,,supernatural ,,religion3  ,,an        
,,inquiry ,,into ,,the ,,reality ,,of   
,,divine ,,revelation4  ,,in ,,three    
,,volumes4 ,,vol4 ,,iii4  ,,complete    
,,edition4 ,,carefully ,,revised4       
,,london3  ,,longmans1 ,,green1 ,,and   
,,co41  #ahgi4  ,the ,right of          
,translation is ,reserved4    ,credulity
 is as real1 if not so great1 a sin as  
unbelief4  ,archbishop ,trench4   ,the  
abnegation of reason is not the evidence
 of faith1 but the confession of        
despair4  ,canon ,lightfoot4    ,,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              
,,supernatural ,,religion3 ,,an         
,,inquiry ,,into ,,the ,,reality ,,of   
,,divine ,,revelation     ,,part ,,iv4  
,,the ,,acts ,,of ,,the ,,apostles      
,,chapter ,i4 ,,the ,,external          
,,evidence  ,before we proceed to       
examine the evidence for miracles and   
the reality of ,divine ,revelation which
 is furnished by the last historical    
book of the ,new ,testament1 entitled   
the ,acts of the ,apostles1 it is well  
that we should briefly recall to mind   
some characteristics of the document1   
which most materially affect the value  
of any testimony emanating from it4     
,whilst generally asserting the         
resurrection of ,jesus1 and his bodily  
ascension1 regarding which indeed it    
adds fresh details1 this work presents  
to us a new cycle of miracles1 and so   
profusely introduces supernatural agency

 into the history of the early church   
that1 in comparison with it1 the        
,gospels seem almost sober narratives4  
,the ,apostles are instructed and       
comforted by visions and revelations1   
and they1 and all who believe1 are      
filled with the ,holy ,spirit and speak 
with other tongues4 ,the ,apostles are  
delivered from  #b  prison and from     
bonds by angels or by an earthquake4    
,men fall dead or are smitten with      
blindness at their rebuke4 ,they heal   
the sick1 raise the dead1 and           
handkerchiefs brought from their bodies 
cure diseases and expel evil spirits4   
,as a general rule1 any document so full
 of miraculous episodes and supernatural
 occurrences would1 without hesitation1 
be characterized as fabulous and        
incredible1 and would not1 by any       
sober-minded reader1 be for a moment    
accepted as historical4 ,there is no    
other testimony for these miracles4 ,let
 the reader endeavour to form some      
conception of the nature and amount of  

evidence necessary to establish the     
truth of statements antecedently so     
incredible1 and compare it with the     
testimony of this solitary and anonymous
 document1 the character and value of   
which we shall now proceed more closely 
to examine4  ,it is generally admitted1 
and indeed it is undeniable1 that no    
distinct and unequivocal reference to   
the ,acts of the ,apostles1 and to ,luke
 as their author1 occurs in the writings
 of ,fathers before one by ,irenaeus7#a7
 about the end of the second century4   
,passages are1 however1 pointed out in  
earlier writings as indicating the use  
and consequent existence of our         
document1 all of which we shall now     
examine4  #c  ,several of these occur in
 the ,epistle to the ,corinthian s1     
ascribed to ,clement of ,rome4 ,the     
first1 immediately compared with the    
passage to which it is supposed to be a 
reference17#a7 is as follows3--  ------ 
,the words of the ,epistle are not a    
quotation1 but merely occur in the      

course of an address4 ,they do not take 
the form of an axiom1 but are a comment 
on the conduct of the ,corinthians1     
which may have been suggested either by 
written or oral tradition1 or by moral  
maxims long before current in heathen   
philosophy4#b ,it is unnecessary to     
enter minutely into this1 however1 or to
 indicate the linguistic differences    
between the two passages1 for one point 
alone settles the question4 ,in the     
,acts3 the saying1 ,it is more blessed  
to give than to receive1 is distinctly  
introduced as a quotation of  #d  words 
of the ,lord ,jesus1 and the exhortation
 to remember them1 conveys the inference
 that they were well known4 ,they must  
either have formed part of ,gospels now 
no longer extant1 as they are not found 
in ours1 or have been familiar as the   
unwritten tradition of sayings of the   
,master4 ,in either case1 if the passage
 in the ,epistle be a reference to these
 words at all1 it cannot reasonably be  
maintained that it must necessarily have

 been derived from a work which itself  
distinctly quotes the words from another
 source4 ,it would be against every     
principle of evidence1 under such       
circumstances1 to affirm the passage to 
be an allusion to this special work1 of 
whose previous existence we have no     
independent evidence47#a7 ,the slight   
coincidence in the expression1 without  
indication that any particular passage  
is in the mind of the author1 and       
without any mention of the ,acts1       
therefore1 is no evidence of the        
existence of that work4  ,a few critics 
point to some parts of the following    
passage as showing acquaintance with    
,acts3--,through jealousy ,paul also    
pointed out the way to the prize of     
patience1 having borne chains seven     
times1 having been put to flight1 having
 been stoned2 having become a preacher  
both in the ,east and in the ,west1 he  
gained the noble renown due to his      
faith2 having taught the whole world    
righteousness1 and come to the extremity

 of the ,west1 and having suffered      
martyrdom by command of the rulers1 he  
was thus removed from the world and went
 to the holy place1 having become a most
 eminent  #e  example of patience47#a7  
,the slightest impartial consideration1 
however1 must convince any one that this
 passage does not indicate the use of   
the ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,the        
,epistle speaks of seven imprisonments1 
of some of which the ,acts make no      
mention1 and this must1 therefore1 have 
been derived from another source47#b7   
,the reference to his coming to the     
extremity of the ,west ------1 whatever 
interpretation be put upon it1 and to   
his death1 obviously carries the history
 further than the ,acts1 and cannot have
 been derived from that document4  ,the 
last passage1 which1 it is affirmed17#c7
 shows acquaintance with the ,acts of   
the ,apostles is the following3 ,but    
what shall we say regarding ,david who  
hath obtained a good report ------8 unto
 whom ------ ,god said3 ',i found a man 

after mine own heart1 ,david1 the son of
 ,jesse3 in everlasting mercy ,i        
anointed him4'7#d7 ,this is said to be  
derived from ,acts xiii4 #bb3 ,and when 
he removed him he raised up to them     
,david for king2 to whom also he  #f    
gave testimony ------3 ,i found ,david  
the son of ,jesse1 a man after mine own 
heart1 who will do all my will47#a7 ,the
 passage1 however1 is compounded of two 
quotations loosely made from the        
,septuagint version of the ,old         
,testament1 from which all the          
quotations in the ,epistle are taken4   
,ps4 lxxxviii4 #bj3 ,i found ,david my  
servant2 in holy mercy ,i anointed      
him47#b7 ,and #a ,sam4 xiii4 #ad3 ,a man
 after his own heart47#c7 ,clement of   
,alexandria quotes this passage from the
 ,epistle1 and for in everlasting mercy 
reads with holy oil ------  as in the   
,psalm47#d7 ,although1 therefore1 our   
,alexandrian ,,ms4 of the ,epistle has  
the reading which we have given above1  
even if we suppose that the ,alexandrian

 ,clement may have found a more correct 
version in his ,,ms41 the argument would
 not be affected4 ,the whole similarity 
lies in the insertion of the son of     
,jesse1 but this was a most common      
addition to any mention of ,david1 and  
by the completion of the passage from   
the ,psalm1 the omission of who will do 
all my will1 the peculiar phrase of the 
,acts1 as well as the difference of     
introductory expressions1 any connection
 between the two is severed1 and it is  
apparent that the quotation of the      
,epistle may legitimately be referred to
 the ,septuagint17#e7 with which it     
agrees much more closely  #g  than with 
the ,acts4 ,in no case could such slight
 coincidences prove acquaintance with   
the ,acts of the ,apostles47#a7  ,only  
one passage of the ,epistle of ,barnabas
 is referred to by any one7#b7 as       
indicating acquaintance with the ,acts4 
,it is as follows1 c4 #g3 ,if therefore 
the son of ,god1 being ,lord1 and about 
to judge quick and dead ------ suffered1

 c4 ,this is compared with ,acts x4     
#db444 and to testify that it is he who 
has been appointed by ,god judge of     
quick and dead ------4 ,lardner1 who    
compares the expression of the ,epistle 
with ,acts1 equally compares it with    
that in #b ,tim4 iv4 #a444 and ,christ  
,jesus who is about to judge the quick  
and dead ------1 to which it is more    
commonly referred17#c7 and #a ,pet4 iv4 
#e444 to him who is ready to judge quick
 and dead ------4 ,he adds1 however3 ,it
 is not possible to say1 what text he   
refers to1 though that in ,timothy has  
7he same words4 ,but perhaps there is no
 proof that he refers to any4 ,this was 
an article known to every common        
,christian2 whereas this writer 7whoever
 he be7 was able to teach the ,christian
 religion1 and that without respect to  
any written gospels or epistles47#d7 ,it
 is scarcely  #h  necessary to add      
anything to this4 ,there is of course no
 trace of the use of ,acts in the       
,epistle47#a7  ,it is asserted that     

there is a clear allusion7#b7 to ,acts  
in the ,pastor of ,hermas4 ,the passages
 may be compared as follows3-- ------   
,the slightest comparison of these      
passages suffices to show that the one  
is not dependent on the other4 ,the ,old
 ,testament is full of passages in which
 the name of the ,lord is magnified as  
the only source of safety and salvation4
 ,in the ,pauline ,epistles likewise    
there are numerous passages of a similar
 tenour4 ,for instance1 the passage from
 ,joel ii4 #cb1 is quoted ,rom4 x4 #ac3 
,for whosoever shall call on the name of
 the ,lord shall be saved ------7#c7    
,there was in fact no formula more      
current either amongst the ,jews or in  
the early ,church2 and there is no      
legitimate ground for tracing such an   
expression to the ,acts of the          
,apostles47#d7  #i  ,the only other     
passage which is quoted7#a7 as          
indicating acquaintance with ,acts is   
the following1 which we at once contrast
 with the supposed parallel3-- ------   

,here again a formula is employed which 
is common throughout the ,new           
,testament1 and which1 applied as it is 
here to those who were persecuted1 we   
have reason to believe was in general   
use in the early ,church4 ,it is almost 
unnecessary to point out any examples4  
,everywhere the name of ,god or of      
,jesus is the symbol used to represent  
the concrete idea1 and in the heavenly  
,jerusalem of the ,apocalypse the       
servants of ,god and of the ,lamb are to
 have his name on their foreheads4 ,the 
one expression1 however1 which is       
peculiar in the passage3 counted        
worthy1--in the ,acts ------1 and in the
 ,pastor ------1--is a perfectly natural
 and simple one1 the use of which cannot
 be exclusively conceded to the ,acts of
 the ,apostles4 ,it is found frequently 
in the ,pauline ,epistles1 as for       
instance in #b ,thes4 i4 #e1 where1     
after saying that they give thanks to   
,god for them and glory in the churches 
of ,god for the patience and faith with 

which the ,thessalonians endure  #aj    
persecutions1 the writer continues3     
which is a token of the righteous       
judgment of ,god1 that ye may he counted
 worthy ------ of the kingdom of ,god1  
for which ye also suffer ------2 and    
again1 in the same chapter1 v4 #aa1 #ab1
 ,wherefore we also pray always for you 
that our ,god may count you worthy      
------ of the calling1 and fulfil all   
good pleasure of goodness and work of   
faith with power2 that the name of our  
,lord ,jesus may he glorified in you    
------ c4 ,the passage we are examining 
cannot be traced to the ,acts of the    
,apostles47#a7 ,it must be obvious to   
all that the ,pastor of ,hennas does not
 present any evidence even of the       
existence of the ,acts at the time it   
was written47#b7  ,only two passages in 
the ,epistles of pseudo-,ignatius are   
pointed out as indicating acquaintance  
with the ,acts1 and even these are not  
advanced by many critics4 ,we have      
already so fully discussed these        

,epistles that no more need now be said4
 ,we must pronounce them spurious in all
 their recensions and incapable of      
affording evidence upon any point       
earlier than towards the end of the     
second century4 ,those1 however1 who    
would still receive as genuine the      
testimony of the three ,syriac ,epistles
 must declare that they do not present  
any trace of the existence of the ,acts1
 inasmuch as the two passages adduced to
 show the use of that work do not occur 
in those letters4 ,they are found in the
 shorter recension of the ,epistles to  
the ,smyrnaeans and ,philadelphians4 ,we
 might1 therefore1 altogether refuse to 
examine the  #aa  passages1 but in order
 to show the exact nature of the case   
made out by apologists1 we shall briefly
 refer to them4 ,we at once compare the 
first with its supposed parallel47#a7   
------  ,there is nothing in this       
passage which bears any peculiar analogy
 to the ,acts1 for the statement is a   
simple reference to a tradition which is

 also embodied both in the third        
,synoptic7#b7 and in the fourth         
,gospel27#c7 and the mere use of the    
common words ------ and ------ could not
 prove anything4 ,the passage occurs in 
the ,epistle immediately after a        
quotation1 said by ,jerome to be taken  
from the ,gospel according to the       
,hebrews1 relating an appearance of     
,jesus to those who were with ,peter1 in
 which ,jesus is represented as making  
them handle him in order to convince    
them that he is not an incorporeal      
spirit47#d7 ,the quotation bears        
considerable affinity to the narrative  
in the third ,synoptic 7xxiv4 #ci71 at  
the close of which ,jesus is represented
 as eating with the disciples4 ,it is   
highly probable that the ,gospel from   
which the writer of the ,epistle quoted 
contained the same detail1 to which this
 would naturally be a direct  #ab       
descriptive reference4 ,in any case it  
affords no evidence of the existence of 
the ,acts of the ,apostles47#a7  ,the   

second passage1 which is still more     
rarely advanced17#b7 is as follows3--   
------  ,the only point of coincidence  
between these two passages is the use of
 the word wolves4 ,in the ,epistle the  
expression is ------1 whilst in ,acts it
 is ------4 ,now the image is           
substantially found in the ,sermon on   
the ,mount1 one form of which is given  
in the first ,synoptic1 vii4 #ae1af1 and
 which undeniably must have formed part 
of many of the ,gospels which are       
mentioned by the writer of the third    
,synoptic4 ,we find ,justin ,martyr     
twice quoting another form of the       
saying3 ,for many ------ shall arrive in
 my name1 outwardly indeed clothed in   
sheep's skins1 but inwardly being       
ravening wolves ------47#c7 ,the use of 
the term as applied to men was certainly
 common in the early ,church4 ,the idea 
expressed in the ,epistle is more       
closely found in #b ,timothy iii4 #a    
ff41 in the description of those who are
 to come in the last days1 and who will 

7v4 #f7 creep into the houses and make  
captive ------ silly women laden with   
sins1 led away with divers lusts4  #ac  
,the passage cannot be traced to the    
,acts17#a7 and the ,ignatian ,epistles1 
spurious though they be1 do not present 
any evidence of the existence of that   
work47#b7  ,only two sentences are      
pointed out in the ,epistle of ,polycarp
 as denoting acquaintance with the      
,acts4 ,the first and only one of these 
on which much stress is laid is the     
following37#c7 ------  ,it will be      
obvious to all that1 along with much    
similarity1 there is likewise divergence
 between these sentences4 ,in the first 
phrase the use of ------ in the ,epistle
 separates it from the supposed         
parallel1 in which the word is ------4  
,the number of passages in the ,pauline 
,epistles corresponding with it are     
legion 7e4g4 #b ,cor4 iv4 #ad1 ,ephes4  
i4 #bj74 ,the second member of the      
sentence1 which is of course the more   
important1 is in reality1 we contend1 a 

reference to the very ,psalm quoted in  
,acts immediately after the verse before
 us1 couched in not unusual phraseology4
 ,psalm xvi4 #aj 7,sept4 xv471 reads3   
#ad  ,for thou wilt not leave my soul in
 hell ------47#a7 ,in ,ps4 xviii4 #e    
7,sept4 xvii4 #e7 we have1 ,the pains of
 hell ------ compassed me about47#b7    
,the difference between the ------ of   
the ,epistle and the ------ of the ,acts
 is so distinct that1 finding a closer  
parallel in the ,psalms to which        
reference is obviously made in both     
works1 it is quite impossible to trace  
the phrase necessarily to the ,acts4    
,such a passage cannot prove the use of 
that work17#c7 but1 if it could1 we     
might inquire what evidence for the     
authorship and trustworthiness of the   
,acts could be deduced from the         
circumstance87#d7  ,the second passage1 
referred to by a few writers17#e7 is as 
follows3-- ------  ,it is not necessary 
to do more than contrast these passages 
to show how little the ,epistle of      

,polycarp can witness for the ,acts of  
the ,apostles4 ,we have already examined
 another supposed reference to this very
 passage1 and the expressions in the    
,epistle1 whilst scarcely presenting a  
single point of linguistic analogy to   
#ae  the sentence in the ,acts1 only    
tend to show how common and natural such
 language was in the early ,church in   
connection with persecution4 ,whilst we 
constantly meet with the thought        
expressed by the writer of the ,epistle 
throughout the writings of the ,new     
,testament1 we may more particularly    
point to the first ,petrine epistle for 
further instances of this tone of       
exhortation to those suffering          
persecution for the cause4 ,for         
instance1 #a ,pet4 ii4 #ai ff1 and again
 iii4 #ad17a7 ,but if ye even suffer    
------ for righteousness' sake1 blessed 
are ye4 ,in the next chapter the tone is
 still more closely analogous4 ,speaking
 of persecutions1 the writer says1 iv4  
#ac1 4444 but according as ye are       

partakers of ,christ's sufferings       
rejoice1 c4 c4 #ad4 ,if ye are          
reproached in ,christ's name ------     
blessed are ye1 for the spirit of glory 
and of ,god resteth upon you4 #ae4 ,for 
let none of you suffer ------ as a      
murderer1 c4 c4 #af4 ,but if as a       
,christian1 let him not be ashamed1 but 
let him praise ,god in this name ------ 
c4 c4 ,nothing but evidential           
destitution could rely upon the         
expression in the ,epistle of ,polycarp 
to show acquaintance with ,acts4  ,few  
apologists point out with confidence any
 passages from the voluminous writings  
of ,justin ,martyr1 as indicating the   
use of the ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,we  
may1 however1 quote such expressions as 
the more undaunted amongst them venture 
to advance4 ,the first of these is the  
following37#b7 ,for the ,jews having the
 prophecies and ever expecting the      
,christ to come knew him not ------1 and
 not only so1 but they also maltreated  
him4 ,but  #af  the ,gentiles1 who had  

never heard any thing regarding the     
,christ until his ,apostles1 having gone
 forth from ,jerusalem1 declared the    
things concerning him1 and delivered the
 prophecies1 having been filled with joy
 and faith1 renounced their idols and   
dedicated themselves to the unbegotten  
,god through the ,christ7#a7 ,this is   
compared with ,acts xiii4 #bg1 ,for they
 that dwell at ,jerusalem and their     
rulers not knowing this 7man7 ------ nor
  yet the voices of the prophets which  
are read every sabbath day1 fulfilled   
them by their judgment of him1 c4 #dh4  
,but the ,gentiles1 hearing1 rejoiced   
and glorified the word of the ,lord1    
c47#b7 ,we may at once proceed to give  
the next passage4 ,in the ,dialogue with
 ,trypho1 ,justin has by quotations from
 the prophets endeavoured to show that  
the sufferings of ,christ1 and also the 
glory of his second advent had been     
foretold1 and ,trypho replies3          
,supposing these things to be even as   
thou sayest1 and that it was foretold   

that ,christ was to suffer ------1 and  
has been called a ,stone1 and after his 
first coming1 in which it had been      
announced that he was to suffer1 should 
come in glory1 and become judge of all1 
and eternal king and priest2 c417#c7 and
 in another place1 ,for  #ag  if it had 
been obscurely declared by the prophets 
that the ,christ should suffer ------   
and after these things be lord of all1  
c47#a7 ,this is compared with ,acts     
xxvi4 #bb1 4444 saying nothing except   
those things which the prophets and     
,moses said were to come to pass1 7#bc7 
whether the ,christ should suffer       
------1 whether1 the first out of the   
resurrection from the dead1 he is about 
to proclaim light unto the people and to
 the ,gentiles47#b7 ,it is only         
necessary to quote these passages to    
show how unreasonable it is to maintain 
that they show the use of the ,acts by  
,justin4 ,he simply sets forth from the 
prophets1 direct1 the doctrines which   
formed the great text of the early      

,church4 ,some of the warmest supporters
 of the canon admit the uncertainty of  
such coincidences1 and do not think it  
worth while to advance them4 ,there are 
one or two still more distant analogies 
sometimes pointed out which do not      
require more particular notice47#c7     
,there is no evidence whatever that     
,justin was acquainted with the ,acts of
 the ,apostles47#d7  #ah  ,some         
apologists7#a7 claim ,hegesippus as     
evidence for the existence of the ,acts1
 on the strength of the following       
passages in the fragment of his book    
preserved by ,eusebius4 ,he puts into   
the mouth of ,james the ,just1 whilst   
being martyred1 the expression3 ,i      
beseech 7thee7 ,lord ,god1 ,father1     
forgive them1 for they know not what    
they do4 ,this is compared with the     
words said to have been uttered by the  
martyr ,stephen1 ,acts vii4 #fj1 ,lord1 
lay not this sin to their charge411 ,the
 passage is more commonly advanced as   
showing acquaintance with ,luke xxiii4  

#cd1 and we have already discussed      
it47#b7 ,lardner apparently desires it  
to do double duty1 but it is scarcely   
worth while seriously to refer to the   
claim here4 ,the passage more generally 
relied upon1 though that also is only   
advanced by a few17#c7 is the following1
 ,this man was a faithful witness both  
to ,jews and ,greeks that ,jesus is the 
,christ17#d7 ------4 ,this is compared  
with ,acts xx4 #ba1 where ,paul is      
represented as saying of himself1 4444  
testifying fully both to ,jews and      
,greeks repentance toward ,god1 and     
faith toward our ,lord ,jesus ,christ   
------4 ,the two passages are totally   
different both in sense and language1   
and that the use of ,acts is deduced    
from so distant an analogy only serves  
to show the slightness of the evidence  
with which apologists have to be        
content4  #ai  ,papias need not long    
detain us1 for it is freely admitted by 
most divines that he does not afford    
evidence of any value that he was       

acquainted with the ,acts4 ,for the sake
 of completeness we may however refer to
 the points which are sometimes         
mentioned4 ,a fragment of the work of   
,papias is preserved giving an account  
of the death of ,judas1 which differs   
materially both from the account in the 
first ,synoptic and in ,acts i4 #ah     
f47#a7 ,judas is represented as having  
gone about the world a great example of 
impiety1 for his body having swollen so 
much that he could not pass where a     
waggon easily passed1 he was crushed by 
the waggon so that his entrails emptied 
out ------4 ,apollinaris of ,laodicaea  
quotes this passage to show that ,judas 
did not die when he hung himself1 but   
subsequently met with another fate1 in  
this way reconciling the statements in  
the ,gospel and ,acts47#b7 ,he does not 
say that ,papias used the story for this
 purpose1 and it is fundamentally       
contradictory to the account in ,acts i4
 #ah1 #ai4 ,now this man purchased a    
field with the reward of the            

unrighteousness1 and falling headlong   
burst asunder in the midst1 and all his 
bowels gushed out ------4 ,it is        
scarcely necessary to argue that the    
passage does not indicate any           
acquaintance with ,acts7#c7 as some few 
critics are inclined to assert47#d7 ,the
  #bj  next analogy pointed out is      
derived from the statement of ,eusebius 
that ,papias mentions a wonderful story 
which he had heard from the daughters of
 ,philip 7whom ,eusebius calls the      
,apostle17 regarding a dead man raised  
to life47#a7 ,in ,acts xxi4 #h1 #i1 it  
is stated that ,philip the evangelist   
had four daughters4 ,it is hardly       
conceivable that this should be advanced
 as an indication that ,papias knew the 
,acts4 ,the last point is that ,eusebius
 says3 ,and again 7he narrates7 another 
marvel regarding ,justus who was        
surnamed ,barsabas2 how he drank a      
baneful poison and by the grace of the  
,lord sustained no harm4 ,but that this 
,justus1 after the ,ascension of the    

,saviour1 the holy apostles appointed   
with ,matthias1 and that they prayed 7on
 the occasion7 of the filling up of     
their number by lot instead of the      
traitor ,judas1 the scripture of the    
,acts thus relates3 ',and they appointed
 two1 ,joseph called ,barsabas1 who was 
surnamed ,justus1 and ,matthias4 ,and   
they prayed and said1' c47#b7 ,whatever 
argument can be deduced from this1      
obviously rests entirely upon the fact  
that ,papias is said to have referred to
 ,justus who was named ,barsabas1 for of
 course the last sentence is added by   
,eusebius himself1 and has nothing to do
 with ,papias4 ,this is fairly admitted 
by ,lardner and others4 ,lardner says3  
,papias does undoubtedly give some      
confirmation to the history of the ,acts
 of the ,apostles1 in what he says of   
,philip2 and especially in what he says 
of ,justus1 called  #ba  ,barsabas4 ,but
 ,i think it cannot be affirmed1 that he
 did particularly mention1 or refer to1 
the book of the ,acts4 ,for ,i reckon1  

it is ,eusebius himself who adds that   
quotation out of the ,acts1 upon        
occasion of what ,papias had written of 
the before-mentioned ,barsabas47#a7     
,there is no evidence worthy of         
attention that ,papias was acquainted   
with the ,acts47#c7  ,no one seriously  
pretends that the ,clementine ,homilies 
afford any evidence of the use or       
existence of the ,acts2 and few1 if any1
 claim the ,epistle to ,diognetus as    
testimony for it47#c7 ,we may1 however1 
quote the only passage which is pointed 
out4 4444 these who hold the view that  
they present them 7offerings7 to ,god as
 needing them might more rightly esteem 
it foolishness and not worship of ,god4 
,for he who made the heaven and the     
earth1 and all things in them1 and who  
supplies to us all whatever we need1 can
 himself be in need of none of those    
things which he himself presents to     
those who imagine that they give 7to    
him747#d7 ,this is  #bb  compared with  
,acts xvii4 #bd3 ,the ,god that made the

 world and all things in it1 he being   
,lord of heaven and earth1 dwelleth not 
in temples made with hands2 7#be7       
neither is served by men's hand as      
though he needed anything1 seeing he    
himself giveth to all life and breath   
and all things47#a7 ,there is nothing   
here but a coincidence of sense1 though 
with much variation between the two     
passages1 but the ,epistle argues from a
 different context1 and this            
illustration is obvious enough to be    
common to any moralist4 ,there is not a 
single reason which points to the ,acts 
as the source of the writer's argument4 
,basilides and ,valentinus are not      
claimed at all by apologists as         
witnesses for the existence of the ,acts
 of the ,apostles1 nor is ,marcion1     
whose ,canon1 however1 of which it      
formed no part1 is rather adverse to the
 work than merely negative4 ,tertullian 
taunts ,marcion for receiving ,paul as  
an apostle1 although his name is not    
mentioned in the ,gospel1 and yet not   

receiving the ,acts of the ,apostles in 
which alone his history is narrated27#b7
 but it does not in the least degree    
follow from this that ,marcion knew the 
work and deliberately rejected it4  ,a  
passage of ,tatian's oration to the     
,greeks is pointed out by some7#c7 as   
showing his acquaintance with the ,acts4
 ,it is as follows3 ,i am not willing to
 worship the creation  #bc  made by him 
for us4 ,sun and moon are made for us3  
how1 therefore1 shall ,i worship my own 
servants8 ,how can ,i declare stocks and
 stones to be gods8444 ,but neither     
should the unnameable ------ ,god be    
presented with bribes2 for he who is    
without need of anything ------ must not
 be calumniated by us as needy          
------47l7 ,this is compared with ,acts 
xvii4 #bd1 #be1 quoted above1 and it    
only serves to show how common such     
language was4 ,lardner himself says of  
the passage3 ,this is much the same     
thought1 and applied to the same        
purpose1 with ,paul's1 ,acts xvii4 #be1 

as though he needeth anything4 ,but it  
is a character of the ,deity so obvious1
 that ,i think it cannot determine us to
 suppose he had an eye to those words of
 the ,apostle47#b7 ,the language1       
indeed1 is quite different and shows no 
acquaintance with the ,acts47#c7        
,eusebius states that the ,severians who
 more fully established ,tatian's heresy
 rejected both the ,epistles of ,paul   
and the ,acts of the ,apostles47#d7     
,dionysius of ,corinth is rarely adduced
 by any one as testimony for the ,acts4 
,the only ground upon which he is at all
 referred to is a statement of ,eusebius
 in mentioning his ,epistles4 ,speaking 
of his ,epistle to the ,athenians1      
,eusebius says3 ,he relates1 moreover1  
that ,dionysius the ,areopagite who was 
converted to the faith by ,paul the     
,apostle1 according to the account given
 in the  #bd  ,acts1 was appointed the  
first bishop of the church of the       
,athenians47#a7 ,even apologists admit  
that it is doubtful how far ,dionysius  

referred to the ,acts17#b7 the mention  
of the book here being most obviously   
made by ,eusebius himself4  ,melito of  
,sardis is not appealed to by any writer
 in connection with our work1 nor can   
,claudius ,apollinaris be pressed into  
this service4 ,athenagoras is supposed  
by some to refer to the very same       
passage in ,acts xvii4 #bd1 #be1 which  
we have discussed when dealing with the 
work of ,tatian4 ,athenagoras says3 ,the
 ,creator and ,father of the universe is
 not in need of blood1 nor of the steam 
of burnt sacrifices1 nor of the         
fragrance of flowers and of incense1 he 
himself being the perfect fragrance1    
inwardly and outwardly without need47#c7
 ,and further on3 ,and you kings indeed 
build palaces for yourselves2 but the   
world is not made as being needed by    
,god47#d7 ,these passages occur in the  
course of a defence of ,christians for  
not offering sacrifices1 and both in    
language and context they are quite     
independent of the ,acts of the         

,apostles4  ,in the ,epistle of the     
,churches of ,vienne and ,lyons1 giving 
an account of the persecution against   
them1 it is said that the victims were  
praying for those from whom they        
suffered cruelties3 like ,stephen the   
perfect martyr3  #be  ',lord1 lay not   
this sin to their charge4' ,but if he   
was supplicating for those who stoned   
him1 how much more for the brethren87l7 
,the prayer here quoted agrees with that
 ascribed to ,stephen in ,acts vii4 #fj4
 ,there is no mention of the ,acts of   
the ,apostles in the ,epistle1 and the  
source from which the writers obtained  
their information about ,stephen is of  
course not stated4 ,if there really was 
a martyr of the name of ,stephen1 and if
 these words were actually spoken by    
him1 the tradition of the fact1 and the 
memory of his noble saying1 may well    
have remained in the ,church1 or have   
been recorded in writings then current1 
from one of which1 indeed1 eminent      
critics conjecture that the author of   

,acts derived his materials1#b and in   
this case the passage obviously does not
 prove the use of the ,acts4 ,if1 on the
 other hand1 there never was such a     
martyr by whom these words were spoken1 
and the whole story must be considered  
an original invention by the author of  
,acts1 then1 in that case1 and in that  
case only1 the passage does show the use
 of the ,acts47#c7 ,supposing that the  
use of ,acts be held to be thus         
indicated1 what does this prove8 ,merely
 that the ,acts of the ,apostles were in
 existence in the year #agg-agh1 when   
the ,epistle of  #bf  ,vienne and ,lyons
 was written4 ,no light whatever would  
thus be thrown upon the question of its 
authorship2 and neither its credibility 
nor its sufficiency to prove the reality
 of a cycle of miracles would be in the 
slightest degree established4           
,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon ueed not     
detain us1 as it is not alleged that    
they show acquaintance with the ,acts1  
nor is ,celsus claimed as testimony for 

the book4  ,the ,canon of ,muratori     
contains a very corrupt paragraph       
regarding the ,acts of the ,apostles4   
,we have already discussed the date and 
character of this fragment17#a7 and need
 not further speak of it here4 ,the     
sentence in which we are now interested 
reads in the original as follows3  ,acta
 autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro 
scribta sunt lucas obtime theofile      
conprindit quia sub praesentia eius     
singula gerebantur sicute et semote     
pas-sionem petri euidenter declarat sed 
et profectionem pauli ab urbes ad spania
 proficescentis4  ,it is probable that  
in addition to its corruption some words
 may have been lost from the concluding 
phrase of this passage1 but the         
following may perhaps sufficiently      
represent its general sense3 ,but the   
,acts of all the ,apostles were written 
in one book4 ,luke included 7in his     
work7 to the excellent ,theophilus only 
the things which occurred in his own    
presence1 as he evidently shows by      

omitting the martyrdom of ,peter and    
also the setting forth of ,paul from the
 city to ,spain4  ,whilst this passage  
may prove the existence of the ,acts    
about the end of the second century1 and
 that the authorship of the work was    
ascribed to ,luke1 it has no further    
value4 ,no weight can be attached to the
 statement of  #bg  the unknown writer  
beyond that of merely testifying to the 
currency of such a tradition1 and even  
the few words quoted show how uncritical
 he was4 ,nothing could be less         
appropriate to the work before us than  
the assertion that it contains the ,acts
 of all the ,apostles1 for it must be   
apparent to all1 and we shall hereafter 
have to refer to the point1 that it very
 singularly omits all record of the acts
 of most of the apostles1 occupies      
itself chiefly with those of ,peter and 
,paul1 and devotes considerable         
attention to ,stephen and to others who 
were not apostles at all4 ,we shall     
further have occasion to show that the  

writer does anything but confine himself
 to the events of which he was an       
eye-witness1 and we may merely remark1  
in passing1 as a matter4 which scarcely 
concerns us here1 that the instances    
given by the unknown writer of the      
fragment to support his assertion are   
not only irrelevant1 but singularly     
devoid themselves of historical         
attestation4  ,irenaeus7#a7 assigns the 
,acts of the ,apostles to ,luke1 as do  
,clement of ,alexandria17#b7            
,tertullian17#c7 and ,origen17#d7       
although without any statements giving  
special weight to their mention of him  
as the author in any way                
counterbalancing the late date of their 
testimony4 ,beyond showing that         
tradition1 at the end of the second     
century and beginning of the third1     
associated the name of ,luke with this  
writing and the third ,gospel1 the      
evidence of these ,fathers is of no     
value to us4 ,we have already           
incidentally mentioned that some        

heretics either ignored or rejected the 
book1 and to the ,marcionites and       
,severians  #bh  we may now add the     
,ebionites7#a7 and ,manichaeans47#b7    
,chrysostom complains that in his day   
the ,acts of the ,apostles were so      
neglected that many were ignorant of the
 existence of the book and of its       
authors47#c7 ,doubts as to its          
authorship were expressed in the ninth  
century1 for ,photius states that some  
ascribed the work to ,clement of ,rome1 
others to ,barnabas1 and others to ,luke
 the evangelist47#d7  ,if we turn to the
 document itself1 we find that it       
professes to be the second portion of a 
work written for the information of an  
unknown person named ,theophilus1 the   
first part being the ,gospel1 which1 in 
our canonical ,new ,testament1 bears the
 name of ,gospel according to ,luke4    
,the narrative is a continuation of the 
third ,synoptic1 but the actual title of
 ,acts of the ,apostles1 or ,acts of    
,apostles ------17#e7 attached to this  

------ is a later addition1 and formed  
no part of the original document4 ,the  
author's name is not given in any of the
 earlier ,,mss41 and the work is        
entirely anonymous4 ,that in the        
prologue to the ,acts the writer clearly
 assumes to be the author of the ,gospel
 does not in any way identify him1      
inasmuch as the third ,synoptic itself  
is equally anonymous4 ,the tradition    
assigning both works to ,luke the       
follower of ,paul1 as we have seen1 is  
first met with  #bi  towards the end of 
the second century1 and very little     
weight can be attached to it4 ,there are
 too many instances of early writings1  
several of which indeed have secured a  
place in our canon1 to which            
distinguished names have been           
erroneously ascribed4 ,such tradition is
 notoriously liable to error4  ,we shall
 presently return to the question of the
 authorship of the third ,synoptic and  
,acts of the ,apostles1 but at present  
we may so far anticipate as to say that 

there are good reasons for affirming    
that they could not have been written by
 ,luke47#a7  ,confining ourselves here  
to the actual evidence before us1 we    
arrive at a clear and unavoidable       
conclusion regarding the ,acts of the   
,apostles4 ,after examining all the     
early ,christian literature1 and taking 
every passage which is referred to as   
indicating the use of the book1 we see  
that there is no certain trace even of  
its existence till towards the end of   
the second century2 and1 whilst the     
writing itself is anonymous1 we find no 
authority but late tradition assigning  
it to ,luke or to any other author4 ,we 
are absolutely without evidence of any  
value as to its accuracy or             
trustworthiness1 and1 as we shall       
presently see1 the epistles of ,paul1 so
 far from accrediting it1 tend to cast  
the most serious doubt upon its whole   
character4 ,this evidence we have yet to
 examine1 when considering the contents 
of the ,acts1 and we base our present   

remarks solely on the external testimony
 for the date and authorship of the     
book4 ,the position1 therefore1 is      
simply this3 ,we are asked to believe in
 the reality of a great number of       
miraculous and supernatural       #a    
,the reader is referred to an article by
 the author in the      ,fortnightly    
,rev41 #ahgg1 p4 #dif ff41 in which some
      indications of date1 and          
particularly those connected with       
the use of writings of ,josephus1 are   
discussed4  #cj  occurrences which1     
obviously1 are antecedently incredible1 
upon the assurance of an anonymous work 
of whose existence there is no distinct 
evidence till more than a century after 
the events narrated1 and to which an    
author's name--against which there are  
strong objections--is first ascribed by 
tradition towards the end of the second 
century4 ,of the writer to whom the work
 is thus attributed we know nothing     
beyond the casual mention of his name in
 some ,pauline ,epistles4 ,if it were   

admitted that this ,luke did actually   
write the book1 we should not be        
justified in believing the reality of   
such stupendous miracles upon his bare  
statement ,as the case stands1 however1 
even taking it in its most favourable   
aspect1 the question scarcely demands   
serious attention1 and our discussion   
might at once be ended by the           
unhesitating rejection of the ,acts of  
the ,apostles as sufficient1 or even    
plausible1 evidence for the miracles    
which it narrates4     ,,chapter ,,ii4  
,,evidence ,,regarding ,,the            
,,authorship  ,if we proceed further to 
discuss the document before us1 it is   
from no doubt as to the certainty of the
 conclusion at which we have now        
arrived1 but from the belief that closer
 examination of the contents of the     
,acts may enable us to test this result1
 and more fully to understand the nature
 of the work and the character of its   
evidence4 ,not only will it be          
instructive to consider a little closely

 the contents of the ,acts1 and to      
endeavour from the details of the       
narrative itself to form a judgment     
regarding its historical value1 but we  
have in addition external testimony of  
very material importance which we may   
bring to bear upon it4 ,we happily      
possess some undoubted ,epistles which  
afford us no little information         
concerning the history1 character1 and  
teaching of the ,apostle ,paul1 and we  
are thus enabled to compare the         
statements in the work before us with   
contemporary evidence of great value4   
,it is unnecessary to say that1 wherever
 the statements of the unknown author of
 the ,acts are at variance with these   
,epistles1 we must prefer the statements
 of the ,apostle4 ,the importance to our
 inquiry of such further examination as 
we now propose to undertake consists    
chiefly in the light which it may throw 
on the credibility of the work4 ,if it  
be found that such  #cb  portions as we 
are able to investigate are inaccurate  

and untrustworthy1 it will become still 
more apparent that the evidence of such 
a document for miracles1 which are      
antecedently incredible1 cannot even be 
entertained4 ,it may be well also to    
discuss more fully the authorship of the
 ,acts1 and to this we shall first      
address ourselves4  ,it must1 however1  
be borne in mind that it is quite       
foreign to our purpose to enter into any
 exhaustive discussion of the literary  
problem presented by the ,acts of the   
,apostles4 ,we shall confine ourselves  
to such points as seem sufficient or    
best fitted to test the character of the
 composition1 and we shall not hesitate 
to pass without attention questions of  
mere literary interest1 and strictly    
limit our examination to such prominent 
features as present themselves for our  
purpose4  ,it is generally admitted1    
although not altogether without         
exception17#a7 that the author of our   
third synoptic ,gospel likewise composed
 the ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,the       

linguistic and other peculiarities which
 distinguish the ,gospel are equally    
prominent in the ,acts4 ,this fact1     
whilst apparently offering greatly      
increased facilities for identifying the
 author1 and actually affording valuable
 material for estimating his work1 does 
not1 as we have already remarked1 really
 do much towards solving the problem of 
the authorship1 inasmuch as the ,gospel1
 like its continuation1 is anonymous1   
and we possess no more precise or direct
 evidence in connection with the one    
than in the case of the other4 ,we have 
already so fully examined the testimony 
for the third ,gospel that it is        
unnecessary for us to recur to it4 ,from
 about the end of the second century we 
find the ,gospel and ,acts of the  #cc  
,apostles ascribed by ecclesiastical    
writers to ,luke1 the companion of the  
,apostle ,paul4 ,the fallibility of     
tradition1 and the singular phase of    
literary morality exhibited during the  
early ages of ,christianity1 render such

 testimony of little or no value1 and in
 the almost total absence of the        
critical faculty a rank crop of         
pseudonymic writings sprang up and      
flourished during that period47#a7 ,some
 of the earlier chapters of this work   
have given abundant illustrations of    
this fact4 ,it is absolutely certain1   
with regard to the works we are         
considering1 that ,irenaeus is the      
earliest writer known who ascribes them 
to ,luke1 and that even tradition1      
therefore1 cannot be traced beyond the  
last quarter of the second century4 ,the
 question is--does internal evidence    
confirm or contradict this tradition8   
,luke1 the traditional author1 is not   
mentioned by name in the ,acts of the   
,apostles47#b7 ,in the ,epistle to      
,philemon his name occurs1 with those of
 others1 who send greeting1 verse #bc1  
,there salute thee ,epaphras1 my        
fellow-prisoner in ,christ ,jesus2 #bd4 
,marcus1 ,aristarchus1 ,demas1 ,luke1 my
 fellow-labourers4 ,in the ,epistle to  

the ,colossians1 iv4 #ad1 mention is    
also made of him3--,luke1 the beloved   
physician17#c7 salutes you1 and ,demas4 
,and again1 in the #b ,epistle to       
,timothy1 iv4 #aj3--;,for  #cd  ,demas  
forsook me1 having loved this present   
world1 and departed into ,thessalouica1 
,crescens to ,galatia1 ,titus unto      
,dalmatia3 #aa4 ,only ,luke is with me4 
,he is not mentioned elsewhere in the   
,new ,testament27#a7 and his name is not
 again met with till ,irenaeus ascribes 
to him the authorship of the ,gospel and
 ,acts4 ,there is nothing in these      
,pauline ,epistles confirming the       
statement of the ,fathers1 but it is    
highly probable that these references to
 him largely contributed to suggest his 
name as the author of the ,acts1 the    
very omission of his name from the work 
itself protecting him from objections   
connected with the passages in the first
 person to which other followers of     
,paul were exposed1 upon the traditional
 view of the composition4 ,irenaeus     

evidently knew nothing about him1 except
 what he learnt from these ,epistles1   
and derives from his theory that ,luke  
wrote the ,acts1 and speaks as an       
eye-witness in the passages where the   
first person is used4 ,from these he    
argues that ,luke was inseparable from  
,paul1 and was his fellow-worker in the 
,gospel1 and he refers1 in proof of     
this1 to ,acts xvi4 #h ff417#b7 #ac ff41
 xx4 #e ff41 and the later chapters1 all
 the details of which he supposes ,luke 
to have carefully written down4 ,he then
 continues3 ,but that he was not only a 
follower1 but likewise a fellow-worker  
of the ,apostles1 but particularly of   
,paul1 ,paul himself has also clearly   
shown in the ,epistles1 saying3444 and  
he quotes #b ,tim4 iv4 #aj1 #aa1 ending3
 ,only ,luke is with me1 and then adds1 
whence he shows that he was  #ce  always
 with him and inseparable from him1 c1  
,ac47#a7 ,the reasoning of the zealous  
,father deduces a great deal from very  
little1 it will be observed1 and in this

 elastic way tradition enlarged its     
borders and assumed unsubstantial       
dimensions4 ,later writers have no more 
intimate knowledge of ,luke1 although   
,eusebius states that he was born at    
,antioch17#b7 a tradition likewise      
reproduced by ,jerome47#c7 ,jerome      
further identifies ,luke with the       
brother1 whose praise in the ,gospel is 
throughout all the churches mentioned in
 #b ,cor4 viii4 #ah1 as accompanying    
,titus to ,corinth47#d7 ,at a later     
period1 when the ,church required an    
early artist for its service1 ,luke the 
physician was honoured with the         
additional title of painter47#e7        
,epiphanius17#f7 followed later by some 
other  #cf  writers1 represented him to 
have been one of the seventy-two        
disciples1 whose mission he alone of all
 ,new ,testament writers mentions4 ,the 
view of the ,fathers1 arising out of the
 application of their tradition to the  
features presented by the ,gospel and   
,acts1 was that ,luke composed his      

,gospel1 of the events of which he was  
not an eye-witness1 from information    
derived from others1 and his ,acts of   
the ,apostles from what he himself1 at  
least in the parts in which the first   
person is employed1 had witnessed4#a ,it
 is generally supposed that ,luke was   
not born a ,jew1 but was a ,gentile     
,christian4  ,some writers endeavour to 
find a confirmation of the tradition1   
that the ,gospel and ,acts were written 
by ,luke the beloved physician1 by the  
supposed use of peculiarly technical    
medical terms17#b7 but very little      
weight is attached by any one to this   
feeble evidence which is repudiated by  
most serious critics1 and it need not   
detain us4  ,as there is no indication1 
either in the ,gospel or the ,acts1 of  
the author's identity proceeding from   
himself1 and tradition does not offer   
any alternative security1 what testimony
 can be produced in support of the      
ascription of  #cg  these writings to   
,luke8 ,to this question ,ewald shall   

reply3 ,in fact1 he says1 we possess    
only one ground for it1 but this is     
fully sufficient4 ,it lies in the       
designation of the third ,gospel as that
 'according to ,luke' which is found in 
all ,,mss4 of the four ,gospels4 ,for   
the quotations of this particular       
,gospel under the distinct name of      
,luke1 in the extant writings of the    
,fathers1 begin so late that they cannot
 be compared in antiquity with that     
superscription2 and those known to us   
may probably themselves only go back to 
this superscription4 ,we thus depend    
almost alone on this superscription47#a7
 ,ewald generally does consider his own 
arbitrary conjectures fully sufficient1 
but it is doubtful1 whether in this     
case1 any one who examines this evidence
 will agree with him4 ,he himself goes  
on to admit1 with all other critics1    
that the superscriptions to our ,gospels
 do not proceed from the authors        
themselves1 but were added by those who 
collected them1 or by later readers to  

distinguish them47#b7 ,there was no     
author's name attached to ,marcion's    
,gospel1 as we learn from               
,tertullian47#c7 ,chrysostom  very      
distinctly asserts that the ,evangelists
 did not inscribe their names at the    
head of their works17#d7 and he         
recognizes that1 but for the authority  
of the primitive ,church which added    
those names1 the superscriptions could  
not have proved the authorship of the   
,gospels4 ,he conjectures that the sole 
superscription which may  #ch  have been
 placed by the author of the first      
,synoptic was simply ------47#a7 ,it    
might be argued1 and indeed has been1   
that the inscription ------1 according  
to ,luke1 instead of ------ ,gospel of  
,luke1 does not actually indicate that  
,luke wrote the work any more than the  
superscription to the ,gospels according
 to the ,hebrews ------ according to the
 ,egyptians ------ has reference to     
authorship4 ,the ,epistles1 on the      
contrary1 are directly connected with   

their writers1 in the genitive1 ------1 
and so on4 ,this point1 however1 we     
merely mention en passant4 ,by his own  
admission1 therefore1 the superscription
 is simply tradition in another form1   
but instead of carrying us further back1
 the superscription on the most ancient 
extant ,,mss41 as for instance the      
,sinaitic and ,vatican ,codices of the  
,gospels1 does not on the most sanguine 
estimate of their age1 date earlier than
 the fourth century47#b7 ,as for the    
,acts of the ,apostles1 the book is not 
ascribed to ,luke in a single uncial    
,,ms41 and it only begins to appear in  
various forms in later codices4 ,the    
variation in the titles of the ,gospels 
and ,acts in different ,,mss4 alone     
shows the uncertainty of the            
superscription4 ,it is clear that the   
one ground1 upon which ,ewald admits    
that the evidence for ,luke's authorship
 is based1 is nothing but sand1 and     
cannot support his tower4 ,he is on the 
slightest consideration thrown back upon

 the quotations of the ,fathers1 which  
begin too late for the  #ci  purpose1   
and it must be acknowledged that the    
ascription of the third ,gospel and     
,acts to ,luke rests solely upon late   
and unsupported tradition4  ,let it be  
remembered that1 with the exception of  
the three passages in the ,pauline      
,epistles quoted above1 we know         
absolutely nothing about ,luke4 ,as we  
have mentioned1 it has even been doubted
 whether the designation the beloved    
physician in the ,epistle to the        
,colossians1 iv4 #ad1 does not          
distinguish a different ,luke from the  
person of that name in the ,epistles to 
,philemon and ,timothy4 ,if this were   
the case1 our information would be      
further reduced2 but supposing that the 
same ,luke is referred to1 what does our
 information amount to8 ,absolutely     
nothing but the fact that a person named
 ,luke was represented by the writer of 
these letters17#a7 whoever he was1 to   
have been with ,paul in ,rome1 and that 

he was known to the church of ,colossae4
 ,there is no evidence whatever that    
this ,luke had been a travelling        
companion of ,paul1 or that he ever     
wrote a line concerning him or had      
composed a ,gospel4 ,he is not mentioned
 in ,epistles written during this       
journey and1 indeed1 the rarity and     
meagreness of the references to him     
would much rather indicate that he had  
not taken any distinguished part in the 
proclamation of the ,gospel4 ,if ,luke  
be ------ and be numbered amongst the   
,apostle's ------1 ,tychicus is equally 
the beloved brother and faithful        
minister and fellow-servant in the      
,lord47#b7 ,onesimus the faithful and   
beloved brother17#c7       #a ,we cannot
 discuss the authenticity of these      
,epistles in      this place1 nor is it 
very important that we should do so4    
,nor can we pause to consider whether   
they were written in      ,rome1 as a   
majority of critics think1 or elsewhere4
  #dj  and ,aristarchus1 ,mark the      

cousin of ,barnabas1 ,justus and others 
are likewise his ------47#a7 ,there is  
no evidence1 in fact1 that ,paul was    
acquainted with ,luke earlier than      
during his imprisonment in ,rome1 and he
 seems markedly excluded from the       
,apostle's work and company by such     
passages as #b ,cor4 i4 #ai47b7 ,the    
simple theory that ,luke wrote the ,acts
 supplies all the rest of the tradition 
of the ,fathers1 as we have seen in the 
case of ,irenaeus1 and to this mere     
tradition we are confined in the total  
absence of more ancient testimony4  ,the
 traditional view1 which long continued 
to prevail undisturbed1 and has been    
widely held up to our own day17#c7      
represents ,luke as the author of the   
,acts1 and1 in  #da  the passages where 
the first person is employed1 considers 
that he indicates himself as an actor   
and eye-witness4 ,these passages1 where 
------ is introduced1 present a curious 
problem which has largely occupied the  
attention of critics1 and it has been   

the point most firmly disputed in the   
long controversy regarding1 the         
authorship of the ,acts4 ,into this     
literary labyrinth we must not be       
tempted to enter beyond a very short    
way2 for1 however interesting the       
question may be in itself1 we are left  
so completely to conjecture that no     
result is possible which can materially 
affect our inquiry1 and we shall only   
refer to it sufficiently to illustrate  
the uncertainty which prevails regarding
 the authorship4 ,we shall1 however1    
supply abundant references for those who
 care more minutely to pursue the       
subject4  ,after the narrative of the   
,acts has1 through fifteen chapters1    
proceeded uninterruptedly in the third  
person1 an abrupt change to the first   
person plural occurs in the sixteenth   
chapter47#a7 ,paul1 and at least        
,timothy1 are represented as going      
through ,phrygia and ,galatia1 and at   
length they came down to ,troas1 where a
 vision appears to ,paul beseeching him 

to come over into ,macedonia4 ,then1    
xvi4 #aj1 proceeds3 ,and after he saw   
the vision1 immediately we endeavoured  
------ to go forth into ,macedonia1     
concluding that ,god had called us      
------ to preach the ,gospel unto them4 
,after verse #ag1 the direct form of    
narrative is as suddenly dropped as it  
was taken up1 and does not reappear     
until xx4 #e1 when1 without explanation1
 it is resumed and continued for ten    
verses4 ,it is then again abandoned1 and
 recommenced in xxi4 #a-ah1 and xxvii4  
#a1 xxviii4 #af4       #a ,it is        
unnecessary to discuss whether xiv4 #bb 
belongs to      the ------ sections or  
not4  #db  ,it is argued by those who   
adopt the traditional view17#a7 that it 
would be an instance of unparalleled    
negligence1 in so careful a writer as   
the author of the third ,synoptic and   
,acts1 to have composed these sections  
from documents lying before him1 written
 by others1 leaving them in the form of 
a narrative in the first person1 whilst 

the rest of his work was written in the 
third1 and that1 without doubt1 he would
 have assimilated such portions to the  
form of the rest4 ,on the other hand1   
that he himself makes distinct use of   
the first person in ,luke i4 #a-c and   
,acts i4 #a1 and consequently prepares  
the reader to expect that1 where it is  
desirable1 he will resume the direct    
mode of communication2 and in support of
 this supposition1 it is asserted that  
the very same peculiarities of style and
 language exist in the ------ passages  
as in the rest of the work4 ,the        
adoption of the direct form of narrative
 in short merely indicates that the     
author himself was present and an       
eye-witness of what he relates17#c7 and 
that writing as he did for the          
information of ,theophilus1 who was well
 aware of his personal participation in 
the journeys he records1 it was not     
necessary for him to give any           
explanation of his occasional use of the
 first person4  ,is the abrupt and      

singular introduction of the first      
person in these particular sections of  
his work1 without a word of explanation1
 more intelligible and reasonable upon  
the traditional theory of their being by
 the author himself as an eye-witness8  
,on the contrary1 it is maintained1 the 
phenomenon on that hypothesis becomes   
much more       #b  ,some writers also  
consider as one of the reasons why      
,luke1 the supposed author1 uses the    
first person1 that where      he begins 
to do so he himself becomes associated  
with ,paul      in his work1 and first  
begins to preach the ,gospel4           
,thiersch1 ,die ,kirche im ap4 ,zeit41  
p4 #acg2 ,baumgarfen1 ,die              
,apostelgeschichte1 i4 p4 #dif4  #dc    
inexplicable4 ,on examining the ------  
sections it will be observed that they  
consist almost entirely of an itinerary 
of journeys1 and that while the         
chronology of the rest of the ,acts is  
notably uncertain and indefinite1 these 
passages enter into the minutest details

 of daily movements 7xvi4 #aa1 #ab2 xx4 
#f1 #g1aa1ae2 xxi4 #a1 #d1 #e1 #g1 #h1  
#aj1ah2 xxvii4 #b2 xxviii4 #g1 #ab1     
#ad72 of the route pursued1 and places  
through which often they merely pass    
7xvi4 #aa1ab2 xx4 #e1 #f1ac1ae2 xxi4    
#a-c1 #g2 xxvii4 #b ff42 xxviii4        
#aa-ae71 and record the most trifling   
circumstances 7xvi4 #ab2 xx4 #ac2 xxi4  
#b1 #c1 #ae2 xxviii4 #b1 #aa74 ,the     
distinguishing feature of these sections
 in fact is generally asserted to be the
 stamp which they bear1 above all other 
parts of the ,acts1 of intimate personal
 knowledge of the circumstances related4
  ,is it not1 however1 exceedingly      
remarkable that the author of the ,acts 
should intrude his own personality      
merely to record these minute details of
 voyages and journeys8 ,that his        
appearance as an eye-witness should be  
almost wholly limited to the itinerary  
of ,paul's journeys and to portions of  
his history which are of very           
subordinate interest8 ,the voyage and   

shipwreck are thus narrated with        
singular minuteness of detail1 but if   
any one who reads it only consider the  
matter for a moment1 it will become     
apparent that this elaboration of the   
narrative is altogether disproportionate
 to the importance of the voyage in the 
history of the early ,church4 ,the      
traditional view indeed is fatal to the 
claims of the ,acts as testimony for the
 great mass of miracles it contains1 for
 the author is only an eye-witness of   
what is comparatively unimportant and   
commonplace4 ,the writer's intimate     
acquaintance with the history of ,paul1 
and his claim to participation in his   
work1 begin and end with his actual  #dd
  journeys4 ,with very few exceptions1  
as soon as the ,apostle stops anywhere1 
he ceases to speak as an eyewitness and 
relapses into vagueness and the third   
person4 ,at the very time when          
minuteness of detail would have been    
most interesting1 he ceases to be       
minute4 ,a very long and important      

period of ,paul's life is covered by the
 narrative between xvi4 #aj1 where      
the------ sections begin1 and xxviii4   
#af1 where they end2 but1 although the  
author goes with such extraordinary     
detail into the journeys to which they  
are confined1 how bare and              
unsatisfactory is the account of the    
rest of ,paul's career during that      
time67l7 ,how eventful that career must 
have been we learn from #b ,cor4 xi4    
#bc-bf4 ,in any case1 the author who    
could be so minute in his record of an  
itinerary1 apparently could not1 or     
would not1 be minute in his account of  
more important matters in his history4  
,in the few verses1 ix4 #a-cj1 chiefly  
occupied by an account of ,paul's       
conversion1 is comprised all that the   
author has to tell of three years of the
 ,apostle's life1 and into xi4 #ai--xiv4
 are compressed the events of fourteen  
years of his history 7cf4 ,gal4 ii4     
l747#b7 ,if the author of those portions
 be the same writer who is so minute in 

his daily itinerary in the ------       
sections1 his sins of omission and      
commission are of a very startling      
character4 ,to say nothing more severe  
here1 upon the traditional theory he is 
an elaborate trifler4  ,does the use of 
the first person in ,luke i4 #a-c and   
,acts i4 #a in any way justify or       
prepare7#c7 the way for the  #de  sudden
 and unexplained introduction of the    
first person in the sixteenth chapter8  
,certainly not4 ,the ------ in these    
passages is used solely in the personal 
address to ,theophilus1 is limited to   
the brief explanation contained in what 
may be called the dedication or preface1
 and is at once dropped when the history
 begins4 ,if the prologue of the ,gospel
 be applied to the ,acts1 moreover1 the 
use of earlier documents is at once     
implied1 which would rather justify the 
supposition that these passages are part
 of some diary1 from which the general  
editor made extracts47#a7 ,besides1     
there is no explanation in the ,acts    

which in the slightest degree connects  
the ------ with the ------47#b7 ,to     
argue that explanation was unnecessary1 
as ,theophilus and early readers were   
well acquainted with the fact that the  
author was a fellow-traveller with the  
,apostle1 and therefore at once         
understood the meaning of ,we17#c7 would
 destroy the utility of the direct form 
of communication altogether2 for if     
,theophilus knew this1 there was        
obviously no need to introduce the first
 person at all1 in so abrupt and        
singular a way1 more especially to      
chronicle minute details of journeys    
which possess comparatively little      
interest4 ,moreover1 writing for        
,theophilus1 we might reasonably expect 
that he should have stated where and    
when he became associated with ,paul1   
and explained the reasons why he again  
left and rejoined him47#d7 ,ewald       
suggests that possibly the author       
intended to have indicated his name more
 distinctly at the end of his work27#e7 

but this merely shows that1 argue as he 
will1  #df  he feels the necessity for  
such an explanation4 ,the conjecture is 
negatived1 however1 by the fact that no 
name is subsequently added4 ,as in the  
case of the fourth ,gospel1 of course   
the incomparable modesty theory is      
suggested as the reason why the author  
does not mention his own name1 and      
explain the adoption of the first person
 in the ------ passages27#a7 but to base
 theories such as this upon the modesty 
or elevated views of a perfectly unknown
 writer is obviously too arbitrary a    
proceeding to be permissible47#b7 ,there
 is1 besides1 exceedingly little modesty
 in a writer forcing himself so         
unnecessarily into notice1 for he does  
not represent himself as taking any     
active part in the events narrated2 and1
 as the mere chronicler of days of      
sailing and arriving1 he might well have
 remained impersonal to the end4  ,on   
the other hand1 supposing the general   
editor of the ,acts to have made use of 

written sources of information1 and     
amongst others of the diary of a        
companion of the ,apostle ,paul1 it is  
not so strange that1 for one reason or  
another1 he should have allowed the     
original direct form of communication to
 stand whilst incorporating parts of it 
with his work4 ,instances have been     
pointed out in which a similar retention
 of the first or third person1 in a     
narrative generally written otherwise1  
is accepted as the indication of a      
different written source1 as for        
instance in ,ezra vii4 #bg--;ix2        
,nehemiah viii4--x42 in the ,book of    
,tobit i4 #a-c1 iii4 #g ff41 and other  
places2s and ,schwanbeck has  #dg       
pointed out many instances of a similar 
kind amongst the chroniclers of the     
middle ages47#a7 ,there are various ways
 in which the retention of the first    
person in these sections1 supposing them
 to have been derived from some other   
written source1 might be explained4 ,the
 simple supposition that the author1    

either through carelessness or          
oversight1 allowed the ------ to        
stand7#b7 is not excluded1 and indeed   
some critics1 although we think without 
reason1 maintain both the third ,gospel 
and the ,acts to be composed of         
materials derived from various sources  
and put together with little care or    
adjustment47#c7 ,the author might also  
have inserted these fragments of the    
diary of a fellow-traveller of ,paul1   
and retained the original form of the   
document to strengthen the apparent     
credibility of his own narrative2 or1 as
 many critics believe1 he may have      
allowed the first person of the original
 document to remain1 in order himself to
 assume the character of eyewitness1 and
 of companion of the ,apostle47#d7 ,as  
we shall see in the course of our       
examination of the ,acts1 the general   
procedure of the author is by no means  
of a character to discredit such an     
explanation4  ,we shall not enter into  
any discussion of the sources from which

 critics maintain that the author       
compiled his  #dh  work4 ,it is         
sufficient to say that1 whilst some     
profess to find definite traces of many 
documents1 few if any writers deny that 
the writer made more or less use of     
earlier materials4 ,it is quite true    
that the characteristics of the general 
author's style are found throughout the 
whole work4#a ,the ,acts are no mere    
aggregate of scraps collected and rudely
 joined together1 but the work of one   
author in the sense that whatever       
materials he may have used for its      
composition were carefully assimilated1 
and subjected to thorough and systematic
 revision to adapt them to his          
purpose47#b7 ,but however completely    
this process was carried out1 and his   
materials interpenetrated by his own    
peculiarities of style and language1 he 
did not succeed in entirely obliterating
 the traces of independent written      
sources4 ,some writers maintain that    
there is a very apparent difference     

between the first twelve  #di  chapters 
and the remainder of the work1 and      
profess to detect a much more           
,hebraistic character in the language of
 the earlier portion17#a7 although this 
is not received without demur47#b7 ,as  
regards the ------ sections1 whilst it  
is admitted that these fragments have in
 any case been much manipulated by the  
general editor1 and largely contain his 
general characteristics of language1 it 
is at the same time affirmed that they  
present distinct foreign peculiarities1 
which betray a borrowed document47#c7   
,even critics who maintain the ------   
sections to be by the same writer who   
composed the rest of the book point out 
the peculiarly natural character and    
minute knowledge displayed in these     
passages1 as distinguishing them from   
the rest of the ,acts47#d7 ,this of     
course they attribute to the fact that  
the author there relates his personal   
experiences2 but even with this         
explanation it is apparent that all who 

maintain the traditional view do        
recognize peculiarities in these        
sections1 by which they justify the     
ascription of them to an eye-witness4   
,for the reasons which have been very   
briefly indicated1 therefore1 and upon  
other  #ej  strong grounds1 some of     
which will be presently stated1 a very  
large mass of the ablest critics have   
concluded that the ------ sections were 
not composed by the author of the rest  
of the ,acts1 but that they are part of 
the diary of some companion of the      
,apostle ,paul1 of which the ,author of 
,acts made use for his work17#a7 and    
that the general writer of the work1 and
 consequently of the third ,synoptic1   
was not ,luke at all47#b7  #ea  ,a      
careful study of the contents of the    
,acts cannot1 we think1 leave any doubt 
that the work could not have been       
written by any companion or intimate    
friend of the ,apostle ,paul47#a7 ,in   
here briefly indicating some of the     
reasons for this statement1 we shall be 

under the necessity of anticipating1    
without much explanation or argument1   
points which will be more fully         
discussed farther on1 and which now1    
stated without preparation1 may not be  
sufficiently clear to some readers4     
,they may hereafter seem more           
conclusive4 ,it is unreasonable to      
suppose that a friend or companion could
 have written so unhistorical and       
defective a history of the ,apostle's   
life and teaching4 ,the ,pauline        
,epistles are nowhere directly referred 
to1 but where we can compare the        
narrative and representations of ,acts  
with the statements of the ,apostle1    
they are strikingly contradictory47#b7  
#eb  ,his teaching in the one scarcely  
presents a trace of the strong and      
clearly defined doctrines of the other1 
and the character and conduct of the    
,paul of ,acts are altogether different 
from those of ,paul of the ,epistles4   
,according to ,paul himself 7,gal4 i4   
#af--ah71 after his conversion1 he      

communicated not with flesh and blood1  
neither went up to ,jerusalem to those  
who were apostles before him1 but       
immediately went away into ,arabia1 and 
returned to ,damascus1 and only after   
three years he went up to ,jerusalem to 
visit ,kephas1 and abode with him       
fifteen days1 during which visit none   
other of the ,apostles did he see save  
,james1 the brother of the ,lord4 ,if   
assurance of the correctness of these   
details were required1 ,paul gives it by
 adding 7v4 #bj73 ,now the things which 
,i am writing to you1 behold before ,god
 ,i lie not4 ,according to ,acts 7ix4   
#ai--cj71 however1 the facts are quite  
different4 ,paul immediately begins to  
preach in ,damascus1 does not visit     
,arabia at all1 but1 on the contrary1   
goes to ,jerusalem1 where1 under the    
protection of ,barnabas 7v4 #bf1 #bg71  
he is introduced to the ,apostles1 and  
was with them going in and out4         
,according to ,paul 7,gal4 i4 #bb71 his 
face was after that unknown unto the    

churches of ,judaea1 whereas1 according 
to ,acts1 not only was he going in and  
out at ,jerusalem with the ,apostles1   
but 7ix4 #bi7 preached boldly in the    
name of the ,lord1 and 7,acts xxvi4 #bj7
 in ,jerusalem and throughout all the   
region of ,judaea1 he urged to          
repentance4 ,according to ,paul 7,gal4  
ii4 #a ff471 after fourteen years he    
went up again to ,jerusalem with        
,barnabas and ,titus1  #ec  according to
 a revelation1 and privately            
communicated his ,gospel to those who   
seemed to be something1 as1 with some   
irony1 he calls the ,apostles4 ,in words
 still breathing irritation and         
determined independence1 ,paul relates  
to the ,galatians the particulars of    
that visit--how great pressure had been 
exerted to compel ,titus1 though a      
,greek1 to be circumcised1 that they    
might bring us into bondage1 to whom1   
not even for an hour did we yield the   
required subjection4 ,he protests1 with 
proud independence1 that the ,gospel    

which he preaches was not received from 
man 7,gal4 i4 #aa1 #ab71 but revealed to
 him by ,god 7verses #ae1 #af72 and     
during this visit 7ii4 #f1 #g7 from     
those seeming to be something ------1   
whatsoever they were it maketh no matter
 to me--,god accepteth not man's        
person--for to me those who seemed      
------ communicated nothing additional4 
,according to ,acts1 after his          
conversion1 ,paul is taught by a man    
named ,ananias what he must do 7ix4 #f1 
xxii4 #aj72 he makes visits to          
,jerusalem 7xi4 #cj1 xii4 #be1 c71 which
 are excluded by ,paul's own explicit   
statements2 and a widely different      
report is given 7xv4 #a ff47 of the     
second visit4 ,paul does not go1        
according to a revelation1 but is       
deputed by the ,church of ,antioch1 with
 ,barnabas1 in consequence of disputes  
regarding the circumcision of ,gentiles1
 to lay the case before the ,apostles   
and elders at ,jerusalem4 ,it is almost 
impossible in the account here given of 

proceedings characterised throughout by 
perfect harmony1 forbearance1 and       
unanimity of views1 to recognize the    
visit described by ,paul4 ,instead of   
being private1 the scene is a general   
council of the ,church4 ,the fiery      
independence of ,paul is transformed    
into meekness and submission4 ,there is 
not a word of the  #ed  endeavour to    
compel him to have ,titus               
circumcised--all is peace and           
undisturbed good-will4 ,peter pleads the
 cause of ,paul1 and is more ,pauline in
 his sentiments than ,paul himself1 and1
 in the very presence of ,paul1 claims  
to have been selected by ,god to be     
,apostle of the ,gentiles 7xv4 #g--aa74 
,not a syllable is said of the scene at 
,antioch shortly after 7,gal4 ii4 #aa   
ff471 so singularly at variance with the
 proceedings of the council1 when ,paul 
withstood ,cephas to the face4 ,then1   
who would recognize the ,paul of the    
,epistles in the ,paul of ,acts1 who    
makes such repeated journeys to         

,jerusalem to attend ,jewish feasts     
7xviii4 #ba1a xix4 #ba1 xx4 #af1 xxiv4  
#aa1 #ag1 #ah72 who1 in his journeys1   
halts on the days when a ,jew may not   
travel 7xx4 #e1 #f72 who shaves his head
 at ,cenchrea because of a vow 7xviii4  
#ah72 who1 at the recommendation of the 
,apostles1 performs that astonishing act
 of ,nazariteship in the ,temple 7xxi4  
#bc71 and afterwards follows it up by a 
defence of such excellent dissembling   
------2 who circumcises ,timothy1 the   
son of a ,greek and of a ,jewess1 with  
his own hands 7xvi4 #a--c1 cf4 ,gal4 v4 
#b72 and who is so little the apostle of
 the uncircumcision that he only tardily
 goes to the ,gentiles when rejected by 
the ,jews 7cf4 xviii4 7,j74 ,paul is not
 only robbed of the honour of being the 
first ,apostle of the ,gentiles1 which  
is conferred upon ,peter1 but the writer
 seems to avoid even calling him an     
apostle at all17#b7 the only occasions  
upon which he does so being indirect    
7xiv4 #d1 #ad72 and the title equally   

applied to ,barnabas1 whose claim to it 
is more than doubted4 ,the  #ee         
passages in which this occurs1 moreover1
 are not above suspicion1 the ,apostles 
being omitted in ,cod4 ,d4 7,bezae7 from
 xiv4 #ad4 ,the former verse in that    
codex has important variations from     
other ,,mss4  ,if we cannot believe that
 the representation actually given of   
,paul in the ,acts could proceed from a 
friend or companion of the ,apostle1 it 
is equally impossible that such a person
 could have written his history with so 
many extraordinary imperfections and    
omissions4 ,we have already pointed out 
that between chs4 ix4--xiv4 are         
compressed the events of seventeen of   
the most active years of the ,apostle's 
life1 and also that a long period is    
comprised within the ------ sections1   
during which such minute details of the 
daily itinerary are given4 ,the         
incidents reported1 however1 are quite  
disproportionate to those which are     
omitted4 ,we have no record1 for        

instance1 of his visit to ,arabia at so 
interesting a portion of his career     
7,gal4 i4 #ag71 although the particulars
 of his conversion are repeated with    
singular variations no less than three  
times 7ix4 xxii4 xxvi472 nor of his     
preaching in ,illyria 7,rom4 xv4 #ai72  
nor of the incident referred to in ,rom4
 xvi4 #c1 #d4 ,the momentous adventures 
in the cause of the ,gospel spoken of in
 #b ,cor4 xi4 #bc ff4 receive scarcely  
any illustration in ,acts1 nor is any   
notice taken of his fighting with wild  
beasts at ,ephesus 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #cb71  
which would have formed an episode full 
of serious interest4 ,what1 again1 was  
the affliction which happened in ,asia1 
which so overburdened even so energetic 
a nature as that of the ,apostle that he
 despaired even of life8 7#b ,cor4 ii4  
#h f47 ,some light upon these points    
might reasonably have been expected from
 a companion of ,paul4 ,then1 xvii4     
#ad--af1 xviii4 #e contradict #a ,thess4
 iii4 #a1 #b1 in a way scarcely possible

 in such a  #ef  companion1 present with
 the ,apostle at ,athens2 and in like   
manner the representation in xxviii4    
#ag-bb is inconsistent with such a      
person1 ignoring as it does the fact    
that there already was a ,christian     
,church in ,rome 7,ep4 to ,romans74 ,we 
do not refer to the miraculous elements 
so thickly spread over the narrative of 
the ,acts1 and especially in the episode
 xvi4 #be ff41 which is inserted in the 
first ------ section1 as irreconcilable 
with the character of an eye-witness1   
because it is precisely the miraculous  
portion of the book which is on its     
trial2 but we may ask whether it would  
have been possible for such a friend1   
acquainted with the ,apostle's          
representations in #a ,cor4 xiv4 #b ff41
 cf4 xii4--xiv41 and the phenomena there
 described1 to speak of the gift of     
tongues at ,pentecost as the power of   
speaking different languages 7ii4       
#d--aa1 cf4 x4 #df1 xix4 #f7  ,it will  
readily be understood that we have here 

merely rapidly and by way of            
illustration referred to a few of the   
points which seem to preclude the       
admission that the general author of the
 ,acts could be an eyewitness17#a7 or   
companion of the ,apostle ,paul1 and    
this will become more apparent as we    
proceed1 and more closely examine the   
contents of the book4 ,who that author  
was1 there are now no means of          
ascertaining4 ,the majority of critics  
who have most profoundly examined the   
problem presented by the ,acts1 however1
 and who do not admit ,luke to be the   
general author1 are agreed that the     
author compiled the ------ sections from
 a diary kept by some companion of the  
,apostle ,paul during the journeys and  
voyages to which they relate1 but       
opinion is very divided as to the person
  #eg  to whom that diary must be       
ascribed4 ,it is of course recognized   
that the various theories regarding his 
identity are merely based upon          
conjecture1 but they have long severely 

exercised critical ingenuity4 ,a        
considerable party adopt the conclusion 
that the diary was probably written by  
,luke47#a7 ,this theory has certainly   
the advantage of whatever support may be
 derived from tradition2 and it has been
 conjectured1 not without probability1  
that this diary1 being either written   
by1 or originally attributed to1 ,luke1 
may possibly have been the source from  
which1 in course of time1 the whole of  
the ,acts1 and consequently the ,gospel1
 came to be ascribed to ,luke47#b7 ,the 
selection of a comparatively less known 
name than that of ,timothy1 ,titus or   
,silas17#c7 for instance1 may thus be   
explained2 but1 besides1 it has the     
great advantage that1 the name of ,luke 
never being mentioned in the ,acts1 he  
is not exposed to criticism1 which has  
found serious objections to the claims  
of other better known followers of      
,paul4  ,there are1 however1 many       
critics who find difficulties in the way
 of accepting ,luke as the author of the

 we sections1 and who adopt the theory  
that they were pro-  #eh  probably      
composed by ,timothy47#a7 ,it is argued 
that1 if ,luke had been the writer of   
this diary1 he must have been in very   
close relations to ,paul1 having been   
his companion during the ,apostle's     
second mission journey1 as well as      
during the later ,european journey1 and 
finally during the eventful journey of  
,paul as a prisoner from ,caesarea to   
,rome4 ,under these circumstances1 it is
 natural to expect that ,paul should    
mention him in his earlier epistles1    
written before the ,roman imprisonment1 
but this he nowhere does4 ,for instance1
 no mention whatever is made of ,luke in
 either of the letters to the           
,corinthians nor in those to the        
,thessalonians2 but on the other hand1  
,timothy's name1 together with that of  
,silvanus 7or ,silas71 is joined to     
,paul's in the two letters to the       
,thessalonians1 besides being mentioned 
in the body of the first ,epistle 7iii4 

#b1 #f72 and he is repeatedly and       
affectionately spoken of in the earlier 
letter to the ,corinthians 7#a ,cor4 iv4
 #ag1 xvi4 #aj71 and his name is        
likewise combined with the ,apostle's in
 the second ,epistle 7#b ,cor4 i4 #a71  
as well as mentioned in the body of the 
letter1 along with that of ,silvanus1 as
 a fellow-preacher with ,paul4 ,in the  
,epistle to the ,philippians1 later1 the
 name of ,luke does not appear1         
although1 had he been the companion of  
the ,apostle from ,troas1 he must have  
been known to the ,philippians1 but on  
the other hand1 ,timothy is again       
associated in the opening greeting of   
that ,epistle4 ,timothy is known to have
  #ei  been a fellow-worker with the    
,apostle1 and to have accompanied him in
 his missionary journeys1 and he is     
repeatedly mentioned in the ,acts as the
 companion of ,paul1 and the first      
occasion is precisely where the ------  
sections commence47#a7 ,in connection   
with ,acts xv4 #dj1 xvi4 #c1aj1 it is   

considered that ,luke is quite excluded 
from the possibility of being the       
companion who wrote the diary we are    
discussing1 by the ,apostle's own words 
in #b ,cor4 i4 #ai37b7 ,for the ,son of 
,god1 ,christ ,jesus1 who was preached  
among you by us1 by me and ,silvanus and
 ,timothy1 c1 c4 ,the eye-witness who   
wrote the journal from which the ------ 
sections are taken must have been with  
the ,apostle in ,corinth1 and1 it is of 
course always asserted1 must have been  
one of his ------1 and preached the     
,gospel47#c7 ,is it possible1 on the    
supposition that this fellow-labourer   
was ,luke1 that the ,apostle could in so
 marked a manner have excluded his name 
by clearly defining that us only meant  
himself and ,silvanus and ,timothy8     
,mayerhoff7#d7 has gone even further    
than the critics we have referred to1   
and maintains ,timothy to be the author 
of the third ,synoptic and of ,acts4    
,we may briefly add that some writers   
have conjectured ,silas to be the author

 of the ------ sections17#e7 and others 
#fj  have referred them to ,titus47#a7  
,it is evident that whether the ------  
sections be by the unknown author of the
 rest of the ,acts1 or be part of a     
diary by some unknown companion of      
,paul1 introduced into the work by the  
general editor1 they do not solve the   
problem as to the identity of the       
author1 who remains absolutely unknown4 
,we have said enough to enable the      
reader to understand the nature of the  
problem regarding the author of the     
third ,synoptic and of the ,acts of the 
,apostles1 and whilst for our purpose   
much less would have sufficed1 it is    
evident that the materials do not exist 
for identifying him4 ,the stupendous    
miracles related in these two works1    
therefore1 rest upon the evidence of an 
unknown writer1 who from internal       
evidence must have composed them very   
long after the events recorded4         
,externally1 there is no proof even of  
the existence of the ,acts until towards

 the end of the second century1 when    
also for the first time we hear of a    
vague theory as to the name and identity
 of the supposed author1 a theory which 
declares ,luke not to have himself been 
an eye-witness of the occurrences       
related in the ,gospel1 and which       
reduces his participation even in the   
events narrated in the ,acts to a very  
small and modest compass1 leaving the   
great mass of the miracles described in 
the work without even his personal      
attestation4 ,the theory1 however1 we   
have seen to be not only unsupported by 
evidence1 but to be contradicted by many
 potent circumstances4 ,we propose now1 
without exhaustively examining the      
contents of the ,acts1 which would      
itself require a separate treatise1 at  
least to  #fa  consider some of its main
 points sufficiently to form a fair     
judgment of the historical value of the 
work1 although the facts which we have  
already ascertained are clearly fatal to
 the document as adequate testimony for 

miracles1 and the reality of ,divine    
,revelation4     ,,chapter ,,iii4       
,,design ,,and ,,composition  ,the      
historical value of the ,acts of the    
,apostles has very long been the subject
 of vehement discussion1 and the course 
of the controversy has certainly not    
been favourable to the position of the  
work4 ,for a considerable time the      
traditional view continued to prevail1  
and little or no doubt of the absolute  
credibility of the narrative was ever   
expressed4 ,when the spirit of          
independent and enlightened criticism   
was finally aroused1 it had to contend  
with opinions which habit had rendered  
stereotype1 and prejudices which took   
the form of hereditary belief4 ,a large 
body of eminent critics1 after an       
exhaustive investigation of the ,acts1  
have now declared that the work is not  
historically accurate1 and cannot be    
accepted as a true account of the ,acts 
and teaching of the ,apostles47#a7  #fc 
,the ,author of the ,acts has been      

charged with having written the work    
with a distinct design to which he      
subordinated historical truth1 and in   
this view many critics have joined1 who 
ultimately do not accuse him absolutely 
of falsifying history1 but merely of    
making a deliberate selection of his    
materials with the view of placing      
events in the light most suitable for   
his purpose4 ,most of those1 however1   
who make this charge maintain that1 in  
carrying out the original purpose of the
 ,acts1 the writer so freely manipulated
 whatever materials he had before him1  
and so dealt with facts whether by      
omission1 transformation or invention1  
that the historical value of his        
narrative has been destroyed or at least
 seriously affected by it4#a ,on the    
other hand1 many apologetic writers     
altogether deny the existence of any    
design on the part of the  #fd  author  
such as is here indicated1 which could  
have led him to suppress or distort     
facts17#a7 and whilst some of them      

advance very varied and fanciful        
theories as to the historical plan upon 
which the writer proceeds1 and in       
accordance with which the peculiarities 
of his narrative are explained1 they    
generally accept the work as the genuine
 history of the ,acts of the ,apostles  
so far as the author possessed certain  
information4 ,the design most generally 
ascribed to the writer of the ,acts may1
 with many minor variations1 be said to 
be apologetic and conciliatory3 an      
attempt to reconcile the two parties in 
the early church by representing the    
difference between the views of ,peter  
and ,paul as slight and unimportant1    
,pauline sentiments being freely placed 
in the mouth of ,peter1 and the ,apostle
 of the ,gentiles being represented as  
an orthodox adherent of the church of   
,jerusalem1 with scarcely such advanced 
views of christian universality as      
,peter2 or else1 an effort of ,gentile  
,christianity to bring itself into      
closer union with the primitive church1 

surrendering1 in so doing1 all its      
distinctive features and its ,pauline   
origin1 and representing the            
universalism by which it exists1 as a   
principle adopted and promulgated from  
the very first by ,peter and the        
,twelve4 ,it is not necessary1 however1 
for us to enter upon any minute         
discussion of this point1 nor is it     
requisite1 for the purposes of our      
inquiry1 to determine whether the       
peculiar character  #fe  of the writing 
which we are examining is the result of 
a perfectly definite purpose controlling
 the whole narrative and modifying every
 detail1 or naturally arises from the   
fact that it is the work of a pious     
member of the ,church writing long after
 the events related1 and imbuing his    
materials1 whether of legend or         
ecclesiastical tradition1 with his own  
thoroughly orthodox views3 history      
freely composed for ,christian          
edification4 ,we shall not endeavour to 
construct any theory to account for the 

phenomena before us1 nor to discover the
 secret motives or intentions of the    
writer1 but taking them as they are1 we 
shall simply examine some of the more   
important portions of the narrative1    
with a view to determine whether the    
work can in any serious sense be        
regarded as credible history4  ,no one  
can examine the contents of the ,acts   
without perceiving that some secret     
motive or influence did certainly govern
 the writer's mind1 and guide him in the
 selection of topics1 and this is       
betrayed by many peculiarities in his   
narrative4 ,quite apart from any attempt
 to discover precisely what that motive 
was1 it is desirable that we should     
briefly point out some of these         
peculiarities4 ,it is evident that every
 man who writes a history must commence 
with a distinct plan1 and that the      
choice of subjects to be introduced or  
omitted must proceed upon a certain     
principle4 ,this is of course an        
invariable rule wherever there is order 

and arrangement4 ,no one has ever       
questioned that in the ,acts of the     
,apostles both order and arrangement    
have been deliberately adopted and the  
question naturally arises3 ,what was the
 plan ol the ,author8 and upon what     
principle did he select1 from the mass  
of facts which might have been related  
regarding the ,church in the ,apostolic 
ages1 precisely those  #ff  which he has
 inserted1 to the exclusion of the      
rest87#a7 ,what title will adequately   
represent the contents of the book8 for 
it is admitted by almost all critics    
that the actual name which the book     
bears neither was given to it by its    
author nor properly describes its       
intention and subject47#b7 ,the extreme 
difficulty which has been felt in       
answering these questions1 and in       
constructing any hypothesis which may   
fairly correspond with the actual       
contents of the ,acts1 constitutes one  
of the most striking commentaries on the
 work1 and although we cannot here      

detail the extremely varied views of    
critics upon the subject1 they are well 
worthy of study47#c7 ,no one now        
advances the theory which was anciently 
current that the ,author simply narrated
 that of which he was an                
eye-witness47#d7 ,its present title     
------ would lead us to expect an       
account of the doings of the ,apostles  
in general1 but we have nothing like    
this in the book4 ,peter and ,paul      
occupy the principal parts of the       
narrative1 and the other ,apostles are  
scarcely mentioned4  #fg  ,james is     
introduced as an actor in the famous    
,council1 and represented as head of the
 ,church in ,jerusalem1 but it is much  
disputed that he was either an ,apostle1
 or one of the ,twelve4 ,the death of   
,james the brother of ,john is just     
mentioned4 ,john is represented on      
several occasions during the earlier    
part of the narrative as the companion  
of ,peter1 without1 however1 being      
prominently brought forward2 and the    

rest of the ,twelve are left in complete
 obscurity4 ,it is not a history of the 
labours of ,peter and ,paul1 for not    
only is considerable importance given to
 the episodes of ,stephen and ,philip   
the ,evangelist1 but the account of the 
two great ,apostles is singularly       
fragmentary4 ,after a brief chronicle of
 the labours of ,peter1 he suddenly     
disappears from the scene1 and we hear  
of him no more4 ,paul then becomes the  
prominent figure in the drama2 but we   
have already pointed out how defective  
is the information given regarding him1 
and he is also abandoned as soon as he  
is brought to ,rome3 of his subsequent  
career and martyrdom1 nothing whatever  
is said4 ,the work is not1 as ,luther   
suggested1 a gloss on the ,epistles of  
,paul and the inculcation of his        
doctrine of righteousness through faith1
 for the narrative of the ,acts1 so far 
as we can compare it with the ,epistles1
 which are nowhere named in it1 is      
generally in contradiction to them1 and 

the doctrine of justification by faith  
is conspicuous by its absence4 ,it is   
not a history of the first ,christian   
missions1 for it ignores entirely the   
labours of most of the ,apostles1 omits 
all mention of some of the most         
interesting missionary journeys1 and    
does not even give a report of the      
introduction of ,christianity into      
,rome4 ,it is not in any sense a        
,paulinian history of the ,church1 for  
if1 on the one side1 it describes the   
,apostles of the ,circumcision as  #fh  
promulgating the universalism which     
,paul preached1 it robs him of his      
originality1 dwarfs his influence upon  
the development of ,christianity1 and   
is1 on the other hand1 too defective to 
represent ,church history1 whether from 
a ,paulinian or any other standpoint4   
,the favourite theory3 that the writer  
designed to relate the story of the     
spread of ,christianity from ,jerusalem 
to ,rome1 can scarcely be maintained1   
although it certainly has the advantage 

of a vagueness of proportions equally   
suitable to the largest and most limited
 treatment of history4 ,but1 in such a  
case1 we have a drama with the main     
incident omitted2 for the introduction  
of the ,gospel into ,rome is not        
described at all1 and whilst the author 
could not consider the personal arrival 
at ,rome of the ,apostle ,paul the      
climax of his history1 he at once closes
 his account where the final episode    
ought to have commenced4  ,from all     
points of view1 and upon any hypothesis1
 the ,acts of the ,apostles is so       
obviously incomplete as a history1 so   
fragmentary and defective as biography1 
that critics have to the present day    
failed in framing any theory which could
 satisfactorily account for its         
anomalies1 and have almost been forced  
to explain them by supposing a partial1 
apologetic or conciliatory1 design1     
which removes the work from the region  
of veritable history4 ,the whole        
interest of the narrative1 of course1   

centres in the two representative       
,apostles1 ,peter and ,paul1 who        
alternately fill the scene4 ,it is      
difficult to say1 however1 whether the  
account of the ,apostle of the          
,circumcision or of ,paul is the more   
capriciously partial and incomplete4    
,after his miraculous liberation from   
the prison into which he had been cast  
by ,herod1 the doings of ,peter are left
 unchronicled1 and although he is       
reintroduced for a moment to plead the  
cause of the  #fi  ,gentiles at the     
,council in ,jerusalem1 he then finally 
retires from the scene1 to give place to
 ,paul4 ,the omissions from the history 
of ,paul are very remarkable1 and all   
the more so from the extreme and        
unnecessary detail of the itinerary of  
some of his journeys1 and neither the   
blanks1 on the one hand1 nor the        
excessive minuteness1 on the other1 are 
to be explained by any theory connected 
with personal knowledge on the part of  
,theophilus4 ,of the general history of 

the primitive ,church and the life and  
labours of the ,twelve1 we are told     
little or nothing4 ,according to the    
,author the propagation of the ,gospel  
was carried on more by angelic agency   
than apostolic enthusiasm4 ,there is a  
liberal infusion of miraculous episodes 
in the history1 but a surprising        
scarcity of facts4 ,even where the      
,author is best informed1 as in the     
second part of the ,acts1 the narrative 
of ,paul's labours and missionary       
journeys1 while presenting striking     
omissions1 is really minute and detailed
 only in regard to points of no         
practical interest1 leaving both the    
distinctive teaching of the ,apostle1   
and the internal economy of the ,church 
almost entirely unrepresented4 ,does    
this defective narrative of the ,acts of
 the ,apostles proceed from poverty of  
information1 or from the arbitrary      
selection of materials for a special    
purpose8 ,as we proceed1 it will become 
increasingly evident that1 limited      

although the writer's materials are1 the
 form into which they have been moulded 
has undoubtedly been determined either  
by a dominant theory1 or a deliberate   
design1 neither of which is consistent  
with the composition of sober history4  
,this is particularly apparent in the   
representation which is given of the two
 principal personages of the narrative4 
,critics have long clearly recognised   
that the  #gj  ,author of the ,acts has 
carefully arranged his materials so as  
to present as close a parallelism as    
possible between the ,apostles ,peter   
and ,paul47#a7 ,we shall presently see  
how closely he assimilates their        
teaching1 ascribing the views of ,paul  
to ,peter1 and putting ,petrine         
sentiments in the mouth of ,paul1 but   
here we shall merely refer to points of 
general history4 ,if ,peter has a       
certain pre-eminence as a distinguished 
member of the original ,apostolic body1 
the equal claim of ,paul to the honours 
of the ,apostolate1 whilst never        

directly advanced1 is prominently       
suggested by the narration1 no less than
 three times1 of the circumstances of   
his conversion and direct call to the   
office by the glorified ,jesus4 ,the    
first miracle ascribed to ,peter is the 
healing of a certain man lame from his  
mother's womb ------ at the beautiful   
gate of the ,temple17#b7 and the first  
wonder performed by ,paul is also the   
healing of a certain man lame from his  
mother's womb ------ at ,lystra27#c7    
,ananias and ,sapphira are punished     
through the instrumentality of          
,peter17#d7 and ,elymas is smitten with 
blindness at the word of ,paul27#e7 the 
sick are laid in the streets that the   
shadow of ,peter may fall upon them1 and
 they are healed1 as are also those  #ga
  vexed with unclean spirits27l7        
handkerchiefs or aprons are taken to the
 sick from the body of ,paul1 and they  
are healed1 and the evil spirits go out 
of them27#b7 ,peter withstands ,simon   
the sorcerer17#c7 as ,paul does the     

sorcerer ,elymas and the exorcists at   
,ephesus27#d7 if ,peter heals the       
paralytic ,a,eneas at ,lydda17#e7 ,paul 
restores to health the fever-stricken   
father of ,publius at ,melita27#f7      
,peter raises from the dead ,tabitha1 a 
disciple at ,joppa17#g7 and ,paul       
restores to life the disciple ,eutychus 
at ,troas27#h7 ,cornelius falls at the  
feet of ,peter1 and worships him1 ,peter
 preventing him1 and saying3 ,rise up6  
,i myself also am a man17#i7 and in like
 manner the people of ,lystra would have
 done sacrifice to ,paul1 and he        
prevents them1 crying out3 ,we also are 
men of like passions with you27#aj7     
,peter lays his hands on the people of  
,samaria1 and they receive1 the ,holy   
,ghost and the gift of tongues17#aa7 and
 ,paul does the same for believers at   
,ephesus27#ab7 ,peter is brought before 
the council17#ac7 and so is ,paul27#ad7 
the one is imprisoned and twice released
 by an angel17#ae7 and the other is     
delivered from his bonds by a great     

earthquake27#af7 if ,peter be scourged  
by order of the council17#ag7 ,paul is  
beaten with many stripes at the command 
of the magistrates of ,philippi47#ah7   
,it is maintained that the desire to    
equalise the sufferings of the two      
,apostles in the cause of the ,gospel1  
as he has equalised their miraculous    
displays1 probably led the ,author to   
omit all mention of those  #gb  perils  
and persecutions to which the ,apostle  
,paul refers in support of his protest1 
that he had laboured and suffered more  
than all the rest47#a7 ,if ,paul was    
called by a vision to the ministry of   
the ,gentiles17#b7 so ,peter is         
represented as having been equally      
directed by a vision to baptize the     
,gentile ,cornelius27#c7 the double     
vision of ,peter and ,cornelius has its 
parallel in the double vision of ,paul  
and ,ananias4 ,it is impossible to deny 
the measured equality thus preserved    
between the two ,apostles1 or to ignore 
the fact that parallelism like this is  

the result of premeditation1 and cannot 
claim the character of impartial        
history4  ,the speeches form an         
important element in the ,acts of the   
,apostles1 and we shall now briefly     
examine them1 reserving1 however1 for   
future consideration their dogmatic     
aspect4 ,few1 if any writers1 however   
apologetic1 maintain that these         
discourses can possibly have been spoken
 exactly as they are recorded in the    
,acts4 ,the utmost that is asserted is  
that they are substantially historical1 
and fairly represent the original       
speeches47#d7 ,they were derived1 it is 
alleged1 either from written sources1 or
 oral  #gc  tradition1 and many1        
especially in the second part1 are      
supposed to have been delivered in the  
presence of the ,author of the work4    
,this view is held1 of course1 with a   
greater or less degree of assurance as  
to the closeness of the relation which  
our record bears to the original        
addresses2 but1 without here very       

closely scrutinizing hesitation or      
reticence1 our statement fairly renders 
the apologetic position4 ,a large body  
of able critics1 however1 deny the      
historical character of these           
speeches17#a7 and consider them mere    
free compositions by the ,author of the 
,acts1 at the best being on a par with  
the speeches which many ancient writers 
place in the mouths of their historical 
personages1 and giving only what the    
writer supposed that the speaker would  
say under the circumstances4 ,that the  
writer may have made use of such        
materials as were within his reach1 or  
endeavoured to embody the ideas which   
tradition may broadly have preserved1   
may possibly be admitted1 but that these
 discourses can seriously be accepted as
 conveying a correct report of anything 
actually spoken by the persons in whose 
mouths they are put is1 of course1      
denied4 ,it is1  #gd  obviously1        
extremely improbable that any of these  
speeches could have been written down at

 the time47#a7 ,taking even the supposed
 case that the ,author of the ,acts was 
,luke1 and was present when some of the 
speeches of ,paul were delivered1 it is 
difficult to imagine that he immediately
 recorded his recollection of them1 and 
more than this he could not have done4  
,he must continually have been in the   
habit of hearing the preaching of ,paul1
 and therefore could not have had the   
inducement of novelty to make him write 
down what he heard4 ,the idea of        
recording them for posterity could not  
have occurred to such a person1 with the
 belief in the approaching end of all   
things then prevalent4 ,the ,author of  
the ,acts was not the companion of      
,paul1 however1 and the contents of the 
speeches1 as we shall presently see1 are
 not of a character to make it in the   
least degree likely that they could have
 been written down for separate         
circulation4 ,many of the speeches in   
the ,acts1 moreover1 were delivered     
under circumstances which render it     

specially unlikely that they could have 
#ge  been reported with any accuracy4   
,at no time an easy task correctly to   
record a discourse of any length1 it is 
doubly difficult when those speeches1   
like many in ,acts1 were spoken under   
circumstances of great danger or        
excitement4 ,the experience of modern   
times1 before the application of systems
 of short-hand1 may show how imperfectly
 speeches were taken down1 even where   
there was deliberate preparation and set
 purpose to do so1 and if it be         
suggested that some celebrated orations 
of the last century have so been        
preserved1 it is undeniable that what   
has been handed down to us not only does
 not represent the original1 but is     
really almost a subsequent composition1 
preserving little more than some faint  
echoes of the true utterance4 ,the      
probability that a correct record of    
speeches made1 under such circumstances1
 in the middle of the first century     
could have been kept1 seems exceedingly 

small4 ,even1 if it could be shown that 
the ,author of the ,acts took these     
speeches substantially from earlier     
documents1 it would not materially tend 
to establish their authenticity2 for the
 question would still remain perfectly  
open as to the closeness of those       
documents to the original discourses2   
but in the absence of all evidence1     
whether as to the existence or origin of
 any such sources1 the conjecture of    
their possible existence can have no    
weight4 ,we have nothing but internal   
testimony to examine1 and that1 we shall
 see1 is totally opposed to the claim to
 historical value made for those        
discourses4  ,apologists scarcely       
maintain that we have in the ,acts a    
record of the original discourses in    
their completeness1 but in claiming     
substantial accuracy most of them       
include the supposition at least of     
condensation47#a7 ,the longest  #gf     
discourse in the ,acts would not have   
taken more than six or seven minutes to 

deliver17#a7 and it is impossible to    
suppose that what is there given can    
have been the whole speech delivered on 
many of the occasions described4 ,for   
instance1 is it probable that ,king     
,agrippa who desires to hear ,paul1 and 
who comes with great pomp with ,berenice
 to do so1 should only have heard a     
speech lasting some five minutes4 ,the  
,author himself tells us that ,paul was 
not always so brief in his addresses as 
any one might suppose from the specimens
 here presented47#b7 ,it is remarkable1 
however1 that not the slightest         
intimation is given that the speeches   
are either merely substantially reported
 or are abridged1 and their form and    
character are evidently designed to     
convey the impression of complete       
discourses4 ,if the reader examine any  
of these discourses1 it will be clear   
that they are concise compositions1     
betraying no marks of abridgment1 and   
having no fragmentary looseness1 but1 on
 the contrary1 that they are highly     

artificial and finished productions1    
with a continuous argument4 ,they       
certainly are singularly inadequate1    
many of them1 to produce the impressions
 described2 but at least it is not      
possible to discover that material      
omissions have been made1 or that their 
periods were originally expanded by     
large1 or even any1 amplification4 ,if  
these speeches be regarded as complete1 
and with little or no condensation1     
another strong element is added to the  
suspicion as to their authenticity1 for 
such extreme baldness and brevity in the
 declaration of a new religion1  #gg    
requiring both explanation and argument1
 cannot be conceived1 and in the case of
 ,paul1 with whose system of teaching   
and doctrine we are well acquainted     
through his ,epistles1 it is impossible 
to accept such meagre and onesided      
addresses1 as representations of his    
manner4 ,the statement that the         
discourses are abridged1 and a mere     
resume of those originally delivered1   

however1 rests upon no authority1 is a  
mere conjecture to account for an       
existing difficulty1 and is in          
contradiction to the actual form of the 
speeches in ,acts4 ,regarded as         
complete1 their incongruity is          
intensified1 but considered as abridged1
 they have lost in the process all      
representative character and historical 
fitness4  ,it has been argued1 indeed1  
that the different speeches bear        
evidence to their genuineness from their
 suitability to the speakers1 and to the
 circumstances under which they are said
 to have been spoken2 but the existence 
of anything but the most superficial    
semblance of idiosyncratic character    
must be denied4 ,the similarity of form1
 manner1 and matter in all the speeches 
is most remarkable1 as will presently be
 made more apparent1 and the whole of   
the doctrine enunciated amounts to      
little more than the repetition1 in     
slightly varying words1 of the brief    
exhortation to repentance and belief in 

,jesus1 the ,christ4 that salvation may 
be obtained17#a7 with references to the 
ancient history of the ,jews1 singularly
 alike in all discourses4 ,very little  
artistic skill is necessary to secure a 
certain suitability of the word to the  
action1 and the action to the word2 and 
certainly evidence is reduced to a very 
low ebb when such agreement as is       
presented in the ,acts is made an       
argument for authenticity4 ,not only is 
the consistency of the sentiments       
uttered by  #gh  the principal speakers1
 as compared with what is known of their
 opinions and character1 utterly        
disputed1 but it must be evident that   
the literary skill of the ,author of the
 ,acts was quite equal to so simple a   
task as preserving at least such        
superficial fitness as he displays1 and 
a very much greater amount of           
verisimilitude might have been attained1
 as in many works of fiction1 without   
necessarily involving the inference of  
genuineness4  ,it has been freely       

admitted by critics of all schools that 
the author's peculiarities of style and 
language are apparent in all the        
speeches of the ,acts17#a7 and this has 
been so often elaborately demonstrated  
that it is unnecessary minutely to enter
 upon it again4 ,it may not be out of   
place to quote a few lines from the work
 of one of the ablest and most eminent  
advocates of the general authority of   
the ,acts4 ,speaking of the speeches of 
,paul1 ,lekebusch says3--,the speeches  
of our ,book1 in fact1 are calculated1  
perhaps more than anything1 to excite   
doubt regarding its purely historical   
character4 ,but here everything depends 
upon an unbiassed judgment4 ,we are     
sufficiently free from prejudice to make
 the admission to recent criticism that 
the speeches are not verbally given as  
they were originally delivered1 but are 
composed by the author of the ,acts of  
the  #gi  ,apostles4 ,schleiermacher1   
certainly1 has confidently asserted     
their originality4 ,he thinks3 ',if the 

speeches were separately reported they  
could not but appear just as we find    
them in the ,acts of the ,apostles4'    
,but his remarks1 however ingenious and 
acute they may be1 do not stand the test
 of a thorough examination of the       
individual speeches4 ,no one who        
impartially compares these1 one with    
another1 and particularly their style   
with the mode of expression of the      
,author in the other sections1 can help 
agreeing with ,eichhorn1 when1 in       
consonance with his view regarding the  
uniform character of the ,acts1 on the  
grounds quoted1 page #ad1 he ascribes   
the composition of the speeches to the  
writer from whom the whole book in all  
its parts proceeds47#a7 ,to this        
impartial expression of opinion1        
,lekebusch adds a note3--,in saying     
this1 it is naturally not suggested that
 our author simply invented the         
speeches1 independently1 without any    
historical intimation whatever as to the
 substance of the original2 the form    

only1 which certainly is here very      
closely connected with the substance1 is
 hereby ascribed to him47#b7 ,lekebusch 
then merely goes on to discuss the      
nature of the author's design in        
composing these speeches4 ,the reasons  
given by ,eichhorn1 which ,lekebusch    
quotes at page #ad1 referred to above1  
had better be added to complete this    
testimony4 ,after referring to the      
result of ,eichhorn's very careful      
examination of the internal character of
 the ,acts1 ,lekebusch says3--,he finds1
 however1 that1 'throughout the whole   
,acts of the ,apostles there prevails   
the same style1 the same manner1 the    
same method and mode of expression' 7ii4
 #ce74 ,not  #hj  even the speeches1    
which one at first might take for       
inserted documents1 seem to him 'from a 
strange hand1 but elaborated by the same
 from which the whole book1 with its    
three parts1 proceeds4' ',various       
peculiarities existing in the speeches' 
prove this to him1 independent of the   

similarity of the style1 and that1      
'although they are put into the mouths  
of different persons1 they nevertheless 
follow one and the same type1 make use  
of one and the same mode of argument1   
and have so much that is common to them 
that they thereby prove themselves to be
 speeches of one and the same writer'   
7ii4 #ch74 ,from these circumstances1   
therefore1 it seems to ,eichhorn 'in the
 highest degree probable1 that ,luke1   
throughout the whole ,acts of the       
,apostles1 writes as an independent     
author1 and apart from all extraneous   
works4' ,and in this view he is         
'strengthened by the resemblance of the 
style which runs through the whole ,acts
 of the ,apostles1 through speeches1    
letters1 and historical sections1' as   
well as by the fact that1 'through the  
whole book1 in the quotations from the  
,old ,testament1 a similar relation     
prevails between the ,greek text of the 
,septuagint and that of ,luke' 7ii4     
#dc747a7 ,we have thought it well to    

quote these independent opinions from   
writers who range themselves amongst the
 defenders of the historical character  
of the ,acts1 rather than to burden our 
pages with a mass of dry detail in proof
 of the assertion that the peculiarities
 of the author pervade all the speeches 
indifferently1 to a degree which renders
 it obvious that4 they proceed from his 
pen4  ,without entering into mere       
linguistic evidence of this1 which will 
be found in the works to which we have  
#ha  referred17#a7 we may point out a   
few general peculiarities of this nature
 which are worthy of attention4 ,the    
author introduces the speeches of       
different persons with the same         
expression3--he opened his mouth1 or    
something similar4 ,philip opened his   
mouth ------7#a7 and addressed the      
,ethiopian 7viii4 #ce74 ,peter opened   
his mouth 7and7 said ------1 when he    
delivered his discourse before the      
baptism of ,cornelius 7x4 #cd74 ,again1 
he uses it of ,paul3--,and when ,paul   

was about to open his mouth ------1     
,gallio said1 c4 7xviii4 #ad74 ,the     
words with which the speech of ,peter at
 ,pentecost is introduced deserve more  
attention3--,peter lifted up his voice  
and said unto them ------ 7ii4 #ad74    
,the verb ------ occurs again 7ii4 #d7  
in the account of the descent of the    
,holy ,spirit and the gift of tongues1  
and it is put into the mouth of ,paul   
7xxvi4 #be7 in his reply to ,festus1 but
 it occurs nowhere else in the ,new     
,testament4 ,the favourite formula7#c7  
with which all speeches open is1 ,men   
7and7 ,brethren ------1 or ------       
coupled with some other term1 as ,men   
7and7 ,israelites ------1 or            
simply------ without addition4 ------1  
occurs no less than thirteen times4 ,it 
is used thrice by ,peter17#d7 six times 
by ,paul17#e7 as well as by  #hb        
,stephen17#a7 ,james17#b7 the believers 
at ,pentecost17#c7 and the rulers of the
 ,synagogue47#d7 ,the angels at the     
,ascension address the disciples as ,men

 7and7 ,galileans ------47#e7  ,peter   
makes use of ------ twice17#f7 and it is
 likewise employed by ,paul17#g7 by     
,gamaliel17#h7 and by the ,jews of      
,asia47#i7 ,peter addresses those       
assembled at ,pentecost as ------47#aj7 
,paul opens his ,athenian speech with   
------17#aa7 and the town-clerk begins  
his short appeal to the craftsmen of    
,ephesus3 ------47#ab7 ,stephen begins  
his speech to the ,council with ,men1   
,brethren and ,fathers1 hear ------1 and
 ,paul uses the very same words in      
addressing the multitude from the stairs
 of the ,temple47#ac7  ,in the speech   
which ,peter is represented as making at
 ,pentecost1 he employs in an altogether
 peculiar way 7ii4 #be--bg7 ,psalm xvi41
 quoting it in order to prove that the  
,resurrection of ,jesus the ,messiah was
 a necessary occurrence1 which had been 
foretold by ,david4 ,this is principally
 based upon the tenth verse of the      
,psalm3 ,because thou wilt not leave my 
soul in ,hades1 neither wilt thou give  

thy ,holy ,one ------ to see corruption 
------47#ad7 ,peter argues that ,david  
both died and was buried1 and that his  
sepulchre is with them to that day1 but 
that1 being a prophet1 he foresaw and   
spake here of the ,resurrection of      
,christ1 that neither was he left in    
,hades nor did his flesh see  #hc       
corruption ------47#a7 ,is it not an    
extremely singular circumstance that    
,peter1 addressing an audience of ,jews 
in ,jerusalem1 where he might naturally 
be expected to make use of the          
vernacular language1 actually quotes the
 ,sep-tuagint version of the ,old       
,testament1 and bases his argument upon 
a mistranslation of the ,psalm1 which1  
we may add1 was in all probability not  
composed by ,david at all87#b7 ,the word
 translated ,holy ,one1 should be in the
 plural3 holy ones1#c that is to say3   
thy saints1 and the word rendered       
------corruption1 really signifies grave
 or pit4 #d ,the poet1 in fact1 merely  
expresses his confidence that he will be

 preserved alive4 ,the best critics     
recognize that ,ps4 xvi4 is not properly
 a ,messianic ,psalm  #hd  at all17#a7  
and many of those who1 from the use     
which is made of it in ,acts1 are led to
 assert that it is so1 recognize in the 
main that it can only be applied to the 
,messiah indirectly1 by arguing that the
 prophecy was not fulfilled in the case 
of the poet who speaks of himself1 but  
was fulfilled in the ,resurrection of   
,jesus4 ,this reasoning1 however1       
totally ignores the sense of the        
original1 and is opposed to all         
legitimate historical interpretation of 
the ,psalm4 ,not dwelling upon this     
point at present1 we must go on to point
 out that1 a little further on 7xiii4   
#ce--cg71 the ,apostle ,paul is         
represented as making use of the very   
same argument which ,peter here employs1
 and quoting the same passage from ,ps4 
xvi4 to support it ,this repetition of  
very peculiar reasoning1 coupled with   
other similarities which we shall       

presently point out1 leads to the       
inference that it is merely the author  
himself who puts this argument into     
their mouths17#b7 and this conclusion is
 strengthened by the circumstance that1 
throughout both ,gospel and ,acts1 he   
always quotes from the ,septuagint17#c7 
and even when that version departs from 
#he  the sense of the original ,it may  
be well to give both passages in        
juxta-position1 in order that the       
closeness of the analogy may be more    
easily realized4 ,for this purpose we   
somewhat alter the order of the         
verses3--  ------  ,not only is this    
argument the same in both discourses1   
but the whole of ,paul's speech1 xiii4  
#af ff41 is a mere reproduction of the  
two speeches of ,peter1 ii4 #ad ff4 and 
iii4 #ab ff41 with such alterations as  
the writer could introduce to vary the  
fundamental sameness of ideas and       
expressions4 ,it is worth while to show 
this in a similar way3--  ------  #hf   
------  #hg  ------  #hh  ,paul's       

address likewise hears close analogy    
with the speech of ,stephen1 vii4 #b    
ff41 commencing with a historical survey
 of the earlier traditions of the people
 of ,israel1 and leading up to the same 
accusation that1 as their fathers       
disregarded the prophets1 so they had   
persecuted and slain the ,christ4 ,the  
whole treatment of the subject betrays  
the work of the same mind in both       
discourses4 ,bleek1 who admits the      
similarity between these and other      
speeches in ,acts1 argues that3 it does 
not absolutely follow from this that    
these speeches are composed by one and  
the same person1 and are altogether     
unhistorical2 for it is natural1 he     
thinks1 that in the apostolical circle1 
and in the first ,christian ,church1    
there should have existed a certain     
uniform type in the application of      
messianic passages of the ,old          
,testament1 and in quotations generally1
 to which different teachers might      
conform without being dependent on each 

other4#a ,he thinks also that1 along    
with the close analogy1 there is also   
much which is characteristic in the     
different speeches4 ,not only is this   
typical system of quotation1 however1 a 
mere conjecture to explain an actual    
difficulty1 but it is totally inadequate
 to account for the phenomena4 ,if we   
suppose1 for instance1 that ,paul had   
adopted the totally unhistorical        
application of the sixteenth ,psalm to  
the ,messiah1 is it not a very          
extraordinary thing that in all the     
arguments in his  #hi  ,epistles1 he    
does not once refer to it8 ,even if this
 be waived1 and it be assumed that he   
had adopted this interpretation of the  
,psalm1 it will scarcely be asserted    
that ,paul1 whose independence and      
originality of mind are so undeniable1  
and whose intercourse with the          
apostolical circle at any time1 and most
 certainly up to the period when this   
speech was delivered1 was very          
limited17#a7 could so completely have   

caught the style and copied the manner  
of ,peter that1 on an important occasion
 like this1 his address should be a mere
 reproduction of ,peter's two speeches  
delivered so long before1 and when ,paul
 certainly was not present4 ,the        
similarity of these discourses does not 
consist in the mere application of the  
same ,psalm1 but the whole argument1 on 
each occasion1 is repeated with merely  
sufficient transposition of its various 
parts to give a superficial appearance  
of variety4 ,words and expressions1 rare
 or unknown elsewhere1 are found in     
both1 and the characteristic differences
 which ,bleek finds exist only in his   
own apologetic imagination4 ,let it be  
remembered that the form of the speeches
 and the language are generally ascribed
 to the ,author of the ,acts4 ,can any  
unprejudiced critic deny that the ideas 
in the speeches we are considering are  
also substantially the same8 ,is there  
any appreciable trace of the originality
 of ,paul in his discourses8 ,there is  

no ground whatever1 apart from the      
antecedent belief that the various      
speeches were actually delivered by the 
men to whom they are ascribed1 for      
asserting that we have here the         
independent utterances of ,peter and    
,paul4 ,it is internal evidence alone1  
and no avowal on the part of the author1
 which leads to the conclusion that the 
form of the speeches is the author's1   
and there is no internal evidence  #ij  
which requires us to stop at the mere   
form1 and not equally ascribe the       
substance to the same source4 ,the      
speeches in the ,acts1 generally1 have  
altogether the character of being the   
composition of one mind endeavouring to 
impart variety of thought and expression
 to various speakers1 but failing       
signally either from poverty of         
invention or from the purpose of        
instituting a close parallel in views1  
as well as actions1 between the two     
representative ,apostles4  ,further to  
illustrate this1 let us take another    

speech of ,peter which he delivers on   
the occasion of the conversion of       
,cornelius1 and it will be apparent that
 it also contains all the elements1 so  
far as it goes1 of ,paul's discourse4   
------  #ia  ------  ,again1 to take an 
example from another speaker1 we find   
,james represented as using an          
expression which had just before been   
put into the mouth of ,paul1 and it is  
not one in the least degree likely to   
occur independently to each4 ,the two   
passages are as follows3-- ------  ,the 
fundamental similarity between these    
different speeches cannot possibly be   
denied27#b7 and it cannot be  #ib       
reasonably explained in any other way   
than by the fact that they were composed
 by the author himself1 who had the     
earlier speeches ascribed to ,peter     
still in his memory when he wrote those 
of ,paul17#a7 and who1 in short1 had not
 sufficient dramatic power to create    
altogether distinct characters1 but     
simply made his different personages use

 his own vocabulary to express his own  
somewhat limited range of ideas4        
,setting his special design aside1 his  
inventive faculty only permitted him to 
represent ,peter speaking like ,paul1   
and ,paul like ,peter4  ,it is argued by
 some1 however1 that in the speeches of 
,peter1 for instance1 there are         
peculiarities of language and expression
 which show analogy with the first      
,epistle bearing his name in the ,new   
,testament ,canon17#b7 and1 on the other
 hand1 traces of translation in some of 
them which indicate that these speeches 
were delivered originally in ,aramaic1  
and that we have only a version of them 
by the ,author of the ,acts1 or by some 
one from whom he derived them47#c7 ,as  
regards the first of these suppositions1
 a few phrases only have been pointed   
out1 but they are of no force under any 
circumstances1 and the whole theory is  
quite groundless47#d7 ,we do not con-   
#ic  consider it worth while to enter   
upon the discussion1 and those who      

desire to do so are referred to the     
works just indicated4 ,there are two    
potent reasons which render such an     
argument of no force1 even if the       
supposed analogies were in themselves   
both numerous and striking1 which       
actually they are not ,the authenticity 
of the ,epistles bearing the name of    
,peter is not only not established1 but 
is by very many eminent critics         
absolutely denied2 and there is no      
certainty whatever that any of the      
speeches of ,peter were delivered in    
,greek1 and the probability is that     
most1 if not all1 of that ,apostle's    
genuine discourses must have been spoken
 in ,aramaic4 ,it is in fact asserted by
 apologists that part or all of the     
speeches ascribed to him in the ,acts   
must have been originally ,aramaic1     
although opinion may differ as to the   
language in which some of them were     
spoken4 ,whether they were delivered in 
,aramaic1 or whether there be           
uncertainty on the point1 any conclusion

 from linguistic analogies with the     
,epistles is obviously excluded4 ,one   
thing is quite undeniable3 the supposed 
analogies are few1 and the peculiarities
 distinguishing the ,author of ,acts in 
these speeches are extremely numerous   
and general4 ,even so thorough an       
apologist as ,tholuck candidly          
acknowledges that the attempt to prove  
the authenticity of the speeches from   
linguistic analogies is hopeless4 ,he   
says3 ,nevertheless1 a comparison of the
 language of the ,apostles in their     
,epistles and in these speeches must in 
many respects be less admissible than   
that of the character and historical    
circumstances1 for indeed if the        
language and their peculiarities be     
compared1 it must first be established  
that all the reported speeches were     
delivered in the ,greek language1 which 
is improbable1 and of one of which      
7xxii4 #a1 #b7 the contrary is expressly
  #id  stated willingly admitting that  
upon this point difference of opinion is

 allowable1 we express as the view which
 we have hitherto held that1 from ch4   
xx4 onwards1 the speeches delivered by  
,paul are reported more in the language 
of ,luke than in that of ,paul47#a7     
,this applies with double force to      
,peter17#b7 whose speeches there is     
still greater reason to believe were    
delivered in ,aramaic1 and there is     
difference of opinion amongst the       
critics we have referred to even as to  
whether these speeches were translated  
by the ,author of the ,acts1 or were    
already before him in a translated form1
 and were subsequently re-edited by him4
 ,we have already shown cause for       
believing that the whole discussion is  
groundless1 from the fact that the      
speeches in ,acts were simply composed  
by the author himself1 and are not in   
any sense historical1 and this we shall 
hereafter further illustrate4  ,it may  
be worth while to consider briefly the  
arguments advanced for the theory that  
some of the speeches show marks of      

translation4 ,it is asserted that the   
speech of ,peter at ,pentecost1 ii4 #ad 
ff41 was delivered in ,aramaic47#c7 ,of 
course it will be understood that we    
might  #ie  be quite prepared to agree  
to this statement as applied to a speech
 actually delivered by ,peter2 but the  
assertion1 so far as the speeches in    
,acts are concerned1 is based upon what 
we believe to be the erroneous          
supposition that they are genuine       
reports of discourses4 ,on the contrary1
 we maintain that these speeches are    
mere compositions by the author of the  
work4 ,the contention is1 however1 that 
the speech attributed to ,peter is the  
translation of a speech originally      
delivered in ,aramaic4 ,in ii4 #bd1     
,peter is represented as saying3 ,whom  
,god raised up having loosed the pains  
of death ------1 because it is not      
possible that he should be held ------  
by it4 ,it is argued by ,bleek and      
others7#a7 that1 as the context proves1 
the image intended here was evidently   

the snares or cords of death1 a meaning 
which is not rendered by the ,greek word
 ------4 ,the confusion is explained1   
they contend1 when it is supposed that1 
in his ,aramaic speech1 ,peter made use 
of a ,hebrew expression1 equally found  
in ,aramaic1 which means as well snares 
or cords as pains of death4 ,the ,greek 
translator1 probably misled by the      
,septuagint17#b7 adopted the latter     
signification of the ,hebrew word in    
question1 and rendered it ------ pains1 
which is absolutely inappropriate1 for1 
they argue1 it is very unnatural to say 
of one who had already suffered death1  
like ,christ1 that he had been held     
prisoner by the pains of death1 and     
loosed from them by the resurrection4   
,there is1 however1 very little         
unanimity  #if  amongst apologists about
 this passage4 ,ebrard7#a7 asserts that 
------ pains is the correct translation 
of the ,hebrew expression1 as in ,ps4   
xviii4 #e1 and that the ,hebrew word    
used always expresses pains of birth1   

the plural of the similar word for cord 
or snare being different4 ,ebrard1      
therefore1 contends that the ,psalm     
7xviii4 #e7 does not mean bonds or      
snares of death but literally           
birth-pains of death1 by which the soul 
is freed from the natural earthly       
existence as by a second birth to a     
glorified spiritual life4 ,we need not  
enter further into the discussion of the
 passage1 but it is obvious that it is  
mere assumption to assert1 on the one   
hand1 that ,peter made use of any       
specific expression1 and1 on the other1 
that there was any error of translation 
on the part of the author of ,acts4 ,but
 agreeing that the ,hebrew is           
erroneously rendered17#b7 the only      
pertinent question is3 by whom was the  
error in question committed8 and the    
reply beyond any doubt is3 by the lxx4  
who translate the ,hebrew expression in 
this very way4 ,it is therefore         
inadmissible to assert from this phrase 
the existence of an ,aramaic original of

 the speech1 for the phrase itself is   
nothing but a quotation from the        
,sep-tuagint47#c7  ,the expression      
------ occurs no less than three times  
in that version3 ,ps4 xvii4 #e 7,a4 ,v4 
xviii471 cxiv4 #c 7,a4 ,v4 cxvi47 and #b
 ,sam4 xxii4 #f2 and in ,job  #ig       
xxxix4 #b1 we have ------4 ,when it is  
remembered that the author of ,acts     
always quotes the ,septuagint version1  
even when it departs from the sense of  
the ,hebrew original1 and in all        
probability was only acquainted with the
 ,old ,testament through it1 nothing is 
more natural than the use of this       
expression taken from that version2 but 
with the error already existing there1  
to ascribe it afresh and independently  
to the ,author of ,acts1 upon no other  
grounds than the assumption that ,peter 
may have spoken in ,aramaic1 and used an
 expression which the author            
misunderstood or wrongly rendered1 is   
not permissible4 ,indeed1 we have       
already pointed out that1 in this very  

speech1 there are quotations of the ,old
 ,testament according to the lxx4 put   
into the mouth of ,peter1 in which that 
version does not accurately render the  
original47#a7  ,the next trace of       
translation advanced by ,bleek7#b7 is   
found in ii4 #cc17c7 where ,peter speaks
 of ,christ as exalted3 ------4 ,there  
can be no doubt1 ,bleek argues1 that    
there is here a reference to ,psalm ex4 
#a1 and that the apostle intends to     
speak of ,christ's elevation to the     
right 7hand7 of ,god2 whereas the ,greek
 expression rather conveys the          
interpretation3 by the right 7hand7 of  
,god4 ,this expression certainly comes1 
he asserts1 from a not altogether       
suitable translation of the ,hebrew4 ,to
 this on the other hand1 much may be    
objected4 ,winer17#d7 followed by       
others1 defends the construction1 and   
affirms that the passage may without    
#ih  hesitation1 be translated to the   
right 7hand7 of ,god47#a7 ,in which case
 there is no error at all1 and the      

argument falls to the ground4 ,if it be 
taken1 however1 either that the         
rendering should be or was intended to  
be by the right 7hand7 of ,god7#b7 i4e41
 by the power of ,god1 that would not   
involve the necessity of admitting an   
,aramaic original17#c7 because there is 
no error at all1 and the argument simply
 is1 that being exalted by the right    
hand of ,god1 ,jesus had poured forth   
the ,holy ,spirit2 and in the next verse
 the passage in ,ps4 ex4 #a 7,sept4     
cix47 is accurately quoted from the     
,septuagint version3 ,sit thou on my    
right 7hand7 ------4 ,in fact1 after    
giving an account of the crucifixion1   
death1 and resurrection of ,jesus1 the  
speaker ascribes his subsequent         
exaltation to the power of ,god47#d7    
,we have seen that at least the form of 
the speeches in ,acts is undoubtedly due
 to the author of the book1 and that he 
has not been able to make the speeches  
of the different personages in his drama
 differ materially from each other4 ,we 

shall hereafter have occasion to examine
 further the contents of some of these  
speeches1 and the circumstances under   
which it is alleged that they were      
spoken1 and to inquire whether these do 
not confirm  #ii  the conclusion        
hitherto arrived at1 that they are not  
historical1 but merely the free         
composition of the ,author of ,acts1 and
 never delivered at all4 ,before passing
 on1 however1 it may be well to glance  
for a moment at one of these speeches1  
to which we may not have another        
opportunity of referring1 in order that 
we may see whether it presents any      
traces of inauthenticity and of merely  
ideal composition4  ,in the first       
chapter an account is given of a meeting
 of the brethren in order to elect a    
successor to the traitor ,judas4 ,peter 
addresses the assembly1 i4 #af if41 and 
it may be well to quote the opening     
portion of his speech3 #af4 ,men 7and7  
brethren1 this scripture must needs have
 been fulfilled1 which the ,holy ,spirit

 by the mouth of ,david spake before    
concerning ,judas1 who became guide to  
them that took ,jesus1 #ag4 because he  
was numbered with us and obtained the   
lot of this ministry4 #ah4 ,now ------  
this man purchased a field with the     
wages of the iniquity ------1 and       
falling headlong he burst asunder in the
 midst1 and all his bowels gushed out2  
#ai4 and ------ it became known7#a7 unto
 all the dwellers at ,jerusalem1 so that
 that field was called in their own     
tongue ------ ,acheldamach1 that is3    
field of blood4 #bj4 ,for ------ it is  
written in the book of ,psalms3 ',let   
his habitation be desolate1 and let no  
man dwell therein1' and 'his office let 
another take1' c1 c4 ,now let it be     
remembered that ,peter is supposed to be
 addressing an audience of ,jews in     
,jerusalem1 in the ,hebrew or ,aramaic  
language1 a few  #ajj  weeks after the  
crucifixion4 ,is it possible1 therefore1
 that he should give such an account as 
that in vs4 #ah1 #ai1 of the end of     

,judas1 which he himself1 indeed1 says  
was known to all the dwellers at        
,jerusalem8 ,is it possible that1       
speaking in ,aramaic to ,jews1 probably 
in most part living at and near         
,jerusalem1 he could have spoken of the 
field being so called by the people of  
,jerusalem in their own tongue8 ,is it  
possible that he should1 to such an     
audience1 have translated the word      
,acheldamach8  ,the answer of most      
unprejudiced critics is that ,peter     
could not have done so47#a7 ,as de      
,wette remarks3 ,in the composition of  
this speech the author has not          
considered historical decorum47#b7 ,this
 is felt by most apologists1 and many   
ingenious theories are advanced to      
explain away the difficulty4 ,some      
affirm that verses #ah and #ai are      
inserted as a parenthesis by the ,author
 of the ,acts17#c7 whilst a larger      
number contend that only v4 #ai is      
parenthetic47#d7 ,a very cursory        
examination of the passage1 however1 is 

sufficient to show that the verses      
cannot be separated4 ,verse #ah is      
connected with the preceding by the     
------1 #ai with #ah by ------1 and     
verse #bj refers to #aj1 as indeed it   
also does to #ag and #ah1 without which 
the passage from the ,psalm1 as applied 
to ,judas1 would be unintelligible4     
,most critics1 therefore1  #aja  are    
agreed that none of the verses can be   
considered parenthetic47#a7 ,some       
apologists1 however1 who feel that      
neither of the obnoxious verses can be  
thus explained1 endeavour to overcome   
the difficulty by asserting that the    
words3 in their own tongue ------ and3  
that is3 the field of blood ------ in   
verse #ai1 are merely explanatory and   
inserted by the ,author of ,acts47#b7   
,it is unnecessary to say that this     
explanation is purely arbitrary1 and    
that there is no ground1 except the     
difficulty itself1 upon which their     
exclusion from the speech can be based4 
,in the cases to which we have hitherto 

referred1 the impossibility of supposing
 that ,peter could have spoken in this  
way has led writers to lay the          
responsibility of unacknowledged        
interpolations in the speech upon the   
,author of ,acts1 thus at once relieving
 the ,apostle4 ,there are some          
apologists1 however1 who do not adopt   
this expedient1 but attempt to meet the 
difficulty in other ways1 while         
accepting the whole as a speech of      
,peter4 ,according to one theory1 those 
who object that ,peter could not have   
thus related the death of ,judas to     
people who must already have been well  
acquainted with the circumstances have  
totally overlooked the fact1 that a     
peculiar view of what has occurred is   
taken in the narrative1 and that this   
peculiar view is the principal point of 
it ,according to the statement made1    
,judas met his miserable end in the very
 field which he had bought with  #ajb   
the price of blood4 ,it is this         
circumstance1 it appears1 which ,peter  

brings prominently forward and          
represents as a manifest and tangible   
dispensation of ,divine justice47#a7    
,unfortunately1 however1 this is clearly
 an imaginary moral attached to the     
narrative by the apologist1 and is not  
the object of the supposed speaker1 who 
rather desires to justify the forced    
application to ,judas of the quotations 
in verse #bj1 which are directly        
connected with the preceding by ------4 
,moreover1 no explanation is here       
offered of the extraordinary expressions
 in verse #ai addressed to citizens of  
,jerusalem by a ,jew in their own       
tongue4 ,another explanation1 which     
includes these points1 is still more    
striking4 ,with regard to the           
improbability of ,peter's relating1 in  
such a way1 the death of ,judas1 it is  
argued that1 according to the           
,evangelists1 the disciples went from   
,jerusalem back to ,galilee some eight  
days after the resurrection1 and only   
returned1 earlier than usual1 before    

,pentecost to await the fulfilment of   
the promise of ,jesus4 ,peter and his   
companions1 it is supposed1 only after  
their return became acquainted with the 
fate of ,judas1 which had taken place   
during their absence1 and the matter    
was1 therefore1 quite new to them2      
besides1 it is added1 a speaker is often
 obliged on account of some connection  
with his subject to relate facts already
 known47#b7 ,it is true that some of the
 ,evangelists represent this return to  
,galilee7#c7 as having taken place1 but 
the author of the third ,gospel and the 
,acts not only       #c ,mt4 xxviii4    
#aj1 #aj2 ,mk4 xvi4 #g2 ,john xxi4 #a4  
,i7r4 ,farrar1      somewhat            
pertinently1 asks3 ,why did they 7the   
disciples7      not go to ,galilee      
immediately on receiving our ,lord's    
message8 ,the circumstance is           
unexplained444 ,perhaps the      entire 
message of ,jesus to them is not        
recorded2 perhaps      they awaited the 
end of the feast4 ,life of ,christ1 ii4 

p4      #dda1 note #a4  #ajc  does not  
do so but excludes it47#a7 ,in the third
 ,gospel 7xxiv4 #di71 ,jesus commands   
the disciples to remain in ,jerusalem   
until they are endued with power from on
 high1 and then1 after blessing them1 he
 is parted from them1 and they return   
from ,bethany to ,jerusalem47#b7 ,in    
,acts1 the author again takes up the    
theme1 and whilst evidently giving later
 traditions regarding the appearances   
after the resurrection1 he adheres to   
his version of the story regarding the  
command to stay in ,jerusalem4 ,in i4   
#d1 he says3 ,and being assembled       
together with them he commanded them not
 to depart from ,jerusalem1 but to wait 
for the promise of the ,father1 etc42   
and here again1 verse #ab1 the disciples
 are represented1 just before ,peter's  
speech is supposed to have been         
delivered1 as returning from the ,mount 
of ,olives to ,jerusalem4 ,the ,author  
of ,acts and of the third ,synoptic1    
therefore1 gives no countenance to this 

theory4 ,besides1 setting all this      
aside1 the apologetic hypothesis we are 
discussing is quite excluded upon other 
grounds4 ,if we suppose that the        
disciples did go into ,galilee for a    
time1 we find them again in ,jerusalem  
at the election of the successor to     
,judas1 and there is no reason to       
believe that they had only just         
returned4 ,the ,acts not only allow of  
no interval at all for the journey to   
,galilee between i4 #ab-ad and #ae ff41 
but by the simple statement       #b ,we
 shall hereafter have to go more fully  
into this1 and      shall not discuss it
 here4 ,the third ,gospel really        
represents the ,ascension as taking     
place on the day of the                 
,resurrection2 and ,acts1 whilst giving 
later tradition1 and      making the    
,ascension occur forty days after1 does 
not amend1      but confirms the        
previously enunciated view that the     
disciples had been ordered to stay in   
,jerusalem4  #ajd  with which our       

episode commences1 v4 #ae3 ,and in these
 days ------1 ,peter conveys anything   
but the impression of any very recent   
return to ,jerusalem4 ,if the ,apostles 
had been even a few days there1 the     
incongruity of the speech would remain  
undiminished2 for the #abj brethren who 
are said to have been present must      
chiefly have been residents in          
,jerusalem1 and cannot be4 supposed also
 to have been absent1 and1 in any case1 
events which are represented as so well 
known to all the dwellers in ,jerusalem1
 must certainly have been familiar to   
the small ,christian community1 whose   
interest in the matter was so specially 
great4 ,moreover1 according to the first
 ,synoptic1 as soon as ,judas sees that 
,jesus is condemned1 he brings the money
 back to the chief priests1 casts it    
down and goes and hangs himself1 xxvii4 
#c ff4 ,this is related even before the 
final condemnation of ,jesus and before 
his crucifixion1 and the reader is led  
to believe that ,judas at once put an   

end to himself1 so that the disciples1  
who are represented as being still in   
,jerusalem for at least eight days after
 the resurrection1 must have been there 
at the time4 ,with regard to the        
singular expressions in verse #ai1 this 
theory goes on to suppose that1 out of  
consideration for ,greek                
fellow-believers1 ,peter had probably   
already begun to speak in the ,greek    
tongue2 and when he designates the      
language of the dwellers in ,jerusalem  
as their own dialect1 he does not       
thereby mean ,hebrew in itself1 but     
their own expression1 the peculiar      
confession of the opposite party1 which 
admitted the cruel treachery towards    
,jesus1 in that they named the piece of 
ground ,hakel ,damah47#a7 ,here1 again1 
what assumptions6 ,it is generally      
recognized that ,peter must have spoken 
in  #aje  ,aramaic1 and even if he did  
not1 ------7#a7 cannot mean anything but
 the language of all the-dwellers at    
,jerusalem4 ,in a speech delivered at   

,jerusalem1 in any language1 to an      
audience consisting at least in         
considerable part of inhabitants of the 
place1 and certainly almost entirely of 
persons whose native tongue was         
,aramaic1 to tell them that the         
inhabitants called a certain field in   
their own tongue ,acheldamach1 giving   
them at the same time a translation of  
the word1 is inconceivable to most      
critics1 even including apologists4     
,there is another point which indicates 
not only that this theory is inadequate 
to solve the difficulty1 but that the   
speech could not have been delivered by 
,peter a few weeks after the occurrences
 related4 ,it is stated that the        
circumstances narrated were so well     
known to the inhabitants of ,jerusalem1 
that the field was called in their own  
tongue ,acheldamach4 ,the origin of this
 name is not ascribed to the priests or 
rulers1 but to the people1 and it is not
 to be supposed that a popular name     
could have become attached to this      

field1 and so generally adopted as the  
text represents1 within the very short  
time which could have elapsed between   
the death of ,judas and the delivery of 
this speech4 ,be it remembered that from
 the time of the crucifixion to         
,pentecost the interval was in all only 
about seven weeks1 and that this speech 
was made some time before ,pentecost1   
how long we cannot tell1 but in any     
case1 the interval was much too brief to
 permit of the popular adoption of the  
name47#b7 ,the whole passage has much   
more the character of a narrative of    
#ajf  events which had occurred at a    
time long past1 than of circumstances   
which had taken place a few days before4
  ,the obvious conclusion is that this  
speech was never spoken by ,peter1 but  
is a much later composition put into his
 mouth1#a and written for ,greek        
readers1 who required to be told about  
,judas1 and for whose benefit the       
,hebrew name of the field1 inserted for 
local colouring1 had to be translated4  

,this is confirmed by several           
circumstances1 to which we may refer4   
,we shall not dwell much upon the fact  
that ,peter is represented as applying  
to ,judas two passages quoted from the  
,septuagint version of ,ps4 lxix4 #be   
7,sept lxviii47 and ,ps4 cix4 7,sept    
cviii47 which1 historically1 cannot for 
a moment be sustained as referring to   
him47#b7 ,the first of these ,psalms is 
quoted freely1 and moreover the         
denunciations in the original being     
against a plurality of enemies1 it can  
only be made applicable to ,judas by    
altering the plural their ------ to his 
habitation ------1 a considerable       
liberty to take with prophecy4 ,the     
,holy ,spirit is said to have  #ajg     
spoken this prophecy concerning ,judas  
by the mouth of ,david1 but modern      
research has led critics to hold it as  
most probable that neither ,ps4         
lxix47#a7 nor ,ps4 cix47#b7 was composed
 by ,david at all4 ,as we know nothing  
of ,peter's usual system of exegesis1   

however1 very little weight as evidence 
can be attached to this4 ,on the other  
hand1 it is clear that a considerable   
time must have elapsed before these two 
passages from the ,psalms could have    
become applied to the death of          
,judas47#c7  ,the account which is given
 of the fate of ,judas is contradictory 
to that given in the first ,synoptic and
 cannot be reconciled with it1 but      
follows a different tradition47#d7      
,according to the first ,synoptic       
7xxvii4 #c ff471 ,judas brings back the 
thirty pieces of silver1 casts them down
 in the ,temple1 and then goes and hangs
 himself4 ,the chief priests take the   
money and buy with it the ,potter's     
field1 which is not said to have had any
 other connection with ,judas1 as a     
place for the burial of strangers4 ,in  
the ,acts1 ,judas himself buys a field  
as a private possession1 and instead    
#ajh  of committing suicide by hanging1 
he is represented as dying from a fall  
in this field1 which is evidently       

regarded as a special judgment upon him 
for his crime4 ,the apologetic attempts 
to reconcile these two narratives17#a7  
are truly lamentable4 ,beyond calling   
attention to this amongst other         
phenomena presented in this speech1     
however1 we have not further to do with 
the point at present ,we have already   
devoted too much space to ,peter's first
 address1 and we now pass on to more    
important topics4     ,,chapter ,,iv4   
,,primitive ,,christianity4  ,we now    
enter upon a portion of our examination 
of the ,acts which is so full of        
interest in itself that peculiar care   
will be requisite to restrain ourselves 
within necessary limits4 ,hitherto our  
attention has been mainly confined to   
the internal phenomena presented by the 
document before us1 with comparatively  
little aid from external testimony1 and 
although the results of such criticism  
have been of no equivocal character1 the
 historical veracity of the ,acts has   
not yet been tested by direct comparison

 with other sources of information4 ,we 
now propose to examine1 as briefly as   
may be1 some of the historical          
statements in themselves1 and by the    
light of information derived from       
contemporary witnesses of unimpeachable 
authority1 and to confront them with    
well-established facts in the annals of 
the first two centuries4 ,this leads us 
to the borders not only of one of the   
greatest controversies which has for    
half a century occupied theological     
criticism1 but also of still more       
important questions regarding the       
original character and systematic       
development of ,christianity itself4    
,the latter we must here resolutely pass
 almost unnoticed1 and into the former  
we shall only enter so far as is        
absolutely necessary to the special     
object of our inquiry4 ,the document    
before us professes to give a narrative 
of the progress of the  #aaj  primitive 
,church from its first formation in the 
midst of ,mosaism1 with strong          

,judaistic rules and prejudices1 up to  
that liberal universalism which freely  
admitted the christian ,gentile1 upon   
equal terms1 into communion with the    
christian ,jew4 ,the question with which
 we are concerned is strictly this3 ,is 
the account in the ,acts of the         
,apostles of the successive steps by    
which ,christianity emerged from        
,judaism1 and1 shaking off the          
restrictions and obligations of the     
,mosaic law1 admitted the ,gentiles to a
 full participation of its privileges   
historically true8 ,is the              
representation which is made of the     
conduct and teaching of the older       
,apostles on the one hand1 and of ,paul 
on the other1 and of their mutual       
relations an accurate one8 ,can the     
,acts of the ,apostles1 in short1 be    
considered a sober and veracious history
 of so important and interesting an     
epoch of the christian ,church8 ,this   
has been vehemently disputed or denied1 
and the discussion1 extending on every  

side into important collateral issues1  
forms in itself a literature of         
voluminous extent and profound interest4
 ,our path now lies through this        
debatable land2 but although the        
controversy as to the connection of     
,paul with the development of           
,christianity and his relation to the   
,apostles of the ,circumcision cannot be
 altogether avoided1 it only partially  
concerns us4 ,we are freed from the     
necessity of advancing any particular   
theory1 and have here no further        
interest in it than to inquire whether  
the narrative of the ,acts is historical
 or not4 ,if1 therefore1 avoiding many  
important but unnecessary questions1 and
 restricting ourselves to a straight    
course across the great controversy1 we 
seem to deal insufficiently with the    
general subject1 it must be remembered  
that the argument is merely incidental  
to our inquiry1 and that we not only do 
not  #aaa  pretend to exhaust it1 but   
distinctly endeavour to reduce our share

 in it to the smallest limits compatible
 with our immediate object4  ,according 
to the narrative of the ,acts of the    
,apostles1 the apostolic age presents a 
most edifying example of concord and    
moderation4 ,the emancipation of the    
,church from ,mosaic restrictions was   
effected without strife or              
heart-burning1 and the freedom of the   
,gospel1 if not attained without        
hesitation1 was finally proclaimed with 
singular largeness of mind and          
philosophic liberality4 ,the teaching of
 ,paul differed in nothing from that of 
the elder apostles4 ,the christian      
universalism1 which so many suppose to  
have specially characterized the great  
,apostle of the ,gentiles1 was not only 
shared1 but even anticipated1 by the    
elder ,apostles4 ,so far from opposing  
the free admission of the ,gentiles to  
the christian community1 ,peter declares
 himself to have been chosen of ,god    
that by his voice they should hear the  
gospel17#a7 proclaims that there is no  

distinction between ,jew and            
,gentile17#b7 and advocates the         
abrogation1 in their case at least1 of  
the ,mosaic law47#c7 ,james1 whatever   
his private predilections may be1       
exhibits almost equal forbearance and   
desire of conciliation4 ,in fact1       
whatever anomalies and contradictions   
may be discoverable1 upon close         
examination1 beneath this smooth and    
brilliant surface1 the picture          
superficially presented is one of       
singular harmony and peace4 ,on the     
other hand1 instead of that sensitive   
independence and self-reliance of       
character which has been ascribed to the
 ,apostle ,paul1 we find him represented
 in the ,acts as submissive to the      
authority of the ,pillars of the church1
 ready to conform to their  #aab        
counsels and bow to their decrees1 and  
as seizing every opportunity of visiting
 ,jerusalem1 and coming in contact with 
that stronghold of ,judaism4 ,instead of
 the ,apostle of the ,gentiles1         

preaching the abrogation of the law1 and
 more than suspected of leading the     
,jews to apostatize from ,moses17#a7 we 
find a man even scrupulous in his       
observance of ,mosaic customs1 taking   
vows upon him1 circumcising ,timothy    
with his own hand1 and declaring at the 
close of his career1 when a prisoner at 
,rome1 that he did nothing against the  
people or the customs of the            
fathers47#b7 ,there is no trace of angry
 controversy1 of jealous susceptibility1
 of dogmatic difference in the circle of
 the apostles4 ,the intercourse of ,paul
 with the leaders of the ,judaistic     
party is of the most unbroken           
pleasantness and amity4 ,of opposition  
to his ministry1 or doubt of his        
apostleship1 whether on the part of the 
,three1 or of those who identified      
themselves with their teaching1 we have 
no hint4 ,we must endeavour to ascertain
 whether this is a true representation  
of the early development of the ,church1
 and of the momentous history of the    

apostolic age4  ,in the epistles of     
,paul we have1 at least to some extent1 
the means of testing the accuracy of the
 statements of the ,acts with regard to 
him and the early history of the        
,church4 ,the ,epistles to the          
,galatians1 to the ,corinthians 7#b71   
and to the ,romans are generally        
admitted to be genuine17#c7 and can be  
freely used for this purpose4 ,to these 
we shall limit our attention1 excluding 
other epistles1 whose authenticity is   
either questioned or denied1 but in     
doing so no material capable of really  
affecting the result is set aside4 ,for 
the same reason1 we  #aac  must reject  
any evidence to be derived from the     
so-called ,epistles of ,peter and       
,james1 at least so far as they are     
supposed to represent the opinions of   
,peter and ,james1 but here again it    
will be found that they do not          
materially affect the points immediately
 before us4 ,the veracity of the ,acts  
of the ,apostles being the very point   

which is in question1 it is unnecessary 
to say that we have to subject the      
narrative to examination1 and by no     
means to assume the correctness of any  
statements we find in it4 ,at the same  
time it must be our endeavour to collect
 from this document such                
indications--and they will frequently be
 valuable--of the true history of the   
occurrences related1 as may be presented
 between the lines of the text4  ,in the
 absence of fuller information1 it must 
not be forgotten that human nature in   
the first century of our era was very   
much what it is in the nineteenth1 and  
certain facts being clearly established1
 it will not be difficult to infer many 
details which cannot now be positively  
demonstrated4 ,the ,epistle to the      
,galatians1 however1 will be our most   
invaluable guide4 ,dealing1 as it does1 
with some of the principal episodes of  
the ,acts1 we are enabled by the words  
of the apostle ,paul himself1 which have
 all the accent of truth and vehement   

earnestness1 to control the narrative of
 the unknown writer of that work4 ,and  
where this source fails1 we have the    
unsuspected testimony of his other      
epistles1 and of later ecclesiastical   
history to assist our inquiry4  ,the    
problem then which we have to consider  
is the manner in which the primitive    
,church emerged from its earliest form1 
as a ,jewish institution with ,mosaic   
restrictions and ,israelitish           
exclusiveness1 and finally opened wide  
its doors to the uncircumcised ,gentile1
 and assumed  #aad  the character of a  
universal religion4 ,in order to        
understand the nature of the case1 and  
be able to estimate aright the solution 
which is presented by the narrative in  
the ,acts of the ,apostles1 it is       
necessary that we should obtain a clear 
view of the actual characteristics of   
,christianity at the period when that   
history begins4 ,we must endeavour to   
understand precisely what view the      
,apostles had formed of their position  

in regard to ,judaism1 and of the duty  
which devolved upon them of propagating 
the ,gospel4 ,it is obvious that we     
cannot rightly appreciate the amount of 
persuasion requisite to transform the   
primitive ,church from ,jewish          
exclusive-ness to ,christian            
universality1 without ascertaining the  
probable amount of long rooted          
conviction and religious prejudice or   
principle which had to be overcome      
before that great change could be       
effected4  ,we shall not here enter upon
 any argument as to the precise views   
which the ,founder of ,christianity may 
have held as to his own person and work1
 nor shall we attempt to sift the       
traditions of his life and teaching     
which have been handed down to us1 and  
to separate the genuine spiritual       
nucleus from the grosser matter by which
 it has been enveloped and obscured4 ,we
 have much more to do with the view     
which others took of the matter1 and1   
looking at the ,gospels as              

representations of that which was       
accepted as the orthodox view regarding 
the teaching of ,jesus1 they are almost 
as useful for our present purpose as if 
they had been more spiritual and less   
popular expositions of his views4 ,what 
the ,master was understood to teach is  
more important for the history of the   
first century than what he actually     
taught without being understood4        
,nothing is more certain than the fact  
that ,christianity1 originally1 was     
#aae  developed out of ,judaism1 and    
that its advent was historically        
prepared by the course of the ,mosaic   
system1 to which it was so closely      
related47#a7 ,in its first stages during
 the apostolic age1 it had no higher    
ambition than to be1 and to be          
considered1 the continuation and the    
fulfilment of ,judaism1 its final and   
triumphant phase4 ,the substantial      
identity of primitive ,christianity with
 true ,judaism was at first never called
 in question2 it was considered a mere  

internal movement of ,judaism1 its      
development and completion1 but by no   
means its mutilation4 ,the idea of      
,christianity as a new religion never   
entered the minds of the ,twelve or of  
the first believers1 nor1 as we shall   
presently see1 was it so regarded by the
 ,jews themselves4 ,it was in fact1     
originally1 nothing more than a sect of 
,judaism1 holding a particular view of  
one point in the creed and1 for a very  
long period1 it was considered so by    
others1 and was in no way distinguished 
from the rest of ,mosaism47#b7 ,even in 
the ,acts there are traces of this1     
,paul being called a ringleader of the  
sect ------ of the ,nazarenes17#c7 and  
the ,jews of ,rome being represented as 
referring to ,christianity by this      
term47#d7 ,paul before the ,council not 
#aaf  only does not scruple to call     
himself a ,pharisee1 the son of a       
,pharisee1 but the ,pharisees take part 
with him against the more unorthodox and
 hated sect of the ,sadducees47#a7 ,for 

eighteen centuries disputes have        
fiercely raged over the creed of        
,christendom1 and the ingenuity of      
countless divines has been exhausted in 
deducing mystic dogmas from the         
primitive teaching1 but if there be one 
thing more remarkable than another in   
that teaching1 according to the         
,synoptics1 it is its perfect           
simplicity4 ,jesus did not appear with a
 ready-made theology1 and imposed no    
elaborate system of doctrine upon his   
disciples4 ,throughout the prophetic    
period of ,mosaism1 one hope had        
sustained the people of ,israel in all  
their sufferings and reverses3 that the 
fortunes of the nation should finally be
 retrieved by a scion of the race of    
,david1 under whose rule it should be   
restored to a future of unexampled      
splendour and prosperity4 ,the          
expectation of the ,messiah1 under      
frequently modified aspects1 had formed 
a living part in the national faith of  
,israel4 ,primitive ,christianity1      

sharing but recasting this ancient hope1
 was only distinguished from ,judaism1  
with whose worship it continued in all  
points united1 by a single doctrine1    
which was in itself merely a            
modification of the national idea3 the  
belief that ,jesus of ,nazareth was     
actually the ,christ1 the promised      
,messiah4 ,this was substantially the   
whole of its creed47#b7  #aag  ,the     
synoptic ,gospels1 and more especially  
the first17#a7 are clearly a history of 
,jesus as the ,messiah of the house of  
,david1 so long announced and expected1 
and whose life and even his death and   
resurrection are shown to be the        
fulfilment of a series of ,old          
,testament prophecies47#b7 ,when his    
birth is announced to ,mary1 he is      
described as the great one1 who is to   
sit on the throne of ,david his father1 
and reign over the house of ,jacob for  
ever17#c7 and the good tidings of great 
joy to all the people ------1 that the  
,messiah is born that day in the city of

 ,david1 are proclaimed by the angel to 
the shepherds of the plain47#d7 ,synieon
 takes the child in his arms and blesses
 ,god that the words of the ,holy       
,spirit are accomplished1 that he should
 not die before he had seen the ,lord's 
anointed1 the ,messiah1 the consolation 
of ,israel47#e7 ,the ,magi come to his  
cradle in ,bethlehem1 the birthplace of 
the ,messiah indicated by the           
prophet17#f7 to do homage to him who is 
born ,king of the ,jews17#g7 and there  
,herod seeks to destroy him17#h7        
fulfilling another  #aah  prophecy47#a7 
,his flight into ,egypt and return to   
,nazareth are equally in fulfilment of  
prophecies47#b7 ,john the ,baptist1     
whose own birth as the forerunner of the
 ,messiah had been foretold17#c7 goes   
before him preparing the way of the     
,lord1 and announcing that the          
,messianic kingdom is at hand4          
,according to the fourth ,gospel1 some  
of the twelve had been disciples of the 
,baptist1 and follow ,jesus on their    

master's assurance that he is the       
,messiah4 ,one of these1 ,andrew1       
induces his brother ,simon ,peter also  
to go after him by the                  
announcement3--,we have found the       
,messiah1 which is1 being interpreted1  
the ,christ 7i4 #ce;ff4 #da74 ,and      
,philip tells ,nathaniel3--,we have     
found him of whom ,moses in the ,law and
 the ,prophets did write3 ,jesus1 the   
son of ,joseph1 who is from ,nazareth   
7i4 #de74 ,when he has commenced his own
 public ministry1 ,jesus is represented 
as asking his disciples3--,who do men   
say that ,i am8 and setting aside the   
popular conjectures that he is ,john the
 ,baptist1 ,elijah1 ,jeremiah1 or one of
 the prophets1 by the still more direct 
question3--,and whom do ye say that ,i  
am8 ,simon ,peter answered and          
said3--,thou art the ,christ1 the ,son  
of the living ,god4 ,and in consequence 
of this recognition of his ,messiahship1
 ,jesus rejoins3--,and ,i say unto thee 
that thou art ,peter1 and upon this rock

 ,i will build my ,church47#d7  #aai    
,it is quite apart from our present     
object to point out the singular feats  
of exegesis and perversions of          
historical ,s#cnse by which passages of 
the ,old ,testament are forced to show  
that every event in the history1 and    
even the startling novelty of a         
suffering and crucified ,messiah1 which 
to ,jews was a stumbling-block and to   
,gentiles folly17#a7 had been foretold  
by the prophets4 ,from first to last the
 ,gospels strive to prove that ,jesus   
was the ,messiah1 and connect him       
indissolubly with the ,old ,testament4  
,the ,messianic key-note1 which is      
struck at the outset1 regulates the     
strain to the close4 ,the disciples on  
the way to ,emmaus1 appalled by the     
ignominious death of their ,master1     
sadly confide to the stranger their     
vanished hope that ,jesus of ,nazareth1 
whom they now merely call a prophet     
mighty in word and deed before ,god and 
all the people1 was the ,christ who was 

about to redeem ,israel1 and ,jesus     
himself replies3--,o foolish and slow of
 heart to believe all that the prophets 
spake6 ,was it not needful that the     
,christ 7,messiah7 should suffer these  
things and enter into his glory8 ,and1  
beginning at ,moses and all the         
prophets1 he expounded unto them in all 
the ,scriptures the things concerning   
himself47#b7 ,then1 again1 when he      
appears to the eleven1 immediately      
after1 at ,jerusalem1 he says3--',these 
are the words that ,i spake unto you    
while ,i was yet with you1 that all     
things must be fulfilled which are      
written in the law of ,moses and the    
prophets and the ,psalms concerning me4'
 ,then opened he their understanding    
that they might understand the          
,scriptures1 and said unto them3--',thus
 it is written1 that the ,christ should 
suffer and rise from the dead the third 
day4'7#c7  #abj  ,the crucifixion and   
death of ,jesus introduced the first    
elements of rupture with ,judaism1 to   

which they formed the great             
stumbling-block47#a7 ,the conception of 
a suffering and despised ,messiah could 
naturally never have occurred to a      
,jewish mind47#b7 ,the first effort of  
,christianity1 therefore1 was to repair 
the apparent breach by proving that the 
suffering ,messiah had actually been    
foretold by the prophets2 and to        
re-establish the ,messianic character of
 ,jesus1 by the evidence of his         
resurrection47#c7 ,but1 above all1 the  
momentary deviation from orthodox       
,jewish ideas regarding the ,messiah was
 retraced by the representation of a    
speedy second advent1 in glory1 of the  
once rejected ,messiah to restore the   
kingdom of ,israel1 by which the ancient
 hopes of the people became reconciled  
with the new expectation of ,christians4
 ,even before the ,ascension1 the       
disciples are represented in the ,acts  
as asking the risen ,jesus3--,lord1 dost
 thou at this time restore the kingdom  
to ,israel87#d7 ,there can be no doubt  

of the reality and  #aba  universality  
of the belief1 in the ,apostolic        
,church1 in the immediate return of the 
glorified ,messiah and speedy end of all
 things47#a7  ,the substance of the     
preaching of the ,apostles in ,acts1    
simply is that ,jesus is the            
,christ17#b7 the expected ,messiah47#c7 
,their chief aim is to prove that his   
sufferings and death had been foretold  
by the prophets17#d7 and that his       
resurrection establishes his claim to   
the title47#e7 ,the simplicity of the   
creed is illustrated by the rapidity    
with which converts are made4 ,after a  
few words1 on one occasion1 three       
thousand7#f7 and1 on another1 five      
thousand7#g7 are at once converted4 ,no 
lengthened instruction or preparation   
was requisite for admission into the    
,church47#h7 ,as soon as a ,jew         
acknowledged ,jesus to be the ,messiah  
he thereby became a ,christian47#i7 ,as 
soon as the  #abb  three thousand       
converts at ,pentecost made this        

confession of faith they were           
baptized47#a7 ,the ,ethiopian is        
converted whilst passing in his chariot1
 and is immediately baptized17#b7 as are
 likewise ,cornelius and his household  
after a short address from ,peter47#c7  
,the new faith involved no abandonment  
of the old4 ,on the contrary1 the advent
 of the ,messiah was so essential a part
 of ,judaic belief1 and the ,messianic  
claim of ,jesus was so completely based 
by the ,apostles on the fulfilment of   
prophecy--showing by the ,scriptures    
that ,jesus is the ,christ1--that       
recognition of the fact rather          
constituted firmer adhesion to ,mosaism1
 and deeper faith in the inviolable     
truth of the ,covenant with ,israel4 ,if
 there had been no ,mosaism1 so to say1 
there could have been no ,messiah4 ,so  
far from being opposed either to the    
form or spirit of the religion of       
,israel1 the proclamation of the        
,messiah was its necessary complement1  
and could only be intelligible by       

confirmation of its truth and           
maintenance of its validity4            
,christianity--belief in the            
,messiah--in its earlier phases1 drew   
its whole nourishment from roots that   
sank deeply into ,mosaism4 ,it was      
indeed nothing more than ,mosaism in a  
developed form4 ,the only difference    
between the ,jew and the ,christian was 
that the latter believed the ,messiah to
 have already appeared in ,jesus1 whilst
 the former still expected him in the   
future27#d7 though even this difference 
#abc  was singularly diminished1 in     
appearance at least1 by the ,christian  
expectation of the second advent4  ,it  
is exceedingly important to ascertain1  
under these circumstances1 what was the 
impression of the ,apostles as to the   
relation of believers to ,judaism and to
 ,mosaic observances1 although it must  
be clear to any one who impartially     
considers the origin and historical     
antecedents of the ,christian faith1    
that very little doubt can have existed 

in their minds on the subject4 ,the     
teaching of ,jesus1 as recorded in the  
synoptic ,gospels1 is by no means of a  
doubtful character1 more especially when
 the sanctity of the ,mosaic system in  
the eyes of a ,jew is borne in mind4 ,it
 must be apparent that1 in order to     
remove the obligation of a ,law and form
 of worship believed to have been1 in   
the most direct sense1 instituted by    
,god himself1 the most clear1 strong1   
and reiterated order would have been    
requisite4 ,no one can reasonably       
maintain that a few spiritual           
expressions directed against the bare   
letter and abuse of the law1 which were 
scarcely understood by the hearers1     
could have been intended to abolish a   
system so firmly planted1 or to         
overthrow ,jewish institutions of such  
antiquity and national importance1 much 
less that they could be taken in this   
sense by the disciples4 ,a few passages 
in the ,gospels1 therefore1 which may   
bear the interpretation of having       

foreseen the eventual supersession of   
,mosaism by his own more spiritual      
principles1 must not be strained to     
support the idea that ,jesus taught     
disregard of the ,law4 ,his very        
distinct and positive lessons1 conveyed 
both by precept and practice1 show1 on  
the contrary1 that not only he did not  
intend to attack pure ,mosaism1 but that
 he was understood both directly and by 
inference to recognise and confirm it4  
,in the ,sermon on the ,mount1 ,jesus   
#abd  states to the disciples in the    
most positive manner3--,think not that  
,i came to destroy the law or the       
prophets2 ,i came not to destroy but to 
fulfil4 ,for verily ,i say unto you1    
till heaven and earth pass1 one jot or  
one tittle shall not pass from the law1 
till all be accomplished47#a7 ,whether  
the last phrase be interpreted3 till all
 the law be accomplished1 or till all   
things appointed to occur be            
accomplished1 the effect is the same4   
,one clear explicit declaration like    

this1 under the circumstances1 would    
outweigh a host of doubtful expressions4
 ,not only does ,jesus in this passage  
directly repudiate any idea of attacking
 the law and the prophets1 but1 in      
representing his mission as their       
fulfilment1 he affirms them1 and        
associates his own work in the closest  
way with theirs4 ,if there were any     
uncertainty1 however1 as to the meaning 
of his words it would be removed by the 
continuation3--,whosoever1 therefore1   
shall break one of these commandments1  
even the least1 and shall teach men so1 
he shall be called least in the kingdom 
of heaven2 but whosoever shall do and   
teach them1 he shall be called great in 
the kingdom of heaven47#b7 ,it would be 
difficult for teaching to be more       
decisive in favour of the maintenance of
 the law1 and this instruction1         
according to the first ,synoptic1 was   
specially directed to the disciples47#c7
 ,when ,jesus goes on to show that their
 righteousness must exceed that of the  

,scribes and ,pharisees1 and to add to  
the letter of the law1 as interpreted by
 those of old1 his own profound         
interpretation of its  #abe  spirit1 he 
only intensifies1 without limiting1 the 
operation of the law2 he merely         
spiritualises it4 ,he does no more than 
this in his lessons regarding the       
observance of the ,sabbath4 ,he did not 
in point of fact attack the genuine     
,mosaic institution of the day of rest  
at all1 but merely the intolerable      
literalism by which its observance had  
been made a burden instead of a delight4
 ,he justified his variation from the   
traditional teaching and practice of his
 time1 however1 by appeals to           
,scriptural precedent47#a7  ,as a recent
 writer has said3 4444the observance of 
the ,sabbath1 which had been intended to
 secure for weary men a rest full of    
love and peace and mercy1 had become a  
mere national ,fetish--a barren custom  
fenced in with the most frivolous and   
senseless restrictions47#b7 ,jesus      

restored its original significance4 ,in 
restricting some of the permissive      
clauses of the ,law1 on the other hand1 
he acted precisely in the same spirit4  
,he dealt with the ,law not with the    
temper of a revolutionist1 but of a     
reformer1 and his reforms1 so far from  
affecting its permanence1 are a virtual 
confirmation of the rest of the         
code47#c7 ,ritschl1 whose views on this 
point will have some weight with        
apologists1 combats the idea that ,jesus
 merely confirmed the ,mosaic moral law1
 and abolished the ceremonial law4      
,referring to one particular point of   
importance1 he says3--,he certainly     
contests the duty of the ,sabbath rest1 
the value of purifications and          
sacrifices1 and the validity of divorce2
 on the other hand1 he leaves unattacked
 the value of circumcision1 whose       
regulation is generally reckoned as part
 of the  #abf  ceremonial law2 and      
nothing justifies the conclusion that   
,jesus estimated it in the same way as  

,justin ,martyr1 and the other ,gentile 
,christian ,church teachers1 who place  
it on the same line as the ceremonies4  
,the only passage in which ,jesus       
touches upon circumcision 7,john vii4   
#bb7 rather proves that1 as an          
institution of the patriarchs1 he       
attributes to it peculiar sanctity4     
,moreover1 when ,jesus1 with            
unmistakable intention1 confines his own
 personal ministry to the ,israelitish  
people 7,mk4 vii4 #bg1 ,mt4 x4 #e1 #f71 
he thereby recognises their prior right 
of participation in the ,kingdom of     
,god1 and also1 indirectly1 circumcision
 as the sign of the preference of this  
people4 ,the distinction of circumcision
 from ceremonies1 besides1 is perfectly 
intelligible from the ,old ,testament4  
,through circumcision1 to wit1 is the   
,israelite1 sprung from the people of   
the ,covenant1 indicated as sanctified  
by ,god2 through purification1          
sacrifice1 ,sabbath-rest must he        
continually sanctify himself for ,god4  

,so long1 therefore1 as the conception  
of the people of the ,covenant is       
maintained1 circumcision cannot be      
abandoned1 whilst even the prophets have
 pointed to the merely relative         
importance of the ,mosaic worship47#a7  
,jesus everywhere in the ,gospels       
recognises the divine origin of the     
law17#b7 and he quotes the predictions  
of the prophets as absolute evidence of 
his own pretensions4 ,to those who ask  
him the way to eternal life he indicates
 its commandments17#c7 and he even      
enjoins the observance of its ceremonial
 rites47#d7 ,jesus did not abrogate the 
#abg  ,mosaic law2 but1 on the contrary1
 by his example as well as his precepts1
 he practically confirmed it47#a7       
,according to the statements of the     
,gospels1 ,jesus himself observed the   
prescriptions of the ,mosaic law47#b7   
,from his birth he had been brought up  
in its worship47#c7 ,he was circumcised 
on the eighth day47#d7 ,and when the    
days of their purification were         

accomplished1 according to the law of   
,moses1 they brought him up to          
,jerusalem to present him to the ,lord1 
even as it is written in the law of the 
,lord3 ,every male1 c1 c1 and to give a 
sacrifice according to that which is    
said in the law of the ,lord1 c1 c47#e7 
,every year his parents went to         
,jerusalem at the feast of the          
,passover17#f7 and this practice he     
continued till the close of his life4   
,as his custom was1 he went into the    
,synagogue 7at ,nazareth7 and stood up  
to read47#g7 ,according to the fourth   
,gospel1 ,jesus goes up to ,jerusalem   
for the various festivals of the        
,jews17#h7 and the feast of the         
,passover1 according to the ,synoptics1 
was the last memorable supper eaten     
#abh  with his disciples17#a7 the third 
,synoptic representing him as saying3   
,with desire ,i desired to eat this     
,passover with you before ,i suffer2 for
 ,i say unto you that ,i shall not any  
more eat it until it be fulfilled hi the

 kingdom of ,god47#b7 ,however          
exceptional the character of ,jesus1 and
 however elevated his views1 it is      
undeniable that he lived and died a     
,jew1 conforming to the ordinances of   
the ,mosaic law in all essential points1
 and not holding himself aloof from the 
worship of the ,temple which he         
purified4 ,the influence which his      
adherence to the forms of ,judaism must 
have exerted over his followers7#c7 can 
scarcely be exaggerated1 and the fact   
must ever be carefully borne in mind in 
estimating the conduct of the ,apostles 
and of the primitive ,christian         
community after his death4  ,as befitted
 the character of the ,jewish ,messiah1 
the sphere of the ministry of ,jesus and
 the arrangements for the proclamation  
of the ,gospel were strictly and even   
intensely1 ,judaic4 ,jesus attached to  
his person twelve disciples1 a number   
clearly typical of the twelve tribes of 
the people of ,israel27#d7 and this     
reference is distinctly adopted when    

,jesus is represented1 in the           
,synoptics1 as promising that1 in the   
,messianic kingdom1 when the ,son  #abi 
of ,man shall sit on the throne of his  
glory1 the ,twelve also shall sit upon  
twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes
 of ,israel27#a7 a promise which1       
according to the third ,synoptist1 is   
actually made during the last           
supper47#b7 ,in the ,apocalypse1 which1 
of all the writings of the ,new         
,testament is most thoroughly ,jewish in
 its language and imagery17#c7 the names
 of the twelve ,apostles of the ,lamb   
are written upon the twelve foundations 
of the wall of the heavenly ,jerusalem1 
upon the twelve gates of which1 through 
which alone access to the city can be   
obtained1 are the names of the twelve   
tribes of the children of ,israel47#d7  
,jesus himself limited his teaching to  
the ,jews1 and was strictly a minister  
of the circumcision for the truth of    
,god1 to confirm the promises made unto 
the fathers47#e7 ,to the prayer of the  

,canaanitish woman3 ,have mercy on me1  
,o ,lord1 ,son of ,david1 unlike his    
gracious demeanour to her of the bloody 
issue17#f7 ,jesus1 at first1 it is said1
 answered her not a word2 and even when 
besought by the disciples--not to heal  
her daughter1 but--to send her away1 he 
makes the emphatic declaration3 ,i was  
not sent but unto the lost sheep of the 
house of ,israel47#g7 ,to her continued 
appeals he lays  #acj  down the         
principle3 ,it is not lawful to take the
 children's bread and cast it to the    
dogs4 ,if after these exclusive         
sentences the boon is finally granted1  
it is as of the crumbs7#a7 which fall   
from the master's table47#b7 ,the       
modified expression7#c7 in the second   
,gospel3 ,let the children first be     
filled3 for it is not meet to take the  
children's bread and cast it to the     
dogs2 does not affect the case1 for it  
equally represents exclusion from the   
privileges of ,israel1 and the          
,messianic idea fully contemplated a    

certain grace to the heathen when the   
children were filled4 ,the expression   
regarding casting1 the children's bread 
to the dogs is clearly in reference to  
the ,gentiles1 who were so called by the
 ,jews47#d7 ,a similar1 though still    
stronger use of such expressions1 might 
be pointed out in the ,sermon on the    
,mount in the first  #aca  ,gospel 7vii4
 #f73 ,give not that which is holy unto 
the dogs1 neither cast your pearls      
before swine4 ,it is certain that the   
,jews were in the habit of speaking of  
the heathen both as dogs and            
swine--unclean animals1--and            
,hilgenfeld17#a7 and some other critics1
 see in this verse a reference to the   
,gentiles4 ,we do not1 however1 press   
this application which is1 and may be1  
disputed1 but merely mention it and pass
 on4 ,there can be no doubt1 however1 of
 the exclusive references to the        
,gentiles in the same sermon1 and other 
passages1 where the disciples are       
enjoined to practise a higher           

righteousness than the ,gentiles4 ,do   
not even the publicans444 do not even   
the ,gentiles or sinners the same       
things47#b7 ,take no thought1 c1 for    
after all these things do the ,gentiles 
seek2 but seek ye1 c1 c47#c7 ,the       
contrast is precisely that put with some
 irony by ,paul1 making use of the      
common ,jewish expression sinner as     
almost equivalent for ,gentile27#d7 ,in 
another place the first ,synoptic       
represents ,jesus as teaching his       
disciples how to deal with a brother who
 sins against them1 and as the final    
resource1 when every effort at          
reconciliation and justice has failed1  
he says3 ,let him be unto thee as the   
,gentile ------ and the publican4 7,mt4 
xviii4 #ag47 ,he could not express in a 
stronger way to a ,jewish mind the idea 
of social and religious excommunication4
  ,the instructions which ,jesus gives  
in sending out the ,twelve1 however1    
express the exclusiveness of the  #acb  
,messianic mission1 in the first        

instance at least1 to the ,jews1 in a   
very marked manner4 ,jesus commands his 
disciples3 ,go not into a way of the    
,gentiles ------ and into a city of the 
,samaritans enter ye not2 but go rather 
to the lost sheep of the house of       
,israel4 ,and as ye go1 preach1 saying3 
,the kingdom of heaven is at hand47#a7  
,as if more emphatically to mark the    
limitation of the mission1 the assurance
 is seriously added3 ,for verily ,i say 
unto you1 ye shall not have gone over   
the cities of ,israel1 till the ,son of 
,man come47#b7 ,it will be observed that
 ,jesus here charges the ,twelve to go  
rather to the lost sheep of the house of
 ,israel in the same words that he      
employs to the ,canaanitish woman to    
describe the exclusive destination of   
his own ministry47#c7 ,in coupling the  
,samaritans with the ,gentiles there is 
merely an expression of the intense     
antipathy of the ,jews against them1 as 
a mixed and1 we may say1 renegade race1 
excluded from the ,jewish worship       

although circumcised1 intercourse with  
whom is to this day almost regarded as  
pollution47#d7 ,the third ,gospel1 which
 omits the restrictive instructions of  
,jesus to the ,twelve given by the first
 ,synoptist1 introduces another episode 
of the same description3 the appointment
 and mission of ,seventy disciples17#f7 
to which we must very briefly refer4 ,no
 mention whatever is made of this       
incident in the other ,gospels1 and     
these disciples are not referred to in  
any other part of the ,new              
,testament47#f7 ,even ,eusebius remarks 
that no  #acc  catalogue of them is     
anywhere given17#a7 and1 after naming a 
few persons1 who were said by tradition 
to have been of their number1 he points 
out that more than seventy disciples    
appear1 for instance1 according to the  
testimony of ,paul47#b7 ,it will be     
observed that the instructions1 at least
 in considerable part1 supposed to be   
given to the ,seventy in the third4     
,synoptic are1 in the first1 the very   

instructions given to the ,twelve4      
,there has been much discussion         
regarding the whole episode1 which need 
not here be minutely referred to4 ,for  
various reasons the majority of critics 
impugn its historical character47#c7 ,a 
large number of these1 as well as other 
writers1 consider that the narrative of 
this appointment of seventy disciples1  
the number of the nations of the earth  
according to ,jewish ideas1 was         
introduced in ,pauline universalistic   
interest17#d7 or1 at least1 that the    
number is  #acd  typical of ,gentile    
conversion1 in contrast with that of the
 ,twelve who represent the more strictly
 ,judaic limitation of the ,messianic   
mission2 and they seem to hold that the 
preaching of the seventy is represented 
as not confined to ,judaea1 but as      
extending to ,samaria1 and that it thus 
denoted the destination of the ,gospel  
also to the ,gentiles4 ,on the other    
hand1 other critics1 many1 though by no 
means all1 of whom do not question the  

authenticity of the passage1 are        
disposed to deny the ,pauline tendency1 
and any special connection with a       
mission to the ,gentiles1 and rather to 
see in the number seventy a reference to
 well-known ,judaistic institutions47#a7
 ,it is true that the number of the     
nations was set down at seventy by      
,jewish tradition17#b7 but1 on the other
 hand1 it was the number of the elders  
chosen by ,moses from amongst the       
children of ,israel by ,god's command to
 help him1 and to whom ,god gave of his 
spirit7#c7s and also of the national    
#ace  ,sanhedrin1 which1 according to   
the ,mischna17#a7 still represented the 
,mosaic council4 ,this view receives    
confirmation from the ,clementine       
,recognitions in the following passage3 
,he therefore chose us twelve who first 
believed in him1 whom he named          
,apostles2 afterwards seventy-two other 
disciples of most approved goodness1    
that even in this way recognising the   
similitude of ,moses the multitude might

 believe that this is the prophet to    
come whom ,moses foretold47#b7 ,the     
passage here referred to is twice quoted
 in the ,acts3 ,moses indeed said3 ,a   
prophet will the ,lord our ,god raise up
 unto you from among your brethren1 like
 unto me1 c47#c7 ,on examination1 we do 
not find that there is any ground for   
the assertion that the seventy disciples
 were sent to the ,samaritans or        
,gentiles1 or were in any way connected 
with universalistic ideas4 ,jesus had   
stedfastly set his face to go to        
,jerusalem1 and sent messengers before  
him who went and entered into a village 
of the ,samaritans to make ready for    
him1 but they repulsed him1 because his 
face was as though he would go to       
,jerusalem47#d7 ,there is a decided     
break1 however1 before the appointment  
of the seventy4 ,after these things     
------ the ,lord appointed seventy      
others also1 and sent them two and two  
before his face into every city and     
place whither he himself was about to   

come47#e7 ,there is not a single word in
 the instructions  7#acf  given to them 
which justifies the conclusion that they
 were sent to ,samaria1 and only the    
inference from the number seventy1 taken
 as typical of the nations1 suggests it4
 ,that inference is not sufficiently    
attested1 and the slightness of the use 
made of the seventy disciples in the    
third ,gospel--this occasion being the  
only one on which they are mentioned1   
and no specific intimation of any       
mission to all people being here        
given--does not favour the theory of    
,pauline tendency4 ,so far as we are    
concerned1 however1 the point is        
unimportant4 ,those who assert the      
universalistic character of the episode 
generally deny its authenticity2 most of
 those who accept it as historical deny 
its universalism4  ,the order to go and 
teach all nations1 however1 by no means 
carries us beyond strictly ,messianic   
limits4 ,whilst the ,jews expected the  
,messiah to restore the people of       

,israel to their own ,holy ,land and    
crown them with unexampled prosperity   
and peace1 revenging their past sorrows 
upon their enemies1 and granting them   
supremacy over all the earth1 they      
likewise held that one of the ,messianic
 glories was to be the conversion of the
 ,gentiles to the worship of ,jahveh4   
,this is the burden of the prophets1 and
 it requires no proof4 ,the ,jews1 as   
the people with whom ,god had entered   
into ,covenant1 were first to be        
received into the kingdom4 ,let the     
children first be filled17#a7 and then  
the heathen might partake of the bread4 
,regarding the ultimate conversion of   
the ,gentiles1 therefore1 there was no  
doubt2 the only questions were as to the
 time and the conditions of admission   
into the national fellowship4 ,as to the
 time1 there never had been any         
expectation that the heathen could be   
turned to ,jahveh in numbers before the 
appearance of the  #acg  ,messiah1 but  
converts to ,judaism had been made in   

all ages1 and after the dispersion1     
especially1 the influence of the ,jews  
upon the professors of the effete and   
expiring religions of ,rome1 of ,greece1
 and of ,egypt was very great1 and      
numerous proselytes adopted the faith of
 ,israel17#a7 and were eagerly sought   
for7#b7 in spite of the abusive terms in
 which the ,talmudists spoke of         
them47#c7 ,the conditions on the other  
hand were perfectly definite4 ,the case 
of converts had been early foreseen and 
provided for in the ,mosaic code4       
,without referring to minor points1 we  
may at once say that circumcision was   
indispensable to admission into the     
number of the children of ,israel47#d7  
,participation in the privileges of the 
,covenant could only be secured by      
accepting the mark of that ,covenant4   
,very many1 however1 had adopted        
,judaism to a great extent1 who were not
 willing to undergo the rite requisite  
to full admission into the nation1 and a
 certain modification had gradually been

 introduced by which1 without it1       
strangers might be admitted into partial
 communion with ,israel4 ,there were1   
therefore1 two classes of               
proselytes17#e7 the first called        
,proselytes of the ,covenant or of      
,righteousness1 who were circumcised1   
obeyed the whole ,mosaic law1 and  #ach 
were fully incorporated with ,israel1   
and the other called ,proselytes of the 
,gate17#a7 or worshippers of ,jahveh1   
who in the ,new ,testament are commonly 
called ------4  ,these had not undergone
 the rite of circumcision1 and therefore
 were not participators in the          
,covenant1 but merely worshipped the    
,god of ,israel17#d7 and were only      
compelled to observe the seven ,noachian
 prescriptions4 ,these ,proselytes of   
the ,gate1 however1 were little more    
than on sufferance4 ,they were excluded 
from the ,temple1 and even the ,acts of 
the ,apostles represent it to be        
pollution for a ,jew to have intercourse
 with them3 it requires direct ,divine  

intervention to induce ,peter to go to  
,cornelius1 and to excuse his doing so  
in the eyes of the primitive            
,church47#c7 ,nothing short of          
circumcision and full observance of the 
,mosaic law could secure the privileges 
of the ,covenant with ,israel to a      
stranger1 and in illustration of this we
 may again point to the ,acts1 where    
certain who came from ,judaea1 members  
of the primitive church1 teach the      
,christians of ,antioch3 ,except ye have
 been circumcised after the custom of   
,moses ye cannot be saved47#d7       #a 
,we need not discuss the chronology of  
this class4       #b  ,it is scarcely   
necessary to speak of the well-known    
case      of ,lzates1 ,king of          
,adiabene1 related by ,josephus4 ,the   
,jewish      merchant ,ananias1 who     
teaches him to worship ,god according   
to the religion of the ,jews1 is        
willing1 evidently from the      special
 emergency of the case and the danger of
 forcing      ,izates fully to embrace  

,judaism in the face of his people1     
to let him remain a mere ,jahveh        
worshipper1 only partially              
conforming to the ,law1 and remaining   
uncircumcised'2 but      another ,jew   
from ,galilee1 ,eleazer1 versed in      
,jewish      learning1 points out to him
 that1 in neglecting      circumcision1 
he breaks the principal point of the    
,law4      ,izates then has himself     
circumcised4    ,josephus1 ,antiq4 xx4  
#b1 ,sec4 #c f4       #c  ,acts x4 #b   
ff1 xi4 #b ft4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot says3    
,the ,apostles      of the circumcision1
 even ,st4 ,peter himself1 had failed   
hitherto to comprehend the wide purpose 
of ,god4 ,with their                    
fellow-countrymen they still held it    
unlawful for a ,jew to      keep company
 with an alien' 7,acts x4 #bh74         
,galatians1 p4      #bij4  #aci  ,this  
will be more fully shown as we proceed4 
,the conversion of the ,gentiles was    
not1 therefore1 in the least degree an  
idea foreign to ,judaism1 but1 on the   

contrary1 formed an intimate part of the
 ,messianic expectation of the later    
prophets4 ,the conditions of admission  
to the privileges and promises of the   
,covenant1 however1 were full acceptance
 of the ,mosaic law1 and submission to  
the initiatory rite47#a7 ,that small and
 comparatively insignificant people1    
with an arrogance that would have been  
ridiculous if1 in the influence which   
they have actually exerted over the     
world1 it had not been almost sublime1  
not only supposed themselves the sole   
and privileged recipients of the oracles
 of ,god1 as his chosen and peculiar    
people1 but they contemplated nothing   
short of universal submission to the    
,mosaic code1 and the supremacy of      
,israel over all the earth4  ,we are now
 better able to estimate the position of
 the ,twelve when the death of their    
,master threw them on their own         
resources1 and left them to propagate   
his ,gospel as they themselves          
understood it4 ,born a ,jew of the race 

of ,david1 accepting during his life the
 character of the promised ,messiah1 and
 dying with the mocking title ,king of  
the ,jews written upon his cross1 ,jesus
 had left his disciples in close        
communion with the ,mosaism which he had
 spiritualized and ennobled1 but had not
 abolished4 ,he himself had taught them 
that it becomes us to fulfill all       
righteousness1 and1 from his youth      
upwards1 had set them the example of    
#adj  enlightened observance of the     
,mosaic law4 ,his precept had not belied
 his example1 and whilst in strong terms
 we find him inculcating the permanence 
of the ,law1 it is certain that he left 
no order to disregard it4 ,he confined  
his own preaching to the ,jews2 the     
first ministers of the ,messiah         
represented the twelve tribes of the    
people of ,israel24and the first        
,christians were of that nation1 with no
 distinctive worship1 but practising as 
before the whole ,mosaic ritual4 ,what  
,neander savs of many1 may1 we think1 be

 referred to all3 ,that ,jesus          
faithfully observed the form of the     
,jewish law served to them as evidence  
that this form should ever preserve its 
value47#a7 ,as a fact1 the ,apostles and
 the early ,christians continued as     
before assiduously to practise all the  
observances of the ,mosaic law1 to      
frequent the ,temple7#b7 and adhere to  
the usual strict forms of ,judaism47#c7 
,in addition to the influence of the    
example of ,jesus and the powerful      
effect of national habit1 there were    
many strong reasons which obviously must
 to ,jews have rendered abandonment of  
the law as difficult as submission to   
its full requirements must have been to 
,gentiles4 ,holding as they did the     
,divine origin of the ,old ,testament1  
in which the observance of the ,law was 
inculcated on almost every page1  #ada  
it would have been impossible1 without  
counter-teaching of the most peremptory 
and convincing character1 to have shaken
 its supremacy2 but beyond this1 in that

 theocratic community ,mosaism was not  
only the condition of the ,covenant1 and
 the key of the ,temple1 but it was also
 the diploma of citizenship1 and the    
bond of social and political life4 ,to  
abandon the observance of the ,law was  
not only to resign the privilege and the
 distinctive characteristic of ,israel1 
to relinquish the faith of the          
,patriarchs who were the glory of the   
nation1 and to forsake a divinely       
appointed form of worship1 without any  
recognized or even indicated substitute1
 but it severed the only link between   
the individual and the people of        
,israel1 and left him in despised       
isolation1 an outcast from the          
community4 ,they had no idea1 however1  
that any such sacrifice was required of 
them4 ,they were simply ,jews believing 
in the ,jewish ,messiah1 and they held  
that all things else were to proceed as 
before1 until the glorious second       
coining of the ,christ47#a7  ,the       
,apostles and primitive ,christians     

continued to hold the national belief   
that the way to ,christianity lay       
through ,judaism1 and that the          
observance of the law was obligatory and
 circumcision necessary to complete     
communion47#b7 ,paul describes with     
unappeased  #adb  irritation the efforts
 made by the community of ,jerusalem1   
whose pillars were ,peter1 ,james1 and  
,john1 to force ,titus1 a ,gentile      
,christian1 to be circumcised17#a7 and  
even the ,acts represent ,james and all 
the elders of the ,church of ,jerusalem 
as requesting ,paul1 long after1 to take
 part with four ,jewish ,christians1 who
 had a vow and were about to purify     
themselves and shave their heads and1   
after the accomplishment of the days of 
purification1 make the usual offering in
 the ,temple1 in order to convince the  
many thousands there of those who have  
believed and are all zealous for the    
law1 that it is untrue that he teaches3 
all the ,jews who are among the         
,gentiles apostacy ------ from ,moses1  

saying that they ought not to circumcise
 their children1 neither to walk after  
the customs1 and to show1 on the        
contrary1 that he himself walks orderly 
and keeps the ,law47#b7 ,as true        
,israelites1 with opinions fundamentally
 unchanged by belief that ,jesus was the
 ,messiah1 they held that the ,gospel   
was specially intended for the people of
 the ,covenant1 and they confined their 
teaching to the ,jews47#c7 ,a ,gentile  
whilst still uncircumcised1 even        
although converted1 could not1 they     
thought1 be received on an       #a ,gal
 ii4 #c ff4 ,as we shall more fully     
discuss this episode      hereafter1 it 
is not necessary to do so here4       #b
 ,acts xxi4 #ah--bf2 cf4 xv4 i4 ,paul is
 also represented as      saying to the 
,jews of ,rome that he has done nothing 
against the customs of their ,fathers4  
#c ,dr4 ,lightfoot says3 ,meanwhile at  
,jerusalem some years      past away    
before the barrier of ,judaism was      
assailed4 ,the      ,apostles still     

observed the ,mosaic ritual2 they still 
confined their preaching to ,jews by    
birth1 or ,jews by      adoption1 the   
proselytes of the ,covenant1 c4 ,paul's 
,ep4 to      ,gal4 p4 #bhg4 ,paley says3
 ,it was not yet known to the           
,apostles1 that they were at liberty to 
propose the religion      to mankind at 
large4 ,that 'mystery1' as ,st4 ,paul   
calls it      7,eph4 iii4 #c-f71 and as 
it then was1 was revealed to ,peter     
by an especial miracle4 ,a view of the  
,evidence1 c1 ed4      ,potts1 #ahej1 p4
 #bbh4  #adc  equality with the ,jew1   
but defiled him by contact47#a7 ,the    
attitude of the ,christian ,jew to the  
merely ,christian ,gentile1 who had not 
entered the community by the portal of  
,judaism1 was1 as before1 simply that of
 the ,jew to the proselyte of the ,gate4
 ,the ,apostles could not upon any other
 terms have then even contemplated the  
conversion of the ,gentiles4 ,jesus had 
limited his own teaching to the ,jews1  
and1 according to the first ,gospel1 had

 positively prohibited1 at one time at  
least1 their going to the ,gentiles1 or 
even to the ,samaritans1 and if there   
had been an order given to preach to all
 nations it certainly was not           
accompanied by any removal of the       
conditions specified in the ,law47#b7   
,it has been remarked that neither      
party1 in the great discussion in the   
,church regarding the terms upon which  
,gentiles might be admitted to the      
privileges of ,christianity1 ever       
appealed in support of their views to   
specific instructions of ,jesus on the  
subject47#c7 ,the reason is intelligible
 enough4 ,the ,petrine party1 supported 
as they were by the whole weight of the 
,law and of ,holy ,scripture1 as well as
 by the example and tacit approval of   
the ,master1 could not have felt even   
that degree of doubt which precedes an  
appeal to authority4       #b ,dr4      
,lightfoot says3 ,the ,master himself   
had left no      express instructions4  
,he had charged them1 it is true1 to    

preach the ,gospel to all nations1 but  
how this injunction      was to be      
carried out1 by what changes a national 
,church      must expand into an        
universal ,church1 they had not been    
told4 ,he had indeed asserted the       
sovereignty of the spirit      over the 
letter2 he had enunciated the great     
principle--as      wide in its          
application as the law itself--that' man
 was not      made for the ,sabbath1 but
 the ,sabbath for man4' ,he had         
pointed to the fulfilment of the law in 
the ,gospel4 ,so fer      he had        
discredited the law1 but he had not     
deposed it or      abolished it4 ,it was
 left to the ,apostles themselves under 
the guidance of the ,spirit1 moulded by 
circumstances and      moulding them in 
turn1 to work out the great change4     
,st4      ,paul's ,ep4 to ,gal4 #bhf4   
#add  ,the party of ,paul1 on the other 
hand1 had nothing in their favour to    
which a specific appeal could have been 
made2 but in his constant protest that  

he had not received his doctrine from   
man1 but had been taught it by direct   
revelation1 the ,apostle of the         
,gentiles1 who was the first to proclaim
 a substantial difference between       
,christianity and ,judaism17#a7 in      
reality endeavoured to set aside the    
authority of the ,judaistic party by an 
appeal from the earthly to the          
spiritualized ,messiah4 ,even after the 
visit of ,paul to ,jerusalem about the  
year #ej1 the elder ,apostles still     
retained the views which we have shown  
to have been inevitable under the       
circumstances1 and1 as we learn from    
,paul himself1 they still continued mere
 ,apostles of the ,circumcision1        
limiting their mission to the ,jews47#b7
  ,the ,apostles and the primitive      
,christians1 therefore1 after the death 
of their ,master1 whom they believed to 
be the ,messiah of the ,jews1 having    
received his last instructions1 and     
formed their final impressions of his   
views1 remained ,jews1 believing in the 

continued obligation to observe the ,law
 and1 consequently1 holding the         
initiatory rite essential to            
participation in the privileges of the  
,covenant4 ,they held this not only as  
,jews believing in the ,divine origin of
 the ,old ,testament and of the ,law1   
but as ,christians confirmed by the     
example and the teaching of their       
,christ1 whose very coming was a        
substantial ratification of the ancient 
faith of ,israel4 ,in this position they
 stood when the  #ade  ,gospel1 without 
their intervention1 and mainly by the   
exertions of the ,apostle ,paul1 began  
to spread amongst the ,gentiles1 and the
 terms of their admission came into     
question4 ,it is impossible to deny that
 the total removal of conditions1       
advocated by the ,apostle ,paul with all
 the vehemence and warmth of his        
energetic character1 and involving      
nothing short of the abrogation of the  
,law and surrender of all the privileges
 of ,israel1 must have been shocking not

 only to the prejudices but also to the 
deepest religious convictions of men    
who1 although ,christians1 had not      
ceased to be ,jews1 and1 unlike the     
,apostle of the ,gentiles1 had been     
directly and daily in contact with      
,jesus1 without having been taught such 
revolutionary principles4 ,from this    
point we have to proceed with our       
examination of the account in the ,acts 
of the relation of the elder ,apostles  
to ,paul1 and the solution of the       
difficult problem before them4          
,,chapter ,v4 ,,stephen ,,the ,,martyr  
,before the ,apostle of the ,gentiles   
himself comes on the scene1 and is      
directly brought in contact with the    
,twelve1 we have to study the earlier   
incidents narrated in the ,acts1        
wherein1 it is said1 the emancipation of
 the ,church from ,jewish exclusiveness 
had already either commenced or been    
clearly anticipated4 ,the first of these
 which demands our attention is the     
narrative of the martyrdom of ,stephen4 

,this episode1 although highly          
interesting and important in itself1    
might1 we consider1 have been left      
unnoticed in connection with the special
 point now engaging our attention1 but  
such significance has been imparted to  
it by the views which critics have      
discovered in the speech of ,stephen1   
that we cannot pass it without          
attention4 ,if this detention be1 on the
 one hand1 to be regretted1 it will on  
the other be compensated by the light   
which may be thrown on the composition  
of the ,acts4  ,we read7l7 that in      
consequence of murmurs amongst the      
,hellenists against the ,hebrews1 that  
their widows were neglected in the daily
 distribution of alms1 seven deacons    
were appointed specially to attend to   
such ministrations4 ,amongst these1 it  
is said1 was ,stephen17#b7  #adg  a man 
full of faith and of the ,holy ,spirit4 
,stephen1 it appears1 by no means       
limited his attention to the material   
interests of the members of the ,church1

 but being full of grace and power1 did 
great wonders and signs ------ amongst  
the people4 ,but there arose certain of 
those of the synagogue which is called  
7the synagogue7 of the ,libertines7#a7  
and ,cyrenians and ,alexandrians and of 
them of ,cilicia and of ,asia1 disputing
 with ,stephen2 and they were not able  
to resist the wisdom and the spirit by  
which he spake4 ,then they suborned men 
who said3 ,we have heard him speak      
blasphemous words against ,moses and    
,god4 ,and they stirred up the people   
and the elders and the scribes1 and came
 upon him1 and seized him1 and brought  
him to the ,council1 and set up false   
witnesses who said3 ,this man ceaseth   
not to speak words against the holy     
place and the law2 for we have heard him
 say1 that ,jesus1 this ,naza-rene1     
shall destroy this place1 and shall     
change the customs which ,moses         
delivered to us4 ,the high-priest asks  
him3 ,are these things so8 ,and ,stephen
 delivers an address1 which has since   

been the subject of much discussion     
amongst critics and divines4 ,the       
contents of the speech taken by         
themselves do not present any           
difficulty1 so far as the sense is      
concerned1 but regarded as a reply to   
the accusations brought against him by  
the false witnesses1 the defence of     
,stephen has perhaps been interpreted in
 a greater variety of ways than any     
other part of the ,new ,testament4 ,its 
shadowy outlines have been used as a    
setting for the pious thoughts of       
subsequent  #adh  generations1 and every
 imaginable intention has been ascribed 
to the proto-martyr1 every possible or  
impossible reference detected in the    
phrases of his oration4 ,this has mainly
 arisen from the imperfect nature of the
 account in the ,acts1 and the absence  
of many important details which has left
 criticism to adopt that                
divinatorisch-combinatorische procedure 
which is so apt to evolve any favourite 
theory from the inner consciousness4    

,the prevailing view1 however1 amongst  
the great majority of critics of all    
schools is1 that ,stephen is represented
 in the ,acts as the forerunner of the  
,apostle ,paul1 anticipating his        
universalistic principles1 and          
proclaiming with more or less of        
directness the abrogation of ,mosaic    
ordinances and the freedom of the       
,christian ,church47#a7 ,this view was  
certainly advanced by ,augustine1 and   
lies at the base of his famous saying3  
,si sanctus ,stephanus sic non oras-set1
 ecclesia ,paulum non haberet17#b7 but  
it was first clearly enunciated by      
,baur1 who subjected the speech of      
,stephen to detailed analysis17#c7 and  
his interpretation has to a large extent
 been adopted even by apologists4 ,it   
must be clearly understood that         
adherence to this reading of the aim and
 meaning of the speech1 as it is given  
in the ,acts1 by no means involves an   
admission of its authenticity1 which1 on
 the contrary1 is impugned by ,baur     

himself1 and by a large number of       
independent critics4 ,we have the       
misfortune of differing most materially 
from the prevalent view regarding the   
contents of the speech1 and we maintain 
that1 as it stands in the ,acts1 there  
is not a  #adi  word in it which can be 
legitimately construed into an attack   
upon the ,mosaic law1 or which          
anticipates the ,christian universalism 
of ,paul4 ,space1 however1 forbids our  
entering here upon a discussion of this 
subject1 but the course which we must   
adopt with regard to it renders it      
unnecessary to deal with the            
interpretation of the speech4 ,we       
consider that there is no reason for    
believing that the discourse put into   
the mouth of ,stephen was ever actually 
delivered1 but on the contraiy that     
there is every ground for holding that  
it is nothing more than a composition by
 the ,author of the ,acts4 ,we shall    
endeavour clearly to state the reasons  
for this conclusion4  ,with the         

exception of the narrative in the ,acts1
 there is no evidence whatever that such
 a person as ,stephen ever existed4 ,the
 statements of the ,apostle ,paul leave 
no doubt that persecution against the   
,christians of ,jerusalem must have     
broken out previous to his conversion1  
but no details are given1 and it can    
scarcely be considered otherwise than   
extraordinary1 that ,paul should not in 
any of his own writings have referred to
 the proto-martyr of the ,christian     
,church1 if the account which is given  
of him be historical4 ,it may be argued 
that his own share in the martyrdom of  
,stephen made the episode an unpleasant 
memory1 which the ,apostle would not    
readily recall4 ,considering the        
generosity of ,paul's character on the  
one hand1 however1 and the important    
position assigned to ,stephen on the    
other1 this cannot be admitted as an    
explanation1 and it is perfectly        
unaccountable that1 if ,stephen really  
be a historical personage1 no mention of

 him occurs elsewhere in the ,new       
,testament4  ,moreover1 if ,stephen was1
 as asserted1 the direct forerunner of  
,paul1 and in his hearing enunciated    
#aej  sentiments like those ascribed to 
him1 already expressing much more than  
the germ--indeed the full spirit--of    
,pauline universality1 it would be      
passing strange that ,paul not only     
tacitly ignores all that he owes to the 
proto-martyr1 but vehemently protests3  
,but ,i make known unto you1 brethren1  
that the ,gospel which was preached by  
me is not after man4 ,for neither did ,i
 receive it from man1 nor was taught it1
 but by revelation of ,jesus            
,christ47#a7 ,there is no evidence      
whatever that such a person exercised   
any such influence on ,paul47#b7 ,one   
thing only is certain1 that the speech  
and martyrdom of ,stephen made so little
 impression on ,paul that1 according to 
,acts1 he continued a bitter persecutor 
of ,christianity1 making havoc of the   
,church4  ,the statement1 vi4 #h1 that  

,stephen1 full of grace and power1 did  
great wonders and signs among the people
 is not calculated to increase          
confidence in the narrative as sober    
history2 and as little is the assertion1
 vi4 #ae1 that all who sat in the       
,council1 looking stedfastly on him1 saw
 his face as it had been the face of an 
angel4 ,this1 we think1 is evidently an 
instance of ,christian subjective       
opinion made objective47#c7 ,how1 we    
might ask1 could it be known to the     
writer that all who sat at the ,council 
saw this8 ,neander replies that probably
 it is the evidence of members of the   
,sanhedrin of the impression made on    
them by the aspect of ,stephen47#d7 ,the
 intention of the writer1 however1      
obviously is to describe a supernatural 
#c ,it is further very remarkable1 if it
 be assumed that the      vision1 ,acts 
vii4 #ee1 actually was seen1 that1 in   
giving a      list of those who have    
seen the risen ,jesus 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #e--
      #h71 which he evidently intends to

 be complete1 he does not      include  
,stephen4  #aea  phenomenon17#a7 and    
this is in his usual manner in this     
book1 where miraculous agency is more   
freely employed than in any other in the
 ,canon4 ,the session of the ,council   
commences in a regular manner17#b7 but  
the previous arrest of ,stephen17#c7 and
 the subsequent interruption of his     
defence1 are described as a tumultuous  
proceeding1 his death being4            
unsanctioned by any sentence of the     
,council47#d7 ,the ,sanhed-rin1 indeed1 
could not execute any sentence of death 
without the ratification of the ,roman  
authorities17#e7 and nothing is said in 
the narrative which implies that any    
regular verdict was pronounced2 but1 on 
the contrary1 the tumult described in v4
 #eg f4 excludes such a supposition4    
,olshausen7#f7 considers that1 in order 
to avoid any collision with the ,roman  
power1 the ,sanhedrin did not pronounce 
any formal judgment1 but connived at the
 execution which some fanatics carried  

out4 ,this explanation1 however1 is     
inadmissible1 because it is clear that  
the members of the ,council themselves1 
if also the audience1  #aeb  attacked   
and stoned ,stephen47#a7 ,the actual    
stoning7#b7 is carried out with all     
regard to legal forms27#c7 the victim   
being taken out of the city17#d7 and the
 witnesses casting the first stone17#e7 
and for this purpose taking off their   
outer garments4 ,the whole account1 with
 its singular mixture of utter          
lawlessness and formality1 is extremely 
improbable17#f7 and more especially when
 the speech itself is considered4 ,the  
proceedings commence in an orderly      
manner1 and the high priest calls upon  
,stephen for his defence4 ,the council  
and audience listen patiently and       
quietly to his speech1 and no           
interruption takes place until he has   
said all that he had to sav1 for it must
 be apparent that when the speaker      
abandons narrative and argument and     
breaks into direct invective1 there     

could not have been any intention to    
prolong the address1 as no expectation  
of calm attention after such            
denunciations could have been natural4  
,the tumult cuts short the oration      
precisely where the author had exhausted
 his  #afc  subject1 and by temporary   
lawlessness overcomes the legal         
difficulty of a sentence which the      
,sanhedrin1 without the ratification of 
the ,roman authority1 could not have    
carried out4 ,as soon as the tumult has 
effected these objects1 all becomes     
orderly and legal again2 and1           
consequently1 the witnesses can lay     
their garments at a young man's feet    
whose name was ,saul4 ,the principal    
actor in the work is thus dramatically  
introduced4 ,as the trial commences with
 a supernatural illumination of the face
 of ,stephen1 it ends with a            
supernatural vision1 in which ,stephen  
sees heaven opened1 and the ,son of ,man
 standing at the right hand of ,god4    
,such a trial and such an execution     

present features which are undoubtedly  
not historical4  ,this impression is    
certainly not lessened when we find how 
many details of the trial and death of  
,stephen are based on the accounts in   
the ,gospels of the trial and death of  
,jesus47#a7 ,the irritated adversaries  
of ,stephen stir up the people and the  
elders and scribes1 and come upon him   
and lead him to the ,council47#b7 ,they 
seek false witness against him27#c7 and 
these false witnesses accuse him of     
speaking against the temple and the     
law47#d7 ,the false witnesses who are   
set up against ,jesus with similar      
testimony1 according to the first two   
,synoptics1 are strangely omitted by the
 third4 ,the reproduction of this trait 
here has much that is suggestive4 ,the  
high priest asks3 ,are these things     
so87#e7 ,stephen1 at  #aed  the close of
 his speech1 exclaims3 ,i see the       
heavens opened1 and the ,son of ,man    
standing on the right hand of ,god4     
,jesus says3 ,henceforth shall the ,son 

of ,man be seated on the right hand of  
the power of ,god47#a7 ,whilst he is    
being stoned1 ,stephen prays1 saying3   
,lord ,jesus1 receive my ,spirit2 and1  
similarly1 ,jesus on the cross cries1   
with a loud voice3 ,father1 into thy    
hands ,i commend my spirit2 and1 having 
said this1 he expired47#b7 ,stephen1 as 
he is about to die1 cries1 with a loud  
voice3 ,lord1 lay not this sin to their 
charge2 and when he said this he fell   
asleep2 and ,jesus says3 ,father1       
forgive them1 for they know not what    
they do47#c7 ,these two sayings of      
,jesus are not given anywhere but in the
 third ,synoptic17#d7 and their         
imitation by ,stephen1 in another work  
of the same ,evangelist1 is a           
peculiarity which deserves attention4   
,it is argued by apologists7#e7 that    
nothing is more natural than that the   
first martyrs should have the example of
 the suffering ,jesus in their minds1   
and die with his expressions of love and
 resignation on their lips4 ,on the     

other hand1 taken along with other most 
suspicious circumstances which we have  
already pointed out1 and with the fact1 
which we shall presently demonstrate1   
that the speech of ,stephen is nothing  
more  #aee  than a composition by the   
,author of ,acts1 the singular analogies
 presented by this narrative with the   
trial and last words of ,jesus in the   
,gospels seem to us an additional       
indication of its inauthenticity4 ,as   
,baur7#a7 and ,zeller7#b7 have well     
argued1 the use of two expressions of   
,jesus only found in the third ,synoptic
 is a phenomenon which is much more     
naturally explained by attributing them 
to the ,author1 who of course knew that 
,gospel well1 than to ,stephen who did  
not know it at all47#c7 ,the prominence 
which is given to this episode of the   
first ,christian martyrdom is           
intelligible in itself1 and it acquires 
fresh significance when it is considered
 as the introduction of the ,apostle    
,paul1 whose perfect silence regarding  

the proto-martyr1 however1 confirms the 
belief which we otherwise acquire1 that 
the whole narrative and speech1 whatever
 unknown tradition may have suggested   
them1 are1 as we have them1 to be       
ascribed to the ,author of the ,acts4   
,on closer examination1 one of the first
 questions which arises is3 how could   
such a speech have been reported8       
,although ,neander7#d7 contends that we 
are not justified in asserting that all 
that is narrated regarding ,stephen in  
the ,acts occurred in a single day1 we  
think it cannot be doubted that the     
intention is to describe the arrest1    
trial1 and execution as rapidly         
following each other on the same day4   
,they came upon him1 and seized him1 and
  #aef  brought him to the ,council1 and
 set up false witnesses1 who said1      
c47#a7 ,there is no ground here for     
interpolating any imprisonment1 and if  
not1 then it follows clearly that       
,stephen1 being immediately called upon 
to answer for himself1 is1 at the end of

 his discourse1 violently carried away  
without the city to be stoned4 ,no      
preparations could have been made even  
to take notes of his speech1 if upon any
 ground it were reasonable to assume the
 possibility of an intention to do so2  
and indeed it could not1 under the      
circumstances1 have been foreseen that  
he should either have been placed in    
such a position1 or have been able to   
make a speech at all4 ,the rapid        
progress of all the events described1   
and the excitement consequent on such   
tumultuous proceedings1 render an       
ordinary explanation of the manner in   
which such a speech could have been     
preserved improbable1 and it is         
difficult to suppose that it could have 
been accurately remembered1 with all its
 curious details1 by one who was        
present4 ,improbable as it is1 however1 
this is the only suggestion which can   
possibly be advanced4 ,the majority of  
apologists suppose that the speech was  
heard and reported by the ,apostle ,paul

 himself17#b7 or at least that it was   
communicated or written down either by a
 member of the ,sanhedrin1 or by some   
one who was present47#c7 ,as there is no
 information on the point1 there is     
ample scope for imagination1 but when we
 come to consider its linguistic and    
other peculiarities1 it must be borne in
  #aeg  mind that the extreme difficulty
 of explaining the preservation of such 
a speech must be an element in judging  
whether it is not rather a composition  
by the ,author of ,acts4 ,the language  
in which it was delivered1 again1 is the
 subject of much difference of opinion1 
many maintaining that it must have      
originally been spoken in ,aramaic17#a7 
whilst others hold that it was delivered
 in ,greek47#b7 ,still1 a large number  
of critics and divines of course assert 
that the speech attributed to ,stephen  
is at least substantially authentic4 ,as
 might naturally be expected in a case  
where negative criticism is arrayed     
against a canonical work upheld by the  

time-honoured authority of the church1  
those who dispute its authenticity7#c7  
are in the minority4 ,it is maintained  
by the latter that the language is more 
or less that of the writer of the rest  
of the work1 and that the speech in fact
 as it lies before us is a later        
composition by the ,author of the ,acts 
of the ,apostles4  ,before examining the
 linguistic peculiarities of the speech1
 we may very briefly point out that1 in 
the course of the historical survey1    
many glaring contradictions of the      
statements of the ,old ,testament       
occur47#d7 ,stephen says  #aee  7vs4 #b1
 #c7 that the order to ,abraham to leave
 his country was given to him in        
,mesopotamia before he dwelt in ,haran2 
but1 according to ,genesis 7xii4 #a ff7 
the call is given whilst he was living  
in ,haran4 ,the speech 7v4 #d7          
represents ,abraham leaving ,haran after
 the death of his father1 but this is in
 contradiction to ,genesis1 according to
 which7#a7 ,abraham was #ge when he left

 ,haran4 ,now1 as he was born when his  
father ,terah was #gj17b7 and ,terah    
lived #bje years17#c7 his father was    
only #ade at the time indicated1 and    
afterwards lived #fj years4 ,in v4 #e it
 is stated that ,abraham had no         
possession in the promised land1 not    
even so much as to set his foot on2 but1
 according to ,genesis17#d7 he bought   
the field of ,ephron in ,machpelah4 ,it 
is said 7v4 #ad7 that ,jacob went down  
into ,egypt with #ge souls1 whereas1 in 
the ,old ,testament1 it is repeatedly   
said that the number was #gj47e7 ,in v4 
#af1 it is stated that ,jacob was buried
 in ,schechem in a sepulchre bought by  
,abraham of the sons of ,emmor in       
,schechem1 whereas in ,genesis7#f7      
,jacob is said to have been buried in   
,machpelah2 the sepulchre in ,schechem1 
in which  #aei  the bones of ,joseph    
were buried1 was not bought by ,abraham1
 but by ,jacob47#a7 ,moses is described 
7v4 #bb7 as mighty in words1 but in     
,exodus7#b7 he is said to be the very   

reverse1 and ,aaron in fact is sent with
 him to speak words for him4 ,these are 
some of the principal variations4 ,it   
used to be argued that such mistakes    
were mere errors of memory1 natural in a
 speech delivered under such            
circumstances and without               
preparation17#c7 and that they are      
additional evidence of its authenticity1
 inasmuch as it is very improbable that 
a writer deliberately composing such a  
speech could have committed them4 ,it is
 very clear1 however1 that the majority 
of these are not errors of memory at    
all1 but either the exegesis prevailing 
at the time amongst learned ,jews1 or   
traditions deliberately adopted1 of     
which many traces are elsewhere         
found47#d7  ,the form of the speech is  
closely similar to other speeches found 
in the same work4 ,we have already in   
passing pointed out the analogy of parts
 of it to the address of ,peter in      
,solomon's porch1 but the speech of     
,paul at ,antioch bears a still closer  

resemblance to it1 and has been called a
 mere echo of the speeches of ,peter and
 ,stephen47#e7 ,we must refer the reader
 to our general comparison of the two   
speeches of ,peter and ,paul in         
question17#f7 which sufficiently showed1
 we think1  #afj  that they were not    
delivered by independent speakers1 but  
on the contrary that they are nothing   
more than compositions by the author of 
the ,acts4 ,these addresses which are   
such close copies of each other1 are so 
markedly cast in the same mould as the  
speech of ,stephen1 that they not only  
confirm our conclusions as to their own 
origin1 but intensify suspicions of its 
authenticity4 ,it is impossible1 without
 reference to the speeches themselves1  
to shew how closely that of ,paul at    
,antioch is traced on the lines of the  
speech of ,stephen1 and this resemblance
 is much greater than can be shown by   
mere linguistic examination4 ,the       
thoughts correspond where the words     
differ4 ,there is a constant recurrence 

of words1 however1 even where the sense 
of the passages is not the same1 and the
 ideas in both bear the stamp of a      
single mind4 ,we shall not attempt fully
 to contrast these discourses here1 for 
it would occupy too much space1 and we  
therefore content ourselves with giving 
a few illustrations1 begging the reader 
to examine the speeches themselves4     
------  #afa  ------  #afb  ------  ,it 
is argued that the speech of ,stephen   
bears upon it  #afc  the stamp of an    
address which was actually              
delivered47#a7 ,we are not able to      
discover any special indication of this4
 ,such an argument1 at the best1 is     
merely the assertion of personal        
opinion1 and cannot have any weight4 ,it
 is quite conceivable that an oration   
actually spoken might lose its          
spontaneous character in a report1 and  
on the other hand that a written        
composition might acquire oratorical    
reality from the skill of the writer4   
,it would indeed exhibit great want of  

literary ability if a writer1 composing 
a speech which he desires to represent  
as having actually been spoken1         
altogether failed to convey some        
impression of this4 ,to have any        
application to the present case1        
however1 it must not only be affirmed   
that the speech of ,stephen has the     
stamp of an address really spoken1 but  
that it has the character of one        
delivered under such extraordinary      
circumstances1 without premeditation and
 in the midst of tumultuous proceedings4
 ,it cannot1 we think1 be reasonably    
asserted that a speech like this is     
peculiarly characteristic of a man      
suddenly arrested by angry and excited  
opponents1 and hurried before a council 
which1 at its close1 rushes upon him and
 joins in stoning him4 ,unless the      
defence attributed to ,stephen be       
particularly characteristic of this1 the
 argument in question falls to the      
ground4 ,on the contrary1 if the speech 
has one feature more strongly marked    

than another1 it is the deliberate care 
with which the points referred to in the
 historical survey are selected and bear
 upon each other1 and the art with which
 the climax is attained4 ,in showing1 as
 we have already done1 that the speech  
betrays the handy work of the ,author of
 the ,acts1 we have to a large extent   
disposed of any claim  #afd  to peculiar
 individuality in the defence1 and the  
linguistic analysis which we shall now  
make will conclusively settle the source
 of the composition4 ,we must point out 
here in continuation that1 as in the    
rest of the work1 all the quotations in 
the speech are from the ,septuagint1 and
 that the author follows that version   
even when it does not fairly represent  
the original47#a7  ,we may now proceed  
to analyse the language of the whole    
episode from vi4 #i to the end of the   
seventh chapter1 in order to discover   
what linguistic analogy it bears to the 
rest of the ,acts and to the third      
,synoptic1 which for the sake of brevity

 we shall simply designate ,luke4 ,with 
the exception of a very few words in    
general use1 every word employed in the 
section will be found in the following  
analysis1 based upon ,bruder's          
',concordance1'7#b7 and which is        
arranged in the order of the verses1    
although for greater clearness the whole
 is divided into categories4  ,we shall 
commence with a list of the words in    
this section which are not elsewhere    
used in the ,new ,testament4 ,they are  
as follows3--------1 vi4 #aa2 ------t   
vi4 #ab2 ------1 vii4 #af27c7 ------1   
vii4 #ai1 but ------1 occurs several    
times in ,acts1 see below1 vii4 #ba2    
------1 vii4 #bd2 ------1 vii4 #bf2     
------1 vii4 #de1 this word1 which is   
common amongst  #afe  ,greek            
writers17#a7 is used in lxx4 #b ,chron4 
xxxi4 #ab2 ------1 vii4 #eb4 ,these nine
 words are all that can strictly be     
admitted as ------1 but there are       
others1 which1 although not found in any
 other part of the ,acts or of the      

,gospel1 occur in other writings of the 
,new ,testament1 and which must here be 
noted4 ------1 vi4 #aa1 occurring #a    
,tim4 i4 #ac1 #b ,tim4 iii4 #b1 #b ,pet4
 i,l #aa1 ,rev4 xiii4 #e2 ------1       
however1 is used four times in ,acts1   
thrice in ,luke1 and frequently         
elsewhere1 and ------ in ,luke v4 #ba4  
------ vi4 #ac1 used ,rev4 ii4 #b1 xxi4 
#h2 ------1 vi4 #ad1 ,rom4 i4 #bc1 ' #a 
,cor4 xv4 #ea1 #eb1 ,gal4 iv4 #bj1 ,heb4
 i4 #ab1 almost purely a ,pauline word2 
------1 vii4 #e1 elsewhere fourteen     
times2 ------1 vii4 #af1 also ,gal4 i4  
#f1 ,heb4 vii4 #ab1 xi4 #e twice 7lxx4  
,gen4 v4 #bd71 ,jude #d2 ------1 vii4   
#bd1 also #b ,pet4 ii4 #g2 ------1 vii4 
#bf1 also ,john vi4 #eb1 #b ,tim4 ii4   
#bd1 ,james iv4 #b2 ------1 vii4 #ch1   
also ,rom4 iii4 #b1 ,heb4 v4 #ab1 #a    
,pet4 iv4 #aa2 ------1 vii4 #ci1 also #b
 ,cor4 ii4 #i1 ,phil4 ii4 #h2 ------1   
vii4 #ec1 also ,rom4 xiii4 #b1 cf4 ,gal4
 iii4 #ai1 but the writer makes use of  
------1 see vii4 #dd1 below2 ------1    

vii4 #eh1 also ,rom4 xiii4 #ab1 ,eph4   
iv4 #bb1 #be1 ,col4 iii4 #h1 ,heb4 xii4 
#a1 ,james i4 #ba1 #a ,pet1 ii4 #a4 ,if 
we add these ten words to the preceding1
 the proportion of ------ is by no means
 excessive for the #fg verses1          
especially when the peculiarity of the  
subject is considered1 and it is        
remembered that the number of words     
employed in the third ,gospel1 for      
instance1 which are not elsewhere found1
 greatly exceeds that of the other      
,gospels1 and that this linguistic      
richness is characteristic of the       
author4  ,there is another class of     
words which may now be  #aff  dealt     
with3 those which1 although not         
elsewhere found either in the ,acts or  
,gospel1 are derived from the           
,sep-tuagint version of the ,old        
,testament4 ,the author makes exclusive 
use of that version1 and in the         
historical survey1 of which so large a  
portion of the speech is composed1 his  
mind very naturally recalls its         

expressions even where he does not make 
direct quotations1 but merely gives a   
brief summary of its narratives4 ,in the
 following list where words are not     
clearly taken from the ,septuagint      
version7#a7 of the various episodes     
referred to1 the reasons shall be       
stated3--  #afg  ,we shall now1 by way  
of disposing of them1 take the words    
which require little special remark1 but
 are used as well in the rest of the    
,acts and in the ,gospel as in other    
writings of the ,new ,testament3--      
------  #afh  ------  #afi  ------  ,we 
shall now give the words which may      
either be regarded as characteristic of 
the author of the ,acts and ,gospel1 or 
the use of which is peculiar or limited 
to him3-- ------  #agj  ------  #aga    
------  #agb  ------  ,to this very     
remarkable list of words we have still  
to add a number of expressions which    
further betray the author of the ,acts  
and ,gospel3--  #agc  ------  #agd      
------  #age  ------  ,it is impossible1

 we think1 to examine this analysis1 in 
which we might fairly have included     
other points which we have passed over1 
without feeling the certain conviction  
that the speech of ,stephen was composed
 by the author of the rest of the ,acts 
of the ,apostles4 ,it may not be out of 
place to quote some remarks of          
,lekebusch at the close of an           
examination of the language of the ,acts
 in general1 undertaken for the purpose 
of ascertaining the literary            
characteristics of the book1 which1     
although originally having no direct    
reference to this episode in particular1
 may well serve to illustrate our own   
results3--,an unprejudiced critic must  
have acquired the conviction from the   
foregoing linguistic examination that1  
throughout the whole of the ,acts of the
 ,apostles1 and partly also the  #agf   
,gospel1 the same style of language and 
expression generally prevails1 and      
therefore that our book is an original  
work1 independent of written sources on 

the whole1 and proceeding from a single 
pen4 ,for when the same expressions are 
everywhere found1 when a long row of    
words which only recur in the ,gospel   
and ,acts1 or comparatively only very   
seldom in other works of the ,new       
,testament1 appear equally in all parts1
 when certain forme of words1           
peculiarities of word-order1            
construction and phraseology1 indeed    
even whole sentences1 recur in the      
different sections1 a compilation out of
 documents by different earlier writers 
can no longer be thought of1 and it is  
'beyond doubt1 that we have to consider 
our writing as the work of a single     
author1 who has impressed upon it the   
stamp of a distinct literary style'     
7,zeller1 ,theol4 ,jahrb44#ahea1 p4     
#ajg74 ,the use of written sources is   
certainly not directly excluded by this1
 and probably the linguistic            
peculiarities1 of which some of course  
exist in isolated sections of our work1 
may be referred to this4 ,but as these  

peculiarities consist chiefly of ------1
 which may rather be ascribed to the    
richness of the author's vocabulary than
 to his talent for compilation1 and in  
comparison with the great majority of   
points of agreement almost disappear1 we
 must from the first be prepossessed    
against the theory that our author made 
use of written sources1 and only allow  
ourselves to be moved to such a         
conclusion by further distinct phenomena
 in the various parts of our book1      
especially as the prologue of the       
,gospel1 so often quoted for the        
purpose1 does not at all support it4    
,but in any case1 as has already been   
remarked1 the opinion that1 in the ,acts
 of the ,apostles1 the several parts are
 strung together almost without  #agg   
alteration1 is quite irreconcilable with
 the result of our linguistic           
examination4 ,zeller rightly            
says3--',were the author so dependent a 
compiler1 the traces of such a          
proceeding must necessarily become      

apparent in a thorough dissimilarity of 
language and expression4 ,and this      
dissimilarity would be all the greater  
if his sources1 as in that case we could
 scarcely help admitting1 belonged to   
widely separated spheres as regards     
language and mode of thought4 ,on the   
other hand1 it would be altogether      
inexplicable that1 in all parts of the  
work1 the same favourite expressions1   
the same turns1 the same peculiarities  
of vocabulary and syntax should meet us4
 ,this phenomenon only becomes          
conceivable when we suppose that the    
contents of our work were brought into  
their present form by one and the same  
person1 and that the work as it lies    
before us was not merely compiled by    
some one1 but was also composed by      
him4'7#a7  ,should an attempt be made to
 argue that1 even if it be conceded that
 the language is that of the ,author of 
,acts1 the sentiments may be those      
actually expressed by ,stephen1 it would
 at once be obvious that such an        

explanation is not only purely arbitrary
 and incapable of proof1 but opposed to 
the facts of the case4 ,it is not the   
language only which can be traced to the
 ,author of the rest of the ,acts but1  
as we have shown1 the whole plan of the 
speech is the same as that of others in 
different parts of the work4 ,stephen   
speaks exactly as ,peter does before him
 and ,paul at a later period4 ,there is 
just that amount of variety which a     
writer of not unlimited resources can   
introduce to express the views of  #agh 
different men under different           
circumstances1 but there is so much     
which is nevertheless common to them    
all1 that community of authorship cannot
 be denied4 ,on the other hand1 the     
improbabilities of the narrative1 the   
singular fact that ,stephen is not      
mentioned by the ,apostle ,paul1 and the
 peculiarities which may be detected in 
the speech itself receive their very    
simple explanation when linguistic      
analysis so clearly demonstrates that1  

whatever small nucleus of fact may lie  
at the basis of the episode1 the speech 
actually ascribed to the martyr ,stephen
 is nothing more than a later           
composition put into his mouth by the   
,author of the ,acts4     ,,chapter     
,,vi4 ,,philip ,,and ,,the ,,eunuch4    
,,peter ,,and ,,cornelius4  ,we have    
been forced to enter at such length into
 the discussion of the speech and       
martyrdom of ,stephen1 that we cannot   
afford space to do more than merely     
glance at the proceedings of his        
colleague ,philip1 as we pass on to more
 important points in the work before us4
 ,the author states that a great        
persecution broke out at the time of    
,stephen's death1 and that all ------   
the community of ,jerusalem were        
scattered abroad except the ,apostles   
------4 ,that the heads of the ,church1 
who were well known1 should remain      
unmolested in ,jerusalem1 whilst the    
whole of the less known members of the  
community were persecuted and driven to 

flight1 is certainly an extraordinary   
and suspicious statement47#a7 ,even     
apologists are obliged to admit that the
 account of the dispersion of the whole 
,church is hyperbolic27#b7 but          
exaggeration and myth enter so largely  
and persistently into the composition of
 the ,acts of the ,apostles1 that it is 
difficult1 after any attentive scrutiny1
 seriously to treat the work as in any  
strict sense historical at all4 ,it has 
been  #ahj  conjectured by some critics1
 as well in explanation of this         
statement as in connection with theories
 regarding the views of ,stephen1 that  
the persecution in question was limited 
to the ,hellenistic community to which  
,stephen belonged1 whilst the ,apostles 
and others1 who were known as faithful  
observers of the law and of the temple  
worship17#a7 were not regarded as       
heretics by the orthodox ,jews47#b7 ,the
 narrative in the ,acts does not seem to
 support the view that the persecution  
was limited to the ,hellenists27#c7 but 

beyond the fact vouched for by ,paul    
that about this time there was a        
persecution1 we have no data whatever   
regarding that event4 ,philip1 it is    
said1 went down to the city of ,samaria1
 and was preaching the ,christ7#d7 to   
them4 ,as the statement that the        
multitudes with one accord gave heed to 
the things spoken to them by ,philip is 
ascribed to the miracles which he       
performed there1 we are unable to regard
 the narrative as historical1 and still 
less so when we consider the            
supernatural agency by which his further
 proceedings are directed and aided4 ,we
 need only remark that the ,samaritans1 
although only partly of ,jewish origin1 
and rejecting the ,jewish ,scriptures   
with the exception of the ,pentateuch1  
worshipped the same ,god as the ,jews1  
were circumcised1 and were equally      
prepared as a nation to accept the      
,messiah4 ,the statement that the       
,apostles ,peter and ,john went to      
,samaria1 in order1 by the imposition of

 hands1 to bestow the gift of the ,holy 
,spirit to the  #aha  converts baptized 
by ,philip1 does not add to the general 
credibility of the history47#a7 ,as     
,bleek7#b7 has well remarked1 nothing is
 known or said as to whether the        
conversion of the ,samaritans effected  
any change in their relations towards   
the ,jewish people and the temple in    
,jerusalem2 and the mission of ,philip  
to the ,samaritans1 as related in the   
,acts1 cannot in any case be considered 
as having any important bearing on the  
question before us4 ,we shall not       
discuss the episode of ,simon at all1   
although1 in the opinion of eminent     
critics1 it contains much that is       
suggestive of the true character of the 
,acts of the ,apostles4 ,an ,angel of   
the ,lord ------ speaks to ,philip1 and 
desires him to go to the desert way from
 ,jerusalem to ,gaza17#c7 where the     
,spirit tells him7#d7 to draw near and  
join himself to the chariot of a man of 
,ethiopia who had come to worship at    

,jerusalem1 and was then returning home4
 ,philip runs thither1 and hearing him  
read ,isaiah1 expounds the passage to   
him1 and at his own request the ,eunuch 
is at once baptized4 ,and when they came
 up out of the water1 the ,spirit of the
 ,lord caught away ------ ,philip1 and  
the eunuch saw him no more2 for he went 
on his way rejoicing2 but ,philip was   
found at ,azotus47#e7 ,attempts have of 
course been made to explain naturally   
the supernatural features of this       
narrative47#f7 ,ewald1 who is master of 
the art of rationalistic explanation1   
says1 with regard to the order given by 
the angel3 he felt impelled as by the   
power and the clear voice of an angel to
 go in that  #ahb  direction2 and the   
final miracle is disposed of by a       
contrast of the disinterestedness of    
,philip with the conduct of ,gehazi1 the
 servant of ,elisha3 it was the desire  
to avoid reward1 which led him all the  
more hurriedly to leave his new convert2
 and it was as though the ,spirit of the

 ,lord himself snatched him from him    
another way1 c1 c4 ,from ,gaza ,philip  
repaired rapidly northward to ,ashdod1  
c47l7 ,the great mass of critics reject 
such evasions1 and recognise that the   
,author relates miraculous occurrences4 
,the introduction of supernatural agency
 in this way1 however1 removes the story
 from the region of history4 ,such      
statements are antecedently1 and1       
indeed1 coming from an unknown writer   
and without corroboration1 are          
absolutely incredible1 and no means     
exist of ascertaining what original     
tradition may have assumed this mythical
 character4 ,zeller supposes that only  
the personality and nationality of the  
,eunuch are really historical47#b7 ,all 
that need here be added is1 that the    
great majority of critics agree that the
 ,ethiopian was probably at least a     
,proselyte of the ,gate17#c7 as his     
going to ,jerusalem to worship seems    
clearly to indicate47#d7 ,in any  #ahc  
case1 the mythical elements of this     

story1 as well as the insufficiency of  
the details1 deprive the narrative of   
historical value47#a7 ,the episodes of  
,stephen's speech and martyrdom and the 
mission of ,philip are1 in one respect  
especially1 unimportant for the inquiry 
on which we are now more immediately    
engaged4 ,they are almost completely    
isolated from the rest of the ,acts3    
that is to say1 no reference whatever is
 subsequently made to them as forming   
any precedent for the guidance of the   
,church in the burning question which   
soon arose within it4 ,peter1 as we     
shall see1 when called upon to visit and
 baptize ,cornelius1 exhibits no        
recollection of his own mission to the  
,samaritans1 and no knowledge of the    
conversion of the ,ethiopian4 ,moreover1
 as ,stephen plays so small a part in   
the history1 and ,philip does not       
reappear upon the scene after this short
 episode1 no opportunity is afforded of 
comparing one part of their history with
 the rest4 ,in passing on to the account

 of the baptism of ,cornelius1 we have  
at least the advantage of contrasting   
the action attributed to ,peter with his
 conduct on earlier and later occasions1
 and a test is thus supplied which is of
 no small value for ascertaining the    
truth of the whole representation4 ,to  
this narrative we must now address      
ourselves4  ,as an introduction to the  
important events at ,caesarea1 the      
,author of the ,acts relates the        
particulars of a visit which ,peter pays
 to ,lydda and ,joppa1 during the course
 of which he performs two very          
remarkable miracles4 ,at the former town
 he finds a certain man named ,a,eneas1 
#ahd  paralysed1 who had lain on a bed  
for eight years4 ,peter said to him3    
,a,eneas1 ,jesus the ,christ healeth    
thee2 arise and make thy bed4 ,and he   
arose immediately47#a7 ,as the          
consequence of this miracle1 the writer 
states that3 ,all who dwelt at ,lydda   
and the ,sharon saw him1 who turned to  
the ,lord47#b7 ,the exaggeration of such

 a statement7#c7 is too palpable to     
require argument ,the effect produced by
 the supposed miracle is almost as      
incredible as the miracle itself1 and   
the account altogether has little claim 
to the character of sober history4      
,this mighty work1 however1 is          
altogether eclipsed by a miracle which  
,peter performs about the same time at  
,joppa4 ,a certain woman1 a disciple1   
named ,tabitha1 who was full of good    
works1 fell sick in those days and died1
 and when they washed her1 they laid her
 in an upper chamber1 and sent to ,peter
 at ,lydda1 beseeching him to come to   
them without delay4 ,when ,peter arrived
 they took him into the upper chamber1  
where all the widows stood weeping1 and 
showed coats and garments which ,dorcas 
used to make while she was with them4   
,but ,peter put them all out1 and       
kneeled down and prayed2 and1 turning to
 the body1 said3 ,tabitha1 arise4 ,and  
she opened her eyes1 and when she saw   
,peter she sat up4 ,and he gave her his 

hand1 and raised her up1 and when he    
called the saints and the widows1 he    
presented her alive4 ,apparently1 the   
raising of the dead did not produce as  
much effect as the cure of the          
paralytic1 for the writer only adds     
here3 ,and it was known throughout all  
,joppa2 and many believed in the        
,lord47#d7 ,we shall hereafter have to  
speak of the perfect calmness and       
absence of surprise with which these    
early writers relate  #ahe  the most    
astonishing miracles4 ,it is evident    
from the manner in which this story is  
narrated that the miracle was           
anticipated47#a7 ,the ------ in which   
the body is laid cannot have been the   
room generally used for that purpose1   
but is probably the single upper chamber
 of such a house which the author       
represents as specially adopted in      
anticipation of ,peter's arrival47#b7   
,the widows who stand by weeping and    
showing the garments made by the        
deceased complete the preparation4 ,as  

,peter is sent for after ,dorcas had    
died1 it would seem as though the writer
 intimated that her friends expected him
 to raise her from the dead4 ,the       
explanation of this singular phenomenon1
 however1 becomes clear when it is      
remarked that the account of this great 
miracle is closely traced from that of  
the raising of ,jairus' daughter in the 
,synoptics17#c7 and more especially in  
the second ,gospel47#d7 ,in that        
instance ,jesus is sent for2 and1 on    
coming to the house1 he finds people    
weeping and wailing greatly4 ,he puts   
them all forth1 like ,peter2 and1 taking
 the child by the hand1 says to her3    
',talitha koum1' which is being         
interpreted3 ,maiden1 ,i say unto thee1 
arise4 ,and immediately the maiden arose
 and walked47#e7 ,baur and others7#f7   
conjecture that even the name ,tabitha1 
which by  #ahf  interpretation is called
 ,dorcas1 was suggested by the words    
------1 above quoted4 ,the ,hebrew      
original of ------ signifies ,gazelle1  

and they contend that it was used1 like 
------1 in the sense generally of3      
,maiden47l7 ,these two astonishing      
miracles1 reported by an unknown writer1
 and without any corroboration1 are     
absolutely incredible1 and cannot       
prepossess any reasonable mind with     
confidence in the narrative to which    
they form an introduction1 and the      
natural distrust which they awaken is   
folly confirmed when we find            
supernatural agency employed at every   
stage of the following history4  ,we are
 told7#b7 that a certain devout         
centurion1 named ,cornelius1 saw in a   
vision plainly ------ an angel of ,god1 
who said to him3 ,thy prayers and thine 
alms are come up for a memorial before  
,god4 ,and now send men to ,joppa1 and  
call for one ,simon1 who is surnamed    
,peter1 whose house is by the sea side4 
,after giving these minute directions1  
the angel departed1  ------  #ahg  and  
,cornelius sent three messengers to     
,joppa4 ,just as they approached the end

 of their journey on the morrow1 ,peter 
went up to the housetop to pray about   
the sixth hour1 the usual time of prayer
 among the ,jews47#a7 ,he became very   
hungry1 and while his meal was being    
prepared he fell into a trance and saw  
heaven opened1 and a certain vessel     
descending as it had been a great sheet 
let down by four corners1 in which were 
all four-footed beasts and creeping     
things of the earth and birds of the    
air4 ,and there came a voice to him3    
,rise1 ,peter2 kill and eat4 ,but ,peter
 said3 ,not so ,lord2 for ,i never ate  
anything common or unclean4 ,and the    
voice came unto him again a second time3
 ,what ,god cleansed call not thou      
common4 ,this was done thrice2 and      
straightway the vessel was taken up into
 heaven4 ,while ,peter was doubting in  
himself what the vision which he had    
seen meant1 the men sent by ,cornelius  
arrived1 and the ,spirit said unto him3 
,behold men are seeking thee2 but arise 
and get thee down and go with them      

doubting nothing1 for ,i have sent them4
 ,peter went with them on the morrow1   
accompanied by some of the brethren1 and
 ,cornelius was waiting for them with   
his kinsmen and near friends whom he had
 called together for the purpose4 ,and  
as ,peter was coming in1 ,cornelius met 
him1 and fell at his feet and           
worshipped4 ,but ,peter took him up1    
saying3 ,arise2 ,i myself also am a     
man47#b7 ,going in1 he finds many       
persons assembled1 to whom he said3 ,ye 
know how it is an unlawful thing for a  
man that is a ,jew to keep company with1
 or come unto one of another nation2 and
 yet ,god showed me that ,i should not  
call  #ahh  any man common or unclean4  
,therefore also ,i came without         
gainsaying when sent for4 ,i ask1       
therefore1 for what reason ye sent for  
me8 ,cornelius narrates the particulars 
of his vision and continues3 ,now1      
therefore1 we are all present before    
,god to hear all the things that have   
been commanded thee of the ,lord4 ,then 

,peter opened his mouth and said3 ,of a 
truth ,i perceive that ,god is no       
respecter of persons1 but in every      
nation he that feareth him and worketh  
righteousness is acceptable to him1 and 
soon4 ,while ,peter is speaking1 the    
,holy ,spirit fell on all those who     
heard the word4 ,and they of the        
circumcision who believed were          
astonished1 as many as came with ,peter1
 because that on the ,gentiles also has 
been poured out the gift of the ,holy   
,spirit2 for they heard them speak with 
tongues and magnify ,god4 ,then answered
 ,peter3 ,can any one forbid the water  
that these should not be baptized1 which
 have received the ,holy ,spirit as well
 as we8 ,and he commanded them to be    
baptized in the name of the ,lord4  ,we 
shall not waste time discussing the     
endeavours of ,kuinoel1 ,neander1       
,lange1 ,ewald1 and others1 to explain  
away as much as possible the            
supernatural elements of this narrative1
 for their attempts are repudiated by   

most apologists1 and the miraculous     
phenomena are too clearly described and 
too closely connected with the course of
 the story to be either ignored or      
eliminated4 ,can such a narrative1      
heralded by such miracles as the        
instantaneous cure of the paralytic     
,a,eneas1 and the raising from the dead 
of the maiden ,dorcas1 be regarded as   
sober history8 ,of course many maintain 
that it can1 and comparatively few have 
declared themselves against this47#a7   
,we have1 however1 merely the  #ahi     
narrative of an unknown author to set   
against unvarying experience1 and that  
cannot much avail4 ,we must now         
endeavour to discover how far this      
episode is consistent with the rest of  
the facts narrated in this book itself1 
and with such trustworthy evidence as we
 can elsewhere bring to bear upon it4   
,we have already in an earlier part of  
our inquiry pointed out that in the     
process of exhibiting a general         
parallelism between the ,apostles ,peter

 and ,paul1 a very close pendant to this
 narrative has been introduced by the   
author into the history of ,paul4 ,in   
the story of the conversion of ,paul1   
the ,apostle has his vision on the way  
to ,damascus17#a7 and about the same    
time the ,lord in a vision desires      
,ananias 7a devout man1 according to the
 law1 having a good report of all the   
,jews that dwell in ,damascus717#b7     
arise1 and go to the street which is    
called ,straight1 and inquire in the    
house of ,judas for one named ,saul of  
,tarsus2 for behold he prayeth1 and saw 
in a vision a man named ,ananias coming 
in and putting his hand on him that he  
might receive sight4 ,on this occasion  
also the gift of the ,holy ,spirit is   
conferred and ,saul is baptized47#c7    
,whilst such miraculous agency is so    
rare elsewhere1 it is so common in the  
,acts of the ,apostles that the         
employment of visions and of angels1    
under every circumstance1 is one of the 
characteristics of the author1 and may  

therefore be set down to his own        
imagination4  ,no one who examines this 
episode attentively1 we  #aij  think1   
can doubt that the narrative before us  
is composed in apologetic interest17#a7 
and is designed to have a special       
bearing upon the problem as to the      
relation of the ,pauline ,gospel to the 
preaching of the ,twelve1 ,baur7#b7 has 
acutely pointed out the significance of 
the very place assigned to it in the    
general history1 and its insertion      
immediately after the conversion of     
,paul1 and before the commencement of   
his ministry1 as a legitimation of his  
apostleship of the ,gentiles4 ,one point
 stands clearly out of the strange      
medley of ,jewish prejudice1 ,christian 
liberalism1 and supernatural            
interference which constitute the       
elements of the story3 the actual       
conviction of ,peter regarding the      
relation of the ,jew to the ,gentile1   
that the ,gospel is addressed to the    
former and that the ,gentile is         

excluded17#c7 which has to be removed by
 a direct supernatural revelation from  
heaven4 ,the author recognises that this
 was the general view of the primitive  
church1 and this is the only particular 
in which we can perceive historical     
truth in the narrative4 ,the complicated
 machinery of visions and angelic       
messengers is used to justify the       
abandonment of ,jewish restrictions1    
which was preached by ,paul amidst so   
much virulent opposition4 ,peter        
anticipates and justifies ,paul in his  
ministry of the uncircumcision1 and the 
overthrow of ,mosaic barriers has the   
sanction and seal of a divine command4  
,we have to see whether the history     
itself  #aia  does not betray its       
mythical character1 not only in its     
supernatural elements1 but in its       
inconsistency with other known or       
narrated incidents in the apostolical   
narrative4 ,there has been much         
difference of opinion as to whether the 
centurion ,cornelius had joined himself 

in any recognised degree to the ,jewish 
religion before this incident1 and a    
majority of critics maintain that he is 
represented as a ,proselyte of the      
,gate47#a7 ,the terms in which he is    
described1 ------1 certainly seem to    
indicate this1 and probably the point   
would not have been questioned but for  
the fact that the writer evidently      
intends to deal with the subject of     
,gentile conversion1 with which the     
representation that ,cornelius was      
already a proselyte would somewhat      
clash47#b7 ,whether a proselyte or not1 
the ,roman centurion is said to be      
devout and fearing ,god with all his    
house1 giving much alms to the people1  
and praying to ,god always27#c7 and     
probably the ambiguity as to whether he 
had actually become affiliated in any   
way to ,mosaism is intentional4 ,when   
,peter1 however1 with his scruples      
removed by the supernatural             
communication with which he had just    
been favoured1 indicates their previous 

strength by the statement3 ,ye know how 
it is an unlawful thing for a man that  
is a ,jew to keep company with or come  
unto  #aib  one of another nation17#a7  
the author evidently oversteps the mark1
 and betrays the unhistorical nature of 
the narrative2 for such an affirmation  
not only could not have been made by    
,peter1 but could only have been        
advanced by a writer who was himself a  
,gentile1 and writing at a distance from
 the events described4 ,there is no     
injunction of the ,mosaic law declaring 
such intercourse unlawful17#b7 nor      
indeed is such a rule elsewhere heard   
of1 and even apologists who refer to the
 point have no show of authority by     
which to support such a statement7#c7   
,not only was there no legal            
prohibition1 but it is impossible to    
conceive that there was any such        
exclusiveness practised by traditional  
injunction47#d7 ,as de ,wette           
appropriately remarks1 moreover1 even if
 such a prohibition existed as regards  

idolaters1 it would still be            
inconceivable how it could apply to     
,cornelius3 a righteous man and fearing 
,god1 and of good report among all the  
nation of the ,jews47#e7 ,it is also    
inconsistent with the zeal for          
proselytism displayed by the            
,pharisees17#f7 the strictest sect of   
the ,jews2 and the account given by     
,josephus of the  #aic  conversion of   
,izates of ,adiabene is totally against 
it47#a7 ,there is a slight trait which1 
added to others1 tends to complete the  
demonstration of the unhistorical       
character of this representation4 ,peter
 is said to have lived many days in     
,joppa with one ,simon1 a tanner1 and it
 is in his house that the messengers of 
,cornelius find him47#b7 ,now the       
tanner's trade was considered impure    
amongst the ,jews17#c7 and it was almost
 pollution to live in ,simon's house4   
,it is argued by some commentators that 
the fact that ,peter lodged there is    
mentioned to show that he had already   

emancipated himself from ,jewish        
prejudices47#d7 ,however this may be1 it
 is strangely inconsistent that a ,jew  
who has no objection to live with a     
tanner should1 at the same time1        
consider it unlawful to hold intercourse
 of any kind with a pious ,gentile1 who1
 if not actually a ,proselyte of the    
,gate1 had every qualification for      
becoming one4 ,this indifference to the 
unclean and polluting trade of the      
tanner1 moreover1 is inconsistent with  
the reply which ,peter gives to the     
voice which bids him slay and eat3--,not
 so1 ,lord1 for ,i never ate anything   
common or unclean4 ,no doubt the        
intercourse to which ,peter refers      
indicates1 or at least includes1 eating 
and drinking with one of another        
country1 and this alone could present   
any intelligible difficulty1 for the    
mere transaction of business or         
conversation with strangers must have   
been daily necessary to the ,jews4 ,it  
must be remarked1 however1 that1 when   

,peter makes the statement which we are 
discussing1 nothing whatever is said of 
eating with the ,centurion or sitting   
with him  #aid  at table4 ,this leads to
 a striking train of reflection upon the
 whole episode4 ,it is a curious thing  
that the supernatural vision1 which is  
designed to inform ,peter and the       
,apostles that the ,gentiles might be   
received into the ,church1 should take  
the form of a mere intimation that the  
distinction of clean and unclean animals
 was no longer binding1 and that he     
might indifferently kill and eat ,one   
might have thought that1 on the         
supposition that ,heaven desired to give
 ,peter and the ,church a command to    
admit the ,gentiles unconditionally to  
the benefits of the ,gospel1 this would 
be simply and clearly stated4 ,this was 
not done at all1 and the intimation by  
which ,peter supposes himself justified 
in considering it lawful to go to       
,cornelius is1 in the first place1      
merely on the subject of animals defined

 as clean and unclean4 ,doubtless the   
prohibition as to certain meats might   
tend to continue the separation between 
,jew and ,gentile1 and the disregard of 
such distinctions of course promoted    
general intercourse with strangers2 but 
this by no means explains why the       
abrogation of this distinction is made  
the intimation to receive ,gentiles into
 the ,church4 ,when ,peter returns to   
,jerusalem we are told that they of the 
circumcision--that is to say1 the whole 
,church there1 since at that period all 
were of the circumcision1 and this      
phrase further indicates that the writer
 has no historical                      
stand-point--contended with him4 ,the   
subject of the contention we might      
suppose was the baptism of ,gentiles2   
but not so3 the charge brought against  
him was3--,thou wentest in to men       
uncircumcised1 and didst eat with       
them47#a7 ,the subject of ,paul's       
dispute with ,peter at ,antioch simply  
was that1 before that certain came from 

,james1 he did eat with  #aie  the      
,gentiles2 but when they came he        
withdrew1 fearing them of the           
circumcision47#a7 ,that the whole of    
these passages should turn merely on the
 fact of eating with men who were       
uncircumcised1 is very suggestive1 and  
as the ,church at ,jerusalem make no    
allusion to the baptism of uncircumcised
 ,gentiles1 it would lead to the        
inference that nothing was known of such
 an event1 and that the circumstance was
 simply added to some other narrative2  
and this is rendered all the more       
probable by the fact that1 in the affair
 at ,antioch as well as throughout the  
,epistle to the ,galatians1 ,peter is   
very far from acting as one who had been
 the first to receive uncircumcised     
,gentiles freely into the ,church4  ,it 
is usually asserted that the vision of  
,peter abrogated the distinction of     
clean and unclean animals so long       
existing in the ,mosaic law17#b7 but    
there is no evidence that any subsequent

 gradual abandonment of the rule was    
ascribed to such a command2 and it is   
remarkable that ,peter himself not only 
does not1 as we shall presently see1    
refer to this vision as authority for   
disregarding the distinction of clean   
and unclean meats1 and for otherwise    
considering nothing common or unclean1  
but acts as if such a vision had never  
taken place4 ,the famous decree of the  
,council of ,jerusalem1 moreover1 makes 
no allusion to any modification of the  
,mosaic law in the case of ,jewish      
,christians1 whatever relaxation it may 
seem to grant to ,gentile converts1 and 
there is no external evidence of any    
kind whatever that so important an  #aif
  abolition of ancient legal            
prescriptions was thus introduced into  
,christendom4  ,we have1 however1       
fortunately one test of the historical  
value of this whole episode1 to which we
 have already briefly referred1 but     
which we must now more closely apply4   
,paul himself1 in his ,epistle to the   

,galatians1 narrates the particulars of 
a scene between himself and ,peter at   
,antioch1 of which no mention is made in
 the ,acts of the ,apostles1 and we     
think that no one can fairly consider   
that episode without being convinced    
that it is utterly irreconcilable with  
the supposition that the vision which we
 are now examining can ever have        
appeared to ,peter1 or that he can have 
played the part attributed to him in the
 conversion and baptism of uncircumcised
 ,gentiles4 ,paul writes3 ,but when     
,cephas came to ,antioch1 ,i withstood  
him to the face1 because he was         
condemned4 ,for before that certain came
 from ,james1 he did eat with the       
,gentiles1 but when they came he        
withdrew and separated himself1 fearing 
them of the circumcision1 and the other 
,jews also joined in his hypocrisy47#a7 
,it will be remembered that1 in the case
 of ,cornelius1 they of the circumcision
 in ,jerusalem1 at the head of whom was 
,james1 from whom came those of the     

circumcision of whom ,peter was afraid  
at ,antioch1 contended with ,peter for  
going in to men uncircumcised and eating
 with them17#b7 the very thing which was
 in question at ,antioch4 ,in the ,acts1
 ,peter is represented as defending his 
conduct by relating the divine vision   
under the guidance of which he acted1   
and the author states as the result     
that1 ,when they heard these things they
 held their peace and glorified ,god1   
saying3 ,then to the ,gentiles also ,god
 gave repentance  #aig  unto life47#a7  
,this is the representation of the      
author of the vision and of the         
conversion of ,cornelius1 but very      
different is ,peter's conduct as        
described by the ,apostle ,paul1 very   
dissimilar the phenomena presented by a 
narrative upon which we can rely4 ,the  
certain who came from ,james can never  
have heard of the direct communication  
from ,heaven which justified ,peter's   
conduct1 and can never have glorified   
,god in the manner described1 or ,peter 

could not have had any reason to fear   
them2 for a mere reference to his       
vision1 and to the sanction of the      
,church of ,jerusalem1 must have been   
sufficient to reconcile them to his     
freedom4 ,then1 is it conceivable that  
after such a vision1 and after being    
taught by ,god himself not to call any  
man or thing common or unclean1 ,peter  
could have acted as he did for fear of  
them of the circumcision8 ,his conduct  
is convincing evidence that he knew as  
little of any such vision as those who  
came from ,james4 ,on the other hand1 if
 we require further proof it is         
furnished by the ,apostle ,paul himself4
 ,is it conceivable that1 if such an    
episode had ever really occurred1 the   
,apostle ,paul would not have referred  
to it upon this occasion8 ,what more    
appropriate argument could he have used1
 what more legitimate rebuke could he   
have administered1 than merely to have  
reminded ,peter of his own vision8 ,he  
both rebukes him and argues1 but his    

rebuke and his argument have quite a    
different complexion2 and we confidently
 affirm that no one can read that       
portion of the ,epistle to the          
,galatians without feeling certain that1
 had the writer been aware of such a    
divine communication--and we think it   
must be conceded without question that1 
if it had taken place1 he  #aih  must   
have been aware of it7#a7--;he would    
have referred to bo direct and important
 an authority4 ,neither here nor in the 
numerous places where such an argument  
would have been so useful to the        
,apostle does ,paul betray the slightest
 knowledge of the episode of ,cornelius4
 ,the historic occurrence at ,antioch1  
so completely ignored by the author of  
the ,acts1 totally excludes the mythical
 story of ,cornelius47#b7  ,there are   
merely one or two other points in       
connection with the episode to which we 
must call attention4 ,in his address to 
,cornelius1 ,peter says3 ,of a truth ,i 
perceive that ,god is no respecter of   

persons ------4 ,now this is not only a 
thoroughly ,pauline sentiment1 but ,paul
 has more than once made use of         
precisely the same expression4 ,rom4 ii4
 #aa4 ,for there is no respect of       
persons with ,god ------1 and1 again1   
,gal4 ii4 #f1  ,god respecteth no man's 
person1 ------47#c7 ,the author of the  
,acts was certainly acquainted with the 
epistles of ,paul1 and the very manner  
in which he represents ,peter as        
employing this expression betrays the   
application of a sentiment previously in
 his mind1 ,of a truth ,i perceive1 c4  
,the circumstance confirms what ,paul   
had already said47#d7 ,then1 in the     
defence of his conduct at ,jerusalem1   
,peter is represented as saying3 ,and ,i
 remembered the word of the ,lord1      
#a ,indeed the reference to this case1  
supposed to be made by      ,peter      
himself1 in ,paul's presence1 excludes  
the idea of      ignorance1 if the ,acts
 be treated as historical4       #d     
,compare further x4 #ce ff4 with ,rom4  

ii4 iii41 o4 ,the      sentiments and   
even the words are ,pauline4  #aii  how 
he said1 ,john indeed baptized with     
water2 but ye shall be baptized with the
 ,holy ,spirit47l7 ,now these words are 
by all the ,gospels put into the mouth  
of ,john the ,baptist1 and not of       
,jesus17#b7 but the author of the ,acts 
seems to put them into the mouth of     
,jesus at the beginning of the work17#c7
 and their repetition here is only an   
additional proof of the fact that the   
episode of ,cornelius1 as it stands     
before us1 is not historical1 but is    
merely his own composition4  ,the whole 
of this narrative1 with its complicated 
series of miracles1 is evidently        
composed to legitimate the free         
reception into the ,christian ,church of
 ,gentile converts and1 to emphasize the
 importance of the divine ratification  
of their admission1 ,peter is made to   
repeat to the ,church of ,jerusalem the 
main incidents which had just been fully
 narrated4 ,on the one hand1 the        

previous ,jewish exclusiveness both of  
,peter and of the ,church is displayed1 
first1 in the resistance of the         
,apostle1 which can only be overcome by 
the vision and the direct order of the  
,holy ,spirit1 and by the manifest      
outpouring of the ,spirit upon the      
,centurion and his household2 and       
second1 in the contention of them of the
 circumcision1 which is only overcome by
 an account of the repeated signs of    
divine purpose and approval4 ,the       
universality of the ,gospel could not be
 more broadly proclaimed than in the    
address of ,peter to ,cornelius4 ,not   
the ,jews alone1 but in every nation1 he
 that feareth him and worketh           
righteousness is acceptable to him4     
,pauline principles are thus anticipated
 and1 as we have pointed out1 are       
expressed almost in the words of the    
,apostle of the ,gentiles47#d7 ,the     
,jews who go with  #bjj  ,peter were    
astonished because that on the ,gentiles
 also had been poured out the gift of   

the ,holy ,spirit17#a7 and the ,church  
of ,jerusalem1 on hearing of these      
things1 glorified ,god that repentance  
unto life had been given to the         
,gentiles4 ,it is impossible that the   
admission of the ,gentiles to the       
privileges of the ,church could be more 
prominently signified than by this      
episode1 introduced by prodigious       
miracles and effected by supernatural   
machinery4 ,where1 however1 are the     
consequences of this marvellous         
recognition of the ,gentiles8 ,it does  
not in the slightest degree preclude the
 necessity for the ,council1 which we   
shall presently consider2 it does not   
apparently exercise any influence on    
,james and the ,church of ,jerusalem2   
,peter1 indeed1 refers vaguely to it1   
but as a matter out of date and almost  
forgotten2 ,paul1 in all his disputes   
with the emissaries of the ,church of   
,jerusalem1 in all his pleas for the    
freedom of his ,gentile converts1 never 
makes the slightest allusion to it2 it  

remains elsewhere unknown and1 so far as
 any evidence goes1 utterly without     
influence upon the primitive church47#b7
 ,this will presently become more       
apparent2 but already it is clear enough
 to those who will exercise calm reason 
that it is impossible to consider this  
narrative with its tissue of fruitless  
miracles as a historical account of the 
development of the ,church4             
,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,paul ,,the ,,apostle 
,,of ,,the ,,gentiles  ,we have now     
arrived at the point in our examination 
of the ,acts in which we have the       
inestimable advantage of being able to  
compare the narrative of the unknown    
author with the distinct statements of  
the ,apostle ,paul4 ,in doing so1 we    
must remember that the author must have 
been acquainted with the ,epistles which
 are now before us1 and supposing it to 
be his purpose to present a certain view
 of the transactions in question1       
whether for apologetic or conciliatory  
reasons or for any other cause1 it is   

obvious that it would not be reasonable 
to expect divergencies of so palpable a 
nature that any reader of the letters   
must at once too clearly perceive such  
contradictions4 ,when the ,acts were    
written1 it is true1 the author could   
not have known that the ,epistles of    
,paul were to attain the high canonical 
position which they now occupy1 and     
might1 therefore1 use his materials more
 freely2 still a certain superficial    
consistency it would be natural to      
expect4 ,unfortunately1 our means of    
testing the statements of the author are
 not so minute as is desirable1 although
 they are often of much value1 and      
seeing the great facility with which1 by
 apparently slight alterations and      
omissions1 a different complexion can be
 given to circumstances regarding which 
no very  #bjb  full details exist       
elsewhere1 we must be prepared to seize 
every indication which may enable us to 
form a just estimate of the nature of   
the writing which we are examining4  ,in

 the first two chapters of his ,epistle 
to the ,galatians1 the ,apostle ,paul   
relates particulars regarding some      
important epochs of his life1 which     
likewise enter into the narrative of the
 ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,the ,apostle  
gives an account of his own proceedings 
immediately after his conversion1 and of
 the visit which about that time he paid
 to ,jerusalem2 and1 further1 of a      
second visit to ,jerusalem fourteen     
years later1 and to these we must now   
direct our attention4 ,we defer         
consideration of the narrative of the   
actual conversion of ,paul for the      
present1 and merely intend here to      
discuss the movements and conduct of the
 ,apostle immediately subsequent to that
 event4 ,the ,acts of the ,apostles     
represent ,paul as making five journeys 
to ,jerusalem subsequent to his joining 
the ,christian body4 ,the first1 ix4 #bf
 ff41 takes place immediately after his 
conversion2 the second1 xi4 #cj1 xii4   
#be1 is upon an occasion when the       

,church at ,antioch are represented as  
sending relief to the brethren of       
,judaea by the hands of ,barnabas and   
,saul1 during a time of famine2 the     
third visit to ,jerusalem1 xv4 #a ff41  
,paul likewise pays in company with     
,barnabas1 both being sent by the       
,church of ,antioch to confer with the  
,apostles and ,elders as to the         
necessity of circumcision1 and the      
obligation to observe the ,mosaic law in
 the case of ,gentile converts2 the     
fourth1 xviii4 #ba ff1 when he goes to  
,ephesus with ,priscilla and ,aquila1   
having shaved his head in ,cenchrea1 for
 he had a vow2 and the fifth and last1  
xxi4 #ae ff1 when the disturbance took  
place in the temple which led to his    
arrest and journey to ,rome4  #bjc  ,the
 circumstances and general character of 
these visits to ,jerusalem1 and more    
especially of that on which the         
momentous conference is described as    
having taken place1 are stated with so  
much precision1 and they present        

features of such marked difference1 that
 it might have been supposed there could
 not have been any difficulty in        
identifying1 with certainty1 at least   
the visits to which the ,apostle refers 
in his letter1 more especially as upon  
both occasions he mentions important    
particulars which characterised those   
visits4 ,it is a remarkable fact1       
however1 that1 such are the divergences 
between the statements of the unknown   
author and of the ,apostle1 upon no     
point has there been more discussion    
amongst critics and divines from the    
very earliest times1 or more decided    
difference of opinion4 ,upon general    
grounds1 we have already seen1 there has
 been good reason to doubt the          
historical character of the ,acts4 ,is  
it not a singularly suggestive          
circumstance that1 when it is possible  
to compare the authentic representations
 of ,paul with the narrative of the     
,acts1 even apologists perceive so much 
opening for doubt and controversy8  ,the

 visit described in the ninth chapter of
 the ,acts is generally7#a7 identified  
with that which is mentioned in the     
first chapter of the ,epistle4 ,this    
unanimity1 however1 arises mainly from  
the circumstance that both writers      
clearly represent that visit as the     
first which ,paul paid to ,jerusalem    
after his conversion1 for the details of
 the two narratives are anything but in 
agreement with each other4 ,although1   
therefore1 critics are forced to agree  
as to the bare identity of the visit1   
this harmony is immediately disturbed on
 examining the two accounts1 and whilst 
the one party find the statements in the
 ,acts       #a ,there have1 however1   
been differences of opinion also        
regarding this4  #bjd  reconcilable with
 those of ,paul1 a large body more or   
less distinctly declare them to be      
contradictory1 and unhistorical47#a7 ,in
 order that the question at issue may be
 fairly laid before the reader1 we shall
 give the two accounts in parallel      

columns4 ------  #bje  ------  ,now1 it 
is obvious that the representation in   
the ,acts of what ,paul did after his   
conversion differs very widely from the 
account which the ,apostle himself gives
 of the matter4 ,in the first place1 not
 a word is said in the former of the    
journey into ,arabia2 but1 on the       
contrary1 it is excluded1 and the       
statement which replaces it directly    
contradicts that of ,paul4 ,the ,apostle
 says that after his conversion3        
,immediately7l7 ------ ,i conferred not 
with flesh and blood1 but went away into
 ,arabia1 ,the author of the ,acts says 
that he spent some days ------ with the 
disciples in ,damascus1 and immediately 
------ began to preach in the           
synagogues4 ,paul's feelings are so     
completely misrepresented that1 instead 
of that desire for retirement and       
solitude which his  #bjf  words         
express17#a7 he is described as         
straightway plunging into the vortex of 
public life in ,damascus4 ,the general  

apologetic explanation is1 that the     
author of the ,acts either was not aware
 of the journey into ,arabia1 or that1  
his absence there having been short1 he 
did not consider it necessary to mention
 it ,there are no data for estimating   
the length of time which ,paul spent in 
,arabia1 but the fact that the ,apostle 
mentions it with so much emphasis proves
 not only that he attached considerable 
weight to the episode1 but that the     
duration of his visit could not have    
been unimportant4 ,in any case1 the     
author of the ,acts1 whether ignorantly 
or not1 boldly describes the ,apostle as
 doing precisely what he did not4 ,to   
any ordinary reader1 moreover1 his whole
 account of ,paul's preaching at        
,damascus certainly excludes altogether 
the idea of such a journey1 and the     
argument that it can be4 inserted       
anywhere is purely arbitrary4 ,there are
 many theories amongst apologists1      
however1 as to the part of the narrative
 in ,acts1 in which the ,arabian journey

 can be placed4 ,by some it is assigned 
to a period before he commenced his     
active labours1 and therefore before ix4
 #bj17b7 from which the4words of the    
author repulse it with singular         
clearness2 others intercalate it with   
even less reason between ix4 #bj and    
#ba27c7 a few discover some indication  
of it in the ------ of ver4 #bb17d7 an  
expression1 however1 which refuses to be
 forced into such service2 a greater    
number place it in the------ of ver4    
#bc17e7 making that elastic phrase      
embrace this as well  #bjg  as other    
difficulties till it snaps under the    
strain4 ,it seems evident to an         
unprejudiced reader that the ------ are 
represented as passed in ,damascus47#a7 
,and1 lastly1 some critics place it     
after ix4 #be1 regardless of ,paul's    
statement that from ,arabia he returned 
again to ,damascus1 which1 under the    
circumstances mentioned in ,acts1 he was
 not likely to do1 and indeed it is     
obvious that he is there supposed to    

have at once gone from ,damascus to     
,jerusalem4 ,these attempts at          
reconciliation are useless4 ,it is of no
 avail to find time into which a journey
 to ,arabia and the stay there might be 
forcibly thrust4 ,there still remains   
the fact that so far from the ,arabian  
visit being indicated in the ,acts1 the 
------ of ix4 #bj1 compared with the    
------ of ,gal4 i4 #af1 positively      
excludes it1 and proves that the        
narrative of the former is not          
historical47#b7  ,there is another point
 in the account in ,acts which further  
demands attention4 ,the impression      
conveyed by the narrative is that ,paul 
went up to ,jerusalem not very long     
after his conversion4 ,the omission of  
the visit to ,arabia shortens the       
interval before he did so1 by removing  
causes of delay1 and whilst no          
expressions are used which imply a      
protracted stay in ,damascus1 incidents 
are introduced which indicate that the  
purpose of the writer was to represent  

the ,apostle as losing no time after his
 conversion before associating himself  
with the elder       #c ,we shall not   
discuss the indication given in #b ,cor4
 xi4 #cb      of the cause of his       
leaving ,damascus1 although several     
contradictory statements seem to be made
 in it4  #bjh  ,apostles and obtaining  
their recognition of his ministry2 and  
this view1 we shall see1 is confirmed by
 the peculiar account which is given of 
what took place at ,jerusalem4 ,the     
,apostle distinctly states1 i4 #ah1 that
 three years after his conversion he    
went up to visit ,peter47#a7 ,in the    
,acts he is represented as spending some
 days ------ with the disciples1 and the
 only other chronological indication    
given is that1 after many days ------1  
the plot occurred which forced him to   
leave ,damascus4 ,it is argued that     
------ is an indefinite period1 which   
may1 according to the usage of the      
author7#b7 indicate a considerable space
 of time1 and certainly rather express a

 long than a short period47#c7 ,the fact
 is1 however1 that the instances cited  
are evidence1 in themselves1 against the
 supposition that the author can have   
had any intention of expressing a period
 of three years by the words ------4 ,we
 suppose that no one has ever suggested 
that ,peter staid three years in the    
house of ,simon the tanner at ,joppa    
7ix4 #dc72 or1 that when it is said that
 ,paul remained many days at ,corinth   
after the insurrection of the ,jews1 the
 author intends to speak of some years1 
when in fact the ------ contrasted with 
the expression 7xviii4 #aa73 he         
continued there a year and six months1  
used regarding his stay previous to that
 disturbance1 evidently reduces the yet 
many days subsequently spent there to a 
very small compass4 ,again1 has any one 
ever suggested that in the       #a ,the
 'straightway' of ver4 #af leads to this
 conclusion3      ',at first ,i         
conferred not with flesh and blood1 it  
was only      after the lapse of three  

years that ,i went to ,jerusalem4'      
,lightfoot1 ,oalatians1 p4 #hc4       #c
  ,the difference between the vague     
'many days' of the ,acts      and the   
definite 'three years' of the ,epistle  
is such as      might be expected from  
the circumstances of the two            
writers4    ,lightfoot1 lb41 p4 #hi1    
note #c4  #bji  account of ,paul's      
voyage to ,rome1 where it is said       
7xxvii4 #g7 that1 after leaving ,myrra  
and sailing slowly many days ------1    
they had scarcely got so far as ,cnidus1
 an interval of months1 not to say      
years1 is indicated8 ,it is impossible  
to suppose that1 by such an expression1 
the writer intended to indicate a period
 of three years47#a7 ,that the narrative
 of the ,acts actually represents ,paul 
as going up to ,jerusalem soon after his
 conversion1 and certainly not merely at
 the end of three years1 is obvious from
 the statement in ver4 #bf1 that when   
,paul arrived at ,jerusalem1 and was    
assaying to join himself to the         

disciples1 all were afraid of him1 and  
would not believe in his conversion4    
,the author could certainly not have    
stated this1 if he had desired to imply 
that ,paul had already been a           
,christian1 and publicly preached with  
so much success at ,damascus1 for three 
years47#c7 ,indeed1 the statements in   
ix4 #bf are irreconcilable with the     
declaration of the ,apostle1 whatever   
view be taken of the previous narrative 
of the ,acts4 ,if it be assumed that the
 author wishes to describe the visit to 
,jerusalem as taking place three years  
after his conversion1 then the ignorance
 of that event amongst the brethren     
there and their distrust of ,paul are   
utterly inconsistent and incredible2    
whilst if1 on the other hand1 he        
represents the ,apostle as going to     
,jerusalem with but little delay in     
,damascus1 as we contend he does1 then  
there is no escape from the conclusion  
that the ,acts1 whilst thus giving a    
narrative consistent with itself1  #baj 

distinctly contradicts the deliberate   
assertions of the ,apostle4 ,it is      
absolutely incredible that the          
conversion of a well-known persecutor of
 the ,church 7viii4 #c ff471 effected in
 a way which is represented as so sudden
 and supernatural1 and accompanied by a 
supposed vision of the ,lord1 could for 
three years have remained unknown to the
 community of ,jerusalem4 ,so striking a
 triumph for ,christianity must have    
been rapidly circulated throughout the  
,church1 and the fact that he who       
formerly persecuted was now zealously   
preaching the faith which once he       
destroyed must long have been generally 
known in ,jerusalem1 which was in such  
constant communication with ,damascus4  
,the author of the ,acts continues in   
the same strain1 stating that ,barnabas1
 under the circumstances just described1
 took ,paul and brought him to the      
,apostles ------1 and declared to them  
the particulars of his vision and       
conversion1 and how he had preached     

boldly at ,damascus47#a7 ,no doubt is   
left that this is the first intimation  
the ,apostles had received of such      
extraordinary events4 ,after this1 we   
are told that ,paul was with them coming
 in and going out at ,jerusalem1        
preaching boldly in the name of the     
,lord4 ,here again the declaration of   
,paul is explicit1 and distinctly       
contradicts this story both in the      
letter and the spirit4 ,he makes no     
mention of ,barnabas4 ,he states that he
 went to ,jerusalem specially with the  
view of making the acquaintance of      
,peter1 with whom he remained fifteen   
days2 but he emphatically says3--,but   
other of the ,apostles saw ,i not1 save 
------ ,james1 the ,lord's brother2 and 
then he adds the solemn declaration     
#baa  regarding his account of this     
visit3--,now the things which ,i write  
unto you1 behold1 before ,god1 ,i lie   
not4 ,an asseveration made in this tone 
excludes the supposition of inaccuracy  
or careless vagueness1 and the specific 

statements have all the force of sworn  
evidence4 ,instead of being presented to
 the ,apostles1 therefore1 and going in 
and out with them at ,jerusalem1 we have
 here the emphatic assurance that1 in   
addition to ,peter1 ,paul saw no one    
except ,james1 the ,lord's brother4     
,there has been much discussion as to   
the identity of this ,james1 and whether
 he was an apostle or not1 but into this
 it is unnecessary for us to enter4     
,most writers agree at least that he is 
the same ,james1 the head of the ,church
 at ,jerusalem1 whom we again frequently
 meet with in the ,pauline ,epistles and
 in the ,acts1 and notably in the       
account of the ,apostolic council4 ,the 
exact interpretation to be put upon the 
expression ------ has also been the     
subject of great controversy1 the       
question being whether ,james is here   
really called an apostle or not2 whether
 ------ is to be understood as applying 
solely to the verb1 in which case the   
statement would mean that he saw no     

other of the ,apostles1 but only        
,james27#a7 or to the whole phrase1     
which would express that he had seen no 
other of the ,apostles save ,james47#b7 
,it is admitted by many of those who    
think that in this case the latter      
signification must be adopted that      
grammatically either interpretation is  
permissible4 ,even supposing that  #bab 
rightly or wrongly ,james is here       
referred to as an ,apostle1 the         
statement of the ,acts is1 in spirit1   
quite opposed to that of the ,epistle2  
for when we are told that ,paul is      
brought to the ,apostles ------1 the    
linguistic usage of the writer implies  
that he means much more than merely     
,peter and ,james4 ,it seems impossible 
to reconcile the statement1 ix4 #bg1    
with the solemn assurance of ,paul17#a7 
and if we accept what the ,apostle says 
as truth1 and we cannot doubt it1 it    
must be admitted that the account in the
 ,acts is unhistorical4  ,we arrive at  
the very same conclusion on examining   

the rest of the narrative4 ,in the      
,acts1 ,paul is represented as being    
with the ,apostles going in and out1    
preaching openly in ,jerusalem1 and     
disputing with the ,grecian ,jews47#b7  
,no limit is here put to his visit1 and 
it is difficult to conceive that what is
 narrated is intended to describe a     
visit of merely fifteen days4 ,a        
subsequent statement in the ,acts1      
however1 explains and settles the point 
,paul is represented as declaring to    
,king ,agrippa1 xxvi4 #ai f43           
,wherefore1 ,king ,agrippa1 ,i was not  
disobedient unto the heavenly vision1   
but first unto those in ,damascus1 and  
throughout all the region of ,judaea1   
and to the ,gentiles1 ,i was declaring  
that they should repent  #bac  and turn 
to ,god1 c4 ,however this may be1 the   
statement of ,paul does not admit the   
interpretation of such public ministry4 
,his express purpose in going to        
,jerusalem was1 not to preach1 but to   
make the acquaintance of ,peter2 and it 

was a marked characteristic of ,paul to 
avoid preaching in ground already       
occupied by the other ,apostles before  
him47#a7 ,not only is the account in    
,acts apparently excluded by such       
considerations and by the general tenor 
of the epistle1 but it is equally so by 
the direct words of the ,apostle 7i4    
#bb73--;,i was unknown by face unto the 
churches of ,judaea4 ,it is argued that 
the term3 churches of ,judaea excludes  
,jerusalem47#b7 ,it might possibly be   
asserted with reason that such an       
expression as the churches of ,jerusalem
 might exclude the churches of ,judaea1 
but to say that the ,apostle1 writing   
elsewhere to the ,galatians of a visit  
to ,jerusalem1 and of his conduct at    
that time1 intends1 when speaking of the
 churches of ,judaea1 to exclude the    
principal city1 seems to us arbitrary   
and unwarrantable4 ,the whole object of 
the ,apostle is to show the privacy of  
his visit and his independence of the   
elder ,apostles4 ,he does not use the   

expression as a contrast to ,jerusalem4 
,nothing in his account leads one to    
think of any energetic preaching during 
the visit1 and the necessity of finding 
some way of excluding ,jerusalem from   
the ,apostle's expression is simply     
thrust upon apologists by the account in
 ,acts4 ,two passages are referred to as
 supporting the exclusion of ,jerusalem 
from the churches of ,judaea4 ,in ,john 
iii4 #bb1 we read3 ,after  #bad  these  
things came ,jesus and his disciples    
into the land of ,judaea4 ,in the       
preceding chapter he is described as    
being at ,jerusalem4 ,we have already   
said enough about the geographical      
notices of the author of the fourth     
,gospel47#a7 ,even those who do not     
admit that he was not a native of       
,palestine are agreed that he wrote in  
another country and for foreigners4 ,the
 land of ,judaea1 was therefore a       
natural expression superseding the      
necessity of giving a more minute local 
indication which would have been of     

little use4 ,the second instance        
appealed to1 though more doubtfully17#b7
 is ,heb4 xiii4 #bd3 ,they from ,italy  
salute you4 ,we are at a loss to        
understand how this is supposed to      
support the interpretation adopted4 ,it 
is impossible that if ,paul went in and 
out with the ,apostles1 preached boldly 
in ,jerusalem1 and disputed with the    
,hellenistic ,jews1 not to speak of what
 is added1 ,acts xxvi4 #ai f41 he could 
say that he was unknown by face to the  
churches of ,judaea4 ,there is nothing1 
we may remark1 which limits his         
preaching to the ,grecian ,jews4 ,whilst
 apologists maintain that the two       
accounts are reconcilable1 many of them 
frankly admit that the account in ,acts 
requires correction from that in the    
,epistle27#c7 but1 on the other hand1 a 
still greater number of critics         
prouounce the narrative in the ,acts    
contradictory to the statements of      
,paul47#d7  #bae  ,there remains another
 point upon which a few remarks must be 

made4 ,in ,acts ix4 #bi f4 the cause of 
,paul's hurriedly leaving ,jerusalem is 
a plot of the ,grecian ,jews to kill    
him4 ,paul does not in the ,epistle     
refer to any such matter1 but1 in       
another part of the ,acts1 ,paul is     
represented as relating1 xxii4 #ag f43  
,and it came to pass1 that1 when ,i     
returned to ,jerusalem and was praying  
in the temple1 ,i was in a trance and   
saw him saying unto me3 ,make haste1 and
 get thee quickly out of ,jerusalem1 for
 they will not receive thy witness      
concerning me1 c1 c4 ,this account      
differs1 therefore1 even from the       
previous narrative in the same book1 yet
 critics are agreed that the visit      
during which the ,apostle is said to    
have seen this vision was that which we 
are discussing47#a7 ,the writer is so   
little a historian working from         
substantial facts that he forgets the   
details of his own previous statements2 
and in the account of the conversion of 
,paul1 for instance1 he thrice repeats  

the story with emphatic and             
irreconcilable contradictions4 ,we have 
already observed his partiality for     
visions1 and such supernatural agency is
 so ordinary a matter with him that1 in 
the first account of this visit1 he     
altogether omits the vision1 although he
 must have known of it then quite as    
much as on the second occasion4 ,the    
,apostle1 in his authentic and solemn   
account of this visit1 gives no hint of 
any vision1 and leaves no suggestion    
even of that public preaching which is  
described in the earlier1 and referred  
to in the later1 narrative in the       
,acts47#b7 ,if we  #baf  had no other   
grounds for rejecting the account as    
unhistorical this miraculous vision1    
added as an after-thought1 would have   
warranted our doing so4  ,passing on now
 to the second chapter of the ,epistle  
to the ,galatians1 we find that ,paul   
writes3--,then1 after fourteen years1   
again ,i went up to ,jerusalem444       
------4 ,he states the particulars of   

what took place upon the occasion of    
this second visit with a degree of      
minuteness which ought1 one might have  
supposed1 to have left no doubt of its  
identity1 when compared with the same   
visit historically described elsewhere2 
but such are the discrepancies between  
the two accounts that1 as we have       
already mentioned1 the controversy upon 
the point has been long and active47#a7 
,the ,acts1 it will be remembered1      
relate a second visit of ,paul to       
,jerusalem1 after that which we have    
discussed1 upon which occasion it is    
stated 7xi4 #cj7 that he was sent with  
,barnabas to convey to the community1   
during a time of famine1 the            
contributions of the ,church of         
,antioch4 ,the third visit of the ,acts 
is that 7xv47 when ,paul and ,barnabas  
are said to have been deputed to confer 
with the ,apostles regarding the  #bag  
conditions upon which ,gentile converts 
should be admitted into the ,christian  
brotherhood4 ,the circumstances of this 

visit1 more nearly than any other1      
correspond with those described by the  
,apostle himself in the ,epistle 7ii4 #a
 ff471 but there are grave difficulties 
in the way of identifying them4 ,if this
 visit be identical with that described 
,acts xv41 and if ,paul1 as he states1  
paid no intermediate visit to           
,jerusalem1 what becomes of the visit   
interpolated in ,acts xi4 #cj8 ,the     
first point which we must endeavour to  
ascertain is exactly what the ,apostle  
intends to say regarding the second     
visit which he mentions4 ,the purpose of
 ,paul is to declare his complete       
independence from those who were        
,apostles before him1 and to maintain   
that his ,gospel was not of man1 but    
directly revealed to him by ,jesus      
,christ4 ,in order to prove his         
independence1 therefore1 he             
categorically states exactly what had   
been the extent of his intercourse with 
the elder ,apostles4 ,he protests that1 
after his conversion1 he had neither    

conferred with flesh and blood nor      
sought those who had been ,apostles     
before him1 but1 on the contrary1 that  
he had immediately gone away to ,arabia4
 ,it was not until three years had      
elapsed that he had gone up to          
,jerusalem1 and then only to make the   
acquaintance of ,peter1 with whom he had
 remained only fifteen days1 during     
which he had not seen other of the      
,apostles save ,james1 the ,lord's      
brother4 ,only after the lapse of       
fourteen years did he again go up to    
,jerusalem4 ,it is argued7#a7 that when 
,paul says1 he went up again1 ------1   
the word ------ has not the force of    
------1 and that1 so far from excluding 
any intermediate journey1 it merely     
signifies a  #bah  repetition of what   
had been done before1 and might have    
been used of any subsequent journey4    
,even if this were so1 it is impossible 
to deny that1 read with its context1    
------ is used in immediate connection  
with the former visit which we have just

 discussed4 ,the sequence is distinctly 
marked by the ------ then1 and the      
adoption of the preposition             
--------which may properly be read after
 the lapse of17#a7--;instead of ------1 
seems clearly to indicate that no other 
journey to ,jerusalem had been made in  
the interval4 ,this can be maintained   
linguistically2 but the point is still  
more decidedly settled when the         
,apostle's intention is considered4 ,it 
is obvious that his purpose would have  
been totally defeated had he passed over
 in silence an intermediate visit4 ,even
 if1 as is argued1 the4 visit referred  
to in ,acts xi4 #cj had been of very    
brief duration1 or if he had not upon   
that occasion had any intercourse with  
the ,apostles1 it is impossible that he 
could have ignored it under the         
circumstances1 for by so doing he would 
have left the retort in the power of his
 enemies that he had1 on other occasions
 than those which he had enumerated1    
been in ,jerusalem and in contact with  

the ,apostles4 ,the mere fact that a    
visit had been unmentioned would have   
exposed him to the charge of having     
suppressed it1 and suspicion is always  
ready to assign unworthy motives4 ,if   
,paul had paid such a hasty visit as is 
suggested1 he would naturally have      
mentioned the fact and stated the       
circumstances1 whatever they were4      
,these and other reasons convince the   
majority of critics that the ,apostle   
here enumerates all the visits which he 
had paid to ,jerusalem since his        
conversion47#b7 ,the visit referred to  
in ,gal4 ii4 #a ff4  #bai  must be      
considered the second occasion on which 
the ,apostle ,paul went to ,jerusalem4  
,this being the case1 can the visit be  
identified as the second visit described
 in ,acts xi4 #cj8 ,the object of that  
journey to ,jerusalem1 it is expressly  
stated1 was to carry to the brethren in 
,jerusalem the contributions of the     
,church of ,antioch during a time of    
famine2 whereas ,paul explicitly says   

that he went up to ,jerusalem1 on the   
occasion we are discussing1 in          
consequence of a revelation1 to         
communicate the ,gospel which he was    
preaching among the ,gentiles4 ,there is
 not a word about contributions4 ,on the
 other hand1 chronologically it is      
impossible that the second visit of the 
,epistle can be the second of the ,acts4
 ,there is some difference of opinion as
 to whether the fourteen years are to be
 calculated from the date of his        
conversion17#a7 or from the previous    
journey47#b7 ,the latter seems to be the
 more reasonable supposition1 but in    
either case it is obvious that the      
identity is excluded4 ,from various     
data1--the famine under ,claudius1 and  
the time of ,herod ,agrippa's  #bbj     
death1--the date of the journey referred
 to in ,acts xi4 #cj is assigned to     
about a4d4 #de4 ,if1 therefore1 we count
 back fourteen or seventeen years1 we   
have as the date of the conversion1 on  
the first hypothesis1 a4d4 #ca1 and on  

the second1 a4d4 #bh1 neither of which  
of course is tenable4 ,in order to      
overcome this difficulty1 critics7#a7 at
 one time proposed1 against the         
unanimous evidence of ,,mss41 to read   
instead of ------ in ,gal4 ii4 #a1      
------ after four years2 but this       
violent remedy is not only generally    
rejected1 but1 even if admitted for the 
sake of argument1 it could not establish
 the identity1 inasmuch as the          
statements in ,gal4 ii4 #a ff4 imply a  
much longer period of missionary        
activity amongst the ,gentiles than     
,paul could possibly have had at that   
time1 about which epoch1 indeed1        
,barnabas is said to have sought him in 
,tarsus1 apparently for the purpose of  
first commencing such a career2a        
certainly the account of his active     
ministry begins in the ,acts only in    
,ch4 xiii4 ,then1 it is not possible to 
suppose that1 if such a dispute         
regarding circumcision and the ,gospel  
of the uncircumcision as is sketched in 

,gal4 ii4 had taken place on a previous 
occasion1 it could so soon be repeated1 
,acts xv41 and without any reference to 
the former transaction4 ,comparatively  
few critics1 therefore1 have ventured to
 maintain that the second visit recorded
 in the ,epistle is the same as the     
second mentioned in the ,acts 7xi4 #cj71
 and in modern times the theory is      
almost entirely abandoned4 ,if1         
therefore1 it be admitted that ,paul    
mentions all the journeys which he had  
made to ,jerusalem up to the time at    
which he wrote1 and that his second     
visit was not the second visit  #bba  of
 the ,acts1 but must be placed later1 it
 follows clearly upon the ,apostle's own
 assurance that the visit mentioned in  
,acts xi4 #cj1 xii4 #be1 cannot have    
taken place and is unhistorical1 and    
this is the conclusion of the majority  
of critics17#a7 including many          
apologists1 who1 whilst suggesting that1
 for some reason1 ,barnabas may alone   
have gone to ,jerusalem without ,paul1  

or otherwise deprecating any imputation 
of conscious inaccuracy to the author1  
still substantially confirm the result  
that ,paul did not on that occasion go  
to ,jerusalem1 and consequently that the
 statement is not historical4 ,on the   
other hand1 it is suggested that the    
additional visit to ,jerusalem is       
inserted by the author with a view to   
conciliation1 by representing that ,paul
 was in constant communication with the 
,apostles and community of ,jerusalem1  
and that he acted with their approval   
and sympathy4 ,it is scarcely possible  
to observe the peculiar variations      
between the narratives of the ,acts and 
of ,paul without feeling that the author
 of the former deliberately sacrifices  
the independence and individuality of   
the great ,apostle of the ,gentiles4    
,the great mass of critics agree in     
declaring that the  #bbb  second visit  
described in the ,epistle is identical  
with the third recorded in the ,acts    
7xv471 although a wide difference of    

opinion exists amongst them as to the   
historical value of the account         
contained in the latter4 ,this general  
agreement renders it unnecessary for us 
to enter at any length into the         
arguments which establish the identity1 
and we shall content ourselves with very
 concisely stating some of the chief    
reasons for this conclusion4 ,the date  
in both cases corresponds1 whilst there 
are insuperable chronological objections
 to identifying the second journey of   
the ,epistle with any earlier or later  
visit mentioned in ,acts4 ,we have      
referred to other reasons against its   
being placed earlier than the third     
visit of ,acts1 and there are still     
stronger objections to its being dated  
after the third4 ,it is impossible1     
considering the object of the ,apostle1 
that he could have passed over in       
silence such a visit as that described  
,acts xv41 and the only alternative     
would be to date it later than the      
composition of the ,epistle1 to which   

the narrative of the ,acts as well as   
all other known facts would be          
irreconcilably opposed4 ,on the other   
hand1 the date1 the actors1 the cause of
 dispute1 and probably the place        
7,antioch7 in which that dispute        
originated1 so closely correspond1 that 
it is incredible that such a coincidence
 of circumstances should again have     
occurred4  ,without anticipating our    
comparison of the two accounts of this  
visit1 we must here at least remark that
 the discrepancies are so great that not
 only have apologetic critics1 as we    
have indicated1 adopted the theory that 
the second visit of the ,epistle is not 
the same as the third of the ,acts1 but 
is identical with the second 7xi4 #cj71 
of which so few particulars are given1  
but  #bbc  some1 and notably            
,wieseler17#a7 have maintained it to    
have been the same as that described in 
,acts xviii4 #ba ff41 whilst ,paley and 
others7#b7 have been led to the         
hypothesis that the visit in question   

does not correspond with any of the     
visits actually recorded in the ,acts1  
but is one which is not referred to at  
all in that work4 ,these  #bbd  theories
 have found very little favour1 however1
 and we mention them solely to complete 
our statement of the general            
controversy4 ,considering the fulness of
 the report of the visit in ,acts xv4   
and the peculiar nature of the facts    
stated by the ,apostle himself in his   
letter to the ,galatians1 the difficulty
 of identifying the particular visit    
referred to is a phenomenon which cannot
 be too much considered4 ,is it         
possible1 if the narrative in the ,acts 
were really historically accurate1 that 
any reasonable doubt could ever have    
existed as to its correspondence with   
the ,apostle's statements8 ,we may here 
at once say that1 although many of the  
critics who finally decide that the     
visit described in ,acts xv4 is the same
 as that referred to in the second      
chapter of the ,epistle argue that the  

obvious discrepancies and contradictions
 between the two accounts may be        
sufficiently explained and reconciled1  
this is for very strong reasons         
disputed1#a and the narrative in the    
,acts1 when tested by the authentic     
statements of the ,apostle1 pronounced  
inaccurate and unhistorical4  ,it is    
only necessary to read the two accounts 
in order to understand the grounds upon 
which even apologists like ,paley and   
,wieseler feel themselves compelled     
#bbe  to suppose that the ,apostle is   
describing transactions which occurred  
during some visit either unmentioned or 
not fully related in the ,acts1 rather  
than identify it with the visit reported
 in the fifteenth chapter1 from which it
 so essentially differs4 ,a material    
difference is not denied by any one1 and
 explanations with a view to            
reconciliation have never been dispensed
 with4 ,thiersch1 who has nothing better
 than the usual apologetic explanations 
to offer1 does not hesitate to avow the 

apparent incongruities of the two       
narratives4 ,the journey1 he says1 is   
the same1 but no human ingenuity can    
make out that also the conference and   
the decree resulting from it are the    
same47#a7 ,of course he supposes that   
the problem is to be solved by asserting
 that the ,apostle speaks of the        
private1 the historian of the public1   
circumstances of the visit4 ,all who    
maintain the historical character of the
 ,acts must of course more or less      
thoroughly adopt this argument1 but it  
is obvious that1 in doing so1 they admit
 on the one hand the general            
discrepancy1 and on the other1 if       
successful in establishing their        
position1 they could do no more than    
show that the ,epistle does not         
absolutely exclude the account in the   
,acts4 ,both writers profess to describe
 events which occurred during the same  
visit2 both record matters of the       
highest interest closely bearing on the 
same subject2 yet the two accounts are  

so different from each other that they  
can only be rescued from complete       
antagonism by complete separation4      
,supposing the author of the ,acts to be
 really acquainted with the occurrences 
of this visit1 and to have intended to  
give a plain unvarnished account of     
them1 the unconscious ingenuity with    
which he has omitted the important facts
 mentioned by ,paul and  #bbf           
eliminated the whole of the ,apostle's  
individuality would indeed be as        
remarkable as it is unfortunate4 ,but   
supposing the ,apostle ,paul to have    
been aware of the formal proceedings    
narrated in the ,acts1 characterized by 
such unanimity and liberal ,christian   
feeling1 it would be still more         
astonishing and unfortunate that he has 
not only silently passed them over1 but 
has conveyed so singularly different an 
impression of his visit47#a7 ,as the    
,apostle certainly could not have been  
acquainted with the ,acts1 his silence  
regarding the council and its momentous 

decree1 as well as his ignorance of the 
unbroken harmony which prevailed are    
perfectly intelligible4 ,he of course   
only knew and described what actually   
occurred4 ,the author of the ,acts1     
however1 might and must have known the  
,epistle to the ,galatians1 and the     
ingenuity with which the tone and       
details of the authentic report are     
avoided or transfigured cannot be       
ascribed to mere accident1 but must     
largely be attributed to design1        
although also partly1 it may be1 to the 
ignorance and the pious imagination of a
 later age4 ,is it possible1 for        
instance1 that the controversy regarding
 the circumcision of ,titus1 and the    
dispute with ,peter at ,antioch1 which  
are so prominently related in the       
,epistle1 but present a view so         
different from the narrative of ,acts1  
can have been undesignedly omitted8 ,the
 violent apologetic reconciliation which
 is effected between the two accounts is
 based upon the foregone conclusion that

 the author of the canonical ,acts1     
however he may seem to deviate from the 
,apostle1 cannot possibly contradict him
 or be       #a ,our difficulty in      
reading this page of history arises not 
so much from the absence of light as    
from the perplexity of      cross       
lights4 ,the narratives of ,st4 ,luke   
and ,st4 ,paul only      then cease to  
conflict1 when we take into account the 
different positions of the writers and  
the different objects      they had in  
view4   ,lightfoot1 ,st ,paul's ,ep4 to 
the ,gal41      p4 #bid4  #bbg  in      
error2 but the preceding examination has
 rendered such a position untenable1 and
 here we have not to do with a canonized
 ,st4 ,luke1 but with an unknown writer 
whose work must be judged by the        
ordinary rules of criticism4  ,according
 to the ,acts1 a most serious question  
is raised at ,antioch4 ,certain men from
 ,judaea came thither teaching3 ,except 
ye have been circumcised after the      
manner of ,moses ye cannot be saved4    

,after much dissension and disputation  
the ,church of ,antioch appoint that    
,paul and ,barnabas1 and certain others 
of them shall go up to ,jerusalem unto  
the ,apostles and elders about this     
question4 ,the motive of the journey is 
here most distinctly and definitely     
described4 ,paul is solemnly deputed by 
the church to lay before the mother     
,church of ,jerusalem a difficult       
question1 upon the answer to which turns
 the whole future of ,christianity4     
,paul's account1 however1 gives a very  
different complexion to the             
visit3--,then1 after fourteen years1 ,i 
went up again to ,jerusalem with        
,barnabas1 taking ,titus also with me4  
,but ,i went up according to revelation 
------ and communicated to them the     
,gospel which ,i preach among the       
,gentiles1 c4 ,paley might well         
say3--,this is not very                 
reconcilable47#a7 ,it is argued17#b7    
that the two  #bbh  statements may      
supplement each other2 that the         

revelation may have been made to the    
,church of ,antioch and have led to the 
mission2 or that1 being made to ,paul1  
it may have decided him to undertake it4
 ,if however1 we admit that the essence 
of truth consists not in the mere letter
 but in the spirit of what is stated1 it
 seems impossible to reconcile these    
accounts4 ,it might be granted that a   
historian1 giving a report of events    
which had occurred1 might omit some     
secret motive actuating the conduct even
 of one of the principal persons with   
whom he has to do2 but that the         
,apostle1 under the actual              
circumstances1 and while protesting3    
,now the things which ,i am writing unto
 you1 behold1 before ,god1 ,i lie not6  
should altogether suppress the important
 official character of his journey to   
,jerusalem1 and give it the distinct    
colour of a visit voluntarily and       
independently made ------1 is           
inconceivable4 ,as we proceed1 it will  
become apparent that the divergence     

between the two accounts is systematic  
and fundamental2 but we may here so far 
anticipate as to point out that the     
,apostle explicitly excludes an official
 visit not only by stating an inward    
motive1 and omitting all mention of a   
public object1 but by the               
expression3--and communicated to them   
the ,gospel which ,i preach among the   
,gentiles1 but privately to those who1  
c4 ,to quote ,paley's words3 ,if by     
'that ,gospel1' he meant the immunity of
 the ,gentile ,christians from the      
,jewish law 7and ,i know not what else  
it can mean71 it is not easy to conceive
 how he should communicate that         
privately1 which was the subject of his 
public message27#a7 and  #bbi  we may   
add1 how he should so absolutely alter  
the whole character of his visit4 ,in   
the ,acts1 he is an ambassador charged  
with a most important mission2 in the   
,epistle1 he is ,paul the ,apostle1     
moved solely by his own reasons again to
 visit ,jerusalem4 ,the author of the   

,acts1 however1 who is supposed to      
record only the external circumstances1 
when tested is found to do so very      
imperfectly1 for he omits all mention of
 ,titus1 who is conjectured to be       
tacitly included in the certain others  
of them1 who were appointed by the      
,church to accompany ,paul1 and he is   
altogether silent regarding the         
strenuous effort to enforce the rite of 
circumcision in his case1 upon which the
 ,apostle lays so much stress4 ,the     
,apostle1 who throughout maintains his  
simply independent attitude1 mentions   
his taking ,titus with him as a purely  
voluntary act1 and certainly conveys no 
impression that he also was delegated by
 the ,church4 ,we shall presently see   
how significant the suppression of      
,titus is in connection with the        
author's transformation of the          
circumstances of the visit4 ,in         
affirming that he went up according to  
revelation1 ,paul proceeds in the very  
spirit in which he began to write this  

epistle4 ,he continues simply to assert 
his independence1 and equality with the 
elder ,apostles4 ,in speaking of his    
first journey he has this object in     
view1 and he states precisely the       
duration of his visit and whom he saw4  
,if he had suppressed the official      
character of this second visit and the  
fact that he submitted for the decision 
of the ,apostles and elders the question
 of the immunity of the ,gentile        
converts from circumcision1 and thus    
curtly ascribed his going to a          
revelation1 he would have compromised   
himself in a very serious manner1 and   
exposed himself to a charge of          
disingenuousness of which his enemies   
would not have  #bcj  failed to take    
advantage4 ,but1 whether we consider the
 evidence of the ,apostle himself in    
speaking of this visit1 the absence of  
all external allusion to the supposed   
proceedings when reference to them would
 have been not only most appropriate but
 was almost necessary1 the practical    

contradiction of the whole narrative    
implied in the subsequent conduct of    
,peter at ,antioch1 or the inconsistency
 of the conduct attributed in it to     
,paul himself1 we are forced back to the
 natural conclusion that the ,apostle   
does not suppress anything1 and does not
 give so absurdly partial an account of 
his visit as would be the case if the   
narrative in the ,acts be historical1   
but that1 in a few rapid powerful lines1
 he completes a suggestive sketch of its
 chief characteristics4 ,this becomes   
more apparent at every step we take in  
our comparison of the two narratives4   
,if we pass on to the next stage of the 
proceedings1 we find an equally striking
 divergence between the two writers1 and
 it must not escape attention that the  
variations are not merely incidental but
 are thorough and consecutive4          
,according to the ,acts1 there was a    
solemn congress held in ,jerusalem1 on  
which occasion the ,apostles and elders 
and the ,church being assembled1 the    

question whether it was necessary that  
the ,gentiles should be circumcised and 
bound to keep the law of ,moses was     
fully discussed1 and a formal resolution
 finally adopted by the meeting4 ,the   
proceedings in fact constitute what has 
always been regarded as the first       
,council of the ,christian ,church4 ,the
 account in the ,epistle does not seem  
to betray any knowledge of such a       
congress47#a7 ,the ,apostle himself says
 merely3--,but ,i  #bca  went according 
to revelation and communicated to them  
------ the ,gospel which ,i preach among
 the ,gentiles1 but privately to them   
which seemed 7to be something7          
------47#a7 ,the usual apologetic       
explanation1 as we have already         
mentioned1 is that whilst more or less  
distinctly the author of ,acts indicates
 private conferences1 and ,paul a public
 assembly1 the former chiefly confines  
his attention to the general congress   
and the latter to the more private      
incidents of his visit47#b7 ,the opinion

 that the author of ,acts alludes in a  
general way to conferences and          
discussions preceding the congress17#c7 
is based upon the statement xv4 #d1 #e3 
,and when they came to ,jerusalem they  
were received by the ,church and by the 
,apostles and the elders1 and declared  
all that ,god did with them4 ,but there 
rose up certain of the sect of the      
,pharisees1 who believed1 saying3 ,that 
it is necessary to circumcise them and  
to command them to keep the law of      
,moses4 ,and the ,apostles and the      
elders came together to see regarding   
this matter4 ,and when there had been   
much disputation1 ,peter rose up and    
said1 c4 ,if it were admitted that more 
than one meeting is here indicated1 it  
is clear that the words cannot be       
legitimately strained into a reference  
to more  #bcb  than two conferences4    
,the first of these is a general meeting
 of the ,apostles and elders and of the 
,church to receive the delegates from   
,antioch1 and the second is an equally  

general and public conference 7verse    
#f73 not only are the ,apostles and     
elders present but also the general body
 of ,christians1 as clearly appears from
 the statement 7ver4 #ab7 that1 after   
the speech of ,peter1 all the multitude 
------ kept silence47l7 ,the much       
disputation evidently takes place on the
 occasion when the ,apostles and elders 
are gathered together to consider the   
matter4 ,if1 therefore1 two meetings can
 be maintained from the narrative in    
,acts1 both are emphatically public and 
general1 and neither1 therefore1 the    
private conference of the ,epistle4 ,the
 main fact that the author of the ,acts 
describes a general congress of the     
,church as taking place is never called 
in question4  ,on the other hand1 few   
who appreciate the nature of the        
discrepancy which we are discussing will
 feel that the difficulty is solved by  
suggesting that there is space for the  
insertion of other incidents in the     
,apostle's narrative4 ,it is rather late

 now to interpolate a general ,council  
of the ,church into the pauses of the   
,galatian letter4 ,to suppose that the  
communications of ,paul to the ,pillar  
,apostles1 and the distressing debate   
regarding the circumcision of ,titus1   
may be inferred between the lines of the
 account in the ,acts1 is a bold effort 
of imagination2 but it is far from being
 as hopeless as an attempt to reconcile 
the discrepancy by thrusting the        
important public congress into some     
corner of the  #bcc  ,apostle's         
statement4 ,in so far as any argument is
 advanced in support of the assertion   
that ,paul's expression implies         
something more than the private         
conference1 it is based upon the        
reference intended in the words ------4 
,when ,paul says he went up to          
,jerusalem and communicated to them his 
,gospel1 but privately ------1 whom does
 he mean to indicate by the ------8     
,does he refer to the ,christian        
community of ,jerusalem1 or to the      

,apostles themselves8 ,it is pretty     
generally admitted that either          
application is permissible2 but whilst a
 majority of apologetic1 together with  
some independent1 critics adopt the     
former17#a7 not a few consider1 as      
,chrysostom1 ,oecumenius1 and ,calvin   
did before them1 that ,paul more        
probably referred to the ,apostles47#b7 
,in favour of the former there is the   
fact1 it is argued1 that the ------ is  
used immediately after the statement    
that the ,apostle went up to ,jerusalem1
 and that it may be more natural to     
conclude that he speaks of the          
,christians there1 more especially as he
 seems to distinguish between the       
communication made ------ and           
------27#c7 and1 in support of this1    
they  #bcd  in ,gal4 i4 #bc1 #bd1 is1   
though we think without propriety1      
referred to4 ,it is1 on the other hand1 
urged that it is very unlikely that the 
,apostle would in such a way communicate
 his ,gospel to the whole community1 and

 that in the expressions used he        
indicates no special transaction1 but   
that the ------ is merely an indefinite 
statement for which he immediately      
substitutes the more precise ------7#a7 
,it is quite certain that there is no   
mention of the ,christian community of  
,jerusalem to which the ------ can with 
any real grammatical necessity be       
referred2 but when the whole purport of 
the first part of the ,apostle's letter 
is considered the reference to the      
,apostles in the ------ becomes clearer4
 ,paul is protesting the independence of
 his ,gospel1 and that he did not       
receive it from man but from ,jesus     
,christ4 ,he wishes to show that he was 
not taught by the ,apostles nor         
dependent upon them4 ,he states that    
after his conversion he did not go to   
those who were ,apostles before him1    
but1 on the contrary1 went away to      
,arabia1 and only three years after he  
went up to ,jerusalem1 and then only for
 the purpose of making the acquaintance 

of ,peter1 and on that occasion other of
 the ,apostles saw he none save ,james  
the ,lord's brother4 ,after fourteen    
years1 he continues to recount1 he again
 went up to ,jerusalem1 but according to
 revelation1 and communicated to them1  
i4e4 to the ,apostles1 the ,gospel which
 he preached among the ,gentiles4 ,the  
,apostles  #bce  have been in the       
writer's mind throughout1 but in the    
impetuous flow of his ideas1 which in   
the first two chapters of this epistle  
outrun the pen1 the sentences become    
involved4 ,it must be admitted1 finally1
 that the reference intended is a matter
 of opinion and cannot be               
authoritatively settled4 ,if we suppose 
it to refer to the community of         
,jerusalem1 taking thus the more        
favourable construction1 how would this 
affect the question8 ,can it be         
maintained that in this casual and      
indefinite to them we have any          
confirmation of the general congress of 
the ,acts1 with its debates1 its solemn 

settlement of that momentous proposition
 regarding the ,gentile ,christians1 and
 its important decree8 ,it is impossible
 to credit that1 in saying that he      
communicated to them the ,gospel which  
he preached amongst the ,gentiles1 the  
,apostle referred to a ,council like    
that described in the ,acts1 to which1  
as a delegate from the ,church of       
,antioch1 he submitted the question of  
the conditions upon which the ,gentiles 
were to be admitted into the ,church1   
and tacitly accepted their decision47#a7
 ,even if it be assumed that the        
,apostle makes this slight passing      
allusion to some meeting different from 
his conference with the pillar          
,apostles1 it could not have been a     
general congress assembled for the      
purpose stated in the ,acts and         
characterised by such proceedings4 ,the 
discrepancy between the two narratives  
is not lessened by any supposed         
indication either in the ,epistle or in 
the ,acts of other incidents than those 

actually described4 ,the suggestion that
 the dispute about ,titus involved some 
#bcf  publicity does not avail1 for the 
greater the publicity and importance of 
the episode the greater the difficulty  
of explaining the total silence         
regarding it of the author of ,acts4    
,the more closely the two statements are
 compared the more apparent does it     
become that the author describes        
proceedings which are totally different 
in general character1 in details1 and in
 spirit1 from those so vividly sketched 
by the ,apostle ,paul4  ,we shall have  
more to say presently regarding the     
irreconcilable contradiction in spirit  
between the whole account which is given
 in the ,acts of this ,council and the  
writings of ,paul2 but it may be more   
convenient1 if less effective1 if we for
 the present take the chief points in   
the narrative as they arise and consider
 how far they are supported or          
discredited by other data4 ,we shall    
refer later to the manner in which the  

question which leads to the ,council is 
represented as arising and at once      
proceed to the speech of ,peter4 ,after 
there had been much disputation as to   
whether the ,gentile ,christians must   
necessarily be circumcised and required 
to observe the ,mosaic law1 it is stated
 that ,peter rose up and said3 xv4 #g4  
,men 7and7 brethren1 ye know that a good
 while ago ,god made choice among you   
that the ,gentiles by my mouth should   
hear the word of the ,gospel and        
believe4 #h4 ,and ,god which knoweth the
 hearts bare them witness1 giving them  
the ,holy ,spirit even as unto us2 #i4  
and put no distinction between us and   
them1 having purified their hearts by   
the faith4 #aj4 ,now1 therefore1 why    
tempt ye ,god1 to put a yoke upon the   
neck of the disciples which neither our 
fathers nor we were able to bear8 #aa4  
,but by the grace of our ,lord ,jesus we
 believe we are saved even as also      
they47#a7  #bcg  ,the liberality of the 
sentiments thus put into the mouth of   

,peter requires no demonstration1 and   
there is here an explicit expression of 
convictions1 which we must1 from his own
 words1 consider to be the permanent and
 mature views of the ,apostle1 dating as
 they do from ancient days ------ and   
originating in so striking and          
supernatural a manner4 ,we may1         
therefore1 expect that whenever we meet 
with an authentic record of ,peter's    
opinions and conduct elsewhere1 they    
should exhibit the impress of such      
advanced and divinely imparted views4   
,the statement which ,peter makes3 that 
,god had a good while before selected   
him that the ,gentiles by his voice     
should hear the ,gospel1 is of course a 
reference to the case of ,cornelius1 and
 this unites the fortunes of the speech 
and proceedings of the ,council with    
that episode4 ,we have seen how little  
ground there is for considering that    
narrative1 with its elaborate tissue of 
miracles1 historical4 ,the speech which 
adopts it is thus discredited1 and all  

other circumstances confirm the         
conclusion that the speech is not       
authentic47#a7 ,if the name of ,peter   
were erased and that of ,paul           
substituted1 the sentiments expressed   
would be singularly appropriate4 ,we    
should have the  #bch  divinely         
appointed ,apostle of the ,gentiles     
advocating complete immunity from the   
,mosaic law1 and enunciating ,pauline   
principles in peculiarly ,pauline terms4
 ,when ,peter declares that ,god put no 
distinction between us 7,jews7 and them 
7,gentiles71 purifying their hearts by  
faith17#a7 but by the grace ------ of   
our ,lord ,jesus ,christ we believe we  
are saved even as also they1 do we not  
hear ,paul's sentiments1 so elaborately 
expressed in the ,epistle to the ,romans
 and elsewhere8 ,for there is no        
difference between ,jew and ,greek2 for 
the same ,lord of all is rich unto all  
that call upon him4 ,for whosoever shall
 call upon the name of the ,lord shall  
be saved7#b74444 justified freely by his

 grace ------ through the redemption    
that is in ,christ ,jesus47#c7 ,and when
 ,peter exclaims3 ,why tempt ye ,god to 
put a yoke ------ upon the neck of the  
disciples which neither our fathers nor 
we were able to bear8 have we not rather
 a paraphrase of the words in the       
,epistle to the ,galatians8 ,with       
liberty ,christ made us free2 stand     
fast1 therefore1 and be not entangled   
again in a yoke ------ of bondage4      
,behold1 ,i ,paul say unto you that if  
ye be circumcised ,christ will profit   
you nothing4 ,but ,i testify again to   
every man who is circumcised that he is 
a debtor to do the whole law47#d7444    
,for as many as are of works of law are 
under a curse1 c7#e7 ,these are only a  
few sentences of which the speech in    
,acts is an echo1 but no attentive      
reader can fail to perceive that it     
contains in germ the whole of ,pauline  
universalism4  #bci  ,from the ,pauline 
author of the ,acts this might fairly be
 expected1 and if we linguistically     

examine the speech1 we have additional  
evidence that it is simply1 like others 
which we have considered1 a composition 
from his own pen4 ,we shall1 as briefly 
as possible1 refer to every word which  
is not of too common occurrence to      
require notice1 and point out where they
 are elsewhere used4 ,the opening ------
 occurs elsewhere in the ,acts #ac      
times1 as we have already pointed out1  
being the favourite phrase placed in the
 mouth of all speakers2 ------1 x4 #bh1 
xviii4 #be1 xix4 #ae1 #be1 xx4 #ah1     
xxii4 #ai1 xxiv4 #aj1 xxvi4 #c1 #bf1 and
 elsewhere only #e times4 ,the phrase   
------ at the beginning of a sentence   
has been pointed out1 in connection with
 a similar way of expressing the        
personal pronoun in x4 #bh1 ------1 and 
------1 as consequently characteristic  
of ,peter1 and considered important as  
showing that these reports are not only 
according to the sense of what was said1
 but the words spoken1 verbatim47#a7    
,this is to overlook the fact that the  

very same words are put into the mouth  
of ,paul4 ,peter commences his speech1  
xv4 #g3 ------ ,paul begins his speech  
at ,miletus1 xx4 #ah3 ------2 and at    
,ephesus1 ,demetrius the silversmith    
commences his address1 xix4 #be3 ------ 
,cf4 xxiii4 #ae4 ------1 xv4 #ba1 xxi4  
#af2 ,luke ix4 #h1 #ai2 elsewhere #f    
times2 the expression ------ does not   
elsewhere occur in the ,new ,testament1 
but ------ is common in the ,septuagint4
 ,cf4 ,ps4 xliii4 #a1 lxxvi4 #e1 cxlii4 
#e1 ,isaiah xxxvii4 #bf1 ,lament1 i4 #g1
 ii4 #ag1 c1 c4 ------1 i4 #b1 #bd1 vi4 
#e1 xiii4 #ag1 xv4 #bb1 #be2 ,luke  #bdj
  #d times1 elsewhere #aa times1 and of 
these the following with inf41 ,act99 i4
 #bd f41 xv4 #bb1 #be1 ,ephes4 ,l #d4   
,with the phrase ------7#a7 may be      
compared that of ,paul1 xiii4           
#ag1------1 and #a ,cor4 i4 #bg1 in     
which ------ occurs twice1 as well as   
again in the next verse1 #bh4 ------ i4 
#af1 in4 #ah1 #ba2 iv4 #be2 ,luke i4    
#gj2 and the whole phrase ------1 may be

 compared with the words put into       
,paul's mouth1 xxii4 #ad3 ------ xx4    
#bd1 in ,paul's ,epistles 7#d7 #cc      
times1 and elsewhere #db times4 ,verse  
#h4 ------ only occurs here and in i4   
#bd1 ------ where it forms part of the  
prayer at the election of the successor 
to ,judas4 ,we have fully examined the  
speech of ,peter1 i4 #af ffi1 and shown 
its unhistorical character1 and that it 
is a free composition by the author of  
the ,acts2 the prayer of the assembly is
 not ascribed to ,peter in the work     
itself1 though apologists1 grasping at  
the ------1 assert that it must have    
been delivered by that ,apostle2 but1   
with the preceding speech1 the prayer   
also must be attributed to the pen of   
the author2 and if it be maintained that
 ,peter spoke in the ,aramaic tongue7#b7
 it is useless to discuss the word at   
all1 which of course in that case must  
be allowed to belong to the author4     
------1 ,acts #ab- times1 ,luke #b1 rest
 frequently2 with the phrase ------ may 

be compared ,paul's words in xiii4 #bb1 
------4 ,verse #i1 ------1 x4 #bj1 xi4  
#b1 #ab1 ,paul #g times1 c  #bda        
------1 xii4 #f1 xiii4 #db2 ,luke xi4   
#ea1 xvi4 #bf2 rest #d times4 ------1   
,acts #bg times1 ,luke #c1 ,paul #i1    
rest #ae times2 re444 ------,acts #cc   
times1 ,luke #e1 ,paul #d1 rest #aj     
times-------- is clearly characteristic 
of the author1 ------1 ,acts #ae1 ,luke 
#aa times1 rest very frequently4 ------1
 x4 #ae1 xi4 #i2 ,luke #g1 and elsewhere
 #bj times1 ------1 x4 #cc1 xvi4 #cf1   
xxiii4 #ae2 an expression not found     
elsewhere in the ,new ,testament1 and   
which is also indicative of the         
,author's composition4 ,verse #aj1      
------1 v4 #i1 xvi4 #g1 xxiv4 #f2 ,luke 
iv4 #b1 xi4 #af1 xx4 #bc1 rest          
frequently2 the question of ,jesus in   
,luke and the parallel passages1 ------2
 will occur to every one4 ------1 ,acts 
#ab1 ,luke #f times1 the rest           
frequently4 ------ does not occur       
elsewhere1 either in the ,acts or third 

,gospel1 but it is used precisely in the
 same sense by ,paul1 ,gal4 v4 #a1 in a 
passage to which we have called         
attention a few pages back7#a7 in       
connection with this speech4 ------1 xx4
 #cg1 ,luke xv4 #bj1 xvii4 #b2 ,romans  
xvi4 #d1 ,matth4 xviii4 #f1 ,mark ix4   
#db2 ------ occurs #d times1 ------1 vi4
 #aj1 xix4 #af1 #bj1 xxv4 #g1 xxvii4    
#af2 ,luke #h times and elsewhere #ae   
times4 ------1 iii4 #b1 ix4 #ae1 xxi4   
#ce2 ,luke #e1 ,paul #f1 rest #ab times4
 ,verse #aa1 ------ ,acts #a8 times1    
,luke #h1 ,paul #fa times1 rest         
frequently4 ------1 ,acts #ch1 ,luke #i 
times1 rest frequently4 ------1 ,acts   
#ab1 ,luke #ah times1 rest frequently1  
------1 is also put into the mouth of   
,paul1 xxvii4 #be1 and is not elsewhere 
found in the ,new ,testament2 ------1 i4
 #aa1 vii4 #bh2 ,luke xiii4 #cd2 ,matth4
 xxiii4 #cg1 #b ,tim4 iii4 #h4 ------1  
v4 #cg1 xviii4 #ai2 ,luke xi4 #g1 #b1   
xx4 #aa1 xxii4 #ab and elsewhere in the 
,new ,testament #ag times4 ,it cannot be

 doubted that the language of this      
speech is that of the author of the     
,acts1 and no serious attempt has ever  
#bdb  been made to show that it is the  
language of ,peter4 ,if it be asserted  
that1 in the form before us1 it is a    
translation1 there is not the slightest 
evidence to support the assertion2 and  
it has to contend with the unfortunate  
circumstance that1 in the supposed      
process1 the words of ,peter have not   
only become the words of the author1 but
 his thoughts the thoughts of ,paul4    
,we may now inquire whether we find in  
authentic records of the ,apostle       
,peter's conduct and views any          
confirmation of the liberality which is 
attributed to him in the ,acts4 ,he is  
here represented as proposing the       
emancipation of ,gentile ,converts from 
the ,mosaic law3 does this accord with  
the statements of the ,apostle ,paul and
 with such information as we can        
elsewhere gather regarding ,peter8 ,very
 much the contrary4  ,peter in this     

speech claims that1 long before1 ,god   
had selected him to make known the      
,gospel to the ,gentiles1 but ,paul     
emphatically distinguishes him as the   
,apostle of the ,circumcision2 and      
although1 accepting facts which had     
actually taken place and could not be   
prevented1 ,peter with ,james and ,john 
gave ,paul right hands of fellowship1 he
 remained1 as he had been before1       
,apostle of the ,circumcision7#a7 and1  
as we shall see4 did not practise the   
liberality which he is said to have     
preached4 ,very shortly after the       
,council described in the ,acts1 there  
occurred the celebrated dispute between 
him and ,paul which the latter proceeds 
to describe immediately after the visit 
to ,jerusalem3 ,but when ,cephas came to
 ,antioch1 he writes1 ,i withstood him  
to the face1 for he was condemned4 ,for 
before certain came from ,james1 he did 
eat with the ,gentiles2 but when they   
came1 he withdrew and separated himself1
  #bdc  fearing those of the            

,circumcision4 ,and the other ,jews also
 joined in his hypocrisy1 insomuch that 
even ,barnabas was carried away with    
their hypocrisy4 ,but when ,i saw that  
they walked not uprightly according to  
the truth of the ,gospel1 ,i said unto  
,cephas before all3 ,if thou being a    
,jew livest ------ after the manner of  
,gentiles and not after the manner of   
,jews1 how compellest ------ thou the   
,gentiles to adopt the customs of the   
,jews8 ------7#a7  ,it is necessary to  
say a few words as to the significance  
of ,peter's conduct and of ,paul's      
rebuke1 regarding which there is some   
difference of opinion47#b7 ,are we to   
understand from this that ,peter1 as a  
general rule1 at ,antioch and elsewhere1
 with enlightened emancipation from     
,jewish prejudices1 lived as a ,gentile 
and in full communion with ,gentile     
,christians87#c7 ,meyer7#d7 and others  
argue that by the use of the present    
------1 the ,apostle indicates a        
continuous practice based upon          

principle1 and that the ------ is not   
the mere moral life1 but includes the   
external social observances of          
,christian community3 the object1 in    
fact1 being to show that upon principle 
,peter held the advanced liberal views  
of ,paul1 and that the fault which he   
committed in withdrawing from free      
intercourse with the ,gentile           
,christians was momentary1 and merely   
the result of occasional timidity and   
weakness4 ,this theory cannot bear the  
test of examination4 ,the account of    
,paul is clearly this3 when ,cephas came
 to ,antioch1 the  #bdd  stronghold of  
,gentile ,christianity1 before certain  
men came from ,james1 he ate with the   
,gentiles1 but as soon as these         
emissaries arrived he withdrew1 fearing 
those of the circumcision4 ,had his     
normal custom been to live like the     
,gentiles1 how is it possible that he   
could1 on this occasion only1 have      
feared those of the circumcision8 ,his  
practice must have been notorious2 and  

had he1 moreover1 actually expressed    
such opinions in the congress of        
,jerusalem1 his confession of faith     
having been so publicly made1 and so    
unanimously approved by the ,church1    
there could not have been any           
conceivable cause for such timidity4    
,the fact evidently is1 on the contrary1
 that ,peter1 under the influence of    
,paul1 was induced for the time to hold 
free communion with the ,gentile        
,christians2 but as soon as the         
emissaries of ,james appeared on the    
scene1 he became alarmed at this        
departure from his principles1 and fell 
back again into his normal practice4 ,if
 the present ------ be taken to indicate
 continuous habit of life1 the present  
------ very much more than neutralizes  
it4 ,paul with his usual uncompromising 
frankness rebukes the vacillation of    
,peter3 by adopting even for a time     
fellowship with the ,gentiles1 ,peter   
has practically recognised its validity1
 has been guilty of hypocrisy in        

withdrawing from his concession on the  
arrival of the followers of ,james1 and 
is condemned2 but after such a          
concession he cannot legitimately demand
 that ,gentile ,converts should judaize4
 ,it is obvious that whilst ,peter lived
 as a ,gentile1 he could not have been  
compelling the ,gentiles to adopt       
,judaism4 ,paul1 therefore1 in saying3  
,why compellest thou ------ the         
,gentiles to adopt the customs of the   
,jews8 ------1 very distinctly intimates
 that the normal practice of ,peter was 
to compel  #bde  ,gentile ,christians to
 adopt ,judaism4 ,there is no escaping  
this conclusion for1 after all specious 
reasoning to the contrary is exhausted1 
there remains the simple fact that      
,peter1 when placed in a dilemma on the 
arrival of the emissaries of ,james1 and
 forced to decide whether he will       
continue to live as a ,gentile or as a  
,jew1 adopts the latter alternative1 and
 as ,paul tells us compels 7in the      
present7 the ,gentiles to judaize4 ,a   

stronger indication of his views could  
scarcely have been given4 ,not a word is
 said which implies that ,peter yielded 
to the vehement protests of ,paul1 but  
on the contrary we must undoubtedly     
conclude that he did not2 for it is     
impossible to suppose that ,paul would  
not have stated a fact so pertinent to  
his argument1 had the elder ,apostle    
been induced by his remonstrance to walk
 uprightly according to the truth of the
 ,gospel which ,paul preached1 and both 
to teach and practice ,christian        
universalism4 ,we shall have abundant   
reason1 apart from this1 to conclude    
that ,peter did not yield1 and it is no 
false indication of this1 that1 a       
century after1 we find the ,clementine  
,homilies expressing the bitterness of  
the ,petrine party against the ,apostle 
of the ,gentiles for this very rebuke1  
and representing ,peter as following his
 course from city to city for the       
purpose of refuting ,paul's unorthodox  
teaching4  ,it is contended that        

,peter's conduct at ,antioch is in      
harmony with his denial of his master   
related in the ,gospels1 and1 therefore1
 that such momentary and characteristic 
weakness might well have been displayed 
even after his adoption of liberal      
principles4 ,those who argue in this    
way1 however1 forget that the denial of 
,jesus1 as described in the ,gospels1   
proceeded from the fear of death1 and   
that such a reply to a merely           
compromising question  #bdf  which did  
not directly involve principles1 is a   
very different thing from conduct like  
that at ,antioch where1 under one       
influence1 a line of action was         
temporarily adopted which ratified views
 upon which the opinion of the ,church  
was divided1 and then abandoned merely  
from fear of the disapproval of those of
 the ,circumcision4 ,the author of the  
,acts passes over this altercation in   
complete silence4 ,no one has ever      
called in question the authenticity of  
the account which ,paul gives of it4 ,if

 ,peter had the courage to make such a  
speech at the ,council in the very      
capital of ,judaic ,christianity1 and in
 the presence of ,james and the whole   
,church1 how could he possibly1 from    
fear of a few men from ,jerusalem1 have 
shown such pusillanimity in ,antioch1   
where ,paul and the mass of ,christians 
supported him8 ,if the unanimous        
decision of the ,council had really been
 a fact1 how easily he might have       
silenced any objections by an appeal to 
that which had seemed good to the ,holy 
,spirit and to the ,church6 ,but there  
is not the slightest knowledge of the   
,council and its decree betrayed either 
by those who came from ,james1 or by    
,peter1 or ,paul4 ,the episode at       
,antioch is inconsistent with the       
conduct and words ascribed to ,peter in 
the ,acts1 and contradicts the narrative
 in the fifteenth chapter which we are  
examining47#a7  ,the author of the ,acts
 states that after ,peter had spoken1   
all the multitude kept silence and were 

hearing  #bdg  ,barnabas and ,paul      
declaring what signs and wonders ,god   
had wrought among the ,gentiles by      
them47#a7 ,we shall not at present pause
 to consider this statement1 nor the    
role which ,paul is made to play in the 
whole transaction1 beyond pointing out  
that1 on an occasion when such a subject
 as the circumcision of the ,gentiles   
and their subjection to the ,mosaic law 
was being discussed1 nothing could be   
more opposed to nature than to suppose  
that a man like the author of the       
,epistle to the ,galatians could have   
assumed so passive1 and subordinate an  
attitude47#b7 ,after ,barnabas and ,paul
 had spoken1 ,james is represented as   
saying3 ,men 7and7 brethren1 hear me4   
,simeon declared how ,god at first did  
visit the ,gentiles1 to take out of them
 a people for his name4 ,and with this  
agree the words of the prophets2 as it  
is written3 ',after this ,i will return1
 and will build again the tabernacle of 
,david which has fallen down2 and ,i    

will build again the ruins thereof1 and 
will set it up3 that the residue of men 
may seek after the ,lord1 and all the   
,gentiles1 upon whom my name has been   
called1 saith the ,lord who doeth these 
things1 known from the beginning4'      
,wherefore1 ,i judge that we trouble not
 those from among the ,gentiles who are 
turning to ,god2 but that we write unto 
them that they abstain from the         
pollutions of idols1 and from           
fornication1 and from things strangled1 
and from blood4 ,for ,moses from        
generations of old hath in every city   
those who preach him1 being read in the 
synagogues every ,sabbath47#c7 ,there   
are many reasons for which this  #bdh   
speech also must be pronounced          
inauthentic47#a7 ,it may be observed1 in
 passing1 that ,james completely        
disregards the statement which ,barnabas
 and ,paul are supposed to make as to   
what ,god had wrought by them among the 
,gentiles2 and1 ignoring their          
intervention1 he directly refers to the 

preceding speech of ,peter claiming to  
have first been selected to convert the 
,gentiles4 ,we shall reserve discussion 
of the conditions which ,james proposes 
to impose upon ,gentile ,christians till
 we come to the apostolic decree which  
embodies them4  ,the precise            
signification of the sentence with which
 7ver4 #ba7 he concludes has been much  
debated1 but need not detain us long4   
,whatever may be said of the liberal    
part of the speech it is obvious that   
the author has been more true to the    
spirit of the time in conceiving this   
and other portions of it1 than in       
composing the speech of ,peter4 ,the    
continued observance of the ,mosaic     
ritual1 and the identity of the         
synagogue with the ,christian ,church   
are correctly indicated2 and when ,james
 is again represented 7xxi4 #bj ff47 as 
advising ,paul to join those who had    
avow1 in order to prove that he himself 
walked orderly and was an observer of   
the law1 and did not teach the ,jews to 

apostatize from ,moses and abandon the  
rite of circumcision1 he is consistent  
in his portrait ,it is nevertheless     
clear that1 however we may read the     
restrictions which  #bdi  ,james        
proposes to impose upon ,gentile        
,christians1 the author of ,acts intends
 them to be considered as a most liberal
 and almost complete concession of      
immunity4 ,i judge1 he makes ,james say1
 that we trouble not those from among   
the ,gentiles who are turning to ,god2  
and again1 on the second occasion of    
which we have just been speaking1 in    
referring to the decree1 a contrast is  
drawn between the ,christian ,jews1 from
 whom observance of the law is demanded1
 and the ,gentiles1 who are only        
expected to follow the prescriptions of 
the decree4  ,james is represented as   
supporting the statement of ,peter how  
,god visited the ,gentiles by the words 
of the ,prophets1 quoting a passage from
 ,amos4 ix4 #aa1 #ab4 ,it is difficult  
to see how the words1 even as quoted1   

apply to the case at all1 but this is   
immaterial4 ,loose reasoning can        
certainly not be taken as a mark of     
inauthenticity4 ,it is much more to the 
point that ,james1 addressing an        
assembly of ,apostles and elders in     
,jerusalem1 quotes the prophet ,amos    
freely from the ,septuagint version17#a7
 which differs widely in the latter and 
more important part from the ,hebrew    
text47#c7 ,the passage in the ,hebrew   
reads3 ix4 #aa4 ,in that day will ,i    
raise up the tabernacle of ,david that  
is fallen1 and close up the breaches    
thereof2 and ,i will raise up his ruins1
 and ,i will build it as in the days of 
old1 #ab4 that they may possess the     
remnant of  #bej  ,edom1 and of all the 
heathen upon whom my name is called1    
saith the ,lord that doeth this4 ,the   
authors of the ,septuagint version      
altered the twelfth verse into3 ,that   
the residue of men may seek after the   
,lord and all the ,gentiles upon whom my
 name is called1 saith the ,lord who    

doeth these things47#a7 ,it is perfectly
 clear that the prophet does not1 in the
 original1 say what ,james is here      
represented as stating1 and that his own
 words refer to the national triumph of 
,israel1 and not to the conversion of   
the ,gentiles4 ,amos in fact prophesies 
that the ,lord will restore the former  
power and glory of ,israel1 and that the
 remnant of ,edom and the other nations 
of the theocracy shall be re-united1 as 
they were under ,david4 ,no one         
questions the fact that the original    
prophecy is altered1 and those who      
desire to see the singular explanations 
of apologists may refer to some of the  
works indicated47#b7 ,the question as to
 whether ,james or the author of the    
,acts is responsible for the adoption of
 the ,septuagint version is felt to be a
 serious problem4 ,some critics affirm  
that in all probability ,james must have
 spoken in ,aramaic27#c7 whilst others  
maintain that he delivered this  #bea   
address in ,greek47#a7 ,in the one case1

 it is supposed that he quoted the      
original ,hebrew and that the author of 
the ,acts or the document from which he 
derived his report may have used the    
,septuagint2 and in the other1 it is    
suggested that the lxx4 may have had    
another and more correct reading before 
them1 for it is supposed impossible that
 ,james himself could have quoted a     
version which was actually different    
from the original ,hebrew4 ,these and   
many other similar explanations1 into   
which we need not go1 do little to      
remove the difficulty presented by the  
fact itself4 ,to suppose that our       
,hebrew texts are erroneous in order to 
justify the speech is a proceeding which
 does not require remark4 ,it will be   
remembered that1 in the ,acts1 the      
,septuagint is always employed in       
quotations from the ,old ,testament1 and
 that this is by no means the only place
 in which that version is used when it  
departs from the original4 ,it is       
difficult to conceive that any          

intelligent ,jew could have quoted the  
,hebrew of this passage to support a    
proposal to free ,gentile ,christians   
from the necessity of circumcision and  
the observance of the ,mosaic ,law4 ,it 
is equally difficult to suppose that    
,james1 a bigoted leader of the         
,judaistic party and the head of the    
,church of ,jerusalem1 could have quoted
 the ,septuagint version of the ,holy   
,scriptures1 differing from the ,hebrew1
 to such an assembly4 ,it is useless to 
examine here the attempts to make the   
passage quoted a correct interpretation 
of the prophet's meaning1 or seriously  
to consider the proposition that this   
alteration of a prophetic utterance is  
adopted as better  #beb  expressing the 
mind of the ,spirit4 ,if the original   
prophecy did not express that mind1 it  
is rather late to amend the utterances  
of the prophets in the ,acts of the     
,apostles4  ,we may now briefly examine 
the speech linguistically4 ,verse #ac3  
,the opening as usual is ------1 but the

 whole phrase ------ is put into the    
mouth of ,paul in xxii4 #a1 ------1 and 
with but little variation again in xiii4
 #af4 ,cf4 ii4 #bb4 ,the use of the     
,hebrew form ------ in speaking of      
,peter1 has been pointed out by         
,bleek7#a7 and others1 after            
,lightfoot17#b7 as a characteristic     
peculiarity showing the authenticity of 
the speech4 ,the same form occurs in #b 
,pet4 i4 #a1 but its use in that        
spurious epistle is scarcely calculated 
to give weight to its use here4 ,if it  
be characteristic of anyone1 however1   
its use is characteristic of the author 
of the third ,gospel and the ,acts1 and 
in no case is it peculiarly associated  
with ,james4 ,in addition to the        
instance referred to above1 and ,apoc4  
vii4 #g1 where the tribe of ,simeon is  
thus named1 the ,jewish form ------ of  
the name ,simon occurs four times only  
in the ,new ,testament1 and they are    
conflned to our author3 ,acts xiii4 #a2 
,luke ii4 #be1 #cd1 iii4 #cj4 ,being    

acquainted with the ,jewish form of the 
name1 he made use of it in this speech  
probably for the effect of local        
colouring4 ------1 xv4 #ab1 xxi4 #ai2   
,luke xxiv4 #ce1 and nowhere else except
 ,john i4 #ah--;it is peculiar to the   
author1 ------1 ,acts #aa1 ,luke #af    
times1 and elsewhere frequently1 ------1
 iii4 #bf1 vii4 #ab1 xi4 #bf1 xiii4 #df1
 xxvi4 #bj2 ,luke #aj times2 ,jam4 iii4 
#ag2 ,paul #aj times1 rest frequently4  
------1 vi4 #c1 vii4 #bc1 xv4 #cf2 ,luke
 i4 #fh1  #bec  #gh1 vii4 #af2 ,matth4  
xxv4 #cf1 #dc1 ,hebr4 ii4 #f1 ,jam4 i4  
#bg1 that is to say #g times used by the
 author and only #d times in the rest of
 the ,new ,testament2 compare especially
 ,luke i4 #fh1 and vii4 #af4 ------     
opposed to ------1 xxvi4 #ag1 #bc4 ,the 
expression ------ occurs ii4 #ch1 iv4   
#ag1 #ah1 v4 #bh1 #dj2 ,luke ix4 #dh1   
#di1 xxi4 #h1 xxiv4 #dg1 and only #e    
times in the rest of the ,new           
,testament4 ,verse #ae3 ------1 v4 #i2  
,luke v4 #cf1 and ,matth4 xviii4 #ai1   

xx4 #b1 #ac only4 ,verse #af3 ,in this  
quotation from ,amos1 for the i------ of
 the ,septuagint1 the ,author           
substitutes ------1 which phrase occurs 
elsewhere in ,acts vii4 #g1 xiii4 #bj1  
xviii4 #a2 ,luke v4 #bg1 x4 #a1 xii4 #d1
 xvii4 #h1 xviii4 #d4 ------1 v4 #bb and
 #i times elsewhere4 ,verse #ah3 ------1
 i4 #ai1 ii4 #ad1 iv4 #aj1 #af1 ix4 #db1
 xiii4 #ch1 xix4 #ag1 xxviii4 #bb1 #bh  
#aj times in ,acts2 ,luke i4 #dd1 xxiii4
 #di2 elsewhere only in ,rom4 i4 #ai1   
,john xviii4 #ae1 #af1--;a              
characteristic word4 ,so likewise is the
 expression ------1 iii4 #ba1 ,luke i4  
#gj2 ------ occurs in ,ephes4 iii4 #i1  
,col4 i4 #bf4 ,these words are added to 
the passage quoted from the ,septuagint4
 ,verse #ai3 ------ is used #aa times in
 ,acts2 ,luke i4 #ce1 vii4 #g2 by ,paul 
#ah times1 ,ep4 ,jam4 twice1 and        
elsewhere #be times4 ------1 #bb times  
in ,acts2 ,luke #f times1 ,paul #cg     
times1 ,ep4 ,jam4 #f1 and elsewhere #dd 
times1 ------ is not found elsewhere in 

the ,new ,testament4 ------1 ,acts #aa1 
,luke #g1 ,jam4 v4 #ai1 #bj1 rest #ai   
times2 the phrase ------ is a favourite 
and characteristic expression of the    
,author1 who uses it ix4 #ce1 xi4 #ba1  
xiv4 #ae1 xxvi4 #bj1 and ,luke i4 #af1  
and it does not occur elsewhere in the  
,new ,testament except in #a ,pet4 ii4  
#be4 ,verse #bj3 ------1 xxi4 #be1 and  
,hebr4 xiii4 #bb only4 ------ xv4 #bi1  
,luke vi4 #bd1 vii4 #f1 xv4 #bj1 xxiv4  
#ac1 #a ,thess4 iv4 #c1 v4 #bb1 #a ,tim4
 iv4 #c1 #a ,pet4 ii4 #aa1 and  #bed    
elsewhere #g times2 in both passages of 
the ,ep4 to the ,thess4 it is used with 
------ as here4 ------ is not elsewhere 
found4 ------1 vii4 #da2 #f times by    
,paul1 and elsewhere #c3 it occurs very 
frequently in the ,septuagint4 ------1  
xv4 #bi1 xxi4 #be2 ,paul #h1 elsewhere  
#ae times4 ------1 xv4 #bi1 xxi4 #be1 a 
technical word4 ------1 ,acts #ab1 ,luke
 #aa times1 rest frequently1 ------1 ii4
 #dj1 viii4 #cc1 xiii4 #cf1 xiv4 #af2   
,luke #ac times1 ,matth4 #ac1 ,mk4 #e1  

rest #e times4 ------1 xv4 #g1 xxi4 #af2
 ,luke ix4 #h1 #ai1 elsewhere #g times4 
------1 xv4 #cf1 xx4 #bc1 xxiv4 #ab2    
,luke viii4 #a1 #d1 xiii4 #bb1 and      
elsewhere only in ,tit4 i4 #e4 ------1  
viii4 #e1 ix4 #bj1 x4 #cg1 #db1 xix4    
#ac1 xx4 #be1 xxviii4 #ca2 ,luke #i1    
,paul #ad1 elsewhere #cj times4 ------1 
,acts #i1 ,luke #bj1 rest #ce times1 the
 whole phrase ------ occurs again in the
 ,acts1 being put into the mouth of     
,paul xiii4 #bg1 and ------ being used  
by the writer in xviii4 #d4 ------1     
,acts #bj2 ,luke #ae1 rest #bb times1   
------1 viii4 #bh1 #cj twice1 #cb1 xiii4
 #bg1 xv4 #ca1 xxiii4 #cd2 ,luke #c1 and
 elsewhere #bb times4 ,this analysis    
confirms the conclusion that the speech 
of ,james at the ,council proceeds      
likewise from the pen of the general    
author1 and the incomprehensible        
liberality of the sentiments expressed1 
as well as the peculiarity of the       
quotation from ,amos according to the   
,septuagint1 thus receive at once their 

simple explanation4  ,if we now compare 
the account of ,james's share in        
granting liberal conditions to ,gentile 
,christians with the statements of      
,paul1 we arrive at the same result4 ,it
 is in consequence of the arrival of    
certain men from ,james ------ that     
,peter through fear of them withdrew    
from communion with the  #bee           
,gentiles4 ,it will be remembered that  
the whole discussion is said to have    
arisen in ,antioch originally from the  
judaistic teaching of certain men who   
came from ,judaea1 who are disowned in  
the apostolic letter47#a7 ,it is        
unfortunate1 however1 to say the least  
of it1 that so many of those who        
systematically opposed the work of the  
,apostle ,paul claimed to represent the 
views of ,james and the mother          
,church47#b7 ,the contradiction of the  
author of the ,acts1 with his object of 
conciliation1 has but small weight      
before the statements of ,paul and the  
whole voice of tradition4 ,at any rate1 

almost immediately after the so-called  
,apostolic ,council1 with its decree    
adopted mainly at the instigation of    
,james1 his emissaries caused the       
defection of ,peter in ,antioch and the 
rupture with ,paul4 ,it is generally    
admitted1 in the face of the clear      
affirmation of ,paul1 that the men in   
question must in all probability have   
been actually sent by ,james4#c ,it is  
obvious that1 to justify the fear of so 
leading an apostle as ,peter1 not only  
must they have been thus deputed1 but   
must have been influential men1       #b
 ,of the ,judaizers who are denounced in
 ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles      this much  
is certain1 that they exalted the       
authority of the      ,apostles of the  
,circumcision2 and that1 in some        
instances at      least1 as members of  
the mother ,church1 they had direct     
relations with ,james1 the ,lord's      
brother4 ,but when we      attempt to   
define those relations1 we are lost in a
 maze of      conjecture4   ,lightfoot1 

,ep4 to the ,gal41 p4 #cec4  #bef       
representing authoritative and prevalent
 judaistic opinions4 ,we shall not      
attempt to divine the object of their   
mission1 but we may say that it is      
impossible to separate them from the    
judaistic teachers who urged            
circumcision upon the ,galatian         
,christians and opposed the authority of
 the ,apostle ,paul4 ,not pursuing this 
further at present1 however1 it is      
obvious that the effect produced by     
these emissaries is quite incompatible  
with the narrative that1 so short a time
 before1 ,james and the ,church of      
,jerusalem had unanimously promulgated  
conditions1 under which the ,gentile    
,christians were freely admitted into   
communion1 and which fully justified    
,peter in eating with them4 ,the        
incident at ,antioch1 as connected with 
,james as well as with ,peter1 excludes 
the supposition that the account of the 
,council contained in the ,acts can be  
considered historical4 ,the ,apostolic  

letter embodying the decree of the      
,council now demands our attention4 ,it 
seemed good to the ,apostles and the    
elders with the whole ,church to choose 
two leading men among the brethren1 and 
to send them to ,antioch with ,paul and 
,barnabas1 and they wrote by them 7xv4  
#bc73--,the ,apostles and brethren which
 are elders unto the brethren which are 
of the ,gentiles in ,antioch and ,syria 
and ,cilicia1 greeting4 #bd4 ,forasmuch 
as we heard that certain which went out 
from us troubled you with words1        
subverting your souls1 to whom we gave  
no commandment1 #be4 it seemed good unto
 us1 having become of one mind1 to      
choose out and send men unto you with   
our beloved ,barnabas and ,paul1 #bf4   
men that have given up their lives for  
the name of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ4   
#bg4 ,we have1 therefore1 sent ,judas   
and ,silas1 who shall also tell you the 
same things by word of mouth4 #bh4 ,for 
it seemed good to the ,holy ,spirit and 
to us to lay upon you no greater burden 

than these necessary  #beg  things3 #bi4
 that ye abstain from meats offered to  
idols and from blood1 and from things   
strangled1 and from fornication3 from   
which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do 
well4 ,fare ye well4 l ,it is argued    
that the simplicity of this composition1
 its brevity and the absence of         
hierarchical tendency1 prove the        
authenticity and originality of the     
epistle4 ,nothing1 however1 could be    
more arbitrary than to assert that the  
author of the ,acts1 composing a letter 
supposed to be written under the        
circumstances1 would have written one   
different from this4 ,we shall1 on the  
contrary1 see good reason for affirming 
that he actually did compose it1 and    
that it bears the obvious impress of his
 style4 ,besides1 ,zeller7#b7 has       
pointed out that1 in a document affirmed
 to be so removed from all calculation  
or object1 verse #bf could hardly have  
found a place4 ,the reference to our    
beloved ,barnabas and ,paul1 as men that

 have given up their lives for the name 
of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 is scarcely
 consistent with the primitive brevity  
and simplicity which are made the basis 
of such an argument4  ,in the absence of
 better evidence1 apologists grasp at   
extremely slight indications of         
authenticity1 and of this nature seems  
to us the mark of genuineness which     
,bleek and others7#c7 consider that they
 find in the fact1  #beh  that the name 
of ,barnabas is placed before that of   
,paul in this document4 ,it is          
maintained that1 from the #acth chapter1
 the author commences to give the       
precedence to ,paul1 but that1 in       
reverting to the former order1 the      
synodal letter gives evidence both of   
its antiquity and genuineness4 ,if any  
weight could be attached to such an     
indication1 it is unfortunate for this  
argument that the facts are not as      
stated1 for the order ,barnabas and     
,paul occurs at xiv4 #ab and #ad1 and   
even in the very account of the ,council

 at xv4 #ab4 ,the two names are         
mentioned together in the ,acts sixteen 
times1 ,barnabas being named first eight
 times 7xi4 #cj1 xii4 #be1 xiii4 #a1 #b1
 #g1 xiv4 #ab1 #ad1 xv4 #ab71 and ,paul 
as frequently 7xiii4 #dc1 #df1 #ej1 xv4 
#b twice1 #bb1 #be1 #ce74 ,apologists   
like ,lekebusch7#a7 and ,oertel7#b7     
reject ,bleek's argument4 ,the greeting 
------ with which the letter opens1 and 
which1 amongst the ,epistles of the ,new
 ,testament1 is only found in that      
bearing the name of ,james 7i4 #a71 is  
said to be an indication that the letter
 of the ,council was written by ,james  
himself47#c7 ,before such an argument   
could avail1 it would be necessary1     
though difficult1 to prove the          
authenticity of the ,epistle of ,james1 
but we need not enter upon such a       
question4 ------ is the ordinary ,greek 
form of greeting in all epistles17#d7   
and the author of ,acts1 who writes     
purer ,greek than any  #bei  other      
writer in our ,canon1 naturally adopts  

it4 ,not only does he do so here1       
however1 but he makes use of the same   
------ in the letter of the chief       
captain ,lysias 7xxiii4 #bf717a7 which  
also evidently proceeds from his hand4  
,moreover1 the word is used as a        
greeting in ,luke i4 #bh1 and not       
unfrequently elsewhere in the ,new      
,testament1 as ,mattli4 xxvi4 #di1      
xxvii4 #bi1 xxviii4 #i1 ,mark xv4 #ah1  
,john xix4 #c1b ,john #aj1 #aa4         
,lekebusch17#b7 ,meyer17#c7 and         
,oertel7#d7 reject the argument1 and we 
may add that if ------ prove anything1  
it proves that the author of ,acts1 who 
uses the word in the letter of ,lysias1 
also wrote the synodal letter4 ,in what 
language must we suppose that the       
,epistle was originally written8 ,oertel
 maintains an ,aramaic original17#e7 but
 the greater number of writers consider 
that the original language was          
,greek47#f7 ,it cannot be denied that   
the composition1 as it stands1 contains 
many of the peculiarities of style of   

the author of ,acts27#g7 and these are1 
indeed1 so marked that even apologists  
like ,lekebusch and ,oertel1 whilst     
maintaining the substantial authenticity
 of the ,epistle1 admit that at least   
its actual form must be ascribed to the 
general author4 ,the originality of the 
form being abandoned1 it is difficult to
 perceive any ground for asserting the  
originality and genuineness of  #bfj    
the substance4 ,that assertion rests    
solely upon a vague traditional         
confidence in the ,author of ,acts1     
which is shown to be without any solid  
foundation4 ,the form of this ,epistle  
clearly professes to be as genuine as   
the substance1 and if the original      
language was ,greek1 there is absolutely
 no reason why the original letter      
should have been altered4 ,the          
similarity of the construction to that  
of the prologue to the third ,gospel1 in
 which the personal style of the writer 
may be supposed to have beeu most       
unreservedly shown1 has long been       

admitted3--  ------  ,a more detailed   
linguistic examination of the ,epistle1 
however1 confirms the conclusion already
 stated4 ,verse #bc3 ------1 ii4 #bc1 v4
 #ab1 vii4 #be1 xi4 #cj1 xiv4 #c1 xix4  
#aa1 #bf1 and elsewhere the expression  
is only met with in ,mark vi4 #b2 the   
phrase ------ finds a parallel in xi4   
#cj1 ------1 k4 t4 ,x4 ,the             
characteristic expression ------1 is    
repeated1 xi4 #a1 xvi4 #g1 xxvii4 #b1   
#e1 #g4 ,verse #bd3 ------1 xiii4 #df1  
xiv4 #ab1 ,luke vii4 #a1 xi4 #f1 cf4 i4 
#a2 ,paul #e1 rest only #b times4       
------1 xvii4 #h1ac1 ,luke i4 #ab1 xxiv4
 #ch1 elsewhere thirteen times4 ------  
is not found elsewhere1 but the         
preference of our writer for compounds  
of ------1 and ------ is marked1 and of 
these consists a large proportion of his
 ------1 ,acts #ae1 ,luke #ad times1 and
 frequently elsewhere2 the phrase       
------1 may be compared with xiv4 #bb1  
------1 cf4 xiv4 #b4 ------  #bfa  not  
elsewhere found in ,acts1 but it occurs 

,matth4 xvi4 #bj1 ,mark v4 #dc1 vii4 #cf
 twice1 viii4 #ae1 ix4 #i1 and ,heb4    
xii4 #bj4 ,verse #be3 ------1 ,acts #h1 
,luke #aa1 ,paul #ag times1 elsewhere   
frequently4 ------1 i4 #ad1 ii4 #a1 #df1
 iv4 #bd1 v4 #ab1 xii4 #eg1 viii4 #f1   
xii4 #bj1 xviii4 #ab1 xix4 #bi2 so that 
this word1 not in very common use even  
in general ,greek literature1 occurs #aj
 times elsewhere in the ,acts1 but1     
except in ,rom4 xv4 #f1 is not employed 
by any other ,new ,testament writer4    
------1 i4 #b1 #bd1 vi4 #e1 xiii4 #ag1  
xv4 #g1 #bb1 ,luke vi4 #ac1 x4 #db1 xiv4
 #g1 and elsewhere #aa times1 ------1   
,acts #aa1 ,luke #aj times1 elsewhere   
common1 ------ is not elsewhere used in 
,acts1 but is found in ,luke iii4 #bb1  
ix4 #ce1 xx4 #ac1 ,paul #ac times1 and  
is common elsewhere4 ,verse #bf3 ------1
 ,acts #ac1 ,luke #ag times1 and common 
elsewhere1 ------1 xxi4 #ac1 v4 #da1 ix4
 #af1 ,rom4 i4 #e1 #c ,john #g4 ,verse  
#bg3 ------1 ,acts #be1 ,luke #bf times1
 elsewhere very frequently4 ------1 xv4 

#cb4 ------1 ,acts #ad1 ,luke #aa1 rest 
#ba times1 ------1 ,luke vi4 #bc1 #bf2  
------1 ,acts i4 #ae1 ii4 #a1 #dd1 iii4 
#a1 iv4 #bf1 xiv4 #a2 ,luke vi4 #cc1    
xvii4 #ce4 ,verse #bh3 ------1 ,acts    
#ab1 ,luke #d1 ,paul #f1 elsewhere #ac  
times2 the same expression1 ------444 is
 also found in ,luke iii4 #ac4 ------1  
,acts #ac1 ,luke #f1 elsewhere #ba      
times4 ------ is not elsewhere met with 
in ,acts1 but occurs ,matt4 xx4 #ab1 #b 
,cor4 iv4 #ag1 ,gal4 vi4 #b1 #a ,thes4  
il #f1 ,apoc4 ii4 #bd4 ------1 viii4 #a1
 xx4 #bc1 xxvii4 #bb1 ,luke #ae1        
elsewhere #ac times4 ------ is not      
elsewhere found in the ,new ,testament4 
,verse #bi3 ------1 xv4 #bj1 ,luke vi4  
#bd1 vii4 #f1 xv4 #bj1 xxiv4 #ac1       
elsewhere #ab times4 ------1 xxi4 #be1  
#a ,cor4 viii4 #a1 #d1 #g1 #aj1 x4 #ai1 
#bh1 ,apoc4 ii4 #ad1 #bj4 ------ occurs 
only in ,luke ii4 #ea4 ------1 ,acts    
#ab1 ,luke #f1 ,paul #ae1 elsewhere #e  
times only1 ------1 this  #bfb  usual   
,greek formula for the ending of a      

letter1 ------1 is nowhere else used in 
the ,new ,testament1 except at the close
 of the letter of ,lysias1 xxiii4 #cj4  
,turning now from the letter to the     
spirit of this decree1 we must endeavour
 to form some idea of its purport and   
bearing4 ,the first point which should  
be made clear is1 that the question     
raised before the ,council solely       
affected the ,gentile converts1 and that
 the conditions contained in the decree 
were imposed upon that branch of the    
,church alone4 ,no change whatever in   
the position of ,jewish ,christians was 
contemplated2 they were left as before1 
subject to the ,mosaic law47#a7 ,this is
 very apparent in the reference which is
 made long after to the decree1 ,ch4    
xxi4 #bj ff41 #be1 when the desire is   
expressed to ,paul by ,james1 who       
proposed the decree1 and the elders of  
,jerusalem1 that he should prove to the 
many thousands of believing ,jews all   
zealous of the law1 that he did not     
teach the ,jews who were among the      

,gentiles apostasy from ,moses1 saying  
that they ought not to circumcise their 
children1 neither to walk after the     
customs4 ,paul1 who is likewise         
represented1 in the ,acts1 as           
circumcising with his own hand1 after   
the decision of the ,council had been   
adopted1 ,timothy the son of a ,greek1  
whose mother was a ,jewess1 consents to 
give the ,jews of ,jerusalem the        
required proof4 ,we have already shown  
at the commencement of this section1    
that  #bfc  nothing was further from the
 minds of the ,jewish ,christians than  
the supposition that the obligation to  
observe the ,mosaic law was weakened by 
the adoption of ,christianity2 and the  
representation in the ,acts is certainly
 so far correct1 that it does not       
pretend that ,jewish ,christians either 
desired or sanctioned any relaxation of 
,mosaic observances on the part of      
believing ,jews4 ,this cannot be too    
distinctly remembered in considering the
 history of primitive ,christianity4    

,the initiatory rite was essential to   
full participation in the ,covenant4 ,it
 was left for ,paul to preach the       
abrogation of the law and the           
abandonment of circumcision4 ,if the    
speech of ,peter seems to suggest the   
abrogation of the law even for ,jews1 it
 is only in a way which shows that the  
author had no clear historical fact to  
relate1 and merely desired to ascribe1  
vaguely and indefinitely1 ,pauline      
sentiments to the ,apostle of the       
circumcision4 ,no remark whatever is    
made upon these strangely liberal       
expressions of ,peter1 and neither the  
proposition of ,james nor the speech in 
which he makes it takes the slightest   
notice of them4 ,the conduct of ,peter  
at ,antioch and the influence exercised 
by ,james through his emissaries restore
 us to historical ground4 ,whether the  
author intended to represent that the   
object of the conditions of the decree  
was to admit the ,gentile ,christians to
 full communion with the ,jewish1 or    

merely to the subordinate position of   
,proselytes of the ,gate1 is uncertain1 
but it is not necessary to discuss the  
point4 ,there is not the slightest      
external evidence that such a decree    
ever existed1 and the more closely the  
details are examined the more evident   
does it become that it has no historical
 consistency4 ,how1 and upon what       
principle1 were these singular          
conditions selected8 ,their             
heterogeneous character is at once      
apparent1 but not so the  #bfd  reason  
for a combination which is neither      
limited to ,jewish customs nor          
sufficiently representative of moral    
duties4 ,it has been argued1 on the one 
hand1 that the prohibitions of the      
apostolic decree are simply those1      
reduced to a necessary minimum1 which   
were enforced in the case of heathen    
converts to ,judaism who did not join   
themselves fully to the people of the   
,covenant by submitting to circumcision1
 but were admitted to imperfect         

communion as ,proselytes of the         
,gate47#a7 ,the conditions named1       
however1 do not fully represent the     
rules framed for such cases1 and many   
critics consider that the conditions    
imposed1 although they may have been    
influenced by the ,noachiaii            
prescriptions1 were rather moral duties 
which it was1 from special              
circumstances1 thought expedient to     
specify47#b7 ,we shall presently refer  
to some of these conditions1 but bearing
 in mind the views which were dominant  
amongst primitive ,christians1 and more 
especially1 as is obvious1 amongst the  
,christians of ,jerusalem where this    
decree is supposed to have been         
unanimously adopted1 bearing in mind the
 teaching which is said to have led to  
the ,council1 the episode at ,antioch1  
and the systematic judaistic opposition 
which retarded the work of ,paul and    
subsequently affected his reputation1 it
 may be instructive  #bfe  to point out 
not only the vagueness which exists as  

to the position which it was intended   
that the ,gentiles should acquire1 as   
the effect of this decree1 but also its 
singular and total inefficiency4 ,an    
apologetic writer1 having of course in  
his mind the fact that there is no trace
 of the operation of the decree1 speaks 
of its conditions as follows3 ,the      
miscellaneous character of these        
prohibitions showed that1 taken as a    
whole1 they had no binding force        
independently of the circumstances which
 dictated them4 ,they were a temporary  
expedient framed to meet a temporary    
emergency4 ,their object was the        
avoidance of offence in mixed           
communities of ,jew and ,gentile        
converts4 ,beyond this recognised aim   
and general understanding implied       
therein1 the limits of their application
 were not defined4#a ,in fact the       
immunity granted to the ,gentiles was   
thus practically almost unconditional4  
,it is obvious1 however1 that every     
consideration which represents the      

decree as more completely emancipating  
,gentile ,christians from ,mosaic       
obligations1 and admitting them into    
free communion with believers amongst   
the ,jews1 places it in more emphatic   
contradiction to historical facts and   
the statements of the ,apostle ,paul4   
,the unanimous adoption of such a       
measure in ,jerusalem1 on the one hand1 
and1 on the other1 the episode at       
,antioch1 the fear of ,peter1 the       
silence of ,paul1 and the attitude of   
,james become perfectly inconceivable4  
,if on the contrary the conditions were 
seriously imposed and really meant      
anything1 a number of difficulties      
spring up of which we shall presently   
speak4 ,that the prohibitions1 in the   
opinion of the author of the ,acts1     
constituted a positive and binding      
obligation can scarcely be doubted by   
anyone who considers the terms in which 
they are laid down4 ,if  #bff  they are 
represented as a concession they are    
nevertheless recognised as a burden1 and

 they are distinctly stated to be the   
obligations which it seemed good to the 
,holy ,spirit as well as to the ,council
 to impose4 ,the qualification1 that the
 restrictive clauses had no binding     
force independently of the circumstances
 which dictated them1 in so far as it   
has any meaning beyond the unnecessary  
declaration that the decree was only    
applicable to the class for whom it was 
framed1 seems to be inadmissible4 ,the  
circumstance which dictated the decree  
was the counter-teaching of ,jewish     
,christians1 that it was necessary that 
the ,gentile converts should be         
circumcised and keep the law of ,moses4 
,the restrictive clauses are simply     
represented as those which it was deemed
 right to impose2 and1 as they are      
stated without qualification1 it is     
holding the decision of the ,holy       
,spirit and of the ,church somewhat     
cheap to treat them as mere local and   
temporary expedients4 ,this is evidently
 not the view of the author of the      

,acts4 ,would it have been the view of  
anyone else if it were not that1 so far 
as any external trace of the decree is  
concerned1 it is an absolute myth8 ,the 
prevalence of practices to which the    
four prohibitions point is quite        
sufficiently attested to show that1     
little as there is any ground for       
considering that such a decree was      
framed in such a manner1 the restrictive
 clauses are put forth as necessary and 
permanently binding4 ,the very doubt    
which exists as to whether the          
prohibitions were not intended to       
represent the conditions imposed on     
,proselytes of the ,gate shows their    
close analogy to them1 and it cannot be 
reasonably asserted that the early      
,christians regarded those conditions   
either as obsolete or indifferent4 ,the 
decree is clearly intended to set forth 
the terms upon which ,gentile           
,christians were  #bfg  to be admitted  
into communion1 and undoubtedly is to be
 taken as applicable not merely to a few

 districts1 but to the ,gentiles in     
general4  ,the account which ,paul gives
 of his visit not only ignores any such 
decree1 but excludes it4 ,in the first  
place1 taking into account the          
,apostle's character and the spirit of  
his ,epistle1 it is impossible to       
suppose that ,paul had any intention of 
submitting1 as to higher authority1 the 
,gospel which he preached1 for the      
judgment of the elder ,apostles and of  
the ,church of ,jerusalem47#a7 ,nothing 
short of this is involved in the account
 in the ,acts1 and in the form of the   
decree which promulgates1 in an         
authoritative manner1 restrictive       
clauses which seemed good to the ,holy  
,spirit and to the ,council4 ,the temper
 of the man is well shown in ,paul's    
indignant letter to the ,galatians4 ,he 
receives his ,gospel1 not from men1 but 
by direct revelation from ,jesus ,christ
 and1 so far is he from submission of   
the kind implied1 that he says3 ,but    
even though we1 or an angel from heaven1

 should preach unto you any ,gospel     
other than that which we preached to    
you1 let him be accursed4 ,as we have   
said before1 so say ,i now again3 ,if   
any man preach any ,gospel to you other 
than that ye received1 let him be       
accursed47#b7 ,that the ,apostle here   
refers to his own peculiar teaching1 and
 does so in contradistinction to the    
,gospel preached by the ,judaizers1 is  
evident from the preceding words3 ,i    
marvel that ye are so soon removing from
 him that called you in the grace of    
,christ unto a different ,gospel2 which 
is not another1 only there are  #bfh    
some that trouble you1 and desire to    
pervert the ,gospel of ,christ47#a7     
,passing from this1 however1 to the     
restrictive clauses in general1 how is  
it possible that ,paul could state1 as  
the result of his visit1 that the pillar
 ,apostles communicated nothing after   
hearing his ,gospel1 if the four        
conditions of this decree had thus been 
authoritatively communicated8 ,on the   

contrary1 ,paul distinctly adds that1 in
 acknowledging his mission1 but one     
condition had been attached3 ,only that 
we should remember the poor2 which very 
thing ,i also was forward to do47#b7 ,as
 one condition is here mentioned1 why   
not the others1 had any been actually   
imposed8 ,it is argued that the         
remembrance of the poor of ,jerusalem   
which is thus inculcated was a          
recommendation personally made to ,paul 
and ,barnabas1 but it is clear that the 
,apostle's words refer to the result of 
his communication of his ,gospel1 and to
 the understanding under which his      
mission to the ,gentiles was tolerated4 
,we have already pointed out how        
extraordinary it is that such a decision
 of the ,council should not have been   
referred to in describing his visit1 and
 the more we go into details the more   
striking and inexplicable1 except in one
 way1 is such silence4 ,in relating the 
struggle regarding the circumcision of  
,titus1 for instance1 and stating that  

he did not yield1 no1 not for an hour1  
to the demands made on the subject1 is  
it conceivable that1 if the exemption of
 all ,gentile ,christians from the      
initiatory rite had  #bfi  been         
unanimously conceded1 ,paul would not   
have added to his statement about       
,titus1 that not only he himself had not
 been compelled to give way in this     
instance1 but that his representations  
had even convinced those who had been   
,apostles before him1 and secured the   
unanimous adoption of his own views on  
the point8 ,the whole of this ,epistle  
is a vehement and intensely earnest     
denunciation of those ,judaizers who    
were pressing the necessity of the      
initiatory rite upon the ,galatian      
converts47#a7 ,is it possible that the  
,apostle could have left totally        
unmentioned the fact that the ,apostles 
and the very ,church of ,jerusalem had  
actually declared circumcision to be    
unnecessary8 ,it would not have accorded
 with ,paul's character1 it is said1 to 

have appealed to the authority of the   
elder ,apostles or of the ,church in a  
matter in which his own apostolic       
authority and teaching were in question4
 ,in that case1 bow can it be supposed  
that he ever went at all up to          
,jerusalem to the ,apostles and elders  
about this question8 ,if he was not too 
proud to lay aside his apostolic dignity
 and1 representing the ,christians of   
,antioch1 to submit the case to the     
,council at ,jerusalem1 and subsequently
 to deliver its decree to various       
communities1 is it consistent with      
reason or common sense to assert that he
 was too proud to recall the decision of
 that ,council to the ,christians of    
,galatia8 ,it must1 we think1 be obvious
 that1 if such an explanation of ,paul's
 total silence as to the decree be at   
all valid1 it is absolutely fatal to the
 account of ,paul's visit in the ,acts4 
,this reasoning is not confined to the  
,epistle to the ,galatians but1 as      
,paley       #a ,turning from ,antioch  

to ,galatia1 we meet with ,judaic       
teachers who urged circumcision on the  
,gentile converts1      and1 as the best
 means of weakening the authority of    
,st4      ,paul1 asserted for the       
,apostles of the ,circumcision the      
exclusive right of dictating to the     
,church4 ,lightfoot1 ,ep4      to the   
,gal4 p4 #cec4  #bgj  points out1       
applies to the other ,epistles of ,paul1
 in all of which the same silence is    
preserved4  ,moreover1 the apologetic   
explanation altogether fails upon other 
grounds4 ,without appealing to the      
decree as an authority1 we must feel    
sure that the ,apostle would at least   
have made use of it as a logical        
refutation of his adversaries4 ,the man 
who did not hesitate to attack ,peter   
openly for inconsistency1 and charge him
 with hypocrisy1 would not have         
hesitated to cite the decree as         
evidence1 and still less to fling it in 
the faces of those ,judaizers who1 so   
short a time after that decree is       

supposed to have been promulgated1      
preached the necessity of circumcision  
and ,mosaic observances in direct       
opposition to its terms1 whilst claiming
 to represent the views of the very     
,apostles and ,church which had framed  
it4 ,paul1 who never denies the validity
 of their claim1 would most certainly   
have taunted them with gross            
inconsistency and retorted that the     
,church of ,jerusalem1 the ,apostles1   
and the ,judaizers who now troubled him 
and preached circumcision and the       
,mosaic law had1 four or five years     
previously1 declared as the deliberate  
decision of the ,holy ,spirit and the   
,council1 that they were no longer      
binding on the ,gentile converts4 ,by   
such a reference the discussion would   
have been foreclosed4 ,none of the      
reasons which are suggested to explain  
the undeniable fact that there is no    
mention of the decree can really bear   
examination1 and that fact remains      
supported by a great many powerful      

considerations1 leading to the very     
simple explanation which reconciles all 
difficulties1 that the narrative of the 
,acts is not authentic4  ,we arrive at  
the very same results when we examine   
the ,apostle's references to the        
practices which the conditions of the   
decree were intended to control4        
,instead of recognising the authority of
 the decree1 or enforcing its  #bga     
prescriptions1 he does not even allow us
 to infer its existence1 and he teaches 
disregard at least of some of its       
restrictions4 ,the decree enjoins the   
,gentile ,christians to abstain from    
meats offered to idols4 ,paul tells the 
,corinthians to eat whatever meat is    
sold in the shambles without asking     
questions for conscience sake1 for an   
idol is nothing in the world1 neither if
 we eat are we the better1 nor if we eat
 not are we the worse47#a7 ,it is not   
conceivable that the ,apostle could so  
completely have ignored the prohibition 
of the decree if he had actually        

submitted the question to the ,apostles1
 and himself so distinctly acquiesced in
 their decision as to distribute the    
document amongst the various communities
 whom he subsequently visited4 ,to argue
 that the decree was only intended to   
have force in ,antioch1 and ,syria1 and 
,cilicia1 to which1 as the locality in  
which the difficulty had arisen which   
had originally led to the ,council1 the 
decree was1 in the first instance1      
addressed1 is highly arbitrary2 but1    
when proceeding further1 apologists7#b7 
draw a distinction between those        
churches which had already been founded1
 and which had felt the pressure of     
,jewish prejudice 7,acts xvi4 #d71 and  
brotherhoods afterwards formed and lying
 beyond the reach of such influences1 as
 a reason why no notice of the decree is
 taken in the case of the ,corinthians  
and ,romans1 the special pleading       
ignores very palpable facts4 ,jewish    
prejudices are represented in the ,acts 
of the ,apostles themselves as being    

more than usually strong in ,corinth4   
,there was a ,jewish synagogue there1   
augmented probably by the ,jews expelled
 from ,rome under ,claudius17#c7 and    
their violence against  #bgb  ,paul     
finally obliged him to leave the        
place47#a7 ,living in the midst of an   
idolatrous city1 and much exposed to the
 temptations of sacrificial feasts1 we  
might naturally expect excessive rigour 
against participation1 on the one hand1 
and perhaps too great indifference1 on  
the other2 and this we actually find to 
have been the case4 ,it is in           
consequence of questions respecting     
meats offered to idols that ,paul writes
 to the ,corinthians1 and whilst        
treating the matter in itself as one of 
perfect indifference1 merely inculcates 
consideration for weak consciences47#b7 
,it is clear that there was a decided   
feeling against the practice2 it is     
clear that strong ,jewish prejudices    
existed in the ,jewish colony at        
,corinth1 and wherever there were ,jews 

the eating of meats offered to idols was
 an abomination4 ,the sin of ,israel at 
,baalpeor7#c7 lived in the memory of the
 people1 and abstinence from such       
pollution7#d7 was considered a duty4 ,if
 the existence of such ,jewish          
prejudices was a reason for publishing  
the decree1 we have1 in fact1 more      
definite evidence of them in ,corinth   
than we have in ,antioch1 for1 apart    
from this specific mention of the       
subject of eating sacrificial meats1 the
 two apostolic letters abundantly show  
the existence and activity of ,judaistic
 parties there1 which opposed the work  
of ,paul1 and desired to force ,mosaic  
observances upon his converts4 ,it is   
impossible to admit that1 supposing such
 a decree to have been promulgated as   
the mind of the ,holy ,spirit1 there    
could be any reason why it should have  
been unknown at ,corinth so short a time
 after it was adopted4 ,when1 therefore1
 we find the ,apostle not only ignoring 
it1 but actually declaring that to be a 

matter of indifference1 abstinence from 
which it had just seemed  #bgc  good to 
the ,holy ,spirit to enjoin1 the only   
reasonable conclusion is that ,paul     
himself was totally ignorant of the     
existence of any decree containing such 
a prohibition4 ,there is much difference
 of opinion as to the nature of the     
------ referred to in the decree1 and we
 need not discuss it2 but in all the    
,apostle's homilies upon the subject    
there is the same total absence of all  
allusion to the decision of the         
,council4  ,nowhere can any practical   
result from the operation of the decree 
be pointed out1 nor any trace even of   
its existence4#a ,the assertions and    
conjectures1 by which those who maintain
 the authenticity of the narrative in   
the ,acts seek to explain the           
extraordinary absence of all external   
evidence of the decree1 labour under the
 disadvantage of all attempts to account
 for the total failure of effects from a
 supposed cause1 the existence of which 

is in reality only assumed4 ,it is      
customary to reply to the objection that
 there is no mention of the decree in   
the ,epistles of ,paul or in any other  
contemporary writing1 that this is a    
mere argument a silentio4 ,is it not1   
however1 difficult to imagine any other 
argument1 from contemporary sources1    
regarding what is affirmed to have had  
no existence1 than that from silence #a 
,do apologists absolutely demand that1  
with prophetic anticipation of future   
controversies1 the ,apostle ,paul should
 obligingly have left on record that    
there actually was no ,council such as a
 writer would subsequently describe1 and
 that the decree which he  #bgd  would  
put forward as the result of that       
,council must not he accepted as        
genuine8 ,it is natural to expect that1 
when writing of the very visit in       
question1 and dealing with subjects and 
discussions in which1 whether in the    
shape of historical allusion1 appeal to 
authority1 taunt for inconsistency1 or  

assertion of his own influence1 some    
allusion to the decree would have been  
highly appropriate1 if not necessary1   
the ,apostle ,paul should at least have 
given some hint of its existence4 ,his  
not doing so constitutes strong         
presumptive evidence against the        
authenticity of the decree1 and all the 
more so as no more positive evidence    
than silence could possibly be          
forthcoming of the non-existence of that
 which never existed4 ,the supposed     
decree of the ,council of ,jerusalem    
cannot on any ground be accepted as a   
historical fact47#a7  ,we may now return
 to such further consideration of the   
statements of the ,epistle as may seem  
necessary for the object of our inquiry4
 ,no mention is made by the ,apostle of 
any official mission on the subject of  
circumcision1 and the discussion of that
 question arises in a merely incidental 
manner from the presence of ,titus1 an  
uncircumcised ,gentile ,christian4      
,there has been much discussion as to   

whether ,titus actually was circumcised 
or not1 and there  #bge  can be little  
doubt that the omission of the negative 
------ from ,gal4 ii4 #e1 has been in   
some cases influenced by the desire to  
bring the ,apostle's conduct upon this  
occasion into harmony with the account1 
in ,acts xvi4 #c1 of his circumcising   
,timothy47#a7 ,we shall not require to  
enter into any controversy on the point1
 for the great majority of critics are  
agreed that the ,apostle intended to say
 that ,titus was not circumcised1       
although the contrary is affirmed by a  
few writers47#b7 ,it is obvious from the
 whole of the ,apostle's narrative that 
great pressure was exerted to induce    
,titus to submit1 and that ,paul1 if he 
did not yield even for an hour the      
required subjection1 had a long and     
severe struggle to maintain his         
position4 ,even when relating the       
circumstances in his letter to the      
,galatians1 the recollection of his     
contest profoundly stirs the ,apostle's 

indignation2 his utterance becomes      
vehement1 but cannot keep pace with his 
impetuous thoughts1 and the result is a 
narrative in broken and abrupt sentences
 whose very incompleteness is eloquent1 
and betrays the irritation which has not
 even yet entirely subsided4 ,how does  
this accord with the whole tone of the  
account in the ,acts8 ,it is customary  
with apologists to insert so much       
between the lines of that narrative1    
partly from imagination and partly from 
the statements of the ,epistle1 that    
they almost convince themselves and     
others that such additions are actually 
suggested by the author of the ,acts    
himself4 ,if we take the account of the 
,acts1 however1 without such            
transmutations1 it is certain that not  
only is there not the slightest         
indication of any struggle regarding the
  #bgf  circumcision of ,titus1 in which
 ,st4 ,paul maintained at one time      
almost single-handed the cause of       
,gentile freedom17#a7 but no suggestion 

that there had ever been any hesitation 
on the part of the leading ,apostles and
 the mass of the ,church regarding the  
point at issue4 ,the impression given by
 the author of the ,acts is undeniably  
one of unbroken and undisturbed harmony3
 of a council in which the elder        
,apostles were of one mind with ,paul1  
and warmly agreed with him that the     
,gentiles should be delivered from the  
yoke of the ,mosaic law and from the    
necessity of undergoing the initiatory  
rite4 ,what is there in such an account 
to justify in any degree the irritation 
displayed by ,paul at the mere          
recollection of this visit1 or to merit 
the ironical terms with which he speaks 
of the pillar ,apostles8  ,we may1      
however1 now consider the part which the
 ,apostles must have taken in the       
dispute regarding the circumcision of   
,titus4 ,is it possible to suppose that1
 if the circumcision of ,paul's follower
 had only been demanded by certain of   
the sect of the ,pharisees who believed1

 unsupported by the rest1 there could   
ever have been any considerable struggle
 on the point8 ,is it possible1 further1
 to suppose that1 if ,paul had received 
the cordial support of ,james and the   
leading ,apostles in his refusal to     
concede the circumcision of ,titus1 such
 a contest could have been more than    
momentary and trifling8 ,is it possible 
that the ,apostle ,paul could have      
spoken of certain of the sect of the    
,pharisees who believed in such terms   
as3 to whom we yielded by the submission
 ------ no not for an hour87#b7 or that 
he could have used this expression if   
those who pressed the demand upon him   
had not been in a position  #bgg  of    
authority1 which naturally suggested a  
subjection which ,paul upon this        
occasion persistently refused8 ,it is   
not possible4 ,of course many writers   
who seek to reconcile the two           
narratives1 and some of whom substitute 
for the plain statements of the ,acts   
and of the ,apostle1 an account which is

 not consistent with either1 suppose    
that the demand for the circumcision of 
,titus proceeded solely from the false  
brethren17#a7 although some of them     
suppose that at least these false       
brethren may have thought they had      
reason to hope for the support of the   
elder ,apostles47#b7 ,it is almost too  
clear for dispute1 however1 that the    
desire that ,titus should be circumcised
 was shared or pressed by the elder     
,apostles47#c7 ,according to the showing
 of the ,acts1 nothing could be more    
natural than the fact that ,james and   
the elders of ,jerusalem who1 so long   
after 7xxi4 #bj if471 advised ,paul to  
prove his continued observance of the   
law and that he did not teach the ,jews 
to abandon circumcision1 should on this 
occasion have pressed him to circumcise 
,titus4 ,the conduct of ,peter at       
,antioch1 and the constant opposition   
which ,paul met with from emissaries    
#bgh  of ,james and of the ,apostles of 
the ,circumcision upon the very point of

 ,gentile circumcision1 all support the 
inevitable conclusion1 that the pressure
 upon ,paul in the matter of ,titus was 
not only not resisted by the ,apostles1 
but proceeded in no small degree from   
them4  ,this is further shown by the    
remainder of ,paul's account of his     
visit and by the tone of his remarks    
regarding the principal ,apostles1 as   
well as by the historical data which we 
possess of his subsequent career4 ,we   
need not repeat that the representation 
in the ,acts both of the ,council and of
 the whole intercourse between ,paul and
 the ,apostles is one of unbroken       
unity47#a7 ,the struggle about ,titus   
and the quarrel with ,peter at ,antioch 
are altogether omitted1 and the         
,apostolic letter speaks merely of our  
beloved ,barnabas and ,paul1 men that   
have given up their lives for the name  
of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ7#b7 ,the    
language of ,paul is not so pacific and 
complimentary4 ,immediately after his   
statement that he had yielded by the    

submission1 no1 not for an hour1 ,paul  
continues3 ,but from those who seem to  
be something --------whatsoever they    
were it maketh no matter to me3 ,god    
accepteth not man's person2--for to me  
those who seem ------ 7to be something7 
communicated nothing1 but1 on the       
contrary1 c4 c41 and when they knew the 
grace that was given to me1 ,james and  
,cephas and ,john1 who seem to be       
pillars ------1 gave to  me and         
,barnabas right hands of fellowship that
 we 7should go7 unto the ,gentiles1 c4  
c47#c7 ,the tone and language of this   
passage are certainly  #bgi             
depreciatory of the elder ,apostles17#a7
 and1 indeed1 it is difficult to        
understand how any one could fail to    
perceive and admit the fact4 ,it is     
argued by some who recognise the irony  
of the term ------ applied to the       
,apostles1 that the disparagement which 
is so transparent in the form ------1   
those who seem to be something1 is      
softened again in the new turn which is 

given to it in ver4 #i1 ------1 those   
who seem to be pillars1 in which1 it is 
said1 the ,apostle expresses the real   
greatness and high authority of the     
twelve in their separate field of       
labour47#b7 ,it seems to us that this   
interpretation cannot be sustained4     
,paul is ringing the changes on ------1 
and contrasting with the position they  
assumed and the estimation in which they
 were held1 his own experience of them1 
and their inability to add anything to  
him4 ,those who seem to be something1 he
 commences1 but immediately interrupts  
himself1 after having thus indicated the
 persons whom he meant1 with the more   
direct protest of irritated             
independence3--whatsoever they were it  
maketh no matter to me3 ,god accepteth  
not man's person4 ,these ------         
communicated nothing to him1 but1 on the
 contrary1 when they knew the grace     
given to him1 those who seem to be      
pillars gave him hands of fellowship1   
but nothing more1 and they went their   

different ways1 he to the ,gentiles and 
they to the circumcision4 ,if the  #bhj 
expression3 ------ be true1 as well as  
ironically used1 it cannot be construed 
into a declaration of respect1 but forms
 part of a passage whose tone throughout
 is proudly depreciatory4 ,this is      
followed by such words as hypocrisy     
------ and condemned ------ applied to  
the conduct of ,peter at ,antioch1 as   
well as the mention of the emissaries of
 ,james as the cause of that dispute1   
which add meaning to the irony4 ,this is
 not1 however1 the only occasion on     
which ,paul betrays a certain bitterness
 against the elder ,apostles4 ,in his   
second letter to the ,corinthians1 xi4  
#e1 he says1 ,for ,i reckon that ,i am  
not a whit behind the over much         
,apostles ------1 and again1 xii4 #aa1  
,for in nothing was ,i behind the over  
much ,apostles ------2 and the whole of 
the vehement passage in which these     
references are set shows the intensity  
of the feeling which called them forth4 

,to say that the expressions in the     
,galatian ,epistle and here are         
depreciatory1 not indeed of the twelve  
themselves1 but of the extravagant and  
exclusive claims set up for them by the 
,judaizers17#a7 is an extremely         
arbitrary distinction4 ,they are        
directly applied to the ,apostles1 and  
------ cannot be taken as irony against 
those who over-estimated them1 but      
against the ------ themselves4 ,paul's  
blows generally go straight to their    
mark4 ,meyer argues that the designation
 of the ,apostles as ------ is purely   
historical1 and cannot be taken as      
ironical1 inasmuch as it would be       
inconsistent to suppose that ,paul could
 adopt a depreciatory tone when he is   
relating his recognition as a colleague 
by the elder ,apostles27#b7 and others  
consider that  #bha  ver4 #h1 #i1 #aj   
contain evidence of mutual respect and  
recognition between ,paul and the       
twelve4 ,even if this were so1 it could 
not do away with the actual irony of the

 expressions2 but do the facts support  
such a statement8 ,we have seen that1 in
 spite of the picture of unbroken unity 
drawn by the author of the ,acts1 and   
the liberal sentiments regarding the    
,gentiles which he puts into the mouth  
of ,peter and of ,james1 ,paul had a    
severe and protracted struggle to       
undergo in order to avoid circumcising  
,titus4 ,we have already stated the     
grounds upon which it seems certain that
 the pressure upon that occasion came as
 well from the elder ,apostles as the   
false brethren1 and critics who do not  
go so far as to make this positive      
affirmation1 at least recognise the     
passive1 and therefore to a large extent
 compliant1 attitude which the ,apostles
 must have held4 ,it is after narrating 
some of the particulars of this struggle
 that ,paul uses the terms of           
depreciation which we have been         
discussing2 and having added1 for to me 
those who seem 7to be something7        
communicated nothing1 he says1 but1 on  

the contrary1 when they saw that ,i have
 been entrusted with the ,gospel of the 
uncircumcision1 even as ,peter with that
 of the circumcision 7for he that       
wrought for ,peter unto the ,apostleship
 of the circumcision1 wrought also for  
me unto the ,gentiles72 and when they   
knew the grace that was given unto me1  
,james and ,cephas and ,john1 who seem  
to be pillars1 gave to me and ,barnabas 
right hands of fellowship1 that we      
7should go7 unto the ,gentiles1 and they
 unto the circumcision3 only that we    
should remember the poor2 which very    
thing ,i also was forward to do4 ,it    
will be observed that1 after saying they
 communicated nothing to him1 the       
,apostle adds1 in opposition1 but1 on   
the  #bhb  contrary ------4 ,in what    
does this opposition consist8           
,apparently in this1 that1 instead of   
strengthening the hands of ,paul1 they  
left him to labour alone4 ,they said3   
,take your own course2 preach the       
,gospel of the uncircumcision to        

,gentiles1 and we will preach the       
,gospel of the circumcision to          
,jews47#a7 ,in fact1 when ,paul returned
 to ,jerusalem for the second time after
 fourteen years1 he found the elder     
,apostles not one whit advanced towards 
his own uni-versalism2 they retained    
their former ,jewish prejudices1 and    
remained as before ,apostles of the     
circumcision47#b7 ,notwithstanding the  
strong ,pauline sentiments put into     
,peter's mouth by the author of the     
,acts1 and his claim to have been so    
long before selected by ,god that by his
 mouth the ,gentiles should hear the    
word of the ,gospel and believe1 ,paul  
singles out ,peter as specially         
entrusted with the ,gospel of the       
circumcision2 and1 in the end1 after    
,paul has exerted all his influence1    
,peter and the rest remain unmoved1 and 
allow ,paul to go to the ,gentiles1     
while they confine their ministry as    
before to the ,jews4 ,the success of    
,paul's work amongst the heathen was too

 palpable a fact to be ignored1 but     
there is no reason to believe that the  
conversion of the ,gentiles1 upon his   
terms1 was more than tolerated at that  
time1 or the ,gentile ,christians       
admitted to more than such imperfect    
communion with the ,jewish ,christians  
as that of ,proselytes of the ,gate in  
relation to ,judaism4 ,this is shown by 
the conduct of ,peter at ,antioch after 
the supposed ,council1 and of the ,jews 
with him1 and even of ,barnabas1  #bhc  
through fear of the emissaries of       
,james1 whose arrival certainly could   
not have produced a separation between  
,jewish and ,gentile ,christians had the
 latter been recognised as in full      
communion4  ,the hands of fellowship    
clearly was a mere passive permission of
 ,paul's mission to the ,gentiles1 but  
no positive and hearty approval of it   
testified by active support47#a7 ,it    
must1 we think1 be evident to any one   
who attentively considers the passage we
 are examining1 that there is no        

question whatever in it of a recognition
 of the ,apostolate of ,paul47#b7 ,the  
elder ,apostles consent to his mission  
to the ,gentiles1 whilst they themselves
 go to the circumcision2 but there is   
not a syllable which indicates that     
,paul's claim to the title of ,apostle  
was ever either acknowledged or         
discussed4 ,it is not probable that     
,paul would have submitted such a point 
to their consideration4 ,it is difficult
 to see how the elder ,apostles could   
well have done less than they did1 and  
the extent of their fellowship seems to 
have simply amounted to toleration of   
what they could not prevent4 ,the       
pressure for the circumcision of the    
,gentile converts was an attempt to     
coerce1 and to suppress the peculiar    
principle of the ,gospel of             
uncircumcision2 and though that effort  
failed through the determined resistance
 of ,paul1  #bhd  it is clear1 from the 
final resolve to limit their preaching  
to the circumcision1 that the elder     

,apostles in no way abandoned their view
 of the necessity of the initiatory     
rite4 ,the episode at ,antioch is a     
practical illustration of this          
statement4 ,hilgenfeld ably             
remarks3--,when we consider that ,peter 
was afraid of the circumcised           
,christians1 there can be no doubt that 
,james1 at the head of the primitive    
community1 made the attempt to force    
heathen ,christians to adopt the        
substance of ,jewish legitimacy1 by     
breaking off ecclesiastical community   
with them47#a7 ,the ,gentile ,christians
 were virtually excommunicated on the   
arrival of the emissaries of ,james1 or 
at least treated as mere ,proselytes of 
the ,gate2 and the pressure upon the    
,galatian converts of the necessity of  
circumcision by similar ,judaizing      
emissaries1 which called forth the      
vehement and invaluable ,epistle before 
us1 is quite in accordance with the     
circumstances of this visit4 ,the       
separation agreed upon between ,paul and

 the elder ,apostles was not in any     
sense geographical1 but purely          
ethnological47#b7 ,it was no mere       
division of labour17#c7 no suitable     
apportionment of work4 ,the elder       
,apostles determined1 like their ,master
 before them1 to confine their ministry 
to ,jews1 whilst ,paul1 if he pleased1  
might go to the ,gentiles2 and the mere 
fact that ,peter subsequently goes to   
,antioch1 as well as many other  #bhe   
circumstances1 shows that no mere       
separation of localities1 but a         
selection of race was intended4 ,if     
there had not been this absolute        
difference of purpose1 any separation   
would have been unnecessary1 and all the
 ,apostles would have preached one      
,gospel indifferently to all who had    
ears to hear it2 such strange inequality
 in the partition of the work could     
never have existed3 that ,paul should go
 unaided to the gigantic task of        
converting the heathen1 while the       
,twelve reserved themselves for the     

small but privileged people4 ,all that  
we have said at the beginning of this   
section of the nature of primitive      
,christianity1 and of the views         
prevalent amongst the disciples at the  
death of their ,master1 is verified by  
this attitude of the ,three during the  
famous visit of the ,apostle of the     
,gentiles to ,jerusalem1 and ,paul's    
account is precisely in accordance with 
all that historical probability and     
reason1 unwarped by the ideal           
representations of the ,acts1 prepare us
 to expect4 ,the more deeply we go into 
the statements of ,paul the more is this
 apparent1 and the more palpable does   
the inauthenticity of the narrative of  
the ,council appear4  ,the words of     
,paul in describing the final           
understanding are very remarkable and   
require further consideration4 ,the     
decision that they should go to the     
circumcision and ,paul to the ,gentiles 
is based upon the recognition of a      
different ,gospel entrusted to him1 the 

,gospel of the uncircumcision1 as the   
,gospel of the circumcision is entrusted
 to ,peter4 ,it will be remembered that 
,paul states that1 on going up to       
,jerusalem upon this occasion1 he       
communicated to them the ,gospel which  
he preached among the ,gentiles1 and it 
is probable that he made the journey    
more especially for this purpose4 ,it   
appears from the account that this      
,gospel was not only new to them1 but   
was  #bhf  distinctly diflferent from   
that of the elder ,apostles4 ,if ,paul  
preached the same ,gospel as the rest1  
what necessity could there have been for
 communicating it at all8 ,what doubt   
that by any means he might be running1  
or had run1 in vain8 ,he knew perfectly 
well that he preached a diflferent      
,gospel from the ,apostles of the       
circumcision1 and his anxiety probably  
was to secure an amicable recognition of
 the ,gentile converts whom he had      
taught to consider circumcision         
unnecessary and the obligation of the   

law removed4 ,of course there was much  
that was fundamentally the same in the  
two ,gospels1 starting as they both did 
with the recognition of ,jesus as the   
,messiah2 but their points of divergence
 were very marked and striking1 and more
 especially in directions where the     
prejudices of the ,apostles of the      
circumcision were the strongest         
,avoiding all debatable ground1 it is   
clear that the ,gospel of the           
uncircumcision1 which proclaimed the    
abrogation of the law and the inutility 
of the initiatory rite1 must have been  
profoundly repugnant to ,jews1 who still
 preached the obligation of circumcision
 and the observance of the law4 ,christ 
redeemed us from the curse of the       
law7#a7 said the ,gospel of the         
uncircumcision4 ,behold1 ,i1 ,paul1 say 
unto you1 that if ye be circumcised1    
,christ will profit you nothing4444 ,for
 in ,christ ,jesus neither circumcision 
availeth anything nor uncircumcision1   
but faith working through love47#b7 ,for

 neither circumcision is anything1 nor  
uncircumcision1 but a new creature47#c7 
,the teaching which was specially       
designated the ,gospel of the           
circumcision1 in contradistinction to   
this ,gospel of the uncircumcision1 held
 very diflferent language4 ,there is no 
gainsaying the  #bhg  main fact--and    
that fact1 certified by ,paul himself   
and substantiated by a host of          
collateral circumstances1 is more       
conclusive than all conciliatory        
apologetic reasoning--that1 at the date 
of this visit to ,jerusalem 7c4 a4d4    
#ej-eb71 the ,three1 after hearing all  
that ,paul had to say1 allowed him to go
 alone to the ,gentiles1 but themselves 
would have no part in the mission1 and  
turned as before to the circumcision4   
,there is another point to which we must
 very briefly refer4 ,the statements of 
,paul show that1 antecedent to this     
visit to ,jerusalem1 ,paul had been the 
active ,apostle of the ,gentiles1       
preaching his ,gospel of the            

uncircumcision1 and that subsequently he
 returned to the same field of labour4  
,if we examine the narrative of the     
,acts1 we do not find him represented in
 any special manner as the ,apostle of  
the ,gentiles1 but1 on the contrary1    
whilst ,peter claims the honour of      
having been selected that by his voice  
the ,gentiles should hear the word of   
the ,gospel and believe1 ,paul is       
everywhere described as going to the    
,jews1 and only when his teaching is    
rejected by them does he turn to the    
,gentiles4 ,it is true that ,ananias is 
represented as being told by the ,lord  
that ,paul is a chosen vessel to bear my
 name both before ,gentiles and kings1  
and the sons of ,israel27#a7 and ,paul  
subsequently recounts how the ,lord had 
said to himself1 ,go1 for ,i will send  
thee far hence unto ,gentiles47#b7 ,the 
author of the ,acts1 however1 everywhere
 conveys the impression that ,paul very 
reluctantly fulfils this mission1 and   
that if he had but been successful      

amongst the ,jews he never would have   
gone to the ,gentiles at all4           
,immediately after his conversion1 he   
preaches in the synagogues at ,damascus 
and confounds the ,jews17#c7 as he  #bhh
  again does during his visit to        
,jerusalem47#a7 ,when the ,holy ,spirit 
desires the ,church at ,antioch to      
separate ,barnabas and ,saul for the    
work whereunto he has called them1 they 
continue to announce the word of ,god in
 the synagogues of the ,jews17#b7 and in
 narrating the conversion of the ,roman 
proconsul at ,paphos1 it is said that it
 is ,sergius ,paulus himself who calls  
for ,barnabas and ,saul1 and seeks to   
hear the word of ,god47#c7 ,when they   
came to ,antioch in ,pisidia1 they go   
into the synagogue of the ,jews7#d7 as  
usual1 and it is only after the ,jews   
reject them that ,paul and ,barnabas are
 described as saying3--,it was necessary
 that the word of ,god should first be  
spoken to you3 seeing that ye thrust it 
from you1 and judge yourselves unworthy 

of everlasting life1 lo1 we turn to the 
,gentiles47#e7 ,in ,iconium1 to which   
they next proceed1 however1 they go into
 the synagogue of the ,jews17#f7 and    
later1 it is stated that ,paul1 on      
arriving at ,thessalonica1 as his custom
 was1 went into the synagogue of the    
,jews1 and for three ,sabbaths          
discoursed to them47#g7 ,at ,corinth1 it
 was only when the ,jews opposed him and
 blasphemed1 that ,paul is represented  
as saying3 ,your blood be upon your own 
head2 ,i will henceforth1 with a pure   
conscience1 go unto the ,gentiles4 ,it  
is impossible to distinguish from this  
narrative any difference between the    
ministry of ,paul and that of the other 
,apostles4 ,they all address themselves 
mainly and primarily to the ,jews1      
although if ,gentiles desire to eat of  
the crumbs which fall from the          
children's bread they are not rejected4 
,even the ,pharisees stirred heaven and 
earth to make proselytes4 ,in no sense  
can  #bhi  the ,paul of the ,acts be    

considered specially an ,apostle of the 
,gentiles1 and the statement of the     
,epistle to the ,galatians7#a7 has no   
significance1 if interpreted by the     
historical work4  ,apologists usually   
reply to this objection1 that the       
practice of ,paul in the ,acts is in    
accordance with his own words in the    
,epistle to the ,romans1 i4 #af1 in     
which1 it is asserted1 he recognizes the
 right of the ,jews to precedence4 ,in  
the ,authorised ,version this passage is
 rendered as follows3--,for ,i am not   
ashamed of the ,gospel of ,christ3 for  
it is the power of ,god unto salvation  
to every one that believeth2 to the ,jew
 first and also to the ,greek47#b7      
------ ,as a matter of  fact we may here
 at once state that the word ------     
first1 is not found in ,codices ,b and  
,g1 and that it is omitted from the     
,latin rendering of the verse quoted by 
,tertullian47#c7 ,that the word upon    
which the controversy turns should not  
be found in so important a ,,ms4 as the 

,vatican ,codex or in so ancient a      
version as ,tertullian's is very        
significant1 but proceeding at once to  
the sense of the sentence1 we must      
briefly state the reasons which seem to 
us conclusively to show that the usual  
reading is erroneous4 ,the passage is an
 emphatic statement of the principles of
 ,paul4 ,he declares that he is not     
ashamed of the ,gospel1 and he          
immediately states the reason3 for it is
 a power of ,god unto salvation to      
everyone that believeth47#d7 ,he is not 
ashamed of the ,gospel because he       
recognizes its universality2 for1 in    
#bij  opposition to the exclusiveness of
 ,judaism1 he maintains that all are    
sons of ,god through faith in ,christ   
,jesus444 ,there is neither ,jew nor    
,greek444 for ye are all one man in     
,christ ,jesus4 ,and if ye be ,christ's 
then are ye ,abraham's seed1 heirs      
according to promise47#a7 ,for in       
,christ ,jesus neither circumcision     
availeth anything nor uncircumcision1   

but faith working through love47#b7 ,the
 reason which he gives is that which    
lies at the basis of the whole of his   
special teaching2 but we are asked to   
believe that1 after so clear and        
comprehensive a declaration1 he at once 
adds the extraordinary qualification3   
------1 rendered to the ,jew first and  
also to the ,greek4 ,what is the meaning
 of such a limitation8 ,if the ,gospel  
be a power of ,god unto salvation to    
every one that believeth ------1 in what
 manner can it possibly be so to the    
,jew first8 ,can it be maintained that  
there are comparative degrees in        
salvation8 ,salvation is obviously an   
absolute term4 ,if saved at all1 the    
,jew cannot be more saved than the      
,greek4 ,if1 on the other hand1 the     
expression be interpreted as an         
assertion that the ,jew has a right of  
precedence either in the offer or the   
attainment of salvation before the      
,greek1 the manner of its realization is
 almost equally inconceivable1 and a    

host of difficulties1 especially in view
 of the specific ,pauline teaching1     
immediately present themselves4 ,there  
can be no doubt that the judaistic view 
distinctly was that ,israel must first  
be saved1 before the heathen could      
obtain any part in the ,messianic       
kingdom1 and we have shown that this    
idea dominated primitive ,christianity2 
and inseparable from this was the belief
 that the only way to a participation in
 its benefits lay through ,judaism4 ,the
  #bia  heathen could only obtain       
admission into the family of ,israel1   
and become partakers in the covenant1 by
 submitting to the initiatory rite4 ,it 
was palpably under the influence of this
 view1 and with a conviction that the   
,messianic kingdom was primarily        
destined for the children of ,israel1   
that the elder ,apostles1 even after the
 date of ,paul's second visit to        
,jerusalem1 continued to confine their  
ministry to the circumcision4 ,paul's   
view was very different4 ,he recognized 

and maintained the universality of the  
,gospel and1 in resolving to go to the  
heathen1 he practically repudiated the  
very theory of ,jewish preference which 
he is here supposed to advance4 ,if the 
,gospel1 instead of being a power of    
,god to salvation to every man who      
believed1 was for the ,jew first1 the   
,apostolate of the ,gentiles was a mere 
delusion and a snare4 ,what could be the
 advantage of so urgently offering      
salvation to the ,greek1 if the gift1   
instead of being for every one that     
believeth1 was a mere prospective       
benefit1 inoperative until the ,jew had 
first been saved8 ,salvation to the ,jew
 first and also to the ,greek1 if it    
have any significance whatever of the   
kind argued1--involving either a prior  
claim to the offer of salvation1 or     
precedence in its distribution1--so     
completely destroys all the present     
interest in it of the ,gentile1 that the
 ,gospel must to him have lost all      
power4 ,to suppose that such an         

expression simply means1 that the       
,gospel must first be preached to the   
,jews in any town to which the ,apostle 
might come before it could legitimately 
be proclaimed to the ,gentiles of that  
town1 is childish4 ,we have no reason to
 suppose that ,paul held the deputy     
,sergius ,paulus1 who desired to hear   
the word of ,god and believed1 in       
suspense until the ,jews of ,paphos had 
#bib  rejected it4 ,the cases of the    
,ethiopian eunuch and ,cornelius throw  
no light upon any claim of the ,jew to  
priority in salvation4 ,indeed1 not to  
waste time in showing the utter         
incongruity of the ordinary             
interpretation1 we venture to affirm    
that there is not a single explanation1 
which maintains a priority assigned to  
the ,jew in any way justifying the      
reference to this text1 which is capable
 of supporting the slightest            
investigation4 ,if we linguistically    
examine the expression ------1 we arrive
 at the same conclusion1 that ------ is 

an interpolation1 for we must maintain  
that ------ with ------ and ------ must 
be applied equally both to ,jew and     
,greek1 and cannot rightly be           
appropriated to the ,jew only1 as       
implying a preference over the          
,greek47#a7 ,the sense1 therefore1 can  
only be properly and intelligibly given 
by disregarding ------ and simply       
translating the words3 both to ,jew and 
,greek47#b7 ,this was the rendering of  
the ancient ,latin version quoted by    
,tertullian in his work against         
,marcion3 ,itaque et hie1 cum dicit3    
,non enim me pudet evangelii1 virtus    
enim dei est in salutem omni credenti1  
,judaeo et ,graeco1 quia justitia dei in
 eo revelatur ex fide in fidem4117#c7   
,we are not left without further        
examples of the very same expression1   
and an examination of the context will  
amply demonstrate that ,paul used it in 
no other sense4 ,in the  #bic  very next
 chapter the ,apostle twice uses the    
same words4 ,after condemning the hasty 

and unrighteous judgment of man1 he     
says3 ,for we know that the judgment of 
,god is according to truth4444 who will 
render to every one according to his    
works2 to them who by patience in       
well-doing seek for glory and honour and
 incorruption1 eternal life3 but unto   
them that act out of factious spirit and
 do not obey the truth but obey         
unrighteousness1 anger1 and wrath3      
affliction and distress upon every soul 
of man that worketh evil1 both of ,jew  
and of ,greek ------1 ,a4 ,v4 of the    
,jew first1 and also of the ,gentile2   
but glory and honour and peace to every 
one that worketh good1 both to ,jew and 
to ,greek ------1 ,a4 ,v4 to the ,jew   
first1 and also to the ,gentile74 ,for  
there is no respect of persons with     
,god47#a7 ,how is it possible that1 if  
the ,apostle had intended to assert a   
priority of any kind accorded to the    
,jew before the ,gentile1 he could at   
the same time have added3 ,for there is 
no respect of persons with ,god 8 ,if   

salvation be to the ,jew first1 there is
 very distinctly respect of persons with
 ,god4 ,the very opposite1 however1 is  
repeatedly and emphatically asserted by 
,paul in this very epistle4 ,for there  
is no difference between ,jew and ,greek
 ------1 he says1 for the same ,lord of 
all is rich unto all them that call upon
 him4 ,for whosoever shall call upon the
 name of the ,lord shall be saved47#b7  
,here1 we have the phrase without       
------4 ,nothing could be more clear and
 explicit4 ,the precedence of the ,jew  
is directly excluded4 ,at the end of the
 second chapter1 moreover1 he explains  
his idea of a ,jew3  #bid  ,for he is   
not a ,jew who is one outwardly2 neither
 is that circumcision which is outwardly
 in flesh1 but he is a ,jew who is one  
inwardly1 and circumcision is of the    
heart1 in spirit not letter47#a7 ,if    
anything further were required to prove 
that the ,apostle does not by the       
expression3 ------1 intend to indicate  
any priority accorded to the ,jew1 it is

 supplied by the commencement of the    
third chapter4 ,what then is the        
advantage of the ,jew8 or what the      
profit of circumcision8 ,it is obvious  
that if the ,apostle had just said that 
the ,gospel was the power of ,god unto  
salvation1 to ,jew first and also to    
,greek1 he had stated a very marked     
advantage to the ,jew1 and that such an 
inquiry as the above would have been    
wholly unnecessary4 ,the answer which he
 gives to his own question1 however1    
completes our certainty4 ,much every    
way1 he replies2 but in explaining what 
the much advantage was1 we hear no more 
of to ,jew first3 ,much every way3 for  
first indeed they were entrusted with   
the oracles of ,god47#a7 ,and1 after a  
few words1 he proceeds3 ,what then8 are 
we better8 ,not at all2 for we before   
brought the charge that both ,jews and  
,greeks ------ are all under sin47#c7   
,here1 again1 there is no ------4 ,there
 can be no doubt in the mind of any one 
who understands what ,paul's teaching   

was1 and what he means by claiming the  
special title of ,apostle to the        
,gentiles1 that in going to the ,heathen
 after his visit to ,jerusalem1 as      
before it1 there was no purpose in his  
mind to preach to the ,jews first and   
only on being rejected by them to turn  
to the ,gentiles1 as the ,acts would    
have us suppose2 but that the principle 
which regulated his proclamation of the 
,gospel was that which we have  #bie    
already quoted3 ,for there is no        
difference between ,jew and ,greek2 for 
the same ,lord of all is rich unto all  
them that call upon him4 ,for whosoever 
shall call upon the name of the ,lord   
shall be saved47#a7  ,still more        
incongruous is the statement of the     
,acts that ,paul took ,timothy and      
circumcised him because of the ,jews4   
,according to this narrative1 shortly   
after the supposed ,council of          
,jerusalem at which it was decided that 
circumcision of ,gentile ,converts was  
unnecessary2 immediately after ,paul had

 in spite of great pressure refused to  
allow ,titus to be circumcised2 and     
after it had been agreed between the    
,apostle of the ,gentiles and ,james and
 ,cephas and ,john that while they      
should go to the circumcision1 he1 on   
the contrary1 should go to the heathen1 
,paul actually took and circumcised     
,timothy4 ,apologists1 whilst generally 
admitting the apparent contradiction1 do
 not consider that this act involves any
 real inconsistency1 and find reasons   
which1 they affirm1 sufficiently justify
 it4 ,some of these we shall presently  
examine1 but we may at once say that no 
apologetic arguments seem to us capable 
of resisting the conclusion arrived at  
by many independent critics1 that the   
statement of the ,acts with regard to   
,timothy is opposed to all that we know 
of ,paul's views1 and that for          
unassailable reasons it must be         
pronounced unhistorical47#b7 ,the author
 of the ,acts says3 ,and he 7,paul7 came
 to ,derbe and ,lystra4 ,and behold a   

certain disciple was there1 named       
,timothy1 son of a  #bif  believing     
,jewish woman1 but of a ,greek father2  
who was well reported of by the brethren
 in ,lystra and ,iconium4 ,him would    
,paul have to go forth with him2 and    
took and circumcised him because of the 
,jews which were in those places ------2
 for they all knew that his father was a
 ,greek ------47#a7 ,the principal      
arguments of those who maintain the     
truth and consistency of this narrative 
briefly are3 ,paul resisted the         
circumcision of ,titus because he was a 
,greek1 and because the subject then    
actually under consideration was the    
immunity from the ,jewish rite of       
,gentile ,christians1 which would have  
been prejudiced had he yielded the      
point4 ,on the other hand1 ,timothy was 
the son of a ,jewish mother1 and whilst 
there was no principle here in question1
 ,paul circumcised the companion whom he
 had chosen to accompany him in his     
missionary journey1 both as a           

recognition of his ,jewish origin and to
 avoid offence to the ,jews whom they   
should encounter in the course of their 
ministry1 as well as to secure for him  
access to the synagogues which they must
 visit3 ,paul in this instance1         
according to all apologists putting in  
practice his own declaration 7#a ,cor4  
ix4 #ai-bj73 ,for being free from all   
men1 ,i made myself servant unto all    
that ,i might gain the more2 and unto   
the ,jews ,i became as a ,jew1 that ,i  
might gain ,jews4  ,it must be borne in 
mind that the author who chronicles the 
supposed circumcision of ,timothy makes 
no allusion to the refusal of ,paul to  
permit ,titus to be circumcised2 an     
omission which is not only singular in  
itself1 but significant when we find    
him1 immediately after1 narrating so    
singular a concession of which the  #big
  ,apostle makes no mention4 ,of course 
it is clear that ,paul could not have   
consented to the circumcision of ,titus1
 and we have only to consider in what   

manner the case of ,timothy differed so 
as to support the views of those who    
hold that ,paul1 who would not yield to 
the pressure brought to bear upon him in
 the case of ,titus1 might1 quite       
consistently1 so short a time after1    
circumcise ,timothy with his own hand4  
,it is true that the necessity of       
circumcision for ,gentile ,christians   
came prominently into question1 during  
,paul's visit to ,jerusalem1 from the   
presence of his uncircumcised follower  
,titus1 and no doubt the abrogation of  
the rite must have formed a striking    
part of the exposition of his ,gospel1  
which ,paul tells us he made upon this  
occasion2 but it is equally certain that
 the necessity of circumcision long     
continued to be pressed by the judaistic
 party in the ,church4 ,it cannot fairly
 be argued that1 at any time1 ,paul     
could afford to relax his determined and
 consistent attitude as the advocate for
 the universality of ,christianity and  
the abrogation of a rite1 insistence    

upon which1 he had been the first to    
recognise1 would have been fatal to the 
spread of ,christianity4 ,to maintain   
that he could safely make such a        
concession of his principles and himself
 circumcise ,timothy1 simply because at 
that precise moment there was no active 
debate upon the point1 is inadmissible2 
for his ,epistles abundantly prove that 
the topic1 if it ever momentarily       
subsided into stubborn silence1 was     
continually being revived with renewed  
bitterness4 ,pauline views could never  
have prevailed if he had been willing to
 sacrifice them for the sake of         
conciliation1 whenever they were not    
actively attacked4  ,the difference of  
the occasion cannot be admitted  #bih   
as a valid reason2 let us1 therefore1   
see whether any difference in the       
persons and circumstances removes the   
contradiction4 ,it is argued that such a
 difference exists in the fact that1    
whilst ,titus was altogether a ,gentile1
 ,timothy1 on the side of his mother at 

least1 was a ,jew2 and ,thiersch1       
following a passage quoted by ,wetstein1
 states that1 according to ,talmudic    
prescriptions1 the validity of mixed    
marriages between a ,jewess and a       
,gentile was only recognized upon the   
condition that the children should be   
brought up in the religion of the       
mother4 ,in this case1 he argues1 ,paul 
merely carried out the requirement of   
the ,jewish law by circumcising         
,timothy1 which others had omitted to   
do1 and thus secured his admission to   
the ,jewish synagogues to which much of 
his ministry was directed1 but from     
which he would have been excluded had   
the rite not been performed47#a7 ,even  
,meyer1 however1 in reference to this   
point1 replies that ,paul could scarcely
 be influenced by the ,talmudic canon1  
because ,timothy was already a          
,christian and beyond ,judaism47#b7     
,besides1 in point of fact1 by such a   
marriage the ,jewess had forfeited      
,jewish privileges4 ,timothy1 in the    

eyes of the ,mosaic law1 was not a ,jew1
 and held1 in reality1 no better        
position than the ,greek ,titus4 ,he had
 evidently been brought up as a heathen1
 and the only question which could arise
 in regard to him was whether he must   
first become a ,jew before he could be  
fully recognized as a ,christian4 ,the  
supposition that the circumcision of    
,timothy1 the son of a ,greek1 after he 
had actually become a ,christian without
 having passed through ,judaism1  #bii  
could secure for him free access to the 
synagogues of the ,jews1 may show how   
exceedingly slight at that time was the 
difference between the ,jew and the     
,christian1 but it also suggests the    
serious doubt whether the object of the 
concession1 in the mind of the author of
 the ,acts1 was not rather to conciliate
 the ,judaic ,christians1 than to       
represent the act as one of policy      
towards the unbelieving ,jews4 ,the     
statement of the ,acts is that ,paul    
circumcised ,timothy because of the     

,jews which were in those places2 for   
they knew all that his father was a     
,greek4 ,if the reason which we are     
discussing were correct1 the expression 
would more probably have been3 for they 
knew that his mother was a ,jewess4 ,the
 ,greek father might1 and probably did1 
object to the circumcision of his son1  
but that was no special reason why ,paul
 should circumcise him4 ,on the other   
hand1 the fact that the ,jews knew that 
his father was a ,greek made the action 
attributed to ,paul a concession which  
the author of the ,acts thus represented
 in its most conciliatory light4 ,the   
circumcision of ,timothy was clearly    
declared unnecessary by the apostolic   
decree1 for the attempt to show that he 
was legitimately regarded as a ,jew     
utterly fails4 ,it is obvious that1     
according to ,pauline doctrine1 there   
could be no obligation for anyone who   
adopted ,christianity to undergo this   
initiatory rite4 ,it is impossible      
reasonably to maintain that any case has

 been made out to explain why ,timothy1 
who had grown into manhood without being
 circumcised1 and had become a          
,christian whilst uncircumcised1 should 
at that late period be circumcised4     
,beyond the reference to a ,talmudic    
prescription1 in fact1 with which there 
is not the slightest evidence that ,paul
 was acquainted1 and which1 even if he  
did know of it1 could not possibly have 
been recognised by him as  #cjj         
authoritative1 there has not been a     
serious attempt made to show that the   
case of ,timothy presents exceptional   
features which reconcile the            
contradiction otherwise admitted as     
apparent4  ,the whole apologetic        
argument in fact sinks into one of mere 
expediency3 ,timothy1 the son of a      
,jewess and of a ,greek1 and thus having
 a certain affinity both to ,jews and   
,gentiles1 would become a much more     
efficient assistant to ,paul if he were 
circumcised and thus had access to the  
,jewish synagogues2 therefore ,paul1 who

 himself became as a ,jew that he might 
win the ,jews1 demanded the same        
sacrifice from his follower4 ,but can   
this argument bear any scrutiny by the  
light of ,paul's own writings8 ,it      
cannot4 ,paul openly claims to be the   
,apostle of the ,gentiles1 and just     
before the period at which he is        
supposed to circumcise ,timothy1 he     
parts from the elder ,apostles with the 
understanding that he is to go to the   
,gentiles who are freed from            
circumcision4 ,it is a singular         
commencement of his mission1 to         
circumcise the son of a ,greek father   
after he had become a ,christian4 ,such 
supposed considerations about access to 
synagogues and conciliation of the ,jews
 would seem more suitable to a          
missionary to the circumcision1 than to 
the ,apostle of the ,gentiles4 ,it must 
be apparent to all that in going more   
specially to the ,gentiles1 as he       
avowedly was1 the alleged expediency of 
circumcising ,timothy falls to the      

ground1 and on the contrary that such an
 act would have compromised his whole   
,gospel4 ,paul's characteristic teaching
 was the inutility of circumcision1 and 
upon this point he sustained the        
incessant attacks of the emissaries of  
,james and the ,judaistic party without 
yielding or compromise4 ,what could have
 been more ill-advised under  #cja  such
 circumstances than the circumcision    
with his own hands of a convert who1 if 
the son of a ,jewess1 was likewise the  
son of a ,greek1 and had remained       
uncircumcised until he had actually     
embraced that faith which1 ,paul taught1
 superseded circumcision8 ,the ,apostle 
who declared3 ,behold1 ,i ,paul say unto
 you1 that if ye be circumcised1 ,christ
 will profit you nothing17#a7 could not 
have circumcised the ,christian         
,timothy2 and if any utterance of ,paul 
more distinctly and explicitly          
applicable to the present case be       
required1 it is aptly supplied by the   
following3 ,was any man called being    

circumcised8 let him not become         
uncircumcised4 ,hath any man been called
 in uncircumcision8 let him not be      
circumcised4444 ,let each abide in the  
same calling wherein he was called47#b7 
,apologists quote very glibly the saying
 of ,paul3 ,unto the ,jews ,i became as 
a ,jew1 that ,i might gain ,jews1 as    
sufficiently justifying the act which we
 are considering2 but it is neither     
applicable to the case1 nor is the      
passage susceptible of such             
interpretation4 ,the special object of  
,paul at that time1 according to his own
 showing17#c7 was not to gain ,jews but 
to gain ,gentiles2 and the circumcision 
of ,timothy would certainly not have    
tended to gain ,gentiles4 ,if we quote  
the whole passage from which the above  
is extracted1 the sense at once becomes 
clear and different from that assigned  
to it3 ,for being free from all men1 ,i 
made myself servant unto all1 that ,i   
might gain the more2 and unto the ,jews 
,i became as a ,jew that ,i might gain  

,jews2 to them under law1 as under law1 
not being myself under law1 that ,i     
might gain them under law2 to them      
without law1 as without law1--not being 
without law to ,god1 but under law to   
,christ1--  #cjb  that ,i might gain    
them without law2 to the weak ,i became 
weak that ,i might gain the weak3 ,i am 
become all things to all men1 that ,i   
may by all means save some4 ,and all    
things ,i do for the ,gospel's sake1    
that ,i may become a partaker thereof   
with them47l7 ,it is clear that a man   
who could become all things to all men1 
in the sense of yielding any point of   
principle1 must be considered without   
principle at all1 and no one could      
maintain that ,paul was apt to concede  
principles4 ,judged by his own          
statements1 indeed1 his character was   
the very reverse of this4 ,there is no  
shade of conciliation when he declares3 
,but though we1 or an angel from heaven1
 should preach any ,gospel unto you     
other than that we preached unto you1   

let him be accursed4444 ,for am ,i now  
making men my friends1 or ,god8 or am ,i
 seeking to please men8 if ,i were still
 pleasing men1 ,i should not be a       
servant of ,christ47#b7 ,the ,gospel of 
which he speaks1 and which he protests  
is not after men1 but received through a
 revelation of ,jesus ,christ17#c7 is   
that ,gospel which ,paul preached among 
the ,gentiles1 and which proclaimed the 
abrogation of the law and of            
circumcision4 ,paul might in one sense  
say that circumcision is nothing and    
uncircumcision is nothing1 but keeping  
the commandments of ,god27#d7 but such a
 statement1 simply intended to express  
that there was neither merit in the one 
nor in the other1 clearly does not apply
 to the case before us1 and no way      
lessens the force of the words we have  
quoted above3 ,if ye be circumcised1    
,christ will profit you nothing4 ,in    
,paul such a concession would have been 
in the highest degree a sacrifice of    
principle1 and one which he not only    

refused to make in the case of ,titus1  
that the truth of the  #cjc  ,gospel    
might abide1 but equally maintained in  
the face of the pillar ,apostles1 when  
he left them and returned to the        
,gentiles whilst they went back to the  
circumcision4 ,paul's idea of being all 
things to all men is illustrated by his 
rebuke to ,peter1--once more to refer to
 the scene at ,antioch4 ,peter          
apparently practised a little of that   
conciliation1 which apologists1         
defending the unknown author of the     
,acts at the expense of ,paul1 consider 
to be the sense of the ,apostle's words4
 ,paul repudiated such an inference1 by 
withstanding ,peter to the face as      
condemned1 and guilty of hypocrisy4     
,paul became all things to all men by   
considering their feelings1 and         
exhibiting charity and forbearance1 in  
matters indifferent ,he was careful not 
to make his liberty a stumbling block to
 the weak4 ,if food maketh my brother to
 offend1 ,i will eat no flesh for ever  

lest ,i make my brother to offend47#a7  
,self-abnegation in the use of          
enlightened liberty1 however1 is a very 
different thing from the concession of a
 rite1 which it was the purpose of his  
whole ,gospel to discredit1 and the     
labour of his life to resist4 ,once more
 we repeat that the narrative of the    
,acts regarding the circumcision of     
,timothy is contradictory to the        
character and teaching of ,paul as      
ascertained from his ,epistles1 and like
 so many other portions of that work    
which we have already examined must1 as 
it stands1 be rejected as unhistorical4 
,we have already tested the narrative of
 the author of the ,acts by the         
statements of ,paul in the first two    
chapters of the ,galatians at such      
length that1 although the subject is far
 from exhausted1 we must not proceed    
further4 ,we think that there can be no 
doubt that the role assigned to the     
,apostle ,paul in ,acts xv4 is          
unhistorical17#b7  #cjd  and it is      

unnecessary for us to point out the     
reasons which led the writer to present 
him in such subdued colours4 ,we must1  
however1 before finally leaving the     
subject1 very briefly point out a few   
circumstances which throw a singular    
light upon the relations which actually 
existed between ,paul and the elder     
,apostles1 and tend to show their real1 
if covert1 antagonism to the ,gospel of 
the uncircumcision4 ,we may at the      
outset remark1 in reference to an       
objection frequently made that ,paul    
does not distinctly refer to the        
,apostles as opposing his teaching and  
does not personally attack them1 that   
such a course would have been suicidal  
in the ,apostle of the ,gentiles1 whilst
 on the other hand it could not but have
 hindered the acceptance of his ,gospel1
 for which he was ever ready to endure  
so much4 ,the man who wrote3 ,if it be  
possible1 as much as dependeth on you1  
be at peace with all men17#a7 could well
 be silent in such a cause4 ,paul1 in   

venturing to preach the ,gospel of the  
uncircumcision1 laboured under the      
singular disadvantage of not having1    
like the ,twelve1 been an immediate     
disciple of the ,master4 ,he had been as
 the one born out of due time17#b7 and  
although he claimed that his ,gospel had
 not been taught to him by man but had  
been received by direct revelation from 
,jesus1 there can be no doubt that his  
apostolic position was constantly       
assailed4 ,the countenance of the elder 
,apostles1 even if merely tacit1 was of 
great  #cje  importance to the success  
of his work2 and he felt this so much   
that1 as he himself states1 he went up  
to ,jerusalem to communicate to them the
 ,gospel which he preached among the    
,gentiles3 lest by any means ,i might be
 running or did run in vain47#a7 ,any   
open breach between them would have     
frustrated his labours4 ,had ,paul been 
in recognized enmity with the ,twelve   
who had been selected as his special    
disciples by the ,master1 and been      

repudiated and denounced by them1 it is 
obvious that his position would have    
been a precarious one4 ,he had no desire
 for schism4 ,his ,gospel1 besides1 was 
merely a development of that of the     
elder ,apostles2 and1 however much they 
might resent his doctrine of the        
abrogation of the law and of the        
inutility of circumcision1 they could   
still regard his ,gentile converts as at
 least in some sort ,proselytes of the  
,gate4 ,with every inducement to        
preserve peace if by any means possible1
 and to suppress every expression of    
disagreement with the ,twelve1 it is not
 surprising that we find so little      
direct reference to the elder ,apostles 
in his epistles4 ,during his visit to   
,jerusalem he did not succeed in        
converting them to his views4 ,they     
still limited their ministry to the     
circumcision1 and he had to be content  
with a tacit consent to his work amongst
 the heathen4 ,but although we have no  
open utterance of his irritation1 the   

suppressed impatience of his spirit1    
even at the recollection of the         
incidents of his visit1 betrays itself  
in abrupt sentences1 unfinished         
expressions1 and grammar which breaks   
down in the struggle of repressed       
emotion4 ,we have already said enough   
regarding his ironical references to    
those who seem to be something1 to the  
overmuch ,apostles1 and we need not     
again point  #cjf  to the altercation   
between ,paul and ,cephas at ,antioch1  
and the strong language used by the     
former4  ,nothing is more certain than  
the fact that1 during his whole career1 
the ,apostle ,paul had to contend with  
systematic opposition from the ,judaic  
,christian party27#a7 and the only point
 regarding which there is any difference
 of opinion is the share in this taken  
by the ,twelve4 ,as we cannot reasonably
 expect to find any plain statement of  
this in the writings of the ,apostle1 we
 are forced to take advantage of such   
indications as can be discovered4 ,upon 

one point we are not left in doubt4 ,the
 withdrawal of ,peter and the others at 
,antioch from communion with the        
,gentile ,christians1 and consequently  
from the side of ,paul1 was owing to the
 arrival of certain men from ,james1 for
 the ,apostle expressly states so4 ,no  
surprise is expressed1 however1 at the  
effect produced by these ------1 and the
 clear inference is that they           
represented the views of a naturally    
antagonistic party1 an inference which  
is in accordance with all that we       
elsewhere read of ,james4 ,it is        
difficult to separate the ------ from   
the ------ of the preceding chapter     
7i4#g7 who trouble the ,galatians1 and  
desire to pervert the ,gospel of        
,christ1 asserting the necessity of     
circumcision1 against whom the epistle  
is directed4 ,again we meet with the    
same vague and cautious designation of  
judaistic opponents in his second       
,epistle to the ,corinthians 7iii4 #a71 
where  #cjg  some ------ bearers of     

letters of commendation ------ from     
persons unnamed1 were attacking the     
,apostle and endeavouring to discredit  
his teaching4 ,by whom were these       
letters written8 ,we cannot of course   
give an authoritative reply1 but we may 
ask3 by whom could letters of           
commendation possessing an authority    
which could have weight against that of 
,paul be written1 except by the elder   
,apostles8' ,we have certain evidence in
 the first ,epistle to the ,corinthians 
that parties had arisen in the ,church  
of ,corinth in opposition to ,paul4     
,these parties were distinguished1 as   
the ,apostle himself states1 by the     
cries3 ,i am of ,paul1 and ,i of        
,apollos1 and ,i of ,cephas1 and ,i of  
,christ47#b7 ------4 ,whatever          
differences of opinion there may be as  
to the precise nature of these parties1 
there can be no doubt that both the     
party of ,cephas and the party of       
,christ held strong ,judaistic views and
 assailed the teaching of ,paul1 and his

 apostolic authority4 ,it is very       
evident that the persons to whom the    
,apostle refers in connection with      
letters of commendation were of these   
parties4  ,apologists argue that3 in    
claiming ,cephas as the head of their   
party they had probably neither more nor
  #cjh  less ground than their rivals   
who sheltered themselves under the names
 of ,apollos and of ,paul47#a7 ,it is   
obvious1 however1 that1 in a ,church    
founded by ,paul1 there could have been 
no party created with the necessity to  
take his name as their watchword1 except
 as a reply to another party which1     
having intruded itself1 attacked him1   
and forced those who maintained the     
views of their own ,apostle to raise    
such a counter-cry4 ,the parties of     
,cephas and of ,christ were manifestly  
aggressive1 intruding themselves1 as the
 ,apostle complains1 into other men's   
labours17#b7 and this in some manner    
seems to point to that convention       
between the ,apostle and the ,three1    

that he should go to the ,gentiles and  
they to the circumcision which1 barely  
more than passive neutrality at the     
beginning1 soon became covertly         
antagonistic4 ,the fact that the party  
of ,paul was not an organized body1 so  
to say1 directed by the ,apostle as a   
party leader1 in no way renders it      
probable that the party of ,cephas1     
which carried on active and offensive   
measures1 had not much more ground in   
claiming ,cephas as their head4 ,one    
point is indisputable1 that no party    
ever claims any man as its leader who is
 not clearly associated with the views  
it maintains4 ,the party of ,cephas1    
representing judaistic views1 opposing  
the teaching of ,paul1 and joining in   
denying his apostolic claims1 certainly 
would not have taken ,peter's name as   
their watch-cry if he had been known to 
hold and express such ,pauline          
sentiments as are put into his mouth in 
the ,acts1 or had not1 on the contrary1 
been intimately identified with         

judaistic principles4 ,to illustrate the
 case by a modern instance3 ,is it      
possible to suppose that1 in any        
considerable city in this country1  #cji
  a party holding ritualistic opinions  
could possibly claim the present        
,archbishop of ,canterbury as its       
leader1 or one professing broad-church  
views could think of sheltering itself  
under the name of the ,archbishop of    
,york8 ,religious parties may very      
probably mistake the delicate details of
 a leader's teaching1 but they can      
scarcely be wrong in regard to his      
general principles4 ,if ,peter had been 
so unfortunate as to be flagrantly      
misunderstood by his followers and1     
whilst this party preached in his name  
judaistic doctrines and anti-,pauline   
opinions1 the ,apostle himself advocated
 the abrogation of the law1 as a burden 
which the ,jews themselves were not able
 to bear1 and actively shared ,pauline  
convictions1 is it possible to suppose  
that ,paul would not have pointed out   

the absurdity of such a party claiming  
such a leader8  ,the fact is1 however1  
that ,paul never denies the claim of    
those who shelter themselves under the  
names of ,peter and ,james1 never       
questions their veracity1 and never     
adopts the simple and natural course of 
stating that1 in advancing these names1 
they are imposters or mistaken4 ,on the 
contrary1 upon all occasions he         
evidently admits1 by his silence1 the   
validity of the claim47#a7 ,we are not  
left to mere inference that the adopted 
head of the party actually shared the   
views of the party4 ,paul himself       
distinguishes ,peter as the head of the 
party of the circumcision in a passage  
in his letter to the ,galatians already 
frequently referred to17#b7 and the     
episode at ,antioch confirms the        
description1 and leaves no doubt that   
,peter's permanent practice was to force
 the ,gentiles to judaize4 ,for reasons 
which we have already stated1 ,paul     
could not but have desired to preserve  

peace1 or even the  #caj  semblance of  
it1 with the elder ,apostles1 for the   
,gospel's sake2 and he1 therefore1      
wisely leaves them as much as possible  
out of the question and deals with their
 disciples4 ,it is obvious that policy  
must have dictated such a course4 ,by   
ignoring the leaders and attacking their
 followers1 he suppressed the chief     
strength of his opponents and kept out  
of sight the most formidable argument   
against himself3 the concurrence with   
them of the elder ,apostles4 ,on the one
 hand1 the epistles of ,paul bear no    
evidence to any active sympathy and     
co-operation with his views and work on 
the part of the elder ,apostles4 ,on the
 other1 ,paul is everywhere assailed by 
judaistic adversaries who oppose his    
,gospel and deny his apostle-ship1 and  
who claim as their leaders the elder    
,apostles4  ,if1 even without pressing  
expressions to their extreme and        
probable point1 we take the contrast    
drawn between his own ,gospel and that  

of the circumcision1 the reality of the 
antagonism must be apparent4 ,for we are
 not as the many ------7#a7 which       
adulterate the word of ,god2 but as of  
sincerity1 but as of ,god1 before ,god1 
speak we in ,christ47#b7 ,later on in   
the letter1 after referring to the      
intrusion of the opposite party into the
 circle of his labours1 ,paul declares  
that his impatience and anxiety proceed 
from godly jealousy at the possible     
effect of the judaistic intruders upon  
the ,corinthians4 ,but ,i fear1 lest by 
any means1 as the serpent beguiled ,eve 
through his subtlety1 your thoughts     
should  #caa  be corrupted from the     
simplicity and the purity that is in    
,christ4 ,for if he that cometh         
preacheth another ,jesus whom we did not
 preach1 or if ye receive another spirit
 which ye received not1 or another      
,gospel which ye did not accept1 ye bear
 well with him4 ,for ,i think ,i am not 
a whit behind the overmuch ,apostles    
------47#a7  ,this reference to the     

elder ,apostles gives point to much of  
the epistle which is ambiguous1 and more
 especially when the judaistic nature of
 the opposition is so clearly indicated 
a few verses further on3 ,are they      
,hebrews8 so am ,i4 ,are they           
,israelites8 so am ,i4 ,are they        
,abraham's seed8 so am ,i4 ,are they    
ministers of ,christ8 7,i speak as a    
fool71 ,i am more2 in labours more      
abundantly1 in prisons exceedingly1 in  
deaths often1 c1 c47#b7  ,it is argued  
that the ,twelve had not sufficient     
authority over their followers to       
prevent such interference with ,paul1   
and that the relation of the ,apostle to
 the ,twelve was3 separation1 not       
opposition1 antagonism of the followers 
rather than of the leaders1 personal    
antipathy of the ,judaizers to ,st4     
,paul1 rather than of ,st4 ,paul to the 
,twelve47#c7 ,it is not difficult to    
believe that the antipathy of ,paul to  
the ,judaizers was less than that felt  
by them towards him4 ,the superiority of

 the man must have rendered him somewhat
 callous to such dislike47#d7 ,but the  
mitigated form of difference between    
,paul and the ,twelve here assumed1     
although still very different from the  
representations of the ,acts1  #cab     
cannot be established1 but on the       
contrary must be much widened before it 
can justly be taken as that existing    
between ,paul and the elder ,apostles4  
,we do not go so far as to say that     
there was open enmity between them1 or  
active antagonism of any distinct       
character on the part of the ,twelve to 
the ,apostle of the ,gentiles1 but there
 is every reason to believe that they   
not only disliked his teaching1 but     
endeavoured to counteract it by their   
own ministry of the circumcision4 ,they 
not only did not restrain the opposition
 of their followers1 but they abetted   
them in their counter-assertion of      
judaistic views4 ,had the ,twelve felt  
any cordial friendship for ,paul1 and   
exhibited any active desire for the     

success of his ministry of the          
uncircumcision1 it is quite impossible  
that his work could have been so        
continuously and vexatiously impeded by 
the persecution of the ,jewish          
,christian party4 ,the ,apostles may not
 have possessed sufficient influence or 
authority entirely to control the action
 of adherents1 but it would be folly to 
suppose that1 if unanimity of views had 
prevailed between them and ,paul1 and a 
firm and consistent support had been    
extended to him1 such systematic        
resistance as he everywhere encountered 
from the party professing to be led by  
the pillar ,apostles could have been    
seriously maintained1 or that he could  
have been left alone and unaided to     
struggle against it4 ,if the relations  
between ,paul and the ,twelve had been  
such as are intimated in the ,acts of   
the ,apostles1 his epistles must have   
presented undoubted evidence of the fact
 ,both negatively and positively they   
testify the absence of all support1 and 

the existence of antagonistic influence 
on the part of the elder ,apostles1 and 
external evidence fully confirms the    
impression which the epistles           
produce47#a7  #cac  ,from any point of  
view which may be taken1 the ,apocalypse
 is an important document in connection 
with this point4 ,if it be accepted as a
 work of the ,apostle ,john--the        
preponderance of evidence and critical  
opinion assigns it to him--this book1 of
 course1 possesses the greatest value as
 an indication of his views4 ,if it be  
merely regarded as a contemporary       
writing1 it still is most interesting as
 an illustration of the religious       
feeling of the period4 ,the question is3
 ,does the ,apocalypse contain any      
reference to the ,apostle ,paul1 or     
throw light upon the relations between  
him and the elder ,apostles8 ,if it does
 so1 and be the work of one of the      
------1 nothing obviously could be more 
#cad  instructive4 ,in the messages to  
the seven churches1 there are references

 and denunciations which1 in the opinion
 of many able critics1 are directed     
against the ,apostle of the ,gentiles   
and his characteristic teaching47#a7    
,who but ,paul and his followers can be 
referred to in the ,epistle to the      
,church of ,ephesus3 ,i know thy works1 
and thy labour1 and thy patience1 and   
that thou canst not bear wicked persons3
 and didst try them which say they are  
,apostles and are not1 and didst find   
them liars87#b7 ,paul himself informs us
 not only of his sojourn in ,ephesus1   
where he believed that a great and      
effectual door was opened to him1 but   
adds1 there are many adversaries        
------47#c7 ,the foremost charge brought
 against the churches is that they have 
those that hold the teaching of ,balaam1
 who taught ,balak to cast a            
stumbling-block before the sons of      
,israel1 to eat things offered unto     
idols47#d7 ,the teaching of ,paul upon  
this point is  #cae  well known1 #a     
,cor4 viii4 #a ff41 x4 #be ff41 ,rom4   

xiv4 #b ff41 and the reference here     
cannot be mistaken2 and when in the     
,epistle to the church of ,thyatira1    
after denouncing the teaching to eat    
things offered unto idols1 the          
,apocalyptist goes on to encourage those
 who have not this teaching1 who knew   
not the depths of ,satan1 ------17#a7 as
 they say the expression of ,paul       
himself is taken to denounce his        
doctrine2 for the ,apostle1 defending   
himself against the attacks of those    
parties of ,cephas and of ,christ in    
,corinth1 writes3 ,but ,god revealed    
7them7 to us through his ,spirit2 for   
the ,spirit searcheth all things1 even  
the depths of ,god --------the depths of
 ,satan rather1 retorts the judaistic   
author of the ,apocalypse4 ------ does  
not occur elsewhere in the ,new         
,testament ,again1 in the address to the
 churches of ,smyrna and ,philadelphia1 
when the writer denounces those who say 
that they are ,jews1 and are not1 but a 
synagogue of ,satan17#b7 whom has he in 

view but those ,christians whom ,paul   
had taught to consider circumcision     
unnecessary and the law abrogated8 ,we  
find ,paul in the ,epistle to the       
,corinthians1 so often quoted1 obliged  
to defend himself against these         
judaising parties upon this very point3 
,are they ,hebrews8 so am ,i4 ,are they 
,israelites8 so am ,i4 ,are they        
,abraham's seed8 so am ,i47#c7 ,it is   
manifest that his adversaries had       
vaunted their own ,jewish origin as a   
title of superiority over the ,apostle  
of the ,gentiles4 ,we  #caf  have1      
however1 further evidence of the same   
attack upon ,paul regarding this point4 
,epiphanius points out that the         
,ebionites denied that ,paul was a ,jew1
 and asserted that he was born of a     
,gentile father and mother1 but that1   
having gone up to ,jerusalem1 he became 
a proselyte and submitted to            
circumcision in the hope of marrying a  
daughter of the high priest4 ,but       
afterwards1 according to them1 enraged  

at not securing the maiden for his wife1
 ,paul wrote against circumcision and   
the ,sabbath and the law47#a7 ,the      
,apostle ,paul1 whose constant labour it
 was to destroy the particularism of the
 ,jew1 and raise the ,gentile to full1  
free1 and equal participation with him  
in the benefits of the ,new ,covenant1  
could not but incur the bitter          
displeasure of the ,apocalyptist1 for   
whom the ,gentiles were1 as such1 the   
type of all that was common and unclean4
 ,in the utterances of the seer of      
,patmos we seem to hear the expression  
of all that judaistic hatred and        
opposition which pursued the ,apostle   
who laid the axe to the root of ,mosaism
 and1 in his efforts to free            
,christianity from trammels which1 more 
than any other1 retarded its triumphant 
development1 aroused against himself all
 the virulence of ,jewish illiberality  
and prejudice4 ,the results at which we 
have arrived might be singularly        
confirmed by an examination of the      

writings of the first two centuries1 and
 by observing the attitude  #cag        
assumed towards the ,apostle of the     
,gentiles by such men as ,justin        
,martyr1 ,papias1 ,hegesippus1 and the  
author of the ,clementines2 but we have 
already devoted too much space to this  
subject1 and here we must reluctantly   
leave it4  ,the steps by which          
,christianity was gradually freed from  
the trammels of ,judaism and became a   
religion of unlimited range and         
universal fitness were clearly not those
 stated in the ,acts of the ,apostles4  
,its emancipation from ,mosaism was not 
effected by any liberal action or       
enlightened guidance on the part of the 
elder ,apostles4 ,at the death of their 
,master1 the ,twelve remained closely   
united to ,judaism1 and evidently were  
left without any understanding that     
,christianity was a new religion which  
must displace ,mosaic institutions1 and 
replace the unbearable yoke of the law  
by the divine liberty of the ,gospel4   

,to the last moment regarding which we  
have any trustworthy information1 the   
,twelve1 as might have been expected1   
retained all their early religious      
customs and all their ,jewish           
prejudices4 ,they were simply ,jews     
believing that ,jesus was the ,messiah2 
and if the influence of ,paul enlarged  
their views upon some minor points1 we  
have no reason to believe that they ever
 abandoned their belief in the continued
 obligation of the law1 and the         
necessity of circumcision for full      
participation in the benefits of the    
,covenant4 ,the author of the ,acts     
would have us believe that they required
 no persuasion1 but anticipated ,paul in
 the ,gospel of uncircumcision4 ,it is  
not within the scope of this work to    
inquire how ,paul originally formed his 
views of ,christian universalism4 ,once 
formed1 it is easy to understand how    
rapidly they must have been developed   
and confirmed by experience amongst     
#cah  the ,gentiles4 ,whilst the ,twelve

 still remained in the narrow circle of 
,judaism and could not be moved beyond  
the ministry of the circumcision1 ,paul1
 in the larger and freer field of the   
world1 must daily have felt more        
convinced that the abrogation of the    
,law and the abandonment of circumcision
 were essential to the extension of     
,christianity amongst the ,gentiles4 ,he
 had no easy task1 however1 to convince 
others of this1 and he never succeeded  
in bringing his elder colleagues over to
 his views4 ,to the end of his life1    
,paul had to contend with bigoted and   
narrow-minded opposition within the     
,christian body1 and if his views       
ultimately triumphed1 and the seed which
 he sowed eventually yielded a rich     
harvest1 he himself did not live to see 
the day1 and the end was attained only  
by slow and natural changes4 ,the new   
religion gradually extended beyond the  
limits of ,judaism4 ,gentile ,christians
 soon outnumbered ,jewish believers4    
,the ,twelve whose names were the       

strength of the judaistic opposition one
 by one passed away2 but1 above all1 the
 fall of ,jerusalem and the dispersion  
of the ,christian community secured the 
success of ,pauline principles and the  
universalism of ,christianity4 ,the     
,church of ,jerusalem could not bear    
transplanting4 ,in the uncongenial soil 
of ,pella it gradually dwindled away1   
losing first its influence and soon     
after its nationality4 ,the divided     
members of the ,jewish party1 scattered 
amongst the ,gentiles1 and deprived of  
their influential leaders1 could not    
long retard the progress of the         
liberalism which they still continued to
 oppose and to misrepresent4 ,in a word1
 the emancipation of ,christianity was  
not effected by the ,twelve1 was no work
 of councils1 and no result of dreams2  
but1 receiving its first great impulse  
from the genius and the energy of ,paul1
 its ultimate  #cai  achievement was the
 result of time and natural development4
  ,we have now patiently considered the 

,acts of the ,apostles1 and although it 
has in no way been our design           
exhaustively to examine its contents1 we
 have more than sufficiently done so to 
enable the reader to understand the true
 character of the document4 ,the author 
is unknown1 and it is no longer possible
 to identify him4 ,if he were actually  
the ,luke whom the ,church indicates1   
our results would not be materially     
affected2 but the mere fact that the    
writer is unknown is obviously fatal to 
the ,acts as a guarantee of miracles4 ,a
 cycle of supernatural occurrences could
 scarcely1 in the estimation of any     
rational mind1 be established by the    
statement of an anonymous author1 and   
more especially one who not only does   
not pretend to have been an eye-witness 
of most of the miracles1 but whose      
narrative is either uncorroborated by   
other testimony or inconsistent with    
itself1 and contradicted on many points 
by contemporary documents4 ,the         
phenomena presented by the ,acts of the 

,apostles become perfectly intelligible 
when we recognize that it is the work of
 a writer living long after the         
occurrences related1 whose pious        
imagination furnished the apostolic age 
with an elaborate system of supernatural
 agency1 far beyond the conception of   
any other ,new ,testament writer1 by    
which1 according to his view1 the       
proceedings of the ,apostles were       
furthered and directed1 and the infant  
,church miraculously fostered4 ,on      
examining other portions of his         
narrative1 we find that they present the
 features which the miraculous elements 
rendered antecedently probable4 ,the    
speeches attributed to  #cbj  different 
speakers are all cast in the same mould1
 and betray the composition of one and  
the same writer4 ,the sentiments        
expressed are inconsistent with what we 
know of the various speakers4 ,and when 
we test the circumstances related by    
previous or subsequent incidents and by 
trustworthy documents1 it becomes       

apparent that the narrative is not an   
impartial statement of facts1 but a     
reproduction of legends or a development
 of tradition1 shaped and coloured      
according to the purpose or the pious   
views of the writer4 ,the ,acts of the  
,apostles1 therefore1 is not only an    
anonymous work1 but upon due examination
 its claims to be considered sober and  
veracious history must be emphatically  
rejected4 ,it cannot strengthen the     
foundations of supernatural ,religion1  
but1 on the contrary1 by its profuse and
 indiscriminate use of the miraculous it
 discredits miracles1 and affords a     
clearer insight into their origin and   
fictitious character4     ,,part ,v4    
,,the ,,direct ,,evidence ,,for         
,,miracles     ,,chapter ,i4 ,,the      
,,epistles ,,and ,,the ,,apocalypse     
,turning from the ,acts of the ,apostles
 to the other works of the ,new         
,testament1 we shall be able very       
briefly to dispose of the ,catholic     
,epistles1 the ,epistle to the ,hebrews 

and the ,apocalypse4 ,the so-called     
,epistles of ,james1 ,jude1 and ,john1  
do not contain any evidence which1 even 
supposing them to be authentic1 really  
bears upon our inquiry into the reality 
of ,miracles and ,divine ,revelation2   
and the testimony of the ,apocalypse    
affects it quite as little4 ,we have    
already1 in examining the fourth        
,gospel1 had occasion to say a good deal
 regarding both the so-called ,epistles 
of ,john and the ,apocalypse4 ,it is    
unnecessary to enter upon a more minute 
discussion of them here4 ,seven books of
 the ,new ,testament1 writes ,dr4       
,westcott1 as is well known1 have been  
received into the ,canon on evidence    
less complete than that by which the    
others are supported47#a7 ,these are the
 ,epistles of ,james1 ,jude1 #b ,peter1 
#b and #c ,john1 to the ,hebrews1 and   
the ,apocalypse4 ,we have already       
furnished the means of judging of the   
nature of the  #cbb  evidence upon which
 some of the other books have been      

received into the ,canon1 and the       
evidence for most of these being        
avowedly less complete1 its nature may  
be conceived4 ,works which for a long   
period were classed amongst the         
,antilegomena1 or disputed books1 and   
which only slowly acquired authority as1
 in the lapse of time1 it became more   
difficult to examine their claims1 could
 not do much to establish the reality of
 miracles4 ,with regard to the ,epistle 
to the ,hebrews1 we may remark that we  
are freed from any need to deal at      
length with it1 not only by the absence 
of any specific evidence in its         
contents1 but by the following          
consideration4 ,if the ,epistle be not  
by ,paul1--and it not only is not his1  
but does not even pretend to be so1--the
 author is unknown1 and therefore the   
document has no weight as testimony4 ,on
 the other hand1 if assigned to ,paul1  
we shall have sufficient ground in his  
genuine epistles for considering the    
evidence of the ,apostle1 and it could  

not add anything even if the ,epistle to
 the ,hebrews were included in the      
number4  ,the first ,epistle of ,peter  
might have required more detailed       
treatment1 but we think that little     
could be gained by demonstrating that   
the document is not authentic1 or       
showing that1 in any case1 the evidence 
which it could furnish is not of any    
value4 ,on the other hand1 we are averse
 to protract the argument by any        
elaboration of mere details which can be
 avoided4 ,if it could be absolutely    
proved that the ,apostle ,peter wrote   
the epistle circulating under his name1 
the evidence for miracles would only be 
strengthened by the fact that1          
incidentally1 the doctrine of the       
,resurrection of ,jesus is maintained4  
,no historical details are given1 and no
 explanation of the reasons for which   
the writer believed in it4  #cbc        
,nothing more would be proved than the  
point that ,peter himself believed in   
the ,resurrection4 ,it would certainly  

be a matter of very deep interest if we 
possessed a narrative written by the    
apostle himself1 giving minute and      
accurate details of the phenomena in    
consequence of which he believed in so  
miraculous an event2 but since this     
epistle does nothing more than allow us 
to infer the personal belief of the     
writer1 unaccompanied by corroborative  
evidence1 we should not gain anything by
 accepting it as genuine4 ,we are quite 
willing to assume1 without further      
examination1 that the ,apostle ,peter in
 some way believed in the ,resurrection 
of his ,master4 ,for the argument       
regarding the reality of that stupendous
 miracle1 upon which we are about to    
enter1 this is tantamount to assuming   
the authenticity of the epistle4        
,coming to the ,epistles of ,paul1 it   
will not be necessary to go into the    
evidence for the various letters in our 
,new ,testament which are ascribed to   
him1 nor shall we require to state the  
grounds upon which the authenticity of  

many of them is denied4 ,accepting the  
,epistles to the ,galatians1            
,corinthians and ,romans in the main as 
genuine compositions of the ,apostle1   
the question as to the origin of the    
rest1 so far as our inquiry is          
concerned1 has little or no interest4   
,from these four letters we obtain the  
whole evidence of ,paul regarding       
miracles1 and this we now propose       
carefully to examine4 ,one point in     
particular demands our fullest          
attention4 ,it is undeniable that ,paul 
preached the doctrine of the            
,resurrection and ,ascension of ,jesus1 
and believed in those events4 ,whilst1  
therefore1 we shall not pass over his   
supposed testimony for the possession of
 miraculous powers1 we shall chiefly    
devote our attention to his evidence for
 the central dogmas of ,supernatural    
,religion1 the ,resurection and         
,ascension of  #cbd  ,jesus4 ,we shall  
not1 however1 limit our examination to  
the testimony of ,paul1 but1 as the     

climax of the historical argument for   
miracles1 endeavour to ascertain the    
exact nature of the evidence upon which 
belief is claimed for the actual        
occurrence of those stupendous events4  
,for this1 our inquiry into the         
authorship and credibility of the       
historical books of the ,new ,testament 
has at length prepared us1 and it will  
be admitted that1 in subjecting these   
asserted miracles to calm and fearless  
scrutiny--untinged by irreverence or    
disrespect1 if personal earnestness and 
sincere sympathy with those who believe 
are any safeguards1--the whole theory of
 ,christian miracles will be put to its 
final test4     ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,the   
,,evidence ,,of ,,paul  ,it is better1  
before proceeding to examine the        
testimony of ,paul for the              
,resurrection1 to clear the way by      
considering his evidence for miracles in
 general1 apart from that specific      
instance4 ,in an earlier portion of this
 work7#a7 the following remark was made3

 ,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      
writer1 and abundant assertion of the   
possession of miraculous power by the   
,church1 there is no instance whatever1 
that we can remember1 in which a writer 
claims to have himself performed a      
miracle47#b7 ,it is asserted that this  
statement is erroneous1 and that ,paul  
does advance this claim47#c7 ,it may be 
well to quote the moderate  #cbf  words 
in which a recent able writer states the
 case1 although not with immediate      
reference to the particular passage     
which we have quoted4 444 ,in these     
undoubted writings ,st4 ,paul certainly 
shows by incidental allusions1 the good 
faith of which cannot be questioned1    
that he believed himself to be endowed  
with the power of working miracles1 and 
that miracles1 or what were thought to  
be such1 were actually wrought both by  

him and by his contemporaries4 ,he      
reminds the ,corinthians that 'the signs
 of an ,apostle were wrought among      
them444 in signs1 and wonders1 and      
mighty deeds' --------the usual words   
for the higher forms of miracle--#b     
,cor4 xii4 #ab74 ,he tells the ,romans  
that 'he will not dare to speak of any  
of those things which ,christ hath not  
wrought by7#a7 him to make the ,gentiles
 obedient1 by word and deed1 through    
mighty signs and wonders1 by the power  
of the ,spirit of ,god' ------4 ,he asks
 the  #cbg  ,galatians whether 'he that 
ministereth to them the ,spirit1 and    
worketh miracles ------ among them1     
doeth it by the works of the law1 or by 
the hearing of faith8' 7,gal4 iii4 #e47 
,in the first ,epistle to the           
,corinthians1 he goes somewhat          
elaborately into the exact place in the 
,christian economy that is to be        
assigned to the working of miracles and 
gifts of healing 7#a ,cor4 xii4 #aj1    
#bh1 #bi747a7  ,we shall presently      

examine these passages1 but we must     
first briefly deal with the question    
whether1 taken in any sense1 they       
furnish an instance in which a writer   
claims to have himself performed a      
miracle4 ,it must be obvious to any     
impartial reader1 that the remark made  
in the course of our earlier argument   
precisely distinguished the general     
assertion of the possession of          
miraculous power by the ,church1 from   
the explicit claim to have personally   
performed a miracle in the singular4    
,if1 therefore1 it were even admitted   
that ,st4 ,paul treats the fact of his  
working miracles as a matter of course1 
to which a passing reference is         
sufficient1 such incidental allusions   
would not in the least degree contradict
 the statement made1 but1 being the only
 instances producible1 would in fact    
completely justify it4 ,general and     
vague references of this kind have by no
 means the force of a definite claim to 
have performed some particular miracle4 

,they partake too much of that          
indiscriminate impression of the        
possession and common exercise of       
miraculous powers which characterized   
the age of miracles to have any force4  
,the desired instance1 which is not     
forthcoming1 and to which alone         
reference was made1 was a case in which1
 instead of vague expressions1 a writer1
 stating with precision the particulars1
 related that he himself had1  #cbh  for
 instance1 actually raised some person  
from the dead4 ,as we then added1 even  
if ,apostles had chronicled their       
miracles1 the argument for their reality
 would not have been much advanced2 but 
it is a curious phenomenon not          
undeserving of a moment's attention that
 apologists can only refer to such      
general passages1 and cannot quote an   
instance in which a specific miracle is 
related in detail by the person who is  
supposed to have performed it4 ,passing 
references on a large scale to the      
exercise of miraculous power1 whilst    

betraying a suspicious familiarity with 
phenomena of an exceptional nature1     
offer too much latitude for inaccuracy  
and imagination to have the weight of an
 affirmation in which the mind has been 
sobered by concentration to details4    
,signs and wonders1 indefinitely alluded
 to1 may seem much more imposing and    
astonishing than they really are1 and it
 may probably be admitted by everyone   
that1 if we knew the particulars of the 
occurrences which are thus vaguely      
indicated and which may have been       
considered miraculous in a superstitious
 age1 they might to us possibly appear  
no miracles at all4 ,general expressions
 are liable to an exaggeration from     
which specific allegations arc more     
frequently free4 ,if it be conceded that
 the ,apostle ,paul fully believed in   
the possession by himself and the       
,church of divine ,charismata1 the      
indefinite expression of that belief1 in
 any form1 must not be made equivalent  
to an explicit claim to have performed a

 certain miracle1 the particulars of    
which are categorically stated4         
,passing from this1 however1 to the more
 general question1 the force of some of 
these objections will be better         
understood when we consider the passages
 in the ,epistles which are quoted as   
expressing ,paul's belief in miracles1  
and endeavour to ascertain his real     
views3 what it is he  #cbi  actually    
says regarding miracles2 and what are   
the phenomena which are by him          
considered to be miraculous4 ,we shall  
not waste time in considering how1      
partly through the influence of the     
,septuagint1 the words ------1 and      
------ came to be used in a peculiar    
manner by ,new ,testament writers to    
indicate miracles4 ,it may1 however1 be 
worth while to pause for a moment to    
ascertain the sense in which ,paul1 who 
wrote before there was a ,new ,testament
 at all1 usually employed these words4  
,in the four ,epistles of ,paul the word
 ------ occurs six times4 ,in ,rom4 iv4 

#aa ,abraham is said to have received   
the sign ------ of circumcision1 in     
which there is nothing miraculous4 ,in  
#a ,cor4 i4 #bb it is said3 ,since both 
,jews require signs ------7#a7 and      
,greeks seek after wisdom2 and again1 #a
 ,cor4 xiv4 #bb3 ,wherefore the tongues 
are for a sign ------ not to the        
believing but to the unbelieving1 c4 ,we
 shall have more to say regarding these 
passages presently1 but just now we     
merely quote them to show the use of the
 word4 ,the only other places in which  
it occurs7#b7 are those pointed out1 and
 which are the subject of our           
discussion4 ,in ,rom4 xv4 #ai the word  
is used in the plural and combined with 
------3 in the power of signs and       
wonders ------2 and in the second       
passage1 #b ,cor4 xii4 #ab1 it is       
employed twice1 the signs ------ of the 
apostle and the second time again in    
combination with ------ and ------1 both
 in signs ------1 c4 ,the word ------ is
 only twice met with in ,paul's         

writings2 that is to say1 in ,rom4 xv4  
#ai and #b ,cor4 xii4 #ab2 and on both  
occasions1 as we  #ccj  have just       
mentioned1 it is combined with          
------47#a7 ,on the other hand1 ,paul   
uses ------ no less than #cd times7#b7  
and1 leaving for the present out of the 
question the passages cited1 upon every 
occasion1 except one1 perhaps1 the word 
has the simple signification of power4  
,the one exception is ,rom4 viii4 #ch1  
where it occurs in the plural3 ------   
powers1 the ,apostle expressing his     
persuasion that nothing will be able to 
separate us from the love of ,god1 nor  
life1 nor angels1 nor principalities1   
nor things present1 nor things to come1 
nor powers ------1 nor height1 nor      
depth1 c41 c4 ,in #a ,cor4 xiv4 #aa1    
where the authorized version renders the
 original3 ,therefore1 if ,i know not   
the meaning ------ of the voice1 it has 
still the same sense4  ,before          
discussing the passages before us we    
must point out that there is so much    

doubt1 at least1 regarding the          
authenticity of the last two chapters of
 the ,epistle to the ,romans that the   
passage1 ,rom4 xv4 #ah1 #ai1 can        
scarcely be presented as evidence on    
such a point as the reality of miracles4
 ,we do not intend to debate the matter 
closely1 but shall merely state a few of
 the facts of the case and pass on1 for 
it would not materially affect our      
argument if the passage were altogether 
beyond suspicion4 ,the ,epistle1 in our 
authorized text1 ends with a long and   
somewhat involved doxology1 xvi4 #be-bg2
 and we may point out here that it had  
already seemed to be brought to a close 
not only at the end of chapter xv4 7#cc7
 but also at xvi4 #bj4 ,the doxology1   
xvi4 #be-bg1 which  #cca  more          
particularly demands our attention1 is  
stated by ,origen7#a7 to be placed in   
some ,,mss at the end of ch4 xiv42 and a
 similar statement is made by ,cyril1   
,chrysostom1 ,theodoret1 ,theophylact   
and others4 ,we find these verses       

actually so placed in ,l1 and in upwards
 of #bbj out of #bej cursive ,,mss4 of  
,byzantine origin1 in an account of     
ancient ,,mss4 in ,cod4 #ff1 in most of 
the ,greek ,lection-aries1 in the       
,slavonic and later ,syriac versions as 
also in the ,gothic1 ,arabic1 7in the   
polyglot and triglot text7 and some     
,,mss4 of the ,armenian4 ,they are      
inserted both at the end of xiv4 and at 
the end of the ,epistle by the          
,alexandrian ,codex17#b7 one of the most
 ancient manuscripts extant1 and by some
 other ,,mss47#c7 ,now1 how came this   
doxology to be placed at all at the end 
of chapter xiv48 ,the natural inference 
is that it was so placed because that   
was the end of the ,epistle4            
,subsequently1 chapters xv4 and xvi4    
being added1 it is supposed that the    
closing doxology was removed from the   
former position and placed at the end of
 the appended matter4 ,this inference is
 supported by the important fact that1  
as we learn from ,origen17#d7 the last  

two  #ccb  chapters of the ,epistle to  
the ,romans1 including the doxology     
7xvi4 #be-bg7 did not exist in          
,marcion's text1 the most ancient form  
of it of which we have any knowledge4   
,tertullian1 who makes no reference to  
these two chapters1 speaks of the       
passage1 ,rom4 xiv4 #aj1 as at the close
 7in clausula7 of the epistle17#a7 and  
he does not call any attention to their 
absence from ,marcion's ,epistle4 ,is it
 not reasonable to suppose that they did
 not form part of his copy8 ,in like    
manner ,irenaeus1 who very frequently   
quotes from the rest of the ,epistle1   
nowhere shows acquaintance with these   
chapters4 ,the first writer who         
distinctly makes use of any part of them
 is ,clement of ,alexandria4 ,it has    
been argued both that ,marcion omitted  
the two chapters because they contain   
what was opposed to his views1 and      
because they had no dogmatic matter to  
induce him to retain them2 but1 whilst  
the two explanations destroy each other1

 neither of them is more than a         
supposition to account for the absence  
of what1 it may with equal propriety be 
conjectured1 never formed part of his   
text4  ,the external testimony1 however1
 does not stand alone1 but is supported 
by very strong internal evidence4 ,we   
shall only indicate one or two points1  
leaving those who desire to go more     
deeply into the discussion to refer to  
works more particularly concerned with  
it1 which we shall sufficiently         
indicate4 ,it is a very singular thing  
that all1 who1 when he wrote this       
epistle had never been in ,rome1 should 
be intimately acquainted with so many   
persons there4 ,the fact that there was 
much intercourse  #ccc  between ,rome   
and other countries by no means accounts
 for the simultaneous presence there of 
so many of the ,apostle's personal      
friends4 ,aquila and ,priscilla1 who are
 saluted 7xvi4 #c71 were a short time   
before 7#a ,cor4 xvi4 #ai7 in           
,ephesus47#a7 ,it may1 moreover1 be     

remarked as a suggestive fact that when1
 according to the ,acts 7xxviii4 #ad    
ff471 ,paul very soon afterwards arrived
 in ,rome1 most of these friends seem to
 have disappeared17#b7 and the chief men
 of the ,jews called together by ,paul  
do not seem to be aware of the existence
 of a christian body at ,rome47#c7      
,another point is connected with the    
very passage which has led to this      
discussion1 xv4 #ah1 #ai read3 #ah4 ,for
 ,i will not dare to speak of any of    
those things which ,christ hath not     
wrought by me1 in order to ------ the   
obedience of the ,gentiles1 by word and 
deed1 #ai4 in the power of signs and    
wonders ------ in the power of the      
,spirit ------2 so that from ,jerusalem 
and round about unto ,illyricum1 ,i have
 fully preached the ,gospel of ,christ2 
c4 ,the statement that from ,jerusalem  
he had fully preached the ,gospel is    
scarcely in agreement with the statement
 in the ,epistle to the ,galatians i4   
#ag-bc1 ii4 #a ff ,moreover1 there is no

 confirmation anywhere of the ,apostle's
 having preached as far as ,illyricum1  
which was then almost beyond the limits 
of civilization4 ,baur suggests that in 
making his ministry commence at         
,jerusalem1 there is too evident a      
concession made to the ,jewish          
,christians1 according to whom every    
preacher of the ,gospel must naturally  
commence his career at the holy city4   
,it would detain us much too long to    
enter upon an analysis of these two     
#cca  chapters1 and to show the         
repetition in them of what has already  
been said in the earlier part of the    
,epistle2 the singular analogies        
presented with the ,epistles to the     
,corinthians1 not of the nature of      
uniformity of style1 but of imitation2  
the peculiarity of the mention of a     
journey to ,spain as the justification  
of a passing visit to ,rome1 and perhaps
 a further apology for even writing a   
letter to the ,church there which       
another had founded2 the suspicious     

character of the names which are        
mentioned in the various clauses of     
salutation2 and to state many other     
still more important objections which   
various critics have advanced1 but which
 would require more elaborate           
explanation than can possibly be given  
here4 ,it will suffice for us to mention
 that the phenomena presented by the two
 chapters are so marked and curious that
 for a century they have largely        
occupied the attention of writers of all
 shades of opinion1 and called forth    
very elaborate theories to account for  
them2 the apparent necessity for which  
in itself shows the insecure position of
 the passage4 ,semler17#a7 without      
denying the ,pauline authorship of the  
two chapters1 considered they did not   
properly belong to the ,epistle to the  
,romans4 ,he supposed xvi4 #c-af to have
 been merely for the messenger who      
carried the ,epistle1 as a list of the  
persons to whom salutations were to be  
given1 and to these1 ch4 xv4 was to be  

specially delivered and considered ch4  
xv4 to be a separate letter1 addressed  
to the leaders of the ,roman ,church1 as
 an ,epistle to the community in        
general1 being sealed up and ready for  
any opportunity of transmission1 but    
none presenting itself before  #cce  his
 arrival in ,corinth1 the apostle there1
 upon an additional sheet1 wrote xvi4   
and entrusted it with the letter to     
,phoebe4 ,eichhorn7#a7 supposed that the
 parchment upon which the ,epistle was  
written was finished at xiv4 #bc2 and1  
as ,paul and his scribe had only a small
 sheet at hand1 the doxology only1 xvi4 
#be-bg1 was written upon the one side of
 it1 and on the other the greetings and 
the apostolic benediction1 xvi4 #ba-bd1 
and thus the letter was completed2 but1 
as it could not immediately be          
forwarded1 the apostle added a fly-leaf 
with ch4 xv4 ,bertholdt7#b7             
,guericke7#c7 and others adopted similar
 views more or less modified1           
representing the close of the ,epistle  

to have been formed by successive       
postscripts4 ,more recently1 ,renan7#d7 
has affirmed the epistle to be a        
circular letter addressed to churches in
 ,rome1 ,ephesus1 and other places1 to  
each of which only certain portions were
 transmitted with appropriate           
salutations and endings1 which have all 
been collected into the one ,epistle in 
the form in which we have it4 ,david    
,schulz conjectured that xvi4 #a-bj was 
an epistle written from ,rome to the    
church at ,ephesus2 and this theory was 
substantially adopted by ,ewald1--who   
held that xvi4 #c-bj was part of a lost 
epistle to ,ephesus1--and by many other 
critics47#e7 ,of course the virtual     
authenticity of the xv4-xvi4 chapters1  
nearly or exactly as they are1 is       
affirmed by many writers4 ,baur1        
however1 after careful investigation1   
pronounced the two chapters inauthentic1
 and in this he is followed by able     
critics47#f7 ,under all these           
circumstances it is obvious  #ccf  that 

we need not occupy ourselves much with  
the passage in ,rom4 xv4 #ah1 #ai1 but  
our argument will equally apply to it4  
,in order to complete this view of the  
materials we may simply mention1 as we  
pass on1 that the authenticity of #b    
,cor4 xii4 #ab has likewise been        
impugned by a few critics1 and the      
verse1 or at least the words ------1 as 
well as ,rom4 xv4 #ai1 declared an      
interpolation47#a7 ,this cannot1        
however1 so far as existing evidence    
goes1 be demonstrated2 and1 beyond the  
mere record of the fact1 this conjecture
 does not here require further notice4  
,it may be well1 before proceeding to   
the ,epistles to the ,corinthians1 which
 furnish the real matter for discussion1
 first to deal with the passage cited   
from ,gal iii4 #e1 which is as          
follows3--,he then that supplieth to you
 the ,spirit and worketh powers ------  
within you ------1 7doeth he it7 from   
works of law or from hearing of         
faith87#b7 ,the authorised version      

reads3 and worketh miracles among you2  
but this cannot be maintained1 and      
------ must be rendered within you1 the 
------ certainly retaining its natural  
signification when used with ------1 the
 primary meaning of which is itself to  
in-work4 ,the vast majority of critics  
of all schools agree in this view47#c7  
,there is an evident reference to iii   
#b1  #ccg  and to the reception of the  
,spirit1 here further characterised as  
producing such effects within the minds 
of those who receive it17#a7 the worker 
who gives the ,spirit being ,god4 ,the  
opinion most commonly held is that      
reference is here made to the gifts     
------1 regarding which the ,apostle    
elsewhere speaks17#b7 and which we shall
 presently discuss1 but this is by no   
means certain and cannot be determined4 
,it is equally probable that he may     
refer to the spiritual effect produced  
upon the souls of the ,galatians by the 
,gospel which he so frequently          
represents as a power of ,god4 ,in any  

case1 it is clear that there is no      
external miracle referred to here1 and  
even if allusion to ,charismata be      
understood we have yet to ascertain     
precisely what these were4 ,we shall    
endeavour to discover whether there was 
anything in the least degree miraculous 
in these gifts1 but there is no         
affirmation in this passage which       
demands special attention1 and whatever 
general significance it  #cch  may have 
will be met when considering the others 
which are indicated4  the first passage 
in the ,epistles to the ,corinthians1   
which is pointed out as containing the  
testimony of ,paul both to the reality  
of miracles in general and to the fact  
that he himself performed them1 is the  
following1 #b ,cor4 xii4 #ab3 ,truly the
 signs ------ of the ,apostle were      
wrought in you ------ in all patience1  
both in signs and wonders and powers    
------7#a7 ,we have to justify two      
departures in this rendering from that  
generally received4 ,the first of these 

is the adoption of wrought in you1      
instead of wrought among you and the    
second the simple use of powers for     
------1 instead of mighty works4 ,we    
shall take the second first ,we have    
referred to every passage except #a     
,cor4 xii4 #aj1 #bh1 #bi1 in which ,paul
 makes use of the word ------1 and      
fortunately they are sufficiently       
numerous to afford us a good insight    
into his practice4 ,it need not be said 
that the natural sense of ------ is in  
no case mighty works or miracles1 and   
that such an application of the ,greek  
word is peculiar to the ,new ,testament 
and1 subsequently1 to ,patristic        
literature4 ,there is1 however1 no      
ground for attributing this use of the  
word to ,paul4 ,it is not so used in the
 ,septuagint1 and it is quite evident   
that the ,apostle does not employ it to 
express external effects or works1 but  
spiritual phenomena or potentiality4 ,in
 the passage1 ,gal4 iii4 #e1 which we   
have just discussed1 where the word     

occurs in the plural1 as here1 it is    
understood to express powers4 ,we may   
quote the rendering of that passage by  
the ,bishop of ,gloucester3  #cci  ,he  
then1 ,i say1 that ministereth to you   
the ,spirit and worketh mighty powers   
within you1 doeth he it by the works of 
the law or by the report of faith87#a7  
,why mighty should be inserted it is    
difficult to understand1 but the word is
 rightly printed in italics to show that
 it is not actually expressed in the    
,greek4 ,what was the exact nature of   
these 'powers'444 it is impossible to   
determine1 observes another scholar     
quoted above17#b7 on the same passage4#c
 ,in #a ,cor4 xii4 #aj1 #bh1 #bi1 where 
the plural ------ again occurs1 the     
intention to express powers7#d7 and not 
external results--miracles--is perfectly
 clear1 the word being in the last two  
verses used alone to represent the      
gifts4 ,in all of these passages the    
word is the representative of the powers
 and not of the effects47#e7 ,this      

interpretation is rendered more clear   
by1 and at the same time confirms1 the  
preceding phrase1 were wrought in you   
------4 ',powers' ------1 as in ,gal4   
iii4 #e1 are worked within you1 and the 
rendering of that passage being so      
settled1 it becomes authoritative for   
this4 ,if1 however1 direct confirmation 
of ,paul's meaning be required we have  
it in ,rom4 vii4 #h1 where we find the  
same verb used with ------ in this      
sense3 ,but sin4444 wrought in me ------
 all manner of coveting1 c42 and with   
this may also be compared #b ,cor4 vii4 
#aa4444 what earnestness it wrought in  
you ------7#f7  #cdj  ------4 ,it was   
thus ,paul's habit to speak of spiritual
 effects wrought within1 and as he      
referred to the powers ------ worked    
within the souls of the ,galatians1 so  
he speaks of them here as wrought in the
 ,corinthians4 ,it will become clear as 
we proceed that the addition to ------  
of signs and wonders does not in the    
least affect this interpretation4 ,in #a

 ,cor4 xiv4 #bb1 the ,apostle speaks of 
the gift of tongues as a sign ------4   
,upon the supposition that ,paul was    
affirming the actual performance of     
miracles by himself1 how extraordinary  
becomes the statement that they were    
wrought in all patience1 for it is      
manifest that in all patience ------    
does not form part of the signs1 as some
 have argued1 but must be joined to the 
verb ------47#a7 ,it may be instructive 
to quote a few words of ,olshausen upon 
the point3--,the ------ is not          
altogether easy4 ,it certainly cannot be
 doubtful that it is to be joined to    
------ and not to what follows2 but for 
what reason does ,paul here make it     
directly prominent that he wrought his  
signs in all patience8 ,it seems to me  
probable that in this there may be a    
reproof to the ,corinthians1 who1 in    
spite of such signs1 still showed       
themselves wavering regarding the       
authority of the ,apostle4 ,in such a   
position1 ,paul would say1 he had1      

patiently waiting1 allowed his light to 
shine amongst them1 certain of ultimate 
triumph47#c7 ,this will hardly be       
accepted by any one as a satisfactory   
solution of the difficulty1 which is a  
real one if it be assumed that ,paul1   
claiming to have performed  #cda        
miracles1 wrought them in all patience4 
,besides the matter is complicated1 and 
the claim to have himself performed a   
miracle still more completely vanishes1 
when we consider the fact that the      
passive construction of the sentence    
does not actually represent ,paul as the
 active agent by whom the signs were    
wrought4 ,truly the signs of the apostle
 were wrought1 but how wrought8 ,clearly
 he means by the ,spirit1 as he         
distinctly states to the ,gala- tians4  
,to them ,jesus ,christ 7the ,messiah7  
was fully set forth crucified1 and he   
asks them3 ,was it from works of the    
,law or from hearing in faith the       
,gospel thus preached to them that they 
received the ,spirit8 and that he who   

supplies the ,spirit and worketh powers 
in them does so8 ,from faith1 of        
course47#a7 ,the meaning of ,paul1      
therefore1 was this3 ,his ,gospel was   
preached among them in all patience1    
which being received by the hearing of  
faith1 the ,spirit was given to them1   
and the signs of the apostle were thus  
wrought among them4 ,the representation 
is made throughout the ,acts that the   
apostles lay their hands on those who   
believe1 and they receive the ,holy     
,spirit and speak with tongues4 ,if any 
special sign of the apostle can be      
indicated at all1 it is this2 and in    
illustration we may point to one        
statement made in the ,acts4 ,philip1   
the evangelist1 who was not an apostle1 
is represented as going into ,samaria   
and preaching the ,messiah to the       
,samaritans1 who give heed to the things
 spoken by him1 and multitudes are      
baptized 7viii4 #e1 #f1 #ab71 but there 
was not the outpouring of the ,holy     
,spirit which usually accompanied the   

apostolic baptism4 ,and the ,apostles in
 ,jerusalem1 having heard that ,samaria 
had received the word of ,god1 sent unto
 them ,peter and ,john2 who  #cdb  when 
they came down prayed for them that they
 might receive the ,holy ,spirit--for as
 yet he had fallen upon none of them1   
but they had only been baptized into the
 name of the ,lord ,jesus4 ,then laid   
they 7the ,apostles7 their hands on them
 and they received the ,holy            
,spirit47#a7 ,we may further refer to   
the episode at ,ephesus 7,acts xix4     
,iff47 where ,paul finds certain        
disciples who1 having only been baptized
 into ,john's baptism1 had not received 
the ,holy ,spirit1 nor even heard       
whether there was a ,holy ,spirit1 7xix4
 #f47 ,and ,paul having laid his hands  
upon them1 the ,holy ,spirit came on    
them1 and they were speaking with       
tongues and prophesying4  ,when we      
examine ,paul's ,epistles to the        
,corinthians we find ample assurance    
that the interpretation here given of   

this passage is correct1 and that he    
does not refer1 as apologists have      
maintained1 to miracles wrought by      
himself1 but to the ,charismata1 which  
were supposed to have been bestowed upon
 the ,corinthians who believed1 and     
which thus were the signs of his        
apostleship4 ,the very next verse to    
that which is before us shows this3     
,truly the signs of the ,apostle were   
wrought in you in all patience4444 #ac4 
,for ------ what is there wherein ye    
were inferior to the other ,churches1   
except it be that ,i myself was not     
burdensome to you8 ,the mere performance
 of signs and wonders did not constitute
 their equality2 but in the possession  
of the ,charismata1--regarding which so 
much is said in the first epistle1 and  
which were the result of his            
preaching1--they were not inferior to   
the other ,churches1 and only inferior1 
,paul says with his fine irony1 in not  
having1 like the other ,churches with   
their apostles1 been called upon to     

acquire the merit of  #cdc  bearing his 
charges4 ,what could be more distinct   
than the ,apostle's opening address in  
the first ,epistle3 ,i thank my ,god    
always1 on your behalf1 for the grace of
 ,god which was given you in ,christ    
,jesus2 that in everything ye were      
enriched by him 7at the time of their   
conversion7#a71 in all utterance and in 
all knowledge3 even as the testimony of 
,christ was confirmed in you3 so that ye
 come behind in no gift ------1 c4 ,for 
this reason they were not inferior to   
the other ,churches1 and those were the 
signs of the ,apostle which were wrought
 in them4 ,paul very distinctly declares
 the nature of his ministry amongst the 
,corinthians and the absence of other   
signs3 #a ,cor4 i4 #bb f4 ,since both   
,jews demand signs ------ and ,greeks   
seek after wisdom1 but we ------ preach 
,christ crucified1 unto ,jews a         
stumbling-block and unto ,gentiles      
foolishness1 but unto those who are     
called1 both ,jews and ,greeks1 ,christ 

the power ------ of ,god and the wisdom 
of ,god4 ,the contrast is here clearly  
drawn between the requirement of ,jews  
7signs7 and of ,greeks 7wisdom7 and     
,paul's actual ministry3 no signs1 but a
 scandal ------ to the ,jew1 and no     
wisdom1 but foolishness to the ,greek1  
but this word of the cross ------ to us 
who are being saved is the power ------ 
of ,god 7i4 #ah747b7 ,the ,apostle tells
 us what he considers the sign of the   
,apostle1 when1 more directly defending 
himself against the opponents who       
evidently denied his apostolic claims1  
he says vehemently3 #a ,cor4 ix4 #a flf4
 ,am ,i not free8 ,am ,i not an         
,apostle8 have ,i not seen ,jesus our   
,lord8 are not ye my work in the ,lord8 
,if ,i be not an ,apostle unto others1  
yet doubtless ,i am to you3 for the seal
  #cdd  ------ of my ,apostleship are ye
 in the ,lord47#a7 ,it cannot1 we think1
 be doubted1 when the passage #b ,cor4  
xii4 #ab is attentively considered1 that
 ,paul does not refer to external       

miracles performed by him1 but to the   
,charismata which he supposed to be     
conferred upon the ,corinthian          
,christians on their acceptance of the  
,gospel which the ,apostle preached4    
,these ,charismata1 however1 are        
advanced as miraculous1 and the passages
 #a ,cor4 xii4 #aj1 #bh1 #bi are quoted 
in support of the statement we are      
discussing1 and these now demand our    
attention4  ,it may be well at once to  
give the verses which are referred to1  
and in which it is said that ,paul goes 
somewhat elaborately into the exact     
place in the ,christian economy that is 
to be assigned to the working of        
miracles and gifts of healing 7#a ,cor4 
xii4 #aj1 #bh1 #bi74 ,it is necessary   
for the full comprehension of the case  
that we should quote the context3 xii4  
#d4 ,now there are diversities of gifts 
------1 but the same ,spirit2 #e4 and   
there are diversities of ministries     
------1 and the same ,lord2 #f4 and     
there are diversities of workings       

------1 but it is the same ,god who     
worketh the all in all ------3 #g4 ,but 
to each is given the manifestation of   
the ,spirit ------ for profit2 #h4 ,for 
to one is given by the ,spirit a word of
 wisdom ------2 to another a word of    
knowledge ------ according to the same  
,spirit2 #i4 to another faith ------ in 
the same ,spirit1 to another gifts of   
healings ------ in the one ,spirit2 #aj4
 to another 7inward7 workings of powers 
------  #cde  ------2 to another        
prophecy ------2 to another discerning  
of spirits ------2 to another kinds of  
tongues ------2 to another              
interpretation of tongues ------2 #aa4  
but all these worketh ------ the one and
 the same ,spirit1 dividing to each     
severally as he wills4 ,after           
illustrating this by showing the mutual 
dependence of the different members and 
senses of the body1 the ,apostle        
proceeds3 v4 #bh4 ,and ,god set some in 
the ,church1 first apostles1 secondly   
prophets1 thirdly teachers1 after that  

powers ------1 after that gifts of      
healings ------1 helpings ------1       
governings ------1 kinds of tongues     
------4 #bi4 ,are all apostles8 are all 
prophets8 are all teachers8 are all     
powers ------8 #cj4 have all gifts of   
healings ------8 do all speak with      
tongues ------8 do all interpret ------8
  ,before we commence an examination of 
this interesting and important passage1 
it is essential that we should endeavour
 to disabuse our minds of preconceived  
ideas4 ,commentators are too prone to   
apply to the ,apostle's remarks a system
 of interpretation based upon statements
 made by later and less informed        
writers1 and warped by belief in the    
reality of a miraculous element         
pervading all apostolic times1 which    
have been derived mainly from           
post-apostolic narratives4 ,what do we  
really know of the phenomena supposed to
 have characterized the ,apostolic age1 
and which were later1 and are now1      
described as miraculous8 ,with the      

exception of what we glean from the     
writings of ,paul1 we know absolutely   
nothing from any contemporary writer and
 eye-witness4 ,in the ,gospels and in   
the ,acts of the ,apostles1 we have     
detailed accounts of many miracles said 
#cdf  to have been performed by the     
,apostles and others2 but these         
narratives were all written at a much   
later period1 and by persons who are    
unknown1 and most of whom are not even  
affirmed to have been eye-witnesses47#a7
 ,in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 we have
 an account of some of the very         
,charismata referred to by ,paul in the 
passage above quoted1 and we shall thus 
have the advantage of presently         
comparing the two accounts4 ,we must1   
however1 altogether resist any attempt  
to insert between the lines of the      
apostle's writing ideas and explanations
 derived from the ,author of the ,acts  
and from patristic literature1 and      
endeavour to understand what it is he   
himself says and intends to say4 ,it    

must not be supposed that we in the     
slightest degree question the fact that 
the ,apostle ,paul believed in the      
reality of supernatural intervention in 
mundane affairs1 or that he asserted the
 actual occurrence of certain miracles4 
,our desire is as far as possible to    
ascertain what ,paul himself has to say 
upon specific phenomena1 now generally  
explained as miraculous1 and thus1      
descending from vague generalities to   
more distinct statements1 to ascertain  
the value of his opinion regarding the  
character of such phenomena4 ,it cannot 
fail to be instructive to determine     
something of the nature of ,charismata  
from an eye-witness who believed them to
 have been supernatural4 ,his account1  
as we have seen1 is the most precious   
evidence of the ,church to the reality  
of the miraculous4  ,the first point    
which must be observed in connection    
with the ,charismata referred to by     
,paul in the passage before us is that1 
whilst there are diversities amongst    

them1 all the phenomena described are   
ascribed to       #a ,it is suggestive  
that the curious passage ,mk4 xvi4      
#ag--ah      is not even by the author  
of the second ,gospel1 but a later      
addition4  #cdg  one and the same       
,spirit dividing to each severally as he
 wills2 and1 consequently1 that1        
although there may be differences in    
their form and value1 a supernatural    
origin is equally assigned to all the   
gifts enumerated4 ,what then are these  
,charismata8 ,a word of wisdom1 a word  
of knowledge1 and faith are the first   
three mentioned4 ,what the precise      
difference was1 in ,paul's meaning1     
between the utterance of wisdom ------  
and of knowledge ------ it is impossible
 now with certainty to say1 nor is it   
very essential for us to inquire4 ,the  
two words are combined in ,rom4 xi4 #cc3
 ,o the depths of the riches and wisdom 
------ and knowledge ------ of ,god6 and
 in this very epistle some varying use  
is made of both words4 ,paul tells the  

,corinthians 7#a1 i4 #ag7 that ,christ  
did not send him in wisdom of word      
------ or utterance3 and 7ii4 #a7 not   
with excellency of word or wisdom       
------1 cf4 ii4 #d72 and further on he  
says 7i4 #cj7 that ,christ ,jesus was   
made unto us wisdom ------ from ,god4   
,the most suggestive expressions17#a7   
however1 are the following1 we think3 #a
 ,cor4 ii4 #f4 ,but we speak wisdom     
------ among the perfect1 yet not the   
wisdom ------ of this age1 nor of the   
rulers of this age1 that come to nought1
 #g4 but we speak ,god's wisdom ------  
in mystery1 the hidden wisdom1 which    
,god ordained before the ages unto our  
glory1 #h4 which none of the rulers of  
this age has known1 for had they known  
it1 they would not have crucified the   
,lord of ,glory4 #i4 ,but as it is      
written1 ',what eye saw not_/ c4 c4 #aj4
 ,but unto us ,god revealed them through
 the ,spirit4444444 #aa4444  #cdh  even 
so also the things of ,god knoweth no   
one but the ,spirit of ,god4 #ab4 ,but  

we received1 not the spirit of the      
world1 but the ,spirit which is from    
,god1 that we might know the things that
 are freely given us by ,god2 #ac4 which
 things also we speak1 not in words     
taught by human wisdom1 but in words    
taught by the ,spirit1 interpreting     
spiritual things to the spiritual7#a7   
------4 ,it is quite clear from all the 
antecedent context that ,paul's         
preaching was specially the ,messiah    
crucified1 ,christ the power of ,god and
 the wisdom ------ of ,god1 and we may  
conclude reasonably that the ------ of  
our passage was simply the eloquent     
utterance of this doctrine4 ,in like    
manner1 we may get some insight into the
 meaning which ,paul attached to the    
word knowledge ------4 ,it will be      
remembered that at the very opening of  
the first ,epistle to the ,corinthians  
,paul expresses his thankfulness that in
 everything they were enriched in       
,christ ,jesus3 i4 #e4 in all utterance 
------ and in all knowledge ------1 #f4 

even as the testimony of the ,christ was
 confirmed in you2 that is to say1      
according to commentators1 by these very
 ,charismata4 ,later1 speaking of       
tongues1 he says 7#a ,cor4 xiv4 #f73 444
 ,what shall ,i profit you1 except ,i   
shall speak to you either in revelation 
or in knowledge ------1 or in prophecy1 
or in teaching8 ,we obtain a clearer    
insight into his meaning in the second  
,epistle1 in the passage #b ,cor4 ii4   
#ad-af1 and still more in iv4 #c-f and  
x4 #e1 where he describes metaphorically
 his weapons as not carnal1 but strong  
through ,god1 casting down reasonings   
and every high thing that exalteth      
itself against the knowledge of ,god1   
and bringing into  #cdi  captivity every
 thought to the obedience of the        
,christ2 and if we ventured to offer an 
opinion1 it would be that ,paul means by
 ------ simply ,christian theology4 ,we 
merely offer this as a passing          
suggestion4 ,little need be said with   
regard to the gift of faith 7marts71    

which is perfectly intelligible4        
,apologists argue that by these three   
gifts some supernatural form of wisdom1 
knowledge1 and faith is expressed1 and  
we shall have something more to say on  
the point presently2 but here we merely 
point out that there is no ground       
whatever for such an assertion except   
the fact that the ,apostle ascribes to  
them a supernatural origin1 or1 in fact1
 believes in the inspiration of such    
qualities4 ,all that can be maintained  
is that ,paul accounts for the          
possession of characteristics which we  
now know to be natural1 by asserting    
that they are the direct gift of the    
,holy ,spirit4 ,there is not the        
faintest evidence to show that these    
natural capabilities did not            
antecedently exist in the ,corinthians1 
and were not merely stimulated into     
action in ,christian channels by the    
religious enthusiasm and zeal           
accompanying their conversion2 but1 on  
the contrary1 every reason to believe   

this to be the case1 as we shall further
 see47#a7 ,in fact1 according to the    
,apostolic ,church1 every quality was a 
supernatural gift1 and all ability or   
excellence in practical life directly   
emanated from the action of the ,holy   
,spirit4 ,we may now proceed to gifts of
 healings ------7#b7 which it will be   
noted are doubly in the plural1  #cej   
indicating1 as is supposed1 a variety of
 special gifts1 each having reference   
probably to special diseases4 ,what is  
there to show that there was anything   
more miraculous in gifts of healings    
than in the possession of an utterance  
of wisdom1 an utterance of knowledge1 or
 faith8 ,nothing whatever4 ,on the      
contrary1 everything1 from the unvarying
 experience of the world1 to the        
inferences which we shall be able to    
draw from the whole of this information 
regarding the ,charismata1 shows that   
there was no miraculous power of healing
 either possessed or exercised4         
,reference is frequently made to the    

passage in the so-called ,epistle of    
,james as an illustration of this1 v4   
#ad3 ,is any sick among you8 let him    
call for the elders of the church1 and  
let them pray over him1 having anointed 
him with oil in the name of the ,lord3  
#ae4 ,and the prayer of faith shall save
 the afflicted1 and the ,lord shall     
raise him up2 and if he have committed  
sins1 it shall be forgiven him4 ,the    
context1 however1 not only shows that in
 this there is no allusion to any gift  
of healing or miraculous power1 but     
seems to ignore the existence of any    
such gift4 ,the epistle continues3 v4   
#af4 ,confess therefore your sins one to
 another1 and pray for one another that 
ye may be healed4 ,the supplication of a
 righteous man availeth much when it is 
working4 ,and then the successful       
instance of the prayer of ,elijah that  
it might not rain and again that it     
might rain is given4 ,the passage is    
merely an assertion of the efficacy of  
prayer1 and if1 as is not unfrequently  

done1 it be argued that the gifts of    
healings were probably applied by means 
of earnest prayer for the sick1 it may  
be said that this is the only gift which
 is supposed to have descended to our   
times4 ,it does not require much        
argument1 however1 to show that the     
reality of a miraculous gift cannot be  
demonstrated  #cea  by appealing to the 
objective efficacy of prayer4 ,we may1  
in passing1 refer apologists who hold   
the authenticity of the ,epistles to the
 ,philippians and to ,timothy to        
indications which do not quite confirm  
the supposition that a power of         
miraculous healing actually existed in  
the apostolic ,church4 ,in the ,epistle 
to the ,philippians1 ii4 #be ff41 ,paul 
is represented as sending ,epaphroditus 
to them 7v4 #bf7 ,since he was longing  
after you all and was distressed because
 ye heard that he was sick4 #bg4 ,for1  
indeed1 he was sick nigh unto death2 but
 ,god had mercy on him2 and not on him  
only1 but on me also1 that ,i might not 

have sorrow upon sorrow4 ,i sent him1   
therefore1 the more anxiously1 that1    
when ye see him1 ye may rejoice again1  
and that ,i may be the less sorrowful4  
,the anxiety felt by the ,philippians1  
and the whole language of the writer1 in
 this passage1 are rather inconsistent  
with the knowledge that miraculous power
 of healing was possessed by the        
,church1 and of course by ,paul1 which  
would naturally have been exerted for   
one in whom so many were keenly         
interested4 ,then1 in #b ,tim4 iv4 #bj1 
the writer says3 ,trophimus ,i left at  
,miletus sick4 ,if miraculous powers of 
healing existed1 why were they not      
exerted in this case8 ,if they were     
exerted and failed for special reasons1 
why are these not mentioned8 ,it is     
unfortunate that there is so little     
evidence of the application of these    
gifts4 ,on the other hand1 we may       
suggest that medical art scarcely       
existed at that period in such          
communities1 and that the remedies      

practised admirably lent themselves to  
the theory of gifts of healings1 rather 
than to any recognition of the fact that
 the accurate diagnosis of disease and  
successful treatment of it can only be  
the result of special study and         
experience4 ,the next gift mentioned is 
7v4 #aj7 workings of powers  #ceb       
------ very unwarrantably rendered in   
our authorized version the working of   
miracles4 ,we have already said enough  
regarding ,paul's use of ------4 ,the   
phrase before us would be even better   
rendered in-or inward-workings of       
powers7#a7 and the use made of ------ by
 ,paul throughout his epistles would    
confirm this4 ,it may be pointed out    
that as the gifts just referred to are  
for healings it is difficult to imagine 
any class of miracles which could well  
be classed under a separate head as the 
special working of miracles contemplated
 by apologists4 ,infinitely the greater 
number of miracles related in the       
,gospels and ,acts are healings of      

disease4 ,is it possible to suppose that
 ,paul really indicated by this         
expression a distinct order of miracles 
properly so called8 ,certainly not      
,neither the words themselves used by   
,paul1 properly understood1 nor the     
context permit us to suppose that he    
referred to the working of miracles at  
all4 ,we have no intention of           
conjecturing what these powers were     
supposed to be2 it is sufficient that we
 show they cannot rightly be exaggerated
 into an assertion of the power of      
working miracles4 ,it is much more      
probable that1 in the expression1 no    
external working by the gifted person is
 implied at all1 and that the gift      
referred to in-workings of powers within
 his own mind1 producing the ecstatic   
state1 with its usual manifestations1 or
 those visions and supposed revelations 
to which ,paul himself was subject4     
,demonaics1 or persons supposed to be   
possessed of evil spirits1 were called  
------ and it is easy to conceive how   

anyone under strong religious  #cec     
impressions1 at that epoch of most      
intense religious emotion1 might1 when  
convulsed by nervous or mental          
excitement1 be supposed the subject of  
inward workings of powers supernaturally
 imparted4 ,every period of religious   
zeal has been marked by such            
phenomena47#a7 ,these conclusions are   
further corroborated by the next gifts  
enumerated4 ,the first of these is      
prophecy ------1 by which is not        
intended the mere foretelling of events1
 but speaking unto men edification and  
exhortation and comfort1 as the ,apostle
 himself says 7xiv4 #c72 and an         
illustration of this may be pointed out 
in ,acts iv4 #cf where the name         
,barnabas  ,son of prophecy1 being      
interpreted is said to be ,son of       
,exhortation ------4  ,to this follows  
the discerning 7or judging7 of spirits  
------1 a gift which1 if we are to judge
 by ,paul's expressions elsewhere1 was  
simply the exercise of natural          

intelligence and discernment4 ,in an    
earlier part of the first ,epistle1     
rebuking the ,corinthians for carrying  
their disputes before legal tribunals1  
he says1 vi4 #e3 ,is it so that there is
 not even one wise man among you who    
shall be able to discern ------ between 
his brethren8 ,again1 in xi4 #ca1 ,but  
if we discerned ------ we should not be 
judged ------ 7cf vv4 #bh1 #bi71 and in 
xiv4 #bi1 ,let ,prophets speak two or   
three1 and let the others discern       
------4  ,we reserve the kinds of       
tongues and interpretation of tongues   
for separate treatment1 and proceed to  
vv4 #bh;ff4 in which1 after illustrating
 his meaning by the analogy of the body1
 the ,apostle resumes his  #ced         
observations upon the ,charismata1 and  
it is instructive to consider the rank  
he ascribes to the various gifts4 ,he   
classes them3 ,first1 apostles1 secondly
 prophets1 thirdly teachers1 after that 
powers1 after that gifts of healings1   
helpings1 governings1 kinds of tongues4 

,these so-called miraculous gifts are   
here placed in a lower class than those 
of exhortation and teaching1 which is   
suggestive2 for it is difficult to      
suppose that even a man like ,paul could
 have regarded the possession of such   
palpable and stupendous power as the    
instantaneous and miraculous healing of 
disease1 or the performance of other    
miracles1 below the gift of teaching or 
exhortation4 ,it is perfectly           
intelligible that the practice of       
medicine as it was then understood1 and 
the skill which might have been attained
 in particular branches of disease by   
individuals1 not to speak of those who  
may have been supposed to be performing 
miracles when they dealt with cases of  
hysteria or mental excitement1 might    
appear to the apostle much inferior to a
 gift for imparting spiritual           
instruction and admonition2 but the     
actual possession of supernatural power1
 the actual exercise of what was        
believed to be the personal attribute of

 ,god1 must have been considered a      
distinction more awful and elevated than
 any gift of teaching4 ,it will be      
noticed also that other ,charismata are 
here introduced1 whilst discerning of   
spirits is omitted4 ,the new gifts1     
helpings and governings1 have as little 
a miraculous character about them as any
 that have preceded them4 ,is it not    
obvious that all special ability1 all   
official capacity1 is simply represented
 as a divine gift1 and regarded as a    
manifestation of the ,spirit8  ,it is   
important in the highest degree to      
remember that the supposed miraculous   
,charismata are not merely conferred    
upon a few persons1 but are bestowed    
upon all  #cee  the members of the      
,apostolic ,church47#a7 ,the            
extraordinary ,charismata which the     
,apostles conferred through their       
imposition of hands1 writes ,dr4 von    
,dollinger1 were so diffused and        
distributed1 that nearly every one1 or  
at any rate many1 temporarily at least1 

had a share in one gift or another4     
,this was a solitary case in history1   
which has never since repeated itself1  
and which1 in default of experience1 we 
can only approximately picture to       
ourselves4 ,one might say3 the metal of 
the ,church was still glowing1 molten1  
formless1 and presented altogether      
another aspect than1 since then1 in the 
condition of the cold and hardened      
casting47#b7 ,the apologetic            
representation of the case is certainly 
unique in history and1 therefore1 in its
 departure from all experience might1   
one might have thought1 have excited    
suspicion4 ,difficult as it is to       
picture such a state1 it is worth while 
to endeavour to do so to a small extent4
 ,let us imagine communities of         
,christians1 often of considerable      
importance1 in all the larger cities as 
well as in smaller towns1 all or most of
 the members of which were endowed with 
supernatural  #cef  gifts1 and1 amongst 
others1 with power to heal diseases and 

to perform miracles2 all the            
intellectual and religious qualities    
requisite for the guidance1 edification1
 and government of the communities      
supplied abundantly and specially by the
 ,holy ,spirit2 the ordinary dependence 
of society on the natural capacity and  
power of its leaders dispensed with1 and
 every possible branch of moral culture 
and physical comfort provided with      
inspired and miraculously-gifted        
ministries2 the utterance of wisdom and 
knowledge1 exhortation and teaching1    
workings of healings1 discernment of    
spirits1 helpings1 governings1 kinds of 
tongues supernaturally diffused         
throughout the community by ,god        
himself4 ,as a general rule1 communities
 have to do as well as they can without 
such help1 and eloquent instructors and 
able administrators do not generally    
fail them4 ,the question1 therefore1    
intrudes itself3 ,why were ordinary and 
natural means so completely set aside1  
and the qualifications which are        

generally found adequate for the conduct
 and regulation of life supplanted by   
divine ,charismata8 ,at least1 we may   
suppose that communities endowed with   
such supernatural advantages1 and guided
 by the direct inspiration of the ,holy 
,spirit1 must have been distinguished in
 every way from the rest of humanity1   
and must have presented a spectacle of  
the noblest life1 free from the weakness
 and inconsistency of the world1 and    
betraying none of the moral and         
intellectual frailties of ordinary      
society4 ,at the very least1 and without
 exaggeration1 communities in every     
member of which there existed some      
supernatural manifestation of the ,holy 
,spirit might be expected to show very  
marked superiority and nobility of      
character4 ,when we examine the         
,epistles of ,paul and other ancient    
documents1 we find anything but         
supernatural  #ceg  qualities in the    
,churches supposed to be endowed with   
such miraculous gifts4 ,on the contrary1

 it is scarcely possible to exaggerate  
the intensely human character of the    
conduct of such communities1 their      
fickleness1 the weakness of their       
fidelity to the ,gospel of ,paul1 their 
wavering faith1 and the ease and        
rapidity with which they are led astray1
 their petty strifes and discords2 their
 party spirit1 their almost indecent    
abuse of some of their supposed gifts1  
such as tongues1 for which ,paul rebukes
 them so severely4 ,the very ,epistles1 
in fact1 in which we read of the        
supernatural endowments and organization
 of the ,church are full of evidence    
that there was nothing supernatural in  
them4 ,the primary cause1 apparently1   
for which the first letter was written  
to the ,corinthians was the occurrence  
of divisions and contentions amongst    
them 7i4 #aj ff471 parties of ,paul1 of 
,apollos1 of ,cephas1 of ,christ1 which 
make the ,apostle give thanks 7i4 #ad7  
that he had baptized but few of them1   
that no one might say that they were    

baptized into his name4 ,paul had not   
been able to speak to them as spiritual 
but as carnal1 mere babes in ,christ    
7iii4 #a f472 he fed them with milk1 not
 meat1 for they were not yet able1 nor  
even now are ye able1 he says1 for ye   
are yet carnal4 ,for whereas there is   
among you envying and strife2 are ye not
 carnal8 ,he continues in the same      
strain throughout the letter1           
admonishing them in no flattering terms4
 ,speaking of his sending ,timothy to   
them1 he says 7iv4 #ah f473 ,but some of
 you were puffed up1 as though ,i were  
not coming to you2 but ,i will come to  
you shortly1 if it be the ,lord's will1 
and will know1 not the speech of them   
who are puffed up1 but the power4 ,there
 is serious sin amongst them1 which they
 show no readiness to purge  #cfh  away4
 ,moreover these ,corinthians have      
lawsuits with each other 7vi4 #a ff471  
and1 instead of taking advantage of     
those supernatural ,charismata1 they    
actually take their causes for decision 

before the uninspired tribunals of the  
heathen rather than submit them to the  
judgment of the saints4 ,their own      
members1 who have gifts of wisdom and of
 knowledge1 discerning of spirits and   
governings1 have apparently so little   
light to throw upon the regulation of   
social life1 that the ,apostle has to   
enter into minute details for their     
admonition and guidance4 ,he has even to
 lay down rules regarding the           
head-dresses of women in the ,churches  
7xi4 #c ff474 ,even in their very       
,church assemblies there are divisions  
of a serious character amongst them 7xi4
 #ah ff474 ,they misconduct themselves  
in the celebration of the ,lord's       
supper1 for they make it1 as it were1   
their own supper1 and one is hungry and 
another is drunken4 ,what6 he           
indignantly exclaims1 have ye not houses
 to eat and to drink in8 or despise ye  
the ,church of ,god8 ,to the ,galatians 
,paul writes1 marvelling that they are  
so soon removing from him that called   

them in the grace of ,christ unto a     
different ,gospel 7i4 #f74 ,o foolish   
,galatians1 he says 7iii4 #a71 who      
bewitched you8 ,in that community also1 
opposition to ,paul and denial of his   
authority had become powerful4  ,if we  
turn to other ancient documents1 the    
,epistles to the seven ,churches do not 
present us with a picture of            
supernatural perfection in those        
communities1 though doubtless1 like the 
rest1 they had received these gifts4    
,the other ,epistles of the ,new        
,testament depict a state of things     
which by no means denotes any           
extraordinary or abnormal condition of  
the members4 ,we may quote a short      
passage to show that we do not strain   
#cei  this representation unduly4 ,but  
certainly1 says ,dr4 von ,dollinger1 in 
spite of a rich outpouring of spiritual 
gifts vouchsafed to it1 a community     
could fall into wanton error4 ,paul had 
in ,corinth1 contemporaneously with his 
description of the charismatic state of 

the church there1 to denounce sad       
abuses4 ,in the ,galatian community1    
,judaistic seduction1 and the darkening 
of ,christian doctrine through the      
delusion as to the necessity of the     
observance of the law1 had so much      
increased that the ,apostle called them 
fools and senseless1 but at the same    
time he appealed to the proof which was 
presented by the spiritual gifts and    
miraculous powers1 in which they had    
participated not through the observance 
of the law1 but through faith in ,christ
 7,gal4 iii4 #b1 #e74 ,now at that time 
the ,charismata of teaching and         
knowledge must already have been        
weakened or extinguished in these       
communities1 otherwise so strong an     
aberration would not be explicable4     
,nowhere1 however1 in this ,epistle is  
there any trace of an established       
ministry2 on the contrary1 at the close1
 the 'spiritual' among them are         
instructed to administer the office of  
commination4  ,but1 generally1 from that

 time forward1 the charismatic state in 
the ,church more and more disappeared1  
though single ,charismata1 and          
individuals endowed with the same1      
remained4 ,in the first ,epistle to the 
believers in ,thessalonica1 ,paul had   
made it specially prominent that his    
,gospel had worked there1 not as mere   
word1 but with demonstration of the     
power of the ,holy ,spirit 7i4 #e74 ,in 
the ,epistles to the ,philippians and   
,colossians1 there is no longer the     
slightest intimation of1 or reference   
to1 the ,charismata1 although in both   
communities the occasion for such an    
allusion was very appropriate--in       
,philippi through the ,jewish opponents1
  #cfj  and in ,colossae on account of  
the heretical dangers and the           
threatening ,gnostic asceticism4 ,on the
 other hand1 in the ,epistle to the     
,philippians1 bishops and deacons are   
already mentioned as ministers of the   
community4 ,then1 in the ,pastoral      
,epistles1 not only is there no mention 

of the ,charismata1 but a state of the  
community is set forth which is wholly  
different from the charismatic4 ,the    
communities in ,asia ,minor1 the        
,ephesian first of all1 are partly      
threatened1 partly unsettled by ,gnostic
 heresies1 strifes of words1 foolish    
controversies1 empty babbling about     
matters of faith1 of doctrines of       
demons1 of an advancing godlessness     
corroding like a gangrene 7#a ,tim4 iv4 
#a-c1 vi4 #c ff4 #bj1 #b ,tim4 ii4 #ad  
ff474 ,all the counsels which are here  
given to ,timothy1 the conduct in regard
 to these evils which is recommended to 
him1 all is of a nature as though       
,charismata no longer existed to any    
extent1 as though1 in lieu of the first 
spiritual soaring and of the fulness of 
extraordinary powers manifesting itself 
in the community1 the bare prose of the 
life of the ,church had already set     
in47#a7 ,regarding this it is not       
necessary for us to say more than that  
the representation which is everywhere  

made1 in the ,acts and elsewhere1 and   
which seems to be confirmed by ,paul1 is
 that all the members of these          
,christian communities received the     
,holy ,spirit1 and the divine           
,charismata1 but that nowhere have we   
evidence of any supernatural results    
produced by them4 ,if1 however1 the view
 above expressed be accepted1 the       
difficulty is increased2 for1 except in 
the allusions of the ,apostle to        
,charismata1 it is impossible to        
discover any difference between         
communities which had received          
miraculous spiritual gifts and those    
which had not done so4 ,on the contrary1
 it  #cfa  might possibly be shown that 
a church which had not been so endowed1 
perhaps on the whole exhibited higher   
spiritual qualities than another which  
was supposed to possess the ,charismata4
 ,in none are we able to perceive any   
supernatural characteristics1 or more   
than the very ordinary marks of a new   
religious life4 ,it seems scarcely      

necessary to depart from the natural    
order of nature1 and introduce the      
supernatural working of a ,holy ,spirit 
to produce such common-place results4   
,we venture to say that there is nothing
 whatever to justify the assertion of   
supernatural agency here1 and that the  
special divine ,charismata existed only 
in the pious imagination of the         
,apostle1 who referred every good       
quality in man to divine grace4  ,we    
have reserved the gift of ,tongues for  
special discussion1 because ,paul enters
 into it with a fulness with which he   
does not treat any of the other         
,charismata1 and a valuable opportunity 
is thus afforded us of ascertaining     
something definite with regard to the   
nature of the gift2 and also because we 
have a narrative in the ,acts of the    
,apostles of the first descent of the   
,holy ,spirit1 manifesting itself in    
,tongues1 with which it may be          
instructive to compare the ,apostle's   
remarks4 ,we may mention that1 in the   

opinion of many1 the cause which induced
 the ,apostle to say so much regarding  
,charismata in his first letter to the  
,corinthians was the circumstance1 that 
many maintained the gift of tongues to  
be the only form of the manifestation of
 the ,spirit4 ,this view is certainly   
favoured by the narrative in the ,acts1 
in which not only at the first famous   
day of ,pentecost1 but on almost every  
occasion of the imposition of the       
,apostle's hands1 this is the only gift 
mentioned as accompanying the reception 
of the ,holy  #cfb  ,spirit4 ,in any    
case1 it is apparent from the whole of  
the ,apostle's homily on the subject1   
that the gift of tongues was especially 
valued in the ,church of ,corinth47#a7  
,it is difficult to conceive1 on the    
supposition that amongst the ,charismata
 there were comprised miraculous gifts  
of healings1 and further power of       
working miracles1 that these could have 
been held so cheap in comparison with   
the gift of ,tongues2 but in any case1 a

 better comprehension of what this gift 
really was cannot fail to assist us in  
understanding the true nature of the    
whole of the ,charismata4 ,it is evident
 that the ,apostle ,paul himself does   
not rank the gift of tongues very       
highly1 and indeed1 that he seems to    
value prophecy more than all the other  
,charismata 7xiv4 #a ff472 but the      
simple yet truly noble eloquence with   
which 7xiii4 #a ff47 he elevates above  
all these gifts the possession of       
spiritual love is a subtle indication of
 their real character4 ,probably ,paul  
would have termed christian ,charity a  
gift of the ,spirit as much as  #cfc  he
 does gifts of healings or workings of  
powers2 but1 however rare may be the    
virtue1 it is not now recognized as     
miraculous1 although it is here shown to
 be more desirable and precious than all
 the miraculous gifts4 ,even ,apostolic 
conceptions of the ,supernatural cannot 
soar above the range of natural         
morality4  ,the real nature of the gift 

of ,tongues has given rise to an almost 
interminable controversy1 and           
innumerable treatises have been written 
upon the subject4 ,it would have been   
impossible for us to have exhaustively  
entered upon such a discussion in this  
work1 for which it only possesses an    
incidental and passing interest2 but    
fortunately such a course is rendered   
unnecessary by the fact that1 so far as 
we are concerned1 the miraculous nature 
of the gift alone comes into question1  
and may be disposed of without any      
elaborate analysis of past controversy  
or minute reference to disputed points4 
,those who desire to follow the course  
of the voluminous discussion will find  
ample materials in the treatises which  
we shall at least indicate in the course
 of our remarks1 and we shall adhere as 
closely as possible to our own point of 
view4  ,in #a ,cor4 xii4 #aj1 the       
,apostle mentions1 amongst the other    
,charismata1 kinds of tongues ------ and
 interpretation of tongues ------1 as   

two distinct gifts4 ,in v4 #bh he again 
uses the expression ------1 and in a    
following verse he inquires3 do all     
speak with tongues ------7#a7 do all    
interpret ------8 ,he says shortly      
after1 xiii4 #a3 ,if ,i speak with the  
tongues of men and of angels ------ and 
have not love1 c4 ,in the following     
chapter the expressions used in         
discussing the gift vary4  #cfd  ,in    
xiv4 #b he says3 he that speaketh with a
 tongue7#a7 ------7#b7 using the        
singular2 and again 7v4 #bb71 of the    
tongues ------1 being a sign2 and in v4 
#bf1 each hath a tongue ------4 ,the    
word ------ or ------ has several       
significations in ,greek4 ,the first and
 primary meaning the tongue3 as a mere  
member of the body1 the organ of speech2
 next1 a tongue1 or language2 and       
further1 an obsolete or foreign word not
 in ordinary use4 ,if we inquire into   
the use of ------ in the ,new           
,testament1 we find that1 setting aside 
the passages in ,acts1 ,mark1 and #a    

,cor4 xii4-xiv41 in which the phenomenon
 we are discussing is referred to1 the  
word is invariably used in the first    
sense1 the tongue17#c7 except in the    
,apocalypse1 where the word as language 
typifies different nations47#d7 ,any one
 who attentively considers all the      
passages in which the ,charisma is      
discussed will observe that no uniform  
application of any one signification    
throughout is possible4 ,we may briefly 
say that all the attempts which have    
been made philologically to determine   
the true nature of the phenomenon which 
the ,apostle discusses have failed to   
produce any really satisfactory result1 
or to secure the general adhesion of    
critics4 ,it is we think obvious that   
,paul does not apply the word1 either in
 the plural or in the singular1 in its  
ordinary senses1 but makes use of ------
 to describe phenomena connected with   
speech1 without intending strictly to   
apply it either to the tongue or to a   
definite language4 ,we  #cfe  merely    

refer to this in passing1 for it is     
certain that no philological discussion 
of the word can materially affect the   
case2 and the argument is of no interest
 for our inquiry4 ,each meaning has been
 adopted by critics and been made the   
basis for a different explanation of the
 phenomenon4 ,philology is incapable of 
finally solving such a problem4  ,from  
the time of ,irenaeus17#a7 or at least  
of ,origen1 the favourite theory of the 
,fathers1 based chiefly upon the        
narrative in ,acts of the descent of the
 ,holy ,spirit on the day of ,pentecost1
 was that the disciples suddenly became 
super-naturally endowed with power to   
speak other languages which they had not
 previously learned1 and that this gift 
was more especially conferred to        
facilitate the promulgation of the      
,gospel throughout the world4 ,augustine
 went so far as to believe that each of 
the ,apostles was thus enabled to speak 
all languages47#b7 ,the opinion that the
 gift of tongues consisted of the power1

 miraculously conferred by the ,holy    
,ghost1 to speak in a language or       
languages previously unknown to the     
speaker long continued to prevail1 and  
it is still the popular1 as well as the 
orthodox1 view of the subject47#c7 ,as  
soon as  #cff  the attention of critics 
was seriously directed to the question1 
however1 this interpretation became     
rapidly modified1 or was altogether     
abandoned4 ,it is unnecessary for us to 
refer in detail to the numerous         
explanations which have been given of   
the phenomenon1 or to enumerate the     
extraordinary views which have been     
expressed regarding it2 it will be      
sufficient if1 without reference to     
minor differences of opinion respecting 
the exact form in which it exhibited    
itself1 we broadly state that a great   
majority of critics1 rejecting the      
theory that ------ means to speak       
languages previously unknown to the     
speakers1 pronounce it to be the speech 
of persons in a state of ecstatic       

excitement1 chiefly of the nature of    
prayer or praise1 and unintelligible to 
ordinary hearers47#a7 ,whether  #cfg    
this speech consisted of mere           
inarticulate tones1 of excited          
ejaculations1 of obsolete or uncommon   
expressions and provincialisms1 of      
highly poetical rhapsodies1 of prayer in
 slow scarcely audible accents1 or of   
chaunted mysterious phrases1 fragmentary
 and full of rapturous intensity1 as    
these critics variously suppose1 we     
shall not pause to inquire4 ,it is clear
 that1 whatever may have been the form  
of the speech1 if instead of being      
speech in unlearnt languages            
supernaturally communicated1 ------ was 
only the expression of religious        
excitement1 however that may be supposed
 to have originated1 the pretentions of 
the gift to a miraculous character      
shrink at once into exceedingly small   
proportions4  ,every unprejudiced mind  
must admit that the representation that 
the gift of tongues1 of which the       

,apostle speaks in his ,epistle to the  
,corinthians1 conferred upon the        
recipient the power to speak foreign    
languages before unknown to him1 may in 
great part be traced to the narrative in
 ,acts of the descent of the ,holy      
,spirit on the day of ,pentecost4       
,although a few apologists advance the  
plea that there may have been           
differences in the manifestation1 it is 
generally recognized on both sides that1
 however differently described by the   
two writers1 the ------ of ,paul and of 
the ,acts is1 in reality1 one and the   
same phenomenon4 ,the impression        
conveyed by the narrative has been      
applied to the didactic remarks of      
,paul1 and a meaning forced upon them   
which they cannot possibly bear4 ,it is 
not too much to say that1 but for the   
mythical account in the ,acts1 no one   
would ever have supposed that the ------
 of ,paul was the gift of speaking      
foreign languages without previous study
 or practice4 ,in the interminable      

controversy regarding the phenomenon1   
moreover1 it seems to us to have been a 
#cfh  fundamental error1 on both sides  
too often1 to have considered it        
necessary to the acceptance of any      
explanation that it should equally suit 
both the remarks of ,paul and the       
account in ,acts47#a7 ,the only right   
course is to test the narrative by the  
distinct and authoritative statements of
 the ,apostle2 but to adopt the contrary
 course is much the same procedure as   
altering the natural interpretation of  
an original historical document in order
 to make it agree with the romance of   
some unknown writer of a later day4 ,the
 ,apostle ,paul writes as a contemporary
 and eye-witness of phenomena which     
affected himself1 and regarding which he
 gives the most valuable direct and     
indirect information4 ,the unknown      
author of the ,acts was not an          
eye-witness of the scene which he       
describes1 and his narrative bears upon 
its very surface the clearest marks of  

traditional and legendary treatment4    
,the ablest apologists freely declare   
that the evidence of ,paul is of        
infinitely greater value than that of   
the unknown and later writer1 and must  
be preferred before it4 ,the majority of
 those who profess to regard the        
narrative as historical explain away its
 clearest statements with startling     
ingenuity1 or conceal them beneath a    
cloud of words4 ,the references to the  
phenomenon in later portions of the     
,acts are in themselves quite           
inconsistent with the earlier narrative 
in ch4 ii4 ,the detailed criticism of   
,paul is the only contemporary1 and it  
is certainly the only trustworthy1      
account we possess regarding the gift of
 tongues47#b7 ,we must1 therefore1      
dismiss from our minds1 if possible1 the
 bias which the narrative in the ,acts  
has unfortunately  #cfi  created1 and   
attend solely to the words of the       
,apostle4 ,if his report of the         
phenomenon discredit that of the unknown

 and later writer1 so much the worse for
 the latter4 ,in any case it is the     
testimony of ,paul which is referred to 
and which we are called upon to         
consider1 and later writers must not be 
allowed to invest it with impossible    
meanings4 ,even if we had not such      
undeniable reasons for preferring the   
statements of ,paul to the later and    
untrustworthy narrative of an unknown   
writer1 the very contents of the latter1
 contrasted with the more sober remarks 
of the ,apostle1 would consign it to a  
very subordinate place4  ,discussing the
 miracle of ,pentecost in ,acts1 which  
he1 of course1 regards as the           
instantaneous communication of ability  
to speak in foreign languages1 ,zeller  
makes the following remarks3 ,the       
supposition of such a miracle is opposed
 to a right view of divine agency1 and  
of the relation of ,god to the world1   
and1 in this case in particular1 to a   
right view of the constitution of the   
human mind4 ,the composition and the    

properties of a body may be altered     
through external influence1 but mental  
acquirements are attained only through  
personal activity1 through practice2 and
 it is just in this that spirit         
distinguishes itself from matter3 that  
it is free1 that there is nothing in it 
which it has not itself spontaneously   
introduced4 ,the external and           
instantaneous in-pouring of a mental    
acquirement is a representation which   
refutes itself4 ,in reply to those who  
object to this reasoning he retorts3    
,the assertion that such a miracle      
actually occurred contradicts the       
analogy of all attested experience1 that
 it is invented by an individual or by  
tradition corresponds with it2 when1    
therefore1 the historical writer has    
only the choice between these two  #cgj 
alternatives1 he must according to the  
laws of historical probability1 under   
all the circumstances1 unconditionally  
decide for the second4 ,he must do this 
even if an eyewitness of the pretended  

miracle stood before him2 he must all   
the more do so if he has to do with a   
statement which1 beyond doubt not       
proceeding from an eye-witness1 is more 
possibly separated by some generations  
from the event in question47#a7  ,these 
objections are not confined to          
rationalistic critics and do not merely 
represent the arguments of scepticism4  
,neander expresses similar              
sentiments17#b7 and after careful       
examination pronounces the narrative in 
,acts untrustworthy1 and1 adhering to   
the representations of ,paul1 rejects   
the theory that ------ was speech in    
foreign languages supernaturally        
imparted4 ,meyer1 who arrives at much   
the same result as ,neander1 speaks     
still more emphatically4 ,he says3 ,this
 supposed gift of tongues 7all          
languages71 however1 was in the         
apostolic age1 partly unnecessary for   
the preaching of the ,gospel1 as the    
preachers thereof only required to be   
able to speak ,hebrew and ,greek2 partly

 too general1 as amongst the assembly   
there were certainly many who were not  
called to be teachers4 ,and1 on the     
other hand1 again1 it would also have   
been premature1 as1 before all1 ,paul   
the apostle of the ,gentiles would have 
required it1 in whom nevertheless there 
is as little trace of any subsequent    
reception of it as that he preached     
otherwise than in ,hebrew and ,greek4   
,but now1 how is the event to be        
historically judged8 ,regarding this the
 following is to be observed3 ,as the   
instantaneous bestowal of facility in a 
foreign language is neither logically   
possible nor psychologically  #cga  and 
morally conceivable1 and as not the     
slightest intimation of such a thing in 
the ,apostles is perceptible in their   
,epistles and elsewhere 7on the         
contrary1 comp4 xiv4 #aa72 as1 further1 
if it was only momentary1 the           
impossibility increases1 and as ,peter  
himself in his speech does not once make
 the slightest reference to the foreign 

languages3 therefore1--whether1 without 
any intimation in the text1 one consider
 that ,pentecost assembly as a          
representation of all future            
,christianity1 or not--the occurrence1  
as ,luke relates it1 cannot be          
transmitted in its actual historical    
circumstance47#a7  ,let us a little     
examine the particulars of the narrative
 in ,acts ii4 ,all the brethren were    
assembled in one place1 a house ------1 
on the morning of the day of ,pentecost4
 ,in the preceding chapter 7i4 #ae7 we  
learn that the number of disciples was  
then about #abj1 and the crowd which    
came together when the miraculous       
occurrence took place must have been    
great1 seeing that it is stated that    
#c1jjj souls were baptized and added to 
the ,church upon the occasion 7ii4 #da74
 ,passing over the statement as to the  
numbers of the disciples1 which might   
well surprise us after the information  
given by the ,gospels1#b we may ask in  
what house in ,jerusalem could such a   

multitude have assembled8 ,apologists   
have exhausted their ingenuity in       
replying to the question1 but whether   
placing the scene in one of the halls or
 courts of the ,temple1 or in an        
imaginary house in one of the streets   
leading to the ,temple1 the explanation 
is equally vague and unsatisfactory4    
,how did the multitude so rapidly know  
of what was passing in a private house8 
,we shall say nothing at present of the 
sound of the  #cgb  rushing mighty wind 
which filled all the house1 nor of the  
descent of the tongues as of fire1 nor  
of the various interpretations of these 
phenomena by apologetic writers4 ,these 
incidents do not add to the historical  
character of the narrative1 nor can it  
be pronounced either clear or           
consistent4 ,the brethren assembled were
 all filled with the ,holy ,spirit and  
began to speak with other tongues       
------1 as the ,spirit gave them        
utterance47#a7 ,apologists1 in order    
somewhat to save the historical credit  

of the account and reconcile it with the
 statements of ,paul1 have variously    
argued that there is no affirmation made
 in the narrative that speech in foreign
 languages previously unknown was       
imparted4 ,the members of the fifteen   
nations who hear the ,galilaeans        
speaking in our own language wherein we 
were born ------ are disposed of with   
painful ingenuity2 but1 passing over all
 this1 it is recognized by unprejudiced 
critics on both sides that at least the 
author of ,acts1 in writing this        
account1 intended to represent the      
brethren as instantaneously speaking    
those previously unknown foreign        
languages4 ,a few writers represent the 
miracle to have been one of hearing     
rather than of speaking1 the brethren   
merely praising ,god in their own       
tongue1 the ,aramaic1 but the spectators
 understanding in their various         
languages47#b7 ,this only shifts the    
difficulty from the speakers to the     
hearers1 and the explanation is         

generally repudiated4 ,it is1 however1  
freely granted by all that history does 
not exhibit a single instance of such a 
gift of tongues having ever been made   
useful for the purpose of  #cgc         
preaching the gospel47#a7 ,paul1 who    
claimed the possession of the gift of   
tongues in a superlative degree 7#a     
,cor4 xiv4 #ah71 does not appear to have
 spoken more languages than ,aramaic and
 ,greek4 ,he writes to the ,romans in   
the latter tongue and not in ,latin1 and
 to the ,galatians in the same language 
instead of their own4 ,peter1 who       
appears to have addressed the assembled 
nations in ,greek on this very occasion1
 does not in his speech either refer to 
foreign languages or claim the gift     
himself1 for in v4 #ae he speaks only of
 others3 ,for these ------ are not      
drunken4 ,every one remembers the       
ancient tradition recorded by ,papias1  
and generally believed by the ,fathers1 
that ,mark accompanied ,peter as his    
interpreter ------47#b7 ,the first      

,epistle bearing the name of ,peter1 and
 addressed to some of the very nations  
mentioned in ,acts1 to sojourners in    
,pontus1 ,galatia1 ,cappadocia1 ,asia1  
and ,bithynia1 is written in ,greek2 and
 so is the ,epistle to the ,hebrews and 
the other works of the ,new ,testament4 
,few will be inclined to deny that1 to  
take only one language for instance1 the
 ,greek of the writings of the ,new     
,testament leaves something to be       
desired1 and that1 if the writers       
possessed such a supernatural gift1 they
 evidently did not speak even so        
important and current a language with   
absolute purity4 ,le style des ecrivains
 sacred1 writes a modern  #cgd          
apologist1 montre clairement qu'ils ont 
appris la langue grecque et qu'ils ne la
 possedent pas de droit divin et par    
inspiration1 car ils l'ecrivent sans    
correction1 en la surchargeant de       
locutions hebraiques47#a7 ,in fact1 as  
most critics point out1 there never was 
a period at which a gift of foreign     

tongues was less necessary for          
intercourse with the civilized world1   
,greek being almost everywhere current4 
,as regards the fifteen nations who are 
supposed to have been represented on    
this great occasion1 ,neander says3 ,it 
is certain that amongst the inhabitants 
of towns in ,cappadocia1 in ,pontus1 in 
,asia ,minor1 ,phrygia1 ,pamphylia1     
,cyrene1 and in the parts of ,libya and 
,egypt peopled by ,greek and ,jewish    
colonies1 the ,greek language was in    
great part more current than the old    
national tongue4 ,there remain1 out of  
the whole catalogue of languages1 at    
most the ,persian1 ,syriac1 ,arabic1    
,greek1 and ,latin4 ,the more rhetorical
 than historical stamp of the narrative 
is evident47#b7  ,this rhetorical       
character1 as contradistinguished from  
sober history1 is indeed painfully      
apparent throughout4 ,the presence in   
,jerusalem of ,jews1 devout men from    
every nation under heaven is            
dramatically opportune1 and thus        

representatives of the fifteen nations  
are prepared to appear in the house and 
hear their own languages in which they  
were born spoken in so supernatural1    
though useless1 a manner by the         
brethren4 ,they are all said to have    
been confounded at the phenomenon1 and  
the writer adds1 ii4 #g;f3 ,and they    
were all amazed and marvelled1 saying1  
,behold1 are not all these which speak  
,galilaeans8 ,and how hear we every man 
in our own  #cge  language wherein we   
were born8 c4 ,did all the multitude say
 this8 ,or is not this the writer       
ascribing1 according to his view1       
probable sentiments to them8 ,how again 
did they know that the hundred and      
twenty or more brethren were ,galilaean8
 ,further on1 the writer adds more of   
the same kind1 v4 #ab1 #ac3 ,and they   
were all amazed and were in doubt1      
saying one to another3 ,what may this   
mean8 ,but others mocking said1 ,they   
are full of sweet wine4 ,is it not a    
strange manner of accounting for such a 

phenomenon as 7v4 #aa7 hearing people   
speaking in their own tongues the great 
works of ,god to suppose that they are  
drunken8 ,people speaking with tongues1 
in ,paul's sense 7#a ,cor4 xiv4 #bc1    
#bd1 #cc71 and creating an              
unintelligible tumult1 might well lead  
strangers to say that they were either  
mad or drunken1 but the praise of ,god  
in foreign language1 understood by so   
many1 could not convey such an          
impression4 ,peter does not1 in         
explanation1 simply state that they are 
speaking foreign languages which have   
just been supernaturally imparted to    
them1 but argues 7v4 #ae7 that these are
 not drunken1 as ye suppose1 for it is  
the third hour of the day1--too early to
 be full of sweet wine1 and proceeds to 
assert that the phenomenon is1 on the   
contrary1 a fulfilment of a prophecy of 
,joel in which1 although the pouring out
 of ,god's ,spirit upon all flesh is    
promised in the last days1 and as a     
result that3 your sons and your         

daughters shall prophesy and your young 
men shall see visions and your old men  
shall dream dreams1 not a single word is
 said of any gift of tongues1 foreign or
 otherwise4 ,the miraculous phenomenon  
in question is not mentioned in the     
prophecy of which it is supposed to be  
the accomplishment4 ,it does not much   
help matters to argue that the miracle1 
although not for future use1 was        
intended as a  #cgf  sign4 ,we shall see
 what ,paul says regarding ------ as a  
sign1 but we may here merely point out  
that the effect produced in the         
,corinthian ,church is rather an        
impression of madness1 whilst here it   
leads to a mocking accusation of        
drunkenness4 ,the conversion of the     
#c1jjj is by no means referred to the   
speaking with tongues1 but simply to the
 speech of ,peter 7ii4 #cg,l #da74 ,from
 every point of view1 there is no       
cohesion between the different parts of 
the narrative2 it is devoid of          
verisimilitude4 ,it is not surprising   

that so many critics of all shades of   
opinion recognize unhistorical elements 
in the narrative in ,acts17#a7 not to   
use a stronger term4 ,to allow such an  
account to influence our interpretation 
of ,paul's statements regarding the gift
 of tongues is quite out of the         
question2 and no one who appreciates the
 nature of the case and who carefully   
examines the narrative of the unknown   
writer can1 we think1 hesitate to reject
 his theory of a supernatural bestowal  
of power to speak foreign languages1    
before unknown4  ,it is not difficult to
 trace the origin of the account in     
,acts and1 although we cannot here pause
 to do so with any minuteness1 we may at
 least indicate the lines upon which the
 narrative is based4 ,there is no doubt 
that then1 as now1 the ,jews            
commemorated at the feast of ,pentecost 
the giving of the law on ,sinai47#b7 ,it
 seemed  #cgg  good to the author of    
,acts that the prophet like unto        
,moses17#a7 who was to abrogate that law

 and replace it by a dispensation of    
grace1 should inaugurate the new law of 
love and liberty7#b7 with signs equally 
significant and miraculous4 ,it is      
related in ,exodus xix4 #ah that the    
,lord descended upon ,sinai in fire1 and
 that the whole mount quaked greatly4   
,the voice of ,god pronounced the       
decalogue and1 as the ,septuagint       
version renders our ,ex4 xx4 #ah3 ,all  
the people saw the voice1 and the       
lightnings and the voice of the trumpet 
and the mountain smoking47#c7 ,according
 to ,rabbinical tradition1 however1 when
 ,god came down to give the law to the  
,israelites1 he appeared not to ,israel 
alone1 but to all the other nations1 and
 the voice in which the law was given   
went to the ends of the earth and was   
heard of ail peoples47#d7 ,it will be   
remembered that the number of the       
nations was supposed to be seventy1 each
 speaking a different language1 and the 
law was given in the one sacred ,hebrew 
tongue4 ,the ,rabbins explained1        

however3 ,the voice from ,sinai was     
divided into #gj voices and #gj         
languages1 so that all nations of the   
earth heard 7the law71 and each heard it
 actually in its own language47#e7 ,and 
again3 ,although the ten commandments   
were promulgated with one single tone1  
yet it is said 7,exod4 xx4 #ae71 ',all  
people heard the voices' 7in the plural 
and not the voice in the singular72 the 
reason is3 ,as the voice went forth it  
was divided into seven voices1  #cgh    
and then into seventy tongues1 and every
 people heard the ,law in its own       
mother-tongue47#a7 ,the same explanation
 is given of ,ps4 lxviii4 #aa1 and the  
separation of the voice into seven      
voices and seventy tongues is likened to
 the sparks beaten by a hammer from     
molten metal on the anvil47#b7 ,philo   
expresses the same ideas in several     
places4 ,we can only extract one passage
 in which1 speaking of the giving of the
 law on ,sinai1 and discussing the      
manner in which ,god proclaimed the     

decalogue1 he says3 ,for ,god is not    
like a man in need of a voice and of a  
tongue444 but it seems to me that at    
that time he performed a most holy and  
beseeming wonder1 commanding an         
invisible voice to be created in air1   
more wonderful than all instruments14444
 not lifeless1 but neither a form of    
living creature composed of body and    
soul1 but a reasonable soul full of     
clearness and distinctness1 which formed
 and excited the air and transformed it 
into flaming fire1 and sounded forth    
such an articulated voice1 like breath  
through a trumpet1 that it seemed to be 
equally heard by those who were near and
 those furthest off47#c7 ,a little      
further on he says3 ,but from the midst 
of the fire streaming from heaven1 a    
most awful voice sounded forth1 the     
flame being articulated to language     
familiar to the hearers1 which made that
 which was said so vividly clear1 as to 
seem rather seeing than  #cgi  hearing  
it47#a7 ,it requires no elaborate       

explanation to show how this grew into  
the miracle at ,pentecost at the        
inauguration of the ,christian          
dispensation1 when suddenly there came a
 sound from heaven as of a rushing      
mighty wind which filled all the house  
where the disciples were1 and there     
appeared to them tongues as of fire     
parting asunder which sat upon each of  
them1 and they were all filled with the 
,holy ,spirit and began to speak with   
other tongues1 even as the ,spirit gave 
them utterance1 so that devout men from 
every nation under heaven heard them    
speaking1 everyone in his own language  
wherein he was born1 the great works of 
,god47#b7  ,when we turn to the other   
passages in the ,acts where the gift of 
tongues is mentioned1 we find that the  
interpretation of foreign languages     
supernaturally imparted is quite out of 
place4 ,when ,peter is sent to          
,cornelius1 as he is addressing the     
centurion and his household1 and even   
before they are baptized 7x4 #dd71 the  

,holy ,spirit fell on all them who hear 
the word2 and the sign of it is 7v4 #df7
 that they are heard speaking with      
tongues and magnifying ,god ------1     
precisely like the disciples at         
,pentecost 7cf ii4 #aa1 xi4 #ae;f474    
,now as this gift fell on all who heard 
the word 7x4 #dd71 it could not be a    
sign to unbelievers2 and the idea that  
,cornelius and his house immediately    
began to speak in foreign languages1    
which1 as in the case  #chj  of the     
,corinthians1 probably no one           
understood1 instead of simply magnifying
 ,god in their own tongue1 which        
everyone understood1 is almost          
ludicrous1 if without offence we may    
venture to say so4 ,the same remarks    
apply to xix4 #f4 ,we must again allow  
an eminent apologist1 who will not be   
accused of irreverence1 to characterise 
such a representation4 ,now in such     
positions and such company1 speech in   
foreign tongues would be something      
altogether without object and without   

meaning4 ,where the consciousness of the
 grace of salvation1 and of a heavenly  
life springing from it1 is first aroused
 in man1 his own mother tongue verily1  
not a foreign language1 will be the     
natural expression of his feelings4 ,or 
we must imagine a magical power which1  
taking possession of men1 like          
instruments without volition1 forces    
them to utter strange tones--a thing    
contradicting all analogy in the        
operations of ,christianity47#a7 ,the   
good sense of the critic revolts against
 the natural submission of the          
apologist4  ,we have diverged so far in 
order prominently to bring before the   
reader the nature and source of the     
hypothesis that the gift of tongues     
signifies instantaneous power to speak  
unlearnt foreign languages4 ,such an    
interpretation is derived almost        
entirely from the mythical narrative in 
the ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,we shall   
now proceed to consider the statements  
of the ,apostle ,paul1 and endeavour to 

ascertain what the supposed miraculous  
,charisma really is4 ,that it is        
something very different from what the  
unknown writer represents it in the     
episode of ,pentecost cannot be doubted4
 ,whoever has1 even once1 read with     
attention what ,paul writes of the      
speaking with tongues in the ,corinthian
 community1 writes ,thiersch1 knows that
 the difference between that gift of    
tongues  #cha  and this 7of ,acts ii47  
could scarcely be greater4 ,there1 a    
speech which no mortal can understand   
without interpretation1 and also no     
philologist1 but the ,holy ,spirit alone
 can interpret2 here1 a speech which    
requires no interpretation4 ,that gift  
serves only for the edification of the  
speaker1 this clearly also for that of  
the hearer4 ,the one is of no avail for 
the instruction of the ignorant2 the    
other1 clearly1 is imparted wholly for  
that purpose47#a7  ,it may be well that 
we should state a few reasons which show
 that ,paul1 in his first letter to the 

,corinthians1 does not intend1 in       
speaking of ------1 to represent speech 
in foreign languages4 ,in the very      
outset of his dissertation on the       
subject 7xiv4 #b71 ,paul very distinctly
 declares as the principal reason for   
preferring prophecy to the gift of      
tongues3 ,for he that speaketh with a   
tongue ------ speaketh not unto men but 
unto ,god3 for no one understandeth7#b7 
------4 ,how could this be said if      
------ meant merely speaking a foreign  
language8 ,the presence of a single     
person versed in the language spoken    
would in such a case vitiate the whole  
of ,paul's argument4 ,the statement made
 is general1 it will be observed1 and   
not limited1 to one community1 but      
applied to a place like ,corinth1 one of
 the greatest commercial cities1 in     
which merchants1 seamen1 and visitors of
 all countries were to be found1 it     
would have been unreasonable to have    
characterized a foreign tongue as       
absolutely unintelligible4 ,in xiv4 #i1 

,paul says3 ,so likewise ye1 unless ye  
utter by the tongue ------ words  #chb  
easy to be understood1 how shall it be  
known what is spoken8 for ye will be    
speaking into air4 ,how could ,paul use 
the expression by the tongue if he meant
 a foreign language in v4 #b and        
elsewhere8 ,he is comparing ------ in   
the preceding verses with the sounds of 
musical instruments1 and the point      
reached in v4 #i clearly brings home the
 application of his argument3 the ------
 is unintelligible1 like the pipe or    
harp1 and unless the tongue utter words 
which have an understood meaning1 it is 
mere speaking into air4 ,is it possible 
that ,paul would call speech in a       
language1 foreign to him1 perhaps1 but  
which nevertheless was the mother tongue
 of some nation1 speaking into air8 ,in 
such a case1 he must have qualified his 
statement by obvious explanations1 of   
which not a word appears throughout his 
remarks4 ,that he does not speak of     
foreign languages is made still more    

clear by the next two verses1 v4 #aj3 in
 which1 continuing his argument from    
analogy1 he actually compares ------    
with speech in foreign languages1 and   
ends1 v4 #aa3 ,if1 therefore1 ,i know   
not the meaning of the voice1 ,i shall  
be unto him that speaketh a barbarian   
7foreigner7 and he that speaketh a      
barbarian 7foreigner7 in my judgment4'  
,paul's logic is certainly not always   
beyond reproach1 but he cannot be       
accused of perpetrating such an         
antithesis as contrasting a thing with  
itself4 ,he1 therefore1 explicitly      
distinguishes 7v4 #aj7 ------ kinds of  
languages7#b7 from 7xii4 #aj1 #bh1 c47  
------ kinds of tongues4 ,in xiv4 #f1   
,paul says3 ,if ,i come unto you        
speaking with tongues ------ what shall 
,i profit you1 unless ,i shall  #chc    
speak to you either in revelation1 or in
 knowledge1 or in prophecy1 or in       
teaching8 ------2 and then he goes on to
 compare such unintelligible speech with
 musical instruments4 ,now it is obvious

 that revelation1 knowledge1 prophecy   
and teaching might equally be expressed 
in foreign languages1 and1 therefore1 in
 speaking with tongues it is no mere    
difficulty of expression which makes it 
unprofitable1 but that general          
unintelligibility which is the ground of
 the whole of ,paul's objections4 ,paul 
exclaims 7v4 #ah73 ,i thank ,god ,i     
speak with a tongue ------7#a7 more than
 ye all1 7#ai7 but in a church ,i would 
rather speak five words with my         
understanding1 that ,i may teach others 
also1 than ten thousand words in a      
tongue ------47#b7 ,we have already     
pointed out that there is no evidence   
whatever that ,paul could speak many    
languages4 ,so far as we have any       
information1 he only made use of ,greek 
and ,aramaic1 and never even preached   
where those languages were not current4 
,he always employed the former in his   
,epistles1 whether addressed to         
,corinth1 ,galatia1 or ,rome1 and his   
knowledge even of that language was     

certainly not perfect4 ,speaking with a 
tongue cannot1 for reasons previously   
given1 mean a foreign language2 and this
 is still more obvious from what he says
 in v4 #ai1 just quoted1 in which he    
distinguishes speaking with a tongue    
from speaking with his understanding4   
,five words so spoken are better than   
ten thousand in a tongue1 because he    
speaks  #chd  with the understanding in 
the one case and without it in the      
second4 ,it is clear that a man speaks  
with his understanding as much in one   
language as another1 but it is the main 
characteristic of the speech we are     
discussing that it is throughout opposed
 to understanding3 cf4 vv4 #ad1 #ae4 ,it
 would be inconceivable that1 if this   
gift really signified power to speak    
foreign languages1 ,paul could on the   
one hand use the expressions in this    
letter with regard to it1 and on the    
other that he could have failed to add  
remarks consistent with such an         
interpretation4 ,for instance is it     

possible that the ,apostle in repressing
 the exercise of the ,charisma1 as he   
does1 could have neglected to point out 
some other use for it than mere personal
 edification8 ,could he have omitted to 
tell some of these speakers with tongues
 that1 instead of wasting their         
languages in a church where no one      
understood them1 it would be well for   
them to employ them in the instruction  
of the nations whose tongues had been   
supernaturally imparted to them8 ,as it 
is1 ,paul checks the use of a gift      
bestowed by the ,holy ,spirit1 and      
reduces its operation to the smallest   
limits1 without once indicating so      
obvious a sphere of usefulness for the  
miraculous power4 ,we need not1 however1
 proceed to further arguments upon this 
branch of the subject2 although1 in     
treating other points1 additional       
evidence will constantly present itself4
 ,for the reasons we have stated1 and   
many others1 the great majority of      
critics are agreed that the gift of     

tongues1 according to ,paul1 was not the
 power of speaking foreign languages    
previously unknown47#a7 ,but for the    
narrative in ,acts ii4 no one would ever
 have thought of such an interpretation4
  #che  ,coming now to consider the two 
,charismata1 kinds of tongues and the   
interpretation of tongues1 more         
immediately in connection with our      
inquiry1 as so-called miraculous gifts  
of the ,holy ,spirit1 we shall first    
endeavour to ascertain some of their    
principal characteristics4 ,the theory  
of foreign languages supernaturally     
imparted without previous study may be  
definitively laid aside4 ,the           
interpretation of tongues may go with   
it1 but requires a few observations4 ,it
 is clear from ,paul's words throughout 
this dissertation that the              
interpretation of tongues not only was  
not invariably attached to the gift of  
tongues7#a7 7#a ,cor4 xiv4 #ac1 #bg1    
#bh71 but was at least often a separate 
gift possessed without the kinds of     

tongues 7cf4 xii4 #aj1 #bh1 xiv4 #bf1   
#bh74 ,nothing can be more specific than
 xii4 #aj444 to another kinds of        
tongues2 and to another interpretation  
of tongues2 and again1 v4 #cj3 do all   
speak with tongues8 do all interpret8   
,this is indeed presaged by the         
diversities of gifts1 c1 of xii4 #d ff4 
,upon the hypothesis of foreign         
languages1 this would presuppose that   
some spoke languages which they could   
not interpret1 and consequently could   
not understand1 and that others         
understood languages which they could   
not speak4 ,the latter point is common  
enough in ordinary life2 but1 in this   
instance1 the miracle of supernaturally 
receiving a perfect knowledge of  #chf  
languages1 instantaneously and without  
previous study1 is as great as to       
receive the power to speak them4 ,the   
anomaly in the miracle1 merely to point 
out a suggestive discrepancy where all  
is anomalous1 is that the gift of       
tongues should ever have been separated 

from the gift of interpretation4 ,if a  
man understand the foreign language he  
speaks he can interpret it2 if he cannot
 interpret it1 he cannot understand it2 
and if he cannot understand it1 can he  
possibly speak it8 ,certainly not1      
without his having been made a perfectly
 mechanical instrument through which1   
apart from the understanding and the    
will1 sounds are involuntarily produced1
 which is not to be entertained4 ,still 
pursuing the same hypothesis1--the one  
gift is to speak languages which no one 
understands1 the other to understand    
languages which no one speaks4 ,paul    
never even assumes the probability that 
the tongue spoken is understood by any  
one except the interpreter4 ,the        
interpretation of such obscure tongues  
must have been a gift very little       
used1--never1 indeed1 except as the     
complement to the gift of tongues4 ,the 
natural and useful facility in languages
 is apparently divided into two         
supernatural and useless halves4 ,the   

idea is irresistibly suggested1 as      
apparently it was to the ,apostle       
himself1 whether it would not have been 
more for the good of mankind and for the
 honour of ,christianity1 if1 instead of
 these two miraculously incomplete      
gifts1 a little natural good sense1 five
 words even1 to be spoken in the        
vernacular tongue and requiring no      
interpretation had been imparted4 ,if1  
instead of foreign languages1 we        
substitute the utterance of ecstatic    
religious excitement1 the anomaly of    
speaking a language without             
understanding it or being understood    
becomes intelligible2 and equally so the
 interpretation1  #chg  unaccompanied by
 the power of speaking4 ,it is obvious  
in both cases that1 as no one           
understands the tongue1 no one can      
determine whether the interpretation of 
it be accurate or not4 ,but it is easily
 conceivable that a sympathetic nervous 
listener might suppose that he          
understood the broken and incoherent    

speech of ecstasy and might interpret it
 according to his own stimulated        
imagination4 ,the mysterious and unknown
 are suggestive texts1 and there is     
nothing more infectious than religious  
excitement4 ,in all this1 however1 is   
there anything miraculous8  ,we need not
 further demonstrate that the chief and 
general characteristic of kinds of      
tongues was that they were              
unintelligible 7cf4 #a ,cor4 xiv4 #b1   
#f-aa1 #ac-ai74 ,speaking with the      
spirit ------ is opposed to speaking    
with the understanding ------ 7cf4 vv4  
#ad-af1 c74 ,they were not only         
unintelligible to others1 but the       
speaker himself did not understand what 
he uttered3 v4 #ad4 ,for if ,i pray with
 a tongue ------ my spirit ------       
prayeth1 but my understanding ------ is 
unfruitful 7cf4 #ae f4 #ai74 ,we have   
already pointed out that ,paul speaks of
 these ,charismata in general1 and not  
as affecting the ,corinthians only2 and 
we must now add that he obviously does  

not even insinuate that the kinds of    
tongues possessed by that community was 
a spurious ,charisma1 or that any       
attempt had been made to simulate the   
gift2 for nothing could have been more  
simple than for the ,apostle to denounce
 such phenomena as false1 and to        
distinguish the genuine from the        
imitated speech with tongues4 ,the most 
convincing proof that his remarks refer 
to the genuine ,charisma is that the    
,apostle applies to himself the very    
same restrictions in the use of tongues 
as he enforces upon the ,corinthians    
#chh  7vv4 #ah-ai1 #f1 c71 and          
characterises his own gift precisely as 
he does theirs 7vv4 #f1 #aa1 #ad1 #ae1  
#ai74  ,now what was the actual         
operation of this singular miraculous   
gift1 and its utility whether as regards
 the community or the gifted individual8
 ,paul restricts the speaking of tongues
 in church because1 being               
unintelligible1 it is not for           
edification 7xiv4 #b ff4 #ah f4 #bc1    

#bg1 #bh74 ,he himself does not make use
 of his gift for the assemblies of      
believers 7vv4 #f1 #ah74 ,another ground
 upon which he objects to the use of    
kinds of tongues in public is that all  
the gifted apparently speak at once 7vv4
 #bc1 #bg f4 #cc74 ,it will be          
remembered that all the ,charismata and 
their operations are described as due to
 the direct agency of the ,holy ,spirit 
7xii4 #d ff472 and immediately following
 their enumeration1 ending with kinds of
 tongues and interpretation of tongues1 
the ,apostle resumes3 v4 #aa4 but all   
these worketh the one and the same      
,spirit1 dividing to each severally as  
he wills2 and in ,acts ii4 #d the       
brethren are represented as speaking    
with tongues as the ,spirit gave them   
utterance4 ,now the first thought which 
presents itself is3 ,how can a gift     
which is due to the direct working of   
the ,holy ,spirit possibly be abused8   
,we must remember clearly that the      
speech is not expressive of the         

understanding of the speaker4 ,the      
------ spoke under the inspiration of   
the supernatural ,agent1 what neither   
they nor others understood4 ,is it      
permissible to suppose that the ,holy   
,spirit could inspire speech with       
tongues at an unfitting time8 ,can we   
imagine that this ,spirit can actually  
have prompted many people to speak at   
one and the same time to the utter      
disturbance of order8 ,is not such a    
gift of tongues more like the confusion 
of tongues in ,babel7#a7  #chi  than a  
christian ,charisma8 ,and the ,lord     
said3444,go to1 let us go down and there
 confound their language1 that they may 
not understand one another's speech47#a7
 ,in spite of his abstract belief in the
 divine origin of the ,charisma1 ,paul's
 language unconsciously betrays         
practical doubt as to its character4    
,does not such sarcasm as the following 
seem extremely indecorous when          
criticising a result produced directly  
by the ,holy ,spirit8 7xiv4 #bc7 ,if1   

therefore1 the whole church be come into
 one place and all speak with tongues1  
and there come in unlearned and         
unbelieving persons will they not say   
that ye are mad8 ,at ,pentecost such an 
assembly was supposed to be drunken47#b7
 ,the whole of the counsel of the       
,apostle upon this occasion really      
amounts to an injunction to quench the  
,spirit4 ,it is quite what might be     
expected in the case of the excitement  
of ecstatic religion1 that the strong   
emotion should principally find vent in 
the form of prayer and praise 7vv4 #ae  
ff471 equally so that it should be      
unintelligible and that no one should   
know when to say ,amen 7v4 #af71 and    
that all should speak at once1 and still
 more so that the practical result      
should be tumult 7vv4 #bc1 #cc74 ,all   
this1 it might appear1 could be produced
 without the intervention of the ,holy  
,spirit4 ,so far1 is there and utility  
in the miracle8  ,but we are told that  
it is for a sign4 ,paul argues upon this

 point in a highly eccentric manner4 ,he
 quotes 7v4 #ba7 ,isaiah xxviii4 #aa1   
#ab1 in a form neither agreeing with the
 ,septuagint nor with the ,hebrew1 a    
passage which has merely a superficial  
and verbal analogy with the gift of     
tongues1 but whose real  #cij           
historical meaning has no reference to  
it whatever3 ,in the ,law it is written1
 that with men of other tongues and with
 the lips of others will ,i speak unto  
this people2 and yet for all that they  
will not hear me1 saith the ,lord4 ,the 
,apostle continues with singular logic3 
,so that ------ the tongues are for a   
sign ------ not to those who believe but
 to the unbelieving2 but prophecy is not
 for the unbelieving but for those who  
believe4 ,if1 therefore1 the whole      
church be come into one place1 and all  
speak with tongues1 and there come in   
unlearned or unbelieving persons1 will  
they not say that ye are mad8 ,but if   
all prophesy and there come in an       
unbeliever444 he is convicted by all444 

and so falling on his face he will      
worship ,god1 reporting that ,god is    
indeed in you4 ,the ,apostle himself    
shows that the tongues cannot be        
considered a sign by unbelievers1 upon  
whom1 apparently1 they produce no other 
impression than that the speakers are   
mad or drunken4 ,under any              
circumstances1 the kinds of tongues     
described by the ,apostle are a very    
sorry specimen of the signs and wonders 
and powers of which we have heard so    
much4 ,it is not surprising that the    
,apostle prefers exhortation in a       
familiar tongue4 ,in an ecstatic state1 
men are incapable of edifying others3 we
 shall presently see how far they can   
edify themselves4 ,paul utters the pith 
of the whole matter at the very outset  
of his homily1 when he prefers          
exhortation to kinds of tongues3 v4 #b4 
,for he that speaketh with a tongue     
speaketh not unto men but unto ,god3 for
 no one under-standeth1 but in ,spirit  
he speaketh mysteries ------4 ,it is not

 possible to read his words without the 
impression that the ,apostle treats the 
whole subject with suppressed           
impatience4 ,his mind was too prone to  
believe in spiritual mysteries1 and his 
nervous  #cia  nature too susceptible to
 religious emotion and enthusiasm to    
permit him clearly to recognize the true
 character of the gift of tongues2 but  
his good sense asserted itself and1     
after protesting that he would rather   
speak five words with his understanding 
than ten thousand words in a tongue1 he 
breaks off with the characteristic      
exclamation 7v4 #bj73 ,brethren1 become 
not children in your minds ------4 ,the 
advice is not yet out of place4  ,what  
was the private utility or advantage of 
the supernatural gift8 ,how did he who  
spoke with a tongue edify himself8 7v4  
#d47 ,paul clearly states that he does  
not edify the church 7vv4 #b ff474 ,in  
the passage just quoted the ,apostle1   
however1 says that the speaker with a   
tongue speaketh to ,god2 and further on 

7vv4 #ah1 #ai7 he implies that1 although
 he himself does not use the gift in    
public1 he does so in private4 ,he      
admonishes 7v4 #bh7 any one gifted with 
tongues1 if there be no interpreter     
present1 to keep silence in a church1   
but let him speak to himself and to     
,god4 ,but in what does the personal    
edification of the individual consist8  
,in employing language1 which he does   
not comprehend1 in private prayer and   
praise8 ,in addressing ,god in some     
unintelligible jargon1 in the utterance 
of which his understanding has no part8 
,many strange purposes and proceedings  
have been attributed to the ,supreme    
,being1 but probably none has been      
imagined more incongruous than a gift of
 tongues unsuitable for the edification 
of others1 and not intelligible to the  
recipient1 but considered an edifying   
substitute in private devotion for his  
own language4 ,this was certainly not   
the form of prayer which ,jesus taught  
his disciples47#a7 ,and this gift was   

valued  #cib  more highly in the        
,corinthian ,church than all the rest6  
,do we not get an instructive insight   
into the nature of the other ,charismata
 from this suggestive fact8 ,the reality
 of miracles does not seem to be        
demonstrated by these chapters47#a7  ,we
 have already stated that the vast      
majority of critics explain ------ as   
speech in an ecstatic condition27#b7 and
 all the phenomena described by ,paul   
closely correspond with the utterance of
 persons in a state of extreme religious
 enthusiasm1 and excitement1 of which   
many illustrations might be given from  
other religions before and since the    
commencement of our era1 as well as in  
the history of ,christianity in early   
and recent times4 ,every one knows of   
the proceedings of the heathen oracles1 
the wild writhings and cries of the     
,pythoness and the mystic utterances of 
the ,sibyl4 ,in the ,old ,testament     
there is allusion to the ecstatic       
emotion of the prophets in the account  

of ,saul1 #a ,sara4 xix4 #bd2 cf4       
,isaiah viii4 #ai1 xxix4 #d4 ,the       
,montanists exhibited similar phenomena1
 and ,tertullian has recorded several   
instances of such religious excitement1 
to which we have elsewhere referred4    
,chrysostora had to repress paroxysms of
 pious excitement closely resembling    
these in the fourth century27#c7 and    
even down to our own times instances    
have never been wanting of this form of 
hysterical religion4 ,into none of this 
can we enter here4 ,enough1 we trust1   
has been said to show the true character
 of the supposed supernatural           
,charismata of ,paul from his own       
account of them1 and the information    
contained in his epistles4  #cic        
,although we have been forced to examine
 in considerable detail the passages in 
the writings of ,paul cited by          
apologists in support of miracles1 the  
study is one of great value to our      
inquiry4 ,these are the only passages   
which we possess in which a contemporary

 and eye-witness describes what he      
considers supernatural phenomena1 and   
conveys to us his impression of         
miraculous agency4 ,instead of          
traditional reports of miracles narrated
 by writers who are unknown1 and who did
 not witness the occurrences in         
question1 we have here a trustworthy    
witness dealing with matters in which he
 was personally interested1 and writing 
a didactic homily upon the nature and   
operation of ,charismata1 which he      
believed to be miraculous and conferred 
upon the ,church by the immediate agency
 of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,the nineteenth  
century here comes into direct contact  
with the age of miracles1 but at the    
touch the miracles vanish1 and that     
which1 seen through the golden mist of  
pious tradition1 seems to possess       
unearthly power and beauty1 on closer   
examination dwindles into the prose of  
every day life4 ,the more minutely      
reported miracles are scanned1 the more 
unreal they are recognized to be4 ,the  

point to which we now desire to call    
attention1 however1 is the belief and   
the mental constitution of ,paul4 ,we   
have seen something of the nature and   
operation of the gift of tongues4 ,that 
the phenomena described proceeded from  
an ecstatic state1 into which persons of
 highly excitable nervous organization  
are very liable to fall under the       
operation of strong religious           
impressions1 can scarcely be doubted4   
,eminent apologists7#a7 have gravely    
illustrated the phenomena by the analogy
 of mesmerism1  #cid  somnambulism and  
the effects of magnetism4 ,paul asserts 
that he was subject to the influence1   
whatever it was1 more than anyone1 and  
there is nothing which is more credible 
than the statement1 or more             
characteristic of the ,apostle4 ,we     
desire to speak of him with the         
profoundest respect and admiration4 ,we 
know more1 from his epistles1 of the    
intimate life and feelings of the great 
,apostle of the ,gentiles than of any   

other man of the apostolic age1 and it  
is impossible not to feel warm sympathy 
with his noble and generous character4  
,the history of ,christianity1 after the
 death of its ,founder1 would sink      
almost into common-place if the grand   
figure of ,paul were blotted from its   
pages4 ,but it is no detraction to      
recognize that his nervous temperament  
rendered him peculiarly susceptible of  
those religious impressions which result
 in conditions of ecstatic trance1 to   
which1 as we actually learn from        
himself1 he was exceptionally subject4  
,the effects of this temperament        
probably first made him a ,christian2   
and to his enthusiastic imagination we  
owe most of the supernatural dogmas of  
the religion which he adopted and       
transformed4  ,one of these trances the 
,apostle himself recounts17#a7 always   
with the cautious reserve3 whether in   
the body or out of the body ,i know not1
 ,god knoweth1 how he was caught up to  
the third heaven1 and in ,paradise heard

 unutterable words which it is not      
lawful for a man to speak2 in immediate 
connection with which he continues3 ,and
 lest ,i should be exalted above measure
 by the excess of the revelations1 there
 was given to me a stake ------ in the  
flesh1 an angel of ,satan to buffet     
me7#b7 ,this was one of  #cje  the      
visions ------ and revelations ------ of
 the ,lord of which he speaks1 and of   
which he had such an excess to boast4   
,can any one doubt that this was nearly 
akin to the state of ecstatic trance in 
which he spoke with tongues more than   
all the ,corinthians8 ,does any one     
suppose that ,paul1 whether in the body 
or out of the body1 was ever actually   
caught up into the third heaven1        
wherever that may be8 or doubt that this
 was simply one of the pious            
hallucinations which visit those who are
 in such a state8 ,if we are seriously  
to discuss the point1--it is clear that 
evidence of such a thing is out of the  
question2 that ,paul himself admits that

 he cannot definitely describe what     
happened2 that we have no other ground  
for considering the matter than the     
,apostle's own mysterious utterance2    
that it is impossible for a person      
subject to such visions and             
hallucinations to distinguish between   
reality and seeming2 that this narrative
 has not only all the character of      
hallucination1 but no feature of sober  
fact2 and finally that1 whilst it       
accords with all experiences of         
visionary hallucination1 it contradicts 
all experience of practical life4 ,we   
have seen that ,paul believes in the    
genuineness and supernatural origin of  
the divine ,charismata1 and he in like  
manner believes in the reality of his   
visions and revelations4 ,he has equal  
reason1 or want of reason1 in both      
cases4  ,what1 however1 was the nature  
of the stake in the flesh which1 upon   
the theory of the diabolical origin of  
disease1 he calls an angel of ,satan to 
buffet me8 ,there have been many        

conjectures offered1 but one explanation
 which has been advanced by able critics
 has special force and probability4 ,it 
is suggested that this stake in the     
flesh1 which almost all now at  #cif    
least recognise to have been some       
physical malady1 and very many suppose  
to have been headache or some other     
similar periodical and painful          
affection1 was in reality a form of     
epilepsy47#a7 ,it has been ably argued  
that the representation of the malady as
 an angel of ,satan to buffet him1      
directly connects it with nervous       
disorders like epilepsy1 which the ,jews
 especially ascribed to diabolical      
influence2 and the mention of this      
------ in immediate continuation of his 
remarks on visions and revelations1     
which a tendency to this very malady    
would so materially assist in producing1
 further confirms the conjecture47#b7   
,no one can deny1 and medical and       
psychological annals prove1 that many   
men have been subject to visions and    

hallucinations which have never been    
seriously attributed to supernatural    
causes4 ,there is not one single valid  
reason removing the ecstatic visions and
 trances of the ,apostle ,paul from this
 class4  ,we do not yet discuss the     
supposed vision in which he saw the     
risen ,jesus1 though it is no exception 
to the rest1 but reserve it for the next
 chapter4 ,at present1 it suffices that 
we point out the bearing of our         
examination of ,paul's general testimony
 to miracles upon our future            
consideration of his evidence for the   
,resurrection4 ,if it be admitted that  
his judgment as to the miraculous       
character of the ,charismata is         
fallacious1 and that what he considered 
miraculous were simply natural          
phenomena1 the theory of the reality of 
miracles  #cig  becomes less tenable    
than ever4 ,and if1 further1 it be      
recognized1 as we think it necessarily  
must be1 that ,paul was subject to      
natural ecstatic trances1 with all their

 accompanying forms of nervous          
excitement3 kinds of tongues1 visions1  
and religious hallucinations1 a strong  
and clear light will fall upon his      
further testimony for miraculous        
occurrences which we shall shortly have 
before us4     ,,part ,,vi4 ,,the       
,,resurrection ,,and ,,ascension        
,,chapter ,i4 ,,the ,,relation ,,of     
,,evidence ,,to ,,subject  ,when the    
evidence of the ,gospels regarding the  
great central dogmas of ecclesiastical  
,christianity is shown to be            
untrustworthy and insufficient1         
apologists appeal with confidence to the
 testimony of the ,apostle ,paul4 ,we   
presume that it is not necessary to show
 that1 in fact1 the main weight of the  
case rests upon his epistles1 as        
undoubted documents of the apostolic    
age1 written some thirty or forty years 
after the death of the ,master4 ,the    
retort has frequently been made to the  
earlier portion of this work that1 so   
long as the evidence of ,paul remains   

unshaken1 the apologetic position is    
secure4 ,we may quote a few lines from  
an able work1 part of a passage         
discussed in the preceding chapter1 as a
 statement of the case3 ,in the first   
place1 merely as a matter of historical 
attestation1 the ,gospels are not the   
strongest evidence for the ,christian   
miracles4 ,only one of the four1 in its 
present shape1 is claimed as the work of
 an ,apostle1 and of that the           
genuineness is disputed4 ,the ,acts of  
the ,apostles stand upon very much the  
#cii  same footing with the ,synoptic   
,gospels1 and of this book1 we are      
promised a further examination4 ,but we 
possess at least some undoubted writings
 of one who was himself a chief actor in
 the events which followed immediately  
upon those recorded in the ,gospels2 and
 in these undoubted writings ,st4 ,paul 
certainly shows by incidental allusions1
 the good faith of which cannot be      
questioned1 that he believed himself to 
be endowed with the power of working    

miracles1 and that miracles1 or what    
were thought to be such1 were actually  
wrought by him and by his               
contemporaries44444 ,besides these      
allusions1 ,st4 ,paul repeatedly refers 
to the cardinal miracles of the         
,resurrection and ,ascension2 he refers 
to them as notorious and unquestionable 
facts at a time when such an assertion  
might have been easily refuted4 ,on one 
occasion he gives a very circumstantial 
account of the testimony on which the   
belief in the ,resurrection rested 7#a  
,cor4 xv4 #d-h74 ,and not only does he  
assert the ,resurrection as a fact1 but 
he builds upon it a whole scheme of     
doctrine3 ',if ,christ be not risen1' he
 says1 'then is our preaching vain1 and 
your faith is also vain4' ,we do not    
stay now to consider the exact          
philosophical weight of this evidence4  
,it will be time enough to do this when 
it has received the critical discussion 
that may be presumed to be in store for 
it ,but as external evidence1 in the    

legal sense1 it is probably the best    
that can be produced1 and it has been   
entirely untouched so far47#a7 ,we have 
already disposed of the allusions above 
referred to4 ,we shall in due time deal 
with the rest of the statements in this 
passage1 but at present it is sufficient
 to agree at  #djj  least with the      
remark that1 as external evidence1 the  
testimony of ,paul is probably the best 
that can be produced4 ,we know at least 
who the witness really is1 which is an  
advantage denied us in the case of the  
,gospels4 ,it would be premature to     
express surprise1 however1 that we find 
the case of miracles1 and more          
especially of such stupendous miracles  
as the ,resurrection and ,ascension1    
practically resting upon the testimony  
of a single witness4 ,this thought will 
intrude itself1 but cannot at present be
 pursued4  ,the allegation which we have
 to examine is that the ,founder of     
,christianity1 after being dead and     
buried1 rose from the dead and did not  

again die1 but after remaining sometime 
with his disciples ascended with his    
body into heaven47#a7 ,it is unnecessary
 to complicate the question by adding   
the other doctrines regarding the       
miraculous birth and divine origin and  
personality of ,jesus4 ,in the problem  
before us1 certain objective facts are  
asserted which admit of being judicially
 tested4 ,we have nothing to do here    
with the vague modern representation of 
these events1 by means of which the     
objective facts vanish1 and are replaced
 by subjective impressions and tricks of
 consciousness or symbols of spiritual  
life4 ,those who adopt such views have1 
of course1 abandoned all that is real   
and supernatural in the supposed events4
 ,the ,resurrection and ,ascension which
 we have to deal with are events        
precisely as objective and real as the  
#a ,in the ,articles of the ,church of  
,england this is expressed      as      
follows3 ,art4 ii4 44444who truly       
suffered1 was      crucified1 dead1 and 

buried1 c41 c4 ,art4 iii4 ,as ,christ   
died for us1 and was buried2 so also it 
is to be believed      that ,he went    
down into ,hell4 ,art iv4 ,christ did   
truly rise      again from death1 and   
took again ,hie ,body1 with flesh1      
bones1 and all things appertaining to   
the perfection of      man's nature1    
wherewith ,he ascended into ,heaven1 and
 there      sitteth1 until ,he return to
 judge all men at the last day4  #dja   
death and burial1--no ideal process     
figured by the imagination or           
embodiments of christian hope1 but      
tangible realities1 historical          
occurrences in the sense of ordinary    
life4 ,if ,jesus1 after being crucified1
 dead and buried1 did not physically    
rise again from the dead1 and in the    
flesh17#a7 without again dying1 ascend  
into ,heaven1 the whole case falls to   
the ground4 ,these incidents1 although  
stupendous miracles1 must have been     
actual occurrences4 ,if they did not    
really take place1 our task is at an    

end4 ,if it be asserted that they really
 did take place their occurrence must be
 attested by adequate evidence4         
,apologists1 whilst protesting that the 
occurrences in question are believed    
upon ordinary historical evidence1 and  
that ,christianity requires no          
indulgence1 but submits itself to the   
same tests as any other affirmation1 do 
not practically act upon this principle2
 but1 as soon as it is enunciated1      
introduce a variety of special pleas    
which remove the case from the domain of
 history into that of theology1 and     
proceed upon one assumption after       
another until the fundamental facts     
become enveloped and1 so to say1        
protected from judicial criticism by a  
cloud of religious dogmas and           
hypotheses47#b7 ,by confining our       
attention to the simple facts which form
 the basis of the whole superstructure  
of ecclesiastical ,christianity1 we may 
avoid much confusion of ideas1 and      
#a ,the disappearance of the body from  

the sepulchre1 a point      much        
insisted upon1 could have had no        
significance or      reality if the body
 did not rise and afterwards ascend4    
#b ,a work of this kind may be mentioned
 in illustration3 ,dr4      ,west-cott's
 ,gospel of the ,resurrection4 ,the     
argument of      this work is of        
unquestionable ability1 but it is       
chiefly      remarkable1 we think1 for  
the manner in which the direct          
evidence is hurried over1 and a mass of 
assertions and      assumptions1 the    
greater part of which is utterly        
untenable      and inadmissible1 is     
woven into specious and eloquent        
pleading1 and does duty for substantial 
testimony4  #djb  restrict the field of 
inquiry to reasonable limits4 ,we       
propose1 therefore1 to limit our        
investigation to the evidence for the   
reality of the ,resurrection and        
,ascension4  ,what evidence could be    
regarded as sufficient to establish the 
reality of such supposed occurrences8   

,the question is one which demands the  
serious attention and consideration of  
every thoughtful man4 ,it is obvious    
that the amount of evidence requisite to
 satisfy our minds as to the truth of   
any statement should be measured by the 
nature of the statement made and1 we may
 as well add1 by its practical          
importance to ourselves4 ,the news that 
a man was married or a child born last  
week is received without doubt1 because 
men are married and children are born   
every day2 and although such pieces of  
gossip are frequently untrue1 nothing   
appears more natural or in accordance   
with our experience4 ,if we take more   
distant and less familiar events we have
 no doubt that a certain monarch was    
crowned1 and that he subsequently died  
some centuries ago4 ,if we ask for the  
evidence for the statement1 nothing may 
be forthcoming of a very minute or      
indubitable nature4 ,no absolute        
eye-witness of the coronation may have  
left a clear and detailed narrative of  

the ceremony2 and possibly there may no 
longer be extant a sufficiently attested
 document proving with certainty the    
death of the monarch4 ,there are several
 considerations1 however1 which make us 
perfectly satisfied with the evidence1  
incomplete as it may be4 ,monarchs are  
generally crowned and invariably die2   
and the statement that any one          
particular monarch was crowned and died 
is so completely in conformity with     
experience1 that we have no hesitation  
in believing it in the specific case4   
,we are satisfied to believe such  #djc 
ordinary statements upon very slight    
evidence1 both because our experience   
prepares us to believe that they are    
true1 and because we do not much care   
whether they are true or not4 ,if life1 
or even succession to an estate1        
depended upon either event1 the demand  
for evidence1 even in such simple       
matters1 would be immensely intensified4
 ,the converse of the statement1        
however1 would not meet with the same   

reception4 ,would anyone believe the    
affirmation that ,alfred the ,great1 for
 instance1 did not die at all8 ,what    
amount of evidence would be required    
before such a statement could be        
pronounced sufficiently attested8       
,universal experience would be so       
uniformly opposed to the assertion that 
such a phenomenon had taken place1 that 
probably no evidence which could readily
 be conceived could ensure the belief of
 more than a credulous few4 ,the        
assertion that a man actually died and  
was buried1 and yet afterwards rose from
 the dead1 is still more at variance    
with human experience4 ,the prolongation
 of life to long periods is             
comparatively consistent with           
experience2 and if a life extending to  
several centuries be incredible it is   
only so in degree1 and is not absolutely
 contrary to the order of nature1 which 
certainly under present conditions does 
not favour the supposition of such      
lengthened existence1 but still does not

 fix hard and fast limits to the life of
 man4 ,the resurrection of a man who has
 once been absolutely dead1 however1 is 
contrary to all human experience1 and to
 all that we know of the order of       
nature4 ,if to this we add the assertion
 that the person so raised from the dead
 never again died1 but after continuing 
some time longer on earth1 ascended     
bodily to some invisible and            
inconceivable place called ,heaven1     
there to sit at the right hand of ,god1 
the shock to reason and common  #djd    
sense becomes so extreme1 that it is    
difficult even to realize the nature of 
the affirmation4 ,it would be hopeless  
to endeavour to define the evidence     
which could establish the reality of the
 alleged occurrences4  ,as the central  
doctrines of a religion upon which the  
salvation of the human race is said to  
depend1 we are too deeply interested to 
be satisfied with slight evidence or no 
evidence at all4 ,it has not            
unfrequently been made a reproach that  

forensic evidence is required of the    
reality of ,divine ,revelation4 ,such a 
course is regarded as perfectly         
preposterous1 whether the test be       
applied to the primary assertion that a 
revelation has been made at all1 or to  
its contents4 ,what kind of evidence    
then are we permitted decorously to     
require upon so momentous a subject8    
,apparently1 just so much as apologists 
can conveniently set before us1 and no  
more4 ,the evidence deemed necessary for
 the settlement of a ,scotch ,peerage   
case1 or a disputed will1 is1 we do not 
hesitate to say1 infinitely more        
complete than that which it is thought  
either pious or right to expect in the  
case of ,religion4 ,the actual          
occurrence of the ,resurrection and     
,ascension1 however1 is certainly a     
matter of evidence and1 to retort1 it is
 scarcely decent that any man should be 
required to believe what is so opposed  
to human experience1 upon more imperfect
 evidence than is required for the      

transfer of land or the right to a      
title1 simply because ecclesiastical    
dogmas are founded upon them1 and it is 
represented that unless they be true our
 hope is vain4 ,the testimony requisite 
to establish the reality of such        
stupendous miracles can scarcely be     
realized4 ,proportionately1 it should be
 as unparalleled in its force as those  
events are in fact4 ,one point1         
moreover1 must never be forgotten4      
,human testimony is exceedingly fallible
 at its  #dje  best ,it is liable to    
error from innumerable causes1 and most 
of all1 probably1 when religious        
excitement is present1 and disturbing   
elements of sorrow1 fear1 doubt1 or     
enthusiasm interfere with the calmness  
of judgment4 ,when any assertion is made
 which contradicts unvarying experience1
 upon evidence which experience knows to
 be universally liable to error1 there  
cannot be much hesitation in            
disbelieving the assertion and          
preferring belief in the order of       

nature4 ,and when evidence proceeds from
 an age not only highly exposed to      
error1 from ignorance of natural laws1  
superstition1 and religious excitement1 
but prolific in fabulous reports and    
untenable theories1 it cannot be        
received without the gravest suspicion4 
,we make these brief remarks1 in        
anticipation1 as nothing is more        
essential in the discussion upon which  
we are about to enter than a proper     
appreciation of the allegations which   
are to be tested1 and of the nature of  
the testimony required for their belief4
  ,we shall not limit our inquiry to the
 testimony of ,paul1 but shall review   
the whole of the evidence adduced for   
the ,resurrection and ,ascension4       
,hitherto1 our examination of the       
historical books of the ,new ,testament 
has been mainly for the purpose of      
ascertaining their character1 and the   
value of their evidence for miracles and
 the reality of ,divine ,revelation4 ,it
 is unnecessary for us here minutely to 

recapitulate the results4 ,the ,acts of 
the ,apostles1 we have shown1 cannot be 
received as testimony of the slightest  
weight upon any of the points before us4
 ,written by an unknown author1 who was 
not an eye-witness of the miracles      
related2 who describes events not as    
they occurred1 but as his pious         
imagination supposed they ought to have 
occurred2 who seldom touches history    
without transforming it by legend until 
the  #djf  original elements can        
scarcely be distinguished2 who puts his 
own words and sentiments into the mouths
 of the ,apostles and other persons of  
his narrative2 and who represents almost
 every phase of the ,church in the      
,apostolic age as influenced1 or        
directly produced1 by means of          
supernatural agency2 such a work is of  
no value as evidence for occurrences    
which are in contradiction to all human 
experience4 ,briefly to state the case  
of the ,gospels in other words than our 
own1 we repeat the honest statement of  

the able writer quoted at the beginning 
of this chapter3 ,in the first place1   
merely as a matter of historical        
attestation1 the ,gospels are not the   
strongest evidence for the ,christian   
miracles4 ,only one of the four1 in its 
present shape1 is claimed as the work of
 an ,apostle1 and of that the           
genuineness is disputed47l7 ,we may add 
that the third ,synoptic does not1 in   
the estimation of any one who has       
examined the ,acts of the ,apostles1    
gain additional credibility by being    
composed by the same author as the      
latter work4 ,the writers of the four   
,gospels are absolutely unknown to us1  
and in the case of three of them1 it is 
not even affirmed that they were        
eyewitnesses of the ,resurrection and   
,ascension and other miracles narrated4 
,the undeniably doubtful authorship of  
the fourth ,gospel1 not to make a more  
positive statement here1 renders this   
work1 which was not written until       
upwards of half a century1 at the very  

least1 after the death of ,jesus1       
incapable of proving anything in regard 
to the ,resurrection and ,ascension4 ,a 
much stronger statement might be made1  
but we refer readers to our former      
volumes1 and we shall learn something   
more of the character of the ,gospel    
narratives as we proceed4  ,although we 
cannot attach any value to the ,gospels 
#djg  as evidence1 we propose1 before   
taking the testimony of ,paul1 to survey
 the various statements made by them    
regarding the astounding miracles we are
 discussing4 ,enough has been said to   
show that we cannot accept any statement
 as true simply because it is made by a 
,gospel or ,gospels4 ,when it is related
 in the first ,synoptic1 for instance1  
that ,pilate took water and washed his  
hands before the multitude1 saying1 ,i  
am innocent of this man's blood3 see ye 
to it17#a7--;an incident to which no    
reference1 be it said in passing1 is    
made by the other evangelists1 although 
it is sufficiently remarkable to have   

deserved notice1--we cannot of course   
assume that ,pilate actually said or did
 anything of the kind4 ,a comparison of 
the various accounts of the             
,resurrection and ,ascension1 however1  
and careful examination of their        
details1 will be of very great use1 by  
enabling us to appreciate the position  
of the case apart from the evidence of  
,paul4 ,the indefinite impression       
fostered by apologists1 that the        
evidence of the ,gospels supplements and
 completes the evidence of the ,apostle1
 and forms an aggregate body of         
testimony of remarkable force and       
volume1 must be examined1 and a clear   
conception formed of the whole case4    
,one point may at once be mentioned     
before we enter upon our examination of 
the ,gospels4 ,the ,evangelists narrate 
such astonishing occurrences as the     
,resurrection and ,ascension with       
perfect composure and absence of        
surprise4 ,this characteristic is even  
made an argument for the truth of their 

narrative4 ,the impression made upon our
 minds1 however1 is the very reverse of 
that which apologists desire us to      
receive4 ,the writers do not in the     
least degree seem to have realised the  
#djh  exceptional character of the      
occurrences they relate1 and betray the 
assurance of persons writing in an      
ignorant and superstitious age1 whose   
minds have become too familiar with the 
supernatural to be at all surprised     
either by a resurrection from the dead  
or a bodily ascension4 ,miracles in     
their eyes have lost their strangeness  
and seem quite common-place4 ,it will be
 seen as we examine the narratives that 
a stupendous miracle1 or a convulsion of
 nature1 is thrown in by one or omitted 
by another as a mere matter of detail4  
,an earthquake and the resurrection of  
many bodies of saints are mere trifles  
which can be inserted without wonder or 
omitted without regret ,the casual and  
momentary expression of hesitation to   
believe1 which is introduced1 is        

evidently nothing more than a rhetorical
 device to heighten the reality of the  
scene4 ,it would have been infinitely   
more satisfactory had we been able to   
perceive that these witnesses1 instead  
of being genuine denizens of the age of 
miracles1 had really understood the     
astounding nature of the occurrences    
they report1 and did not consider a     
miracle the most natural thing in the   
world4     ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,the        
,,evidence ,,of ,,the ,,gospels  ,in    
order more fully to appreciate the      
nature of the narratives which the four 
evangelists give of the last hours of   
the life of ,jesus1 we may take them up 
at the point where1 mocked and buffeted 
by the ,roman soldiers1 he is finally   
led away to be crucified4 ,let no one   
suppose that1 in freely criticising the 
,gospels1 we regard without emotion the 
actual incidents which lie at the bottom
 of these narratives4 ,no one can form  
to himself any adequate conception of   
the terrible sufferings of the ,master1 

maltreated and insulted by a base and   
brutal multitude1 too degraded to       
understand his noble character1 and too 
ignorant to appreciate his elevated     
teaching1 without pain2 and to follow   
his course from the tribunal which      
sacrificed him to ,jewish popular       
clamour to the spot where he ended a    
brief but self-sacrificing life by the  
shameful death of a slave may well make 
sympathy take the place of criticism4   
,profound veneration for the great      
,teacher1 however1 and earnest interest 
in all that concerns his history rather 
command serious and unhesitating        
examination of the statements made with 
regard to him1 than discourage an       
attempt to ascertain the truth2 and it  
would be anything but respect for his   
memory to accept without question the   
,gospel accounts of his life  #daj      
simply because they were composed with  
the desire to glorify him4  ,according  
to the ,synoptics1 when ,jesus is led   
away to be crucified1 the ,roman guard  

entrusted with the duty of executing the
 cruel sentence find a man of ,cyrene1  
,simon by name1 and compel him to carry 
the cross47#a7 ,it was customary for    
those condemned to crucifixion to carry 
the cross1 or at least the main portion 
of it1 themselves to the place of       
execution1 and no explanation is given  
by the ,synoptists for the deviation    
from this practice which they relate4   
,the fourth ,gospel1 however1 does not  
appear to know anything of this incident
 or of ,simon of ,cyrene1 but distinctly
 states that ,jesus bore his own        
cross47#b7 ,on the way to ,golgotha1    
according to the third ,gospel1 ,jesus  
is followed by a great multitude of the 
people1 and of women who were bewailing 
and lamenting him1 and he addresses to  
them a few prophetic sentences47#c7 ,we 
might be surprised at the singular fact 
that there is no reference to this      
incident in any other ,gospel1 and that 
words of ,jesus1 so weighty in          
themselves and spoken at so supreme a   

moment1 should not elsewhere have been  
recorded1 but for the fact that1 from   
internal evidence1 the address must be  
assigned to a period subsequent to the  
destruction of ,jerusalem4 ,the other   
evangelists may1 therefore1 well ignore 
it4  #daa  ,it was the custom to give   
those about to be crucified a draught of
 wine containing some strong opiate1    
which in some degree alleviated the     
intense suffering of that mode of death4
 ,mark7#a7 probably refers to this 7xv4 
#bc7 when he states that1 on reaching   
the place of execution1 they gave him   
wine ------ mingled with myrrh4 ,the    
fourth ,gospel has nothing of this4     
,matthew says 7xxvii4 #cd73 ,they gave  
him vinegar ------ to drink mingled with
 gall7#b7 ------4 ,even if1 instead of  
------ with the ,alexandrian and a      
majority of ,,mss41 we read ------1     
wine1 with the ,sinaitic1 ,vatican1 and 
some other ancient codices1 this is a   
curious statement1 and is well worthy of
 a moment's notice as suggestive of the 

way in which these narratives were      
written4 ,the conception of a suffering 
,messiah1 it is well known1 was more    
particularly supported1 by ,new         
,testament writers1 by attributing a    
,messianic character to ,ps4 xxii41     
lxix41 and ,isaiah liii41 and throughout
 the narrative of the ,passion we are   
perpetually referred to these and other 
,scriptures as finding their fulfilment 
in the sufferings of ,jesus4 ,the first 
,synoptist found in ,ps4 lxix4 #ba      
7,sept4 lxviii4 #ba73 ,they gave me also
 gall ------ for my food1 and in my     
thirst they gave me vinegar ------ to   
drink2 and apparently in order to make  
the supposed fulfilment correspond as   
closely as possible1 he combined the    
gall of the food with the vinegar or    
wine in strangely literal fashion17#c7  
very characteristic1 however1 of        
#a ,we shall1 for the sake of brevity1  
call the ,gospels by the      names     
assigned to them in the ,canon4       #b
 ,there have been many attempts to      

explain away ------1      and to make it
 mean either a species of ,vermuth or   
any      bitter substance 7,olahausen1  
,leidensgeech41 #afh72 but the          
great mass of critics rightly retain its
 meaning1 ,gall4      ,so ,ewald1       
,meyer1 ,bleek1 ,strauss1 ,weisse1      
,schenkel1 ,yolk-mar1      ,alford1     
,wordsworth1 c1 c4  #dab  the whole of  
the evangelists4 ,luke1 who seems not to
 have understood the custom known       
perhaps to ,mark1 represents 7xxiii4    
#cf7 the soldiers as mocking ,jesus by  
offering him vinegar 7l7 ------2 he     
omits the gall1 but probably refers to  
the same ,psalm without being so falsely
 literal as ,matthew4  ,we need not     
enter into the discussion as to the     
chronology of the ,passion week1        
regarding which there is so much        
discrepancy in the accounts of the      
fourth ,gospel and of the ,synoptics1   
nor shall we pause minutely to deal with
 the irreconcilable difference which1 it
 is admitted17#b7 exists in their       

statement of the hours at which the     
events of the last fatal day occurred4  
,the fourth ,gospel 7xix4 #d7 represents
 ,pilate as bringing ,jesus forth to the
 ,jews about the sixth hour 7noon74     
,mark 7xv4 #be71 in obvious agreement   
with the other ,synoptics as further    
statements prove1 distinctly says3 ,and 
it was the third hour 7#i o'clock a4m471
 and they crucified him4 ,at the sixth  
hour 7noon71 according to the three     
,synoptists1 there was darkness over the
 earth till about the ninth hour 7#c    
o'clock p4m471 shortly after which time 
#a ,luke omits the subsequent offer of  
vinegar 7probably the      ,pasco of the
 ,roman soldiers7 mentioned by the other
      ,evangelists4 ,we presume the     
reference in xxiii4 #cf to be the       
same as the act described in ,mt xxvii4 
#cd and ,mk4 xv4 #bc4  #dac  ,jesus     
expired47#a7 ,as1 according to the      
fourth ,gospel1 the sentence was not    
even passed before midday1 and some time
 must be allowed for preparation and    

going to the place of execution1 it is  
clear that there is a very wide         
discrepancy between the hours at which  
,jesus was crucified and died1 unless1  
as regards the latter point1 we take    
agreement in all as to the hour of      
death4 ,in this case1 commencing at the 
hour of the fourth ,gospel and ending   
with that of the ,synoptics1 ,jesus must
 have expired after being less than     
three hours on the cross4 ,according to 
the ,synoptics1 and also1 if we assign a
 later hour for the death1 according to 
the fourth ,gospel1 he cannot have been 
more than six hours on the cross4 ,we   
shall presently see that this remarkably
 rapid death has an important bearing   
upon the history and the views formed   
regarding it4 ,it is known that         
crucifixion1 besides being the most     
shameful mode of death1 and indeed      
chiefly reserved for slaves and the     
lowest criminals1 was one of the most   
lingering and atrociously cruel         
punishments ever invented by the        

malignity of man4 ,persons crucified1 it
 is stated and admitted17#b7 generally  
lived for at least twelve hours1 and    
sometimes even survived the excruciating
 tortures of the cross for three days4  
,we shall not further anticipate remarks
 which must hereafter be made regarding 
this4  ,we need not do more than again  
point out that no two of the ,gospels   
agree upon so simple1 yet important1 a  
point as the inscription on the         
cross47#c7 ,it is argued that a close   
#dad  examination of the narratives     
furnishes no sufficient reason for      
supposing that all proposed to give the 
same or the entire inscription1 and1    
after some curious reasoning1 it is     
concluded that there is at least no     
possibility of showing any inconsistency
 on the strictly literal interpretation 
of the words of the evangelist47#a7 ,on 
the contrary1 we had ventured to suppose
 that1 in giving a form of words said to
 have been affixed to the cross1 the    
evangelists intended to give the form   

actually used1 and consequently the same
 and entire inscription1 which must have
 been short2 and we consider it quite   
inconceivable that such was not their   
deliberate intention1 however           
imperfectly fulfilled4  ,we pass on     
merely to notice a curious point in     
connection with an incident related by  
all the ,gospels4 ,it is stated that the
 ,roman soldiers who crucified ,jesus   
divided his garments amongst them1      
casting lots to determine what part each
 should take4 ,the clothing of criminals
 executed was the perquisite of the     
soldiers who performed the duty1 and    
there is nothing improbable in the story
 that the four soldiers decided by lot  
the partition of the garments--indeed   
there is every reason to suppose that   
such was the practice4 ,the incident is 
mentioned as the direct fulfilment of   
the4 ,ps4 xxii4 #ah1 which is quoted    
literally from the ,septuagint version  
7xxi4 #ah7 by the author of the fourth  
,gospel4 ,he did not1 however1          

understand the passage1 or disregarded  
its true meaning17#b7 and in order to   
make the incident accord  #dae  better1 
as he supposed1 with the prophetic      
,psalm1 he represents that the soldiers 
amicably parted the rest of his garments
 amongst them without lot1 but cast lots
 for the coat1 which was without seam3  
xix4 #bd4 ,they said1 therefore1 among  
themselves3 ,let us not rend it1 but    
cast lots for it1 whose it shall be2    
that the ,scripture might be fulfilled3 
,they parted my garments among them1 and
 for my vesture they cast lots4 ,these  
things1 therefore1 the soldiers did4    
,the evangelist does not perceive that  
the two parts of the sentence in the    
,psalm really refer to the same action1 
but exhibits the partition of the       
garments and the lots for the vesture as
 separately fulfilled4 ,the ,synoptists 
apparently divide the whole by lot47#a7 
,they do not expressly refer to the     
,psalm1 however1 except in the received 
text of ,matth4 xxvii4 #ce1 into which  

and some other ,,mss4 the quotation has 
been interpolated47#b7 ,that the        
narrative of the ,gospels1 instead of   
being independent and genuine history1  
is constructed upon the lines of        
supposed ,messianic ,psalms and passages
 of the ,old ,testament will become     
increasingly evident as we proceed4  ,it
 is stated by all the ,gospels that two 
malefactors--the first and second       
calling them robbers--were crucified    
with ,jesus1 the one on the right hand  
and the other on the left4 ,the         
statement in ,mark xv4 #bh1 that this   
fulfilled ,isaiah liii4 #ab1 which is   
found in our received text1 is omitted  
by all the oldest codices1 and is an    
interpolation17#b7 but we shall         
hereafter have to speak of this point in
 connection with another matter1 and we 
now       #b  ,certainly an             
interpolation4     ,wettcott1 ,int4 to  
,study      of ,gospels1 p4 #cbe1 n4 #b4
       #c ,certainly an interpolation4  
,westcott1 lb4 p4 #cbf1 n4 #e4  #daj    

merely point out that1 though the verse 
was thus inserted here1 it is placed in 
the mouth of ,jesus himself by the third
 ,synoptist 7xxii4 #cg71 and the whole  
passage from which it was taken has     
evidently largely influenced the        
composition of the narrative before us4 
,according to the first and second      
,gospels17#a7 the robbers joined with   
the chief priests and the scribes and   
elders and those who passed by in       
mocking and reviling ,jesus4 ,this is   
directly contradicted by the third      
,synoptist1 who states that only one of 
the malefactors did so 7xxiii4 #ci      
flf473 ,but the other answering rebuked 
him and said3 ,dost thou not even fear  
,god seeing thou art in the same        
condemnation8 ,and we indeed justly2 for
 we are receiving the due reward of our 
deeds2 but this man did nothing amiss4  
,and he said3 ,jesus1 remember me when  
thou comest in thy kingdom4 ,and he said
 unto him3 ,verily1 ,i say unto thee1   
to-day shalt thou be with me in         

paradise4 ,it requires very little      
examination to detect that this story is
 legendary17#b7 and cannot be maintained
 as historical4 ,those who dwell upon   
its symbolical character7#c7 do nothing 
to establish its veracity4 ,this        
exemplary robber speaks like an         
,apostle1 and in praying ,jesus as the  
,messiah to remember him when he came   
into his kingdom1 he shows much more    
than apostolic appreciation of the      
claims and character of ,jesus4 ,the    
#dag  reply of ,jesus1 moreover1        
contains a statement not only wholly    
contradictory of ,jewish belief as to   
the place of departed spirits1 but of   
all ,christian doctrine at the time as  
to the descent of ,jesus into ,hades4   
,into this1 however1 it is needless for 
us to go47#a7 ,not only do the other    
,gospels show no knowledge of so        
interesting an episode1 but1 as we have 
pointed out1 the first and second       
,synoptics positively exclude it4 ,we   
shall see1 moreover1 that there is a    

serious difficulty in understanding how 
this conversation on the cross1 which is
 so exclusively the property of the     
third ,synoptist1 could have been       
reported to him4  ,the ,synoptics       
represent the passers by and the chief  
priests1 scribes1 and elders1 as mocking
 ,jesus as he hung on the cross4 ,the   
fourth ,gospel preserves total silence  
as to all this4 ,it is curious1 also1   
that the mocking is based upon that     
described in the ,psalm xxii41 to which 
we have already several times had to    
refer4 ,in v4 #g f4 we have3 ,all they  
that see me laughed me to scorn3 they   
shot out the lip2 they shook the head   
7saying71 #h4 ,he trusted on the ,lord1 
let him deliver him1 let him save him   
7seeing7 that he delighteth in him47#b7 
,compare with this ,mt4 xxvii4 #ci ff41 
,mk4 xv4 #bi ff41 ,luke xxiii #ce4 ,is  
it possible to suppose that the chief   
priests and elders and scribes could    
actually have quoted the words of this  
,psalm1 there put into the mouth of the 

,psalmist's enemies1 as the first       
,synoptist represents 7xxvii #dc787c7   
,it is obvious that the speeches        
ascribed  #dah  to the chief priests and
 elders can be nothing more than the    
expressions which the writers considered
 suitable to them1 and the fact that    
they seek their inspiration in a ,psalm 
which they suppose to be ,messianic is  
suggestive4  ,we have already mentioned 
that the fourth ,gospel says nothing of 
any mocking speeches4 ,the author1      
however1 narrates an episode 7xix4      
#be-bg7 in which the dying ,jesus is    
represented as confiding his mother to  
the care of the disciple whom he loved1 
of which in their turn the ,synoptists  
seem to be perfectly ignorant4 ,we have 
already elsewhere remarked that there is
 no evidence whatever that there was any
 disciple whom ,jesus specially loved1  
except the repeated statement in this   
,gospel4 ,no other work of the ,new     
,testament contains a hint of such an   
individual1 and much less that he was   

the ,apostle ,john4 ,nor is there any   
evidence that any one of the disciples  
took the mother of ,jesus to his own    
home4 ,there is1 therefore1 no external 
confirmation of this episode2 but there 
is1 on the contrary1 much which leads to
 the conclusion that it is not          
historical47#a7 ,there has been much    
discussion as to whether four women are 
mentioned 7xix4 #be71 or whether his    
mother's sister is represented as ,mary1
 the wife of ,clopas1 or was a different
 person4 ,there are1 we think1 reasons  
for concluding that there were four1 but
 in the doubt we shall not base any     
argument on the point4 ,the             
,synoptics7#b7 distinctly state that the
 women that followed him from ,galilee1 
among which were ,mary ,magdalene and   
,mary  #dai  the mother of ,james and   
,joseph and the mother of ,zebedee's    
sons17l7 and1 as the third ,synoptic    
says1 all his acquaintance7#b7 were     
standing afar off ------4 ,they are     
unanimous in saying this1 and there is  

every reason for supposing that they are
 correct47#c7 ,this is consequently a   
contradiction of the account in the     
fourth ,gospel that ,john and the women 
were standing by the cross of ,jesus4   
,olshausen1 ,lucke and others suggest   
that they subsequently came from a      
distance up to the cross1 but the       
statement of the ,synoptists is made at 
the close1 and after this scene is      
supposed to have taken place4 ,the      
opposite conjecture1 that from standing 
close to the cross they removed to a    
distance has little to recommend it4    
,both explanations are equally arbitrary
 and unsupported by evidence4  ,it may  
be well1 in connection with this1 to    
refer to the various sayings and cries  
ascribed by the different evangelists to
 ,jesus on the cross4 ,we have already  
mentioned the conversation with the     
penitent thief1 which is peculiar to the
 third ,gospel1 and now that with the   
beloved disciple1 which is only in the  
fourth4 ,the third ,synoptic7#d7 states 

that1 on being crucified1 ,jesus said1  
,father1 forgive them1 for they know not
 what they do1 a saying which is in the 
spirit of ,jesus and worthy of him1 but 
of which the other ,gospels do not take 
any notice47#e7 ,the fourth ,gospel     
again has a cry 7xix4 #bh73 ,after this1
 ,jesus knowing that all things are now 
fulfilled1 that the ,scripture might be 
accomplished1 saith3  #dbj  ,i          
thirst47#a7 ,the majority of critics7#b7
 understand by this that ,i thirst is   
said in order that the ,scripture might 
be fulfilled by the offer of the        
vinegar1 related in the following verse4
 ,the ,scripture referred to is of      
course ,ps4 lxix4 #ba3 ,they gave me    
also gall for my food1 and in my thirst 
they gave me vinegar ------ to drink2   
which we have already quoted in         
connection with ,matth4 xxvii4 #cd4 ,the
 third ,synoptic 7xxiii4 #cf7 represents
 the vinegar as being offered in mockery
 at a much earlier period1 and ,matthew 
and ,mark7#c7 connect the offer of the  

vinegar with quite a different cry from 
that in the fourth ,gospel4 ,nothing    
could be more natural than that1 after  
protracted agony1 the patient sufferer  
should cry3 ,i thirst1 but the dogmatic 
purpose1 which dictates the whole       
narrative in the fourth ,gospel1 is     
rendered obvious by the reference of    
such a cry to a supposed ,messianic     
prophecy4 ,this is further displayed by 
the statement 7v4 #bi7 that the sponge  
with vinegar was put upon hyssop        
------1--the two ,synoptics have on a   
reed ------1--which the ,author probably
 uses in association with the paschal   
lamb17#d7 an idea present to his mind   
throughout the  #dba  passion4 ,the     
first and second ,synoptics7#a7         
represent the last cry of ,jesus to have
 been a quotation from ,ps4 xxii4 #a3   
,eli 7or ,mk41 ,eloi71 ,eli1 lema       
sabacthani8 that is to say3 ,my ,god1 my
 ,god1 why didst thou forsake me8 ,this1
 according to them1 evidently1 was the  
last articulate utterance of the        

expiring ,master1 for they merely add   
that when he cried again with a loud    
voice1 ,jesus yielded up his spirit47#b7
 ,neither of the other ,gospels has any 
mention of this cry4 ,the third ,gospel 
substitutes3 ,and when ,jesus cried with
 a loud voice1 he said3 ,father1 into   
thy hands ,i commend my spirit1 and     
having said this he expired47#c7 ,this  
is an almost literal quotation from the 
,septuagint version of ,ps4 xxxi4 #e4   
,the fourth ,gospel has a totally       
different cry 7xix4 #cj71 for1 on       
receiving the vinegar1 which            
accomplished the ,scripture1 he         
represents ,jesus as saying3 ,it is     
finished ------1 and immediately        
expiring4 ,it will be observed that     
seven sayings are attributed to ,jesus  
on the cross1 of which the first two    
,gospels have only one1 the third       
,synoptic three1 and the fourth ,gospel 
three4 ,we do not intend to express any 
opinion here in favour of any of these1 
but we merely point out the remarkable  

fact that1 with the exception of the one
 cry in the first two ,synoptics1 each  
,gospel has ascribed different sayings  
to the dying ,master1 and not only no   
two of them agree1 but in some important
 instances the statement of the one     
evangelist seems absolutely to exclude  
the accounts of the others4 ,every one  
knows the hackneyed explanation of      
apologists1 but in works which repeat   
each other so much elsewhere1 it        
certainly is a curious phenomenon that  
there is so little  #dbb  agreement     
here4 ,if all the ,master's disciples   
forsook him and fled17#a7 and his few   
friends and acquaintances stood afar off
 regarding his sufferings1 it is readily
 conceivable that pious tradition had   
unlimited play4 ,we must1 however1      
return to the cry recorded in ,matthew  
and ,mark17#b7 the only one about which 
two witnesses agree4 ,both of them give 
this quotation from ,ps4 xxii4 #a in    
,aramaic3 ,eli 7,mark3 ,eloi71 ,eli17#c7
 lema sabacthani4 ,the purpose is       

clearly to enable the reader to         
understand what follows1 which we quote 
from the first ,gospel3 ,and some of    
them that stood there1 when they heard  
it said3 ,this man calleth for          
,elijah4444 ,the rest said1 ,let be1 let
 us see whether ,elijah cometh to save  
him47#d7 ,it is impossible to confuse   
,eli or ,eloi with ,elijahu7#e7 and the 
explanations suggested by apologists are
 not sufficient to remove a difficulty  
which seems to betray the legendary     
character of the statement4 ,the mistake
 of supposing that ,jesus called for    
,elijah could not possibly have been    
made by those who spoke ,aramaic2 that  
strangers not perfectly understanding   
,aramaic should be here intended cannot 
be maintained1 for the suggestion is    
represented as adopted by the rest4 ,the
 ,roman soldiers had probably never     
heard of ,elijah2 and there is nothing  
whatever to support the allegation of   
mockery7#f7 as accounting for the       
singular  #dbc  episode4 ,the verse of  

the ,psalm was too well known to the    
,jews to admit of any suggested play    
upon words4  ,the three ,synoptics state
 that1 from the sixth hour 7mid-day7 to 
the ninth 7#c o'clock71 there was       
darkness over all the earth ------47#a7 
,the third ,gospel adds3 the sun having 
failed ------7#b7  ,by the term all the 
earth some critics7#c7 maintain that the
 evangelist merely meant the ,holy      
,land17#d7 whilst others hold that he   
uses the expression in its literal      
sense47#e7 ,the fourth ,gospel takes no 
notice of this darkness4 ,such a        
phenomenon is not a trifle to be ignored
 in any account of the crucifixion1 if  
it actually occurred4 ,the omission of  
all mention of it either amounts to a   
denial of its occurrence or betrays most
 suspicious familiarity with            
supernatural interference4 ,there have  
been many efforts made to explain this  
darkness naturally1 or at least to find 
some allusion to it in contemporary     
history1 all of which have signally     

failed4 ,as the moon was at the full1 it
 is admitted that the darkness could not
 have been an eclipse47#f7 ,the ,fathers
  #dbd  appealed to ,phlegon the        
,chronicler1 who mentions7#a7 an eclipse
 of the sun about this period           
accompanied by an earthquake1 and also  
to a similar occurrence referred to by  
,eusebius17#b7 probably quoted from the 
historian ,thallus1 but1 of course1     
modern knowledge has dispelled the      
illusion that these phenomena have any  
connection with the darkness we are     
discussing1 and the theory that the     
evangelists are confirmed in their      
account by this evidence is now         
generally abandoned47#c7 ,it is apart   
from our object to show how common it   
was amongst classical and other writers 
to represent nature as sympathising with
 national or social disasters27#d7 and  
as a poetical touch this remarkable     
darkness of the ,synoptists1 of which no
 one else knows anything1 is quite      
intelligible4 ,the statement1 however1  

is as seriously and deliberately made as
 any other in their narrative1 and does 
not add to its credibility4 ,it is      
palpable that the account is            
mythical17#e7 and it bears a strange    
likeness to passages in the ,old        
,testament1 from the imagery of which   
the representation in all probability   
was derived47#f7 ,the first and second  
,gospels state that when ,jesus  #dbe   
cried with a loud voice and yielded up  
his spirit1 the veil of the temple was  
rent in twain from the top to the       
bottom47#a7 ,the third ,synoptic        
associates this occurrence with the     
eclipse of the sun1 and narrates it     
before the final cry and death of the   
,master47#b7 ,the fourth ,gospel takes  
no notice of so extraordinary a         
phenomenon4 ,the question might be      
asked3 ,how could the chief priests1 who
 do not appear to have been at all      
convinced by such a miracle1 but still  
continued their invincible animosity    
against the ,christian sect1 reveal the 

occurrence of such a wonder1 of which   
there is no mention elsewhere8 ,here    
again the account is legendary and      
symbolical17#c7 and in the spirit of the
 age of miracles47#d7  ,the first       
,synoptist1 however1 has further marvels
 to relate4 ,he states in continuation  
of the passage quoted above3 and the    
earth was shaken ------ and the rocks   
were rent and the sepulchres were       
opened1 and many bodies of the saints   
who slept were raised2 and they came out
 of the sepulchres after his            
resurrection1 and entered into the holy 
city and appeared unto many47#e7 ,how   
great must be the amazement of anyone   
who may have been inclined to suppose   
the ,gospels soberly historical works1  
on finding that the other three         
evangelists do not even mention these   
#dbf  astounding occurrences related by 
the first ,synoptist6 ,an earthquake    
------7#a7 and the still more astounding
 resurrection of many saints who        
appeared unto many1 and1 therefore1 an  

event by no means secret and unknown to 
all but the writer1 and yet three other 
writers1 who give accounts of the       
crucifixion and death of ,jesus1 and who
 enter throughout into very minute      
details1 do not even condescend to      
mention them6 ,nor does any other ,new  
,testament writer chronicle them4 ,it is
 unnecessary to say that the passage has
 been a very serious difficulty for     
apologists2 and one of the latest       
writers of this school1 reproducing the 
theories of earlier critics1 deals with 
it in a ,life of ,christ1 which is      
avowedly and unconditionally the work of
 a believer17#b7 as follows3 ,an        
earthquake shook the earth and split the
 rocks1 and as it rolled away from their
 places the great stones which closed   
and covered the cavern sepulchres of the
 ,jews1 so it seemed to the imaginations
 of many to have disimprisoned the      
spirits of the dead1 and to have filled 
the air with ghostly visitants1 who     
after ,christ had risen appeared to     

linger in the ,holy ,city4 ,in a note he
 adds ,only in some such way as this can
 ,i account for the singular and wholly 
isolated allusion of ,matt4 xxvii4 #eb1 
#ec47c7 ,it is worthy of note1 and we   
may hereafter  #dbg  refer to the point1
 that learned divines thus do not       
scruple to adopt the vision hypothesis  
of the resurrection4 ,even if the       
resurrection of the saints so seriously 
related by the evangelist be thus       
disposed of1 and it be assumed that the 
other ,gospels1 likewise adopting the   
vision explanation1 consequently        
declined to give an objective place in  
their narrative to what they believed to
 be a purely subjective and unreal      
phenomenon1 there still remains the     
earthquake1 to which supernatural       
incident of the crucifixion none of the 
other evangelists think it worth while  
to refer4 ,need we argue that the       
earthquake7#a7 is as mythical as the    
resurrection of the saints87#b7 ,in some
 apocryphal writings even the names of  

some of these risen saints are          
given47#c7 ,as the case actually stands1
 with these marvellous incidents related
 solely by the first ,synoptist and     
ignored by the other evangelists1 it    
would seem superfluous to enter upon    
more detailed criticism of the passage1 
and to point out the incongruity of the 
#dbh  fact that these saints are said to
 be raised from the dead just as the    
,messiah expires1 or the strange        
circumstance that1 although the         
sepulchres are said to have been opened 
at that moment and the resurrection to  
have then taken place1 it is stated that
 they only came out of their graves     
after the resurrection of ,jesus4 ,the  
allegation1 moreover1 that they were    
raised from the dead at that time1 and  
before the resurrection of ,jesus1      
virtually contradicts the saying of the 
,apocalypse 7i4 #e7 that ,jesus was the 
first begotten of the dead1 and of ,paul
 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #bj7 that he was the     
first fruits of them who have fallen    

asleep47#a7 ,paul's whole argument is   
opposed to such a story2 for he does not
 base the resurrection of the dead upon 
the death of ,jesus1 but1 in            
contradistinction1 upon his resurrection
 only4 ,the ,synoptist evidently desires
 to associate the resurrection of the   
saints with the death of ,jesus to      
render that event more impressive1 but  
delays the completion of it in order to 
give a kind of precedence to the        
resurrection of the ,master4 ,the       
attempt leads to nothing but confusion4 
,what could be the object of such a     
resurrection8 ,it could not be          
represented as any effect produced by   
the death of ,jesus1 nor even by his    
alleged resurrection1 for what dogmatic 
connection could there be between that  
event and the fact that a few saints    
only were raised from their graves1     
whilst it was not pretended that the    
dead saints generally participated in   
this resurrection8 ,no intimation is    
given that their appearance to many was 

for any special purpose1 and certainly  
no practical result has ever been traced
 to it4 ,finally we might ask3 ,what    
became of these saints raised from the  
dead8 ,did they die again8 ,or did they 
also ascend into ,heaven87#b7       #a  
,can the author of the ,apocalypse1 or  
,paul1 ever have heard      of the      
raising of ,lazarus8  #dbi  ,a little   
reflection will show that these         
questions are pertinent4 ,it is almost  
inconceivable that any serious mind     
could maintain the actual truth of such 
a story1 upon such evidence4 ,its       
objective truth not being maintainable1 
however1 the character of the work which
 advances such an unhesitating statement
 is determined1 and at least the value  
of its testimony can without difficulty 
be settled4  ,the continuation of this  
episode in the first ,synoptic is quite 
in keeping with its commencement4 ,it is
 stated3 ,but when the centurion and    
they that were with him watching ,jesus 
saw the earthquake ------ and the things

 that were done ------ they feared      
greatly1 saying1 ,truly this was a son  
of ,god ------47#a7 ,in ,mark the       
statement is very curiously varied3 ,and
 when the centurion who stood over      
against him saw that he so expired1 he  
said3 ,truly this man was a son of      
,god47#b7 ,it is argued on the one hand 
that the centurion's wonder here was    
caused by ,jesus dying with so loud a   
cry1 and the reading of many ,,mss4     
would clearly support this27#c7 and on  
the other that the cause of his         
exclamation was the unexpectedly rapid  
death of ,jesus4 ,whichever view be     
taken1 the centurion's deduction1 it    
must be admitted1 rests upon  #dcj      
singularly inconclusive reasoning4 ,we  
venture to think that it is impossible  
that a ,roman soldier could either have 
been led to form such an opinion upon   
such grounds1 or to express it in such  
terms4 ,in ,luke1 we have a third       
reading3 ,but when the centurion saw    
what was done1 he glorified ,god1       

saying3 ,certainly this man was         
righteous7#a7 ------4 ,there is nothing 
here about the ,son of ,god2 but when   
the writer represents the ,roman soldier
 as glorifying ,god1 the narrative does 
not seem much more probable than that of
 the other ,synoptists4  ,the fourth    
,evangelist of course does not refer to 
any such episode1 but1 as usual1 he     
introduces a very remarkable incident of
 his own1 of which the ,synoptists1 who 
record such peculiar details of what    
passed1 seem very strangely to know     
nothing4 ,the fourth evangelist states3 
,the ,jews1 therefore1 because it was   
the preparation1 that the bodies might  
not remain upon the cross on the        
sabbath1 7for that sabbath-day was a    
high day71 besought ,pilate that their  
legs might be broken and they might be  
taken away4 ,so the soldiers came and   
brake the legs of the first1 and of the 
other who was crucified with him1 but   
when they came to ,jesus1 as they saw   
that he was dead already1 they brake not

 his legs2 but one of the soldiers with 
a spear pierced his side1 and forthwith 
there came out blood and water4 ,and he 
that hath seen hath borne witness1 and  
his witness is true3 and that man       
knoweth that he saith what is true1 that
 ye also may believe4 ,for these things 
came to pass that the ,scripture might  
be fulfilled3 ,a bone of him shall not  
be broken4 ,and again another ,scripture
 saith3 ,they shall look on him whom    
they pierced47#b7 ,it is inconceivable  
that1 if this  #dca  actually occurred1 
and occurred more especially that the   
,scripture might be fulfilled1 the other
 three ,evangelists could thus totally  
ignore it all47#a7 ,the second          
,synoptist does more3 he not only       
ignores but excludes it1 for 7xv4 #dc   
f47 he represents ,joseph as begging the
 body of ,jesus from ,pilate when       
evening was now come4 ,and ,pilate      
marvelled if he were already dead2 and  
calling unto him the centurion1 he asked
 him whether he had been long dead4 ,and

 when he knew it of the centurion he    
gave the corpse to ,joseph47#b7 ,now1   
although there could be no doubt on the 
point1 the fourth ,gospel clearly states
 7xix4 #ch1 ------ that ,joseph made his
 request for the body after the order   
had been given by ,pilate to break the  
legs of the crucified1 and after it had 
been executed as above described4 ,if   
,pilate had already given the order to  
break the legs1 how is it possible he   
could have marvelled1 or acted as he is 
described in ,mark to have done8  ,it is
 well known that the ,crurifragium1     
which is here applied1 was not usually  
an accompaniment of crucifixion1 though 
it may have been sometimes employed     
along with it17#c7 but that it was a    
distinct punishment4 ,it consisted in   
breaking1 with hammers or clubs1 the    
bones of the condemned from the hips to 
the feet4 ,we shall not discuss whether 
in the present case this measure really 
was adopted or not4 ,the representation 
is that the ,jews requested ,pilate to  

break the legs of the crucified that the
 bodies might be removed before the     
,sabbath1 and  #dcb  that the order was 
given and executed4 ,the first point to 
be noted is the very singular manner in 
which the leg-breaking was performed4   
,the soldiers are said to have broken   
the legs of the first and then of the   
other who was crucified with ,jesus1    
thus passing over ,jesus in the first   
instance2 and then the ,evangelist says3
 but when they came to ,jesus1 as they  
saw that he was dead already1 they brake
 not his legs1 but one of the soldiers  
with a spear pierced his side4 ,this    
order of procedure is singular2 but the 
whole conduct of the guard is so        
extraordinary that such details become  
comparatively insignificant4 ,an order  
having been given to the ,roman         
soldiers1 in accordance with the request
 of the ,jews1 to break the legs of the 
crucified1 we are asked to believe that 
they did not execute it in the case of  
,jesus6 ,it is not reasonable to        

suppose1 however1 that ,roman soldiers  
either were in the habit of disregarding
 their orders1 or could have any motive 
for doing so in this case1 and          
subjecting themselves to the severe     
punishment for disobedience inflicted by
 ,roman military law4 ,it is argued that
 they saw that ,jesus was already dead1 
and therefore that it was not necessary 
to break his legs2 but soldiers are not 
in the habit of thinking in this way3   
they are disciplined to obey4 ,the fact 
is1 however1 that the certainty that    
,jesus was dead already did not actually
 exist in their minds1 and could        
scarcely have existed seeing that the   
death was so singularly rapid1 for in   
that case why should the soldier have   
pierced his side with a spear8 ,the only
 conceivable motive for doing so was to 
make sure that ,jesus really was        
dead27#a7 but is it possible to suppose 
that a ,roman soldier1 being in the     
slightest doubt1 actually chose to      
assure himself in  #dcc  this way when  

he might still more effectually have    
done so by simply obeying the order of  
his superior and breaking the legs8 ,the
 whole episode is manifestly            
un-historical47#a7  ,it is clear that to
 fulfil in a marked way the prophecies  
which the writer had in his mind1 and   
wished specially to apply to ,jesus1 it 
was necessary that1 in the first place1 
there should have been a distinct danger
 of the bones being broken1 and at the  
same time of the side not being pierced4
 ,the order to break the legs of the    
crucified is therefore given1 but an    
extraordinary exception is made in      
favour of ,jesus1 and a thrust with the 
lance substituted1 so that both passages
 of the ,scripture are supposed to be   
fulfilled47#c7 ,what ,scriptures1       
however1 are fulfilled8 ,the first3 ,a  
bone of him shall not be broken1 is     
merely the prescription with regard to  
the ,paschal lamb1 ,ex4 xii4 #df17c7 and
 the dogmatic view of the fourth        
,evangelist leads him throughout to     

represent ,jesus as the true ,paschal   
lamb4 ,the second is ,zech4 xii4 #aj17d7
 and any one who reads the passage1 even
 without the assistance of learned      
exegesis1 may perceive that it has no   
such application as our ,evangelist     
gives it4 ,we shall pass over1 as not   
absolutely necessary for our immediate  
purpose1 very many important details of 
the episode2 but regarding this part of 
the subject we may say that we consider 
it evident that1 if an order was given  
to break the legs of the crucified upon 
this occasion1 that  #dcd  order must   
have been executed upon ,jesus equally  
with any others who may have been       
crucified with him4  ,there has been    
much discussion as to the intention of  
the author in stating that1 from the    
wound made by the lance1 there forthwith
 came out blood and water ------2 and   
likewise as to whether the special      
testimony here referred to in the third 
person is to attest more immediately the
 flow of blood and water1 or the whole  

episode47#a7 ,in regard to the latter   
point1 we need not pause to discuss the 
question47#b7 ,as to the blood and      
water1 some see in the statement made an
 intention to show the reality of the   
death of ,jesus17#c7 whilst others more 
rightly regard the phenomenon described 
as a representation of a supernatural   
and symbolical incident17#d7 closely    
connected with the whole dogmatic view  
of the ,gospel4 ,it is impossible not to
 see in this the same idea as that      
expressed in #a ,john v4 #f3 ,this is he
 that came by water and blood1 ,jesus   
,christ2 not in the water only1 but in  
the water and the blood47#e7 ,as a      
natural incident it cannot be           
entertained1 for in no sense but mere   
quibbling could it be said that blood   
and water could flow from such a wound1 
and as a supernatural  #dce  phenomenon 
it must be rejected4 ,as a proof of the 
reality of the death of ,jesus1 it could
 only have been thought of at a time    
when gross ignorance prevailed upon all 

medical subjects4 ,we shall not here    
discuss the reality of the death of     
,jesus1 but we may merely point out that
 the almost unprecedentedly rapid       
decease of ,jesus was explained by      
,origen7#a7 and some of the ,fathers as 
miraculous4 ,it has been argued that the
 thrust of the lance may have been      
intended to silence those objectors who 
might have denied the actual death on   
the ground that the legs of ,jesus were 
not broken like those of the two        
malefactors17#b7 and it certainly is    
generally quoted as having assured the  
fact of death4 ,the statement that blood
 flowed from the wound1 however1 by no  
means supports the allegation and1      
although we may make little use of the  
argument1 it is right to say that there 
is no evidence of any serious kind      
advanced of the reality of the death of 
,jesus1 here or in the other            
,gospels47#c7  ,the author of the fourth
 ,gospel himself seems to betray that   
this episode is a mere interpolation of 

his own into a narrative to which it    
does not properly belong47#d7 ,according
 to his own account 7xix4 #ca71 the     
,jews besought ,pilate that the legs    
might be broken and that the bodies     
might be taken away ------1 ,the order  
to do this was obviously given1       #c
  ,it has likewise been thought that the
 representation in      ,mark xv4 #dd1  
that ,pilate marvelled at the rapid     
death of      ,jesus1 and sent for the  
centurion to ascertain the fact1 was    
made to meet similar doubts1 or at least
 to give assurance      of the reality  
of the death4  #dcf  for the legs are   
forthwith broken and of coarse1         
immediately after1 the bodies in        
pursuance of the same order would have  
been taken away4 ,as soon as the        
,evangelist has secured his purpose of  
showing how the ,scriptures were        
fulfilled by means of this episode1 he  
takes up the story as though it had not 
been interrupted1 and proceeds v4 #ch3  
,after these things ------1 that is to  

say after the legs of the malefactors   
had been broken and the side of ,jesus  
pierced1 ,joseph besought ,pilate that  
he might take away the body of ,jesus1  
and ,pilate gave leave4 ,but1 if v4     
#ca;f4 be historical1 the body must     
already have been taken away4 ,all the  
,synoptics agree with the fourth ,gospel
 in stating that ,joseph of ,arimathaea 
begged for and obtained the body of     
,jesus from ,pilate47#a7 ,the second and
 third ,synoptics describe him as       
belonging to the ,council1 but the first
 ,gospel merely calls him a rich man1   
whilst the fourth omits both of these   
descriptions4 ,they all call him a      
disciple of ,jesus--secretly for fear of
 the ,jews1 the fourth ,gospel          
characteristically adds--although the   
term that he was waiting for the        
,kingdom of ,god1 used by the second and
 third ,gospels1 is somewhat vague4 ,the
 fourth ,gospel1 however1 introduces a  
second personage in the shape of        
,nicodemus1 who at the first came to him

 by night17#b7 and who1 it will be      
remembered1 had previously been         
described as a ruler of the ,jews47#c7  
,the ,synoptics do not once mention such
 a person1 either in the narrative of   
the ,passion or in the earlier chapters1
 and there are more than doubts as to   
his historical character47#d7 ,the      
accounts of the ,entombment given by the
 three       #a ,according to ,luke     
xxiii4 #ec1 ,joseph actually took down  
the body4  #dcg  ,synoptists1 or at     
least by the second and third1          
distinctly exclude the narrative of the 
fourth ,gospel1 both as regards         
,nicodemus and the part he is           
represented as taking4 ,the             
contradictions which commence here      
between the account of the fourth       
,gospel and the ,synoptics1 in fact1 are
 of the most glaring and important      
nature1 and demand marked attention4    
,the fourth ,gospel states that1 having 
obtained permission from ,pilate1       
,joseph came and took the body of ,jesus

 away4 ,and there came also             
,nicodemus1444 bringing a mixture of    
myrrh and aloes1 about a hundred pound  
weight4 ,they took1 therefore1 the body 
of ,jesus1 and wound it in linen cloths 
with the spices1 as the manner of the   
,jews is to bury4 ,now in the place     
where he was crucified there was a      
garden1 and in the garden a new         
sepulchre wherein was never man yet     
laid4 ,there1 therefore1 on account of  
the preparation of the ,jews ------1    
they laid ,jesus1 for the sepulchre was 
at hand ------47#a7  ,according to the  
first ,synoptic1 when ,joseph took the  
body1 he simply wrapped it in clean     
linen ------ and laid it in his own new 
sepulchre1 which he hewed in the rock3  
and he rolled a great stone to the door 
of the sepulchre1 and departed47#b7     
,there is no mention of spices or any   
anointing of the body17#c7 and the      
statement that the women provide for    
this is not made in this ,gospel4       
,according to the writer1 the burial is 

complete1 and the sepulchre finally     
closed4 ,mary ,magdalene and the other  
,mary come merely to behold the         
sepulchre at the end of the  #dch       
,sabbath47#a7 ,the fourth ,evangelist   
apparently does not know anything of the
 sepulchre being ,joseph's own tomb1 and
 the body is1 according to him1 although
 folly embalmed1 only laid in the       
sepulchre in the garden on account of   
the ,sabbath and because it was at hand4
 ,we shall refer to this point1 which   
must be noted1 further on4  ,there are  
very striking differences between these 
two accounts1 but the narratives of the 
second and third ,synoptists are still  
more emphatically contradictory of both4
 ,in ,mark17#b7 we are told that ,joseph
 bought linen1 and took him down and    
wrapped him in the linen1 and laid him  
in a sepulchre which had been hewn out  
of a rock1 and rolled a stone against   
the door of the sepulchre4 ,there is no 
mention here of any embalming performed 
by ,joseph or ,nicodemus1 nor are any   

particulars given as to the ownership of
 the sepulchre1 or the reasons for its  
selection4 ,we are1 however1 told37#c7  
,and when the ,sabbath was past1 ,mary  
,magdalene and ,mary the mother of      
,james1 and ,salome1 bought spices that 
they might come and anoint him4 ,it is  
distinctly stated in connection with the
 entombment1 moreover1 in agreement with
 the first ,synoptic37#d7 ,and ,mary    
,magdalene and ,mary the mother of      
,joses beheld where he was laid47#e7    
,according to this account and that of  
the first ,gospel1 the women1 having    
remained to the last and seen the body  
deposited in the sepulchre1 knew so     
little of its having been embalmed by   
,joseph and ,nicodemus1 that they       
actually purchase the spices and come to
 perform that office themselves4  ,in   
,luke1 the statement is still more      
specific1 in  #dci  agreement with      
,mark1 and in contradiction to the      
fourth ,gospel4 ,joseph took down the   
body and wrapped it in linen1 and laid  

it in a sepulchre that was hewn in      
stone1 wherein never man before was     
laid4444 ,and women who had come with   
him out of ,galilee followed after1 and 
beheld the sepulchre and how his body   
was laid4 ,and they returned and        
prepared spices and ointments4 ,upon the
 first day of the week1 the author adds3
 they came unto the sepulchre bringing  
the spices which they had prepared47#a7 
,which of these accounts are we to      
believe8 ,according to the first        
,gospel1 there is no embalmment at all2 
according to the second and third       
,gospels1 the embalmment is undertaken  
by the women1 and not by ,joseph and    
,nicodemus1 but is never carried out2   
according to the fourth ,gospel1 the    
embalmment is completed on ,friday      
evening by ,joseph and ,nicodemus1 and  
not by the women4 ,according to the     
first ,gospel1 the burial is completed  
on ,friday evening2 according to the    
second and third1 it is only            
provisional2 and according to the       

fourth1 the embalmment is final1 but it 
is doubtful whether the entombment is   
final or temporary2 several critics     
consider it to have been only           
provisional47#b7 ,in ,mark1 the women   
buy the spices when the ,sabbath was    
past ------27#c7 in ,luke before it has 
begun27#d7 and in ,matthew and ,john    
they do not buy them at all4 ,in the    
first and fourth ,gospels1 the women    
come after the ,sabbath merely to behold
 the sepulchre17#e7 and in the second   
and third1 they bring the spices to     
complete the burial4  #ddj  ,amid these 
conflicting statements we may suggest   
one consideration4 ,it is not probable1 
in a hot climate1 that a wounded body1  
hastily laid in a sepulchre on ,friday  
evening before six o'clock1 would be    
disturbed again on ,sunday morning for  
the purpose of being anointed and       
embalmed4 ,corruption would1 under the  
circumstances1 already have commenced4  
,besides1 as ,keim7l7 has pointed out1  
the last duties to the dead were not    

forbidden amongst the ,jews on the      
,sabbath1 and there is really no reason 
why any care for the body of the ,master
 which reverence or affection might have
 dictated should not at once have been  
bestowed4  ,the enormous amount of myrrh
 and aloes--about a hundred pound weight
 --------brought by ,nicodemus has      
excited much discussion1 and adds to the
 extreme improbability of the story     
related by the fourth ,evangelist47#c7  
,to whatever weight the ------ may be   
reduced1 the quantity specified is very 
great2 and it is a question whether the 
body thus enveloped as the manner of the
 ,jews is to bury could have entered the
 sepulchre4 ,the practice of embalming  
the dead1 although well known amongst   
the ,jews1 and invariable in the case of
 ,kings and noble or very wealthy       
persons1 was by no means generally      
prevalent ,in the burial of ,gamaliel   
the elder1 chief of the party of the    
,pharisees1 it is stated that over #hj  
pounds of balsam were burnt in his      

honour by the proselyte ,onkelos27#c7   
but this quantity1 which was considered 
very  #dda  remarkable1 is totally      
eclipsed by the provision of ,nicodemus4
  ,the key to the whole of this history 
of the burial of ,jesus1 however1 is to 
be found in the celebrated chapt4 liii4 
of ,isaiah4 ,we have already1 in        
passing1 pointed out that1 in the third 
,gospel 7xxii4 #cg71 ,jesus is          
represented as saying3 ,for ,i say unto 
you1 that this which is written must be 
accomplished in me3 ,and he was reckoned
 among transgressors4 ,the same         
quotation from ,is4 liii4 #ab is        
likewise interpolated in ,mk4 xv4 #bh4  
,now the whole representation of the    
burial and embalmment of ,jesus is      
evidently based upon the same chapter1  
and more especially upon v4 #i1 which is
 wrongly rendered both in the           
,authorized ,version and in the         
,septuagint1 in the latter of which the 
passage reads3 ,i will give the wicked  
for his grave and the rich for his      

death47#a7 ,the ,evangelists taking this
 to be the sense of the passage1 which  
they suppose to be a ,messianic         
prophecy1 have represented the death of 
,jesus as being with the wicked1        
crucified as he is between two robbers2 
and through ,joseph of ,arimathaea1     
significantly called a rich man ------  
by the first ,synoptist1 especially     
according to the fourth ,evangelist by  
his addition of the counsellor          
,nicodemus and his hundred pounds weight
 of mingled myrrh and aloes1 as being   
with the rich in his death4             
,unfortunately1 the passage in the      
prophecy does not mean what the         
,evangelists have been led to           
understand1 and the ablest ,hebrew      
scholars and critics are now agreed that
 both phrases quoted refer1 in true     
,hebrew manner1 to one representation1  
and that the word above  #ddb           
translated rich is not used in a        
favourable sense1 but that the passage  
must be rendered3 ,and they made his    

grave with the wicked and his sepulchre 
with the evil-doers1 or words to that   
effect47#a7 ,without going minutely into
 the details of opinion on the subject  
of the servant of ,jehovah in this      
writing of the ,old ,testament1 we may  
add that upon one point at least the    
great majority of critics are of one    
accord3 that ,is4 liii4 and other       
passages of ,isaiah describing the      
sufferings of the ,servant of ,jehovah  
have no reference to the ,messiah47#c7  
,as we have  #ddc  touched upon this    
subject it may not be out of place to   
add that ,psalms xxii47#a7 and          
lxix417#b7 which are so frequently      
quoted in connection with the passion1  
and represented by ,new ,testament and  
other early writers as ,messianic1 are  
determined by sounder principles of     
criticism applied to them in modern     
times not to refer to the ,messiah at   
all4 ,we have elsewhere spoken of other 
supposed ,messianic ,psalms quoted in   
the ,new ,testament47#c7  ,we now come  

to a remarkable episode which is        
peculiar to the first ,synoptic and     
strangely ignored by all the other      
,gospels4 ,it is stated that the next   
day--that is to say1 on the             
,sabbath--the chief priests and the     
,pharisees came together to ,pilate1    
saying3 ,sir1 we remember that that     
deceiver said while he was yet alive3   
,after three  #ddd  days ,i am raised   
------4 ,command1 therefore1 that the   
sepulchre be made sure until the third  
day1 lest his disciples come and steal  
him away and say unto the people3 ,he is
 risen from the dead3 so the last error 
shall be worse than the first4 ,pilate  
said unto them3 ,ye have a guard ------3
 go1 make it as sure as ye can4 ,so they
 went and made the sepulchre sure1      
sealing the stone1 with the guard47l7   
,not only do the other ,evangelists pass
 over this strange proceeding in total  
silence1 but their narratives exclude   
it1 at least those of the second and    
third ,synoptists do so4 ,the women came

 with their spices to embalm the body1  
in total ignorance of there being any   
guard to interfere with their           
performance of that last sad office for 
the ,master4 ,we are asked to believe   
that the chief priests and the          
,pharisees actually desecrated the      
,sabbath by sealing the stone1 and      
visited the house of the heathen ,pilate
 on so holy a day1 for the purpose of   
asking for the guard47#b7 ,these priests
 are said to have remembered and        
understood a prophecy of ,jesus         
regarding his resurrection1 of which his
 disciples are represented to be in     
ignorance47#c7 ,the remark about the    
last error1 moreover1 is very           
suspicious4 ,the ready acquiescence of  
,pilate is quite incredible47#d7 ,that  
he should employ ,roman soldiers to     
watch the sepulchre of a man who had    
been crucified cannot be entertained2   
and his friendly3 ,go1 make it as sure  
as ye  #dde  can1 is not in the spirit  
of ,pilate4 ,it is conceivable that to  

satisfy their clamour he may1 without   
much difficulty1 have consented to      
crucify a ,jew1 more especially as his  
crime was of a political character      
represented as in some degree affecting 
the ,roman power2 but1 once crucified1  
it is not in the slightest degree likely
 that ,pilate would care what became of 
his body1 and still less that he would  
employ ,roman soldiers to mount guard   
over it4  ,it may be as well to dispose 
finally of this episode1 so we at once  
proceed to its conclusion4 ,when the    
resurrection takes place1 it is stated  
that some of the guard went into the    
city1 and1 instead of making their      
report to ,pilate1 as might have been   
expected1 told the chief priests all    
that had occurred4 ,a council is held1  
and the soldiers are largely bribed1 and
 instructed3 ,say that his disciples    
came by night and stole him while we    
slept4 ,and if this come to the         
governor's ears we will persuade him and
 make you free from care4 ,so they took 

the money and did as they were          
taught47#a7 ,nothing could be more      
simple than the construction of the     
story1 which follows the usual broad    
lines of legend4 ,the idea of ,roman    
soldiers confessing that they slept     
whilst on watch1 and allowed that to    
occur which they were there to prevent6 
and this to oblige the chief priests and
 elders1 at the risk of their lives6    
,then are we to suppose that the chief  
priests and council believed this story 
of the earthquake and angel1 and yet    
acted in this way8 and if they did not  
believe it1 would not the very story    
itself have led to the punishment of the
 men1 and to the confirmation of the    
report they desired to spread1 that the 
disciples had stolen the body8 ,the     
large bribe seems to have been very     
ineffectual1 however1 since the         
,christian historian is able to report  
precisely what the  #ddf  chief priests 
and elders instruct them to say47#a7 ,is
 it not palpable that the whole story is

 legendary87#b7 ,if it be so1 and we    
think it cannot be doubted1 a conclusion
 which the total silence of the other   
,gospels seems to confirm1 very         
suggestive consequences may be deduced  
from it4 ,the first ,synoptist1         
referring to the false report which the 
,sanhedrin instruct the soldiers to     
make1 says3 ,and this saying was spread 
among the ,jews unto this day47#c7 ,the 
probable origin of the legend1          
therefore1 may have been an objection to
 the ,christian affirmation of the      
resurrection to the above effect2 but it
 is instructive to find that ,christian 
tradition was equal to the occasion1 and
 invented a story to refute it4 ,it is  
the tendency to this very system of     
defence and confirmation1 everywhere    
apparent1 which renders early ,christian
 tradition so mythical and              
untrustworthy4  ,we now enter upon the  
narrative of the ,resurrection itself4  
,the first ,synoptist relates that ,mary
 ,magdalene and the other ,mary came to 

behold the sepulchre at the close of the
 ,sabbath1 as it began to dawn into the 
first day of the week ------17#d7 that  
is to say1 shortly after six o'clock on 
the evening of ,saturday1 the end of the
 ,sabbath1 the dawn of the next day     
being marked by the  #ddg  glimmer of   
more than one star in the heavens47#a7  
,the second ,synoptic represents that1  
when the ,sabbath was past1 ,mary       
,magdalene1 and ,mary the mother of     
,james1 and ,salome bought spices1 and  
that they came to the sepulchre very    
early on the first day of the week after
 the rising of the sun ------47#b7 ,the 
third ,synoptist states that the women  
who came with ,jesus from ,galilee came 
to the sepulchre1 but he subsequently   
more definitely names them3 ,mary       
,magdalene1 and ,joanna1 and ,mary the  
mother of ,james1 and the other women   
with them17#c7--;a larger number of     
women1--and they came upon the first day
 of the week at early dawn ------4 ,the 
fourth ,evangelist represents that ,mary

 ,magdalene only7#d7 came to the        
sepulchre1 on the first day of the week1
 early1 while it was yet dark           
------47#e7  ,the first ,evangelist     
indubitably makes the hour at which the 
women come to the sepulchre different   
and much earlier than the others1 and at
 the same time he represents them as    
witnessing the actual removal of the    
stone1 which1 in the other three        
,gospels1 the women already find rolled 
away from the mouth of the              
sepulchre47#f7 ,it will1 therefore1 be  
interesting to follow the first         
,synoptic4 ,it is here stated3 #b4 ,and 
behold there was a great earthquake     
------3 for an angel of the ,lord       
descended from heaven and came and      
rolled away the stone and sat upon it4  
#c4 ,his appearance was like lightning1 
and his raiment white as  #ddh  snow4   
#d4 ,and for fear of him the keepers did
 shake and became as dead men4 #e4 ,and 
the angel answered and said unto the    
women3 ,fear ye not1 for ,i know that ye

 seek ,jesus1 who hath been crucified4  
#f4 ,he is not here3 for he was raised  
------ as he said3 ,come1 see the place 
where he lay4 #g4 ,and go quickly1 and  
tell his disciples that he was raised   
------ from the dead1 and behold he     
goeth before you into ,galilee3 there   
shall ye see him3 behold1 ,i have told  
you4 #h4 ,and they departed quickly from
 the sepulchre with fear and great joy2 
and ran to tell his disciples47#a7 ,we  
have here in the first place another    
earthquake and apparently1 on the theory
 of the course of cosmical phenomena    
held during the ,age of ,miracles1      
produced by the angel who descended to  
roll away the stone from the sepulchre4 
,this earthquake1 like the others       
recorded in the first ,synoptic1 appears
 to be quite unknown to the other       
,evangelists1 and no trace of it has    
been pointed out in other writings4     
,with the appearance of the angel we    
obviously arrive upon thoroughly        
unhistorical ground4 ,can we believe1   

because this unknown writer tells us so1
 that an angel17#b7 causing an          
earthquake1 actually descended and took 
such a part in this transaction8 ,upon  
the very commonest       #b ,compare his
 description with ,dan4 x4 #f4 ,it is   
worthy of      consideration also that  
when ,daniel is cast into the den of    
lions a stone is rolled upon the mouth  
of the den1 and      sealed with the    
signet of the king and his lords1 vi4   
#ag4  #ddi  principles of evidence1 the 
reply must be an emphatic negative4     
,every fact of science1 every lesson of 
experience excludes such an assumption1 
and we may add that the character of the
 author1 with which we are now better   
acquainted1 as well as the course of the
 narrative itself1 confirms the justice 
of such a conclusion47#a7 ,if the       
introduction of the angel be legendary1 
must not also his words be so8          
,proceeding1 however1 to examine the    
narrative as it stands1 we must point   
out a circumstance which may            

appropriately be mentioned here1 and    
which is well worthy of attention4 ,the 
women and the guard are present when the
 stone is rolled away from the          
sepulchre1 but they do not witness the  
actual ,resurrection4 ,it is natural to 
suppose that1 when the stone was        
removed1 ,jesus1 who1 it is asserted1   
rises with his body from the dead1 would
 have come forth from the sepulchre3 but
 not so2 the angel only says1 v4 #f3 ,he
 is not here3 for he was raised ------2 
and he merely invites the women to see  
the place where he lay4 ,the actual     
resurrection is spoken of as a thing    
which had taken place before1 and in any
 case it was not witnessed by any one4  
,in the other ,gospels1 the resurrection
 has already occurred before any one    
arrives at the sepulchre2 and the       
remarkable fact is1 therefore1          
absolutely undeniable1 that there was   
not1 and that it is not even pretended  
that there was1 a single eye-witness of 
the actual ,resurrection4 ,the empty    

grave1 coupled with the supposed        
subsequent appearances of ,jesus1 is the
 only evidence of the ,resurrection4 ,we
 shall not1 however1 pursue this further
 at present4 ,the removal of the stone  
is not followed by any visible result4  
,the inmate of the sepulchre is not     
#dej  observed to issue from it1 and yet
 he is not there4 ,may we not ask what  
was the use1 in this narrative1 of the  
removal of the stone at all8 ,as no one 
apparently came forth1 the only purpose 
seems to have been to permit those from 
without to enter and see that the       
sepulchre was empty4  ,another          
remarkable point is that the angel      
desires the women to go quickly and     
inform the disciples3 he goeth before   
you into ,galilee3 there shall ye see   
him4 ,one is tempted to inquire why1 as 
he rose from the dead in ,jerusalem and1
 in spite of previous statements1 the   
disciples are represented as being there
 also17#a7 ,jesus did not appear to them
 in the ,holy ,city1 instead of sending 

them some three days' journey off to    
,galilee4 ,at the same time1 ,jesus is  
represented by the first two ,synoptics 
as saying at the last ,supper1 when     
warning the disciples that they will all
 be offended at him that night and be   
scattered3 ,but after ,i shall have been
 raised1 ,i will go before you into     
,galilee47#b7 ,at present we have only  
to call attention to the fact that the  
angel gives the order4 ,with how much   
surprise1 therefore1 do we not          
immediately after read that1 as the     
women departed quickly to tell the      
disciples in obedience to the angel's   
message1 v4 #i3 ,behold ,jesus met them1
 saying1 ,hail4 ,and they came up to him
 and laid hold of his feet1 and         
worshipped him4 #aj4 ,then saith ,jesus 
unto them3 ,be not afraid3 go1 tell my  
brethren that they depart into ,galilee1
 and there they shall see me47#c7 ,what 
was the use of the angel's message since
 ,jesus himself immediately after       
appears and delivers the very same      

instructions in person8 ,this sudden and
 apparently unnecessary appearance has  
all the character of an afterthought4   
,one point1  #dea  however1 is very     
clear3 that the order to go into        
,galilee and the statement that there   
first ,jesus is to appear to the        
disciples are unmistakable1 repeated and
 peremptory4  ,we must now turn to the  
second ,gospel4 ,the women going to the 
sepulchre with spices that they might   
anoint the body of ,jesus--which1       
according to the fourth ,gospel1 had    
already been fully embalmed and1 in any 
case1 had lain in the sepulchre since   
the ,friday evening--are represented as 
saying amongst themselves3 ,who will    
roll us away the stone from the door of 
the sepulchre87#a7 ,this is a curious   
dramatic speculation1 but very          
suspicious4 ,these women are apparently 
not sufficiently acquainted with ,joseph
 of ,arimathaea to be aware that1 as the
 fourth ,gospel asserts1 the body had   
already been embalmed1 and yet they     

actually contemplate rolling the stone  
away from the mouth of a sepulchre which
 was his property47#b7 ,keim has pointed
 out that it was a general rule7#c7     
that1 after a sepulchre had been closed 
in the way described1 it should not     
again be opened4 ,generally1 the stone  
was not placed against the opening of   
the sepulchre till the third day1 when  
corruption had already commenced2 but   
here the sepulchre is stated by all the 
,gospels to have been closed on the     
first day1 and the unhesitating         
intention of the women to remove the    
stone is not a happy touch on the part  
of the second ,synoptist4 ,they find the
 stone already rolled away47#d7 ,ver4   
#e3 ,and entering into the sepulchre1   
they saw a young man sitting on the     
right side1 clothed in a long white     
garment2 and they were       #d ,mk4    
xvi4 #d4 ,the continuation3 for it was  
very great --      ----1 is peculiar1   
but of course intended to represent the 
difficulty of its removal4  #deb        

affrighted4 #f4 ,and he saith unto them3
 ,be not affrighted3 ,ye seek ,jesus of 
,nazareth1 the crucified3 he was raised 
------2 he is not here2 behold the place
 where they laid him4 #g4 ,but go1 tell 
his disciples and ,peter that he goeth  
before you into ,galilee2 there shall ye
 see him1 as he said unto you4 #h4 ,and 
they went out and fled from the         
sepulchre3 for trembling and            
astonishment seized them1 and they said 
nothing to any one2 for they were       
afraid47#a7 ,in ,matthew1 the angel     
rolls away the stone from the sepulchre 
and sits upon it1 and the women only    
enter to see where ,jesus lay1 upon his 
invitation4 ,here1 they go in at once1  
and see the angel 7a young man7 sitting 
at the right side1 and are affrighted4  
,he re assures them and1 as in the other
 narrative1 says3 he was raised4 ,he    
gives them the same message to his      
disciples and to ,peter1 who is         
specially named1 and the second         
,synoptic thus fully confirms the first 

in representing ,galilee as the place   
where ,jesus is to be seen by them4 ,it 
is curious that the women should say    
nothing to anyone about this wonderful  
event1 and in this the statements of the
 other ,gospels are certainly not borne 
out4 ,there is one remarkable point to  
be noticed1 however1 that1 according to 
the second ,synoptist also1 not only is 
there no eye-witness of the             
,resurrection1 but the only evidence of 
that marvellous occurrence which it     
contains is the information of the young
 man1 which is clearly no evidence at   
all4 ,there is no appearance of ,jesus  
to any one narrated1 and it would seem  
as though the appearance described in   
#dec  ,matt1 xxviii4 #i f4 is excluded4 
,it is well known that ,mark xvi4 #i-bj 
did not form part of the original       
,gospel and is inauthentic4 ,it is      
unnecessary to argue a point so         
generally admitted4 ,the verses now     
appended to the ,gospel are by a        
different author and are of no value as 

evidence4 ,we1 therefore1 exclude them  
from consideration4 ,in ,luke1 as in the
 second ,synoptic1 the women find the   
stone removed1 and here it is distinctly
 stated that on entering in they found  
not the body of the ,lord ,jesus4 #d4   
,and it came to pass as they were       
perplexed thereabout1 behold two men    
stood by them in shining garments2 #e4  
,and as they were afraid1 and bowed     
their faces to the earth1 they said unto
 them3 ,why seek ye the living among the
 dead8 #f4 ,he is not here1 but was     
raised ------2 remember how he spake    
unto you when he was yet in ,galilee1   
#g4 saying1 that the ,son of ,man must  
be delivered up into the hands of sinful
 men1 and be crucified and the third day
 rise again4 #h4 ,and they remembered   
his words1 #i4 and returned from the    
sepulchre1 and told all these things    
unto the eleven and to all the rest4444 
#aa4 ,and these words appeared to them  
as an idle tale1 and they believed them 
not47#a7 ,the author of the third       

,gospel is not content with one angel1  
like the first two ,synoptists1 but     
introduces two men in shining garments1 
who seem suddenly to stand beside the   
women1 and instead of re-assuring them1 
as in the former narratives1 rather     
adopt a tone of reproof 7v4 #e74 ,they  
inform the women that ,jesus was raised2
 and here again not only has no one been
 an eye-witness of the resurrection1 but
 the women only hear of it from the     
angels4 ,there is one striking          
peculiarity in the above  #ded  account4
 ,there is no mention whatever of ,jesus
 going before his disciples into        
,galilee to be seen of them1 nor indeed 
of his being seen at all2 but ,galilee  
is introduced by way of a reminiscence4 
,instead of the future1 the third       
,synoptist substitutes the past and1 as 
might be expected1 he gives no hint of  
any appearances of ,jesus to the        
disciples beyond the neighbourhood of   
,jerusalem4 ,when the women tell the    
disciples what they have seen and heard1

 they do not believe them4 ,the thief on
 the cross1 according to the writer1 was
 more advanced in his faith and         
knowledge than the ,apostles4 ,setting  
aside ,mat4 xxviii4 #i1aj1 we have      
hitherto no other affirmation of the    
,resurrection than the statement that   
the sepulchre was found empty1 and the  
angels announced that ,jesus was raised 
from the dead4  ,the account of the     
fourth ,evangelist1 however1 differs    
completely from the narratives of all   
the ,synoptists4 ,according to him1     
,mary ,magdalene alone comes to the     
sepulchre and sees the stone taken away4
 ,she therefore runs and comes to ,simon
 ,peter and to the other disciple whom  
,jesus loved1 saying3 ,they took ------ 
the ,lord out of the sepulchre and we   
know not ------7#a7 where they laid     
------ him4 #c4 ,peter1 therefore1 went 
forth and the other disciple1 and came  
to the sepulchre4 #d4 ,and the two ran  
together2 and the other disciple outran 
,peter and came first to the sepulchre2 

#e4 and stooping down1 looking in1 he   
seeth the linen clothes lying2 yet went 
he not in4 ,c4 ,then cometh ,simon      
,peter following him and went into the  
#a ,from the use of this plural1 as we  
have already pointed      out1 it is    
argued that there were others with ,mary
 who are      not named4 ,this by no    
means follows1 but if it were the case  
the peculiarity of the narrative becomes
 all the more      apparent4  #dee      
sepulchre and beholdeth the linen       
clothes lying1 #g4 and the napkin that  
was on his head1 not lying with the     
linen clothes1 but wrapped in one place 
by itself4 #h4 ,then went in1 therefore1
 the other disciple also1 who came first
 to the sepulchre1 and he saw and       
believed4 #i4 ,for as yet they knew not 
the scriptures1 that he must rise again 
from the dead4 #aj4 ,so the disciples   
went away to their own homes47#a7       
,critics have long ago pointed out the  
careful way in which the actions of the 
beloved disciple and ,peter are balanced

 in this narrative4 ,if the other       
disciple outstrips ,peter1 and first    
looks into the sepulchre1 ,peter first  
actually enters2 and if ,peter first    
sees the careful arrangement of the     
linen clothes1 the other sees and       
believes4 ,the evident care with which  
the writer metes out a share to each    
disciple in this visit to the sepulchre1
 of which the ,synoptics seem totally   
ignorant1 is very suggestive of artistic
 arrangement1 and the careful details   
regarding the folding and position of   
the linen clothes1 which has furnished  
so much matter for apologetic reasoning1
 seems to us to savour more of studied  
composition than natural observation4   
,so very much is passed over in complete
 silence which is of the very highest   
importance1 that minute details like    
these1 which might well be composed in  
the study1 do not produce so much effect
 as some critics think they should do4  
,there is some ambiguity as to what the 
disciple believed1 according to v4 #h1  

when he went into the sepulchre2 and    
some understand that he simply believed 
what ,mary ,magdalene had told them 7v4 
#b71 whilst others hold that he believed
 in the resurrection1 which1 taken in   
connection with the following verse1    
seems undoubtedly to be the author's    
meaning4 ,if the former were the reading
 it would be too trifling a point to be 
so  #def  prominently mentioned1 and it 
would not accord with the contented     
return home of the disciples4 ,accepting
 the latter sense1 it is instructive to 
observe the very small amount of        
evidence with which the beloved disciple
 is content4 ,he simply finds the       
sepulchre empty and the linen clothes   
lying1 and although no one even speaks  
of the resurrection1 no one professes to
 have been an eye-witness of it1 and as 
yet they know not the scriptures1 that  
he must rise again from the dead1 he is 
nevertheless said to see and believe4   
,it will have been observed that as yet1
 although the two disciples have both   

entered the sepulchre1 there has been no
 mention whatever of angels3 they       
certainly did not see any4 ,in immediate
 continuation of the narrative1 however1
 we learn that when they have gone home1
 ,mary ,magdalene1 who was standing     
without at the tomb weeping1 stooped    
down and1 looking into the              
sepulchre1--where just before the       
disciples had seen no one1--she beheld  
two angels in white sitting1 one at the 
head and one at the feet1 where the body
 of ,jesus lay4 #ac4 ,they say unto her3
 ,woman1 why weepest thou8 ,she saith   
unto them3 ,because they took away      
------ my ,lord1 and ,i know not where  
they laid him47#a7 ,this again is a very
 different representation and           
conversation from that reported in the  
other ,gospels4 ,do we acquire any      
additional assurance as to the reality  
of the angels and the historical truth  
of their intervention from this         
narrative8 ,we think not4 ,mary         
,magdalene repeats to the angels almost 

the very words she had said to the      
disciples1 v4 #b4 ,are we to suppose    
that the beloved disciple1 who saw and  
believed1 did not communicate his       
conviction to the others1 and that ,mary
 was left  #deg  precisely in the same  
doubt and perplexity as before1 without 
an idea that anything had happened      
except that the body had been taken away
 and she knew not where it had been     
laid8 ,she appears to have seen and     
spoken to the angels with singular      
composure4 ,their sudden appearance does
 not even seem to have surprised her4   
,we must1 however1 continue the         
narrative1 and it is well to remark the 
maintenance1 at first1 of the tone of   
affected ignorance1 as well as the      
dramatic construction of the whole      
scene3 v4 #ad4 ,having said this1 she   
turned herself back and beholdeth ,jesus
 standing1 and knew not that it was     
,jesus4 #ae4 ,jesus saith unto her3     
,woman1 why weepest thou8 whom seekest  
thou8 ,she1 supposing that it was the   

gardener1 saith unto him3 ,sir1 if thou 
didst bear him hence1 tell me where thou
 didst lay him1 and ,i will take him    
away4 #af4 ,jesus saith unto her3 ,mary4
 ,she turned herself1 and saith unto him
 in ,hebrew37#a7 ,rabboni1 which is to  
say1 ,master4 #ag4 ,jesus saith unto    
her3 ,touch me not ------2 for ,i have  
not yet ascended to the ,father3 but go 
to my brethren1 and say unto them3 ,i   
ascend unto my ,father and your ,father1
 and my ,god and your ,god4 #ah4 ,mary  
,magdalene cometh announcing to the     
disciples that she has seen the ,lord1  
and he spake these things unto her47#b7 
,to those who attach weight to these    
narratives and consider them historical1
 it must appear astonishing that ,mary1 
who up to the very last had been closely
 associated with ,jesus1 does not       
recognise him when he thus appears to   
her1 but supposes him at first to be the
 gardener4 ,as part of the evidence of  
the ,gospel1 however1       #a ,this is 
the reading of the ,vatican and         

,sinaitic codices1      besides ,d and  
many other important ,,mss4  #deh  such 
a trait is of much importance1 and must 
hereafter be alluded to4 ,after a couple
 of days not know ,jesus whom she had   
daily seen for so long6 ,the            
interpretation of the reply of ,jesus1  
v4 #ag3 ,touch me not1 c1 has long been 
a bone of contention among critics1 but 
it does not sufficiently affect the     
inquiry upon which we are engaged to    
require discussion here47#a7 ,only one  
point may be mentioned in passing1 that 
if1 as has been supposed in connection  
with ,mt4 xxviii4 #i1 ,jesus be         
understood to repel1 as premature1 the  
worship of ,mary1 that very passage of  
the first ,gospel1 in which there is    
certainly no discouragement of worship1 
refutes the theory4 ,we shall not say   
more about the construction of this     
dialogue1 but we may point out that1 as 
so many unimportant details are given   
throughout the narrative1 it is somewhat
 remarkable that the scene terminates so

 abruptly1 and leaves so much untold    
that it would have been of the utmost   
consequence for us to know4 ,what became
 of ,jesus1 for instance8 ,did he vanish
 suddenly8 or did he bid ,mary farewell1
 and leave her like one in the flesh8   
,did she not inquire why he did not join
 the brethren8 whither he was going8 ,it
 is scarcely possible to tell us less   
than the writer has done2 and as it     
cannot be denied that such minor points 
as where the linen clothes  #dei  lay1  
or whether ,mary turned herself back 7v4
 #ad7 or turned herself 7v4 #af7 merely1
 cannot be compared in interest and     
importance to the supposed movements and
 conduct of ,jesus under such           
circumstances1 the omission to relate   
the end of the interview1 or more       
particular details of it1 whilst those  
graphic touches are inserted1 is        
singularly instructive4 ,it is much more
 important to notice that here again    
there is no mention of ,galilee1 nor1   
indeed1 of any intention to show himself

 to the disciples anywhere1 but simply  
the intimation sent to them3 ,i ascend  
unto my ,father and your ,father1 c1 a  
declaration which seems emphatically to 
exclude further appearances1 and to     
limit the vision of the risen ,jesus to 
,mary ,magdalene4 ,certainly this       
message implies in the clearest way that
 the ,ascension was then to take place1 
and the only explanation of the abrupt  
termination of the scene immediately    
after this is said is1 that1 as he      
spoke1 ,jesus then ascended4 ,the       
subsequent appearances related in this  
,gospel must1 consequently1 either be   
regarded as an after-thought1 or as     
visions of ,jesus after he had ascended4
 ,this demands serious attention4 ,we   
shall see that after sending this       
message to his disciples he is          
represented as appearing to them on the 
evening of the very same day4           
,according to the third ,synoptic1 the  
first appearance of ,jesus to any one   
after the ,resurrection was not to the  

women1 and not to ,mary ,magdalene1 but 
to two brethren17#a7 who were not       
apostles at all1 the name of one of     
whom1 we are told1 was ,cleopas47#b7    
,the story of the walk to ,emmaus is    
very dramatic and interesting1 but it is
 clearly legendary47#c7 ,none of the    
other ,evangelists  #dfj  seem to know  
anything of it4 ,it is difficult to     
suppose that ,jesus should after his    
resurrection appear first of all to two 
unknown ,christians in such a manner1   
and accompany them in such a journey4   
,the particulars of the story are to the
 last degree improbable1 and in its main
 features incredible1 and it is indeed  
impossible to consider them carefully   
without perceiving the transparent      
inauthenticity of the narrative4 ,the   
two disciples were going to a village   
called ,emmaus threescore furlongs      
distant from ,jerusalem1 and while they 
are conversing ,jesus joins them1 but   
their eyes were holden that they should 
not know him4 ,he asks the subject of   

their discourse1 and pretends ignorance1
 which surprises them4 ,hearing the     
expression of their perplexity and      
depression1 he says to them3 #be4 ,o    
foolish and slow of heart to believe all
 that the prophets spake4 #bf4 ,was it  
not necessary that the ,christ should   
suffer these things1 and enter into his 
glory8 #bg4 ,and beginning at ,moses and
 at all the prophets1 he expounded unto 
them in all the ,scriptures the things  
concerning himself4 ,when they reach the
 village1 he pretends to be going       
further 7v4 #bh71 but they constrain him
 to stay4 #cj4 ,and it came to pass1 as 
he sat at meat with them he took the    
bread and blessed and brake1 and gave to
 them2 #ca4 and their eyes were opened1 
and they knew him1 and he vanished out  
of their sight4 ,now why all this       
mystery8 why were their eyes holden that
 they should not know him8 why pretend  
ignorance8 why make as though he would  
go further8 ,considering the nature and 
number of the alleged appearances of    

,jesus1 this episode seems most         
disproportionate and  #dfa              
inexplicable4 ,the final incident       
completes our conviction of the         
unreality of the whole episode3 after   
the sacramental blessing and breaking of
 bread1 ,jesus vanishes in a manner     
which removes the story from the domain 
of history4 ,on their return to         
,jerusalem1 the ,synoptist adds that    
they find the ,eleven1 and are informed 
that the ,lord was raised and was seen  
by ,simon4 ,of this appearance we are   
not told anything more4  ,whilst the two
 disciples from ,emmaus were relating   
these things to the eleven1 the third   
,synoptist states that ,jesus himself   
stood in the midst of them3 v4 #cg4 ,but
 they were terrified and affrighted1 and
 supposed that they saw a spirit4 ,the  
apparent intention is to represent a    
miraculous sudden entry of ,jesus into  
the midst of them1 just as he had       
vanished at ,emmaus2 but1 in order to   
re-assure them1 ,jesus is represented as

 saying3 v4 #ci4 ,behold my hands and my
 feet1 that it is ,i myself2 handle me  
and behold1 for a spirit hath not flesh 
and bones as ye see me having4 #da4 ,and
 while they yet believed not for joy1   
and wondered1 he said unto them3 ,have  
ye here any food8 #db4 ,and they gave   
him a piece of a broiled fish47#a7 #dc4 
,and he took it and did eat before them1
 ,the care with which the writer        
demonstrates that ,jesus rose again with
 his own body is remarkable1 for not    
only does he show his hands and feet1 we
 may suppose for the purpose of         
exhibiting the wounds made by the nails 
by which he was affixed to the cross1   
but he eats1 and thereby proves himself 
to be still possessed of his human      
organism4 ,it is apparent1 however1 that
 there is direct contradiction between  
this and the representation of his      
vanishing at ,emmaus1  #dfb  and        
standing in the midst of them now4 ,the 
,synoptist who is so lavish in his use  
of miraculous agency naturally sees no  

incongruity here4 ,one or other         
alternative must be adopted3--,if ,jesus
 possessed his own body after his       
resurrection and could eat and be       
handled1 he could not vanish2 if he     
vanished1 he could not have been thus   
corporeal4 ,the aid of a miracle has to 
be invoked in order to reconcile the    
representations4 ,we need not here      
criticise the address which he is       
supposed to make to the disciples17#a7  
but we must call attention to the one   
point that ,jesus 7v4 #di7 commands the 
disciples to tarry in ,jerusalem until  
they be clothed with power from on high4
 ,this completes the exclusion of all   
appearances in ,galilee1 for the        
narrative proceeds to say1 that ,jesus  
led them out towards ,bethany and lifted
 up his hands and blessed them3 v4 #ea4 
,and it came to pass1 while blessing    
them1 he parted from them1 and was      
carried up into heaven2 whilst they     
returned to ,jerusalem1 where they were 
continually in the temple praising ,god4

 ,we shall return to the ,ascension     
presently1 but1 in the meantime1 it is  
well that we should refer to the        
accounts of the other two ,gospels4     
,according to the fourth ,gospel1 on the
 first day of the week1 after sending to
 his disciples the message regarding his
 ,ascension1 which we have discussed1   
when it was evening3 xx4 #ai4 ,and the  
doors having been shut where the        
disciples were1 for fear of the ,jews1  
,jesus came and stood in the midst1 and 
saith unto them3 ,peace be unto you4    
#bj4 ,and having said this1 he       #a 
,the statement in xxiv4 #dd1 however1 is
 suggestive as      showing how the     
fulfilment of the ,prophets and ,psalms 
is in      the mind of the writer4 ,we  
have seen how much this idea            
influenced the account of the ,passion  
in the ,gospels4  #dfc  showed unto them
 both his hands and his side4 ,the      
disciples1 therefore1 rejoiced when they
 saw the ,lord4 #ba4 ,so then he said to
 them again3 ,peace be unto you3 as the 

,father hath sent me1 ,i also send you4 
#bb4 ,and when he said this1 he breathed
 on them1 and saith unto them1 ,receive 
ye the ,holy ,spirit3 #bc4 ,whosesoever 
sins ye forgive they are forgiven unto  
them2 whosesoever ye retain they are    
retained4 ,this appearance of ,jesus to 
the eleven bears so far analogy to that 
in the third ,gospel1 which we have just
 examined1 that it occurs upon the same 
day and to the same persons4 ,is it     
probable that ,jesus appeared twice upon
 the same evening to the eleven         
disciples8 ,the account in the fourth   
,gospel itself confirms the only        
reasonable reply3 that he did not do so2
 but the narrative in the third         
,synoptic renders the matter certain4   
,that appearance was the first to the   
eleven 7xxiv4 #cf f471 and he then      
conducted them towards ,bethany1 and    
ascended into heaven 7v4 #ej f474 ,how  
then1 we may inquire1 could two accounts
 of the same event differ so            
fundamentally8 ,it is absolutely certain

 that both cannot be true4 ,is it       
possible to suppose that the third      
,synoptist could forget to record the   
extraordinary powers supposed to have   
been on this occasion bestowed upon the 
ten ,apostles to forgive sins and to    
retain them8 ,is it conceivable that he 
would not relate the circumstance that  
,jesus breathed upon them1 and endowed  
them with the ,holy ,ghost8 ,indeed1 as 
regards the latter point1 he seems to   
exclude it1 v4 #di1 and in the ,acts    
7ii47 certainly represents the descent  
of the ,holy ,spirit as taking place at 
,pentecost4 ,on the other hand1 can we  
suppose that the fourth ,evangelist     
would have ignored the walk to ,bethany 
and the solemn parting there8 or the    
injunction to remain in ,jerusalem8     
#dfd  not to mention other topics4 ,the 
two episodes cannot be reconciled4  ,in 
the fourth ,gospel1 instead of showing  
his hands and feet1 ,jesus is           
represented as exhibiting his hands and 
his side1 and that this is not          

accidental is most clearly demonstrated 
by the fact that ,thomas1 who is not    
present1 refuses to believe 7v4 #be7    
unless he see and put his finger into   
the print of the nails in his hands and 
put his hand into his side2 and ,jesus1 
when he appears again1 allows him 7v4   
#bg7 to put his finger into his hands   
and his hand into his side4 ,in the     
,synoptic1 the wound made by that       
mythical lance is ignored and1 in the   
fourth ,gospel1 the wounds in the feet4 
,the omission of the whole episode of   
the leg-breaking and lance-thrust by the
 three ,synoptics thus gains fresh      
significance4 ,on the other hand1 it may
 be a question whether1 in the opinion  
of the fourth ,evangelist1 the feet of  
,jesus were nailed to the cross at all1 
or whether1 indeed1 they were so in     
fact4 ,it was at least as common1 not to
 say more1 that the hands alone of those
 who were crucified were nailed to the  
cross1 the legs being simply bound to it
 by cords4 ,opinion is divided as to    

whether ,jesus was so bound or whether  
the feet were likewise nailed1 but the  
point is not important to our           
examination and need not be discussed1  
although it has considerable interest in
 connection with the theory that death  
did not actually ensue on the cross1 but
 that1 having fainted through weakness1 
,jesus1 being taken down after so       
unusually short a time on the cross1    
subsequently recovered4 ,there is no    
final evidence upon the point4  ,none of
 the explanations offered by apologists 
remove the contradiction between the    
statement that ,jesus bestowed the ,holy
 ,spirit upon this occasion and that of 
the  #dfe  third ,synoptic and ,acts4   
,there is1 however1 a curious point to  
notice in connection with this3 ,thomas 
is said to have been absent upon this   
occasion1 and the representation1       
therefore1 is that the ,holy ,spirit was
 only bestowed upon ten of the          
,apostles4 ,was ,thomas excluded8 ,was  
he thus punished for his unbelief8 ,are 

we to suppose that an opportunity to    
bestow the ,holy ,spirit was selected   
when one of the ,apostles was not       
present87l7 ,we have1 however1 somewhat 
anticipated the narrative 7xx4 #bd if471
 which relates that upon the occasion   
above discussed ,thomas1 one of the     
,twelve1 was not present1 and hearing   
from the rest that they have seen the   
,lord1 he declares that he will not     
believe without palpable proof by       
touching his wounds4 ,the ,evangelist   
continues3 v4 #bf4 ,and after eight days
 again his disciples were within1 and   
,thomas was with them4 ,jesus cometh1   
the doors having been shut ------1 and  
stood in the midst and said3 ,peace be  
unto you4 #bg4 ,then saith he to        
,thomas3 ,reach hither thy finger and   
behold my hands2 and reach hither thy   
hand and put it into my side1 and be not
 unbelieving but believing4 #bh4 ,thomas
 answered and said unto him3 ,my ,lord  
and my ,god4 #bi4 ,jesus saith unto him3
 ,because thou hast seen me1 thou hast  

believed3 blessed are they who have not 
seen1 and yet have believed4  ,the third
 ,synoptic gives evidence that the risen
 ,jesus is not incorporeal by stating   
that he not only permitted himself to be
 handled1 but actually ate food in their
 presence4 ,the fourth ,evangelist      
attains the same result in a more       
artistic manner through the doubts of   
,thomas1 but in allowing him actually to
 put his finger into the prints of the  
nails in his hands1 and his hand into   
the  #dff  wound in his side1 he asserts
 that ,jesus rose with the same body as 
that which had hung on the cross4 ,he1  
too1 however1 whilst doing this1        
actually endows him with the attribute  
of incorporeality2 for1 upon both of the
 occasions which we are discussing1 the 
statement is markedly made that1 when   
,jesus came and stood in the midst1 the 
doors were shut where the disciples     
were4 ,it can scarcely be doubted that  
the intention of the writer is to       
represent a miraculous entry47#a7  ,we  

are asked1 however1 to believe that when
 ,thomas had convinced himself that it  
was indeed ,jesus in the flesh who stood
 before him1 he went to the opposite    
extreme of belief and said to ,jesus3   
------ ,my ,lord and my ,god6 ,in       
representing that ,jesus1 even before   
the ,ascension1 was addressed as ,god by
 one of the ,twelve1 the ,evangelist    
commits one of those anachronisms with  
which we are familiar1 in another shape1
 in the works of great painters1 who    
depict pious bishops of their own time  
as actors in the scenes of the ,passion4
 ,these touches1 however1 betray the    
hand of the artist1 and remove the      
account from the domain of sober        
history4 ,in the message sent by ,jesus 
to his disciples he spoke of ascending  
to your ,god and my ,god1 but the       
,evangelist at the close of his ,gospel 
strikes the same note as that upon which
 he commenced his philosophical prelude4
  ,we shall only add one further remark 
regarding this episode1 and it is the   

repetition of one already made4 ,it is  
much to be regretted that the writer    
does not inform us how these interviews 
of ,jesus with his disciples terminated4
 ,we are told of his entry1 but not     
#dfg  of his mode of departure4 ,did he 
vanish suddenly8 ,did he depart like    
other men8 ,then1 it would be important 
to know where ,jesus abode during the   
interval of eight days4 ,did he ascend  
to heaven after each appearance8 or did 
he remain on earth8 ,why did he not     
consort as before with his disciples8   
,these are not jeering questions1 but   
serious indications of the scantiness of
 the information given by the           
,evangelists1 which is not compensated  
by some trifling detail of no value     
occasionally inserted to heighten the   
reality of a narrative4 ,this is the    
last appearance of ,jesus related in the
 fourth ,gospel2 for the character of   
,ch4 xxi4 is too doubtful to permit it  
to rank with the ,gospel4 ,the          
appearance of ,jesus therein related is 

in fact more palpably legendary than the
 others4 ,it will be observed that in   
this ,gospel1 as in the third ,synoptic1
 the appearances of ,jesus are confined 
to ,jerusalem and exclude ,galilee4     
,these two ,gospels are1 therefore1     
clearly in contradiction with the       
statement of the first two              
,synoptics47#b7  ,it only remains for us
 to refer to one more appearance of     
,jesus3 that related in the first       
,synoptic1 xxviii4 #af ff4 ,in obedience
 to the command of ,jesus1 the disciples
 are represented as having gone away    
into ,galilee1 unto the mountain where  
,jesus had appointed them4 ,we have not 
previously heard anything of this       
specific appointment4 ,the ,synoptist   
continues3 v4 #ag4 ,and when they saw   
him they worshipped him1 but some       
doubted4 #ah4 ,and ,jesus came and spake
 unto them1 saying3 ,all authority was  
given to me ------ in heaven and on     
earth4 #ai4 ,go ye and make disciples of
 all the nations1 baptizing them into   

the name of the ,father1 and of the     
,son1 and of the ,holy ,spirit2 #bj4    
teaching them to observe all things     
whatsoever ,i commanded you2 and lo1 ,i 
am with  #dfh  you all the days1 unto   
the end of the world4 ,this appearance  
not only is not mentioned in the other  
,gospels1 but it excludes the           
appearances in ,judaea1 of which the    
writer seems to be altogether ignorant4 
,if he knew of them1 he practically     
denies them4  ,there has been some      
discussion as to what the doubt         
mentioned in v4 #ag refers1 some critics
 maintaining that some doubted as to the
 propriety of worshipping ,jesus1 whilst
 others more correctly consider that    
they doubted as to his identity17#a7 but
 we need not mention the curious        
apologetic explanations offered47#b7    
,are we to regard the mention of these  
doubts as an inestimable proof of the   
candour of the ,evangelists8 ,if so1    
then we may find fault with the omission
 to tell us whether1 and how1 those     

doubts were set at rest4 ,as the        
narrative stands1 the doubts were not   
resolved4 ,was it possible to doubt     
without good reason of the identity of  
one with whom1 until a few days         
previously1 the disciples had been in   
daily and hourly contact at least for a 
year1 if not longer8 ,doubt in such a   
case is infinitely more decisive than   
belief4 ,we can regard the expression1  
however1 in no other light than as a    
mere rhetorical device in a legendary   
narrative4 ,the rest of the account ueed
 have little further discussion here4   
,the extraordinary statement in v4      
#ah7c7 seems as clearly the expression  
of later theology as the baptismal      
formula  #dfi  in v4 #ai1 where the     
doctrine of the ,trinity is so          
definitely expressed4 ,some critics     
suppose that the ,eleven were not alone 
upon this occasion1 but that either all 
the disciples of ,jesus were present1 or
 at least the #ejj brethren l to whom   
,paul refers1 #a ,cor4 xv4 ,g4 ,this    

mainly rests on the statement that some 
doubted1 for it is argued that1 after   
the two previous appearances to the     
disciples in ,jerusalem mentioned by the
 other ,evangelists1 it is impossible   
that the ,eleven could have felt doubt1 
and consequently that others must have  
been present who had not previously been
 convinced4 ,it is scarcely necessary to
 point out the utter weakness of such an
 argument4 ,it is not permissible1      
however1 to patch on to this ,gospel    
scraps cut out of the others4  ,it must 
be clear to every unprejudiced student  
that the appearances of ,jesus narrated 
by the four ,gospels in ,galilee and    
,judaea cannot be harmonised17#b7 and we
 have shown that they actually exclude  
each other47#c7 ,the first ,synoptist   
records 7v4 #aj7 the order for the      
disciples to go into ,galilee1 and with 
no further interruption than the  #dgj  
mention of the return of the discomfited
 guard from the sepulchre to the chief  
priest1 he 7v4 #af7 states that they    

went into ,galilee1 where they saw      
,jesus in the manner just described4 ,no
 amount of ingenuity can insert the     
appearances in ,jerusalem here without  
the grossest violation of all common    
sense4 ,this is the only appearance to  
the ,eleven recorded in ,matthew4  ,we  
must here again point out the singular  
omission to relate the manner in which  
this interview was ended4 ,the episode  
and the ,gospel1 indeed1 are brought to 
a very artistic close by the expression1
 lo1 ,i am with you all the days unto   
the end of the world1 but we must insist
 that it is a very suggestive fact that 
it does not occur to these writers to   
state what became of ,jesus4 ,no point  
could have been more full of interest   
than the manner in which ,jesus here    
finally leaves the disciples1 and is    
dismissed from the history4 ,that such  
an important part of the narrative is   
omitted is in the highest degree        
remarkable and significant4 ,had a      
formal termination to the interview been

 recounted1 it would have been subject  
to criticism1 and by no means           
necessarily evidence of truth2 but it   
seems to us that the circumstance that  
it never occurred to these writers to   
relate the departure of ,jesus is a very
 strong indication of the unreality and 
shadowy nature of the whole tradition4  
,we are thus brought to consider the    
account of the ,ascension1 which is at  
least given by one ,evangelist4 ,in the 
appendix to the second ,gospel1 as if   
the later writer felt the omission and  
desired to complete the narrative1 it is
 vaguely stated3 xvi4 #ai4 ,so then     
after the ,lord spake unto them he was  
taken up into heaven and sat on the     
right hand of ,god47#a7 ,the  #dga      
writer1 however1 omits to state how he  
was taken up into heaven2 and sitting at
 the right hand of ,god is an act and   
position which those who assert the     
,personality of ,god may possibly       
understand1 but which we venture to     
think betrays that the account is a mere

 theological figment4 ,the third        
,synoptist1 however1 as we have         
incidentally shown1 gives an account of 
the ,ascension4 ,jesus having1 according
 to the narrative in xxiv4 #ej ff41 led 
the disciples out to ,bethany1 lifted up
 his hands and blessed them3 v4 #ea4    
,and it came to pass while blessing them
 he parted from them1 and was carried up
 into heaven47#a7 ,the whole of the     
appearances narrated in the third       
,synoptic1 therefore1 and the ,ascension
 are thus said to occur on the same day 
as the ,resurrection47#b7 ,in ,matthew1 
there is a different representation     
made1 for the time consumed in the      
journey of the disciples to ,galilee    
obviously throws back the ,ascension to 
a later date4 ,in ,mark1 there is no    
appearance at all recorded1 but the     
command to the disciples to go into     
,galilee confirms the first ,synoptic4  
,in the fourth ,gospel1 ,jesus revisits 
the eleven a second time after eight    
days2 and1 therefore1 the ,ascension is 

here  #dgb  necessarily later still4 ,in
 neither of these ,gospels1 however1 is 
there any account of an ascension at    
all4  ,we may here point out that there 
is no mention of the ,ascension in any  
of the genuine writings of ,paul1 and it
 would appear that the theory of a      
bodily ascension1 in any shape1 did not 
form part of the oldest ,christian      
tradition47#a7 ,the growth of the legend
 of the ,ascension is apparent in the   
circumstance that the author of the     
third ,gospel follows a second tradition
 regarding that event1 when composing   
,acts47#b7 ,whether he thought a fuller 
and more detailed account desirable1 or 
it seemed necessary to prolong the      
period during which ,jesus remained on  
earth after his ,resurrection and to    
multiply his appearances1 it is         
impossible to say1 but the fact is that 
he does so4 ,he states in his second    
work3 that to the ,apostles ,jesus      
presented himself alive after he        
suffered by many proofs1 being seen     

------ by them during forty days1 and   
speaking of the things concerning the   
,kingdom of ,god4 ,it is scarcely       
possible to doubt that the period of    
forty days is suggested by the ,old     
,testament7#c7 and the ,hebrew use of   
that number1 of which indeed we already 
find examples in the ,new ,testament in 
the forty days temptation of ,jesus in  
the wilderness17#d7 and his fasting     
forty days and forty nights47#e7 ,why   
#dgc  ,jesus remained on earth this     
typical period we are not told17#a7 but 
the representation evidently is of much 
more prolonged and continuous           
intercourse with his disciples than any 
statements in the ,gospels have led us  
to suppose1 or than the declaration of  
,paul renders in the least degree       
probable4  ,if indeed the account in    
,acts were true1 the numbered           
appearances recited by ,paul show       
singular ignorance of the phenomena of  
the ,resurrection4 ,we need not discuss 
the particulars of the last interview   

with the ,apostles1 7i4 #d if47 although
 they are singular enough1 and are      
indeed elsewhere referred to1 but at    
once proceed to the final occurrences3  
v4 #i4 ,and when he had spoken these    
things1 while they are looking he was   
lifted up2 and a cloud received him out 
of their sight4 #aj4 ,and as they were  
gazing stedfastly into the heaven as he 
went1 behold1 two men stood by them in  
white apparel2 #aa4 which also said3    
,men of ,galilee ------1 why stand ye   
looking into the heaven8 ,this ,jesus1  
who was taken up from you into the      
heaven1 shall come in like manner as ye 
saw him going into the heaven4 #ab4     
,then returned they into ,jerusalem1 c4 
,a definite statement is here made of   
the mode in which ,jesus finally        
ascended into heaven1 and it presents   
some of the incongruities which might   
have beeu expected4 ,the bodily         
,ascension up the sky in a cloud1 apart 
from the miraculous nature of such an   
occurrence1 seems singularly to localise

 ,heaven1 and to present views of       
cosmical and celestial phenomena        
suitable certainly to the age of the    
writer1 but which are not endorsed by   
modern science4       #a ,the testimony 
of the ,epistle of ,barnabas 7c4 xv47   
does not      agree with this4  #dgd    
,the sudden appearance of the two men in
 white apparel1 the usual description of
 angels1 is altogether in the style of  
the author of ,acts1 but does it        
increase the credibility of the story8  
,it is curious that the angels open     
their address to the ,apostles in the   
same form as almost every other speaker 
in this book4 ,one might ask1 indeed1   
why such an angelic interposition should
 have taken place8 for its utility is   
not apparent1 and in the short sentence 
recorded nothing which is new is        
embodied4 ,no surprise is expressed at  
the appearance of the angels1 and       
nothing is said of their disappearance4 
,they are introduced1 like the chorus of
 a ,greek play1 and are left            

unceremoniously1 with an indifference   
which betrays complete familiarity with 
supernatural agency4 ,can there be any  
doubt that the whole episode is         
legendary87#a7  ,it may not seem        
inappropriate to mention here that the  
idea of a bodily ,ascension does not    
originate with the author of the third  
,synoptic and ,acts1 nor is it peculiar 
to ,christianity4 ,the translation of   
,enoch7#b7 had long been chronicled in  
the sacred books2 and the ascent of     
,elijah7#c7 in his whirlwind and chariot
 of fire before the eyes of ,elisha was 
another well-known instance4 ,the vision
 of ,daniel 7vii4 #ac71 of one like the 
,son of man coming with the clouds of   
heaven1 might well have suggested the   
manner of his departure1 but another    
mode has been suggested47#d7 ,the author
 of ,acts was1 we maintain1 well        
acquainted with the works of            
,josephus47#e7  #dge  ,we know that the 
prophet like unto ,moses was a favourite
 representation in ,acts of the ,christ4

 ,now1 in the account which ,josephus   
gives of the end of ,moses1 he states   
that1 although he wrote in the holy     
books that he died lest they should say 
that he went to ,god1 this was not      
really his end4 ,after reaching the     
mountain ,abarim he dismissed the       
senate2 and as he was about to embrace  
,eleazar1 the high priest1 and ,joshua1 
a cloud suddenly having stood over him  
he disappeared in a certain valley47#a7 
,this1 however1 we merely mention in    
passing4  ,our earlier examination of   
the evidence for the origin and         
authorship of the historical books of   
the ,new ,testament very clearly        
demonstrated that the testimony of these
 works for miracles and the reality of  
,divine ,revelation1 whatever that      
testimony might seem to be1 could not be
 considered of any real value4 ,we have 
now examined the accounts which the four
 ,evangelists actually give of the      
,passion1 ,resurrection1 and ,ascension1
 and there can be no hesitation in      

stating as the result that1 as might    
have been expected from works of such   
uncertain character1 these narratives   
must be pronounced mere legends1        
embodying vague and wholly unattested   
tradition4 ,as  #dgf  evidence for such 
stupendous miracles1 they are absolutely
 of no value4 ,no reliance can be placed
 on a single detail of their story4 ,the
 aim of the writers has obviously been  
to make their narrative of the various  
appearances of ,jesus as convincing as  
possible17#a7 and they have freely      
inserted any details which seemed to    
them calculated to give them            
impressiveness1 force1 and              
verisimilitude4  ,a recent apologetic   
writer has said3 ,any one who will      
attentively read side by side the       
narratives of these appearances on the  
first day of the resurrection1 will see 
that they have only been preserved for  
us in general1 interblended and         
scattered notices 7see ,matt1 xxviii4   
#af2 ,luke xxiv4 #cd2 ,acts i4 #c71     

which1 in strict exactness1 render it   
impossible1 without many arbitrary      
suppositions1 to produce from them a    
certain narrative of the order of       
events4 ,the lacuna1 the compressions1  
the variations1 the actual differences1 
the subjectivity of the narrators as    
affected by spiritual revelations1      
render all harmonies at the best        
uncertain47#b7 ,passing over without    
comment1 the strange phrase in this     
passage which we have italicised1 and   
which seems to claim divine inspiration 
for the writers1 it must be obvious to  
any one who has carefully read the      
preceding pages that this is an         
exceedingly moderate description of the 
wild statements and irreconcilable      
contradictions of the different         
narratives we have examined4 ,but such  
as it is1 with all the glaring          
inconsistencies and impossibilities of  
the accounts even thus subdued1 is it   
possible for any one who has formed even
 a faint idea of the extraordinary      

nature of the allegations which have to 
be attested1 to  #dgg  consider such    
documents really evidence for the       
,resurrection and bodily ,ascension8    
,the usual pleas which are advanced in  
mitigation of judgment against the      
,gospels for these characteristics are  
of no avail4 ,it may be easy to excuse  
the writers for their mutual            
contradictions1 but the pleas themselves
 are an admission of the shortcomings   
which render their evidence valueless4  
,the differences of purpose in the      
narrative of the four ,evangelists17#a7 
may be fancifully set forth1 or         
ingeniously imagined1 but no purpose can
 transform discordant and untrustworthy 
narratives into evidence for miracles4  
,unless the prologue to the third       
,gospel be considered a condemnation of 
any of the other ,synoptics which may   
have existed before it1 none of the     
,evangelists makes the smallest         
reference to any of his brethren or     
their works4 ,each ,gospel tacitly      

professes to be a perfectly independent 
work1 giving the history of ,jesus1 or  
at  #dgh  least of the active part of   
his life1 and of his death and          
,resurrection4 ,the apologetic theory1  
derived from the ,fathers1 that the     
,evangelists designed to complete and   
supplement each other1 is totally       
untenable4 ,each work was evidently     
intended to be complete in itself2 but  
when we consider that much the greater  
part of the contents of each of the     
,synoptics is common to the three1      
frequently with almost literal          
agreement1 and generally without        
sufficient alteration to conceal        
community of source or use of each      
other1 the poverty of ,christian        
tradition becomes painfully evident4 ,we
 have already pointed out the           
fundamental difference between the      
fourth ,gospel and the ,synoptics4 ,in  
no part of the history does greater     
contradiction and disagreement between  
the three ,synoptics themselves and     

likewise between them and the fourth    
,gospel exist1 than in the account of   
the ,passion1 ,resurrection and         
,ascension4 ,it is impossible to examine
 the four narratives carefully without  
feeling that here tradition1 for natural
 reasons1 has been more than usually    
wavering and insecure4 ,each writer     
differs essentially from the rest1 and  
the various narratives not only disagree
 but exclude each other4 ,the third     
,synoptist1 in the course of some years1
 even contradicts himself4 ,the         
phenomena which are related1 in fact1   
were too subjective and unsubstantial   
for sober and consistent narrative1 and 
free play was allowed for pious         
imagination to frame details by the aid 
of supposed ,messianic utterances of the
 ,prophets and ,psalmists of ,israel4   
,such a miracle as the ,resurrection1   
startling as it is in our estimation1   
was common-place enough in the view of  
these writers4 ,we need not go hack to  
discuss the story of the widow's son    

restored to  #dgi  life by ,elijah17#a7 
nor that of the dead man who revived on 
touching the bones of ,elisha47#b7 ,the 
raising from the dead of the son of the 
widow of ,nain7#c7 did not apparently   
produce much effect at the time1 and    
only one of the ,evangelists seems to   
have thought it worth while to preserve 
the narrative4 ,the case of ,jairus'    
daughter17#d7 whatever it was1 is       
regarded as a resurrection of the dead  
and is related by two of the            
,synoptists2 but the raising of ,lazarus
 is only recorded by the fourth         
,evangelist4 ,the familiarity of the age
 with the idea of the resurrection of   
the dead1 however1 according to the     
,synoptists1 is illustrated by the      
representation which they give of the   
effect produced by the fame of ,jesus   
upon ,herod and others4 ,we are told by 
the first ,synoptist that ,herod said   
unto his servants3 ,this is ,john the   
,baptist2 he was raised from the dead2  
and therefore the powers work in        

him47#e7 ,the second ,synoptist repeats 
the same statement1 but adds3 ,but      
others said that it is ,elijah2 and     
others said that it is a prophet like   
one of the prophets47#f7 ,the statement 
of the third ,synoptist is somewhat     
different4 ,he says3 ,now ,herod the    
tetrarch heard all that was occurring3  
and he was perplexed because it was said
 by some that ,john was raised from the 
dead1 and by some that ,elijah appeared1
 and by others that one of the old      
prophets rose up4 ,and ,herod  #dhj     
said3 ,john ,i beheaded1 but who is this
 of whom ,i hear such things1 and he    
sought to see him477#a ,the three       
,synoptists substantially report the    
same thing2 the close verbal agreement  
of the first two being an example of the
 community of matter of which we have   
just spoken4 ,the variations are        
instructive as showing the process by   
which each writer made the original form
 his own4 ,are we to assume that these  
things were really said8 ,or must we    

conclude that the sayings are simply the
 creation of later tradition8 ,in the   
latter case1 we see how unreal and      
legendary are the ,gospels4 ,in the     
former case1 we learn how common was the
 belief in a bodily resurrection4 ,how  
could it seem so strange to the         
,apostles that ,jesus should rise again1
 when the idea that ,john the ,baptist  
or one of the old prophets had risen    
from the dead was so readily accepted by
 ,herod and others8 ,how could they so  
totally misunderstand all that the chief
 priests1 according to the first        
,synoptic1 so well understood of the    
teaching of ,jesus on the subject of his
 ,resurrection1 since the world had     
already become so familiar with the idea
 and the fact8  ,then1 the episode of   
the ,transfiguration must have occurred 
to every one1 when ,jesus took with him 
,peter and ,james and ,john into a high 
mountain apart1 and he was transfigured 
before them2 and his face did shine as  
the sun1 and his raiment became white as

 the light4 ,and behold1 there was seen 
------ by them ,moses and ,elijah  #dha 
talking with him2 and then a bright     
cloud overshadowed them and a voice came
 out of the cloud3 ,this is my beloved  
son1 c4 ,and when the disciples heard   
they fell on their face and were sore   
afraid47#a7 ,the third ,synoptist even  
knows the subject of their conversation3
 ,they were speaking of his decease     
which he was about to fulfil in         
,jerusalem47#b7 ,this is related by all 
as an objective occurrence47#c7 ,are we 
to accept it as such8 ,then how is it   
possible that the disciples could be so 
obtuse and incredulous as they          
subsequently showed themselves to be    
regarding the person of ,jesus1 and his 
resurrection8 ,how could the            
announcement of that event by the angels
 to the women seem to them as an idle   
tale1 which they did not believe87#d7   
,here were ,moses and ,elijah before    
them1 and in ,jesus1 we are told1 they  
recognized one greater than ,moses and  

,elijah4 ,the miracle of the            
,resurrection was here again anticipated
 and made palpable to them4 ,are we to  
regard the ,transfiguration as a        
subjective vision8 ,then why not equally
 so the appearances of ,jesus after his 
passion8 ,we can regard the             
,transfiguration1 however1 as nothing   
more than an allegory without either    
objective or subjective reality4 ,into  
this at present we cannot further go4   
,it is sufficient to repeat that our    
examination has shown the ,gospels to   
possess no value as evidence for the    
,resurrection and ,ascension4           
,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,the ,,evidence ,,of  
,,paul  ,we may now proceed to examine  
the evidence of ,paul4 ,on one occasion1
 it is affirmed in a passage already    
quoted1 he gives a very circumstantial  
account of the testimony upon which the 
belief in the ,resurrection rested 7#a  
,cor4 xv4 #d--h747a7 ,this account is as
 follows3 #a ,cor4 xv4 #c4 ,for ,i      
delivered unto you first of all that    

which ,i also received1 that ,christ    
died for our sins according to the      
,scriptures1 #d4 and that he was buried1
 and that he has been raised ------ the 
third day according to the ,scriptures1 
#e4 and that he was seen by ,cephas1    
then by the ,twelve4 #f4 ,after that1 he
 was seen by above five hundred brethren
 at once ------1 of whom the greater    
part remain unto this present1 but some 
are fallen asleep4 #g4 ,after that1 he  
was seen by ,james2 then by all the     
,apostles4 #h4 ,and last of all he was  
seen by me also as the one born out of  
due time47#b7 ,can this be considered a 
very circumstantial account8 ,it may be 
exceedingly unreasonable1 but we must at
 once acknowledge that we are not       
satisfied4 ,the testimony  #dhc  upon   
which the belief in the ,resurrection   
rests comprised in a dozen lines6 for we
 may so far anticipate as to say that   
this can scarcely be regarded as a      
resume of evidence which we can find    
elsewhere4 ,we shall presently point out

 a few circumstances which it might be  
useful to know4  ,the ,apostle states1  
in this passage1 that the doctrines     
which he had delivered to the           
,corinthians he had himself received4   
,he does not pretend to teach them from 
his own knowledge1 and the question     
naturally arises3 ,from whom did he     
receive them8 ,formerly1 divines        
generally taught that ,paul received    
these doctrines by revelation1 and up to
 recent times apologists have continued 
to hold this view1 even when admitting  
the subsidiary use of tradition47#a7 ,if
 this claim were seriously made1 the    
statements of the ,apostle1 so far as   
our inquiry is concerned1 would         
certainly not gain in value1 for it is  
obvious that ,revelation could not be   
admitted to prove ,revelation4 ,it is   
quite true that ,paul himself professed 
to have received his ,gospel not from   
men1 but from ,god by direct revelation1
 and we shall hereafter have to consider
 this point and the inferences to be    

drawn from such pretensions4 ,at        
present1 the argument need not be       
complicated by any such supposition1 for
 certainly ,paul does not here advance  
any such claim himself1 and apologetic  
and other critics agree in declaring the
 source of his statements to be natural 
historical tradition47#b7 ,the points   
which he  #dhd  delivered and which he  
had also received are three in number3  
7#a7 that ,christ died for our sins2    
7#b7 that he was buried2 and 7#c7 that  
he has been raised the third day4 ,in   
strictness the ------ might oblige us to
 include1 and that he appeared to       
,cephas1 then to the ,twelve1 after     
which the construction of the sentence  
is changed4 ,it is not necessary to     
press this1 however1 and it is better   
for the present to separate the dogmatic
 statements from those which are more   
properly evidential4  ,it will be       
observed that1 although the death1      
burial1 and resurrection are here taught
 as received1 evidence only of one point

 is offered3 that ,jesus was seen by    
certain persons4 ,we have already       
pointed out that the ,gospels do not    
pretend that any one was an eye-witness 
of the ,resurrection itself1 and it is  
important to notice that ,paul1 the     
earliest and most trustworthy witness   
produced1 entirely passes over the event
 itself1 and relies solely on the fact  
that ,jesus was supposed to have been   
seen by certain persons to prove that he
 died1 was buried1 and had actually     
risen the third day4 ,the only inference
 which we here wish to draw from this   
is1 that the alleged appearances are    
thus obviously separated from the death 
and burial by a distinct gulf4 ,a dead  
body1 it is stated1 or one believed to  
be dead1 is laid in a sepulchre3 after a
 certain time1 it is alleged that the   
dead person has been seen alive4        
,supposing the first statement to be    
correct1 the second1 being in itself1   
according to all our experience1 utterly
 incredible1 leaves further a serious   

gap in the continuity of evidence4 ,what
 occurred in the interval between the   
burial and the supposed apparition8 ,if 
it be asserted--as in the ,gospels it   
is--that1 before the  #dhe  apparition1 
the sepulchre was found empty and the   
body gone1 not only may it be replied   
that this very circumstance may have    
assisted in producing a subjective      
vision1 but that1 in so far as the      
disappearance of the body is connected  
with the appearance of the person       
apparently alive1 the fact has no       
evidential value4 ,the person supposed  
to be dead1 for instance1 may actually  
not have been so1 but have revived2 for1
 although we have no intention ourselves
 of adopting this explanation of the    
,resurrection1 it is1 as an alternative1
 certainly preferable to belief in the  
miracle4 ,or1 in the interval1 the body 
may have been removed from a temporary  
to a permanent resting place unknown to 
those who are surprised to find the body
 gone2--and in the ,gospels the         

conflicting accounts of the embalming   
and hasty burial1 as we have seen1 would
 fully permit of such an argument if we 
relied at all on those narratives4 ,many
 other means of accounting for the      
absence of the body might be advanced1  
any one of which1 in the actual default 
of testimony to the contrary1 would be  
irrefutable4 ,the mere surprise of      
finding a grave empty which was supposed
 to contain a body betrays a blank in   
the knowledge of the persons1 which can 
only be naturally filled up4 ,this gap1 
at least1 would not have existed had the
 supposed resurrection occurred in the  
presence of those by whom it is asserted
 ,jesus was seen4 ,as it is1 no evidence
 whatever is offered that ,jesus really 
died2 no evidence that the sepulchre was
 even found empty2 no evidence that the 
dead body actually arose and became     
alive again2 but skipping over the      
intermediate steps1 the only evidence   
produced is the statement that1 being   
supposed to be dead1 he is said to have 

been seen by certain persons47#a7  #dhf 
,there is a peculiarity in the statement
 to which we must now refer4 ,the words1
 according to the ,scriptures ------ are
 twice introduced into the brief        
recapitulation of the teaching which    
,paul had received and delivered3 7#a7  
,that ,christ died for our sins         
according to the ,scriptures1 and 7#c7  
that he has been raised the third day   
according to the ,scriptures4 ,it is    
evident that mere historical tradition  
has only to do with the fact that       
,christ died1 and that the object3 for  
our sins1 is a dogmatic addition4 ,the  
,scriptures supply the dogma4 ,in the   
second point1 the appeal to ,scripture  
is curious1 and so far important as     
indicating that the resurrection on the 
third day was supposed to be a          
fulfilment of prophecy2 and we have thus
 an indication1 regarding which we must 
hereafter speak1 of the manner in which 
the belief probably originated4 ,the    
double reference to the ,scriptures is  

peculiarly marked1 and we have already  
more than once had occasion to point out
 that the narratives of the ,gospels    
betray the very strong and constant     
influence of parts of the ,old          
,testament supposed to relate to the    
,messiah4 ,it cannot1 we think1 be      
doubted by any independent critic1 that 
the details of these narratives were to 
a large extent traced from those        
prophecies4 ,it is in the highest degree
 natural to suppose that the early      
,christians1 once accepting the idea of 
a suffering ,messiah1 should1 in the    
absence of positive or minute knowledge1
 assume that prophecies which they      
believed to have reference to him should
 actually have been fulfilled1 and that 
in fact the occurrences corresponded    
minutely with the prophecies4 ,too      
little is known of what really took     
place1 and it is  #dhg  probable that   
,christian tradition generally was      
moulded from foregone conclusions4      
,what were the ,scriptures1 according to

 which ,christ died for our sins1 and   
has been raised the third day8 ,the     
passages which are generally referred   
to1 and which ,paul most probably had in
 view1 are well known3 as regards the   
death for our sins1--,isaiah liii41 ,ps4
 xxii4 and lxix12 and for the           
resurrection1--,ps4 xvi4 #aj1 and ,hosea
 vi4 #b4 ,we have already pointed out   
that historical criticism has shown that
 the first four passages just indicated 
are not ,messianic prophecies at        
all17#a7 and we may repeat that the idea
 of a suffering ,messiah was wholly     
foreign to the ,jewish prophets and     
people4 ,the ,messiah crucified1 as     
,paul himself bears witness1 was to     
,jews a stumbling block17#b7 and modern 
criticism has clearly established that  
the parts of ,scripture by which the    
early ,christians endeavoured to show   
that such a ,messiah had been foretold  
can only be applied by a perversion of  
the original signification4 ,in the case
 of the passages supposed to foretell   

the ,resurrection1 the misapplication is
 particularly flagrant4 ,we have already
 discussed the use of ,ps4 xvi4 #aj1    
which in ,acts7#c7 is put into the mouth
 of the ,apostles ,peter and ,paul1 and 
shown that the proof passage rests upon 
a mistranslation of the original in the 
,septuagint47#d7 ,any reader who will   
refer to ,hosea vi4 #b will see that the
 passage in no way applies to the       
,messiah17#e7 although undoubtedly it   
has influenced the formation of the     
doctrine  #dhh  of the ,resurrection4   
,the sign of the prophet ,jonah1 which  
in ,mt4 xii4 #dj is put into the mouth  
of ,jesus is another passage used with  
equal incorrectness1 and a glimpse of   
the manner in which ,christian tradition
 took shape1 and the ,gospels were      
composed1 may be obtained by comparing  
with the passage in the first ,synoptic 
the parallel in the third 7xi4          
#bi--ca747a7 ,we shall have more to say 
presently regarding the resurrection on 
the third day4  ,we may now proceed to  

examine the so-called very              
circumstantial account of the testimony 
on which the belief in the ,resurrection
 rested4 ,and that he was seen by       
,cephas1 then by the ,twelve4 ,after    
that he was seen by above five hundred  
brethren at once1 of whom the greater   
part remain unto this present1 but some 
are fallen asleep4 ,after that he was   
seen by ,james1 then by all the         
,apostles1 and last of all he was seen  
by me also47#b7 ,there can be no doubt1 
we think1 from the terms in which this  
statement is made1 that ,paul intended  
to give the appearances in chronological
 order47#c7 ,it would likewise be a fair
 inference that he intended to mention  
all the appearances of which he was     
aware4 ,so far1 the account may possibly
 merit the epithet circumstantial1 but  
in all other respects it is scarcely    
possible to conceive any statement less 
circumstantial4 ,as to where the risen  
,jesus was seen by these persons1 in    
what manner1 and under what             

circumstances1 and at what time1 we are 
not vouchsafed a single particular4     
,moreover1 the ,apostle was not  #dhi   
present on any of these occasions1      
excepting of course his own vision1 and 
consequently merely reports appearances 
of which he has been informed by others1
 but he omits to mention the authority  
upon which he makes these statements1 or
 what steps he took to ascertain their  
accuracy and reality4 ,for instance1    
when ,jesus is said to have been seen by
 five hundred brethren at once1 it would
 have been of the highest importance for
 us to know the exact details of the    
scene1 the proportion of inference to   
fact1 the character of the ,apostle's   
informant1 the extent of the            
investigation into the various          
impressions made upon the individuals   
composing the five hundred1 as opposed  
to the collective affirmation4 ,we      
confess that we do not attach much value
 to such appeals to the experience of   
#ejj persons at once4 ,it is difficult  

to find out what the actual experience  
of the individuals was1 and each        
individual is so apt to catch the       
infection of his neighbour1 and join in 
excitement1 believing that1 though he   
does not himself see or feel anything1  
his neighbour does1 that probably1 when 
inquiry is pressed home1 the aggregate  
affirmation of a large number may       
resolve itself into the actual          
experience of very few4 ,the fact is1   
however1 that in this very              
circumstantial account we have nothing  
whatever except a mere catalogue by     
,paul of certain appearances which he   
did not himself see--always excepting   
his own vision1 which we reserve--but   
merely had received from others1 without
 a detail or information of any kind4   
,if we compare these appearances with   
the instances recorded in the ,gospels1 
the result is by no means satisfactory4 
,the first appearance is said to be to  
,cephas4 ,it is argued that ,paul passes
 in silence over the appearances to     

women1 both because the testimony of    
women was  #dij  not received in ,jewish
 courts1 and because his own opinions   
regarding the active participation of   
women in matters connected with the     
,church were of a somewhat exclusive    
character47#a7 ,the appearance to       
,cephas is generally identified with    
that mentioned1 ,luke xxiv4 #cd47b7     
,nothing could be more cursory than the 
manner in which this appearance is      
related in the ,synoptic4 ,the disciples
 from ,emmaus1 returning at once to     
,jerusalem1 found the ,eleven and those 
who were with them saying3 ,the ,lord   
was raised indeed1 and was seen by      
,simon4 ,not another syllable is said   
regarding an appearance which1 according
 to ,paul1 was the first which had      
occurred4 ,the other ,gospels say still 
less1 for they ignore the incident      
altogether4 ,it is difficult to find    
room for such an appearance in the      
,gospel narratives4 ,if we take the     
report of ,paul to be true1 that ,jesus 

was first seen by ,cephas1 the silence  
of three ,evangelists and their         
contradictory representations1 on the   
one hand1 and the remarkable way in     
which the third ,gospel avoids all but  
the mere indirect reference to the      
occurrence1 on the other1 are phenomena 
which we leave apologists to            
explain47#c7  ,he is next seen by the   
,twelve4 ,this vision is identified with
 that narrated in ,john xx4 #ai flf4 and
 ,luke xxiv4 #cf ff117#d7 to which1 as  
,thomas was absent on the first         
occasion1 some critics understand the   
episode in ,john xx4 #b;,c if4 to be    
added4 ,on reference to our discussion  
of  #dia  these accounts1 it will be    
seen that they have few or no elements  
of credibility4 ,if the appearance to   
the ,twelve mentioned by ,paul be       
identified with these episodes1 and     
their details be declared authentic1 the
 second item in ,paul's list becomes    
discredited4  ,the appearance to #ejj   
brethren at once is not mentioned in any

 of the ,gospels1 but critics1 and      
especially apologetic critics1 assert   
with more or less of certainty the      
identity of the occasion with the scene 
described in ,matth4 xxviii4 #af ff47#a7
 ,we remarked whilst discussing the     
passage that this is based chiefly on   
the statement that some doubted1 which  
would have been inconsistent1 it is     
thought1 had ,jesus already appeared to 
the ,eleven47#b7 ,the identity is1      
however1 denied by others4#c ,the       
narrative in the first ,synoptic would  
scarcely add force to the report in the 
,epistle4 ,is it possible to suppose1   
however1 that1 had there been so large a
 number of persons collected upon that  
occasion1 the ,evangelist would not have
 mentioned the fact8 ,on the other hand1
 does it not somewhat discredit the     
statement that ,jesus was seen by so    
large a number at once1 that no record  
of such a remarkable occurrence exists  
elsewhere87#d7 ,how could the tradition 
of such an event1 witnessed by so many1 

have so completely perished that neither
 in the ,gospels nor ,acts1  #dib  nor  
in any other writing1 is there any      
reference to it1 and our only knowledge 
of it is this bare statement1 without a 
single detail8 ,there is only one       
explanation3 that the assembly could not
 have recognized in the phenomenon1     
whatever it was1 the risen ,jesus17#a7  
or that subsequently an explanation was 
given which dispelled some temporary    
illusion4 ,in any case1 we must insist  
that the total absence of all           
confirmation of an appearance to #ejj   
persons at once alone renders such an   
occurrence more than suspicious4 ,the   
statement that the greater number were  
still living when ,paul wrote does not  
materially affect the question4 ,paul   
doubtless believed the report that such 
an appearance had taken place1 and that 
the majority of witnesses still         
survived1 but does it necessarily follow
 that the report was true8 ,the         
survivors were certainly not within     

reach of the ,corinthians1 and could not
 easily be questioned4 ,the whole of the
 argument of ,paul which we are         
considering1 as well as that which      
follows1 was drawn from him by the fact 
that1 in ,corinth1 ,christians actually 
denied a resurrection1 and it is far    
from clear that this denial did not     
extend to denying the ,resurection of   
,jesus himself47#b7 ,that they did deny 
this we think certain1 from the care    
with which ,paul gives what he considers
 evidence for the fact4 ,another point  
may be mentioned4 ,where could so many  
as #ejj disciples have been collected at
 one time8 ,the author of ,acts states  
7i4 #ae7 the number of the ,christian   
community gathered together to elect a  
successor to ,judas as about #abj4      
,apologists1 therefore1 either suppose  
the appearance to #ejj to have taken    
place in ,jerusalem1 when numbers of    
pilgrims  #dic  from ,galilee and other 
parts were in the ,holy ,city1 or that  
it occurred in ,galilee itself1 where   

they suppose believers to have been more
 numerous47#a7 ,this is the merest      
conjecture2 and there is not even ground
 for asserting that there were so many  
as #ejj brethren in any one place1 by   
whom ,jesus could have been seen4  ,the 
appearance to ,james is not mentioned in
 any of our ,gospels4 ,jerome preserves 
a legend from the ,gospel of the        
,hebrews1 which states that ,james1     
after having drunk the cup of the ,lord1
 swore that he would not eat bread until
 he should see him risen from the dead4 
,when ,jesus rose1 therefore1 he        
appeared to ,james2 and1 ordering a     
table and bread to be brought1 blessed  
and broke the bread1 and gave it to     
,james47#b7 ,beyond this legendary story
 there is no other record of the report 
given by ,paul4 ,the occasion on which  
he was seen by all the ,apostles is     
indefinite1 and cannot be identified    
with any account in the ,gospels4  ,it  
is asserted1 however1 that1 although    
,paul does not state from whom he       

received the report of these appearances
 of the risen ,jesus1 he must have heard
 them from the ,apostles themselves4 ,at
 any rate1 it is added1 ,paul professes 
that his preaching on the death1 burial1
 and ,resurrection is the same as that  
of the other ,apostles47#c7 ,that the   
other ,apostles preached the            
resurrection of ,jesus may be a fact1   
but we have no information as to the    
precise statements they made4 ,we shall 
presently discuss the doctrine from this
 point of view1 but here we must confine
 ourselves to ,paul4 ,it is undeniable  
that ,paul  #did  neither enters into   
details nor cites authority for the     
particular appearances which he         
mentions4 ,as for the inference that1   
associating with the ,apostles1 he must 
have been informed by them of the       
appearances of ,jesus1 we may say that  
this by no means follows so clearly as  
is supposed4 ,paul was singularly       
independent1 and in his writings he     
directly disclaims all indebtedness to  

the elder ,apostles4 ,he claims that his
 ,gospel is not after man1 nor was it   
taught to him by man1 but through       
revelation of ,jesus ,christ7#a7 ,now   
,paul himself informs us of his action  
after it pleased ,god to reveal his ,son
 in him that he might preach him among  
the ,gentiles4 ,it might1 indeed1 have  
been reasonably expected that ,paul     
should then have sought out those who   
could have informed him of all the      
extraordinary occurrences supposed to   
have taken place after the death of     
,jesus4 ,paul does nothing of the kind4 
,he is apparently quite satisfied with  
his own convictions4 ,immediately1 he   
says1 in his wondrously human and       
characteristic letter to the ,galatians1
 ,i communicated not with flesh and     
blood2 neither went ,i away to          
,jerusalem to them who were ,apostles   
before me1 but ,i went away to ,arabia1 
and returned again unto ,damascus4 ,then
 after three years ,i went up to        
,jerusalem to visit ,cephas1 and abode  

with him fifteen days2 but other of the 
,apostles saw ,i none1 save ,james the  
brother of the ,lord4 ,now the things   
which ,i write1 behold before ,god ,i   
lie not4444 ,then after fourteen years  
,i went up again to                     
,jerusalem17#b7--upon which occasion1 we
 know1 his business was not of a nature 
to allow us to suppose he obtained much 
information regarding the ,resurrection4
 ,we may ask3 ,is there that thirst for 
information  #die  regarding the facts  
and doctrines of ,christianity displayed
 here1 which entitles us to suppose that
 ,paul eagerly and minutely investigated
 the evidence for them8 ,we think not4  
,paul made up his own mind in his own   
way and1 having waited three years      
without asking a question1 it is not    
probable that the questions which he    
then asked were of any searching nature4
 ,the protest that he saw none of the   
other ,apostles may prove his           
independence1 but it certainly does not 
prove his anxiety for information4 ,when

 ,paul went up to make the acquaintance 
of ,cephas his object clearly was not to
 be taught by him1 but to place himself 
in communication with the man whom he   
believed to be the chief of the         
,apostles and1 we may assume1 largely   
with a view to establish a friendly     
feeling1 and secure his recognition of  
his future ministry4 ,we should not1 of 
course1 be justified in affirming that  
the conversation between the two great  
,apostles never turned upon the subject 
of the ,resurrection1 but we think that 
it is obvious that ,paul's visit was not
 in the least one of investigation4 ,he 
believed2 he believed that certain      
events had occurred according to the    
,scriptures2 and the legitimate         
inference from ,paul's own statements   
must be that1 in this visit after three 
years1 his purpose was in no way        
connected with a search for evidential  
information4 ,the author of ,acts1 it   
will be remembered1 represents him as1  
before any visit to ,jerusalem1 publicly

 and boldly preaching in ,damascus that 
,jesus is the ,son of ,god1 and         
confounding the ,jews4444 proving that  
this is the ,christ47#a7 ,this          
representation1 it will be admitted1    
shows an advanced condition of belief   
little supporting the idea of subsequent
 investigation4 ,when all conjectures   
are exhausted1 however1 we have the one 
distinct fact  #dif  remaining1 that    
,paul gives no authority for his report 
that ,jesus was seen by the various     
persons mentioned1 nor does he furnish  
any means by which we can judge of the  
nature and reality of the alleged       
phenomena4 ,we continue here to speak of
 the appearances to others1 reserving   
the appearance to himself1 as standing  
upon a different basis1 for separate    
examination4  ,what is the value of this
 evidence8 ,the fact to be proved is    
that1 after a man had been crucified1   
dead1 and buried1 he actually rose from 
the dead1 and appeared alive to many    
persons4 ,the evidence is that ,paul1   

writing some twenty years after the     
supposed miraculous occurrences1 states1
 without detailed information of any    
kind1 and without pretending to have    
himself been an eyewitness of the       
phenomena1 that he has been told that   
,jesus was1 after his death and burial1 
seen alive on the occasions mentioned6  
,as to the ,apostle ,paul himself1 let  
it be said in the strongest and most    
emphatic manner possible that we do not 
suggest the most distant suspicion of   
the sincerity of any historical         
statement he makes4 ,we implicitly      
accept the historical statements1 as    
distinguished from inferences1 which    
proceed from his pen4 ,it cannot be     
doubted that ,paul was told that such   
appearances had taken place4 ,we do not 
question the fact that he believed them 
to have taken place2 and we shall       
hereafter discuss the weight to be      
attached to this circumstance4 ,does    
this1 however1 guarantee the truth of   
the reports or inferences of those who  

informed the ,apostle8 ,does the mere   
passage of any story or tradition       
through ,paul necessarily transmute     
error into truth--self-deception or     
hallucination into objective fact8 ,are 
we--without any information as to what  
was really stated to ,paul1 as to the   
personality and character of his  #dig  
informants1 as to the details of what   
was believed1 to have occurred1 as to   
the means taken or which it might have  
been possible to take to test the       
reality of the alleged phenomena1       
without an opportunity of judging for   
ourselves on a single point--to believe 
in the reality of these appearances     
simply because ,paul states that he has 
been informed that they occurred1 and   
himself believes the report8  ,so far as
 the belief of ,paul is concerned1 we   
may here remark that his views as to the
 miraculous ,charismata in the ,church  
do not prepare us to feel any confidence
 in the sobriety of his judgment in     
connection with alleged supernatural    

occurrences4 ,we have no reliance upon  
his instinctive mistrust of such        
statements1 or his imperative           
requirement of evidence1 but every      
reason to doubt them4 ,on the other     
hand1 without in any way imputing wilful
 incorrectness or untruth to the        
reporters of such phenomena1 let it be  
remembered how important a part         
inference has to play in the narrative  
of every incident1 and how easy it is to
 draw erroneous inferences from bare    
facts47#a7 ,in proportion as persons are
 ignorant1 on the one hand1 and have    
their minds disturbed1 on the other1 by 
religious depression or excitement1     
hope1 fear1 or any other powerful       
emotion1 they are liable to confound    
facts and inferences1 and both to see   
and analyse wrongly4 ,in the case of a  
supposed appearance       #a ,we may    
merely in passing refer to the case of  
,mary      ,magdalene in the fourth     
,gospel4 ,she sees a figure standing    
beside her1 and infers that it is the   

gardener3--presently      something else
 occurs which leads her to infer that   
she was      mistaken in her first      
inference1 and to infer next1 that it   
is ,jesus4 ,it is a narrative upon which
 no serious argument      can be based1 
but had she at first turned away1 her   
first      inference would have         
remained1 and1 according to the         
narrative1 have been erroneous4 ,we     
might also argue that1 if      further  
examination had taken place1 her second 
inference      might have proved as     
erroneous as the first is declared to   
have been4  #dih  alive of a person     
believed to be dead1 it will scarcely be
 disputed1 there are many disturbing    
elements1 especially when that person   
has just died by a cruel and shameful   
death1 and is believed to be the        
,messiah4 ,the occurrence which we at   
any time see is1 strictly speaking1     
merely a series of appearances1 and the 
actual nature of the thing seen is      
determined in our minds by inferences4  

,how often are these inferences correct8
 ,we venture to say that the greater    
part of the proverbial incorrectness and
 inaccuracy which prevails arises from  
the circumstance that inferences are not
 distinguished from facts1 and are      
constantly erroneous4 ,now in that age1 
under such circumstances1 and with      
,oriental temperaments1 it is absolutely
 certain that there was exceptional     
liability to error2 and the fact that   
,paul repeats the statements of unknown 
persons1 dependent so materially upon   
inference1 cannot possibly warrant us in
 believing them when they contradict    
known laws which express the results of 
universal experience4 ,it is infinitely 
more probable that these persons were   
mistaken1 than that a dead man returned 
to life again1 and appeared to them4 ,we
 shall presently consider how much      
importance is to be attached to the mere
 belief in the occurrence of such       
phenomena1 but with regard to the       
appearances referred to by ,paul1 except

 in so far as they attest the fact that 
certain persons may have believed that  
,jesus appeared to them1 such evidence  
has not the slightest value1 and is     
indeed almost ludicrously insufficient  
to establish the reality of so          
stupendous a miracle as the             
,resurrection4 ,it will have been       
observed that of the ,ascension there is
 not a word--obviously1 for ,paul the   
,resurrection and ,ascension were one   
act4  ,having so far discussed ,paul's  
report that ,jesus rose  #dii  from the 
dead and was seen by others1 we turn to 
his statement that1 last of all1 he was 
seen also by himself4 ,in the former    
cases1 we have had to complain of the   
total absence of detailed information as
 to the circumstances under which he was
 supposed to have been seen2 but it may 
be expected that1 at least in his own   
case1 we shall have full and minute     
particulars of so interesting and       
extraordinary a phenomenon4 ,here again 
we are disappointed4 ,paul does not give

 us a single detail4 ,he neither tells  
us when1 where1 nor how he saw ,jesus4  
,it was all the more important that he  
should have entered into the particulars
 of this apparition1 because there is   
one peculiarity in his case which       
requires notice4 ,whereas it may be     
supposed that in the other instances    
,jesus is represented as being seen     
immediately after the ,resurrection and 
before his ,ascension1 the appearance to
 ,paul must be placed years after that  
occurrence is alleged to have taken     
place4 ,the question1 therefore1 arises3
 ,was the appearance to ,paul of the    
same character as the former8 ,paul     
evidently considers that it was4 ,he    
uses the very same word when he says he 
was seen ------ by me1 that he employs  
in stating that he was seen ------ by   
,cephas and the rest1 and he classes all
 the appearances together in precisely  
the same way4 ,if1 therefore1 ,paul knew
 anything of the nature of the          
appearances to the others1 and yet      

considers them to have been of the same 
nature as his own1 an accurate account  
of his own vision might have enabled us 
in some degree to estimate that of the  
others4 ,even without this account1 it  
is something to know that ,paul believed
 that there was no difference between   
the earlier and later appearances4 ,and 
yet1 if we reflect that in the          
appearances immediately after the       
,resurrection the representation is that
 ,jesus possessed the very same body    
that had  #ejj  hung on the cross and   
been laid in the sepulchre1 and that1   
according to the ,gospels1 he exhibited 
his wounds1 allowed them to be touched1 
assured the disciples of his            
corporeality by permitting himself to be
 handled1 and even by eating food in    
their presence1 and that in the case of 
,paul the appearance took place years   
after ,jesus is said to have ascended   
into heaven and sat down at the right   
hand of ,god1 the identity of the       
apparitions becomes a suggestive        

feature4  ,the testimony of ,paul must  
at least override that of the ,gospels1 
and whatever may have been the vision of
 ,paul1 we may fairly assume that the   
vision of ,peter and the rest was like  
it4 ,beyond this inference1 however1    
,paul gives us no light with regard to  
the appearance of ,jesus to himself4 ,he
 merely affirms that ,jesus did appear  
to him4 ,have ,i not seen ,jesus our    
,lord8 he says in one place47#a7        
,elsewhere he relates3 ,but when he was 
pleased1 who set me apart from my       
mother's womb1 and called me through his
 grace1 to reveal his ,son in me1 that  
,i might preach him among the ,gentiles2
 immediately1 ,i communicated not with  
flesh and blood4444 but ,i went away    
into ,arabia and returned again unto    
,damascus47#b7 ,various opinions have   
been expressed regarding the rendering  
of ------4  ,the great majority of      
critics agree that the direct and       
natural sense must be adopted3 to reveal
 his son in me1 that is to say1 within  

me1 in my spirit47#c7 ,others maintain  
that ------ must be  #eja  rendered     
through me17#a7 giving ------ the sense 
of ------2 but in that case the         
following context would be quite        
unnecessary4 ,hilgenfeld7#b7 thinks that
 the meaning is in his person2 and      
,ruckert7#c7 and a few others read to   
me4 ,the liberties taken by interpreters
 of the ,new ,testament with the        
preposition ------1 too frequently from 
preconceived dogmatic reasons1 are      
remarkable4 ,the importance of this     
passage chiefly lies in the question    
whether the revelation here referred to 
is the same as the appearance to him of 
,jesus of the ,corinthian letter4 ,some 
critics incline to the view that it is  
so17#d7 whilst others consider that     
,paul does not thus speak of his vision1
 but rather of the doctrine concerning  
,jesus which formed his ,gospel1 and    
which ,paul claimed to have received1   
not from man1 but by revelation from    
,god47#e7 ,upon this point we have only 

a few remarks to make4 ,if it be        
understood that ,paul refers to the     
appearance to him of ,jesus1 it is clear
 that he represents it in these words as
 a subjective vision1 within his own    
consciousness4 ,if1 on the other hand1  
he do not refer to the appearance1 then 
the passage loses all distinct reference
 to that occurrence4 ,we do not intend  
to lay any further stress upon the      
expression than this1 and it is fair to 
add that we do not think there is any   
special reference to the apparition of  
,jesus in the  #ejb  passage1 but simply
 an allusion to his conversion to       
,christianity1 which the ,apostle       
considered a revelation in his mind of  
the true character and work of the      
,christ which had previously been so    
completely misunderstood by him4 ,we may
 as well say at once that we desire to  
take the argument in its broadest form1 
without wasting time by showing that    
,paul himself uses language which seems 
to indicate that he recognised the      

appearance of ,jesus to have been merely
 subjective4 ,the only other passage    
which we need now mention is the account
 which ,paul gives1 #b ,cor4 xii4 #b ff1
 of his being caught up to the third    
heaven4 ,a few critics consider that    
this may be the occasion on which ,jesus
 appeared to him1 to which he refers in 
the passage of the former letter which  
we are considering17#a7 but the great   
majority are opposed to the supposition4
 ,in any case there is no evidence that 
the occasions are identical1 and we     
therefore are not entitled to assume    
that they are so4  ,it will have been   
observed that we have hitherto confined 
our attention wholly to the undoubted   
writings of ,paul4 ,were there no other 
reason than the simple fact that we are 
examining the evidence of ,paul himself1
 and have1 therefore1 to do with that   
evidence alone1 we should be thoroughly 
justified in this course4 ,it is        
difficult to clear the mind of          
statements regarding ,paul and his      

conversion which are made in the ,acts  
of the ,apostles1 but it is absolutely  
essential that we should understand     
clearly what ,paul himself tells us and 
what he does not1 for the present       
totally excluding ,acts4 ,what then does
 ,paul himself tell us of the           
circumstances under which he saw ,jesus8
  #ejc  ,absolutely nothing4 ,the whole 
of his evidence for the ,resurrection   
consists in the bare statement that he  
did see ,jesus4 ,now can the fact that  
any man merely affirms1 without even    
stating the circumstances1 that a person
 once dead and buried has risen from the
 dead and been seen by him1 be seriously
 considered satisfactory evidence for so
 astounding a miracle8 ,is it possible  
for any one of sober mind1 acquainted   
with the nature of the proposition1 on  
the one hand1 and with the innumerable  
possibilities of error1 on the other1 to
 regard such an affirmation even as     
evidence of much importance in such a   
matter8 ,we venture to say that1 in such

 a case1 an affirmation of this nature1 
even made by a man of high character and
 ability1 would possess little weight4  
,if the person making it1 although of   
the highest honour1 were known to       
suppose himself the subject of constant 
revelations and visions1 and if1        
perhaps1 he had a constitutional        
tendency to nervous excitement and      
ecstatic trance1 his evidence would have
 no weight at all4 ,we shall presently  
have to speak of this more in detail in 
connection with ,paul4 ,such an         
allegation even supported by the fullest
 information and most circumstantial    
statement could not establish the       
reality of the miracle2 without them1 it
 has no claim to belief4 ,what is the   
value of a person's testimony who simply
 makes an affirmation of some important 
matter1 unaccompanied by particulars1   
and the truth of which cannot be        
subjected to the test of even the       
slightest cross-examination8 ,it is     
worth nothing4 ,it would not be received

 at all in a ,court of ,justice4 ,if we 
knew the whole of the circumstances of  
the apparition to ,paul1 from which he  
inferred that he had seen the risen     
,jesus1 the natural explanation of the  
supposed miracle might be  #ejd  easy4  
,there were no other witnesses of it4   
,this is clear2 for1 had there been1    
,paul must have mentioned them as he    
mentioned the five hundred4 ,we have    
only the report of a man who states that
 he had seen4,jesus1 unconfirmed by any 
witnesses4 ,under no circumstances could
 isolated evidence like this be ol much 
value4 ,facts and inferences are alike  
uncorroborated1 but on the other hand   
are contradicted by universal           
experience4  ,when we analyse the       
evidence1 it is reduced to this3 ,paul  
believed that he had seen ,jesus4 ,this 
belief constitutes the whole evidence of
 ,paul himself for the ,resurrection4   
,it is usual to argue that the powerful 
effect which this belief produced upon  
,paul's life and teaching renders this  

belief of extraordinary force as        
evidence4 ,this we are not prepared to  
admit4 ,if the assertion that ,jesus    
appeared to him had not been believed by
 ,paul1 it would not have secured a     
moment's attention4 ,that this belief   
affected his life was the inevitable    
consequence of such belief4 ,paul       
eminently combined works with faith in  
his own life4 ,when he believed ,jesus  
to be an impostor1 he did not content   
himself with sneering at human          
credulity1 but vigorously persecuted his
 followers4 ,when he came to believe    
,jesus to be the ,messiah1 he was not   
more inactive1 but became the           
irrepressible ,apostle of the ,gentiles4
 ,he acted upon his convictions in both 
cases2 but his mere persecution of      
,christianity no more proved ,jesus to  
be an impostor than his mere preaching  
of ,christianity proved ,jesus to be the
 ,messiah4 ,it only proved that he      
believed so4 ,he was as earnest in the  
one case as in the other4 ,we repeat1   

therefore1 that the evidence of ,paul   
for the ,resurrection amounts to  #eje  
nothing more than the unfeigned belief  
that ,jesus had been seen by him4 ,we   
shall presently further examine the     
value of this belief as evidence for so 
astounding a miracle4  ,we must not form
 exaggerated conceptions of the effect  
upon ,paul of the appearance to him of  
,jesus4 ,that his convictions and views 
of ,christianity were based upon the    
reality of the ,resurrection is         
undeniable1 and that they received      
powerful confirmation and impulse       
through his vision of ,jesus is also not
 to be doubted1 but let us clear our    
minds of representations derived from   
other sources and clearly understand    
what ,paul himself does and does not say
 of this vision1 and for this purpose we
 must confine ourselves to the undoubted
 writings of the ,apostle4 ,does ,paul  
himself ascribe his conversion to       
,christianity to the fact of his having 
seen ,jesus8 ,most certainly not4 ,that 

is a notion derived solely from the     
statements in ,acts4 ,the sudden and    
miraculous conversion of ,paul is a     
product of the same pen which produced  
the story of the sudden conversion of   
the thief on the cross1 an episode      
equally unknown to other writers4 ,paul 
neither savs when nor where he saw      
,jesus4 ,the revelation of ,god's ,son  
in him not being an allusion to this    
vision of ,jesus1 but merely a reference
 to the light which dawned upon ,paul's 
mind as to the character and mission of 
,jesus1 there is no ground whatever1    
from the writings of the ,apostle       
himself1 to connect the appearance of   
,jesus with the conversion of ,paul4    
,the statement in the ,epistle to the   
,galatians simply amounts to this3 ,when
 it pleased him who elected him from his
 mother's womb1 and called him by his   
grace1 to reveal to his mind the truth  
concerning his ,son1 that he might      
preach  #ejf  him among the ,gentiles1  
he communicated not with flesh and      

blood1 neither did he go up to          
,jerusalem to those who were ,apostles  
before him1 but immediately went away to
 ,arabia1 and after that returned again 
to ,damascus4 ,it can scarcely be       
doubted that ,paul here refers to his   
change of views--to his conversion--but 
as little can it be doubted that he does
 not ascribe that conversion to the     
appearance to him of ,jesus spoken of in
 the ,corinthian letter4  ,let any      
reader who honestly desires to ascertain
 the exact position of the case ask     
himself the simple question whether1    
supposing the ,acts of the ,apostles    
never to have existed1 it is possible to
 deduce from this1 or any other         
statement of ,paul1 that he actually    
ascribes his conversion to the fact that
 ,jesus appeared to him in a            
supernatural manner4 ,he may possibly in
 some degree base his apostolic claims  
upon that appearance1 although it may be
 doubted how far he does even this2 if  
he did so1 it would only prove the      

reality of his belief1 but not the      
reality of the vision2 but there is no  
evidence whatever in the writings of    
,paul that he connected his conversion  
with the appearance of ,jesus4 ,all that
 we can legitimately infer seems to be  
that1 before his adoption of            
,christianity1 he had persecuted the    
,church27#a7 and further it may be      
gathered from the passage in the        
,galatian letter1 that at the time when 
this change occurred he4 was at         
,damascus4 ,at least he says that from  
,arabia he returned again to ,damascus1 
which seems to imply that he first went 
from that city to ,arabia4 ,when we     
consider the expressions in the two     
letters1 it becomes apparent that ,paul 
does not set forth any instantaneous    
conversion of the  #ejg  character      
related elsewhere4 ,to the ,galatians he
 describes his election from his        
mother's womb and call by the grace of  
,god as antecedent to the revelation of 
his ,son in him3 ,when he who separated 

me from my mother's womb and called me  
by his grace was pleased to reveal his  
,son in me1 that ,i might preach him    
among the ,gentiles1 c4 ,and if the     
reading through me be adopted1 the sense
 we are pointing out becomes still more 
apparent4 ,in the ,corinthian letter    
again1 the expressions should be        
remarked3 v4 #h4 ,and last of all he was
 seen by me also1 as the one born out of
 due time4 #i4 ,for ,i am the least of  
the apostles1 that am not fit to be     
called an apostle1 because ,i persecuted
 the ,church of ,god3 #aj4 but by the   
grace of ,god ,i am what ,i am3 and his 
grace which was 7bestowed7 upon me was  
not in vain1 but ,i laboured more       
abundantly than they all1 yet not ,i1   
but the grace of ,god with me4 #aa4     
,whether1 therefore1 it were ,i or they1
 so we preach1 and so ye believed47#a7  
,peter sees ,jesus first1 ,paul sees him
 last2 and as the thought uppermost in  
his mind in writing this epistle was the
 parties in the ,corinthian ,church1 and

 the opposition to himself and denial   
even of his apostleship1 the mention of 
his having seen ,jesus immediately leads
 him to speak of his apostolic claims4  
,am ,i not an ,apostle8 have ,i not seen
 ,jesus our ,lord8 he had just before   
exclaimed1 and proceeded to defend      
himself against his opponents3 here     
again he reverts to the same  #ejh      
subject1 with proud humility calling    
himself1 on the one hand1 the least of  
the ,apostles1 but1 on the other1       
asserting that he had laboured more than
 they all4 ,he is led to contrast his   
past life with his present2 the time    
when he persecuted the ,church with that
 in which he built it up4 ,there is1    
however1 no allusion to any miraculous  
conversion when he says3 by the grace of
 ,god ,i am what ,i am4 ,he may consider
 his having seen the ,lord and become a 
witness of his resurrection one part of 
his qualification for the ,apostolate1  
but assuredly he does not represent this
 as the means of his conversion4  ,we   

shall not pause to discuss at length how
 far being a witness for the            
resurrection really was made a necessary
 qualification for the apostolic office4
 ,the passages1 ,luke xxiv4 #dh1 ,acts  
i4 #bb1 ii4 #cb1 upon which the theory  
mainly rests1 are not evidence of the   
fact which can for a moment be accepted4
 ,it is obvious that the ,twelve were   
apostles from having been chosen        
disciples of the ,master from the       
commencement of his active career1 and  
not from any fortuitous circumstance at 
its close4 ,if ,paul says3 ,am ,i not an
 apostle8 ,have ,i not seen ,jesus our  
,lord8 he continues3 ,are ye not my work
 in the ,lord8 ,if ,i am not an apostle 
unto others1 yet ,i am at least to you3 
for the seal of mine apostleship are ye 
in the ,lord4 ,my defence to them that  
examine me is this47#a7 ,there can be no
 doubt that the claims of ,paul to the  
,apostolate were1 during his life1      
constantly denied1 and his authority    
rejected4 ,as we have elsewhere pointed 

out1 there is no evidence that his      
apostleship was ever recognised by the  
elder ,apostles1 nor that his claim was 
ever submitted to them4 ,even in the    
#eji  second century1 the ,clementine   
,homilies deny him the honour1 and make 
light of his visions and revelations4   
,all the evidence we possess shows that 
,paul's vision of ,jesus did not secure 
for him much consideration in his own   
time1 a circumstance which certainly    
does not tend to establish its reality4 
,what weight can we1 then1 attach to the
 representation in the ,acts of the     
,apostles of the conversion of ,paul8   
,our examination of that work has       
sufficiently shown that none of its     
statements can be received as           
historical4 ,where we have been able to 
compare them with the epistles of ,paul1
 they have not been in agreement4       
,nothing could be more obvious than the 
contradiction between the narrative of  
,paul's conduct after his conversion1   
according to ,acts1 and the account     

which ,paul gives in the ,galatian      
letter4 ,we need not repeat the         
demonstration here4 ,where we possess   
the means of comparison1 we discover the
 inaccuracy of ,acts4 ,why should we    
suppose that which we cannot compare    
more accurate8 ,so far as our argument  
is concerned1 it matters very little    
whether we exclude the narrative of the 
conversion of ,acts or not4 ,we point   
out1 however1 that there is no          
confirmation whatever in the writings of
 ,paul of the representation of his     
conversion by means of a vision of      
,jesus1 which1 upon all considerations1 
may much more reasonably be assigned to 
a somewhat later period4 ,if we ventured
 to conjecture1 we should say that the  
author of ,acts has expanded the        
scattered sayings of ,paul into this    
narrative1 making the miraculous        
conversion by a personal interposition  
of ,jesus1 which he therefore relates no
 less than three times1 counterbalance  
the disadvantage of his not having      

followed ,jesus in the  #eaj  flesh47#a7
 ,it is curious that he has introduced  
the bare statement into the third       
,synoptic1 that ,jesus was seen by      
,simon ------17#b7 which none of the    
other evangelists mentions1 but which he
 may have found1 without farther        
particulars1 ------1 in the ,epistle    
whence he derived1 perhaps1 materials   
for the other story4 ,in no case can the
 narrative in ,acts be received as      
evidence of the slightest value2 but in 
order not to pass over even such        
statements in silence1 we shall very    
briefly examine it4  ,the narrative is  
repeated thrice3 in the first instance  
7ix4 #a ff47 as a historical account of 
the transaction2 next 7xxii4 #d if47    
introduced into a speech supposed to be 
delivered by ,paul to the ,jews when    
taken prisoner in consequence of their  
uproar on finding him in the ,temple    
purifying himself with the four men who 
had a vow1--a position which cannot     
historically be reconciled with the     

character and views of ,paul2 and1      
thirdly1 again put into the mouth of the
 ,apostle 7xxvi4 #i ff47 when he pleads 
his cause before ,king ,agrippa4 ,paul  
is represented in the headlong career of
 persecuting the ,church1 and going with
 letters from the high priest empowering
 him to bring ,christian men and women  
bound unto ,jerusalem4 ,and as he       
journeyed1 it came to pass that he drew 
nigh to ,damascus1 and suddenly there   
shone round about him a light out of the
 heaven1 and he fell upon the earth and 
heard a voice saying unto him3 ,saul1   
,saul1 why persecutest thou me8 ,and he 
said1 ,who art thou1 ,lord8 ,and he     
said1 ,i am ,jesus whom thou            
persecutest4 ,but rise and go into the  
city1 and it shall be told thee what    
thou must do47#c7 ,in the second        
account1 there is so far  #eaa  no very 
wide discrepancy1 but there1 as in the  
third1 the time is said to be about     
noon4 ,there is a very considerable     
difference in the third account1        

however1 more especially in the report  
of what is said by the voice3 xxvi4 #ac4
 ,at midday1 ,o ,king1 ,i saw in the way
 a light from heaven1 above the         
brightness of the sun1 shining round    
about me and those journeying with me2  
#ad4 ,and when we all fell to the earth1
 ,i heard a voice saying unto me in the 
,hebrew tongue3 ,saul1 ,saul1 why       
persecutest thou me8 it is hard for thee
 to kick against pricks4 #ae4 ,and ,i   
said3 ,who art thou1 ,lord8 ,and the    
,lord said3 ,i am ,jesus whom thou      
persecutest4 #af4 ,but rise and stand   
upon thy feet2 for ,i was seen by thee  
for this purpose1 to choose thee a      
minister and a witness both of these    
things which thou sawest1 and of the    
things in which ,i will appear unto     
thee2 #ag4 delivering thee from the     
people and from the ,gentiles1 unto whom
 ,i send thee2 #ah4 to open their eyes1 
that they may turn them from darkness to
 light1 and from the power of ,satan    
unto ,god1 that they may receive        

forgiveness of sins1 and a lot among    
them which are sanctified by faith that 
is in me47#a7  #eab  ,it will be        
admitted that this address is widely    
different from that reported in the two 
earlier accounts4 ,apologists argue     
that1 in this third narrative1 ,paul has
 simply transferred from ,ananias to    
,jesus the message delivered to him by  
the former1 according to the second     
account4 ,let us first see what ,ananias
 is there represented as saying4 ,acts  
xxii4 #ad3 ,and he said3 ,the ,god of   
our fathers chose thee1 to know his will
 and to see the ,righteous ,one'7#a7    
#ae4 for thou shalt be a witness to him 
unto all men of what thou hast seen and 
heard4 7#b7 ,now ,paul clearly professes
 in the speech which he is represented  
as delivering before ,agrippa to state  
what the voice said to him3 ,and he     
said1 and ,i said1 and he said1         
distinctly convey the meaning that the  
report is to be what actually was said4 
,if the sense of what ,ananias said to  

him is embodied in part of the address  
ascribed to the voice1 it is strangely  
altered and put into the first person2  
but1 beyond this1 there is much added   
which neither appears in the speech of  
,ananias nor anywhere else in any of the
 narratives4 ,if we further compare the 
instructions given to ,ananias in the   
vision of the first narrative with his  
words in the second and those ascribed  
to the voice in the third1 we shall see 
that these again differ very materially4
 ,acts ix4 #ae4 ,but the ,lord said unto
 him3 ,go2 for this man is a chosen     
vessel unto me1 to bear my name before  
,gentiles and kings1 and the sons of    
,israel3 #af4 ,for ,i will show him how 
great things he must suffer for my      
name's sake47#c7       #a ,it will be   
remembered that this epithet occurs in  
,acts      iii4 #ad1 vii4 #eb1 and      
nowhere else in the ,new ,testament4    
#eac  ,what must we think of a writer   
who deals so freely with his materials1 
and takes such liberties even with so   

serious a matter as this heavenly vision
 and the words of the glorified ,jesus8 
,in the third account1 ,jesus is        
represented as saying3 ,it is hard for  
thee to kick against pricks47#a7 ,this  
is a well-known proverbial saying1      
frequently used by classical ,greek and 
,latin authors17#b7 and not altogether  
strange to ,hebrew4 ,it is a singularly 
anthropomorphic representation to put   
such a saying into the mouth of the     
divine apparition1 and it assists in    
betraying the mundane origin of the     
whole scene4 ,another point deserving   
consideration is1 that ,paul is not told
 what he is to do by the voice of       
,jesus1 but is desired to go into the   
city to be there instructed by ,ananias4
 ,this is clearly opposed to ,paul's own
 repeated asseverations4 ,for neither   
did ,i receive it from man nor was      
taught it1 but through a revelation of  
,jesus ,christ17#c7 is his statement4   
,the details of the incident itself1    
moreover1 are differently stated in the 

various accounts and cannot be          
reconciled4 ,according to the first     
account1 the companions of ,paul stood  
speechless 7ix4 #g72 in the third1 they 
all fell to the earth 7xxvi4 #ad74 ,the 
explanation1 that they first fell to the
 ground and then rose up1 fails  #ead   
satisfactorily to harmonise the two     
statements2 as does likewise the        
suggestion that the first expression is 
simply an idiomatic mole of saying that 
they were speechless1 independent of    
position4 ,then again1 in the first     
account1 it is said that the men stood  
speechless1 hearing the voice ------ but
 seeing no one4' ,in the second we are  
told3 ,and they that were with me saw   
indeed the light2 but they heard not the
 voice ------ of him speaking to me47#b7
 ,no two statements could be more       
contradictory4 ,the attempt to reconcile
 them by explaining the verb ------ in  
the one place to hear and in the other  
to understand is inadmissible1 because  
wholly arbitrary4 ,it is quite obvious  

that the word is used in the same sense 
in both passages1 the difference being  
merely the negative4 ,in the third      
account1 the voice is described as      
speaking in the ,hebrew tongue17#c7     
which was probably the native tongue of 
the companions of ,paul from ,jerusalem4
 ,if they heard the voice speaking      
,hebrew1 they must have understood it   
,the effort to make the vision clearly  
objective1 and1 at the same time1 to    
confine it to ,paul1 leads to these     
complications4 ,the voice is heard1     
though the speaker is not seen1 by the  
men1 in the one story1 whilst the light 
is seen1 and the voice not heard1 in the
 other1 and yet it speaks in ,hebrew    
according to the third1 and even makes  
use of classical proverbs1 and uses     
language wondrously similar to that of  
the author of ,acts4  ,we may remark    
here that ,paul's ,gospel was certainly 
not revealed to him upon this occasion2 
and1 therefore1 the expressions in his  
epistles upon this subject must be      

referred to other revelations4 ,there   
is1 however1  #eae  another curious     
point to be observed4 ,paul is not      
described as having actually seen ,jesus
 in the vision4 ,according to the first 
two accounts1 a light shines round about
 him and he falls to the ground and     
hears a voice2 when he rises he is      
blind47#a7 ,if in the third account1 he 
sees the light from heaven above the    
brightness of the sun shining round     
about him and his companions17#b7 they  
equally see it1 according to the second 
account47#c7 ,the blindness1 therefore1 
is miraculous and symbolic1 for the men 
are not blinded by the light47#d7 ,it is
 singular that ,paul nowhere refers to  
this blindness in his letters4 ,it      
cannot be doubted that the writer's     
purpose is to symbolise the very change 
from darkness to light1 in the case of  
,paul1 which1 after ,old ,testament     
prophecies1 is referred to in the words 
ascribed1 in the third account17#e7 to  
the voice4 ,paul1 thus1 only sees the   

light which surrounds the glorified     
,jesus1 but not his own person1 and the 
identification proceeds only from the   
statement3 ,i am ,jesus whom thou       
persecutest4 ,it is true that the       
expression is strangely put into the    
mouth of ,jesus1 in the third account3  
for ,i was seen by thee ------ for this 
purpose1 c17#f7 but the narrative       
excludes the actual sight of the        
speaker1 and it is scarcely possible to 
read the words just quoted1 and their   
context1 without being struck by their  
incongruity4 ,we need not indicate the  
sources of this representation of light 
shrouding the heavenly vision1 so common
 in the ,old ,testament4 ,before        
proceeding to the rest of the account1  
we may point out in passing the         
similarity of the details of this scene 
to the vision of ,daniel x4 #g-i4  #eaf 
,returning1 however1 to the first       
narrative1 we are told that1 about the  
same time as this miracle was occurring 
to ,paul1 a supernatural communication  

was being made to ,ananias in ,damascus3
 ix4 #aj4 ,and to him said the ,lord in 
a vision3 ,ananias4 ,and he said1       
,behold ,i am here1 ,lord4 #aa4 ,and the
 ,lord said unto him3 ,rise and go to   
the street which is called ,straight1   
and inquire in the house of ,judas for  
one called ,saul1 of ,tarsus2 for1      
behold he prayeth2 #ab4 and he saw a man
 named ,ananias who came in and put his 
hand on him that he might receive sight4
 #ac4 ,but ,ananias answered1 ,lord1 ,i 
heard from many concerning this man1 how
 much evil he did to thy saints in      
,jerusalem3 #ad4 ,and here he hath      
authority from the chief priests to bind
 all that call on thy name4 #ae4 ,but   
the ,lord said1 ,go1 c4 7quoted above74 
#ag4 ,and ,ananias went away1 and       
entered into the house2 and having put  
his hands on him said3 ,brother ,saul1  
the ,lord hath sent me1 even ,jesus that
 appeared unto thee in the way by which 
thou earnest1 that thou mightest receive
 sight and be filled with the ,holy     

,spirit4 #ah4 ,and immediately there    
fell from his eyes as it were scales2   
and he received sight1 rose up1 and was 
baptized1 and having taken food was     
strengthened4 ,we have already had      
occasion to point out1 in connection    
with the parallelism kept up in ,acts   
between the ,apostle of the ,gentiles   
and the ,apostle of the ,circumcision1  
that a similar double vision is narrated
 by the author as occurring to ,peter   
and ,cornelius4 ,some further vision is 
referred to in v4 #ab2 for in no form of
 the narrative of ,paul's vision on the 
way to ,damascus is he represented as   
seeing a man named ,ananias coming to   
him for the purpose described4 ,many    
questions are  #eag  suggested by the   
story just quoted4 ,how did ,ananias    
know that ,paul had authority from the  
chief priests to arrest any one8 ,how   
could he argue in such a way with the   
,lord8 ,did he not then know that ,jesus
 had appeared to ,paul on the way8 ,how 
did he get that information8 ,is it not 

an extraordinary thing that ,paul never 
mentions ,ananias in any of his letters1
 nor in any way refers to these         
miracles8 ,we have already referred to  
the symbolic nature of the blindness1   
and recovery of sight on receiving the  
,holy ,spirit and being baptized1 and   
this is rendered still more apparent by 
the statement3 v4 #i4 ,and he was three 
days without sight1 and neither did eat 
nor drink4 ,we may further point out    
that in immediate connection with this  
episode ,paul is represented1 in the    
second account1 as stating that1 on     
going to ,jerusalem1 he has another     
vision of ,jesus3xxii4 #ag4 ,and it came
 to pass that1 when ,i returned to      
,jerusalem and was praying in the       
,temple1 ,i was in a trance1 #ah4 and   
saw him saying unto me3 ,make haste1 and
 get thee quickly out of ,jerusalem2 for
 they will not receive thy witness      
concerning me4 #ai4 ,and ,i said3 ,lord1
 they themselves know that ,i was wont  
to imprison and beat in every synagogue 

them that believe on thee4 #bj4 ,and    
when the blood of ,stephen1 thy witness1
 was shed1 ,i also was standing by and  
consenting1 and keeping the garments of 
them that slew him4 #ba4 ,and he said   
unto me3 ,go1 for ,i will send thee far 
hence unto the ,gentiles4 ,it seems     
impossible1 considering the utter       
silence of ,paul1 that the apparition to
 which he refers can have spoken to him 
at length as described upon these       
occasions47#a7 ,we have elsewhere       
remarked  #eah  that there is not the   
slightest evidence in his own or other  
writings connecting ,stephen with ,paul1
 and it may be appropriate to add here  
that1 supposing him to have been present
 when the martyr exclaimed3 ,lo1 ,i     
behold the heavens opened1 and the ,son 
of ,man standing on the right hand of   
,god17#a7 it is singular that he does   
not name him as one of those by whom    
,jesus was seen4  ,to resume this       
discussion1 however3 we have already    
shown that the statements of the ,acts  

regarding ,paul's conduct after this    
alleged vision are distinctly in        
contradiction with the statements of    
,paul4 ,the explanation here given of   
the cause of ,paul's leaving ,jerusalem1
 moreover1 is not in agreement with     
,acts ix4 #bi f41 and much less with    
,gal4 i4 #bj ff4 ,the three narratives  
themselves are full of irreconcilable   
differences and incongruities1 which    
destroy all reasonable confidence in any
 substantial basis for the story4 ,it is
 evident that the three narratives are  
from the same pen1 and betray the       
composition of the author of ,acts47#b7 
,they cannot be regarded as true        
history47#c7 ,the hand of the composer  
is very apparent in the lavish use of   
the miraculous1 so characteristic of the
 whole work4  #eai  ,it is worth while  
to catalogue the supernatural incidents 
of this episode4 #a ,the vision2 #b     
,companions hearing the voice but seeing
 no man1 or not hearing the voice but   
seeing the light2 #c ,paul's blindness2 

#d ,vision of ,ananias2 #e ,restoration 
of sight to ,paul2 #f ,trance of ,paul  
in ,jerusalem4 ,such a narrative cannot 
be received in evidence4  ,the whole of 
the testimony before us1 then1 simply   
amounts to this3 ,paul believed that he 
had seen ,jesus some years after his    
death3 there is no evidence that he ever
 saw him during his life47#a7 ,he states
 that he had received that he was seen  
by various other persons1 but he does   
not give the slightest information as to
 who told him1 or what reasons he had   
for believing the statements to be      
correct4 ,and still less does he narrate
 the particulars of the alleged         
appearances or even of his own vision4  
,although we have no detailed statements
 of these extraordinary phenomena1 we   
may assume that1 as ,paul himself       
believed that he had seen ,jesus1       
certain other people of the circle of   
his disciples likewise believed that    
they had seen the risen ,master4 ,the   
whole of the evidence for the           

,resurrection reduces itself to an      
undefined belief on the part of a few   
persons1 in a notoriously superstitious 
age1 that after ,jesus had died and been
 buried they had seen him alive4 ,these 
visions1 it is admitted1 occurred at a  
time of the most intense religious      
excitement1 and under circumstances of  
wholly exceptional mental agitation and 
distress4 ,the wildest alternations of  
fear1 doubt1 hope and  #ebj  indefinite 
expectation added their effects to      
oriental imaginations already excited by
 indignation at the fate of their       
,master1 and sorrow or despair at such a
 dissipation of their ,messianic dreams4
 ,there was present every element of    
intellectual and moral disturbance4 ,now
 must we seriously ask again whether    
this bare and wholly unjustified belief 
can be accepted as satisfactory evidence
 for so astounding a miracle as the     
,resurrection8 ,can the belief of such  
men1 in such an age1 establish the      
reality of a phenomenon which           

contradicts universal experience8 ,it   
comes to us in the form of bare belief  
from the ,age of ,miracles1 unsupported 
by facts1 uncorroborated by evidence1   
unaccompanied by proof of investigation1
 and unprovided with material for       
examination4 ,what is such belief worth8
 ,we have no4hesitation in saying that  
it is absolutely worth nothing4  ,we    
might here well bring our inquiry to a  
close1 for we have no further evidence  
to deal with4 ,the problem1 however1 is 
so full of interest that we cannot yet  
lay it down1 and although we must       
restrain our argument within certain    
rigid limits1 and wholly refrain from   
entering into regions of mere           
speculation1 we may further discuss the 
origin and nature of the belief in the  
,resurrection4 ,recognizing the fact    
that1 although its nature and extent are
 very indefinite1 there existed an      
undoubted belief that1 after his death1 
,jesus was seen alive2 the argument is  
advanced that there must have been a    

real basis for this belief4  #eba  ,the 
existence of a ,christian society1 says 
an apologetic writer1 is the first and  
7if rightly viewed7 the final proof of  
the historic truth of the miracle on    
which it was founded4 ,it may indeed be 
said that the ,church was founded upon  
the belief in the ,resurrection1 and not
 upon the ,resurrection itself3 and that
 the testimony must therefore be limited
 to the attestation of the belief1 and  
cannot reach to the attestation of the  
fact4 ,but belief expressed in action is
 for the most part the strongest        
evidence which we can have of any       
historic event4 ,unless1 therefore1 it  
can be shown that the origin of the     
apostolic belief in the ,resurrection1  
with due regard to the fulness of its   
characteristic form1 and the breadth and
 rapidity of its propagation can be     
satisfactorily explained on other       
grounds1 the belief itself is a         
sufficient proof of the fact47#a7 ,this 
is obviously ,paley's argument of the   

,twelve men7#b7 in a condensed form4    
,belief in action may be the strongest  
evidence which we can have of any       
historic event2 but when the historic   
event happens to be an event in         
religious history1 and an astounding    
miracle like the ,resurrection1 such    
bare evidence1 emanating from such an   
age1 is not very strong evidence1 after 
all4 ,the breadth and rapidity of its   
propagation absolutely prove nothing but
 belief in the report of those who      
believed2 although it is very far from  
evident that people embraced            
,christianity from a rational belief in 
the ,resurrection4 ,no one pretends that
 the ,gentiles who believed made a      
preliminary examination of the truth of 
the ,resurrection4 ,if breadth  #ebb    
and rapidity of propagation be taken as 
sufficient proof of the truth of facts1 
we might consider ,buddhism and         
,mahomedanism as satisfactorily attested
 creeds4 ,there could not be a greater  
fallacy than the supposition that the   

origin of a belief must be explained    
upon other grounds1 or that belief      
itself accepted as a sufficient proof of
 the fact asserted4 ,the truth or       
falsehood of any allegation is          
determined by a balance of evidence1 and
 the critic is no more bound to account 
for the formation of erroneous belief   
than he is bound to believe because he  
may not1 after a great lapse of time1 be
 able so clearly to demonstrate the     
particular manner in which that         
erroneous belief originated1 that any   
other mode is definitely excluded4 ,the 
belief that a dead man rose from the    
dead and appeared to several persons    
alive is at once disposed of upon       
abstract grounds4 ,the alleged          
occurrence is contrary to universal     
experience2 but on the other hand the   
prevalence of defective observation1    
mistaken inference1 self-deception and  
credulity1 any of which might lead to   
such belief1 are only too well known to 
it4 ,is it necessary to define which    

peculiar form of error is present in    
every false belief1 before1 with this   
immense preponderance of evidence       
against it1 we finally reject it8 ,we   
think not4 ,any explanation consistent  
with universal experience must be       
adopted1 rather than a belief which is  
contradictory to it4  ,there are two    
theories which have been advanced to    
explain the origin of the apostolic     
belief in the ,resurrection1 to which we
 may now briefly refer2 but it must be  
clearly understood that the suggestion  
of an explanation is quite apart from   
our examination of the actual evidence  
for the ,resurrection4 ,fifty  #ebc     
explanations might be offered and be    
considered unsatisfactory without in the
 least degree altering the fact1 that   
the testimony for the final miracle of  
,christianity is totally insufficient1  
and that the allegation that it actually
 occurred cannot be maintained4 ,the    
first explanation1 adopted by some able 
critics1 is that ,jesus did not really  

die on the cross1 but being taken down  
alive1 and his body being delivered to  
friends1 he subsequently revived4 ,in   
support of this theory1 it is argued    
that ,jesus is represented by the       
,gospels as expiring after having been  
but three to six hours upon the cross1  
which would have been an                
un-precedentedly rapid death4 ,it is    
affirmed that only the hands and not the
 feet were nailed to the cross4 ,the    
crurifragium1 not usually accompanying  
crucifixion1 is dismissed as unknown to 
the three ,synoptists1 and only inserted
 by the fourth ,evangelist for dogmatic 
reasons1 and of course the lance-thrust 
disappears with the leg-breaking4 ,thus 
the apparent death was that profound    
faintness which might well fall upon    
such an organization after some hours of
 physical and mental agony on the cross1
 following the continued strain and     
fatigue of the previous night4 ,as soon 
as he had sufficiently recovered1 it is 
supposed that ,jesus visited his        

disciples a few times to re-assure them1
 but with precaution on account of the  
,jews1 and was by them believed to have 
risen from the dead1 as indeed he       
himself may likewise have supposed1     
reviving as he had done from the        
faintness of death47#a7  #ebd  ,seeing1 
however1 that his death had set the     
crown upon his work1 the ,master        
withdrew into impenetrable obscurity and
 was heard of no more4  ,we have given  
but the baldest outline of this theory2 
for it would occupy too much space to   
represent it adequately and show the    
ingenuity with which it is worked out1  
and the very considerable support which 
it receives from statements in the      
,gospels1 and from inferences deducible 
from them4 ,we do not ourselves adopt   
this explanation1 although it must be   
clearly repeated that1 were the only    
alternative to do so1 or to fall back   
upon the hypothesis of a miracle1 we    
should consider it preferable4 ,a       
serious objection brought against the   

theory seems to be1 that it is not      
natural to suppose that1 after such     
intense and protracted fatigue and      
anxiety followed by the most cruel agony
 on the cross1 agony both of soul and   
body17#a7 ending in unconsciousness only
 short of death1 ,jesus could within a  
short period have presented himself to  
his disciples with such an aspect as    
could have conveyed to them the         
impression of  #ebe  victory over death 
by the ,prince of ,life4 ,he must still1
 it is urged1 have presented the fresh  
traces of suffering and weakness little 
calculated to inspire them with the idea
 of divine power and glory4 ,this is    
partly1 but not altogether1 true4 ,there
 is no evidence1 as we shall presently  
show1 that the appearances of ,jesus    
occurred so soon as is generally        
represented2 and1 in their astonishment 
at again seeing the ,master whom they   
supposed to be dead1 the disciples could
 not have been in a state minutely to   
remark the signs of suffering17#a7 then 

probably1 with the power of a mind like 
that of ,jesus over physical weakness1  
little apparent4 ,time and imagination  
would doubtless soon have effaced from  
their minds any such impressions1 and   
left only the belief that he had risen  
from the dead to develop and form the   
,christian doctrine4 ,a more powerful   
objection seems to us the disappearance 
of ,jesus4 ,we cannot easily persuade   
ourselves that such a teacher could have
 renounced his work and left no         
subsequent trace of his existence4      
,still1 it must be admitted that many   
explanations might be offered on this   
head1 the most obvious being that death1
 whether as the result of the terrible  
crisis through which he had passed1 or  
from some other cause1 may soon after   
have ensued4 ,we repeat1 however1 that  
we neither advance this explanation nor 
think it worth while to discuss it      
seriously1 not because we think it      
untenable1 although we do not adopt it1 
but because we consider that there is   

another explanation of the origin of    
belief in the ,resurrection which       
#a ,the repeated statement in the       
,gospels that the women and      his    
disciples did not at first recognize the
 risen ,jesus1      are quoted in       
connection with this point4  #ebh  is   
better1 and which is in our opinion the 
true one4 ,we mean that which is usually
 called the vision-hypothesis4  ,the    
phenomenon which has to be accounted for
 is the apostolic belief that1 after he 
had been dead and buried1 ,jesus was    
seen ------ by certain persons4 ,the    
explanation which we offer1 and which   
has long been adopted in various forms  
by able critics1#a is1 that doubtless   
,jesus was seen1 but the vision was not 
real and objective1 but illusory and    
subjective2 that is to say3 ,jesus was  
not himself seen1 but only a            
representation of ,jesus within the     
minds of the beholders4 ,this           
explanation not only does not impeach   
the veracity of those who affirmed that 

they had seen ,jesus1 but1 accepting to 
a certain extent a subjective truth as  
the basis of the belief1 explains upon  
well-known and natural principles the   
erroneous inference deduced from the    
subjective vision4 ,it seems to us that 
the points to be determined are simple  
and obvious3 ,is it possible for a man  
to mistake subjective impressions for   
objective occurrences8 ,is it possible  
that any considerable number of persons 
can at the same time receive similar    
subjective impressions and mistake them 
for objective facts8 ,if these questions
 can be answered affirmatively1  #ebg   
and it can be shown that the            
circumstances1 the characters1 the      
constitution of those who believed in   
the first instance1 favoured the        
reception of such subjective            
impressions1 and the deduction of       
erroneous inferences1 it must be        
admitted that a satisfactory explanation
 can thus be given of the apostolic     
belief1 on other grounds than the       

reality of a miracle opposed to         
universal experience4  ,no sooner is the
 first question formulated than it      
becomes obvious to every one who is     
acquainted with psychological and       
physiological researches1 or who has    
even the most elementary knowledge of   
the influence of the mind upon the body1
 that it must at once be answered in the
 affirmative4 ,indeed the affirmation   
that subjective impressions1 in         
connection with every sense1 can be     
mistaken for1 and believed to be1 actual
 objective effects1 is so trite that it 
seems almost superfluous to make it4    
,every reader must be well acquainted   
with illustrations of the fact4 ,the    
only difficulty is to deal              
authoritatively with such a point within
 moderate compass4 ,we must limit       
ourselves to the sense of sight ,there  
are abundant proofs1 says ,sir ,benjamin
 ,brodie1 that impressions may be made  
in the brain by other causes simulating 
those which are made on it by external  

objects through the medium of the organs
 of sense1 thus producing false         
perceptions1 which may1 in the first    
instance1 and before we have had time to
 reflect on the subject1 be mistaken for
 realities47#a7 ,the limitation here    
introduced3 before we have had time to  
reflect on the subject1 is of course    
valid in the case of those whose reason 
is capable of rejecting the false       
perceptions1 whether on the ground of   
natural  #ebh  law or of probability2   
but1 in anyone ignorant of natural law1 
familiar with the idea of supernatural  
agency and the occurrence of miraculous 
events1 it is obvious1 reflection1 if   
reflection of a sceptical kind can even 
be assumed1 would have little chance of 
arriving at any true discrimination of  
phenomena4 ,speaking of the nervous     
system and its functions1 and more      
immediately of the relation of the      
,cerebrum to the ,sensorium and the     
production of spectral illusions1 ,dr4  
,carpenter says1 in his work on the     

,principles of ,mental ,physiology1     
which is well worth the study of those  
interested in the question we are       
discussing3 ,still stronger evidence of 
the same associated action of the       
,cerebrum and ,sensorium1 is furnished  
by the study of the phenomena designated
 as ,spectral ,illusions4 ,these are    
clearly sensorial states not excited by 
external objects2 and it is also clear  
that they frequently originate in       
cerebral changes1 since they represent  
creations of the mind1 and are not mere 
reproductions of past sensations4 ,dr4  
,carpenter refers in illustration to a  
curious illusion to which ,sir ,john    
,herschel was subject1 in the shape of  
the involuntary occurrence of ,visual   
impressions1 into which ,geometrical    
regularity of form enters as the leading
 character4 ,these were not of the      
nature of those ocular ,spectra which   
may be attributed with probability to   
retinal changes47#a7 ,dr4 ,carpenter    
then continues3 ,we have here not a     

reproduction of sensorial impressions   
formerly received2 but a construction of
 new forms1 by a process which1 if it   
had been carried on consciously1 we     
should have called imagination4 ,and it 
is difficult to see  #ebi  how it is to 
be accounted for in any other way1 than 
by an unconscious action of the         
cerebrum2 the products of which impress 
themselves on the sensorial             
consciousness1 just as1 in other cases1 
they express themselves through the     
motor apparatus47#a7 ,the illusions     
described by ,sir ,john ,herschel who1  
as he himself says1 was as little       
visionary as most people should be      
referred to4  ,of the production of     
sensations by ideas there can be no     
possible doubt7#b7 and1 consequently1 as
 little of the realisation by the person
 in whom they are produced of subjective
 impressions exactly as though they were
 objective4 ,with regard to false       
perceptions1 ,dr4 ,carpenter says3 ,it  
has been shown that the action of       

ideational states upon the ,sensorium   
can modify or even produce sensations4  
,but the action of pre-existing states  
of ,mind is still more frequently shown 
in modifying the interpretation which we
 put upon our sense-impressions4 ,for   
since almost every such interpretation  
is an act of judgment based upon        
experience1 that judgment will vary     
according to our mental condition at the
 time it is delivered2 and will be      
greatly affected by any dominant idea or
 feeling1 so as even to occasion a      
complete mis-interpretation of the      
objective source of the                 
sense-impression1 as often occurs in    
what is termed 'absence of mind4' ,the  
following case1 mentioned by ,dr4       
,tuke7#c7 as occurring within his own   
knowledge1 affords a good example of    
this fallacy3--',a lady was walking one 
day from ,penryn to ,falmouth1 and her  
mind being at that time1 or recently1   
occupied by the subject of              
drinking-fountains1 thought she saw     

#ecj  in the road a newly-erected       
fountain1 and even distinguished an     
inscription upon it1 namely--,if any man
 thirst let him come unto me and drink4 
,some time afterwards1 she mentioned the
 fact with pleasure to the daughters of 
a gentleman who was supposed to have    
erected it4 ,they expressed their       
surprise at her statement1 and assured  
her that she must be quite mistaken4    
,perplexed with the contradiction       
between the testimony of her senses and 
of those who would have been aware of   
the fact had it been true1 and feeling  
that she could not have been deceived 7 
for seeing is believing 71 she repaired 
to the spot1 and found to her           
astonishment that no drinking-fountain  
was in existence--only a few scattered  
stones1 which had formed the foundation 
upon which the suggestion of an         
expectant imagination had built the     
superstructure4 ,the subject having     
previously occupied her attention1 these
 sufficed to form1 not only a definite  

erection1 but one inscribed by an       
appropriate motto corresponding to the  
leading idea4'7#a7  ,we may give as     
another illustration an illusion which  
presented itself to ,sir ,walter        
,scott7#b7 ,he had been reading1 shortly
 after the death of ,lord ,byron1 an    
account in a publication professing to  
detail the habits and opinions of the   
poet4 ,as ,scott had been intimate with 
,lord ,byron he was deeply interested in
 the publication1 which contained some  
particulars relative to himself and     
other friends4 ,their sitting-room      
opened into an entrance hall1 rather    
fantastically fitted up with articles of
 armour1 skins of wild animals1 and the 
like4 ,it was when laying down his book1
  #eca  and passing into this hall1     
through which the moon was beginning to 
shine1 that the individual of whom ,i   
speak saw1 right before him1 and in a   
standing posture1 the exact             
representation of his departed friend   
whose recollection had been so strongly 

brought to his imagination4 ,he stopped 
for a single moment1 so as to notice the
 wonderful accuracy with which fancy had
 impressed upon the bodily eye the      
peculiarities of dress and posture of   
the illustrious poet4 ,sensible1        
however1 of the delusion1 he felt no    
sentiment save that of wonder at the    
extraordinary accuracy of the           
resemblance1 and stepped onward towards 
the figure1 which resolved itself1 as he
 approached1 into the various materials 
of which it was composed4 ,these were   
merely a screen1 occupied by            
great-coats1 shawls1 plaids and such    
other articles as usually are found in a
 country entrance-hall4 ,the spectator  
returned to the spot from which he had  
seen the illusion1 and endeavoured1 with
 all his power1 to recall the image     
which had been so singularly vivid4 ,but
 this was beyond his capacity1 ,c4#a    
,although ,sir ,walter ,scott might be  
sensible of the delusion1 it may be more
 than doubted whether1 in the first     

century of our era1 such an apparition  
proceeding from or connected with       
religious agitation of mind would have  
been considered so4  ,dr4               
,abercrombie7#b7 mentions many instances
 of spectral illusions1 some of the most
 authentic facts relating to which he   
classes under the head of intense mental
 conceptions so strongly impressed upon 
the mind as1 for the moment1 to be      
believed to have a real existence4  #ecb
  ,we cannot1 however1 venture to quote 
illustrations47#a7 ,dr4 ,hibbert1 in    
whose work on ,apparitions many         
interesting instances are to be found1  
thus concludes his consideration of the 
conditions which lead to such illusions3
 ,i have at length concluded my         
observations on what may be considered  
as the leading mental laws which are    
connected with the origin of spectral   
impressions4 ,the general inference to  
be drawn from them is1--that            
,apparitions are nothing more than      
morbid symptoms1 which are indicative of

 an intense excitement of the renovated 
feelings of the mind47#b7 ,subjective   
visions1 believed to have had objective 
reality1 abound in the history of the   
world4 ,they are familiar to all who    
have read the lives of the ,saints1 and 
they have accompanied the progress of   
,christianity in various forms from the 
trances of ,montanism to the vision of  
the ,immaculate ,conception in the      
,grotto of ,lourdes4  ,if we turn to the
 inquiry whether a similar subjective   
impression can be received by many      
persons at one time and be mistaken by  
them for an objective reality1 an       
equally certain reply in the affirmative
 must unhesitatingly be given4 ,the     
contagiousness of emotion is well       
known17#c7 and the rapidity with which  
panic1 for instance1 spreads from a     
single individual to the mass is        
remarked every day4 ,the most trifling  
incident1 unseen by more than a few and1
 therefore1 more pliant in the          
imagination       #a ,every one         

remembers the case of ,luther and his   
visions of      the ,devil4  #ecc  of   
the many1 has instantaneously convinced 
multitudes of the most erroneous        
inferences4 ,we need not refer1         
moreover1 to the numerous religious and 
other mental epidemics which have swept 
over the face of the world1 infecting   
society with the wildest delusions4     
,from ,montanism to camp meetings and   
revivals in our own day1 it has been    
demonstrated that religious excitement  
and dominant ideas have spread with     
astonishing rapidity and power amongst  
the circles in which they have arisen4  
,in certain states of nervous           
expectation1 false impressions are      
instantaneously transmitted from one to 
another in a religious assembly4 ,dr4   
,carpenter says3 ,moreover1 if not only 
a single individual1 but several persons
 should be 'possessed' by one and the   
same idea or feeling1 the same          
misinterpretation may be made by all of 
them2 and in such a case the concurrence

 of their testimony does not add the    
least strength to it4--,of this we have 
a good example in the following         
occurrence cited by ,dr4 ,tuke1 as      
showing the influence of a 'dominant    
idea' in falsifying the perceptions of a
 number of persons at once3--',during   
the conflagration at the ,crystal       
,palace in the winter of #ahff-fg1 when 
the animals were destroyed by the fire1 
it was supposed that the ,chimpanzee had
 succeeded in escaping from his cage4   
,attracted to the roof1 with this       
expectation in full force1 men saw the  
unhappy animal holding on to it1 and    
writhing in agony to get astride one of 
the iron ribs4 ,it need not be said that
 its struggles were watched by those    
below with breathless suspense1 and as  
the newspapers informed us 'with        
sickening dread4' ,but there was no     
animal whatever there2 and all this     
feeling was thrown away upon a tattered 
piece of blind1 so torn as to resemble  
to the eye of fancy1 the body1 arms1 and

 legs of an ape6' 7,op4 cit41 p4 #dd47  
,another  #ecd  example of a like       
influence affecting several individuals 
simultaneously in a similar manner is   
mentioned by ,dr4 ,hibbert in his       
well-known ,treatise on                 
,apparitions3--',a whole ship's company 
was thrown into the utmost consternation
 by the apparition of a cook who had    
died a few days before4 ,he was         
distinctly seen walking a-head of the   
ship1 with a peculiar gait by which he  
was distinguished when alive1 through   
having one of his legs shorter than the 
other4 ,on steering the ship towards the
 object1 it was found to be a piece of  
floating wreck4' ,many similar cases    
might be referred to1 in which the      
imagination has worked up into          
'apparitions' some common-place objects1
 which it has invested with attributes  
derived from the previous ,mental state 
of the observer2 and the belief in such 
an apparition as a reality1 which       
usually exists in such cases1 unless    

antagonized by an effort of the reason1 
constitutes a delusion47#a7  ,we must   
maintain indeed that a number of persons
 assembled under the influence of strong
 similar ideas1 and excited by the same 
active religious emotion are more likely
 to be affected by similar subjective   
impressions to the extent of believing  
them to be objective than one or two    
would be4 ,the excitement of each acts  
upon the whole body1 and is itself      
increased by reaction from the aggregate
 emotion4 ,each receives impressions    
from the other1 which are vividly felt  
even without being verified by personal 
experience4 ,the most nervous           
temperament in the assembly gives the   
final impetus to the excited imagination
 of the rest4 ,in moments of supreme    
expectation and doubt1 enthusiasm       
overcomes reason4 ,if one man see1 if   
one man hear1 the mental impression is  
credited with an objective cause1 even  
when unfelt by others1 and then a  #ece 
similar impression is soon carried from 

the brain to the sensorium of all4 ,this
 does not involve the supposition of a  
diseased mind in ordinary cases1 and in 
the instances which we have in view the 
false perceptions were1 obviously1      
determined and encouraged by foregone   
conclusions of a nature rarely possible 
and1 when existing1 rarely resisted4    
,there are many persons1 adds ,dr4      
,carpenter1 quite sane upon ordinary    
matters1 and even 7it may be7           
distinguished by some special form of   
ability1 who are yet affected with what 
the writer once heard ,mr4 ,carlyle term
 a 'diluted insanity2' allowing their   
minds to become so completely           
'possessed' by 'dominant ideas1' that   
their testimony as to what they declare 
themselves to have witnessed--even when 
several individuals concur in giving    
exactly the same account of it--must be 
regarded as utterly untrustworthy47#a7  
,that subjective impressions can1 in the
 opinion of eminent apologists1 be      
recorded by an ,evangelist as objective 

reality1 we have already pointed out in 
connection with the statement of the    
first ,synoptist1 that ,many bodies of  
the saints were raised2 and they came   
out of the sepulchres after his         
resurrection and appeared unto many4    
7xxvii4 #eb f47 ,dean ,milman and ,canon
 ,farrar explain this by the supposition
 that the earthquake seemed to have     
filled the air with ghostly visitants1  
who after ,christ had risen appeared to 
linger in the ,holy ,city47#b7 ,it      
follows as a logical consequence that1  
as this subjective impression felt by   
many at once is described in the ,gospel
 as objective1 these writers not only   
admit the possibility of such a mistake 
on the part  #ecf  of the observers1 but
 that the ,gospel1 in adopting that     
mistake1 may be suspected of a similar  
course in recording the appearances of  
,jesus4  ,we have thus replied to the   
question whether the vision hypothesis  
could explain the belief of five        
hundred1 or even of eleven persons who  

supposed they had seen ,jesus at once1  
and we do not think that any one who    
seriously considers the ,age1 and the   
circumstances under which the phenomenon
 is alleged to have occurred1 can doubt 
that such belief could very easily have 
resulted from merely subjective         
impressions4 ,before going further into 
the discussion of the matter1 however1  
we must again1 with a little more       
minuteness1 call attention to the date  
of the actual statements upon which the 
whole argument turns4 ,the ,apostle     
,paul writes about a quarter of a       
century after the time when it is said  
that ,jesus was seen by those whom he   
names4 ,whatever opinion may be formed  
as to the amount of information obtained
 by ,paul during the visit he paid to   
,jerusalem for the purpose of making the
 acquaintance of ,peter1 it is          
undeniable that some years had elapsed  
between the time when ,jesus is supposed
 to have been seen and the time when    
,paul could have received information   

regarding these appearances from any of 
the ,apostles4 ,if we date the death of 
,jesus in the year #cc1 almost the      
latest date assigned to it by any       
eminent critic1 and the conversion of   
,paul about a4d4 #ch-dj17a7 it will be  
remembered that the  #ecg  ,apostle     
himself states that he did not go to    
,jerusalem till three years after1 which
 brings us to a4d4 #da-dc as the        
earliest time when ,paul first came in  
personal contact with ,peter and ,james4
 ,he did not go up to ,jerusalem again  
for fourteen years after that1 and we   
have no reason for believing that he met
 any of the ,apostles in the interval1  
but the contrary1 from his own account  
of that second visit1 ,gal4 ii4 #b4 ,he 
could not1 therefore1 have heard        
anything of the appearances of ,jesus   
even from ,peter and ,james till some   
eight to ten years after they had taken 
place4 ,from the other ,apostles1 in all
 probability1 he cannot have heard      
anything till nearly twenty years had   

elapsed since they supposed they1 had   
seen ,jesus4  ,where did he get his     
information regarding the #ejj brethren 
at once8 ,from whom did he get it8 ,if  
the supposed appearance took place1 as  
so many suppose1 in ,galilee1 the date  
of his information is still more        
uncertain4 ,if1 on the other hand1 it   
occurred in ,jerusalem1 whilst so many  
of the numbers were visitors only1 it is
 obvious that the greater part must     
subsequently have left the ,holy ,city  
and become scattered to their respective
 homes4 ,the difficulty of obtaining    
information from more than a few of the 
#ejj becomes obvious4 ,in any case1 from
 no authority which we are entitled to  
assume could ,paul have been minutely   
informed of these appearances less than 
eight to ten years after they occurred1 
and then of the vision of the ,eleven1  
only from one of the number to whom the 
first vision occurred4 ,now1 no one who 
considers the operation of memory1 even 
in persons of more than usual sobriety  

of imagination1 dealing with            
circumstances not likely to be          
exaggerated or distorted by feeling in  
the course of time1 can doubt that1 in  
ten years1  #ech  all the circumstances 
of such occasions1 amidst which much    
excitement certainly prevailed1 must    
have assumed a very different aspect    
from what they originally bore4 ,we may 
be permitted to quote a few words on    
this subject3 ,though we are accustomed 
to speak of memory as if it consisted in
 an exact reproduction of past states of
 ,consciousness1 yet experience is      
continually showing us that this        
reproduction is very often inexact1     
through the modification which the      
'trace' has undergone in the interval4  
,sometimes the trace has been partially 
obliterated2 and what remains may serve 
to give a very erroneous 7because       
imperfect7 view of the occurrence44444  
,and where it is one in which our own   
,feelings are interested1 we are        
extremely apt to lose sight of what goes

 against them1 so that the              
representation given by ,memory is      
altogether one-sided4 ,this is          
continually demonstrated by the entire  
dissimilarity of the accounts of the    
same occurrence or conversation1 which  
shall be given by two or more parties   
concerned in it1 even when the matter is
 fresh in their minds1 and they are     
honestly desirous of telling the truth4 
,and this diversity will usually become 
still more pronounced with the lapse of 
time3 the trace becoming gradually but  
unconsciously modified by the habitual  
course of thought and feeling2 so that  
when it is so acted on after a          
lengthened interval as to bring up a    
reminiscence of the original occurrence1
 that reminiscence really represents1   
not the actual occurrence1 but the      
modified trace of it47#a7 ,this is      
specially likely to occur where1 as in  
our case1 there were ,old ,testament    
prophecies supposed to describe minutely
 the sufferings1 death1 and resurrection

 of the ,messiah1 to furnish lines which
 the transformation of memory must  #eci
  insensibly follow4 ,unconsciously1 we 
may be certain1 the misty outlines of   
the original transaction would acquire  
consistency and take form according to  
the tenor of so infallible an index4 ,it
 would require a memory of iron and of  
more than stubborn doggedness to resist 
the unobtrusive influence of supposed   
prophecies4 ,be it clearly understood   
that we speak of an unconscious process1
 which is perfectly consistent with     
complete belief that the transformed    
trace exactly represents what originally
 took place4  ,but adhering more closely
 to the point before us1 can we suppose 
that the account which ,paul received of
 these appearances1 after that lapse of 
time1 was a perfectly sober and unwarped
 description of what actually took      
place8 ,we think not4 ,is it possible   
that the vision of the #ejj1 for        
instance1 had escaped the maturing      
influence of time8 or that of the       

,eleven8 ,we believe that it is not     
possible4 ,however1 ,paul does not give 
a single detail1 and consequently this  
argument mainly affects the abstract    
value of all such evidence whether at   
first or second hand1 but it likewise   
makes more vague the original           
transaction1 so indefinitely sketched   
for us1 which we have to explain4 ,what 
was it the #ejj really saw8 ,jesus1 says
 the report matured by time2 and modern 
divines taking the statement in its most
 objective sense1 demand an explanation 
of the unknown phenomenon which led #ejj
 to believe that they actually saw the  
risen4 ,master4 ,did the #ejj originally
 think anything of the kind8 ,what      
impression did the individuals receive8 
,did any two receive precisely the same 
impressions8 ,there is not the slightest
 evidence that they did4 ,although ,paul
 gives the most meagre report of these  
appearances that could well be          
conceived1 it must be remembered that   
the  #edj  impression made upon his own 

mind was not by the events themselves1  
but by the narrative of the events      
recounted at least eight or ten years   
afterwards4 ,there can be po doubt that1
 earlier1 ,paul the persecutor must also
 frequently have heard of the           
,resurrection1 and of alleged occasions 
when ,jesus had been seen after his     
death and burial1 from persecuted       
members of the ,christian community1 but
 beyond the undefined certainty of this 
we are not entitled to go4 ,that what he
 heard must have received warmth of     
colouring from the fire of persecution  
is most probable4 ,of this1 however1 we 
shall speak presently4 ,it is not       
necessary further to enlarge upon the   
superstition of the age of which we     
write4 ,we have elsewhere quoted the    
opinion of an orthodox divine and       
,hebrew scholar on the character of the 
,jewish people about that period4 ,not  
to be more tedious1 therefore1 in this  
matter1 he says1 let two things only be 
observed3 i4 ,that the nation under the 

second ,temple1 was given to magical    
arts beyond measure2 and ii4 ,that it   
was given to an easiness of believing   
all manner of delusions beyond          
measure47#a7 ,and again3 ,it is a       
disputable case whether the ,jewish     
nation were more mad with superstition  
in matters of religion1 or with         
superstition in curious arts47#b7 ,even 
supposing the ,twelve to have been men  
of superior intelligence to most of     
their fellow countrymen of the period1  
it cannot reasonably be questioned that 
they were men of like passions and      
failings with the rest1 and that1 as    
were the most eminent men of all        
countries for centuries after1 they were
 ignorant of the true order of nature1  
full of superstitious ideas regarding   
cosmical phenomena1 and ready at all    
times to  #eda  believe in miracles and 
supernatural interference with the      
affairs of life4 ,as ,jews1 moreover1   
they had inherited belief in angelic    
agency1 and divine apparitions4 ,the    

,old ,testament is full of narratives in
 which ,jehovah appears to the          
,patriarchs and ,lawgivers of ,israel4  
,celestial visions had been familiar to 
every ,jew from his infancy1 and the    
constant personal communications of the 
,almighty with his peculiar people were 
still the most sacred traditions of the 
nation4  ,nursed in the prevalent       
superstition of the time1 educated by   
the ,law and the ,prophets to           
familiarity with the supernatural1 and  
prepared by the fervid imagination of   
their race to recognize wonders in      
heaven and earth17#a7 the disciples were
 naturally prepared for the great       
,christian ,miracle4 ,the special       
circumstances in which they were placed 
at the death of ,jesus conduced in the  
highest degree to excite that expectant 
attention which1 in their state of      
profound agitation1 rendered them       
readily susceptible of extraordinary    
impressions4 ,the disciples had for a   
long period followed ,jesus and felt the

 influence of his elevated character4   
,it may be doubted how far they had     
entered into the spirit of his sublime  
teaching1 or understood the spiritual   
wisdom which lay beneath the noble      
simplicity of his language1 but it      
cannot be doubted that his personal     
greatness must have produced a profound 
effect upon their minds4 ,when they came
 at last to understand1 if in a material
 and imperfect way1 his views as to his 
,messianic character1 they can have had 
little difficulty in believing1 in spite
 of the mysterious lowliness and        
humility of his aspect1 although        
probably in a sense widely different    
from his own1 that  #edb  the hope of   
,israel had at last come1 and that the  
hour of her redemption was at hand4 ,it 
is probable that1 as the enmity of the  
priests and rulers increased1 and the   
danger of his position became more      
apparent1 whilst he disdained unworthily
 to shrink from his public work1 he must
 have felt all the peril before him1 and

 observed the anxiety of his followers4 
,it may be conceived that1 under such   
circumstances1 his teachings may have   
assumed even a higher spirituality than 
before and1 rising above the clouds of  
the present1 soared out into that calmer
 future when the religion he founded    
would be accepted by men1 and become a  
light to the ,gentiles and the glory of 
his people ,israel4 ,it is probable that
 he may have spoken of his death in     
spiritual terms as a sacrifice for them 
and for the world1 which would secure   
the triumph of his work and regenerate  
mankind4 ,comforting those who had left 
all and followed him1 but from whom he  
might so soon be parted1 and knowing    
their doubts and fears1 he must have    
re-assured their minds by inspiriting   
views of the inseparable nature of his  
union with those who loved him and did  
his commandments2 his spirit dwelling   
within them and leading them safely     
through the world1 in the peace and     
security of souls raised by the truth   

beyond the reach of its corruption and  
its wrong4  ,that they must have felt   
the strongest conviction of his         
,messianic character1 we think cannot be
 doubted1 however confused may have been
 their ideas of the exact nature of his 
office and of the manner in which his   
coming was to secure the triumph of     
,israel ,the shock to their expectations
 and the utter dissipation of their     
hopes which must have been felt in the  
first moment of his arrest1 hurried     
trial1 and cruel  #edc  condemnation can
 well be imagined4 ,it is probable that 
in that first moment of terror and      
bewilderment the disciples indeed all   
forsook him and fled4 ,no one who had   
consorted with the ,great ,teacher1     
however1 and felt the influence of his  
mind1 could long have resisted the      
reaction to nobler thoughts of him4 ,in 
all the bitterness of sorrow for the    
loss of their master and friend1 in     
horror at his agonizing and shameful    
death1 and in doubt1 consternation1 and 

almost despair1 they must have gathered 
together again and spoken of these      
strange events4 ,believing ,jesus to    
have been the ,messiah1 how could they  
interpret his death on the cross8 ,if he
 was the ,messiah could he thus die87#a7
 ,if ,enoch and ,elijah1 if ,moses1     
precursors of the ,messiah1 had not seen
 death1 how could that prophet like unto
 ,moses whom ,jehovah had raised up end 
his career by a shameful death on the   
cross8  ,throughout that time of fiery  
trial and supreme mental agitation1 they
 must have perpetually sought in their  
own minds some explanation of the       
terrible events then occurring and      
seeming to blast all their hopes1 and   
doubtless mystic utterances of ,jesus   
must have assumed new meanings1 meanings
 probably different from his own4 ,in   
the accounts of the coming ,messiah in  
the prophets1 they must have searched   
for some light by which to solve the    
inexplicable problem4 ,is it not        
conceivable that1 in that last time of  

danger and darkness1 when he saw the    
persecution against him become more     
vehement1 and felt that the path which  
he had chosen led him through danger and
 distress perhaps to death1 ,jesus may1 
in the bitter contemplation of that     
fanatical opposition of bigotry and     
#edd  superstition have applied to      
himself the description of the suffering
 servant of ,jehovah1 suffering--as all 
noble souls have done who are in advance
 of their age1 and preach great truths  
which condemn either directly or by     
implication the vices and follies of    
their time1--the oppressor's wrong1 the 
proud man's contumely1 and1 worse still1
 the ignoble insults of popular         
ignorance and fickleness8 ,here might   
seem to them the solution of the enigma2
 and returning from that first flight of
 terror and bewilderment1 feeling all   
the intense reaction of affection and   
grief and faith in the ,master quickened
 by shame at their abandonment of him in
 his moment of supreme danger and       

affliction1 still believing that he must
 be the ,messiah1 and in mute longing   
and expectation of the next events which
 were to confirm or confound their      
hopes1 the disciples must have been in  
the climax of nervous agitation and     
excitement1 and ready to receive any    
impression which might be suggested in  
their embarrassment47#a7  ,according to 
,paul it was ,peter who first saw the   
risen ,jesus4 ,according to the first   
and fourth ,gospels1 the first          
appearance was to the women1 and        
notably1 in the latter1 to ,mary        
,magdalene out of whom had been cast    
seven devils1 and whose temperament     
probably rendered her unusually         
susceptible of all such impressions4    
,did ,paul intentionally omit all       
mention of the appearances to the women1
 or did he not know of them8 ,in the    
latter case1 we have an instructive     
light thrown on the ,gospel tradition2  
in the former1 the first suggestion     
#a ,ewald points out that1 according to 

the belief of the      period1 the souls
 of the dead hovered for a time between 
heaven and earth1 and he considers that 
the belief      undeniably played an    
important part in this sphere of        
visions of the ,christ    ,gesch4 d4 ,v4
 ,isr41 vi4 p4 #gb a4  #ede  of the     
,resurrection becomes even more clearly 
intelligible4 ,it will be observed that 
in all this explanation we are left     
chiefly to conjecture1 for the          
statements in the ,gospels cannot1 upon 
any point1 be used with the slightest   
confidence4 ,on the other hand1 all that
 is demanded is that a probable or      
possible explanation of the origin of   
the belief in the ,resurrection should  
be given2 and in the total absence of   
historical data we are entitled to draw 
inferences as to the course of events at
 the time4 ,it may well be that a       
mistake as to the sepulchre1 rendered   
not improbable if any hint of the truth 
be conveyed in the conflicting          
traditions of the ,gospel1 or one of    

many other suggestions which might be   
advanced1 might lead the women or ,peter
 to believe that the sepulchre was      
empty4 ,or some other even trifling     
circumstance1 which we no longer can    
indicate with precision1 might convey to
 the women or to ,peter1 in their state 
of nervous excitement1 the last impulse 
wanting to cause that rapid revulsion   
from extreme depression1 which is so    
suitable to the state which we may      
perhaps be allowed to call creative     
subjectivity4 ,if we are to accept the  
indications scattered about the ,new    
,testament1 the impetuous ardent        
temperament of ,peter was eminently one 
to bound into sudden ecstatic           
enthusiasm1 and in all probability some 
commonplace or trifling incident may    
have been the spark which kindled into  
flame the materials already at glowing  
heat4 ,the strong subjective impression 
that ,jesus had risen would create a    
vision of him which1 at once confirming 
previous conclusions1 resolving         

perplexing doubts and satisfying        
feverish expectations1 would be accepted
 by each mind with little or no question
 as an objective reality4 ,if ,peter1 or
 even the  #edf  women1 brought to the  
disciples the assurance that they had   
seen the ,lord1 we cannot doubt that1 in
 the unparalleled position in which they
 were then placed1 under all the        
circumstances of intense feeling and    
religious excitement at the moment1 such
 emotions would be suddenly called into 
action as would give to these men the   
impression that they had seen the       
,master whom they had lost4 ,these      
subjective impressions would be         
strengthened daily and unconsciously    
into ever more objective consistency1   
and being confirmed by supposed prophecy
 would be affirmed with a confidence    
insensibly inspired by dogmatic         
considerations4#a ,that the news would  
fly from believer to believer1 meeting  
everywhere excited attention and        
satisfying eager expectancy1 is certain2

 and that these devout souls1 swayed by 
every emotion of glad and exultant      
enthusiasm1 would constantly mistake the
 suggestions of their own thoughts for  
objective realities is probable4 ,jesus 
died1 was buried1 and rose again        
according to the ,scriptures4 ,this     
would harden every timid supposition    
into assurance2 and as time went on1    
what was doubtful would become certain1 
what was mysterious1 clear2 and those   
who had seen nothing would take up and  
strengthen the tradition of those who   
had seen the ,lord4  ,it is argued that 
there was not time for the preparation  
of the disciples to believe in the      
,resurrection of ,jesus between his     
crucifixion and the third day1 when that
 event is alleged to have occurred1 and1
 consequently1 no probability of        
subjective impressions of so unexpected 
a nature being received4 ,to those  #edg
  apologists who adopt this argument we 
might point to many passages in the     
,gospels1 which affirm that the         

resurrection on the third day was       
predicted4 ,these1 however1 we assign of
 course to a later date4 ,the argument  
assumes that there was no preparation in
 the teaching of ,jesus1 which1 as we   
have endeavoured to suggest1 is not the 
case4 ,if there had been no other1 the  
mere assurance that he was the ,messiah 
must have led to reflections1 which     
demanded some other sequel to his career
 than the death of a slave4 ,the mere   
suggestion of such a problem as must    
have proposed itself to the minds of the
 disciples3 ,if all is to end here1     
,jesus was not the ,messiah3 if he was  
the ,messiah1 what will now             
happen8--must have led to expectant     
attention4 ,but there was much more than
 this4 ,in such moments as those of the 
,passion1 thought works feverishly and  
fast4 ,it is not to be supposed that    
,peter and the rest did not foresee the 
end1 when ,jesus was led away prisoner  
in the hands of his enemies4 ,it is     
still less to be imagined that their    

minds were not ceaselessly revolving    
that problem1 on the solution of which  
depended their fondest hopes and highest
 aspirations4#a ,it is most probable1   
indeed1 that no time could have found   
the disciples in a state so ripe for    
strong impressions as that immediately  
succeeding the death of their ,master4  
,there are1 however1 other aspects in   
which this point may be placed4 ,what   
evidence is there that ,jesus was seen1 
or supposed to have been seen1 on the   
third day8 ,absolutely none worthy of   
the name4 ,paul does not say that he    
was1 and as for the ,gospels their  #edh
  statement is of no value1 and the     
tradition which they record may be set  
down as a foregone dogmatic con-elusion4
 ,paul very distinctly shows this4 ,he  
says3 ,for ,i delivered unto you first  
of all that which ,i also received1 that
 ,christ died for our sins according to 
the ,scriptures1 and that he was buried1
 and that he has been raised the third  
day1 according to the ,scriptures47#a7  

,the repetition of the phrase according 
to the ,scriptures is very marked1 and  
points to the fact that the purpose for 
which ,jesus died--for our sins--and the
 date of his resurrection--the third    
day--are statements directly based upon 
,scripture4 ,we have mentioned that the 
,scriptures supposed to indicate the    
third day1 do not really apply to the   
,messiah at all1 but this does not      
affect the question before us4 ,now     
believing this epoch to be defined in   
prophecy1 this is precisely one of those
 points upon which memory would1 in the 
lapse of time1 be most likely to adjust 
itself to the prophecy4 ,we will assume 
that ,jesus was not seen before the     
third day4 ,it is obvious that if he was
 seen forty days after1 it might be     
affirmed that he had been actually      
raised long before1 on the third day4   
,the vision occurring on the third day  
itself1 even1 could not prove that he   
had not risen before4 ,there is1 in     
fact1 no way that we can see of fixing  

the third day except the statement ol   
,scripture1 and1 the moment we accept   
that1 we must recognize the force of    
dogmatic influence47#b7 ,the fact that  
the third day has from early       #b   
,we do not go into any argument based on
 the order given in      the first two  
,synoptics to go into ,galilee--a three 
days' journey at least--where the       
disciples were to see      ,jesus4 ,nor 
need we touch upon other similar points 
which      arise out of the narratives  
of the ,gospels4  #edi  times been set  
apart as the ,christian ,sabbath1 does  
not prove anything4 ,if the third day   
was believed to be the day indicated by 
,scripture for the ,resurrection1 of    
course that day would be selected as the
 time at which it must have occurred1   
and on which it should be commemorated4 
,so far as the vision hypothesis is     
concerned1 the day is of no consequence 
whatever1 and the objection upon this   
point has no force4  ,there is another  
consideration which we must mention1    

which is not only important in          
connection with an estimate of the      
evidence for the ,resurrection1 but the 
inferences from which clearly support   
the explanation we are proposing4       
,before stating it we may1 in passing1  
again refer to the fact that it is      
nowhere affirmed that anyone was an     
eye-witness of the actual ,resurrection4
 ,it is supposed to be proved by the    
circumstance that ,jesus was            
subsequently seen4 ,observe1 however1   
that the part of this miracle which     
could not well have been ascribed to    
subjective impressions--the actual      
resurrection--is1 naturally enough1 not 
seen by anyone1 but that which comes    
precisely within the scope of such      
subjective action is said to have been  
seen by many4 ,to come at once to our   
point1 however1 neither ,paul1 nor the  
,gospels1 nor ,christian tradition in   
any form1 pretends that ,jesus was seen 
by any one but his disciples and those  
who believed in him4 ,in fact1 ,jesus   

only appeared to those who were prepared
 by faith and expectant attention to see
 him in the manner we assert4 ,we are at
 present merely speaking of the earlier 
appearances1 and reserving ,paul for    
separate discussion4 ,why1 we may       
inquire1 did ,jesus not appear to his   
#eej  enemies as well as to his         
friends87#a7 ,nothing of course could   
have been more intelligible than his    
desire to comfort and reassure those who
 believed in and mourned for him1 but to
 do this by no means excluded a wider   
manifestation of himself1 supposing him 
to have actually risen from the dead4   
,on the hypothesis that he only rose    
again and was seen through the yearning 
and enthusiastic faith of his followers1
 the reason why he was not seen by      
others is not hard to find4 ,yet it     
might be thought that the object of at  
once establishing beyond doubt his      
supernatural mission1 and convincing his
 enemies of their crime1 and the ,jews  
of their blindness and folly1 was       

important enough4 ,had he shown himself 
to the ,chief ,priests and elders1 and  
confounded the ,pharisees with the      
vision of him whom they had so cruelly  
nailed to the accursed tree1 how might  
not the future of his followers have    
been smoothed1 and the faith of many    
made strong6 ,or if he had stood again  
in the ,courts of the ,roman            
,procurator1 no longer a prisoner       
buffeted and spat upon1 but the glorious
 ,messiah1 beyond the reach of ,jewish  
malignity or ,roman injustice4 ,but no1 
he was seen by none but those devoted to
 him4 ,we shall of course be told by    
apologists that this also was for the   
trial of our faith2 though to anyone who
 earnestly reflects1 it must seem       
childish to ask men to believe what is  
beyond their reason1 yet conceal the    
evidence by which reason is supposed to 
be guided4 ,the reply1 however1 is      
clear3 for the trial of our faith or for
 any other reason1 it is nevertheless   
certain that this evidence does not     

exist4  #eea  ,when the argument which  
we are now discussing was first advanced
 long ago by ,celsus1 ,origen had no    
better refutation than1 after admitting 
the fact that ,jesus was not after his  
resurrection seen as before publicly and
 by all men1 to take refuge in the      
belief that the passage of ,paul        
regarding his appearances contains      
wonderful mysteries which1 if           
understood1 would explain why ,jesus did
 not show himself after that event as he
 had done before it47#a7  ,we must now  
proceed to show that the vision of ,paul
 is satisfactorily explained by the same
 hypothesis47#b7 ,we have already proved
 that there is no evidence of any value 
that ,paul's conversion was due to his  
having seen ,jesus in a manner which he 
believed to be objective and            
supernatural4 ,to represent the arch    
persecutor ,paul transformed in a       
moment1 by a miraculous vision of       
,jesus1 into the ,apostle of the        
,gentiles was highly characteristic of  

the author of       #a ,contra ,cels41  
ii4 #fc4 ,it is curious that1 in an     
earlier      chapter1 ,origen1          
discussing the question of              
,celsus1--whether      any one who had  
been actually dead had ever risen with a
      real body1 says that if ,celsus   
had been a ,jew who believed      that  
,elijah and ,elisha had raised little   
children he could      not have advanced
 this objection4 ,origen adds that he   
thinks      the reason why ,jesus       
appeared to no other nation but the     
,jews was1 that they had become         
accustomed to miracles1 and      could1 
by comparing the works of ,jesus and    
what was told of      him with what had 
been done before1 recognize that he was 
greater than all who had preceded him4  
ii4 #eg4  #eeb  ,acts1 who further      
represents ,paul as immediately         
preaching publicly in ,damascus and     
confounding the ,jews4 ,widely different
 is the statement of ,paul4 ,he         
distinctly affirms that he did not      

communicate with flesh and blood1 nor   
went he up to ,jerusalem to them which  
were ,apostles before him1 but that he  
immediately went away into ,arabia4 ,the
 ,fathers delighted in representing this
 journey to ,arabia as an instance of   
,paul's fervour and eagerness to preach 
the ,gospel in lands over which its     
sound had not yet gone forth4 ,there can
 be no doubt1 however1 we think1 that   
,paul's journey to ,arabia and his      
sojourn there were for the purpose of   
reflection47#a7 ,it is only in legends  
that instantaneous spiritual revolutions
 take place4 ,in sober history the      
process is more slow and progressive4   
,we repeat that there is no evidence    
which can at all be accepted that       
,paul's conversion was effected by a    
vision1 and that it is infinitely more  
probable that it was1 so to say1 merely 
completed and crowned by seeing ,jesus2 
but1 at the same time1 even if the view 
be held that this vision was the        
decisive circumstance which induced     

,paul at once to resign his course of   
persecution and embrace ,christianity1  
our argument is not materially affected4
 ,in any case1 much silent1 deep1 and   
almost unconscious preparation for the  
change must long before have proceeded  
in the mind of ,paul1 which was finally 
matured in the ,arabian waste4 ,upon no 
view that is taken can this be excluded2
 upon every ground of common sense1     
experience1 and necessary inference1 it 
must be admitted4  #eec  ,indifference  
is the only great gulf which separates  
opinions4 ,there was no stolid barrier  
of apathy between ,saul of ,tarsus and  
belief in the ,messiah-ship of ,jesus4  
,in persecuting ,christianity1 ,paul    
proved two things3 the earnestness and  
energy of his convictions1 and the fact 
that his attention was keenly directed  
to the new sect4 ,both points           
contributed to the result we are        
discussing4 ,paul's ,judaism was no mere
 formalism4 ,it was the adoption1 heart 
and soul1 of the religion of his people2

 which was to him no dead principle1 but
 a living faith stimulating that eager  
impetuous character to defend its       
integrity with fire and sword4 ,he did  
not1 like so many of his countrymen1    
turn away with scorn from the followers 
of the despised ,nazarene and leave them
 to their delusion2 but turned to them1 
on the contrary1 with the fierce        
attraction of the zealot whose own      
belief is outraged by the misbelief of  
others4 ,the earnest ,jew came into     
sharp collision with the earnest        
,christian4 ,the earnestness of each was
 an element of mutual respect4 ,the     
endurance and firmness of the one might 
not melt the bigoted resolution of the  
other1 but it arrested his attention and
 commanded his unconscious sympathy4    
,just so would the persecutor have      
endured and resisted persecution2 so1   
subsequently1 he actually did meet it4  
,and what was the main difference       
between the persecutor and the          
persecuted8 ,it consisted in that which 

constituted the burden of the apostolic 
preaching3 the belief that this was the 
,christ4 ,the creed of the new sect at  
least was not complicated4 ,it was      
little more at that time than a question
 of identity1 until ,paul himself       
developed it into an elaborate system of
 theology4  #eed  ,in this question of  
identity1 however1 there was comprised a
 vast change of national ideas4 ,to the 
devout ,jew1--looking for the hope of   
,israel1 yearning and praying for the   
advent of that ,son of ,david who was to
 sit upon the throne of his fathers1    
restore the fortunes of the people1     
drive out the heathen and subdue the    
nations again to the yoke of ,israel1   
establishing the worship of ,jehovah in 
its purity and turning the ,gentiles to 
the service of the ,god of ,gods1--it   
was an abhorrent thought that the lowly 
peasant who had died a shameful death on
 ,golgotha should be represented as the 
,messiah1 the promised ,king of the     
,jews4 ,still there was something       

sufficiently startling in the idea to   
excite reflection4 ,a political         
aspirant1 who pretended to play the     
part1 and after some feeble attempt at  
armed insurrection had been crushed by  
the heel of the ,roman1 could not have  
attracted attention4 ,in that1 there    
would have been no originality to       
astonish1 and no singularity to require 
explanation4 ,this man1 on the contrary1
 who was said to be the ,messiah1       
assumed no earthly dignity2 claimed no  
kingdom in this world2 had not even a   
place to lay his head2 but ended a short
 and unambitious career as the teacher  
of a simple but profound system of      
morality by death on a cross4 ,there was
 no vulgar imitation here4 ,this was the
 reverse of the ,messiah of the ,jews4  
,in spite of so much dissimilarity1     
however1 there was in the two parties a 
fundamental agreement of belief4 ,the   
,jew expected the ,messiah2 the         
,christian believed he had now come4    
,the ,messiah expected by the ,jew was  

certainly a very different ,saviour from
 the despised and rejected ,jesus of    
,nazareth1 but at the root of the  #eee 
,christian faith lay belief in a        
,messiah4 ,it was a thoroughly ,jewish  
belief1 springing out of the covenant   
with the fathers1 and based upon the    
,law and the ,prophets4 ,the difference 
was not one of principle but one of     
details4 ,their interpretation of the   
promises was strangely dissimilar1 but  
the trust of both was in the ,god of    
,israel4 ,to pass from one to the other 
did not involve the adoption of a new   
religion1 but merely a modification of  
the views of the old4 ,once convinced   
that the ,messiah was not a political   
ruler but a spiritual guide1 not a      
victorious leader1 but a suffering      
servant of ,jehovah1 the transition from
 judaic hopes to recognition of ,jesus  
was almost accomplished4  ,it is clear  
that ,paul in his capacity of           
,persecutor must have become well       
acquainted with the views of the        

,christians1 and probably must have     
heard them repeatedly expounded by his  
captives before the ,jewish             
,sanhedrin4#a ,he must have heard the   
victims of his blind religious zeal     
affirming their faith with all that     
ecstatic assurance which springs out of 
persecution4 ,the vision of ,peter      
contributed to the vision of ,paul4     
,there can be no doubt that ,paul must  
have become aware of the application to 
,jesus of ,old ,testament prophecies1   
and of the new conception thence derived
 of a suffering ,messiah4 ,the political
 horizon was certainly not suggestive of
 the coming of the ,lord's ,anointed4   
,never had the fortunes of ,israel been 
at a lower ebb4 ,the hope of a ,prince  
of the house of ,david to restore       
dominion to the fallen race was hard to 
entertain4 ,the suggestion of an        
alternative theory based upon a new     
interpretation of the prophets1 if      
startling1 was not untimely1 when the   
old confidence  #eef  was becoming faint

 in many minds1 and the hope of his     
coming seemed so distant and unsure4 ,if
 we do not misjudge the character of    
,paul1 however shocked he may have been 
at first by the substitution of a       
crucified ,nazarene for the triumphant  
,messiah of his earlier visions1 there  
must have been something profoundly     
pleasing to his mind in the conception  
of a spiritual ,messiah4 ,as he became  
familiar with the idea1 it is probable  
that flashes of doubt must have crossed 
his mind as to the correctness of his   
more material views4 ,if the belief were
 true1 which ,christians professed1 that
 this ,jesus1 despised and rejected of  
men1 was actually the suffering servant 
of ,jehovah1 and this servant of        
,jehovah the ,messiah6 ,if the claim of 
this ,jesus who had been esteemed       
smitten of ,god and afflicted1 had been 
verified by his rising again from the   
dead and ascending to the right hand of 
,god6 ,this aspect of the ,messianic    
idea had a mystery and significance     

congenial to the soul of ,paul4 ,the    
supernatural elements could have        
presented no difficulties to him4       
,belief in the ,resurrection was part of
 his creed as a ,pharisee4 ,that the    
risen ,messiah should have been seen by 
many1 the fundamental idea once         
admitted1 could not surprise the        
visionary ,jew4 ,we can well imagine the
 conflict which went on in the ardent   
mind of ,paul when doubts first entered 
it2 his resistance and struggle for the 
faith of his youth2 the pursuance as    
duty of the course he had begun1 whilst 
the former conviction no longer         
strengthened the feverish energy2 the   
excitement of religious zeal in the mad 
course of persecution1 not to be        
arrested in a moment1 but become1 by    
growing doubt1 bitterness and pain to   
him2 the suffering  #eeg  inflicted     
sending its pang into his own flesh4    
,there was ample preparation in such a  
situation for the vision of ,paul4  ,the
 constitution and temperament of the    

,apostle were eminently calculated to   
receive impressions of the strongest    
description47#a7 ,we have mentioned the 
conjecture of many able men that his    
stake in the flesh was a form of        
epilepsy4 ,it is1 of course1 but a      
conjecture1 though one which has great  
probability17#b7 and we must not treat  
it otherwise2 but1 if it could be proved
 correct1 much light would be thrown    
upon ,paul's visions4 ,we have discussed
 the ,apostle's statements regarding the
 supernatural ,charismata in the        
,church1 and have seen his extreme      
readiness to believe in the lavish      
bestowal of miraculous gifts where      
others could recognise but ordinary     
qualities4 ,that ,paul should be able to
 claim the power of speaking with       
tongues more than all the ,corinthians1 
whose exercise of that spiritual gift he
 so unceremoniously restrains1 is in    
perfect keeping with all that we        
elsewhere learn about him4 ,everywhere  
we find the keenly impressionable nature

 so apt to fall into the ecstatic state 
when brought under the influence of     
active religious emotion4 ,i must glory1
 he exclaims with irresistible impulse  
on coming to a theme so congenial to    
him1 ,i must glory2 it is not indeed    
expedient1 but ,i will come to visions  
and revelations of the ,lord47#c7 ,even 
when he speaks of the stake in his      
flesh1 which he does in such suggestive 
connection with his visions1 he         
describes it as sent lest he should be  
exalted above measure by the  #eeh      
excess of the revelations47#a7 ,we have 
so repeatedly had to refer to ,paul's   
claim to have received his ,gospel by   
special revelation that we need not     
again speak of it here4 ,if we could    
quote ,acts as a genuine representation 
of ,christian tradition regarding ,paul1
 we might point out the visions and     
revelations therein so freely ascribed  
to him1 but his own writings are amply  
sufficient for our purpose4 ,even his   
second journey to ,jerusalem is         

attributed to the direction of          
revelation47#b7  ,the only vision       
regarding which the ,apostle gives any  
particulars is that referred to1 #b     
,cor4 xii4 #b3 ,i know a man in ,christ 
above fourteen years ago 7whether in the
 body ,i know not1 whether out of the   
body ,i know not1 ,god knoweth71 such an
 one caught up even unto the third      
heaven4 #c4 ,and ,i know such a man     
7whether in the body or out of the body 
,i know not1 ,god knoweth71 #d4 that he 
was caught up into paradise and heard   
unspeakable words which it is not lawful
 for a man to utter4 #e4 ,for such an   
one will ,i boast1 etc47#c7 ,it has been
 argued from this passage and the       
repetition of the expression whether in 
the body or out of the body ,i know not1
 that ,paul himself could clearly       
distinguish objective facts from        
subjective impressions47#d7 ,no         
interpretation could well be more       
erroneous4 ,it is evident that ,paul has
 no doubt whatever of his having been in

 the third heaven and in ,paradise1 and 
as little of  #eei  his having heard the
 unspeakable words4 ,that is quite      
objectively real to him4 ,his only doubt
 is whether the body was caught up with 
his soul upon this occasion47#a7 ,no one
 who has carefully considered such      
phenomena and examined the statements   
here made can have any doubt as to the  
nature of this vision4 ,the conception  
of being caught up into the third       
heaven1 into ,paradise1 and there       
hearing these unspeakable words which it
 is not lawful for a man to utter1      
betrays in no doubtful manner the source
 of the subjective impressions4 ,of     
course1 divines who are prepared to see 
in this passage the account of an actual
 objective event will not consider it   
evidence that ,paul had subjective      
visions which he believed to have been  
objective facts2 but to those who1 more 
rightly and reasonably1 we think1       
recognize the subjective character of   
the vision1 it must at once definitely  

settle the point that ,paul could       
mistake subjective impressions for      
objective realities1 and consequently   
the argument for the similar            
subjectivity of the vision of ,jesus    
becomes complete4 ,the possibility of   
such a mistake is precisely what        
apologists question4 ,here is an        
instance in which the mistake has       
clearly been made by ,paul4  ,the       
,apostle's own statements show him to   
have been superlatively visionary and   
impressionable1 with restless nervous   
energy it is true1 but1 at the same     
time1 with keen physical and mental     
susceptibility4 ,liable to be uplifted  
by the excess of revelations1 glorying  
in visions and revelations of the ,lord1
 possessing ecstatic  #efj  powers more 
than all others1 subjecting his very    
movements1 his visits to ,jerusalem1 to 
the direction of impulses which he      
supposed to be revelations3 there has   
never been a case in which both         
temperament and religious belief more   

thoroughly combined to ascribe1 with    
perfect conviction1 objective reality to
 subjective impressions connected with  
divine things then occupying his mind4  
,paul moreover lived in a time when the 
,messianic longing of the ,jews led them
 to be profoundly interested students of
 the later apocalyptic writings1 which  
certainly made a deep impression upon   
the ,apostle1 and in which he must have 
been struck by the image of the promised
 ,messiah1 like the ,son of ,man1 coming
 on the clouds of heaven 7,dan4 vii4    
#ac1 cf4 #a ,cor4 xv4 #dg747a7 ,at no   
time was such a vision more likely to   
present itself to him1 than when his    
mind was fixed upon the ,messianic idea 
with all the intensity of one who had   
been persecuting those who asserted that
 the ,messiah had already come4 ,here   
was reason for all that concentration of
 thought upon the subject which produces
 such visions3 and when doubt and       
hesitation entered into that eager      
intense spirit1 the conflict must have  

been sharp and the nerves highly strung4
 ,the ,jesus whom he saw with his mind's
 eye was the climax of conviction in    
such a nature2 and the vision vividly   
brought to him his own self-reproachful 
thoughts for cruelly mistaken zeal1 and 
the remorse of noble souls which bounds 
to reparation4 ,he devoted himself as   
eagerly to ,christianity1 as he had     
previously done to ,judaism4 ,he changed
 the contents but not the form of his   
mind47#b7 ,paul the  #efa  ,christian   
was the same man as ,paul the ,jew2 and 
in abandoning the conception of a       
,messiah according to the flesh1 and    
placing his whole faith in one according
 to the spirit1 he displayed the same   
characteristics as before4 ,the         
revolution in his mind1 of which so much
 is said1 was merely one affecting the  
,messianic idea4 ,he did not at a bound 
become the complete ,apostle of the     
,gentiles1 but accepting at first       
nothing more than belief in a ,messiah  
according to the spirit1 his            

comprehensive and peculiar system of    
theology was1 of course1 only the result
 of subsequent reflection4 ,that his    
conviction should have been completed by
 a subjective vision is no more strange 
than that he should believe in          
supernatural ,charismata1 miraculous    
speaking with tongues1 and being        
actually caught up into the third       
heaven1 into ,paradise1 and hearing     
there unutterable words which it is not 
lawful for a man to utter4 ,paul        
evidently never questioned the source of
 his visions4 ,they were simply accepted
 as divine revelations1 and they excited
 all the less of misgiving in his soul  
from the fact that1 without doubt1 they 
expressed the expected solution of      
problems which intensely occupied his   
mind1 and reflected conclusions already 
practically formed by his own           
thoughts47#a7  ,there remain two points 
to be briefly considered4  #efb  ,the   
first of these is the assertion1        
constantly made in various shapes1 that 

the cardinal miracles of the            
,resurrection and ,ascension were       
proclaimed as unquestionable facts1     
without contradiction1 at a time when   
such an assertion might have been easily
 refuted4 ,the production of the body1  
the still occupied sepulchre1 it is     
said1 would have set such pretensions at
 rest ,it is unnecessary to say that the
 proclamation of the ,resurrection and  
,ascension as facts proved nothing      
beyond the belief1 perhaps1 of those who
 asserted them4 ,so far as ,paul is     
concerned1 we may seek in vain for any  
assertion of a bodily ,ascension4 ,but  
there is not the slightest evidence to  
show when the ,resurrection and         
,ascension were first publicly          
proclaimed as unquestionable facts4     
,even the ,gospels do not state that    
they were mentioned beyond the circle of
 disciples4 ,the second ,synoptist1 who 
does not state that ,jesus himself was  
seen by any one1 makes the curious      
affirmation at the close of his ,gospel 

as we have it1 that the women1 on       
receiving the announcement of the       
,resurrection from the angels1 and the  
command for the disciples and ,peter to 
go into ,galilee1 went out and fled from
 the sepulchre2 for trembling and       
astonishment seized them1 and they said 
nothing to any one2 for they were       
afraid47#a7 ,in the fourth ,gospel1     
although the beloved disciple went into 
the sepulchre1 and he saw and believed1 
it is related of him and ,peter3 ,so the
 disciples went away again unto their   
own home47#b7 ,the ,eleven1 in fact1 who
 all forsook their ,master and fled--who
 are represented as meeting with closed 
doors for fear of the ,jews--with closed
 doors after eight days1 it is again    
said1 although1 a week before1 ten of   
them are said to have seen ,jesus--were 
not likely to expose  #efc  themselves  
to the fate of ,jesus by rushing into   
the highways and asserting the          
,resurrection4 ,beyond the statement of 
the ,gospels1 the value of which we have

 seen1 and a statement accompanied by so
 many confused circumstances1 there is  
no evidence whatever that the sepulchre 
was found empty4 ,there is no evidence  
that the sepulchre was really known to  
the disciples1 none of whom1 probably1  
was present at the crucifixion2 and it  
might well be inferred that the women1  
who are represented as ignorant that the
 body had already been embalmed1 yet who
 are the chief supposed witnesses for   
the empty sepulchre and the informants  
of the disciples1 were equally ignorant 
of the sepulchre in which the body was  
laid4 ,we might ask whether the #ejj    
brethren who are said to have seen      
,jesus at the same time came from       
,galilee1 or wherever they were1 and    
examined the state of the sepulchre8 ,we
 have already said1 however1 that if the
 sepulchre had been shown to be empty1  
the very last thing which could be      
proved by that circumstance would be the
 correctness of the assertion that it   
had become so in consequence of a       

stupendous miracle4 ,on the other hand1 
if it had been shown that it was        
occupied by a body1 it is exceedingly   
doubtful whether the fact would have    
convinced any one not previously sure   
that ,jesus could not have risen from   
the dead1 and he would not have required
 such evidence4 ,when the ,resurrection 
was publicly proclaimed as a fact1 the  
body could no longer have been          
recognizable1 and the idea that any of  
those in authority could have thought   
such demonstration necessary to refute a
 story whispered about amongst an       
obscure sect in ,jerusalem1 or even more
 courageously asserted1 is a product of 
later times4 ,when ,jesus of ,nazareth1 
the head of the nascent sect1 was       
suppressed  #efd  by a shameful death1  
his humble and timid followers were     
obviously for a time despised2 and there
 is little reason to suppose that the   
chief priests and rulers of the ,jews   
would have condescended to any public   
contradiction of their affirmations1 if 

they had even felt indifference to the  
defilement of exposing for such a       
purpose a decaying body to the gaze of  
,jerusalem4 ,this kind of refutation is 
possible only in the imagination of     
divines4 ,besides1 what evidence is     
there that even a single indifferent    
person found the sepulchre empty8 ,there
 is not an iota of proof4  ,on the      
contrary1 there is the very strongest   
evidence that when the assertion of the 
,resurrection and ,ascension as         
unquestionable facts was made1 it was   
contradicted in the only practical and  
practicable way conceivable3 7#a47 by   
all but universal disbelief in          
,jerusalem2 7#b47 by actual persecution 
of those who asserted it4 ,it is a      
perfectly undeniable fact that the great
 mass of the ,jews totally denied the   
truth of the statement by disbelieving  
it1 and that the converts to            
,christianity who soon swelled the      
numbers of the ,church and spread its   
influence amongst the nations were not  

the citizens of ,jerusalem1 who were    
capable of refuting such assertions1 but
 strangers and ,gentiles4 ,the number of
 the community of ,jerusalem after the  
forty days seems to be stated by the    
author of ,acts as about #abj1 and      
although the numbers added to the       
,church1 according to this document1 are
 evidently fabulous1 the converts at    
,pentecost are apparently chiefly from  
amongst the devout men of every nation  
upon earth congregated at ,jerusalem4   
,to this hour the ,jews have retained as
 their inheritance the denial by their  
forefathers of the asserted facts4 ,the 
assertion1 secondly1 was emphatically   
denied by the persecution1 as soon as it
  #efe  became worth any one's while to 
persecute1 of those who made it4 ,it was
 in this way denied by ,paul himself1 at
 a time when verification was infinitely
 more possible than when he came to join
 in the assertion4 ,are we to suppose   
that the ,apostle took no trouble to    
convince himself of the facts before he 

began to persecute8 ,he was in the      
confidence of the high priests it seems1
 can he ever have heard the slightest   
doubt from them on the subject8 ,is it  
not palpable that ,paul and his party1  
by their very pursuit of those who      
maintained such allegations1 stigmatized
 them as falsehoods1 and perhaps as     
imposture8 ,if it be said that ,paul    
became convinced of his mistake1 it is  
perfectly obvious that his conversion   
was not due to local and circumstantial 
evidence1 but to dogmatic considerations
 and his supposed vision of ,jesus4 ,he 
disbelieved when the alleged occurrences
 were recent and1 as it is said1 capable
 of refutation2 he believed when the    
time for such refutation had passed4    
,the second point to which we have      
referred is the vague and final         
objection of apologists that1 if the    
vision of ,jesus was merely subjective1 
the fabric of the ,church and even of   
,christianity is based upon unreality   
and self-deception4 ,is this possible8  

they ask4 ,is it possible that for      
eighteen centuries the ,resurrection and
 ,ascension have been proclaimed and    
believed by millions1 with no other     
original foundation than self-delusion8 
,the vagueness and apparent vastness of 
this objection1 perhaps1 make it a      
formidable argumentum ad hominem1 but it
 vanishes into very small proportions as
 we approach it4 ,must we then          
understand that the dogmas of all       
religions which have been established   
must have been objective truths8 and    
that this is a necessary inference from 
their wide adoption8 ,if so1 then all   
#eff  historical religions before       
,christianity1 and after it1 must take  
rank as substantially true4 ,in that    
case the religion of the ,veda1 of      
,buddha1 of ,zoroaster1 of ,mahomet1 for
 instance1 can as little be based on    
unreality and self-deception as         
,christianity4 ,they have secured wide  
acceptance from mankind4 ,millions have 
for centuries devoutly held their       

tenets1 and to this day the followers of
 ,sakya ,muni are as numerous as the    
believers in the religion of ,paul4 ,if 
not1 the objection at once falls to the 
ground as an argument1 and the problem  
becomes a simple matter of evidence1    
which has been fully discussed and      
disposed of4  ,when we analyse the fact1
 it becomes apparent that1 ultimately1  
belief in the ,resurrection and         
,ascension resolves itself into the     
belief of a few or of one4 ,it requires 
very little reflection to perceive that 
the ,christian ,church is founded much  
more upon belief in the ,resurrection   
than on the fact itself47#a7 ,nothing is
 more undeniable than the circumstance  
that not more than a very small number  
of men are even alleged to have seen the
 risen ,jesus4 ,the mass of those who   
have believed in the ,resurrection have 
done so because of the assurance of     
these few men1 and perhaps because they 
may have been led to think that the     
event was predicted in ,scripture4 ,up  

to this day1 converts to the dogma are  
made1 if made at all1 upon the assurance
 of ,paul and the ,gospels4 ,the vast   
question at last dwindles down to the   
inquiry3 ,can a few men1 can one man1   
draw erroneous inferences and be        
honestly deceived by something supposed 
to have been seen8 ,we presume that     
there can be no hesitation in giving an 
affirmative reply4 ,the rest follows as 
a matter of  #efg  course4 ,others      
simply believe the report of those who  
have believed before them4 ,in course of
 time1 so many believe that it is       
considered almost outrageous to         
disbelieve or demand evidence4 ,the     
number of those who have believed is    
viewed at last as an overwhelming proof 
of the truth of the creed4  ,it is a    
most striking and extraordinary fact    
that the life and teaching of ,jesus    
have scarcely a place in the system of  
,paul4 ,had we been dependent upon him  
we should have had no idea of the ,great
 ,master who preached the ,sermon on the

 ,mount1 and embodied pure truths in    
parables of such luminous simplicity4   
,his noble morality would have remained 
unknown1 and his lessons of rare        
spiritual excellence have been lost to  
the world4 ,paul sees no significance in
 that life1 but concentrates all        
interest in the death and resurrection  
of his ,messiah4 ,in the sepulchre hewn 
out of the rock are deposited the       
teaching and example of ,jesus1 and from
 it there rises a mystic ,christ lost in
 a halo of theology4 ,the ecclesiastical
 ,christianity which was mainly ,paul's 
work has almost effaced the true work of
 ,jesus4 ,too little can now be traced  
of that teaching1 and few are the       
genuine records of his work which have  
survived the pious enthusiasm evoked by 
his character4 ,theology has done its   
worst with the life2 and that death1    
which will ever be the darkest blot upon
 history1 has been represented as the   
climax of divine beneficence4 ,the      
,resurrection and ,ascension have       

deified ,jesus of ,nazareth2 but they   
have done so at the expense of all that 
was most truly sublime in his work4     
#efh  ,the world will gain when it      
recognises the real character and source
 of such dogmas1 and resigns this       
inheritance from the ,age of ,miracles4 
,for1 although we lose a faith which has
 long been our guide in the past1 we    
need not now fear to walk boldly with   
,truth in the future1 and turning away  
from fancied benefits to be derived from
 the virtue of his death1 we may find   
real help and guidance from more earnest
 contemplation of the life and teaching 
of ,jesus4  #efi     ,,conclusions4  ,we
 have seen that ,divine ,revelation     
could only be necessary or conceivable  
for the purpose of communicating to us  
something which we could not otherwise  
discover1 and that the truth of         
communications which are essentially    
beyond and undiscoverable by reason     
cannot be attested in any other way than
 by miraculous signs distinguishing them

 as divine4 ,it is admitted that no     
other testimony could justify our       
believing the specific ,revelation which
 we are considering1 the very substance 
of which is supernatural and beyond the 
criticism of reason1 and that its       
doctrines1 if not proved to be          
miraculous truths1 must inevitably be   
pronounced the wildest delusions4 ,by no
 rational being could a just and        
benevolent life be accepted as proof of 
such astonishing announcements4  ,on    
examining the alleged miraculous        
evidence for ,christianity as ,divine   
,revelation1 however1 we find that even 
if the actual occurrence of the supposed
 miracles could be substantiated1 their 
value as evidence would be destroyed by 
the necessary admission that miracles   
are not limited to one source and are   
not exclusively associated with truth1  
but are performed by various spiritual  
,beings1 ,satanic as well as ,divine1   
and are not always evidential1 but are  
sometimes to be regarded as delusive and

 for the trial of faith4 ,as the        
doctrines supposed to be revealed  #egj 
are beyond ,reason1 and cannot in any   
sense be intelligently approved by the  
human intellect1 no evidence which is of
 so doubtful and inconclusive a nature  
could sufficiently attest them4 ,this   
alone would disqualify the ,christian   
miracles for the duty which miracles    
alone are capable of performing4  ,the  
supposed miraculous evidence for the    
,divine ,revelation1 moreover1 is not   
only without any special divine         
character1 being avowedly common also to
 ,satanic agency1 but it is not original
 either in conception or details4       
,similar miracles are reported long     
antecedently to the first promulgation  
of ,christianity1 and continued to be   
performed for centuries after it4 ,a    
stream of miraculous pretension1 in     
fact1 has flowed through all human      
history1 deep and broad as it has passed
 through the darker ages1 but dwindling 
down to a thread as it has entered days 

of enlightenment4 ,the evidence was too 
hackneyed and commonplace to make any   
impression upon those before whom the   
,christian miracles are said to have    
been performed1 and it altogether failed
 to convince the people to whom the     
,revelation was primarily addressed4    
,the selection of such evidence for such
 a purpose is much more characteristic  
of human weakness than of divine power4 
,the true character of miracles is at   
once betrayed by the fact that their    
supposed occurrence has thus been       
confined to ages of ignorance and       
superstition1 and that they are         
absolutely unknown in any time or place 
where science has provided witnesses    
fitted to appreciate and ascertain the  
nature of such exhibitions of           
supernatural power4 ,there is not the   
slightest evidence that any attempt was 
made to investigate the supposed        
miraculous occurrences1 or to justify   
the inferences so freely drawn from     
them1 nor is there any reason to  #ega  

believe that the witnesses possessed1 in
 any considerable degree1 the fulness of
 knowledge and sobriety of judgment     
requisite for the purpose4 ,no miracle  
has yet established its claim to the    
rank even of apparent reality1 and all  
such phenomena must remain in the dim   
region of imagination4 ,the test applied
 to the largest class of miracles1      
connected with demoniacal possession1   
discloses the falsity of all miraculous 
pretension4  ,there is no uncertainty as
 to the origin of belief in supernatural
 interference with nature4 ,the         
assertion that spurious miracles have   
sprung up round a few instances of      
genuine miraculous power has not a      
single valid argument to support it4    
,history clearly demonstrates that1     
wherever ignorance and superstition have
 prevailed1 every obscure occurrence has
 been attributed to supernatural agency1
 and it is freely acknowledged that1    
under their influence1 inexplicable and 
miraculous are convertible terms4 ,on   

the other hand1 in proportion as        
knowledge of natural laws has increased1
 the theory of supernatural interference
 with the order of nature has been      
dispelled1 and miracles have ceased4    
,the effect of science1 however1 is not 
limited to the present and future1 but  
its action is equally retrospective1 and
 phenomena which were once ignorantly   
isolated from the sequence of natural   
cause and effect1 are now restored to   
their place in the unbroken order4      
,ignorance and superstition created     
miracles2 knowledge has for ever        
annihilated them4  ,to justify miracles1
 two assumptions are made3 first1 an    
,infinite ,personal ,god2 and second1 a 
,divine design of ,revelation1 the      
execution of which necessarily involves 
supernatural action4 ,miracles1 it is   
argued1 are not contrary to nature1 or  
effects produced without adequate  #egb 
causes1 but on the contrary are caused  
by the intervention of this ,infinite   
,personal ,god for the purpose of       

attesting and carrying out the ,divine  
design4 ,neither of the assumptions1    
however1 can be reasonably maintained4  
,the assumption of an ,infinite         
,personal ,god3 a ,being at once limited
 and unlimited1 is a use of language to 
which no mode of human thought can      
possibly attach itself4 ,moreover1 the  
assumption of a ,god working miracles is
 emphatically excluded by universal     
experience of the order of nature4 ,the 
allegation of a specific ,divine cause  
of miracles is further inadequate from  
the fact that the power of working      
miracles is avowedly not limited to a   
,personal ,god1 but is also ascribed to 
other spiritual ,beings1 and it must1   
consequently1 always be impossible to   
prove that the supposed miraculous      
phenomena originate with one and not    
with another4 ,on the other hand1 the   
assumption of a ,divine design of       
,revelation is not suggested by         
antecedent probability1 but is derived  
from the very ,revelation which it is   

intended to justify1 as is likewise the 
assumption of a ,personal ,god1 and both
 are equally vicious as arguments4 ,the 
circumstances which are supposed to     
require this ,divine design1 and the    
details of the scheme1 are absolutely   
incredible1 and opposed to all the      
results of science4 ,nature does not    
countenance any theory of the original  
perfection and subsequent degradation of
 the human race1 and the supposition of 
a frustrated original plan of creation1 
and of later impotent endeavours to     
correct it1 is as inconsistent with     
,divine omnipotence and wisdom as the   
proposed punishment of the human race   
and the mode devised to save some of    
them are opposed to justice and         
morality4 ,such assumptions are         
essentially inadmissible1 and totally   
fail to explain and justify miracles4   
#egc  ,whatever definition be given of  
miracles1 such exceptional phenomena    
must at least be antecedently           
incredible4 ,in the absence of absolute 

knowledge1 human belief must be guided  
by the balance of evidence1 and it is   
obvious that the evidence for the       
uniformity of the order of nature1 which
 is derived from universal experience1  
must be enormously greater than can be  
the testimony for my alleged exception  
to it4 ,on the other hand1 universal    
experience prepares us to consider      
mistakes of the senses1 imperfect       
observation and erroneous inference as  
not only possible1 but eminently        
probable on the part of the witnesses of
 phenomena1 even when they are perfectly
 honest and truthful1 and more          
especially so when such disturbing      
causes as religious excitement and      
superstition are present4 ,when the     
report of the original witnesses only   
reaches us indirectly and through the   
medium of tradition1 the probability of 
error is further increased4 ,thus the   
allegation of miracles is discredited1  
both positively by the invariability of 
the order of nature1 and negatively by  

the fallibility of human observation and
 testimony4 ,the history of miraculous  
pretension in the world1 and the        
circumstances attending the special     
exhibition of it which we are examining1
 suggest natural explanations of the    
reported facts which wholly remove them 
from the region of the supernatural4    
,when we proceed to examine the direct  
witnesses for the ,christian miracles1  
we do not discover any exceptional      
circumstances neutralizing the preceding
 considerations4 ,on the contrary1 we   
find that the case turns not upon       
miracles substantially before us1 but   
upon the mere narratives of miracles    
said to have occurred over eighteen     
hundred years ago4 ,it is obvious that1 
for such narratives to possess any real 
force and validity1 it is essential that
  #egd  their character and authorship  
should be placed beyond all doubt4 ,they
 must proceed from eye-witnesses capable
 of estimating aright the nature of the 
phenomena4 ,our four ,gospels1 however1 

are strictly anonymous works4 ,the      
superscriptions which now distinguish   
them are undeniably of later origin than
 the works themselves1 and do not       
proceed from the composers of the       
,gospels4 ,of the writers to whom these 
narratives are traditionally ascribed   
only two are even said to have been     
apostles1 the alleged authors of the    
second and third ,synoptics neither     
having been personal followers of       
,jesus1 nor eyewitnesses of the events  
they describe4 ,under these             
circumstances1 we are wholly dependent  
upon external evidence for information  
regarding the authorship and            
trustworthiness of the four canonical   
,gospels4  ,in examining this evidence1 
we proceeded upon clear and definite    
principles4 ,without forming or adopting
 any theory whatever as to the date or  
origin of our ,gospels1 we simply       
searched the writings of the ,fathers1  
during a century and a half after the   
events in question1 for information     

regarding the composition and character 
of these works1 and even for any certain
 traces of their use1 although1 if      
discovered1 these could prove little    
beyond the mere existence of the        
,gospels used at the date of the writer4
 ,in the latter and minor investigation1
 we were guided by canons of criticism  
previously laid down1 and which are     
based upon the simplest laws of         
evidence4 ,we found that the writings of
 the ,fathers1 during a century and a   
half after the death of ,jesus1 are a   
complete blank so far as any evidence   
regarding the composition and character 
of our ,gospels is concerned1 unless we 
except the tradition preserved by       
,papias1 after the middle of the second 
century1 the details of which fully     
justify  #ege  the conclusion that our  
first and second ,synoptics1 in their   
present form1 cannot be the works said  
to have been composed by ,matthew and   
,mark4 ,there is thus no evidence       
whatever directly connecting any of the 

canonical ,gospels with the writers to  
whom they are popularly attributed1 and 
later tradition1 of little or no value  
in itself1 is separated by a long       
interval of profound silence from the   
epoch at which they are supposed to have
 been composed4 ,with one exception1    
moreover1 we found that1 during the same
 century and a half1 there is no certain
 and unmistakable trace even of the     
anonymous use of any of our ,gospels in 
the early ,church4 ,this fact1 of       
course1 does not justify the conclusion 
that none of these ,gospels was actually
 in existence during any part of that   
time1 nor have we anywhere suggested    
such an inference1 but strict           
examination of the evidence shows that  
there is no positive proof that they    
were4 ,the exception to which we refer  
is ,marcion's ,gospel1 which was1 we    
think1 based upon our third ,synoptic1  
and consequently must be accepted as    
evidence of the existence of that work4 
,marcion1 however1 does not give the    

slightest information as to the         
authorship of the ,gospel1 and his      
charges against it of adulteration      
cannot be considered very favourable    
testimony as to its infallible          
character4 ,the canonical ,gospels      
continue to the end anonymous documents 
of no evidential value for miracles4    
,they do not themselves pretend to be   
inspired histories1 and they cannot     
escape from the ordinary rules of       
criticism4 ,internal evidence does not  
modify the inferences from external     
testimony4 ,apart from continual minor  
contradictions throughout the first     
three ,gospels1 it is impossible to     
reconcile the representations of the    
,synoptics with those of the fourth     
,gospel4 ,they mutually destroy each    
other as evidence4 ,they must  #egf  be 
pronounced mere narratives compiled long
 after the events recorded1 by unknown  
persons who were neither eye-witnesses  
of the alleged miraculous occurrences1  
nor hearers of the statements they      

profess to report4 ,they cannot be      
accepted as adequate testimony for      
miracles and the reality of ,divine     
,revelation4  ,applying similar tests to
 the ,acts of the ,apostles1 we arrived 
at similar results4 ,acknowledged to be 
composed by the same author who produced
 the third ,synoptic1 that author's     
identity is not thereby made more clear4
 ,there is no evidence of the slightest 
value regarding its character1 but1 on  
the other hand1 the work itself teems to
 such an extent with miraculous         
incidents and supernatural agency1 that 
the credibility of the narrative        
requires an extraordinary amount of     
attestation to secure for it any serious
 consideration4 ,when the statements of 
the author are compared with the        
emphatic declarations of the ,apostle   
,paul1 and with authentic accounts of   
the development of the early ,christian 
,church1 it becomes evident that the    
,acts of the ,apostles1 as might have   
been supposed1 is a legendary           

composition of a later day1 which cannot
 be regarded as sober and credible      
history1 and rather discredits than     
tends to establish the reality of the   
miracles with which its pages so        
suspiciously abound4  ,the remaining    
books of the ,new ,testament ,canon     
required no separate examination1       
because1 even if genuine1 they contain  
no additional testimony to the reality  
of ,divine ,revelation1 beyond the      
implied belief in such doctrines as the 
,incarnation and ,resurrection4 ,it is  
unquestionable1 we suppose1 that in some
 form or other the ,apostles believed in
 these miracles1 and the assumption that
 they did so1 supersedes the necessity  
for  #egg  examining the authenticity of
 the ,catholic ,epistles and            
,apocalypse4 ,in like manner1 the       
recognition as genuine of four ,epistles
 of ,paul1 which contain his testimony  
to miracles1 renders it superfluous to  
discuss the authenticity of the other   
letters attributed to him4  ,the general

 belief in miraculous power and its     
possession by the ,church is brought to 
a practical test in the case of the     
,apostle ,paul4 ,after elaborate        
consideration of his letters1 we came to
 the unhesitating conclusion that1      
instead of establishing the reality of  
miracles1 the unconscious testimony of  
,paul clearly demonstrates the facility 
with which erroneous inferences convert 
the most natural phenomena into         
supernatural occurrences4  ,as a final  
test1 we carefully examined the whole of
 the evidence for the cardinal dogmas of
 ,christianity1 the ,resurrection and   
,ascension of ,jesus4 ,first taking the 
four ,gospels1 we found that their      
accounts of these events are not only   
full of legendary matter1 but that they 
even contradict and exclude each other1 
and so far from establishing the reality
 of such stupendous miracles1 they show 
that no reliance is to be placed on the 
statements of the unknown authors4      
,taking next the testimony of ,paul1    

which is more important as at least     
authentic and proceeding from an        
,apostle of whom we know more than of   
any other of the early missionaries of  
,christianity1 we saw that it was       
indefinite and utterly insufficient4    
,his so-called circumstantial account of
 the testimony upon which the belief in 
the ,resurrection rested consists merely
 of vague and undetailed hearsay1       
differing1 so far as it can be compared1
 from the statements in the ,gospels1   
and without other attestation than the  
bare fact that it is repeated by ,paul1 
who doubtless believed it1 although he  
had not himself been a witness  #egh  of
 any of the supposed appearances of the 
risen ,jesus which he so briefly        
catalogues4 ,paul's own personal        
testimony to the ,resurrection is       
limited to a vision of ,jesus1 of which 
we have no authentic details1 seen many 
years after the alleged miracle4        
,considering the peculiar and highly    
nervous temperament of ,paul1 of which  

he himself supplies abundant evidence1  
there can be no hesitation in deciding  
that this vision was purely subjective1 
as were likewise1 in all probability1   
the appearances to the excited disciples
 of ,jesus4 ,the testimony of ,paul     
himself1 before his imagination was     
stimulated to ecstatic fervour by the   
beauty of a spiritualized religion1 was 
an earnest denial of the great          
,christian dogma emphasized by the      
active persecution of those who affirmed
 it1 and a vision1 especially in the    
case of one so constituted1 supposed to 
be seen many years after the fact of the
 ,resurrection had ceased to be capable 
of verification1 is not an argument of  
convincing force4 ,we were compelled to 
pronounce the evidence for the          
,resurrection and ,ascension absolutely 
and hopelessly inadequate to prove the  
reality of such stupendous miracles1    
which must consequently be              
unhesitatingly rejected4 ,there is no   
reason given1 or even conceivable1 why  

allegations such as these1 and dogmas   
affecting the religion and even the     
salvation of the human race1 should be  
accepted upon evidence which would be   
declared totally insufficient in the    
case of any common question of property 
or title before a legal tribunal ,on the
 contrary1 the more momentous the point 
to be established1 the more complete    
must be the proof required4  ,if we test
 the results at which we have arrived by
 general considerations1 we find them   
everywhere confirmed and established4   
,there is nothing original in the  #egi 
claim of ,christianity to be regarded as
 ,divine ,revelation1 and nothing new   
either in the doctrines said to have    
been revealed1 or in the miracles by    
which it is alleged to have been        
distinguished4 ,there has not been a    
single historical religion largely held 
amongst men which has not pretended to  
be divinely revealed1 and the written   
books of which have not been represented
 as directly inspired4 ,there is not a  

doctrine1 sacrament or rite of          
,christianity which has not             
substantially formed part of earlier    
religions2 and not a single phase of the
 supernatural history of the ,christ1   
from his miraculous conception1 birth   
and incarnation to his death1           
resurrection and ascension1 which has   
not had its counterpart in earlier      
mythologies4 ,heaven and hell1 with     
characteristic variation of details1    
have held an important place in the     
eschatology of many creeds and races4   
,the same may be said even of the moral 
teaching of ,christianity1 the elevated 
precepts of which1 although in a less   
perfect and connected form1 had already 
suggested themselves to many noble minds
 and been promulgated by ancient sages  
and philosophers4 ,that this ,inquiry   
into the reality of ,divine ,revelation 
has been limited to the claim of        
,christianity has arisen solely from a  
desire to condense it within reasonable 
bounds1 and confine it to the only      

,religion in connection with which it   
could practically interest us now4      
,there is nothing in the history and    
achievements of ,christianity which can 
be considered characteristic of a       
,religion divinely revealed for the     
salvation of mankind4 ,originally said  
to have been communicated to a single   
nation1 specially selected as the       
peculiar people of ,god1 and for whom   
distinguished privileges were said to be
 reserved1 it was almost unanimously    
rejected by that  #ehj  nation at the   
time1 and it has continued to be        
repudiated by its descendants with      
singular unanimity to the present day4  
,after more than eighteen centuries1    
this ,divine scheme of salvation has not
 obtained even the nominal adhesion of  
more than a third of the human race17#a7
 and if1 in a census of ,christendom1   
distinction could now be made of those  
who no longer seriously believe in it as
 ,supernatural ,religion1 ,christianity 
would take a much lower numerical       

position4 ,sakya ,muni1 a teacher only  
second in nobility of character to      
,jesus1 and who1 like him1 proclaimed a 
system of elevated morality1 has even   
now almost twice the number of          
followers1 although his missionaries    
never sought converts in the ,west4     
,considered as a scheme ,divinely       
devised as the best1 if not only1 mode  
of redeeming the human race1 and saving 
them from eternal damnation1 promulgated
 by ,god himself incarnate in human     
form1 and completed by his own actual   
death upon the cross for the sins of the
 world1 such results as these can only  
be regarded as practical  #eha  failure1
 although they may not be               
disproportionate for a system of        
elevated morality4  ,we shall probably  
never be able to determine how far the  
great ,teacher may through his own      
speculations or misunderstood spiritual 
utterances have suggested the           
supernatural doctrines subsequently     
attributed to him1 and by which his     

whole history and system soon became    
transformed2 but no one who attentively 
studies the subject can fail to be      
struck by the absence of such dogmas    
from the earlier records of his         
teaching4 ,it is to the excited         
veneration of the followers of ,jesus1  
however1 that we owe most of the        
supernatural elements so characteristic 
of the age and people4 ,we may look in  
vain even in the synoptic ,gospels for  
the doctrines elaborated in the ,pauline
 ,epistles and the ,gospel of ,ephesus4 
,the great transformation of            
,christianity was effected by men who   
had never seen ,jesus1 and who were only
 acquainted with his teaching after it  
had become transmuted by tradition4 ,the
 fervid imagination of the ,east        
constructed ,christian theology4 ,it is 
not difficult to follow the development 
of the creeds of the ,church1 and it is 
certainly most instructive to observe   
the progressive boldness with which its 
dogmas were expanded by pious           

enthusiasm4 ,the ,new ,testament alone  
represents several stages of dogmatic   
evolution4 ,before his first followers  
had passed away the process of          
transformation had commenced4 ,the      
disciples1 who had so often             
misunderstood the teaching of ,jesus    
during his life1 piously distorted it   
after his death4 ,his simple lessons of 
meekness and humility were soon         
forgotten4 ,with lamentable rapidity1   
the elaborate structure of              
ecclesiastical ,christianity1 following 
stereotyped lines of human superstition1
 and deeply coloured by ,alexandrian    
#ehb  philosophy1 displaced the sublime 
morality of ,jesus4 ,doctrinal          
controversy1 which commenced amongst the
 very ,apostles1 has ever since divided 
the unity of the ,christian body4 ,the  
perverted ingenuity of successive       
generations of churchmen has filled the 
world with theological quibbles1 which  
have naturally enough culminated of late
 in doctrines of ,immaculate            

,conception1 and ,papal ,infallibility4 
,it is sometimes affirmed1 however1 that
 those who proclaim such conclusions not
 only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes
 of humanity1 but remove the only solid 
basis of morality2 and it is alleged    
that1 before existing belief is         
disturbed1 the iconoclast is bound to   
provide a substitute for the shattered  
idol4 ,to this we may reply that speech 
or silence does not alter the reality of
 things4 ,the recognition of ,truth     
cannot be made dependent on             
consequences1 or be trammelled by       
considerations of spurious expediency4  
,its declaration in a serious and       
suitable manner to those who are capable
 of judging can never be premature4 ,its
 suppression cannot be effectual1 and is
 only a humiliating compromise with     
conscious imposture4 ,in so far as      
morality is concerned1 belief in a      
system of future rewards and            
punishments1 although of an intensely   
degraded character1 may1 to a certain   

extent1 have promoted observance of the 
letter of the law in darker ages and    
even in our own1 but it may1 we think1  
be shown that education and civilization
 have done infinitely more to enforce   
its spirit4 ,how far ,christianity has  
promoted education and civilization1 we 
shall not here venture adequately to    
discuss4 ,we may emphatically assert1   
however1 that whatever beneficial effect
 ,christianity has produced has been    
due1 not to its supernatural dogmas1 but
 to its simple morality4 ,dogmatic      
,theology1  #ehc  on the contrary1 has  
retarded education and impeded science4 
,wherever it has been dominant          
civilization has stood still4 ,science  
has been judged and suppressed by the   
light of a text or a chapter of         
,genesis4 ,almost every great advance   
which has been made towards             
enlightenment has been achieved in spite
 of the protest or the anathema of the  
,church4 ,submissive ignorance1 absolute
 or comparative1 has been tacitly       

fostered as the most desirable condition
 of the popular mind4 ,except ye be     
converted1 and become as little         
children1 ye shall not enter into the   
kingdom of heaven1 has been the         
favourite text of ,doctors of ,divinity 
with a stock of incredible dogmas       
difficult of assimilation by the virile 
mind4 ,even now1 the fiction of         
theological resistance is a constant    
waste of intellectual power4 ,the early 
enunciation of so pure a system of      
morality1 and one so intelligible to the
 simple as well as profound to the wise1
 was of great value to the world1 but   
experience being once systematized and  
codified1 if higher principles do not   
constrain us1 society may safely be left
 to see morals sufficiently observed4   
,it is true that1 notwithstanding its   
fluctuating rules1 morality has hitherto
 assumed the character of a ,divine     
institution1 but its sway has not1 in   
consequence1 been more real than it must
 be as the simple result of human       

wisdom1 and the outcome of social       
experience4 ,the choice of a noble life 
is no longer a theological question1 and
 ecclesiastical patents of truth and    
uprightness have finally expired4       
,morality1 which has ever changed its   
complexion and modified its injunctions 
according to social requirements1 will  
necessarily be enforced as part of human
 evolution1 and is not dependent on     
religious terrorism or superstitious    
persuasion4 ,if we are disposed to say3 
#ehd  ,cui bono8 and only practise      
morality1 or be ruled by right          
principles1 to gain a heaven or escape a
 hell1 there is nothing lost1 for such  
grudging and calculated morality is     
merely a spurious imitation which can as
 well be produced by social compulsion4 
,but if we have ever been really        
penetrated by the pure spirit of        
morality1 if we have in any degree      
attained that elevation of mind which   
instinctively turns to the true and     
noble and shrinks from the baser level  

of thought and action1 we shall feel no 
need of the stimulus of a system of     
rewards and punishments in a future     
state which has for so long been        
represented as essential to             
,christianity4  ,as to the other        
reproach1 let us ask what has actually  
been destroyed by such an inquiry       
pressed to its logical conclusion4 ,can 
,truth by any means be made less true8  
,can reality be melted into thin air8   
,the ,revelation not being a reality1   
that which has been destroyed is only an
 illusion1 and that which is left is the
 ,truth4 ,losing belief in it and its   
contents1 we have lost absolutely       
nothing but that which the traveller    
loses when the mirage1 which has        
displayed cool waters and green shades  
before him1 melts swiftly away4 ,there  
were no cool fountains really there to  
allay his thirst1 no flowery meadows for
 his wearied limbs2 his pleasure was    
delusion1 and the wilderness is blank4  
,rather the mirage with its pleasant    

illusion1 is the human cry1 than the    
desert with its barrenness4 ,not so1 is 
the friendly warning2 seek not vainly in
 the desert that which is not there1 but
 turn rather to other horizons1 and to  
surer hopes4 ,do not waste life clinging
 to ecclesiastical dogmas which         
represent no eternal verities1 but      
search elsewhere for truth which may    
haply be found4 ,what should we think of
 the man who persistently repulsed  #ehe
  the persuasion that two and two make  
four from the ardent desire to believe  
that two and two make five8 ,whose fault
 is it that two and two do make four and
 not five8 ,whose folly is it that it   
should be more agreeable to think that  
two and two make five than to know that 
they only make four8 ,this folly is     
theirs who represent the value of life  
as dependent on the reality of special  
illusions1 which they have religiously  
adopted4 ,to discover that a former     
belief is unfounded is to change nothing
 of the realities of existence4 ,the sun

 will descend as it passes the meridian 
whether we believe it to be noon or not4
 ,it is idle and foolish1 if human1 to  
repine because the truth is not         
precisely what we thought it1 and at    
least we shall not change reality by    
childishly clinging to a dream4  ,the   
argument so often employed by           
theologians that ,divine ,revelation is 
necessary for man1 and that certain     
views contained in that ,revelation are 
required by our moral consciousness1 is 
purely imaginary and derived from the   
,revelation which it seeks to maintain4 
,the only thing absolutely necessary for
 man is ,truth2 and to that1 and that   
alone1 must our moral consciousness     
adapt itself4 ,reason and experience    
forbid the expectation that we can      
acquire any knowledge otherwise than    
through natural channels4 ,we might as  
well expect to be supernaturally        
nourished as supernaturally informed4   
,to complain that we do not know all    
that we desire to know is foolish and   

unreasonable4 ,it is tantamount to      
complaining that the mind of man is not 
differently constituted4 ,to attain the 
full altitude of the ,knowable1 whatever
 that may be1 should be our earnest aim1
 and more than this is not for humanity4
 ,we may be certain that information    
which is beyond the ultimate  #ehf      
reach of ,reason is as unnecessary as it
 is inaccessible4 ,man may know all that
 man requires to know4  ,we gain more   
than we lose by awaking to find that our
 ,theology is human invention and our   
eschatology an unhealthy dream4 ,we are 
freed from the incubus of base ,hebrew  
mythology1 and from doctrines of ,divine
 government which outrage morality and  
set cruelty and injustice in the place  
of holiness4 ,if we have to abandon     
cherished anthropomorphic visions of    
future ,blessedness1 the details of     
which are either of unseizable dimness  
or of questionable joy1 we are at least 
delivered from quibbling discussions of 
the meaning of ------1 and our eternal  

hope is unclouded by the doubt whether  
mankind is to be tortured in hell for   
ever and a day1 or for a day without the
 ever4 ,at the end of life there may be 
no definite vista of a ,heaven glowing  
with the light of apocalyptic           
imagination1 but neither will there be  
the unutterable horror of a ,purgatory  
or a ,hell lurid with flames for the    
helpless victims of an unjust but       
omnipotent ,creator4 ,to entertain such 
libellous representations at all as part
 of the contents of ,divine ,revelation1
 it was necessary to assert that man was
 incompetent to judge of the ways of the
 ,god of ,revelation1 and must not      
suppose him endowed with the perfection 
of human conceptions of justice and     
mercy1 but submit to call wrong right   
and right wrong at the foot of an       
almighty ,despot4 ,but now the reproach 
of such reasoning is shaken from our    
shoulders1 and returns to the ,jewish   
superstition from which it sprang4  ,as 
myths lose their might and their        

influence when discovered to be         
baseless1 the power of supernatural     
,christianity will doubtless pass away1 
but the effect of the revolution must   
not be exaggerated1 although it  #ehg   
cannot here be fully discussed4 ,if the 
pictures which have filled for so long  
the horizon of the ,future must vanish1 
no hideous blank can rightly be         
maintained in their place4 ,we should   
clearly distinguish between what we know
 and know not1 but as carefully abstain 
from characterising that which we know  
not as if it were really known to us4   
,that mysterious ,unknown or ,unknowable
 is no cruel darkness1 but simply an    
impenetrable distance into which we are 
impotent to glance1 but which excludes  
no legitimate speculation and forbids no
 reasonable hope4