumption1 that interruptions in the course of nature must ultimately proceed from ,god2 which is not true1 if they may be #fe effected by other beings without ,his sanction47#a7 ,the first assumption1 in fact1 leads to nothing but assumptions connected with the unseen1 unknown and supernatural1 which are beyond the limits of reason4 ,dr4 ,mozley is well aware that his assumption of a ,personal ,deity is not susceptible of proof27#b7 indeed1 this is admitted in the statement that the definition is an assumption4 ,he quotes the obvious reply which may be made regarding this assumption3--,everybody must collect from the harmony of the physical universe the existence of a ,god1 but in acknowledging a ,god1 we do not thereby acknowledge this peculiar doctrinal conception of a ,god4 ,we see in the structure of nature a mind--a universal mind--but still a mind which only operates and expresses itself by law4 ,nature only does and only can inform us of mind in nature1 the partner and correlative of organized matter4 ,nature1 therefore1 can speak to the existence of a ,god in this sense1 and can speak to the omnipotence of ,god in a sense coinciding with the actual facts of nature2 but in no other sense does nature witness to the existence of an ,omnipotent ,supreme ,being4 ,of a universal ,mind out of nature1 nature says nothing1 and of an ,omnipotence which does not possess an inherent limit in nature1 she says nothing either4 ,and1 therefore1 that conception of a ,supreme ,being which represents him as a ,spirit #ff independent of the physical universe1 and able from a standing-place external to nature to interrupt its order1 is a conception of ,god for which we must go elsewhere4 ,that conception is obtained from revelation which is asserted to be proved by miracles4 ,but that being the case1 this doctrine of ,theism rests itself upon miracles1 and1 therefore1 miracles cannot rest upon this doctrine of ,theism47#a7 ,with his usual fairness1 ,dr4 ,mozley1 while questioning the correctness of the premiss of this argument1 admits that1 if established1 the consequence stated would follow1 and more1 for miracles being thrown back upon the same ground on which ,theism is1 the whole evidence of revelation becomes a vicious circle1 and the fabric is left suspended in space1 revelation resting on miracles and miracles resting on revelation47#b7 ,he not only recognizes1 however1 that the conception of a ,person al ,deity cannot be proved1 but he distinctly confesses that it was obtained from revelation17#c7 and from nowhere else1 and these necessary admissions obviously establish the correctness of the premiss1 and involve the consequence pointed out1 that the evidence of revelation is a mere vicious circle4 ,dr4 ,mozley attempts to argue that1 although the idea was first obtained through this channel1 the truth once possessed is seen to rest upon grounds of natural reason47#d7 ,why1 then1 does he call it an assumption8 ,the argument by which he seeks to show that the conception is seen to rest upon grounds of natural reason is3 ,we naturally attribute to the design of a ,personal ,being a contrivance which is directed to the existence of a ,personal ,being4444 ,from personality #fg at one end ,i infer personality at the other4 ,dr4 ,mozley's own sense of the weakness of his argument1 however1 and his natural honesty of mind oblige him continually to confess the absence of evidence4 ,a few paragraphs further on he admits3--,not1 however1 that the existence of a ,god is so clearly seen by reason as to dispense with faith27#a7 but he endeavours to convince us that faith is reason1 only reason acting under peculiar circumstances3 when reason draws conclusions which are not backed by experience1 reason is then called faith47#b7 ,the issue of the argument1 he contends1 is so amazing1 that if we do not tremble for its safety it must be on account of a practical principle1 which makes us confide and trust in reasons1 and that principle is faith4 ,we are not aware that conviction can be arrived at regarding any matter otherwise than by confidence in the correctness of the reasons1 and what ,dr4 ,mozley really means by faith1 here1 is confidence and trust in a conclusion for which there are no reasons4 ,it is almost incredible that the same person who had just been denying grounds of reason to conclusions from unvarying experience1 and excluding from them the results of inductive reasoning--who had denounced as unintelligent impulse and irrational instinct the faith that the sun1 which has risen without fail every morning since time began1 will rise again to-morrow1 could thus argue4 ,in fact1 from the very commencement of the direct plea for miracles1 calm logical reasoning is abandoned1 and the argument becomes entirely ad hominem4 ,mere feeling is substituted for thought1 and in the inability to be precise and logical1 the lecturer appeals #fh to the generally prevailing inaccuracy of thought47#a7 ,faith1 then1 he concludes1 is unverified reason2 reason which has not yet received the verification of the final test1 but is still expectant4 ,in science this1 at the best1 would be called mere hypothesis1 but accuracy can scarcely be expected where the argument continues3 ,indeed1 does not our heart bear witness to the fact that to believe in a ,god--i4 e41 a ,personal ,god --is an exercise of faith8 c47#b7 ,it does not help ,dr4 ,mozley that ,butler1 ,paley1 and all other divines have equally been obliged to commence with the same assumption2 and1 indeed1 as we have already remarked1 ,dr4 ,mozley honestly admits the difficulty of the case1 and while naturally making the most of his own views1 he does not disguise the insecurity of the position4 ,he deprecates that school which maintains that any average man1 taken out of a crowd1 who has sufficient common sense to manage his own affairs1 is a fit judge1 and such a judge as was originally contemplated1 of the ,christian evidences27#c7 and he says3 ,it is not1 indeed1 consistent with truth1 nor would it conduce to the real defence of ,christianity1 to underrate the difficulties of the ,christian evidence2 or to disguise this characteristic of it1 that the very facts which constitute the evidence of revelation have to be accepted by an act of faith themselves1 before they can operate as a proof of that further truth47#d7 ,such evidence is manifestly worthless4 ,after all his assumptions1 ,dr4 ,mozley is reduced to the necessity of pleading3 ,a probable fact is a probable evidence4 ,i may1 therefore1 use a miracle as evidence of a revelation1 though #fi ,i have only probable evidence for the miracle47#a7 ,the probability of the miracle1 however1 is precisely what is denied1 as opposed to reason and experience1 and incompatible with the order of nature4 ,a cause is1 indeed1 weak when so able an advocate is reduced to such reasoning4 ,the deduction which is drawn from the assumption of a ,personal ,deity is1 as we have seen1 merely the possibility of miracles4 ,paley's criticism1 said the late ,dean of ,st4 ,paul's1 is1 after all1 the true one--'once believe that there is a ,god1 and miracles are not incredible4'7#b7 ,the assumption1 therefore1 although of vital importance in the event of its rejection1 does not very materially advance the cause of miracles if established4 ,we have already seen that the assumption is avowedly incapable of proof1 but it may be well to examine it a little more closely in connection with the inferences supposed to be derivable from it4 ,we must1 however1 in doing so carefully avoid being led into a metaphysical argument1 which would be foreign to the purpose of this inquiry4 ,in his ,bampton ,lectures on ,the ,limit of ,religious ,thought1 delivered in #aheh1 ,dr4 ,mansel1 the very able editor and disciple of ,sir ,william ,hamilton1 discussed this subject with great minuteness1 and although we cannot pretend here to follow him through the whole of his singular argument--a theological application of ,sir ,william ,hamilton's philosophy--we must sufficiently represent it4 ,dr4 ,mansel argues3 ,we are absolutely incapable of conceiving or proving the existence of ,god as he is2 and so far is human reason from being able to #gj construct a theology independent of revelation that it cannot even read the alphabet out of which that theology must be formed47#a7 ,we are compelled1 by the constitution of our minds1 to believe in the existence of an ,absolute and ,infinite ,being2 but the instant we attempt to analyse1 we are involved in inextricable confusion47#b7 ,our moral consciousness demands that we should conceive him as a ,personality1 but personality1 as we conceive it1 is essentially a limitation2 to speak of an ,absolute and ,infinite ,person is simply to use language to which no mode of human thought can possibly attach itself47#c7 ,this amounts simply to an admission that our knowledge of ,god does not satisfy the conditions of speculative philosophy1 and is incapable of reduction to an ultimate and absolute truth47#d7 ,it is1 therefore1 reasonable that we should expect to find that the revealed manifestation of the ,divine nature and attributes should likewise carry the marks of subordination to some higher truth1 of which it indicates the existence1 but does not make known the substance2 and that our apprehension of the revealed ,deity should involve mysteries inscrutable1 and #ga doubts insoluble by our present faculties1 while at the same time it inculcates the true spirit in which doubt should be dealt with by warning us that our knowledge of ,god1 though revealed by himself1 is revealed in relation to human faculties1 and subject to the limitations and imperfections inseparable from the constitution of the human mind47#a7 ,we need not1 of course1 point out that the reality of revelation is here assumed4 ,elsewhere1 ,dr4 ,mansel maintains that philosophy1 by its own incongruities1 has no claim to be accepted as a competent witness2 and1 on the other hand1 human personality cannot be assumed as an exact copy of the ,divine1 but only as that which is most nearly analogous to it among finite things47#b7 ,as we are1 therefore1 incapable on the one hand of a clear conception of the ,divine ,being1 and have only analogy to guide us in conceiving his attributes1 we have no criterion of religious truth or falsehood1 enabling us to judge of the ways of ,god1 represented by revelation17#c7 and have no right to judge of his justice1 or mercy1 or goodness1 by the standard of human morality4 ,it is impossible to conceive an argument more vicious1 or more obviously warped to favour already accepted #gb conclusions of revelation3--,as finite beings we are not only incapable of proving the existence of ,god1 but even of conceiving him as he is2 therefore we may conceive him as he is not4 ,to attribute personality to him is a limitation totally incompatible with the idea of an ,absolute and ,infinite ,being1 in which we are compelled by the constitution of our minds to believe2 and to speak of him as a personality is to use language to which no mode of human thought can possibly attach itself2 but1 nevertheless1 to satisfy supposed demands of our moral consciousness1 we are to conceive him as a personality4 ,although we must define the ,supreme ,being as a personality to satisfy our moral consciousness1 we must not1 we are told1 make the same moral consciousness the criterion of the attributes of that personality4 ,we must not suppose him to be endowed1 for instance1 with the perfection of morality according to our ideas of it2 but1 on the contrary1 we must hold that his moral perfections are at best only analogous1 and often contradictory1 to our standard of morality4#a ,as soon as we conceive a ,personal ,deity to satisfy our moral consciousness1 we have to abandon the personality which satisfies that consciousness1 in order to accept the characteristics of a supposed ,revelation1 to reconcile certain statements of which we must admit that we have no criterion of truth or falsehood enabling us to judge of the ways of ,god4 ,now1 in reference to the assumption of a ,personal ,deity as a preliminary to the proof of miracles1 it must be clearly remembered that the contents of the revelation which miracles are to authenticate cannot #gc have any weight4 ,antecedently1 then1 it is admitted that personality is a limitation which is absolutely excluded by the ideas of the ,deity1 which1 it is asserted1 the constitution of our minds compete us to form4 ,it cannot1 therefore1 be rationally assumed4 ,to admit that such a conception is false1 and then to base conclusions upon it1 as though it were true1 is absurd4 ,it is child's play to satisfy our feeling and imagination by the conscious sacrifice of our reason4 ,moreover1 ,dr4 ,mansel admits that the conception of a ,personal ,deity is really derived from the revelation1 which has to be rendered credible by miracles2 therefore the consequence already pointed out ensues1 that the assumption cannot be used to prove miracles4 ,it must be allowed that it is not through reasoning that men obtain the first intimation of their relation to the ,deity2 and that1 had they been left to the guidance of their intellectual faculties alone1 it is possible that no such intimation might have taken place2 or at best1 that it would have been but as one guess1 out of many equally plausible and equally natural47#a7 ,the vicious circle of the argument is here again apparent1 and the singular reasoning by which the late ,dean of ,st4 ,paul's seeks to drive us into an acceptance of ,revelation is really the strongest argument against it4 ,the impossibility of conceiving ,god as he is17#b7 which is insisted upon1 instead of being a #gd reason for assuming his personality1 or for accepting ,jewish conceptions of him1 totally excludes such an assumption4 ,this great religious assumption7#a7 is not suggested by any antecedent considerations1 but is required to account for miracles1 and is derived from the very ,revelation which miracles are to attest4 ,in nature and from nature1 to quote ,words of ,professor ,baden ,powell1 by science and by reason1 we neither have nor can possibly have any evidence of a ,deity working miracles2--for that we must go out of nature and beyond science4 ,if we could have any such evidence from nature1 it could only prove extraordinary natural effects1 which would not be miracles in the old theological sense1 as isolated1 unrelated1 and uncaused2 whereas no physical fact can be conceived as unique1 or without analogy and relation to others1 and to the whole system of natural causes47#b7 ,being1 therefore1 limited to ,reason for any feeble conception of a ,divine ,being of which we may be capable1 and ,reason being totally opposed to the idea of an order of nature so imperfect as to require or permit repeated interference1 and rejecting the supposition of arbitrary #ge suspensions of ,law1 such a conception of a ,deity as is proposed by theologians must be pronounced irrational and derogatory4 ,it is impossible for us to conceive a ,supreme ,being acting otherwise than we actually see in nature1 and if we recognize in the universe the operation of infinite wisdom and power1 it is in the immutable order and regularity of all phenomena1 and in the eternal prevalence of ,law1 that we see their highest manifestation4 ,this is no conception based merely upon observation of law and order in the material world1 as ,dr4 ,mansel insinuates17#a7 but it is likewise the result of the highest exercise of mind4 ,dr4 ,mansel does not hesitate to affirm with ,sir ,william ,hamilton that the class of phenomena which requires that kind of cause we denominate a ,deity is exclusively given in the phenomena of mind2 that the phenomena of matter1 taken by themselves1 do not warrant any inference to the existence of a ,god47#b7 ,after declaring a ,supreme ,being1 from every point of view1 inconceivable by our finite minds1 it is singular to find him thrusting upon us1 in consequence1 a conception of that ,being which almost makes us exclaim with ,bacon3 ,it were better to have no opinion of ,god at all than such an opinion as is unworthy of him2 for the one is unbelief1 the other is contumely47#c7 ,dr4 ,mansel asks3 ,is matter or mind the truer image of ,god87#d7 ,but both matter and mind unite in repudiating so unworthy a conception of a ,god1 and in rejecting the idea of suspensions of ,law4 ,in the words of ,spinoza3 ,from miracles #gf we can neither infer the nature1 the existence1 nor the providence of ,god1 but1 on the contrary1 these may be much better comprehended from the fixed and immutable order of nature27#a7 indeed1 as he adds1 miracles1 as contrary to the order of nature1 would rather lead us to doubt the existence of ,god47#b7 ,six centuries before our era1 a noble thinker1 ,xenophanes of ,colophon1 whose pure mind soared far above the base anthropomorphic mythologies of ,homer and ,hesiod1 and anticipated some of the highest results of the ,platonic philosophy1 finely said3-- ,there is one ,god supreme over all gods1 diviner than mortals1 ,whose form is not like unto man's1 and as unlike his nature2 ,but vain mortals imagine that gods like themselves are begotten1 ,with human sensations1 and voice1 and corporeal members2' ,so if oxen or lions had hands and could work iu man's fashion1 ,and trace out with chisel or brush their conception of ,godhead1 ,then would horses depict gods like horses1 and oxen like oxen1 ,each kind the ,divine with its own form and nature endowing47#d7 ,he illustrates this profound observation by pointing out that the ,ethiopians represent their deities as black with flat noses1 while the ,thracians make them blue-eyed with ruddy complexions1 and1 similarly1 the ,medes and the ,persians and ,egyptians portray their gods like #gg themselves47#a7 ,the ,jewish idea of ,god was equally anthropomorphic2 but their highest conception was certainly that which the least resembled themselves1 and which described the ,almighty as without variableness or shadow of turning1 and as giving a law to the universe which shall not be broken47#b7 #c4 ,none of the arguments with which we have yet met have succeeded in making miracles in the least degree antecedently credible4 ,on the contrary they have been based upon mere assumptions incapable of proof and devoid of probability4 ,on the other hand there are the strongest reasons for affirming that such phenomena are antecedently incredible4 ,dr4 ,mozley's attack which we discussed in the first part of this chapter1 and which of course was chiefly based upon ,hume's celebrated argument1 #gh never seriously grappled the doctrine at all4 ,the principle which opposes itself to belief in miracles is very simple4 ,whatever is contradictory to universal and invariable experience is antecedently incredible1 and as that sequence of phenomena which is called the order of nature is established by and in accordance with universal experience1 miracles or alleged violations of that order1 by whatever name they may be called1 or whatever definition may be given of their characteristics or object1 are antecedently incredible4 ,the preponderance of evidence for the invariability of the order of nature1 in fact1 is so enormous that it is impossible to credit the reality of such variations from it1 and reason and experience concur in attributing the ascription of a miraculous character to any actual occurrences which may have been witnessed to imperfect observation1 mistaken inference or some other of the numerous sources of error4 ,any allegation of the interference of a new and supernatural agent1 upon such an occasion1 to account for results1 in contradiction of the known sequence of cause and effect1 is excluded by the very same principle1 for invariable experience being as opposed to the assertion that such interference ever takes place as it is to the occurrence of miraculous phenomena1 the allegation is necessarily disbelieved4 ,apologists find it much more convenient to evade the simple but effective arguments of ,hume than to answer them1 and where it is possible they dismiss them with a sneer1 and hasten on to less dangerous ground4 ,for instance1 a recent ,hulsean ,lecturer1 arguing the antecedent credibility of the miraculous1 makes the following remarks3 ,now1 as regards the inadequacy of testimony to establish a miracle1 modern scepticism has not advanced #gi one single step beyond the blank assertion4 ,and it is astonishing that this assertion should still be considered cogent1 when its logical consistency has been shattered to pieces by a host of writers as well sceptical as ,christian 7,mill's ,logic1 ii41 #aeg--afj74 ,for1 as the greatest of our living logicians has remarked1 the supposed recondite and dangerous formula of ,hume--that it is more probable that testimony should be mistaken than that miracles should be true--reduces itself to the very harmless proposition that anything is incredible which is contrary to a complete induction4 ,it is in fact a flagrant petitio principii1 used to support a wholly unphilosophical assertion47#a7 ,it is much more astonishing that so able a man as ,dr4 ,farrar could so misunderstand ,hume's argument and so misinterpret and mis-state ,mr4 ,mill's remarks upon it4 ,so far from shattering to pieces the logical consistency of ,hume's reasoning1 ,mr4 ,mill substantially confirms it1 and pertinently remarks that it speaks ill for the state of philosophical speculation on such subjects that so simple and evident a doctrine should have been accounted a dangerous heresy4 ,it is1 in fact1 the statement of a truth which should have been universally recognized1 and would have been so1 but for its unwelcome and destructive bearing upon popular theology4 ,mr4 ,mill states the evident principle1 that--,if an alleged fact be in contradiction1 not to any number of approximate generalizations1 but to a completed generalization grounded on a rigorous induction1 it is said to be impossible1 and is to be disbelieved totally4 ,mr4 ,mill continues43 ,this last principle1 simple and evident as it #hj appears1 is the doctrine which1 on the occasion of an attempt to apply it to the question of the credibility of miracles1 excited so violent a controversy4 ,hume's celebrated doctrine1 that nothing is credible which is contradictory to experience or at variance with laws of nature1 is merely this very plain and harmless proposition1 that whatever is contradictory to a complete induction is incredible47#a7 ,he then proceeds to meet possible objections3 ,but does not 7it may be asked7 the very statement of the proposition imply a contradiction8 ,an alleged fact according to this theory is not to be believed if it contradict a complete induction4 ,but it is essential to the completeness of an induction that it should not contradict any known fact4 ,is it not1 then1 a petitio principii to say1 that the fact ought to be disbelieved because the induction to it is complete8 ,how can we have a right to declare the induction complete1 while facts1 supported by credible evidence1 present themselves in opposition to it8 ,i answer1 we have that right whenever the scientific canons of induction give it to us2 that is1 whenever the induction can be complete4 ,we have it1 for example1 in a case of causation in which there has been an experimentum cruris4 ,it will be remarked that ,dr4 ,farrar adopts ,mr4 ,mill's phraseology in one of the above questions to affirm the reverse of his opinion4 ,mr4 ,mill decides that the proposition is not a petitio principii2 ,dr4 ,farrar says1 as in continuation of his reference to ,mr4 ,mill1 that it is a flagrant petitio principii4 ,mr4 ,mill proceeds to prove his statement1 and he naturally argues that1 if observations or experiments have been repeated so often1 and by so many persons1 as to exclude all supposition of #ha error in the observer1 a law of nature is established2 and so long as this law is received as such1 the assertion that on any particular occasion the cause ,a took place and yet the effect ,b did not follow1 without any counteracting cause1 must be disbelieved4 ,in fact1 as he winds up this part of the argument by saying3 ,we cannot admit a proposition as a law of nature1 and yet believe a fact in real contradiction to it4 ,we must disbelieve the alleged fact1 or believe that we were mistaken in admitting the supposed law47#a7 ,mr4 ,mill points out1 however1 that1 in order that any alleged fact should be contradictory to a law of causation1 the allegation must be not simply that the cause existed without being followed by the effect1 but that this happened in the absence of any adequate counteracting cause4 ,now1 in the case of an alleged miracle1 the assertion is the exact opposite of this4 ,it is1 that the effect was defeated1 not in the absence1 but in consequence of a counteracting cause1 namely1 a direct interposition of an act of the will of some being who has power over nature2 and in particular of a ,being1 whose will being assumed to have endowed all the causes with the powers by which they produce their effects1 may well be supposed able to counteract them47#b7 ,a miracle1 then1 is no contradiction to the law of cause and effect2 it is merely a new effect supposed to be introduced by the introduction of a new cause2 of the adequacy of that cause if present17#c7 there can be no doubt2 and the only antecedent improbability which can be ascribed to the miracle is the improbability that any such cause existed4 ,mr4 ,mill then continues1 resuming his criticism on ,hume's argument3 #hb ,all1 therefore1 which ,hume has made out1 and this he must be considered to have made out1 is that 7at least in the imperfect state of our knowledge of natural agencies1 which leaves it always possible that some of the physical antecedents may have been hidden from us17 no evidence can prove a miracle to any one who did not previously believe the existence of a being or beings with supernatural power2 or who believes himself to have full proof that the character of the ,being whom he recognizes is inconsistent with his having seen fit to interfere on the occasion in question4 ,mr4 ,mill proceeds to enlarge on this conclusion4 ,if we do not already believe in supernatural agencies1 no miracle can prove to us their existence4 ,the miracle itself1 considered merely as an extraordinary fact1 may be satisfactorily certified by our senses or by testimony2 but nothing can ever prove that it is a miracle3 there is still another possible hypothesis1 that of its being the result of some unknown natural cause3 and this possibility cannot be so completely shut out as to leave no alternative but that of admitting the existence and intervention of a being superior to nature4 ,those1 however1 who already believe in such a being have two hypotheses to choose from1 a supernatural1 and an unknown natural agency2 and they have to judge which of the two is the most probable in the particular case4 ,in forming this judgment1 an important element of the question will be the conformity of the result to the laws of the supposed agent2 that is1 to the character of the ,deity as they conceive it4 ,but1 with the knowledge which we now possess of the general uniformity of the course of nature1 religion1 following in the wake of science1 has been compelled to acknowledge the government of the universe as #hc being on the whole carried on by general laws1 and not by special interpositions4 ,to whoever holds this belief1 there is a general presumption against any supposition of divine agency not operating through general laws1 or1 in other words1 there is an antecedent improbability in every miracle1 which1 in order to outweigh it1 requires an extraordinary strength of antecedent probability derived from the special circumstances of the case47#a7 ,mr4 ,mill rightly considers that it is not more difficult to estimate this than in the case of other probabilities4 ,we are seldom1 therefore1 without the means 7when the circumstances of the case are at all known to us7 of judging how far it is likely that such a cause should have existed at that time and place without manifesting its presence by some other marks1 and 7in the case of an unknown cause7 without having hitherto manifested its existence in any other instance4 ,according as this circumstance1 or the falsity of the testimony1 appears more improbable1 that is1 conflicts with an approximate generalization of a higher order1 we believe the testimony1 or disbelieve it2 with a stronger or weaker degree of conviction1 according to the preponderance3 at least until we have sifted the matter further47#b7 ,this is precisely ,hume's argument weakened by the introduction of reservations which have no cogency4 ,we have wished to avoid interrupting ,mr4 ,mill's train of reasoning by any remarks of our own1 and have1 therefore1 deferred till now the following observations regarding his criticism on ,hume's argument4 ,in reducing ,hume's celebrated doctrine to the very plain proposition that whatever is contradictory to a complete induction is incredible1 ,mr4 ,mill in no way #hd diminishes its potency against miracles2 and he does not call that proposition harmless in reference to its bearing on miracles1 as ,dr4 ,farrar evidently supposes1 but merely in opposition to the character of a recondite and dangerous heresy assigned by dismayed theologians to so obvious and simple a principle4 ,the proposition1 however1 whilst it reduces ,hume's doctrine in the abstract to more technical terms1 does not altogether represent his argument4 ,without asserting that experience is an absolutely infallible guide1 ,hume maintains that-- ,a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence4 ,in such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience1 he expects the event with the last degree of assurance1 and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event4 ,in other cases he proceeds with more caution1 he weighs the opposite experiments3 he considers which side is supported by the greater number of experiments3 to that side he inclines with doubt and hesitation2 and when at last he fixes his judgment1 the evidence exceeds not what we properly call probability4 ,all probability1 then1 supposes an opposition of experiments and observations1 where the one side is found to overbalance the other1 and to produce a degree of evidence proportioned to the superiority4 7l7 ,after elaborating this proposition1 ,hume continues3 ,a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature2 and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws1 the proof against a miracle1 from the very nature of the fact1 is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined4 ,why is it more than probable that all men must die2 that lead #he cannot1 of itself1 remain suspended in the air2 that fire consumes wood1 and is extinguished by water2 unless it be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature1 and there is required a violation of these laws1 or1 in other words1 a miracle1 to prevent them8 ,nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happen in the common course of nature4 ,it is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a sudden2 because such a kind of death1 though more unusual than any other1 has yet been frequently observed to happen4 ,but it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life2 because that has never been observed in any age or country4 ,there must1 therefore1 be an uniform experience against every miraculous event1 otherwise the event would not merit that appellation4 ,and as an uniform experience amounts to a proof1 there is here a direct and full proof1 from the nature of the fact1 against the existence of any miracle2 nor can such a proof be destroyed1 or the miracle rendered credible1 but by an opposite proof which is superior4 ,the plain consequence is1 7and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention71 ',that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle1 unless the testimony be of such a kind1 that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish3 and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments1 and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force which remains after deducting the inferior4' ,when any one tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life1 ,i immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived1 or that the fact which he relates should really have happened4 ,i weigh the one miracle against the #hf other2 and according to the superiority which #a discover1 ,i pronounce my decision1 and always reject the greater miracle4 ,if the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates1 then1 and not till then1 can he pretend to command my belief or opinion47#a7 ,the ground upon which ,mr4 ,mill admits that a miracle may not be contradictory to complete induction is that it is not an assertion that a certain cause was not followed by a certain effect1 but an allegation of the interference of an adequate counteracting cause4 ,this does not1 however1 by his own showing1 remove a miracle from the action of ,hume's principle1 but simply modifies the nature of the antecedent improbability4 ,mr4 ,mill qualifies his admission regarding the effect of the alleged counteracting cause1 by the all-important words if present2 for1 in order to be valid1 the reality of the alleged counteracting cause must be established1 which is impossible1 therefore the allegations fall to the ground4 ,no one knows better than ,mr4 ,mill that the assertion of a ,personal ,deity working miracles1 upon which a miracle is allowed for a moment to come into court1 cannot be proved1 and1 therefore1 that it cannot stand in opposition to complete induction which ,hume takes as his standard4 ,in admitting that ,hume has made out1 that no evidence can prove a miracle to any one who does not previously believe in a being of supernatural power willing to work miracles1 ,mr4 ,mill concedes everything to ,hume1 for his only limitation is based upon a supposition of mere personal belief in something which is not capable of proof1 and which belief1 therefore1 is not #hg more valid than any other purely imaginary hypothesis4 ,the belief may seem substantial to the individual entertaining it1 but1 not being capable of proof1 it cannot have weight with others1 or in any way affect the ,value of evidence in the abstract4 ,that mere individual belief1 apart from proof1 should thus be advanced in limitation of a logical principle1 seems to us most unwarranted1 and at the most it can only be received as a statement of what practically takes place amongst illogical reason ers4 ,the assumption of a ,personal ,deity working miracles is1 in fact1 excluded by ,hume's argument1 and1 although ,mr4 ,mill apparently overlooks the fact1 ,hume has not only anticipated but refuted the reasoning which is based upon it4 ,in the succeeding chapter on a ,particular ,providence and a ,future ,state1 he directly disposes of such an assumption1 but he does so with equal effect also in the ,essay which we are discussing4 ,taking an imaginary miracle as an illustration1 he argues3 ,though the being to whom the miracle is ascribed be in this case ,almighty1 it does not1 upon that account1 become a whit more probable2 since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a ,being1 otherwise than from the experience which we have of his productions in the usual course of nature4 ,this still reduces us to past observation1 and obliges us to compare the instances of the violation of truth in the testimony of men1 with those of the violation of the laws of nature by miracles1 in order to judge which of them is most likely and probable4 ,as the violations of truth are more common in the testimony concerning religious miracles than in that concerning any other matter of fact1 this must diminish very much the authority of the former testimony1 and #hh make us form a general resolution never to lend any attention to it1 with whatever specious pretence it may be covered47#a7 ,a person who believes anything contradictory to a complete induction merely on the strength of an assumption which is incapable of proof is simply credulous1 but such an assumption cannot affect the real evidence for that thing4 ,the argument of ,paley against ,hume is an illustration of the reasoning suggested by ,mr4 ,mill4 ,paley alleges the interposition of a ,personal ,deity in explanation of miracles1 but he protests that he does not assume the attributes of the ,deity or the existence of a future state in order to prove their reality4 ,that reality1 he admits1 always must be proved by evidence4 ,we assert only that in miracles adduced in support of revelation there is not such antecedent improbability as no testimony can surmount4 ,his argument culminates in the short statement3 ,in a word1 once believe that there is a ,god 7i4e41 a ,personal ,god working miracles71 and miracles are not incredible47#b7 ,we have already quoted ,hume's refutation of this reasoning1 and we may at once proceed to the final argument by which ,paley endeavours to overthrow ,hume's doctrine1 and upon which he mainly rests his case4 ,but the short consideration1 he says1 which1 independently of every other1 convinces me that there is no solid foundation in ,mr4 ,hume's conclusion1 is the following3 ,when a theorem is proposed to a mathematician1 the first thing he does with it is to try it upon a simple case1 and if it produces a false result1 he is sure that there #hi must be some mistake in the demonstration4 ,now1 to proceed in this way with what may be called ,mr4 ,hume's theorem4 ,if twelve men1 whose probity and good sense ,i had long known1 should seriously and circumstantially relate to me an account of a miracle wrought before their eyes1 and in which it was impossible that they should be deceived2 if the governor of the country1 hearing a rumour of this account1 should call these men into his presence1 and offer them a short proposal1 either to confess the imposture or submit to be tied up to a gibbet2 if they should refuse with one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood or imposture in the case2 if this threat was communicated to them separately1 yet with no different effect2 if it was at last executed2 if ,i myself saw them1 one after another1 consenting to be racked1 burned1 or strangled1 rather than give up the truth of their account1--still1 if ,mr4 ,hume's rule be my guide1 ,i am not to believe them4 ,now ,i undertake to say that there exists not a sceptic in the world who would not believe them1 or who would defend such incredulity47#a7 ,it is obvious that this reasoning1 besides being purely hypothetical1 is utterly without cogency against ,hume's doctrine4 ,in the first place1 it is clear that no assertion of any twelve men would be sufficient to overthrow a law of nature1 which is the result of a complete induction1 and in order to establish the reality of a miracle or the occurrence on one occasion of an unprecedented effect1 from any cause1 not in accordance with natural law1 no smaller amount of evidence would suffice than would serve to refute the complete induction4 ,the allegation of such an intervening cause as a ,personal #ij ,deity working miracles is excluded as opposed to a complete induction4 ,so long as we maintain the law1 we are necessarily compelled to reject any evidence which contradicts it4 ,we cannot at the same time believe the contradictory evidence1 and yet assert the truth of the law4 ,the specific allegation1 moreover1 is completely prohibited by the ,scriptural admission that miracles are also performed by other supernatural beings in opposition to the ,deity4 ,the evidence of the twelve men1 however1 simply amounts to a statement that they saw1 or fancied that they saw1 a certain occurrence in contradiction to the law1 but that which they actually saw was only an external phenomenon1 the real nature of which is a mere inference1 and an inference which1 from the necessarily isolated position of the miraculous phenomenon1 is neither supported by other instances capable of forming a complete counter induction1 nor by analogies within the order of nature4#a ,the bare inference from an occurrence supposed to have been witnessed by twelve men is all that is opposed to the law of nature1 which is based upon a complete induction1 and it is1 therefore1 incredible4 ,if we proceed to examine ,paley's simple case a little more closely1 however1 we find that not only is it utterly inadmissible as a hypothesis1 but that as an illustration of the case of ,gospel miracles it is completely devoid of relevancy and argumentative force4 ,the only point which gives a momentary value to the supposed instance is the condition attached to the account of the miracle related by the twelve men1 that not only was it wrought before their eyes1 but that it was one in which it was impossible that they should be deceived4 ,now #ia this qualification of infallibility on the part of the twelve witnesses is as incredible as the miracle which they are supposed to attest4 ,the existence of twelve men incapable of error or mistake is as opposed to experience as the hypothesis of a miracle in which it is impossible for the twelve men to be deceived is contradictory to reason4 ,the exclusion of all error in the observation of the actual occurrence and its antecedents and consequences1 whose united sum constitutes the miracle1 is an assumption which deprives the argument of all potency4 ,it cannot be entertained4 ,on the other hand1 the moment the possibility of error is admitted1 the reasoning breaks down1 for the probability of error on the part of the observers1 either as regards the external phenomena1 or the inferences drawn from them1 being so infinitely greater than the probability of mistake in the complete induction1 we must unquestionably hold by the law and reject the testimony of the twelve men4 ,it need scarcely be said that the assertion of liability to error on the part of the observers by no means involves any insinuation of wilful falsehood or imposture in the case4 ,it is quite intelligible that twelve men might witness an occurrence which might seem to them and others miraculous1--but which was susceptible of a perfectly natural explanation1--and truthfully relate what they believed to have seen1 and that they might1 therefore1 refuse with one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood or imposture in the case1 even although the alternative might be death on a gibbet4 ,this1 however1 would in no way affect the character of the actual occurrence4 ,it would not convert a natural1 though by them inexplicable1 phenomenon into a miracle4 ,their constancy in adhering to the account they had #ib given would merely bear upon the truth of their own statements1 and the fact of seeing them one after another consenting to be racked1 burned1 or strangled1 rather than give up the truth of their account1 would not in the least justify our believing in a miracle4 ,even martyrdom cannot transform imaginations into facts4 ,the truth of a narrative is no guarantee for the correctness of an inference4 ,it seems almost incredible that arguments like these should for so many years have been tolerated in the text-book of a ,university4 ,as regards the applicability of ,paleys illustration to the ,gospel miracles1 the failure of his analogy is complete4 ,we shall presently see the condition of the people amongst whom these miracles are supposed to have occurred1 and that1 so far from the nature of the phenomena1 and the character of the witnesses1 supporting the inference that it was impossible that the observers could have been deceived1 there is every reason for concluding with certainty that their ignorance of natural laws1 their proneness to superstition1 their love of the marvellous1 and their extreme religious excitement1 rendered them peculiarly liable to incorrectness in the observation of the phenomena1 and to error in the inferences drawn from them4 ,we shall likewise see that we have no serious and circumstantial accounts of those miracles from eye-witnesses of whose probity and good sense we have any knowledge1 but that1 on the contrary1 the narratives of them which we possess were composed by unknown persons1 who were not eyewitnesses at all1 but wrote very long after the events related1 and in that mythic period in which reality melted into fable1 and invention unconsciously trespassed on the province of history4 ,the proposition3 ,that #ic there is satisfactory evidence that many1 professing to be original witnesses of the ,christian miracles1 passed their lives in labours1 dangers1 and sufferings1 voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered1 and solely in consequence of their belief of these accounts2 and that they also submitted1 from the same motives1 to new rules of conduct1 is made by ,paley the argument of the first nine chapters of his work1 as the converse of the proposition1 that similar attestation of other miracles cannot be produced1 is of the following two4 ,this shows the importance which he attaches to the point2 but1 notwithstanding1 even if he could substantiate this statement1 the cause of miracles would not be one whit advanced4 ,we have freely quoted these arguments in order to illustrate the real position of miracles2 and no one who has seriously considered the matter can doubt the necessity for very extraordinary evidence1 even to render the report of such phenomena worthy of a moment's attention4 ,the argument for miracles1 however1 has hitherto proceeded upon the merest assumption1 and1 as we shall further see1 the utmost that they can do who support miracles1 under the fatal disadvantage of being contradictory to uniform experience1 is to refer to the alleged contemporaneous nature of the evidence for their occurrence1 and to the character of the supposed witnesses4 ,mr4 ,mill has ably shown the serious misapprehension of so many writers against ,hume's ,essay on ,miracles1 which has led them to what he calls the extraordinary conclusion1 that nothing supported by credible testimony ought ever to be disbelieved47#a7 ,in regard to historical facts1 not contradictory to all #id experience1 simple and impartial testimony may be sufficient to warrant belief1 but even such qualities as these can go but a very small way towards establishing the reality of an occurrence which is opposed to complete induction47#a7 ,it is admitted that the evidence requisite to establish the reality of a supernatural ,divine ,revelation of doctrines beyond human reason1 and comprising in its very essence such stupendous miracles as the ,incarnation1 ,resurrection1 and ,ascension1 must be miraculous4 ,the evidence for the miraculous evidence1 which is scarcely less astounding than the contents of the ,revelation itself1 must1 logically1 be miraculous also1 for it is not a whit more easy to prove the reality of an evidential miracle than of a dogmatic miracle4 ,it is evident that the resurrection of ,lazarus1 for instance1 is as contradictory to complete induction as the resurrection of ,jesus4 ,both the ,supernatural ,religion1 therefore1 and its supernatural evidence labour under the fatal disability of being antecedently incredible4 #ie ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,the ,,age ,,of ,,miracles ,let us now1 however1 proceed to examine the evidence for the reality of miracles1 and to inquire whether they are supported by such an amount of testimony as can in any degree outweigh the reasons which1 antecedently1 seem to render them incredible4 ,it is undeniable that belief in the miraculous has gradually been dispelled1 and that1 as a general rule1 the only miracles which are now maintained are limited to brief and distant periods of time4 ,faith in their reality1 once so comprehensive1 does not1 except amongst a certain class1 extend beyond the miracles of the ,new ,testament and a few of those of the ,old17#a7 and the countless myriads of ecclesiastical #if and other miracles1 for centuries devoutly and implicitly believed1 are now commonly repudiated1 and have sunk into discredit and contempt4 ,the question is inevitably suggested how so much can be abandoned and the remnant still be upheld4 ,as an essential part of our inquiry into the value of the evidence for miracles1 we must endeavour to ascertain whether those who are said to have witnessed the supposed miraculous occurrences were either competent to appreciate them aright1 or likely to report them without exaggeration4 ,for this purpose1 we must consider what was known of the order of nature in the age in which miracles are said to have taken place1 and what was the intellectual character of the people amongst whom they are reported to have been performed4 ,nothing is more rare1 even amongst intelligent and cultivated men1 than accuracy of observation and correctness of report1 even in matters of sufficient importance to attract vivid attention1 and in which there is no special interest unconsciously to bias the observer4 ,it will scarcely be denied1 however1 that in persons of fervid imagination1 and with a strong natural love of the marvellous1 whose minds are not only unrestrained by specific knowledge1 but predisposed by superstition towards false conclusions1 the probability of inaccuracy and exaggeration is enormously #ig increased4 ,if we add to this such a disturbing element as religious excitement1 inaccuracy1 exaggeration1 and extravagance are certain to occur4 ,the effect of even one of these influences1 religious feeling1 in warping the judgment1 is admitted by one of the most uncompromising supporters of miracles4 ,it is doubtless the tendency of religious minds1 says ,dr4 ,newman1 to imagine mysteries and wonders where there are none2 and much more1 where causes of awe really exist1 will they unintentionally mis-state1 exaggerate1 and embellish1 when they set themselves to relate what they have witnessed or have heard2 and he adds3 and further1 the imagination1 as is well known1 is a fruitful cause of apparent miracles47#a7 ,we need not offer any evidence that the miracles which we have to examine were witnessed and reported by persons exposed to the effects of the strongest possible religious feeling and excitement1 and our attention may1 therefore1 be more freely directed to the inquiry how far this influence was modified by other circumstances4 ,did the ,jews at the time of ,jesus possess such calmness of judgment and sobriety of imagination as to inspire us with any confidence in accounts of marvellous occurrences1 unwitnessed except by them1 and limited to their time1 which contradict all knowledge and all experience8 ,were their minds sufficiently enlightened and free from superstition to warrant our attaching weight to their report of events of such an astounding nature8 and were they themselves sufficiently impressed with the exceptional character of #ih any apparent supernatural and miraculous interference with the order of nature8 ,let an ,english historian and divine1 who will be acknowledged as no prejudiced witness1 bear testimony upon some of these points4 ,nor is it less important1 says the late ,dean ,milman1 throughout the early history of ,christianity1 to seize the spirit of the times4 ,events which appear to us so extraordinary1 that we can scarcely conceive that they should either fail in exciting a powerful sensation1 or ever be obliterated from the popular remembrance1 in their own day might pass off as of little more than ordinary occurrence4 ,during the whole life of ,christ1 and the early propagation of the religion1 it must be borne in mind that they took place in an age1 and among a people1 which superstition had made so familiar with what were supposed to be preternatural events1 that wonders awakened no emotion1 or were speedily superseded by some new demand on the ever-ready belief4 ,the ,jews of that period not only believed that the ,supreme ,being had the power of controlling the course of nature1 but that the same influence was possessed by multitudes of subordinate spirits1 both good and evil4 ,where the pious ,christian of the present day would behold the direct agency of the ,almighty1 the ,jews would invariably have interposed an angel as the author or ministerial agent in the wonderful transaction4 ,where the ,christian moralist would condemn the fierce passion1 the ungovernable lust1 or the inhuman temper1 the ,jew discerned the workings of diabolical possession4 ,scarcely a malady was endured1 or crime committed1 but it was traced to the operation of one of these myriad daemons1 who watched every opportunity #ii of exercising their malice in the sufferings and the sins of men47#a7 ,another ,english divine1 of certainly not less orthodoxy1 but of much greater knowledge of ,hebrew literature1 bears similar testimony regarding the ,jewish nation at the same period4 ,not to be more tedious1 therefore1 in this matter1 7regarding the ,bath ,kol1 a ,jewish superstition17 let two things only be observed3 ,i4 ,that the nation1 under the second ,temple1 was given to magical arts beyond measure2 and1 ,,ii4 ,that it was given to an easiness of believing all manner of delusions beyond measure47#b7 ,and in another place3 ,it is a disputable case1 whether the ,jewish nation were more mad with superstition in matters of religion1 or with superstition in curious arts3--,i4 ,there was not a people upon earth that studied or attributed more to dreams than they4 ,,ii4 ,there was hardly any people in the whole world that more used1 or were more fond of1 amulets1 charms1 mutterings1 exorcisms1 and all kinds of enchantments4 ,we might here produce innumerable instances47#c7 ,we shall presently see that these statements are far from being exaggerated4 ,no reader of the ,old ,testament can fail to have been struck by the singularly credulous fickleness of the ,jewish mind4 ,although claiming the title of the specially selected people of ,jehovah1 the ,israelites exhibited a constant and inveterate tendency to forsake his service for the worship of other gods4 ,the mighty signs and wonders which ,god is represented as incessantly working #ajj on their behalf1 and in their sight1 had apparently no effect upon them4 ,the miraculous even then had1 as it would seem1 already lost all novelty1 and ceased1 according to the records1 to excite more than mere passing astonishment4 ,the leaders and prophets of ,israel had a perpetual struggle to restrain the people from following after heathen deities1 and whilst the burden of the ,prophets is one grand denunciation of the idolatry into which the nation was incessantly falling1 the verdict of the historical books upon the several kings and rulers of ,israel proves how common it was1 and how rare even the nominal service of ,jehovah4 ,at the best the mind of the ,jewish nation only after long and slow progression1 attained the idea of a perfect monotheism1 but added to the belief in ,jehovah the recognition of a host of other gods1 over whom it merely gave him supremacy47#a7 ,this is apparent even in the first commandment3 ,thou shalt have no other gods before me2 and the necessity for such a law received its illustration from a people who are represented as actually worshipping the golden calf1 made for them by the complaisant ,aaron1 during the very time that the great ,decalogue was being written on the ,mount by his colleague ,moses47#b7 ,it is not1 therefore1 to be wondered at that1 at a later period1 and throughout patristic days1 the gods of the ,greeks and other heathen nations were so far gently treated1 that1 although repudiated as ,deities1 #aja they were recognized as ,demons4 ,in the ,septuagint version of the ,old ,testament1 where idols are spoken of in the ,hebrew1 the word is sometimes translated demons2 as1 for instance1 ,psalm xcvi4 #e is rendered3 ,for all the gods of the nations are demons47l7 ,the national superstition betrays itself in this and many other passages of this version1 which so well represented the views of the first ages of the ,church that the ,fathers regarded it as miraculous4 ,irenaeus relates how ,ptolemy1 the son of ,lagus1 brought seventy of the elders of the ,jews together to ,alexandria in order to translate the ,hebrew ,scriptures into ,greek1 but fearing that they might agree amongst themselves to conceal the real meaning of the ,hebrew1 he separated them1 and commanded each to make a translation4 ,when the seventy translations of the ,bible were completed and compared1 it was found that1 by the inspiration of ,god1 the very same words and the very same names from beginning to end had been used by them all47#b7 ,the same superstition is quite as clearly expressed in the ,new ,testament4 ,the ,apostle ,paul1 for instance1 speaking of things sacrificed to idols1 says3 ,but 7,i say7 that the things which the ,gentiles sacrifice1 they sacrifice to demons1 and not to ,god2 and ,i would not that ye should be partakers with #ajb demons4 ,ye cannot drink the cup of the ,lord1 and the cup of demons2 ye cannot partake of the ,lord's table1 and of the table of demons47l7 ,the apocryphal ,book of ,tobit affords some illustration of the opinions of the more enlightened ,jews during the last century before the commencement of the ,christian era47#b7 ,the angel ,raphael prescribes1 as an infallible means of driving a demon out of man or woman so effectually that it should never more come back1 fumigation with the heart and liver of a fish47#c7 ,by this exorcism the demon ,asmodeus1 who from love of ,sara1 the daughter of ,raguel1 has strangled seven husbands who attempted to marry her17#d7 is overcome1 and flies into the uttermost parts of ,egypt1 where the angel binds him47#e7 ,the belief in demons1 and in the necessity of exorcism1 is so complete that the author sees no incongruity in describing the angel ,raphael1 who has been sent1 in answer to prayer1 specially to help him1 as instructing ,tobias to adopt such means of subjecting demons4 ,raphael is described in this book as the angel of healing17#f7 the office generally assigned to him by the ,fathers4 ,he is also represented as saying of himself that he is one of the seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints to ,god47#g7 #ajc ,there are many curious particulars regarding angels and demons in the ,book of ,enoch47#a7 ,this work1 which is quoted by the author of the ,epistle of ,jude17#b7 and by some of the ,fathers1 as inspired ,scripture17#c7 was supposed by ,tertullian to have survived the universal deluge1 or to have been afterwards transmitted by means of ,noah1 the great-grandson of the author ,enoch47#d7 ,it may be assigned to about a century before ,christ1 but additions were made to the text1 and more especially to its angelology1 extending probably to after the commencement of our era47#e7 ,it undoubtedly represents views popularly prevailing about the epoch in which we are interested4 ,the author not only relates the fall of the angels through love for the daughters of men1 but gives the names of twenty-one of them and of their leaders2 of whom ,jequn was he who seduced the holy angels1 and ,ashbeel it was who gave them evil counsel and corrupted them47#f7 ,a third1 ,gadreel17#g7 was he who seduced ,eve4 ,he also taught to the children of men the use and manufacture of all murderous weapons1 of coats of mail1 shields1 #ajd swords1 and of all the implements of death4 ,another evil angel1 named ,penemue1 taught them many mysteries of wisdom4 ,he instructed men in the art of writing with paper --,greek-- and ink1 by means of which1 the author remarks1 many fall into sin even to the present day4 ,kaodeja1 another evil angel1 taught the human race all the wicked practices of spirits and demons17#a7 and also magic and exorcism47#b7 ,the offspring of the fallen angels and of the daughters of men were giants1 whose height was #cjjj ells27#c7 of these are the demons working evil upon earth47#d7 ,azazel taught men various arts3 the making of bracelets and ornaments2 the use of cosmetics1 the way to beautify the eyebrows2 precious stones1 and all dye-stuffs and metals2 whilst other wicked angels instructed them in all kinds of pernicious knowledge47#e7 ,the elements and all the phenomena of nature are controlled and produced by the agency of angels4 ,uriel is the angel of thunder and earthquakes2 ,raphael1 of the spirits of men2 ,raguel is the angel who executes vengeance on the world and the stars2 ,michael is set over the best of mankind1 i4e41 over the people of ,israel27#f7 ,saraqael1 over the souls of the children of men1 who are misled by the spirits of sin2 and ,gabriel is over serpents and over ,paradise1 and over the ,cherubim47#g7 ,enoch is shown the mystery of all the operations of nature1 and the action of the elements1 and he describes the spirits which guide them1 and control the thunder and lightning and the winds2 the spirit of the seas1 who curbs them with his might1 or tosses them forth and scatters them through the mountains of the earth2 the #aje spirit of hoar frost1 and the spirit of hail1 and the spirit of snow4 ,there are1 in fact1 special spirits set over every phenomenon of nature--frost1 thaw1 mist1 rain1 light1 and so on47#a7 ,the heavens and the earth are filled with spirits4 ,raphael is the angel set over all the diseases and wounds of mankind1 ,gabriel over all powers1 and ,fanuel over the penitence and the hope of those who inherit eternal life47#b7 ,the decree for the destruction of the human race goes forth from the presence of the ,lord1 because men know all the mysteries of the angels1 all the evil works of ,satan1 and all the secret might and power of those who practise the art of magic1 and the power of conjuring1 and such arts47#c7 ,the stars are represented as animated beings47#d7 ,enoch sees seven stars bound together in space like great mountains1 and flaming as with fire2 and he inquires of the angel who leads him1 on account of what sin they are so bound8 ,uriel informs him that they are stars which have transgressed the commands of the ,highest ,god1 and they are thus bound until ten thousand worlds1 the number of the days of their transgression1 shall be accomplished47#e7 ,the belief that sun1 moon1 and stars were living entities possessed of souls was generally held by the ,jews at the beginning of our era1 along with ,greek philosophers1 and we shall presently see it expressed by the ,fathers4 ,philo ,judaeus considers the stars spiritual beings full of virtue and perfection17#f7 and that to them is granted lordship over other heavenly bodies1 not absolute1 but as viceroys under the ,supreme #ajf ,being47#a7 ,we find a similar view regarding the nature of the stars expressed in the ,apocalypse17#b7 and it constantly appears in the ,talmud and ,targums47#c7 ,an angel of the sun and moon is described in the ,ascensio ,isaiae47#d7 ,we are able to obtain a full and minute conception of the belief regarding angels and demons and their influence over cosmical phenomena1 as well as of other superstitions current amongst the ,jews at the time of ,jesus17#e7 from the ,talmud1 ,targums1 and other ,rabbinical sources4 ,we cannot1 however1 do more1 here1 than merely glance at these voluminous materials4 ,the angels are perfectly pure spirits1 without sin1 and not visible to mortal eyes4 ,when they come down to earth on any mission1 they are clad in light and veiled in air4 ,if1 however1 they remain longer than seven days on earth1 they become so clogged with the earthly matter in which they have been immersed that they cannot again ascend to the upper heavens47#f7 ,their multitude is innumerable17#g7 and new angels are every day created1 who in succession praise #ajg ,god and make way for others47#a7 ,the expression1 host of heaven1 is a common one in the ,old ,testament1 and the idea was developed into a heavenly army4 ,the first ,gospel represents ,jesus as speaking of more than twelve legions of angels47#b7 ,every angel has one particular duty to perform1 and no more2 thus of the three angels who appeared to ,abraham1 one was sent to announce that ,sarah should have a son1 the second to rescue ,lot1 and the third to destroy ,sodom and ,gomorrah47#c7 ,the angels serve ,god in the administration of the universe1 and to special angels are assigned the different parts of nature4 ,there is not a thing in the world1 not even a little herb1 over which there is not an angel set1 and everything happens according to the command of these appointed angels47#d7 ,it will be remembered that the agency of angels is frequently introduced in the ,old ,testament1 and still more so in the ,septuagint version1 by alterations of the text4 ,one notable case of such agency may be referred to1 where the pestilence which is sent to punish ,david for numbering the people is said to be caused by an angel1 whom ,david even sees4 ,the ,lord is represented as repenting of the evil1 when the angel was stretching forth his hand against ,jerusalem1 and bidding him stay his hand after the angel had destroyed seventy thousand men by the pestilence47#e7 ,this theory of disease has prevailed until comparatively recent times4 ,the names of many of the superintending angels are given1 as1 for instance3 ,jehuel #ajh is set over fire1 ,michael over water1 ,jechiel over wild beasts1 and ,anpiel over birds4 ,over cattle ,hariel is appointed1 and ,samniel over created things moving in the waters1 and over the face of the earth2 ,messannahel over reptiles1 ,deliel over fish4 ,ruchiel is set over the winds1 ,gabriel over thunder and also over fire1 and over the ripening of fruit1 ,xuriel over hail1 ,makturiel over rocks1 ,alpiel over fruit-bearing trees1 ,saroel over those which do not bear fruit1 and ,sandalfon over the human race2 and under each of these there are subordinate angels47#a7 ,it was believed that there were two angels of ,death1 one for those who died out of the land of ,israel1 who was an evil angel1 called ,samael 7and at other times ,satan1 ,asmodeus1 c71 and the other1 who presided over the dead of the land of ,israel1 the holy angel ,gabriel2 and under these there was a host of evil spirits and angels47#b7 ,the ,jews were unanimous in asserting that angels superintend the various operations of nature1 although there is some difference in the names assigned to these angels47#c7 ,the ,sohar on ,numbers states that ,michael1 ,gabriel1 ,nuriel1 ,raphael are set over the four elements1 water1 fire1 air1 earth47#d7 ,we shall presently sec how general this belief regarding angels was amongst the ,fathers1 but it is also expressed in the ,new ,testament4 ,in the ,apocalypse there appears an angel #aji who has power over fire17#a7 and in another place four angels have power to hurt the earth and the sea47#b7 ,the angels were likewise the instructors of men1 and communicated knowledge to the ,patriarchs4 ,the angel ,gabriel taught ,joseph the seventy languages of the earth47#c7 ,it appears1 however1 that there was one language--the ,syriac--which the angels do not understand1 and for this reason men were not permitted to pray for things needful1 in that tongue47#d7 ,angels are appointed as princes over the seventy nations of the world2 but the ,jews consider the angels set over ,gentile nations merely demons47#f7 ,the ,septuagint translation of ,deuteronomy xxxii4 #h introduces the statement into the ,old ,testament4 ,instead of the ,most ,high1 when he divided to the nations their inheritance1 setting the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of ,israel1 the passage becomes1 according to the number of the angels of ,god --,greek--4 ,the number of the nations was fixed at seventy1 the number of the souls who went down into ,egypt47#f7 ,the ,jerusalem ,targum on ,genesis xi4 #g1 #h1 reads as follows3 ,god spake to the seventy angels which stand before him3 ,come1 let us go down and confound their language that they may not understand each other4 ,and the ,word of the ,lord appeared there 7at ,babel71 with the seventy angels1 according to the seventy nations1 and #aaj each had the language of the people which was allotted to him1 and the record of the writing in his hand1 and scattered the nations from thence over the whole earth1 in seventy languages1 so that the one did not understand what the other said47l7 ,michael was the angel of the people of ,israel17#b7 and he is always set in the highest place amongst the angels1 and often called the ,high ,priest of ,heaven47#c7 ,it was believed that the angels of the nations fought in heaven when their allotted peoples made war on earth4 ,we see an allusion to this in the ,book of ,daniel17#d7 and in the ,apocalypse there is war in heaven2 ,michael and his angels fought against the dragon2 and the dragon fought1 and his angels47#e7 ,the ,jews of the time of ,jesus not only held that there were angels set over the nations1 but also that each individual had a guardian angel47#f7 ,this belief appears in several places in the ,new ,testament4 ,for instance1 ,jesus is represented as saying of the children3 ,for ,i say unto you that their angels do always behold the face of my ,father which is in heaven47#g7 ,again1 in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 when ,peter is delivered from prison by an angel1 and comes to the house of his friend1 they will not believe the maid who had opened the gate and seen him1 but say3 ,it is his angel --,greek--4#h ,the passage in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews will likewise be remembered1 where it is said of the angels3 ,are they not all ministering spirits sent forth for ministry on #aaa account of them who shall be heirs of salvation47#a7 ,there was at the same time a singular belief that when any person went into the private closet1 the guardian angel remained at the door till he came out again1 and in the ,talmud a prayer is given for strength and help under the circumstances1 and that the guardian angel may wait while the person is there4 ,the reason why the angel does not enter is that such places are haunted by demons47#b7 ,the belief in demons at the time of ,jesus was equally emphatic and comprehensive1 and we need scarcely mention that the ,new ,testament is full of references to them47#c7 ,they are in the air1 on earth1 in the bodies of men and animals1 and even at the bottom of the sea47#d7 ,they are the offspring of the fallen angels who loved the daughters of men47#e7 ,they have wings like the angels1 and can fly from one end of heaven to another2 they obtain a knowledge of the future1 like the angels1 by listening behind the veil of the ,temple of ,god in ,heaven47#f7 ,their number is infinite4 ,the earth is so full of them that if man had power to see he could not exist1 on account of them2 there are more demons than men1 and they are about as close as the earth thrown up out of a newly-made grave47#g7 ,it is stated that each man has #aj1jjj demons at his right hand1 and #a1jjj on his left1 and the passage continues3 ,the crush on the ,sabbath in the ,synagogue arises from them1 also the dresses of the ,rabbins become so soon old and torn through their rubbing2 in like manner they cause the tottering of the feet4 ,he who wishes to discover these spirits must take sifted ashes and strew them about his bed1 and in the morning he will perceive their footprints upon them like a cock's tread4 ,if any one wish to see them1 he must take the afterbirth of a black cat1 which has been littered by a first-born black cat1 whose mother was also a first-birth1 burn and reduce it to powder1 and put some of it in his eyes1 and he will see them47l7 ,sometimes demons assume the form of a goat4 ,evil spirits fly chiefly during the darkness1 for they are children of night47#b7 ,for this reason the ,talmud states that men are forbidden to greet any one by night1 lest it might be a devil17#c7 or to go out alone even by day1 but much more by night1 into solitary places47#d7 ,it was likewise forbidden for any man to sleep alone in a house1 because any one so doing would be seized by the she-devil ,lilith1 and die47#e7 ,further1 no man should drink water by night on account of the demon ,schafriri1 the angel of blindness47#f7 #aac ,an evil spirit descended on any one going into a cemetery by night47#a7 ,a necromancer is defined as one who fasts and lodges at night amongst tombs in order that the evil spirit may come upon him47#b7 ,demons1 however1 take more especial delight in foul and offensive places1 and an evil spirit inhabits every private closet in the world47#c7 ,demons haunt deserted places1 ruins1 graves1 and certain kinds of trees47#d7 ,we find indications of these superstitions throughout the ,gospels4 ,the possessed are represented as dwelling among the tombs1 and being driven by the unclean spirits into the wilderness1 and the demons can find no rest in clean places47#e7 ,demons also frequented springs and fountains47#f7 ,the episode of the angel who was said to descend at certain seasons and trouble the water of the pool of ,bethesda1 so that he who first stepped in was cured of whatever disease he had1 may be mentioned here in passing1 although the passage is not found in some of the older ,,mss4 of the fourth ,gospel17#g7 and it is argued by some that it is a later interpolation4 ,there were demons who hurt those who did not wash their hands before meat4 ,shibta is an evil spirit which sits upon men's hands in the night2 and if any touch his food with unwashen hands1 that spirit sits upon that food1 and there is danger from it47#h7 #aad ,the demon ,asmodeus is frequently called the king of the devils17#a7 and it was believed that he tempted people to apostatize2 he it was who enticed ,noah into his drunkenness1 and led ,solomon into sin47#b7 ,he is represented as alternately ascending to study in the ,school of the heavenly ,jerusalem1 and descending to study in the school of the earth47#c7 ,the injury of the human race in every possible way was believed to be the chief delight of evil spirits4 ,the ,talmud and other ,rabbinical writings are full of references to demoniacal possession1 but we need not enter into details upon this point1 as the ,new ,testament itself presents sufficient evidence regarding it4 ,not only one evil spirit could enter into a body1 but many took possession of the same individual4 ,there are many instances mentioned in the ,gospels1 such as ,mary ,magdalene1 out of whom went seven demons --,greek--1#d and the man whose name was ,legion1 because many demons --,greek-- were entered into him47#e7 ,demons likewise entered into the bodies of animals1 and in the narrative to which we have just referred1 the demons1 on being expelled from the man1 request that they may be allowed to enter into the herd of swine1 which being permitted1 the demons went out of #aae the man into the swine1 and the herd ran violently down the cliff into the lake1 and were drowned17#a7 the evil spirits1 as usual1 taking pleasure only in the destruction and injury of man and beast4 ,besides possession1 all the diseases of men and animals were ascribed to the action of the devil and of demons47#b7 ,in the ,gospels1 for instance1 the woman with a spirit of infirmity1 who was bowed together and could not lift herself up1 is described as bound by ,satan1 although the case was not one of demoniacal possession47#c7 ,as might be expected from the universality of the belief in demons and their influence over the human race1 the ,jews at the time of ,jesus occupied themselves much with the means of conjuring them4 ,there was hardly any people in the whole world1 we have already heard from a great ,hebrew scholar1 that more used1 or were more fond of1 amulets1 charms1 mutterings1 exorcisms1 and all kinds of enchantments47#d7 ,schoettgen bears similar testimony3 ,caeterum judoeos magicis artibus admodum deditos esse1 notissimum est47#e7 ,all competent scholars are agreed upon this point1 and the ,talmud and ,rabbinical writings are full of it4 ,the exceeding prevalence of such arts alone proves the existence of the grossest ignorance and superstition4 #aaf ,there are elaborate rules in the ,talmud with regard to dreams1 both as to how they are to be obtained and how interpreted47#a7 ,fasts were enjoined in order to secure good dreams1 and these fasts were not only observed by the ignorant1 but also by the principal ,rabbins1 and they were permitted even on the ,sabbath1 which was unlawful in other cases47#b7 ,indeed1 the interpretation of dreams became a public profession47#c7 ,it would be impossible within our limits to convey an adequate idea of the general superstition prevalent amongst the ,jews regarding things and actions lucky and unlucky1 or the minute particulars in regard to every common act prescribed for safety against demons and evil influences of all kinds4 ,nothing was considered indifferent or too trifling1 and the danger from the most trivial movements or omissions to which men were supposed to be exposed from the malignity of evil spirits was believed to be great47#d7 ,amulets1 consisting of roots1 or pieces of paper with charms written upon them1 were hung round the neck of the sick1 and considered efficacious for their cure4 ,charms1 mutterings1 and spells were commonly said over wounds1 against unlucky meetings1 to make people sleep1 to heal diseases1 and to avert enchantments47#e7 ,the ,talmud gives forms of enchantments against mad dogs1 for instance1 against the demon of blindness1 and the like1 as well as formulae for averting the evil eye1 and #aag mutterings over diseases47#a7 ,so common was the practice of sorcery and magic that the ,talmud enjoins that the senior who is chosen into the ,council ought to be skilled in the arts of astrologers1 jugglers1 diviners1 sorcerers1 c1 that he may be able to judge of those who are guilty of the same47#b7 ,numerous cases are recorded of persons destroyed by means of sorcery47#c7 ,the ,jewish women were particularly addicted to sorcery1 and indeed the ,talmud declares that they had generally fallen into it47#d7 ,the ,new ,testament bears abundant testimony to the prevalence of magic and exorcism at the time at which its books were written4 ,in the ,gospels1 ,jesus is represented as arguing with the ,pharisees1 who accuse him of casting out devils by ,beelzebub1 the prince of the devils4 ,if ,i by ,beelzebub cast out the demons --,greek-- by whom do your sons cast them out8 ,therefore let them be your judges47#e7 ,the thoroughness and universality of the ,jewish popular belief in demons and evil spirits and in the power of magic is exhibited in the ascription to ,solomon1 the monarch in whom the greatness and glory of the nation attained its culminating point1 of the character of a powerful magician4 ,the most effectual forms of invocation and exorcism1 and the most potent spells of magic1 were said to have been composed by him1 and thus the grossest superstition of the nation acquired the sanction of their wisest king4 ,rabbinical writings are #aah never weary of enlarging upon the magical power and knowledge of ,solomon4 ,he was represented as not only king of the whole earth1 but also as reigning over devils and evil spirits1 and having the power of expelling them from the bodies of men and animals1 and also of delivering people to them47#a7 ,it was indeed believed that the two demons ,asa and ,asael taught ,solomon all wisdom and all arts47#b7 ,the ,talmud relates many instances of his power over evil spirits1 and amongst others how he made them assist in building the ,temple4 ,solomon desired to have the help of the worm ,schamir in preparing the stones for the sacred building1 and he conjured up a devil and a she-devil to inform him where ,schamir was to be found4 ,they referred him to ,asmodeus1 whom the ,king craftily captured1 and by whom he was informed that ,schamir is under the jurisdiction of the ,prince of the ,seas1 and ,asmodeus further told him how he might be secured4 ,by his means the ,temple was built1 but1 from the moment it was destroyed1 ,schamir for ever disappeared47#c7 ,it was likewise believed that one of the ,chambers of the second ,temple was built by a magician called ,parvah1 by means of magic47#d7 ,the ,talmud narrates many stories of miracles performed by various ,rabbins47#f7 ,the ,jewish historian1 ,josephus1 informs us that1 amongst #aai other gifts1 ,god bestowed upon ,king ,solomon knowledge of the way to expel demons1 an art which is useful and salutary for mankind4 ,he composed incantations by which diseases are cured1 and he left behind him forms of exorcism by which demons may be so effectually expelled that they never return1 a method of cure1 ,josephus adds1 which is of great efficacy to his own day4 ,he himself had seen a countryman of his own1 named ,eliezer1 release people possessed of devils in the presence of the ,emperor ,vespasian and his sons1 and of his army4 ,he put a ring containing one of the roots prescribed by ,solomon to the nose of the demoniac1 and drew the demon out by his nostrils1 and1 in the name of ,solomon1 and reciting one of his incantations1 he adjured it to return no more4 ,in order to demonstrate to the spectators that he had the power to cast out devils1 ,eliezer was accustomed to set a vessel full of water a little way off1 and he commanded the demon as he left the body of the man to overturn it1 by which means1 says ,josephus1 the skill and wisdom of ,solomon were made very manifest47#a7 ,jewish ,rabbins generally were known as powerful exorcisers1 practising the art according to the formulae of their great monarch4 ,justin ,martyr reproaches his ,jewish opponent1 ,tryphon1 with the fact that his countrymen use the same art as the ,gentiles1 and exorcise with fumigations and charms --,greek--1 and he shows the common belief in demoniacal influence when he asserts that1 while ,jewish exorcists cannot overcome demons by such means1 or even by exorcising them in the name of their ,kings1 ,prophets1 or ,patriarchs1 though he admits that they might do so if they adjured them in the name of the ,god of ,abraham1 ,isaac1 and #abj ,jacob1 yet ,christians at once subdued demons by exorcising them in the name of the ,son of ,god47#a7 ,the ,jew and the ,christian were quite agreed that demons were to be exorcised1 and merely differed as to the formula of exorcism4 ,josephus gives an account of a root potent against evil spirits4 ,it is called ,baaras1 and is flame-coloured1 and in the evening sends out flashes like lightning4 ,it is certain death to touch it1 except under peculiar conditions4 ,one mode of securing it is to dig down till the smaller part of the root is exposed1 and then to attach the root to a dog's tail4 ,when the dog tries to follow its master from the place1 and pulls violently1 the root is plucked up1 and may then be safely handled1 but the dog instantly dies1 as the man would have done had he plucked it up himself4 ,when the root is brought to sick people1 it at once expels demons47#b7 ,according to ,josephus1 demons are the spirits of the wicked dead2 they enter into the bodies of the living1 who die1 unless succour be speedily obtained47#c7 ,this theory1 however1 was not general1 demons being commonly considered the offspring of the fallen angels and of the daughters of men4 ,the ,jewish historian gives a serious account of the preternatural portents which warned the ,jews of the approaching fall of ,jerusalem1 and he laments the infatuation of the people1 who disregarded these ,divine denunciations4 ,a star in the shape of a sword1 and also a comet1 stood over the doomed city for the space of a whole year4 ,then1 at the feast of unleavened bread1 before the rebellion of the ,jews which preceded the war1 at the ninth hour of the night a #aba great light shone round the altar and the ,temple1 so that for half an hour it seemed as though it were brilliant daylight4 ,at the same festival other supernatural warnings were given4 ,a heifer1 as she was led by the high-priest to be sacrificed1 brought forth a lamb in the ,temple2 moreover1 the eastern gate of the inner court of the ,temple1 which was of brass1 and so ponderous that twenty men had much difficulty in closing it1 and which was fastened by heavy bolts descending deep into the solid stone floor1 was seen to open of its own accord1 about the sixth hour of the night4 ,the ignorant considered some of these events good omens1 but the priests interpreted them as portents of evil4 ,another prodigious phenomenon occurred1 which ,josephus supposes would be considered incredible were it not reported by those who saw it1 and were the subsequent events not of sufficient importance to merit such portents3 before sunset1 chariots and troops of soldieis in armour were seen among the clouds1 moving about1 and surrounding cities4 ,and further1 at the feast of ,pentecost1 as the priests were entering the inner court of the ,temple to perform their sacred duties1 they felt an earthquake1 and heard a great noise1 and then the sound as of a great multitude saying3 ,let us remove hence47l7 ,there is not a shadow of doubt in the mind of ,josephus as to the reality of any of these wonders4 ,if we turn to patristic literature1 we find1 everywhere1 the same superstitions and the same theories of angelic agency and demoniacal interference in cosmical phenomena4 ,according to ,justin ,martyr1 after ,god had made the world and duly regulated the elements and the rotation of the seasons1 he committed man and all #abb things under heaven to the care of angels4 ,some of these angels1 however1 proved unworthy of this charge1 and1 led away by love of the daughters of men1 begat children1 who are the demons who have corrupted the human race1 partly by magical writings --,greek-- and partly by fears and punishments1 and who have introduced wars1 murders1 and other evils amongst them1 which are ignorantly ascribed by poets to ,god himself47#a7 ,he considers that demoniacs are possessed and tortured by the souls of the wicked dead17#b7 and he represents evil spirits as watching to seize the soul at death47#c7 ,the food of the angels is manna47#d7 ,the angels1 says ,clement of ,alexandria1 serve ,god in the administration of earthly affairs47#e7 ,the host of angels and of gods --,greek-- is placed under subjection to the ,logos47#f7 ,presiding angels are distributed over nations and cities1 and perhaps are also deputed to individuals17#g7 and it is by their agency1 either visible or invisible1 that ,god gives all good things47#h7 ,he accuses the ,greeks of plagiarizing their miracles from the ,bible1 and he argues that if certain powers do move the winds and distribute showers1 they are agents subject to ,god47#i7 ,clement affirms that the ,son gave philosophy to the ,greeks by means of the inferior angels17#aj7 and argues that it is absurd to attribute it to the devil47#aa7 ,theophilus of ,antioch1 on the other hand1 says that the ,greek poets were inspired by demons47#ab7 ,athenagoras states1 as one of the principal #abc points of belief among ,christians1 that a multitude of angels and ministers are distributed and appointed by the ,logos to occupy themselves about the elements1 and the heavens1 and the universe and the things in it1 and the regulating of the whole47#a7 ,for it is the duty of the angels to exercise providence over all that ,god has created2 so that ,god may have the universal care of the whole1 but the several parts be ministered to by the angels appointed over them4 ,there is freedom of will amongst the angels as among human beings1 and some of the angels abused their trust1 and fell through love of the daughters of men1 of whom were begotten those who are called ,giants47#b7 ,these angels who have fallen from heaven busy themselves about the air and the earth2 and the souls of the ,giants17#c7 which are the demons that roam about the world1 work evil according to their respective natures47#d7 ,there are powers which exercise dominion over matter1 and by means of it1 and more especially one1 who is opposed to ,god4 ,this ,prince of matter exerts authority and control in opposition to the good designed by ,god47#e7 ,demons are greedy for sacrificial odours and the blood of the victims1 which they lick2 and they influence the multitude to idolatry by inspiring thoughts and visions which seem to come from idols and statues47#f7 ,according to ,tatian1 ,god made everything which is good1 but the wickedness of demons perverts #abd the productions of nature for bad purposes1 and the evil in these is due to demons and not to ,god47#a7 ,none of the demons have bodies2 they are spiritual1 like fire or air1 and can only be seen by those in whom the ,spirit of ,god dwells4 ,they attack men by means of lower forms of matter1 and come to them whenever they are diseased1 and sometimes they cause disorders of the body1 but when they are struck by the power of the word of ,god1 they flee in terror1 and the sick person is healed47#b7 ,various kinds of roots1 and the relations of bones and sinews1 are the material elements through which demons work47#c7 ,some of those who are called gods by the ,greeks1 but are in reality demons1 possess the bodies of certain men1 and then by publicly leaving them they destroy the disease they themselves had created1 and the sick are restored to health47#d7 ,demons1 says ,cyprian of ,carthage1 lurk under consecrated statues1 and inspire false oracles1 and control the lots and omens47#e7 ,they enter into human bodies and feign various maladies in order to induce men to offer sacrifices for their recovery that they may gorge themselves with the fumes1 and then they heal them4 ,they are really the authors of the miracles attributed to heathen deities47#f7 ,tertullian enters into minute details regarding angels and demons4 ,demons are the offspring of the fallen angels1 and their work is the destruction of the human race4 ,they inflict diseases and other painful calamities upon our bodies1 and lead astray our souls4 ,from their #abe wonderful subtleness and tenuity they find their way into both parts of our composition4 ,their spirituality enables them to do much harm to men1 for being invisible and impalpable they appear rather in their effects than in their action4 ,they blight the apples and the grain while in the flower1 as by some mysterious poison in the breeze1 and kill them in the bud1 or nip them before they are ripe1 as though in some inexpressible way the tainted air poured forth its pestilential breath4 ,in the same way demons and angels breathe into the soul and excite its corruptions1 and especially mislead men by inducing them to sacrifice to false deities in order that they may thus obtain their peculiar food of fumes of flesh and blood4 ,every spirit1 whether angel or demon1 has wings2 therefore they are everywhere in a moment4 ,the whole world is but one place to them1 and all that takes place anywhere they can know and report with equal facility4 ,their swiftness is believed to be divine because their substance is unknown1 and thus they seek to be considered the authors of effects which they merely report1 as1 indeed1 they sometimes are of the evil1 but never of the good4 ,they gather intimations of the future from hearing the ,prophets read aloud1 and set themselves up as rivals of the true ,god by stealing ,his divinations4 ,from inhabiting the air1 and from their proximity to the stars and commerce with the clouds1 they know the preparation of celestial phenomena1 and promise beforehand the rains which they already feel coming4 ,they are very kind in reference to the cure of diseases1 ,tertullian ironically says1 for they first make people ill1 and then1 by way of performing a miracle1 they prescribe remedies either novel or contrary to common experience1 and then1 removing the cause1 they are #abf believed to have healed the sick47#a7 ,if any one possessed by a demon be brought before a tribunal1 ,tertullian affirms that the evil spirit1 when ordered by a ,christian1 will at once confess that he is a demon47#b7 ,the fallen angels were the discoverers of astrology and magic47#c7 ,unclean spirits hover over waters in imitation of the brooding 7gestatio7 of the ,holy ,spirit in the beginning1 as1 for instance1 over dark fountains and solitary streams1 and cisterns in baths and dwelling-houses1 and similar places1 which are said to carry one off 7rapere71 that is to say1 by the force of the evil spirit47#d7 ,the fallen angels disclosed to the world unknown material substances1 and various arts1 such as metallurgy1 the properties of herbs1 incantations1 and interpretation of the stars2 and to women specially they revealed all the secrets of personal adornment47#e7 ,there is scarcely any man who is not attended by a demon2 and it is well known that untimely and violent deaths1 which are attributed to accidents1 are really caused by demons47#f7 ,those who go to theatres may become specially accessible to demons4 ,there is the instance1 the ,lord is witness 7domino teste71 of the woman who went to a theatre and came back possessed by a demon2 and1 on being cast out1 the evil spirit replied that he had a right to act as he did1 having found her within his limits4 ,there was another case1 also well known1 of a woman who1 at night1 after having been to a theatre1 had a vision of a #abg winding sheet 7linteum71 and heard the name of the tragedian whom she had seen mentioned with reprobation and1 five days after1 the woman was dead47#a7 ,origen attributes augury and divination through animals to demons4 ,in his opinion certain demons1 offspring of the ,titans or ,giants1 who haunt the grosser parts of bodies and the unclean places of the earth1 and who1 from not having earthly bodies1 have some power of divining the future1 occupy themselves with this4 ,they secretly enter the bodies of the more brutal and savage animals1 and force them to make flights or indications of divination to lead men away from ,god4 ,they have a special leaning to birds and serpents1 and even to foxes and wolves1 because the demons act better through these in consequence of an apparent analogy in wickedness between them47#b7 ,it is for this reason that ,moses1 who had either been taught by ,god what was similar in the nature of animals and their kindred demons1 or had discovered it himself1 prohibited as unclean the particular birds and animals most used for divination4 ,therefore each kind of demon seems to have an affinity with a certain kind of animal4 ,they are so wicked that demons even assume the bodies of weasels to foretell the future47#c7 ,they feed on the blood and odour of the victims sacrificed in idol temples47#d7 ,the spirits of the wicked dead wander about sepulchres and sometimes for ages haunt particular houses1 and other places47#e7 ,the prayers of ,christians drive demons out of men1 and from places where they have #abh taken up their abode1 and even sometimes from the bodies of animals1 which are frequently injured by them47#a7 ,in reply to a statement of ,celsus that we cannot eat bread or fruit1 or drink wine or even water without eating and drinking with demons1 and that the very air we breathe is received from demons1 and that1 consequently1 we cannot inhale without receiving air from the demons who are set over the air17#b7 ,origen maintains1 on the contrary1 that the angels of ,god1 and not demons1 have the superintendence of such natural phenomena1 and have been appointed to communicate all these blessings4 ,not demons1 but angels1 have been set over the fruits of the earth1 and over the birth of animals1 and over all things necessary for our race47#c7 ,scripture forbids the eating of things strangled because the blood is still in them1 and blood1 and more especially the fumes of it1 is said to be the food of demons4 ,if we ate strangled animals1 we might have demons feeding with us17#d7 but in ,origen's opinion a man only eats and drinks with demons when he eats the flesh of idol sacrifices1 and drinks the wine poured out in honour of demons47#f7 ,jerome states the common belief that the air is filled with demons47#f7 ,chrysostom says that angels are everywhere in the atmosphere47#g7 ,not content1 however1 with peopling earth and air with angels and demons1 the ,fathers also shared the opinion common to ,jews7#h7 and heathen philosophers1 that the heavenly bodies were animated beings4 ,after fully discussing the question1 with much reference to ,scripture1 #bj ,origen determines that sun1 moon1 and stars are living and rational beings1 illuminated with the light of knowledge by the wisdom which is the reflection --,greek-- of eternal light4 ,they have free will1 and as it would appear from a passage in ,job 7xxv4 #e7 they are not only liable to sin1 but actually not pure from the uncleanness of it4 ,origen is careful to explain that this has not reference merely to their physical part1 but to the spiritual2 and he proceeds to discuss whether their souls came into existence at the same time with their bodies or existed previously1 and whether1 at the end of the world1 they will be released from their bodies or will cease from giving light to the world4 ,he argues that they are rational beings because their motions could not take place without a soul4 ,as the stars move with so much order and method1 he says1 that under no circumstances whatever does their course seem to be disturbed1 is it not the extreme of absurdity to suppose that so much order1 so much observance of discipline and method could be demanded from or fulfilled by irrational beings87#a7 ,they possess life and reason1 he decides1 and he proves from ,scripture that their souls were given to them not at the creation of their bodily substance1 but like those of men implanted strictly from without1 after they were made47#b7 ,they are subject to vanity with the rest of the creatures1 and wait for the manifestation of the sons of ,god47#c7 ,origen is persuaded #acj that sun1 moon1 and stars pray to the ,supreme ,being through ,his only begotten ,son47#a7 ,to return to angels1 however1 ,origen states that the angels are not only of various orders of rank1 but have apportioned to them specific offices and duties4 ,to ,raphael1 for instance1 is assigned the task of curing and healing2 to ,gabriel the management of wars2 to ,michael the duty of receiving the prayers and the supplications of men4 ,angels are set over the different churches1 and have charge even of the least of their members4 ,these offices were assigned to the angels by ,god agreeably to the qualities displayed by each47#b7 ,elsewhere1 ,origen explains that it is necessary for this world that there should be angels set over beasts and over terrestrial operations1 and also angels presiding over the birth of animals1 and over the propagation and growth of shrubs1 and1 again1 angels over holy works1 who eternally teach men the perception of the hidden ways of ,god1 and knowledge of divine things2 and he warns us not to bring upon ourselves those angels who are set over beasts1 by leading an animal life1 nor those which preside over terrestrial works1 by taking delight in fleshly and mundane things1 but rather to study how we may approximate to the companionship of the ,archangel ,michael1 to whose duty of presenting the prayers of the saints to ,god he here adds the office of presiding over medicine47#c7 ,it is through the ministry of angels that the water-springs in fountains and running streams refresh the earth1 and that the air we breathe is #aca kept pure47#a7 ,in the ,pastor of ,hermas1 a work quoted by the ,fathers as inspired ,scripture1 which was publicly read in the churches1 which almost secured a permanent place in the ,new ,testament canon1 and which appears after the canonical books in the ,codex ,sinaiticus1 the oldest extant ,,ms4 of the ,new ,testament1 mention is made of an angel who has rule over beasts1 and whose name is ,hegrin47#b7 ,jerome also quotes an apocryphal work in which an angel of similar name is said to be set over reptiles1 and in which fishes1 trees1 and beasts are assigned to the care of particular angels47#c7 ,clement of ,alexandria mentions without dissent the prevailing belief that hail-storms1 tempests1 and similar phenomena do not occur merely from material disturbance1 but also are caused by the anger of demons and evil angels47#d7 ,origen states that while angels superintend all the phenomena of nature1 and control what is appointed for our good1 famine1 the blighting of vines and fruit trees1 and the destruction of beasts and of men1 are1 on the other hand1 the personal works7#e7 of demons1 they1 as public executioners1 receiving at certain times authority to carry into effect divine decrees47#f7 ,we have already quoted similar views expressed by ,tertullian17#g7 and the universality and permanence of such opinions may be illustrated by the fact that1 after the lapse of many centuries1 we find ,st4 ,thomas ,aquinas as solemnly affirming that disease and tempests are the direct work of the devil27#h7 indeed1 this belief prevailed #acb throughout the middle ages until very recent times4 ,the ,apostle ,peter1 in the ,recognitions of ,clement1 informs ,clement that when ,god made the world ,he appointed chiefs over the various creatures1 even over the trees and the mountains and springs and rivers1 and over everything in the universe4 ,an angel was set over the angels1 a spirit over spirits1 a star over the stars1 a demon over the demons1 and so on47#a7 ,he provided different offices for all ,his creatures1 whether good or bad17#b7 but certain angels having left the course of their proper order1 led men into sin and taught them that demons could1 by magical invocations1 be made to obey man47#c7 ,ham was the discoverer of the art of magic47#d7 ,astrologers suppose that evils happen in consequence of the motions of the heavenly bodies1 and represent certain climacteric periods as dangerous1 not knowing that it is not the course of the stars1 but the action of demons that regulates these things47#e7 ,god has committed the superintendence of the seventy-two nations into which ,he has divided the earth to as many angels47#f7 ,demons insinuate themselves into the bodies of men1 and force them to fulfil their desires27#g7 they sometimes appear visibly to men1 and by threats or promises endeavour to lead them into error2 they can transform themselves into whatever forms they please47#h7 ,the distinction between what is spoken by the true ,god through the prophets or by visions1 and that which is delivered by demons1 is this3 that what proceeds from the former is always true1 whereas that which is foretold by demons is not always true47#i7 ,lactantius says that when the #acc number of men began to increase1 fearing that the ,devil should corrupt or destroy them1 ,god sent angels to protect and instruct the human race1 but the angels themselves fell beneath his wiles1 and from being angels they became the satellites and ministers of ,satan4 ,the offspring of these fallen angels are unclean spirits1 authors of all the evils which are done1 and the ,devil is their chief4 ,they are acquainted with the future1 but nob completely4 ,the art of the magi is altogether supported by these demons1 and at their invocation they deceive men with lying tricks1 making men think they see things which do not exist4 ,these contaminated spirits wander over all the earth1 and console themselves by the destruction of men4 ,they fill every place with frauds and deceits1 for they adhere to individuals1 and occupy whole houses1 and assume the name of genii1 as demons are called in the ,latin language1 and make men worship them4 ,on account of their tenuity and impalpability they insinuate themselves into the bodies of men1 and through their viscera injure their health1 excite diseases1 terrify their souls with dreams1 agitate their minds with phrensies1 so that they may by these evils drive men to seek their aid47#a7 ,being adjured in the name of ,god1 however1 they leave the bodies of the possessed1 uttering the greatest howling1 and crying out that they are beaten1 or are on fire47#b7 ,these demons are the inventors of astrology1 divination1 oracles1 necromancy1 and the art of magic47#c7 ,the universe is governed by ,god through the medium of angels4 ,the demons have a fore-knowledge of the purposes of ,god1 from having been ,his #acd ministers1 and interposing in what is being done1 they ascribe the credit to themselves47#a7 ,the sign of the cross is a terror to demons1 and at the sight of it they flee from the bodies of men4 ,when sacrifices are being offered to the gods1 if one be present who bears on his forehead the sign of the cross1 the sacred rites are not propitious 7sacra nullo modo litant71 and the oracle gives no reply47#b7 ,eusebius1 like all the ,fathers1 represents the gods of the ,greeks and other heathen nations as merely wicked demons4 ,demons1 he says1 whether they circulate in the dark and heavy atmosphere which encircles our sphere1 or inhabit the cavernous dwellings which exist within it1 find charms only in tombs and in the sepulchres of the dead1 and in impure and unclean places4 ,they delight in the blood of animals1 and in the putrid exhalations which rise from their bodies1 as well as in earthly vapours4 ,their leaders1 whether as inhabitants of the upper regions of the atmosphere1 or plunged in the abyss of hell1 having discovered that the human race had deified and offered sacrifices to men who were dead1 promoted the delusion in order to savour the blood which flowed4and the fumes of the burning flesh4 ,they deceived men by the motions conveyed to idols and statues1 by the oracles they delivered1 and by healing diseases1 with which1 by the power inherent in their nature1 they had before invisibly smitten bodies1 and which they removed by ceasing to torture them4 ,these demons first introduced magic amongst men47#c7 ,we may here refer to the account of a miracle which ,eusebius seriously quotes1 as exemplifying another occasional #ace function of the angels4 ,the heretical ,bishop ,natalius having in vain been admonished by ,god in dreams1 was at last lashed through the whole of a night by holy angels1 till he was brought to repentance1 and1 clad in sackcloth and covered with ashes1 he at length threw himself at the feet of ,zephyrinus1 then ,bishop of ,rome1 pointing to the marks of the scourges which he had received from the angels1 and implored to be again received into communion with the ,church47#a7 ,augustine says that demons inhabit the atmosphere as in a prison1 and deceive men1 persuading them by their wonderful and false signs1 or doings1 or predictions1 that they are gods47#b7 ,he considers the origin of their name in the sacred ,scriptures worthy of notice3 they are called --,greek-- in ,greek on account of their knowledge47#c7 ,by their experience of certain signs which are hidden from us1 they can read much more of the future1 and sometimes even announce beforehand what they intend to do4 ,speaking of his own time1 and with strong expressions of assurance1 ,augustine says that not only ,scripture testifies that angels have appeared to men with bodies which could not only be seen but felt1 but what is more1 it is a general report1 and many have personal experience of it1 or have learned it from those who have knowledge of the fact1 and of whose truth there is no doubt1 that satyrs and fauns1 generally called ,incubi1 have frequently perpetrated their peculiar wickedness27#d7 and also that certain demons called by the ,gauls ,dusii every day attempt and effect the same uncleanness1 as #acf witnesses equally numerous and trustworthy assert1 so that it would be impertinence to deny it47#a7 ,lactantius1 again1 ridicules the idea that there can be antipodes1 and he can scarcely credit that there can be any one so silly as to believe that there are men whose feet are higher than their heads1 or that grain and trees grow downwards1 and rain1 snow1 and hail fall upwards to the earth4 ,after jesting at those who hold such ridiculous views1 he points out that their blunders arise from supposing that the heaven is round1 and the world1 consequently1 round like a ball1 and enclosed within it4 ,but if that were the case1 it must present the same appearance to all parts of heaven1 with mountains1 plains1 and seas1 and consequently there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and animals4 ,lactantius does not know what to say to those who1 having fallen into such an error1 persevere in their folly 7stultitia71 and defend one vain thing by another1 but sometimes he supposes that they philosophize in jest1 or knowingly defend falsehoods to display their ingenuity4 ,space alone prevents his proving that it is impossible for heaven to be below the earth47#b7 ,st4 ,augustine1 with equal boldness1 declares that the stories told about the antipodes1 that is to say1 that there are men whose feet are against our footsteps1 and upon whom the sun rises when it sets to us1 are not to be believed4 ,such an assertion is not supported by any historical evidence1 #acg but rests upon mere conjecture based on the rotundity of the earth4 ,but those who maintain such a theory do not consider that even if the earth be round1 it does not follow that the opposite side is not covered with water4 ,besides1 if it be not1 why should it be inhabited1 seeing that on the one hand it is in no way possible that the ,scriptures can lie1 and on the other1 it is too absurd 7nimisque absurdum est7 to affirm that any men can have traversed such an immensity of ocean to establish the human race there from that one first man ,adam47#a7 ,clement of ,rome had no doubt of the truth of the story of the ,phoenix17#b7 that wonderful bird of ,arabia and the adjoining countries1 which lives #ejj years2 at the end of which time1 its dissolution being at hand1 it builds a nest of spices1 in which it dies4 ,from the decaying flesh1 however1 a worm is generated1 which being strengthened by the juices of the bird1 produces feathers and is transformed into a ,phoenix4 ,clement adds that it then flies away with the nest containing the bones of its defunct parent to the city of ,heliopolis in ,egypt1 and in full daylight1 and in the sight of all men1 it lays them on the altar of the sun4 ,on examining their registers1 the priests find that the bird has returned precisely at the completion of the #ejj years4 ,this bird1 ,clement considers1 is an emblem of the ,resurrection47#a7 ,so does ,tertullian1 who repeats the story with equal confidence47#b7 ,it is likewise referred to in the ,apostolic ,constitutions47#c7 ,celsus quotes the narrative in his work against ,christianity as an instance of the piety of irrational creatures1 and although ,origen1 in reply1 while admitting that the story is indeed recorded1 puts in a cautious if it be true1 he proceeds to account for the phenomenon on the ground that ,god may have made this isolated creature1 in order that men might admire1 not the bird1 but its creator47#d7 ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 likewise1 quotes the story from ,clement47#e7 ,the author of the almost canonical ,epistle of ,barnabas1 explaining the typical meaning of the code of ,moses regarding clean and unclean animals which were or were not to be eaten1 states as a fact that the hare annually increases the number of its foramina1 for it has as many as the years it lives47#f7 ,he also mentions that the hyena changes its sex every year1 being alternately male and female47#g7 ,tertullian also points out as a recognized fact the annual change of sex of the hyena1 and he adds3 ,i do not mention the stag1 since itself is the witness of its own age2 feeding on the serpent it languishes into youth from the working of the poison47#h7 ,the geocentric #aci theory of the ,church1 which elevated man into the supreme place in the universe1 and considered creation in general to be solely for his use1 naturally led to the misinterpretation of all cosmical phenomena4 ,such spectacles as eclipses and comets were universally regarded as awful portents of impending evil1 signs of ,god's anger1 and forerunners of national calamities47#a7 ,we have already referred to the account given by ,josephus of the portents which were supposed to announce the coming destruction of the ,holy ,city1 amongst which were a star shaped like a sword1 a comet1 and other celestial phenomena4 ,volcanoes were considered openings into hell1 and not only does ,ter-tullian hold them to be so1 but he asks who will not deem these punishments sometimes inflicted upon mountains as examples of the judgments which menace the wicked47#b7 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,permanent ,,stream ,,of ,,miraculous ,,pretension ,we have given a most imperfect sketch of some of the opinions and superstitions prevalent at the time of ,jesus1 and when the books of the ,new ,testament were written4 ,these1 as we have seen1 continued with little or no modification throughout the first centuries of our era4 ,it must1 however1 be remembered that the few details we have given1 omitting most of the grosser particulars1 are the views deliberately expressed by the most educated and intelligent part of the community1 and that it would have required infinitely darker colours adequately to have portrayed the dense ignorance and superstition of the mass of the ,jews4 ,it is impossible to receive the report of supposed marvellous occurrences from an age and people like this without the gravest suspicion4 ,even so thorough a defender of miracles as ,dr4 ,newman admits that3 ,witnesses must be not only honest1 but competent also2 that is1 such as have ascertained the facts which they attest1 or who report after examination2l and although the necessities of his case oblige him to assert that the testimony of men of science and general knowledge must not be required1 he admits1 under the head of deficiency of examination1 that--,enthusiasm1 ignorance1 and habitual credulity #ada are defects which no number of witnesses removes47#a7 ,we have shown how rank were these defects at the commencement of the ,christian era1 and among the chief witnesses for ,christianity4 ,miracles which spring from such a hot-bed of superstition are too natural in such a soil to be objects of surprise and1 in losing their exceptional character1 their claims upon attention are proportionately weakened if not altogether destroyed4 ,preternatural interference with the affairs of life and the phenomena of nature was the rule in those days1 not the exception1 and miracles1 in fact1 had lost all novelty1 and through familiarity had become degraded into mere commonplace4 ,the ,gospel miracles were not original in their character1 but were substantially mere repetitions of similar wonders well known amongst the ,jews1 or commonly supposed to be of daily occurrence even at that time4 ,in fact1 the idea of such miracles1 in such an age and performed amongst such a people1 as the attestation of a supernatural ,revelation1 may with singular propriety be ascribed to the mind of that period1 but can scarcely be said to bear any traces of the divine4 ,indeed1 anticipating for a moment a part of our subject regarding which we shall have more to say hereafter1 we may remark that1 so far from being original either in its evidence or form1 almost every religion which has been taught in the world has claimed the same divine character as ,christianity1 and has surrounded the person and origin of its central figure with the same supernatural mystery4 ,even the great heroes of history1 long before our era1 had their immaculate conception and miraculous birth4 ,there can be no doubt that the writers of the ,new ,testament shared the popular superstitions of the ,jews4 #adb ,we have already given more than one instance of this1 and now we have only to refer for a moment to one class of these superstitions1 the belief in demoniacal possession and origin of disease1 involving clearly both the existence of demons and their power over the human race4 ,it would be an insult to the understanding of those who are considering this question to pause here to prove that the historical books of the ,new ,testament speak in the clearest and most unmistakable terms of actual demoniacal possession4 ,now1 what has become of this theory of disease8 ,the ,archbishop of ,dublin is probably the only one who asserts the reality of demoniacal possession formerly and at the present day17#a7 and in this we must say that he is consistent4 ,dean ,milman1 on the other hand1 who spoke with the enlightenment of the #aith century1 has no scruple in avowing his opinion on the subject of demoniacs to be that of ,joseph ,mede1 ,lardner1 ,dr4 ,mead1 ,paley1 and all the learned modern writers4 ,it was a kind of insanity4444 and nothing was more probable than that lunacy should take the turn and speak the language of the prevailing superstition of the times47#b7 ,the ,dean1 as well as all the learned modern writers to whom he refers1 felt the difficulty1 but in seeking to evade it they sacrifice the ,gospels4 ,they overlook the fact that the writers of these narratives not only themselves adopt the prevailing superstition of the times1 but represent ,jesus as doing so with equal completeness4 ,there is no possibility1 for instance1 of evading such statements as those in the miracle of the country of the ,gadarenes1 where the objectivity of the demons is so fully recognized that1 #adc on being cast out of the man1 they are represented as requesting to be allowed to go into the herd of swine1 and being permitted by ,jesus to do so1 the entry of the demons into the swine is at once signalized by the herd running violently down the cliff into the lake1 and being drowned47#a7 ,archbishop ,trench adopts no such ineffectual evasion1 but rightly objects3 ,our ,lord ,himself uses language which is not reconcilable with any such explanation4 ,he everywhere speaks of demoniacs not as persons of disordered intellects1 but as subjects and thralls of an alien spiritual might2 ,he addresses the evil spirit as distinct from the man3 ',hold thy peace and come out of him2' and he concludes that our idea of ,christ's absolute veracity1 apart from the value of the truth which ,he communicated1 forbids us to suppose that ,he could have spoken as ,he did1 being perfectly aware all the while that there was no corresponding reality to justify the language which ,he used47#b7 ,the ,dean1 on the other hand1 finds a very strong reason1 which he does not remember to have seen urged with sufficient force1 which may have contributed to induce our ,lord to adopt the current language on the point4 ,the disbelief in these spiritual influences was one of the characteristics of the unpopular sect of the ,sadducees4 ,a departure from the common language1 or the endeavour to correct this inveterate error1 would have raised an immediate outcry against ,him from ,his watchful and malignant adversaries as an unbelieving ,sadducec47#c7 ,such ascription of politic #add deception for the sake of popularity might be intelligible in an ordinary case1 but when referred to the central personage of a ,divine ,revelation1 who is said to be ,god incarnate1 it is perfectly astounding4 ,the ,archbishop1 however1 rightly deems that if ,jesus knew that the ,jewish belief in demoniacal possession was baseless1 and that ,satan did not exercise such power over the bodies or spirits of men1 there would be in such language that absence of agreement between thoughts and words in which the essence of a lie consists47#a7 ,it is difficult to say whether the dilemma of the ,dean or of the ,archbishop is the greater1--the one obliged to sacrifice the moral character of ,jesus1 in order to escape the admission for ,christianity of untenable superstition1 the other obliged to adopt the superstition in order to support the veracity of the language4 ,at least the course of the ,archbishop is consistent and worthy of respect4 ,the attempt to eliminate the superstitious diagnosis of the disease1 and yet to preserve intact the miraculous cure1 is quite ineffectual4 ,dr4 ,trench anticipates the natural question1 why there are no demoniacs now1 if there were so many in those days17#b7 and he is logically compelled to maintain that there may still be persons possessed4 ,it may well be a question1 moreover1 he says1 if an apostle or one with apostolic discernment of spirits were to enter into a mad-house now1 how many of the sufferers there he might not recognize as possessed87#c7 ,there can scarcely be a question upon the point at all1 for such a person issuing direct #ade from that period1 without subsequent scientific enlightenment1 would most certainly pronounce them all1 possessed4 ,it did not1 however1 require an apostle1 nor even one with apostolic discernment of spirits1 to recognize the possessed at that time4 ,all those who are represented as being brought to ,jesus to be healed are described by their friends as having a devil or being possessed1 and there was no form of disease more general or more commonly recognized by the ,jews4 ,for what reason has the recognition of1 and belief in1 demoniacal possession passed away with the ignorance and superstition which were then prevalent8 ,it is important to remember that the theory of demoniacal possession1 and its supposed cure by means of exorcism and invocations1 was most common among the ,jews long before the commencement of the ,christian era4 ,as casting out devils was the most common type of ,christian miracles1 so it was the commonest belief and practice of the ,jewish nation4 ,christianity merely shared the national superstition1 and changed nothing but the form of exorcism4 ,christianity did not through a clearer perception of spirits1 therefore1 originate the belief in demoniacal possession1 nor first recognize its victims2 nor did such superior enlightenment accompany the superior morality of ,christianity as to detect the ignorant fallacy4 ,in the ,old ,testament we find the most serious evidence of the belief in demonology and witchcraft4 ,the laws against them set the example of that unrelenting severity with which sorcery was treated for so many centuries4 ,we read in ,exodus xxii4 #ah3 ,thou shalt not suffer a witch to live4 ,levit4 xix4 #ca3 ,regard not them which have familiar spirits1 neither #adf seek after wizards1 to be defiled by them4 ,levit4 xx4 #f3 ,and the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits1 and after wizards to go a-whoring after them1 ,i will even set my face against that soul1 and cut him off from among his people2 and verse #bg3 ,a man also or a woman that hath a familiar spirit1 or that is a wizard1 shall surely be put to death2 they shall stone them with stones2 their blood shall be upon them4 ,deut4 xviii4 #aj3 ,there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire1 or an enchanter1 or a witch2 #aa4 ,or a charmer1 or a consulter with familiar spirits1 or a wizard1 or a necromancer2 #ab4 ,for all that do these things are an abomination unto the ,lord1 c4 ,the passages which assert the reality of demonology and witchcraft1 however1 are much too numerous to permit their citation here4 ,but not only did ,christianity thus inherit the long-prevalent superstition1 but it transmitted it intact to succeeding ages2 and there can be no doubt that this demonology1 with its consequent and inevitable belief in witchcraft1 sorcery1 and magic1 continued so long to prevail throughout ,christendom1 as much through the authority of the sacred writings and the teaching of the ,church as through the superstitious ignorance of ,europe4 ,it would be impossible to select for illustration any type of the ,gospel miracles1 whose fundamental principle1--belief in the reality1 malignant action1 and power of demons1 and in the power of man to control them1--has received fuller or more permanent living acceptance from posterity1 down to very recent times1 than the cure of disease ascribed to demoniacal influence4 ,the writings of the ,fathers are full of the belief2 the social #adg history of ,europe teems with it4 ,the more pious the people1 the more firm was their conviction of its reality4 ,from times antecedent to ,christianity1 until medical science slowly came into existence and displaced miracle cures by the relics of saints1 every form of disease was ascribed to demons4 ,madness1 idiotcy1 epilepsy1 and every shape of hysteria were the commonest forms of their malignity2 and the blind1 the dumb1 and the deformed were regarded as unquestionable victims of their malice4 ,every domestic calamity1 from the convulsions of a child to the death of a cow1 was unhesitatingly attributed to their agency4 ,the more ignorant the community1 the greater the number of its possessed4 ,belief in the power of sorcery1 witchcraft1 and magic was inherent in the superstition1 and the universal prevalence shows how catholic was the belief in demoniacal influence4 ,the practice of these arts is solemnly denounced as sin in the ,new ,testament and throughout ,patristic literature1 and the church has in all ages fulminated against it4 ,no accusation was more common than that of practising sorcery1 and no class escaped from the fatal suspicion4 ,popes were charged with the crime1 and bishops were found guilty of it4 ,st4 ,cyprian was said to have been a magician before he became a ,christian and a ,father of the ,church47#a7 ,athanasius was accused of sorcery before the ,synod of ,tyre47#b7 ,not only the illiterate but even the learned1 in the estimation of their age1 believed in it4 ,no heresy was ever persecuted with more unrelenting hatred4 ,popes have issued bulls vehemently anathematising witches and sorcerers1 councils have proscribed them1 ecclesiastical #adh courts have consigned tens of thousands of persons suspected of being such to the stake1 monarchs have written treatises against them and invented tortures for their conviction1 and every nation in ,europe and almost every generation have passed the most stringent laws against them4 ,upon no point has there ever been greater unanimity of belief4 ,church and ,state have vied with each other for the suppression of the abominable crime4 ,every phenomenon of nature1 every unwelcome occurrence of social life1 as well as every natural disease1 has been ascribed to magic and demons4 ,the historical records of ,europe are filled with the deliberate trial and conviction1 upon what was deemed evidence1 of thousands of sorcerers and witches4 ,hundreds have been found guilty of exercising demoniacal influence over the elements1 from ,sopater the philosopher1 executed under ,constantino for preventing1 by adverse winds1 the arrival of corn ships at ,constantinople1 to ,dr4 ,fian and other witches horribly tortured and burnt for causing a stormy passage on the return of ,james ,i4 from ,denmark47#a7 ,thousands of men and tens of thousands of women have been done to death by every conceivable torment for causing sickness or calamity by sorcery1 or for flying through the air to attend the witches' sabbath4 ,when scepticism as to the reality of the demoniacal powers of sorcery tardily began to arise1 it was fiercely reprobated by the ,church as infidelity4 ,even so late as the #agth century1 a man like ,sir ,thomas ,browne not only did not include the belief amongst the vulgar errors which he endeavoured to expose1 but on the contrary wrote3 ,for my part1 ,i have ever believed1 and do now know that there are #a ,pitcairn's ,criminal ,trials of ,scotland1 i4 pp4 #bac1 #bbc4 #adj witches4 ,they that doubt of them1 do not only deny them1 but spirits2 and are obliquely1 and upon consequence1 a sort not of infidels1 but atheists47#a7 ,in #affd ,sir ,thomas ,hale1 in passing sentence of death against two women convicted of being witches1 declared that the reality of witchcraft was undeniable1 because first1 the ,scriptures had affirmed so much2 and secondly1 the wisdom of all nations had provided laws against such persons1 which is an argument of their confidence of such a crime47#b7 ,even the #ahth century was stained with the blood of persons tortured and executed for sorcery4 ,notwithstanding all this persistent and unanimous confirmation1 we ask again3 ,what has now become of the belief in demoniacal possession and sorcery8 ,it has utterly disappeared4 ,joseph ,mede1 ,lardner1 ,dr4 ,mead1 ,paley1 and all the learned modern writers with ,dean ,milinan1 as we have seen1 explain it away1 and such a theory of disease and elemental disturbance is universally recognized to have been a groundless superstition4 ,the countless number of persons tormented and put to death for the supposed crime of witchcraft and sorcery were mere innocent victims to ignorance and credulity4 ,mr4 ,buckle has collected a mass of evidence to show that there is in every part of the world an intimate relation between ignorance respecting the nature and proper treating of a disease1 and #aej the belief that such disease is caused by supernatural power1 and is to be cured by it47#a7 ,at the commencement of our era every disease was ascribed to the agency of demons simply because the nature of disease was not understood1 and the writers of the ,gospels were not1 in this respect1 one whit more enlightened than the ,jews4 ,the progress of science1 however1 has not only dispelled the superstitious theory as regards disease in our time2 its effects are retrospective4 ,science not only declares the ascription of disease to demoniacal possession or malignity to be an idle superstition now1 but it equally repudiates the assumption of such a cause at any time4 ,the diseases referred by the ,gospels1 and by the ,jews of that time1 to the action of devils1 exist now1 but they are known to proceed from purely physical causes4 ,the same superstition and medical ignorance would enunciate the same diagnosis at the present day4 ,the superstition and ignorance1 however1 have passed away1 and with them the demoniacal theory4 ,in that day the theory was as baseless as in this4 ,this is the logical conclusion of every educated man4 ,it is obvious that1 with the necessary abandonment of the theory of possession and demoniacal origin of disease1 the largest class of miracles recorded in the ,gospels is at once exploded4 ,the asserted cause of the diseases of this class1 said to have been miraculously healed1 must be recognized to be a mere vulgar superstition1 and the narratives of such miracles1 ascribing as they do in perfect simplicity distinct objectivity to the supposed possessing demons1 and reporting their very words and actions1 at once assume the character of mere imaginative and fabulous writings based upon superstitious #aea tradition1 and cannot be accepted as the sober and intelligent report of eye-witnesses4 ,we shall presently see how far this4inference is supported by the literary evidence regarding the date and composition of the ,gospels4 ,the deduction1 however1 does not end here4 ,it is clear that1 this large class of ,gospel miracles being due to the superstition of an ignorant and credulous age1 the insufficiency of the evidence for any of the other supposed miraculous occurrences narrated in the same documents becomes at once apparent4 ,nothing but the most irrefragable testimony could possibly warrant belief in statements of supernatural events which contradict all experience1 and are opposed to all science4 ,when these statements1 however1 are not only rendered1 a priori1 suspicious by their proceeding from a period of the grossest superstition and credulity1 but it becomes evident that a considerable part of them is due solely to that superstition and credulity1 by which1 moreover1 the rest may likewise be most naturally explained1 it is obvious that they cannot stand against the opposing conviction of invariable experience4 ,the force of the testimony is gone4 ,we are far from using this language in an offensive sense concerning the ,gospel narratives1 which1 by the simple faith of the writers1 present the most noble aspect of the occurrences of which superstition is capable4 ,indeed1 viewed as compositions gradually rising out of pious tradition1 and representing the best spirit of their times1 the ,gospels1 even in ascribing such miracles to ,jesus1 are a touching illustration of the veneration excited by his elevated character4 ,devout enthusiasm surrounded his memory with the tradition of the highest exhibitions of power within the range of ,jewish imagination1 #aeb and that these conceptions represent merely an idealized form of prevalent superstition was not only natural but inevitable4 ,we shall hereafter fully examine the character of the ,gospels1 but it will be sufficient here to point out that none of these writings lays claim to any special inspiration1 or in the slightest degree pretends to be more than a human composition17#a7 and subject to the errors of human history4 #b4 ,we have seen how incompetent those who lived at the time when the ,gospel miracles are supposed to have taken place were to furnish reliable testimony regarding such phenomena2 and the gross mistake committed in regard to the largest class of these miracles1 connected with demoniacal possession1 seems altogether to destroy the value of the evidence for the rest1 and to connect the whole1 as might have been expected1 with the general superstition and ignorance of the period4 ,it may be well to inquire further1 whether there is any valid reason for excepting any of the miracles of ,scripture from the fate of the rest1 and whether1 in fact1 there was any special ,age of ,miracles at all1 round which a privileged line can be drawn on any reasonable ground4 ,we have already pointed out that the kind of evidence which is supposed to attest the ,divine revelation of ,christianity1 so far from being invented for the purpose1 was so hackneyed1 so to speak1 as scarcely to attract the #aec notice of the nation to which the revelation was1 in the first instance1 addressed4 ,not only did the ,old ,testament contain accounts of miracles of every one of the types related in the ,new1 but most of them were believed to be commonly performed both before and after the commencement of the ,christian era4 ,that demons were successfully exorcised1 and diseases cured1 by means of spells and incantations1 was never doubted by the ,jewish nation4 ,satanic miracles1 moreover1 are not only recognized throughout the ,old and ,new ,testaments1 but formed a leading feature of the ,patristic creed4 ,the early ,christians were not more ready than the heathen to ascribe every inexplicable occurrence to supernatural agency1 and the only difference between them was as to the nature of that agency4 ,the ,jews and their heathen neighbours were too accustomed to supposed preternatural occurrences to feel much surprise or incredulity at the account of ,christian miracles2 and it is characteristic of the universal superstition of the period that the ,fathers did not dream of denying the reality of ,pagan miracles1 but merely attributed them to demons1 whilst they asserted the ,divine origin of their own4 ,the reality of the powers of sorcery was never questioned4 ,every marvel and every narrative of supernatural interference with human affairs seemed matter of course to the superstitious credulity of the age4 ,however much miracles are exceptions to the order of nature1 they have always been the rule in the history of ignorance4 ,in fact1 the excess of belief in them throughout many centuries of darkness is fatal to their claims to credence now4 ,the ,christian miracles are rendered almost as suspicious from their place in a long sequence of similar occurrences1 as they are by being exceptions #aed to the sequence of natural phenomena4 ,it would indeed be extraordinary if whole cycles of miracles occurring before and since those of the ,gospels1 and in connection with every religion1 could be repudiated as fables1 and those alone maintained as genuine4 ,no attempt is made to deny the fact that miracles are common to all times and to all religious creeds4 ,dr4 ,newman states amongst the conclusions of his essay on the miracles of early ecclesiastical history3 ,that there was no ,age of ,miracles1 after which miracles ceased2 that there have been at all times true miracles and false miracles1 true accounts and false accounts2 that no authoritative guide is supplied to us for drawing the line between the two47#a7 ,dr4 ,mozley also admits that morbid love of the marvellous in the human race has produced a constant stream of miraculous pretension in the world1 which accompanies man wherever he is found1 and is a part of his mental and physical history47#b7 ,ignorance and its invariable attendant1 superstition1 have done more than mere love of the marvellous to produce and perpetuate belief in miracles1 and there cannot be any doubt that the removal of ignorance always leads to the cessation of miracles47#c7 ,the ,bampton lecturer proceeds3 ',heathenism had its running stream of supernatural pretensions in the shape of prophecy1 exorcism1 and the miraculous cures of diseases1 which the temples of ,esculapius recorded with pompous display47#d7 ,so far from the ,gospel miracles being original1 and a presentation1 for the first time1 of phenomena until then unknown #aee and unlikely to suggest themselves to the mind1 ,jewish supernaturalism was indeed going on side by side with our ,lord's miracles47#a7 ,dr4 ,mozley1 however1 rebuts the inference which has been drawn from this3 ,that ,his miracles could not1 in the very nature of the case1 be evidences of ,his distinctive teaching and mission1 inasmuch as miracles were common to ,himself and ,his opponents1 by the assertion that a very marked distinction exists between the ,gospel miracles and all others47#b7 ,he perfectly recognizes the consequence if such a distinction cannot be clearly demonstrated4 ,the criticism1 therefore1 which evidential miracles1 or miracles which serve as evidence of a revelation1 must come up to1 if they are to accomplish the object for which they are designed1 involves at the outset this condition1--that the evidence of such miracles must be distinguishable from the evidences of this permanent stream of miraculous pretension in the world2 that such miracles must be separated by an interval not only from the facts of the order of nature1 but also from the common running miraculous1 which is the simple offshoot of human nature4 ,can evidential miracles be inserted in this promiscuous mass1 so as not to be confounded with it1 but to assert their own truth and distinctive source8 ,if they cannot there is an end to the proof of a revelation by miracles3 if they can1 it remains to see whether the ,christian miracles are thus distinguishable1 and whether their nature1 their object1 and their evidence vindicate their claim to this distinctive truth and ,divine source47#c7 ,now1 regarding this distinction between ,gospel and #aef other miracles1 it must be observed that the religious feeling which influenced the composition of the ,scripture narratives of miracles naturally led to the exclusion of all that was puerile or ignoble in the traditions preserved regarding the ,great ,master4 ,the elevated character of ,jesus afforded no basis for what was petty1 and the devotion with which he was regarded when the ,gospels were written insured the noblest treatment of his history within certain limits4 ,we must1 therefore1 consider the bare facts composing the miracles rather than the narrative of the manner in which they are said to have been produced1 in order rightly to judge of the comparative features of different miracles4 ,if we take the case of a person raised from the dead1 literary skill may invest the account with more or less of dramatic interest and dignity1 but whether the main fact be surrounded with pathetic and picturesque details14as in the account of the raising of ,lazarus in the fourth ,gospel1 or the person be simply restored to life without them1 it is the fact of the resurrection which constitutes the miracle1 and it is in the facts alone that we must seek distinction1 disregarding and distrusting the accessories4 ,in the one case the effect may be much more impressive1 but in the other the bare raising of the dead is not a whit less miraculous4 ,we have been accustomed to read the ,gospel narratives of miracles with so much special veneration1 that it is now difficult to recognize how much of the distinction of these miracles is due to the composition1 and to their place in the history of ,jesus4 ,no other miracles1 or account of miracles1 ever had such collateral advantages4 ,as works attributed to our sublimest ,teacher1 described with simple eloquence and1 especially in the case of those in #aeg the fourth ,gospel1 with artistic perfection1 and read generally with reverential wonder untempered by a thought of criticism1 these miracles have seemed to be surrounded by a mystic halo certainly not emanating from themselves4 ,it must not be forgotten1 therefore1 that the miracle lies in the bare act1 and not in its dramatic arrangement4 ,the restoration of life to a dead man is the very same miracle whether it be effected by the relics of a saint or by the word of an apostle4 ,a miracle is not antecedently more credible because of the outstretched arm and word of command1 than it is in the silence of the shrine4 ,being supernatural1 the real agency is not seen in either case1 although the human mind is more satisfied by the presentation of an apparent cause in the one case1 which seems to be absent in the other4 ,in preferring the former type1 we are not only influenced by a more dramatic narrative1 but we select for belief the miracle from which we can unconsciously eliminate more of the miraculous elements1 by tracing it to a visible natural cause which cannot be seen in the latter4 ,the antecedent incredibility of miracles1 however1 is not affected by literary skill1 and is independent of scenic effect4 ,the ,archbishop of ,dublin says3 ,few points present greater difficulties than the attempt to fix accurately the moment when these miraculous powers were withdrawn from the ,church2 and he argues that they were withdrawn when it entered into what he calls its permanent state1 and no longer required these props and strengthenings of the infant plant47#a7 ,that their retrocession was gradual1 he considers natural1 and he imagines the fulness of ,divine power as gradually waning as it was #aeh subdivided1 first among the ,apostles1 and then amongst the ever-multiplying members of the ,church1 until by sub-division it became virtually extinct1 leaving as a substitute the standing wonder of a ,church47#a7 ,this1 of course1 is not argument1 but merely the ,archbishop's fanciful explanation of a serious difficulty4 ,the fact is1 however1 that the ,gospel miracles were preceded and accompanied by others of the same type1 and we may here merely mention exorcism of demons1 and the miraculous cure of disease1 as popular instances2 they were also followed by a long succession of others1 quite as well authenticated1 whose occurrence only became less frequent in proportion as the diffusion of knowledge dispelled popular credulity4 ,even at the present day a stray miracle is from time to time reported in outlying districts1 where the ignorance and superstition which formerly produced so abundant a growth of them are not yet entirely dispelled4 ,papias of ,hierapolis narrates a wonderful story1 according to ,eusebius1 which he had heard from the daughters of the ,apostle ,philip1 who lived at the same time in ,hierapolis3 ,for he relates that a dead man was restored to life in his day47#b7 ,justin ,martyr1 speaking of his own time1 frequently asserts that ,christians still receive the gift of healing1 of foreknowledge1 and of prophecy17#c7 and he points out to the ,roman ,senate as a fact happening under their own observation1 that many demoniacs throughout all the world --,greek-- and in their own city have #aei been healed and are healed1 many of the ,christian' men among is --,greek-- exorcising them in the name of ,jesus ,christ1 subduing and expelling the possessing demons out of the man1 although all the other exorcists with incantations and spells had failed to do so47#a7 ,theophilus of ,antioch likewise states that to his day demons are exorcised47#b7 ,irenaeus in the clearest manner claims for the ,church of his time the continued possession of the ,divine --,greek-- ,he contrasts the miracles of the followers of ,simon and ,carpocrates1 which he ascribes to magical illusions1 with those of ,christians4 ,for they can neither give sight to the blind1 he continues1 nor to the deaf hearing1 nor cast out all demons1 but only those introduced by themselves1 if they can even do that2 nor heal the sick1 the lame1 the paralytic1 nor those afflicted in other parts of the body1 as has been often done in regard to bodily infirmity4444 ,but so far are they from raising the dead1--as the ,lord raised them and the ,apostles by prayer1 and as frequently in the brotherhood1 when the whole ,church in a place made supplication with much fasting and prayer1 the spirit of the dead was constrained to return1 and the man was freely restored in answer to the prayers of the saints--that they do not believe this can possibly be done47#c7 ,canon #afj ,mozley1 who desires for the purpose of his argument to weaken the evidence of patristic belief in the continuance of miracles1 says regarding this last passage on raising the dead3--,but the reference is so vague that it possesses but little weight as testimony47#a7 ,we should be sorry to think that the vice1 which seems at present to characterize the ,church to which ,dr4 ,mozley belongs1 of making simple language mean anything or nothing just as any one happens to wish1 should be introduced into critical or historical studies4 ,the language of ,irenaeus is vague only in so far as specific detailed instances are not given of the miracles referred to2 but no language could be more definite or explicit to express the meaning of ,irenaeus1 namely1 the assertion that the prayers of ,christian communities had frequently restored the dead to life4 ,eusebius1 who quotes the passage1 and who has preserved to us the original ,greek1 clearly recognized this4 ,he says1 when making the quotations3 ,in the second book of the same work he 7,irenaeus7 testifies that up to his time tokens of ,divine and miraculous power remained in some ,churches17#b7 ,in the next chapter ,irenaeus further says3--,on which account1 also1 his true disciples receiving grace from him1 work 7miracles7 in his name for the benefit of the rest of mankind1 according to the gift received from him by each of them4 ,for some do certainly and truly --,greek-- cast out demons1 so that frequently those very men who have thus been cleansed from the evil spirits both #afa believe and are now in the church4 ,and some have foreknowledge of future occurrences1 and visions1 and prophetic utterances4 ,others heal the sick by the imposition of hands and make them whole4 ,indeed1 as we have already stated1 even the dead have been raised up1 and have remained with us for many years4 ,and what more shall ,i say8 ,it is not possible to state the number of the gifts which the ,church throughout the world has received from ,god in the name of ,jesus ,christ1 crucified under ,pontius ,pilate1 and which she each day employs for the benefit of the heathen1 c47#a7 ,tertullian speaks with the most perfect assurance of miracles occurring in his day1 and of the power of healing and of casting out devils still possessed by ,christians4 ,in one place1 for iustance1 after asserting the power which they have generally over demons1 so that if a person possessed by a devil be brought before one of the ,roman tribunals1 a follower of ,christ can at once compel the wicked spirit within him to confess that he is a demon1 even if he had before asserted himself to be a ,god1 he proceeds to say3 ,so at our touch and breathing1 violently affected by the contemplation and representation of those fires 7of hell7 they 7demons7 also depart at our command out of bodies1 reluctant and complaining1 and put to shame #afb in your presence47#a7 ,he declares that although dreams are chiefly inflicted upon us by demons1 yet they are also sent by ,god1 and indeed almost the greater part of mankind derive their knowledge concerning ,god from visions47#b7 ,he1 elsewhere1 states that he himself knows that a brother was severely castigated by a vision the same night on which his slaves had1 without his knowledge1 done something reprehensible47#c7 ,he narrates as an instance of the continued possession of spiritual charismata by ,christians3 ,there is at this day among us a sister who has the gift of revelations1 which she receives in church amidst the solemnities of the ,lord's day by ecstasy in the spirit3 she converses with angels1 and sometimes also with the ,lord1 and she both hears and sees mysteries 7sacramenta71 and she reads the hearts of some men1 and prescribes medicines to those who are in need47#d7 ,tertullian goes on to say that1 after the people were dismissed from the ,church1 this sister was in the regular habit of reporting what she had seen1 and that most diligent inquiries were made in order to test the truth of her communications27#e7 and after narrating a vision of a disembodied soul vouchsafed to her1 he states3 ,this is the vision1 ,god being witness1 and #afc the ,apostle7#a7 having foretold that such spiritual gifts should be in the ,church47#b7 ,further on ,tertullian relates another story within his own knowledge3 ,i know the case of a woman1 born within the fold of the ,church1 who was in the prime of life and beauty4 ,after being but once1 and only a short time1 married1 having fallen asleep in peace1 in the interval before interment 7sp47 when the presbyter began to pray as she was being made ready for burial1 at the first breath of prayer she removed her hands from her sides1 folded them in the attitude of supplication1 and again1 when the last rites were over1 restored them to their former position47#c7 ,he then mentions another story known amongst them3 that a dead body in a cemetery moved itself in order to make room beside it for another body27#d7 and then he remarks3 ,if similar cases are also reported amongst the heathen1 we conclude that ,god displays signs of his power for the consolation of his own people1 and as a testimony to others47#e7 ,again1 he mentions cases where ,christians had cured persons of demoniacal possession1 and adds3 ,and how many men of position 7for we do not speak of the vulgar7 have been delivered either from devils or from diseases47#f7 ,tertullian #afd in the same place refers to the miracle of the ,thundering ,legion17#a7 and he exclaims3 ,when indeed have not droughts been removed by our prayers and fastings47#b7 ,minucius ,felix speaks of the casting out of devils from sick persons by ,christians in his own day1 as a matter of public notoriety even among ,pagans47#c7 ,st4 ,cyprian echoes the same assertions47#d7 ,he likewise mentions cases of miraculous punishment inflicted upon persons who had lapsed from the ,christian faith4 ,one of these1 who ascended the ,capitol to make denial of ,christ1 suddenly became dumb after he had spoken the words47#f7 ,another1 a woman1 was seized by an unclean spirit even at the baths1 and bit with her own teeth the impious tongue which had eaten the idolatrous food1 or spoken the words1 and she shortly expired in great agony47#f7 ,he likewise maintains that ,christians are admonished by ,god in dreams and by visions1 of which he mentions instances47#g7 ,origen claims for ,christians the power still to expel demons1 and to heal diseases in the name of ,jesus17#h7 and he states that he had seen many persons so cured of madness and countless other evils1 which could not be otherwise cured by men or devils47#i7 ,lactantius repeatedly asserts the power of ,christians over demons2 they make them flee from bodies when they adjure them in the name of ,god47#aj7 ,passing over the numerous apocryphal writings of the early centuries of our era1 in which many miracles are #afe recorded1 we find in the pages of ,eusebius narratives of many miraculous occurrences4 ,many miracles are ascribed to ,narcissus1 ,bishop of ,jerusalem1 of which ,eusebius relates several4 ,whilst the vigils of the great watch of the ,passover were being kept1 the oil failed1 whereupon ,narcissus commanded that water from the neighbouring well should be poured into the lamps4 ,having prayed over the water1 it was changed into oil1 of which a specimen had been preserved until that time47#a7 ,on another occasion1 three men having spread some vile slanders against ,narcissus1 which they confirmed by an oath1 and with imprecations upon themselves of death by a miserable disease1 of death by fire1 and of blindness1 respectively1 if their statements were not true1 omnipotent justice in each case inflicted upon the wretches the curse which each had invoked47#b7 ,the election of ,fabianus to the ,episcopal chair of ,rome was marked by the descent of a dove from on high1 which rested upon his head1 as the ,holy ,ghost had descended upon our ,saviour47#c7 ,at ,caesarea ,philippi there is a statue of ,jesus ,christ which ,eusebius states that he himself had seen1 said to have been erected by the woman healed of the bloody issue1 and on the pedestal grows a strange plant as high as the hem of the brazen garment1 which is an antidote to all diseases47#d7 ,great miracles are recorded as taking place during the persecutions in ,caesarea47#e7 ,gregory of ,nyssa gives an account of many wonderful works performed by his namesake ,gregory of ,neo-,caesarea1 who was called ,thaumaturgus from the miraculous power which he possessed and very freely #aff exercised4 ,the ,virgin ,mary and the ,apostle ,john appeared to him1 on one occasion1 when he was in doubt as to the doctrine which he ought to preach1 and1 at the request of ,mary1 the ,apostle gave him all needful instructions47#a7 ,if his faith did not move mountains1 it moved a huge rock to convert a pagan priest47#b7 ,he drove a demon out of a heathen temple in which he had taken refuge1 and the evil spirit could not re-enter until he gave permission47#c7 ,nyssen relates how ,st4 ,gregory averted an armed contest of two brothers who quarrelled about the possession of a lake on their father's property4 ,the saint passed the night in prayer beside the lake1 and in the morning it was found dried up47#d7 ,on another occasion he rescued the country from the devastation of a mountain stream1 which periodically burst the dykes by which it was restrained and inundated the plain4 ,he went on foot to the place1 and invoking the name of ,christ1 fixed his staff in the earth at the place where the torrent had broken through4 ,the staff took root and became a tree1 and the stream never again burst its bounds4 ,the inhabitants of the district were converted to ,christianity by this miracle4 ,the tree was still living in ,nyssen's time1 and he had seen the bed of the lake covered with trees1 pastures1 and cottages47#e7 ,two vagabond ,jews once attempted to deceive him4 ,one of them lay down and pretended to be dead1 while the other begged money from the saint wherewith to buy him a shroud4 ,st4 ,gregory quietly took off his cloak and laid it on the man1 and #afg walked away4 ,his companion found that he was really dead47#a7 ,st4 ,gregory expelled demons from persons possessed1 healed the sick and performed many other miracles27#b7 and his signs and wonders are not only attested by ,gregory of ,nyssa1 but by ,st4 ,basil17#c7 whose grandmother1 ,st4 ,macrina1 was brought up at ,neo-,caesarea by the immediate followers of the saint4 ,athanasius1 in his memoir of ,st4 ,anthony1 who began to lead the life of a recluse about a4d4 #bgj1 gives particulars of many miracles performed by the saint4 ,although he possessed great power over demons1 and delivered many persons possessed by them1 ,satan tormented him sadly1 and he was constantly beset by legions of devils4 ,one night ,satan with a troop of evil spirits so belaboured the saint that he lay on the ground speechless and almost dead from their blows47#d7 ,we have already referred to the case of ,natalius1 who was scourged by angels during a whole night1 till he was brought to repentance47#e7 ,upon one occasion when ,st4 ,anthony had retired to his cell resolved to pass a time in perfect solitude1 a certain soldier came to his door and remained long there knocking and supplicating the saint to come and deliver his daughter1 who was tormented by a demon4 ,at length ,st4 ,anthony addressed the man and told him to go1 and if he believed in ,jesus ,christ and prayed to ,god1 his prayer should #afh be fulfilled4 ,the man believed1 invoked ,jesus ,christ1 and his daughter was delivered from the demon47#a7 ,as ,anthony was once travelling across the desert to visit another monastery1 the water of the caravan failed them1 and his companions in despair threw themselves on the ground4 ,st4 ,anthony1 however1 retired a little apart1 and in answer to his prayer a spring of water issued at the place where he was kneeling47#b7 ,a man named ,fronto1 who was afflicted with leprosy1 begged his prayers1 and was ordered by the saint to go into ,egypt1 where he should be healed4 ,fronto at first refused1 but being told that he could not be healed if he remained1 the sick man went believing1 and as soon as he came in sight of ,egypt he was made whole47#c7 ,another miracle was performed by ,anthony at ,alexandria in the presence of ,st4 ,athanasius4 ,as they were leaving the city a woman cried after him1 ,man of ,god1 stay2 my daughter is cruelly troubled by a demon2 and she entreated him to stop lest she herself should die in running after him4 ,at the request of ,athanasius and the rest1 the saint paused1 and as the woman came up her daughter fell on the ground convulsed4 ,st4 ,anthony prayed in the name of ,jesus ,christ1 and immediately the girl rose perfectly restored to health1 and delivered from the evil spirit47#d7 ,he astonished a number of pagan philosophers1 who had come to dispute with him1 by delivering several demoniacs1 making the sign of the cross over them three times1 and invoking the name of ,jesus ,christ47#e7 ,it is unnecessary1 however1 to multiply instances of his miraculous power to drive out demons and heal diseases17#f7 and to perform other #afi wonderful works4 ,st4 ,athanasius1 who was himself for a long time a personal follower of ,st4 ,anthony1 protests in his preface to the biography his general accuracy1 he having everywhere been mindful of the truth47#a7 ,hilarion1 again1 a disciple of ,st4 ,anthony1 performed many miracles1 an account of some of which is given by ,st4 ,jerome4 ,he restored sight to a woman who had been blind for no less than ten years2 he cast out devils1 and miraculously cured many diseases4 ,rain fell in answer to his prayers2 and he further exhibited his power over the elements by calming a stormy sea4 ,when he was buried1 ten months after his death1 not only was his body as perfect as though he had been alive1 but it emitted a delightful perfume4 ,he was so favoured of ,god that1 long after1 diseases were healed and demons expelled at his tomb47#b7 ,st4 ,macarius1 the ,egyptian1 is said to have restored a dead man to life in order to convince an unbeliever of the truth of the resurrection47#c7 ,st4 ,martin1 of ,tours1 restored to life a certain catechumen who had died of a fever1 and ,sulpicius1 his disciple1 states that the man1 who lived for many years after1 was known to himself1 although not until after the miracle4 ,he also restored to life a servant who had hung himself47#d7 ,he performed a multitude of other miracles1 to which we need not here more minutely refer4 ,the relics of the two martyrs ,protavius and ,gervasius1 whose bones1 with much fresh blood1 the miraculous evidence of their martyrdom and identity1 were discovered by ,st4 ,ambrose1 worked a #agj number of miracles4 ,a man suffering from demoniacal possession indicated the proximity of the relics by his convulsions4 ,st4 ,augustine states that he himself was in ,milan when a blind man1 who merely touched the cloth which covered the two bodies as they were being moved to a neighbouring church1 regained his sight47#a7 ,paulinus relates many miracles performed by his master1 ,st4 ,ambrose1 himself4 ,he not only cast out many demons and healed the sick17#b7 but he also raised the dead4 ,whilst the saint was staying in the house of a distinguished ,christian friend1 his child1 who1 a few days before1 had been delivered from an unclean spirit1 suddenly expired4 ,the mother1 an exceedingly religious woman1 full of faith and the fear of ,god1 carried the dead boy down and laid him on the saint's bed during his absence4 ,when ,st4 ,ambrose returned1 filled with compassion for the mother and struck by her faith1 he stretched himself1 like ,elisha1 on the body of the child1 praying1 and restored him living to his mother4 ,paulinus relates this miracle with minute particulars of name and address47#c7 ,st4 ,augustine asserts that miracles are still performed in his day in the name of ,jesus ,christ1 either by means of his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints1 although they are not so well-known as those of old1 and he gives an account of many miracles which had recently taken place47#d7 ,after referring to the miracle performed by the relics of the two martyrs upon the blind man in ,milan1 which occurred when he was there1 he goes on to narrate the miraculous cure of a friend of #aga his own1 named ,innocent1 formerly advocate of the prefecture1 in ,carthage1 where ,augustine was1 and beheld it with his own eyes 7ubi nos interfuimus et oculis aspeximus nostris74 ,a lady of rank in the same city was miraculously healed of an incurable cancer1 and ,st4 ,augustine is indignant at the apathy of her friends1 which allowed so great a miracle to be so little known47#a7 ,an inhabitant of the neighbouring town of ,curubis was cured of paralysis and other ills by being baptized4 ,when ,augustine heard of this1 although it was reported on very good authority1 the man himself was brought to ,carthage by order of the holy bishop ,aurelius1 in order that the truth might be ascertained4 ,augustine states that1 on one occasion during his absence1 a tribunitian man amongst them named ,hesperius1 who had a farm close by1 called ,zubedi1 in the ,fussalian district1 begged one of the ,christian presbyters to go and drive away some evil spirits whose malice sorely afflicted his servants and cattle4 ,one of the presbyters accordingly went1 and offered the sacrifice of the body of ,christ with earnest prayer1 and by the mercy of ,god1 the evil was removed4 ,now ,hesperius happened to have received from one of his friends a piece of the sacred earth of ,jerusalem1 where ,jesus ,christ was buried and rose again the third day1 and he had hung it up in his room to protect himself from the evil spirits4 ,when his house had been freed from them1 however1 he begged ,st4 ,augustine and his colleague ,maximinus1 who happened to be in that neighbourhood1 to come to him1 and after telling them all that had happened1 he prayed them to bury the piece of earth in some place where ,christians could assemble for the worship of ,god4 ,they consented1 and did as he desired4 ,a young peasant of the neighbourhood1 who was paralytic1 hearing of this1 begged that he might be carried without delay to the holy spot1 where he offered up prayer1 and rose up and went away on his feet perfectly cured4 ,about thirty miles from ,hippo1 at a farm called ,victoriana1 there was a memorial to the two martyrs ,protavius and ,gervasius4 ,to this1 ,augustine relates1 was brought a young man who1 having gone one summer day at noon to water his horse in the river1 was possessed by a demon4 ,the lady to whom the place belonged came according to her custom in the evening1 with her servants and some holy women to sing hymns and pray4 ,on hearing them the demoniac started up and seized the altar with a terrible shudder1 without daring to move1 and as if bound to it1 and the demon praying with a loud voice for mercy confessed where and when he had entered into the young man4 ,at last the demon named all the members of his body1 with threats to cut them off as he made his exit1 and1 saying these words1 came out of him4 ,in doing so1 however1 the eye of the youth fell from its socket on to his cheek1 retained only by a small vein as by a root1 whilst the pupil became altogether white4 ,well pleased1 however1 that the young man had been freed from the evil spirit1 they returned the eye to its place as well as they could1 and bound it up with a handkerchief1 praying fervently1 and one of his relatives said3 ,god who drove out the demon at the prayer of his saints can also restore the sight4 ,on removing the bandage seven days after1 the eye was found perfectly whole4 ,st4 ,augustine knew a girl of #agc ,hippo who was delivered from a demon by the application of oil with which had mingled the tears of the presbyter who was praying for her4 ,he also knew a bishop who prayed for a youth possessed by a demon1 although he had not even seen him1 and the young man was at once cured4 ,augustine further gives particulars of many miracles performed by the relics of the most glorious martyr ,stephen47#a7 ,by their virtue the blind receive their sight1 the sick are healed1 the impenitent converted1 and the dead are restored to life4 ,andurus is the name of an estate1 ,augustine says1 where there is a church and in it a shrine dedicated to the martyr ,stephen4 ,a certain little boy was playing in the court1 when unruly bullocks drawing a waggon crushed him with the wheel1 and immediately he lay in the agonies of death4 ,then his mother raised him up1 and placed him at the shrine1 and he not only came to life again1 but had manifestly received no injury47#b7 ,a certain religious woman1 who lived in a neighbouring property called ,caspalianus1 being dangerously ill and her life despaired of1 her tunic was carried to the same shrine1 but before it was brought back she had expired4 ,nevertheless1 her relatives covered the body with this tunic1 and she received back the spirit and was made whole47#c7 ,at ,hippo1 a certain man named #agd ,bassus1 a ,syrian1 was praying at the shrine of the same martyr for his daughter who was sick and in great peril1 and he had brought her dress with him2 when lo6 some of his household came running to announce to him that she was dead4 ,but as he was engaged in prayer they were stopped by his friends1 who prevented their telling him1 lest he should give way to his grief in public4 ,when he returned to his house1 which already resounded with the wailing of his household1 he cast over the body of his daughter her mantle which he had with him1 and immediately she was restored to life47#a7 ,again1 in the same city1 the son of a certain man among us named ,irenaeus1 a collector of taxes1 became sick and died4 ,as the dead body lay1 and they were preparing with wailing and lamentation to bury it1 one of his friends consoling him suggested that the body should be anointed with oil from the same martyr4 ,this was done1 and the child came to life again47#b7 ,in the same way a man amongst us named ,eleusinus1 formerly a tribune1 laid the body of his child1 who had died from sickness1 on a memorial of the martyr which is in his villa in the suburbs1 and after he had prayed1 with many tears1 he took up the child living47#c7 #age ,we shall meet with more of these miracles in considering the arguments of ,dr4 ,mozley4 ,in a note he says3 ,augustine again1 long after1 alludes in his list of miracles 7,de ,civ4 ,dei1 xxii4 #h17 to some cases in which persons had been raised to life again by prayer and the intercession of martyrs1 whose relics were applied4 ,but though ,augustine relates with great particularity and length of detail some cases of recoveries from complaints in answer to prayer1 his notices of the cases in which persons had been raised to life again1 are so short1 bare1 and summary1 that they evidently represent no more than mere report1 and report of a very vague kind4 ,indeed1 with the preface which he prefixes to his list1 he cannot be said even to profess to guarantee the truth or accuracy of the different instances contained in it4 ',haec autem1 ubicunque fiunt1 ibi sciuntur vix a tota ipsa civitate vel quocumque commanentium loco4 ,nam plerumque etiam ibi paucissimi sciunt1 ignorantibus eseteris1 maxime si magna sit civitas2 et quando alibi aliisque narrantur1 non tantum ea commendat auctoritas1 ut sine difficultate vel dubitatione credantur1 quamvis ,christianis fidelibus a fidelibus indicentur4' ,he puts down the cases as he received them1 then1 without pledging himself to their authenticity4 ',eucharius presbyter444 mortuus sic jacebat ut ei jam pol-lices ligarentur3 opitulatione memorati martyris1 cum de memoria ejus reportata fuisset et supra jacentis corpus missa ipsius presbyteri tunica1 suscitatus est444 ,andurus nomen est ,c417#a7 and then ,dr4 ,mozley gives the passage already quoted by us4 ,before continuing1 #agf we must remark with regard to the passages just quoted1 that1 in the miracle of ,eucharius1 ,dr4 ,mozley1 without explanation1 omits details4 ,the whole passage is as follows3 ,eucharius1 a presbyter from ,spain1 resided at ,calama1 who had for a long time suffered from stone4 ,by the relics of the same martyr1 which the ,bishop ,possidius brought to him1 he was made whole4 ,the same presbyter1 afterwards succumbing to another disease1 lay dead1 so that they were already binding his hands4 ,succour came from the relics of the martyr1 for the tunic of the presbyter being brought back from the relics and placed upon his body he revived47#a7 ,a writer who complains of the bareness of narratives1 should certainly not curtail their statements4 ,dr4 ,mozley continues3 ,there are three other cases of the same kind1 in which there is nothing to verify the death from which the return to life is said to take place1 as being more than mere suspension of the vital powers2 but the writer does not go into particulars of description or proof1 but simply inserts them in his list as they have been reported to him47#c7 ,dr4 ,mozley is anxious to detract from the miracles described by ,augustine1 and we regret to be obliged to maintain that in order to do so he misrepresents1 no doubt unintentionally1 ,augustine's statements1 and1 as we think1 also unduly depreciates the comparative value of the evidence4 ,we shall briefly refer to the two points in question4 ,i4 ,that his notices of the cases in which persons had been raised to life again are so short1 #agg bare1 and summary that they evidently represent no more than mere report1 and report of a very vague kind4 ,,ii4 ,that with the preface which ,augustine prefixes to his list1 he cannot be said even to profess to guarantee the truth or accuracy of the different instances contained in it4 ,it is true that in several cases ,augustine gives the account of miraculous cures at greater length than those of restoration to life4 ,it seems to us that this is almost inevitable at all times1 and that the reason is obvious4 ,where the miracle consists merely of the cure of disease1 details are naturally given to show the nature and intensity of the sickness1 and they are necessary not only for the comprehension of the cure but to show its importance4 ,in the case of restoration to life1 the mere statement of the death and assertion of the subsequent resurrection exclude all need of details4 ,the pithy reddita est vitae1 or factum est et revixit is more striking than any more prolix narrative4 ,in fact1 the greater the miracle the more natural is conciseness and simplicity2 and practically1 we find that ,augustine gives a more lengthy and verbose report of trifling cures1 whilst he relates the more important with greater brevity and force4 ,he narrates many of his cases of miraculous cure1 however1 as briefly as those in which the dead are raised4 ,we have quoted the latter1 and the reader must judge whether they are unduly curt4 ,one thing may be affirmed1 that nothing of importance is omitted1 and in regard to essential details they are as explicit as the mass of other cases reported4 ,in every instance names and addresses are stated1 and it will have been observed that all these miracles occurred in1 or close to1 ,hippo1 and in his own diocese4 ,it is very certain that in #agh every case the fact of the miracle is asserted in the most direct and positive terms4 ,there can be no mistake either as to the meaning or intention of the narrative1 and there is no symptom whatever of a thought on the part of ,augustine to avoid the responsibility of his statements1 or to give them as mere vague report4 ,if wo compare these accounts with those of the ,gospels1 we do not find them deficient in any essential detail common to the latter4 ,there is in the synoptic ,gospels only one case in which ,jesus is said to have raised the dead4 ,the raising of ,jairus' daughter7#a7 has long been abandoned1 as a case of restoration to life1 by all critics and theologians1 except the few who still persist in ignoring the distinct and positive declaration of ,jesus1 ,the damsel is not dead but sleepeth4 ,the only case1 therefore1 in the ,synoptics is the account in the third ,gospel of the raising of the widow's son17#c7 of which1 strange to say1 the other ,gospels know nothing4 ,now1 although1 as might have been expected1 this narrative is much more highly coloured and picturesque1 the difference is chiefly literary1 and1 indeed1 there are really fewer important details given than in the account by ,augustine1 for instance1 of the restoration to life of the daughter of ,bassus the ,syrian1 which took place at ,hippo1 of which he was bishop1 and where he actually resided4 ,augustine's object in giving his list of miracles did not require him to write picturesque narratives4 ,he merely desired to state bare facts1 whilst the authors of the ,gospels composed the ,life of their ,master1 in which interesting details were everything4 ,for many reasons we refrain here from alluding to the artistic narrative of the raising #agi of ,lazarus1 the greatest miracle ascribed to ,jesus1 yet so singularly unknown to the other three ,evangelists1 who1 so readily repeating the accounts of trifling cures1 would most certainly not have neglected this had they ever heard of it4 ,dr4 ,mozley complains of the absence of verification and proof of actual death in these cases1 or that they were more than mere suspension of the vital powers4 ,we cordially agree with him in the desire for such evidence1 not only in these1 but in all miracles4 ,we would ask1 however1 what verification of the death have we in the case of the widow's son which we have not here8 ,if we apply such a test to the miracles of the ,gospels1 we must reject them as certainly as those of ,st4 ,augustine4 ,in neither case have we more than a mere statement that the subjects of these miracles were dead or diseased4 ,so far are we from having any competent medical evidence of the reality of the death1 or of the disease1 or of the permanence of the supposed cures in the ,gospels1 that we have little more than the barest reports of these miracles by writers who1 even if their identity were established1 were not1 and do not pretend to have been1 eye-witnesses of the occurrences which they relate4 ,take1 for instance1 this very raising of the widow's son in the third ,gospel1 which is unknown to the other ,evangelists1 and the narrative of which is given only in a ,gospel which is not attributed to a personal follower of ,jesus4 ,now we turn to the second statement of ,dr4 ,mozley1 that with the preface which ,augustine prefixes to his list1 he cannot be said even to profess to guarantee the truth or accuracy of the different instances contained in it4 ,this extraordinary assertion is supported by a quotation #ahj given above1 which ,dr4 ,mozley has separated from what precedes and follows it1 so that its real meaning is scarcely apparent4 ,we shall as briefly as possible state what is actually the preface of ,st4 ,augustine to his list of miracles1 and his avowed object for giving it4 ,in the preceding chapter1 ,augustine has been arguing that the world believed in ,christ by virtue of divine influence and not by human persuasion4 ,he contends that it is ridiculous to speak of the false divinity of ,romulus when ,christians speak of ,christ4 ,if1 in the time of ,romulus1 some #fjj years before ,cicero1 people were so enlightened that they refused to believe anything of which they had not experience1 how much more1 in the still more enlightened days of ,cicero himself1 and notably in the reigns of ,augustus and ,tiberius1 would they have rejected belief in the resurrection and ascension of ,christ1 if divine truth and the testimony of miracles had not proved not only that such things could take place1 but that they had actually done so4 ,when the evidence of prophecy joined with that of miracles1 and showed that the new doctrines were only contrary to experience and not contrary to reason1 the world embraced the faith47#a7 ,why1 then1 say they1 do these miracles which you declare to have taken place formerly1 not occur now-a-days8 ,augustine1 in replying1 adopts a common rhetorical device3 ,i might1 indeed1 answer1 he says1 that miracles were necessary before the world believed1 in order that the world might believe4 ,any one who now requires miracles in order that he may believe1 is himself a great miracle in not believing what all the world believes4 ,but1 really1 they say this in order that even those miracles should not be believed either4 #aha ,and he reduces what he considers to be the position of the world in regard to miracles and to the supernatural dogmas of ,christianity to the following dilemma3 ,either things incredible which nevertheless occurred1 and were seen1 led to belief in something else incredible1 which was not seen2 or that thing was in itself so credible that no miracles were required to establish it1 and so much more is the unbelief of those who deny confuted4 ,this might ,i say to these most frivolous objectors4 ,he then proceeds to affirm that it cannot be denied that many miracles attest the great miracle of the ascension in the flesh of the risen ,christ1 and he points out that the actual occurrence of all these things is not only recorded in the most truthful books1 but the reasons also given why they took place4 ,these things have become known that they might create belief2 these things by the belief they have created have become much more clearly known4 ,they are read to the people1 indeed1 that they may believe2 yet1 nevertheless1 they would not be read to the people if they had not been believed4 ,after thus stating the answer which he might give1 ,augustine now returns to answer the question directly3--,but1 furthermore1 he continues1 miracles are performed now in his name1 either by means of his sacraments1 or by the prayers or relics of his saints1 but they are not brought under the same strong light as caused the former to be noised abroad with so much glory2 inasmuch as the canon of sacred scriptures1 which must be definite1 causes those miracles to be everywhere publicly read1 and become firmly fixed in the memory of all peoples27l7 and then follows ,dr4 ,mozley's #ahb quotation3 but these are scarcely known to the whole of a city itself in which they are performed1 or to its neighbourhood4 ,indeed1 for the most part1 even there very few know of them1 and the rest are ignorant1 more especially if the city be large2 and when they are related elsewhere and to others1 the authority does not so commend them as to make them be believed without difficulty or doubt1 albeit they are reported by faithful ,christians to the faithful4 ,he illustrates this by pointing out in immediate continuation1 that the miracle in ,milan by the bodies of the two martyrs1 which took place when he himself was there1 might reach the knowledge of many1 because the city is large1 and the ,emperor and an immense crowd of people witnessed it1 but who knows of the miracle performed at ,carthage upon his friend ,innocent1 when he was there also1 and saw it with his own eyes8 ,who knows of the miraculous cure of cancer1 he continues1 in a lady of rank in the same city8 at the silence regarding which he is so indignant4 ,who knows of the next case he mentions in his list8 the cure of a medical man of the same town1 to which he adds3 ,we1 nevertheless1 do know it1 and a few brethren to whose knowledge it may have come47#a7 ,who out of ,curubus1 besides the very few who may have heard of it1 knows of the miraculous cure of the paralytic man1 whose case ,augustine personally investigated8 and so on4 ,observe that there is merely a question of the comparative notoriety of the ,gospel #ahc miracles and those of his own time1 not a doubt as to the reality of the latter4 ,again1 towards the end of his long list1 immediately after the narrative of the restoration to life of the child of ,eleusinus1 which we have quoted1 ,augustine says3--,what can ,i do8 ,the promise of the completion of this work is pressing1 so that ,i cannot here recount all 7the miracles7 that ,i know2 and without doubt many of our brethren when they read this work will be grieved that ,i have omitted so very much1 which they know as well as ,i do4 ,this ,i even now beg that they will pardon1 and consider how long would be the task of doing that which1 for the completion of the work1 it is thought necessary not to do4 ,for if ,i desired to record merely the miracles of healing1 without speaking of others1 which have been performed by this martyr1 that is to say1 the most glorious ,stephen1 in the district of ,calama1 and in ours of ,hippo1 many volumes must be composed1 yet will it not be possible to make a complete collection of them1 but only of such as have been published for public reading4 ,for that was our object1 since we saw repeated in our time signs of divine power similar to those of old1 deeming that they ought not to be lost to the knowledge of the multitude4 ,now this relic has not yet been two years at ,hippo-,regius1 and accounts of many of the miracles performed by it have not been written1 as is most certainly known to us1 yet the number of those which have been published1 up to the time this is written1 amounts ta about seventy4 ,at ,calama1 however1 where these relics have been longer1 and more of the miracles were recorded1 they incomparably exceed this number47#a7 #ahd ,augustine goes on to say that1 to his knowledge1 many very remarkable miracles were performed by the relics of the same martyr also at ,uzali1 a district near to ,utica1 and of one of these1 which had recently taken place when he himself was there1 he gives an account4 ,then1 before closing his list with the narrative of a miracle which took place at ,hippo1 in his own church1 in his own presence1 and in the sight of the whole congregation1 he resumes his reply to the opening question3--,many miracles1 therefore1 he says1 are also performed now1 the same ,god who worked those of which we read1 performing these by whom he wills and as he wills2 but these miracles neither become similarly known1 nor1 that they may not slip out of mind1 are they stamped1 as it were like gravel1 into memory1 by frequent reading4 ,for even in places where care is taken1 as is now the case amongst us1 that accounts of those who receive benefit should be publicly read1 those who are present hear them only once1 and many are not present at all1 so that those who were present do not1 after a few days1 remember #ahe what they heard1 and scarcely a single person is met with who repeats what he has heard to one whom he may have known to have been absent7#a7 ,so far from casting doubt upon the miracles which he narrates1 the ,preface of ,augustine is clearly intended to establish them4 ,these signs of divine power similar to those of old1 are not less real and important1 but merely less known1 because the eyes of the world are not directed to them1 and they have not the advantage of being everywhere published abroad by means of canonical scriptures constantly read to the people and acknowledged as authoritative4 ,dr4 ,mozleys statement is quite unwarranted1 and it seems to us gratuitously injurious to ,st4 ,augustine4 ,this ,father of the ,church and ,bishop must have had as little good faith as good sense1 if he did what such a statement implies4 ,in order to demonstate the truth of his assertion that miracles were still performed in his day1 ,dr4 ,mozley represents ,augustine as deliberately producing a long list of instances of which he cannot even be said to guarantee the truth1 and the more important cases in which evidently represent no more than mere report1 and report of a very vague kind4 ,we have furnished the reader with the materials for forming an opinion on these points4 ,the judgment of ,dr4 ,mozley may with equal justice be applied to #ahf the authors of the synoptic ,gospels4 ,they certainly do not guarantee the truth of the miracles they relate in any more precise way than ,augustine4 ,like him1 they merely narrate them as facts1 and he as evidently believes what he states as they do4 ,indeed1 as regards comparative fulness of testimony1 the advantage is altogether on the side of the miracles reported by ,st4 ,augustine4 ,these miracles occurred within two years of the time at which he wrote1 and were at once recorded with the names of the subjects and of the places at which they occurred2 most of them were performed in his own diocese1 and several of them in his own presence2 some1 of which he apparently did not feel sure1 he personally investigated2 he states his knowledge of others1 and he narrates the whole of them with the most direct and simple affirmation of the facts1 without a single word indicating hesitation1 or directly or indirectly attributing the narrative to mere report4 ,moreover1 he not only advances these miracles deliberately and in writing1 in support of his positive assertion that miracles were still performed1 but these accounts of them had in the first instance been written that they might be publicly read in his own church for the edification of ,christians1 almost on the very spot where they are stated to have occurred4 ,we need scarcely say that we do not advance these reasons in order to argue the reality of the miracles themselves1 but simply to maintain that1 so far from his giving the account of them as mere report1 or not even professing to vouch for their truth1 ,st4 ,augustine both believed them himself1 and asked others to believe them as facts1 and that they are as unhesitatingly affirmed as any related in the ,gospels4 #ahg ,we shall not attempt any further detailed reference to the myriads of miracles with which the annals of the ,church teem up to very recent times4 ,the fact is too well known to require evidence4 ,the saints in the ,calendar are legion4 ,it has been computed that the number of those whose lives are given in the ,bollandist ,collection7#a7 amounts to upwards of #be1jjj1 although1 the saints being arranged according to the ,calendar1 the unfinished work only reaches the twenty-fourth of ,october4 ,when it is considered that all those upon whom the honour of canonization is conferred have worked miracles1 many of them1 indeed1 almost daily performing such wonders1 some idea may be formed of the number of miracles which have occurred in unbroken succession from ,apostolic days1 and have been believed and recognized by the ,church4 ,vast numbers of these miracles are in all respects similar to those narrated in the ,gospels1 and they comprise hundreds of cases of restoration of the dead to life4 ,if it be necessary to point out instances in comparatively recent times1 we may mention the miracles of this kind liberally ascribed to ,st ,francis of ,assisi1 in the #acth century1 and to his namesake ,st4 ,francis ,xavier1 in the #afth1 as pretty well known to all1 although we might refer to much more recent miracles authenticated by the ,church4 ,at the present day such phenomena have almost disappeared1 and1 indeed1 with the exception of an occasional winking picture1 periodical liquefaction of blood1 or apparition of the ,virgin1 confined to the still ignorant and benighted corners of the earth1 miracles are extinct4 #ahh ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,miracles ,,in ,,relation ,,to ,,ignorance ,,and ,,superstition ,we have maintained that the miracles which are reported after apostolic days1 instead of presenting the enormous distinction which ,dr4 ,mozley asserts1 are precisely of the same types in all material points as the earlier miracles4 ,setting aside miracles of a trivial and unworthy character1 there remains a countless number cast in the same mould as those of the ,gospels1--miraculous cure of diseases1 expulsion of demons1 transformation of elements1 supernatural nourishment1 resurrection of dead--of many of which we have quoted instances4 ,dr4 ,mozley anticipates an objection and says3 ,it will be urged1 perhaps1 that a large portion even of the ,gospel miracles are of the class here mentioned as ambiguous2 cures1 visions1 expulsions of evil spirits2 but this observation does not affect the character of the ,gospel miracles as a body1 because we judge of the body or whole from its highest specimen1 not from its lowest4 ,he takes his stand upon1 e4g4 our ,lord's ,resurrection and ,ascension47#a7 ,now1 without discussing the principle laid down here1 it is evident that the great distinction between the ,gospel and other miracles is thus narrowed to a very small compass4 ,it is admitted that the mass of the ,gospel miracles are of a class characterized as ambiguous1 because the current #ahi miracles of human history are also chiefly of the same type1 and the distinctive character is derived avowedly only from a few high specimens1 such as the ,resurrection4 ,we have already referred to the fact that in the synoptic ,gospels there is only one case1 reported by the third ,gospel alone1 in which ,jesus is said to have raised the dead4 ,st4 ,augustine alone1 however1 chronicles several cases in which life was restored to the dead4 ,post-apostolic miracles1 therefore1 are far from lacking this ennobling type4 ,observe that ,dr4 ,mozley is here not so much discussing the reality of the subsequent miracles of the ,church1 as contrasting them and other reputed miracles with those of the ,gospel1 and from this point of view it is impossible to maintain that the ,gospels have a monopoly of the highest class of miracles4 ,such miracles are met with long before the dawn of ,christianity1 and continued to occur long after apostolic times4 ,much stress is laid upon the form of the ,gospel miracles2 but as we have already shown1 it is the actual resurrection of the dead1 for instance1 which is the miracle1 and this is not affected by the more or less dramatic manner in which it is said to have been effected1 or in which the narrative of the event is composed4 ,literary skill1 and the judicious management of details1 may make or mar the form of any miracle4 ,the narrative of the restoration of the dead child to life by ,elisha might have been more impressive1 had the writer omitted the circumstance that the child sneezed seven times before opening his eyes1 and ,dr4 ,mozley would probably have considered the miracle greater had the prophet merely said to the child1 ,arise6 instead of stretching himself on the body2 but setting aside human cravings #aij for the picturesque and artistic1 the essence of the miracle would have remained the same4 ,there is one point1 however1 regarding which it may be well to make a few remarks4 ,whilst a vast number of miracles are ascribed to direct personal action of saints1 many more are attributed to their relics4 ,now this is no exclusive characteristic of later miracles1 but ,christianity itself shares it with still earlier times4 ,the case in which a dead body which touched the bones of ,elisha was restored to life will occur to every one4 ,and it came to pass1 as they were burying a man1 that1 behold1 they spied a band of ,moabites2 and they cast the man into the sepulchre of ,elisha3 and when the man was let down1 and touched the bones of ,elisha1 he revived1 and stood up on his feet47#a7 ,the mantle of ,elijah smiting asunder the waters before ,elisha may be cited as another instance47#b7 ,the woman who touches the hem of the garment of ,jesus in the crowd is made whole17#c7 and all the sick and possessed of the country are represented as being healed by touching ,jesus1 or even the mere hem of his garment47#d7 ,it was supposed that the shadow of ,peter falling on the sick as he passed had a curative effect17#e7 and it is very positively stated3 ,and ,god wrought miracles of no common kind by the hands of ,paul2 so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons1 and the diseases departed from them1 and the evil spirits went out of them4 7#f7 ,the argument which assumes an enormous distinction #aia between ,gospel and other miracles betrays the prevalent scepticism1 even in the ,church1 of all miracles except those which it is considered an article of faith to maintain4 ,if we inquire how those think who are more logical and thorough in their belief in the supernatural1 we find the distinction denied4 ,the question1 says ,dr4 ,newman1 has hitherto been argued on the admission1 that a distinct line can be drawn in point of character and circumstances1 between the miracles of ,scripture and those of ,church history2 but this is by no means the case4 ,it is true1 indeed1 that the miracles of ,scripture1 viewed as a whole1 recommend themselves to our reason1 and claim our veneration beyond all others1 by a peculiar dignity and beauty2 but still it is only as a whole that they make this impression upon us4 ,some of them1 on the contrary1 fall short of the attributes which attach to them in general2 nay1 are inferior in these respects to certain ecclesiastical miracles1 and are received only on the credit of the system of which they form part4 ,again1 specimens are not wanting in the history of the ,church1 of miracles as awful in their character1 and as momentous in their effects1 as those which are recorded in ,scripture47#a7 ,now here is one able and thorough supporter of miracles denying the enormous distinction between those of the ,gospel and those of human history1 which another admits to be essential to the former as evidence of a revelation4 ,dr4 ,mozley1 however1 meets such a difficulty by asserting that there would be no disadvantage to the ,gospel miracles1 and no doubt regarding them involved1 if for some later miracles there was evidence as strong as for those of the ,gospel4 ,all the result would be1 he says1 #aib that we should admit these miracles over and above the ,gospel ones47#a7 ,he denies the equality of the evidence1 however1 in any case4 ,between the evidence1 then1 upon which the ,gospel miracles stand1 and that for later miracles we see a broad distinction arising1 not to mention again the nature and type of the ,gospel miracles themselves--from the contemporaneous date of the testimony to them1 the character of the witnesses1 the probation of the testimony2 especially when we contrast with these points the false doctrine and audacious fraud which rose up in later ages1 and in connection with which so large a portion of the later miracles of ,christianity made their appearance47#b7 ,we consider the point touching the type of the ,gospel miracles disposed of1 and we may1 therefore1 confine ourselves to the rest of this argument4 ,if we look for any external evidence of the miracles of ,jesus in any marked effect produced by them at the time they are said to have occurred1 we find anything but confirmation of the statements of the ,gospels4 ,it is a notorious fact that1 in spite of these miracles1 very few of the ,jews amongst whom they were performed believed in ,jesus1 and that ,christianity made its chief converts not where the supposed miracles took place1 but where an account of them was alone given by enthusiastic missionaries4 ,such astounding exhibitions of power as raising the dead1 giving sight to the blind1 walking on the sea1 changing water into wine1 and indefinitely multiplying a few loaves and fishes1 not only did not make any impression on the ,jews themselves1 but were never heard of out of ,palestine until long after the events are said to have occurred1 when the narrative of them was slowly disseminated by ,christian teachers and writers4 #aic ,dr4 ,mozley refers to the contemporary testimony for certain great and cardinal ,gospel miracles which1 if granted1 clear away all antecedent objection to the reception of the rest1 and he says3 ,that the first promulgators of ,christianity asserted1 as a fact which had come under the cognizance of their senses1 the ,resurrection of our ,lord from the dead1 is as certain as anything in history47#a7 ,what they really did assert1 so far from being so certain as ,dr4 ,mozley states1 must1 as we shall hereafter see1 be considered matter of the greatest doubt4 ,but if the general statement be taken that the ,resurrection1 for instance1 was promulgated as a fact which the early preachers of ,christianity themselves believed to have taken place1 the evidence does not in that case present the broad distinction he asserts4 ,the miracles recounted by ,st ,athanasius and ,st4 ,augustine1 for example1 were likewise proclaimed with equal clearness1 and even greater promptitude and publicity at the very spot where many of them were said to have been performed1 and the details were much more immediately reduced to writing4 ,the mere assertion in neither case goes for much as evidence1 but the fact is that we have absolutely no contemporaneous testimony at all as to what the first promulgators of ,christianity actually asserted1 or as to the real grounds upon which they made such assertions4 ,we shall presently enter upon a thorough examination of the testimony for the ,gospel narratives1 their authorship and authenticity1 but we may here be permitted1 so far to anticipate1 as to remark that1 applied to documentary evidence1 ,dr4 ,mozley's reasoning from the contemporaneous date of the testimony1 and the character of #aid the witnesses1 is contradicted by the whole history of ,new ,testament literature4 ,whilst the most uncritically zealous assertors of the antiquity of the ,gospels never venture to date the earliest of them within a quarter of a century from the death of ,jesus1 every tyro is aware that there is not a particle of evidence of the existence of our ,gospels until very long after that interval1--hereafter we shall show how long2--that two of our synoptic ,gospels at least were not1 in any case1 composed in their present form by the writers to whom they are attributed2 that there is1 indeed1 nothing worthy of the name of evidence that any one of these ,gospels was written at all by the person whose name it bears2 that the second ,gospel is attributed to one who was not an eye-witness1 and of whose identity there is the greatest doubt even amongst those who assert the authorship of ,mark2 that the third ,gospel is an avowed later compilation17#a7 and likewise ascribed to one who was not a follower of ,jesus himself2 and that the authorship of the fourth ,gospel and its historical character are amongst the most unsettled questions of criticism1 not to use here any more definite terms4 ,this being the state of the case it is absurd to lay such emphasis on the contemporaneous date of the testimony1 and on the character of the witnesses1 since it has not even been determined who those witnesses are1 and two even of the supposed evangelists were not personal eye-witnesses at all47#b7 ,surely the testimony of ,athanasius regarding the miracles of ,st4 ,anthony1 and that of ,augustine regarding #a ,luke i4 #a--d4 #b ,we need scarcely point out that ,paul1 to whom so many of the writings of the ,new ,testament are ascribed1 and who practically is the author of ecclesiastical ,christianity1 not only was not an eye-witness of the ,gospel miracles but never even saw ,jesus4 #aie his list of miracles occurring in or close to his own diocese1 within two years of the time at which he writes1 or1 to refer to more recent times1 the evidence of ,pascal for the ,port-,royal miracles1 must be admitted1 not only not to present the broad distinction of evidence of which ,dr4 ,mozley speaks1 but on the contrary to be even more unassailable than that of the ,gospel miracles4 ,the ,church1 which is the authority for those miracles1 is also the authority for the long succession of such works wrought by the saints4 ,the identity of the writers we have instanced has never been doubted2 their trustworthiness1 in so far as stating what they believe to be true is concerned1 has never been impugned2 the same could be affirmed of writers in every age who record such miracles4 ,the broad distinction of evidence for which ,dr4 ,mozley contends1 does not exist2 it does not lie within the scope of his lectures either to define or prove it1 and he does not of course commit the error of assuming the inspiration of the records4 ,the fact is that theologians demand evidence for later miracles1 which they have not for those of the ,gospels1 and which transmitted reverence forbids their requiring4 ,they strain out a gnat and swallow a camel4 ,dr4 ,mozley points to the life of sacrifice and suffering of the ,apostles as a remarkable and peculiar testimony to the truth of the ,gospel miracles1 and notably of the ,resurrection and ,ascension47#a7 ,without examining1 here1 how much we really know of those lives and sufferings1 one thing is perfectly evident3 that sacrifice1 suffering1 and martyrdom itself are evidence of nothing except of the personal belief of the person enduring them2 they do not prove the truth of the doctrines believed4 ,no #aif one doubts the high religious enthusiasm of the early ,christians1 or the earnest and fanatical zeal with which they courted martyrdom1 but this is no exclusive characteristic of ,christianity4 ,every religion has had its martyrs1 every error its devoted victims4 ,does the marvellous endurance of the ,hindoo1 whose limbs wither after years of painful persistence in vows to his ,deity1 prove the truth of ,brahmanism8 or do the fanatical believers who cast themselves under the wheels of the car of ,jagganath establish the soundness of their creed8 ,do the ,jews1 who for centuries bore the fiercest contumelies of the world1 and were persecuted1 hunted1 and done to death by every conceivable torture for persisting in their denial of the truth of the ,incarnation1 ,resurrection1 and ,ascension1 and in their rejection of ,jesus ,christ1 do they thus furnish a convincing argument for the truth of their belief and the falsity of ,christianity8 ,or have the thousands who have been consigned to the stake by the ,christian ,church herself for persisting in asserting what she has denounced as damnable heresy1 proved the correctness of their views by their sufferings and death8 ,history is full of the records of men who have honestly believed every kind of error and heresy1 and have been stedfast to the death1 through persecution and torture1 in their mistaken belief4 ,there is nothing so inflexible as superstitious fanaticism1 and persecution1 instead of extinguishing it1 has invariably been the most certain means of its propagation4 ,the sufferings of the ,apostles1 therefore1 cannot prove anything beyond their own belief1 and the question what it was they really did believe and suffered for is by no means so simple as it appears4 ,now the long succession of ecclesiastical and other #aig miracles has an important bearing upon those of the ,new ,testament1 whether we believe or deny their reality4 ,if we regard the miracles of ,church history to be in the main real1 the whole force of the ,gospel miracles1 as exceptional supernatural evidence of a ,divine ,revelation1 is annihilated4 ,the miraculous credentials of ,christianity assume a very different aspect when they are considered from such a point of view4 ,admitted to be scarcely recognizable from miracles wrought by ,satanic agency1 they are seen to be a continuation of wonders recorded in the ,old ,testament1 to be preceded and accompanied by pretension to similar power on the part of the ,jews and other nations1 and to be succeeded by cycles of miracles1 in all essential respects the same1 performed subsequently for upwards of fifteen hundred years4 ,supernatural evidence of so common and prodigal a nature certainly betrays a great want of force and divine speciality4 ,how could that be considered as express evidence for a new ,divine ,revelation which was already so well known to the world1 and which is scattered broad-cast over so many centuries1 as well as successfully simulated by ,satan8 ,if1 on the other hand1 we dismiss the miracles of later ages as false1 and as merely the creations of superstition or pious imagination1 how can the miracles of the ,gospel1 which are precisely the same in type1 and not better established as facts1 remain unshaken8 ,the ,apostles and ,evangelists were men of like passions1 and also of like superstitions with others of their time1 and must be measured by the same standard4 ,dr4 ,mozley will not admit that1 even in such a case1 the difficulty of distinguishing the true miracles amongst the mass of #aih spurious justifies the rejection of all1 and he demands a judicial process in each case1 and settlement according to the evidence in that case47#a7 ,we might reply that if the great mass of asserted miracles be determined to be spurious1 there is no reason shown for entering upon a more minute consideration of pretensions1 which knowledge and experience force us a priori to regard as incredible1 and which examination1 in so many cases1 has proved to be delusion4 ,even if the plea1 that the evidence of the ,gospel miracles is a special case which must be decided on its own grounds1 be admitted1 it must be apparent that the rejection of the mass of other miracles is serious presumptive evidence also against them4 #b4 ,the argument for the reality of miracles receives very little strength from the character of either the early or the later ages of ,christianity4 ,it is but too plain1 says ,dr4 ,mozley1 in discussing ecclesiastical miracles1 that in later ages1 as the ,church advanced in worldly power and position1 besides the mistakes of imagination and impression1 a temper of deliberate and audacious fraud set itself in action for the spread of certain doctrines1 as well as for the great object of the concentration of ,church power in one absolute monarchy47#b7 ,we have already quoted words of ,dean ,milman regarding the frame of mind of the early ,church1 and it may not be out of place to add a few lines from the same writer4 ,speaking of the writings of the first ages of ,christianity1 he says3 ,that some of the ,christian legends were deliberate forgeries can scarcely be questioned2 the principle of pious fraud #aii appeared to justify this mode of working on the popular mind2 it was admitted and avowed4 ,to deceive into ,christianity was so valuable a service as to hallow deceit itself4 ,but the largest portion was probably the natural birth of that imaginative excitement which quickens its day-dreams and nightly visions into reality4 ,the ,christian lived in a supernatural world2 the notion of the divine power1 the perpetual interference of the ,deity1 the agency of the countless invisible beings which hovered over mankind1 was so strongly impressed upon the belief1 that every extraordinary1 and almost every ordinary incident became a miracle1 every inward emotion a suggestion either of a good or an evil spirit4 ,a mythic period was thus gradually formed1 in which reality melted into fable1 and invention unconsciously trespassed on the province of history47#a7 ,whether we look upon this picture or on that1 the result is equally unfavourable to miracles1 and a ready explanation both of the earlier and later instances is suggested4 ,we must1 however1 again recall the fact that1 setting aside for the present the effect of pious fraud1 this vivid and superstitious imagination1 which so freely created for itself the miraculous1 was not merely developed by ,christianity1 but was equally rampant before it1 and was a marked characteristic of the ,jews4 ,the same writer1 in a passage already quoted1 says3 ,during the whole life of ,christ1 and the early propagation of the religion1 it must be borne in mind that they took place in an age1 and among a people which superstition had made so familiar with what were supposed to be preternatural events1 that wonders awakened no emotion1 or were speedily superseded by some new demand on the ever #bjj ready belief4 ,the ,jews of that period not only believed that the ,supreme ,being had the power of controlling the course of nature1 but that the same influence was possessed by multitudes of subordinate spirits1 both good and evil47#a7 ,between the superstition1 imaginative excitement1 and pious fraud of the early ,church1 and the deliberate and audacious fraud of the later1 we have abundant material for the natural explanation of all supposed miracles1 without going to such an extreme hypothesis as exceptions to the order of nature1 or supposing that a few miracles can be accepted as supernatural facts1 whilst all the rest must be discarded as human fables4 ,it is certain that throughout the whole period during which miracles are said to have been performed1 gross ignorance and superstition prevailed1 and nowhere more so than amongst the ,jews where those miracles occurred4 ,almost every operation of nature was inexplicable1 and everything which was inexplicable was considered supernatural4 ,miracles seemed as credible to the mind of that age as deviations from the order of nature seem incredible in ours4 ,it is a suggestive fact that miracles are limited to periods when almost every common incident was readily ascribed to supernatural agency4 ,there is1 however1 one remarkable circumstance which casts some light upon the origin of narratives of miracles4 ,throughout the ,new ,testament1 patristic literature1 and the records of ecclesiastical miracles1 although we have narratives of countless wonderful works performed by others than the writers1 and abundant assertion of the possession of miraculous power by the ,church1 there is no instance whatever1 that we can remember1 in which #bja a writer claims to have himself performed a miracle47#a7 ,wherever there has existed even the comparatively accurate means of information which a person who himself performed a miracle might possess1 the miraculous entirely fails1 and it is found only where faith or credulity usurps the place of knowledge4 ,pious men were perfectly ready to believe the supposed miracles of others1 and to report them as facts1 who were too veracious to imagine any of their own4 ,even if ,apostles and ,saints had chronicled their own miraculous deeds1 the argument for their reality would not have been much advanced2 but the uniform absence of such personal pretension enables us more clearly to trace such narratives to pious credulity or superstition4 ,if we consider the particular part which miracles have played in human history1 we find precisely the phenomena which might have been expected if miracles1 instead of being considered as real occurrences1 were recognized as the mistakes or creations of ignorance and superstition during that period in which reality melted into fable1 and invention unconsciously trespassed on the province of history4 ,their occurrence is limited to ages which were totally ignorant of physical laws1 and they have been numerous or rare precisely in proportion to the degree of imagination and love of the marvellous characterizing the people amongst whom they are said to have occurred4 ,instead of a few evidential miracles taking place at one epoch of history1 and filling the world with surprise at such novel and exceptional phenomena1 we find miracles represented as taking place in all ages and in all countries4 ,the ,gospel miracles are set in the midst of a series of similar wonders1 which commenced #a ,this is fully discussed in the third volume4 #bjb many centuries before the dawn of ,christianity and continued1 without interruption1 for fifteen hundred years after it4 ,they did not in the most remote degree originate the belief in miracles1 or give the first suggestion of spurious imitation4 ,it may1 on the contrary1 be much more truly said that the already existing belief created these miracles4 ,no divine originality characterized the evidence selected to accredit the ,divine ,revelation4 ,the miracles with which the history of the world is full occurred in ages of darkness and superstition1 and they gradually ceased when enlightenment became more generally diffused4 ,at the very time when knowledge of the laws of nature began to render men capable of judging of the reality of miracles1 these wonders entirely failed4 ,this extraordinary cessation of miracles1 precisely at the time when their evidence might have acquired value by an appeal to persons capable of appreciating them1 is perfectly unintelligible if they be viewed as the supernatural credentials of a ,divine revelation4 ,if1 on the other hand1 they be regarded as the mistakes of imaginative excitement and ignorance1 nothing is more natural than their extinction at the time when the superstition which created them gave place to knowledge4 ,as a historical fact1 there is nothing more certain than that miracles1 and the belief in them1 disappeared exactly when education and knowledge of the operation of natural laws became diffused throughout ,europe1 and that the last traces of belief in supernatural interference with the order of nature are only to be found in localities where ignorance and superstition still prevail1 and render delusion or pious fraud of that description possible4 ,miracles are now denied to places more enlightened #bjc than ,naples or ,la ,salette4 ,the inevitable inference from this fact is fatal to the mass of miracles1 and it is not possible to protect them from it4 ,miracle cures by the relics of saints1 upheld for fifteen centuries by all the power of the ,church1 utterly failed when medical science1 increasing in spite of persecution1 demonstrated the natural action of physiological laws4 ,the theory of the demoniacal origin of disease has been entirely and for ever dispelled1 and the host of miracles in connection with it retrospectively exploded by the progress of science4 ,witchcraft and sorcery1 the belief in which reigned supreme for so many centuries1 are known to have been nothing but the delusions of ignorant superstition4 ,a l'epoque ou les faits merveilleux qui s'y 7dans les legendes7 trouvent consignes etaient rapportes1 asks an able ,french writer1 posse dait-on les lumieres suffisantes pour exercer une critique veritable et serieuse sur des temoignages que venaient affirmer des faits en contradiction avec nos connaissances8 ,or1 on peut assurer hardiment que non4 ,au moyen-age1 l'intime conviction que la nature voit tres frequemment ses lois interverties par la volonte divine regnait dans les esprits1 en sorte que pour peu qu'un fait se presentat avec des apparences extraordinaires1 on se hatait de le regarder comme un miracle1 comme loeuvre directe de la divinite4 ,aujourd'hui on cherche au contraire a tout rapporter a la loi commune2 on est tellement sobre de faits miraculeux1 que ceux qui paraissent tels sont cartes comme des fables ou tonus pour des faits ordinaires mal expliques4 ,la foi aux miracles a disparu4 ,en outre1 au moyen-age le cercle des connaissances qu'on possedait sur la nature etait fort restreint1 et tout ce qui n'y rentrait pas etait regarde comme surnatural4 #bjd ,actuellement ce cercle s'agrandit sans cesse2 et loin d'en avoir arrete definitivement la limite1 on le declare infini4 ,in a note the writer adds3 ,on voit par la que le nombre des miracles doit etre en raison inverse du nombre des lois connues de la nature1 et1 qu'a mesure que celles-ci nous sont revelees1 les faits merveilleux ou miraculeux s'evanouissent47#a7 ,these remarks are equally applicable to the commencement of the ,christian era4 ,on the one hand1 we have no other testimony for the reality of miracles than that of ages in which not only the grossest superstition and credulity prevailed1 but in which there was such total ignorance of natural laws that men were incapable of judging of that reality1 even if they desired impartially to investigate such occurrences1 which they did not2 on the other hand1 we have the sober testimony of science declaring such phenomena violations of the invariable laws of nature1 and experience teaching us a perfectly simple and natural interpretation of the legends regarding them4 ,are we to believe ignorance and superstition or science and unvarying experience8 ,science has already demonstrated the delusion involved in the largest class of miracles1 and has so far established the superiority of her testimony4 ,in an early part of his discussion ,dr4 ,mozley argues3 ,christianity is the religion of the civilized world1 and #a ,l4 ,f4 ,alfred ,maury4 ,essai sur los ,legendes pieuses du ,moyen-age1 #ahdc1 p4 #bcd f41 and p4 #bcc1 note 7#a74 ,the same arguments are employed by the late ,mr4 ,buckle4 ,hence it is that1 supposing other things equal1 the superstition of a nation must always bear an exact proportion to the extent of its physical knowledge4 ,this may be in some degree verified by the ordinary experience of mankind4 ,for if we compare the different classes of society1 we shall find that they are superstitious in proportion as the phenomena with which they are brought in contact have or have not been explained by natural laws4 ,hist1 of ,civilization1 #ahfg1 i4 p4 #cgc4 #bje it is believed upon its miraculous evidence4 ,now1 for a set of miracles to be accepted in a rude age1 and to retain their authority throughout a succession of such ages1 and over the ignorant and superstitious part of mankind1 may be no such great result for the miracle to accomplish1 because it is easy to satisfy those who do not inquire4 ,but this is not the state of the case which we have to meet on the subject of the ,christian miracles4 ,the ,christian being the most intelligent1 the civilized portion of the world1 these miracles are accepted by the ,christian body as a whole1 by the thinking and educated as well as the uneducated part of it1 and the ,gospel is believed upon that evidence47#a7 ,the picture of ,christendom here suggested is purely imaginary4 ,we are asked to believe that succeeding generations of thinking and educated as well as uneducated men1 since the commencement of the period in which the adequate inquiry into the reality of miracles became possible1 have made that adequate inquiry1 and have intelligently and individually accepted miracles and believed the ,gospel in consequence of their attestation4 ,the fact1 however1 is that ,christianity became the religion of ,europe before men either possessed the knowledge requisite to appreciate the difficulties involved in the acceptance of miracles1 or minds sufficiently freed from ignorant superstition to question the reality of the supposed supernatural interference with the order of nature1 and belief had become so much a matter of habit that1 in this nineteenth century1 the great majority of men have professed belief for no better reason than that their fathers believed before them4 ,belief is now little more than a transmitted quality or hereditary custom4 ,few men1 even #bjf now1 have either the knowledge or the leisure requisite to enable them to enter upon such an examination of miracles as can entitle ,dr4 ,mozley to affirm that they intelligently accept miracles for themselves4 ,we have shown1 moreover1 that so loose are the ideas even of the clergy upon the subject1 that dignitaries of the church fail to see either the evidential purpose of miracles or the need for evidence at all1 and the first intelligent step towards inquiry--doubt--has generally been stigmatized almost as a crime4 ,so far from ,dr4 ,mozley's statement being correct1 it is notorious that the great mass of those who are competent to examine1 and who have done so1 altogether reject miracles4 ,instead of the thinking and educated men of science accepting miracles1 they1 as a body1 distinctly deny them1 and hence the antagonism between science and ecclesiastical ,christianity1 and ,dr4 ,mozley surely does not require to be told how many of the profoundest critics and scholars of ,germany1 and of all other countries in ,europe1 who have turned their attention to ,biblical subjects1 have long ago rejected the miraculous elements of the ,christian religion4 ,such being the case we necessarily revert to the first part of ,dr4 ,mozley's representation1 and find with him1 that it is no great result for miracles to accomplish1 merely to be accepted by1 and retain authority over1 a succession of ignorant and superstitious ages1 because it is easy to satisfy those who do not inquire4 ,it is necessary that we should now refer to the circumstance that all the arguments which we have hitherto considered in support of miracles1 whether to explain or account for them1 have proceeded upon an assumption of the reality of the alleged phenomena4 #bjg ,had it been first requisite to establish the truth of facts of such an astounding nature1 the necessity of accounting for them might never have arisen4 ,it is clear1 therefore1 that an assumption which permits the argument to attain any such position begs almost the whole question4 ,facts1 however astounding1 which1 it is admitted1 did actually occur1 claim a latitude of explanation1 which a mere narrative of those alleged facts1 written by an unknown person some eighteen centuries ago1 could not obtain4 ,if1 for instance1 it be once established as an absolute fact that a man actually dead1 and some days buried1 upon whose body decomposition had already made some progress17#a7 had been restored to life1 the fact of his death and of his subsequent resuscitation being so absolutely proved that the possibility of deception or of mistake on the part of the witnesses was totally excluded--if such conclusive evidence be supposed possible in such a case--it is clear that an argument1 as to whether such an occurrence were to be ascribed to known or unknown laws1 would assume a very different character indeed from that which it would have borne if the argument merely sought to account for so astounding a phenomenon of whose actual occurrence there was no sufficient evidence4 ,it must not be forgotten1 therefore1 that1 as the late ,professor ,baden ,powell pointed out3 ,at the present day it is not a miracle1 but the narrative of a miracle1 to which any argument can refer1 or to which faith is accorded47#b7 ,the discussion of miracles1 then1 is not one regarding miracles actually performed within our own knowledge1 but merely regarding miracles said to have been performed eighteen hundred years ago1 the reality of #bjh which was not verified at the time by any scientific examination1 and whose occurrence is merely reported in the ,gospels4 ,now1 although ,dr4 ,mozley rightly and logically maintains that ,christianity requires1 and should be believed only upon1 its miraculous evidence1 the fact is that popular ,christianity is not believed because of miracles1 but miracles are accepted because they are related in the ,gospels which are supposed to contain the doctrines of ,christianity4 ,the ,gospels have for many generations been given to the child as inspired records1 and doubt of miracles has1 therefore1 either never arisen or has been instantly suppressed1 simply because miracles are recorded in the sacred volume4 ,it could scarcely be otherwise1 for in point of fact the ,gospel miracles stand upon no other testimony4 ,we are therefore in this position3 ,we are asked to believe astounding announcements beyond the limits of human reason1 which1 as ,br4 ,mozley admits1 we could only be justified in believing upon miraculous evidence1 upon the testimony of miracles which are only reported by the records which also alone convey the announcements which those miracles were intended to accredit4 ,there is no other contemporary evidence whatever4 ,the importance of the ,gospels1 therefore1 as the almost solitary testimony to the occurrence of miracles can scarcely be exaggerated47#a7 ,we have already #a ,dr4 ,farrar1 winding up the antecedent discussion1 says3 4444 we arrive at this point--that the credibility of miracles is in each instance simply and solely a question of evidence1 and consequently that our belief or rejection of the ,christian miracles must mainly depend on the character of the ,gospels in which they are recorded4 ,the ,witness of ,history to ,christ1 #ahgb1 p4 #ea4 ,it is somewhat singular that after such a declaration he considers it unnecessary to enter into the question of the genuineness and authenticity of the ,gospels1 deeming it sufficient for his purpose1 that ,strauss and ,renan admit that some portion of these documents existed at the beginning of the second century1 or earlier1 in the country where the events narrated took place4 #bji made an anticipatory remark regarding the nature of these documents1 to which we may add that they are not the work of perfectly independent historians1 but of men who were engaged in disseminating the new doctrines1 and in saying this we have no intention of accusing the writers of conscious deception2 it is1 however1 necessary to state the fact in order that the value of the testimony may be fairly estimated4 ,the narratives of miracles were written by ardent partizans1 with minds inflamed by religious zeal and enthusiasm1 in an age of ignorance and superstition1 a considerable time after the supposed miraculous occurrences had taken place4 ,all history shows how rapidly pious memory exaggerates and idealizes the traditions of the past1 and simple actions might readily be transformed into miracles1 as the narratives circulated1 in a period so prone to superstition and so characterized by love of the marvellous4 ,religious excitement and reverence for the noblest of ,teachers could not1 under such circumstances and in such an age1 have escaped this exaggeration4 ,how few men in more enlightened times have been able soberly to appreciate1 and accurately to record exciting experiences1 where feeling and religious emotion have been concerned4 ,prosaic accuracy of observation and of language1 at all times rare1 are the last qualities we could expect to find in the early ages of ,christianity4 ,in the certain fact that disputes arose among the ,apostles themselves so shortly after the death of their great ,master1 we have one proof that even amongst them there was no accurate appreciation of the teaching of ,jesus17#a7 and the frequent instances of their misunderstanding of very simple matters1 and of their want of enlightenment1 which occur throughout the #baj ,gospels are certainly not calculated to inspire much confidence in their intelligence and accuracy of observation4 ,now it is apparent that the evidence for ,miracles requires to embrace two distinct points3 the reality of the alleged facts1 and the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by supernatural ,agency4 ,the task would even then remain of demonstrating the particular supernatural ,being by whom the miracles were performed1 which is admitted to be impossible4 ,we have hitherto chiefly confined ourselves to a consideration of the antecedent credibility of such events1 and of the fitness of those who are supposed to have witnessed them to draw accurate inferences from the alleged phenomena4 ,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 an 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 incompetentto prove the reality of ,miracles4 ,we have already sufficiently discussed this point1 more especially in connection with ,hume's argument1 and need not here resume it ,every consideration1 historical and philosophical1 has hitherto discredited the whole theory of miracles1 and further inquiry might be abandoned as unnecessary4 ,in order1 however1 to render our conclusion complete1 it remains for us to see whether1 as affirmed1 there be any special evidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the ,gospel ,miracles to exceptional attention4 ,if1 instead of being #baa clear1 direct1 the undoubted testimony of known eyewitnesses free from superstition1 and capable1 through adequate knowledge1 rightly to estimate the alleged phenomena1 we find that the actual accounts have none of these qualifications1 the final decision with regard to ,miracles and the reality of ,divine ,revelation will be easy and conclusive4 #bab ,,part ,,ii4 ,,the ,,synoptic ,,gospels ,,introduction4 ,before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date1 authorship1 and character of the ,gospels1 it may be well to make a few preliminary remarks1 and clearly state certain canons of criticism4 ,we shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to the date at which any of the ,gospels was actually written1 but simply examine all the testimony which is extant with the view of ascertaining what is known of these works and their authors1 certainly and distinctly1 as distinguished from what is merely conjectured or inferred4 ,modern opinion1 in an ,inquiry like ours1 must not be mistaken for ancient evidence4 ,we propose1 therefore1 as exhaustively as possible to search all the writings of the early ,church for information regarding the ,gospels1 and to examine even the alleged indications of their use4 ,it is very important1 however1 that the silence of early writers should receive as much attention as any supposed allusions to the ,gospels4 ,when such writers1 quoting largely from the ,old ,testament and other sources1 deal #bac with subjects which would naturally be assisted by reference to our ,gospels1 and still more so by quoting such works as authoritative1--and yet we find that not only they do not show any knowledge of those ,gospels1 but actually quote passages from unknown sources1 or sayings of ,jesus derived from tradition1--the inference must be that our ,gospels were either unknown1 or not recognized as works of authority at the time4 ,it is still more important that we should constantly bear in mind1 that a great number of ,gospels existed in the early ,church which are no longer extant1 and of most of which even the names are lost4 ,we need not here do more than refer1 in corroboration of this fact1 to the preliminary statement of the author of the third ,gospel3 ,forasmuch as many --,greek-- took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the things which have been accomplished among us1 c47#a7 ,it is therefore evident that before our third ,synoptic was written many similar works were already in circulation4 ,looking at the close similarity of large portions of the three ,synoptics1 it is almost certain that many of the writings here mentioned bore a close analogy to each other and to our ,gospels1 and this is known to have been the case1 for instance1 amongst the various forms of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 ,when1 therefore1 in early writings1 we meet with quotations closely resembling1 or we may add1 even identical with passages which are found in our ,gospels1 the source of which1 however1 is not mentioned1 nor is any author's name indicated1 the similarity or even identity cannot by any means be admitted as proof that the quotation is necessarily from our ,gospels1 and not from some other similar work #bad now no longer extant17#a7 and more especially not when1 in the same writings1 there are other quotations from sources different from our ,gospels4 ,whether regarded as historical records or as writings embodying the mere tradition of the early ,christians1 our ,gospels cannot be recognized as the exclusive depositaries of the genuine sayings and doings of ,jesus4 ,so far from the common possession by many works1 in early times1 of sayings of ,jesus in closely similar form being either strange or improbable1 the really remarkable phenomenon is that such material variation in the report of the more important historical teaching should exist amongst them4 ,but whilst similarity to our ,gospels in passages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources cannot prove the use of our ,gospels1 variation from them would suggest or prove a different origin1 and at least it is obvious that anonymous quotations which do not agree with our ,gospels cannot in any case necessarily indicate their existence4 ,we shall in the course of the following pages more fully illustrate this1 but such a statement is requisite at the very outset from the too general practice of referring every quotation of historical sayings of ,jesus exclusively to our ,gospels1 as though they were the only sources of such matter which had ever existed4 ,it is unnecessary to add that1 in proportion as we remove from apostolic times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of our ,gospels1 so does the value of their testimony dwindle away4 ,indeed1 requiring as we do clear1 direct1 and irrefragable evidence of the integrity1 authenticity1 and historical character of these ,gospels1 doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal to them as sufficient testimony1--if #bae they could1 under any circumstances be considered sufficient testimony1--for miracles and a direct ,divine ,revelation like ecclesiastical ,christianity4 ,we propose to examine first1 the evidence for the three ,synoptics and1 then1 separately1 the testimony regarding the fourth ,gospel4 #baf ,,chapter ,i4 ,,clement ,,of ,,rome--,,the ,,epistle ,,of ,,barnabas--,,the ,,pastor ,,of ,,hermas4 ,the first work which presents itself for examination is the so-called first ,epistle of ,clement to the ,corinthians1 which1 together with a second ,epistle to the same community1 likewise attributed to ,clement1 is preserved to us in the ,codex ,alexandrinus17#a7 a ,,ms4 assigned by the most competent judges to the second half of the fifth1 or beginning of the sixth century1 in which these ,epistles follow the books of the ,new ,testament4 ,the second ,epistle1 which is evidently not epistolary1 but the fragment of a ,homily17#b7 although it thus shares with the first the honour of a canonical position in one of the most ancient codices of the ,new ,testament1 is not mentioned at all by the earlier fathers who refer to the first27#c7 #bag and ,eusebius17#a7 who is the first writer who mentions it1 expresses doubt regarding it1 while ,jerome7#b7 and ,photius7#c7 state that it was rejected by the ancients4 ,it is now universally regarded as spurious17#d7 and dated about the end of the second century17#e7 or later47#f7 ,we shall hereafter see that many other pseudographs were circulated in the name of ,clement1 to which1 however1 we need not further allude at present4 ,there has been much controversy as to the identity of the ,clement to whom the first ,epistle is attributed4 ,in early days he was supposed to be the ,clement #bah mentioned in the ,epistle to the ,philippians 7iv4 #c77a71 but this is now generally doubted or abandoned17#b7 and the authenticity of the ,epistle has1 indeed1 been called in question both by earlier and later critics47#c7 ,it is unnecessary to detail the various traditions regarding the supposed writer1 but we must point out that the ,epistle itself makes no mention of the author's name4 ,it merely purports to be addressed by ,the ,church of ,god which sojourns at ,rome to the ,church of ,god sojourning at ,corinth2 but in the ,codex ,alexandrinus1 the title of ,the first ,epistle of ,clement to the ,corinthians1 is added at the end4 ,clement of ,alexandria calls the supposed writer the ,apostle ,clement37#d7 ,origen reports that many also ascribed to him the authorship of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews27#e7 and ,photius mentions that he was likewise said to be the writer of the ,acts of the ,apostles47#f7 ,we know that until a comparatively late date this ,epistle was quoted as ,holy ,scripture17#g7 and was publicly read in the churches at the ,sunday meetings of ,christians47#h7 ,it has1 as we have seen1 a place amongst #bai the canonical books of the ,new ,testament in the ,codex ,alexandrinus1 but it did not long retain that position in the canon1 for although in the ,apostolic ,canons7#a7 of the sixth or seventh century both ,epistles appear1 yet in the ,stichometry of ,nicephorus1 a work of the ninth century1 derived1 however1 as ,credner7#b7 has demonstrated1 from a ,syrian catalogue of the fifth century1 both ,epistles are classed among the ,apocrypha47#c7 ,great uncertainty prevails as to the date at which the ,epistle was written4 ,reference is supposed to be made to it by the so-called ,epistle of ,polycarp17#d7 but1 owing to the probable inauthenticity of that work itself1 no weight can be attached to this circumstance4 ,the first certain reference to it is by ,hegesippus1 in the second half of the second century1 mentioned by ,eusebius47#e7 ,dionysius of ,corinth1 in a letter ascribed to him addressed to ,soter1 ,bishop of ,rome1 is the first who distinctly mentions the name of ,clement as the author of the ,epistle47#f7 ,there is some difference of opinion as to the order of his succession to the ,bishopric of ,rome4 ,irenaeus7#g7 and ,eusebius7#h7 say that he followed ,anacletus1 and the latter adds the date of the twelfth year of the reign of ,domitian 7a4d4 #ia-ib71 and that he died nine years after1 in the third year of ,trajan's reign 7a4d4 #ajj747i7 ,internal evidence7#aj7 shows that the ,epistle was written after some persecution #bbj of the ,roman ,church1 and the selection lies between the persecution under ,nero1 which would suggest the date a4d4 #fd-gj1 or that under ,domitian1 which would assign the letter to the end of the first century1 or to the beginning of the second4 ,those who adhere to the view that the ,clement mentioned in the ,epistle to the ,philippians is the author1 maintain that the ,epistle was written under ,nero47#a7 ,one of their principal arguments for this conclusion is a remark occurring in ,chapter xli43 ,not everywhere1 brethren1 are the daily sacrifices offered up1 or the votive offerings1 or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings1 but only in ,jerusalem4 ,but even there they are not offered in every place1 but only at the altar before the ,sanctuary1 examination of the sacrifice offered being first made by the ,high ,priest and the ministers already mentioned47#b7 ,from this it is concluded that the ,epistle was written before the destruction of the ,temple4 ,it has1 however1 been shown that ,josephus17#c7 the author of the ,epistle to ,diognetus 7c4 #c71 and others1 long after the ,jewish worship of the ,temple was at an end1 continually speak in the present tense of the ,temple worship in ,jerusalem2 and it is evident1 as ,cotelier long ago remarked1 that this may be done with propriety even in the present #bba day4 ,the argument is therefore recognized to be without value47l7 ,tischendorf1 who systematically adopts the earliest possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two centuries1 decides1 without stating his reasons1 that the grounds for the earlier date1 about a4d4 #fi1 as well as for the episcopate of ,clement from a4d4 #fh-gg7b7 are conclusive2 but he betrays his more correct impression by classing ,clement1 in his index1 along with ,ignatius and ,polycarp1 as representatives of the period3 ,first and second quarters of the second century37#c7 and in the ,prolegomena to his ,new ,testament he dates the episcopate of ,clement ab anno #ib usque #ajb47d7 ,the earlier episcopate assigned to him by ,hefele upon most insufficient grounds is contradicted by the direct statements of ,irenaeus1 ,eusebius1 ,jerome1 and others who give the earliest lists of ,roman ,bishops17#e7 as wrell as by the internal evidence of the ,epistle itself4 ,in ,chapter xliv4 the writer speaks of those appointed by the apostles to the oversight of the ,church1 or afterwards by other notable men1 the whole ,church consenting4444 who have for a long time been commended by all1 c417#f7 which indicates successions of ,bishops since apostolic days4 ,in another #bbb place 7,chap1 xlvii47 he refers the ,corinthians to the ,epistle addressed to them by ,paul in the beginning of the ,gospel --,greek--1 and speaks of the most stedfast and ancient ,church of the ,corinthians --,greek--1 which would be absurd in an ,epistle written about a4d4 #fi4 ,moreover1 an advanced episcopal form of ,church ,government is indicated throughout the letter1 which is quite inconsistent with such a date4 ,the great mass of critics1 therefore1 have decided against the earlier date of the episcopate of ,clement1 and assign the composition of the ,epistle to the end of the first century 7a4d4 #ie-ajj747a7 ,others1 however1 date it still later4 ,there is no doubt that the great number of ,epistles and #bbc other writings falsely circulated in the name of ,clement may well excite suspicion as to the authenticity of this ,epistle also1 which is far from unsupported by internal proofs4 ,of these1 however1 we shall only mention one4 ,we have already incidentally remarked that the writer mentions the ,epistle of ,paul to the ,corinthians1 the only instance in which any ,new ,testament writing is referred to by name2 but along with the ,epistle of the blessed ,paul --,greek-- the author also speaks of the blessed ,judith --,greek--17#a7 and this leads to the inquiry3 ,when was the ,book of ,judith written8 ,hitzig1 ,volkmar1 and others contend that it must be dated a4d4 #aag-aah17c7 and if this be admitted1 it follows of course that an ,epistle which already shows acquaintance with the ,book of ,judith cannot have been written before a4d4 #abj-abe at the earliest1 which many1 for this and other reasons1 affirm to be the case with the ,epistle of pseudo-,clement47#c7 ,whatever date be assigned to it1 however1 it is probable that the ,epistle is interpolated1#d although it must be added that this is not the view of the majority of critics4 ,it is important to ascertain whether or not this ancient christian ,epistle affords any evidence of the existence of #bbd our ,synoptic ,gospels at the time when it was written4 ,tischendorf1 who is ever ready to claim the slightest resemblance in language as a reference to ,new ,testament writings1 states that although this ,epistle is rich in quotations from the ,old ,testament1 and that ,clement here and there also makes use of passages from ,pauline ,epistles1 he nowhere refers to the ,gospels47#a7 ,this is perfectly true1 but several passages occur in this ,epistle which are either quotations from ,evangelical works different from ours1 or derived from tradition17#b7 and in either case they have a very important bearing upon our inquiry4 ,the first of these passages occurs in ,ch4 xiii41 and for greater facility of comparison1 we shall at once place it both in the ,greek and in translation1 in juxta-position with the nearest parallel readings in our ,synoptic ,gospels2 and1 as far as may be1 we shall in the ,english version indicate differences existing in the original texts4 ,the passage is introduced thus3 ,especially remembering the words of the ,lord ,jesus1 which he spake teaching gentleness and long-suffering4 ,for thus he said37#c7-- #bbe ,of course it is understood that1 although for convenience #bbf of comparison we have broken up this quotation into these phrases1 it is quite continuous in the ,epistle4 ,it must be evident to any one who carefully examines the parallel passages1 that the words of the ,lord ,jesus in the ,epistle cannot have been derived from our ,gospels4 ,not only is there no similar consecutive discourse in them1 but the scattered phrases which are pointed out as presenting superficial similarity with the quotation are markedly different both in thought and language4 ,in it1 as in the beatitudes of the ,sermon on the ,mount in the first ,gospel1 the construction is peculiar and continuous3 ,do this4444 in order that --,greek--2 or1 ,as --,greek--444 so --,greek-- ,the theor of a combination of passages from memory1 which is usually advanced to explain such quotations1 cannot serve here1 for thoughts and expressions occur in the passage in the ,epistle which have no parallel at all in our ,gospels1 and such dismembered phrases as can be collected from our first and third ,synoptics1 for comparison with it1 follow the course of the quotation in the ensuing order3 ,matt4 v4 #g1 vi4 #ad1 part of vii4 #ab1 phrase without parallel1 first part of vii4 #b1 phrase without parallel1 last part of vii4 #b2 or1 ,luke vi4 #cf1 last phrase of vi4 #cg1 vi4 #ca1 first phrase of vi4 #ch1 first phrase of vi4 #cg1 phrase without parallel1 last phrase of vi4 #ch4 ,the only question with regard to this passage1 therefore1 is whether the writer quotes from an unknown written source or from tradition4 ,he certainly merely professes to repeat words of the ,lord ,jesus1 and does not definitely indicate a written record1 but it is much more probable1 from the context1 that he quotes from a gospel now no longer extant than that he derives this teaching from oral tradition4 ,he introduces the quotation #bbg not only with a remark implying a well-known record3 ,remembering the words of the ,lord ,jesus which he spake1 teaching1 c4 but he reiterates3 ,for thus he said1 in a way suggesting careful and precise quotation of the very words2 and he adds at the end3 ,by this injunction and by these instructions let us establish ourselves1 that we may walk in obedience to his holy words1 thinking humbly of ourselves47#a7 seems improbable that the writer would so markedly have indicated a precise quotation of words of ,jesus1 and would so emphatically have commended them as the rule of life to the ,corinthians1 had these precepts been mere floating tradition1 until then unstamped with written permanence4 ,the phrase3 ,as ye show kindness --,greek-- which is nowhere found in our ,gospels1 recalls an expression quoted by ,justin ,martyr apparently from a ,gospel different from ours1 and frequently repeated by him in the same form3 ,be ye kind and merciful --,greek-- ,father also is kind --,greek-- and merciful47#b7 ,in the very next chapter of the ,epistle a similar reference again occurs3 ,let us be kind to each other --,greek-- according to the mercy and benignity of our ,creator47#c7 ,without1 however1 going more minutely into this question1 it is certain from its essential variations in language1 thought and order1 that the passage in the ,epistle cannot be claimed as a compilation from our ,gospels2 and we shall presently see that some of the expressions in it which are foreign to our ,gospels are elsewhere quoted by other ,fathers1 and there is reason to believe that these words of the ,lord ,jesus were not derived from tradition but #bbh from a written source different from our ,gospels47#a7 ,when the great difference which exists between the parallel passages in the first and third ,synoptics1 and still more between these and the second1 is considered1 it is easy to understand that other ,gospels may have contained a version differing as much from them as they do from each other4 ,we likewise subjoin the next passage to which we must refer1 with the nearest parallels in our ,synoptics4 ,we may explain that the writer of the ,epistle is rebuking the ,corinthians for strifes and divisions amongst them1 and for forgetting that they are members one of another1 and he continues3 ,remember the words of our ,lord ,jesus2 for he said37#b7 #bbi ,this quotation is clearly not from our ,gospels1 but must be assigned to a different written source4 ,the writer would scarcely refer the ,corinthians to such words of ,jesus if they were merely traditional4 ,it is neither a combination of texts1 nor a quotation from memory4 ,the language throughout is markedly different from any passage in the ,synoptics1 and to present even a superficial parallel1 it is necessary to take a fragment of the discourse of ,jesus at the ,last ,supper regarding the traitor who should deliver him up 7,matth4 xxvi4 #bd71 and join it to a fragment of his remarks in connection with the little child whom he set in the midst 7xviii4 #f74 ,the parallel passage in ,luke has not #bcj the opening words of the passage in the ,epistle at all1 and the portion which it contains 7xvii4 #b71 is separated from the context in which it stands in the first ,gospel1 and which explains its meaning4 ,if we contrast the parallel passages in the three ,synoptics1 their differences of context are very suggestive1 and without referring to their numerous and important variations in detail1 the confusion amongst them is evidence of very varying tradition47#a7 ,this alone would make the existence of another form like that quoted in the ,epistle before us more than probable4 ,tischendorf1 in a note to his statement that ,clement nowhere refers to the ,gospels1 quotes the passage we are now considering1 the only one to which he alludes1 and says3 ,these words are expressly cited as 'words of ,jesus our ,lord2' but they denote much more oral apostolic tradition than a use of the parallel passages in ,matthew 7xxvi4 #bd1 xviii4 #f7 and ,luke 7xvii4 #b747b7 ,it is now1 of course1 impossible to determine finally whether the passage was actually derived from tradition or from a written source different from our ,gospels1 but in either case the fact is1 that the ,epistle not only does not afford the slightest evidence for the existence of any of our ,gospels1 but from only making use of tradition or an apocryphal work as the source of information regarding words of ,jesus1 it is decidedly opposed to the pretensions made on behalf of the ,synoptics4 #bca ,before passing on1 we may1 in the briefest way possible1 refer to one or two other passages1 with the view of further illustrating the character of the quotations in this ,epistle4 ,there are many passages cited which are not found in the ,old ,testament1 and others which have no parallels in the ,new4 ,at the beginning of the very chapter in which the words which we have just been considering occur1 there is the following quotation3 ,it-is written3 ,cleave to the holy1 for they who cleave to them shall be made holy17#a7 the source of which is unknown4 ,in a previous chapter the writer says3 ,and our ,apostles knew1 through our ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 that there will be contention regarding the name1 --,greek--1 office1 dignity87 of the episcopate47#b7 ,what was the writers authority for this statement8 ,we find ,justin ,martyr quoting1 as an express prediction of ,jesus3 ,there shall be schisms and heresies17#c7 which is not contained in our gospels1 but evidently derived from an uncanonical source17#d7 a fact rendered more apparent by the occurrence of a similar passage in the ,clementine ,homilies1 still more closely bearing upon our ,epistle3 ,for there shall be1 as the ,lord said1 false apostles1 false prophets1 heresies1 desires for supremacy47#e7 ,hegesippus also speaks in a similar way3 ,from these came the #bcb false ,christs1 false prophets1 false apostles who divided the unity of the ,church47l7 ,as ,hegesippus1 and in all probability ,justin ,martyr1 and the author of the ,clementines made use of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 or to ,peter1 it is most probable that these ,gospels contained passages to which the words of the ,epistle may refer47#b7 ,it may be well to point out that the author also cites a passage from the ,fourth ,book of ,ezra1 ii4 #af37c7 ,and ,i shall remember the good day1 and ,i shall raise you from your tombs47#d7 ,ezra reads3 ,et resuscitabo mor-tuos de locis suis et de monumentis educam illos1 c4 ,the first part of the quotation in the ,epistle1 of which we have only given the latter clause above1 is taken from ,isaiah xxvi4 #bj1 but there can be no doubt that the above is from this apocryphal book17#e7 which1 as we shall see1 was much used in the early ,church4 #b4 ,we now turn to the so-called ,epistle of ,barnabas1 another interesting relic of the early ,church1 many points in whose history have considerable analogy with that of the ,epistle of pseudo-,clement4 ,the letter itself bears no author's name1 is not dated from any place1 and is not addressed to any special community4 ,towards the #bcc end of the second century1 however1 tradition began to ascribe it to ,barnabas the companion of ,paul47#a7 ,the first writer who mentions it is ,clement of ,alexandria1 who calls its author several times the ,apostle ,barnabas27#b7 and ,eusebius says that he gave an account of it in one of his works now no longer extant47#c7 ,origen also refers to it1 calling it a ,catholic ,epistle1 and quoting it as ,scripture47#d7 ,we have already seen in the case of the ,epistles ascribed to ,clement of ,rome1 and1 as we proceed1 we shall become only too familiar with the fact1 the singular facility with which1 in the total absence of critical discrimination1 spurious writings were ascribed by the ,fathers to ,apostles and their followers4 ,in many cases such writings were deliberately inscribed with names well known in the ,church1 but both in the case of the two ,epistles to the ,corinthians1 and the letter we are now considering1 no such pious fraud was attempted1 nor was it necessary4 ,credulous piety1 which attributed writings to every ,apostle1 and even to ,jesus himself1 soon found authors for each anonymous work of an edifying character4 ,to ,barnabas1 the friend of ,paul1 not only this ,epistle was referred1 but he was also reported by ,tertullian and others to be the author of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews27#e7 and an apocryphal ,gospel according to ,barnabas1 said to have had close affinity with our #bcd first ,synoptic1 is condemned along with many others in the decretal of ,gelasius47#a7 ,eusebius1 however1 classes the so-called ,epistle of ,barnabas amongst the spurious books --,greek--17#b7 and elsewhere also speaks of it as uncanonical47#c7 ,jerome mentions it as read amongst apocryphal writings47#d7 ,had the ,epistle been seriously regarded as a work of the ,apostle ,barnabas1 it could scarcely have failed to attain canonical rank4 ,that it was highly valued by the early ,church is shown by the fact that it stands1 along with the ,pastor of ,hermas1 after the ,canonical books of the ,new ,testament in the ,codex ,sinaiticus1 which is probably the most ancient ,,ms4 of them now known4 ,in the earlier days of criticism1 some writers1 without much question1 adopted the traditional view as to the authorship of the ,epistle17#e7 but the great mass of critics are now agreed in asserting that the composition1 which itself is perfectly anonymous1 cannot be attributed to ,barnabas the friend and fellow-worker of ,paul47#f7 ,those who maintain the former opinion date #bce the ,epistle about a4d4 #gj--gc1 or even earlier1 but this is scarcely the view of any living critic4 ,there are many indications in the ,epistle which render such a date impossible1 but we do not propose to go into the argument minutely1 for it is generally admitted that1 whilst there is a clear limit further back than which the ,epistle cannot be set17#a7 there is little or no certainty how far into the second century its composition may not reasonably be advanced4 ,critics are divided upon the point2 a few are disposed to date the ,epistle about the end of the first or beginning of the second century 7#b while a still greater number assign it to the reign of ,hadrian 7a4d4 #bcf #aag--ach727a7 and others1 not without reason1 consider that it exhibits marks of a still later period47#b7 ,it is probable that it is more or less interpolated47#c7 ,until the discovery of the ,sinaitic ,,ms41 a portion of the ,epistle of ,barnabas was only known through an ancient ,latin version1 the first four and a half chapters of the ,greek having been lost4 ,the ,greek text1 however1 is now complete1 although often very corrupt4 ,the author quotes largely from the ,old ,testament1 and also from apocryphal works47#d7 ,he nowhere mentions any book or writer of the ,new ,testament1 and with one asserted exception1 which we shall presently examine1 he quotes no passage agreeing with our ,gospels4 ,we shall refer to these1 commencing at once with the most important4 ,in the ancient ,latin translation of the ,epistle1 the only form1 as we have just said1 in which until the discovery #bcg of the ,codex ,sinaiticus the first four and a half chapters were extant1 the following passage occurs3 ,adtendamus ergo1 ne forte1 sicut scriptum est1 multi vocati pauci electi inveniamur47l7 ,let us1 therefore1 beware lest we should be found1 as it is written3 ,many are called1 few are chosen4 ,these words are found in our first ,gospel 7xxii4 #ad71 and as the formula by which they are here introduced--it is written1 is generally understood to indicate a quotation from ,holy ,scripture1 it was and is argued by some that here we have a passage from one of our ,gospels quoted in a manner which shows that1 at the time the ,epistle of ,barnabas was written1 the ,gospel according to ,matthew was already considered ,holy ,scripture47#c7 ,whilst this portion of the text existed only in the ,latin version1 it was argued that the sicut scriptum est1 at least1 must be an interpolation1 and in any case that it could not be deliberately applied1 at that date1 to a passage in any writings of the ,new ,testament4 ,on the discovery of the ,sinaitic ,,ms41 however1 the words were found in the ,greek text in that ,codex3 --,greek--4 ,the question1 therefore1 is so far modified that1 however much we may suspect the ,greek text of interpolation1 it must be accepted as the basis of discussion that this passage1 whatever its value1 exists in the oldest1 and indeed only 7and this point must not be forgotten7 complete ,,ms4 of the ,greek ,epistle4 ,now with regard to the value of the expression it is written1 it may be remarked that in no case could its use in the ,epistle of ,barnabas indicate more than individual opinion1 and it could not1 for reasons to be presently given1 be considered to represent the decision of the ,church4 ,in the very same chapter in which the formula is used in connection with the passage we are considering1 it is also employed to introduce a quotation from the ,book of ,enoch17#a7 --,greek--1 and elsewhere 7c4 xii47 he quotes from another apocryphal book7#b7 as one of the prophets47#c7 ,again1 he refers to the ,cross of ,christ in another prophet saying3 ',and when shall these things come to pass8 and the ,lord saith3 ,when1 c4 444 --,greek--1 4444444--,greek--4 ,he also quotes 7ch4 vi47 the apocryphal ,book of ,wisdom as ,holy ,scripture1 and in like manner several other unknown works4 ,when it is remembered that the ,epistle of ,clement to the ,corinthians1 the ,pastor of ,hennas1 the ,epistle of ,barnabas itself1 and many other apocryphal works have been quoted by the ,fathers as ,holy ,scripture1 the distinctive value of such an expression may be understood4 ,with this passing remark1 however1 we proceed to say that this supposed quotation from ,matthew as ,holy ,scripture1 by proving too much1 destroys its own value as evidence4 ,the generality of competent and #bci impartial critics are agreed1 that it is impossible to entertain the idea that one of our ,gospels could have held the rank of ,holy ,scripture at the date of this ,epistle1 seeing that1 for more than half a century after1 the sharpest line was drawn between the writings of the ,old ,testament and of the ,new1 and the former alone quoted as1 or accorded the consideration of1 ,holy ,scripture4#a ,if this were actually a quotation from our first ,gospel1 already in the position of ,holy ,scripture1 it would indeed be astonishing that the ,epistle1 putting out of the question other ,christian writings for half a century after it1 teeming as it does with extracts from the ,old ,testament1 and from known1 and unknown1 apocryphal works1 should thus limit its use of the ,gospel to a few words1 totally neglecting the rich store which it contains1 and quoting1 on the other hand1 sayings of ,jesus not recorded at all in any of our ,synoptics4 ,it is most improbable that1 if the author of the ,epistle of ,barnabas was acquainted with any one of our ,gospels1 and considered it an inspired and canonical work1 he could have neglected it in such a manner4 ,the peculiarity of the quotation which he is supposed to make1 which we shall presently point out1 renders such limitation to it doubly singular upon any such hypothesis4 ,the unreasonable nature of the assertion1 however1 will become more apparent as we proceed with our examination1 and perceive that none of the early writers quote our ,gospels1 #bdj if they knew them at all1 but1 on the other hand1 make use of other works1 and that the inference that ,matthew was considered ,holy ,scripture1 therefore1 rests solely upon this quotation of half a dozen words4 ,the application of such a formula to a supposed quotation from one of our ,gospels1 in so isolated an instance1 led to the belief that1 even if the passage were taken from our first ,synoptic1 the author of the ,epistle in quoting it laboured under the impression that it was derived from some prophetical book47#a7 ,we daily see how difficult it is to trace the source even of the most familiar quotations4 ,instances of such confusion of memory are frequent in the writings of the ,fathers1 and many can be pointed out in the ,new ,testament itself4 ,for instance1 in ,matt1 xxvii4 #i f4 the passage from ,zechariah xi4 #ab-ac is attributed to ,jeremiah2 in ,mark i4 #b1 a quotation from ,malachi iii4 #a is ascribed to ,isaiah4 ,in #a ,corinthians ii4 #i1 a passage is quoted as ,holy ,scripture which is not found in the ,old ,testament at all1 but which is taken1 as ,origen and ,jerome state1 from an apocryphal work1 ,the ,revelation of ,elias17#b7 and the passage is similarly quoted by the so-called ,epistle of ,clement to the ,corinthians 7xxxiv74 ,then in what prophet did the author of the first ,gospel find the words 7xiil #ce73 ,that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet17#c7 saying3 ,i will open my mouth in parables2 ,i #bda will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world 8 ,orelli17#a7 afterwards followed by many others17#b7 suggested that the quotation was probably intended for one in ,,iv ,ezra viii4 #c3 ,nam multi creati sunt1 pauci autem salvabuntur47#c7 ,for many are created1 but few shall be saved4 ,bretsclineider proposed as an emendation of the passage in ,ezra the substitution of vocati for creati but1 however plausible1 his argument did not meet with much favour47#d7 ,along with this passage was also suggested a similar expression in ,,iv ,ezra ix4 #ae3 ,plures sunt qui pereunt1 quam qui salvabuntur4 ,there are more who perish than who shall be saved47#e7 ,the ,greek of the three passages may read as follows3-- --,greek-- --,greek-- --,greek-- ,there can be no doubt that the sense of the reading in ,,iv ,ezra is exactly that of the ,epistle1 but the language is somewhat different4 ,we must not forget1 however1 that the original ,greek of ,,iv ,ezra7#f7 is lost1 and that we are wholly dependent on the versions and ,,mss4 extant1 regarding whose numerous variations and great #bdb corruption there are no differences of opinion4 ,orelli's theory1 moreover1 is supported by the fact that the ,epistle1 elsewhere1 7c4 xii7 quotes from ,,iv ,ezra 7iv4 #cc1 v4 #e74 ,on examining the passage as it occurs in our first ,synoptic1 we are at the very outset struck by the singular fact1 that this short saying appears twice in that ,gospel with a different context1 and in each case without any propriety of application to what precedes it1 whilst it is not found at all in either of the other two ,synoptics4 ,the first time we meet with it is at the close of the parable of the labourers in the vineyard47#a7 ,the householder engages the labourers at different hours of the day1 and pays those who had worked but one hour the same wages as those who had borne the burden and heat of the day1 and the reflection at the close is1 xx4 #af3 ,thus the last shall be first and the first last2 for many are called but few chosen4 ,it is perfectly evident that neither of these sayings1 but especially not that with which we are concerned1 has any connection with the parable at all4 ,there is no question of many or few1 or of selection or rejection2 all the labourers are engaged and paid alike4 ,if there be a moral at all to the parable1 it is the justification of the master3 ,is it not lawful for me to do what ,i will with mine own8 ,it is impossible to imagine a saying more irrelevant to its context than many are called but few chosen1 in such a place4 ,the passage occurs again 7xxii4 #ad7 in connection with the parable of the king who made a marriage for his son4 ,the guests who are at first invited refuse to come1 and are destroyed by the king's armies2 but the wedding is nevertheless furnished #bdc with guests by gathering together as many as are found in the highways4 ,a new episode commences when the king comes in to see the guests 7v4 #aa74 ,he observes a man there who has not on a wedding garment1 and he desires the servants to 7v4 #ac7 ,bind him hand and foot1 and cast him into the darkness without1 where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth27#a7 and then comes our passage 7v4 #ad73 ,for many are called but few chosen4 ,now1 whether applied to the first or to the latter part of the parable1 the saying is irrelevant4 ,the guests first called were in fact chosen as much as the last1 but themselves refused to come1 and of all those who1 being called from the highways and byways1 ultimately furnished the wedding with guests in their stead1 only one was rejected4 ,it is clear that the facts here distinctly contradict the moral that few are chosen4 ,in both places the saying is1 as it were1 dragged in by the hair4 ,on examination1 however1 we find that the oldest ,,mss4 of the ,new ,testament omit the sentence from ,matthew xx4 #af4 ,it is neither found in the ,sinaitic nor ,vatican codices1 and whilst it has not the support of the ,codex ,alexandrinus1 which is defective at the part1 nor of the ,dublin rescript 7z71 which omits it1 many other ,,mss4 are also without it4 ,the total irrelevancy of the saying to its context1 its omission by the oldest authorities from ,matth4 xx4 #af1 where it appears in later ,,mss41 and its total absence from both of the other ,gospels1 must at once strike every one as peculiar1 and as very unfortunate1 to say #a ,this is not the place to criticize the expectation of finding a wedding garment on a guest hurried in from highways and byways1 or the punishment inflicted for such an offence1 as questions affecting the character of the parable4 #bdd the least of it1 for those who make extreme assertions with regard to its supposed quotation by the ,epistle of ,barnabas4 ,weizsacker1 with great probability1 suggests that in this passage we have merely a well-known proverb17#a7 which the author of the first gospel has introduced into his work from some uncanonical or other source1 and placed in the mouth of ,jesus47#b7 ,certainly under the circumstances it can scarcely be maintained in its present context as a historical saying of ,jesus4 ,ewald1 who naturally omits it from ,matthew xx4 #af1 ascribes the parable xx4 #a--af as well as that xxii4 #a--ad1 in which it stands1 originally to the ,spruchsammlung7#c7 or collection of discourses1 out of which1 with intermediate works1 he considers that our first ,gospel was composed47#d7 ,however this may be1 there is1 it seems to us1 good reason for believing that it was not originally a part of these parables1 and that it is not in that sense historical2 and there is1 therefore1 no ground for asserting that it may not have been derived by the author of the ,gospel from some older work1 from which also it may have come into the ,epistle of ,barnabas47#e7 #bde ,there is1 however1 another passage which deserves to be mentioned4 ,the ,epistle has the following quotation3 ,again1 ,i will show thee how1 in regard to us1 the ,lord saith1 ,he made a new creation in the last times4 ,the ,lord saith3 ,behold ,i make the first as the last47l7 ,even ,tischendorf does not pretend that this is a quotation of ,matth4 xx4 #af17b7 ,thus the last shall be first and the first last1 --,greek-- the sense of which is quite different4 ,the application of the saying in this place in the first1 and indeed in the other1 ,synoptic ,gospels is evidently quite false1 and depends merely on the ring of words and not of ideas4 ,in xix4 #cj it is quoted a second time1 quite irrelevantly1 with some variation3 ,but many first shall be last and last first --,greek--4 ,now it will be remembered that at xx4 #af it occurs in several ,,mss4 in connection with ,many are called but few are chosen1 although the oldest codices omit the latter passage1 and most critics consider it interpolated4 ,the separate quotation of these two passages by the author of the ,epistle1 with so marked a variation in the second1 renders it most probable that he found both in the source from which he quotes4 ,we have1 however1 more than sufficiently discussed this passage4 ,the author of the ,epistle does not indicate any source from which he makes his quotation2 and the mere existence in the first ,synoptic of a proverbial saying #bdf like this does not in the least involve the conclusion that it is necessarily the writing from which the quotation was derived1 more especially as apocryphal works are repeatedly cited in the ,epistle4 ,if it be maintained that the saying is really historical1 it is obvious that the prescriptive right of our ,synoptic is at once excluded1 and it may have been the common property of a score of evangelical works4 ,there can be no doubt that many ,scriptural texts have crept into early ,christian writings which originally had no place there2 and where attendant circumstances are suspicious1 it is always well to remember the fact4 ,an instance of the interpolation of which we speak is found in the ,epistle of ,barnabas4 ,in one place the phrase3 ,give to every one that asketh of thee --,greek--7#a7 occurs1 not as a quotation1 but merely woven into the ,greek text as it existed before the discovery of the ,sinaitic ,,ms4 ,this phrase is the same as the precept in ,luke vi4 #cj1 although it was argued by some that1 as no other trace of the third ,gospel existed in the ,epistle1 it was more probably an alteration of the text of ,matth4 v4 #db4 ,omitting the phrase from the passage in the ,epistle1 the text read as follows3 ,thou shalt not hesitate to give1 neither shalt thou murmur when thou givest444 so shalt thou know who is the good ,recompenser of the reward4 ,the supposed quotation1 inserted where we have left a blank1 really interrupted the sense and repeated the previous injunction4 ,the oldest ,,ms41 the ,codex ,sinaiticus1 omits the quotation1 and so ends the question1 but it is afterwards inserted by another hand4 ,some pious scribe1 in fact1 seeing the relation of the passage to the ,gospel1 had added the #bdg words in the margin as a gloss1 and they afterwards found their way into the text ,in this manner very many similar glosses have crept into texts which they were originally intended to illustrate4 ,tischendorf1 who does not allude to this1 lays much stress upon the following passage3 ,but when he selected ,his own apostles1 who should preach ,his ,gospel1 who were sinners above all sin1 in order that he might show that ,he came not to call the righteous but sinners1 then ,he manifested ,himself to be the ,son of ,god47#a7 ,we may remark that1 in the common ,greek text1 the words to repentance were inserted after sinners1 but they are not found in the ,sinaitic ,,ms4 ,in like manner many ,codices insert them in ,matth1 ix4 #ac and ,mark ii4 #ag1 but they are not found in some of the oldest ,,mss41 and are generally rejected4 ,tischendorf considers them a later addition both to the text of the ,gospel and of the ,epistle47#c7 ,but this very fact is suggestive4 ,it is clear that a supposed quotation has been deliberately adjusted to what was considered to be the text of the ,gospel4 ,why should the whole phrase not be equally an interpolation8 ,we shall presently see that there is reason to think that it is so4 ,alhough there is no quotation in the passage1 who1 asks ,tischendorf17#c7 could mistake the words as they stand in ,matthew1 ix4 #ac1 ,for ,i came not to call the righteous but sinners8 ,now this passage is referred to by ,origen in his work against ,celsus1 in a way which indicates that the supposed quotation did not exist in his copy2 ,origen says3 ,and as ,celsus has called #bdh the ,apostles of ,jesus infamous men1 saying that they were tax-gatherers and worthless sailors1 we have to remark on this1 that1 c4444 ,now in the ,catholic ,epistle of ,barnabas from which1 perhaps1 ,celsus derived the statement that the ,apostles were infamous and wicked men1 it is written that ',jesus selected his own ,apostles who were sinners above all sin17#a7--;and then he goes on to quote the expression of ,peter to ,jesus 7,luke v4 #h71 and then ,i ,timothy1 ,l #ae1 but he nowhere refers to the supposed quotation in the ,epistle4 ,now1 if we read the passage without the quotation1 we have3 ,but when he selected his own ,apostles who should preach his ,gospel1 who were sinners above all sin4444 then he manifested himself to be the ,son of ,god4 ,here a pious scribe very probably added in the margin the gloss3 in order that he might show that he came not to call the righteous but sinners1 to explain the passage1 and as in the case of the phrase3 ,give to every one that asketh of thee1 the gloss became subsequently incorporated with the text4 ,the ,epistle1 however1 goes on to give the only explanation which the author intended1 and which clashes with that of the scribe4 ,for if he had not come in the flesh1 how could men have been saved by beholding him8 ,seeing that looking on the sun that shall cease to be1 the work of his hands1 they have not even power to endure his rays4 ,accordingly1 the ,son of ,man came in the flesh for this1 that he might bring to a head the number of their sins who had persecuted to death his prophets47#b7 ,the argument of ,origen bears out this view1 for he does not at all take the explanation of #bdi the gloss as to why ,jesus chose his disciples from such a class1 but he reasons3 ,what is there strange1 therefore1 that ,jesus being minded to manifest to the race of men his power to heal souls1 should have selected infamous and wicked men1 and should have elevated them so far1 that they became a pattern of the purest virtue to those who were brought by their persuasion to the ,gospel of ,christ47#a7 ,the argument1 both of the author of the ,epistle and of ,origen1 is different from that suggested by the phrase under examination1 and we consider it a mere gloss introduced into the text2 which1 as the --,greek-- shows1 has1 in the estimation of ,tischendorf himself1 been deliberately altered4 ,even if it originally formed part of the text1 however1 it would be wrong to affirm that it affords proof of the use or existence of the first ,gospel4 ,the words of ,jesus in ,matt4 ix4 #ab--ad1 evidently belong to the oldest tradition of the ,gospel1 and1 in fact1 ,ewald ascribes them1 apart from the remainder of the chapter1 originally to the ,spruchsammlung1 from which1 with two intermediate books1 he considers that our present ,matthew was composed47#b ,nothing can be more certain than that such sayings1 if they be admitted to be historical at all1 must have existed in many other works1 and the mere fact of their happening to be also in one of the ,gospels which has survived1 cannot prove its use1 or even #bej its existence at the time the ,epistle of ,barnabas was written1 more especially as the phrase does not occur as a quotation1 and there is no indication of the source from which it was derived4 ,teschendorf1 however1 finds a further analogy between the ,epistle and the ,gospel of ,matthew1 in ch4 xii4 ,since1 therefore1 in the future1 they were to say that ,christ is the son of ,david1 fearing and perceiving clearly the error of the wicked1 ,david himself prophesies--,the ,lord said unto my ,lord1 sit at my right hand until ,i make thine enemies thy footstool47#a7 ,teschendorf upon this inquires3 ,could ,barnabas so write without the supposition1 that his readers had ,matthew1 xxii4 #da4 ff1 before them1 and does not such a supposition likewise infer the actual authority of ,matthew's ,gospel87#b7 ,such rapid argument and extreme conclusions are startling indeed1 but1 in his haste1 our critic has forgotten to state the whole case4 ,the author of the ,epistle has been elaborately showing that the ,cross of ,christ is repeatedly typified in the ,old ,testament1 and at the commencement of the chapter1 after quoting the passage from ,,iv ,ezra1 iv4 #cc1 v4 #e1 he points to the case of ,moses1 to whose heart the spirit speaks that he should make a form of the cross1 by stretching forth his arms in supplication1 and so long as he did so ,israel prevailed over their enemies2 and again he typified the cross1 when he set up the brazen serpent upon which the people might look and be healed4 ,then that which ,moses1 as a prophet1 said to ,joshua 7,jesus7 the son of ,nave1 when he gave him that #bea name1 was solely for the purpose that all the people might hear that the ,father would reveal all things regarding his ,son to the son of ,nave4 ,this name being given to him when he was sent to spy out the land1 ,moses said3 ,take a book in thy hands1 and write what the ,lord saith1 that the ,son of ,god will in the last days cut off by the roots all the house of ,amalek4 ,this1 of course1 is a falsification of the passage1 ,exodus1 xvii4 #ad1 for the purpose of making it declare ,jesus to be the ,son of ,god4 ,then proceeding in the same strain1 he says3 ,behold again ,jesus is not the son of ,man1 but the ,son of ,god1 manifested in the type and in the flesh4 ,since1 therefore1 in the future1 they were to say that ,christ is the son of ,david1 7and here follows the passage we are discussing7 fearing and perceiving clearly the error of the wicked1 ,david himself prophesied3 ',the ,lord said unto my ,lord1 sit at my right hand until ,i make thine enemies thy footstool4' ,and again1 thus speaks ,isaiah3 ',the ,lord said to ,christ my ,lord1 whose right hand ,i have held1 that the nations may obey ,him1 and ,i will break in pieces the strength of kings4' ,behold how ,david calleth ,him ,lord1 and the ,son of ,god4 ,and here ends the chapter and the subject4 ,now it is quite clear that the passage occurs1 not as a reference to any such dilemma as that in ,matthew1 xxii4 #da ff41 but simply as one of many passages which1 at the commencement of our era1 were considered prophetic declarations of the divinity of ,christ1 in opposition to the expectation of the ,jews that the ,messiah was to be the son of ,david17#a7 and1 as we have seen1 in order to prove his point the author alters the text4 ,to argue that such a passage of a ,psalm1 quoted in such a manner in this #beb epistle1 proves the use of our first ,synoptic1 is in the highest degree arbitrary4 ,we have already pointed out that the author quotes apocryphal works as ,holy ,scripture2 and we may now add that he likewise cites words of ,jesus which are nowhere found in our ,gospels4 ,for instance1 in ch4 vii4 we meet with the folio wing expressions directly attributed to ,jesus4 ,thus he say'3 ',those who desire to behold me1 and to attain my kingdom1 must through tribulation and suffering receive me4'7#a7 ,hilgenfeld7#b7 compares this with another passage1 similar in sense1 in ,,iv ,ezra1 vii4 #ad2 but in any case it is not a quotation from our ,gospels2 7#c7 and with so many passages in them suitable to his purpose1 it would be amazing1 if he knew and held ,matthew in the consideration which ,tischendorf asserts1 that he should neglect their stores1 and go elsewhere for such quotations4 ,there is nothing in this epistle worthy of the name of evidence even of the existence of our ,gospels4 #c4 ,the ,pastor of ,hennas is another work which very nearly secured permanent canonical rank with the writings of the ,new ,testament4 ,it was quoted as ,holy ,scripture by the ,fathers and held to be divinely inspired1 and it was publicly read in the ,churches47#d7 ,it has a #bec place1 with the ,epistle of ,barnabas1 in the ,sinaitic ,codex1 after the canonical books4 ,in early times it was attributed to the ,hermas who is mentioned in the ,epistle to the ,romans1 xiv4 #ad1 in consequence of a mere conjecture to that effect by ,origen27l7 but the ,canon of ,muratori7#b7 confidently ascribes it to a brother of ,pius1 ,bishop of ,rome1 and at least there does not seem any ground for the statement of ,origen47#c7 ,it may have been written about the middle of the second century or a little earlier47#d7 #bed ,tischendorf dismisses this important memorial of the early ,christian ,church with a note of two lines1 for it has no quotations either from the ,old or ,new ,testament47#a7 ,he does not even suggest that it contains any indications of acquaintance with our ,gospels4 ,the only direct quotation in the ,pastor is from an apocryphal work which is cited as ,holy ,scripture3 ,the ,lord is nigh unto them who return to him1 as it is written in ,eldad and ,modat1 who prophesied to the people in the wilderness47#b7 ,this work1 which appears in the ,stichometry of ,nicephorus amongst the apocrypha of the ,old ,testament1 is no longer extant47#c7 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,the ,,epistles ,,of ,,ignatius--,,the ,,epistle ,,of ,,polycarp ,although1 in reality1 appertaining to a very much later period1 we shall here refer to the so-called ,epistles of ,ignatius1 and examine any testimony which they afford regarding the date and authenticity of our ,gospels4 ,there are in all fifteen epistles bearing the name of ,ignatius4 ,three of these1 addressed to the ,virgin ,mary and the ,apostle ,john #b1 exist only in a ,latin version1 and these1 together with five others directed to ,mary of ,cassobolita1 to the ,tarsians1 to the ,antiochans1 to ,hero of ,antioch1 and to the ,philippians1 of which there are versions both in ,greek and ,latin1 are universally admitted to be spurious1 and may1 so far as their contents are concerned1 be at once dismissed from all consideration47#a7 ,they are not mentioned by ,eusebius1 nor does any early writer refer to them4 ,of the remaining seven epistles1 addressed to the ,ephesians1 ,magnesians1 ,trallians1 ,romans1 ,philadelphians1 ,smyrnaeans1 and to ,polycarp1 there are two distinct versions extant1 one long version1 of which there are both ,greek and ,latin texts1 and another much shorter1 and presenting considerable variations1 of which there are also both ,greek and ,latin texts4 ,after a couple of centuries of discussion1 critics #bef almost without exception have finally agreed that the longer version is nothing more than an interpolated version of the shorter and more ancient form of the ,epistles4 ,the question regarding the authenticity of the ,ignatian ,epistles1 however1 was re-opened and complicated by the publication1 in #ahde1 by ,dr4 ,cureton1 of a ,syriac version of three epistles only--to ,polycarp1 to the ,ephesians1 and to the ,romans--in a still shorter form1 discovered amongst a large number of ,,mss4 purchased by ,dr4 ,tattam from the monks of the ,desert of ,nitria4 ,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 possess47#a7 ,as early as the sixteenth century1 however1 the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed to ,ignatius4 ,the ,magdeburg #beg ,centuriators first attacked them1 and ,calvin declared them to be spurious17#a7 an opinion fully shared by ,dallaeus1 and others2 ,chemnitz regarded them with suspicion2 and similar doubts1 more or lass definite1 were expressed throughout the seventeenth century17#b7 and onward to comparatively recent times17#c7 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 either recognize that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established1 or that they #beh can only be considered later and spurious compositions47#a7 ,omitting for the present the so-called ,epistle of ,polycarp to the ,philippians1 the earliest reference to any of these epistles1 or to ,ignatius himself1 is made by ,irenaeus1 who quotes a passage which is found in the ,epistle to the ,romans 7ch4 iv471 without1 however1 any mention of name1' introduced by the following words3 ,as a certain man of ours said1 being condemned to the wild beasts on account of his testimony to ,god3 ',i am the wheat of ,god1 and by the teeth of beasts ,i am ground1 that ,i may be found pure #bei bread47#a7 ,origen likewise quotes two brief sentences which he refers to ,ignatius4 ,the first is merely3 ,but my love is crucified17#b7 which is likewise found in the ,epistle to the ,romans 7ch4 vii472 and the other quoted as out of one of the ,epistles of the martyr ,ignatius3 ,from the ,prince of this world was concealed the virginity of ,mary17#c7 which is found in the ,epistle to the ,ephesians 7ch4 xix74 ,eusebius mentions seven epistles17#d7 and quotes one passage from the ,epistle to the ,romans 7ch4 v471 and a few words from an apocryphal ,gospel contained in the ,epistle to the ,smyrnaeans 7ch4 iii471 the source of which he says that he does not know1 and he cites from ,irenaeus the brief quotation given above1 and refers to the mention of the epistles in the letter of ,polycarp which we reserve4 ,elsewhere17#e7 he further quotes a short sentence found in the ,epistle to the ,ephesians 7ch4 xix471 part of which had previously been cited by ,origen4 ,it will be observed that all these quotations1 with the exception of that from ,irenaeus1 are taken from the three ,epistles which exist in the ,syriac translation1 and they are found in that version2 and the first occasion on which any passage attributed to ,ignatius is quoted which is not in the ,syriac version of the three ,epistles occurs in the second half of the fourth century1 when ,athanasius1 in his ,epistle regarding the ,synods of ,ariminum and ,selucia17#f7 quotes a few words from the ,epistle to the ,ephesians 7ch4 vii472 but although foreign to the ,syriac text1 it is to be noted that the words are #bfj at least from a form of one of the three epistles which exist in that version47#a7 ,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 ,as we have already remarked1 the ,syriac version of the three epistles is very much shorter than the shorter ,greek version1 the ,epistle to the ,ephesians1 for instance1 being only about one-third of the length of the ,greek text4 ,those who still maintain the superior authenticity of the ,greek shorter version argue that the ,syriac is an epitome of the ,greek4 ,this does not1 however1 seem tenable when the matter is carefully examined4 ,although so much is absent from the ,syriac version1 not only is there no interruption of the sense and no obscurity or undue curtness in the style1 but the epistles read more consecutively1 without faults of construction or grammar1 and passages which in the ,greek text were confused and almost unintelligible have become quite clear in the ,syriac4 ,the interpolations of the text1 in fact1 had been so clumsily made1 that they had obscured the meaning1 and their mere omission1 without any other alteration of grammatical construction1 has restored the epistles to clear and simple order47#b7 ,it is1 moreover1 a remarkable fact that the passages which1 long before the discovery of the ,syriac epistles1 were pointed out as chiefly determining that the epistles were spurious1 are not found in the ,syriac version at all4#c ,archbishop ,usher1 who only admitted the authenticity of six epistles1 showed that much interpolation of these letters took place in the #bfa sixth century17#a7 but this very fact increases the probability of much earlier interpolation also1 at which the various existing versions most clearly point4 ,the interpolations can be explained upon the most palpable dogmatic grounds1 but not so the omissions upon the hypothesis that the ,syriac version is an abridgment made upon any distinct dogmatic principle1 for that which is allowed to remain renders the omissions ineffectual for dogmatic reasons4 ,there is no ground of interest upon which the portions omitted and retained by the ,syriac version can be intelligently explained47#b7 ,finally1 here1 we may mention that the ,,mss4 of the three ,syriac epistles are more ancient by some centuries than those of any of the ,greek versions of the ,seven epistles47#c7 ,the strongest internal1 as well as other evidence1 into which space forbids our going in detail1 has led the majority of critics to recognize the ,syriac version as the most ancient form of the letters of ,ignatius extant1 and this is admitted by many of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the epistles47#d7 ,seven epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant1 all equally purporting to be by ,ignatius1 simply because only that number was mentioned by ,eusebius1 from whom for the first time1 in the fourth century1--except the general reference in the so-called ,epistle of ,poly-carp1 to which we shall presently refer1--we hear of them4 ,now neither the silence of ,eusebius regarding the eight epistles1 nor his mention of the seven1 can have much weight in deciding the question of their authenticity4 ,the only point which is settled by the reference #bfb of ,eusebius is that1 at the date at which he wrote1 seven epistles were known to him which were ascribed to ,ignatius4 ,he evidently knew little or nothing regarding the man or the ,epistles1 beyond what he had learnt from themselves17#a7 and he mentions the martyr-journey to ,rome as a mere report3 ,it is said that he was conducted from ,syria to ,rome to be cast to wild beasts on account of his testimony to ,christ47#b7 ,it would be unreasonable to argue that no other epistles existed simply because ,eusebius did not mention them2 and on the other hand it would be still more unreasonable to affirm that the seven epistles are authentic merely because ,eusebius1 in the fourth century1--that is to say1 some two centuries after they are supposed to have been written1--had met with them4 ,does any one believe the letter of ,jesus to ,abgarus ,prince of ,edessa to be genuine1 because ,eusebius inserts it in his history7#c7 as an authentic document out of the public records of the city of ,edessa ,there is1 in fact1 no evidence that the brief quotations of ,irenaeus and ,origen are taken from either of the extant ,greek versions of the epistles2 for1 as we have mentioned1 they exist in the ,syriac epistles1 and there is nothing to show the original state of the letters from which they were derived4 ,nothing is more certain than the fact that1 if any writer wished to circulate letters in the name of ,ignatius1 he would insert such passages as were said to have been quoted from genuine epistles of ,ignatius1 and supposing those quotations to be real1 all that could be said on finding such passages would be that at least so much might be genuine47#d7 ,it is a total #bfc 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 ,,mss4 with the other eight epistles1 universally pronounced to be spurious1 without distinction of any kind1 and all have equal honour47#a7 ,the recognition of the number seven may1 therefore1 be ascribed simply to the reference to them by ,eusebius1 and his silence regarding the rest4 ,what1 then1 is the position of the so-called ,ignatian ,epistles8 ,towards the end of the second century1 ,irenaeus makes a very short quotation from a source unnamed1 which ,eusebius1 in the fourth century1 finds in an epistle attributed to ,ignatius4 ,origen1 in the third century1 quotes a very few words which he ascribes to ,ignatius1 although without definite reference to any particular epistle2 and1 in the fourth century ,eusebius mentions seven epistles ascribed to ,ignatius4 ,there is no other evidence4 ,there are1 however1 fifteen epistles extant1 all of which are attributed to ,ignatius1 of all of which1 with the exception of three which are only known in a ,latin version1 we possess both ,greek and ,latin versions4 ,of seven of these epistles--and they are those mentioned by ,eusebius--we have two ,greek versions1 one of which is very much shorter than the other2 and finally we now possess a ,syriac version of three epistles only7#b7 in a form still shorter than the shorter ,greek version1 in which are found all the quotations of the ,fathers1 without exception1 up to the fourth century4 ,eight of the fifteen #b ,it is worthy of remark that at the end of the ,syriac version the subscription is3 ,here end the three ,epistles of ,ignatius1 ,bishop and ,martyr2 cf4 ,cureton1 ,the ,ancient ,syriac ,version1 c1 p4 #be4 #bfd epistles are universally rejected as spurious4 ,the longer ,greek version of the remaining seven epistles is almost unanimously condemned as grossly interpolated2 and the great majority of critics recognize that the shorter ,greek version is also much interpolated2 whilst the ,syriac version1 which so far as ,,mss4 are concerned is by far the most ancient text of any of the letters which we posses1 reduces their number to three1 and their contents to a very small compass indeed4 ,it is not surprising that the vast majority of critics have expressed doubt more or less strong regarding the authenticity of all of these epistles1 and that so large a number have repudiated them altogether4 ,one thing is quite evident1--that amidst such a mass of falsification1 interpolation1 and fraud1 the ,ignatian ,epistles cannot in any form be considered evidence on any important point47#a7 ,we have not1 however1 finished4 ,all of these epistles1 including the three of the ,syriac recension1 profess to have been written by ,ignatius during his journey from ,antioch to ,rome1 in the custody of ,roman soldiers1 in order to be exposed to wild beasts1 the form of martyrdom to which he had been condemned4 ,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 receiving benefits become worse47#b7 ,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 #bfe so many long epistles1 entering minutely into dogmatic teaching1 and expressing the most deliberate and advanced views regarding ecclesiastical government8 ,indeed it may be asked why ,ignatius should have considered it necessary in such a journey1 even if the possibility be for a moment conceded1 to address such epistles to communities and individuals to whom1 by the showing of the letters themselves1 he had just had opportunities of addressing his counsels in person47#a7 ,the epistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such circumstances1 and 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 epistles17#b7 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 incredible47#c7 ,this conclusion1 irresistible in itself1 is1 however1 confirmed by facte arrived at from a totally different point of view4 #bff ,it has been demonstrated that1 most probably1 ,ignatius was not sent to ,rome at all1 but suffered martyrdom in ,antioch itself7l7 on the #bjth ,december1 a4d4 #aae17b7 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 month47#c7 ,there are no less than three martyrologies of ,ignatius17#d7 giving an account of the martyr's journey from ,antioch to ,rome1 but they are all recognised to be mere idle legends1 of whose existence we do not hear till a very late period47#e7 ,in fact the whole of the ,ignatian literature is a mass of falsification and fraud4 ,we might well spare our readers the trouble of examining further the contents of the epistles of pseudo-,ignatius1 for it is manifest that they cannot afford testimony #bfg of any value on the subject of our inquiry4 ,we shall1 however1 briefly point out all the passages contained in the seven ,greek ,epistles which have any bearing upon our synoptic ,gospels1 in order that their exact position may be more fully appreciated4 ,teschendorf7#a7 refers to a passage in the ,epistle to the ,romans1 c4 vi41 as a verbal quotation of ,matthew xvi4 #bf1 but he neither gives the context nor states the facts of the case4 ,the passage reads as follows3 ,the pleasures of the world shall profit me nothing1 nor the kingdoms of this time2 it is better for me to die for ,jesus ,christ1 than to reign over the ends of the earth4 ,for what is a man profited if he gain the whole world1 but lose his soul47#b7 ,now this quotation not only is not found in the ,syriac version of the ,epistle1 but it is also omitted from the ancient ,latin version1 and is absent from the passage in the work of ,timotheus of ,alexandria against the ,council of ,chalcedon1 and from other authorities4 ,it is evidently a later addition1 and is recognized as such by most critics47#c7 ,it was probably a gloss1 which subsequently was inserted in the text4 ,of these facts1 however1 ,tischendorf does not say a word47#d7 ,the next passage to which he refers is in the ,epistle to the ,smyrnaeans1 c4 i41 where the writer says of ,jesus3 ,he was baptized by ,john in order that all righteousness #bfh might be fulfilled by ,him17#a7--which ,teschendorf considers a reminiscence of ,matthew iii4 #ae1 ,for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness47#b7 ,the phrase1 besides being no quotation1 has again all the appearance of being an addition2 and when in ,ch4 iii4 of the same ,epistle we find a palpable quotation from an apocryphal ,gospel1 which ,jerome states to be the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 to which we shall presently refer1 a ,gospel which we know to have contained the baptism of ,jesus by ,john1 it is not possible1 even if the ,epistle were genuine1 which it is not1 to base any such conclusion upon these words4 ,there is not only the alternative of tradition1 but the use of the same apocryphal ,gospel1 elsewhere quoted in the ,epistle1 as the source of the reminiscence4 ,tischendorf does not point out any more supposed references to our synoptic ,gospels1 but we proceed to notice all the other passages which have been indicated by others4 ,in the ,epistle to ,polycarp1 c4 ii41 the following sentence occurs3 ,be thou wise as a serpent in everything1 and harmless as the dove4 ,this is1 of course1 compared with ,matth4 x4 #af1 ,be ye1 therefore1 wise as serpents and innocent as doves4 ,the ,greek of both reads as follows3 --,greek-- ,in the ,syriac version1 the passage reads3 ,be thou wise as the serpent in everything1 and harmless as to those things which are requisite as the dove47#d7 ,it is unnecessary #bfi to add that no source is indicated for the reminiscence4 ,ewald assigns this part of our first ,gospel originally to the ,spruchsammlung17#a7 and even apart from the variations presented in the ,epistle there is nothing to warrant exclusive selection of our first ,gospel as the source of the saying4 ,the remaining passages we subjoin in parallel columns4 ,none of these passages are quotations1 and they generally present such marked linguistic variations from the parallel #bgj passages in our first ,gospel1 that there is not the slightest ground for specially referring them to it4 ,the last words cited are introduced without any appropriate context4 ,in no case are the expressions indicated as quotations from1 or references to1 any particular source4 ,they may either be traditional1 or reminiscences of some of the numerous ,gospels current in the early ,church1 such as the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 ,that the writer made use of one of these cannot be doubted4 ,in the ,epistle to the ,smyrnaeans1 c4 iii41 there occurs a quotation from an apocryphal ,gospel to which we have already1 in passing1 referred3 ,for ,i know that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh1 and ,i believe he is so now4 ,and when he came to those who were with ,peter1 he said to them3 ,lay hold1 handle me1 and see that ,i am not an incorporeal spirit1 --,greek--4 ,and immediately they touched him and believed1 being convinced by his flesh and spirit4 ,eusebius1 who quotes this passage1 says that he does not know whence it is taken47#b7 ,origen1 however1 quotes it from a work well known in the early ,church1 called ,the ,doctrine of ,peter1 --,greek--27#c7 and ,jerome found it in the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 in use among the ,nazarenes17#d7 which he translated1 as we shall hereafter sec4 ,it was1 no doubt1 in both of those works4 ,the narrative1 ,luke xxiv4 #ci f41 being neglected1 and an apocryphal ,gospel used here1 the inevitable inference is clear and very suggestive4 ,as it is certain that this quotation was taken from a source #bga different from our ,gospels1 there is reason to suppose that the other passages which we have cited are reminiscences of the same work4 ,the passage on the three mysteries in the ,epistle to the ,ephesians1 c4 xix41 is evidently another quotation from an uncanonical source47#a7 ,we must1 however1 again point out that1 with the single exception of the short passage in the ,epistle to ,polycarp1 c4 ii41 which is not a quotation1 differs from the reading in ,matthew1 and may well be from any other source1 none of these supposed reminiscences of our synoptic ,gospels are found in the ,syriac version of the three epistles4 ,the evidential value of the seven ,greek epistles is clearly stated by an ,english historian and divine3 ,my conclusion is1 that ,i should be unwilling to claim historical authority for any passage not contained in ,dr4 ,cureton's ,syriac reprint47#c7 ,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 second or beginning of the third century1 if indeed they possess any value at all4 ,the whole of the literature ascribed to ,ignatius is1 in fact1 such a tissue of fraud and imposture1 and the successive versions exhibit such undeniable marks of the grossest interpolation1 that even if any small original element exist referrible to ,ignatius1 it is impossible to define it1 or to distinguish with the slightest degree of accuracy between what is authentic and what is spurious4 ,the ,epistles do not1 however1 in any case afford evidence even of the existence of our synoptic ,gospels4 #bgb #b4 ,we have hitherto deferred all consideration of the so-called ,epistle of ,polycarp to the ,philippians1 from the fact that1 instead of proving the existence of the ,epistles of ,ignatius1 with which it is intimately associated1 it is itself discredited in proportion as they are shown to be in authentic4 ,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 ix471 but to the ,ignatian ,epistles which are inauthentic 7c4 xiii471 and the manifest inference is that it also is spurious4 ,polycarp1 who is said by ,irenaeus7#a7 to have been in his youth a disciple of the ,apostle ,john1 became ,bishop of ,smyrna1 and suffered martyrdom at a very advanced age47#b7 ,on the authority of ,eusebius and ,jerome1 it has hitherto been generally believed that his death took place in a4d4 #aff-afg4 ,in the account of his martyrdom1 which we possess in the shape of a letter from the ,church of ,smyrna1 purporting to have been written by eye-witnesses1 which must be pronounced spurious1 ,polycarp is said to have died under the ,proconsul ,statius ,quadratus47#c7 ,if this statement be correct1 the date hitherto received can no longer be maintained1 for recent investigations have determined that ,statius ,quadratus was proconsul in a4d4 #aed-e or #aee-f47d7 ,some critics1 #bgc who affirm the authenticity of the ,epistle attributed to ,polycarp1 date the ,epistle before a4d4 #abj17a7 but the preponderance of opinion assigns it to a much later period47#b7 ,doubts of its authenticity1 and of the integrity of the text1 were very early expressed17#c7 and the close scrutiny to which later and more competent criticism has subjected it1 has led very many to the conclusion that the ,epistle is either largely interpolated17#d7 or altogether spurious47#e7 ,the principal argument in favour #bgd of its authenticity is the fact that the ,epistle is mentioned by ,irenaeus17#a7 who in his extreme youth was acquainted with ,polycarp47#b7 ,we have no very precise information regarding the age of ,irenaeus1 but ,jerome states that he flourished under ,commodus 7#ahj-aib71 and we may1 as a favourable conjecture1 suppose that he was then about #ce-cg4 ,in that case his birth must be dated about a4d4 #ade4 ,there is reason to believe that he fell a victim to persecution under ,septimius ,severus1 and it is only doubtful whether he suffered during the first outbreak in a4d4 #bjb1 or later4 ,according to this calculation1 the martyrdom of ,polycarp1 in a4d4 #aee-aef1 took place when he was ten or eleven years of age4 ,even if a further concession be made in regard to his age1 it is evident that the intercourse of ,irenaeus with the ,bishop of ,smyrna must have been confined to his very earliest years17#c7 a fact which is confirmed by the almost total absence of any record in his writings of the communications of ,polycarp4 ,this certainly does not entitle ,irenaeus to speak more authoritatively of an epistle ascribed to ,polycarp1 than any one else of his day47#d7 ,in the ,epistle itself1 there are several anachronisms4 ,in ch4 ix4 the blessed ,ignatius is referred to as already 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 xiii4 he is spoken of as living1 and information is requested regarding him1 #bge and those who are with him47#a7 ,yet1 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 us47#b7 ,the reference here1 it will be observed1 is not only to the ,epistles to the ,smyrnaeans1 and to ,polycarp himself1 but to other spurious epistles which are not included in the ,syriac version4 ,dallseus7#c7 pointed out long ago1 that ch4 xiii4 abruptly interrupts the conclusion of the ,epistle1 and most critics1 including those who assert the authenticity of the rest of the ,epistle1 reject it at least1 although many of these likewise repudiate ch4 ix4 as interpolated47#d7 ,others1 however1 consider that the latter chapter is quite consistent with the later date1 which1 according to internal evidence1 must be assigned to the ,epistle4 ,the writer vehemently denounces17#e7 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 vii4 in speaking of these heretics1 which ,polycarp is reported by ,irenseus to have actually applied to ,marcion in person1 during his visit to ,home4 ,he is said to have called ,marcion the first-born of ,satan1 --,greek--7#f7 and the same term #bgf 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 circumstances47#a7 ,the writer of such a letter must have held a position in the ,church1 to which ,polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life1 when he was deputed to ,rome for the ,paschal discussion1 and the ,epistle depicts the developed ecclesiastical organization of a later time47#b7 ,the earlier date which has now been adopted for the martyrdom of ,polycarp1 by limiting the period during which it is possible that he himself could have written any portion of it1 only renders the inauthenticity of the ,epistle more apparent4 ,hilgenfeld has pointed out1 as another indication of the same date1 the injunction ,pray for the kings 7,orate pro regibus71 which1 in #a ,peter ii4 #ag1 is ,honour the king --,greek--1 which1 he argues1 accords with the period after ,antoninus ,pius had elevated ,marcus ,aurelius #bgg to joint sovereignty 7a4d4 #adg71 or better still1 with that in which ,marcus ,aurelius appointed ,lucius ,verus his colleague1 a4d4 #afa1 for to rulers outside of the ,roman empire there can be no reference4 ,if authentic1 however1 the ,epistle must have been written1 at latest1 shortly after the martyrdom of ,ignatius in a4d4 #aae1 but1 as we have seen1 there are strong internal characteristics excluding such a supposition4 ,the reference to the martyr-journey of ,ignatius and to the epistles falsely ascribed to him1 is alone sufficient to betray the spurious nature of the composition1 and to class the ,epistle with the rest of the pseudo-,ignatian literature4 ,we shall now examine all the passages in this epistle which are pointed out as indicating any acquaintance with our synoptic ,gospels47#a7 ,the first occurs in ch4 ii41 and we subjoin it in contrast with the nearest parallel passages of the ,gospels1 but although we break it up into paragraphs1 it will1 of course1 be understood that the quotation is continuous in the ,epistle4 ---,greek--- #bgh ,it will be remembered that an almost similar direct quotation of words of ,jesus occurs in the so-called ,epistle of ,clement to the ,corinthians1 c4 xiii41 which we have already examined47#a7 ,there1 the passage is introduced by the same words1 and in the midst of brief phrases which have parallels in our ,gospel there occurs in both ,epistles the same expression1 ,be pitiful that ye may be pitied1 which is not found in any of our ,gospels4 ,in order to find any parallels for the quotation1 upon the hypothesis of a combination of texts1 we have to add together portions of the following verses in the following order3 ,matthew vii4 #a1 vi4 #ad 7although1 with complete linguistic variations1 the sense of ,luke vi4 #cg is much closer71 v4 #g1 vii4 #b1 v4 #c1 v4 #aj4 ,such fragmentary compilation is in itself scarcely conceivable in an epistle of this kind1 but when in the midst we find a passage foreign to our ,gospels1 but which occurs in another work in connection with so similar a quotation1 it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is derived from tradition or from a ,gospel different from ours47#b7 ,in no case can such #bgi a passage be considered material evidence of the existence of any one of our ,gospels4 ,another expression which is pointed out occurs in ch4 vii41 beseeching in our prayers the all-searching ,god not to lead us into temptation1 as the ,lord said3 ,the spirit indeed is willing1 but the flesh is weak47#a7 ,this is compared with the phrase in the ,lord's ,prayer 7,matthew vi4 #ac71 or the passage 7xxvi4 #da73 ,watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation3 the spirit indeed is willing1 but the flesh is weak47#b7 ,the second ,gospel1 however1 equally has the phrase 7xiv4 #ch71 and shows how unreasonable it is to limit these historical sayings to a single ,gospel4 ,the next passage is of a similar nature 7c4 vi473 ,if1 therefore1 we pray the ,lord that he may forgive us1 we ought also ourselves to forgive47#c7 ,the thought but not the language of this passage corresponds with ,matthew vi4 #ab--ad1 but equally so with ,luke xi4 #d4 ,now we must repeat that all such sayings of ,jesus were the common property of the early ,christians--were no doubt orally current amongst them1 and still more certainly were recorded by many of the numerous ,gospels then in circulation1 as they are by several of our own4 ,in no case is there any written source indicated from which these passages are derived2 they are simply quoted as words of ,jesus1 and being all connected either with the ,sermon on the ,mount or the ,lord's ,prayer1 the two portions of the teaching of ,jesus which were most #bhj popular1 widely known1 and characteristic1 there can be no doubt that they were familiar throughout the whole of the early ,church1 and must have formed a part of most or all of the many collections of the words of the ,master4 ,to limit them to our actual ,gospels1 which alone survive1 would be quite unwarrantable1 and no reference to them1 without specification of the source1 can be received as evidence even of the existence of our ,synoptics4 ,we may here briefly illustrate the point from the ,synoptics themselves4 ,assuming the parable of the ,sower to be a genuine example of the teaching of ,jesus1 as there is every reason to believe1 it may with certainty be asserted that it must have been included in many of the records circulating among early ,christians1 to which reference is made in the prologue to the third ,gospel4 ,it would not be permissible to affirm that no part of that parable could be referred to by an early writer without that reference being an indication of acquaintance with our synoptic ,gospels4 ,the parable is reported in closely similar words in each of those three ,gospels17#a7 and it may have been1 and probably was1 recorded similarly in a dozen more4 ,confining ourselves1 however1 for a moment to the three ,synoptics3 what could a general allusion to the parable of the ,sower prove regarding their existence and use1 no mention of a particular source being made8 ,would it prove that all the three were extant1 and that the writer knew them all1 for each of them containing the parable would possess an equal claim to the reference8 ,could it with any reason be affirmed that he was acquainted with ,matthew and not with ,mark8 or with ,mark and not with ,matthew and ,luke8 or with the third ,gospel and #bha not with either of the other two8 ,the case is the very same if we extend the illustration1 and along with the ,synoptics include the numerous other records of the early ,church4 ,the anonymous quotation of historical expressions of ,jesus cannot prove the existence of one special document among many to which we may choose to trace it4 ,this is more especially to be insisted on from the fact1 that hitherto we have not met with any mention of any one of our ,gospels1 and have no right even to assume their existence from any evidence which has been furnished4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,justin ,,martyr ,we shall now consider the evidence furnished by the works of ,justin ,martyr1 regarding the existence of our synoptic ,gospels at the middle of the second century1 and we may remark1 in anticipation1 that whatever differences of opinion may finally exist regarding the solution of the problem which we have to examine1 at least it is clear that the testimony of ,justin ,martyr is not of a nature to establish the date1 authenticity1 and character of ,gospels professing to communicate such momentous and astounding doctrines4 ,the determination of the source from which ,justin derived his facts of ,christian history has for a century attracted more attention1 and excited more controversy1 than almost any other similar question in connection with patristic literature1 and upon none have more divergent opinions been expressed4 ,justin1 who suffered martyrdom about a4d4 #aff--afg17a7 under ,marcus ,aurelius1 probably at the instigation of the cynical philosopher1 ,crescens1 was born in the ,greek-,roman colony1 ,flavia ,neapolis17#b7 established during the #bhc reign of ,vespasian1 near the ancient ,sichem in ,samaria4 ,by descent he was a ,greek1 and during the earlier part of his life a heathen1 but after long and disappointed study of ,greek philosophy1 he became a convert to ,christianity7l7 strongly tinged with ,judaism4 ,it is not necessary to enter into any discussion as to the authenticity of the writings which have come down to us bearing ,justin's name1 many of which are undoubtedly spurious1 for the two ,apologies and the ,dialogue with ,trypho1 with which we have almost exclusively to do1 are generally admitted to be genuine4 ,it is true that there has been a singular controversy regarding the precise relation to each other of the two ,apologies now extant1 the following contradictory views having been maintained3 that they are the two ,apologies mentioned by ,eusebius1 and in their original order2 that they are ,justin's two ,apologies1 but that ,eusebius was wrong in affirming that the second was addressed to ,marcus ,aurelius2 that our second ,apology was the preface or appendix to the first1 and that the original second is lost4 ,the shorter ,apology contains nothing of interest connected with our inquiry4 ,there has been much controversy as to the date of the two ,apologies1 and much difference of opinion still exists on the point4 ,many critics assign the larger to about a4d4 #ach--adj1 and the shorter to a4d4 #afj--afa47b7 ,a passage1 however1 occurs in the longer ,apology1 which #bhd indicates that it must have been written about a century and a half after the commencement of the ,christian era1 or1 according to accurate reckoning1 about a4d4 #adg4 ,justin speaks1 in one part of it1 of perverted deductions being drawn from his teaching that ,christ was born #aej years ago under ,cyrenius47l7 ,those who contend for the earlier date have no stronger argument against this statement than the unsupported assertion1 that in this passage ,justin merely speaks in round numbers1 but many important circumstances confirm the date which ,justin thus gives us4 ,in the superscription of the ,apology1 ,antoninus is called ,pius1 a title which was first bestowed upon him in the year #aci4 ,moreover1 ,justin directly refers to ,marcion1 as a man now living and teaching his disciples4444 and who has by the aid of demons caused many of all nations to utter blasphemies1 c47#b7 ,now the fact has been established that ,marcion did not come to ,rome1 where ,justin himself was1 until a4d4 #aci--adb17c7 when his prominent public career commenced1 and it is apparent that the words of ,justin indicate a period when his doctrines had already #bhe become widely diffused4 ,for these and many other strong reasons1 which need not here be detailed1 the majority of competent critics agree in more correctly assigning the first ,apology to about a4d4 #adg47a7 ,the ,dialogue with ,trypho1 as internal evidence shows17#b7 was written after the longer ,apology1 and it is therefore generally dated some time within the first decade of the second half of the second century47#c7 ,in these writings ,justin quotes very copiously from the ,old ,testament1 and he also very frequently refers to facts of ,christian history and to sayings of ,jesus4 ,of these references1 for instance1 some fifty occur in the first ,apology1 and upwards of seventy in the ,dialogue with ,trypho1 a goodly number1 it will be admitted1 by means of which to identify the source from which he quotes4 ,justin himself frequently and distinctly says that his information and quotations are derived from the ,memoirs of the ,apostles --,greek--1 but except upon one occasion1 which we shall hereafter consider1 when he indicates ,peter1 he never mentions an author's name4 ,upon examination it is found that1 with only one or two brief exceptions1 the #bhf numerous quotations from these ,memoirs differ more or less widely from parallel passages in our synoptic ,gospels1 and in many cases differ in the same respects as similar quotations found in other writings of the second century1 the writers of which are known to have made use of uncanonical ,gospels1 and further1 that these passages are quoted several times1 at intervals1 by ,justin with the same variations4 ,moreover1 sayings of ,jesus are quoted from these ,memoirs which are not found in our ,gospels at all1 and facts in the life of ,jesus and circumstances of ,christian history derived from the same source1 not only are not found in our ,gospels1 but are in contradiction with them4 ,these peculiarities have1 as might have been expected1 created much diversity of opinion regarding the nature of the ,memoirs of the ,apostles4 ,in the earlier days of ,new ,testament criticism more especially1 many of course at once identified the ,memoirs with our ,gospels exclusively1 and the variations were explained by conveniently elastic theories of free quotation from memory1 imperfect and varying ,,mss41 combination1 condensation and transposition of passages1 with slight additions from tradition1 or even from some other written source1 and so on47#a7 ,others endeavoured to explain #bhg away difficulties by the supposition that they were a simple harmony of our ,gospels17#a7 or a harmony of the ,gospels1 with passages added from some apocryphal work47#b7 ,a much greater number of critics1 however1 adopt the conclusion that1 along with our ,gospels1 ,justin made use of one or more apocryphal ,gospels1 and more especially of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 or according to ,peter1 and also perhaps of tradition47#c7 ,others assert that he made use of a special unknown ,gospel1 or of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews or according to ,peter1 with a subsidiary use of a version of one or two of our ,gospels to which1 however1 he did not attach much importance1 preferring the apocryphal work27#d7 whilst #bhh others have concluded that ,justin did not make use of our ,gospels at all1 and that his quotations are either from the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 or according to ,peter1 or from some other special apocryphal ,gospel now no longer extant47#a7 ,evidence permitting of such wide diversity of results to serious and laborious investigation of the identity of ,justin's ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 cannot be of much value towards establishing the authenticity of our ,gospels1 and in the absence of any specific mention of our ,synoptics any very elaborate examination of the ,memoirs might be considered unnecessary1 more especially as it is admitted almost universally by competent critics1 that ,justin did not himself consider the ,memoirs of the ,apostles inspired1 or of any dogmatic authority1 and had no idea of attributing canonical rank to them47#b7 ,in pursuance of the system which we desire invariably to adopt of #bhi enabling every reader to form his own opinion1 we shall as briefly as possible state the facts of the case1 and furnish materials for a full comprehension of the subject4 ,justin himself1 as we have already stated1 frequently and distinctly states that his information regarding ,christian history and his quotations are derived from the ,memoirs of the ,apostles --,greek--1 to adopt the usual translation1 although the word might more correctly be rendered ,recollections1 or ,memorabilia4 ,it has frequently been surmised that this name was suggested by the --,greek-- of ,xenophon1 but1 as ,credner has pointed out1 the similarity is purely accidental1 and to constitute a parallel the title should have been ,memoirs of ,jesus47#a7 ,the word --,greek-- is here evidently used merely in the sense of records written from memory1 and it is so employed by ,papias in the passage preserved by ,eusebius regarding ,mark1 who1 although he had not himself followed the ,lord1 yet recorded his words from what he heard from ,peter1 and who1 having done so without order1 is still defended for thus writing some things as he remembered them --,greek--47#b7 ,in the same way ,irenseus refers to the ,memoirs of a certain ,presbyter of apostolic times --,greek--7#c7 whose name he does not mention2 and ,origen still more closely approximates to ,justin's use of the word when1 expressing his theory regarding1 the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 he says that the thoughts are the ,apostle's1 but the phraseology and the composition are of one recording from memory #bij what the ,apostle said --,greek--1 and as of one writing at leisure the dictation of his master47#a7 ,justin himself speaks of the authors of the ,memoirs as --,greek--17#b7 and the expression was then and afterwards constantly in use amongst ecclesiastical and other writers47#c7 ,this title1 ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 however1 although most appropriate to mere recollections of the life and teaching of ,jesus1 evidently could not be applied to works ranking as canonical ,gospels1 but in fact excludes such an idea2 and the whole of ,justin's views regarding ,holy ,scripture1 prove that he saw in the ,memoirs merely records from memory to assist memory47#d7 ,he does not call them --,greek--1 but adheres always to the familiar name of --,greek--1 and whilst his constant appeals to a written source show very clearly his abandonment of oral tradition1 there is nothing in the name of his records which can identify them with our ,gospels4 ,justin designates the source of his quotations ten times1 the ,memoirs of the ,apostles17#e7 and five times he calls it simply the ,memoirs47#f7 ,he says1 upon one occasion1 that these ,memoirs were composed by his ,apostles and their followers17#g7 but except in one place1 #bia to which we have already referred1 and which we shall hereafter fully examine1 he never mentions the author's name1 nor does he ever give any more precise information regarding their composition4 ,it has been argued that1 in saying that these ,memoirs were recorded by the ,apostles and their followers1 ,justin intentionally and literally described the four canonical ,gospels1 the first and fourth of which are ascribed to ,apostles1 and the other two to ,mark and ,luke1 the followers of ,apostles27#a7 but such an inference is equally forced and unfounded4 ,the language itself forbids this explanation1 for ,justin does not speak indefinitely of ,memoirs of ,apostles and their followers1 but of ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 invariably using the article1 which refers the ,memoirs to the collective body of the ,apostles47#b7 ,moreover1 the incorrectness of such an inference is manifest from the fact that circumstances are stated by ,justin as derived from these ,memoirs1 which do not exist in our ,gospels at all1 and which1 indeed1 are contradictory to them4 ,vast numbers of spurious writings1 moreover1 bearing the names of ,apostles and their followers1 and claiming more or less direct apostolic authority1 were in circulation in the early ,church3 ,gospels according to ,peter17#c7 to ,thomas17#d7 to ,james17#e7 to ,judas17#f7 according to the #bib ,apostles1 or according to the ,twelve17#a7 to ,barnabas17#b7 to ,matthias17#c7 to ,nicodemus17#d7 c41 and ecclesiastical writers bear abundant testimony to the early and rapid growth of apocryphal literature47#e7 ,the very names of most of such apocryphal ,gospels are lost1 whilst of others we possess considerable information2 but nothing is more certain than the fact1 that there existed many works bearing names which render the attempt to interpret the title of ,justin's ,gospel as a description of the four in our canon quite unwarrantable4 ,the words of ,justin evidently imply simply that the source of his quotations is the collective recollections of the ,apostles1 and those who followed them1 regarding the life and teaching of ,jesus4 ,the title3 ,memoirs of the ,apostles by no means indicates a plurality of ,gospels47#f7 ,a single passage has been pointed out1 in which the ,memoirs are said to have been called --,greek-- in the plural3 ,for the ,apostles in the ,memoirs composed by them1 which are called #bic ,gospels17#a7 c4 ,the last expression1 a --,greek--1 as many scholars have declared1 is probably an interpolation4 ,it is1 in all likelihood1 a gloss on the margin of some old ,,ms4 which some copyist afterwards inserted in the text47#b7 ,if ,justin really stated that the ,memoirs were called ,gospels1 it seems incomprehensible that he should never call them so himself4 ,in no other place in his writings does he apply the plural to them1 but1 on the contrary1 we find ,trypho referring to the so-called ,gospel1 which he states that he has carefully read17#c7 and which1 of course1 can only be ,justin's ,memoirs2 and again1 in another part of the same dialogue1 ,justin quotes passages which are written in the ,gospel7#d7 --,greek--4 ,the term ,gospel is nowhere else used by ,justin in reference to a written record47#e7 ,in no case1 however1 considering the numerous ,gospels then in circulation1 and the fact that many of these1 different from the canonical ,gospels1 are known to have been exclusively used by distinguished contemporaries of ,justin1 and by various communities of ,christians in that day1 could such an expression be taken as a special indication of the canonical ,gospels47#f7 #bid ,describing the religious practices amongst ,christians1 in another place1 ,justin states that1 at their assemblies on ,sundays1 the ,memoirs of the ,apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits47#a7 ,this1 however1 by no means identifies the ,memoirs with the canonical ,gospels1 for it is well known that many writings which have been excluded from the canon were publicly read in the ,churches1 until very long after ,justin's day47#b7 ,we have already met with several instances of this4 ,eusebius mentions that the ,epistle of the ,roman ,clement was publicly read in ,churches in his time17#c7 and he quotes an ,epistle of ,dionysius of ,corinth to ,soter1 the ,bishop of ,rome1 which states that fact for the purpose of showing that it was the custom to read it in the ,churches1 even from the earliest times47#d7 ,dionysius likewise mentions the public reading of the ,epistle of ,soter to the ,corinthians4 ,epiphanius refers to the reading in the ,churches of the ,epistle of ,clement17#e7 and it continued to be so read in ,jerome's day47#f7 ,in like manner1 the ,pastor of ,hermas17#g7 the ,apocalypse of ,peter17#h7 and other works excluded from the canon were publicly read in the ,church in early days47#i7 ,it is certain that ,gospels which #bie did not permanently secure a place in the canon1 such as the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 the ,gospel according to ,peter1 the ,gospel of the ,ebionites1 and many kindred ,gospels1 which in early times were exclusively used by various communities17#a7 must have been read at their public assemblies4 ,the public reading of ,justin's ,memoirs1 therefore1 does not prove anything1 for this practice was by no means limited to the works now in our canon4 ,the idea of attributing inspiration to the ,memoirs1 or to any other work of the ,apostles1 with the single exception1 as we shall presently see1 of the ,apocalypse of ,john17#b7 which1 as prophecy1 entered within his limits1 was quite foreign to ,justin1 who recognized the ,old ,testament alone as the inspired word of ,god47#c7 ,indeed1 as we #bif have already said1 the very name ,memoirs in itself excludes the thought of inspiration17#a7 which ,justin attributed only to prophetic writings2 and he could not in any way regard as inspired the written tradition of the ,apostles and their followers1 or a mere record of the words of ,jesus4 ,on the contrary1 he held the accounts of the ,apostles to be credible solely from their being authenticated by the ,old ,testament1 and he clearly states that he believes the facts recorded in the ,memoirs because the spirit of prophecy had already foretold them47#b7 ,according to ,justin1 the ,old ,testament contained all that was necessary for salvation1 and its prophecies are the sole criterion of truth1 the ,memoirs1 and even ,christ himself1 being merely its interpreters47#c7 ,he says that ,christ commanded us not to put faith in human doctrines1 but in those proclaimed by the holy prophets1 and taught by himself47#d7 ,prophecy and the words of ,christ himself are alone of dogmatic value1 all else is human teaching47#e7 ,indeed1 from a passage quoted with approval by ,irenaeus1 ,justin1 in his lost work against ,marcion1 said3 ,i would not have believed the ,lord himself1 if he had proclaimed any other ,god than the ,creator2 that is to say1 the ,god of the ,old ,testament47#f7 #big ,that ,justin does not mention the name of the author of the ,memoirs would in any case render any argument as to their identity with our canonical ,gospels inconclusive2 but the total omission to do so is the more remarkable from the circumstance that the names of ,old ,testament writers constantly occur in his writings4 ,semisch counts #aig quotations of the ,old ,testament1 in which ,justin refers to the author by name1 or to the book1 and only #aag in which he omits to do so17#a7 and the latter number might be reduced by considering the nature of the passages cited1 and the inutility of repeating the reference47#b7 ,when it is considered1 therefore1 that notwithstanding the extremely numerous quotations1 and references to facts of ,christian history1 all purporting to be derived from the ,memoirs1 he absolutely never1 except in the one instance referred to1 mentions an author's name1 or specifies more clearly the nature of the source1 the inference must not only be that he attached small importance to the ,memoirs1 but also that he was actually ignorant of the author's name1 and that his ,gospel had no more definite superscription4 ,upon the theory that the ,memoirs of the ,apostles were simply our #bih four canonical ,gospels1 the singularity of the omission is increased by the diversity of contents and of authors1 and the consequently greater necessity and probability that he should1 upon certain occasions1 distinguish between them4 ,the fact is that the only writing of the ,new ,testament to which ,justin refers by name is1 as we have already mentioned1 the ,apocalypse1 which he attributes to a certain man whose name was ,john1 one of the ,apostles of ,christ1 who prophesied by a revelation made to him1 c47#a7 ,the manner in which ,john is here mentioned1 after the ,memoirs had been so constantly indefinitely referred to1 clearly shows that ,justin did not possess any ,gospel also attributed to ,john4 ,that he does name ,john1 however1 as author of the ,apocalypse and so frequently refers to ,old ,testament writers by name1 yet never identifies the author of the ,memoirs1 is quite irreconcilable with the idea that they were the canonical ,gospels47#b7 ,it is perfectly clear1 however1 and this is a point of very great importance upon which critics of otherwise widely diverging views are agreed1 that ,justin quotes from a written source1 and that oral tradition is excluded from his system47#c7 ,he not only does not1 like ,papias1 attach value to tradition1 but1 on the contrary1 he affirms that in the ,memoirs is recorded everything that concerns our ,saviour ,jesus ,christ4117#d7 ,he constantly refers to them #bii directly1 as the source of his information regarding the history of ,jesus1 and distinctly states that he has derived his quotations from them4 ,there is no reasonable ground whatever for affirming that ,justin supplemented or modified the contents of the ,memoirs by oral tradition4 ,it must1 therefore1 be remembered1 in considering the nature of these ,memoirs1 that the facts of ,christian history and the sayings of ,jesus are derived from a determinate written source1 and are quoted as ,justin found them there47#a7 ,those who attempt to explain the divergences of ,justin's quotations from the canonical ,gospels1 which they still maintain to have been his ,memoirs1 on the plea of oral tradition1 defend the identity at the expense of the authority of the ,gospels4 ,for nothing could more forcibly show ,justin's disregard and disrespect for the ,gospels1 than would the fact that1 possessing them1 he not only never names their authors1 but considers himself at liberty continually to contradict1 modify1 and revise their statements4 ,as we have already remarked1 when we examine the contents of the ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 through ,justin's numerous quotations1 we find that many parts of the ,gospel narratives are apparently quite unknown1 whilst1 on the other hand1 we meet with facts of evangelical history1 which are foreign to the canonical ,gospels1 and others which are contradictory of ,gospel statements4 ,justin's quotations1 almost without exception1 vary more or less from the parallels in the canonical text1 and often these variations are consistently repeated by himself1 and are found in other works about his time4 ,moreover1 ,justin quotes expressions of ,jesus1 which are not found in our ,gospels at all4 ,the omissions1 though often very #cjj singular1 supposing the canonical ,gospels before him1 and almost inexplicable when it is considered how important they would often have been to his argument1 need not1 as merely negative evidence1 be dwelt on here1 but we shall briefly illustrate the other peculiarities of ,justin's quotations4 ,the only genealogy of ,jesus which is recognized by ,justin is traced through the ,virgin ,mary4 ,she it is who is descended from ,abraham1 ,isaac1 and ,jacob1 and from the house of ,david1 and ,joseph is completely set aside47#a7 ,jesus was born of a virgin of the lineage of ,abraham and tribe of ,judah and of ,david1 ,christ the ,son of ,god47#b7 ,jesus ,christ the ,son of ,god has been born without sin of a virgin sprung from the lineage of ,abraham47#c7 ,for of the virgin of the seed of ,jacob1 who was the father of ,judah1 who1 as we have shown1 was the father of the ,jews1 by the power of ,god was he conceived2 and ,jesse was his forefather according to the prophecy1 and he 7,jesus7 was the son of ,jacob and ,judah according to successive descent47#d7 ,the genealogy of ,jesus in the canonical ,gospels1 on the contrary1 is traced solely through ,joseph1 who alone is stated to be of the lineage of ,david47#e7 ,the genealogies of ,matthew and ,luke1 though differing in several important points1 at least agree in excluding ,mary4 ,that of the third ,gospel commences with ,joseph1 #cja and that of the first ends with him3 ,and ,jacob begat ,joseph1 the husband of ,mary1 of whom was born ,jesus1 who is called ,christ47#a7 ,the angel who warns ,joseph not to put away his wife1 addresses him as ,joseph1 thou son of ,david17#b7 and the angel ,gabriel1 who1 according to the third ,gospel1 announces to ,mary the supernatural conception1 is sent to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was ,joseph1 of the house of ,david47#c7 ,so persistent1 however1 is ,justin in ignoring this ,davidic descent through ,joseph1 that not only does he at least eleven times trace it through ,mary1 but his ,gospel materially differs from the canonical1 where the descent of ,joseph from ,david is mentioned by the latter4 ,in the third ,gospel1 ,joseph goes to ,judaea unto the city of ,david1 which is called ,bethlehem1 because he was of the house and lineage of ,david47#d7 ,justin1 however1 simply states that he went to ,bethlehem444 for his descent was from the tribe of ,judah1 which inhabited that region47#e7 ,there can be no doubt that ,justin not only did not derive his genealogies from the canonical ,gospels1 but that on the contrary the ,memoirs1 from which he did learn the ,davidic descent through ,mary only1 differed persistently and materially from them47#f7 ,many traces still exist to show that the view of ,justin's ,memoirs of the ,apostles of the ,davidic descent of ,jesus through ,mary instead of through ,joseph1 as the canonical ,gospels represent it1 was anciently held in the ,church4 ,apocryphal ,gospels of early date1 based without doubt upon more ancient evangelical works1 are still extant1 in which the genealogy of ,jesus is traced1 as in #cjb ,justin's ,memoirs1 through ,mary4 ,one of these is the ,gospel of ,james1 commonly called the ,protevangelium1 a work referred to by ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries17#a7 and which ,tischendorf even ascribes to the first three decades of the second century17#b7 in which ,mary is stated to be of the lineage of ,david47#c7 ,she is also described as of the royal race and family of ,david in the ,gospel of the ,nativity of ,mary17#d7 and in the ,gospel of pseudo-,matthew her ,davidic descent is prominently mentioned47#e7 ,there can be no doubt that all of these works are based upon earlier originals17#f7 and there is no reason why they may not have been drawn from the same source from which ,justin derived his version of the genealogy in contradiction to the ,synoptics47#g7 ,in the narrative of the events which preceded the #cjc birth of ,jesus1 the first ,gospel describes the angel as appearing only to ,joseph and explaining the supernatural conception17#a7 and the author seems to know nothing of any announcement to ,mary47#b7 ,the third ,gospel1 on the contrary1 does not mention any such angelic appearance to ,joseph1 but represents the angel as announcing the conception to ,mary herself alone47#c7 ,justin's ,memoirs know of the appearances both to ,joseph and to ,mary1 but the words spoken by the angel on each occasion differ materially from those of both ,gospels47#d7 ,in this place1 only one point1 however1 can be noticed4 ,justin describes the angel as saying to ,mary3 ',behold1 thou shalt conceive of the ,holy ,ghost1 and shalt bear a son1 and he shall be called the ,son of the ,highest1 and thou shalt call his name ,jesus1 for he shall save his people from their sins1' as they taught who recorded everything that concerns our ,saviour ,jesus ,christ47#e7 ,now this is a clear and direct quotation1 but besides distinctly differing in form from our ,gospels1 it presents the important peculiarity that the words1 for he shall save his people from #cjd their sins1 are not1 in ,luke1 addressed to ,mary at all1 but that they occur in the first ,gospel in the address of the angel to ,joseph47#a7 ,these words1 however1 are not accidentally inserted in this place1 for we find that they are joined in the same manner to the address of the angel to ,mary in the ,protevangelium of ,james3 ,for the power of the ,lord will overshadow thee2 wherefore also that holy thing which is born of thee shall be called the ,son of the ,highest1 and thou shalt call his name ,jesus1 for he shall save his people from their sins47#b7 ,tischendorf states his own opinion that this passage is a recollection of the ,protevangelium unconsciously added by ,justin to the account in ,luke17#c7 but the arbitrary nature of the limitation unconsciously 7ohne dass er sich dessen bewusst war7 here is evident4 ,there is a point in connection with this which merits a moment's attention4 ,in the text of the ,protevangelium1 edited by ,tischendorf1 the angel commences his address to ,mary by saying3 ,fear not1 ,mary1 for thou hast found favour before the ,lord1 and thou shalt conceive of his ,word --,greek--47#d7 ,now ,justin1 after quoting the passage above1 continues to argue that the ,spirit and the power of ,god must not be misunderstood to mean anything else than the ,word1 who is also the first born of ,god as the prophet ,moses declared2 and it was this which1 when it came upon the ,virgin and overshadowed her1 caused #cje her to conceive47#a7 ,the occurrence of the singular expression in the ,protovangelium and the similar explanation of ,justin immediately accompanying a variation from our ,gospels1 which is equally shared by the apocryphal work1 strengthens the suspicion of a similarity of origin4 ,justin's divergences from the ,protevangelium prevent our supposing that1 in its present state1 it could have been the actual source of his quotations1 but the wide differences which exist between the extant ,,mss4 of the ,protevangelium show that even the most ancient does not present it in its original form4 ,it is much more probable that ,justin had before him a still older work1 to which both the ,protevangelium and the third ,gospel were indebted47#b7 ,justin's account of the removal of ,joseph to ,bethlehem is peculiar1 and evidently is derived from a distinct un-canonical source4 ,it may be well to present his account and that of ,luke side by side3 #cjf ,attention has already been drawn to the systematic manner in which the ,davidic descent of ,jesus is traced by ,justin through ,mary1 and to the suppression in this passage of all that might seem to indicate a claim of descent through ,joseph4 ,as the continuation of a peculiar representation of the history of the infancy of ,jesus1 differing materially from that of the ,synoptics1 it is impossible to regard this1 with its remarkable variations1 as an arbitrary correction by ,justin of the canonical text1 and we must hold it to be derived from a different source1 perhaps1 indeed1 one of those from which ,luke's ,gospel itself first drew the elements of the narrative1 and this persuasion increases as further variations in the earlier history1 presently to be considered1 are taken into account4 ,it is not necessary to enter into the question of the correctness of the date of this census1 but it is evident that ,justin's ,memoirs clearly and deliberately modify the canonical narrative4 ,the limitation of the census to ,judaea1 instead of extending it to the whole ,roman ,empire2 the designation of ,cyrenius as --,greek-- of ,judaea instead of --,greek-- of ,syria2 and the careful suppression of the ,davidic element in connection with ,joseph indicate a peculiar written source different from the ,synoptics47#a7 ,had ,justin departed from the account in ,luke with the view of correcting inaccurate statements1 the matter might have seemed more consistent with the use of the third ,gospel1 although at the same time it might have evinced but little reverence for it as a canonical #cjg work4 ,on the contrary1 however1 the statements of ,justin are still more inconsistent with history than those in ,luke1 inasmuch as1 so far from being the first procurator of ,judsea1 as ,justin's narrative states in opposition to the third ,gospel1 ,cyrenius never held that office1 but was really1 later1 the imperial proconsul over ,syria1 and as such1 when ,judaea became a ,roman province after the banishment of ,archelaus1 had the power to enrol the inhabitants1 and instituted ,coponius as first ,procurator of ,judaea4 ,justin's statement involves the position that at one and the same time ,herod was the ,king1 and ,cyrenius the ,roman ,procurator of ,judsea47#a7 ,in the same spirit1 and departing from the usual narrative of the ,synoptics1 which couples the birth of ,jesus with the days of ,herod the ,king1 ,justin in another place states that ,christ was born under ,cyrenius47#b7 ,justin evidently adopts without criticism a narrative which he found in his ,memoirs1 and does not merely correct and remodel a passage of the third ,gospel1 but1 on the contrary1 seems altogether ignorant of it47#c7 ,the genealogies of ,jesus in the first and third ,gospels differ irreconcileably from each other4 ,justin differs from both4 ,in this passage another discrepancy arises4 ,while ,luke seems to represent ,nazareth as the dwelling-place of ,joseph and ,mary1 and ,bethlehem as the city to which they went solely on account of the census17#d7 #cjh ,matthew1 who seems to know nothing of the census1 makes ,bethlehem1 on the contrary1 the place of residence of ,joseph17#a7 and on coming back from ,egypt1 with the evident intention of returning to ,bethlehem1 ,joseph is warned by a dream to turn aside into ,galilee1 and he goes and dwells1 apparently for the first time1 in a city called ,nazareth1 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets3 ,he shall be called a ,nazarene47#b7 ,justin1 however1 goes still further than the third ,gospel in his departure from the data of ,matthew1 and where ,luke merely infers1 ,justin distinctly asserts ,nazareth to have been the dwelling-place of ,joseph --,greek--1 and ,bethlehem1 in contradistinction1 the place from which he derived his origin --,greek--4#c ,the same view is to be found in several apocryphal ,gospels still extant4 ,in the ,protevangelium of ,james again1 we find ,joseph journeying to ,bethlehem with ,mary before the birth of ,jesus47#d7 ,the census here is ordered by ,augustus1 who commands3 ,that all who were in ,bethlehem of ,judeae1 should be enrolled47#e7 a limitation worthy of notice in comparison with that of ,justin4 ,in like manner the ,gospel of the ,nativity4 ,this ,gospel represents the parents of ,mary as living in ,nazareth1 in #cji which place she was born17#a7 and it is here that the ,angel ,gabriel announces to her the supernatural conception47#b7 ,joseph goes to ,bethlehem to set his house in order and prepare what is necessary for the marriage1 but then returns to ,nazareth1 where he remains with ,mary until her time was nearly accomplished17#c7 when ,joseph having taken his wife with whatever else was necessary went to the city of ,bethlehem1 whence he was47#d7 ,the phrase unde ipse erat recalls the --,greek-- of ,justin47#f7 ,as we continue the narrative of the birth and infancy of ,jesus1 we meet with further variations from the account in the canonical ,gospels for which the preceding have prepared us1 and which indicate that ,justin's ,memorials certainly differed from them3 #caj ,at least it is clear that these particulars of the birth of ,jesus1--not taking place in ,bethlehem itself but in a cave --,greek-- near the village1 because ,joseph could not find a lodging there1--are not derived from our ,gospels1 and here even ,scmisch7#a7 is forced to abandon his theory that ,justin's variations arise merely from imperfectly quoting from memory1 and to conjecture that he must have adopted tradition4 ,it has1 however1 been shown that ,justin himself distinctly excludes tradition1 and in this case1 moreover1 there are many special reasons for believing that he quotes from a written source4 ,ewald rightly points out that here1 and in other passages where1 in common with ancient ecclesiastical writers1 ,justin departs from our ,gospels1 the variation can in no way be referred to oral tradition27#b7 and1 moreover1 that when ,justin proves7#c7 from ,isaiah xxxiii4 #af1 that ,christ must be born in a cave1 he thereby shows how certainly he found the fact of the cave in his written ,gospel47#d7 ,the whole argument of ,justin excludes the idea that he could avail himself of mere tradition4 ,he maintains that everything which the prophets had foretold of ,christ had actually been fulfilled1 and he perpetually refers to the ,memoirs and other written documents for the verification of his assertions4 ,he either refers to the prophets for the confirmation of the ,memoirs1 or shows in the #caa ,memoirs the narrative of facts which are the accomplishment of prophecies1 but in both cases it is manifest that there must have been a record of the facts which he mentions4 ,there can be no doubt that the circumstances we have just quoted1 and which are not found in the canonical ,gospels1 must have been narrated in ,justin's ,memoirs4 ,we find1 again1 the same variations as in ,justin in several extant apocryphal ,gospels4 ,the ,protevangelium of ,james represents the birth of ,jesus as taking place in a cave27#a7 so also the ,arabic ,gospel of the ,infancy17#b7 and several others47#c7 ,this uncanonical detail is also mentioned by several of the ,fathers1 ,origen and ,eusebius both stating that the cave and the manger were still shown in their day47#d7 ,teschendorf does not hesitate to affirm that ,justin derived this circumstance from the ,protevangelium47#e7 ,justin1 however1 does not distinguish such a source2 and the mere fact that we have a form of that ,gospel1 in which it occurs1 still extant1 by no means justifies such a specific conclusion1 when so many other works1 now lost1 may equally have contained #cab it4 ,if the fact be derived from the ,protevangelium1 that work1 or whatever other apocryphal ,gospel may have supplied it1 must be admitted to have at least formed part of the ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 and with that necessary admission ends all special identification of the ,memoirs with our canonical ,gospels4 ,much more probably1 however1 ,justin quotes from the more ancient source from which the ,protevangelium and1 perhaps1 ,luke drew their narrative47#a7 ,there can be very little doubt that the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews contained an account of the birth in ,bethlehem1 and as it is1 at least1 certain that ,justin quotes other particulars known to have been in it1 there is fair reason to suppose that he likewise found this fact in that work47#b7 ,in any case it is indisputable that he derived it from a source different from our canonical ,gospels47#c7 ,justin does not apparently know anything of the episode of the shepherds of the plain1 and the angelic appearance to them1 narrated in the third ,gospel47#d7 ,to the cave in which the infant ,jesus is born came the ,magi1 but instead of employing the phrase used by the first ,gospel1 ,magi from the ,east17#e7 --,greek-- ,justin always describes them as ,magi from ,arabia1 --,greek--4 ,justin is so punctilious that he #cac never speaks of these ,magi without adding from ,arabia1 except twice1 where1 however1 he immediately mentions ,arabia as the point of the argument for which they are introduced2 and in the same chapter in which this occurs he four times calls them directly ,magi from ,arabia47#a7 ,he uses this expression not less than nine times47#b7 ,that he had no objection to the term the ,east1 and that with a different context it was common to his vocabulary1 is proved by his use of it elsewhere47#c7 ,it is impossible to resist the conviction that ,justin's ,memoirs contained the phrase ,magi from ,arabia1 which is foreign to our ,gospels47#d7 ,again1 according to ,justin1 the ,magi see the star in heaven --,greek--17#e7 and not in the ,east --,greek-- as the first ,gospel has it37#f7 ,when a star rose in heaven --,greek-- at the time of his birth as is recorded in the ,memoirs of the ,apostle47#g7 ,he apparently knows nothing of the star guiding them to the place where the young child was47#h7 ,herod1 moreover1 questions the elders --,greek--7#i7 as to the place where the ,christ should be born1 and not the chief priests and scribes of the people --,greek--47#aj7 ,these divergences1 taken in connection with those which are interwoven with the whole narrative of the birth1 can only proceed from the fact that ,justin quotes from a source different from ours47#aa7 ,justin relates that when ,jesus came to ,jordan he was #cad believed to be the son of ,joseph the carpenter1 and he appeared without comeliness1 as the ,scriptures announced2 and being considered a carpenter1--for1 when he was amongst men1 he made carpenter's works1 ploughs and yokes --,greek--2 by these both teaching the symbols of righteousness and an active life47#a7 ,these details are foreign to the canonical ,gospels4 ,mark has the expression3 ,is not this the carpenter1 the son of ,mary8 7#b7 but ,luke omits it altogether47#c7 ,the idea that the ,son of ,god should do carpenter's work on earth was very displeasing to many ,christians1 and attempts to get rid of the obnoxious phrase are evident in ,mark4 ,apparently the copy which ,origen used had omitted even the modified phrase1 for he declares that ,jesus himself is nowhere called a carpenter in the ,gospels current in the ,church47#d7 ,a few ,,mss4 still extant are without it1 although it is found in all the more ancient ,codices4 ,traces of these details are found in several apocryphal works1 especially in the ,gospel of ,thomas1 where it is said3 ,now his father was a carpenter and made at that time ploughs and yokes --,greek--7#e71 an account which1 from the similarity of language1 was in all #cae probability derived from the same source as that of ,justin4 ,the explanation which ,justin adds3 by which he taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life1 seems to indicate that he refers to a written narrative containing the detail1 already1 perhaps1 falling into sufficient disfavour to require the aid of symbolical interpretation4 ,in the narrative of the baptism there are many peculiarities which prove that ,justin did not derive it from our ,gospels4 ,thrice he speaks of ,john sitting by the river ,jordan3 ,he cried as he sat by the river ,jordan27#a7 ,while he still sat by the river ,jordan27#b7 and ,for when ,john sat by the ,jordan47#c7 ,this peculiar expression so frequently repeated must have been derived from a written ,gospel47#d7 ,then ,justin1 in proving that ,jesus predicted his second coming and the re-appearance of ,elijah1 states3 ,and therefore our ,lord in his teaching announced that this should take place1 saying ,elias also should come --,greek--4 ,a little lower down he again expressly quotes the words of ,jesus3 ,for which reason our ,christ declared on earth to those who asserted that ,elias must come before ,christ3 ,elias1 indeed1 shall come1 c4 --,greek--47#e7 ,matthew1 however1 reads3 ,elias indeed cometh1 --,greek--47#f7 ,now there is no version in which --,greek-- is substituted for --,greek-- as ,justin does1 but1 as ,credner has pointed out17#g7 the whole weight of ,justin's argument lies in the use of the future tense4 ,as there are so many other variations #caf in ,justin's context1 this likewise appears to be derived from a source different from our ,gospels47#a7 ,when ,jesus goes to be baptized by ,john many-striking peculiarities occur in ,justin's narrative3 ,as ,jesus went down to the water1 a fire also was kindled in the ,jordan2 and when he came up from the water1 the ,holy ,spirit like a dove fell upon him1 as the apostles of this very ,christ of ours wrote444 and at the same time a voice came from the heavens444 ,thou art my son1 this day have ,i begotten thee47#b7 ,the incident of the fire in ,jordan is of course quite foreign to our ,gospels1 and further the words spoken by the heavenly voice differ from those reported by them1 for instead of the passage from ,psalm ii4 #g1 the ,gospels have3 ,thou art my beloved son2 in thee ,i am well pleased47#c7 ,justin repeats his version a second time in the same chapter1 and again elsewhere he says regarding the temptation3 ,for this devil also at the time when he 7,jesus7 went up from the river ,jordan1 when the voice declared to him3 ',thou art my son2 this day have ,i begotten thee1' it is written in the ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 came to him and tempted him1 c47#d7 ,in both of these passages1 it will be perceived that ,justin directly refers to the ,memoirs of the ,apostles as the source of his statements4 ,some have argued that #cag ,justin only appeals to them for the fact of the descent of the ,holy ,ghost1 and not for the rest of the narrative47#a7 ,it has of course been felt that1 if it can be shown that ,justin quotes from the ,memoirs words and circumstances which are not to be found in our canonical ,gospels1 the identity of the two can no longer be maintained4 ,it is1 however1 in the highest degree arbitrary to affirm that ,justin intends to limit his appeal to the testimony of the apostles to one-half of his sentence4 ,to quote authority for one assertion and to leave another in the same sentence1 closely connected with it and part indeed of the very same narrative1 not only unsupported1 but indeed weakened by direct exclusion1 would indeed be singular1 for ,justin affirms with equal directness and confidence the fact of the fire in ,jordan1 the descent of the ,holy ,ghost1 and the words spoken by the heavenly voice4 ,if in the strictest grammatical accuracy there may be no absolute necessity to include in that which the ,apostles wrote more than the phrase immediately preceding1 there is not1 on the other hand1 anything which requires or warrants the exclusion of the former part of the sentence4 ,the matter must therefore be decided according to fair inference and reasonable probability1 and not to suit any foregone conclusion1 and these as well as all the evidence concerning ,justin's use of the ,memoirs irresistibly point to the conclusion that the whole passage is derived from one source4 ,in the second extract given above1 it is perfectly clear that the words spoken by the heavenly voice1 which ,justin again quotes1 and which are not in our ,gospels1 were recorded in the ,memoirs1 for ,justin could #cah not have referred to them for an account of the temptation at the time when ,jesus went up from ,jordan and the voice said to him3 ,thou art my son2 this day have ,i begotten thee1 if these facts and words were not recorded in them at all47#a7 ,it is impossible to doubt1 after impartial consideration1 that the incident of the fire in ,jordan1 the words spoken by the voice from heaven1 and the temptation were taken from the same source3 they must collectively be referred to the ,memoirs47#b7 ,of one thing we may be sure3 had ,justin known the form of words used by the voice from heaven according to our ,gospels1 he would certainly have made use of it in preference to that which he actually found in his ,memoirs4 ,he is arguing that ,christ is preexisting ,god1 become incarnate by ,god's will through the ,virgin ,mary1 and ,trypho demands how he can be demonstrated to have been pre-existent1 who is said to be filled with the power of the ,holy ,ghost1 as though he had required this1 ,justin replies that these powers of the ,spirit have come upon him not because he had need of them1 but because they would accomplish ,scripture1 which declared that after him there should be no prophet47#c7 ,the proof of this1 he continues1 is that1 as soon as the child was born1 the ,magi from ,arabia came to worship him1 because even at his birth he was in possession of his power17#d7 and after he had grown up like other men by the use of suitable means1 he came to #cai the river ,jordan where ,john was baptizing1 and as he went into the water a fire was kindled in the ,jordan1 and the ,holy ,ghost descended like a dove4 ,he did not go to the river because he had any need of baptism or of the descent of the ,spirit1 but because of the human race which had fallen under the power of death4 ,now if1 instead of the passage actually cited1 ,justin could have quoted the words addressed to ,jesus by the voice from heaven according to the ,gospels3 ,thou art my beloved son2 in thee ,i am well pleased1 his argument would have been greatly strengthened by such direct recognition of an already existing1 and1 as he affirmed1 pre-existent divinity in ,jesus4 ,not having these words in his ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 however1 he was obliged to be content with those which he found there3 ,thou art my son2 this day have ,i begotten thee2--words which1 in fact1 in themselves destroyed the argument for pre-existence1 and dated the divine begetting of ,jesus as the son of ,god that very day4 ,the passage1 indeed1 supported those who actually asserted that the ,holy ,ghost first entered into ,jesus at his baptism4 ,these considerations1 and the repeated quotation of the same words in the same form1 make it clear that ,justin quotes from a source different from our ,gospel47#a7 ,in the scanty fragments of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews which have been preserved1 we find both the incident of the fire kindled in ,jordan and the words #cbj of the heavenly voice as quoted by ,justin4 ,and as he went up from the water1 the heavens were opened1 and he saw the ,holy ,spirit of ,god in the form of a dove which came down and entered into him4 ,and a voice came from heaven saying3 ',thou art my beloved son2 in thee ,i am well pleased2' and again3 ',this day have ,i begotten thee4' ,and immediately a great light shone round about the place47#a7 ,epiphanius extracts this passage from the version in use amongst the ,ebionites1 but it is well known that there were many other varying forms of the same ,gospel2 and ,hilgenfeld17#b7 with all probability1 conjectures that the version known to ,epiphanius was no longer in the same purity as that used by ,justin1 but represents the transition stage to the ,canonical ,gospels1--adopting the words of the voice which they give without yet discarding the older form4 ,jerome gives another form of the words from the version in use amongst the ,nazarenes3 ,factum est autem cum ascendisset ,dominus de aqua1 descendit fons omnis ,spiritus ,sancti et requievit super eum1 et dixit illi3 ,fili mi1 in omnibus ,prophetis expectabam te ut venires et requiescerem in te1 tu es enim requies mea1 tu es filius meus primo-genitus qui regnas in sempiternum47#c7 ,this supports ,justin's reading4 ,regarding the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews more must be said hereafter1 but when it is remembered that ,justin1 a native of ,samaria1 probably first knew ,christianity through believers in ,syria to whose ,jewish view of ,christianity he all his #cba life adhered1 and that these ,christians almost exclusively used this ,gospel7#a7 under various forms and names1 it is reasonable to suppose that he also like them knew and made use of it1 a supposition increased almost to certainty when it is found that ,justin quotes words and facts foreign to the ,canonical ,gospels which are known to have been contained in it4 ,the argument of ,justin that ,jesus did not need baptism may also be compared to another passage of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews preserved by ,jerome1 and which preceded the circumstances narrated above1 in which the mother and brethren of ,jesus say to him that ,john the ,baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins1 and propose that they should go to be baptized by him4 ,jesus replies1 ,in what way have ,i sinned that ,i should go and be baptized by him87#b7 ,the most competent critics agree that ,justin derived the incidents of the fire in ,jordan and the words spoken by the heavenly voice from the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews or some kindred work17#c7 and there is every probability that the numerous other quotations in his works differing from our ,gospels are taken from the same source4 ,the incident of the fire in ,jordan likewise occurs in the ancient work ,praedicatio ,pauli17#d7 coupled with a #cbb context which forcibly recalls the passage of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 which has just been quoted1 and apparent allusions to it are found in the ,sibylline ,books and early ,christian literature47#a7 ,credner has pointed out that the marked use which was made of fire or lights at ,baptism by the ,church1 during early times1 probably rose out of this tradition regarding the fire which appeared in ,jordan at the baptism of ,jesus47#b7 ,the peculiar form of words used by the heavenly voice according to ,justin and to the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews was also known to several of the ,fathers47#c7 ,augustine mentions that some ,,mss4 in his time contained that reading in ,luke iii4 #bb1 although without the confirmation of more ancient ,greek codices47#d7 ,it is still extant in the ,codex ,bezae 7,d74 ,the ,itala version adds to ,matthew iii4 #ae3 and when he was baptized a great light shone round from the water1 so that all who had come were afraid 7et cum baptizaretur1 lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua1 ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant72 and again at ,luke iii4 #bb it gives the words of the voice in a form agreeing at least in sense with those which ,justin found in his ,memoirs of the ,apostles4 #cbc ,these circumstances point with certainty to an earlier original corresponding with ,justin1 in all probability the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 and to the subsequent gradual elimination of the passage from the ,gospels finally adopted by the ,church for dogmatic reasons1 as various sects based on the words doctrines which were at variance with the ever-enlarging belief of the majority47#a7 ,then ,justin states that the men of his time asserted that the miracles of ,jesus were performed by magical art --,greek--1 for they ventured to call him a magician and deceiver of the people47#b7 ,this cannot be accepted as a mere version of the charge that ,jesus cast out demons by ,beelzebub1 but must have been found by ,justin in his ,memoirs47#c7 ,in the ,gospel of ,nicodemus or ,acta ,pilati1 the ,jews accuse ,jesus before ,pilate of being a magician17#d7 coupled with the assertion that he casts out demons through ,beelzebub the prince of the demons2 and again they simply say3 ,did we not tell thee that he is a magician87#e7 ,we shall presently see that ,justin actually refers to certain acts of ,pontius ,pilate in justification of other assertions regarding the trial of ,jesus47#f7 ,in the ,clementine ,recognitions1 moreover1 the same charge is made by one of the ,scribes1 who says that ,jesus did not perform his miracles as a prophet1 but as a magician47#g7 #cbd ,oelsus makes a similar charge17#a7 and ,lactantius refers to such an opinion as prevalent among the ,jews at the time of ,jesus17#b7 which we find confirmed by many passages in ,talmudic literature47#c7 ,there was indeed a book called ,magia ,jesu ,christi1 of which ,jesus himself1 it was pretended1 was the author47#d7 ,in speaking of the trial of ,jesus1 ,justin says3 ,for also as the prophet saith1 they reviled him and set him on the judgment seat and said3 ,judge for us17#e7 a peculiarity which is not found in the ,canonical ,gospels4 ,justin had just quoted the words of ,isaiah 7lxv4 #b1 lviii4 #b7444 ,they now ask of me judgment and dare to draw nigh to ,god1 and then he cites ,psalm xxii4 #af1 #bb3 ,they pierced my hands and my feet1 and upon my vesture they cast lots4 ,he says that this did not happen to ,david1 but was fulfilled in ,christ1 and the expression regarding the piercing the hands and feet referred to the nails of the cross which were driven through his hands and feet4 ,and after he was crucified they cast lots upon his vesture4 ,and that these things occurred1 he continues1 you may learn from the ,acts drawn up under ,pontius ,pilate47#f7 ,he likewise upon another occasion refers to the same ,acta for confirmation of statements47#g7 ,the ,gospel of ,nicodemus or ,gesta #cbe ,pilati1 now extant1 does not contain the circumstance to which we are now referring1 but in contradiction to the statement in the fourth ,gospel 7xviii4 #bh1 #bi7 the ,jews in this apocryphal work freely go into the very judgment seat of ,pilate47#a7 ,teschendorf maintains that the first part of the ,gospel of ,nicodemus1 or ,acta ,pilati1 still extant1 is the work1 with more or less of interpolation1 which1 existing in the second century1 is referred to by ,justin47#b7 ,a few reasons may here be given against such a conclusion4 ,the fact of ,jesus being set upon the judgment seat is not contained in the extant ,acta ,pilati at all1 and therefore this work does not correspond with ,justin's statement4 ,it seems most unreasonable to suppose that ,justin should seriously refer ,roman ,emperors to a work of this description1 so manifestly composed by a ,christian1 and the ,acta to which he directs them must have been a presumed official document1 to which they had access1 as of course no other evidence could be of any weight with them47#c7 ,the extant work neither pretends to be1 nor has in the slightest degree the form of1 an official report4 ,moreover1 the prologue attached to it distinctly states that ,ananias1 a provincial warden in the reign of ,flavius ,theodosius 7towards the middle of the fifth century71 found these ,acts written in ,hebrew by ,nicodemus1 and that he translated them into ,greek47#d7 ,the work itself1 therefore1 only pretends to be a private composition in ,hebrew1 and does not claim any relation to ,pontius ,pilate4 ,the ,greek is very corrupt and #cbf degraded1 and considerations of style alone would assign it to the fifth century1 as would still more imperatively the anachronisms with which it abounds4#a ,tischendorf considers that ,tertullian refers to the same work as ,justin1 but it is evident that he infers an official report1 for he says distinctly1 after narrating the circumstances of the crucifixion and resurrection3 ,all these facts regarding ,christ1 ,pilate4444 reported to the reigning ,emperor ,tiberius47#c7 ,it is extremely probable that in saying this ,tertullian merely extended the statement of ,justin4 ,he nowhere states that he himself had seen this report1 nor does ,justin1 and as is the case with the latter1 some of the facts which ,tertullian supposes to be reported by ,pilate are not contained in the apocryphal work47#c7 ,there are still extant some apocryphal writings in the form of official reports made by ,pilate of the trial1 crucifixion1 and resurrection of ,jesus17#d7 but none are of very ancient date4 ,it is certain that1 on the supposition that ,pilate may have made an official report of events so important in their estimation1 ,christian writers2 with greater zeal than conscience1 composed fictitious reports in his name1 in the supposed interest of their religion1 and there was in that day little or no critical sense to detect and discredit such forgeries4 ,there is absolutely no evidence to show that ,justin was acquainted with any official report of ,pilate to the ,roman ,emperor1 nor indeed is it easy to understand how he could possibly have been1 even if such a document existed1 and it is most probable1 as #cbg ,scholten conjectures1 that ,justin merely referred to documents which tradition supposed to have been written1 but of which he himself had no personal knowledge47#a7 ,be this as it may1 as he considered the incident of the judgment seat a fulfilment of prophecy1 there can be little or no doubt that it was narrated in the ,memoirs which contained everything relating to ,jesus ,christ1 and finding it there he all the more naturally assumed that it must have been mentioned in any official report4 ,in narrating the agony in the ,garden1 there are further variations4 ,justin says3 ,and the passage3 ',all my bones are poured out and dispersed like water2 my heart has become like wax melting in the midst of my belly1' was a prediction of that which occurred to him that night when they came out against him to the ,mount of ,olives to seize him4 ,for in the ,memoirs composed1 ,i say1 by his ,apostles and their followers1 it is recorded that his sweat fell down like drops while he prayed1 saying3 ',if possible1 let this cup pass4'7#b7 ,it will be observed that this is a direct quotation from the ,memoirs1 but there is a material difference from our ,gospels4 ,luke is the only ,gospel which mentions the bloody sweat1 and there the account reads 7xxii4 #dd71 as it were drops of blood falling down to the ground4 --,greek-- --,greek-- ,in addition to the other linguistic differences ,justin omits the emphatic --,greek-- which gives the whole point to ,luke's account1 and which evidently could not have been in the text of the ,memoirs4 ,semisch argues that --,greek-- alone1 especially in medical phraseology1 meant #cbh drops of blood1 without the addition of --,greek--27l7 but the author of the third ,gospel did not think so1 and undeniably makes use of both1 and ,justin does not4 ,moreover1 ,luke introduces the expression --,greek-- to show the intensity of the agony1 whereas ,justin evidently did not mean to express drops of blood at all1 his intention in referring to the sweat being to show that the prophecy3 ,all my bones are poured out1 c1 like water1 had been fulfilled1 with which the reading in his ,memoirs more closely corresponded4 ,the prayer also so directly quoted decidedly varies from ,luke xxii4 #db1 which reads3 ,father1 if thou be willing to remove this cup from me 3 --,greek-- --,greek-- ,in ,matthew xxvi4 #ci this part of the prayer is more like the reading of ,justin3 ,father1 if it be possible let this cup pass from me ----,greek-- but that ,gospel has nothing of the sweat of agony1 which excludes it from consideration4 ,in another place ,justin also quotes the prayer in the ,garden as follows3 ,he prayed1 saying3 ',father1 if it be possible1 let this cup pass from me2' and besides this1 praying1 he said3 ',not as ,i wish1 but as thou willest4'7#b7 ,the first phrase in this place1 apart from some transposition of words1 agrees with ,matthew2 but even if this reading be preferred of the two1 the absence of the incident of the sweat of agony from the first ,gospel renders it impossible to regard it as the source2 and1 further1 the second part of the prayer which is here #cbi given differs materially both from the first and third ,gospels4 --,greek-- ,the two parts of this prayer1 moreover1 seem to have been separate in the ,memoirs1 for not only does ,justin not quote the latter portion at all in ,dial4 #ajc1 but here he markedly divides it from the former4 ,justin knows nothing of the episode of the ,angel who strengthens ,jesus1 which is related in ,luke xxii4 #dc4 ,there is1 however1 a still more important point to mention3 that although verses #dc1 #dd with the incidents of the angel and the bloody sweat are certainly in a great number of ,,mss41 they are omitted by some of the oldest ,codices1 as for instance by the ,alexandrian and ,vatican ,,mss47#a7 ,it is evident that in this part ,justin's ,memoirs differed from our first and third ,gospels much in the same way that they do from each other4 ,in the same chapter ,justin states that when the ,jews went out to the ,mount of ,olives to take ,jesus1 there was not even a single man to run to his help as a guiltless person47#b7 ,this is in direct contradiction to all the ,gospels17#c7 and ,justin not only completely ignores the episode of the ear of ,malchus1 but in this passage #a ,in the ,sinaitic ,codex they are marked for omission by a later hand4 ,lachmann brackets1 and ,drs4 ,westcott and ,hort double-bracket them4 ,the ,,ms4 evidence may bo found in detail in ,scrivener's ,int4 to ,crit4 ,n4 ,t4 #bnd ed4 p4 #eba1 stated in the way which is most favourable for the authenticity4 #ccj excludes it1 and his ,gospel could not have contained it47#a7 ,luke is specially marked in generalizing the resistance of those about ,jesus to his capture3 ,when they which were about him saw what would follow1 they said unto him3 ,lord1 shall we smite with the sword8 ,and a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear47#b7 ,as this episode follows immediately after the incident of the bloody sweat and prayer in the ,garden1 and the statement of ,justin occurs in the very same chapter in which he refers to them1 this contradiction further tends to confirm the conclusion that ,justin employed a different ,gospel4 ,it is quite in harmony with the same peculiar account that ,justin states that1 after he 7,jesus7 was crucified1 all his friends 7the ,apostles7 stood aloof from him1 having denied him7#c74444 7who1 after he rose from the dead1 and after they were convinced by himself that before his passion he had told them that he must suffer these things1 and that they were foretold by the prophets1 repented of their flight from him when he was crucified71 and while remaining among them he sang praises to ,god1 as is made evident in the ,memoirs of the ,apostles47#d7 ,justin1 therefore1 repeatedly asserts that after the crucifixion all the ,apostles forsook him1 and he extends the denial of ,peter #cca to the whole of the twelve4 ,it is impossible to consider this distinct and reiterated affirmation a mere extension of the passage3 they all forsook him and fled --,greek--17#a7 when ,jesus was arrested1 which proceeded mainly from momentary fear47#b7 ,justin seems to indicate that the disciples withdrew from and denied ,jesus when they saw him crucified1 from doubts which consequently arose as to his ,messianic character4 ,now1 on the contrary1 the ,canonical ,gospels represent the disciples as being together after the ,crucifixion47#c7 ,justin does not exhibit any knowledge of the explanation given by the angels at the sepulchre as to ,christ's having foretold all that had happened17#d7 but makes this proceed from ,jesus himself4 ,indeed1 he makes no mention of these angels at all4 ,there are some traces elsewhere of the view that the disciples were offended after the ,crucifixion47#e7 ,hilgenfeld points out the appearance of special ,petrine tendency in this passage1 in the fact that it is not ,peter alone1 but all the ,apostles1 who are said to deny their master2 and he suggests that an indication of the source from which ,justin quoted may be obtained from the kindred quotation in the ,epistle to the ,smyrnaeans 7iii47 by pseudo-,ignatius3 ,for ,i know that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh1 and ,i believe that he is so now4 ,and when he came to those that were with ,peter1 he said to them3 ,lay hold1 handle me1 and see that ,i am #ccb not an incorporeal spirit4 ,and immediately they touched him and believed1 being convinced by his flesh and spirit4 ,jerome1 it will be remembered1 found this in the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews used by the ,nazarenes1 which he translated17#a7 from which we have seen that ,justin in all probability derived other particulars differing from the ,canonical ,gospels1 and with which we shall constantly meet1 in a similar way1 in examining ,justin's quotations4 ,origen also found it in a work called the ,doctrine of ,peter --,greek--17#b7 which must have been akin to the ,preaching of ,peter --,greek--47#c7 ,hilgenfeld suggests that1 in the absence of more certain information1 there is no more probable source from which ,justin may have derived his statement than the ,gospel according to ,peter1 or the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 which is known to have contained so much in the same spirit47#d7 ,it may well be expected that1 at least in touching such serious matters as the ,crucifixion and last words of ,jesus1 ,justin must adhere with care to authentic records1 and not fall into the faults of loose quotation from memory1 free handling of texts1 and careless omissions and additions1 by which those who maintain the identity of the ,memoirs with the ,canonical ,gospels seek to explain the systematic variations of ,justin's quotations from the text of the latter4 ,it will1 however1 be found that here also marked discrepancies occur4 ,justin says1 after referring to numerous prophecies regarding the treatment of ,christ3 ,and again1 when he says3 ',they spake with their lips1 they wagged the head1 saying3 ,let him #ccc deliver himself4' ,that all these things happened to the ,christ from the ,jews1 you can ascertain4 ,for when he was being crucified they shot out the lips1 and wagged their heads1 saying3 ',let him who raised the dead deliver himself4'7#a7 ,and in another place1 referring to the same ,psalm 7xxii47 as a prediction of what was to happen to ,jesus1 ,justin says3 ,for they who saw him crucified also wagged their heads1 each one of them1 and distorted --,greek-- their lips1 and sneeringly and in scornful irony repeated among themselves those words which are also written in the ,memoirs of his ,apostles3 ,he declared himself the ,son of ,god2 7let him7 come down1 let him walk about2 let ,god save him47#b7 ,in both of these passages ,justin directly appeals to written authority4 ,the --,greek-- may leave the source of the first uncertain17#c7 but the second is distinctly stated to contain the actual words written in the ,memoirs of his ,apostles1 and it seems reasonable to suppose that the former passage is also derived from them4 ,it is scarcely necessary to add that both differ very materially from the ,canonical ,gospels47#d7 ,the taunt #d ,canon ,westcott admits that in the latter passage ,justin does profess to give the exact words which were recorded in the ,memoirs1 and that they are not to be found in our ,gospels2 but1 he apologetically adds1 we do find these others so closely connected with them that few readers would feel the difference6 ,this is a specimen of apologetic criticism4 ,dr4 ,westcott goes on to say that as no ,,ms4 or ,father known to him has preserved any reading more closely resembling ,justin's1 if it appear not to be deducible from our ,gospels1 due allowance being made for the object which he had in view1 its source7 must remain concealed4 ,on the ,canon1 p4 #aad f4 ,cf4 ,matt1 xxvii4 #ci--dc2 ,mark xv4 #bi--cb2 ,luke xxiii4 #cd--cg4 #ccd contained in the first of these passages is altogether peculiar to ,justin3 ,let him who raised the dead deliver himself --,greek--27#a7 and even if ,justin did not himself indicate a written source1 it would not be reasonable to suppose that he should himself for the first time record words to which he refers as the fulfilment of prophecy47#b7 ,it would be still more ineffectual to endeavour to remove the difficulty presented by such a variation by attributing the words to tradition1 at the same time that it is asserted that ,justin's ,memoirs were actually identical with the ,gospels4 ,no aberration of memory could account for such a variation1 and it is impossible that ,justin should prefer tradition regarding a form of words1 so liable to error and alteration1 with written ,gospels within his reach4 ,besides1 to argue that ,justin affirmed that the truth of his statement could be ascertained --,greek--1 whilst the words which he states to have been spoken were not actually recorded1 would be against all reason4 ,the second of the mocking speeches 7#c7 of the lookers-on is referred distinctly to the ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 but is also1 with the accompanying description1 foreign #a ,the nearest parallel in our ,gospels is in ,luke xxiii4 #ce4 ,he saved others1 let him save himself if this man be the ,christ of ,god1 his chosen4 --,greek-- #c ,semisch argues that both forms are quotations of the same sentence1 and that there is consequently a contradiction in the very quotations themselves2 but there can be no doubt whatever that the two phrases are distinct parts of the mockery1 and the very same separation and variation occur in each of the ,canonical ,gospels4 ,die ap4 ,denkw4 ,mart4 ,just41 p4 #bhb2 cf4 ,hilgenfeld1 ,die ,ew4 ,justin's1 p4 #bdd4 #cce to our ,gospels4 ,the nearest approach to it occurs in our first ,gospel1 and we subjoin both passages for comparison3 --,greek-- ,it is evident that ,justin's version is quite distinct from this1 and cannot have been taken from our ,gospels17#b7 although professedly derived from the ,memoirs of the ,apostles4 ,justin likewise mentions the cry of ,jesus on the ,cross1 ,o ,god1 my ,god1 why hast thou forsaken me8 --,greek--27#c7 as a fulfilment of the words of the ,psalm1 which he quotes here1 and elsewhere17#d7 with the peculiar addition of the ,septuagint version1 attend to me --,greek--1 which1 however1 he omits when giving the cry of ,jesus1 thereby showing that he follows a written source which did not contain it1 for the quotation of the ,psalm1 and of #ccf the cry which is cited to show that it refers to ,christ1 immediately follow each other4 ,he apparently knows nothing whatever of the ,chaldaic cry1 ,eli1 ,eli1 lama sabacthani of the ,gospels47#a7 ,the first and second ,gospels give the words of the cry from the ,chaldaic differently from ,justin1 from the version of the ,,lxx41 and from each other4 ,matthew xxvii4 #df1 --,greek-- the third ,gospel makes no mention at all of this cry1 but instead has one altogether foreign to the other ,gospels3 ,and ,jesus cried with a loud voice1 and said3 ,father1 into thy hands ,i commend my spirit3 and having said this1 he expired47#b7 ,justin has this cry also1 and in the same form as the third ,gospel4 ,he says3 ,for when he 7,jesus7 was giving up his spirit on the cross1 he said3 ',father1 into thy hands ,i commend my spirit1' as ,i have also learned from the ,memoirs47#c7 ,justin's ,gospel1 therefore1 contained both cries1 and as even the first two ,synoptics mention a second cry of ,jesus7#d7 without1 however1 giving the words1 it is not surprising that other ,gospels should have existed which included both4 ,even if we had no trace of this cry in any other ancient work1 there would be no ground for asserting that ,justin must have derived it from the third ,gospel1 for if there be any historical truth in the statement that these words were actually spoken by ,jesus1 it follows of course that they may have been1 and probably were1 reported in a dozen ,christian writings now #ccg no longer extent1 and in all probability they existed in some of the many works referred to in the prologue to the third ,gospel4 ,both cries1 however1 are given in the ,gospel of ,nieodemus1 or ,gesta ,pilati1 to which reference has already so frequently been made4 ,in the ,greek versions edited by ,teschendorf we find only the form contained in ,luke4 ,in the ,codex ,a1 the passage reads3 ,and crying with a loud voice1 ,jesus said3 ,father1 ,baddach ephkid rouchi1 that is1 interpreted3 'into thy hands ,i commend my spirit2' and having said this he gave up the ghost47l7 ,in the ,codex ,b1 the text is3 ,then ,jesus having called out with a loud voice3 ',father1 into thy hands will ,i commend my spirit1' expired47#b7 ,in the ancient ,latin version1 however1 both cries are given3 ,and about the ninth hour ,jesus cried with a loud voice1 saying1 ,hely1 ,hely1 lama zabacthani1 which interpreted is3 ',my ,god1 my ,god1 why hast thou forsaken me4' ,and after this1 ,jesus said3 ',father1 into thy hands ,i commend my spirit'3 and saying this1 he gave up the ghost47#c7 ,one of the ,codices of the same apocryphal work likewise gives the taunting speeches of the ,jews in a form more nearly approaching that of ,justin's ,memoirs #cch than any found in our ,gospels4 ,and the ,jews that stood and looked ridiculed him1 and said3 ,if thou saidst truly that thou art the ,son of ,god1 come down from the cross1 and at once1 that we may believe in thee4 ,others ridiculing1 said3 ,he saved others1 he healed others1 and restored the sick1 the paralytic1 lepers1 demoniacs1 the blind1 the lame1 the dead1 and himself he cannot heal47#a7 ,the fact that ,justin actually refers to certain ,acta ,pilati in connection with the ,crucifixion renders this coincidence all the more important4 ,other texts of this ,gospel read3 ,and the ,chief ,priests1 and the rulers with them1 derided him1 saying3 ,he saved others1 let him save himself2 if he is the ,son of ,god1 let him come down from the cross47#b7 ,it is clear from the whole of ,justin's treatment of the narrative1 that he followed a ,gospel adhering more closely than the ,canonical to the ,psalm xxii41 but yet with peculiar variations from it4 ,our ,gospels differ very much from each other2 ,justin's ,memoirs of the ,apostles in like manner differed from them4 ,it had its characteristic features clearly and sharply defined4 ,in this way his systematic variations are natural and perfectly intelligible1 but they become totally inexplicable if it be supposed that1 having our ,gospels for his source1 he thus #b ,ev4 ,niood41 ,pars4 ,i4 ,a4 x42 ,tischendorf ,ev4 ,apocr41 p4 #bcb2 cf4 ,thilo4 ,cod4 ,apocr4 ,n4 ,t41 p4 #ehd2 ,fabricius1 ,cod4 ,apocr4 ,n4 ,t41 i4 p4 #bei2 ,tiachendorf ib41 p4 #cdj4 ,there are differences between all these texts--indeed there are scarcely two ,,mss4 which agree--clearly indicating that wo have now nothing but corrupt versions of a more ancient text4 #cci persistently and in so arbitrary a way ignored1 modified1 or contradicted their statements4 ,upon two occasions ,justin distinctly states that the ,jews sent persons throughout the world to spread calumnies against ,christians4 ,when you knew that he had risen from the dead1 and ascended into heaven1 as the prophets had foretold1 not only did you 7the ,jews7 not repent of the wickedness which you had committed1 but at that time you selected and sent forth from ,jerusalem throughout the land chosen men1 saying that the atheistic heresy of the ,christians had arisen_/' c47#a74444 from a certain ,jesus1 a ,galilrean impostor1 whom we crucified1 but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb where he had been laid when he was unloosed from the cross1 and they now deceive men1 saying that he has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven47#b7 ,this circumstance is not mentioned by our ,gospels1 but1 reiterated twice by ,justin in almost the same words1 it was in all probability contained in the ,memoirs4 ,eusebius quotes the passage from ,justin1 without comment1 evidently on account of the information which it conveyed4 ,these instances1 which1 although far from complete1 have already occupied too much of our space1 show that ,justin quotes from the ,memoirs of the ,apostles many statements and facts of ,gospel history which are not only foreign to our ,gospels1 but in some cases contradictory to them1 whilst the narrative of the most solemn events in the life of ,jesus presents distinct and systematic variations from parallel passages in the ,synoptic records4 #cdj ,it will now be necessary to compare his general quotations from the same ,memoirs with the ,canonical ,gospels1 and here a very wide field opens before us4 ,as we have already stated1 ,justin's works teem with these quotations1 and to take them all in detail would be impossible within the limits of this work4 ,such a course1 moreover1 is unnecessary4 ,it may be broadly stated that even those who maintain the use of the ,canonical ,gospels can only point out two or three passages out of this vast array which verbally agree with them47#a7 ,this extraordinary anomaly--on the supposition that ,justin's ,memoirs were in fact our ,gospels--is1 as we have mentioned1 explained by the convenient hypothesis that ,justin quotes imperfectly from memory1 interweaves and modifies texts1 and in short freely manipulates these ,gospels according to his argument4 ,even strained to the uttermost1 however1 could this be accepted as a reasonable explanation of such systematic variation1 that only twice or thrice out of the vast number of his quotations does he literally agree with passages in them8 ,in order to illustrate the case with absolute impartiality we shall first take the instances brought forward as showing agreement with our ,synoptic ,gospels4 ,teschendorf only cites two passages in support of his affirmation that ,justin makes use of our first ,gospel47#b7 ,it might be supposed that1 in selecting these1 at least two might have been produced literally agreeing1 but this is #cda not the case1 and this may be taken as an illustration of the almost universal variation of ,justin's quotations4 ,the first of ,teschendorf s examples is the supposed use of ,matthew viii4 #aa1 #ab3 ,many shall come from the east and from the west1 and shall sit down1 c4 --,greek--4 ,now this passage is repeated by ,justin no less than three times in three very distinct parts of his ,dialogue with ,trypho17#a7 with a uniform variation from the text of ,matthew--,they shall come from the west and from the east1 c4 c4 --,greek--7#b7 ,that a historical saying of ,jesus should be reproduced in many ,gospels1 and that no particular work can have any prescriptive right to it1 must be admitted1 so that even if the passage in ,justin agreed literally with our first ,synoptic1 it would not afford any proof of the actual use of that ,gospel2 but when on the contrary ,justin upon three several occasions1 and at distinct intervals of time1 repeats the passage with the same persistent variation from the reading in ,matthew1 not only can it not be ascribed to that ,gospel1 but there is reason to conclude that ,justin derived it from another source4 ,it may be added that --,greek-- is anything but a word uncommon in the vocabulary of ,justin1 and that elsewhere1 for instance1 he twice quotes a passage similar to one in ,matthew1 in which1 amongst other variations1 he reads ,many shall come --,greek--1 instead of the phrase found in that ,gospel47#c7 ,the second example adduced by ,tischendorf is the supposed quotation of ,matthew xii4 #ci2 but in order fully #cdb to comprehend the nature of the affirmation1 we quote the context of the ,gospel and of ,justin in parallel columns3-- --,greek-- ,now it is clear that ,justin here directly professes to quote from the ,memoirs1 and consequently that accuracy may be expected2 but passing over the preliminary substitution of some of your nation1 for certain of the scribes and ,pharisees1 although it recalls the some of them1 and others1 by which the parallel passage1 otherwise so different1 is introduced in ,luke xi4 #ae1 #af1 #bi ff417#a7 the question of the ,jews1 which should be literal1 is quite different from that of the first ,gospel1 whilst there are variations in the reply of ,jesus1 which1 if not so important1 are still undeniable4 ,we cannot compare with the first ,gospel the parallel passages in the second and third ,gospels without recognizing that other works may have narrated the #cdc same episode with similar variations1 and whilst the distinct differences which exist totally exclude the affirmation that ,justin quotes from ,matthew1 everything points to the conclusion that he makes use of another source4 ,this is confirmed by another important circumstance4 ,after enlarging during the remainder of the chapter upon the example of the people of ,nineveh1 ,justin commences the next by returning to the answer of ,jesus1 and making the following statement3 ,and though all of your nation were acquainted with these things which occurred to ,jonah1 and ,christ proclaimed among you1 that he would give you the sign of ,jonah1 exhorting you at least after his resurrection from the dead to repent of your evil deeds1 and like the ,ninevites to supplicate ,god1 that your nation and city might not be captured and destroyed as it has been destroyed2 yet not only have you not repented on learning his resurrection from the dead1 but as ,i have already said17#a7 you sent chosen7#b7 and select men throughout all the world1 proclaiming that an atheistic and impious heresy had arisen from a certain ,jesus1 a ,galilaean impostor1 c4 c47#c7 ,now not only do our ,gospels not mention this mission1 as we have already pointed out1 but they do not contain the exhortation to repent at least after the resurrection of ,jesus here referred to1 and which evidently must have formed part of the episode in the ,memoirs4 ,tischendorf does not produce any other instances of supposed quotations of ,justin from ,matthew1 but rests his case upon these4 ,as these are the best examples apparently which he can point out1 we may judge of the #cdd weakness of his argument4 ,do ,wette divides the quotations of ,justin which may be compared with our first and third ,gospels into several categories4 ,regarding the first class1 he says3 ,some agree quite literally1 which1 however1 is seldom3 7#a7 and under this head he can only collect three passages of ,matthew and refer to one of ,luke4 ,of the three from ,matthew the first is that1 viii4 #aa1 #ab17b7 also brought forward by ,teschendorf1 of which we have already disposed4 ,the second is ,matt4 v4 #bj3 ,for ,i say unto you1 that except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and ,pharisees1 ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven4 ,a parallel passage to this exists in ,dial4 #aje1 a chapter in which there are several quotations not found in our ,gospels at all1 with the exception that the first words1 ,for ,i say unto you that1 are not in ,justin4 ,we shall speak of this passage presently4 ,de ,wette's third passage is ,matt4 vii4 #ai3 ,every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire1 which1 with the exception of one word1 but1 at the commencement of the sentence in ,justin1 also agrees with his quotation47#c7 ,in these two short passages there are no peculiarities specially pointing to the first ,gospel as their source1 and it cannot be too often repeated that the mere coincidence of short historical sayings in two works by no means warrants the conclusion that the one is dependent on the other4 ,in order1 however1 to enable the reader to form a correct estimate of the value of the similarity of the two passages above noted1 and also at the same time to examine a considerable body of evidence1 selected with #cae evident impartiality1 we propose to take all ,justin's readings of the ,sermon on the ,mount1 from which the above passages are taken1 and compare them with our ,gospels4 ,this should furnish a fair test of the composition of the ,memoirs of the ,apostles4 ,taking first1 for the sake of continuity1 the first ,apology1 we find that ,chapters xv41 xvi41 xvii41 are composed almost entirely of examples of what ,jesus himself taught1 introduced by the remark with which ,chapter xiv4 closes1 that3 ,brief and concise sentences were uttered by him1 for he was not a sophist1 but his word was the power of ,god47#a7 ,it may broadly be affirmed that1 with the exception of the few words quoted above by ,de ,wette1 not a single quotation of the words of ,jesus in these three chapters agrees with the ,canonical ,gospels4 ,we shall however confine ourselves at present to the ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,we must mention that ,justin's text is quite continuous1 except where we have inserted asterisks4 ,we subjoin ,justin's quotations1 together with' the parallel passages in our ,gospels1 side by side1 for greater facility of comparison47#b7 #a --,greek-- ,how completely this description contradicts the representation of the fourth ,gospel of the discourses of ,jesus4 ,it seems clearly to indicate that ,justin had no knowledge of that ,gospel4 #b ,it need not be said that the variations between the quotations of ,justin and the text of our ,gospels must be looked for only in the ,greek4 ,for the sake of the reader unacquainted with ,greok1 however1 we shall endeavour as far as possible to indicate in translation where differences exist1 although this cannot of course be fully done1 nor often1 without being more literal than is desirable4 ,whore it is not necessary to amend the authorized version of the ,new ,testament for the sake of more closely following the text1 and marking differences from ,justin1 wo shall adopt it4 ,we divide the quotations where desirable by initial letters1 in order to assist reference at the end of our quotations from the ,sermon on the ,mount4 #cdj ---,greek--- #d ,matt4 v4 #bi1 #cj1 it will be remembered1 are repeated with some variation and also reversed in order1 and with a totally different context1 ,matt1 xviii4 #h1 #i4 ,the latter verse1 the ,greek of the concluding part of which we give above1 approximates more nearly in form to ,justin's1 but is still widely different4 ,and if thine eye 7'right' omitted7 offend thee pluck it out and cast it from theo2 it is good for thee to enter into life with one eye1 rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire4 ,the sequence of ,matt4 v4 #bh1 #bi1 points specially to it4 ,the double occurrence of this passage1 however1 with a different context1 and with the order reversed in ,matthew1 renders it almost certain that the two passages ,a4 and ,b4 were separate in the ,memoirs4 ,the reading of ,mark ix4 #dg1 is equally distinct from ,justin's3 ,and if thine eye offend thee cast it out --,greek--2 it is good for thee --,greek-- to enter into the kingdom of ,god --,greek-- with one eye rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell1 --,greek-- #cdg ---,greek--- #cdh ---,greek--- #a ,in the first ,gospel the subject breaks off at the end of v4 #db4 v4 #dj may be compared with ,justin's continuation1 but it is fundamentally different4 ,the parallel passages in ,luke vi4 #cj1 #cd1 present still greater variations4 ,we have given vi4 #cd above1 as nearer ,justin than ,matt4 v4 #df4 ,it will be remarked that to find a parallel for ,justin's continuation1 without break1 of the subject1 we must jump from ,matt4 v4 #db1 #df1 to vi4 #ai1 #bj4 #cdi ---,greek--- #a ,this phrase1 it will bo observed1 is also introduced higher up in the passage1 and its repetition in such a manner1 with the same variations1 emphatically demonstrates the unity of the whole quotation4 #b ,there is no parallel to this in the first ,gospel4 ,matt4 v4 #dh1 is too remote in sense as well as language4 #c ,the first part of v4 #de is quite different from the context in ,justin3 ,that ye may be sons of your ,father which is in heaven3 for he maketh1 c1 c4 #cej ---,greek--- #cea ---,greek--- #ceb ---,greek--- #cec ---,greek--- #ced ---,greek--- #cee ---,greek--- #cef ---,greek--- #ceg ---,greek--- ,we have taken the whole of ,justin's quotations from the ,sermon on the ,mount not only because1 adopting so large a test1 there can be no suspicion that we select passages for any special purpose1 but also because1 on the contrary1 amongst these quotations are more of the passages claimed as showing the use of our ,gospels than any series which could have been selected4 ,it will have been observed that most of the passages follow each other in unbroken sequence in ,justin1 for with the exception of a short break between y and #h the whole extract down to the end of #j is continuous1 as indeed1 after another brief interruption at the end of i1 it is again to the close of the very long and remarkable passage k4 ,with two exceptions1 therefore1 the whole of these quotations from the ,sermon on the ,mount occur consecutively in two succeeding chapters of ,justin's first ,apology1 and one passage follows in the next chapter4 ,only a single passage comes from a distant part of the dialogue with ,trypho4 ,these passages are bound together by clear unity of idea and context1 and as1 where there is a separation of sentences in his ,gospel1 ,justin clearly marks it by --,greek--1 there is every reason to decide that those quotations which are continuous in form and in argument were likewise consecutive in the ,memoirs4 ,now the hypothesis that these quotations are from the #ceh ,canonical ,gospels requires the assumption of the fact that ,justin1 with singular care1 collected from distant and scattered portions of those ,gospels a series of passages in close sequence to each other1 forming a whole unknown to them but complete in itself1 and yet1 although this is carefully performed1 he at the same time with the most systematic carelessness misquoted and materially altered almost every precept he professes to cite4 ,the order of the ,canonical ,gospels is as entirely set at naught as their language is disregarded4 ,as ,hilgenfeld has pointed out1 throughout the whole of this portion of his quotations the undeniable endeavour after accuracy1 on the one hand1 is in the most glaring contradiction with the monstrous carelessness on the other1 if it be supposed that our ,gospels are the source from which ,justin quotes4 ,nothing is more improbable than the conjecture that he made use of the ,canonical ,gospels1 and we must accept the conclusion that ,justin quotes with substantial correctness the expressions in the order in which he found them in his peculiar ,gospel47#a7 ,it is a most arbitrary proceeding to dissect a passage1 quoted by ,justin as a consecutive and harmonious whole1 and finding parallels more or less approximate to its various phrases scattered up and down distant parts of our ,gospels1 scarcely one of which is not materially different from the reading of ,justin1 to assert that he is quoting these ,gospels freely from memory1 altering1 excising1 combining1 and interweaving texts1 and introverting their order1 but nevertheless making use of them and not of others4 ,it is perfectly obvious that such an assertion is nothing but the merest assumption4 ,our ,synoptic ,gospels themselves condemn #cei it utterly1 for precisely similar differences of order and language exist in them and distinguish between them4 ,not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its due weight1 and we have no right to dismember a passage and1 discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the ,gospels1 to assert that it is compiled from them and not derived1 as it stands1 from another source47#a7 ,as an illustration from our ,gospels1 let us for a moment suppose the ,gospel according to ,luke to have been lost1 like the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews and so many others4 ,in the works of one of the ,fathers1 we discover the following quotation from an unnamed evangelical work3 ,and he said unto them --,greek--3 ,the harvest truly is great but the labourers are few3 pray ye therefore the ,lord of the harvest that he would send forth labourers into his harvest4 ,go your ways3 --,greek-- behold ,i send you forth as lambs --,greek-- in the midst of wolves4 ,following the system adopted in regard to ,justin1 apologetic critics would of course maintain that this was a compilation from memory of passages quoted freely from our first ,gospel1 that is to say ,matt4 ix4 #cg4 ,then saith he unto his disciples --,greek-- the harvest1 c1 and ,matt4 x4 #af1 ,behold ,i --,greek-- send you forth as sheep --,greek-- in the midst of wolves3 be ye therefore1 c1 which1 with the differences which we have indicated1 agree4 ,it would probably be in vain #a ,for the arguments of apologetic criticism1 the reader may be referred to ,canon ,westcott's work ,on the ,canon1 p4 #aab-- #aci4 ,dr4 ,westcott does not1 of course1 deny the fact that ,justin's quotations are different from the text of our ,gospels1 but he accounts for his variations ou grounds which seem to us purely imaginary4 ,it is evident that1 so long as there are such variations to be explained away1 at least no proof of identity is possible4 #cfj to argue that the quotation indicated a continuous order1 and the variations combined to confirm the probability of a different source1 and still more so to point out that1 although parts of the quotation separated from their context might to a certain extent correspond with scattered verses in the first ,gospel1 such a circumstance was no proof that the quotation was taken from that and from no other ,gospel4 ,the passage1 however1 is a literal quotation from ,luke x4 #b1 #c1 which1 as we have assumed1 had been lost4 ,again1 still supposing the third ,gospel no longer extant1 we might find the following quotation in a work of the ,fathers3 ,take heed to yourselves --,greek-- of the leaven of the ,pharisees1 which is hypocrisy --,greek--4 ,for there is nothing covered up --,greek-- which shall not be revealed1 and hid which shall not be known4 ,it would of course be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of our first ,gospel quoted almost literally1 with merely a few very immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note1 and the explanatory words which is hypocrisy introduced by the ,father1 and not a part of the quotation at all4 ,the two verses are ,matt4 xvi4 #f3 ,beware and --,greek-- take heed of the leaven of the ,pharisees and ,sadducees --,greek-- and ,matt4 x4 #bf 4444 ,for --,greek-- there is nothing covered --,greek-- that shall not be revealed1 and hid that shall not be known4 ,the sentence would in fact be divided as in the case of ,justin1 and each part would have its parallel pointed out in separate portions of the ,gospel4 ,how wrong such a system is--and it is precisely that which is adopted with regard to ,justin--is clearly established by the fact that the quotation1 #cfa instead of being such a combination1 is simply taken from the ,gospel according to ,luke xii4 #a1 #b1 as it stands4 ,to give one more example1 and such might easily be multiplied1 if our second ,gospel had been lost1 and the following passage were met with in one of the ,fathers without its source being indicated1 what would be the argument of those who insist that ,justin's quotations1 though differing from our ,gospels1 were yet taken from them8 ,if any one have --,greek-- ears to hear let him hear4 ,and he said unto them3 ,take heed what --,greek-- ye hear3 with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you3 and more shall be given unto you4 ,for he --,greek-- that hath to him shall be given1 and he --,greek-- that hath not from him shall be taken even that which he hath4 ,upon the principle on which ,justin's quotations are treated1 it would certainly be affirmed positively that this passage was a quotation from our first and third ,gospels combined and made from memory4 ,the exigencies of the occasion might probably cause the assertion to be made that the words3 ,and he said to them1 really indicated a separation of the latter part of the quotation from the preceding1 and that the ,father thus showed that the passage was not consecutive2 and as to the phrase3 and more shall be given unto you1 that it was evidently an addition of the ,father4 ,the passage would be dissected1 and its different members compared with scattered sentences1 and declared almost literal quotations from the ,canonical ,gospels3 ,matt4 xiii4 #j4 ,he that hath --,greek-- ears to hear let him hear47l7 ,luke viii4 #ah1 ,take heed therefore how --,greek-- ye hear4 ,matt4 vii4 #b444 with what measure ye #cfb mete it shall be measured to you47#a7 ,matt4 xiii4 #ab3 ,for whosoever --,greek-- hath1 to him shall be given 7and he shall have abundance72 but whosoever --,greek-- hath not from him shall be taken even that which he hath4 a ,in spite of these ingenious assertions1 however1 the quotation in reality is literally and consecutively taken from ,mark iv4 #bc--be4 ,these examples may suffice to show that any argument which commences by the assumption that the order of a passage quoted may be entirely disregarded1 and that it is sufficient to find parallels scattered irregularly up and down the ,gospels to warrant the conclusion that the passage is compiled from them1 and is not a consecutive quotation from some other source1 is utterly unfounded and untenable4 ,the supposition of a lost ,gospel which has just been made to illustrate this argument is1 however1 not a mere supposition as applied to ,justin but a fact1 for we no longer have the ,gospel according to ,peter nor that according to the ,hebrews1 not to mention the numerous other works in use in the early ,church4 ,the instances we have given show the importance of the order as well as the language of ,justin's quotations1 and while they prove the impossibility of demonstrating that a consecutive passage which differs not only in language but in order from the parallels in our ,gospels must be derived from them1 they likewise prove the probability that such passages are actually quoted from a different source4 ,if we examine further1 however1 in the same way1 quotations which differ merely in language1 we arrive at the very same conclusion4 ,supposing the third ,gospel to be lost1 what would be the source assigned to the #cfc following quotation from an unnamed ,gospel in the work of one of the ,fathers8 ,no servant --,greek-- can serve two lords1 for either he will hate the one1 and love the other2 or else he will hold to the one and despise the other4 ,ye cannot serve ,god and ,mammon4 ,of course the passage would be claimed as a quotation from memory of ,matt4 vi4 #bd1 with which it perfectly corresponds with the exception of the addition of the second word --,greek--1 which1 it would no doubt be argued1 is an evident and very natural amplification of the simple --,greek-- of the first ,gospel4 ,yet this passage1 only differing by the single word from ,matthew1 is a literal quotation from the ,gospel according to ,luke xvi4 #ac4 ,or1 to take another instance1 supposing the third ,gospel to be lost1 and the following passage quoted1 from an unnamed source1 by one of the ,fathers3 ,beware --,greek-- of the ,scribes which desire to walk in long robes1 and love --,greek-- greetings in the markets1 and chief seats in the synagogues and uppermost places at feasts2 which devour widows7#a7 houses1 and for a pretence make long prayers3 these shall receive greater damnation4 ,this would without hesitation be declared a quotation from memory of ,mark xii44#ch-dj 4444 ,beware --,greek-- of the ,scribes which desire to walk in long robes and greetings in the markets1 and chief seats in the synagogues and uppermost places at feasts3 which devour widows' houses1 and for a pretence make long prayers3 these shall receive1 c4 ,it is however a literal quotation of ,luke xx4 #df1 #dg2 yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic critics that possibly1 not to say probably1 the passage was not derived from ,mark but from a lost ,gospel4 ,to quote one more instance1 let us #cfd suppose the ,gospel according to ,mark no longer extant1 and that in some early work there existed the following quotation3 ,it is easier for a camel to go through the eye --,greek-- of a needle1 than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of ,god4 ,this would of course be claimed as a quotation from memory of ,matt4 xix4 #bd17a7 with which it agrees with the exception of the substitution of --,greek-- for the --,greek--4 ,it would not the less have been an exact quotation from ,mark x4 #be47b7 ,we have repeatedly pointed out that the actual agreement of any saying of ,jesus1 quoted by one of the early ,fathers from an unnamed source1 with a passage in our ,gospels is by no means conclusive evidence that the quotation was actually derived from that ,gospel4 ,it must be apparent that literal agreement in reporting short and important sayings is not in itself so surprising as to constitute proof that1 occurring in two histories1 the one must have copied from the other4 ,the only thing which is surprising is that such frequent inaccuracy should occur4 ,when we add1 however1 the fact that most of the larger early evangelical works1 including our ,synoptic ,gospels1 must have been compiled out of the same original sources1 and have been largely indebted to each other1 the common possession of such sayings becomes #cfe a matter of natural occurrence4 ,moreover1 it must be admitted even by apologetic critics that1 in a case of such vast importance as the report of sayings of ,jesus1 upon the verbal accuracy of which the most essential doctrines of ,christianity depend1 it cannot be considered strange if various ,gospels report the same saying in the same words4 ,practically1 the ,synoptic ,gospels differ in their reports a great deal more than is right or desirable2 but we may take them as an illustration of the fact1 that identity of passages1 where the source is unnamed1 by no means proves that such passages in a work of the early ,fathers were derived from one ,gospel1 and not from any other4 ,let us suppose our first ,gospel to have been lost1 and the following quotation from an unnamed source to be found in an early work3 ,every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down1 and cast into the fire4 ,this being in literal agreement with ,luke iii4 #i1 would certainly be declared by modern apologists conclusive proof that the ,father was acquainted with that ,gospel1 and although the context in the work of the ,father might for instance be3 ,ye shall know them from their works1 and every tree1 c1 c1 and yet in the third ,gospel1 the context is3 ,and now also1 the axe is laid unto the root of the trees3 and every tree1 c1 that would by no means give them pause4 ,the explanation of combination of texts1 and quotation from memory1 is sufficiently elastic for every emergency4 ,now the words in question might in reality be a quotation from the lost ,gospel according to ,matthew1 in which they twice occur1 so that here is a passage which is literally repeated three times1 ,matthew iii4 #aj1 vii4 #ai1 and ,luke iii #i4 ,in ,matthew iii4 #aj1 and in the third ,gospel1 the words are part of a saying of ,john the #cff ,baptist2 whilst in ,matthew vii4 #ai1 they are given as part of the ,sermon on the ,mount1 with a different context1 ,this passage is actually quoted by ,justin 7k #h71 with the context3 ,ye shall know them from their works1 which is different from that in any of the three places in which the words occur in our synoptics and1 on the grounds we have clearly established1 it cannot be considered in any case as necessarily a quotation from our ,gospels1 but1 on the contrary1 there are good reasons for the very opposite conclusion4 ,another illustration of this may be given1 by supposing the ,gospel of ,luke to be no longer extant1 and the following sentence in one of the ,fathers3 ,and ye shall be hated by all men1 for my name's sake4 ,these very words occur both in ,matthew x4 #bb1 and ,mark xiii4 #ac1 in both of which places there follow the words3 but he that endureth to the end1 the same shall be saved4 ,there might here have been a doubt1 as to whether the ,father derived the words from the first or second ,gospel1 but they would have been ascribed either to the one or to the other1 whilst in reality they were taken from a different work altogether1 ,luke xxi4 #ag4 ,here again1 we have the same words in three ,gospels4 ,in how many more may not the same passage have been found8 ,one more instance to conclude4 ,the following passage might be quoted from an unnamed source by one of the ,fathers3 ,heaven and earth shall pass away1 but my words shall not pass away4 ,if the ,gospel according to ,mark were no longer extant1 this would be claimed as a quotation either from ,matthew xxiv4 #ce1 or ,luke xxi4 #cc1 in both of which it occurs1 but1 notwithstanding1 the ,father might not have been acquainted with either of them1 and simply have quoted from ,mark #cfg xiii4 #ca4a ,and here again1 the three ,gospels contain the same passage without variation4 ,now in all these cases1 not only is the selection of the ,gospel from which the quotation was actually taken completely an open question1 since they all have it1 but still more is the point uncertain1 when it is considered that many other works may also have contained it1 historical sayings being naturally common property4 ,does the agreement of the quotation with a passage which is equally found in the three ,gospels prove the existence of all of them8 and if not1 how is the ,gospel from which it was actually taken to be distinguished8 ,if it be difficult to do so1 how much more when the possibility and probability1 demonstrated by the agreement of the three extant1 that it might have formed part of a dozen other works is taken into account ,in the case of ,justin1 it is simply absurd and unreasonable1 in the face of his persistent variation from our ,gospels1 to assert positively that his quotations are derived from them4 ,it must have been apparent to all that1 throughout his quotation from the ,sermon on the ,mount1 ,justin follows an order which is quite different from that in our ,synoptic ,gospels1 and as might have been expected1 the inference of a different source1 which is naturally suggested by this variation in order1 is more than confirmed by persistent and continuous variation in language4 ,if it be true1 that examples of confusion of quotation are to be found in the works of ,clement of ,alexandria1 ,origen1 and other ,fathers1 it must at the same time be remembered1 that these are quite exceptional1 and we are #cfh scarcely in a position to judge how far confusion of memory may not have arisen from reminiscences of other forms of evangelical expressions occurring in apocryphal works1 with which we know the ,fathers to have been well acquainted4 ,the most vehement asserter of the identity of the ,memoirs with our ,gospels1 however1 must absolutely admit as a fact1 explain it as he may1 that variation from our ,gospel readings is the general rule in ,justin's quotations1 and agreement with them the very rare exception4#a ,now1 such a phenomenon is elsewhere unparalleled in those times1 when memory was more cultivated than with us in these days of cheap printed books1 and it is unreasonable to charge ,justin with such universal want of memory and carelessness about matters which he held so sacred1 merely to support a foregone conclusion1 when the recognition of a difference of source1 indicated in every direction1 is so much more simple1 natural1 and justifiable4 ,it is argued that ,justin's quotations from the ,old ,testament likewise present constant variation from the text4 ,this is true to a considerable extent1 but they are not so persistently inaccurate as the quotations we are examining1 supposing them to be derived from our ,gospels4 ,this pica1 however1 is of no avail1 for it is obvious that the employment of the ,old ,testament is not established merely by inaccurate citations2 and it is quite undeniable that the use of certain historical documents out of many of closely similar1 and in many parts probably identical1 character cannot be proved by anonymous quotations differing from anything actually in these documents4 ,there are very many of the quotations of ,justin which bear unmistakable marks of exactness and verbal #cfi accuracy1 but which yet differ materially from our ,gospels1 and most of his quotations from the ,sermon on the ,mount are of this kind4 ,for instance1 ,justin introduces the passages which we have marked a1 b1 c1 with the words3 ,he 7,jesus7 spoke thus of ,chastity17l7 and after giving the quotations1 a1 b1 and c1 the first two of which1 although finding a parallel in two consecutive verses1 ,matthew v4 #bh1 #bi1 are divided by the separating --,greek--1 and therefore do not appear to have been united in his ,gospel1 ,justin continues3 ,just as even those who with the sanction of human law contract a second marriage are sinners in the eye of our ,master1 so also are those who look upon a woman to lust after her4 ,for not only he who actually commits adultery is rejected by him1 but also he who desires to commit adultery1 since not our acts alone are open before ,god1 but also our thoughts47#b7 ,now it is perfectly clear that ,justin here professes to give the actual words of ,jesus1 and then moralizes upon them2 and both the quotation and his own subsequent paraphrase of it lose all their significance1 if we suppose that ,justin did not correctly quote in the first instance1 but actually commences by altering the text47#c7 ,these passages a1 b1 and c1 however1 have all marked and characteristic variations from the ,gospel text1 but as we have already shown1 there is no reason for asserting that they are not accurate verbal quotations from another ,gospel4 #cgj ,the passage #h is likewise a professed quotation17#a7 but not only does it differ in language1 but it presents deliberate transpositions in order which clearly indicate that ,justin's source was not our ,gospels4 ,the nearest parallels in our ,gospels are found in ,matthew v4 #df1 followed by #dd4 ,the same remarks apply to the next passage ,euro1 which is introduced as a distinct quotation17#b7 but which1 like the rest1 differs materially1 linguistically and in order1 from the canonical ,gospels4 ,the whole of the passage is consecutive1 and excludes the explanation of a mere patchwork of passages loosely put together1 and very imperfectly quoted from memory4 ,justin states that ,jesus taught that we should communicate to those who need1 and do nothing for vain glory1 and he then gives the very words of ,jesus in an unbroken and clearly continuous discourse4 ,christians are to give to all who ask1 and not merely to those from whom they hope to receive again1 which would be no new thing--even the publicans do that2 but ,christians must do more4 ,they are not to lay up riches on earth1 but in heaven1 for it would not profit a man to gain the whole world1 and lose his soul2 therefore1 the ,teacher a second time repeats the injunction that ,christians should lay up treasures in heaven4 ,if the unity of thought which binds this passage so closely together were not sufficient to prove that it stood in ,justin's ,gospel in the form and order in which he quotes it1 the requisite evidence would be supplied by the repetition at its close of the injunction3 ,lay up1 therefore1 in the heavens1 c4 ,it is impossible that ,justin should1 through defect of memory1 quote a second time in so short a passage the same injunction1 if the passage were not thus appropriately terminated in #cga his ,gospel4 ,the common sense of the reader must at once perceive that it is impossible that ,justin1 professedly quoting words of ,jesus1 should thus deliberately fabricate a discourse rounded off by the repetition of one of its opening admonitions1 with the addition of an argumentative therefore4 ,he must have found it so in the ,gospel from which he quotes4 ,nothing indeed but the difficulty of explaining the marked variations presented by this passage1 on the supposition that ,justin must quote from our ,gospels1 could lead apologists to insinuate such a process of compilation1 or question the consecutive character of this passage4 ,the nearest parallels to the dismembered parts of this quotation1 presenting everywhere serious variations1 however1 can only be found in the following passages in the order in which we cite them1 ,matthew v4 #db1 ,luke vi4 #cd1 ,matthew vi4 #ai1 #bj1 xvi4 #bf1 and a repetition of part of vi4 #bj1 with variations4 ,moreover1 the expression3 ,what new thing do ye8 is quite peculiar to ,justin4 ,we have already met with it in the preceding section #h4 ,if ye love them which love you1 what new thing do ye8 for even1 c4 ,here1 in the same verse1 we have3 ,if ye lend to them from whom ye hope to receive1 what new thing do ye8 for even1 c4 ,it is evident1 both from its repetition and its distinct dogmatic view of ,christianity as a new teaching in contrast to the old1 that this variation cannot have been the result of defective memory1 but must have been the reading of the ,memoirs1 and1 in all probability1 it was the original form of the teaching4 ,such antithetical treatment is clearly indicated in many parts of the ,sermon on the ,mount3 for instance1 ,matthew v4 #ba1 ,ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old4444 but ,i say unto you1' c1 cf4 v4 #cc1 #ch1 #dc4 ,it is certain that #cgb the whole of the quotation ,e differs very materially from our ,gospels1 and there is every reason to believe that not only was the passage not derived from them1 but that it was contained in the ,memoirs of the ,apostles substantially in the form and order in which ,justin quotes it47#a7 ,the next passage 7f77#b7 is separated from the preceding merely by the usual --,greek-- and it moves on to its close with the same continuity of thought and the same peculiarities of construction which characterize that which we have just considered4 ,christians are to be kind and merciful --,greek-- to all as their ,father is1 who makes his sun to shine alike on the good and evil1 and they need not be anxious about their own temporal necessities3 what they shall eat and what put on2 are they not better than the birds and beasts whom ,god feedeth8 therefore1 they are not to be careful about what they are to eat and what put on1 for their heavenly ,father knows they have need of these things2 but they are to seek the kingdom of heaven1 and all these things shall be added3 for where the treasure is--the thing he seeks and is careful about--there will also be the mind of the man4 ,in fact1 the passage is a suitable continuation of c1 inculcating1 like it1 abstraction from worldly cares and thoughts in reliance on the heavenly ,father1 and the mere fact that a separation is made where it is between the two passages c and ,l shows further that each of those passages was complete in itself4 ,there is absolutely no reason for the separating _/cat1 if these passages were a mere combination of scattered verses4 ,this quotation1 however1 which is so consecutive in ,justin1 can only find distant parallels in passages widely divided throughout the ,synoptic #cgc ,gospels1 which have to be arranged in the following order3 ,luke vi4 #cf1 ,matt4 v4 #de1 vi4 #be1 #bf1 #ca1 #cb1 #cc1 vi4 #ba1 the whole of which present striking differences from ,justin's quotation4 ,the repetition of the injunction be not careful again with the illative therefore is quite in the spirit of ,e4 ,this admonition3 ,therefore1 be not careful1 c1 is reiterated no less than three times in the first ,gospel 7vi #be1 #ca1 #cd71 and confirms the characteristic repetition of ,justin's ,gospel1 which seems to have held a middle course between ,matthew and ,luke1 the latter of which does not repeat the phrase1 although the injunction is made a second time in more direct terms4 ,the repetition of the passage3 ,be ye kind and merciful1 c1 in ,dial4 #if1 with the same context and peculiarities1 is a remarkable confirmation of the natural conclusion that ,justin quotes the passage from a ,gospel different from ours4 ,the expression --,greek-- thrice repeated by ,justin himself1 and supported by a similar duplication in the ,clementine ,homilies 7iii4 #eg77a7 cannot possibly be an accidental departure from our ,gospels47#b7 ,for the rest it is undeniable that the whole passage ,l differs materially both in order and language from our ,gospels1 from which it cannot without unwarrantable assumption be maintained to have been taken either collectively or in detail1 and strong internal reasons lead us to conclude that it is quoted substantially as it stands from ,justin's #cgd ,gospel1 which must have been different from our ,synoptics47#a7 ,in #f again1 we have an express quotation introduced by the words3 ,and regarding our being patient under injuries and ready to help all1 and free from anger1 this is what he said2 and then he proceeds to give the actual words47#b7 ,at the close of the quotation he continues3 ,for we ought not to strive1 neither would he have us be imitators of the wicked1 but he has exhorted us by patience and gentleness to lead men from shame and the love of evil1 c41 c47#c7 ,it is evident that these observations1 which are a mere paraphrase of the text1 indicate that the quotation itself is deliberate and precise4 ,justin professes first to quote the actual teaching of ,jesus1 and then makes his own comments2 but if it be assumed that he began by concocting out of stray texts1 altered to suit his purpose1 a continuous discourse1 the subsequent observations seem singularly useless and out of place4 ,although the passage forms a consecutive and harmonious discourse1 the nearest parallels in our ,gospels can only be found by uniting parts of the following scattered verses3 ,matthew v4 #ci1 #dj1 #bb1 #da1 #af4 ,the ,christian who is struck on one cheek is to turn the other1 and not to resist those who would take away his cloak or coat2 but if1 on the contrary1 he be angry1 he is in danger of fire2 if1 then1 he be compelled to go one mile1 let him show his gentleness by going two1 and thus let his good works shine before men that1 seeing them1 they may adore his ,father which is in heaven4 ,it is evident that the last two sentences1 which find their parallels in ,matt by putting v4 #af after #da1 the former verse having #cge quite a different context in the ,gospel1 must have so followed each other in ,justin's text4 ,his purpose is to quote the teaching of ,jesus1 regarding our being patient under injuries1 and ready to help all and free from anger1 but his quotation of ,let your good works shine before men1 c1 has no direct reference to his subject1 and it cannot reasonably be supposed that ,justin would have selected it from a separate part of the ,gospel4 ,coming as it no doubt did in his ,memoirs in the order in which he quotes it1 it is quite appropriate to his purpose4 ,it is difficult1 for instance1 to imagine why ,justin further omitted the injunction in the parallel passage1 ,matthew v4 #ci1 that ye resist not evil1 when supposed to quote the rest of the verse1 since his express object is to show that we ought not to strive1 c4 ,the whole quotation presents the same characteristics as those which we have already examined1 and in its continuity of thought and wide variation from the parallels in our ,gospels1 both in order and language1 we must recognize a different and peculiar source47#a7 ,the passage i1 again1 is professedly a literal quotation1 for ,justin prefaces it with the words3 ,and regarding our not swearing at all1 but ever speaking the truth1 he taught thus2 and having in these words actually stated what ,jesus did teach1 he proceeds to quote his very words47#b7 ,in the quotation there is a clear departure from our ,gospel1 arising1 not from accidental failure-of memory1 but from difference of source4 ,the parallel passages in our ,gospels1 so far as they exist at all1 can only be found by taking part of ,matthew v4 #cd and joining it to v4 #cg1 omitting the intermediate verses4 ,the quotation in the #cgf ,epistle of ,james v4 #ab1 which is evidently derived from a source different from ,matthew1 supports the reading of ,justin4 ,this1 with the passage twice repeated in the ,clementine ,homilies in agreement with ,justin1 and1 it may be added1 the peculiar version found in early ecclesiastical writings17#a7 all tend to confirm the belief that there existed a more ancient form of the injunction which ,justin no doubt found in his ,memoirs47#b7 ,the precept1 terse1 simple1 and direct1 as it is here1 is much more in accordance with ,justin's own description of the teaching of ,jesus1 as he evidently found it in his ,gospel1 than the diffused version contained in the first ,gospel1 v4 #cc--cg4 ,another remarkable and characteristic illustration of the peculiarity of ,justin's ,memoirs is presented by the long passage k1 which is also throughout consecutive and bound together by clear unity of thought47#c7 ,it is presented with the context3 ,for not those who merely make professions but those who do the works1 as he 7,jesus7 said1 shall be saved4 ,for he spake thus4 ,it does not1 therefore1 seem possible to indicate more clearly the deliberate intention to quote the exact expressions of ,jesus1 and yet not only do we find material difference from the language in the parallel passages in our ,gospels1 but those parallels1 such as they are1 can only be made by patching together the following verses in the order in #cgg which we give them3 ,matt4 vii4 #ba1 ,luke x4 #af1 ,matt4 vii4 #bb1 #bc1 xiii4 #db1 #dc1 vii4 #ae1 part of #af1 #ai4 ,it will be remarked that the passage 7k #b7 ,luke x4 #af1 is thrust in between two consecutive verses in ,matthew1 and taken from a totally different context as the nearest parallel to k #b of ,justin1 although it is widely different from it1 omitting altogether the most important words3 and doeth what ,i say4 ,the repetition of the same phrase3 ,he that heareth me heareth him that sent me1 in ,apol4 ,i1 #fc17a7 makes it certain that ,justin accurately quotes his ,gospel1 whilst the omission of the words in that place3 and doeth what ,i say1 evidently proceeds from the fact that they are an interruption of the phrase for which ,justin makes the quotation1 namely1 to prove that ,jesus is sent forth to reveal the ,father47#b7 ,it may be well to compare ,justin's passage1 k #a--d1 with one occurring in the so-called ,second ,epistle of ,clement to the ,corinthians1 iv4 ,let us not1 therefore1 only call him ,lord1 for that will not save us4 ,for he saith3 ',not every one that saith to me1 ,lord1 ,lord1 shall be saved1 but he that worketh righteousness4'444 the ,lord said3 ',if ye be with me gathered together in my bosom1 and do not my commandments1 ,i will cast you off and say to you3 ,depart from me2 ,i know you not1 whence you are1 workers of iniquity4'7#c7 ,the expression --,greek-- here strongly recalls the reading of ,justin47#d7 ,this passage1 which is foreign to #cgh our ,gospels1 at least shows the existence of others containing parallel discourses with distinct variations4 ,some of the quotations in this spurious ,epistle are stated to be taken from the ,gospel according to the ,egyptians17#a7 which was in all probability a version of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews47#b7 ,the variations which occur in ,justin's repetition1 in ,dial #gf1 of his quotation k #c are not important1 because the more weighty departure from the ,gospel in the words did we not eat and drink in thy name1 --,greek-- is deliberately repeated17#c7 and if1 therefore1 there be freedom of quotation it is free quotation not from the canonical1 but from a different ,gospel47#d7 ,origen's quotation7#e7 does not affect this conclusion1 for the repetition of the phrase --,greek-- has the form of the ,gospel1 and besides1 which is much more important1 we know that ,origen was well acquainted with the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews and other apocryphal works from which this may have been a reminiscence47#f7 ,we must add1 moreover1 that the passage in ,dial #gf appears in connection with others widely differing from our ,gospels4 ,the passage k #e not only materially varies from the parallel in ,matt4 xiii4 #db1 #dc in language but in connection of ideas47#g7 ,here also1 upon examination1 we must conclude that ,justin quotes from a source different from our #cgi ,gospels1 and moreover1 that his ,gospel gives with greater correctness the original form of the passage47#a7 ,the weeping and gnashing of teeth are distinctly represented as the consequence when the wicked see the bliss of the righteous while they are sent into everlasting fire1 and not as the mere characteristics of hell4 ,it will be observed that the preceding passages k #c and #d1 find parallels to a certain extent in ,matt4 vii4 #bb1bc1 although ,luke xiii4 #bf1 #bg1 is in some respects closer to the reading of ,justin k #e1 however1 finds no continuation of parallel in ,matt1 vii41 from which the context comes1 but we have to seek it in xiii4 #db1 #dc4 ,k #e1 however1 does find its continuing parallel in the next verse in ,luke xiii4 #bh1 where we have ,there shall be 7the7 weeping and 7the7 gnashing of teeth when ye shall see ,abraham1 c ,there is here1 it is evident1 the connection of ideas which is totally lacking in ,matt4 xiii4 #db1 #dc1 where the verses in question occur as the conclusion to the exposition of the ,parable of the ,tares4 ,now1 although it is manifest that ,luke xiii4 #bh1 cannot possibly have been the source from which ,justin quotes1 still the opening words and the sequence of ideas demonstrate the great probability that other ,gospels must have given1 after k #d1 a continuation which is wanting after ,matt4 vii4 #bc1 but which is indicated in the parallel ,luke xiii4 7#bf1 #bg7 #bh1 and is somewhat closely followed in ,matt4 xiii4 #db1 #dc4 ,when such a sequence is found in an avowed quotation from ,justin's ,gospel1 it is certain that he must have found it there substantially as he quotes it4 ,the passage k #f17b7 ,for many shall arrive1 c1 is a very important one1 and it departs #chj emphatically from the parallel in our first ,gospel4 ,instead of being1 like the latter1 a warning against false prophets1 it is merely the announcement that many deceivers shall come4 ,this passage is rendered more weighty by the fact that ,justin repeats it with little variation in ,dial4 #ce1 and immediately after quotes a saying of ,jesus of only five words which is not found in our ,gospels1 and then he repeats a quotation to the same effect in the shape of a warning3 ,beware of false prophets1 c1 like that in ,matt4 vii4 #ae1 but still distinctly differing from it47#a7 ,it is perfectly clear that ,justin quotes two separate passages47#b7 ,it is impossible that he could intend to repeat the same quotation at an interval of only five words2 it is equally impossible that1 having quoted it in the one form1 he could so immediately quote it in the other through error of memory47#c7 ,the simple and very natural conclusion is that he found both passages in his ,gospel4 ,the object for which he quotes would more than justify the quotation of both passages1 the one referring to the many false ,christians and the other to the false prophets of whom he is speaking4 ,that two passages so closely related should be found in the same ,gospel is not in the least singular4 ,there are numerous instances of the same in our ,synoptics47#d7 ,the actual facts of the case then are these3 ,justin quotes in the ,dialogue1 with the same marked deviations from the #cha parallel in the ,gospel1 a passage quoted by him m the ,apology1 and after an interval of only five words he quotes a second passage to the same effect1 though with very palpable difference in its character1 which likewise differs from the ,gospel1 in company with other texts which still less find any parallels in the canonical ,gospels4 ,the two passages1 by their differences1 distinguish each other as separate1 whilst1 by their agreement in common variations from the parallel in ,matthew1 they declare their common origin from a special ,gospel1 a result still further made manifest by the agreement between the first passage in the ,dialogue and the quotations in the ,apology4 ,in k #g17a7 ,justin's ,gospel substitutes --,greek-- for --,greek--1 and is quite in the spirit of the passage ,o1 ,ye shall know them from their works is the natural reading4 ,the ,gospel version clearly introduces fruit prematurely1 and weakens the force of the contrast which follows4 ,it will be observed1 moreover1 that in order to find a parallel to ,justin's passage k #g1 #h1 only the first part of ,matt4 vii4 #af1 is taken1 and the thread is only caught again at vii4 #ai1 k #h being one of the two passages indicated by de ,wette which we are considering1 and it agrees with ,matt4 vii4 #ai1 with the exception of the single word --,greek--4 ,we must again point out1 however1 that this passage in ,matt4 vii4 #ai1 is repeated no less than three times in our ,gospels1 a second time in ,matt iii4 #aj1 and once in ,luke iii4 #ai4 ,upon two occasions it is placed in the mouth of ,john the ,baptist1 and forms the second portion of a sentence the whole of which is found in literal agreement both in ,matt4 iii4 #aj1 and ,luke iii4 #i1 ,but now the axe is laid unto the root of the trees1 therefore every tree1 c1 c4 #chb ,the passage pointed out by de ,wette as the parallel to ,justin's anonymous quotation1 ,matt4 vii4 #ai--;a selection which is of course obligatory from the context--is itself a mere quotation by ,jesus of part of the saying of the ,baptist1 presenting1 therefore1 double probability of being well known2 and as we have three instances of its literal reproduction in the ,synoptics1 it would indeed be arbitrary to affirm that it was not likewise given literally in other ,gospels4 ,the passage ,x7#a7 is very emphatically given as a literal quotation of the words of ,jesus1 for ,justin cites it directly to authenticate his own statements of ,christian belief ,he says3 ,but if you disregard us both when we entreat1 and when we set all things openly before you1 we shall not suffer loss1 believing1 or rather being fully persuaded1 that every one will be punished by eternal fire according to the desert of his deeds1 and in proportion to the faculties which he received from ,god will his account be required1 as ,christ declared when he said3 ,to whom ,god gave more1 of him shall more also be demanded again4 ,this quotation has no parallel in the first ,gospel1 but we add it here as part of the ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,the passage in ,luke xii4 #dh1 it will be perceived1 presents distinct variation from it1 and that ,gospel cannot for a moment be maintained as the source of ,justin's quotation4 ,the last passage1 ft1#b is one of those advanced by de ,wette which led to this examination47#c7 ,it is likewise clearly a quotation1 but as we have already shown1 its agreement with ,matt v4 #bj1 is no evidence that it was actually derived from that ,gospel4 ,occurring as it does as one of numerous quotations from the ,sermon on the ,mount1 whose general variation both in order and #chc language from the parallels in our ,gospel points to the inevitable conclusion that ,justin derived them from a different source1 there is no reason for supposing that this sentence also did not come from the same ,gospel4 ,no one who has attentively considered the whole of these passages from the ,sermon on the ,mount1 and still less those who are aware of the general rule of variation in his mass of quotations as compared with parallels in our ,gospels1 can fail to be struck by the systematic departure from the order and language of the ,synoptics4 ,the hypothesis that they are quotations from our ,gospels involves the accusation against ,justin of an amount of carelessness and negligence which is quite unparalleled in literature4 ,justin's character and training1 however1 by4 no means warrant any such aspersion17#a7 and there are no grounds for it4 ,indeed1 but for the attempt arbitrarily to establish the identity of the ,memoirs of the ,apostles with our ,gospels1 such a charge would never have been thought of4 ,it is unreasonable to suppose that avowed and deliberate quotations of sayings of ,jesus1 made for the express purpose of furnishing authentic written proof of ,justin's statements regarding ,christianity1 can as an almost invariable rule be so singularly incorrect1 more especially when it is considered that these quotations occur in an elaborate apology for ,christianity addressed to the ,roman emperors1 and in a careful and studied controversy with a ,jew in defence of the new faith4 ,the simple and natural conclusion1 supported by many strong reasons1 is that ,justin derived his quotations from a ,gospel which was different from ours1 although naturally by subject and design it must have been related to them4 ,his #chd ,gospel1 in fact1 differs from our ,synoptics as they differ from each other4 ,we now return to ,tischendorf's statements with regard to ,justin's acquaintance with our ,gospels4 ,having examined the supposed references to the first ,gospel1 we find that ,tischendorf speaks much less positively with regard to his knowledge of the other two ,synoptics4 ,he says3 ,there is the greatest probability that in several passages he also follows ,mark and ,luke47#a7 ,first taking ,mark1 we find that the only example which ,tischendorf gives is the following4 ,he says3 ,twice 7,dial4 #gf and #ajj7 he quotes as an expression of the ,lord3 ',the ,son of ,man must suffer many things1 and be rejected by the ,scribes and ,pharisees 7,ch4 #ajj by the ',pharisees and ,scribes'71 and be crucified and the third day rise again4'7#b7 ,this agrees better with ,mark viii4 #ca and ,luke ix4 #bb than with ,matt4 xvi4 #ba1 only in ,justin the ',pharisees' are put instead of the ',elders and ,chief ,priests' 7so ,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,luke71 likewise 'be crucified' instead of 'be killed4'7#c7 ,this is the only instance of similarity with ,mark that ,tischendorf can produce1 and we have given his own remarks to show how thoroughly weak his case is4 ,the passage in ,mark viii4 #ca1 reads3 ,and he began to teach them that the ,son of ,man must suffer many things1 and be rejected by the ,elders and the ,chief ,priests --,greek--1 and the ,scribes and be killed --,greek--1 and after three days --,greek-- #che rise again4 ,and the following is the reading of ,luke ix4 #bb3 ,saying that the ,son of ,man must suffer many things1 and be rejected by the ,elders and ,chief ,priests --,greek-- and ,scribes and be killed --,greek--1 and the third day rise again4 ,it will be perceived that1 different as it also is1 the passage in ,luke is nearer than that of ,mark1 which cannot in any case have been the source of ,justin's quotation4 ,tischendorf1 however1 does not point out that ,justin1 elsewhere1 a third time refers to this very passage in the very same terms4 ,he says3 ,and ,christ4444 having come4444 and himself also preached1 saying4444 that he must suffer many things from the ,scribes and ,pharisees and be crucified1 and the third day rise again47l7 ,although this omits the words and be rejected1 it gives the whole of the passage literally as before4 ,and thus there is the very remarkable testimony of a quotation three times repeated1 with the same marked variations from our ,gospels1 to show that ,justin found those very words in his ,memoirs47#b7 ,the persistent variation clearly indicates a different source from our ,synoptics4 ,we may1 in reference to this reading1 compare ,luke xxiv4 #f3 ,he is not here1 but is risen3 remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in ,galilee 7v4 #g71 saying that the ,son of ,man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men1 and be crucified1 and the third day rise again4 ,this reference to words of ,jesus1 in which the words --,greek--4 occurred1 as in ,justin1 indicates that although our ,gospels do not contain it some others may well have #chf done so4 ,in one place ,justin introduces the saying with the following words3 ,for he exclaimed before the crucifixion1 the ,son of ,man1 c417#a7 both indicating a time for the discourse1 and also quoting a distinct and definite saying in contradistinction to this report of the matter of his teaching1 which is the form in which the parallel passage occurs in the ,gospels4 ,in ,justin's ,memoirs it no doubt existed as an actual discourse of ,jesus1 which he verbally and accurately quoted4 ,with regard to the third ,gospel1 ,tischendorf says3 ,it is in reference to ,luke 7xxii4 #dd7 that ,justin recalls in the ,dialogue 7#ajc7 the falling drops of the sweat of agony on the ,mount of ,olives1 and certainly with an express appeal to the ',memoirs composed by his ,apostles and their followers1'7#b7 ,now we have already seen7#c7 that ,justin1 in the passage referred to1 does not make use of the peculiar expression which gives the whole of its character to the account in ,luke1 and that there is no ground for affirming that ,justin derived his information from that ,gospel4 ,the only other reference to passages proving the probability of ,justin's use of ,luke or ,mark is that which we have just discussed--,the ,son of ,man must1 c4 ,from this the character of ,tischendorf's assumptions may be inferred4 ,de ,wette does not advance any instances of verbal agreement either with ,mark or ,luke47#d7 ,he says1 moreover3 ,the historical references are much freer still 7than quotations71 and combine in part #chg the accounts of ,matthew and ,luke2 some of the kind1 however1 are not found at all in our ,canonical ,gospels47#a7 ,this we have already sufficiently demonstrated4 ,we might now well terminate the examination of ,justin's quotations1 which has already taken up too much of our space1 but before doing so it may be well very briefly to refer to another point4 ,in his work ,on the ,canon1 ,dr4 ,westcott adopts a somewhat singular course4 ,he evidently feels the very great difficulty in which anyone who asserts the identity of the source of ,justin's quotations with our ,gospels is placed by the fact that1 as a rule1 these quotations differ from parallel passages in our ,gospels2 and whilst on the one hand maintaining that the quotations generally are from the ,canonical ,gospels1 he on the other endeavours to reduce the number of those which profess to be quotations at all4 ,he says3 ,to examine in detail the whole of ,justin's quotations would be tedious and unnecessary4 ,it will be enough to examine 7#a7 those which are alleged by him as quotations1 and 7#b7 those also which1 though anonymous1 are yet found repeated with the same variations either in ,justin's own writings1 or 7#c7 in heretical works4 ,it is evidently on these quotations that the decision hangs47#b7 ,now under the first category ,dr4 ,westcott finds very few4 ,he says3 ,in seven passages only1 as far as ,i can discover1 does ,justin profess to give the exact words recorded in the ,memoirs2 and in these1 if there be no reason to the contrary1 it is natural to expect that he will preserve the exact language of the ,gospels which he used1 just as in anonymous quotations we may conclude that he is trusting to memory47#c7 #chh ,before proceeding further1 we may point out the straits to which an apologist is reduced who starts with a foregone conclusion4 ,we have already seen a number of ,justin's professed quotations2 but here1 after reducing the number to seven only1 our critic prepares a way of escape even out of these4 ,it is difficult to understand what reason to the contrary can possibly justify a man who professes to give the exact words recorded in the ,memoirs for not doing what he professes2 and further1 it passes our comprehension to understand why1 in anonymous quotations1 we may conclude that he is trusting to memory4 ,the cautious exception is as untenable as the gratuitous assumption4 ,dr4 ,westcott continues as follows the passage which we have just interrupted3--,the result of a first view of the passages is striking4 ,of the seven1 five agree verbally with the text of ,st4 ,matthew or ,st4 ,luke1 exhibiting indeed three slight various readings not elsewhere found1 but such as are easily explicable2 the sixth is a compound summary of words related by ,st4 ,matthew2 the seventh alone presents an important variation in the text of a verse1 which is1 however1 otherwise very uncertain47#a7 ,the italics of course are ours4 ,the first view of the passages and of the above statement is indeed striking4 ,it is remarkable how easily difficulties are overcome under such an apologetic system4 ,the striking result1 to summarize ,canon ,westcott's own words1 is this3 out of seven professed quotations from the ,memoirs1 in which he admits we may expect to find the exact language preserved1 five present three variations2 one is a compressed summary1 and does not agree verbally at all2 and the seventh presents an important variation4 ,dr4 #chi ,westcott1 on the same easy system1 continues3 ,our inquiry is thus confined to the two last instances2 and it must be seen whether their disagreement from the ,synoptic ,gospel is such as to outweigh the agreement of the remaining five47l7 ,before proceeding to consider these seven passages admitted by ,dr4 ,westcott1 we must point out that1 in a note to the statement of the number1 he mentions that he excludes other two passages as not merely quotations of words1 but concise narratives47#b7 ,but surely this is a most extraordinary reason for omitting them1 and one the validity of which cannot be admitted4 ,as ,justin introduces them deliberately as quotations1 why should they be excluded simply because they are combined with a historical statement8 ,we shall produce them4 ,the first is in ,apol4 i4 #ff3 ,for the ,apostles1 in the ,memoirs composed by them1 which are called ,gospels17#c7 handed down that it was thus enjoined on them1 that ,jesus1 having taken bread and given thanks1 said3 ',this do in remembrance of me4 ,this is my body4' ,and similarly1 having taken the cup and given thanks1 he said3 ',this is my blood1' and delivered it to them alone47#d7 ,this passage1 it will be remembered1 occurs in an elaborate apology for ,christianity addressed to the ,roman emperors1 and ,justin is giving an account of the most solemn sacrament of his religion4 ,here1 if ever1 we might reasonably expect accuracy and care1 and ,justin1 in fact1 carefully #cij indicates the source of the quotation he is going to make4 ,it is difficult to understand any ground upon which so direct a quotation from the ,memoirs of the ,apostles could be set aside by ,canon ,westcott4 ,justin distinctly states that the ,apostles in these ,memoirs have thus --,greek-- transmitted what was enjoined on us by ,jesus1 and then gives the precise quotation4 ,had the quotation agreed with our ,gospels1 would it not have been claimed as a professedly accurate quotation from them8 ,surely no one can reasonably pretend1 for instance1 that when ,justin1 after this preamble1 states that having taken bread1 c41 ,jesus said3 ,this do in remembrance of me3 this is my body2 or having taken the cup1 c1 he said3 ,this is my blood--,justin does not deliberately mean to quote what ,jesus actually did say8 ,now the account of the episode in ,luke is as follows 7xxii4 #ag73 ,and he took a cup1 gave thanks1 and said3 ,take this1 and divide it among yourselves4 #ah4 ,for ,i say unto you1 ,i will not drink of the fruit of the vine1 until the kingdom of ,god shall come4 #ai4 ,and he took bread1 gave thanks1 brake it1 and gave it unto them1 saying3 ,this is my body which is given for you3 this do in remembrance of me4 #bj4 ,and in like manner the cup after supper1 saying3 ,this is the new covenant in my blood1 which is shed for you47l7 ,dr4 ,westcott of course only compares this passage of ,justin with ,luke1 to which #cia and the parallel in #a ,cor4 xi4 #bd1 wide as the difference is1 it is closer than to the accounts in the other two ,gospels4 ,that ,justin professedly quoted literally from the ,memoirs is evident1 and is rendered still more clear by the serious context by which the quotation is introduced1 the quotation in fact being made to authenticate by actual written testimony the explanations of ,justin4 ,his dogmatic views1 moreover1 are distinctly drawn from a ,gospel1 which1 in a more direct way than our ,synoptics do1 gave the expressions3 ,this is my body1 and ,this is my blood1 and it must have been observed that ,luke1 with which ,justin's reading alone is compared1 not only has not3 --,greek--1 at all1 but instead makes use of a totally different expression3 ,this cup is the new covenant in my blood1 which is shed for you4 ,the second quotation from the ,memoirs which ,dr4 ,westcott passes over is that in ,dial4 #ajc1 compared with ,luke xxii4 #db1 #dc1a on the ,agony in the ,garden1 which we have already examined17#b7 and found at variance with our ,gospel1 and without the peculiar and distinctive expressions of the latter4 ,we now come to the seven passages which ,canon ,westcott admits to be professed quotations from the ,memoirs1 and in which it is natural to expect that he will preserve the exact words of the ,gospels which he used4 ,the first of these is a passage in the ,dialogue1 part of which has already been discussed in connection with the fire in ,jordan and the voice at the ,baptism1 and found to be from a source different from our ,synoptics47#c7 ,justin says3 ,for even he1 the devil1 at the time when he also 7,jesus7 went up from the river ,jordan when the voice #cib said to ,him3 ',thou art my ,son1 this day have ,i begotten thee1' is recorded in the ,memoirs of the ,apostles to have come to him and tempted him even so far as saying to him3 ',worship me2' and ,christ answered him ---,greek---1 ',get thee behind me1 ,satan' ---,greek---1 'thou shalt worship the ,lord thy ,god1 and ,him only shalt thou serve4'7#a7 ,this passage is compared with the account of the temptation in ,matt iv4 #i1 #aj3 ,and he said unto him1 ,all these things will ,i give thee1 if thou wilt fall down and worship me4 #aj4 ,then saith ,jesus unto him ---,greek---1 ,get thee hence1 ,satan --,greek--3 it is written1 ,thou shalt worship1 c ,all the oldest ,codices1 it should be stated1 omit the --,greek--1 as we have done1 but ,cod4 ,d4 7,bezae7 and a few others of infirm authority1 insert these two words4 ,canon ,westcott1 however1 justly admits them to be probably only a very early interpolation47#b7 ,we have no reason whatever for supposing that they existed in ,matthew during ,justin's time4 ,the oldest ,codices omit the whole phrase from the parallel passage1 ,luke iv4 #h1 but ,cod4 ,a4 is an exception1 and reads3 --,greek--4 ,the best modern editions1 however1 reject this as a mere recent addition to ,luke4 ,a comparison of the first and third ,gospels with ,justin clearly shows that the ,gospel which he used followed the former more closely than ,luke4 ,matthew makes the climax of the temptation #cic the view of all the kingdoms of the world1 and the offer to give them to ,jesus if he will fall down and worship ,satan4 ,luke1 on the contrary1 makes the final temptation the suggestion to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple4 ,justin's ,gospel1 as the words1 so far as saying to him --,greek--1 c41 clearly indicate1 had the same climax as ,matthew4 ,now the following points must be observed4 ,justin makes the words of ,satan1 ,worship me --,greek--1 a distinct quotation2 the ,gospel makes ,satan offer all that he has shown if thou wilt fall down and worship me --,greek--4 ,then ,justin's quotation proceeds3 ,and ,christ answered him --,greek--2 whilst ,matthew has1 ,then ,jesus saith to him ---,greek---1 which is a marked variation47#a7 ,the--,greek-- of ,justin1 as we have already said1 is not found in any of the older ,codices of ,matthew4 ,then the words3 it is written1 which form part of the reply of ,jesus in our ,gospels1 are omitted in ,justin's2 but we must add that1 in ,dial #abe1 in again referring to the temptation1 he adds1 it is written4 ,still1 in that passage he also omits the whole phrase1 ,get thee behind me1 ,satan1 and commences3 ,for he answered him3 ,it is written1 ,thou shalt worship1 c4 ,we must1 however1 again point out the most important fact1 that this account of the temptation is directly connected with another which is foreign to our ,gospels4 ,the ,devil is said to come at the time ,jesus went up out of the ,jordan and the voice said to him3 ,thou art my son1 this day have ,i begotten thee--words which do not occur at all in our ,gospels1 and which are again bound up with the incident of the fire in ,jordan4 ,it is altogether #cid unreasonable to assert that ,justin could have referred the fact which he proceeds to quote from the ,memoirs1 to the time those words were uttered1 if they were not to be found in the same ,memoirs4 ,the one incident was most certainly not derived from our ,gospels1 inasmuch as they do not contain it1 and there are the very strongest reasons for asserting that ,justin derived the account of the temptation from a source which contained the other4 ,under these circumstances1 every variation is an indication1 and those which we have pointed out are not accidental1 but clearly exclude the assertion that the quotation is from our ,gospels4 ,the second of the seven passages of ,canon ,westcott is one of those from the ,sermon on the ,mount1 ,dial4 #aje1 compared with ,matt v4 #bj1 adduced by de ,wette1 which we have already considered47#a7 ,with the exception of the opening words1 --,greek--1 the two sentences agree1 but this is no proof that ,justin derived the passage from ,matthew2 while on the contrary1 the persistent variation of the rest of his quotations from the ,sermon on the ,mount1 both in order and language1 forces upon us the conviction that he derived the whole from a source different from our ,gospels4 ,the third passage of ,dr4 ,westcott is that regarding the sign of ,jonas the prophet1 ,matt1 xii4 #ci1 compared with ,dial4 #ajg1 which was the second instance adduced by ,tischendorf ,we have already examined it17#b7 and found that it presents distinct variations from our first ,synoptic1 both linguistically and otherwise1 and that many reasons lead to the conclusion that it was quoted from a ,gospel different from ours4 ,the fourth of ,canon ,westcott's quotations is the #cie following1 to part of which we have already had occasion to refer37l7 ,for which reason our ,christ declared on earth to those who asserted that ,elias must come before ,christ3 ,elias indeed shall come --,greek-- and shall restore all things3 but ,i say unto you that ,elias is come already1 and they knew him not1 but did unto him --,greek-- whatsoever they listed4 ,and it is written that then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of ,john the ,baptist47#b7 ,the express quotation in this passage1 which is compared with ,matt4 xvii4 #aa--ac1 is limited by ,canon ,westcott to the last short sentence7#c7 corresponding with ,matt xvii4 #ac1 and he points out that ,credner admits that it must have been taken from ,matthew4 ,it is quite true that ,credner considers that if any passage of ,justin's quotations proves a necessary connection between ,justin's ,gospels and the ,gospel according to ,matthew1 it is this sentence3 ,and it is written that then the disciples1 c4 ,he explains his reason for this opinion as follows3 ,these words can only be derived from our ,matthew1 with which they literally agree2 for it is thoroughly improbable that a remark of so special a description could have been made by two different and independent individuals so completely alike47#d7 ,we totally differ from this argument1 #cif which is singularly opposed to ,credner's usual clear and thoughtful mode of reasoning47#a7 ,no doubt if such ,gospels could be considered to be absolutely distinct and independent works1 deriving all their matter from individual and separate observation of the occurrences narrated by their authors and personal report of the discourses given1 there might be greater force in the argument1 although even in that case it would have been far from conclusive here1 inasmuch as the observation we are considering is the mere simple statement of a fact necessary to complete the episode1 and it might well have been made in the same terms by separate reporters4 ,the fact is1 however1 that the numerous ,gospels current in the early ,church cannot have been1 and our synoptic ,gospels most certainly are not1 independent works1 but are based upon earlier evangelical writings no longer extant1 and have borrowed from each other4 ,the ,gospels did not originate full fledged as we now have them1 but are the result of many revisions of previously existing materials4 ,critics may differ as to the relative ages and order of the ,synoptics1 but almost all are agreed that in one order or another they are dependent on each other1 and on older forms of the ,gospel4 ,now such an expression as ,matt4 xvii4 #ac in some early record of the discourse might have been transferred to a dozen of other ,christian writings4 ,ewald assigns the passage to the oldest ,gospel1 ,matthew in its present form being fifth in descent47#b7 ,our three canonical ,gospels are filled with instances in which expressions still more individual are repeated1 and these show that such phrases cannot be limited to #cig one ,gospel1 but1 if confined in the first instance to one original source1 may have been transferred to many subsequent evangelical works4 ,take1 for instance1 a passage in ,matt4 vii4 #bh1 #bi3 4444 the multitudes were astonished at his teaching3 for he taught them as having authority1 and not as their scribes47#a7 ,mark i4 #bb has the very same passage17#b7 with the mere omission of the multitudes --,greek--1 which does not in the least affect the argument2 and ,luke iv4 #cb3 ,and they were astonished at his teaching3 for his word was power47#c7 ,although the author of the third ,gospel somewhat alters the language1 it is clear that he follows the same original1 and retains it in the same context as the second ,gospel4 ,now the occurrence of such a passage as this in one of the ,fathers1 if either the first or second ,gospels were lost1 would1 on ,credner's grounds1 be attributed undoubtedly to the survivor1 although in reality derived from the ,gospel no longer extant1 which likewise contained it4 ,another example may be pointed out in ,matt4 xiii4 #cd3 ,all these things spake ,jesus unto the multitudes in parables2 and without a parable spake he not unto them1 compared with ,mark iv4 #cc1 #cd1 ,and with many such parables spake he the word unto them4444 and without a parable spake he not unto them4 ,the part of this very individual remark which we have italicised is literally the same in both ,gospels1 as a personal comment at the end of the parable of the grain of mustard seed4 ,then1 for instance1 in the account #cih of the sleep of the three disciples during the agony in the ,garden 7,matt4 xxvi4 #dc1 ,mark xiv4 #dj71 the expression and he found them asleep1 for their eyes were heavy1 which is equally individual1 is literally the same in the first two ,gospels4 ,another special remark of a similar kind regarding the rich young man3 he went away sorrowful1 for he had great possessions1 is found both in ,matt4 xix4 #bb and ,mark x4 #bb4 ,such examples7#a7 might be multiplied1 and they show that the occurrence of passages of the most individual character cannot1 in ,justin's time1 be limited to any single ,gospel4 ,now the verse we are discussing1 ,matt xvii4 #ac1 in all probability1 as ,ewald supposes1 occurred in one or more of the older forms of the ,gospel from which our ,synoptics and many other similar works derived their matter1 and nothing is more likely than that the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 which in many respects was nearly related to ,matthew1 may have contained it4 ,at any rate we have shown that such sayings cannot1 however apparently individual1 be considered evidence of the use of a particular ,gospel simply because it happens to be the only one now extant which contains it4 ,credner1 however1 whilst expressing the opinion which we have quoted likewise adds his belief that by the expression --,greek--1 ,justin seems expressly to indicate that this sentence is taken from a different work from what precedes it1 and he has proved that the preceding part of the quotation was not derived from our ,gospels47#b7 ,we cannot1 however1 coincide with this opinion either4 ,it seems to us that the expression and #cii it is written simply was made use of by ,justin to show that the identification of ,elias with ,john the ,baptist is not his1 but was the impression conveyed at the time by ,jesus to his disciples4 ,now the whole narrative of the baptism of ,john in ,justin bears characteristic marks of being from a ,gospel different from ours17#a7 and in the first part of this very quotation we find distinct variation4 ,justin first affirms that ,jesus in his teaching had proclaimed that ,elias should also come --,greek--1 and then further on he gives the actual words of ,jesus3 --,greek--1 which we have before us1 whilst in ,matthew the words are3 --,greek-- and there is no ,,ms4 which reads --,greek-- for --,greek--1 and yet1 as ,credner remarks1 the whole force of the quotation rests upon the word1 and ,justin is persistent in his variation from the text of our first ,synoptic4 ,it is unreasonable to say that ,justin quotes loosely the important part of his passage1 and then about a few words at the close pretends to be so particularly careful4 ,considering all the facts of the case1 we must conclude that this quotation also is from a source different from our ,gospels47#b7 ,another point1 however1 must be noted4 ,dr4 ,westcott claims this passage as an express quotation from the ,memoirs1 apparently for no other reason than that the few words happen to agree with ,matt4 xvii4 #ac1 and that he wishes to identify the ,memoirs with our ,gospels4 ,justin1 however1 does not once mention the ,memoirs in this chapter2 it follows1 therefore1 that ,canon ,westcott who is so exceedingly strict in his limitation of express quotations1 assumes that all quotations of ,christian history and words of ,jesus in ,justin are to be considered #djj as derived from the ,memoirs whether they be mentioned by name or not4 ,we have already seen that amongst these there are not only quotations differing from the ,gospels1 and contradicting them1 but others which have no parallels at all in them4 ,the fifth of ,dr4 ,westcott's express quotations occurs in ,dial4 #aje1 where ,justin says3 ,for when he 7,jesus7 was giving up his spirit on the cross he said3 ',father1 into thy hands ,i commend my spirit1' as ,i have also learned from the ,memoirs4 ,this short sentence agrees with ,luke xxiii4 #df1 it is true1 but as we have already shown1#a ,justin's whole account of the ,crucifixion differs so materially from that in our ,gospels that it cannot have been derived from them4 ,we see this forcibly in examining the sixth of ,canon ,westcott's quotations1 which is likewise connected with the ,crucifixion4 ,for they who saw him crucified also wagged their heads each one of them1 and distorted their lips1 and sneeringly and in scornful irony repeated among themselves those words which are also written in the ,memoirs of his ,apostles3 ,he declared himself the son of ,god3 7let him7 come down1 let him walk about3 let ,god save him47#b7 ,we have ourselves already quoted and discussed this passage17#c7 and need not further examine it here4 ,canon ,westcott has nothing better to say regarding this quotation1 in an examination of the accuracy of parallel passages1 than this3 ,these exact words do not occur in our ,gospels1 but we do find there others so closely connected with them that few readers would feel the difference 67#d7 ,when criticism descends to language like this1 the case is indeed desperate4 ,it is clear that1 as ,canon ,westcott admits1 the words are expressly declared to be a #dja quotation from the ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 but they do not exist in our ,gospels1 and consequently our ,gospels are not identical with the ,memoirs4 ,canon ,westcott refers to the taunts in ,matthew1 and then with commendable candour he concludes his examination of the quotation with the following words3 ,no manuscript or ,father 7so far as we know7 has preserved any reading of the passage more closely resembling ,justin's quotation2 and if it appear not to be deducible from our ,gospels1 due allowance being made for the object which he had in view1 its source must remain concealed47#a7 ,we need only add that it is futile to talk of making due allowance for the object which ,justin had in view4 ,his immediate object was accurate quotation1 and no allowance can account for such variation in language and thought as is presented in this passage4 ,that this passage1 though a professed quotation from the ,memoirs1 is not taken from our ,gospels is certain both from its own variations and the differences in other parts of ,justin's account of the ,crucifixion1 an event whose solemnity and importance might well be expected to secure reverential accuracy4 ,it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that ,justin's ,memoirs of the ,apostles were not identical with our ,gospels1 and the systematic variation of his quotations thus receives its natural and reasonable explanation4 ,the seventh and last of ,dr4 ,westcott's express quotations is1 as he states1 more remarkable4 ,we subjoin the passage in contrast with the parallel texts of the first and third ,gospels4 #djb --,greek-- ,it is apparent that ,justin's quotation differs very materially from our ,gospels in language1 in construction1 and in meaning4 ,these variations1 however1 acquire very remarkable confirmation and significance from the fact that ,justin in two other places7#c7 quotes the latter and larger part of the passage from --,greek-- in precisely the same way1 with the sole exception that1 in both of these quotations1 he uses the aorist --,greek-- instead of --,greek--4 ,this threefold repetition in the same peculiar form clearly stamps the passage as being a literal #djc quotation from his ,gospel1 and the one exception to the verbal agreement of the three passages1 in the substitution of the present for the aorist in the ,dialogue1 does not in the least remove or lessen the fundamental variation of the passage from our ,gospel4 ,as the --,greek-- is twice repeated it was probably the reading of his text4 ,now it is well known that the peculiar form of the quotation in ,justin occurred in what came to be considered heretical ,gospels1 and constituted the basis of important ,gnostic doctrines47#a7 ,canon ,westcott speaks of the use of this passage by the ,fathers in agreement with ,justin in a manner which1 unintentionally we have no doubt1 absolutely misrepresents important facts4 ,he says3 ,the transposition of the words still remains2 and how little weight can be attached to that will appear upon an examination of the various forms in which the text is quoted by ,fathers like ,origen1 ,irenaeus and ,epiphanius1 who admitted our ,gospels exclusively4 ,it occurs in them as will be seen from the table of readings--,greek-- with almost every possible variation4 ,irenaeus in the course of one chapter quotes the verse first as it stands in the canonical text2 then in the same order1 but with the last clause like ,justin's2 and once again altogether as he has given it4 ,epiphanius likewise quotes the text seven times in the same order as ,justin1 and four times as it stands in the ,gospels4--,greek-- ,now in the chapter to which reference is made in this sentence ,irenaeus commences by stating that the ,lord had declared3 ,nemo cognoscit ,filium nisi ,pater2 neque #djd ,patrem quis cognoscit nisi ,films1 et cui voluerit ,filius revelare17#a7 as he says1 ,thus ,matthew has set it down and ,luke similarly1 and ,mark the very same47#b7 ,he goes on to state1 however1 that those who would be wiser than the ,apostles write this verse as follows3 ,nemo cognovit ,patrem nisi ,filius2 nee ,filium nisi ,pater1 et cui voluerit ,filius revelare4 ,and he explains3 ,they interpret it as though the true ,god was known to no man before the coming of our ,lord2 and that ,god who was announced by the ,prophets they affirm not to be the ,father of ,christ47#c7 ,now in this passage we have the --,greek-- of ,justin in the 'cognovit1' in contradistinction to the 'cognoscit' of the ,gospel1 and his transposition of order as not by any possibility an accidental thing1 but as the distinct basis of doctrines4 ,irenaeus goes on to argue that no one can know the ,father unless through the ,word of ,god1 that is through the ,son1 and this is why he said3 ',nemo cognoscit ,patrem nisi ,filius2 neque ,filium nisi ,pater1 et quibuscunque ,filius reve-laverit4' ,thus teaching that he himself also is the ,father1 as indeed he is1 in order that we may not receive any other ,father except him who is revealed by the ,son47#d7 ,in this third quotation ,irenseus alters the --,greek-- into --,greek--1 but retains the form1 for the rest1 of the ,gnostics and of ,justin1 and his aim apparently is to show that adopting his present tense instead of the aorist the transposition #dje of words is of no importance4 ,a fourth time1 however1 in the same chapter1 which in fact is wholly dedicated to this passage and to the doctrines based upon it1 ,irenaeus quotes the saying3 ,nemo cognoscit ,filium nisi ,pater2 neque ,patrem nisi ,filius1 et quibuscunque ,filius reve-laverit47#a7 ,here the language and order of the ,gospel are followed with the exception that 'cui voluerit revelare' is altered to the 'quibuscunque revelaverit' of ,justin2 and that this is intentional is made clear by the continuation3 ,for revelaverit was said not with reference to the future alone17#b7 c4 ,now in this chapter we learn very clearly that1 although the canonical ,gospels by the express declaration of ,irenaeus had their present reading of the passage before us1 other ,gospels of considerable authority even in his time had the form of ,justin1 for again in a fifth passage he quotes the opening words3 ,he who was known1 therefore1 was not different from him who declared3 ',no one knoweth the ,father1' but one and the same47#c7 ,with the usual alteration of the verb to the present tense1 ,irenaeus in this and in one of the other quotations of this passage just cited gives some authority to the transposition of the words ,father and ,son1 although the reading was opposed to the ,gospels1 but he invariably adheres to --,greek-- and condemns --,greek--1 the reading maintained by those who in the estimation of ,irenaeus would be wiser than the ,apostles4 ,elsewhere1 descanting on #djf the passages of ,scripture by which heretics attempt to prove that the ,father was unknown before the advent of ,christ1 ,irenseus1 after accusing them of garbling passages of ,scripture17#a7 goes on to say of the ,marcosians and others3 ,besides these1 they adduce a countless number of apocryphal and spurious works which they themselves have forged to the bewilderment of the foolish1 and of those who are not versed in the ,scriptures of truth47#b7 ,he also points out passages occurring in our ,gospels to which they give a peculiar interpretation and1 amongst these1 that quoted by ,justin4 ,he says3 ,but they adduce as the highest testimony1 and as it were the crown of their system1 the following passage4444 ',all things were delivered to me by my ,father1 and no one knew --,greek-- the ,father but the ,son1 and the ,son but the ,father1 and he to whomsoever --,greek-- the ,son shall reveal --,greek--4'7#c7 ,in these words they assert that he clearly demonstrated that the ,father of truth whom they have invented was known to no one before his coming2 and they desire to interpret the words as though the ,maker and ,creator had been known to all1 and the ,lord spoke these words regarding the ,father unknown to all1 whom they proclaim47#d7 ,here we have the exact quotation twice made by ,justin1 with the --,greek-- and the same order1 set #djg forth as the reading of the ,gospels of the ,marcosians and other sects1 and the highest testimony to their system4 ,it is almost impossible that ,justin could have altered the passage by an error of memory to this precise form1 and it must be regarded as the reading of his ,memoirs47#a7 ,the evidence of ,irenaeus is clear3 ,the ,gospels had the reading which we now find in them1 but apocryphal ,gospels on the other hand had that which we find twice quoted by ,justin1 and the passage was as it were the text upon which a large sect of the early ,church based its most fundamental doctrine4 ,the --,greek-- is invariably repudiated1 but the transposition of the words ,father and ,son was apparently admitted to a certain extent1 although the authority for this was not derived from the ,gospels recognized by the ,church which contained the contrary order4 ,we must briefly refer to the use of this passage by ,clement of ,alexandria4 ,he quotes portions of the text eight times1 and although with some variation of terms he invariably follows the order of the ,gospels4 ,six times he makes use of the aorist --,greek--17#b7 once of --,greek--17#c7 and once of --,greek--47#d7 ,he only once quotes the whole passage17#e7 but on this occasion1 as well as six others in which he only quotes the latter part of the sentence17#f7 he omits --,greek--1 and reads and he to whom the ,son shall reveal1 thus supporting the --,greek-- #djh of ,justin4 ,twice he has ,god instead of ,father17#a7 and once he substitutes --,greek-- for --,greek--47#b7 ,it is evident from the loose and fragmentary way in which ,clement interweaves the passage with his text1 that he is more concerned with the sense than the verbal accuracy of the quotation1 but the result of his evidence is that he never departs from the ,gospel order of ,father and ,son1 although he frequently makes use of --,greek-- and also employs --,greek-- in agreement with ,justin and1 therefore1 he shows the prevalence of forms approximating to1 though always presenting material difference from1 the reading of ,justin4 ,epiphanius refers to this passage no less than ten times17#c7 but he only quotes it fully five times1 and upon each of these occasions with variations4 ,of the five times to which we refer1 he thrice follows the order of the ,gospels17#d7 as he does likewise in another place where he does not complete the sentence47#e7 ,on the remaining two occasions he adopts the same order as ,justin1 with variations from his reading1 however1 to which we shall presently refer27#f7 and where he only partially quotes he follows the same order on other three occasions17#g7 and in one other place the quotation is too fragmentary to allow us to distinguish the order47#h7 ,now in all of these ten quotations1 with one exception1 ,epiphanius substitutes --,greek-- for --,greek-- at the commencement of the #dji passage in ,matthew1 and only thrice does he repeat the verb in the second clause as in that ,gospel1 and on these occasions he twice makes use of --,greek--7#a7 and once of --,greek--47#b7 ,he once uses --,greek-- with the same order as ,justin1 but does not complete the sentence47#c7 ,each time he completes the quotation1 he uses --,greek-- with the ,gospel1 and --,greek-- with ,justin17#d7 but only once out of the five complete quotations does he insert --,greek-- in the concluding phrase4 ,it is evident from this examination1 which we must not carry further1 that ,epiphanius never verbally agrees with the ,gospel in his quotation of this passage and never verbally with ,justin1 but mainly follows a version different from both4 ,it must be remembered1 however1 that he is writing against various heresies1 and it does not seem to us improbable that he reproduces forms of the passage current amongst those sects4 ,in his work against ,marcion1 ,tertullian says3 ,with regard to the ,father1 however1 that he was never seen1 the ,gospel which is common to us will testify1 as it was said by ,christ3 ,nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius17#e7 but elsewhere he translates ,nemo scit17#f7 evidently not fully appreciating the difference of --,greek--47#g7 ,the passage in ,mar-cion's ,gospel reads like ,justin's3 --,greek--47#h7 ,the use of --,greek-- as applied to the ,father and --,greek-- as regards the ,son in this passage is suggestive4 ,origen #daj almost invariably uses --,greek--1 sometimes adopting the order of the ,gospels and sometimes that of ,justin1 and always employing --,greek--47#a7 ,the ,clementine ,homilies always read --,greek--1 and always follow the same order as ,justin1 presenting other and persistent variations from the form in the ,gospels4 --,greek-- ,this reading occurs four times4 ,the ,clementine ,recognitions have the aorist with the order of the ,gospels47#d7 ,there only remain a few more lines to add to those already quoted to complete the whole of ,dr4 ,westcott's argument regarding this passage4 ,he continues and concludes thus3 ,if1 indeed1 ,justin's quotations were made from memory1 no transposition could be more natural2 and if we suppose that he copied the passage directly from a manuscript1 there is no difficulty in believing that he found it so written in a manuscript of the ,canonical ,st4 ,matthew1 since the variation is excluded by no internal improbability1 while it is found elsewhere1 and its origin is easily explicable47#e7 ,it will be observed that ,canon ,westcott does not attempt any argument1 but simply confines himself to suppositions4 ,if such explanations were only valid1 there could be no difficulty in believing anything1 and every embarrassing circumstance would indeed be easily explicable4 ,the facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows3 ,justin deliberately and expressly quotes from his ,gospel1 himself calling it ,gospel1 be it observed1 a #daa passage whose nearest parallel in our ,gospels is ,matt4 xi4 #bg4 ,this quotation presents material variations from our ,canonical ,gospel both in form and language4 ,the larger part of the passage he quotes twice in a different work1 written years before1 in precisely the same words as the third quotation1 with the sole exception that he uses the aorist instead of the present tense of the verb4 ,no ,,ms4 of our ,gospel extant approximates to the reading in ,justin1 and we are expressly told by ,irenaeus that the present reading of our ,matthew was that existing in his day4 ,on the other hand1 ,irenaeus states with equal distinctness that ,gospels used by ,gnostic sects had the reading of ,justin1 and that the passage was the crown of their system1 and one upon whose testimony they based their leading doctrines4 ,here1 then1 is the clear statement that ,justin's quotation disagrees with the form in the ,gospels1 and agrees with that of other ,gospels4 ,the variations occurring in the numerous quotations of the same passage by the ,fathers1 which we have analysed1 show that they handled it very loosely1 but also indicate that there must have been various readings of considerable authority then current4 ,it has been conjectured with much probability that the form in which ,justin quotes the passage twice in his ,apology may have been the reading of older ,gospels1 and that it was gradually altered by the ,church to the form in which we now have it1 for dogmatic reasons1 when ,gnostic sects began to base doctrines upon it inconsistent with the prevailing interpretation47#a7 ,be this as it may1 ,justin's ,gospel clearly had a reading different from ours1 but in unison with #dab that known to exist in other ,gospels1 and this express quotation only adds additional proof to the mass of evidence already adduced that the ,memoirs of the ,apostles were not our ,canonical ,gospels47#a7 ,we have already occupied so much space even with this cursory examination of ,justin's quotations1 that we must pass over in silence passages which he quotes from the ,memoirs with variations from the parallels in our ,gospels which are also found in the ,clementine ,homilies and other works emanating from circles in which other ,gospels than ours were used4 ,we shall now only briefly refer to a few sayings of ,jesus expressly quoted by ,justin1 which are altogether unknown to our ,gospels4 ,justin says3 ,for the things which he foretold would take place in his name1 these we see actually coming to pass in our sight4 ,for he said3 ',many shall come1' c41 c417#b7 and ',there shall be schisms and heresies1'7#c7 and ',beware of false prophets1'7#d7 c1 and ',many false ,christs and false ,apostles shall arise and shall deceive many of the faithful4'7#e7 ,neither of the two prophecies here quoted are to be found anywhere in our ,gospels1 and to the second of them ,justin repeatedly refers4 ,he says in one place that ,jesus foretold that in the interval of his coming1 as ,i previously said17#f7 heresies and false prophets would arise in his name47#g7 ,it is admitted that these #dac prophecies are foreign to our ,gospels47#a7 ,it is very probable that the ,apostle ,paul refers to the prophecy1 ,there shall be schisms and heresies in #a ,cor4 xi4 #ah-ai1 where it is said1 4444 ,i hear that schisms exist amongst you2 and ,i partly believe it4 ,for there must also be heresies amongst you1 c4 --,greek--47#b7 ,we find also1 elsewhere1 traces both of this saying and that which accompanies it4 ,in the ,clementine ,homilies1 ,peter is represented as stating1 ,for there shall be1 as the ,lord said1 false apostles1 false prophets1 heresies1 desires for supremacy1 c4 --,greek--4#c ,we are likewise reminded of the passage in the ,epistle attributed to the ,roman ,clement1 xliv43 ,our ,apostles knew through our ,lord ,jesus ,christ that there would be contention regarding the dignity of the episcopate47#d7 ,in our ,gospel there is no reference anywhere to schisms and heresies1 nor are false ,apostles once mentioned1 the reference being solely to false ,christs and false prophets4 ,the recurrence here and elsewhere of the peculiar expression false apostles is very striking17#e7 and the evidence for the passage as a saying of ,jesus is important4 ,hegesippus1 after enumerating a vast number of heretical sects and teachers1 continues3 ,from these sprang the false ,christs1 false prophets1 false apostles1 who divided the #dad union of the ,church by corrupting doctrines concerning ,god and concerning his ,christ47#a7 ,it will be remembered that ,hegesippus made use of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 and the ,clementine literature points to the same source4 ,in the ,apostolic ,constitutions we read3 ,for these are false ,christs and false prophets1 and false apostles1 deceivers1 and corrupters1 c417#b7 and in the ,clementine ,recognitions the ,apostle ,peter is represented as saying that the ,devil1 after the temptation1 terrified by the final answer of ,jesus1 hastened immediately to send forth into this world false prophets1 and false apostles1 and false teachers1 who should speak in the name of ,christ indeed1 but should perform the will of the demon47#c7 ,justin's whole system forbids our recognizing in these two passages mere tradition1 and we must hold that we have here quotations from a ,gospel different from ours4 ,elsewhere1 ,justin says3 ,out of which 7affliction and fiery trial of the ,devil7 again ,jesus1 the ,son of ,god1 promised to deliver us1 and to put on us prepared garments1 if we do his commandments1 and he is proclaimed as having provided an eternal kingdom for us47#d7 ,this promise is nowhere found in our ,gospel47#e7 ,immediately following the passage 7k #c and #d7 which we have discussed7#f7 as repeated in the ,dialogue3 ,many #dae shall say to me1 c1 c1 and ,i will say to them1 ,depart from me1 ,justin continues3 ,and in other words by which he will condemn those who are unworthy to be saved1 he said that he will say3 ,begone into the darkness without1 which the ,father hath prepared for ,satan and his angels47#a7 ,the nearest parallel to this is in ,matt4 xxv4 #da3 ,then shall he say also unto them on the left hand3 ,depart from me1 ye cursed1 into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels4 --,greek-- ,it is apparent that ,justin's quotation differs very widely from the reading of our ,gospel4 ,the same reading1 with the exception of a single word1 is found in the ,clementine ,homilies 7xix4 #b71 that is to say1 that ,devil is substituted for ,satan1 and this variation is not important4 ,the agreement of the rest1 on the other hand1 seems to establish the conclusion that the quotation is from a written ,gospel different from ours17#b7 and here we have further strong indications of ,justin's use of the ,ebionite ,gospel4 ,another of the sayings of ,jesus which are foreign to our ,gospels is one in reference to the man who falls away from righteousness into sin1 of whom ,justin says3 ,wherefore also our ,lord ,jesus ,christ said3 ,in whatsoever things ,i may find you1 in these ,i shall also judge you47#c7 --,greek-- #daf --,greek--7 ,a similar expression is used by some of the ,fathers1 and in some cases is ascribed to the prophets47#a7 ,clement of ,alexandria has quoted a phrase closely resembling this without indicating the source4 --,greek--47#b 7 ,grabe was of opinion that ,justin derived the passage from the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews17#c7 an opinion shared by the greater number of modern critics1 and which we are prepared to accept from many previous instances of agreement4 ,even the warmest asserters of the theory that the ,memoirs are identical with our ,gospels are obliged to admit that this saying of ,jesus is not contained in them1 and that it must have been derived from an extra-canonical source47#d7 ,other passages of a similar kind might have been pointed out1 but we have already devoted too much space to ,justin's quotations1 and must hasten to a conclusion4 ,there is one point1 however1 to which we must refer4 ,we have more than once alluded to the fact that1 unless in one place1 ,justin never mentions an author's name in connection with the ,memoirs of the ,apostles4 ,the exception to which we referred is the following4 ,justin says3 ,the statement also that he 7,jesus7 changed the name of ,peter1 one of the ,apostles1 and that this is also written in his ,memoirs as having been done1 #dag together with the fact that he also changed the name of other two brothers1 who were sons of ,zebedee1 to ,boanerges1 that is1 sons of ,thunder1 c47#a7 ,according to the usual language of ,justin1 and upon strictly critical grounds1 the --,greek-- in this passage must be referred to ,peter2 and ,justin1 therefore1 seems to ascribe the ,memoirs to that ,apostle1 and to speak of a ,gospel of ,peter4 ,some critics maintain that the --,greek-- does not refer to ,peter1 but to ,jesus1 or1 more probably still1 that it should be amended to --,greek--1 and apply to the ,apostles47#c7 ,the great majority1 however1 are forced to admit the reference of the ,memoirs to ,peter1 although they explain it1 as we shall see1 in different ways4 ,it is argued by some that this expression is used when ,justin is alluding to the change of name not only of ,peter but of the sons of ,zebedee1 the narrative of which is only found in the ,gospel according to ,mark4 ,now ,mark was held by many of the ,fathers to have been the mere mouthpiece of ,peter1 and to have written at his dictation27#c7 so that1 in fact1 in calling the second ,gospel by the name of the ,apostle ,peter1 they argue1 ,justin merely adopted the tradition current in the early ,church1 and referred to the #dah ,gospel now known as the ,gospel according to ,mark47#a7 ,it must be evident1 however1 that after admitting that ,justin speaks of the ,memoirs of ,peter1 it is indeed hasty in the extreme to conclude from the fact that the mention of the sons of ,zebedee being surnamed ,boanerges is only recorded in ,mark iii4 #ag1 and not in the other canonical ,gospels1 that therefore the ,memoirs of ,peter and our ,gospel according to ,mark are one and the same4 ,we shall1 hereafter1 in examining the testimony of ,papias1 see that the ,gospel according to ,mark1 of which the ,bishop of ,hierapolis speaks1 was not our canonical ,mark at all4 ,it would be very singular indeed on this hypothesis that ,justin should not have quoted a single passage from the only ,gospel whose author he names1 and the number of times he seems to quote from a ,petrine ,gospel1 which was quite different from ,mark1 confirms the inference that he cannot possibly here refer to our second ,gospel4 ,it is maintained1 therefore1 by numerous other critics that ,justin refers to a ,gospel according to ,peter1 or according to the ,hebrews1 and not to ,mark47#c7 ,we learn from ,eusebius that ,serapion1 who became ,bishop of ,antioch about a4d4 #aij1 composed a book on #dai the ,gospel according to ,peter --,greek--1 which he found in circulation in his diocese4 ,at first ,serapion had permitted the use of this ,gospel1 as it evidently was much prized1 but he subsequently condemned it as a work favouring ,docetic views1 and containing many things superadded to the doctrine of the ,saviour47#a7 ,origen likewise makes mention of the ,gospel according to ,peter --,greek-- as agreeing with the tradition of the ,hebrews47#c7 ,but its relationship to the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews becomes more clear when ,theodoret states that the ,nazarenes made use of the ,gospel according to ,peter17#c7 for we know by the testimony of the ,fathers generally that the ,nazarene ,gospel was that commonly called the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews --,greek--4 ,the same ,gospel was in use amongst the ,ebionites1 and in fact1 as almost all critics are agreed1 the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 under various names1 such as the ,gospel according to ,peter1 according to the ,apostles1 the ,nazarenes1 ,ebionites1 ,egyptians1 c1 with modifications certainly1 but substantially the same work1 was circulated very widely throughout the early ,church47#d7 ,a quotation occurs in the #dbj so-called ,epistle of ,ignatius to the ,smyrnaeans1 to which we have already referred1 which is said by ,origen to be in the work called the doctrine of ,peter7l7 --,greek--1 but ,jerome states that it is taken from the ,hebrew ,gospel of the ,nazarenes47#b7 ,delitzsch finds traces of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews before a4d4 #acj in the ,talmud47#c7 ,eusebius7#d7 informs us that ,papias narrated a story regarding a woman accused before the ,lord of many sins which was contained in the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews47#e7 ,the same writer likewise states that ,hegesippus1 who came to ,rome and commenced his public career under ,anicetus1 quoted from the same ,gospel47#f7 ,the evidence of this ancient and apostolic man is very important1 for although he evidently attaches great value to tradition1 does not seem to know of any canonical ,scriptures of the ,new ,testament #dba and1 like ,justin1 apparently rejected the ,apostle ,paul17#a7 he still regarded the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews with respect1 and probably made exclusive use of it4 ,the best critics consider that this ,gospel was the evangelical work used by the author of the ,clementine ,homilies47#b7 ,cerinthus and ,carpocrates made use of a form of it17#c7 and there is good reason to suppose that ,tatian1 like his master ,justin1 used the same ,gospel3 indeed his ,diatessaron1 we are told1 was by some called the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews47#d7 ,clement of ,alexandria quotes it as an authority1 with quite the same respect as the other ,gospels4 ,he says3 ,so also in the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews3 ',he who wonders shall reign1' it is written1 'and he who reigns shall rest4'7#e7 ,a form of this ,gospel1 according to the ,egyptians1 is quoted in the second ,epistle of pseudo-,clement of ,rome1 as we are informed by the ,alexandrian #dbb ,clement1 who likewise quotes the same passage47#a7 ,origen frequently made use of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews17#b7 and that it long enjoyed great consideration in the ,church is proved by the fact that ,theodoret found it in circulation not only among heretics1 but also amongst orthodox ,christian communities27#c7 and even in the fourth century ,eusebius records doubts as to the rank of this ,gospel amongst ,christian books1 speaking of it under the second class in which some reckoned the ,apocalypse of ,john47#d7 ,later still ,jerome translated it27#e7 whilst ,nicephorus inserts it1 in his ,stichometry1 not amongst the ,apocrypha1 but amongst the ,antilegomena1 or merely doubtful books of the ,new ,testament1 along with the ,apocalypse of ,john47#f7 ,eusebius bears testimony to the value attached to it by the ,jewish ,christians17#g7 and indeed he says of the ,ebionites that1 making use only of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 they took little account of the rest47#h7 ,in such repute was this ,gospel amongst the earliest ,christian communities1 that it was generally believed to be the original of the ,greek ,gospel of ,matthew4 ,irenaeus states that the ,ebionites used solely the ,gospel according to ,matthew and reject the ,apostle ,paul1 asserting that he was an apostate from the law47#i7 ,we know from statements #dbc regarding the ,ebionites7#a7 that this ,gospel could not have been our ,gospel according to ,matthew1 and besides1 both ,clement7#b7 of ,alexandria and ,origen7#c7 call it the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 ,eusebius1 however1 still more clearly identifies it1 as we have seen above4 ,repeating the statements of ,irenaeus1 he says3 ,these indeed 7the ,ebionites7 thought that all the ,epistles of the ,apostle 7,paul7 should be rejected1 calling him an apostate from the law2 making use only of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 they took little account of the rest47#d7 ,epiphanius calls both the single ,gospel of the ,ebionites and of the ,nazarenes the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 and also the ,gospel according to ,matthew17#e7 as does also ,theodoret7#f7 ,jerome translated the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews both into ,greek and ,latin17#g7 and it is clear that his belief was that this ,gospel1 a copy of which he found in the library collected at ,caesarea by the ,martyr ,pamphilus 7f #cji71 was the ,hebrew original of ,matthew2 and in support of this view he points out that it did not follow the version of the ,,lxx4 in its quotations from the ,old ,testament1 but quoted directly from the ,hebrew47#h 7 ,an attempt has been made to argue #dbd that1 later1 ,jerome became doubtful of this view1 but it seems to us that this is not the case1 and certainly ,jerome in his subsequent writings states that it was generally held to be the original of ,matthew47#a7 ,that this ,gospel was not identical with the ,greek ,matthew is evident both from the quotations of ,jerome and others1 and also from the fact that ,jerome considered it worth while to translate it twice4 ,if the ,greek ,gospel had been an accurate translation of it1 of course there could not have been inducement to make another47#b7 ,as we shall hereafter see1 the belief was universal in the early ,church that ,matthew wrote his ,gospel in ,hebrew4 ,attempts have been made to argue that the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews was first written in ,greek and then translated into ,hebrew17#c7 but the reasons advanced seem quite insufficient and arbitrary17#d7 and it is contradicted by the whole tradition of the ,fathers4 #dbe ,it is not necessary for our purpose to enter fully here into the question of the exact relation of our canonical ,gospel according to ,matthew to the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 ,it is sufficient for us to point out that we meet with the latter before ,matthew's ,gospel1 and that the general opinion of the early church was that it was the original of the canonical ,gospel ,this opinion1 as ,schwegler7#a7 remarks1 is supported by the fact that tradition assigns the origin of both ,gospels to ,palestine1 and that both were intended for ,jewish ,christians and exclusively used by them4 ,that the two works1 however originally related1 had by subsequent manipulation become distinct1 although still amidst much variation preserving some substantial affinity1 cannot be doubted1 and in addition to evidence already cited we may point out that in the ,stichometry of ,nicephorus1 the ,gospel according to ,matthew is said to have #bejj --,greek--1 whilst that according to the ,hebrews has only #bbjj47b7 ,whether this ,gospel formed one of the writings of the --,greek-- of ,luke it is not our purpose to inquire1 but enough has been said to prove that it was one of the most ancient7#c7 #dbf and most valued evangelical works1 and to show the probability that ,justin ,martyr1 a ,jewish ,christian living amongst those who are known to have made exclusive use of this ,gospel1 may well1 like his contemporary ,hegesippus1 have used the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews2 and this probability is1 as we have seen1 greatly strengthened by the fact that many of his quotations agree with passages which we know to have been contained in it2 whilst1 on the other hand1 almost all differ from our ,gospels1 presenting generally1 however1 a greater affinity to the ,gospel according to ,matthew1 as we might expect1 than to the other two4 ,it is clear that the title ,gospel according to the ,hebrews cannot have been its actual superscription1 but merely was a name descriptive of the readers for whom it was prepared or amongst whom it chiefly circulated1 and it is most probable that it originally bore no other title than ,the ,gospel --,greek--1 to which were added the different designations under which we find it known amongst different communities47#a7 ,we have already seen that ,justin speaks of ,the ,gospel and seems to refer to the ,memoirs of ,peter1 both distinguishing appellations of this ,gospel1 but there is another of the names borne by the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 which singularly recalls the ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 by which ,justin prefers to call his evangelical work4 ,it was called the ,gospel according to the ,apostles7#b7 #dbg --,greek--1 and1 in short1 comparing ,justin's ,memoirs with this ,gospel1 we find at once similarity of contents and even of name47#a7 ,it is not necessary1 however1 for7 the purposes of this examination to dwell more fully upon the question as to what specific ,gospel now no longer extant ,justin employed4 ,we have shown that there is no evidence that he made use of any of our ,gospels1 and he cannot1 therefore1 be cited even to prove their existence1 and much less to attest the authenticity and character of records whose authors he does not once name4 ,on the other hand it has been made evident that there were other ,gospels1 now lost but which then enjoyed the highest consideration1 from which his quotations might have been1 and probably were1 taken4 ,we have seen that ,justin's ,memoirs of the ,apostles contained facts of ,gospel history unknown to our ,gospels1 which were contained in apocryphal works and notably in the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews2 that they further contained matter contradictory to our ,gospels1 and sayings of ,jesus not contained in them2 and that his quotations1 although so numerous1 systematically vary from similar passages in our ,gospels4 ,no theory of quotation from memory can satisfactorily account for these phenomena1 and the reasonable conclusion is that ,justin did not make use of our ,gospels1 but quoted from another source4 ,in no case can the testimony of ,justin afford the requisite support to the ,gospels as records of miracles and of a ,divine ,revelation4 #dbi ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,hegesippus--,,papias ,,of ,,hierapolis4 ,we now turn to ,hegesippus1 one of the contemporaries of ,justin1 and1 like him1 a ,palestinian ,jewish ,christian4 ,most of our information regarding him is derived from ,eusebius1 who fortunately gives rather copious extracts from his writings4 ,hegesippus was born in ,palestine1 of ,jewish parents17l7 and in all probability belonged to the primitive community of ,jerusalem47#b7 ,in order to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the state of the ,church1 he travelled widely and came to ,rome when ,anicetus was ,bishop4 ,subsequently he wrote a work of historical ,memoirs1 --,greek--1 in five books1 and thus became the first ecclesiastical historian of ,christianity4 ,this work is lost1 but portions have been preserved to us by ,eusebius1 and one other fragment is also extant4 ,it must have been1 in part at least1 written after the succession of ,eleutherus to the ,roman bishopric 7a4d4 #agg-aic71 as that event is mentioned in the book itself1 and his testimony is allowed by all critics to date from an advanced period of the second half of the second century47#c7 #dcj ,the testimony of ,hegesippus is of great value1 not only as that of a man born near the primitive ,christian tradition1 but also as that of an intelligent traveller amongst many ,christian communities4 ,eusebius evidently held him in high estimation as recording the unerring tradition of the ,apostolic preaching in the most simple style of composition17#a7 and as a writer of authority who was contemporary with the first successors of the ,apostles7#b7 --,greek--4 ,any indications1 therefore1 which we may derive from information regarding him1 and from the fragments of his writings which survive1 must be of peculiar importance for our inquiry4 ,as might have been expected from a convert from ,judaism7#c7 --,greek--1 we find in ,hegesippus manifest evidences of general tendency to the ,jewish side of ,christianity4 ,for him1 ,james1 the brother of the ,lord1 was the chief of the ,apostles1 and he states that he had received the government of the ,church after the death of ,jesus47#d7 ,the account which he gives of him is remarkable4 ,he was holy from his mothers womb4 ,he drank neither wine nor strong drink1 nor ate he any living thing4 ,a razor never went upon his head1 he anointed not himself with #dca oil1 and did not use a bath4 ,he alone was allowed to enter into the ,holies4 ,for he did not wear woollen garments1 but linen4 ,and he alone entered into the ,sanctuary and was wont to be found upon his knees seeking forgiveness on behalf of the people2 so that his knees became hard like a camel's1 through his constant kneeling in supplication to ,god1 and asking for forgiveness for the people4 ,in consequence of his exceeding great righteousness he was called ,righteous and ',oblias1' that is1 ,protector of the people and ,righteousness1 as the prophets declare concerning him17#a7 and so on4 ,throughout the whole of his account of ,james1 ,hegesippus describes him as a mere ,jew1 and as frequenting the temple1 and even entering the ,holy of ,holies as a ,jewish ,high ,priest4 ,whether the account be apocryphal or not is of little consequence here2 it is clear that ,hegesippus sees no incongruity in it1 and that the difference between the ,jew and the ,christian was extremely small4 ,the head of the ,christian community could assume all the duties of the ,jewish ,high-,priest17#b7 and his ,christian doctrines did not offend more than a small party amongst the ,jews47#c7 ,we are not1 therefore1 surprised to find that his rule --,greek-- of orthodoxy in the ,christian communities #dcb which he visited1 was the ,law1 the ,prophets1 and the ,lord4 ,speaking of the result of his observations during his travels1 and of the succession of ,bishops in ,rome1 he says3 ,the ,corinthian ,church has continued in the true faith until ,primus1 now ,bishop of ,corinth4 ,i conversed with him on my voyage to ,rome1 and stayed many days with the ,corinthians1 during which time we were refreshed together with true doctrine4 ,arrived in ,rome ,i composed the succession until ,anicetus1 whose deacon was ,eleutherus4 ,after ,anicetus succeeded ,soter1 and afterwards ,eleutherus4 ,but with every succession1 and in every city1 that prevails which the ,law1 and the ,prophets1 and the ,lord enjoin47#a7 ,the test of true doctrine --,greek-- with ,hegesippus as with ,justin1 therefore1 is no ,new ,testament ,canon1 which does not yet exist for him1 but the ,old ,testament1 the only ,holy ,scriptures which he acknowledges1 and the words of the ,lord himself17#c7 which1 as in the case of ,jewish ,christians like ,justin1 were held to be established by1 and in direct conformity with1 the ,old ,testament4 ,he carefully transmits the unerring tradition of apostolic preaching --,greek--1 but he apparently knows nothing of any canonical series even of apostolic epistles4 ,the care with which ,eusebius searches for information regarding the books of the ,new ,testament in early writers1 and his anxiety to produce any evidence concerning their composition and authenticity1 render his silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct #dcc utterance when speaking of such a man as ,hegesippus47#a7 ,now1 while ,eusebius does not mention that ,hegesippus refers to any of our ,canonical ,gospels or ,epistles1 he very distinctly states that he made use in his writings of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews --,greek--4 ,it may be well1 however1 to give his remarks in a consecutive form4 ,he sets forth some matters from the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews and the ,syriac1 and particularly from the ,hebrew language1 showing that he was a convert from among the ,hebrews1 and other things he records as from unwritten ,jewish tradition4 ,and not only he1 but also ,irenaeus1 and the whole body of the ancients1 called the ,proverbs of ,solomon3 all-virtuous ,wisdom4 ,and regarding the so-called ,apocrypha1 he states that some of them had been forged in his own time by certain heretics47#b7 ,it is certain that ,eusebius1 who quotes with so much care the testimony of ,papias1 a man of whom he speaks disparagingly1 regarding the composition of the first two ,gospels1 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 opportunity1 and there can be no doubt that he found no facts concerning the origin and authorship of our ,gospels in his writings4 ,it is1 on the other hand1 reasonable to infer that ,hegesippus exclusively made use of the #dcd ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 together with unwritten tradition47#a7 ,in the passage regarding the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 as even ,lardner7#b7 conjectures1 the text of ,eusebius is in all probability confused1 and he doubtless said what ,jerome later found to be the fact1 that the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews is written in the ,chaldaic and ,syriac 7or ,syro-,chaldaic7 language1 but with ,hebrew characters47#c7 ,it is in this sense that ,rufinus translates it4 ,it may not be inappropriate to point out that fragments of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 which have been preserved1 show the same tendency to give some pre-eminence to ,james amongst the ,apostles which we observe in ,hegesippus47#d7 ,it has been argued by a few that the words1 and regarding the so-called ,apocrypha1 he states that some of them had been forged in his own times by certain heretics1 are contradictory to his attributing authority to the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 or at least that they indicate some distinction amongst ,christians between recognized and apocryphal works4 ,the apocryphal works referred to1 however1 are clearly ,old ,testament ,apocrypha47#e7 ,the words are introduced by the statement that ,hegesippus records matters as from unwritten ,jewish tradition1 and then proceeds1 and #dce not only he1 but also ,irenaeus and the whole body of the ancients1 called the ,proverbs of ,solomon3 all-virtuous ,wisdom4 ,then follow the words1 ,and with regard to the so-called ,apocrypha1 c1 c1 evidently passing from the work just mentioned to the ,old ,testament ,apocrypha1 several of which stand also in the name of ,solomon1 and it is not improbable that amongst these were included the ,ascensio ,esaiae and the ,apocalypsis ,eliae1 to which is referred a passage which ,hegesippus1 in a fragment preserved by ,photius17#a7 strongly repudiates4 ,as ,hegesippus does not1 so far as we know1 mention any canonical work of the ,new ,testament1 but takes as his rule of faith the ,law1 the ,prophets1 and the words of the ,lord1 probably as he finds them in the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 quotes also ,jewish tradition and discusses the ,proverbs of ,solomon1 the only possible conclusion at which we can reasonably arrive is that he spoke of ,old ,testament ,apocrypha4 ,there cannot be a doubt that ,eusebius would have recorded his repudiation of ,new ,testament ,apocrypha1 regarding which he so carefully collects information1 and his consequent recognition of ,new ,testament ,canonical works implied in such a distinction4 ,we must now see how far in the fragments of the works of ,hegesippus which have been preserved to us there are references to assist our inquiry4 ,in his account of certain surviving members of the family of ,jesus1 who were brought before ,domitian1 ,hegesippus says3 ,for ,domitian feared the appearing of the ,christ as much as ,herod47#b7 ,it has been argued that this #dcf may be an allusion to the massacre of the children by ,herod related in ,matt ii41 more especially as it is doubtful that the parallel account to that contained in the first two chapters of the first ,gospel existed in the oldest forms of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews47#a7 ,but the tradition which has been preserved in our first ,synoptic may have formed part of many other evangelical works1 in one shape or another1 and certainly cannot be claimed with reason exclusively for that ,gospel4 ,this argument1 therefore1 has no weight whatever1 and it obviously rests upon the vaguest conjecture4 ,the principal passages which apologists7#b7 adduce as references to our ,gospels occur in the account which ,hegesippus gives of the martyrdom of ,james the ,just4 ,the first of these is the reply which ,james is said to have given to the ,scribes and ,pharisees3 ,why do ye ask me concerning ,jesus the ,son of ,man8 ,he sits in heaven on the right hand of great power1 and is about to come on the clouds of heaven47#c7 ,this is compared with ,matt4 xxvi4 #fd3 ,from this time ye shall see the ,son of ,man sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven47#d7 ,it is not necessary to point out the variations between these two passages1 which are obvious4 ,if we had not the direct intimation that ,hegesippus made use of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 which no doubt contained this passage1 it would be apparent that a man who valued tradition #dcg so highly might well have derived this and other passages from that source4 ,this is precisely one of those sayings which were most current in the early ,church1 whose hope and courage were sustained amid persecution and suffering by such ,chiliastic expectations1 with which according to the apostolic injunction they comforted each other47#a7 ,in any case the words do not agree with the passage in the first ,gospel1 and as we have already established1 even perfect agreement would not under the circumstances be sufficient evidence that the quotation is from that ,gospel1 and not from another2 but with such discrepancy1 without any evidence whatever that ,hegesippus knew anything of our ,gospels1 but1 on the contrary1 with the knowledge that he made use of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 we must decide that any such passages must rather be derived from it than from our ,gospels4 ,it is scarcely necessary to say anything regarding the phrase3 for we and all the people testify to thee that thou art just and that thou respectest not persons47#b7 ,canon ,westcott points out that --,greek-- only occurs in ,luke xx4 #ba1 and ,galatians ii4 #f27c7 but the similarity of this single phrase1 which is not given as a quotation1 but in a historical form put into the mouth of those who are addressing ,james1 cannot for a moment be accepted as evidence of a knowledge of ,luke4 ,the episode of the tribute money is generally ascribed to the oldest form of the ,gospel history1 and although the other two ,synoptics7#d7 read --,greek-- for --,greek--1 there is #dch no ground for asserting that some of the --,greek-- who preceded ,luke did not use the latter form1 and as little for asserting that it did not so stand1 for instance1 in the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 ,the employment of the same expression in the ,epistle1 moreover1 at once deprives the ,gospel of any individuality in its use4 ,hegesippus represents the dying ,james as kneeling down and praying for those who were stoning him3 ,i beseech 7thee71 ,lord ,god ,father1 forgive them1 for they know not what they do --,greek--47#a7 ,this is compared with the prayer which ,luke7#b7 puts into the mouth of ,jesus on the cross3 ,father1 forgive them1 for they know not what they do --,greek--1 and it is assumed from this partial coincidence that ,hegesippus was acquainted with the third of our canonical ,gospels4 ,we are surprised to see an able and accomplished critic like ,hilgenfeld adopting such a conclusion without either examination or argument of any kind47#c7 ,such a deduction is totally unwarranted by the facts of the case1 and if the partial agreement of a passage in such a ,father with a historical expression in a ,gospel which1 alone out of many previously existent1 has come down to us can be considered evidence of the acquaintance of the ,father with that particular ,gospel1 the function of criticism is at an end4 ,it may here be observed that the above passage of ,luke xxiii4 #cd is omitted altogether from the ,vatican ,,ms4 and ,codex ,d 7,bezse71 and in the ,codex ,sinaiticus #dci its position is of a very doubtful character47#a7 ,the ,codex ,alexandrinus which contains it omits the word --,greek--47#b7 ,luke's ,gospel was avowedly composed after many other similar works were already in existence1 and we know from our ,synoptics how closely such writings often followed each other1 and drew from the same sources47#c7 ,if any historical character is conceded to this prayer of ,jesus it is natural to suppose that it must have been given in at least some of these numerous ,gospels which have unfortunately perished4 ,no one could reasonably assert that our third ,gospel is the only one which ever contained the passage4 ,it would be preposterous to affirm1 for instance1 that it did not exist in the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 which ,hegesippus employed4 ,on the supposition that the passage is historical1 which apologists at least will not dispute1 what could be more natural or probable than that such a prayer1 emanating from the innermost soul of ,jesus17#d7 should have been adopted under similar circumstances by ,james his brother and successor1 who certainly could not have derived it from ,luke4 ,the tradition of such words1 expressing so much of the original spirit of ,christianity1 setting aside for the moment written #ddj ,gospels1 could scarcely fail to have remained fresh in the mind of the early ,church1 and more especially in the primitive community amongst whom they were uttered1 and of which ,hegesippus was himself a later member2 and they would certainly have been treasured by one who was so careful a collector and transmitter of the unerring tradition of the apostolic preaching4 ,no saying is more likely to have been preserved by tradition1 both from its own character1 brevity1 and origin1 and from the circumstances under which it was uttered1 and there can be no reason for limiting it amongst written records to ,luke's ,gospel4 ,the omission of the prayer from very important codices of ,luke further weakens the claim of that ,gospel to the passage4 ,beyond these general considerations1 however1 there is the important and undoubted fact that the prayer which ,hegesippus represents ,james as uttering does not actually agree with the prayer of ,jesus in the third ,gospel4 ,so far from proving the use of ,luke1 therefore1 this merely fragmentary and partial agreement1 on the contrary1 rather proves that he did not know that ,gospel1 for on the supposition of his making use of the third ,synoptic at all for such a purpose1 and not simply giving the prayer which ,james may in reality have uttered1 why did he not quote the prayer as he actually found it in ,luke8 ,we have still to consider a fragment of ,hegesippus preserved to us by ,stephanus ,gobarus1 a learned monophysite of the sixth century1 which reads as follows3 ,that the good things prepared for the righteous neither eye saw1 nor ear heard1 nor entered they into the heart of man4 ,hegesippus1 however1 an ancient and apostolic man1 how moved ,i know not1 says in the fifth book of his ,memoirs that these words are vainly #dda spoken1 and that those who say these things give the lie to the divine writings and to the ,lord saying3 ',blessed are your eyes that see1 and your cars that hear1' c4 --,greek--47#a7 ,we believe that we have here an expression of the strong prejudice against the ,apostle ,paul and his teaching which continued for so long to prevail amongst ,jewish ,christians1 and which is apparent in many writings of that period47#b7 ,the quotation of ,paul1 #a ,corinthians ii4 #i1 differs materially from the ,septuagint version of the passage in ,isaiah lxiv4 #d1 and1 as we have seen1 the same passage quoted by ,clement of ,rome17#c7 differs both from the version of the ,,lxx'4 and from the ,epistle1 although closer to the former4 ,jerome however found the passage in the apocryphal work called ,ascensio ,isaiae17#d7 and ,origen1 ,jerome1 and others likewise ascribe it to the ,apocalypsis ,eliae47#e7 ,this1 however1 does not concern us here1 and we have merely to examine the saying of the ,lord1 which ,hegesippus opposes to the passage3 ,blessed are your eyes that see and your ears that hear4 ,this is compared with ,matt4 xiii4 #af1 ,but blessed are your eyes1 for they see1 and your ears1 for they hear --,greek--1 and also with ,luke x4 #bc1 ,blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see1 c4 ,we need not point out that the saying referred to by ,hegesippus1 whilst conveying the #ddb same sense as that in the two ,gospels1 differs as materially from them both as they do from each other1 and as we might expect a quotation taken from a different though kindred source1 like the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 to do4 ,the whole of the passages which we have examined1 indeed1 exhibit the same natural variation4 ,we have already referred to the expressions of ,hegesippus regarding the heresies in the early ,church3 ,from these sprang the false ,christs1 and false prophets1 and false apostles who divided the unity of the ,church by corrupting doctrines concerning ,god and his ,christ47#a7 ,we have shown how this recalls quotations in ,justin of sayings of ,jesus foreign to our ,gospels1 in common with similar expressions in the ,clementine ,homilies17#b7 ,apostolic ,constitutions17#c7 and ,clementine ,recognitions17#d7 and we need not discuss the matter further4 ,this community of reference1 in a circle known to have made use of the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 to matters foreign to our ,synoptics1 furnishes collateral illustration of the influence of that ,gospel4 ,tischendorf1 who so eagerly searches for every trace1 real or imaginary1 of the use of our ,gospels and of the existence of a ,new ,testament ,canon1 passes over in silence1 with the exception of a short note7#e7 devoted to the denial that ,hegesippus was opposed to ,paul1 this first writer of ,christian ,church history1 whose evidence1 could it have been adduced1 would have been so valuable4 ,he does not pretend that ,hegesippus made use of the ,canonical ,gospels1 or knew of any other ,holy ,scriptures #ddc than those of the ,old ,testament1 but1 on the other hand1 he does not mention that he possessed1 and quoted from1 the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 ,there is no reason for supposing that ,hegesippus found a ,new ,testament ,canon in any of the ,christian communities which he visited1 and such a rule of faith certainly did not yet exist in ,rome in a4d4 #afj-agj47a7 ,there is no evidence whatever to show that ,hegesippus recognized any other evangelical work than the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 as the written source of his knowledge of the words of the ,lord47#b7 #b4 ,the testimony of ,papias is of great interest and importance in connection with our inquiry1 inasmuch as he is the first ecclesiastical writer who mentions the tradition that ,matthew and ,mark composed written records of the life and teaching of ,jesus2 but no question has been more continuously contested than that of the identity of the works to which he refers with our actual ,canonical ,gospels4 ,papias was ,bishop of ,hierapolis1 in ,phrygia17#c7 in the first half of the second century1 and is said to have suffered martyrdom under ,marcus ,aurelius about a4d4 #afd-afg47d7 ,about the middle of the second century7#e7e he wrote a work in five books1 entitled #ddd ,exposition of the ,lord's ,oracles 7l7 --,greek--1 which1 with the exception of a few fragments preserved to us chiefly by ,eusebius and ,irenaeus1 is unfortunately1 no longer extant4 ,in the preface to his book he stated3 ,but ,i shall not hesitate also to set beside my interpretations all that ,i rightly learnt from the ,presbyters1 and rightly remembered1 earnestly testifying to their truth4 ,for ,i was not1 like the multitude1 taking pleasure in those who speak much1 but in those who teach the truth1 nor in those who relate alien commandments1 but in those who record those delivered by the ,lord to the faith1 and which come from the truth itself4 ,if it happened that any one came who had followed the ,presbyters1 ,i inquired minutely after the words of the ,presbyters1 what ,andrew or what ,peter said1 or what ,philip or what ,thomas or ,james1 or what ,john or ,matthew1 or what any other of the disciples of the ,lord1 and what ,aristion and the ,presbyter ,john1 the disciples of the ,lord1 say1 for ,i held that what was to be derived from books did not so profit me as that from the living and abiding voice7#b74 --,greek-- ,it is clear from this that ,papias preferred tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted1 that he attached little or #dde no value to any ,gospels with which he had met17#a7 and that he knew absolutely nothing of ,canonical ,scriptures of the ,new ,testament47#b7 ,his work was evidently intended to furnish a collection of the discourses of ,jesus completed from oral tradition1 with his own expositions1 and this is plainly indicated both by his own words1 and by the statements of ,eusebius who1 amongst other things1 mentions that ,papias sets forth strange parables of the ,saviour and teachings of his from unwritten tradition --,greek--47#c7 ,it is not1 however1 necessary to discuss more closely the nature of the work1 for there is no doubt that written collections of discourses of ,jesus existed before it was composed of which it is probable he made use4 ,the most interesting part of the work of ,papias which is preserved to us is that relating to ,matthew and #a ,with reference to the last sentence of ,papias1 ,teschendorf asks3 ,what books does he refer to here1 perhaps our ,gospels 8 ,according to the expression this is not impossible1 but from the whole character of the book in the highest degree improbable4 7,wann wurden1 u4 s4 w4t p4 #aji47 ,we know little or nothing of the whole character of the book1 and what we do know is contradictory to our ,gospels4 ,the natural and only reasonable course is to believe the express declaration of ,papias1 more especially as it is made1 in this instance1 as a prefatory statement of his belief4 #ddf ,mark4 ,after stating that ,papias had inserted in his book accounts of ,jesus given by ,aristion1 of whom nothing is known1 and by the ,presbyter ,john1 ,eusebius proceeds to extract a tradition regarding ,mark communicated by the latter4 ,there has been much controversy as to the identity of the ,presbyter ,john1 some affirming him to have been the ,apostle17#a7 but the great majority of critics deciding that he was a totally different person47#b7 ,irenseus1 who1 sharing the ,chiliastic opinions of ,papias1 held him in high respect1 boldly calls him the hearer of ,john 7meaning the ,apostle7 and a companion of ,polycarp --,greek--7#c7 but this is expressly contradicted by ,eusebius1 who points out that1 in the preface to his book1 ,papias by no means asserts that he was himself a hearer of the ,apostles1 but merely that he received their doctrines from those who had personally known them27#c7 and after making the quotation from ,papias which we have given #ddg above1 he goes on to point out that the name of ,john is twice mentioned1 once together with ,peter1 ,james1 and ,matthew1 and the other ,apostles1 evidently the ,evangelist1 and the other ,john he mentions separately1 ranking him amongst those who are not ,apostles1 and placing ,aristion before him1 distinguishing him clearly by the name of ,presbyter47#a7 ,he further refers to the statement of the great ,bishop of ,alexandria1 ,dionysius17#b7 that at ,ephesus there were two tombs1 each bearing the name of ,john1 thereby leading to the inference that there were two men of the name47#c7 ,there can be no doubt that ,papias himself in the passage quoted mentions two persons of the name of ,john1 distinguishing the one from the other1 and classing the one amongst the ,apostles and the other after ,aristion1 an unknown disciple of the ,lord1 and1 but for the phrase of ,irenaeus1 so characteristically uncritical and assumptive1 there probably never would have been any doubt raised as to the meaning of the passage4 ,the question is not of importance to us1 and we may leave it1 with the remark that a writer who suffered martyrdom under ,marcus ,aurelius1 c4 a4d4 #afe1 can scarcely have been a hearer of the ,apostles47#d7 ,the account which the ,presbyter ,john is said to have #ddh given of ,mark's ,gospel is as follows3 ',this also the ,presbyter said3 ,mark having become the interpreter of ,peter1 wrote accurately whatever he remembered1 though he did not arrange in order the things which were either said or done by ,christ4 ,for he neither heard the ,lord1 nor followed him2 but afterwards1 as ,i said17#a7 accompanied ,peter1 who adapted his teaching to the occasion1 and not as making a consecutive record of the ,lord's oracles4 ,mark1 therefore1 committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them4 ,for of one point he was careful1 to omit none of the things which he heard1 and not to narrate any of them falsely4' ,these facts ,papias relates concerning ,mark47#b7 ,the question to decide is1 whether the work here described is our ,canonical ,gospel or not4 ,the first point in this account is the statement that ,mark was the interpreter of ,peter --,greek--4 ,was he merely the secretary of the ,apostle writing in a manner from his dictation1 or does the passage mean that he translated the ,aramaic narrative of ,peter into #a ,dr4 ,lightfoot 7,contemp4 ,bev41 #ahge1 p4 #hdb71 in the course of a highly fanciful argument says1 in reference to this as ,i said3 ,it is quite clear that ,papias had already said something of the relations existing between ,st4 ,peter and ,st ,mark previously to the extract which gives an account of the ,second ,gospel1 for he there refers back to a preceding notice4 ,it is quite clear that he refers back1 but only to the preceding sentence in which he had already said something of the relations in stating the fact that3 ,mark1 having become the interpreter of ,peter1 wrote1 c4 #ddi ,greek87#a7 ,the former is the more probable supposition and that which is most generally adopted1 but the question is not material here4 ,the connection of ,peter with the ,gospel according to ,mark was generally affirmed in the early ,church1 as was also that of ,paul with the third ,gospel1#b with the evident purpose of claiming apostolic origin for all the ,canonical ,gospels47#c7 ,irenaeus says3 ,after their decease 7,peter and ,paul71 ,mark the disciple and interpreter of ,peter delivered to1 us in writing that which had been preached by ,peter47#d7 ,eusebius quotes a similar tradition from ,clement of ,alexandria1 embellished however with further particulars4 ,he says3 444 ,the cause for which the ,gospel according to ,mark was written was this3 ,when ,peter had publicly preached the word at ,rome1 and proclaimed the ,gospel by the ,spirit1 those who were present being many1 requested ,mark1 as he had followed him from afar and remembered what he had said1 to write down what he had spoken2 and when he had composed the ,gospel1 he gave it to those who had asked it of him2 which when ,peter knew he neither absolutely hindered nor encouraged it997#e7 ,tertullian repeats the same tradition4 ,he says3 #dej ,and the ,gospel which ,mark published may be affirmed to be ,peter's1 whose interpreter ,mark was4444 for it may rightly appear that works which disciples publish are of their masters47l7 ,we have it again from ,origen3 ,the second 7,gospel7 is according to ,mark1 written as ,peter directed him47#b7 ,eusebius gives a more detailed and advanced version of the same tradition4 ,so much1 however1 did the effulgence of piety illuminate the minds of those 7,romans7 who heard ,peter1 that it did not content them to hear but once1 nor to receive only the unwritten doctrine of the divine teaching1 but with reiterated entreaties they besought ,mark1 to whom the ,gospel is ascribed1 as the companion of ,peter1 that he should leave them a written record of the doctrine thus orally conveyed4 ,nor did they cease their entreaties until they had persuaded the man1 and thus became the cause of the writing of the ,gospel called according to ,mark4 ,they say1 moreover1 that the ,apostle 7,peter7 having become aware1 through revelation to him of the ,spirit1 of what had been done1 was delighted with the ardour of the men1 and ratified the work in order that it might be read in the churches4 ,this narrative is given by ,clement in the sixth book of his ,institutions1 whose testimony is supported by that of ,papias1 the ,bishop of ,hierapolis47#c7 #dea ,the account given by ,clement1 however1 by no means contained these details1 as we have seen4 ,in his ,demonstration of the ,gospel ,eusebius1 referring to the same tradition1 affirms that it was the modesty of ,peter which prevented his writing a ,gospel himself47#a7 ,jerome almost repeats the preceding account of ,eusebius3 ,mark1 the disciple and interpreter of ,peter1 being entreated by the brethren of ,rome1 wrote a short ,gospel according to what he had received from ,peter1 which when ,peter heard1 he approved1 and gave his authority for its being read in the ,churches1 as ,clement writes in the sixth book of his ,institutions17#c7 c4 ,jerome moreover says that ,peter had ,mark for an interpreter1 whose ,gospel was composed3 ,peter narrating and he writing 7cujus evangelium ,petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est747#c7 ,it is evident that all these writers merely repeat with variations the tradition regarding the first two ,gospels which ,papias originated4 ,irenaeus dates the writing of ,mark after the death of ,peter and ,paul in ,rome4 ,clement describes ,mark as writing during ,peter's life1 the ,apostle preserving absolute neutrality4 ,by the time of ,eusebius1 however1 the tradition has acquired new and miraculous elements and a more decided character--,peter is made aware of the undertaking of ,mark through a revelation of the ,spirit1 and instead of being neutral is delighted and lends the work the weight of his authority4 ,eusebius refers to ,clement and ,papias as giving the same account1 which they do #deb not1 however1 and ,jerome merely repeats the story of ,eusebius without naming him1 and the tradition which he had embellished thus becomes endorsed and perpetuated4 ,such is the growth of tradition27l7 it is impossible to overlook the mythical character of the information we possess as to the origin of the second ,canonical ,gospel47#b7 ,in a ,gospel so completely inspired by ,peter as the tradition of ,papias and of the early ,church indicates1 we may reasonably expect to find unmistakable traces of ,petrine influence1 but on examination it will be seen that these are totally wanting47#c7 ,some of the early ,church did not fail to remark this singular discrepancy between the ,gospel and the tradition of its dependence on ,peter1 and in reply ,eusebius adopts an apologetic tone47#d7 ,for instance1 in the brief account of the calling of ,simon in #a ,a similar discrepancy of tradition is to be observed as to the place in which the ,gospel was written1 ,irenaeus and others dating it from ,rome1 and others 7as ,chrysostom1 in ,matth4 ,homil41 i471 assigning it to ,egypt4 ,indeed some ,,mss4 of the second ,gospel have the words --,greek-- in accordance with this tradition as to its origin4 ,cf4 ,scholz1 ,einl4 ,n4 ,t41 i4 p4 #bja4 ,various critics have argued for its composition at ,rome1 ,alexandria1 and ,antioch4 ,we do not go into the discussion as to whether ,peter ever was in ,rome4 #dec ,mark1 the distinguishing addition3 called ,peter1 of the first ,gospel is omitted17#a7 and still more notably the whole narrative of the miraculous draught of fishes1 which gives the event such prominence in the third ,gospel47#b7 ,in ,matthew1 ,jesus goes into the house of ,peter to cure his wife's mother of a fever1 whilst in ,mark it is into the house of ,simon and ,andrew1 the less honourable name being still continued47#c7 ,matthew commences the catalogue of the twelve by the pointed indication3 ,the first1 ,simon1 who is called ,peter17#d7 thus giving him precedence1 whilst ,mark merely says3 ,and ,simon he surnamed ,peter47#e7 ,the important episode of ,peter's walking on the sea1 of the first ,gospel17#f7 is altogether ignored by ,mark4 ,the enthusiastic declaration of ,peter3 ,thou art the ,christ17#g7 is only followed by the chilling injunction to tell no one1 in the second ,gospel17#h7 whilst ,matthew not only gives greater prominence to the declaration of ,peter1 but gives the reply of ,jesus3 ,blessed art thou1 ,simon ,bar-jona1 c1--of which ,mark apparently knows nothing1--and then proceeds to the most important episode in the history of the ,apostle1 the celebrated words by which the surname of ,peter was conferred upon him3 ,and ,i say unto thee1 that thou art ,peter1 and upon this rock will ,i build my ,church1 c47#i7 ,the ,gospel supposed to be inspired by ,peter1 however1 totally omits this most important passage2 as it also does the miracle of the finding the tribute money in the fish's mouth1 narrated by the first ,gospel47#aj7 ,luke states that ,peter #ded and ,john are sent to prepare the ,passover1 whilst ,mark has only two disciples27#a7 and in the account of the last ,supper1 ,luke gives the address of ,jesus to ,peter3 ,simon1 ,simon1 behold ,satan hath desired to have you 7all7 that he may sift you as wheat2 but ,i have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not2 and when thou art converted1 strengthen thy brethren47#b7 ,of this ,mark does not say a word4 ,again1 after the denial1 ,luke reads3 ,and the ,lord turned and looked upon ,peter1 and ,peter remembered the word of the ,lord1 c1 and ,peter went out and wept bitterly27#c7 whereas ,mark omits the reproachful look of ,jesus1 and makes the penitence of ,peter depend merely on the second crowing of the cock1 and further modifies the penitence by the omission of bitterl-- ,and when he thought thereon he wept47#d7 ,there are other instances to which we need not refer4 ,not only are some of the most important episodes in which ,peter is represented by the other ,gospels as a principal actor altogether omitted1 but throughout the ,gospel there is the total absence of anything which is specially characteristic of ,petrine influence and teaching4 ,the argument that these omissions are due to the modesty of ,peter is quite untenable1 for not only does ,irenaeus1 the most ancient authority on the point1 state that this ,gospel was only written after the death of ,peter17#e7 but also there is no modesty in omitting passages of importance in the history of ,jesus1 simply because ,peter himself was in some way concerned in them1 or1 for instance1 in decreasing his penitence for such a denial #dee of his master1 which could not but have filled a sad place in the ,apostle's memory4 ,on the other hand1 there is no adequate record of special matter1 which the intimate knowledge of the doings and sayings of ,jesus possessed by ,peter might have supplied1 to counterbalance the singular omissions4 ,there is infinitely more of the spirit of ,peter in the first ,gospel than there is in the second4 ,the whole internal evidence1 therefore1 shows that this part of the tradition of the ,presbyter ,john transmitted by ,papias does not apply to our ,gospel4 ,the discrepancy1 however1 is still more marked when we compare with our actual second ,gospel the account of the work of ,mark which ,papias received from the ,presbyter4 ,mark wrote down from memory some parts --,greek-- of the teaching of ,peter regarding the life of ,jesus1 but as ,peter adapted his instructions to the actual circumstances --,greek--1 and did not give a consecutive report --,greek-- of the sayings or doings of ,jesus1 ,mark was only careful to be accurate1 and did not trouble himself to arrange in historical order --,greek-- his narrative of the things which were said and done by ,jesus1 but merely wrote down facts as he remembered them4 ,this description would lead us to expect a work composed of fragmentary reminiscences of the teaching of ,peter1 without regular sequence or connection4 ,the absence of orderly arrangement is the most prominent feature in the description1 and forms the burden of the whole4 ,mark writes what he remembered2 he did not arrange in order the things that were either said or done by ,christ2 and then follow the apologetic expressions of explanation--he was not himself a hearer or follower of the ,lord1 but derived his #def information from the occasional preaching of ,peter1 who did not attempt to give a consecutive narrative4 ,now it is impossible in the work of ,mark here described to recognize our present second ,gospel1 which does not depart in any important degree from the order of the other two ,synoptics1 and which1 throughout1 has the most evident character of orderly arrangement ,each of the ,synoptics compared with the other two would present a similar degree of variation1 but none of them could justly be described as not arranged in order or as not being consecutive4 ,the second ,gospel opens formally1 and after presenting ,john the ,baptist as the messenger sent to prepare the way of the ,lord1 proceeds to the baptism of ,jesus1 his temptation1 his entry upon public life1 and his calling of the disciples4 ,then1 after a consecutive narrative of his teaching and works1 the history ends with a full and consecutive account of the last events in the life of ,jesus1 his trial1 crucifixion1 and resurrection1 ,there is in the ,gospel every characteristic of artistic and orderly arrangement1 from the striking introduction by the prophetic voice crying in the wilderness to the solemn close of the marvellous history47#a7 ,the great majority of critics1 therefore1 are agreed in concluding that the account of the ,presbyter ,john recorded by ,papias does not apply to our second ,canonical ,gospel at all47#b7 ,many #deg of those who affirm that the description of ,papias may apply to our second ,gospel7#a7 do so with hesitation1 and few maintain that we now possess the original work without considerable subsequent alteration4 ,some of these critics1 however1 feeling the difficulty of identifying our second ,gospel with the work here described1 endeavour #deh to reconcile the discrepancy by a fanciful interpretation of the account of ,papias4 ,they suggest that the first part1 in which the want of chronological order is pointed out1 refers to the rough notes which ,mark made during the actual preaching and lifetime of ,peter1 and that the latter part applies to our present ,gospel1 which he later remodelled into its present shape47#a7 ,this most unreasonable and arbitrary application of the words of ,papias is denounced even by apologists47#b7 ,it has been well argued that the work here described as produced by ,mark in the character of --,greek-- is much more one of the same family as the ,clementine ,homilies than of our ,gospels47#c7 ,the work was no systematic narrative of the history of ,jesus1 nor report of his teaching1 but the dogmatic preaching of the ,apostle1 illustrated and interspersed with passages from the discourses of ,jesus or facts from his life47#d7 ,of this character seems actually to have been that ancient work ,the ,preaching of ,peter --,greek--1 which was used by ,heracleon17#e7 and by ,clement7#f7 of ,alexandria as an authentic canonical work17#g7 denounced by ,origen7#h7 #dei on account of the consideration in which it was held by-many1 but still quoted with respect by ,gregory of ,nazianzum47#a7 ,there can be no doubt that the --,greek-- although it failed to obtain a permanent place in the canon1 was one of the most ancient works of the ,christian ,church1 dating probably from the first century1 from which indeed the ,clementine ,homilies themselves were in all likelihood produced17#b7 and1 like the work described by ,papias1 it also was held to have been composed in ,rome in connection with the preaching there of ,peter and ,paul4#c ,it must be noted1 moreover1 that ,papias does not call the work ascribed to ,mark a ,gospel1 but merely a record of the preaching of ,peter4 ,it is not necessary for us to account for the manner in which the work referred to by the ,presbyter ,john disappeared1 and the present ,gospel according to ,mark became substituted for it4 ,the merely negative evidence that our actual ,gospel is not the work described by ,papias is sufficient for our purpose4 ,any one acquainted with the thoroughly uncritical character of the ,fathers1 and with the literary history of the early ,christian ,church1 will readily conceive the facility with which this can have been accomplished4 ,the great mass of intelligent critics are agreed that our ,synoptic ,gospels have assumed their present form only after repeated modifications by various editors of earlier evangelical works4 ,these changes have not been effected without traces #dfj being left by which the various materials may be separated and distinguished1 but the more primitive ,gospels have entirely disappeared1 naturally supplanted by the later and amplified versions4 ,the critic1 however1 who distinguishes between the earlier and later matter is not bound to perform the now impossible feat of producing the originals1 or accounting in any but a general way for the disappearance of the primitive ,gospel4 ,teschendorf asks3 ,how then has neither ,eusebius nor any other theologian of ,christian antiquity thought that the expressions of ,papias were in contradiction with the two ,gospels 7,mt4 and ,mk4787#a7 ,the absolute credulity with which those theologians accepted any fiction1 however childish1 which had a pious tendency1 and the frivolous character of the only criticism in which they indulged1 render their unquestioning application of the tradition of ,papias to our ,gospels anything but singular1 and it is only surprising to find their silent acquiescence elevated into an argument4 ,we have already in the course of these pages seen something of the singularly credulous and uncritical character of the ,fathers1 and we cannot afford space to give instances of the absurdities with which their writings abound4 ,no fable could be too gross1 no invention too transparent1 for their unsuspicious acceptance1 if it assumed a pious form or tended to edification4 ,no period in the history of the world ever produced so many spurious works as the first two or three centuries of our era4 ,the name of every ,apostle1 or ,christian teacher1 not excepting that of the great ,master himself1 was freely attached to every description of religious forgery4 ,false gospels1 epistles1 acts1 martyrologies1 were unscrupulously #dfa circulated1 and such pious falsification was not even intended or regarded as a crime1 but perpetrated for the sake of edification4 ,it was only slowly and after some centuries that many of these works1 once1 as we have seen1 regarded with pious veneration1 were excluded from the canon2 and that genuine works shared this fate1 whilst spurious ones usurped their places1 is one of the surest results of criticism4 ,the ,fathers omitted to inquire critically when such investigation might have been of value1 and mere tradition credulously accepted and transmitted is of no critical value47#a7 ,in an age-when the multiplication of copies of any work was a slow process1 and their dissemination a matter of difficulty and even danger1 it is easy to understand with what facility the more complete and artistic ,gospel could take the place of the original notes as the work of ,mark4 ,the account given by ,papias of the work ascribed to ,matthew is as follows3 ,matthew composed the oracles in the ,hebrew dialect1 and every one interpreted them as he was able47#b7 ,critics are divided in opinion as to whether this tradition was1 like that regarding ,mark1 derived from the ,presbyter ,john17#c7 or is given merely on #a ,canon ,westcott himself admits that the proof of the ,canon is rendered more difficult by the uncritical character of the first two centuries4 ,he says3 ,the spirit of the ancient world was essentially uncritical4 ,on the ,canon1 p4 #g f4 #dfb the authority of ,papias himself47#a7 ,eusebius joins the account of ,mark to that given by ,matthew merely by the following words3 ,these facts ,papias relates concerning ,mark2 but regarding ,matthew he has said as follows37#b7 ,eusebius distinctly states that the account regarding ,mark is derived from the ,presbyter1 and the only reason for ascribing to him also that concerning ,matthew is that it is not excluded by the phraseology of ,eusebius1 and the two passages being given by him consecutively--however they may have stood in the work of ,papias--it is reasonable enough to suppose that the information was derived from the same source4 ,the point is not of much importance1 but it is clear that there is no absolute right to trace this statement to the ,presbyter ,john1 as there is in the case of the tradition about ,mark4 ,this passage has excited even more controversy than that regarding ,mark1 and its interpretation and application are still keenly debated4 ,the intricacy and difficulty of the questions which it raises are freely admitted by some of the most earnest defenders of the ,canonical ,gospels1 but the problem1 so far as our examination is concerned1 can be solved without much trouble4 ,the dilemma in which apologists find themselves when they attempt closely to apply the description of this work given by ,papias to our ,canonical ,gospel is the great difficulty which complicates the matter and prevents a #dfc clear and distinct solution of the question4 ,we shall avoid minute discussion of details1 contenting ourselves with the broader features of the argument1 and seeking only to arrive at a just conclusion as to the bearing of the evidence of ,papias upon the claim to authenticity of our ,canonical ,gospel4 ,the first point which we have to consider is the nature of the work which is here described4 ,matthew is said to have composed the --,greek-- or ,oracles1 and there can be little doubt from the title of his own book3 ,exposition of the ,lord's ,oracles --,greek--1 that these oracles referred to by ,papias were the ,discourses of ,jesus4 ,does the word ,xoyta1 however1 mean strictly ,oracles or discourses alone1 or does it include within its fair signification also historical narrative8 ,were the ,xoyta here referred to a simple collection of the discourses of ,jesus1 or a complete ,gospel like that in our ,canon bearing the name of ,matthew8 ,that the natural interpretation of the word is merely ,oracles is indirectly admitted1 even by the most thorough apologists1 when they confess the obscurity of the expression--obscurity1 however1 which simply appears to exist from the difficulty of straining the word to make it apply to the ,gospel4 ,in these sentences1 says ,tischendorf1 referring to the passage about ,matthew1 there is much obscurity2 for instance1 it is doubtful whether we have rightly translated ',discourses of the ,lord1' and he can only extend the meaning to include historical narrative by leaving the real meaning of the word and interpreting it by supposed analogy4 ,there can be no doubt that the direct meaning of the word ,xoyta anciently and at the time of ,papias was #dfd simply3 words or oracles of a sacred character1 and however much the signification became afterwards extended1 that it was not then at all applied to doings as well as sayings4 ,there are many instances of this original and limited signification in the ,new ,testament27#a7 and 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 estimated as oracular or divine1 nor is there any reason for thinking that --,greek-- was here used in any other sense47#b7 ,it is argued #dfe on the other hand1 that in the preceding passage upon ,mark1 a more extended meaning of the word is indicated4 ,the ,presbyter ,john says that ,mark1 as the interpreter of ,peter1 wrote without order the things which were either said or done by ,christ 7--,greek--71 and then1 apologizing for him1 he goes on to say that ,peter1 whom he followed1 adapted his teaching to the occasion1 and not as making a consecutive record of the oracles --,greek-- of the ,lord4 ,here1 it is said1 the word --,greek-- is used in reference both to sayings and doings1 and therefore in the passage on ,matthew --,greek-- must not be understood to mean only --,greek--1 but also includes1 as in the former case1 the --,greek--4 ,for these and similar reasons1--in very many cases largely influenced by the desire to see in these ,xoyta our actual ,gospel according to ,matthew--many critics have maintained that --,greek-- in this place may be understood to include historical narrative as well as discourses47#a7 ,the arguments by which they arrive at this #dff conclusion1 however1 seem to us to be based upon thorough misconception of the direct meaning of the passage4 ,few or none of these critics would deny that the simple interpretation of --,greek--1 at that period1 was oracular sayings47#a7 ,papias shows his preference for discourses in the very title of his lost book1 ,exposition of the --,greek-- of the ,lord1 and in the account which he gives of the works attributed to ,mark and ,matthew1 the discourses evidently attracted his chief interest4 ,now1 in the passage regarding ,mark1 instead of --,greek-- being made the equivalent of --,greek-- and --,greek--1 the very reverse is the fact4 ,the ,presbyter says ,mark wrote what he remembered of the things which were said or done by ,christ1 although not in order1 and he apologizes for his doing this on the ground that he had not himself been a hearer of the ,lord1 but merely reported what he had heard from ,peter1 who adapted his teaching to the occasion1 and did not attempt to give a consecutive record of the oracles --,greek-- of the ,lord4 ,mark1 therefore1 could not do so either4 ,matthew1 on the contrary1 he states1 did compose the oracles --,greek--4 ,there is an evident contrast made3 ,mark #dfg wrote --,greek-- because he had not the means of writing the oracles1 but ,matthew composed the --,greek--47#a7 ,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 discourses47#b7 ,it is impossible upon any but arbitrary grounds1 and from a foregone conclusion1 to maintain that a work commencing with a detailed history of the birth and infancy of ,jesus1 his genealogy1 and the preaching of ,john the ,baptist1 and concluding with an equally minute history of his betrayal1 trial1 crucifixion1 and resurrection1 and which relates all the miracles and has for its evident aim throughout the demonstration that ,messianic prophecy was fulfilled in ,jesus1 could be entitled --,greek--3 the oracles or discourses of the ,lord47#c7 ,partly for these1 but also for other important reasons1 some of which shall presently be referred to1 the great majority of critics deny that the work described by ,papias can be the same as the ,gospel in our canon bearing the name of ,matthew47#d7 ,whilst of those who #dfh suppose that the 7,aramaic7 original of which ,papias speaks may have been substantially similar to it in construction1 very few affirm that the work did not receive much subsequent manipulation1 addition1 and alteration1 necessarily including translation1 before it assumed the form in which the ,gospel now lies before us1 and many of them altogether deny its actual apostolic origin47#a7 ,the next most important and obvious point is that the work described in this passage was written by ,matthew #dfi in the ,hebrew or ,aramaic dialect1 and each one who did not understand that dialect was obliged to translate as best he could4 ,our ,gospel according to ,matthew1 however1 is in ,greek4 ,tischendorf1 who is obliged to acknowledge the ,greek originality of our actual ,gospel1 and that it is not a translation from another language1 recognizes the inevitable dilemma in which this fact places apologists1 and has1 with a few other critics1 no better argument with which to meet it than the simple suggestion that ,papias must have been mistaken in saying that ,matthew wrote in ,hebrew47#a7 ,just as much of the testimony as is convenient or favourable is eagerly claimed by such apologists1 and the rest1 which destroys its applicability to our ,gospel1 is set aside as a mistake4 ,tischendorf perceives the difficulty1 but not having arguments to meet it1 he takes refuge in feeling4 ,in this1 he says1 there lies before us one of the most complicated questions1 whose detailed treatment would here not be in place4 ,for our part1 we are fully at rest concerning it1 in the conviction that the assumption by ,papias of a ,hebrew original text of ,matthew1 which already in his time cannot have been limited to himself and was soon repeated by other men1 arises only from a misunderstanding47#c7 ,it is difficult to comprehend why it should be considered out of place in a work specially written to establish the authenticity of the ,gospels to discuss fully so vital a point1 and its deliberate evasion in such a manner alone can be deemed out of place on such an occasion47#c7 #dgj ,we may here briefly remark that ,teschendorf and others7#a7 repeat with approval the disparaging expressions against ,papias which ,eusebius1 for dogmatic reasons1 did not scruple to use1 and in this way they seek somewhat to depreciate his testimony1 or at least indirectly to warrant their free handling of it4 ,it is true that ,eusebius says that ,papias was a man of very limited comprehension7#b7 --,greek--1 but this is acknowledged to be on account of his ,millenarian opinions17#c7 to which ,eusebius was vehemently opposed4 ,it must be borne in mind1 however1 that the ,chiliastic passage from ,papias quoted by ,irenaeus1 and in which he certainly saw nothing foolish1 is given on the authority of the ,presbyter ,john1 to whom1 and not to ,papias1 any criticism upon it must be referred4 ,if the passage be not of a very elevated character1 it is quite in the spirit of that age4 ,the main point1 however1 is that in regard to the testimony of ,papias we have little to #dga do with his general ability1 for all that was requisite was the power to see1 hear1 and accurately state very simple facts4 ,he repeats what is told him by the ,presbyter1 and in such matters we presume that the ,bishop of ,hierapolis must be admitted to have been competent47#a7 ,there is no point1 however1 on which the testimony of the ,fathers is more invariable and complete than that the work of ,matthew was written in ,hebrew or ,aramaic4 ,the first mention of any work ascribed to ,matthew occurs in the account communicated by ,papias1 in which1 as we have seen1 it is distinctly said that ,matthew wrote in the ,hebrew dialect4 ,irenaeus1 the next writer who refers to the point1 says3 ,matthew also produced a written ,gospel amongst the ,hebrews in their own dialect1 and that he did not derive his information solely from ,papias may be inferred from his going on to state the epoch of ,matthew's writings3 when ,peter and ,paul were preaching and founding the ,church in ,rome47#b7 ,the evidence furnished by ,pantaenus is certainly independent of ,papias4 ,eusebius states with regard to him3 ,of these ,pantaenus is said to have been one1 and to have penetrated as far as ,india 7,southern ,arabia71 where it is reported that he found the ,gospel according to ,matthew1 which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of ,christ1 to whom ,bartholomew1 one of the ,apostles1 as it is said1 had preached1 and left them that writing of ,matthew in ,hebrew letters --,greek-- #dgb --,greek--47#a7 ,jerome gives a still more circumstantial account of this4 ,pantaenus found that ,bartholomew1 one of the twelve ,apostles1 had there 7in ,india7 preached the advent of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ according to the ,gospel of ,matthew1 which was written in ,hebrew letters 7quod ,hebraicis ,uteris scriptum71 and which on returning to ,alexandria he brought with him47#b7 ,it is quite clear that this was no version specially made by ,bartholomew1 for had he translated the ,gospel according to ,matthew from the ,greek1 for the use of persons in ,arabia1 he certainly would not have done so into ,hebrew47#c7 ,origen1 according to ,eusebius1 following the ecclesiastical canon1 states what he has understood from tradition --,greek-- of the ,gospels1 and says3 ,the first written was that according to ,matthew1 once a publican1 but afterwards an ,apostle of ,jesus ,christ1 who delivered it to the ,jewish believers1 composed in the ,hebrew language47#d7 ,eusebius in another place makes a similar statement in his own name3 ,matthew having first preached to the ,hebrews when he was about to go also to others1 delivered to them his ,gospel written in their native language1 and thus compensated those from whom he was departing for the want of his presence by the writing47#e7 ,cyril of ,jerusalem says3 ,matthew1 who wrote the ,gospel1 wrote it in the ,hebrew language47#f7 ,epiphanius1 referring to the fact that the ,nazarenes called the only ,gospel which they #dgc recognized the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 continues3 ,as in very truth we can affirm that ,matthew alone in the ,new ,testament set forth and proclaimed the ,gospel in the ,hebrew language and in ,hebrew characters27#a7 and elsewhere he states that ,matthew wrote the ,gospel in ,hebrew47#b7 ,the same tradition is repeated by ,chrysostom17#c7 ,augustine17#d7 and others4 ,whilst the testimony of the ,fathers was thus unanimous as to the fact that the ,gospel ascribed to ,matthew was originally written in ,hebrew1 no question ever seems to have arisen in their minds as to the character of the ,greek version2 much less was any examination made with the view of testing the accuracy of the translation4 ,such inquiries were not in the spirit of ,christian learned men generally of that time17#e7 as ,tischendorf remarks in connection with the belief current in the early ,church1 and afterwards shared by ,jerome1 that the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews was the original of the ,greek ,gospel according to ,matthew4 ,the first who directly refers to the point1 frankly confessing the total ignorance which generally prevailed1 was ,jerome4 ,he states3 ,matthew1 who was also called ,levi1 who from a publican became an ,apostle1 was the first who wrote a ,gospel of ,christ in ,judaea in ,hebrew language and letters1 on account of those from amongst the circumcision who had believed2 but who afterwards translated it into ,greek is not #dgd sufficiently certain47#a7 ,it was only at a much later period1 when doubt began to arise1 that the translation was wildly ascribed to the ,apostles ,john1 ,james1 and others47#c7 ,the expression in ,papias that everyone interpreted them 7the --,greek--7 as he was able --,greek-- has been variously interpreted by different critics1 like the rest of the account4 ,schleier-macher explained the --,greek-- as translation by enlargement3 ,matthew merely collected the ,xoyta 7--,greek--71 and everyone added the explanatory circumstances of time and occasion as best he could47#c7 ,this view1 however1 has not been largely adopted4 ,others consider that the expression refers to the interpretation which was given on reading it at the public meetings of ,christians for worship17#d7 but there can be no doubt that1 coming after the statement that the work was written in the ,hebrew dialect1 --,greek-- can only mean simple translation47#e7 ,some maintain that the passage infers the existence of many written translations1 amongst which very probably was ours27#f7 whilst others affirm that the phrase merely signifies that as there was no recognized #dge translation1 each one who had but an imperfect knowledge of the language1 yet wished to read the work1 translated the ,hebrew for himself orally as best he could47#a7 ,some consider that ,papias or the ,presbyter use the verb in the past tense1 --,greek--1 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 so27#b7 whilst others deny that any written translation of an authentic character was known to ,papias at all47#c7 ,now the words in ,papias are merely3 ,matthew composed the ,xoyta in the ,hebrew dialect17#d7 and everyone interpreted them as he was able4 ,the statement is perfectly simple and direct1 and it is at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that when the work was composed1 translation was requisite1 and as each one translated as he was able1 that no recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse4 ,there is no contrast either necessarily or1 we think1 probably implied in the use of the past tense4 ,the composition of the ,xoyta being of course referred to in the #d ,in connection with this it may be of interest to remember that1 in the account of his conversion and the vision which he saw on his way to ,damascus which ,paul gives to ,king ,agrippa in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 he states that ,jesus spoke to him in the ,hebrew dialect --,greek--1 ,acts xxvi4 #ad4 #dgf past tense1 the same tense is simply continued in completing the sentence4 ,the purpose is obviously to convey the fact that the work was composed in the ,hebrew language4 ,but even if it be taken that ,papias intentionally uses the past tense in reference to the time when translations did not exist1 nothing is gained1 ,papias may have known of many translations1 but 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 them4 ,thus the account of ,papias1 supported by the perfectly unanimous testimony of the ,fathers1 declares that the work composed by ,matthew was written in the ,hebrew or ,aramaic dialect4 ,the only evidence which asserts that ,matthew wrote any work at all1 distinctly asserts that he wrote it in ,hebrew4 ,it is quite impossible to separate the statement of the authorship from the language4 ,the two points are so indissolubly united that they stand or fall together4 ,if it be denied that ,matthew wrote in ,hebrew1 it cannot be asserted that he wrote at all4 ,it is therefore perfectly certain from this testimony that ,matthew cannot be declared the direct author of the ,greek canonical ,gospel bearing his name47#a7 ,at the very best it can only be a translation1 by an unknown hand1 of a work the original of which was early lost4 ,none of the earlier ,fathers ever ventured a conjecture as to how1 when1 or by whom the translation was effected4 ,jerome explicitly states that the translator of the work was unknown4 ,the #dgg deduction is clear3 our ,greek ,gospel1 in so far as it is associated with ,matthew at all1 cannot at the utmost be more than a translation1 but as the work of an unknown translator1 there cannot1 in the absence of the original1 or of satisfactory testimony of its accuracy1 bo any assurance that the translation faithfully renders the work of ,matthew1 or accurately conveys the sense of the original4 ,all its ,apostolical authority is gone4 ,even ,michaelis long ago recognized this3 ,if the original text of ,matthew be lost1 and we have nothing but a ,greek translation3 then1 frankly1 we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the words3 yea1 it is possible that in various places the true meaning of the ,apostle has been missed by the translator47#a7 ,this was felt and argued by the ,manicheans in the fourth century17#b7 and by the ,anabaptists at the time of the ,reformation47#c7 ,a wide argument might be opened out as to the dependence of the other two ,gospels on this unauthenticated work4 ,the dilemma1 however1 is not yet complete4 ,it was early remarked that our first ,canonical ,gospel bore no real marks of being a translation at all1 but is evidently an original independent ,greek work4 ,even men like ,erasmus1 ,calvin1 ,cajctan1 and ,oecolampadius1 began to deny the statement that our ,gospels showed any traces of ,hebrew origin1 and the researches of later scholars have so fully confirmed their doubts that few now maintain the primitive belief in a translation4 ,we do not propose here to enter fully into this argument4 ,it is sufficient to say that the great majority of competent critics declare that our first ,canonical ,gospel is no translation1 but an #dgh original ,greek text27#a7 whilst of those who consider that they find traces of translation and of ,hebrew origin1 #dgi some barely deny the independent originality of the ,greek ,gospel1 and few assert more than substantial agreement with the original1 with more or less variation and addition often of a very decided character47#a7 ,the case1 therefore1 stands thus3 ,the whole of the evidence which warrants our believing that ,matthew wrote any #dhj work at all1 distinctly1 invariably1 and emphatically asserts that he wrote that work in ,hebrew or ,aramaic2 a ,greek ,gospel1 therefore1 as connected with ,matthew1 can only be a translation by an unknown hand1 whose accuracy we have not1 and never have had1 the means of verifying4 ,our ,greek ,gospel1 however1 being an independent original ,greek text1 there is no ground whatever for ascribing it even indirectly to ,matthew at all1 the whole evidence of antiquity being emphatically opposed1 and the ,gospel itself laying no claim1 to such authorship4 ,one or other of these alternatives must be adopted for our first ,gospel1 and either is absolutely fatal to its direct ,apostolic origin4 ,neither as a translation from the ,hebrew nor as an original ,greek text can it claim ,apostolic authority4 ,this has been so well recognized1 if not admitted1 that some writers1 with greater zeal than discretion1 have devised fanciful theories to obviate the difficulty4 ,these maintain that ,matthew himself wrote both in ,hebrew and in ,greek17#a7 or at least that the translation was made during his own lifetime and under his own eye17#b7 and so on4 ,there is not1 however1 a particle of evidence for any of these assertions1 which #dha are merely the arbitrary and groundless conjectures of embarrassed apologists4 ,it is manifest that upon this evidence both those who assert the ,hebrew original of ,matthew's work and those who maintain that our ,gospel is not a translation but an original ,greek composition1 should logically deny its apostolicity4 ,we need not say that this is not done1 and that for dogmatic and other foregone conclusions many profess belief in the ,apostolic authorship of the ,gospel1 although in doing so they wilfully ignore the facts1 and in many cases merely claim a substantial but not absolute ,apostolic origin for the work47#a7 ,a much greater number of the most able and learned critics1 however1 both from external and internal evidence deny the ,apostolic origin of our first ,canonical ,gospel47#c7 #dhb ,there is another fact to which we may briefly refer1 which from another side shows that the work of ,matthew #dhc with which ,papias was acquainted was different from our ,gospel4 ,in a fragment from the fourth book of his lost work which is preserved to us by ,oecumenius and ,theophylact1 ,papias relates the circumstances of the death of ,judas ,iscariot in a manner which is in contradiction to the account in the first ,gospel4 ,in ,matthew xxvii4 #e1 the death of the traitor is thus related3 ,and he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself47#a7 ,the narrative in ,papias is as follows3 ,judas walked about in this world a great example of impiety2 for his body having swollen so that1 on an occasion1 when a waggon was moving on its way1 he could not pass it1 he was crushed by the waggon and his bowels gushed out47#b7 ,theophylact1 in connection with this passage1 adds other details also apparently taken from the work of ,papias1 as for instance that1 from his excessive corpulency1 the eyes of ,judas were so swollen that they could not see1 and so sunk in his head that they could not be perceived even by the aid of the optical instruments of physicians2 and that the rest of his body was covered with running sores and maggots1 and so on in the manner of the early ,christian ages1 whose imagination conjured up the wildest special #dhd providences to punish the enemies of the faith47#a7 ,as ,papias expressly states that he eagerly inquired what the ,apostles1 and amongst them what ,matthew1 said1 we may conclude that he would not have deliberately contradicted the account given by that ,apostle had he been acquainted with any work attributed to him which contained it47#b7 ,it has been argued1 from some very remote and imaginary resemblance between the passage from the preface to the work of ,papias quoted by ,eusebius with the prologue to ,luke1 that ,papias was acquainted with that ,gospel27#c7 but nothing could be more groundless than such a conclusion based upon such evidence1 and there is not a word in our fragments of ,papias which warrants such an assertion47#d7 ,eusebius1 who never fails to state what the ,fathers say about the works of the ,new ,testament1 does not mention that ,papias knew either the third or fourth ,gospels4 ,is it possible to suppose that if ,papias had been acquainted with those ,gospels he would not have asked for information about them from the ,presbyters1 or that ,eusebius would not have recorded it as he did that regarding the works ascribed to ,matthew and ,mark8 ,eusebius states1 however1 that ,papias made use of testimonies from the first ,epistle of ,john and1 likewise1 from that of ,peter47#e7 ,as ,eusebius1 #dhe 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 ,andrew1 a ,cappadocian bishop of the fifth century1 mentions that ,papias1 amongst others of the ,fathers1 considered the ,apocalypse inspired47#a7 ,no reference is made to this by ,eusebius1 but although from his ,millenarian tendencies 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 ,we find1 however1 that ,papias1 like ,hegesippus and others of the ,fathers1 was acquainted with the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews47#b7 ,eusebius says3 ,he 7,papias7 has likewise related another history of a woman accused of many sins before the ,lord1 which is contained in the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews47#c7 ,this is generally believed to be the episode inserted in the later ,,mss4 of the fourth ,gospel1 viii4 #a--aa4 ,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 beneficial source of information regarding evangelical history4 ,for ,i held that what was to be derived from #dhf books1 he says1 did not so profit me as that from the living and abiding voice47#a7 ,if1 therefore1 it could even have been shown that ,papias was acquainted with any of our ,canonical ,gospels1 it must at the same time have been admitted that he did not recognize them as authoritative documents4 ,it is manifest from the evidence adduced1 however1 that ,papias did not know our ,gospels4 ,it is not possible that he could have found it better to inquire what ,john or ,matthew1 or what any other of the disciples of the ,lord444 say if he had known of ,gospels such as ours1 and believed them to have been actually written by those ,apostles1 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 ,apostle7#b7 himself said of the history and teaching of the ,master4 ,the evidence of ,papias is in every respect most important4 ,he is the first writer who mentions that ,matthew and ,mark were believed to have written any works at all2 but whilst he shows that he does not accord any canonical authority even to the works attributed to them1 his description of those works and his general testimony comes with crushing force against the pretensions made on behalf of our ,gospels to ,apostolic origin and authenticity4 #b ,we may merely remark that ,papias does not call the ,matthew who wrote the--,greek-- an ,apostle4 ,in this passage he speaks of the ,apostle1 but he does not distinctly identify him with the ,matthew of the other passage4 ,,end ,,of ,,vol4 ,i4