3. /A* .^2. Jffrnm ti\t Htbrarg of ®et|«Fa%Ji bg lytm to tt|p Htbrary of JPnnrrtott ®l|?olo3tral Sftntttary lit- A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. /%^W<^ ^J-ty ..iAni4 A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: AN EXPANSION OF LECTURES DELIVEKED IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN BY GEORGE SALMON, D.D., F.R.S., REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. SECOND EDITION. LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE-STREET. DUBLIN : PRINTED AT THE UNIVEKSITY PKES8, BY PONSONBY AND WELDUICK. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. nPHE Lectures out of which the present volume has -'- taken its origin were written some years ago, and did not aim at giving a complete or systematic account of the subjects with which they dealt. When I decided last year on sending them to the press, I contemplated making no other change than that of altering the division into lectures — the original division, of necessity, having mainly had regard to the length which it was convenient to deliver at one time. Accordingly, the first three Lectures of this volume contain, with but slight altera- tions, what was originally the introductory Lecture of my course. But as the printing went on I found ad- ditions necessary, partly in order to take notice of things that had been published since the delivery of the lectures, and partly in order to include details which want of time had obliged me to omit, but which I was unwilling to pass unnoticed in my book. In this way I have been led on to re-write, and make additions (but without making any change in the style or in the ar- rangement), until I am now somewhat dismayed to find that the Lectures have swelled to two or three times their original bulk. The additions thus made have so far completed the discussion, that I have ventured to give this volume the yi PREFACE. title of an Introduction ; but it will be seen that it does not embrace all the topics frequently included under that title. I do not enter on the criticism of the text, nor do I make any analysis of the contents of the books. My main purpose has been to discuss their date and authorship on purely historical grounds ; and to examine with sufficient completeness for a practical decision the various theories on the subject advanced by modern schools of criticism. It is in this latter respect that this Introduction will chiefly be found to differ from some valuable works on the same subject which are in the hands of students. Most of the original evidence requi- site for the discussion has already been brought within easy reach in Canon Westcott's * History of the New Testament Canon'. Dr. Charteris, also, in his * Canon- icity ', has rendered accessible to the English reader the collection of ancient testimonies made by Kirchhofer in his * Quellensammlung '. According to the arrange- ment of Canon Westcott's book, each of the ancient witnesses is treated separately, and under each name are placed the books of the New Testament to which the witness bears testimony. According to the arrange- ment of Kirchhofer and Charteris, each book of the New Testament is examined in succession, and the ancient writers are cited who bear testimony to it. The latter is the arrangement I have followed. I do not always give as full a report of the evidence as the authors just mentioned have done, contenting myself with citing as many witnesses as I judge to be sufficient to prove my case. But on the other hand, as I have said, I aim at giving a somewhat fuller discussion than they have done of the theories of authorship which modern sceptical writers have proposed to substitute for the traditional PREFACE. vii belief of the Christian Church. The time has passed when it could be objected that a student's time was ill- spent in becoming- acquainted with such theories, on the g^round that he probably would never have heard of them if he had not been asked to study the refutation. Literature in which the theories in question are treated as established facts has now obtained such extensive circulation, that a clergyman must be pronounced ill- trained for his work if he has to make his first acquaint- ance with these speculations when he finds them ac- cepted among his people as the latest results of scientific inquiry. Although my work may be described as apologetic in the sense that its results agree in the main with the traditional belief of the Church, I can honestly say that I have not worked in the spirit of an advocate anxious to defend a foregone conclusion. I have aimed at making my investigations historical, and at asserting nothing but what the evidence, candidly weighed, seemed to warrant. It would be idle in anyone to pre- tend that he can wholly divest himself of bias ; but I must remark that the temptation to hold obstinately to traditional opinions is one to which those who are called apologists are not exclusively liable. The theories which in these lectures I have found myself obliged to reject are now some fifty years old. They are main- tained by a generation of scholars who have accepted them on the authority of guides to whom, in their youth- ful days, they looked up with reverence, and whose dicta they regard it as presumptuous to dispute, receiv- ing their doctrines with something like the blind sub- mission which the teachers of the scholastic philosophy gave to the decisions of the Fathers. The temptation viii PREFACE. to apply unfairly the methods of historical criticism besets as strongly the opponents as the assertors of the supernatural. The former have found great difficulties in maintaining their position by a priori proof of the impossibility of miracle ; for what they seek to establish really amounts to this : that, even if God exists, it is beyond the power of his Omnipotence to give his crea- tures convincing proof of his existence. Failing to gain many converts to this doctrine, they have tried another method of attaining their object : namely, by a criticism directed to show that the documents ten- dered for the establishment of miracles are so late as to be undeserving of attention. But the attempt to show this has, in my opinion, broken down, as I have en- deavoured to prove in the following pages. If this result has been established, it must follow that the opponents of the supernatural will be forced to fall back on their older methods. T have thankfully to acknowledge kind help given me in reading the proofs by my friends Professor Mahaffy, Dr. Quarry, and Dr. Wace, to each of whom I owe some useful suggestions. But my chief acknowledgements are due to my colleague in our Divinity School, Dr. Gwynn, who has taken, on my behalf, an amount of trouble which, if I were not some- what ashamed of having imposed so much labour on him, would make me congratulate myself that the publication of my lectures was delayed until I could have the benefit of his assistance. In addition to most careful reading of all the proofs, he has been ever ready to consult authorities, and verify references for me, a service which was particularly useful to me during three months that I was at a distance from books ; and he has, PREFACE. ix besides, made some special investigations on my ac- count, such as those which I have particularly acknow- ledged, pp. 341, 539» 549, 597. I had intended to add a Lecture, in continuation of Lectures xi., xix., on books known to the early Church, but which did not obtain admission into the Canon. But I have found myself unable to include another Lecture, which could not have been a short one, in a volume which has grown to such a size. The demand for a Second Edition has arisen too soon to allow me time to make new investigations ; and I have therefore merely reprinted the former edition, with but slight alterations. But by a change of typo- graphy I have made room for the lecture on non- Canonical Books, which I thought would have unduly swelled the size of the former volume. I have pub- lished this Lecture separately for the use of purchasers of the first edition. This change of typography having rendered the former index useless, a new one has been made for me by the kindness of the Rev. W. K. Ormsby. My friend. Dr. Gwynn, has continued his valuable as- sistance in the revision of the proofs of this edition. Trinity College, Dublin, May, 1886. ERRATA. Page 296, line 2, for xii. 50 read vii. 50. „ 340, „ ii,ybrxvii. 12 read x\m. 12. „ 446, „ 25, for Acts ix. 35 read iv. 36. „ 527, ,, i^, for 'Lnmsden read L.Qusden. CO NTENTS. LECTURE I. INTRODUCTORY. PART I. Page Principles of the Investigation i Subject of Lectures defined, pp. i — 3. Question of Inspiration irrelevant here, p. 4 ; amount of external evidence of authenticity commonly required in similar cases, pp. 4 — 6 ; authenticity of N. T. books not to be denied because of the miraculous nature of their contenes, pp. 6 — 10. Criticism based on the rejection of the supernatural : Strauss, Renan, author of Supernatural Religion, pp. 9 — 11. Naturalistic explanation of Gospel Miracles: Paulus, p. 11 ; Strauss's theory, p. 12. LECTURE IL INTRODUCTORY. PART II. Baur's Theory of Early Church History . . . 13 The Tiibingen (or 'Tendency') School, p. 13; its basis in the Clemen- tine ^vritings, pp. 14 — 16 ; St. Paul assaUed in them under name of Simon Magus, p. 16. Marcion, p. 17. The Paul-Simon theory, p. 19. Two kinds of Ebionites, pp. 18 — 20. "WTiolesale rejection of N. T. books necessary to Baur's theory, p. 21; the search for anti-Paulinism in the Gospel, p. 22 ; unsuccessful, pp. 22 — 24 ; Baur admits but five N. T. books as genuine, p. 24 ; internecine character of strife in early Church as alleged by him, p. 24 ; its speedy and complete reconciliation, p. 25. LECTURE III. INTRODUCTORY. PART lU. The Anti-Paulinism of the Apocalypse .... 26 Alleged anti-Pauhnism of the Epistles to the Seven Churches, pp. 26 — 28 ; improbability of this view, pp. 28, 29. The calling of the Gentiles recog- nized in the Apocalypse, p. 30 ; its alleged anti-Pauhne language paralleled in Paul's own writings, pp. 30—32. Rapidity of supposed counter revo- lution in favour of Paulinisra, p. 32. xii CONTENTS. LECTURE IV. RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART I. Page The End of the Second Century; Iren^us, Clement, AND Tertullian 33 Paul's teaching, as collected from his unquestioned Epistles, and from the Acts, p. 33 ; assumes the fact of the Resurrection, p. 34 ; includes miracle, p. 35. Facts admitted by Strauss as to reception of Gospels, p. 35. IreNjEUS, pp. 35 — 40 ; links connecting him with Apostolic age, p. 36 ; estimate of the Four Gospels in the Church of his age, pp. 36 — 38 ; his testimony retrospective, pp. 38 — 40. Clement of Alexandria, pp. 40 — 42 ; various texts of the Gospels, p. 41 ; inference from this fact, p. 42. Tertullian, pp. 42 — 44. Greek the language of the early Roman Church, p. 42 — 44. Early Latin version of Scriptures, p. 44 ; rendering of title ' Logos ', p. 45. LECTURE V. RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART II. The Muratorian Fragment ; Caius and Hippolytus . 46 The Muratorian Fragment, pp. 47—53; described, pp. 47 — 49; its date how determined, Hermas, pp. 48, 49; conjectures as to its author, pp. 50 — 53 ; its contents, pp. 53, 54. Caius and Hyppolytus, pp. 54 — 61. Caius, p. 55 ; his estimate of the Gospels, pp. 56, 57. HippO' lytus, p. 57; his 'Refutation of Heresies', pp. 57, 58; his extracts from heretical writers, p. 57 ; use made by these of N. T. books, p. 58 ; expeciaUy of fourth Gospel, ib. ; by Valentinus, pp. 59 — 61 ; byBasilides, pp. 61, 62. First mention of St. John as author of this Gospel, p. 62 ; it tacitly claims him as such, p. 62. LECTURE VI. RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART III. The Middle of the Second Century ; Justin Martyr, Tatian 63 Justin Martyr, pp. 63—82 ; his date, p. 63 ; mentions and cites 'M-emoirs' of our Lord, pp. 64, 65; his citations vary verbally from the CONTENTS. xiii Page existing Gospels, pp. 65 — 67 ; his substantial agreement with the Sy- noptic Gospels, pp. 67 — 69; improbability that he used a Gospel now lost, pp. 69 — 72 ; proofs that he knew the fourth Gospel, pp. 72 — 81 ; Thoma's theory. Dr. Ezra Abbot, pp. 71, 72; Justin derives from fourth Gospel his ' Logos ' doctrine, pp. 71 — 73 ; not from Philo, p. 73 ; hence also his Baptismal language, pp. 74 — 76; St. John used in the Clementines, p. 75 ; Strauss's failure to shake these conclusions, pp. 75-77 ; Dr. Edwin Abbott's views untenable, pp. 78, 79; Renan's inconsistency on this subject ; pp. 78 — 80. Tatian, pp. 80 — 86 ; his date and heresy, pp. 81, 82; his knowledge of fourth Gospel, p. 81; his ' Diatessaron ' , pp. 82 — 86; recent recovery of commentary on it by Ephraem Syrus, pp . 84, 85 ; its ample attestation of the fourth Gospel equally with the others, pp. 85, 86. LECTURE VII. RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART IV. The Beginning of the Second Century ; Papias, Apostolic Fathers 87 Papias, pp. 87 — 106 ; his remains scanty and fragmentary, p. 87 ; unfair inferences from his omissions, pp. 88 — 90 ; his ' Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord', p. 90 ; his sources of information, pp. 90, 91 ; his witness to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, p. 92; recent doubts of the identity of these with our first and second Gospels, pp. 93 — 95. Schleiermacher's theory of the ' original ' Matthew and Mark, p. 95 ; Renan's theory of their formation, pp. 95, 96. Meaning of the word 'Logia' in Papias's account of Matthew, pp. 98, 99 ; explanation of his apology for Mark's method, pp. 99, 100 ; probability that Papias knew Luke's Gospel, pp. lOi — 103 ; true explanation of plan of Papias's work, pp. 103 — 105 ; probability that he knew John's Gospel, p. 105. The Apostolic Fathers, pp. 106 — 109. Clement of Rotne, p. 106. The early fathers do not cite the Gospels by name, p. 106 ; nor verbally, p. 107 ; Barnabas, pp. 108, 109. xiv CONTENTS. LECTURE VIII. THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. PART I. Page Internal Evidence OF THEIR Antiquity . . . .no Inferences from the titles of the Gospels, pp. no — 113 ; written Gospels necessary from the first, pp. 112, 113. Our Lord's discourses as reported by the Synoptists, p. 113; presumption that these would be written down at an early date, pp. 114, 115; this presumption extends to the narrative of his actions, p. 117. These three narratives not independent, pp. 116 — 118; the sceptical criticism is tending to revert to the early date claimed for them, pp. 118, 119; no earlier Gospel extant, p. 120 ; the four took their place without authoritative decision of Church, p. 121 ; Luke's ac- count explains the oral common basis of the Synoptics, p. 121 ; he men- tions written narrations prior to his own, p. 122 ; no authentic tradition as to their publication, p. 123. Early necessity for authoritative records, pp. 124 — 126. Gospels once published and accepted not easily changed, pp. 126 — 128. LECTURE IX. THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. PART II. Theories as to their Origin Inquiry not precluded by belief in Inspiration, pp. 128, 129; though difficult not hopeless, p. 129. Three chief hypotheses to account for the common matter of the Synoptists, p. 130 ; various combinations of these, p. 131; each hypothesis to be examined irrespectively of theories of In- spiration, pp. 130 — 133. Alford's objection to First and Second Hypo- theses, p. 133; verbal variations from documents in secular authors, p. 134; variations in narratives of St. Paul's conversion, p. 135. The Third Hypothesis will account for agreements in narrating of incidents, p. 136 ; but the First or Second is needed to account for agreement in order of narration, pp. 138, 139 ; absence of agreement in order of discourses, pp. 139, 140. Gospels of Matthew and Luke independent of one another, p. 140. Various forms of Second hypothesis, p. 141 ; inadmis- sible modifications of it, pp. 141, 142. Modifications of Third hypo- thesis, p. 142. Hypothesis of Hebrew common document, pp. 143, 144 ; will account for verbal variations, pp. 144 — 147. Hypothesis of common Greek original required by verbal coincidences, pp. 145, 146 ; and by common citations of O. T., p. 146. Further elaboration of hypothesis of Greek original, p. 147. Rushbrook's ' Synopticon', p. 148. Dr. Edwin Abbott and the 'Triple Tradition', pp. 148—150; his theory of the CONTENTS. XV Page common documents rests on an inadmissible assumption, p. 151. The Synoptists' narratives of the Passion, pp. 151 — 153. The • Triple Tradi- tion' rests on a single attestation, p. 152 ; which probably is that of Peter, pp. 153, 154; traces of his testimony in Mark, pp. 154, 155. Mark represents the original source most fully, p. 156 ; but is probably latest in publication, p. 156 ; Matthew and Luke did not copy Mark, p. 157 ; his last twelve verses, pp. 158 — 164. Note on the Concluding Verses of St. Mark's Gospel 159 Early testimony to their authenticity, pp. 159 — 161. The testimony of the two great uncials, p. 161. Improbability involved in the rejection of the verses, pp. 163, 164. Some questions of textual criticism cannot now be decided with certainty, p. 164. LECTURE X. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW. The Hebrew Gospel 165 Existence of an early Hebrew Gospel probable, pp. 165, 166. Early Patristic evidence that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, p. 166. Witness of Papias, Irenaeus, and Eusebius, p. 167 ; of Jerome and Epiphanius, p. 168. Internal counter-evidence, pp. 169, 170. No Greek text other than ours known to the Fathers, pp. 170, 171. Hypothesis of a twofold original, p. 172. The 'Hebrew Gospel', p. 172 ; not identical with the * Ebionite Gospel', pp. 172 — 176; not the source of the Clementine quo- tations, pp. 176, 177. Jerome's ' Nazarene ' Gospel not the original of Matthew, pp. 177-188. Origen's evidence concerning the 'Hebrew Gospel,' pp. 179 — 181; Jerome's inconsistency, pp. 182 — 184; estimate of the value and age of this Gospel, pp. 184 — 186 ; first trace of it found in Ignatius, p. 186; it was used by Hegesippus, p. 186. Palestine was bilingual, pp. 187 — 189. Greek original on the whole more probable, pp. 189 — 191. LECTURE XL Apocryphal AND Heretical Gospels 192 Hone's collection of N. T. Apocrypha, pp. 192 — 194 ; Hilgenfeld's, pp. 193, 194. Apocryphal Gospels, pp. 194 — 203. The Protevangelium, pp.194 — 198 ; its antiquity, p. 197. The Ps eudo- Matthew, t^.K)^. The Gospel of Thomas, pp. 198 — 200 ; its legends of our Lord's childhood, pp. 199, 200; its date, p. 200. The Gospel of Nicodemus and Acts of Pilate, pp. 200, 201. Evangelic fragments, p. 202. Heretical Gospels, pp. 203 — 209 ; were chiefly Gnostic and Encratite, p. 204. Gospel of the Egyptians, pp. 203 — 205. Gospel of Marcion, pp. 205 — 209 ; Tertullian's examination of it, p. 206 ; reconstruction of it, pp. 207, 208 ; attempt to make it out prior to Luke's, p. 208 ; also to John's, p. 209. xvi CONTENTS. LECTURE XII. THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART I. Page The Fourth Gospel 210 Common authorship of this Gospel and First Epistle, pp. 210, 211 ; motive for questioning this fact, pp. 211, 212. Early external testimony to the Epistle, pp. 212, 213. Baur assigns a late date to the Gospel, p. 215 ; his followers tend to place it earlier, ib. ; Renan takes an exceptional line, pp. 213 — 215. Motives for denying its Apostolic authorship, p. 216 ; Its witness to our Lord's Divinity, p. 217 ; to His self-assertion, p. 217. His self-assertion attested by the Synoptics likewise, pp. 218 — 220. Christology of the Apocalypse, pp. 220 — 224. Apocalypse admitted to be John's, pp. 223, 224. Christology of St. Paul's Epistles, pp. 224, 225. Dr. Pfleiderer on the Christology of Apocalypse, p. 224. LECTURE XIII. THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART II. The Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse . . . 225 Diversity of style between these two books, p. 225. Early external at- testation of Apocalypse, pp. 226 — 230. Millennarian use of it, pp. 227, 228; tended to discredit the book, p. 230. Ascription of it to Cerinthus, p. 230; also of the Gospel, p. 231. Arguments of Dionysius of Alex- dria against the Johannine authorship of Apocalypse, pp. 230 — 235 ; ex- amination of them, pp. 234 — 242. Its coincidences of diction with the Gospel, pp. 235 — 240; its points of difference, pp. 236 — 238. Solecisms of the Apocalypse, pp. 238 — 241. The Greek of the Gospel, p. 241 ; its superiority over that of the Apocalypse accounted for, pp. 241, 242. LECTURE XIV. THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART III. The Date of the Apocalypse 243 Earlier date assigned by the sceptical school, p. 244. Theory of Renan and his followers, pp. 244 — 246. Nero the ' Beast ', p. 245 ; its 'Num- ber', p. 247. This theory imputes failure to the predictions of the book, p. 247; is incredible, pp. 248, 249; attempts to deny that failure is imputed, pp. 249, 250. Ancient conception of Prophecy, p. 251. Modem solutions of the riddles of the book are but partial, pp. 251 — 253 ; multiplicity of solutions, p. 254. Other objections to the Neronian solution, p. 254. Neronian date not improbable, p. 255. CONTENTS. xvii LECTURE XV. THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART IV. Page The Fourth Gospel and the Quartodecimans . .255 The Quartodecimans alleged as witnesses against fourth Gospel, p. 255. Real difficulty in its account of Last Supper, pp. 256 — 259 ; solutions offered, pp. 257, 258 ; a forger would have avoided raising this difficulty, pp. 258, 259. Controversy concerning Easter, p. 259 ; Baur's assump- tion as to the Eastern commemoration, pp. 260, 261. First recorded instance of Paschal disputes, Polycarp and Anicetus, pp. 261, 262. Probable usage of the Apostles, p. 262. Second recorded Paschal dis- pute, Melito's book, pp. 263, 264. Third reco7-ded Paschal dispute, Victor and Polycrates, p. 265. Quartodeciman testimony to fourth Gospel, p. 266. Note on the Astronomical Aspect of the Question . .266 Jewish New Moon, p. 266. Table of New Moons, p. 267. Wieseler's mistake, p. 267. LECTURE XVI. THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART V. The Gospel and the Minor Epistles 268 The Fourth Evangelist was (i) a yew, pp. 268 — 271 ; was (ii) a Jew of Palestine, pp. 271 — 273 ; was (iii) of the first century, pp. 273 — 275 ; was (iv) an eye-witness of the events he relates, pp. 275 — 279 ; and a disciple of the Baptist, p. 276; was yohn the Apostle, pp. 278, 279. Theory of another John, 'the Elder', pp. 279 — 281; this theory fails to solve the questions of authorship of the Johannine Books, pp. 280, 281 ; the Minor Epistles, pp. 281 — 287 ; their authenticity questioned, pp. 281, 282 ; es- tablished conclusively by internal evidence, pp. 282, 283 ; they confirm the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, p. 283. The Third Epistle, St. John and Episcopacy, pp. 283, 284. ' The Elect Lady ' of tlu Second Epistle, p. 285. Attempts to allegorize away parts of the fourth Gospel, p. 286. Importance of the facts implied in the Third Epistle, ib. b xviii CONTENTS LECTURE XVII. THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART VI. Page The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics . , . .287 Omissions of the fourth Gospel, p. 287 ; instance as regards our Lord's birthplace, pp. 288, 289 ; absurdity of Renan's view of this case, pp. 289, 290 ; St. John's manner is to assume previous knowledge in his readers, p. 291 ; his 'Irony', pp. 292 — 295 ; his knowledge of previous Gospels, pp. 295 — 297 ; he wrote after Peter's death, p. 295 ; his last chapter, pp. 295, 296 ; supplemental character of his Gospel, pp. 297, 298 ; his silence as to the Eucharist, p. 298; the institution of the Eucharist by our Lord involves a claim of Divinity on His part, pp. 299, 300 ; Synoptic account of institution confirmed by St. Paul, p. 300; early Christian belief con- cerning it, ib. ; the Eucharist implied in fourth Gospel, pp. 301, 302; as also baptism, p. 302 ; and the Ascension, ib. The fourth Gospel written with a purpose, pp. 303, 304. Its coincidences with the Synoptics, pp. 304 — 306. It contains facts omitted by them, pp. 305, 306. A prion probability of our Lord's earlier visits to Jerusalem recorded in it, pp. 306 — 308 ; admitted by Renan, p. 308. LECTURE XVIII. The Acts of the Apostles 309 Date of this book a vital matter, p. 309. External attestation of it, pp. 309 — 311. Internal evidence, p. 312. Modern theories of its compilation, p. 312, 313. The 'we' sections, pp. 312 — 320; the author ol these, p. 313. Tradition of Luke's authorship of third Gospel and Acts, pp. 313, 314. Imagined marks of spuriousness, pp. 315, 316. Unity of authorship of Acts inferred from its structure and contents, pp. 316, 317 ; and from its diction, p. 317. Literary skill of the author, pp. 318, 319. Motives for denying its unity, pp. 319 — 326. Its supernatural element, pp. 319, 320. Its representation of Paul's relations with the Twelve, pp. 321 — 327. The Tiibingen version of Paul's History, pp. 322, 323 ; its incredibility as compared with the account in Acts, pp. 324, 325. Absence of Pauline topics from speeches ascribed to him in this book, pp. 325, 326. Sup- posed artificial parallelism between its narratives of Peter and of Paul, pp. 326, 327. Frequent occuirence of parallel events in history ; the sup- posed parallel wants its climax, pp. 327, 328. Abrupt close of the Acts, p. 328. The author's principle of selection of topics, p. 329 ; his oppor- tunities of gaining information, pp. 330, 331 ; his account of Philip the Deacon, pp. 330 — 333 ; he possibly used as materials a diary of his own, pp. 332, 333. His reports of Paul's speeches, pp. 333 — 335. His little use of Paul's Epistles, p. 335 ; for example, that to Philippians, p. 336 ; CONTENTS. xix Page Galatians, ib. ; l & 2 Corinthians, pp. 337, 338. Reports of Peter's speeches in Acts compared with his First Epistle, p. 338. External con- firmations of the author's accuracy, pp. 339 — 342. Holtzmann's theory that the author followed Josephus, pp. 341, 342. Discrepancies between the Acts and Josephus, pp. 342, 343. LECTURE XIX. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 343 No other Acts but Luke's admitted into the Canon, p. 344. Apocryphal Acts mostly of heretical origin, pp. 344, 345 ; afterwards expurgated for orthodox use, pp. 345, 346. (i) The Ahgar Legend, pp. 346 — 348 ; ex- tant form of it, p. 347. (ii) The Acts of Paul and Thecla, pp. 349 — 354; Tertulhan's account of its origin, p. 349 ; tinged with Encratism, p. 349 ; its story, pp. 350 — 352 ; still extant, p. 352 ; time and place of composi- tion, pp.353, 354. {^\\)T\iQ Acts of St. Thomas, pp. 354 — 364; Leucian Acts, p. 455 ; light thrown by the Acts of Thomas on Gnostic ideas, pp. 355, 356 ; narrative of this book, pp. 356 — 360 ; Ritual described in it, pp. 359 — 362 ; its doctrine, p. 362 ; date and place of composition, p. 363. (iv) The Acts of St. Peter, the Clementines, pp. 364, 365 ; the 'Circuits of Peter', and 'Preaching of Peter', p. 364; the Simon-Paul theoiy, pp. 365, 366 ; ' Acts of Peter and Paul', pp. 367, 368; Feast of 29th June, pp. 368, 369; rival traditions concerning Peter, p. 370. (v) The Acts of St. John, pp. 371 — 378; heretical character of the Leucian Acts, pp. 371 — 373 ; second century traditions concerning John, pp. 373 — 375 ; later legends, p. 375 ; Assumption of B. V. M., pp. 376-378. LECTURE XX. The Pauline Epistles ........ 379 The Sceptical school not agreed which of these to reject, pp. 379, 380. Four groups of them, p. 381. St. Paul used by Justin Martyr, p. 382. Methodius and Justin, p. 383. First Group, pp. 381 — 392 ; i Thessa- lonia7is, pp. 385 — 387. 2 Thessalonians, pp. 387 — 389 ; its prophecy of the Man of Sin, pp. 389 — 391 ; external attestation of both Epistles, pp. 390, 391 ; precaution against forgery, p. 391 ; lost Epistles, pp. 391, 392. Second Group, pp. 392 — 395 ; concluding chapter of Pomans, pp. 393, 394. Third Group, pp. 395 — 408; Philippians, p. 395, 396; Philemon, p. 396 ; Colossians, pp. 396 — 403 ; external attestation, p. 396 ; internal evidence, pp. 396 — 398 ; objections grounded on its diction, pp. 398, 399 ; on its Christology, pp. 399, 400 ; on its reference to Gnostic teach- ing, pp. 400 — 403 ; Ephesians, pp. 403 — 413; external evidence, pp.403, 404 ; its affinities with i Peter, p. 404 ; its close likeness to Colossians, XX CONTENTS. pp. 404, 405 ; Paley's account of this fact, p. 405 ; rejected by sceptical critics, p. 405 ; question of priority between the two, p. 406 ; Holtz- mann's theory, p. 407 ; this Epistle contradicts modern theories of early Church history, p. 408 ; Gentile Christianity as shown in it, pp. 408, 409 ; ruling topics of these two Epistles distinct, pp. 410, 411 ; literary excel- lence and influence of Ephesians, pp. 412, 413. Fourth Group, pp. 413 — 432 ; Pastoral Epistles te]ecit6., yet used by Renan, p. 413 ; external attestation, pp. 413 — 415 ; rejection by early heretics, p. 415 ; objections founded on— (i) their diction, p. 416; on (2) the controversies they deal with, pp. 416, 417 ; on (3) the difficulty of harmonizing them with the Acts, pp. 417, 418 ; their diction probably marks them as St. Paul's latest work, pp. 418 — 420; their historical contents suggest lilce conclu- sion, p. 420 ; they imply Paul's release from the imprisonment recorded in Acts, pp. 420 —424 ; independent evidence of this release, pp. 423, 424 ; objections to late date, pp. 424 — 426 ; internal evidence for 2 Timothy, pp. 426 — 432 ; its Pauline character, pp. 426 — 428 ; its details, pp. 428, 429 ; its genuineness carries with it that of i Tiinothy and Titus, pp. 431, 432 ; Renan's estimate of all three, p. 432. Page LECTURE XXI. The Epistle to the Hebrews 433 Question of authorship, not of authenticity of Hebrews, p. 433. Use of it by Clement of Rome, pp. 433, 434. Accepted by whole Eastern Church as St. Paul's, pp. 434, 435. Testimony of Clement of Alexandria, pp. 434' 435- View of Origen, pp. 435, 436. Western opinion adverse, pp. 436, 437. Tertullian ascribed it to Barnabas, pp. 437, 438. Reaction under Jerome and Augustine, pp. 438, 439. Evidence of MSS. and Versions, p. 439. Its anonymousness, p. 440. Its canonicity well es- tabhshed, ib. Iiiternal evidence for and against Pauline authorship, pp. 440 — 445 ; individual passages, pp. 440 — 442 ; its doctrine Pauline, p. 442 ; it uses Pauline language and mannerisms, pp. 442, 443 ; its O. T. citations, p. 444 ; its Alexandrian colouring, p. 444 ; its general style un- Pauline, pp. 454, 445. Conjectures as to authorship, pp. 445, 446 ; con- siderations in favour of ascription to Barnabas, pp. 446 — 448. Probably addressed to Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, pp. 448 — 452. Written from Italy, p. 452. Lower limit of date, p. 452 ; upper Umit doubtful, pp. 452 — 454. Note on the Codex Claromontantis, p. 453. LECTURE XXII. The First Epistle of St. Peter 455 Eusebius's classification of N. T. Books, pp. 455 — 458. External attesta- tions of I Peter, pp. 458, 459 ; it is included in all Canons except the Muratorian, p. 458. Internal difficulties alleged against it, pp. 459, 460. It contradicts Barn's views of early Church history, pp. 460, 461. Its CONTENTS. xxi Page Paulinism of doctrine, p. 461, 462. Place of composition ' Babylon ', pp. 462 — 464. Roman martyrdom of Peter, pp. 464, 465. Addressed to Christians dispersed in Pontus, &c., pp. 465, 466. Its coincidences with Romans, p. 466 ; with Ephesians, pp. 466 — 470. Seufert's theory, p. 469. Its coincidences with Epistle of James, p. 470. Its originality and individuaUty, pp. 471, 472. LECTURE XXIII. The Epistle of St. James 473 This Epistle classed by Eusebius among ' Antilegomena ', p. 473. The ' Seven Catholic Epistles ', ib. ; evidence of Origen concerning it, p. 474 ; of Clement of Alexandria, pp. 474, 475 ; of Hermas, pp. 475, 476 ; pro- bably of Clement of Rome, pp. 476, 477 ; of Irenseus, p, 477 ; other authorities, ib. Internal evidence, pp.478 — 492. James, 'The Lord's Brother', first bishop of Jerusalem, p. 478; probabiUty of the usual ascription of the Epistle to him, pp. 478—480. Written for Christian Jews, p. 480 ; probably residents in Syria, p. 480. The author a personal follower of our Lord, pp. 481, 482; wrote before fall of Jerusalem, pp. 482, 483 ; his picture of the Jews confirmed by Josephus, pp. 483, 484. Other internal evidences of early date, pp. 484, 485 ; its doctrine not anti- Pauhne, pp. 485 — 487 ; its silence as to disputes of Paul's time, p. 487 ; late date assigned to it by sceptical school, p. 488. Purity of its Greek, p. 489; its verbal coincidences with Romans, pp. 489 — 491. Its sub- stantial agreement with Paul's doctrine, pp. 491, 492 ; its teaching closely akin to O. T. Prophets, pp. 492, 493 ; but not merely Judaic, pp. 493, 494. Character of the author as shown in it, p. 494 ; its moral precepts, p. 495; moral effects of Christain teaching, pp. 496, 497. Bede on St. James's Epistle, p. 497. LECTURE XXIV. The Epistle of St. Jude 498 Historical attestation of the books of N. T. unequal, p. 498 ; a few of them were doubted by critics in fourth century, p. 500. Cause of the scantiness of attestation of Epistles of James and Jude, pp. 501, 502; of the two, Jude's has better external attestation, p. 502 ; especially in the West, p. 502. Jude, one of * the Lord's brethren', p. 503 ; tradition concerning his grandsons preserved by Hegesippus, pp. 503, 504 ; doubt whether he was of the Twelve, p. 504 ; what we are to understand by 'Brethren of our Lord', p. 504 — 506. Date of the Epistle, p. 506; against whom were its censures directed ? pp. 506, 507. Its use of Jewish Apocrypha, pp. 508 — 511; the 'Assumption of Moses', pp. 508, 509; the 'Book of Enoch', pp. 509—511. The Syriac translation of the Catholic Epistles, p. 511. xxii CONTENTS. LECTURE XXV. Page The Second Epistle of St. Peter 512 Doubts in the Church of the authority of this Epistle, p. 512. Early opinions unfavourable to it and other of the ' Catholic ' Epistles, pp. 513, 514. General acceptance attained by them all, pp. 514 — 516. Question reopened at the Reformation, p. 514. Opinion of Epiphanius favourable, p. 515; inconsistency of Jerome, ib. ; and of Didymus, ih. Evidence of MSS. and Canons, p. 516. Opinion of Origen, ib.; of Firmilian, p. 517. Old Latin Version, ib. Doubtful use of this Epistle by Clement of Alexandria, p. 517 ; by Iren^us, pp. 518 — 520; by Pseudo-Clement, p. 520 ; by Theophilus of Antioch, ib. Prediction in this Epistle of the destruction of the world by lire, pp. 520, 521. This destruction early became a point of Christian belief, p. 521. Doubtful use of 2 Peter by Hermas and Clement of Rome, pp. 521, 522. Its ac- ceptance far short of that of i Peter, p. 522. Grotius's theory, ib. The author claims to be Peter, ib. ; if not Peter, is a forger, p. 523 ; this alternative must be faced, ib. Relation between 2 Peter and Jude, pp. 525 — 527. Difference of style between i and 2 Peter, pp. 527, 528; points of resemblance between them, p. 528. Coincidences of 2 Peter with Petrine speeches in Acts, pp. 528, 529. Dr. Edwin Abbott's attack on 2 Peter, pp. 529 — 551. Its unworthiness of style, pp. 529 — 538; 'Baboo' Greek, pp. 529 — 535. Unfairness of his treatment of the Epistle, pp. 530, 531 ; schoolboy EngUsh of his renderings, ib. Defects in its Greek are natural, if it was written by a Palestinian Jew, p. 532 ; but cannot affect the question of its genuineness, pp. 532, 533; its Greek not to be tested by our Lexicons, pp. 534, 535. Absurd misapprehension involved in the charge of 'pedantry' against the author, pp. 535, 536, Discussion of sundry expressions objected to, pp. 536—538; 'Hapax Legomena', pp. 537, 538. Its alleged borrowings from Josephus, pp. 539 — 547. Archdeacon Farra.r's opinion, pp. 540, 541. Alleged co- incidences with Josephus merely verbal, pp. 541, 542. Not within brief compass, p. 542 ; nor in same sequence, ib.; nor do they occur in the case of unusual words, pp. 542, 543. No N. T. writer keeps within the limits of BibHcal language, p. 544. The Greek of Philo, pp. 544 — 547. Dis- cussion of the words and combinations relied on by Dr. Abbott, pp. 547, 548. Coincidences mth Philo's writings found in i Peter, pp. 549, 550; also elsewhere in N. T., p. 550. Result of examination of Dr. Abbott's criticism, pp. 550, 551. Newly-discovered Stichometry, p. 551- CONTENTS. xxiii LECTURE XXVI. Page Non-Canonical Books 552 TJie Apocalypse of Peter, pp. 552 — 557. Recognized in the Muratorian Fragment, and possibly by Caius, p. 552 ; quotations from it by Clement of Alexandria, p. 553 ; and by Macarius, p. 554. Its use not quite ex- tinct in the fifth century, p. 555. Whether included in the Sinaitic MS., P- 555 J the Psalms of Solomon, p. 555. Conjectural ascription of pas- sages to this Apocalypse, p. 556; other Apocalypses, p. 557. The Epistle of Barnabas, pp. 557 — 564. External attestation, pp. 557, 558. Impossibility of accepting some of the contents as inspired, p. 559. Whether it would be possible to acknowledge its Apostolic origin and deny its inspiration, p. 560 ; attitude of the writer towards Judaism, pp. 561, 562 ; date of the Epistle, p. 563 ; to what Church addressed, p. 564. The Epistle to Clement, pp. 564 — 571. Written in the name of the Church of Rome, p. 565. Importance of the Bishop of Rome merged in the importance of his Church, p. 565. Proofs of the early use of the Epistle, p. 566 ; date of the latter, p. 567 ; varying accounts of the order of the first Roman bishops, p. 567. No good reason for doubting that Clement was really at the head of the Roman Church, p. 568. Whether the Church of Corinth was in his time governed by a single person, p. 568; extreme amount of disorder in Corinth, p. 569. The Prayer of Manasses, p. 569. Evidence of Roman supremacy afforded by Clement's letter, p. 570 ; Clement a Jew, p. 570 ; authorities for the text of Clement, p. 570. The Second Epistle of Clement, p. 571. The Shepherd of Hernias, pp. 571 — 586. External testimony, pp. 572, 573. Disuse of non-Canonical writings after rise of Montanism, p. 572. Tertullian and the Shepherd, p. 573. Contents of the Shepherd, p. 574. The date of Hermas, p. 575. The book written in good faith, p. 576 ; and ac- cepted as a record of real revelations, p. 579; written in the Episcopate of Clement, p. 581. Rejection of Muratorian account, p. 583. Church organization in the time of Hermas, p. 584 ; he belonged to the order of prophets, p. 585. Hermas and Theodotion, pp. 586 — 600. The 'Thegri ' of Hermas explained by Mr. Rendel Harris from Dan. vi. 22, p. 587. Dr. Hort's fiu-ther inference, p. 587. Preliminary considerations unfavour- able to his inference, p. 588. Greek translation of the Old Testament, p. 588. Theodotion's version of Daniel used in the Christian Church, p. 589. Epiphanius's account of Greek translation not trustworthy, p. 591. Theodotion's version in use before the time of Irenxus, p. 592. A silent rejection of the Scptuagint not probable, p. 594. Characteristics xxiv CONTENTS. of the Chigi Daniel, p. 595 ; its affinities with the Apocryphal Esdras, p. 595. Did the New Testament writers make use of the Chigi version ? p. 597. Neither Clement of Rome nor Baruch recognize it, p. 599. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, pp. 600 — 617. External testimony, p. 601. The 'Church Ordinances', p. 602. Barnabas and the 'Two "Ways ', p. 603. Bryennius's ' Teaching of the Apostles ', p. 604 ; its ac- count of Church organization, p. 605. Whether the author was an Ebionite, p. 607. Relations of the Didache to Barnabas and Hermas, p. 608. Dr. Taylor on the Didache, p. 608. Hypothesis that the Didache is founded on a pre-Christian manual for the instruction of proselytes, p. 609. Relations of the Didache to Barnabas, p. 610; and of both to the 'Church Ordinances', p. 611. Western form of the book, p. 612. AVhether the Didache in its present form had early circulation in the East, p. 613 ; how much of it maybe referred to a pre-Christian model, p. 614 ; its instructions about baptism, p. 614 ; on prayer, p. 615 ; on the Eucharist, p. 616; the last chapter, 617 ; whether known to Origen, 618. I. INTRODUCTORY. Part I. PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. THE subject appointed for our Lectures this Term is The Bible ; but that opens up a field so wide, that to treat adequately" of all that it is desirable should be known about it would give us employment, not for one Term, but for several years. Last year you attended Lectures on Natural Religion and on Christian Evidences. I assume that you then went through the proofs that there is a God ; that there is no impossibility in His revealing His will to His creatures, using miracle or prophecy as credentials to authenticate His message ; and that you went through the proofs of our Lord's divine mission, establishing the conclusion that He was the bearer to the world of a revelation from God. Then, in logi- cal order, follows the question, How is that revelation to be known to us ? what are the books that record it ? — in other words : What is the Canon of Scripture ? In this investigation the determination of the New Testa- ment Canon comes before that of the Old. We must first determine what are the books which contain authentic records of the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles ; because we can then use their testimony to the older books, which they reverenced as divinely inspired. Next after the question of the Canon comes that of Biblical Criticism. Supposing it to be established that certain books were written, containing an B 2 INTRODUCTORY. [i. authoritative record of Divine revelations, v^'e have still to inquire whether those books have come down safely to us — how we are to remove all the errors which may have accumu- lated during the process of transcription in many centuries, and so restore the texts to their original purity. Perhaps here might follow questions concerning the Translation of these texts, for without translation books written in Hebrew and Greek cannot be made available for the instruction of our people. At any rate, we have to consider questions concern- ing the Interpretation of these books. May we follow the same rules as we do in interpreting any ordinary book, and be satisfied in each case with that plain meaning which it seems the writer intended ; or does the fact that the books are divine — that the real author is not man, but God ; that there may, therefore, often be a meaning unknown even to the human agent who w^as commissioned to write the words — oblige us to employ special methods of interpretation in order to discover the deeper spiritual meaning ? And, lastly, we must inquire what is involved in the Divine Inspiration we ascribe to these books. Does it exclude the supposition of the smallest inaccuracy being found in them in science, history, moral or religious teaching ? If we admit the possi- bility of any such inaccuracy, can we put any limits to our concession r The subjects I have named — the Canon, the Criticism, the Interpretation of our books, and the question of their Inspira- tion— are by no means all that might be discussed in treating of the Bible ; yet these alone form a programme to which it is impossible to do justice in the time at my disposal, and in practice I have found that, with whatever subject I begin, I am obliged, if I wish to treat it at all adequately, to crowd out nearly all the rest. At present I am about to take up the subject which seems in logical order the first — the ques- tion what books contain the authentic record of the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles — in other words, the question of the New Testament Canon. I wish to keep the question I have named quite clear of any discussion as to the Inspiration of the sacred books, such I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 3 discussion plainly belonging to a later stage of the investi- gation. I wish to examine into the evidence for the genuine- ness and authenticity of the books of the Bible in the same way as in the case of any ordinary books. It is clearly one question : At what date and by what authors were certain books written ? And quite another question : Is there reason to believe that the authors of these books were aided by super- natural guidance, and if so, what was the nature and extent of that supernatural assistance ? The former is, as we shall presently see, a question of vital importance in the contro- versy between Christians and unbelievers; the latter is one in- ternal among Christians, and only admits of discussion among those who are already convinced of the historic credibility of the New Testament books, and who, because they believe what these books relate about Jesus of Nazareth, find no diffi- culty in believing also that He endowed with special powers those whom He commissioned to write the revelation which He brought into the world. I make these remarks at the outset, because it enables us at once to set aside certain topics as irrelevant to the present investigation. Suppose, for example, it be alleged that there are plain contradictions between the first Gospel and the fourth; if we were engaged in an inquiry as to the Inspiration of the Gospels, it would be of the utmost importance to examine whether and how far this allegation is true. But it may be quite possible to set it aside as entirely irrelevant, when we are only inquiring whether or not both Gospels were written by Apostles. It is the constant experience of anyone who has ever engaged in historical investigation to have to recon- cile contradictions between his authorities ; but such contra- dictions must reach a high point in number and gravity before they suggest a suspicion that the opposing statements do not both proceed, as they profess to do, from persons having a first-hand knowledge of the matters about which they write. I have just said that I wish to investigate the genuineness and authenticity of the books of the Bible in the same way as we should in the case of any uninspired book. But we are B 2 4 INTRODUCTORY. [i. not quite permitted to do so. Those who would approve of interpreting the Bible according to the same rules by which we should interpret any other book apply very different rules in determining the authorship of its parts from what are used in the case of other books. If we were to apply to the remains of classical literature the same rigour of scrutiny that is used towards the New Testament, there are but few of them that could stand the test. There are many of you who count as good classical scholars, who have always received with simple faith that what you read in your printed books is the work of the author to whom it is commonly ascribed, and have never applied your minds to consider what answer you could give to anyone who should deny it. You are very familiar, for instance, with Horace. Do you know what interval separates the oldest manuscript of his works from the age of Augustus, in which the poet is said to have lived ? Can you fill up the gap by quotations from ancient authors ? Do you know what ancient authors mention him or quote his poems r Can you tell how far the earliest quotation is separated in time from the poet himself? Can you tell what extent of his writings is covered by quotations ? Can you give separate proofs for each book of the Odes, of the Satires and Epistles, and for the Art of Poetry ? And if you are able to give a proof for every book, can you meet the requirements of a more severe critic, who might demand a distinct proof of the Horatian origin of every ode of every book ? I suppose the chances are that you would not attempt to answer these questions ; because, though you probably have heard of the theory of the Jesuit Hardouin, that the Odes of Horace and other classical books were written by Benedictine monks in the dark ages, it is not likely that you have given that theory a serious thought. Yet, if we were called on to refute it, by producing quotations from the Odes by any writer who lived within two centuries of the poet's death (and later testimony than that would not be thought worth looking at in the case of a New Testament book), we should be able to make only a very unsatisfactory reply. One example is often cited to show how little this kind of investigation is in practice judged to be necessary. 1. 1 PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 5 The Roman History of Velleius Paterculus has come down to us in a single very corrupt manuscript, and the book is only once quoted by Priscian, a grammarian of the sixth century ; yet no one entertains the smallest doubt of its genuineness.* The first six books of the Annals of Tacitus are also known to us only through a single manuscript which came to light in the fifteenth century. Not long ago an elaborate attempt was made to show that all the books of the Annals were forged in that century by an Italian scholar, Poggio. And it was asserted that *no clear and definite allusion to the Annals can be found until the first half of the fifteenth century.' The latest editor of the Annals, Mr. Furneaux, is what, if the sub- ject of his labours were a New Testament book, would be called an * apologist' ; that is to say, he believes that the tra- ditional doctrine as to the authorship is true, and that the sup- posed discovery of forgery is a mare's nest; yet, in answer to the assertion just quoted, he can only produce one allusion, by no means ' clear and definite,' and that of a date 300 years later than the historian. Thus you see that if the external testi- mony to the New Testament books, which I shall discuss in future lectures, had not been forthcoming, we might still have good reason for holding fast to the traditional theory of their authorship. But where external proof is most abundant in the case of profane authors, it falls considerably short of what can be produced in support of the chief books of the New Testament. The reason, however, why a more stringent test is applied to our books is on account of their contents ; namely, because the books contain accounts of miracles and what purport to be prophecies. Now, at first sight, it appears unreasonable to allow this consideration to enter when we are discussing the authorship of books. The works of Livy contain accounts of prodigies which I may perhaps think Livy credulous for believing, yet I am not on that account in the slightest degree inclined to doubt that Livy was the author of the history which bears his name. Still more does the remark apply to * This case is discussed in the controversy between Boyle and Bentley about the Epistles of Phalaris. 6 INTRODUCTORY. [i. the accounts of miracles which swarm in the writings of the monkish historians. I disbelieve the miracles, but I make no question that the histories which relate those miracles were written by the authors to whom they are ascribed. But here is the pinch of the matter. These miraculous tales to which I refer relate for the most part to events which the nar- rators represent as having occurred a long time before their own date. When honest and intelligent men relate things of which they have personal knowledge, as a general rule we do not find them telling of anything miraculous. In short, it is only throwing into other words the statement that a miracle is an exception to the ordinary course of nature, to say that an account of a miracle is not likely to occur in true history, and therefore that, if we meet with such an account, it is likely to proceed from persons not truthful or not well informed. So it is a canon of criticism that stories embellished with miracu- lous ornaments are distant in time from the age in which the acene is laid. Troy may have been really taken ; Achilles and Agamemnon may have been real persons ; but when we read in the Iliad of gods and goddesses taking part in the battles round the city, this in itself is reason enough to suspect that Homer lived at such a distance from the events which he relates as permitted him to imagine the men of former days to be very different from * such as mortals now are,' so that things might have happened to them unparalleled in his own experience. On these principles, then, it is contended that our sacred books, from the mere fact of their containing stories of miracles, are shown not to be the work of contem- poraries. If there is one narrative of the New Testament which more than another contains internal proof of having been related by an e3'^e-witness, it is the account of the voyage and shipwreck of St. Paul. I recommend to your attention the yery interesting monograph of Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill, who himself sailed over the entire course, and by a multitude of minute coincidences verified the accuracy of St. Luke's narrative. Yet, because the story tells of miracles performed in the island on which Paul was cast, it has been supposed, I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. 7 without the smallest reason of any other kind, that these things must have been added by a later hand.* The same things may be said as to the prophecies which our sacred books contain. In judging of an ordinary book there is no more certain canon of criticism than that the book is later than the latest person named in it, or the last event described in it. If we read a book which contained mention of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel and of the battle of Waterloo, it would take an amazing amount of evi- dence to convince us that the book was written in the reign of Queen Anne. It is by taking notice of anachronisms of this kind that the spuriousness has been proved of works which had imposed on an uncritical age; as, for example, the ' Epistles of Phalaris,' which were exposed in Bentley's famous essay, or the Decretal Epistles, purporting to be written by the early Bishops of Rome, on which so much of the fabric of Roman supremacy has been built. Well, the same principles of criticism have been freely applied to our sacred books. Porphyry contended that the prophecy of Daniel must have been written by some one who lived later than Antiochus Epiphanes, who is clearly described in the book : the latter half of Isaiah, it is urged, must be later than Cyrus : the Gospel of St. Luke must be later than the Destruc- tion of Jerusalem, which it describes as to be ' trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,' showing, it is said, that the writer not only lived after the siege, but so long after as to have known that Jerusalem remained for a considerable time in a condition of abiding desolation. Now, I have intimated in what I have said that I am * Davidson, for instance, says ('Introduction to the New Testament,' 11. 134) ; ' The description of the voyage and shipwreck of Paul on his way to Rome is minute and accurate, proceeding from an eye-witness. A few notices here and there betray a later hand, especially those which are framed to show the wonder-working power of the Apostle, such as xxviii. 3-5, 8, 9.' Dr. S. Davidson, for some time Professor in the Lancashire Independent College, published an Introduction to the New Testament, in three volumes, 1848-51. In this the main lines of traditional opinion were followed ; but his views show a com- plete alteration in the new Introduction, in two volumes, which he published in 1868. My quotation is from the second edition of the later book, published in 1882. 8 INTRODUCTORY. [i. ready, within reasonable limits, to adopt the canons of criti- cism to which I have referred. But I cannot admit them to be applicable without exception. Miraculous embellishments may be a ground for suspecting that the narrative is not con- temporaneous with the events; but if it is asserted that mira- culous stories are never told by men contemporary with the things related, that certainly is not true. I have, at different times, read in periodicals accounts of spiritual manifestations which I entirely disbelieve, yet in many cases impute to the narrators no wilful intention to deceive, nor do I doubt that they were, as they profess, actually present at the scenes they describe. The Life of St. Martin of Tours, by his friend Sul- picius Severus, is full of the supernatural. I do not find that any of those who refuse to believe in the miraculous stories attempt to justify their disbelief by maintaining that Sul- picius was not the author of the Life, These are instances of what I reckon as false miracles ; but the course of lectures of last year must have been a failure if they did not establish that true miracles, though from the nature of the case not of common occurrence, are still possible. If so, when they actually do occur, the witnesses of them may relate them in true histories. In short, if miracle and prophecy be impos- sible, there is an end of the whole matter. Your faith is vain, and our teaching is vain. Now, this principle, namely, the absolute impossibility of miracle, is the basis of the investigations of the school, some of whose results must be examined in this course of lectures. Two of its leading writers, Strauss and Renan, in their pre- faces, make the absolute rejection of the supernatural the foundation of their whole structure. Renan* (p. Hi) declares * The first edition of the 'Vie de Jesus par Ernest Renan' was published in 1863. It was followed by six successive volumes, relating the histoiy of the 'Origines du Christianisme ' ; that is to say, the formation and early history of the Christian Church. The last volume, bringing the history down to the reign of Marcus AureHus, was pubHshed in 1882. The references in these Lectures are usually to an 1863 edition of the ' Life of Jesus,' which alone was available when they were written. It has not been necessary for my purpose to examine minutely the modifications in- troduced into later editions, because the changes in Kenan's views are sufficiently indicated in the later volumes of his series. I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. g that he will accept a miracle as proved only if it is found that it will succeed on repetition, forgetting that in this case it would not be a miracle at all, but a newly-discovered natural law. Strauss,* equally, in his preface (p. xv) declares it to be « his fundamental principle that there was nothing supernatural in the person or work of Jesus. The same thing may be said about a book which made some sensation on its publication a few years ago, ' Supernatural Religion. 'f The extreme cap- tiousness of its criticism found no approval from respectable foreign reviewers, however little they might be entitled to be classed as believers in Revelation. Dates were assigned in it to some of our New Testament books so late as to shock anyone who makes an attempt fairly to judge of evidence. And the reason is, that the author starts with the denial of the supernatural as his fixed principle. If that principle be, in his eyes, once threatened, all ordinary laws of probability must give way. It is necessary at the outset to call your attention to tiiis fundamental principle of our opponents, be- cause it explains their seeming want of candour; why it is that they are so unreasonably rigorous in their demands of proof of the authenticity of our books ; why they meet with evasions proofs that seem to be demonstrative. It is because, to their minds, any solution of a difficulty is more probable than one which would concede that a miracle had really occurred. Now, it has become more and more plain that, if it be granted that our Gospels were written by the persons to whom they are ascribed, two of whom were Apostles, men who had personal knowledge of the things which they relate, and whose whole narrative bears the impress of honesty, * D. F. Strauss (1808-1874), a pupil of Baur, published, in 1835, his ' Life of Jesus,' the mythical theory propounded in which gave rise to much controversy, and stimulated other attempts to disprove the historic credibility of the Gospel narratives. The book had rather fallen into oblivion when, in 1864, Strauss, availing himself of the labours of those who had written in the interval, published a new ' Life of Jesus' ' for the German people.' It is to this popular Life that I refer in the text. In 1872 Strauss broke completely with Christianity, in a book called ' The Old Faith and the New.' t This book, published, vols. i. and ii. in 1S74, '^'ol. iii. in 1877, obtained a good deal of notoriety by dint of enormous pulling, great pains having been taken to pro- lO INTRODUCTORY. , [i. then the reality of miracles necessarily follows. No one has proved this more clearly than Strauss. He has conclusively .shown that anyone who has determined to begin by asserting the absolute impossibility of miracle cannot come with a per- fectly unbiassed mind to investigate the history of our sacred books, because an acceptance of the traditional account of their origin w^ould be absolutely fatal to this first principle, Strauss begins his latest work on the life of Jesus by criticiz- ing the works of his predecessors, who were as disinclined as himself to admit the reality of miracles, and who yet accepted the traditional account of the authorship of the Gospels ; and he shows that every one of them failed, and could not help failing, to maintain this inconsistent position. Paulus* may duce a belief that Bishop Thirlwall was the author. The aspect of the pages, brist- ling with learned references, strengthened the impression that the author must be a scholar of immense reading. The windbag collapsed when Lightfoot showed that this supposed Bishop Thirlwall did not possess even a schoolboy acquaintance with Greek and Latin, and that his references were in some cases borrowed wholesale, in others did not prove the things for which they were cited, and very often appealed to writers whose opinion is of no value. But what I wish here to remark is, that what really made the book worthless was not its want of scholarship, but its want of candour. An indifferent scholar, if he were industrious and honest, and, I must add, modest enough not to find fault with the translations of better scholars than himself, might compile a book which would only need the removal of some surface errors to be a really valuable contribution to knowledge. But want of candour vitiates a book through and through. There is no profit in examining the conclusions arrived at by a writer who never seems to care on which side lies the balance of his- toric probability, but only which conclusion will be most disagreeable to the assertors of the supernatural. For myself, I find instruction in studying the results arrived at by an inquirer who strives to be candid, whether he be orthodox or not ; but I have little curiosity to find out the exact amount of evidence which would leave a captious objector without a word to say in justification of his refusal to admit it. Lightfoot's answers to ' Supernatural Religion' appeared in the Contemporary Review, December, 1874; Jairuary, February, May, August, October, 1875; Feb- ruary and August, 1876; May, 1877. In addition to their temporary object of refutation,^ these articles contain so much of permanent value on the criticism of the remains of the second century, that it is much to be regretted that they have not been republished. ' Supernatural Rehgion ' has also been dealt with by Westcott in a Preface to the later editions of his ' New Testament Canon.' * Paulus (1761-1851), professor, first at Jena, afterwards at Heidelberg, pub- lished his ' Commentary on the New Testament,' 1800-1804, and his ' Life of Jesus ' in 1828. I.] PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION. i j serve as a specimen of writers of this class. He receives the Gospel narratives as in some sense true ; the Evangelists do not intend to deceive ; they tell things that really occurred, * but through an error of judgment they represent incidents as miraculous which in truth are capable of a natural explana- tion. For example, according to him, there was nothing miraculous in Christ's feeding of the multitude. But the example of Christ and His Apostles freely distributing their scanty store among the people shamed all the rest into pro- ducing and sharing with their neighbours what they had secretly brought each for himself, and so all were filled, and supposed there had been something supernatural in the mul- tiplication of the food. Similarly, Paulus does not deny that \ our Lord seemed to walk on the water; but, since of course He could not really have done so, he concludes that He walked on the bank of the lake, where, through an optical delusion, his movements conveyed a false impression to the spectators. He so far believes the story of the announce- ment by an angel of the Saviour's Incarnation as to concede that the Virgin Mary truly told that a stranger had come into her with this message, who represented himself to be the angel Gabriel ; but since this could not possibly be true, we must conclude that the messenger was an impostor. These few specimens are enough to give you an idea of the mass of improbabilities and absurdities which are accumulated in the working out of this scheme, so that we may fairly say that the history, as Paulus tells it, is a more miraculous one than if we take the Gospel narratives in their literal sense. It is unnecessary for me to waste words in exposing these absurdi- ties, because no one has a more lively sense than Strauss himself of the failure of the attempts of his predecessors to write a non-miraculous life of Jesus ; and he owns distinctly that, if the historical character of the Gospels be ever con- ' ceded, it will be impossible to eliminate miracle from the life of Christ.* Strauss's own solution, you no doubt know, was to deny * ' Sind die Evangelien wirklich geschichtliche Urkunden, so ist das Wunder aus der Lebcnsgeschichte Jesu nicht zu entfernen.' — Leben Jesit, p. 17. 12 INTRODUCTORY. [ii. that the Gospels are historical. According to him, they are not written by eye-witnesses of the things related, but are legends put together at a considerable interval of time after the supposed events. How Jesus of Nazareth succeeded in collecting a number of disciples, and in inspiring them with a persuasion, not to be shaken by the unhappy end of His life, that He was the promised Messiah, Strauss very imperfectly explains. But his theory is, that a community of Jewish Christians arose who somehow or another had come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and who had all from childhood been brought up in the belief that the Messiah was to have certain distinguishing marks, that He was to be born in Bethlehem, and so forth ; that then stories circulated among them purporting to show how Jesus actually did all that according to their notions He ought to have done; and that these stories, being in perfect accordance with their preconceived notions, when once started were readily believed, and in simple faith passed on from one to another, until in process of time they came to be recorded in the Gospels. It is not the business of this Term to expose the weakness of this theory ; and, indeed, Strauss himself appears to have become sensible what a difficult task he had set himself when he undertook to deny the truth of the Gospel histories, and yet clear the historians of conscious imposture. Cer- tainly, there is a very perceptible shifting of ground from his original work, published in 1835, in the new popular version brought out for the use of the German people in the year 1864. But common to both is the principle of the absolute rejection of the supernatural ; and this I single out because the investigation in which I wish to engage you proceeds on an opposite plan, and therefore will naturally lead to a different result. My investigation aims at being purely historical. It refuses to be dominated by any philosophical or pseudo-philosophical principle. I wish to examine the evidence for the date of the Christian books on the same principles on which I would act if they were ordinary pro- fane histories, without allowing myself to be prejudiced for or against them by a knowledge of their contents, or by fear II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 13 of consequences which I shall be forced to admit if I own these works to be genuine. For I do not hold our present experience to be the absolute rule and measure of all possi- bilities future and past ; nor do I deem it so incredible that God should reveal Himself to His creatures, as to refuse to listen to all evidence for such a fact when it is offered. II. Part II. BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. In his new Life of Jesus, Strauss has greatly availed him- self of the labours of Baur* and of the school founded by him, called sometimes, from his place of residence, the Tubingen school, or from the nature of their theories, the Tendency school. It will be advisable to give you, by way of preface to our course, some short account of these theories ; not only because of the wide acceptance they have met with from writers of the sceptical school both in Germany and of later years in England, but also because the view which they pre- sent of the history of the early Church affects the credit to be given to the testimony of that Church concerning our sacred literature. There is no use in calling a witness without making an attempt to remove prejudices which you know to be enter- tained, whether against his honesty or his means of information. Therefore, before producing to you evidence as to the recep- tion of the Gospels by the early Church, it is expedient to inquire whether certain speculations are deserving of regard, which represent that Church as having altered so much and so rapidly from its original form, as to be put under a strong temptation to falsify the documents which relate its early * F. C. Baur (1792-1860) published in the Tiibingen ' Zeitschrift ' for 1831 a paper on the Christ-party in the Church of Corinth, which contained the germs of the theory of which an account is given in the text. The fully developed theory wa given in his ' Paulus,' published in 1845. 14 INTRODUCTORY. [ii. history. According to Baur, our books are not the innocent, purposeless collection of legendary tales for which the dis- ciples of Strauss might take them ; all, even those which seem least artful, are put together with a purpose, and have a tendency' Just as of Mr. Dickens's novels, one is intended to expose the abuses of the Poor Law system, another of the Court of Chancery, another of Ecclesiastical Courts, and so forth ; so each of the Christian books, however innocently it may seem to profess to give straightforward narrative, is really written with a secret design to inculcate certain dog- matic views. But what are these dogmatic views ? To answer this we must expound the history which Baur gives of the early progress of Christianity. He manufactured it mainly out of his own notions of the fitness of things, with very slender support from external authority ; and it has obliged him to condemn as forged or interpolated the great mass of existing ancient documents, since they are so perverse as not to be reconcilable with the critic's theory. The main pillar of the theory is a work of by no means great antiquity as compared with the others which are to be discussed in this course of lectures, being not older than the very end of the second century. I speak of the spurious literature attributed to Clement of Rome, a favourite character with the manufac- turers of apocryphal literature in the second or third century. The history of these writings is so remarkable, that I can- not employ a few minutes better than in giving you some account of them. The work originated among the Ebionites, or Jewish-Christian heretical sects. In its earliest form it contained discourses ascribed to the Apostle Peter, both in controversy with heathen, and also with heretics, of whom Simon Magus was made the representative and spokesman. This work underwent a great variety of recastings. It is doubtful whether Clement was introduced into the very earliest form of it; but he was certainly, at a comparatively early date, made the narrator of the story ; and the account of Clement's history gradually grew into a little romance, which, no doubt, greatly helped the popularity of the work. fi.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 13 Clement tells how he had been brought up as a rich orphan at Rome, his parents having been lost in his early childhood. He gives an affecting account of his search for religious truth, which he sought in vain among the schools of the philosophers, but there found nothing but strife and uncertainty. At last news is brought to Rome of the appearance of a wonder- working prophet in Palestine. Clement sails in search of him, arrives after the death of Jesus, but meets Peter, and is instructed and converted by him. Travelling about with Peter, he finds first his mother, then his brothers, then his father; and it is from these successive recognitions that the work called the ' Clementine Recognitions ' takes its name. This is one of two forms in which the work is still extant ; the other, called the ' Clementine Homilies,' being as respects the story [substantially the same, but as respects the dis- courses worked into it, and the doctrine contained in them, a good]! deal ^different. The 'Homilies' contain the Ebionite doctrine in its strongest form ; in the ' Recognitions ' the repulsive features of Ebionitism are softened down, so as to make the book not altogether unfit for use among the ortho- dox, and in fact the * Recognitions' are only preserved in a Latin translation made for the use of the orthodox by a Church writer, Rufinus. There is good evidence that another form, still more orthodox, which has not come down to us, was once in circulation. And though the heretical character of these Clementine writings was well known to the Fathers, who therefore rejected their doctrine, yet many of the things these writings tell about Peter passed into Church tradition. In particular, this Clementine literature has had a marvellous share in shaping the history of Christendom, by inventing the story that Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that he named Clement to succeed him in that See. At the revival of learning these writings were at first treated with contumely as a good-for-nothing heretical fig- ment. Long time passed before it was noted that, though the book be regarded as no more than a controversial novel, yet, dating'as it does from the end of the second century, it must be a most valuable source of information as to the his- 1 5 INTRODUCTORY. [ii. tory and opinions of the sect from which it emanated. Baur, in particular, has called special attention to the anti-Paulinism of the work ; and it is quite true that when we look into it carefully, we find that Paul and his labours are passed over in silence, Peter figuring as the Apostle of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. In one passage in the 'Homilies' the dislike of Paul passes the bounds of mere silence. For Simon Magus is described as ' withstanding Peter to the face,' and declaring that he was * to be blamed.'* Many a reader might innocently overlook the malice of these expressions; but when attention is called to them, we can hardly deny that the coin- cidence of language with that in the Epistle to the Galatians (ii. 1 1) leads to the surmise that under the character of Simon a reference to Paul is cloked ; and that Paul is intended by the enemy, 6 exOpoQ avdpwrroq, who opposed St. Peter and St. James. We see also what interpretation is to be put on a controversy as to relative superiority between Simon Magus, who claims to have seen our Lord in vision, and Peter, who had actually seen Him in the flesh. It must be admitted that the writer shows a covert dislike to Paul ; but we must remark, at the same time, that the obscurity with which he clokes his assault on the Apostle shows plainly that he dared make no open attack, and that his views were, at that time, shared by no influential party in the Church. But the Tubingen school pounced with avidity on this book. Here, they say, we have the key to the true history of the origin of Christianity. Epiphanius tells us that the Ebio- nites rejected Paul's Epistles, and looked on him as an apos- tate. This book, then, may be regarded as a specimen of the feelings towards Paul of an early section of the Christians. Baur's idea is, that in all this anti-Pauline rancour we have a 'survival' of an earlier state of things, the memory of which had been lost, owing to its variance with the Church's subse- quent doctrine. At the beginning of the third century we have, in one corner of the Church, men who hate Paul with * In order that the coincidence with the Epistle to the Galations may be more easily recognized, I adopt the language of the Authorized Version in translating ' ivavrlos aydiarriKcis /j.oi,' ' KaTijiwafxivov fie \4yfis ' (Horn. xvii. 19). II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 17 the utmost bitterness, though, in deference to the then general opinion, they are obliged to cloke their hatred under disguises. At the same time we have, in another corner of the Church, the Marcionites,* who recognize no Apostle but Paul, who utterly reject the Jewish religion and the Old Testament, and who set aside all the earlier Apostles as of no authority. What, asks Baur, if these extreme views on both sides be not, as had been supposed, heretical developments, but survivals of a once general state of things r Those who themselves hold our Lord to have been mere man find it natural to believe that this must have been the earliest belief of His followers. Consequently, the theory is that the whole Christian Church was originally Ebionite ; that Paul was a heresiarch, or intro- ducer of novel doctrines violently condemned by the great mass of existing believers, of whose feelings towards Paul these Clementine writings are regarded as a fair specimen ; that the representations in the Acts of the Apostles that Paul was on good terms with the elder Apostles are altogether false, and that, on the contrary, the early Church consisted of two parties, Pauline and anti-Pauline, bitterly opposed to each other. Such is the general outline of the theory ; but speculation has particularly run wild on the assault on Paul in the Cle- mentines under the mask of Simon Magus. Sceptical critics jump at the conclusion that Simon Magus was the nickname under which Paul was generally known ; and some even go so far as to maintain that the account in Acts viii. is a covert libel on St. Paul, which St. Luke, notwithstanding his Paul- inism, has been so stupid as to perpetuate in his histor3'-; Simon's offer of money to the Apostles representing Paul's attempt to bribe the other Apostles into recognition of his claims by the gift of money which he had collected for the poor saints at Jerusalem. I feel ashamed of repeating such nonsense ; but it is necessary that you should know the things that are said ; for you may meet these German dreams retailed * The Chronicle of Edessa names A.D. 138 as the date of the rise of the heresy of Marcion, and this is probably as near the truth as we have the means of going. The heresy had reached formidable dimensions when Justin Martyr wrott his Apology. C 1 8 INTRODUCTORY. [ii. as sober truth by sceptical writers in this country, many of whom imagine that it would be a confession of inability to keep pace with the progress of critical science, if they ven- tured to test, by English common sense, the successive schemes by which German aspirants after fame seek to gain a reputation for ingenuity. A more careful examination of the Clementines shows that they did not emanate from that body which opposed Paul in his lifetime. There appear, in fact, to have been two dis- tinct kinds of Ebionites. One kind we may call Pharisaic Ebionites, who may be regarded as representing those who strove to combine the acknowledgment of the Messiahship, though not the Divinity, of Jesus with the maintenance of the full obligation of the Mosaic Law. They appear never to have been of much influence, and before long to have died out. But the Ebionites among whom the Clementines origi- nated represented quite a different set of opinions, and appear to have been a continuation of the Jewish sect of the Essenes.* Among their doctrines was a fanatical horror of the rite of sacrifice, which they could not believe to have been divinely instituted. The whole Temple service was abomination in their eyes. They believed that the true prophet had ap- peared in divers incarnations, Adam being the first, and Jesus the last. The story of the fall of Adam of course they rejected. And with these opinions it was necessary for them to reject great parts of the Old Testament. The Pentateuch alone was used by them, and of this large parts were cut out as interpolated. You will remember that Paley, in his ' Evidences,' quotes an apocryphal Gospel as ascribing to our Lord the saying ' Be ye good money- changers.' This they interpreted as a direction not to be deceived by the false coin which purported to be God's Word. This doctrine, of which the Clementine ' Homilies ' are full, * On these two kinds of Ebionites, see Lightfoot's 'Galatians,' p. 318. The Church History of the period is hkely to be misunderstood if the identity of the latter kind with the Elkesaites is not perceived ; and if it is not recognized, how little claim these heretics have to represent any considerable body, even of Jewish Christians ; and how late their origin was by their own confession. II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY, m would be as repulsive as Paul's own doctrine to the orthodox Jews whom Paul had to encounter ; and therefore, as I say, these Clementines have no pretence to date from the times, or to represent the feelings, of his first antagonists in the Chris- tian Church. The true history of these people seems to have been that, after the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem by Titus, some of the Essene communities, who lived on the other side of Jordan, and who knew that Jesus had predicted the destruction of that Temple to whose rites they always had been opposed, became willing to own Jesus to have been divinely sent, but retained a number of their own peculiar opinions. They appear to have made a few converts among the Jews dispersed by the fall of the capital, but not to have extended themselves very widely ; and it is not till the end of the second century, or the beginning of the third, that some of them made their way to Rome. They had among them some men of literary skill, enough at least to produce a for- gery. x'Vmong the documents they brought to Rome, for in- stance, was one called the ' Book of Elkesai,' which purported to be a revelation of their peculiar doctrines, but for which, it is interesting to remark, no higher antiquity was claimed than the reign of Trajan, a time when all the Apostles were dead. They accounted for this late date by a theory that the ordinary rule of God's Providence was that error should come first, and that the truth which corrected it should be revealed later. An early book of theirs, 'The Preaching of Peter,' was improved, first into the form known as the ' Recognitions,' afterwards into the 'Homilies,' and was made to include these Elkesaite revelations. The making Simon Magus the repre- sentative of Pauline ideas has all the marks of being an after- thought. There is not a trace of it in the ' Recognitions,' through the whole of which, as well as in every part of the ' Homilies ' but the one already referred to, Simon is Simon and Paul is Paul. But, from the nature of the composition, the opinions which the writer means to combat must be put into the mouth of some of the characters in the story. When the object is to combat the doctrines of Marcion, Simon is made the exponent of these doctrines. But this furnishes no C 2 20 INTRODUCTORY. [ir. justification for the statement that there was a general prac- tice of nicknaming Paul as Simon. As far as we can see, the author of the * Recognitions ' is quite ignorant of it. As the anti-Pauline party is judged of by the Ebionites of the second century, so the school of Marcion is supposed to represent the opposing party. Thus the Christian society is said to have included two schools — a Judaizing school and a Gnostic or philosophizing school ; violently hostile to each other. It is not exactly our experience that theological schisms heal up so rapidly and so completely that in fifty years no trace remains of them, nor even memory of their ex- istence. But so we are told it happened in this case. And as in the process of time the bitterness of the dispute abated, arose the Catholic Church, in which both Peter and Paul were held in honour ; and then were attempts made to throw a veil over the early dissensions, and to represent the first preachers of Christianity as at unity among themselves. It remains to test this whole theory of the conflict of Pau- line and anti-Pauline parties in the early Church by compari- son with the documentary evidence ; and the result is that it bears the test very ill, so much so that, in order to save his theory from destruction, Baur has been obliged to make a tolerably clean sweep of the documents. In four of Paul's Epistles some symptoms may be found which can be inter- preted as exhibiting feelings of jealousy or soreness towards the elder Apostles. But there is nothing of the kind in the other nine. The genuineness of these, therefore, must be denied. The Acts of the Apostles represent Paul as on most friendly terms with Peter and James, and these Apostles as taking his side in the controversy as to imposing Judaism on the Gentiles. The Acts, therefore, cannot be true history. Not only the discourses ascribed to Peter in the Acts, but the first Epistle, which the ancient Church unanimously accepted as Peter's, is thoroughly Pauline in doctrine. We must, therefore, disregard ancient testimony, and reject the Epistle. The earliest uninspired Christian document, the Epistle of Clement of Rome, confessedly belongs to the conciliatory school, Peter and Paul being placed in it on equal terms of II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 2 1 reverence and honour. It, too, must be discarded. So, in like manner, go the Epistles ,of Ignatius and Poly carp, the former of whom writes to the Romans, (ch. v.) ' I do not pre- tend to command you, like Peter or Paul.' Now, it is very easy to make a theory on any subject if we are at liberty to sweep away all facts which will not fall in with it. By this method the Elkesaites were able to main- tain that the Old Testament did not sanction the rite of sacri- fice, and Marcion that the New Testament did not recognize the God of the Jews. But one has a right to suspect any theorizer if, in order to clear the ground for a foundation for his theory, he has to begin by getting rid of the previously accepted facts. So it is a presumption against this theory of Baur's, that we find him forced to get rid of nearly all the documents purporting to come from the Apostolic age, be- cause, notwithstanding that they have been searched with microscopic minuteness for instances of Pauline and anti- Pauline rancour, scarcely anything of the kind can be found. I will give a specimen or two of these supposed instances, which will enable you to appreciate the amazing amount of misdirected ingenuity which has been spent in elaborating this system. The first is a specimen which is thought by those who have discovered it to be an exceedingly good and striking one. St. Matthew (vii. 22, 23), in the Sermon on the Mount, makes our Lord speak of men who say, ' Lord, Lord,' and who will, at the last day, appeal to their prophesying, their driving out devils, and their doing of miracles in the name of Jesus, but who will be rejected by Him as doers of lawlessness (avojum), whom He had never known. It may surprise you to hear that this sentence was coined by the Jewish Christian author of the record as a protest against the opposition to the Law made by Paul and his followers. And it may surprise you more to hear that St. Luke (xiii. ^26) is highly complimented for the skill with which he turns this Jewish anti-Pauline saying into one of a Pauline anti-Jewish character. He substitutes the word aSiKia, 'injustice,' for avofiia, 'lawlessness,' and he directs the saying against the Jews, who will one day appeal to having eaten and drunk in 2 2 INTRODUCTORY. [ii. the presence of Jesus, and to His having taught in their streets, but, notwithstanding, shall be told by Him to depart as doers, not of avofxia, but of iniquity, and shall break forth into loud weeping when they see people coming from the east and west, and north and south, and sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while themselves are shut out. One other sample I will give you. St. Matthew says (x. 27), ' What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light ; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.' St. Luke (xii. 3) — ' Whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light, and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed on the housetops.' It is contended that, whereas St. Matthew represents the Apostles as directed to speak in the light and on the housetops, St. Luke turns the phrase into the passive — the proclamation shall be by other than the Apostles; namely, by St. Paul and his party. When, however, all ingenuity has been tried, there is no escaping the acknowledgment that, if we are to look for an anti-Pauline Gospel, it cannot be any of those we have now. That Matthew's Gospel was made primarily for the use of Jews most critics are agreed. Yet, do we find this Jewish Gospel hostile to the admission of Gentiles ? It opens (ii. i) with an account of Gentile Magi from the distant East com- ing to worship the infant Saviour. In the first chapter which records any miracle (viii. 5), we have an account of one per- formed at the request of a Gentile, who is commended as exhibiting faith not to be found in Israel ; and on this occa- sion there is taught the doctrine of the admission of the Gen- tiles, not to equal privileges with the Jews, but to a place vacated by the rejection of the Jews. * Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; but the child- ren of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' It is to be noted that the Gentile centurion of St. Matthew is inSt. Luke made a kind of Jewish proselyte — * He loveth our II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 23 nation, and hath built us a synagogue ' (vii. 5). In a later chapter of St. Matthew the same doctrine is taught even more plainly — ' The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (xxi. 43). The parting command of our Saviour recorded in this Gospel is, ' Go ye and make disciples of all nations ' (xxviii. 19). In the account of our Lord's death, a critic with a keen eye for 'tendency,' might pronounce Matthew strongly anti- Jewish. It is Luke (xxiii. 28), not Matthew, who records our Lord's words of tender pity — ' Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children,' St. Matthew seems anxious to throw the guilt of our Lord's death off the Gentiles, and on the Jews. Pilate's wife warns her husband to 'have nothing to do with that just man' (xxvii. 19). Pilate himself washes his hands before the mul- titude, and declares that he is ' innocent of the blood of this just person.' The Jews accept the awful burden, and exclaim, ' His blood be on us, and on our children ' [ib. 24, 25). Nay, we find in our St. Matthew a trait also found in St. John's Gospel, on account of which the latter has been characterized as strongly anti- Jewish, namely, that the unconverted mem- bers of the Jewish nation are spoken of as ' the Jews,' imply- ing that the Christians were an entirely separate community. In the last chapter of St. Matthew [y. 15) we have, 'This say- ing is commonly reported among the Jews unto this day.' When it is attempted to get rid of these evidences of anti- Jewish tendency by the assertion that none of these things could have been in the original Matthew, we can only reply, that it is open to anyone to say that the original Matthew contained just whatever he likes. But no theory can be said to rest on a scientific basis which, instead of taking cogni- zance of all the facts, arbitrarily rejects whatever of them do not happen to accord \vith the hypothesis. It is plain from what I have said that, when every inge- nuity has been expended on our documents, they fail to yield any sufficient evidence of the bitter hostility which, according to Baur's theory, existed between the two great sections of the early Church; and, therefore, these documents are con- 24 INTRODUCTORY. [ii. demned by him and his followers as, at least in their present shape, the work of a later age, which had set to work to remove all traces of the ancient dissensions. Baur acknow- ledges only five of our books as genuine remains of the Apostolic age — four Epistles of Paul and the Apocalypse. The four Epistles are those to the Galatians, Romans, and the two to the Corinthians. It is not much to be grateful for that he grants the genuineness of these, for they carry on their face such marks of strong personal feeling, and are so manifestly not the work of a forger, but the outpouring of a heart stirred to its depths by the incidents of a real life, that whoever should deny their genuineness would pronounce on himself the sentence of incapacity to distinguish true from false. But these Epistles have, in Baur's eyes, the further recommendation, that they are those in which Paul has to deal with his Jewish opponents, and therefore are the most likely to yield proofs of that jealousy of the elder Apostles and hostility to them which Baur's theory demands. After- wards, when I come to speak of St. Paul's Epistles and of the Acts of the Apostles, I will try to show how little ground there is for the assertion that the view of Paul's relations to the heads of the Jerusalem Church, exhibited in the Epistle to the Galatians, is irreconcilable with that presented by the Acts. If, indeed, anyone imagines that the Apostles were not men of like passions with ourselves, and therefore counts it a thing impossible that one should feel or express dissatis- faction with the conduct of another ; if he cannot believe that they should be differently influenced by different aspects of the truth, or be of various opinion as to the immediate neces- sity of guarding against different forms of error ; why, then, we need not go beyond what the Epistle to the Galatians tells of the dispute between Peter and Paul at Antioch in order to convince him of his mistake. But when we have fully con- ceded that there was no rigid sameness of utterance among the first preachers of the Gospel, we still fall immensely short of what Baur's theory requires us to grant. In order to adopt his view, we must hold that the differences between St. Paul and the elder Apostles were not like those which are known II.] BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. 25 to subsist at the present day between political leaders of the same party — differences which do not prevent them from sitting in the same cabinet and joining in a common policy ; but rather like the differences which separate the leaders of opposite parties, or even of hostile states. The most Ultra- montane Roman Catholic could not think worse of Martin Luther than, if we believe our modern guides, the members of the Church of Jerusalem thought of St. Paul.* The wildest Protestant could not hate the Pope more than St. Paul's Gen- tile converts are imagined to have hated the Apostles of the circumcision. But the most wonderful part of the theory is the alleged end of the schism, in which Peter and Paul came to be regarded as brothers, and held in equal honour. That is the same as if we Protestants held in equal honour Martin Luther and Ignatius Loyola, and as if it was our popular belief that these two great saints had loved each other as brethren. Surely, the Pauline Christians must have been the most for- giving men in the world. They had been victorious along the whole line. The Judaizers had disappeared. No one dreamed of imposing the yoke of circumcision on the Gentiles. Even in the Clementines no such burden is sought to be laid on Gentile converts. Yet these Gentiles agreed in giving equal honour to the great Apostle who had gained them their liberty and to the bigoted Jews who had cast out his name as evil, nicknamed him Balaam and Simon Magus, and orga- nized conspiracy against him wherever he taught ! Surely this is a theory not so recommended by probability that we can afford to condone its deficiency in documentary proof; and, for my part, I am well content to abide by the old representations made by the author of the Acts of the Apostles. * 'Jamais, en effet, I'Eglise chretienne ne porta dans son sein une cause de schisme aussi profonde que celle qui I'agitait en ce moment. Luther et le scholasti- que le plus routinier differaient moins que Paul et Jacques.' — Renan, ' St. Paul,' p. 289. 26 INTRODUCTORY. [iii. III. Part III. THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. I have said that the Apocalypse is also received by Baur, and is acknowledged by him as a genuine work of the apostle John, It is scarcely necessary to say, that he does not look upon it as containing any real prophecy, but merely antici- pations of the future, which have been falsified by the event. In owning the book of the Revelation to be Apostolic, the modern school of destructive criticism is more easy of belief than part of the early Church ; for in the third century there were many who denied the authority of this book, and I shall have occasion afterwards to speak of an argument by Diony- sius of Alexandria, that the difference in style between this book and the Gospel of St. John proves that both could not have the same author. This argument has been eagerly adopted by the modern school, only with a reversal of its application. They hope now, by conceding that the Apoca- lypse is the work of John, to found, upon differences of style, an argument, that the fourth Gospel cannot be his ; and, in fact, it is now alleged to be one of the most certain results of criticism, that these two works cannot have the same author. This, again, suggests a topic which I will not anticipate, as the argument must be considered when I come to discuss the Gospel according to St. John. Suffice it now to say, that the Apocalypse is held to be strongly Jewish and anti-Pauline. In the Epistles to the Seven Churches, Paul is held to be the enemy against whom St. John, writing in our Lord's name, warns his disciples. Indeed, one German teacher of this school (Volkmar) carries out the theory to the absurdity of imagining that by the false prophet predicted as upholding the power of the Beast we are to understand St. Paul. In the Epistle to the Church in Smyrna (ii. 9) we read : — * I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.' And in that to III.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 27 the Church in Philadelphia (iii. 9) : — ' I will make them of the synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews and are not, but do lie, to come and worship before thy feet.' We are asked to believe that those false Jews, with whom St. John has broken so entirely as to call them the synagogue of Satan, are St. Paul and his party. The angel of the Church of Ephesus (ii. 2) is praised because ' he has tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and has found them liars.' Here again we are asked to believe that it was Paul's claim to apostleship which was thus rejected ; and we are again and again invited by Renan to notice the remarkable fact, that in Ephesus, where St. Paul had resided so long, and laboured for a time so successfully, a few years after his departure his followers had completely disappeared, and his claims to apostleship had been generally owned to be based in falsehood. Lastly, you will remember that in the Epistle to the angel of the Church in Pergamos those are condemned (ii. 14, 15) who *hold the doctrine of Balaam,' and also those ' who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.' It had been con- jectured long since — and the conjecture has been received with more favour than I think it deserves — that Nicolaus, * conqueror of the people,' was but a Greek translation of the name Balaam. The etymology seems to me a forced one ; but Renan adopts this view, with the addition, that Balaam was a nickname for St. Paul, and that the doctrine of Balaam, the teaching ' to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication ' (by which he understands marriage with Gentiles, regarded by strict Jews as fornication), was the doctrine of St. Paul. Renan would further have us believe that, in another New Testament place where Balaam is mentioned, St. Paul is intended — I mean the Epistle of Jude {v. 1 1). For though that Epistle is one for which we cannot produce as early testimony as for the rest, and is consequently not admitted into Baur's meagre collection of genuine Apostolic Letters, yet the temptation is great to gain some addition to the scanty evidence of anti-Pauline rancour in the early Church ; and so we have presented to us Jude, the brother of James, describing Paul as a ' filthy dreamer,'. who * defiled the flesh. 28 INTRODUCTORY. [iii. despised dominion, and spoke evil of dignities ' (namely, of the original twelve Apostles), and who ' ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward.' Now we can understand easily how it was that an obscure heretic, in the end of the second century, not daring to attack Paul openly, because he knew that such attack would have condemned his book to exclusion from the whole circle of Christian readers, masked his assault under a false name ; so that while he seemed only to expose the wickedness of Simon Magus, and could even, if a question w^ere raised by any of the orthodox, plausibly maintain that no covert mean- ing was intended, he would yet be understood by the few initiated as gratifying their dislike to Paul. But Apostles such as St. John and St. Jude would have had no need to descend to such subterfuges. It is not consistent with the character of the outspoken ' son of Thunder ' (either as that character is made known to us by Scripture, or in the tra- ditional story of his treatment of the heretic Cerinthus) to suppose that, if there were false teachers whom he thought it his duty to describe as the synagogue of Satan, he would have disguised the object of his reprehension under the veil of Balaam or Nicolaus, and never have ventured to mention the name of Paul. Why should not John, one of the pillar Apostles (Gal. ii. g) of the Church, and Jude, the brother of one of the great three, have courage to speak plainly ? But let that pass : at least their warning must have been intelli- gible at the time it was given. The Church would have known who it was that it was intended to describe; and if so, is it credible that the tradition should have completely perished out of memory, and that Christians, by whom the great Apostle of the Gentiles was held in the highest love and veneration, should still cherish these letters to the Seven Churches, and this Epistle of St. Jude, never once dreaming that they were honouring party pamphlets of an opposing school ? It is worth while to remark how singularly obtuse the Paulinist party were as to the meaning of the assaults levelled against their master; or at least at what an early date all in.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 29 knowledge as to the true meaning of these assaults had per- ished. I have already remarked how innocently the author of the Acts of the Apostles tells the story of Simon Magus, with- out betraying any suspicion that under the mask of this arch- heretic Paul was to be recognized. Twice in the Acts (xv. 20, 29 ; xxi. 25) the same writer goes out of his way to repre- sent the Apostolic heads of the Church of Jerusalem as con- demning the eating meat offered to idols and fornication, in evident ignorance that these two things were prominent heads of the accusation brought against the Pauline Chris- tians by their Jewish opponents. Nay, St. Paul himself is represented as concurring in the condemnation, and as ac- tively employed in disseminating it (xv. 25 ; xvi. 4). Once more, the author of the Second Epistle of Peter (who, if he were not Peter himself, certainly wrote at an early date, and was an ardent admirer of Paul (ch. iii. 15) adopts as his own (ii. 15) all that was said in Jude's Epistle about Balaam, the son of Beor, and clearly has not the smallest suspicion that under that name Peter's * beloved brother ' Paul was in- tended. I shall have occasion to say something hereafter as to the use of tradition in the interpretation of Scripture, and the present instance serves very well to illustrate what that use is. For you can see that these theories as to the reference to Paul, both in the Apocalypse and in the Epistle of Jude, might have deserved some respectful consideration had they dated from the first century instead of the nineteenth. If it had been the case that in early times there was hesitation to acknowledge the authority of these books, on the ground that they dis- paraged the apostleship of Paul, then we should be bound to look the possibility in the face, that tradition had preserved correctly the interpretation put on these documents by those to whom they were first addressed, and to inquire dispas- sionately whether that interpretation were the right one. But an interpretation is condemned at once by the mere fact that it was left to the nineteenth century to discover it, and we may fairly refuse to give it any respectful hearing. But I think it well not to cut the matter short, as I might ; and will 30 INTRODUCTORY. [iii. go on to show that we can find parallels in Paul's Epistles for all the passages that are cited from the Apocalypse as anti-Pauline. It must be remembered that the doctrine of the calling of the Gentiles is taught as distinctly in the Book of the Revela- tion as in the saying of the Gospel — ' Other sheep I have which are not of this fold.' We read, indeed, in the Apoca- lypse of a sealing of 12,000 out of each of the tribes of Israel (vii. 4-8) ; but immediately after the account of the bringing in of this large but still finite number of Jews there follows : 'After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.' And in the mouth of the redeemed is placed a new song unto the Lamb, ' who has redeemed them to God by his blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation' (v. 9). The Apocalypse is said to be Jewish, because the heavenly city is described under the name of the New Jerusalem fxxi. 2) ; but this is the very language of St. Paul in his most anti-Jewish Epistle — ' Jerusalem, which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all' (Gal. iv. 26). For the literal Jerusalem the Apocalypse has no more complimentary names than Sodom and Egypt (xi. 8.) I have already quoted the use made of the words ' those who say they are Jews, and are not' — words imagined to refer to St. Paul and his school. Those whogive them this refe- rence have read Paul's Epistles very carelessly, and have failed to notice one of his most characteristic traits. It is, -hat this Apostle, who combats so strenuously the notion that ihe Jew was to possess exclusive privileges in Christ's king- dom, and that circumcision was to be the condition of admis- sion to it, still retained, as was natural in a Jew by birth, his attachment to the name of Jew and the name of circumcision. Educated as he had been to regard these as titles of honour, and to look down on the uncircumcised Gentile, it pains him to hear his disciples called by the name of the uncircumcision, and he contends that they were the true Jews — theirs the only III.] THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 31 true circumcision. In the Epistle to the Ephesians (ii. 11) he speaks of his Gentile followers as those 'who were called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh, made by hands.' He tells these Gentiles (Col. ii. 11) *ye are circumcised with the circumcision made with- out hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.' In the Epistle to the Philip- pians, when about to give to the Jews the name of the cir- cumcision, he checks himself, and calls them instead the * concision ' ; ' for we,' he says, ' are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh' (iii. 2). In the Epistle to the Galatians he claims for those who walk according to his rule the glorious title of the 'Israel of God' (vi. 16). And in a well-known passage in the Epistle to the Romans (ii. 28) the same doctrine is summed up. ' He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh : but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and cir- cumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.' I suppose there is no stronger mark of genuineness in Paul's Epistles, nor any trait less likely to have occurred to a forger, than this, that his affection for the names of Jew and of circumcision cling to him long after he had ceased to attach any value to the things. It need not surprise us to find the same trait in St. John, who had grown up subject to the same influences ; and we cannot hesitate to believe that those against whom the Seven Churches were warned were the unbelieving Jews, who are pronounced unworthy of the name of Jews, and whose synagogue is called the synagogue of Satan. It deserves to be mentioned that the Jews in Asia Minor long continued to be the most bitter adversaries of the Christian name, and that, when Polycarp was martyred, the Jews were most active in collecting materials for the pyre on which to burn him (Mart. S. Polyc. xiv., Euseb. H. E.'w. 15). As little need it be supposed that in those * who say that they are apostles, and are not,' we must recognize St. Paul. Here again we have an exact parallel in St. Paul's Epistles : 32 INTRODUCTORY. [iii. * Such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming' themselves into the apostles of Christ' (2 Cor. xi. 13). And if any proof were needed of the falsity of the assertion that the Ephesian Church, ten years after St. Paul had founded it, rejected his claims to apostleship, it would be furnished by what immediately follows. For, according to Renan's hy- pothesis, the Church of Ephesus had at the commencement been beguiled into accepting Paul's pretensions, and there- fore would be bound to look back with some shame and regret on its early simplicity. Is there any trace of this in the Apocalyptic Epistles ? Nay; the first state of the Church is recalled as its palmy days. The Church is blamed for having left its first love, and commanded to remember whence it had fallen, and repent and do the first works (ii. 4. 5)- I must not omit to call attention to the extraordinary rapidity ascribed to the supposed counter-revolution in favour of Paulinism. For if we are to believe this theory the elder Apostles must have persevered to the end of their lives in treating Paul as an enemy. St. John, who was their last survivor, must have continued to hold up Paul and his dis- ciples to odium after the death of the Apostle of the Gentiles. No one dates the Apocalypse earlier than the year 69, at which time, according to all tradition, Paul was dead. Up to that time, therefore, those who might be regarded as having the best authority to speak had disowned Paul as a false Christian. Paul therefore must have died an excommuni- cated heretic. Yet, in a quarter of a century later — for that is now the received date of Clement's Roman Epistle — Paul is universally regarded as one of the chief of the Apostles, and as having been the cherished partner of Peter, both in work and in suffering ! (Clem. Rom. 5.) I have spent more time than you may have thought necessar}"- in refuting an utterly baseless hypothesis ; but my excuse is, that this hypothesis is treated as authentic history in almost all modern works in England, Germany, and France, which profess to give the latest results of critical science as applied to our sacred books. IV. RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. Part I. THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. IREN^US, CLEMENT, AND TERTULLIAN. IF I were lecturing on Christian Evidences, I should com- mence my examination of the books of the New Testa- ment with the Epistles of St. Paul. There are some of these which are owned to be genuine by the most sceptical critics, and these universally admitted Epistles are rich in autobio- graphical details, and set Paul vividly before us as a real living, working character. In connexion with Paul's Epistles we should consider the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the latter half of which bears undeniable marks of having ema- nated from a companion of St. Paul's. We have thus the fullest information what Paul believed and taught, and to what sources of information he had access. We cannot doubt that Paul was thoroughly sincere in his belief of what he preached ; and it is certain, also, that the central topic of his i preaching was Christ's Resurrection. ' He is never weary of referring to this cardinal fact. He does not defend or prove it, but constantly assumes it as a fundamental fact about which no believer has any doubt whatever.' This fact which Paul receives so confidently was in his time only a few years old; and, without discussing Paul's claims to have himself D 34 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iv. seen his risen Master, it is unquestionable that he was on terms of intercourse with Peter, James, John, and others who claimed to be original witnesses of the Resurrection. If we desire to know what else Paul taught concerning the events of our Saviour's life, we have the answer in St. Luke's Gospel, which is of indisputably common authorship with the Acts, and therefore proceeded from a m^ember of Paul's company. The order of taking the New Testament books which I have thus sketched offers some advantages, but, owing to inconveniences resulting from adopting it, which I will not delay to describe at length, I have fallen back on the obvious course of commencing with the Gospels. If we can establish that the Gospels contain the story told at the time by men who were eye-witnesses of what they related, and who confirmed their testimony by their sufferings, then, full of miracles as our Gospels are, it has been found practi- cally impossible to refuse belief to them. But if the Gospels were written a hundred years or more after the events which they describe ; if the story is not told by eye-witnesses, but has been improved by passing through several hands ; if there has been time for floating myth and legend to gather round the simple facts, and for men's preconceived notions of what the Messiah ought to do, to ornament the history of what Jesus did; then the intrinsic improbability of every miraculous story outweighs second-hand testimony separated from the original witnesses by so long an interval. Of the two, how- ever, it is a more vital matter with unbelievers to reject the early date of the Gospels than for us to assert it. Bring down the date of the Gospels as low as the most courageous of our adversaries can venture to bring them, and though we thus lose the proof of the greater part of the wonderful works of the Saviour's life, the great miracle of the Resurrection remains untouched. Take St. Paul's abridged account of the (Tospel he had received, as given in an unquestioned Epistle {i Cor. XV. 3-7 j, and, though it is so much shorter than any of the four, it contains quite as much stumbling-block for an anti-supernaturalist — ' that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures ; that he was buried, and that he rose again IV.] THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 3- the third day, according to the Scriptures ; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ; after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once ; after that he was seen of James, then of all the apostles.' Thus, from Paul's writings and from other historical evidence, we can still show that men who could not easily have been deceived as to the truth of Vv/'hat they asserted, and who proved their sincerity by their readiness to face sufferings and martyrdom in attestation of their doctrine, declared that Jesus of Nazareth, the third day after He had died on the cross, rose again from the dead. If this one fact be proved, the cardinal principle of the anti- supernaturalists, the impossibility of miracle, is demolished. Christianity thus could survive the loss of the Gospels ; but infidelity is incompatible with the admission of them, as is evidenced by Strauss's confession, already quoted, that if the Gospels be recognized as historical sources, miracle cannot be eliminated from the life of Jesus. In beginning our inquiry concerning the Gospels, I need not take you much later than, at the latest, the year i8o. In every controversy it is always well to see what facts are undisputed which can be taken as common ground between the parties. Now, to use the words of Strauss, ' it is certain that, towards the end of the second century, the same four Gospels which we have still are found recognized in the Church, and are repeatedly quoted as the writings of the Apostles, and dis- ciples of the Apostles, whose names they bear, by the three most eminent ecclesiastical teachers — Irenseus in Gaul, Cle- ment in Alexandria, and Tertullian in Carthage. There were, indeed, current other Gospels, used not only by heretical parties, but sometimes appealed to by orthodox teachers — a Gospel of the Hebrews and of the Egyptians, a Gospel of Peter, of Bartholomew, of Thomas, of Matthias, of the Twelve Apostles — but the four were, at that time, and from that time downwards, considered as the peculiarly trustworthy foun- dation on which the Christian faith rested' (' Leben Jesu/ § 10, p. 47). I will speak a little about each of these witnesses — viz., Irenseus, Clement, and Tertullian. They are widely separated in space, and they represent the whole extent of D 2 36 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iv. the Christian world. They prove that, if there had been any- previous doubt or uncertainty which of all the documents purporting to contain records of the Saviour's life were to be regarded as of superior authority, that doubt had been removed before the end of the second century, and that the four Gospels which we recognize had then been established in the place of pre-eminence which they have held ever since. Irenseus was Bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, about the year 1 80.* But Irenseus not only represents the testimony of the Galilean Church ; he had been himself brought up in Asia Minor, from which country Gaul had, as we have every reason to believe, derived its Christianity as well as its early civilization. There remains (ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 2) a most interesting record of the connexion between the two countries in an affecting narrative of the persecution of the year 177, addressed by the Christians of Vienne and Lyons to their brethren in Asia Minor. This Epistle, though it does not quote any of the books of the New Testament by name, is so full of passages in which the writer makes the language of these books his own, weaving texts into the narrative, as you constantly hear preachers doing at the present day, that we cannot doubt that the sacred books in use in that early Church were in the main the same as the books of our own New Testament. The bishop at the time of that persecution was Pothinus, a man of about ninety years of age, who must, therefore, have been born before som.e at least of the books of the New Testament were written, and who must have mixed with men contemporary with St. John. His presbyter and successor, Irenaeus, was united by other links to the times of the Apostles. He tells us how well he remembered Poly- carp,t whom in his early years he had known at Smyrna : * I can recall the very place where Polycarp used to sit and teach, his manner of speech, his mode of life, his appearance, * Lipsius, in the ' Dictionary of Christian Biography,' assigns a.d. 130 as the most probable date of the birth of Irenseus; and the period (180-188) as that in which it is likely that the different books of his treatise against heresies were published. t Recent investigations determine a.d. 155 as the date of the martyrdom of Pclycarp, at which time he was about eighty-six years old. IV.] IREN^US. 37 the style of his address to the people, his frequent references to St. John, and to others who had seen our Lord ; how he used to repeat from memory their discourses which he had heard from them concerning our Lord, His miracles and His mode of teaching ; and how, being instructed himself by - those who were eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, there was in all that he said a strict agreement with the Scriptures ' (Epistle to Florinus, ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 20). Observe this word ' Scriptures,' for it is plain that the books to which he gave this venerated title are those which contain the record of our Lord's life — the four Gospels. There is a passage in the work of Irenseus against here- sies which proves that he considered these books as, in the highest sense of the word. Scriptures given by inspiration of God. The passage is interesting as bearing testimony to a New Testament reading not found in our existing Greek manuscripts ; but only in the Latin and in the Curetonian Syriac versions. It concerns the passage where we now read, in the opening of St. Matthew's Gospel, 'The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise' (i. 18). Irenseus is arguing against those who held that Jesus was at first but an ordi- nary man, and only became Christ when the Holy Spirit de- scended on Him in His baptism ; and he remarks (ill. xvi. 2) that Matthew might have said that * the birth of Jestis was on this wise,' but that the Holy Spirit, foreseeing the depravers of the truth, and guarding against their fraud, said by Matthew, ' The birth of Christ was on this wise,'* showing that Christ was born ; in other words, that Jesus was Christ from His birth. Thus what might seem the accidental choice of one form of expression rather than another is ascribed to the directing care of the Holy Spirit. You see then that Irenseus believed not only in the genuineness, but also in the inspiration, of the Gospels. I dare say you have also heard of his reasons why there are exactly four Gospels, neither more nor less. He argues * Potuerat dicere Matthaeus, ' Jesu vero generatio sic erat ' ; sed praevidens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum ait ' Christi autem generatio sic erat.' 38 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iv. (ill. xi. 8) that the Gospel is the pillar of the Church ; the Church is spread over the whole world ; the world has four quarters ; therefore it is fitting there should also be four Gos- pels. Again, the Gospel is the divine breath, or wind of life, for men ; there are four chief winds ; therefore, four Gospels. He builds another argument on the fourfold appearance of the cherubim. The cherubim, he says, are fourfold, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. The first beast was like a lion, signifying His commanding and kingly dignity ; the second like a calf, signifying His priestly office ; the third like a man, denoting His] Incarnation ; the fourth like an eagle, denoting the Holy Spirit flying over the Church. Like these are the Gospels. John, who begins with the Godhead and descent from the Father, is the lion; Luke, who begins with the priesthood and sacrifice of Zacha- rias, is the calf; Matthew, who begins with His human gene- alogy, the man ; Mark, the eagle, who commences with the announcement of the prophetic spirit — ' the beginning of the Gospel as it is written by Isaiah the prophet.' You are aware, I dare say, that this is not the apportionment of the four beasts to the Gospels which ultimately prevailed in the West, John being usually represented as the eagle ; Matthew as the man ; Luke as the ox ; and Mark as the Hon.* Irenaeus goes on to say that Christ's dealings with the world are fourfold. To the patriarchs the word of God came directly ; to those under the Law through the priestly office ; Christ Himself came as man; since then He has dealt with the Church by His Spirit overshadowing the Church with * This apportionment seems to have been introduced into the West by St. Ambrose {in Luc. Praef. 8). It was made more widely known by St. Jerome, who professes therein to follow preceding expositors [Praef. in Matt. ; in Ezek. i. 6). St. Augustine {De Consens. Evangg. i. 9), adopts the same apportionment, except that he assigns the lion to St. Matthew, and the man to St. Mark. He mentions also the arrangement of Irenaeus, but considers that this being founded merely on the manner in which the several Gospels begin, is inferior to an arrangement founded on their general contents. The three terrestrial animals, for instance, are fitly assigned to the three Gospels, which are mainly occupied with our Lord's earthly life : the eagle to the spiritual Gospel of St. John, who soars above the clouds of human infirmity, and with unwavering eyes gazes on the light of immutable truth. IV.] IREN^:US. 3g His wings. Thus the Gospel also is fourfold, and those destroy its fundamental conception who make the number either greater or less ; either desiring to seem to have found out more than the truth, or rejecting part of God's dispensa- tion. The main point in this quotation is, that Irenseus considers the fourfold character of the Gospels to have been divinely arranged. We are not concerned with the validity of his mystical explanations, but with the manifest inference that the pre-eminence of four Evangelists must have been, in the time of Ireneeus, long established, else he would not thus ascribe it to divine appointment. Strauss quotes these mystical explanations of Irenseus with a view to disparage his testimony; but he is forced to admit that the fanciful character of his reasons why there are only four Gospels does not discredit his testimony to the fact that four, and only four, were then acknowledged by the universal Church ; and he owns that the reasons given by Irenaeus are not his grounds for receiving only four Gospels, but only his mode of justifying a belief adopted on other grounds.* Thus you see that, without producing a single other witness, we have proof that towards the end of the second century the Church held the belief that is commonly held by the Church of the present day, namely, that the four Gospels are to be vene- rated as inspired records of our Saviour's life, and that no others can be placed on a level with these. Test by the evidence of this one witness the theory of some, that St. John's Gospel made its first appearance about the year 150 or 160. Is it credible that, if so, Irenaeus could have accepted a forgery of which, according to the hypothesis, his master Polycar.p had never told him a word ? For Poly- carp, who, as I said just now, tised to repeat from memory the discourses which he had heard from John, could not have been silent about this work, which, if genuine, would be St. * ' Diese seltsame Beweisfiihrung ist zwar nicht so zu verstehen, als waren die angegebenen Umstande der Grund gewesen, wanim Irenaus nicht mehr und niclit weniger Evangelien annahm ; vielmehr hatten sich diese vier eben damals in den Kreisen der nach Glaubenseinheit strebenden katholischen Kirche in vorziiglichcu Credit gesetzt, und dieses gegebene Verhaltniss suchte sich Irenaus im Geiste seiner Zeit zurechtzulegen ' {^ lo, p. 48). 40 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iv. John's most precious legacy to the Church ; and the fact that it had not been mentioned by Polycarp would convince Irenaeus that it was an audacious imposture. And again, it is impossible that Polycarp could have accepted as genuine a work of which he had never heard his master, John, speak. There are, in short, three links in the chain — St. John, Poly- carp, Irenaeus ; and I do not see how it is possible to dissever any one of them from the other two. Similar observations may be made about the conclusions of the author of the work called ' Supernatural Religion.' Other sceptical writers had thought they had done great things if they could bring John's Gospel as late as 150 or 160, allowing the Synoptic Gospels to date from the beginning of the century. This writer iamgines that he has demolished all evidence for the existence of the Synoptic Gospels prior to the age of Irenaeus, and will only allow them to count from the very end of the second century. But it is plain that the evidence of Irenaeus, even if we had no other, takes us back a long way behind his own time. Books newly come into existence in his time could not have been venerated as he venerated the Gospels. What length of time must we allow for these books to have come into such esteem, that what might be regarded as their chance expressions should be considered as directed by the Spirit of God, and that among all the different attempts to relate the life of Christ none should seem fit to be put in comparison with these four } I suppose fifty years would be a very moderate allowance of time for such a growth of opinion : for the credit of these books mainly rested on a belief that they were of apostolic origin, and if they had been anywhere known to have been recent modifications of an older story, they could not have superseded their progenitors ; so that we may fairly conclude that the time of their appearance was beyond then living- memory. Well, then, what we have thus learned from Ire- naeus is of important use when we come presently to look at the works of the generation next before him. When we find in these works what seem to be quotations from our Gospels, we shall not easily be persuaded by small verbal IV.] CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 4 1 differences that the writers are drawing from some unknown sources, and not from books which we are certain, from Ire- nseus, must in their time have existed, and have been of such credit in the Church as to be well known to these writers. The second witness to whom I have appealed gives us the verdict of another large portion of the Christian world. Cle- ment* of Alexandria lived in what was perhaps the city in all the world where literary criticism was most cultivated. He had been there the disciple of Pantaenus, who very possibly may have been personally connected with disciples of the Apostles. And Clement travelled and learned from other in- structors of various nations, whose names he does not tell us, but only their nationalities, an Ionian, an Italian, a Syrian, an Egyptian, an Assyrian, a Hebrew in Palestine. ' These men,' as he says, ' preserving the true tradition of the blessed teaching directly from Peter and James, from John and Paul, son re- ceiving it from father, came by God's providence even to us to deposit among us those seeds of truth which were derived from their ancestors and the Apostles' [Sh'om. i. 11). It is needless to quote particular passages from Clement : suffice it to say, that there is no more doubt as to his use of the Gospels than there is as to the place assigned them by any clergyman of the present day. He has traditions to tell con- cerning the composition of Mark's and of John's Gospel, both of which he regards as later than Matthew's and Luke's. That, like Irenseus, he recognized as authoritative four Gos- pels, neither more nor less, may be inferred from the manner in which he deals with a saying ascribed to our Lord [Strom. iii. 13) — 'We have not this saying in the four Gospels which have been handed down to us ; it is found in the Gospel according to the Egyptians.'! Besides this Gospel according * Clement, possibly a Greek by birth, was born about the middle of the second century, and was head of the Catechetical School in Alexandria (192-202). We last hear of him as alive in 211 (Euseb. H. E. vi. 11). t Some have doubted whether Clement had himself seen the Gospel according to the Egyptians. He had said a little before that ' he thought ' (oF^itoi) that the passage under discussion was to be found in the Gospel according to the Egyptians. It has been inferred, therefore, that this was either a book which he only knew by hearsay, or else one which it was so long since he had looked into, that he did not quite like to trust his memory in speaking of it. 42 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iv. to the Egyptians, he was acquainted with other apocryphal writings — a Gospel according to the Hebrews, Traditions of Matthias, and others; but the passage I have just cited is evidence enough that, in his estimation, no other account of the Saviour's deeds or words stood on the level of the four Gospels. When we compare the quotations of Clement and Irenaeus a new phenomenon presents itself, which throws back the date of the Gospels still further behind their own times. We become aware of the existence of various readings. In fact, in some of the texts, where the reading is now controverted, there are second century witnesses on opposite sides. And the general type of the text in use in Alexandria was different from that in use in the West. Thus you see that the Gospels were not only in existence at the end of the second century, but they had by that time been copied and re-copied so often, that errors from transcription and otherwise had time to creep in, and different families of text to establish themselves. The third witness to whom I have appealed, TertuUian,* who also lived at the end of the second century, represents a different section of the Church — the Latin-speaking section ; and TertuUian, though himself a Greek scholar, habitually used a Latin version made before his time. Nothing need be said as to TertuUian's use of the Gospels, about which there is as little question as about my own use of them ; but a few remarks may be made as to this version. The first Latiil translation does not appear to have been made, as one might have expected, for the use of the Roman Christians. Rome under the Emperors was in great measure, as Juvenal called it, a Greek city, and Greek was its second language. As far as we can learn, the great bulk of the early Christians in Rome were not native Romans, but belonged to that large foreign element in the population of the city which habitually spoke Greek. What we know of London enables us easily to realise the foreign element in Rome. It is said that there are * The data for fixing the chronology of TertuUian's writings are scanty ; but we shall not be far wrong in counting that he first appeared as a Church writer about 197, and that he continued his literary activity some thirty years longer. IV.] THE LATIN VERSION. 43 in London more Irishmen than in Dublin, more Frenchmen than in any French city except Paris, and similarly for other nationalities. Rome, as the world's metropolis, had even greater attractions for strangers than London ; and the popu- lation, besides, included a large proportion of slaves, all necessarily foreigners. It would, therefore, not in the least surprise me if it turned out that in the time of Nero there were more Jews in Rome than in Jerusalem ; these Jewish resi- dents in foreign parts being known to their brethren at home as Hellenists, from their habitual use of the Greek language. It was, no doubt, to this Jewish colony in Rome that the Gospel first found admission, working its way by a process of slow diffusion, first to other foreign settlers in Rome, then to Greek-speaking Romans, whether Jewish proselytes or friends of Judaism ; last of all to the Latin-speaking population. It was to speakers of Greek that Paul's Epistle to the Romans was addressed. Ancient tradition describes the Gospel of St. Mark as composed for the use of Roman Christians (Clem. Alex., ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 14) ; and this harmonizes with the occurrence of Latin words in this Gospel : KoZpavTi]q, xii. 42 ; KEVTwpiwv, XV. 39, 44, where in the parallel passages Matth. and Luke have tKaroirap^^rje ; cr;r£KOwXara(,o, vi. 27; Ikuvov ttoihv, for satisfacere, xv. 15 ; though one dare not lay too great stress on this topic, for some Latin words forced themselves into use all over the empire, and are to be found in other New Testa- ment books, and in early Christian writings not composed at Rome. In any case, the Epistle of Clement of Rome, in the name of his Church, was written in Greek ; so was also another early Roman production, the * Shepherd of Hermas.' In the long list of salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans only four Latin names occur. In the list of Roman bishops of the first two centuries only two Latin names occur, until about the year igo we come to Victor, after which Greek and Latin names alternate for awhile. Of the inscriptions in the Roman catacombs belonging to the second and third cen- turies half are Greek ; and, what is curious, some of the Latin ones are in Greek characters, which suggests that the stone- cutters who made them were more familiar with working in 44 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [iv. Greek. It has been conjectured with good reason that Greek was at first the liturgical language of the Church of Rome. Many Greek words continued long in Roman liturgical use, and the words Kyrie Eleisoiiy Christe Eleison, remain down to our own time. But meanwhile Christianity rapidly spread in Africa, where Greek was not a current dialect. Latin was the lan- guage of the African Church, and we have certain evidence that they had a Latin translation of the Scriptures. In fact the Christian custom of making the reading of the Bible a part of the public worship made translations a thing of neces- sity wherever the original language was not understood ; for I need not say that public worship in an unknown tongue was then unheard of. The language of the early Latin version has been held to bear unmistakeable traces of its African origin, as appears from comparing it with the productions of African writers. I would hardly venture to insist very strongly on this argument, because I believe that what is called African Latin did not materially differ from the type of the language used by the less highly cultured in Italy. I have therefore dwelt at greater length on the proofs that Rome was that part of the West which could longest afford to do without a Latin translation ; whence we have less hesita- tion in accepting the indications presented by style, that the early Latin translation was first made for the use of those flourishing towns in Northern Africa which kept up too active an intercourse with Rome to be long strangers to Christia- nity, but where there was no such mixture of Greek-speaking people as in Rome itself. We have abundant evidence from Tertullian that there was in his time a Latin version of the New Testament current in Africa, for he more than once finds fault with its render- ings, one of them being that of the first verse of St. John's Gospel, in which the word 'Logos' was translated by Sermo, which thus became its African equivalent. Tertullian would have preferred < Ratio ' [adv. Fraxean 5). I may say in passing that the difficulty here found by Tertullian— that of adequately rendering the Greek word 'Logos' — has been experienced by IV.] TERTULLIAN. 45 every translator of the New Testament. For ' Logos ' not only means the spoken word — the only sense suggested by our English version — but still more, as Tertullian renders it, reason. And so the early Greek fathers give the double sense to the term in the Prologue of St. John, inferring that it designates the Second Person of the Trinity not only as God's spoken Word, by which He made known his will to men, but also as having before this utterance dwelt from eter- nity with the Father ; some analogy to help us to conceive such an indwelling being found in the dwelling in man of the principle of reason. So it is that the Fathers almost unani- mously interpret the description of Wisdom in the 8th of Pro- verbs, of the Second Person of the Trinity, whom the Collect in daily use in our own College Chapel describes as ' the Eternal Wisdom of the Father.' This interpretation was received by the Arians as well as the orthodox. Now this fact, that Tertullian had in use a version the renderings of which he criticized, throws back the range of Tertullian's testimony. We must allow some considerable time for a version to acquire such currency as to mould the popular theological dialect, and to give authority to renderings which were in the judgment of good scholars capable of im- provement. Towards the end of the second century it is not only the fact that our Gospels are in sole possession all over the Christian world, but translations of them have gained an established rank. That is to say, at the time when it is doubted if our Gospels were born, we find their children full grown. I believe, then, that if anyone fairly weighs all that is involved in the undisputed fact that Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian show that at the end of the second century all the principal books of our New Testament were received all over the civilized world as the works of the authors to whom we still ascribe them, he will own it to be unreasonable to demand further evidence, when we do not dream of requiring such evidence in the case of any secular work. The remains of the first generation of Christians are scanty, and of the few works that have come down to us. several are 46 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. apologies intended for heathen readers,* to whom it would not be appropriate to cite the New Testament Scriptures. There is an advantage then in commencing with that age of which we have remains so full and abundant as to leave no room for controversy as to the sentiments of the writers ; and which at the same time is so near the age of the Apostles, that what was then the undisputed established opinion as to the authorship of their sacred books, held by common consent of distant Churches, is very likely to be a true opinion, Should a question arise some centuries hence whether Pope wrote the ' Dunciad ' and the ' Rape of the Lock,' or whether Goldsmith wrote the 'Deserted Village' and the 'Vicar of Wakefield,' it would go far to settle the question, if it were proved that in our generation no doubt was entertained by anyone on the matter, even if all preceding testimony had perished. Though, in my opinion, the testimony of the three witnesses already considered might suffice to produce conviction, we can produce trustworthy evidence of considerably earlier date, which will be the subject of future Lectures. V. Part II. MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. CAIUS— HIPPOLYTUS. It would take more time than I can ask you to give, if I were to bring before you all the second century testimonies to the Gospels ; and I had intended to go back at once from the three witnesses whose testimony is admitted by Strauss to Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of the second cen- * From the nature of the case references to the New Testament books are infre- quent in works addressed to such readers ; for example, if only TertuUian's 'Apology' had come down to us it would not have been possible to prove that he was acquainted with the Gospels. v.] MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 47 tury ; but I see that to do this would oblige me to omit some things of which I think you ought to be told, and with which I mean to occupy the present Lecture. I call your attention, in the first place, to a very interesting document, commonly known as the Muratorian fragment on the Canon. It is a list of the books accepted at its date as authoritative, and it is called Muratorian because first published, in the year 1740, by the Italian scholar Muratori, from a manuscript now, as then, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, but which had origi- nally belonged to the great Irish monastery of Bobbio. This manuscript is a collection of extracts from various authors, made about the eighth century, and the particular extract with which we have now to deal must have been made from what was then a mutilated manuscript, which the transcriber was desirous to preserve ; for the existing manuscript is quite perfect — no leaves are lost ; but the extract begins in the middle of a sentence, and ends quite as abruptly. It bears marks of having been a rude translation from the Greek; and the transcriber was clearly a very indifferent Latin scholar, for his work is full of misspellings and other blunders, such as in some places quite to obscure their meaning. In fact, it •was as a specimen of such blundering that Muratori first pub- lished it. So much interest attaches to this extract, as containing the earliest extant attempt to give anything like a formal list of New Testament books, that I must not grudge the time necessary for laying before you the internal evidence which approximately fixes the date of the composition of the work from which the extract was taken.* In reading Paley's * Evi- * A monograph on the Muratorian Fragment was published by Tregellesin 1867. Considerable additional light was thrown on it by Dr. Westcott, the results of whose study of it are given in the appendix to his 'New Testament Canon,' p. 514. As I have frequently occasion to refer to this Fragment, it is convenient to print it here entire, as restored by Westcott ; but it will be observed that some passages are too corrupt to be restored with certainty. For a transcript of the actual text I refer to Westcott's 'New Testament Canon,' and for other sources of information to my article, Muratorian Fragment, in Smith's ' Dictionary of Christian Biography.' . . . quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit. Tertium Evangelii librum secundum Lucan, Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi, cum eum Paulus quasi ut juris stndiosum secundum adsumsisset, nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit. Dominum 48 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. dences' last year you must have become familiar at least with the name of the ' Shepherd of Hermas.' This work is quoted as inspired by Irenseus and Clement of Alexandria; and in the third century Origen hazarded the conjecture that it might have been written by Hermas, who is mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans ; and this, though, as I say, a compara- tively late conjecture, has been accepted by some as if it were tradition. The Muratorian fragment gives a different account of the authorship, and one which has all the air of being tra- dition, and not conjecture. It would appear that, at the time this fragment was written, there was some disposition to accept the 'Shepherd' as canonical ; for, in a passage where^ notwithstanding corruption of text, the writer's general mean- ing can be clearly made out, he lays down that this book may be read, but not be publicly used, with the Apostles and Prophets, whose number is complete, seeing that it was written ' very recently in our own time by Hermas, while his brother Pius sat in the chair of the see of Rome.' Now, the date when Pius was Bishop of Rome is variously given ; those who place him latest make him bishop between 142-157 ; so tamen nee ipse vidit in carne, et idem prout assequi potuit, ita et a nativitate Johan- nis incepit dicere. Quarti evangeliorum Johannes ex discipulis. Cohortantibus con- discipulis et episcopis suis dixit, conjejunate mihi hodie triduum et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret. Et ideo licet varia singulis Evangeliorum libris principia doceantur, nihil tamen differt credentium fidei, cum uno ac principali Spiritu declarata sint in omnibus omnia de nativitate, de passione, de resurrectione, de conversatione cum discipulis suis ac de gemino ejus advento, primum in humilitate despectus, quod fuit, secundum potestate regali pras- clarum, quod futurum est. Quid ergo mirum si Johannes tam constanter singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semetipsum, ' Quae vidimus oculis nostris et auribus audivimus, et manus nostras palpaverunt, haec scripsimus.' Sic enim non solum visorem, sed et auditorem, sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium domini per ordinem profitetur. Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optima Theophilo comprendit, quia sub praesentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. Epistulae autem Pauli, quae, a quo loco, vel qua ex causa directse sint, volentibus in- tellegere ipsae declarant. Primum omnium Corinthiis schisma haeresis interdicens, deinceps Galatis circumcisionem, Romanis autem ordine scripturarum, sed et princi- pium earum esse Christum intimans, prolixius scripsit ; de quibus singulis necesse est V.J MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 4q the question as to the date of the fragment is, How long after could a writer fairly describe this period as ' nuperrime tem- poribus nostris' ? It is urged that we cannot well make this interval much more than twenty years. I have been accus- tomed to speak of the definition of the dogma of Papal Infal- libility at the Vatican Council of 1870 as very recent, and as an event of our own time, though I begin to doubt whether I can go on much longer with propriety in using such language ; but though the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 is also an event of my own time, you would think it strange if I called it very recent, seeing that it occurred before most of you were born. It is concluded, therefore, that the date of this fragment cannot be much later than 1 70. There is, however, great difficulty in finding any writer of that date to whom it can be plausibly assigned, especially as internal evidence limits us to Rome or Italy as the place of composition. This consideration sets aside a very improb- able guess of the late Baron Bunsen — Hegesippus, commonly called, but probably incorrectly, the earliest ecclesiastical a nobis disputari, cum ipse beatus Apostolus Paulus, sequens prodecessoris sui Johannis ordinem nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat ordine tali ; ad Coriu- thios (prima), ad Ephesios (secunda), ad Philippenses (tertia), ad Colossenses (quarla), ad Galatas (quinta), ad Thessalonicenses (sexta), ad Romanes (septima). Verum Corinthiis et Thessalonicensibus licet pro correptione iteretur, una tamen per omnem orbcin terrse ecclesia diffusa esse dinoscitur ; et Johannes enim in Apocalypsi, licet septem ecclesiis scribat, tamen omnibus dicit. Verum ad Philemonem unam, et ad Titum unam, et ad Timotheum duas, pro affectu et dilectione ; in honore tamen ecclesise catholics in ordinatione ecclesiasticse disciplinse sanctiticatse sunt. Fertur etiam adLaodicenses, alia ad Alexandrines, Pauli nomine finctse ad hseresim Marcionis, et alia plura, quae in catholicam ecclesiam recipi non potest . fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit. Epistula sane Judas et superscripti Johannis duas in Catholica habentur ; et Sapientia ab amicis Solomonis in honorem ipsius scripta. Apocalypses etiam Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt. Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae Ecclesise Pio Episcopo fratie ejus ; et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare vero in Ecclesia populo, neque inter prophetas, completum numero, neque inter apostolos in finem temporum potest. Arsinoi autem sen Valentini vel Metiad [ ] nihil in totum recipimus. Qui etiam novum psalmorum Hbrum Marcioni conscripserunt, una cum Basilide, Assiano Cataphrygum constitutorera. . . . E 50 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. historian. The extracts from his work which have been pre- served by Eusebius, and by which alone he is now known, though historical in their character, are thought by the best recent critics more likely to have been taken from a doctrinal or controversial book than from a regular history. Hege- sippus lived about the right time, but he had no connexion with Italy: and besides, since Eusebius tells us that in the passages he cites from earlier writers he had particularly in view to illustrate the testimony borne by them to the New Testament Scriptures [H. E. iii. 3), I count it improbable that, it Eusebius had found in Hegesippus so remarkable an enumeration of books owned as canonical, he would not have made some mention of it. Muratori himself, when he pub- lished the fragment, conjectured as its author Caius, the Roman presbyter; and there is vastly more to be said for that guess than for Bunsen's. Caius was the author of a dialogue against the Montanists. The dialogue has been lost, but Eusebius [H. E. vi. 20) tells us that, in rebuking the rashness and impudence of the Montanists in composing new Scriptures, he counts only thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, omitting that to the Hebrews. Thus it seems certain that this lost dialogue contained a list of canonical books, which Caius set down, intending by this closed Canon to exclude Montanist additions. It is natural to ask, then, May not this Muratorian list be the very list of Caius ? Like that, it was drawn up at Rome ; and like that also, it only counts thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, leaving out the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the date has been thought a fatal objection. Caius wrote in the episcopate of Zephyrinus — we may say about the year 210; how, then, could he speak of the year 140 or 150 as very recent ? The objection is a serious, but I do not count it a fatal one. When a writer is only known to us by a single fragment, we have no means of judging of his habitual carefulness in the use of language, and so we are not safe in considering ourselves bound to put the strictest interpretation on his words. Instances have been produced where similar expressions have been used about events which happened a century or two ago. Everything is comparative. v.] MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. cj We should call Luther and Calvin quite modern writers if anyone imagined them to be contemporary with St. Auo-us- tine. Although, as I said just now, I should not dream, in ordinary conversation, of describing an event of the year 1854 as quite recent; yet, if I were writing controversially, and contrasting the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with the articles of the Apostles' Creed, it would not be in the least unnatural if I described the former as a dogma formulated ' quite recently and in our own time.' And I might say this even if the promulgation of the doctrine had been fifty years earlier than it was. Why, even Pope Pius's Creed, which was made some three hundred years ago, is often spoken of as quite new when it is put in comparison with the Nicene Creed. Now, the object of Caius (as described by Eusebius) and of the author of the fragment clearly was controversial ; it was to draw a broad line of separation between the inspired writings of the Apostolic age and modern additions ; and, therefore, we need not press too closely the energetic language with which the author of the fragment protests against placing on a level in Church read- ing with the Sacred Scriptures a writing that he believed to be no older than Pope Pius I. Now a careful examination of the ' Shepherd of Hermas ' has quite convinced me that, instead of being a work of the middle of the second century, it dates from its very beginning. If the Aluratorian writer has made a mistake about the date of Hermas, it is likely he was not so near a contemporary of Pius as people have thought. I have also found reason, on investigating the history of Montanism, which clearly is com- bated in the Muratorian fragment, to think that it did not make its appearance in the West until a little after the year 200. On these and other grounds* I have come to the con elusion that the fragment is of the same age as the dialogue of Caius; and, then, I do not think I can fairly refuse to accept Muratori's hypothesis, although I had at one time been rather inclined to ascribe the fragment to Caius's con- * See Smith's ' Dictionary of Christian Biography,' Arts. Muratorian Frag- iiENT and Montanism. E 2 C2 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. temporary Hippolytus, on the ground that the whole tone of the fragment is rather didactic than controversial — rather the lesson of a master to disciples than of a disputant with oppo- nents. Bishop Lightfoot,* in 1868, published an ingenious theory that Caius and Hippolytus were the same person under different names ; but, though he persuaded me for awhile, I have come back, on more careful study, to the old opinion, that they were different persons, but contemporary. I have frankly told you my own opinion, but you must remember this is only my individual notion, and that the received doctrine of scholars (orthodox and sceptical alike) is that the document is not later than 170 or 180. It is a pity that the impossibility of laying before you any view but that which, however mistakenly, I believe to be true, obliges me both to be guilty of the immodesty of setting myself in oppo- sition to the received opinion of scholars, and also to forego the controversial advantage that arises from accepting the date commonly ascribed to the fragment. According to that date, we gain a witness to our Canon, who, if not many years earlier than Irenseus, would be at least an elder contempo- rary: according to my view, he is but a younger contemporary (for both Caius and Hippolytusf are said to have been dis- ciples of Irenseus), and the main value of the fragment is the testimony it gives to the wide line of distinction that at that early date was drawn between canonical books and the most valued of uninspired writings. I shall frequently have occa- sion to refer to this document in the course of these lectures. * ' Journal of Philology,' I. 98. If Lightfoot has succeeded in proving that the works ascribed to each might conceivably have been written by the same person, this would at most establish a possibility of identification. But I consider his argument to be vitiated by the tacit assumption that the book called ' The Labyrinth,' of which Photius speaks, is the same as the ' Little Labyrinth ' spoken of by Theodoret. Tlie former I count to be the same as the ' Refutation of all Heresies,' and as the work of Hippolytus ; the latter I count to be the same as what Photius calls the treatise ' against the heresy of Artemon ' ; and in Diet. Chr. Biog. iii. 98, I have given some reasons for thinking that this treatise was not written by Hippolytus. t These writers were both leading members of the Church of Rome in the first quarter of the third century. It is likely that each may have commenced his literary activity before the end of the second. v.] MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 53 At present I will merely report the account it gives of the Gospels. The fragment begins with a few words which evidently are the end of a description of St. Mark's Gospel, for it pro- ceeds to describe what it calls the third book of the Gospels, that by Luke, whom it states to have been a companion of Paul, but not to have himself seen our Lord in the flesh, mention being made that he commenced his history from the nativity of John the Baptist. The fourth Gospel it states to have been written by St. John on the suggestion of his fellow-disciples and bishops (by which, I suppose, is meant the other Apostles), wherepon John proposed that they should all fast three days, and tell each other whatever might be revealed to any, and it was the same night re- vealed to Andrew that, under the revision of all, John should in his own name write an account of everything. Wherefore, it adds, although the teaching of the separate books be diver- sified, it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since in all, by one guiding Spirit, are declared all things concerning our Lord's Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, conversation with His disciples, and concerning His double Advent — the first in humility, which is past ; the second in royal majesty, which is still to come.* Thus full and clear is the testimony of the latter half of the second century, not only to the genuineness of the four Gospels, but to their inspiration. If nothing more could be adduced, it is better evidence than that which satisfies us in the case of most classical writers. * It would be interesting if there were clear evidence that the work from which our fragment was taken was read by any ancient author. I think it, therefore, worth while to copy the account which St. Jerome, in the preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew, gives of the four Gospels, because the coincidences with our fragment, which I have marked in Italics, seem to me more than accidental. ' Primus omnium Matthceus est publicanus, cognomento Levi, qui Evangelium in Jud^a Hebrreo ser- mone edidit : ob eorum vel maxime caussam, qui in Jesum crediderant ex J udreis, et nequaquam legis umbram, succedente Evangeli veritate, servabant. Secundus Marcus, interpres Apostoli Petri, et Alexandrinse Ecclesise primus episcopus ; qui Dominum Salvatoreni ipse 7ion vidit, sed^ea quoe magistrum audierat prsedicantem, juxta fidem magis gestorum narravit quam ordinem. Tertius Lucas medicus, natione Syrus Antiochensis, cujus laus in Evangelic, qui et ipse discipulus Apostoli Pauli, in Acaaicc Boeotioeque partibus volumen condidit, quaedam altius repetcns : ct ut ipse 54 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. As I have had occasion to mention these two disciples of Irenaeus — Caius and Hippolytus — I have a few words more to say about each. In point of antiquity they may be regarded as on a level with Clement and Tertullian, though but younger contemporaries of Irenseus, And I may say in passing, in connexion with what I said as to the long continuance of a large Greek element in the Roman Church, that although Caius and Hippolytus both held office in that Church in the first quarter of the third century, all that remains of either is in Greek ; and Hippolytus published so many Greek books, including some sermons, that I am not without doubts whether he could use Latin at all for literary purposes. In speaking of Irenaeus, I mentioned that he builds an argument on the words of a text in St. Matthew's Gospel, in such a way as to show that he was a believer in the verbal inspiration of the Evangelist ; that is to say, that he looked on the choice of the Evangelist of one word rather than another as a matter to be regarded not as due to the acci- dental caprice of the human writer, but as directed and over- ruled by the Holy Spirit. It is plain that anyone who holds such an opinion about any book must feel himself bound to see that special care shall be used in the transcription of it, in order that no copyist may carelessly or wdlfully substitute words of his own for the words dictated by the Holy Ghost. It is notorious with what care the Massoretic text of the Old Testament has been preserved by men who thought that a mystery might lie in every word, every letter of the sacred in prooemio confitetur audita magis quam visa describens. Ultimus Johannes Apostolus et Evangelista, quem Jesus amavit plurimum ; qui supra pectus Domini recumbens, purissima doctrinarum fluenta potavit, et qui solus de cruce meruit audire, Ecce mater tua. Is quum esset in Asia, et jam tunc hsereticorum semina pullularent, Cerinthi, Ebionis, et cacterorum qui negant Christum in came venisse (quos et ipse in Epistola sua Antichristos vocat, et Apostolus Paulus frequenter percutit), coactus est ah omnibus pene tunc Asia episcopis et 7niiltarutn ecclesiarurn legationibus de divinitate salvatoris altius scribere ; et ad ipsum (ut ita dicam) Dei Verbum, non tarn audaci, quam felici temeritate prorumpere. Et ecclesiastica narrat historia, quum a fratribus cogeretur ut scriberet, ita facturum se respondisse si indicto jejunio omnes Deum precarentur^ quo expleto, revelatione saturatus, in illud prooemium ccelo veni- ens eructavit : In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Ver- bum ; Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.' v.] CAIUS. 55 text. What kind of care was used in the time of Irenaeus we may gather from an interesting adjuration which he prefixed to a work of his own — ' Whosoever thou art who shalt tran- scribe this book, I charge thee with an oath by our Lord Jesus Christ and by His glorious appearing, in which He cometh to judge the quick and dead, that thou carefully compare what thou hast transcribed, and correct it according to this copy whence thou hast transcribed it ; and that thou transcribe this oath in like manner, and place it in thy copy' (Euseb., H. E., V. 20). We may safely assume that Irenaeus would be solicitous that fully as much care and reverence should be used in perpetuating the text of the Gospels, which he vene- rated so highly ; and we may, therefore, regard the end of the second century as a time when a check was being put on the licentiousness of scribes in introducing variations into the text of the New Testament writings. It is in reference to this point that I think it worth while to make a quotation from Caius. Eusebius {H. E., v. 28) has preserved some extracts from a work directed against the followers of Artemon, who, of those calling themselves Christians, was amongst tha earliest to hold our Blessed Lord to have been mere man. Internal evidence shows the work to belong to the beginning of the third century, and it has been ascribed both to Caius and Hippolytus ; but the greater weight of critical authority, and, in my opinion, also far the greater weight of evidence, is in favour of the ascription to Caius. The writer pronounces the doctrine of our Lord's simple humanity to be in contradic- tion to the Holy Scriptures ; and it is plain, from the nature of the case, that the writings which he thus describes as Holy Scriptures, and as teaching the doctrine of our Lord's Di- vinity, must have been Scriptures of the New Testament. But from a later part of the same writing it appears that the subject of various readings had, at that early date, given rise to controversy. Caius accuses his opponents of having tam- pered with the Holy Scriptures, of having published what they called 'corrected' copies, but which, in his judgment, were simply ruined. He appeals to the fact that different ' cor- rectors' did not agree among themselves, and that the same 56 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v man was not always consistent with himself, his later text being often at variance with his earlier ; and he adds : ' I think they can hardly be ignorant themselves what impudent audacity their offence involves. For either they do not be- lieve the divine Scriptures to have been spoken by the Holy Spirit, and then they are nothing but infidels ; or else they think that they are wiser than the Holy Spirit, and who could entertain such an idea but a demoniac ? ' We have not the means of judging whether the anger of Caius was justly roused by perversions of the sacred text, wilfully made in order to remove its testimony to our Lord's Divinity, or whether he was but the blind champion of a Textus Receptus against more learned critical revisers. The important point for us to observe is how strongly the doctrine of Scripture Inspiration was held at the beginning of the third century ; and you will see how well justified I am in thinking it need- less, in our investigation about the Gospels, to go below the age of Irenaeus, the tradition which he handed on to his dis- ciples being identical with that which the Church has held ever since. It might seem, then, needless to say anything about Hip- polytus, whose literary activity mainly belonged to the first quarter of the third century ; and so it would be needless, if the question were merely about his own opinions ; but the chief value of Hippolytus consists in the information he has preserved to us about the sentiments of earlier writers, and these men whose testimony is of high value to us in the present investigation, namely, the heretics of the second century. We are never so secure that a tradition has been trans- mitted to us correctly as when it comes through different in- dependent channels. For example, to touch by anticipation on subjects on which I shall have to speak at more length in other courses of Lectures, the value of a version as a witness in any controversy respecting the true text of the sacred writings depends on the facts that the version is, for all essential purposes, a duplicate of the manuscript from which the translation was made, and that the corruptions which the v.] HIPPOLYTUS. 57 two will suffer in the process of transcription are likely to be different, since words resembling each other in one language will probably not correspond to words easily interchanged in the other. Hence things in which the version and copies of the original agree may safely be counted to be as old as the time when the translation was made. In like manner, if, in any investigation as to the liturgical usages of the Eastern Church, we find details of Eucharistic celebration common to the Catholics, the Nestorian, and the Eutychian sects, we may safely reckon these details to be at least as ancient as the time when the splitting- off of these sects took place; for the simple reason, that it is very unlikely that anything subse- quently introduced in one of mutually hostile communities would be adopted by the other. Similarly, if we find books enjoying the prerogatives of Scripture in orthodox Churches and heretical sects alike, we may safely conclude that these books had gained their position before the separation of the heretical sects in question. A forgery of later date would not be likely to be accepted by both alike, and to be treated as common ground on which both could argue. The work of Hippolytus, which has thrown a great deal of light on the Gnostic speculations of the second century, has only become known in my own time, having been pre- served in only a single manuscript, which was brought from Mount Athos to Paris, and published for the first time in 1851. The title is the 'Refutation of all Heresies.' The method of refutation which Hippolytus principally employed is one which was probably not very convincing to the heretics, but is very convenient to us, and probably was quite enough for his orthodox readers. It consisted in simply repeating the heretics' doctrine in their own words. In this way we obtain a knowledge of several heretical writings, of which, except through this book of Hippolytus, we should not have heard. Now common to all these writings is the copious use as authoritative of our four Gospels, and in particular of that Gospel whose date has been brought down lowest, the Gospel according to St. John. We do not gain much by these cita- tions when the heretics quoted are only known to us by the 58 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. extracts given by Hippolytus ; for then it is open to any objector to say, Oh! perhaps these writers were contemporary with Hippolytus himself, or very little older. Who can assure us that the heretical documents dragged to light by Hippo- lytus had been in circulation for a dozen years before he ex- posed them ? But the heretics from whose works Hippolytus gives extracts are not all of them unknown persons. I name in particular Basilides and Valentinus, who hold a prominent place in the lists of everyone who has written about the heretics of the second century. Basilides taught in the reign of Hadrian — let us say about the year 130 — and Valentinus taught in Rome between the years 140 and 150. In fact, both these schools of heretics are mentioned by Justin Martyr, so that they clearly belong to the first half of the second century, and chronologically come before Justin Martyr, of whom I had proposed next to speak. Now in the extracts given by Hippolytus purporting to be from Basilides and Valentinus, each of these writers not only quotes from Paul's Epistles (including that to the Ephesians, one doubted by Renan, who accepts all the rest, except the Pastoral Epistles), but each also makes use of the Gospels, in particular of the Gospel according to St. John. I may say in passing, that though the fourth Gospel is that which is most assailed by sceptical writers, yet as far as external evidence is concerned, if there be any difference between this Gospel and the others, the difference is in its favour — that is to say, I think there is even greater weight of external attestation to this than to the rest. And the use made of St. John's Gospel by all the heretics of the second century is no small argument in favour of its early date. The answer made by sceptical writers to these quotations in Hippolytus is, Can you be sure that the Valentinian and Basilidian works from which Hippo- lytus quotes were really written by the heresiarchs themselves? Is it not possible that, when he professes to describe the opinions of Valentinus or Basilides, he is drawing his infor- mation from the work of some disciple of each of these sects who lived nearer his own time, the (pi^ai with which Hippo- lytus introduces the quotations being merely intended to v.] THE VALENTINIANS. 59 have the effect of inverted commas in an English book, and not to be pressed to mean that Valentinus himself is the speaker ? If I were to deal with this answer in a contro- versial spirit I might describe it as a quite gratuitous assump- tion, and a mere evasion to escape a difficulty, to imagine that Hippolytus can mean anything but what he says, or to suppose that words which he distinctly states are those of Valentinus are to be understood as spoken by somebody else. But I should be sorry to press any argument the least degree further than in my own heart I considered it would justly bear; and when I ask myself whether I can say that I regard Hippolytus as incapable of the laxity here imputed to him, I cannot say that I do. On the contrary, I should say that he would be likely to consider that he was fulfilling all the re- quirements of honesty in describing the opinions of Valen- tinus from a Valentinian book, without troubling himself with minute inquiries whether Valentinus himself were the writer. I therefore do not insist on the admission that the heretical works cited are as old as the words of Hippolytus, literally understood, would make them out to be ; and for my purpose I can be quite satisfied with the incontrovertible fact that, in the time of Hippolytus, there was no controversy between the Valentinians and the orthodox as to their New Testament Canon, and in particular that the Gospel of John was alike venerated by both parties. This is a fact which we can abundantly establish by other evidence. The whole vocabulary of the system of Valentinus is founded on the prologue to St. John's Gospel. The system of Valentinus uses as technical words, /novoyevijg, ^w?'/, aArj^a'o, Xopig, 7rA//p Wjua, A070C, «^wc- It is quite impossible to invert the order, and to suppose these words first to have been the key-words of a heretical system, and then to have been borrowed by someone desirous to pass himself off as St. John, or to suppose that in such a case the Gospel could ever have found acceptance in the Church. You might as well conceive someone who wanted a document to be accepted as authori- tative by us Protestants, stuffing it with Roman Catholic technical words — Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and such 6o THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. like. Putting in such words would clearly show any Protes- tant that the document emanated from a hostile body; and so, in like manner, if the theory of Valentinus had been pro- mulgated before the publication of the fourth Gospel, the vocabulary of the prologue to that Gospel would have ex- cluded it from Catholic use. There is abundance of other evidence that Catholics and Valentinians were agreed as to the reverence paid to this Gospel, Tertullian contrasts the methods of dealing with the New Testament pursued by Marcion, of whom I shall speak a little later, and by Valen- tinus. Marcion mutilated his New Testament, rejecting all parts of it which he could not reconcile with his theories; but Valentinus, as Tertullian says, ' integro instrumento uti vide- tur' [De PrcBscrtp. 38) ; that is to say, he did not reject the Gospels accepted by the Catholic Church, but he strove by artificial interpretation to make them teach his peculiar doc- trine. How true this statement is we have extant evidence. The earliest commentary on a New Testament book of which we have any knowledge is by a heretic — that by the Valen- tinian Heracleon on St. John. It is known to us through the use made of it by Origen, who, when commenting on the same book, quotes Heracleon some fifty times, sometimes agreeing with him, but more usually controverting him. We have thus a very minute knowledge of Heracleon's commen- tary on at least four or five chapters of St. John. And this characteristic prevails throughout, that the strongest believer in verbal inspiration at the present day could not dwell with more minuteness on the language of St. John, or draw more mysteries from what might seem the accidental use of one expression rather than another. There is controversy as to the date of Heracleon. All we know with certainty is, that he must have been earlier than Clement of Alexandria, who quotes him twice [Strom. IV. 9 ; Eclog. ex Scrip. Proph. 25). Sceptical writers make Heracleon as little earlier than Clement as they can help, and say his commentary may have been as late as 180. Orthodox writers would give it thirty or forty years greater antiquity. For my part, I think it makes little difference as far as the question v.] THE VALENTINIANS. 6 1 of the antiquity of St. John's Gospel is concerned. Heracleon was a Valentinian, and it appears that in his time the autho- rity, and I think we may say the inspiration, of John's Gospel was common ground to the Valentinians and the Catholics. How could that be possible, if it had not been acknowledged before the Valentinians separated from the orthodox? If the book had been written, subsequently to the separation, by a Valentinian, the orthodox would not have received it; if by a Catholic, the Valentinians would not have received it. If it had been of unknown parentage, it is incredible that both communities should have accepted it as apostolic. What has been said about Valentinus may be repeated about Basilides. Hippolytus produces an extract in which the words of St. John's Gospel are twice quoted (vii. 22, 27), and which he says, as plain as words can do it, is taken from a writing of Basilides.* Admit that Hippolytus was either misinformed on this point, or through inaccuracy said what he did not mean to say, it still remains that the extract was written by at least a disciple of Basilides. It follows that Basilidians and orthodox agreed in their reverence for St. John's Gospel ; and it follows, then, by the same argument w^hich I have used already, that St. John's Gospel must have gained its authority before Basilides separated from the Church — that is to say, at least before 130. This evidence for the antiquity of St. John is an argument a fortiori for the antiquity of the other Gospels, which all admit to be earlier, I may here mention the only point of any consequence on which a difference is attempted to be made between the testi- mony to the fourth Gospel and to the others, viz., that though Papias, of whom I will speak presently, names Matthew and Mark as the authors of Gospels, and though there are early anonymous quotations of John's Gospel, the first to mention * Westcott ('New Testament Canon,' p. 288) gives strong reasons for believing the extract to be from a work of BasUides himself. So also Hort, ' Dictionary of Christian Biography,' i. 271. The same view is taken by Matthew Arnold, 'God and the Bible,' p. 268, quoted by Dr. Ezra Abbot ('Authorship of Fourth Gospel,' p. 86). But since there is room for doubt, I use an argument which does not assume the Basilidian authorship. 62 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [v. John by name as its author is Theophilus, who was bishop of Antioch about 170 [ad Auiol. ii. 22). But this point is of very- small worth ; for not to say that the argument might be used equally against Luke's Gospel, the authorship of which is not seriously contested, there cannot be a doubt that any evidence which proves the antiquity of John's Gospel proves also its authorship. In other words, it is plain from the work itself that whoever composed it intended it to be received as ema- nating from the beloved disciple, and we cannot doubt that it was as such it was received by those who did accept it. Let ine call your attention to the singular fact, that the name of the Apostle John is never mentioned in St. John's Gospel. If you had only that Gospel, you would never know that there was an Apostle of the name. The other Gospels, when they speak of the forerunner of our Lord, always give him the title of the Baptist, so as to prevent confusion between the two Johns. This Gospel speaks of him simply as John, so that a reader not otherwise informed would never have it suggested to him that there was another of the name. This fact is worth attention in connexion with what I shall have here- after to say on the omissions of the Gospel, and on the ques- tion whether John is to be supposed ignorant of everything he does not record in his Gospel. I shall contend, on the contrary, that the things which John omits are things so very well known that he could safely assume his readers to be acquainted with them. It certainly is so in this instance ; for no one disputes that, if the writer were not the Apostle John, he was someone who wished to pass for him. But a forger would be likely to have made some more distinct mention of the person who played the principal part in his scheme ; and he certainly could scarcely have hit on such a note of genuine- ness as that, whereas almost everyone in the Church had felt the necessity of distinguishing by some special name John the forerunner from John the Apostle, there was one person who would feel no such necessity, and who would not form this habit — namely, the Apostle himself. VI.] THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 63 VI. Part III. THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. JUSTIN MARTY R — T A T I A N. It may now be regarded as proved, that towards the end of the second century our four Gospels were universally ac- cepted in the Catholic Church as the peculiarly trustworthy records of the Saviour's life, and that they were then ascribed to the same authors as those to whom we now ascribe them. Why, then, are we not to accept this testimony ? Is it because of any opposing evidence, external or internal ? Postponing for a moment the question of internal evidence, opposing external evidence there is none. All that can be said is, the evidence you have produced bears date a hundred years later than the books ; we desire to have earlier testi- mony. Now, to take the case of a classical author, the testi- mony to whom bears some faint comparison with that to the Gospels ; the plays of Terence are quoted by Cicero and Horace, and we require neither more nor earlier witnesses. No one objects : Cicero and Horace wrote a hundred years after Terence ; what earlier witnesses can you produce to ac- count for the intervening time ? In the case of the Gospels, however, we can meet what I account an unreasonable de- mand. I began with the end of the second century, because then first the Christian literature of the period is so abundant as to leave no room for controversy as to the Gospels accepted by that age. We can, however, go back a couple of genera- tions and remain on ground which cannot reasonably be con- tested. The Apology of Justin Martyr was written about A.D. 150. That is the date Justin himself gives [Apol. i. 46) ; and though, no doubt, it is only a round number, it is as near the truth as 64 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. we can go. The Apology is addressed to the Emperor Antoninus, who reigned from 138-161, and it twice (cc. 2q, 31) speaks of events in the preceding reign (Hadrian's) as having happened 'just now.' Hence some place the Apology in the very beginning of the reign of Antoninus. Eusebius dates it 141. Dr. Hort, in one of his earliest writings,* tried to prove that Justin died in 148. He did not convince me that there is evidence to justify any positive assertion about the matter ; but in placing the Apology in 150, about the middle of the reign of Antoninus, we are sure that we cannot be very far wrong either way. There has been a good deal of dispute about Justin's New Testament citations ; but as far as the judgment of candid men is concerned, the question may now be regarded as settled. The result of very long discussions and of a good deal of fighting has been to leave us where we had been. Any ordinary reader would have no doubt that Justin's works contain copious quotations from our Gospels ; and the objec- tions to accepting this conclusion made by those who professed to have gone closely into the matter have been dissipated by still closer examination. In his references to the events of our Lord's life, Justin goes over all the ground covered by our Evangelists, and almost completely abstains from going beyond it. He informs us also that he drew from written sources the accounts which he gives of our Lord's life. It is true, and our adversaries make the most of it, that he does not mention the names of the authors of these records. But the reason is, that he is addressing heathens who would not be interested in knowing the names of the Christian writers quoted ; and he purposely avoids using Christian technical language. Thus, when he describes the Christian meetings for worship on the Lord's day, he says that they take place on the day which is called the ' day of the sun ' ; and again, he calls the Jews * barbarians.' And so now he tells his heathen readers that he is quoting from * memoirs ' of our Lord which are called * Gospels,' and which were composed by the Apostles and by those who followed them. Observe how * Journal uf Classical and Sacred Philology, \\i. 155. 1856. VI.] JUSTIN iMARTYR. 5^ accurately this agrees with our present Gospels — two being composed by Apostles, two by their immediate fol- lowers. Justin adds that these memoirs were read along with the writings of the prophets at the meetings of Christians on each Sunday. Now, is it credible that the Gospels which Justin attests to have been placed by the Christian Church in equal rank with the prophets of the Old Testament, and to have been weekly read in their public assemblies, could be different from those Gospels which were confessedly a few^ years after- wards exclusively recognized through the Christian world ? Here comes in with great force the reflex action, to w^hich I have already referred, of the testimony of Irenseus. In his time our four Gospels were in such long-established honour that it is certain they must have had the same rank at least one generation earlier. In Justin's time, some Gospels were in such honour as to be placed on a level in Church use with Old Testament Scriptures. We never hear of any revolution dethroning one set of Gospels and replacing them by another; and we may therefore conclude with tolerable certainty that the Gospels honoured by the Church in Justin's day were the same as those to which the same respect was paid in the days of Irenseus, some twenty or thirty years later. The only plausible ground on which this has been con- tested is that Justin's citations frequently do not verbally correspond with our Gospels. Many of the differences that have been pointed out are trivial enough, as an example will enable you to judge. In order to show how pure was the morality taught by our Lord, Justin devotes three consecu- tive chapters to quoting his precepts. No other idea than that Justin was quoting our Gospels would occur to anyone whose acuteness had not been sharpened by the exigencies of controversy. For instance, 'He said, "Give to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow turn not away; for if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive what new thing do ye ? Even the publicans do this. Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where robbers break through ; but lay up for F 66 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt. For vi^hat is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul .? or what shall a man give in exchange for it .? Lay up treasure, therefore, in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt." And, " Be ye kind and merciful, as your Father also is kind and merciful, and maketh his sun to rise on sinners, and the righteous and the wicked. Take no thought what ye shall eat or what ye shall put on ; are ye not better than the birds and the beasts? and God feedeth them. Take no thought, therefore, what ye shall eat or what ye shall put on ; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But seek ye the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added to you. For where his treasure is, there also is the mind of a man." And, " Do not these things to be seen of men, otherwise ye have no reward from your Father which is in heaven." ' I need not pursue the quotation. I have read enough to enable you to understand the general character of Justin's quotations. You will at once have recognized the words I read. If I ask you whence are they taken, you may perhaps reply, From the Sermon on the Mount. But if I go on to ask: Do you mean from the discourse recorded by St. Matthew, or from a parallel passage in St. Luke? you examine more minutely, and perhaps you find that Justin's version does not verbally agree with one or other. Then comes the question : How do you know that Justin is quoting either ? May he not be taking his account from some other Gospel now lost, which contained a record of the same discourses ? As far as the evidences of our religion are concerned, it makes no difference whether or not the hypothesis of a lost Gospel be true. It is no part of our faith to hold the doctrine of Irenaeus, that it was in the nature of things impossible there should be more than four Gospels. We want to know what was the story concerning Jesus of Nazareth, in attes- tation of which the first preachers of Christianity were content to suffer hardships, and if need be to give their lives ; and to give us that information the Gospel used by Justin, whatever it was, answers our purpose as well as any Gospel we have. VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 5y It might be uncomfortable to our feelings to believe that Christian writers for the first century and a half used a diffe- rent Gospel from ours, and that the Church, a.d. 170, for some unaccountable reason, thought proper to bury its ancient text-book in oblivion, and set up our four Gospels in its room. But what would scepticism have gained, when it is also proved that this lost Gospel must have been as like to our present Gospels as the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark are to each other r* Substantially the same facts are related in all, and told in the same way. I will just take the account of our Lord's infancy, the sub- ject above all others on which the apocryphal Gospels after- wards ran wild, and you will see that Justin follows throughout the narrative of our existing Evangelists. He does not appear to have known anything more than they knew, and he tells, without doubt, what they have related. I give a summary in Westcott's words ('New Testament Canon,' p. loi): — 'He tells us that Christ was descended from Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David — that the angel Gabriel was sent to announce His birth to the Virgin Mary — that this was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah (vii. 14) — that Joseph was forbidden in a vision to put away his espoused wife when he was so minded — that our Saviour's birth at Bethlehem had been foretold by Micah — that His parents went thither from Nazareth, where they dwelt, in consequence of the enrolment of Cyrenius — that as they could not find a lodging in the village, they lodged in a cave close by it, where Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a manger — that while there, wise men from Arabia, guided by a star, worshipped Him, and offered Him gold, and frankincense, and myrrh, and by revelation were commanded not to return to Herod, to whom they had first come — that He was called Jesus, as the Saviour of His people — that by the command of (xod His parents fled with Him to Egypt for fear of Herod, and remained there till Archelaus succeeded him — that Herod, being deceived by the wise men, commanded the children of * This idea has been worked out by I.lv. Sadler in his book callc.l 'The Lost •Gospel.' F 2 68 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. Bethlehem to be put to death, so that the prophecy of Jere- miah was fulfilled, who spoke of Rachel weeping for her children — that Jesus grew after the common manner of men, working as a carpenter, and so waited thirty years, more or less, till the coming of John the Baptist.' I need not continue Justin's account of our Saviour's life. This specimen of his account of that part of it where, if anywhere, a difference from the canonical Gospels would be likely to be found, is enough to show that the Gospel used by Justin told substan- tially the same story as that related in the Gospels we have, and that, as far as controversy with unbelievers is concerned, it is quite immaterial which Gospel is appealed to. There remains the purely literary question. Is there reason to believe in the existence of this alleged lost Gospel ? 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda preeter necessitatem,' and the question is, Are we put under a necessity of postulating the existence of a Gospel which has disappeared, by reason of verbal differ- ences forbidding us to find in our present Gospels the source of Justin's quotations ? An answer to this question has been provided by a study of Justin's quotations from the Old Tes- tament, which enables us to know what degree of accuracy is to be expected from him. In that case we know what he means to quote, and we find him quoting loosely and inaccu- rately, and quoting the same passage differently different times.* When we think it strange that an ancient father of Justin's date should not quote with perfect accuracy, we for- * See a table of Justin's Old Testament quotations given by Westcott ('New Testament Canon,' p. 172). Dr. Sanday, in his 'Gospels in the Second Century,' has shown that no greater exactness of quotation is found when we study the quota- tions of the Old Testament in the New, or in the Apostolic Fathers, or the quotations of the New Testament by Irenseus. I find in an unpubUshed Paper by the late Bishop Fitz Gerald an apposite quotation from the preface to Pearce's 'Longinus': — Neque enim aut Longino aut aliis priorum saeculorum scriptoribus videtur usitatum fuisse accurate fideque satis verba citare. Imo nusquam, si bene memini, Longinus per totum suum Commentarium cujusvis auctoris locum iisdem verbis (modo pluribus quam duobus aut tribus consisteret) exhibuit ; nee ahter ab aliis scriptoribus factum video. Si enim sensum auctoris et praecipua citatae sententiae verba ob oculos lec- toris ponerent, de caeteris minus soliciti fuere. Accurata haec citandi diligentia, qua hodie utimur, quaeque laudabilis sane est, frustra in veteribus quaerenda est. — Fraef. in Longinum, p. xix.ed. 1732. VI.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 69 get that in those days, when manuscripts were scarce, and when concordances did not exist, the process of finding a passage in a manuscript (written possibly with no spaces between the words) and copying it, was not performed with quite as much ease as an English clergyman, writing his sermon with his Bible at his side, can turn up any text he wishes to refer to ; and yet I should be sorry to vouch for the verbal accuracy of all the Scripture citations we hear in sermons at the present day. The excuse for such inaccuracy at present is one which Justin, too, may have pleaded — that exactly in proportion to a man's familiarity with a book is his disposition to trust his memory, and not verify a reference to it. And the applicability of this remark is confirmed by the fact that there is very much less accuracy in Justin's short quotations, which would be made from memory, than in his long ones, where it would be worth while or necessary for him to turn to the book. On the whole, then, the general coincidence, in range and contents, of Justin's quotations with our Gospels is enough to show that they are the sources whence Justin drew his information. I will give for each of the Gospels one specimen of a multitude of proofs. In relating the murder of the inno- cents at Bethlehem, he quotes Jeremiah's prophecy of Rachel weeping for her children, and that in a form agreeing with St. Matthew and differing from the Septuagint. Hence, even if we had no other proof, we could infer that he used St. Matthew's Gospel. Mark has so little that is not in St. Matthew or St. Luke that it might be thought difficult to identify anonymous citations with his Gospel. Yet, Justin's quotations from the Gospels are so numerous, that besides some very probable references to Mark, they touch on one point certainly peculiar to him, namely, that Jesus gave to the sons of Zebedee the name of Boanerges. St. Mark alone has preserved to us this and some other Aramaic words used by our Saviour, as Corban, Ephphatha, Abba, Talitha Cumi. St. Luke is, no doubt, Justin's authority for stating that the visit of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem was occasioned by the taxing under Cyrenius. And I may add that Justin even 70 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. helps us in the case of disputed readings in St. Luke, for he has a reference to our Lord's bloody sweat, which gives an important attestation to the verses, Luke xxii. 43, 44, which are wanting in the Vatican and Alexandrian MSS., but found in the Sinaitic as well as in almost all other MSS. As I have mentioned the subject of various readings, I may add that if it could be proved that Justin never trusted his memory, but always literally copied the Gospel he was using — a thing that cannot be proved, for he sometimes quotes the same passage differently — it still would not follow that he was using a different Gospel from ours. It might only be that his copy of Matthew or Luke had readings different from our received text. I will not anticipate what belongs to another branch of our subject by entering into the proofs of the early existence of various readings. Suffice it to say that this is a point which has to be attended to by any careful critic of Justin's quotations. That Justin used the three Synoptic Gospels may be regarded as now accepted by the common consent of candid critics : being as freely acknowledged by Hilgenfeld* in Germany as by Lightfoot or Westcott in England. Justin's variations, then, from our text of these Gospels may be divided into three classes. The greater number are quite sufficiently accounted for by the ordinary looseness of mefnoriter citations ; a few demand the attention of the textual critic as suggesting the possible existence of a various reading in Justin's manuscript ; and lastly, a few more suggest the possibility that, in addition to our Gospels, Justin may have used an extra-Canonical Gos- pel. For example, in the abstract I read of Justin's account of our Lord's childhood, you may perhaps have noticed that he says that the Magi came from Arabia. Now, St, Matthew only says that they came from the East; and the question arises. Did Justin draw this localization from a written source or was he merely expressing the view in his time popularly held as to what St. Matthew meant by the East ? A similar * Professor of Theology at Jena, one of the ablest living representatives of the school of criticism founded by Baur. vr.] JUSTIN MARTYR. 71 question arises as to the statement that Joseph and Mary, when they could find no room in the inn, lodged in a cave. It seems to me very possible that Justin was here drawing from no written source, but that, being a native of Palestine, he described what the received tradition of his time accepted as the scene of our Lord's birth. Justin's additions to our evangelic narrative are exceedingly few and unimportant; but there is no reason why we should not admit, as a possible account of them, that our Gospels were not the only written documents with which Justin was acquainted. But I do not think it possible that any such document could be raised to the level of our four Gospels, even if it had the benefit of far more distinct recognition by Justin than it can actually claim. I have said that Justin's use of the Synoptic Gospels is now pretty generally admitted ; but there is still a good deal of unwillingness to acknowledge his use of St. John's. That Gospel deals less in history than do the first three Gospels ; and so there are fewer incidents mentioned by Justin which we can clearly prove to be taken from St. John, while the discourses of that Gospel present little that is suitable for quotation in discussion with unbelievers. Yet there are coinci- dences enough to establish satisfactorily Justin's acquaintance with the fourth Gospel, there being scarcely a chapter of it of which some trace may not be found in his works.* But ♦ See an Article by Tlioma in Hilgenfeld's ' Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftl. Theo- logie ' for 1875. Thoraa does not discuss Justin's knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels, regarding this as having passed out of the region of controversy ; but he takes St. John, chapter by chapter, exhibiting for each the trace it has left in Justin's works: the result being to show that Justin is completely saturated with that Gospel. Thoma is less successful in establishing a special theory of his own, namely, that Justin, though acquainted with the fourth Gospel, did not regard it as of equal authority with the others, or number it among the ' Memoirs of the Apostles,' which were read in the Christian public worship. For this he has no proof but the very precarious argument ex silentio, that Justin does not make as much use of the fourth Gospel as Thoma thinks he would have made if he owned its authority. Dr. Ezra Abbot, a Unitarian, Professor in Harvard University, deals well with this argument in his ' Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,' p. 63. He shows that Justin, writing to unbehevers, cannot be expected to make the use of New Testament writings he would have made if addressing men who owned their authority ; that he actually uses them more than do other apologists ; that he does not offer proofs from the Apocalypse, though he confessedly accepted it as an inspired 72 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. what weighs with me far more is, that the whole doctrinal system of Justin, and in particular his conception of our Lord as the eternal Logos, presupposes St. John to such an extent, that anyone who does not acknowledge it is, in my judgment, either a poor critic or an uncandid controversialist. The name * Logos ' is habitually used by Justin, occurring more than twenty times. His doctrine is, that this Logos existed before all creation, dwelling with the Father;* that He was God;t that by Him all things were made; J that this pre- existent Word took form and became man, and was called Jesus Christ [Apol. i. 5, 63 ; Dial. 48); and that He was the only-begotten § of the Father. I have by no means enumerated all the coincidences be- tween the teaching of Justin and the prologue of St. John ; but that there is very striking agreement you cannot have failed to see. We ask. Is there any reason for rejecting the simple account of this agreement, that Justin was a disciple of St. John : not indeed by personal companionship, but by study of his Gospel, which we have good independent reason to think must have been current at the time, and which Justin could hardly have helped knowing 1 And it deserves to be borne in mind that Justin seems to have learned his Christi- anity at Ephesus (Euseb. H. E. iv. 18), which is generally allowed to have been the birthplace of the fourth Gospel. When we have to speak of the agreement between Justin prophecy ; and Dr. Abbot adds some instances from modern writers of surprising neglect to use an argument or recognize a fact which we should have confidently expected them to use or recognize. Dr. Abbot, who was one of the most learned of American Theologians, died in 1885. * 6 5e vibs iKe'iPov, 6 fiSvos AeySfievos Kvpiws vlSs, 6 xSyos irph rwv irotrjudrcui' Kal ffvvibv KoX yevvw/xevos, ore r^]v apxh^ 5t avTOv iravra eKTiffe Kal eKofffiricre. — Apol. ii. 6. apxhv TTph TtdvTaiv rwv KTifffxaTCtiv 6 Qehs yeyevuriKe Swafxtv riva «! eaurov XoyiK^v, ^ris KoL SJ|a Kvplov inrh rod Tri/eu/xaros rov aylov KaAelrai, Trore Se vlhs, irore Se (rov TTOi-qixa-Tiav (rvvr)v r^ irarpi. — Dial. 62. t ai/rhs i>v ovtos 6 6ehs airh rov irarphs tS>v oAwv yevvijOels. — Dial. 6 1 ; see also Apol. i. 63; Dial. 56, 58, 126, 128. X &covoi (pQoyyoi), whereas the rest of the intervals are called discords {'^idcpuvoi). This definition of concord, ex- cluding thirds, which are now accepted as the simplest and easiest case, arises from Pythagoras' discovery that if, of two equal strings, one be stopped at points dividing the string in the ratios of I : 2 ; 2:3; and 3 : 4, the octave, fifth, and fourth above the sister string are produced. Hence he regarded these intervals as perfect concords, and this opinion was general till the time of Des Cartes, who first boldly asserted that thirds were concords. It may be added that, even now, most of the major thirds we hear are less than two whole tones apart. This interval, when strictly pro- duced, sounds like a sharp third, and is disagreeable. The difficulty is avoided by the temperament in our tuning.' From this explanation it is seen to be improper to treat the phrase ' Diatessaron ' as one merely denoting harmony, and not implying any particular number of Gospels. We see also that, since the phrase denotes, not a harmony of four, but a concord between the first and fourth terms of a series, it was used improperly by Tatian, unless his work had Jbeen one on the relations between the Evangelists Matthew and John. But strict propriety of language is rare when terms of art are used metaphorically by outsiders. My friend Dr. Quarry has given me the curious information that Diatessaron is not only a musical but a medical term. It denoted a plaister made of four in- gredients ; the Diapente was another common plaister made of five {Caelius Aurelianus, iv. 7, vol. ii. p. 331 : ed. Halle, 1774). See also Galen, De compositione medicament, per genera v. p. 857. Leipzig, 1827. Dr. Quarry thinks that a weU- known blunder made by Victor of Capua, in writing Diapente where he ought to have written Diatessaron, is a confusion more likely to have arisen from the common use of the words as medical than as musical terms ; the former use being popular at the time in question, the latter then confined to a few. VI. 1 TATIAN. S3 his heretical opinions were very few. The use of the ' Diates- saron' at Edessa is mentioned in an apocryphal Syriac book, probably written about the middle of the third century.* Theodoret [Haer. Fab., i. 20), writing in the middle of the fifth century, bears witness to the still extensive use of it, apparently in the public Church reading of his own diocese (Cyrus, near the Euphrates) ; and states that he found more than two hundred copies in use in the churches of his district, which he took away, and replaced by copies of the four Gospels. The work of substituting a single narrative for our four would naturally involve many omissions from the text of our Gospels, and it would seem to be this mutilation of the sacred text which brought Tatian's work into disrepute. At least Theodoret censures it for cutting out the genealogies and other passages which show that our Lord was born of the seed of David after the flesh ; and he implies, though perhaps the imputation is undeserved, that Tatian had a heretical ob- ject in this mutilation. A harmony not open to this objec- tion was made, in the third century, by Ammonius of Alex- andria. He took St. Matthew's Gospel as the basis of his work, and put side by side with St. Matthew the parallel pas- sages from other Gospels. We learn this from a letter of Eusebius [Epist. ad Carpzantim) prefatory to his own improved way of harmonizing the Gospels — the Eusebian Canons — which will come under our consideration later. To return to Tatian : the strongest proof of the orthodox use of his harmony is that the most famous of the native Syrian fathers, Ephraem of Edessa, who died in 373, wrote a commentary on the ' Diatessaron', apparently as if it were the version of the New Testament then in ecclesiastical use. This fact till lately rested on the testimony of a rather late Syrian writer, Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who wrote towards the end of the twelfth century, and who gives the further information that the harmony commenced, *In the beginning was the Word ', which would place Tatian's use of St. John's Gospel beyond doubt. You can well imagine that sceptical critics made every effort to set aside testimony which would force oii * Phillips, ' Doctrine of Addai,' p. 34. G 2 84 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vi. them so unwelcome a conclusion. Bishop Lightfoot, in an article in the Contemporary Review (May, 1877), convincingly showed that the attempts to break down the testimony of Bar-Salibi had been utterly unsuccessful. But since then the question has assumed a new aspect, by the substantial recovery of the very work of Ephraem Syrus which Bar-Salibi described. It comes to us, indeed, in a roundabout way. The common opinion has been that Tatian's harmony was originally written in Greek, and so the Greek name 'Diatessaron' would lead us to suppose. Zahn* has lately taken a good deal of pains to maintain that the original language was Syriac, and it is certain that the Diatessaron had considerable circulation in Syri'ac-speaking countries, and apparently very little where Greek was spoken. f However that may be, if it had been originally Greek, it had been translated into Syriac, and had come into use in Syriac-speaking churches before Ephraem commented on it. This commentary of Ephraem is extant in an Armenian translation, apparently of the fifth century, and was actually published in that language by the Mechitarist Fathers, at Venice, so long ago as 1836, But in the obscurity of that language it remained unknown to Western scholars until a Latin translation of it was published by Moesinger, in 1 876, and it took three or four years more before the publication attracted much attention. J That this work is Ephraem's I think there can be no reasonable doubt. It consists of a series of homi- letic notes, and these (as we had been led to expect) not fol- lowing the order of any one of our Gospels, but passing from one to another : in other words, the commentary is on a nar- rative framed by putting together passages from different * ' Tatian's Diatessaron.' Erlangen, 1881. Zahn is Professor of Theology at Erlangen, and belongs to the Conservative school. t Baethgen even maintains the somewhat startling thesis that the 'Diatessaron' was the earliest form in which the Gospel history became known to Syriac-speaking people ('Evangelienfragmente,' Leipzig, 1885). J The first formal account of it was given by Hamack in the Zeitschrift filr Kirchengeschichte, 1881. He had previously, in the same journal, for 1879, P- 40^» given a reference to the book without explaining its nature. The book had been more largely referred to by Dr. Ezra Abbot, in America, in his ' Authorship of the Fourth Gospel ', 1880. The first detailed account of it in England was given by Dr. Wace in articles in The Expositor, 1882. VI.] TATIAN. 85 Gospels. The commentary enables us to reconstruct, at least in its substance, the text which was commented on. I say in its substance, because we cannot infer with certainty that a verse was absent from the harmony because it is not com- mented on by Ephraem, it being possible that he found nothing in the verse on which he thought it necessary to remark ; nor, again, can we infer that a verse was present in the harmony, because Ephraem, commenting on a different verse, refers to it, since Ephraem was no doubt familiar, not only with the harmony on which he commented, but with the full text of the four Gospels. But although, for the reasons I have indicated, we cannot pretend to be exact in every detail, we can recover the general outline of the text commented on; and we have important helps in the work of reconstruction. Of these I will only mention a harmony published by Victor ■of Capua in the sixth century, and which he imagined must be the work of Tatian. Comparison with the now-recovered commentary of Ephraem shows that the harmony presented by both is really in substance the same work, though the Latin harmony restores the genealogies, and corrects some other omissions, which no doubt had interfered with the orthodox acceptance of Tatian's work. We find, then, that the harmony on which Ephraem com- ments deals with the four Gospels on an equal footing. It begins, as Bar-Salibi had told us, with the prologue of St. John. It then takes up the first chapter of St. Luke, and so it goes on, passing freely from one Gospel to another, and (I may add) including part of the last chapter of St. John, as to the genuineness of which some very unreasonable doubts have, in modern times, been entertained. There only remains, then, the question. Have we any reasonable ground for doubting the statement of Bar-Salibi that the harmony on which Ephraem commented was by Tatian ? and I can see none. The only alternative* seems to be that this should be the * Jerome {Ep. 121 ad Algas. i. 860) speaks of Theopliilus of Antioch as the author of a harmony. As we do not hear of this elsewhere, it is commonly supposed that Jerome made a mistake in ascribing to Theophilus the work of Tatian. Since Theophilus, who died in 181, was as early as Tatian, the proof of the antiquity of the 86 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vii. harmony of Ammonius the Alexandrian, which I mentioned just now; but, not to say that the work of an Eastern, as Tatian 'was, was far more likely to be current in Syria than that° of an Alexandrian, the harmony commented on by Ephraem shows not the slightest trace'of having had Mat- thew's narrative as the basis, which is the feature specified by Eusebius as the characteristic of the harmony of Ammo- nius.* If, then, it appears that Justin's pupil Tatian used all four Gospels on equal terms, the conclusion at which we had already arrived, that Justin himself did so, is abundantly con- firmed. fourth Gospel is not affected whether this harmony be ascribed [to a heretical or an orthodox writer. But we may be sure that the work of a heretic would not have been so successful in obtaining acceptance in the Church if there had been a ri^ al work of the same kind by a Church writer of reputation. * I observe that Dean Burgon refuses to join in the general recognition of the harmony published by Moesinger as Tatian's, and refers to the author as Pseudo- Tatian. But every specialist is in danger of being biassed by the consideration how a decision affects his own subject. A very ancient reading of Matt, xxvii. 49 recorded there the piercing of our Lord's side, now found only in St. John's Gospel, and placed the incident before our Lord's death. On the authority of a scholium which made ' Diodorus and Tatian ' responsible for this reading, a plausible explanation was given, that the currency of Tatian's harmony, in which the words of different Evangelists had been mixed together, had, in this instance, led to a transference of an incident related by St. John to an improper place in the first Gospel. But this explanation receives no confirmation from thej newly-recovered text of Ephraem. It seems to me that this is not a sufficient reason for discrediting that text. VII.] THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 87 VII. Part IV. THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND CENTURY. PAPIAS— APOSTOLIC FATHERS. We have vSeen now that in the middle of the second cen- tury our four Gospels had obtained their pre-eminence, and enjoyed the distinction of use in the public service of the Church. To-day I go back to an earlier witness, Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first half of the second century. Although all that we have remaining of him which bears on the subject is half-a-dozen sentences, which happen to have been quoted by Eusebius, countless pages have been written on these fragments ; and, what seems not reasonable, almost as much stress has been laid on what they do not mention as on what they do. Indeed, nothing can be more unfair or more absurd than the manner in which the argumentinn ex silentio has been urged by scepti- cal critics in the case of writers of whom we have scarcely any extant remains. The author of 'Supernatural Religion', for instance, argues : The Gospels of St. Luke and St. John can- not be earlier than the end of the second century, because Hegesippus, because Papias, because Dionysius of Corinth, &c,, were unacquainted with them. Well, how do you know that they were unacquainted with them ? Because they never mention them. But how do you know that they never men- tioned them, seeing that their writings have not come down to us? Because Eusebius does not tell us that they did; and he would have been sure to tell us, if they had, for he says that he made it his special business to adduce testimonies to the Canon of Scripture. Now, here is exactly where these writers have misunderstood Eusebius ; for the point to which he says he gave particular attention was to adduce testimonies to 88 THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. [vii. those books of the Canon which were disputed in his time;* and, in one of his papers,t Bishop Lightfoot most satisfac- torily shows that this was his practice, by examining the report which Eusebius gives of books which have come down to us. Eusebius tells us {H. E. iii. 37) that Clement of Rome used the Epistle to the Hebrews, but never says a word as to his quoting the First Epistle to the Corinthians, though the latter quotation is express (Clem. Rom. 47), and the use of the former Epistle is only inferred from the identity of certain expressions. The explanation plainly is, that there was still some controversy in the time of Eusebius about the Epistle to the Hebrews, and none at all about the Epistles to the Corinthians. In like manner, he tells us {H. E. iv. 24) that Theophilus of Antioch used the Revelation of St. John, but never says a word about his quotation of the Gospel ; though, as I have already said, Theophilus is the earliest writer now extant who mentions John by name as the author of the fourth Gospel. Why so ? Plainly because the Reve- lation was still matter of controversy, and there was no dis- pute in the time of Eusebius about the fourth Gospel. Other instances of the same kind may be given. Perhaps the most remarkable is the account which Eusebius gives (v. 8) of the use which Irenaeus makes of the Holy Scriptures. Eusebius begins the chapter by calling to mind how, at the outset of his history, he had promised to quote the language in which ancient ecclesiastical writers had handed down the tradition which had come to them concerning the canonical Scrip- tures ; and, in fulfilment of this promise, he undertakes to give the language of Irenseus. He then quotes some things said by Irenseus about the four Gospels, something more said by him about the Apocalypse, and then mentions, in general terms, that Irenaeus had quoted the first Epistle of John and * The words in which Eusebius states his design (iii. 3) are : viro(Tr)fxi(ivacT&ai rives Twv Kara xpfJj'oiis ^KKXrjcnaiTTtKwi/ (Tvyypa(pea)v orroiais k^xPW'"-'- ''''^^ avTiAeyo/xevimv, Tiva re irepl twv fuSiad-fiKCDU Kal 6/j.o\oyovfifua>v ypas eypa^l/ev, ov ^iv roi To|et ra virh tov Xpiarov 7) Xex^^""^"- ^ Trpax^fvra. Ovre yap i]Kovv, Sxrre ovSev 'ri/xapre MdpKos, ovrcas euia ypa.\f/as us aire/jLVTi- fiouevtrev. 'Evhs yap iiroiT]istle. xii.] THE GOSPEL AND THE FIRST EPISTLE. 213 the Gospel is ably made use of by Bishop Lightfoot {Co/i- temporary Review, October, 1875, p. 835), in confirmation of a theory of his, that the first Epistle was originally published with the Gospel as a kind of commendatory postscript.* Augustine, followed by other Latin authorities, calls this the Epistle to the Parthians [Qiiaest. Evangel. II. 39). It has been conjectured that this may have been a corruption of a Greek title irpoq napdivovg. The ground is not very con- clusive, namely, that Clement of Alexandria tells us {Hypotyp. p. ion, Potter's edition) that the Second Epistle of St. John was known under this title. Gieseler plausibly conjectures that in both cases a corruption took place of the title tov Trapdivov, which was commonly given to John in early times, and which may have been added to the inscriptions of the Epistles. The fourth Gospel, as I have said, has been the subject of far more serious assaults than the others. If the others are allowed to have been published soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, the fourth is not assigned an earlier date than the latter half of the second century. Such, at least, was Baur's theory ; but in the critical sifting it has undergone, the date of the fourth Gospel has been receding further and further back in the second century, so that now hardly any critic with any pretension to fairness puts it later than the very begin- ning of that century, if not the end of the first century, which comes very close to the date assigned it by those who believe in the Johannine authorship. In the value he attaches to the fourth Gospel, Renan is a singular exception among sceptical writers. He is ready enough to grant the antiquity of our documents, though claiming for himself an intuitive sagacity which can dis- criminate the true words and actions of Jesus from what may have been added by the piety of the second generation of Christians. To St. John's Gospel Renan attaches particular value. The discourses, indeed, of Jesus, recorded by St. John, • On the attestation borne by the first Epistle to the Gospel, it is particularly worth while to consult Hug's Introduction, II. 245. 2 14 '^^^' JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xii. are not to Renan's taste, and he rejects them with depreci- ating- epithets which I need not repeat ; but the account given of the life of Jesus he treats as preferable, in a multitude of cases, to the narrative of the Synoptic Evangelists. In par- ticular he declares that the last month of the life of Jesus can only be explained by St. John, and that a multitude of traits unintelligible in the Synoptic Gospels assume in St. John's narrative consistency and probability. He is the more ready to attribute this Gospel to St. John because he imagines that he finds in it a design unduly to exalt that Apostle, and to show that on different occasions he was honoured by Jesus with the first place. His theory is, that John in his old age having read the evangelic narratives then in circulation, re- marked in them several inaccuracies, and was besides annoyed at finding that only a secondary place in the history of Christ was assigned to himself, that he then began to dictate a multitude of things which he knew better than the others, and with the intention of showing that on many occasions where Peter alone was spoken of in those narratives, he had figured with him and before him. These precious notes Renan supposes to have been distorted by the mistakes or careless- ness of John's disciples. In order to reconcile his belief in the antiquity of the Gospels with his rejection of their historic authority, whenever it is convenient for him to do so, Renan imagines the case of a life and recollections of Napoleon written separately by three or four soldiers of the Empire thirty or forty years after the death of their chief. It is clear, he says, their narratives would present numerous errors and contradictions : one would put Wagram before Marengo ; another would write without hesitation that Napoleon turned out the government of Robespierre ; a third would omit ex- peditions of the highest importance. But one thing would stand out clearly in these artless notes, and that is, the character of the hero and the impression he made on those about him. And in this point of view such popular histories would be worth far more than a formal and official one. But in this comparison one point of essential difference is overlooked. Three or four soldiers of the Empire would XII.] THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 215 be competent witnesses to such facts as lay within their range of observation. They would be incompetent witnesses to the order and design of battles, changes of ministry, plans of statesmanship, and other things out of their sphere. If they meddled with such matters in their stories we should not be surprised to find errors and contradictions. But to have a real comparison to lives of our Lord written by Apostles, we should imagine lives of Napoleon written by three or four of his marshals. In that case a statement concerning his battles in which all agreed would justly be regarded as of the highest authority. Take the account of any of our Lord's miracles, and especially that of the Resurrection. We ask. Is the narrator telling a wilful lie ? 'No' is answered by almost all our antagonists. Well, then, could he be mistaken? 'Yes,' answer Strauss and his school. 'He lived a long time after the event, and only honestly repeated the stories which had then got into circulation about the founder of his religion.' But if we admit, as Renan in his first edition was willing to do, that the (lospel is the work of an Apostle and an eye- witness, the possibility of a mistake can no longer be asserted with any plausibility. I think, therefore, that Renan's re- viewers of the sceptical school were quite right in regarding him as having made a most dangerous concession in admitting that John's Gospel has the authority of the Apostle of that name. The authority I say, for Renan does not now at least maintain that it was actually written by John himself, but rather that it was the work of a disciple who bore to John the same relation which, according to Papias, Mark bore to Peter. It remains for us, therefore, to examine the arguments which are urged against the Johannine authorship. Now, with respect to external evidence, I have already expressed my belief that John's Gospel stands on quite as high a level of authority as any of the others. Suffice it now to say that if it be a forgery it has had the most wonderful success ever forgery had : at once received not only by the orthodox, but by the most discordant heretics — by Judaizing Christians, Gnostics, Mystics — all of whom owned the necessity of 2i6 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xii. reconciling their speculations with the sayings of this Gospel. Of the reasons why its Apostolic origin has been dis- believed, I will place first that which I believe to have had the greatest influence, and to have been the cause why other reasons have been sought for, namely, the impossibility of reconciling the Gospel with the denial of our Lord's Divinity. Critics now-a-days trust far more to their own powers of divination than to historical testimony. It is an assumed principle with them that there can be no miracle ; that Jesus was a man like others ; that He must have been so regarded by His disciples; that the opinion that He was more than man could only have gradually grown up; that, therefore, a book in which the doctrine of Christ's Divinity is highly developed bears on the face of it the marks of late date. This is a pre- possession against which it is hard to struggle ; the forms of scientific inquiry may be gone through, but the sentence has been passed before the evidence has been looked at. What- ever be the pretext on which the book is condemned, the real secret of the hostility to it is the assumption that a belief in our Lord's Godhead could not have existed among the Apostles who had companied with Him during His life, and that it must have grown up by degrees among the new generation of Christians who had not known our Lord after the flesh, and who merely reverenced in their ideal Christ a personification of all that was pure and noble in humanity. St. John's Gospel, if admitted as of authority, would make Christ from the first claim and receive a homage to which no mere man is entitled. There was a time when Socinians en- deavoured to reconcile their system with the evangelical records, but that attempt is now abandoned as hopeless, and accordingly the overthrow of at least St. John's Gospel be- comes a necessity. Strauss, on whose principles the question whether Jesus was more than man cannot even claim discussion, argues that ' Jesus in John's Gospel claims to have a recollection of a divine existence reaching back to a period before the creation of the world. Such a recollection is inconceivable to us, be- XII.] THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 217 cause in accredited history no instance of it has occurred. If anyone should speak of having" such a recollection, we should consider him as a fool or as an impostor. But since it is diffi- cult to believe that Jesus was either of these, we cannot allow that the words attributed to him were really spoken by him.' Similarly Strauss is offended with the whole tone of the lan- guag'e of Jesus about Himself, as reported in this Gospel, the manner in which He insists on His divinity, puts His own per- son forward, and makes adherence to Himself the first duty of His disciples. ' The speeches of Jesus about himself in this Gospel,' says Strauss, ' are an uninterrupted doxology only translated out of the second person into the first, from the form of address to another into an utterance about a self. When an enthusiastic disciple calls his master (supposed to have been raised to heaven) the light of the world — when he says of him that he who has seen him has seen the Father, that he is God Himself, we excuse the faithful worshipper such extravagances. But when he goes so far as the fourth Evan- gelist, and puts the utterances of his own pious enthusiasm into the mouth of Jesus, in the form of Jesus's utterances about himself, he does him a very perilous service.' I admit it; a very perilous service if Jesus be no more than man. Assuredly, in that case, we cannot admire him as a faultless man. We must regard him, to speak the plain truth, as one who, however excellent, disfigured his real merits by his own exaggerated pretensions, who habitually used inflated if not blasphemous language respecting the dignity of his own person ; such language, in short, as naturally led to the con- sequence that he, though man, came to be worshipped as God. However, the question with which we are immediately con- cerned is not whether Jesus possessed superhuman power and authority, but whether He claimed it. The self-assertion of Jesus in the fourth Gospel can reasonably be made a plea for discrediting the authority of the writer, only if it can be made out that such language on our Lord's part is inconsistent with what is elsewhere told of Him. And this is what is asserted. It is said that in the Synoptic Gospels Jesus is only a moral reformer, anxious to give to the commands of the law their 2i8 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xii. highest spiritual meaning, and rejecting the evasions by which a compliance with their letter was made to excuse a breach of their spirit. In the Fourth Gospel, on the contrary, Jesus puts forward Himself. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the only door by which man can have access to God. We may freely own that John's Gospel gives greater prominence to this class of our Lord's utterances, but we deny that they are at all inconsistent with what is attributed to Him in the Synoptic Gospels. On the contrary, the dignity of the Saviour's person, and the duty of adhering to Him, are as strongly stated in the discourses which Matthew puts into his mouth as in any later Gospel : ' Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven ; Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven ' ; ' He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me ' (x. ^2, 33, 40). ' Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest; Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls' ; 'AH things are delivered unto me of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him' (xi. 27, 28, 29). Again, His present glory and power is ex- pressed in the promises : ' All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth ' ; ' Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world' (xxviii. 18, 20). 'I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist '( Luke xxi. 15). But it is a small matter to prove that our Lord promised that after His depar- ture from the world He should continue to be to His disciples an ever-present and powerful protector. What He declared concerning His second coming more decisively marks Him out as one who claimed to stand on a different level from ordinary men. St. Matthew represents Him as telling that all the tribes of the earth shall *see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, and that he shall send /us angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and xii.] OUR LORD'S SELF-ASSERTION. 219 they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other ' (xxiv. 30). He goes on to tell (xxv. 31) how all nations shall be gathered before Him while He sits on the throne of His glory and pronounces judg- ment upon them ; and the judgment is to be determined according to the kindness they shall have shown to Himself. The Synoptic Evangelists all agree in representing Jesus as persisting in this claim to the end, and as finally incurring condemnation for blasphemy from the high-priest and the Jewish Council, because, in answer to a solemn adjuration, He professed Himself to be that Son of Man who was one day to come in the clouds of heaven, as Daniel had prophesied (Matt, xxvii. 65 ; Mark xiv. 62 ; see also Luke xxii. 60). Now, reflect for a moment what we should think of one who de- clared his belief that on that great day, when mankind shall stand before the judgment-seat of God, he should not stand like others, to give account of the deeds done in the body, but be seated on the throne of judgment, passing sentence on the rest of the human race. If we could think of him as, after all, no more than a man like ourselves, we must set him down as, in the words of Strauss, either a fool or an impostor. We can only avoid forming such a judgment of Jesus by believing Him to be in real truth more than man. It follows that the claims which the Synoptic Gospels represent our Lord as making for Himself are so high, and, if He was really mere man, are so extravagant, that if we accept the Synoptic Gospels as truly representing the character of our Lord's language about Himself, we certainly have no right to reject St. John's account, on the score that it puts too ex- alted language about himself into the mouth of our Lord. If it is objected that the ascription of such language to Jesus belongs to a later stage of Christian thought, and that they who had known their Master after the flesh could not have held the high views concerning His Person which this ascription implies, we can easily show that, in works of earlier date than anyone has claimed for the Fourth Gospel, no lower view is expressed of the dignity of our Lord. I have already said (p. 26) that Baur acknowledged the Apo- 2 20 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xii. calypse to have been written by St. John ; and the same view- is taken by Renan and by many other critics of the same school, who draw from their acknovvledg-ment of the Johan- nine authorship of the Apocalypse the strongest argument against that of the Fourth Gospel ; for they hold it to be one of the most certain conclusions of critical science that the two books could not have had the same author. But other critics of the same school have been clear-sighted enough to perceive that the acknowledgment of the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse necessitates the abandonment of the argument we have just been considering. For the dignity ascribed to our Lord in the Book of Revelation is such that it requires some ingenuity to make out that the Gospel attributes to Him any higher. All through the Revelation Jesus plainly holds a position far above that of any created being. He is described as ' the beginning of the creation of God ' (iii. 14). He sits on the throne of the Father of all (iii. 21). He is the object of worship of every created thing which is in the heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, and all things that are in them (v. 13). His blood has been an atonement which sufficed to purchase to God men of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (v. 9). He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords (xix. 16). When I was speaking of the lofty claims which our Lord, as reported by the Synoptic Evangelists, made for Himself, I omitted to mention one illustration. Those who wished to do Him honour are related to have saluted Him as Son of David (Matt. xx. 30, xxi. g) : the Jewish rulers, who saw all that was implied by such a title, and feared the fatal conse- quences to their nation which would follow from an attempt to restore David's earthly kingdom, hoped that the Galilean prophet would disclaim so perilous an honour, and asked him to rebuke his disciples (xxi. 15). He not only accepted the honours offered him, as so plainly his due, that if his disciples were to hold their peace the very stones would cry out, but he went on to intimate that the title Son of David was less than he could rightfully claim, and he pointed out that the Messiah was described in the Book of Psalms as XII.] CHRISTOLOGY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 221 David's Lord (xxii. 43). I am disposed to connect with this the words ascribed to our Lord in the Apocalypse (xxii. 16) : * I am the root and the offspring of David.' It is possible to give the word piX^a the secondary meaning, * scion ' (having regard to Isa. xi. 10; Rom. xv. 12 ; Rev. v. 5) ; yet I prefer to give it the meaning 'root', which implies existence prior to David, because the idea of priority is unmistakeably expressed in other passages. There is one passage in particular where the antecedence to all created things of Him who in the Revelation is called the Word of God is expressed in such a way as not to fall short of an ascription to Him of the titles and prerogatives of the Supreme God. Whom but the Supreme God should we imagine to be speak- ing when we read (i. 8) : * I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty' ? Read on a little way (ver, 17), and we find One who is unmistakeably our blessed Lord addressing the Apocalyptic seer with like words, which are again re- peated (xxii. 13), *I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end'. The fourth Gospel puts into the mouth of our Lord no claim of Godhead stronger or more express than what the glorified Saviour is represented as uttering in the book of the Revelation. And this ascrip- tion to Him of glory not distinguishable from that of the Supreme is a prevailing characteristic of the book. The Son of God sits down with His Father in his throne (iii. 21) ; and this throne is called, ' the throne of God and of the Lamb ' (xxii. I, 3; cf XX. 6). The doctrine of the Gospel (v. 2-^) that • all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father ' is deeply stamped on the Apocalypse. To some critics it has seemed incredible that one who had known Jesus, and conversed with Him as a man like himself, should pay Him divine honours such as it was natural enough for enthusiastic disciples to render, in whose eyes the Founder of their religion was but an ideal Personage. On that account they have refused to believe that the fourth Evangelist can be one who had been a personal companion of our Lord. But here we find that the Gospel presents no more exalted 22 2 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xii. conception of the Saviour's dignity than that which is oifered in the book of the Revelation, the apostolic authorship of which so many critics of all schools are willing to acknow- ledge.* In confirmation of the view that the Apocalypse was written by a personal hearer of our Lord, I may notice that echoes of the Gospel records of the words of Jesus are to be found more frequently in this than in any other New Testa- ment book, except perhaps the Epistle of James. f And I cannot help thinking that we should find still more coinci- dences if we had a fuller record of the words of Jesus than that preserved in the Gospels. Thus St. James (i. 12) refers to our Lord's promise of a 'crown of life', and Zeller hence drew a proof (Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift^ 1863, p. 93) that the author of that Epistle used the Apocalypse, Rev. ii. 10 being the only New Testament place where such a promise is put into the mouth of our Lord. But it seems to me much more probable that we have here reminiscences by two independent hearers, James and John, of words actually spoken by our Lord, of which traces are also to be found 2 Tim. iv. 8, i Pet. v. 4. So, again, the coincidence of the phrase 'book of life', Phil. iv. 3, with that which is found in the Apocalypse, iii. 5, and in five other places, is, I think, most easily explained by the supposition that this very phrase had been used by our Lord. See Luke x. 20. Again, when the prominence given to the doctrines of our Lord's divinity and pre-existence is made a ground for assigning a late date to the fourth Gospel, we must remember that these doctrines are taught in documents earlier than either Gospel or Apocalypse — I mean St Paul's Epistles. I refer in particular to the passage in the Epistle to the Colos- sians (i. 15-18), which is quite as strong as the prologue to St. John. Christ is there the ' image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature; for by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, * See, for example, the passages cited from Baur and Zeller b}' Archdeacon Lee in the Speaker s Commentary, p. 406. t For example: — i. 7, Matt. xxiv. 30; ii. 7, Matt. xi. 15, &c. ; ii. 23, Matt. xvi. 27 ; ii. 26, Matt. xxiv. 13 ; iii. 3, Matt. xxiv. 42 ; iii. 5, Matt. x. 32. XII.] JOHN'S AND PAUL'S DOCTRINES. 223 whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers; all things were created by him and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist; and he is the head of the body the Church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence.' Baur very consistently refuses to believe that this was written by St. Paul: but most critics, even of the sceptical school, have owned that the evidence for the genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians is too strong to be resisted, especially connected as it is with the Epistle to Philemon, which bears an unmistakeable stamp of truth, and which is utterly beyond the invention of any forger. In this connexion I have pleasure in referring to an excellent comparison of the theology of St. John with that of St. Paul by Mr. J. J. Murphy [Scientific Bases of Faith, p. 365), where he founds an argument for the truth of their doctrine on the coincidence of two independent witnesses. Both are found to express the same doctrines, but in quite different language; whereas if the fourth Gospel had been indebted to St. Paul we should have found there some of St. Paul's expressions as well as his doctrine.* I have devoted so much time to the objection brought against the fourth Gospel from the character of its Chris- * Compare the teaching of each of the Apostles on the Deity of Christ (John i. i, iii. 13, XX. 28 ; Rom. ix. 5, Phil. ii. 6) ; his pre-existence (John vi. 62, viii. 58, xvii. 5 ; Col. i. 17) ; his work of creation (John i. 3 ; i Cor. viii. 6, Col. i. 16) ; the asso- ciation of his name with that of God on terms of equality (John v. 18, 23, xiv. 10, 23, xvii. 3, 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Gal. i. i ; Eph. v. 5, i Thess. iii. 11) ; the voluntariness of his humiliation (John x. 17 ; 2 Cor. viii. 9, Phil. ii. 7) ; his present power and glory (John iii. 35, xiv. 14 ; Rom. xiv. 9, 1 Cor. xv. 25, Eph. i. 20, Phil. ii. 10) ; that by him only access is had to the Father (John xiv. 6 ; Eph. ii. 18, i Tim. ii. 5) ; that by faith in him we are justified (John iii. 15, vi. 47, xi. 25, xx. 31 ; Rom. iii. 22, V. I, Gal. ii. 16, Eph. ii. 8) ; that atonement has been made by him (John i. 29, vi. 51, I John i. 7, ii. 2, iii. 5 ; Rom. iii. 24, v. 9, l Cor. v. 7, Gal. iii. 13, Eph. i. 7) ; that his life is the source of his people's life (John vi. 53 ; Rom. v. 10) ; that they are united with him (John xv. 5 ; i John ii. 5, iii. 6, iv. 13 ; Rom. viii. 17, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, Gal. ii. 20, iii. 27) ; that our relation to him is like his relation to the Father (John X. 14, 15, xiv. 20, xv. 9; i Cor. iii. 22) : on all these points you will find a wonderful similarity of substantial doctrine with great variety of expression. The two witnesses are clearly independent, and their teaching is the same. 224 ^^^ JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xii. tology, because, though not really the strongest, it is I believe the most influential; and the reason why other arguments have been sought for is the fear that the reception of the fourth Gospel would give apostolic authority to a view of our Lord's person which the objectors are determined to reject- I consider that I have shown that this view was at least that accepted among Christians several years before the date claimed either for Gospel or Apocalypse; and that I have shown also that though the fourth Gospel may give greater prominence than do the preceding three to those utterances of our Lord in which He asserts His own superhuman character, there is nothing in such utterances unlike what is found in every report of the language which He habitually used.* * At the very time when the first edition of these lectures was published, the Hibbert Lectures were delivered in London, by Dr. Pfleiderer, Professor of Theology at Berlin, a pupil of Baur's, but who has retired from some of his masters' extreme positions. Pfleiderer still maintains the anti-Paulinism of the Apocalypse, but he is in perfect agreement with what I had said as to the identity of the Christology of the book with that of Paul ; and as to the impossibility of denying the Joliannine origin of the Gospel, on account of its Christology, without on the same ground denying that of the Apocalypse. I cannot forbear quoting at length : — ' Like the Pauline Christology, that of the author of the Apocalypse hinges on the one hand on the expiatory death, and on the other on the celestial glory of Christ, whilst the earthly life of Jesus is referred to only so far that Christ is called the " Offspring of David " and the " Lion of Juda " ; just as Paul in the Epistle to the Romans had connected Christ's descent from David with his Divine Sonship. As Paul denominated Christ the Passover slain for us, so our author likes to describe him as " the Lamb slain for us " , and finds in his violent death a proof of his love for us and an expiation to purify us from the guilt of sin, a ransom to redeem us to God. Again, as Paul calls Christ the first-fruits of them that slept, so in the Apocalypse we find him termed the first-born from the dead. As, according to Paul, Christ has been exalted to the regal dignity of divine dominion over all, so, according to our author, he has taken his seat on the throne by the side of his Father, par- ticipating therefore in his divine dominion and power; he is the Lord of the churches, holds their stars, or guardian angels, in his hand, and is also Ruler of nations and King of kings, the all-wise and almighty Judge of the nations ; indeed, to him is due a worship similar to that of God himself. As the author of the Apocalypse in his apotheosis of Christ as an object of worship thus almost outstrips Paul, neither does he in his dogmatic definitions of Christ's nature at all fall behind the Apostle. Lilvc Paul, he calls Christ the " Son of God " in the metaphysical sense of a god-like spiri- tual being, and far beyond the merely theocratic significance of the title. As Pauj had said, "The Lord is the Spirit", so our author identifies Christ with the Spirit, or XIII.] THE APOCALYPSE. 225 XIII. Part II. THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE APOCALYPSE. I come now to discuss the objection that is most relied on, and to which I have already referred, that the Apocalypse and the fourth Gospel are so different in style and character that it is impossible to believe they can have been written by the same person ; and that since John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse he could not have written the Gospel. This argument is borrowed from Dionysius of Alexandria, who lived in the third century, and who made the converse use of it, namely, that as John wrote the Gospel he could not have written the Apocalypse. And certainly, if we had to assign to the Apostle but one of the two, and were only guided by external evidence, we should have more reason to assign him the Gospel. The only point of advantage for the Apocalypse is that Justin Martyr happens to name the Apostle John as its author, while he uses the Gospel with- celestial principle of revelation which speaks to the churches and rules in them. As Paul had had a vision of Christ as the Man from heaven in celestial light and glory, so the author of the Apocalypse likewise beholds Him in a super-mundane form like imto a son of man, his face shining as the sun. As Paul had described the celestial Son of Man as at the same time the image of God, the agent of creation, the head of every man, and finally even God over all, so the Christ of the Apocalypse introduces himself with the predicates of Divine majesty, " I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the All-powerful" ; and he is accordingly called also " the Head of creation" and "the Word of God ", that is, the mediating instrument of all divine revelation from the creation of the world to the final judgment. ' It appears from this that the similarity of the Christology of the Apocalypse to that of Paul is complete ; this Christ occupies the same exalted position as the Paul- ine Christ above the terrestrial Son of Man. Would such a view of Christ be con- ceivable in the case of a man who had lived in personal intercourse with Jesus ? I think we have in this another proof that the author of the Apocalypse was not the Apostle John.' — Pfleiderer, Hibbert Lectures, pp. 158-161. Q 2 26 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiii. out mention of the Evangelist's name. On the other hand, the proof of early acknowledgment, by heretics as well as by orthodox, is rather stronger for the Gospel (see p. 58); and the reception of the Gospel in the Church was unanimous, which is more than we can say for the Apocalypse. However, in either case, the external evidence is amply sufficient. For the Apocalypse, in addition to Justin, I could quote Papias and quite a long list of second century witnesses to its recognition in the Church (see Westcott, N. T. Canon, Index, p. 587). I content myself with appealing to Irenseus, whose testimony to the four Gospels has been already produced (p. 37). He is equally strong in his witness to the Apocalypse. A remarkable passage is one (v. 30) in which he discusses whether the true reading of the number of the beast is 666 or 616, both readings being found in MSS. of his time; as they are still.* Irenseus declares that the reading 666 is that of the best and oldest copies, and is attested by those who had seen John face to face. We cannot but be struck by this mention of a traditional know- ledge of the prophecy concurrent with the evidence of the written copies. The estimation in which Irenaeus held the book is evidenced by the sense he expresses of the guilt and penalty incurred by those who substituted the erroneous number for the true, though he trusts that those may obtain pardon whose adoption of the error was not wilful. The denunciation (Rev. xxii. 18, 19) had previously been clearly referred to by Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb. iv. 23). Irenaeus gives examples of Greek names the arithmetical value of the .sum of whose letters amounts to 666 {tvavQuQ, XaTiivoQ, retrav), but he does not venture to express a confident decision in favour of any solution; because he looks on the Apostle as having designedly left the matter obscure, since if he had wished the name to be known at the time he would have spoken plainly. And whatever reasons there were for hiding the name at the first must still exist in the time of Irenaeus. * For it was not long ago that the vision was seen, but almost * 616 is the reading of Codd. C, ii. XIII.] THE APOCALYPSE. 227 in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.' I shall presently return to speak of the statement here made as to the date of the book. The Muratorian Fragment twice refers to the Apocalypse. In speaking of Paul's Epistles the writer says that Paul had written letters to seven churches, following the order of his predecessor John, who in the Apocalypse had written to seven churches. Further on he says : * We receive only the Revelations of John and of Peter, the latter of which some of us will not have read in the Church.' Of this Apocalypse of Peter I must take another opportunity to speak. We may assume, then, that in the time of Irenseus the Apocalypse was commonly received, and that on it were founded the expectations that generally prevailed of a per- sonal reign of our Lord on earth for a thousand years. But these expectations soon assumed a very gross and carnal character. I will quote the tradition which Irenaeus (v. ^;^) cites from Papias, a tradition which consoles us for the loss we have sustained of the work in which Papias collected un- written records of the Saviour's teaching, and which probably was one of the causes which moved Eusebius (iii. 39) to pro- nounce Papias a man of weak understanding. 'The elders who saw John, the disciple of our Lord, remember to have heard from him that our Lord taught and said : The days shall come in which vines shall grow, each having 10,000 shoots, and on each shoot 10,000 branches, and on each branch 10,000 twigs, and on each twig 10,000 clusters, and on each cluster 10,000 grapes ; and each grape when pressed shall yield 25 measures of wine ; and when any of the saints shall have taken hold of one of these clusters another shall say : I am a better cluster ; take me and bless the Lord through me. Likewise, also, a grain of wheat shall produce 10,000 ears, and every ear 10,000 grains, and every grain ten pounds of pure white meal, and the other fruits, seeds, and vegetables in like manner. And all the animals using the food thus yielded by the earth shall be peaceful and agree together, and be subject to man with all subjection. ... And He added : Tlie.se things are credible to believers. And when Q 2 228 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiii. Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked Him, How shall such growth be accomplished ? the Lord said : They shall see who come to those times.'* This is a specimen of the kind of notions which were current under the name of Chiliasm ; and spiritual men were shocked at seeing their Christian brethren looking forward to a kind of Mahometan paradise, the chief enjoyment of which was to consist of the pleasures of sense, not excluding those of the grossest kind. Hence arose a strong reaction against Millennarian ideas, and hence also a disposition to reject the inspiration of the book on which the Millennarians mainly relied. There were in the third century some who ascribed the book to the heretic Cerinthus. Caius, a learned Roman presbyter at the beginning of the third century (Euseb. ii. 28), rejected a book of revelations purporting to be written by a great Apostle, but ascribed by Caius to Cerinthus, in which the author professed to have been shown by angels that after the resurrection men should inhabit Jerusalem, should be the slaves of lusts and pleasures, and should spend 1000 years in marriage festivities. Some have understood this description as applying to our Canonical book, and, in a passage presently to be quoted from Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius has been thought to refer to Caius. But this is more than doubtful ; for the author of the Apocalypse no- where describes himself as an Apostle, nor describes Millen- narian happiness as consisting in sensual gratifications; and, besides, the passage already cited from the Muratorian Frag- ment shows that the Roman Church of Caius' time did recog- nize the Apocalypse as St. John's; and the same thing * Great light has been cast on the probable source of this tradition of Papias through the publication from the Syriac, by Ceriani (Milan, 1866), of a Jewish book called the Apocalypse of Baruch. It is included in Fritzsche's ' Apocryphal books of the Old Testament' (Leipzig, 187 1). Fritzsche judges the book to have been written not long after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. The book contains (c. 29) a description of the times of the Messiah, in which it is predicted that a vine shall have 1000 shoots, each shoot 1000 clusters, each cluster 1000 grapes, and each grape shall yield a measure of wine. It is reasonable to think that this book furnished the original of the story, which, before it reached Papias, had been considerably improved, and had come to be referred to a saying of our Lord. XIII.] MILLENNARIANISM. 229 appears from the use of the book of the Revelation by Hippo- lytus, who was contemporary with Caius. It was rather in the East that its authority decayed. It is not included in the Peshitto Syriac,* and Jerome tells us that the Greeks of his time did not receive it {Ep. \zc)^ ad Dard.). Eusebius speaks doubtfully about it, and seems divided between his own judgment, formed from the contents of the book, which inclined him to reject it, and the weight of external evidence in its favour, which he found it hard to set aside. He con- sequently shrinks from expressing his own opinion, and tries to cast on his readers the responsibility of forming a judgment [H. E. III. 25, 39). Towards the end of the fourth century there were a few, of whom we are told by Epiphanius and Philaster [Haer. 60), who ascribed both Gospel and Apoca- lypse to Cerinthus. Epiphanius calls them Alogi, but it is a mistake to suppose that there was a sect of heretics of the name. This was only a clever nickname invented by Epi- phaniusf {Haer. 51, 3) for the opponents of the Logos Gospel, the word being intended to denote the irrational character of their opposition. I do not know that there were ever enough of them to make a sect; and they seem unworthy of notice, since their objections as refuted by Epiphanius do not profess to have rested on any grounds of external testimony. Their ascribing the Gospel to Cerinthus shows that they believed in its antiquity, since Cerinthus was contemporary with St, John, This report of the evidence justifies me in saying that if we were compelled to abandon one or other, we should have far more countenance from antiquity for ascribing the Gospel * Yet we find Theophilus of Antioch using the book before the end of the second century (Euseb. iv, 24). Ephraem Syrus cites Rev. v. 1-3 {Serm. Exeg. in Ps. cxl. 3. 0pp. Syr. ii. 332). t It is a small slip, that Canon Westcott [Speaker's Commentary, p. xxix) makes Philaster as well as Epiphanius use this name. It is peculiar to the latter writer, who expressly claims the invention for himself. It was probably from Hippolytus that both writers derived the counting opposition to the Johannine writings as a heresy ; but there is no reason to think that the opponents were united into a sect, any more than those who denied all the 150 Psalms to have been written by David (Pliilast. Haer. 130) ; or who denied the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written by St. Paul {Haer. 89) ; or who asserted the plurality of worlds (Haer. 115); or who held that the age of the world was uncertain {Haer. 112). 2 30 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiii. to St. John than for attributing to him the book of Revelation. At the same time I regard the evidence for the latter as amply sufficient, because the testimony in its favour is a century or two earlier than the doubts which arose concerning it, and which seem to have arisen entirely from unwillingness to accept the doctrine of a future reign of our Lord on this earth. I wish now to state a little more fully the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, because it is an interesting speci- men of an early application of critical science to discriminate the claims of different books ascribed to the same author. Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria from 247 to 265, and had been the successor of Origen as president of the Catecheti- cal School of Alexandria. Origen had acknowledged the Apocalypse as the work of the Apostle John, and, by his favourite method of allegorical interpretation, had got over the difficulties which the literal acceptance of its doctrines might have occasioned. But the mass of simple believers could not be satisfied with these philosophical refinements, and protested against them. The argument which I am about to quote was offered first on what seems to me a very remarkable occasion. Dionysius of Alexandria is a man whom we know mainly by some extracts from his writings preserved by Eusebius ; and there is none of the early fathers who impresses me more favourably as a man of earnest piety, good sense, moderation, and Christian charity. On the oc- casion to which I refer he worked what I account one of the greatest and most authentic miracles of ecclesiastical his- tory. His diocese being much troubled with disputes on the Millennarian controversy, he assembled those whom perhaps another bishop would have denounced as heretics ; and he held a three days' public discussion with them : the result being what I have never heard of as the result of any other public discussion— that he talked his opponents round, and brought all to complete agreement with himself [H. E. Vli. 24). I am, however, less surprised at this result from the specimen which Eusebius gives us of the manner in which Dionysius dealt with the authority of the leading Millen- XIII.] DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. 231 narian of his district, Nepos, who was then not long dead ; and whose name had at that time the authority which that of Keble has now, the favour in which his sacred poetry was held gaining favour for a certain school of theological opinions. Nothing can be more conciliatory than the grace- ful way in which Dionysius speaks of Nepos and of the ser- vices which he had rendered the Church, in particular by his composition of hymns, for which Dionysius expresses a high value, though he claims the liberty which he is sure Nepos himself, if living, would have allowed him, of testing his opinions by Scripture. The most formidable difficulty Diony- sius has to encounter in dealing with the Millennarians is the Apocalypse, and this he meets by a theory of his own. The criticism of Dionysius, and his denial that the John of the Apocalypse was the Apostle John, rests, you will observe, on no external evidence, and is opposed to the uniform tradition of the Church up to that time. Dionysius begins by saying that some of his predecessors had utterly rejected this book, criticizing every chapter, declaring it to be unintelligible and inconsistent; and asserting that the title 'Revelation of John' was doubly false. For they said that a book so obscure did not deserve to be called a Revelation ; and that the author was not John the Apostle, but Cerinthus, one of whose notions was that the kingdom of Christ should be earthly, consisting of those carnal and sensual pleasures which he most craved for, and (for a decorous cover to these) feastings and sacrifices and slaughters of victims, ' But, for my part ', proceeds Dionysius, ' 1 do not venture to reject the book, since many of the brethren hold it in esteem ; but I take it to be above my understanding to comprehend it, and I conceive the inter- pretation of each several part to be hidden and marvellous. For, though I do not understand, yet I surmise that some deeper meaning underlies the words. These things I do not measure and judge by my own reasoning ; but, giving the chief place to faith, I am of opinion that they are too high for me to comprehend. I believe also the author's name to be John, for he himself says so, but I cannot easily grant him to be the Apostle the son of Zebedee, whose is the Gospel that is 232 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiii. inscribed " according to John ", and the Catholic Epistle, for I infer from the tone [fjdoc;) of each, and the character of the language, and from what is called the S/e^aywyr/ of the book [general method], that he is not the same person.' The arguments which Dionysius then proceeds to urge are, first, that the Evangelist mentions his name neither in the Gospel nor in the First Epistle, and in the other two Epistles only calls himself the Elder, while the author of the Apocalypse calls himself John three times in the first chapter and once in the last : but never calls himself the disciple whom Jesus loved, or the brother of James, or the man who had seen and heard the Lord. It is to be supposed that there were many of the name of John, as for example we read of John Mark in the Acts. Many who admired John, no doubt, gave the name to their children for the love they bore him, just as many of the faithful now call their , children by the names of Peter and Paul. 'And it is said that there are two tombs at Ephesus, each bearing the name of John's tomb.' He next argues that there is great similarity of style between the Gospel and Epistle, and a number of expressions common to both, such as life, light, the avoiding of darkness, with the command- ment of love one towards another, &c., none of which are to be found in the Revelation, which has not a syllable in common with the other two ; that Paul in his Epistles men- tions having been favoured with revelations, and that there is no corresponding mention in the Epistle of St. John. Lastly, he presses the argument from the difference of style : ' the Gospel and Epistle', he says, 'are written not only with- out offending against the Greek language, but even most eloquently in point of expression, reasoning, and literary construction, far from containing any barbarous word, or solecism, or vulgarism. For the Apostle, it seems, possessed either word, even as God gave him both — the word of know- ledge and the word of language ; but as for this writer, that he saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy, I will not gainsay ; yet I perceive his dialect and tongue to be not accurately Greek, nay, that he uses barbarous idioms, and in some cases even bolecis>nis, instances whereof it needs not XIII.] DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. 233 that I should now detail ; for neither have I mentioned them in ridicule — let no one suppose it — but only as criticizing the dissimilarity of the books ' (Euseb. H. E. vil. 25). This passage contains all the arguments used by modern writers against the common authorship of Gospel and Apoca- lypse, except one which I have already answered, namely, that the Apocalypse is the work of a Judaizing Christian, the Gospel that of one of ultra-Pauline liberality. I have shown that in this respect the Apocalypse is completely Pauline {see p. 31). I do not think it necessary to spend much time on the first argument of Dionysius, viz. that founded on the fact that the author of the Apocalypse has given his name, both in the first and third person, while both Gospel and Epistle are anonymous. In such a matter it is very possible that the same man might act differently on different occasions, even though we could assign no reason for his change of conduct. But in this case a sufficient reason can be given. In the Old Testa- ment the rule is that the historical books (with the exception, indeed, of the Book of Nehemiah) are all anonymous; but every prophetical book, without any exception, gives the name of the prophet to whom the vision or prophecy was communicated. The whole book of the Revelation is framed on the model of the Old Testament prophecies, so that it is a matter of course that it should begin by naming the seer whose visions were recorded, while it would be quite natural that a historical book by the same author should be anonymous.* Nor can more stress be laid on the remark that John does not in the Apocalypse call himself an Apostle, or the disciple whom Jesus loved. The simplicity of the language ' I John ', without further description of the writer, is, when well con- sidered, rather a proof of Apostolic authority. A writer per- sonating the Apostle would have taken care to make the Apostleship unmistakeably plain to the reader ; and another * The transition from the third to the first person 'his servant John' (i. i), *I John ' (i. 9, xxi. 2, xxii. 2), is exactly parallel to the usage of Isaiah (i. r, ii. i, vi. i, &c.), and of Daniel (i. 6, vii. i, 2, 15, &c.). 234 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiii. John writing with an honest purpose would have distinguished himself plainly from John the Apostle. But this author betrays no desire to make himself prominent ; and the idea of any other person being mistaken for him does not seem to have crossed his mind. Very much more consideration is due to the argument which Dionysius founded on the difference of language be- tween the Revelation and the other Johannine books. Thus, he says, we do not find in the Revelation the Johannine words, ^6ujj, (f>(ijg, aXiiOeia, xapig, Kpiaiq, &c. It must be owned that, whereas the likeness between the language of the Gospel and of the First Epistle is such that even a careless reader can hardly fail to notice it, there are several of the words frequently occurring in the other Johannine books which are either rare in the Apocalypse or absent from it. But then it must be remembered how completely different the subjects treated of in the Apocalypse are from those which are dealt with in the other books. It is not wonderful that a writer should use different words when he wants to express an entirely new circle of ideas. On the other hand, when we look beyond the superficial aspects of the books, and carefully examine their language, we arrive at a result quite different from that obtained by Dionysius. There is found to be so much affinity both of thought and diction between the various books which have been ascribed to John, that we can feel confident that all must have proceeded, if not from the same author, from the same school. I proceed to lay before you some of the proofs that if we adopt the now pretty generally accepted opinion that John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse, we shall find ourselves bound to hold that the Gospel was written either by the Apostle himself, or by a disciple of his who had not only thoroughly adopted his master's doctrine, but even much of his language. I have spoken already of the identity of the Christology of the Apocalypse with that of the Gospel, the doctrine of our Lord's pre-existence being taught as distinctly in the former [e.g. iii. 14) as in the latter. I have shown (p. 31) that the book of the Revelation refuses to own the unbeliev- XIII.] THE DICTION OF THE APOCALYPSE. 235 ing Jews as true Jews. This, also, is in complete harmony with John viii. 39, which refuses to recognize as children of Abraham those who did not the works of Abraham. Let me now direct your attention to the title given to our Lord in the Apocalypse (xix. 13), the 'Word of God', which at once con- nects that book with the Gospel and the Epistle. The Logos doctrine of the Gospel has been considered as a mark of late authorship, or at least as indicating an author more subject to Alexandrian influences than the historical John is likely to have been. On that subject I have spoken already (p. 73). But now we find that in the Apocalypse, which is admitted by Renan and by a host of Rationalist writers to be the work of John, and to which they assign an earlier date than ortho- dox critics had claimed for any of the Johannine books, this very title ' Logos ' is given to the Saviour. All objection, therefore, against the likelihood of the Apostle having used this title at once disappears. A second title repeatedly given to our Lord in the book of Revelation is the Lamb. No- where else in Scripture is it used thus as a title of the Saviour, except in the first chapter of the Gospel — ' Behold the Lamb of God'. It is scarcely necessary for me to call your attention to the sacrificial import of this title. The two books else- where (John xi. 51, 52 ; Rev. v. g) unequivocally express the same doctrine, which can be stated in words which I am persuaded John had read ' Ye were not redeemed with corrup- tible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' (i Pet. i. 18, 19).* It is plain what dignity must have been ascribed to the person of Him to whose death such far- reaching efficacy is attributed. * This is one of several coincidences between Peter's Epistle and the Johannine books : I Pet. ii. 5, 9, Rev. i. 6 ; t Pet. v. 13, Rev. xiv. 8, xvii. 5 ; i Pet. i. 7, 13, Rev. i. I, iii. i8 ; I Pet. i. 23, i John iii. 9, John i. 13, iii. 5 ; i Pet. i. 22, i John iii. 3; I Pet. V. 2, John x. 11, xxi. 16; i Pet. iii. 18, i John iii. J; i Pet. i. 10, John xii. 41 ; r Pet. v. 13, 2 John i. These coincidences seem to me more than acciden- tal. When I come to treat of Peter's Epistle I will give my reasons for preferring the explanation that John had read that Epistle to the supposition that the Epistle is post-Johannine. 236 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiii. We have in the beginning of the Revelation (i. 7) : 'Every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him.' Now the piercing of our Lord is only recorded by St. John ; and in this passage the prophet Zechariah is quoted in a form differ- ing from the Septuagint, but agreeing with the Gospel. We have repeatedly the phrase ' he that overcometh ', which is of frequent occurrence in all the Johannine books: Rev. ii. 7, 1 1, iii. 5, xii. II, xxi. 7 ; John xvi. 33 ; i John ii. 13, iv. 4, v. 4. The remarkable word aXtfOivog occurs nine times in the Gos- pel, four times in the Epistle, ten times in the Revelation, and only five times in all the rest of the New Testament. Similar evidence may be drawn from the prevalence of the words fiapTvpiu) and fxaprvpia in all the Johannine books. In the Revelation (ii. 17) Jesus promises believers 'the hidden manna'; in the Gospel (referring also to the manna) 'the true bread from heaven ' (John vi. 32). In the Gospel (vii. 37) Jesus cries, ' If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink'; in the Apocalypse (xxii. 17), ' Let him that is athirst come ; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.'* The abiding of God with man is in both books pre- sented as the issue of Christ's work (John xiv. 23; Rev. iii. 20, xxi. 3). I have produced instances enough to establish decisively that there is the closest possible affinity between the Revela- tion and the other Johannine books. The only question on which there is room for controversy is whether that affinity is * Other coincidences are : ffKtjvovv, John i. 14, Rev. vii. 15, xii. 12, xiii. 6, xxi. 3; 'Lord thou knowest', Rev. vii. 14, John xxi. 15-17; exeiv fiepos (= to partake), John xiii. 8, Rev. xx. 6 ; a(pa.TTeiv, i John iii. 12, Rev. v. 6, 9, 12, vi. 4, 9, xiii. 3, 8, xviii. 24; o^is, John vii. 24, xi. 44, Rev. i. 16; Ttjpe'iy rhv \6yov, Rev. iii. 8, lO, xxii. 7, 9, John viii. 51-55, xiv. 23, xv. 20, xvii. 6, i John ii. 5 ; kfipaicTri, twice in the Revelation, five times in the Gospel. None of these expressions are found in the New Testament, except in the Johannine books. Christ is compared to a bride- groom, John iii. 29, Rev. xix. 7, xxi. 2, xxii. 17. Other examples will be found in Davidson, whose candour here and elsewhere in fairly presenting the evidence on both sides is worthy of all praise. Nothwithstanding the perversity of some of his decisions, and, what is more irritating, the oracular tone of infallibility with which he enunciates his private opinions as if they were ascertained facts, Davidson has done great service to English students by collecting a mass of information which they will not easily find elsewhere. xm.] THE DICTION OF THE APOCALYPSE. 237 such as by itself to be a sufficient proof of identity of author- ship. In deciding on this question attention ought of course to be paid to the differences that have been pointed out. For example, our Lord's title is the 'Word of God' in the Reve- lation, simply the 'Word' in the Gospel. Christ is the Lamb in both books ; but in the Gospel 6 ajuvog, in the Revelation TO apviov ; but the latter form may have been preferred in order to give more point to the opposition which in the latter book constantly prevails between to apviov and to Bripiov. In the Gospel there is a manifest reason why the Baptist, pointing to Jesus, should use the masculine, not the neuter. So, again, we have in the Revelation ' he that overcometh', absolutely, but in the preceding books with an object: 'he that over- cometh the world', &c. There are likewise peculiarities of the Gospel which are absent from the Apocalypse, such as the use of 'iva with the subjunctive instead of the ordinary construction with the infinitive, and fondness for ovv as a con- necting-link in a narrative. It would be important to discuss these differences if I were contending that it is possible by internal evidence alone to decide between the hypothesis that the author of the Gospel was the same as the author of the Revelation, and the hypothesis that the one was a disciple and imitator of the other. But the question with which we are actually concerned is different : it is whether we are bound to reject the very strong external evidence for identity of authorship, on the ground that internal evidence demonstrates that both works could not have had the same author. I have shown that no such result can be obtained under the present head of argument, the resemblances between the books being far more striking than the differences. I suppose there are no two works of the same author between which some points of difference might not be found by a minute critic, especially if the works were written at some distance of time from each other. No two books can be more alike than the First and Second Epistles of St. John ; eight of the thirteen verses of which the latter consists are to be found in the former, either in sense or expression. Yet Davidson is careful to show that a minute critic would be at no loss for proofs of diversity of 238 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiii. authorship. The one has ei' rig, the other lav ng ; the one epx^/iiivov iv aapKiy the Other IXriKvBoTa iv crapKiy and so on. Some years ago Dr. Stanley Leathes* applied to our English poets the methods of minute criticism that have been freely used on our sacred books. He found that of about 450 words in Milton's L' Allegro, over 300 are not to be found in the longer poem // Penseroso, and over 300 do not occur in the still longer poem Lycidas. So likewise, of about 590 words in Tennyson's Lotos-eaters, there are 360 which are not found in the longer poem CEnone. I pass to the last and strongest of the arguments of Dio- nysius, that drawn from the solecisms of style. The Gospel and First Epistle are written in what, if not classical Greek, is smooth, unexceptionable, and free from barbarisms and solecisms in grammar. The Greek of the Revelation is start- ling from the first : John to the seven churches of Asia, grace to you and peace otto 6 wy koi 6 y\v koi 6 Ipyonivog, and from the seven spirits which are before his throne kox airb 'Irjaov HpiaTOV 6 fxaprvg b Tnarog, to him that loved US roi ayawCjvTL rj/nag kol XovaavTi rtinag koi eTro'itjaev I'^fiag [iaaiXdav. Instances of false apposition such as occur in this example present them- selves several times where a noun in a dependent case has a nominative in apposition with it.f It is not worth while to discuss other deviations from Greek usage, several that have been noticed not being peculiar to the Apocalypse. Some well-meaning critics have set themselves to extenu- ate these irregularities, and they have at least succeeded in showing that some considerable deductions ought fairly to be made from the list. They have produced from classical writers examples of anacoluthon, of false apposition, of construction ad sensum ; and it is urged with reason that we are not to expect in the abrupt utterances of a * rapt seer, borne from vision to vision', a regard for strict grammatical regularity, which is frequently neglected in calmer compositions. At the revival of learning, many excellent men were * Boyle Lectures, 1868, p. 283. t Thus: TTjs Ka.iV7)s ^lipovcTaXiiiJ., tj Kara^aivovcra (iii. 12), vwo/xovi] tHov ayiwv, oi TTipovuns ras ivroKds (xiv. 12), rhv Spdnofra, 6 6(pts 6 a.pxo-'^os (xx. 2). XIII.] THE DICTION OF THE APOCALYPSE. 239 shocked at the assertion of scholars that barbarisms and solecisms were to be found in New Testament Greek; and those who were called * Purists ' endeavoured to clear the sacred writers from what they regarded as a dishonouring aspersion. They ought to have reflected that it would be just as reasonable to maintain that the sacred writers ought to have been empowered to write in English, as in any kind of Greek save that which was spoken at the time and in the place in which they lived. It is difficult for us now to imagine how anyone could have persuaded himself to think that a miracle must needs have been wrought to enable the sacred writers to use a language not their own, thus obliterating the evidence which the character of the style bears to the time and circumstances under which the books were written. In the case of the Apocalypse, the character of the lan- guage corresponds very well with what might be expected from the author to whom it is ascribed. It gives us no reason to disbelieve that this author had a sufficiency of Greek for colloquial purposes. His anacolutha do not prove him to be ignorant of the ordinary rules of Greek construction. The very rules which he breaks in one place he observes in others. The use of such a phrase as cnrb 6 mv could not possibly be the result of ignorance that awo governs the genitive case. One who could make such a mistake through ignorance would be incapable of writing the rest of the book. This example is rather to be paralleled by ' I AM hath sent me ', in the autho- rized version of Ex. iii. 14. This very text seems to have suggested the 6 wv of St. John, while 6 ijv is a bold attempt to supply the want of a past participle of the substantive verb. As for 6 Ipxofifvog, there may possibly be a reference to our Lord's second coming, but it is also quite possible that the form Ecro/ueuoc, which only occurs once 2V. T., was not familiar to the writer. As there may be a great difference between the copiousness of the vocabulary possessed by two persons who speak the same language (the stock of words that suffices to express the ideas of the rustic being wholly inadequate for the necessities of the literary man), so there maybe equal differ- ence in respect of the variety of grammatical forms habitually 240 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiik employed. In particular there is sure to be such a difference between the language of the native and that of the foreigner. One who learns a language late in life finds it hard to obtain a mastery of any complicated system of inflexions ; and this, no doubt, is why we find that in the modern languages of Europe which are derived from the Latin the varieties of case endings have been in great measure obliterated. We can thus understand how it is that John, accustomed to Aramaic, which has no case endings, though not ignorant of the use of the oblique cases, is glad to slide back into the use of the nominative. Then, again, of the forms known to gramma- rians several are but rarely needed for practical use ; and with want of practice the power of correct use is apt to be lost. When I was young, members of the Society of Friends affected the use of the second person singular, but its use elsewhere had become so obsolete that they were unable to employ it grammatically. * Thee ' became a nominative case, and was made to agree with a verb in the third person.* A foreigner who has learned to manipulate correctly the grammatical forms which are of frequent occurrence will be apt to find them insufficient for his needs when he proceeds to literary- composition. John, for example, might be in the constant habit of employing the participle present, and yet not be equally familiar with the use of participles future. The Apocalypse, then, is exactly what might have been written by one whose native language was Aramaic, who was able to use Greek for the ordinary purposes of life, but who found a strain put on his knowledge of the language when he desired to make a literary use of it. But how is it then that the Greek of the Gospel should be so much better, if both books were written by the same author r I am not sure that the Greek of the Gospel does display so very much wider a knowledge of grammatical forms. A grammarian does not find so much at which to take exception; but this may be because less has been * Tennyson also has been lately accused of bad grammar iu his use of the second person singular by employing ' wert ' in the indicative mood instead of ' wast '. In this matter, however, he is kept in countenance by several preceding poets. XIII.] SOLECISMS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 24 1 attempted. It is much easier to turn into another language such sentences as 'In the beginning was the Word', &c., than such a phrase as ' which is and which was and which is to come'. It is on account of this more restricted range of grammatical forms that the Gospel of St. John has been so often used as the first book of a beginner learning a foreign language.* But without extenuating too much the superiority of the Greek of the Gospel over that of the Revelation, two ex- planations of that difference can be given. The opinion of critics, orthodox as well as sceptical, now tends to reverse the doctrine of older writers which made the Apocalypse much the later book of the two, and to give it, on the contrary, ten, perhaps twenty, years of greater antiquity than the Gospel. Admit that St. John was no longer young when he came to Ephesus, and therefore that no very radical change in his language was to be expected ; still, living in a Greek city, and with crowds of Greek disciples about him to whom he would daily have to expound his doctrines in their own language, he could not fail to acquire greater facility in its use, and a power of expressing his ideas such as he had not possessed when he had merely used the language for ordinary colloquial purposes. There would have been fair ground for suspicion, if there had been no superiority over the Greek of the Apocalypse, in a book written after a score of years, during which the author was speaking little or no Aramaic, and must have been habitually speaking Greek. The second consideration is that of possible assistance. I have known two letters sent to the Continent bearing the same signature, written in the same foreign language, but possibly differing from each other in grammatical accuracy as much as the Gospel and Apocalypse ; and the explanation was not that the writer was different, but only * The above was written before I had read Canon Westcott's Introduciioti, who says (p. 1) : 'To speak of St. John's Gospel as "written in very pure Greek" is altogether misleading. It is free from solecisms, because it avoids all idiomatic expressions.' And he goes on to remark that there is at most one instance of the use of the oratio obliqua. R 242 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xii. that, in the one case, not in the other, he had taken the pre- caution before sending his composition to get it looked over by a better linguist than himself. St. Paul, we know, habi- tually used the services of an amanuensis ; so also may St. John ; and for all we know the disciple may have been a better Greek scholar than his master. If a solecism were dictated to him he might silently correct it (as we find that in the later MSS. scribes have corrected several in the Apoca- lypse), or he might at least call his master's attention to it. The linguistic differences, therefore, between the Apocalypse and the Gospel could all be accounted for by the supposition that John wrote the former book with his own hand, and in the latter employed the services of an amanuensis. Such explanations being available, the differences of lan- guage that have been pointed out come very far short of demonstrating diversity of authorship. The conclusion, then, to which I consider we are led by a comparative study of the books is, that the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books clearly belong to the same school : the first is as closely related to the rest as the Epistle to the Hebrews is to St. Paul's Epistles. If we regard the evidence from language solely, I do not think we are in a position either to affirm or deny that the same man wrote all the books. There are resemblances between them such as to make it very credible that it was so ; but at the same time there are differences which indicate that the Revelation must at least have been written at a different time or under different circumstances from the others. Some other topics of internal evidence will afterwards come under consideration. XIV.] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 243 XIV. Part III. THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. It will be convenient if before proceeding further I state in more detail the modern theory as to the date of the book of Revelation. I have already said that modern critics, who agree with Dionysius in assigning the Gospel and Apocalypse to different authors, differ from him by claiming Apostolic authority for the latter, not the former. And in this case we have the singular instance of sceptical critics assigning to a New Testament book an earlier date than the orthodox had claimed for it. The latter, following Irenaeus, had assigned the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian, and had regarded it as the last work of the Apostle John, written in extreme old age. Modern critics, on the other hand, are willing to grant the book a quarter of a century of greater antiquity. From the verse xvii. 10, * there are seven kings ; five are fallen, and one is and the other is not yet come ', they infer that the book was written after the death of five Roman emperors, and during the reign of the sixth. There is a difference in the way of counting Roman emperors, which however is made not to affect the result. If we begin the reckoning with Augustus, Nero is the fifth, shortly after whose death the book is supposed to be written. In fact this fixes the date within very narrow limits, for the reign of Galba only lasted from May 68, to January 69. The more usual computation made Julius the first of Roman emperors,* and this is adopted by Renan ; but the date which he assigns the book is the same ; for his theory is that though Nero was really dead at the time, he was supposed by the author of the book to be * See the authorities quoted by Renan, VAiitechnst, \). 407. R 2 244 ^^^^ JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiv. still living, so that the five kings then dead were Nero's five predecessors. The disappearance of Nero was so sudden, and his death witnessed by so few persons, that vague rumours got abroad, especially in Asia and Achaia, that he was not really dead. Tacitus tells us {Hz'st ll. 8, 9) that an impostor speedily took advantage of this state of feeling. He is said to have been of servile origin, was like Nero in personal appearance, and had the same musical skill. Giving himself out to be the emperor, he got some followers about him, and established himself in a little local sovereignty, the centre of his power being Cyth- nos (one of the Cyclades not far from Patmos), to which island he had been driven by tempests when crossing the sea. But his power was of short duration ; for he was slain early in the reign of Otho, and his body was sent round to different cities, in order completely to dispel the delusion which he had excited. Some twenty years later, however, there was again talk of a false Nero, the pretender this time having presented himself in Parthia, where he obtained credence, protection, and support (Suet,, NerOy 57). The belief that the matricide Nero had fled beyond the Euphrates is expressed in the Sibylline books, IV. iig, 137, and accordingly the book con- taining the verses referred to is judged to be a Jewish com- position of the date 80 or 90. Now the Apocalyptist is regarded by Renan and the other interpreters of the same school as having shared this belief about Nero, This is what is supposed to be implied in the verses xiii, 3, 12, 14 : *I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death ; and his deadly wound was healed ' ; and again, xvii, 1 1 : * The beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition ', which is interpreted to mean that Nero, one of the seven emperors, was to return and rule for a time as the eighth. The mention of the kings of the East, xvi, 12, is interpreted as containing a reference to the Parthians, by whose aid Nero was to be restored,* * I note here that it is an attempt to combine inconsistent hypotheses when quo- tations are accumulated which speak of the beUef that Nero had fled to Parthia, and when this belief is ascribed to the Apocalyptist. For we only hear of Parthia in XIV.] KENAN'S THEORY AS TO THE APOCALYPSE. 245 This is the theory which is elaborated in Renan's fourth volume [U Antechrist). It was at once accepted by a writer \n\h% Edinburgh Review (Oct., 1874), whom I imagined at the time (I do not know whether or not correctly) to be Dean Stanley ; and more recently by Archdeacon Farrar [Expositor, 1881). Renan's view, and it is that most popular among Rationalist critics, is that this work was written by the Apostle John at Ephesus in that crisis which agitated every Jewish mind, the great Jewish war with the Romans, in the end of the year 68 or beginning of 69, a couple of years before the destruction of Jerusalem. What the seer is supposed to anticipate and to predict in the beginning of the eleventh chapter is that the siege would to a certain extent be success- ful, and the city be trodden under foot of the Gentiles for three years and a-half ; but that the Temple should not be taken, for that our Lord's second coming should rescue the Jews and be accompanied by the destruction of Rome. The 'beast' of the Revelation is said to be Nero, and Renan has revelled in the accumulation of a multitude of offensive details, which have been faithfully transcribed by his English followers, with the view of showing how applicable the title of wild beast was to that monster. But, in my opinion, no one who compares the book of Daniel with the Apocalypse will require any ingenious explanation of the use of the imagery of beasts in the latter book beyond the fact that it occurs in the former. It is supposed, however, that all doubt has been now removed through the discovery in quite recent times of the true explanation of the mysterious number 666.* This is said to be Nero Caesar written in Hebrew letters IDp lll^t And what is supposed to demonstrate the cor- connexion with Nero full twenty years after that emperor's death ; and naturally it would not be until after all trace of him had disappeared from the West that the imagination would spring up that he was hiding in the distant East. If, as Renan would have it, John wrote in the reign of Galba, and beheved the impostor of Cythnos to be the veritable Nero redivivus, he could not also believe Nero to be then lurking in Parthia. * There are rival claimants for the honour of this discovery— Fritzsche, Senary, Reuss, and Hitzig. See Farrar, Expositor, p. 347. t Thus : J = 50, n = 200, 1 = 6, J = 50, p = 100, e = 60, n = 200 ; total = 666. 246 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiv. rectness of this solution is, that it accounts equally for the numbers 666 and 6i6, both of which were early found in MSS. of the Apocalypse (see p. 226). For the difference is explained as arising from a difference in the way of spelling Nl/owv with or without the final letter, the numerical value of which in Hebrew is 50. Who the false prophet was, who is described (xiii. 11, xix. 20) as working miracles and compelling men to worship the beast and receive his mark, these interpreters are less agreed. One (Volkmar) gravely maintains that the person intended is St. Paul, who by instructing Christians (in Rom. xiii.) to submit to the higher powers had made himself the prophet of Nero. Another suggests that it might be the historian Josephus. A third contends for Simon Magus. Archdeacon Farrar upholds the claims of the emperor Ves- pasian. But these modern expositors of the Apocalypse all agree in putting forward an interpretation from which it results that the book is in every sense of the word a false prophecy — a prediction falsified by the event. It foretold that Nero was to recover his power, but in point of fact he was then dead; it foretold (and apparently in ignorance of the prophecy which Matthew has put into the mouth of our Lord) that the temple should not be taken; but actually not one stone of it was left upon another; and finally it foretold that the provinces should cast off the Roman domination and destroy the imperial city; for this is the interpretation given to chap. xvii. 16, 17 — the ten horns, into whose heart God had put it for a time to give their kingdom to the beast, shall now hate the whore, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. But in point of fact, the wars that followed the death of Nero had no such result. On the contrary, under the Flavian emperors, the dominion of Rome was more firmly established than ever. I confess that I am under a certain disadvantage in criti- cizing any theory which professes to give the true interpre- tation of the Apocalypse, for I have to own myself unable to give any better solution of my own, feeling like one of Cicero's disputants, 'facilius me, talibus de rebus, quid XIV.] THE MODERN THEORY INCREDIBLE. 247 non sentirem, quam quid sentirem, posse dicere.' However I am bound to state the difficulties which prevent me from accepting the theory, now becoming fashionable, as furnishing the true solution. And it seems almost enough to appeal to the estimation in which the Apocalypse has been held from the first. Is it a credible hypothesis that any man ever gained for himself per- manent reputation as an inspired prophet by making a pre- diction which was falsified within a year of the time when it was delivered ? According to this theory, St. John does not, like some pretenders to the gift of prophecy, make himself pretty safe by postponing to some tolerably distant future the date when his prophecy is to come to pass. He undertakes boldly to foretell the event of the great military operation of his time. For a parallel case we should imagine Victor Hugo or some other French prophet in Christmas, 1870, issuing a prediction that Paris should to a certain extent be taken, and a third part of the city burnt, but that the Germans should not get the mastery over the whole ; for that there would be an uprising of the other German nations against the Prussians, ending with the total destruction ol the city of Berlin, to the great joy of Europe. We can imagine some one mad enough to make such a prophecy as this ; but if so, can we imagine that a prediction so wild and so unfortunate should make the reputation of the prophet, and that the book which contained it should live for gene- rations as an inspired document ? In the case of the Apoca- lypse, as we are asked to understand it, the seer could hardly have had time to publish his predictions before he must have himself wished to recall or suppress them, their failure was so rapid. Possibly within a month after they were made the pretended Nero was killed and his imposture exposed. Then came a rapid succession of emperors, proving that it was a mistake to limit their number to seven, and, not long after, the destruction of Jerusalem, from which the Temple did not escape. According to this theory, too, we must suppose that the intention of the Apocalypse was understood at the time it was 248 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xiv. published. For otherwise what object could there be in the work .'' It was intended, we are told, to inspire in Christians certain hopes and expectations ; and in order to have this effect, its general purpose, at least, must have been made plain. And yet the knowledge of the writer's meaning com- pletely perished. Irenaeus, separated from the book by only one generation, and professing to be able to report the tradi- tion concerning the number of the Beast handed down by men who had seen John face to face, is utterly ignorant of its purport. The solution of Nero for 666 is quite unknown to him, and he is so far from connecting the book with the times of Nero as to refer the work to the reign of Domitian. He has not the least suspicion that recourse is to be had to the Hebrew alphabet, but treats it as a self-evident principle that Greek numerals are to be employed.* The argument just used, that permanent reputation could not have been gained by a prophecy which signally failed, may seem to lose its force if it be true (as the Edinburgh Reviewer contends) that St. John's prophecy, as he under- stands it, did not fail. ' It is perfectly certain,' he writes, * that Nero did not in fact return ; that the Roman Empire did not in fact break up till more than three centuries later ; that not a part but the whole of Jerusalem and of the Jewish Temple was destroyed ; that the Second Advent of our Lord to judgment did not soon, nay, has not yet, occurred. But in spite of all this, we venture to say that the Apocalypse of St. John, that Hebrew prophecy, on the whole, has neverthe- less not failed ; that, properly understood, its forecasts have been, for every rational and religious purpose, successful.' * rod \6yov SiSdffKovros rfixas, in 6 apiOfxhs tov opSfxaTos tov drjplov /cara t^v tuv "E.Wi)V(iiv y\iri. 29 is that which Hippolytus supposed to be that of the Passion ; and this date was adopted by many subsequent fathers. I have already mentioned (p. 202) that Hippolytus used an erroneous table of full moons, which led him to fix the date of the Passion as March 25th. But that was so many days after the actual occurrence of the full moon, that it is inconceivable the passover could have been kept on that day ; and, from the considerations that have been just explained, it can be inferred that the Passion did not take place on any day in that year. The astronomical new moon took place about eight in the evening of Saturday, April 2nd. On Sunday night the moon would be too young to be visible ; but on Monday night it would be forty-six hours old, when it could not fail to be seen, so that that evening would be pretty sure to be the first of the month. The month could not possibly begin either on Friday or Saturday. But in the year 30 the conjunction took place at eight in the evening of Wednesday, March 22nd, and XV.] ASTRONOMICAL CALCULATIONS. 267 we infei- in the same way that the month began on Friday the 24th. This, therefore, is a possible year of the Passion. Proceeding in like manner, we find that the month began in 31 on a Tuesday, and in 32 on a Monday. In ^^, however, the conjunction took place at one in the afternoon of Thursday, March 19th. At six o'clock next evening the moon would be 29 hours old, and probably would be visible ; but it is possible it might not have been observed till Saturday evening. Similar arguments lead us to reject the year 28, but admit 27 as a possible year, in which case the day would be Friday. The following table exhibits the date of new moon and the pro- bable first day of the passover month for the years A. D. 27-36 : — A.D. Time of true New Moon. Moon first visible. 27. March 26, 8 p.m., Friday, March 28. 28. March 15, 2 A.M., Tuesday, March 16. 29. April 2, 8 P.M., Monday, April 4. 30. March 22, 8 p.m., Friday, March 24. 31. March 12, i a.m., Tuesday, March 13. 32. March 29, II p.m., Monday, March 31. ( Friday, March 20, or 33. March 19, I p.m., | Saturday, March 21. / March 9, 9 a.m., Wednesday, March 10. I or ( Thursday, April 8, or ' April 7, I P. M., ( Friday, April 9. 35. March 28, 6 A.M., Tuesday, March 29. 36. March 16, 6 p.m., Sunday, March 18. The year 30 is that which Wieseler looks on as the probable year of the Passion ; and since in that year the passover month began on a Friday, he concludes that our Lord suffered on the 15th Nisan, as the Synoptic Gospels would lead us to suppose. But Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to Life of Christ, Edinb., 1876, pp. 17, 196, has pointed out that Wieseler has here made a mistake. As the Jewish days begin with the evening, the appearance of the moon on Friday evening was the beginning, not the end, of the first day of the month, which would include Saturday. The 15th Nisan, therefore, was also a Saturday, and the day of the Pas- sion (assuming it to have been a Friday) must have fallen on the 14th, which was 7 th April. So that the conclusion is just the opposite of what Wieseler supposed, and if we can build on astronomical calculations, they altogether favour John's account. In fact the table shows only one year, 34, in which the passover could have been celebrated on Thursday evening; and that is subject to a double doubt, viz. as to which was the passover month, and as to the day on which it began. If it be the case that John was able on such a point to correct a false impression received by readers of the Synoptics there can be no stronger proof of the authority of his Gospel. 268 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvi. XVI. Part V. THE GOSPEL AND THE MINOR EPISTLES. The result at which I arrived (p. 242), from a comparison of the diction of the Gospel and the Apocalypse, left it an open question whether the former were written by the author of the latter, or by a disciple of his. To-day I propose to make a further examination of the contents of the Gospel, with the view of obtaining, if possible, a more definite con- clusion.* I. The author of the fourth Gospel was a Jew. (i) I remark, in the first place, the familiarity with the Old Testament which he exhibits. Quotations from it occur as frequently as in what has been regarded as the Jewish Gospel, St. Matthew's ; and in two or three cases they are made directly from the Hebrew, not the Septuagint. These cases are, the passage from the 41st Psalm (xiii. 18), 'He that eateth bread with me hath lift up his heel against me', and that (xix. 37) from Zechariah xii. 10, 'They shall look on him whom they pierced'. The prophecy also (Isaiah vi. 9, 10) which is so often referred to in the New Testament, and which is quoted by St. Matthew (xiii. 14) nearly in the words of the Septuagint, appears in quite a different rendering in St. John (xii. 40). (2) Next I note his acquaintance with the Jewish feasts. It is remarkable that this Evangelist (said to be anti- Jewish) has alone recorded our Lord's attendance at these feasts, and * In this lecture I chiefly reproduce the arguments of Dr. Sanday [Fourth Gospel, eh. 19), with the additions made to them by Prof. Westcott in the Introduction to his Commentary on St. John's Gospel. I also make use of an appendix added by Renan to the 13th edition ,of his Vie de Jesus, in which he justifies tlie preference he had expressed (see p. 214) for the narrative as given in the fourth Gospel. XVI.] THE FOURTH EVANGELIST A JEW. 269 has used them as land-marks to divide the history. It is in this way we learn, what we should not have found from the Synoptic Gospels, that our Lord's public ministry lasted more than one year. Three passovers are directly mentioned (ii. 13, 23; vi. 4; xiii. i,xviii. 28); besides another feast, named generally * a feast of the Jews ' (v. i ), with respect to which commentators are divided whether or not it was a passover. The feast of Tabernacles is spoken of with a note that the last was the 'great day of the feast' (vii. 37), and this verse contains what seems a plain allusion to the rite, practised at this feast, of pouring forth water from the pool of Siloam. Mention is likewise made of that feast of the later Jews, instituted without any express divine command, which com- memorated the dedication of the Temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes (x. 22). (3) In connexion with the preceding, I note the acquaint- ance shown with Jewish customs and habits of thought. There are, for instance, repeated references to the customs in connexion with purification: the * waterpots after the manner of the purifying of the Jews' (ii. 5), the question about purifying between John's disciples and the Jews (iii. 25), the coming up of Jews to Jerusalem, previous to the passover, in order to purify themselves (xi. 55), the fear of our Lord's accusers to defile themselves, previous to the passover, by entering the heathen Prsetorium (xviii. 28), and the Jewish scruple against allowing the bodies to remain on the cross on the Sabbath day (xix. 31]. We learn, more- over, from St. John (what other testimony confirms) that baptism was not a rite newly instituted by John the Baptist, but one known to the Jews before; for the question is not put to the Baptist (i. 25), What is this new thing that thou doest ? but he is asked why he baptized, seeing that he claimed for himself no official position, neither to be the Christ, Elias, nor 'the prophet'. Then, again, the Evange- list, in his well-known narrative (ch. iv), shows his knowledge of the state of feeling between the Jews and Samaritans (see also viii. 48) ; he is familiar with current Rabbinical and popular notions, as for instance concerning the connexion 2 70 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvi. between sin and bodily suffering, in the question (ix. 2), * Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind'?; as to the importance attached to the religious schools (vii. 15); the disparagement of the 'dispersion' (vii. 35) ; and with the Rabbinical rule against holding converse with a woman (iv. 27). I have already had occasion to notice one passage which has been a terrible stumbling-block in the way of those who would ascribe the book to a Gnosti- cizing Gentile of the second century. In the very passage where the claims of spiritual religion, apart from any dis- tinction of place and race, are most strongly set forth, the prerogatives of the Jew are asserted as strongly as they are by St. Paul himself when he has to answer the question, * What advantage then hath the Jew ' ? This Gospel puts into our Lord's mouth the words (iv. 22), 'Ye worship ye know not what, we know what we worship ; for salvation is of the Jews'. If these words be invention, assuredly they are not a Gentile or a Gnostic invention (see also p. 209), I do not present the argument from the language, because to enter into details would make it necessary to discuss what phrases can positively be asserted to be Hebraisms ; but the whole colouring of the diction, and still more of the thoughts, is essentially Hebrew.* The best argument! that can be used in opposition to those I have produced is that founded on the constant use of the phrase *the Jews', which seems to imply that the writer was not a Jew. But the use of the phrase presents no difficulty when we remember the late date of the Gospel, and that it was written in a Greek city where *the Jews' were in all probability the bitterest adversaries of the Chris- tian Church. I need only refer to the hard things said of * For proofs, see Sanday, p. 289 ; Westcott, pp. vii., li. t The description of Caiaphas as 'high-priest that year' (xi. 49, 51; xviii. 13) does not oblige us to suppose the writer to be so ignorant of Jewish affairs as to imagine the high-priesthood to be an annual office. All that the words assert is that in that year when 'one man died for the people', Caiaphas was the high-priest. The repeated changes made by the government in the high-priesthood at this time are mentioned by Josephus {Aiitt. xviii. 2, 2). XVI.] THE EVANGELIST A PALESTINIAN. 271 *the Jews' many years before by St. Paul (i Thess. ii. 14-16), who more than any other gloried in being able to call him- self a Jew (see p. 30).* II. The writer was a Jew of Palestine. We may infer this from his minute acquaintance with the topography of the Holy Land. Thus he knows the small town Cana of Galilee (ii. i, 11, iv. 46, xxi. 2), a place not noticed by any earlier writer ; Bethsaida, the native place of Philip, Peter, and Andrew (i. 44) ; Bethany beyond Jordan (i. 28), for this seems to be the true reading instead of Beth- abara of the common text ; he knows the exact distance from Jerusalem of the better known Bethany (xi. 18); he knows the city Ephraim near the wilderness (xi. 54) ; -^non near to Salim, where John baptized (iii. 23) ;t Sychar the city of Samaria, where Jacob's well was, of which the Evangelist tells that the ' well is deep ' (iv. 11), as indeed it is, more than a hundred feet ; he knows the whole aspect of the place ; the mountain where the Samaritans worshipped, that is to say, INIount Gerizim, which rises to a sheer height of eight hun- dred feet above the village, and where the remains of a temple are still visible ; and he knows the rich cornfields at the base of the mountain {v. 35).+ There is the same familiarity with the topography of Jeru- salem. He speaks of Bethesda, the pool near the sheep gate, having five porches ; of the treasury near the temple ; of Solomon's porch ; of the pool Siloam, which name he cor- * In John vii. i, ol 'louSaTot seems to mean the inhabitants of Judaea as opposed to the Galileans, a use of the word natural enough in a Galilean writer. The word will bear this meaning in most of the passages where it occurs in this Gospel, of course setting those aside where the word would in any case be used in a book in- tended for Gentile readers, as, for instance, where customs or feasts of 'the Jews' are spoken of. But vi. 41, 52, will not admit this interpretation, since it is not said that the objectors were visiters from Judaea. t On this Renan remarks, Vie de Jesus, p. 492, ' On ignore, il est vrai, oil etait Salim ; mais hhuiv est un trait de lumiere. C'est le mot ^Enawan, pluriel Chaldeen de Ainou^n, "fontaine". Comment voulez-vous quedes sectaires hellenistes d'Ephese eussent devine cela .'' lis n'eussent nomme aucune localite, ou ils en eussent nomme une tres-connue, ou ils eussent forge un mot impossible sous le rapport de I'etymo- logie semitique.' % See Stanley's Sinai a7id Palestine, ch. v., ii., p. 240, and edit. 272 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvi. rectly derives as the 'sending forth ' of waters; of the brook Kedron ; of the place that is called the pavement, but in the Hebrew Gabbatha; of the place of the skull, called in Hebrew Golgotha. I would also notice the graphic description of the aspect of the Temple on the occasion of its cleansing by our Lord ; the animals for sacrifice, sheep, oxen, and doves^ crowding its courts; and the money-changers, who are described as sitting, the sellers of the animals naturally standing. Now even a single topographical reference may give a re- velation of the writer's nationality. I remember, at the begin- ning of the Crimean war, when we knew nothing here of the authorship of the brilliant war correspondence which began to appear in the Times, how a comparison, in one of the early letters, of some scenery to that of ' the Dargle,' suggested to us the inference, This writer must be an Irishman. If a novel appeared in which the scene was laid in Ireland, and mention freely made of small Irish localities, and of different Dublin public buildings, we should feel little doubt that the writer was either an Irishman, or one who had spent some time in Ireland ; and yet I need not say how much easier it is now, than in the days when the Gospel was written, for a writer to get up from books the details which would add verisimilitude to his narrative. The work of a native of Palestine may also be recognized in the knowledge of local jealousies which the writer exhibits. One outside a country thinks little of the distinctions between different provinces. But here we seem to have a picture drawn by a Galilean who had smarted under the haughty contempt with which the inhabitants of Jerusalem regarded his province : ' Can there any good thing come out of Naza- reth .?' (i. 46). 'Shall Christ come out of Galilee?' (vii, 41). ' Search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet ' (vii. 52). Note also the scorn of the rulers and the Pharisees for the opinion of the vulgar. ' This people who knoweth not the law are cursed ' (vii. 49). Further, the writer is as familiar with the history of the Temple as with its external aspect. One of the data used at THE GOSPEL A WORK OF THE FIRST CENTURY 273 present in calculating the chronology of our Saviour's ministry- is the remark recorded by St. John (ii. 20), ' Forty and six years was this Temple in building.' Counting the commence- ment of the forty-six years from the time recorded by Josephus, we obtain a date for our Lord's ministry in close agreement with what we are led to by other considerations. But is it credible either that a forger in the second century, when the science of chronology was unknown, could have had the information rightly to state the interval between the begin- ning of the Temple building and our Lord's ministry, or, that if he had made a random guess, he could have hit the truth so accurately ? III. I come next to the question. It having been thus proved that the writer was a Jew, was he a Jew of the first or of the second century ? And this question is not difficult to answer, for the subjects which engage interest, and which excite controversy, differ from age to age. Even in the life- time of one man they change. Compare Paul's earlier Epistles with his later, compare the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians with those to Timothy and Titus, and you will find that the controversy about justification with or without the works of the Law, which is the main subject of the earlier Epistles, is hardly alluded to in the later. This is one of the tests by which was exposed the forgery of the Decretal Epistles ascribed to the early Popes, that the controversies and topics with which these letters deal are not those of the centuries when the alleged writers lived, but those of the ninth century, when the letters were really written. Now test the fourth Gospel in this way, and you will find that the controversies with which it deals, and the feelings which it assumes, are those of the first century, not the second. The Messianic idea that pervades the Gospel is not that which prevailed after the Gnostic heresies arose, but that which existed before Jerusalem was destroyed, when the Jews still expected the Messiah to be a deliverer who should establish a temporal sovereignty and make the Jews the rulers of the surrounding nations. This Evangelist tells us, what we do not learn from the Synoptic Gospels, that the impression pro- T 274 ^^^ JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvi. duced by the miracle of feeding the multitude was such that they were about to come by force to make our Lord a king, evidently believing that they had now found him who would lead them against the Romans, and victoriously restore the kingdom to Israel. And we are told that our Lord was obliged to withdraw Himself from their importunity to a mountain alone. It was because He refused to proclaim a * kingdom of this world ' that the Jews found it hard to own as their Messiah one who, though Lie could preach and heal, yet seemed unable to bring them the deliverance or the glory which they desired. St. John represents the prudent Jewish rulers as resolved to put down the prophesying of Jesus, because they feared that the political consequences of His assertion of His kingdom would be an unsuccessful revolt against foreign rule, the result of which would be that the Romans would come and take away their place and nation (xi. 48). And St. John brings out with great clearness the fact that it was as a pretender to temporal sovereignty that Jesus was accused before Pilate, who, though personally in- clined to dismiss the complaint, was withheld from doing so through fear of exciting the jealousy of his own emperor by his remissness, if in such a matter as this he showed himself not Caesar's friend (xix. 12), Remember that the state of Jewish feeling which I have described was quelled by the destruction of Jerusalem, and judge whether it is probable that a writer of the next century would have been able to throw himself into the midst of these hopes and feelings, and to reproduce them as if they were part of the atmosphere which he had himself breathed. Then, again, the topics introduced are those which were discussed in our Lord's time, and not a hundred years afterwards. For example, what Gnostic of the second century would have cared to discuss a breach of the Sabbath, and to inquire when the duty of Sabbath observance (admitted to be the general rule) was overborne by a higher obligation ? See, again, how familiar the writer is w4th the expectations which before our Lord's coming the Jews had formed of what their Messiah was to be. He was not to be from Galilee. ' Shall Christ XVI ] THE EVANGELIST AN EYE-WITNESS. 275 come out of Galilee ? Hath not the Scripture said that Christ Cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was r' (vii. 42) ; 'We have heard out of the Law that Christ abideth for ever' (xii. 34); 'We know this man whence he is, but when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence he is' (vii. 27); 'When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done'? (vii. 31). IV. I regard it, then, as proved that the writer of the fourth Gospel was a Jew, not very distant in time from the events which he relates. Is there, then, any reason why we should refuse credence to the claim, which he himself makes four times, to have been an eye-witness of our Saviour's life? (i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24, I John i. i.) There is nothing against admitting this claim, but everything in favour of it. It is quite remarkable how frequently the Evangelist throws him- self into the position of the original disciples, and repeats their reflections or comments; these being such as, though appropriate at the time, would not be likely to have occurred to one who was not himself a disciple. There are three instances in the very second chapter. The effect of the miracle of the turning the water into wine is said to have been that 'his disciples believed on him' [v. 11). Again, 'his disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up' {v. 17). Again, 'when therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said ' [v. 22). Why is this pro- minence given to the reflections of the disciples ? Is it likely that a forger of the second century, who wished to exhibit the glory of the Logos, would say, what sounds so like a truism, ihat His disciples believed on Him? If they had not, they would not have been disciples. It would surely have been more to the point to tell the effect upon the guests: and a forger would hardly have failed to do this. But all is ex- plained when we suppose that a disciple is speaking, and recording how that favourable impression produced by the testimony of the Baptist, which had disposed him to join the T 2 276 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvi. company of Jesus, was changed by this miracle into actual faith. I leave other instances of the same kind to be traced out by yourselves, only taking notice now of one of them : how we are told that the disciples who took part in the triumphal entry of Palm Sunday understood not at the time what they had been doing, but, after Jesus was glorified^ ' remembered that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him' (xii. i6). I think we may also conclude that the writer had been a disciple of the Baptist as well as of our Lord. This appears from the fulness of the opening chapter, which deals with the Baptist's ministry, and which is best explained if we suppose the Evangelist to be the unnamed disciple who, together with Andrew, heard the testimony, * Behold the Lamb of God'. And if the Evangelist had heard the story from another he would scarcely have added the minute detail that it was the tenth hour of the day when the conversation with Jesus took place. We trace the work of a disciple of the Baptist in more than one subsequent allusion to that testimony, and, above all, in one remarkable periphrasis, which is undoubtedly what no forger would have imagined, ' Jesus went away beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized, and there he abode ; and many resorted unto him and said, John did no miracle, but all things that John spake of this man were true' (x. 41). To describe the place of Jesus's sojourn as the place where John at first baptized, and to record the impressions of those who had been affected by the Baptist's teaching, and were hesitating whether or not they should attach themselves to Jesus, would not actually occur to anyone who had not himself moved in the same circle. Indeed, the prominence given to the Baptist in the fourth Gospel is in itself a proof how near the writer was to the events which he records. A modern reader seldom realizes the importance of the work done by the Baptist in preparing the way of Jesus. Yet the .Synoptic Gospels tell of the repu- tation and influence gained by John (Matt. xiv. 5, Mark vi. 20, Luke XX. 6; cp. Acts xviii. 25, xix. 3). They tell also that there was such a connexion between John and his successor, THE EVANGELIST A DISCIPLE OF THE BAPTIST. 277 that any who acknowledged the divine mission of the Baptist would be bound in consistency to own the authority of Jesus (Matt. xxi. 25, Mark xi. 31, Luke xx. 5). The fourth Gospel explains fully what the connexion was, by telling that it was among the disciples of the Baptist that Jesus first gained followers, who joined Him in consequence of the testimony borne to Him by John. This testimony is again referred to as furnishing part of the credentials of Jesus (v. ^2, ;^;^). But we have no reason to think that in the second century John occupied such a place in the minds of men as would lead a forger to lay such stress on his authority. Other notes of autoptic testimony are the minute parti- culars of time, and place, and persons that are mentioned ; that such a discourse took place in Solomon's porch (x. 2^) ; such another in the treasury (viii. 20) ; another, as I mentioned a moment ago, at the tenth hour ; another (that with the woman of Samaria) at the sixth (iv. 6) ; that such another miracle was performed at the seventh hour (iv. 52) ; that this or that remark was made, not by the disciples generally, but by Philip (vi. 7, xiv. 8), or Andrew (vi. 9), or Thomas (xi. 16, xiv. 5), or Judas, not Iscariot (xiv. 22). The name of the servant whose ear Peter cut off is given (xviii. 10). In two different places the native town of Peter and Andrew is mentioned as Bethsaida (i. 44, xii. 21): the Synoptic Gospels would rather have led us to conjecture Capernaum. There is one passage in particular which by its graphic character forcibly impresses me with the conviction that I read the testimony of an eye-witness : I mean the account (xx. 3) of the conduct of Peter and an unnamed disciple (who is unmistakeably the Evangelist himself), when Mary Magda- lene came running to tell them that the body of our Lord had been removed from the sepulchre ; how the younger was foremost in the race, but contented himself with looking into the sepulchre ; how Peter, with characteristic boldness, went in, and how the other disciple then followed the example set him. Il - iy but an eye-witness devised all these details, so minute and so natural, we must credit him with a literary skill such as we nowhere else find employed in the manufacture 278 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvi. of apocryphal Gospels. But there remains to be mentioned a touch so subtle, that I find it impossible to ascribe it to a forger's invention. Not a word is said as to^the effect of what he had seen on the mind of Peter ; but we are told that the other disciple went in and saw and believed : for as yet they had not known the Scripture, that Christ must rise again from the dead. Is it not plain that the writer is relating his own experience, and recalling how it was that the idea of the Resurrection opened on his mind as a reality ? And lastly, note that we have here the work of no reckless forger. To such a one it would cost nothing to record that he and Peter had then seen our Lord. But no; the disciples are merely said to have returned to their own home. It is Mary Mag- dalene who remains behind and first enjoys the sight of the risen Saviour. V. If it has been proved that the author of the fourth Gospel was an eye-witness, little time need be spent on the proof that he was the Apostle John ; for few would care to dispute this, if forced to concede that the Evangelist actually witnessed what he related. To accept him as an eye-witness implies an admission that the things he tells are not mere inventions : and some of these things could only have been known to one of the inner circle of disciples who surrounded our Lord. The Evangelist tells what these disciples said to one another (iv. 33, xi. 16, xvi. 17, xx. 25, xxi. 3, 7); what they thought (ii. 11, 17, 23, iv. 27, xiii. 22, 29); what places they were accustomed to resort to (xi. 54, xviii. 2, xx. 19). The epilogue to the Gospel (xxi. 24) identifies its author with him whom it describes as the disciple whom Jesus loved ; and even if there had not been this explicit declaration, the way in which that disciple is introduced (xiii. 23, xix. 26, XX. 2, xxi. 7, 20, and probably xviii. 15), irresistibly conveys the impression that the Evangelist wished his readers to understand that he himself was that disciple. The disciple whom Jesus loved must surely have been one of those three (Peter, James, and John), who in the Synoptic Gospels are represented as honoured by our Lord's special intimacy ; and in this Gospel that disciple is expressly distinguished from XVI.] JOHN THE ELDER. 279 Peter (xiii. 24, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20), while we know that James was dead long before the fourth Gospel was written fActs xii. 2). There is, however, one writer whose claims to the composi- tion of the Gospel must be carefully considered, namely, one of the most shadowy personages in ecclesiastical history, John the Elder. A whole school of critics speak of him with as assured confidence as if he were a person concerning whose acts we had as much information as concerning those of Julius Caesar ; but in truth his very existence seems to have been first discovered by Eusebius, and it is still a disputed matter whether the discovery be a real one. I have already quoted (p. 90) the passage of Papias's preface, from which Eusebius drew his inference. In naming the 'elders', whose traditions he had made it his business to collect, having mentioned Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas and James, John and Mat- thew, Papias adds immediately afterwards the names of Aristion and John the Elder. Eusebius inferred from the double mention of the name that two Johns are spoken of: the first, who is coupled with Matthew, being clearly the Evangelist ; the second, who is described as the ' elder ', and whose name is placed after that of Aristion, being a different person. Eusebius had learned from Dionysius of Alexandria (see p. 232) to recognize the possibility that there might have been more Johns than one ; yet it must be observed that Dionysius himself had failed to notice that Papias had given any countenance to his suggestion. Irenaeus also (see p. Qij seems to be ignorant of this second John, and he is equally unrecognized by the great majority of later ecclesiastical writers. It would be important if we could exactly know what Papias meant by calling the second John 'the elder'. It can scarcely mean only that he held the office of presbyter in the Church; for then Papias would not have used the definite article as he does, not only here in the preface, but after- wards, when he cites a saying of this John with the formula, 'This also the elder said' (p. 91). But Papias had used the phrase ' the elders,' as we might use the phrase ' the fathers', 28o THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvi. in speaking of the venerated heads of the Church in a former generation. And since he gives this title to John, and with- holds it from Aristion, it does not appear that we can lay any stress on the remark of Eusebius, that he places Aristion's name first. Further, this very title 'elders' is given by Papias to Andrew, Peter, and the rest whom he first enume- rates, and therefore he cannot be supposed, in giving this title the second time to John, to intend to place him in a different category from those in his first list. The only fact, then, which remains for us to build on is, that Papias in his preface names John twice over; but whether this is a mere slovenliness of composition, or whether he really means to speak of two Johns, is a matter on which it seems to me rash to speak positively, on such scanty knowledge as we have of Papias's work. It may be assumed that none of the subse- quent passages in that work where John is mentioned speaks decisively on the present question, else Eusebius would have quoted it. But though we cannot accept the existence of the second John as a proved fact, we may at least receive it as an admissible hypothesis, and may examine whether it enables us to give a better account of the Johannine writings. Judging merely by the diction, we could easily believe that the author of the Apocalypse was different from the author of the other books; so that if we reject the notion of Eusebius, that John the Elder, not John the Apostle, was the author of the former, we must still inquire whether we can invert the relation : Did John the Apostle write the Apocalypse, and John the Elder the Gospel r But here we are incon- veniently pressed by the results we have just obtained, namely, that he who wrote the Gospel must have been an eye-witness and a close companion of our Lord. If this were not the Apostle, there must have been in our Lord's company one of whom the Synoptic Evangelists have told us nothing, and he no ordinary disciple, but the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who at the Last Supper reclined in the bosom of our Lord. Further, the name of this disciple was John, and here we have the additional difficulty that (as remarked, XVI.] JOHN THE ELDER. 281 p. 62) the fourth Gospel gives no intimation of the inter- course of our Lord with any John but the Baptist. We can easily acquiesce in the suggestion that the Evangelist thought it needless to name himself; but if there was in our Lord's company a second John holding one of the highest places among His disciples, is it possible that the Evangelist could pass over him also in silence ? It follows, then, irresistibly, that if the writer of the fourth Gospel was not John the Apostle, he at least wished to be taken for him, and desired that his readers should think of no one else. Let us see, then, how the hypothesis works, that the Gospel was written by a disciple of John, who wished to sink his own personality, and to present the traditions he had gathered from his master's teaching, together with some modi- fications of his own, in such a form that they might be taken for the work of John himself. But this hypothesis will not bear to be burdened with the addition that the recording disciple was John the Elder ; for his is a personality which refuses to be suppressed. If this were 'John the Elder', whose traditions Papias set himself to collect, he must have been a notable person in the Church of Asia, and we can hardly help identifying him with the John who is said to have lived to the reign of Trajan, and to have been the teacher of Poly- carp and other early Asiatic bishops.* At all events we cannot help identifying him with the author of the second and third Epistles, who designates himself as 'the elder'. These Epistles are recognized by Irenseus and b}'' Clement of Alexandria (see p. 212). Their brevity and the comparative unimportance of their matter caused them to be looked on with some suspicion. Origen tells of some who did not regard them as genuinef (Euseb. vi. 25) ; and they are not * Ecclesiastical tradition speaks so constantly only of one John in Asia, that Scholten, Keim, and others have rid themselves of the double John by denying that the Apostle John was ever in Asia ; but the arguments they offer in support of their paradox are so weak that I have not thought it worth while to discuss them. t Origen's immediate object apparently would lead him to present the least favourable view of disputed books. He is deprecating the multiplication of books, and with that object remarking how small is the number of books of Scripture. Compared with all the Churches 'from Jerusalem round about unto lUyricum to 282 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvi. included in the Peshitto Syriac* Jerome was disposed to ascribe them not to John the Apostle but John the Elder [De Vir. Jllust. g). Other proofs may be given of reluc- tance, on the part of those who recognized them, to set them on a level with the first Epistle. I believe that these hesitations arose from the fact that these Epistles were not included in the public reading of the early Church — a thing intelligible enough from the private nature of their contents. The antiquity of the letters is un- doubted, and they are evidently precious relics of a venerated teacher carefully preserved by the Asiatic Church ; but to those who were ignorant of their history they appeared to stand on a different level from the documents sanctioned by the public use of the Church. If the external evidence leaves any room for doubt about the two minor letters, internal evidence removes it ; for the hypothesis of forgery will not stand examination. A forger would surely inscribe his composition with some well-known name : he would never have referred the authorship to so enigmatical a personage as ' the elder '. But above all, the contents of the third Epistle exclude the supposition of forgery, for which indeed no con- ceivable motive is apparent. The writer represents {v. ii) that he had sent a letter to a Church, but that his messengers, instead of being received with the hospitality which was the invariable rulef of the Christian societies, were absolutely rejected. The man who claimed to take the leading part in the government of the Church not only failed to receive them himself, but, under pain of excommunication, forbade anyone else to do so. This is clearly a case not of inhospitality but -which Paul fully preached the Gospel' (Rom. xv. 19), how small is the number of Churches to which he wrote Epistles, and these but short ones. Peter has left only- one undisputed Epistle : there may be a second, but that is controverted. John owns (xxi. 25) how many of the deeds of Christ he has of necessity left unrecorded ; and (Rev. X. 7) that in his Apocalypse he had not been permitted to write all that he had heard. He has left also a very short Epistle. There may be likewise a second and a third, for the genuineness is not universally acknowledged ; but in any case they do not make up 100 arixoi in all. (Origen, In Joann. v., Proef. 1-4, pp. 94-96, Philocal. ch. 5). * Ephraem Syrus quotes 3 John 4. [De Tifn. Dei. 0pp. Gr. I. 76 F.) t See Rom. xii. 13, Heb. xiii. 2, i Peter iv. g, i Tim. iii. 2, v. 10, Tit. i. 8; XVI.] THE THIRD EPISTLE. 283 of breach of communion. The bearers of ' the elder's ' letter are treated precisely as he himself had directed that heretical teachers should be treated. ' If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed : For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds' (2 John 10, 11). We may well believe (since we know the fact from the Epistle to the Corinthians] that schisms and dissensions existed even in Apostolic times ; but this was a state of things a forger was not likely to invent or even to recognize. It is certain, then, that these two letters are no forgeries, but genuine relics of some great Church ruler, preserved after the circumstances which had drawn them forth were forgotten. And if ever the argument from identity of style and matter can be relied on, it is certain also that tradition has rightly handed down the belief that the writer was no other than the author of the first Epistle and the Gospel. If this identity be established, it follows at once that that author is no unknown person who hides his personality under the cover of a great name. He comes forward in his own person, claiming great authority, sending his legates to an old established Church, and treating resistance to his claims on the part of the rulers of such Churches as idle prating {(p'XvapB'iv), which he is confident that by his presence he will at once put down. And, according to all appearance, his anticipations prove correct, and his rule over the Churches of Asia is completely acquiesced in. When such a man pub- lishes a Gospel containing a clearly implied claim on the part of the writer to be * the disciple whom Jesus loved ', I and compare Acts xvi. 15, xvii. 5, xxi. 8, 16, Rom. xvi. 23. We learn from the newly-discovered ' Teaching of the Twelve Apostles ' that it was found necessary in the early Church to make regulations in order to prevent the readiness of Christians to entertain strangers from being traded on by idle persons, who tried to make the ]3retence of preaching the Gospel a means of living without working. ' Let every Apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall only stay a single day, but if need be another day also. But if he stays three days he is a false prophet. Let the Apostle when he leaves you take nothing but bread enough to last till he reaches his quarters for the night. But if he asks for money he is a false prophet ' {ck. xi.). 284 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvi. cannot suppose the claim to be made on behalf of someone else, but must regard it as exhibiting the grounds of the authority which the writer himself exercised. And no account of the matter seems satisfactory but the traditional one, that the writer was the Apostle John. To the historical inquirer, then, the minor Epistles of St. John, being not impersonal like the first Epistle, have an importance quite out of proportion to their length. And though the light they cast on the writer's surroundings be but that of a lightning flash, enabling us to get a momentary sight of a position of which we have no knowledge as regards its antecedents or consequents, yet enough is revealed in that short glimpse to assure us of the rank the writer occupied, and of the struggles which were at first necessary to establish his authority. Everything harmonizes with the traditional account that John came late in life to Asia Minor, where he must have found Churches of Paul's founding long established. There is nothing incredible in the statement that leading persons in such Churches at first resisted the authority, not of John himself, but of emissaries sent by him. The autho- rity which these emissaries claimed may have seemed an intrusion on the legitimate rule possessed by the actual governors of the Church. It is remarkable that John appears to have found the form of government by a single man already in existence : for Diotrephes singly is spoken of as excom- municating those who disobeyed his prohibitions. Bishop Lightfoot is disposed {Phtltppta7is, pp. 202, 206, 7th ed.) to attribute a principal share in the establishment of episcopacy to the action of John in Asia Minor. But if the view here taken is right, John did not bring in that form of government but found it there ; whether it was that Paul had originally so constituted the Churches ; or that, in the natural growth of things, the method of government by a single man, which in political matters was the rule of the Roman Empire, proved to be also the most congenial to the people in ecclesiastical matters. It is impossible for us to say whether the rejection of John's legates was actuated solely by jealousy of foreign intrusion, or whether there may not also have been doctrinal XVI.] THE THIRD EPISTLE. 28 S differences. Diotrephes may have been tainted by that Docetic heresy against which the Apostle so earnestly struggled (i John iv. 3 ; 2 John 7). Some have identified the hospitable Caius of the third Epistle with Paul's host at Corinth (Rom. xvi. i^,) ■* but no argument can be built on the recurrence of so very common a name. This third Epistle professes to have had a compa- nion letter : *I wrote somewhat to the Church,' says the writer {tj. 9) ; tjpa\l>a ti, which seems to imply some short composi- tion. I believe that we have that letter still in the compa- nion Epistle which has actually reached us. By those who understand the inscription as denoting an individual it has been variously translated : whether as in our version, ' to the elect lady ', or ' to the elect Kyria ' or to the * lady Electa '. I do not delay to discuss these renderings, because I believe that it is a Church, not an individual, which is described {v. i) as known and loved by all who know the truth, of which it is told that some of her children walk in the truth [v. 4), to which the precept of mutual love is addressed (e/. 5), and which possessed an elect sister in the city whence the letter was written [v. 13). We are not called on to explain why this mode of addressing a Church should have been adopted ; but we can account for it if we accept Renan's conjecture {see p. 255) that Peter on his last visit to Rome had been accom- panied by John, who, after Peter's martyrdom, escaped to Asia Minor. Certain it is that these two Apostles appear to have had very close relations with each other (Acts iii. i, viii. 14, John xiii. 24, xviii. 15, xx. 2, xxi. 7); that the Evangelist shows himself acquainted with Peter's martyrdom (xxi. ig); while the Apocalypse exhibits marks of the impres- sion made on the writer by the cruelties of the Neronian persecution. If, as I believe, Peter's Epistle was written from Rome, and if John was with Peter when he wrote it, it would be natural that the words of that letter should stamp themselves on his memory ; and I have noted [see p. 235) some coincidences between Peter's Epistle and the * Pseud. -Athanas., Synods. Sac. Scrip, ch. 76 (Athan. t. 11. p. 202, Ed. Bened.). 2 85 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvi. Johannine writings. It would then be only a reproduction of the phrase 17 Iv Ba/3uXw)'t (rvv£K\tKTi] (1 Peter v. 13), if John applies the title kXeKn) to the two sister Churches of Asia Minor ; while again his description of himself as the elder would be suggested by 6 f7u/i7r()8C7j3i'rEpoc (i Peter v. i). What I have said about the second Epistle is in a great measure conjectural; but I wish you to observe that the un- certainty which attaches to all conjectures does not affect the inferences which I have drawn from the third Epistle, and which I count as of great importance. At the present day Baur has more faithful disciples in Holland than in Germany, A typical representation of the form which Baur's theories take among his disciples of the present day is to be found in a book called the ' Bible for Young People ', of which the New Testament part is written by a Dr. Hooykaas, and of which an English translation was published a few years ago. In this book the disciple whom Jesus loved is volatilized away.* We are taught that the last chapter of the fourth Gospel is intended only to give a symbolical revelation of certain passages of old Church history. If it is said that the disciple whom Jesus loved is to remain when Peter passes away, this only means that the authority of Peter, whose supremacy over the Apostolic communities is not disputed, was only to last during his life, whereas the disciple who read into the soul of Jesus will retain his influence till the perfecting of the Kingdom of God. Who is meant by this disciple is not clear. The author is greatly tempted to think of Paul, but can find nothing to countenance this conjecture ; so he has to be satisfied with setting him down as an ideal personage. In the presence of such attempts to turn the Gospel narrative into allegory, we have cause for gratitude that the short letter to Caius has been preserved to us. It matters little that we are ignorant of the circumstances that drew it forth, and that Diotrephes and Demetrius are to us * The notion that the disciple whom Jesus loved is not to be identified with the Apostle John, but is only an ideal personage, originated, as far as I know, with fvnother Dutch divine, Scholten. See ' Der Apostel Johannes in Kleinasien ' (Berlin, 1872), p. no. XVII.] THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS. 287 little more than names. But we see clearly that the letter contains solid facts which cannot be allegorized, and that the writer is no abstraction, but a man busy with active work and engaged in real contests, one who claimed the superinten- dence of distant Churches, and who vigorously asserted his authority against those who refused obedience. I have looked for other solutions but can acquiesce in none, save that he is the Apostle John. XVII. Part VI. THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS. There is one class of objections to the Johannine author- ship of the fourth Gospel which I might decline to discuss, as being outside the limits I have assigned m5''self in this course of lectures : I mean objections founded on real or apparent contradictions between the fourth and the Synoptic Gospels. For this is an argument which the objectors, on their own principles, have no right to urge. They do not believe that the writers of New Testament books were aided by any supernatural assistance, and therefore they have no right to demand"^ from them more minute exactness of detail than other writers exhibit under similar circumstances. Now, we feel lively interest when a veteran statesman or soldier gives us his recollections of stirring events in which in his younger days he had taken part. But when such recollec- tions are published, and compared with records made at an earlier date, it is the commonest experience in the world to find discrepancies, and these sometimes in particulars by no means unimportant. Yet we simply conclude that on these points the old man's memory may have played him false, and 288 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvii. are not tempted to doubt the genuineness of the book which purports to be his memoirs. If, then, we have found reason to believe that the fourth Gospel contains an aged Apostle's recollections of the life of the Master whom he had loved, we should have no reason to give up that belief, even if we were unable to refute the allegation that these recollections are in some points at variance with earlier records. It would be possible to grant that the later account in some points needed correction, while yet we might believe the picture it presents of the life and work of our Lord to be, on the whole, one of the highest interest and value. But, though for the sole pur- pose of an inquiry as to the authorship of the fourth Gospel,, we might set aside as irrelevant a great deal of what has been said as to contradictions between this Gospel and its prede- cessors ; yet so many of these alleged contradictions melt away on examination, that I think it well to give some little discussion to a subject important from other points of view. A very important question to be settled in using the fourth Gospel is, What verdict are we to think the Evange- list means to pass on those things which are related in the Synoptic Gospels, but omitted in his ? It is notorious that the things recorded in this Gospel are, for the most part, dif- ferent from those related by the other Evangelists, so that it may be regarded as exceptional when St, John goes over ground which they have traversed. Among the things omitted by St. John are some of the most important events of our Lord's life. Thus, the institution of the rite of the Lord's Supper finds no place in his account of the night before the Passion, nor does he mention the Agony in the Garden. Now, Renan and a host of Rationalist critics with him, in using St. John's Gospel, go on the principle that he is to be understood as bearing testimony against whatever he does not relate ; that we are to assume that he either had never heard of the things which he passes over in silence, or else means to imply that they never occurred. There is no better instance on which to test Renan's principle than that to which he confidently applies it in the opening sentence of his Life of Jesus, 'Jesus was born at Nazareth, a little town xvn.] THE OMISSIONS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 289 of Galilee '. When we inquire on what authority Renan has ventured on this correction of the traditional account of our Lord's birthplace, we find his main reliance is on the fact that John 'knows nothing' of the journey to Bethlehem; that ' for him Jesus is simply of Nazareth or of Galilee, on two occasions when it would have been of the highest importance to make mention of the birth at Bethlehem'.* Now, if you have not read your Bible with care, it may surprise you to learn that it is quite true (as De Wette before Renan had pointed out) that not only does St. John's Gospel contain no assertion of the birth at Bethlehem or of the descent from David, but it reports more than one uncontradicted assertion of the opposite. In the first chapter [vv. 45, 46) Philip tells Nathanael, ' We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph ', to which Nathanael answers, * Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth ' ? an objection to which Philip makes no direct reply. Again, in the 7th chapter [vv. 41, 42) we are told of the difficulty which the birth of Jesus put in the way of his reception, * Others said, This is the Christ, but some said. Shall Christ come out of Galilee ? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ coraeth of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem where David was?' No answer is given to these difficulties ; nor, again, are we told that Nicodemus had any reply to make when his brother mem- bers of the Sanhedrin exclaim, on his taking our Lord's part, ' Art thou also of Galilee ? search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet' (vii. 52). Thus St. John tells us expressly that there were current objections to the acknow- ledgment of our Lord's claims, which ran thus : ' Jesus is not of David's seed, as it was foretold the Messiah should be, Jesus was born at Nazareth, but the prophet foretold that the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem ; therefore Jesus is not the Messiah of whom the prophets spoke,' And the Evan- gelist does not give the slightest hint how these difficulties are to be got over. * V:, de yhus, p. 22. U 2 go THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvii. There are two ways of explaining his silence : one is that he did not know what answer to give to these objections ; the other, that he knew his readers did not require any answer to be given. If it were not that the first is the ex- planation adopted by Renan, I should have thought it too absurd to need serious refutation. It is certain that the Evangelist believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and also that he believed in the Old Testament. How is it possible that he could take pleasure in bringing out the fact that the Jews held that there was a contradiction between acknow- ledging the Messiahship of Jesus, and acknowledging the truth of the Old Testament prophecies, unless he had in his own mind some way of reconciling this alleged contradiction r And since critics of all schools hold that John's Gospel was written at so late a date that the Synoptic accounts of our Lord's birth at Bethlehem, of the seed of David, must then have been many years in circulation, and have had time to become the general belief of Christians, it is ridiculous to think that John had any way of answering the Jewish objec- tion different from that which must have occurred to all his readers. We can well believe that John would not have cared to repeat the objection if he knew no answer to it; but it is easy to understand why, knowing the answer, he did not trouble himself to state it formally. When we repeat the story of a blunder committed by ignorant persons, we do not think it necessary to demonstrate their error if we are addressing l)ersons who understand the subject. For example, a very \vorthy man, some fifty years ago, declaiming against the necessity of human learning in an ambassador of Christ, exclaimed, ' Greek, indeed ! I should like to know if St. Paul knew Greek.' In repeating such a story to educated persons, we leave it to speak for itself. We do not think it necessary to expand into formal argument the statement that St. Paul did know Greek, and that the fact that he wrote Epistles in that language is one of the reasons why it is desirable that persons should learn it whose duty it will be to expound these Epistles. Every disputant is pleased to find his opponent XVII.] ST. JOHN WRITES FOR INSTRUCTED READERS. 291 relying on an argument which he is sure he can in a moment demolish. And so every Christian reader of St. John's Gospel has read with a certain satisfaction and triumph how the Jews would have been willing to acknowledge the Messiah- ship of Jesus, only for this, that it was necessary the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem, and be of the seed of David. We are all ready with the answer, ' Why, so Jesus was.' And now we are asked to believe that the Evangelist did not sympathize with his readers in this matter ; that he wrote in perplexity what they read in triumph, A critic who can so interpret the Gospel commands admiration for his ingenuity in contriving to go wrong on a point which scarcely any previous reader had been able to misunderstand. I should not have cared to spend so many words on this matter, if it were not that the study of this example calls attention to some peculiarities of the Evangelist's style, and also throws some light on the question whether the fourth Evangelist had seen the preceding Gospels. I ask you, then, in the first place, to observe that no writer is more in the habit than St. John of trusting to the previous knowledge of his readers : and it is not strange that he should; for at the late period when he wrote, he was not addressing men to whom Christianity was a novelty, but men to whom the facts of the history were already known. In the very first chapter [v. 40) he describes Andrew as Simon Peter's brother, taking for granted that Simon Peter* was known. A reference to the Baptist (iii. 24) is accompanied by the parenthetical remark, * for John was not yet cast into prison', evidently intended for men who knew that John's career had been thus cut short, but who needed the explanation that the events which the Evangelist is relating occurred while the Baptist was still in activity. He does not directly tell of the appointment of the twelve Apostles, but he assumes it as known (vi. 70), * Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?' His narrative does not inform us that Joseph was the reputed * It may be mentioned that John (i. 43) gives Peter the nami Cephas, which is not fomid in the Synoptic Goipels, but is recognized by St. Paul (i Cor. i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5, XV. 5 ; Gal. ii. 9). U 2 2g2 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvii. father of our Lord, but this appears incidentally when the Jews ask, ' Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know ?' (vi. 42, see also i. 45). The Baptism of our Lord is not expressly mentioned, but it is implied in the account the Baptist gives of his having seen the Spirit descending on him (i. 32). The Ascension is not related, but it is thrice referred to (iii. 13, vi. 62, xx. 17). As a general rule this Evangelist prefers to leave unspoken what he can trust his readers to supply. He does not claim to be the unnamed disciple who heard the testimony of John the Baptist (i. 40), nor to be the unnamed disciple through whose interest Peter was admitted to the high-priest's palace (xviii. 16) ; yet there can be little doubt that in both cases the impression received by most readers is that which the writer intended to convey. I have already (p. 62) noted the most striking example of this writer's 'ignorance', that he 'knows nothing' of the Apostle John ; yet few dispute that if he were not that Apostle him- self, he was one who desired to pass for him. This Evangelist repeatedly brings the knowledge which he assumes to be shared with him by his readers into contrast with the ignorance of the actors in the events he relates. Hobbes explained laughter as arising from a sudden conceit of our own superiority to someone else ; and though it may be doubted whether this gives a sufficient account of all our mirthful emotions, it is certain that it is by exciting this conceit of superiority that literary artists have produced some of their most telling effects. Even a child is pleased when he can boast to his fellows that he knows something which they do not ; and this is a kind of pleasure through which, when they can give it to their spectators, dramatic authors have found the surest way to win applause. No scenes are more effective than when the character on the stage is repre- sented as ignorant of something known to the spectators, and in his ignorance using expressions which have a reference the speaker does not dream of. The staple of most comedies is that someone on the stage is deceived, or is under a misap- prehension, while the spectators are in the secret ; and their pleasure is all the greater the more convinced the deceived XVII.] THE IRONY OF ST. JOHN. 293 person is that he knows everything. Thus the duped father in Terence believes that he is the only wise man of the family — Primus sentio mala nostra ; primus rescisco omnia, Primus porro obnuntio : but the slave presently puts the feelings of the spectators into words — Rideo hunc ; se primum ait scire, is solus nescit omnia. The effect of tragedy is equally heightened when a personage is represented as ignorant of his real position. In the CEdipus Rex* of Sophocles much of the tragic effect is derived from the king's unconsciousness that he is himself the object of the wrath of heaven ; while, as the spectators hear him denounce the author of the city's calamities, they are thrilled by the knowledge that it is on himself he is imprecating vengeance. Touches of the same kind are as effective in historical narrative as in the drama. Every reader remembers the effect of Isaac's question, when bearing the fuel for Abraham's sacrifice, 'My father, behold the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering'? In one touch the con- trast is brought out between the boy's ignorance and the father's and the reader's knowledge that he is himself the destined victim. If the ending of the story were not happy, nothing could have a more tragic effect than this simple question. To the same principle is due the effectiveness of another Scripture story, Nathan's parable, by which David's indignation against tyrannical injustice is raised to the highest point before he knows that he is himself the culprit on whom he pronounces sentence. Now passages of the character I have described occur to an unusual amount in St. John's Gospel. I believe that in that Gospel can be found as many cases as in all the rest of * Much of what is said here I have said elsewhere in a Paper contained in a volume of sermons now out of print, called ' The Irony of St. John ' ; the title of which, as well as its use of the word ' irony ', were borrowed from Bishop Thirlwall's celebrated Essay on ' The Irony of Sophocles ' {Philological Museum, ii. 483). 294 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvii. the New Testament where the characters are introduced as speaking under misapprehensions which the reader knows how to correct. Sometimes the Evangelist himself tells how their mistakes are to be corrected, as where the Jews say (ii. 20), 'Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days ' ? the Evangelist adds 'but he spake of the temple of his body'. But in the majority of cases no explanation is given. A few verses before one of the passages relied on by Renan, the Jews ask (vii. 35, 36), ' Whither will he go that we shall not find him ? Will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles and teach the Gentiles ? What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me and shall not find me, and where I am thither ye cannot come ' ? But no explanation is given of the true answer to this question. Nicodemus asks (iii. 4), ' How can a man be born when he is old ? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born ' ? Yet the meaning of the answer made him would be unintelligible to one not already impregnated with Christian ideas. The woman of Samaria misunderstands our Lord's saying when she says (iv. 15), 'Sir, give me this water that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw '; yet the Evangelist passes on without remark. And so, in like manner, when the Jews asked, *How can this man give us his flesh to eat' ? (vi. 52). But the most striking examples of the introduction of characters speaking truths of which they have themselves no conscious- ness, are that of Caiaphas (xi. 50), declaring that it was 'expedient that one man should die for the people'; and that of Pilate (xix. 21) insisting, in spite of the chief priests' remonstrance, in inscribing on the title on the cross, not that our Lord sm'd He was the King of the Jews, but that He was the King of the Jews. I have given proof more than sufficient to show that no writer is more in the habit than St. John of trusting to his reader's previous knowledge, and that no one understands better the rhetorical effect of leaving an absurdity without formal refutation, when his readers can be trusted to perceive it for themselves. For the secret of an orator's success is if XVII.] ST. JOHN KNEW OF PREVIOUS GOSPELS. 295 he can contrive that his hearers' minds shall not be passive, but shall be working with him, and even running before him to the conclusions which he wishes them to draw. It is to me amazing that Renan, who professes to value this Gospel so highly, should never have discovered this characteristic of its style, but should treat the book as if he had to do with an author like Euclid, who is careful to guard matter-of-fact readers from misapprehension by appending quod est ahsitr- dum to the conclusions which he does not wish them to believe. It would not have been worth while to make so much comment on Renan's want of literary tact in misunder- standing St. John's statements about our Lord's birthplace, if this had been an isolated piece of stupidity; but full discussion was necessary; because if Renan is wrong in this case it is because he proceeds by a faulty method, which misleads him equally whenever he has to deal with incidents omitted by St. John. From the facts that have been stated I draw the further inference that, at the time when St. John wrote, he knew that other Gospels had been written. The thing is in itself likely. We may gather from the last chapter that it, at least, was not written until after the death of Peter. It is true that this last chapter has been imagined to be the work of another hand, but I know no good reason for thinking so. It is not a good reason that the Gospel has seemed to come to an end in the preceding chapter ; for there is nothing strange in an author's adding a postscript to his work, whether before publication or in a second edition.* There is no external evidence of any kind to induce us to separate the authorship of the last chap- ter from that of the rest, and there is complete identity of style. It is not only those who have been nicknamed ' apolo- gists ' who defend the genuineness of this chapter. Hilgen- feld, for instance {^Einleittuig, p. 719], notices the mention of the Sea of Tiberias, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael of Cana of Galilee, and the disciple whom Jesus loved ; and I * Quite similar phenomena present themselves in the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans. 296 '^li^ JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvii. would add that the reference to the former history in v. 20 is quite in St. John's manner (see xii. 50, xi. 2, xviii. 14, xix. 39). llilgenfeld also points out the resemblance of the phrases wc aTTO Trrj;^'^*^ StoKoajwi', V. 8, with wc otto aTo^'ihiv ^aKairevre (xi. 18) ; of the bread and fish {6\papiov kol aprov), v. 9, with the same words (vi. 11), the word b^apiov being-, in the N. Z!, peculiar to St. John ; and the 6 naprvpCjv -mpX tovtmv, v. 24, with i. 34, xix. 35. And I think there is a wonderful trait of genuineness in the words {v. 22), * If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ' r The great age of the Apostle had seemed to justify the interpretation which some disciples had put on the words, 'that that disciple should not die'. The Evangelist evidently accepts it as a possibility that this may be the true interpretation of them, but he contents himself with recording what the words of Jesus actually were, and pointing out that they do not necessarily bear this meaning. I do not believe that a forger of the next century could have given such a picture of the old age of the beloved disciple, looking and longing for the reappearance of his Master, thinking it pos- sible that he might live to see it, yet correcting the belief of his too eager followers that he had any guaranteed promise that he should. Now, if this 2 ist chapter be an integral part* of the Gospel, John must have written after the death of Peter ; but at that late period other Gospels had been written, and John did not live so completely out of the Christian world as not to be likely to have seen them. But what to my mind proves * It has been attempted to separate the last two verses from the rest, and to ascribe them to John's disciples. But with regard to ' We know that his testimony is true ' (v. 24), Renan owns that very nearly the same words occur again in 3 John 12 (where, however, olSas seems the true reading); and he might have added that they have a close parallel in John xix. 35. oiSafiei' is a favourite Johannine word, occurring five times in the six verses i John v. 15-20. Renan states (Vze de Jesus, p. 535) that v. 25 is wanting in the Sinaitic MS. ; but this is a slip of memory. What Renan had in his mind was that Tischendorf had expressed his opinion that this verse was in a different hand from the rest. He thought that the scribe, whom he calls A, who wrote the rest of the Gospel, had stopped at the end oiv. 24, and that d. 25 with the subscription was added by the corrector, whom he calls D, and who, he believes, was also one of the transcribers of this and of the Vatican MS. If this were so, it would be probable that v. 25 had been XVII.] ST. JOHN KNEW OF PREVIOUS GOSPELS. 297 decisively that he had is the fact that he can venture to state most formidable objections to the Messiahship of Jesus with- out giving a word of refutation. If Christians were then dependent on traditional rumour for the belief that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, that He was of the seed of David, that Joseph was not His real father, I cannot believe that John would have refrained from giving his attestation to the truth of these beliefs, or have left his readers without his assurance that the answer they might be expected to give to the Jewish objectors was the right one. The fact, then, that John felt himself called on to give no answer to the objection that Christ must, according to the prophets, be of the seed of David, and of the town of Bethlehem, appears to me to be a proof that he knew that his readers had in their hands at least one of the Gospels which contain the genealogy tracing our Lord's descent from David, and which relate the birth at Bethlehem. I draw the same inference from the supplemental character of St. John's Gospel. As I think that mere accident will not account for the likeness to each other of the Synoptic Gospels, so also do I think that mere accident will not account for the unlikeness of St. John's to the others. If he had written an account of our Saviour's life without any knowledge that other accounts had been written, it is incredible that he could liave so successfully avoided telling what is related in these other accounts. It is exceptional if we find in St. John any- thing that had been recorded by his predecessors ; and when wanting in the archetype of the Sinaitic, and had been added by the corrector from a different source. But Tregelles did not share Tischendorf's opinion as to there being a difference of handwriting; and Dr. Gwynn has noted that the same indications whence Tischendorf infers (see p. 161) that the scribe D wrote the conclusion of St. Mark, prove that he did not write the conclusion of St. John. Contrary to the practice of that scribe, the name 'Iwdvvris is written in the subscription here with two v's ; and the final ' arabes- que ', as Tischendorf calls it, or ornament drawn with a pen between the last line and the subscription, is exactly of the same pattern as that found in the other books •written by the scribe A, and is quite different from the four written by the scribe D, viz. Tobit and Judith, St. Mark and i Thess. (the last leaf in each of these two JV. T. books having been cancelled and rewritten by D). There is, therefore, no ground to imagine that v. 25 is in any way discredited by the testimony of the Sinaitic MS. 298 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xviu we do, there is usually some obvious reason for its insertion. Thus the miracle of feeding the five thousand is used by St. John to introduce a discourse peculiar to his Gospel. The true explanation, I am persuaded, is that which has commonly been given, viz. that this Evangelist, knowing what accounts Christians already had in their hands, wrote his Gospel with the intention of supplementing these previous accounts. When he omits what his predecessors had related, he is not to be supposed to discredit them, or to wish to contradict them; but it is part of his plan not to bear testimony to what had been sufficiently attested already. That St. John's silence is neither the silence of ignorance nor of disparagement becomes still plainer when we examine each instance severally. Thus he does not relate the institu- tion of the Eucharistic Feast; and Renan takes this omission as a proof that our Lord did not then institute the rite, a con- clusion in which vStrauss on other grounds agrees. And cer- tainly for anyone who does not acknowledge our Lord's Divinity, it is an important thing to overthrow, if possible, the Synoptic account of this part of the history. For see what is involved in the acceptance of this account. That our Lord should on this night have spoken of his approaching death Strauss believes to be possible enough. He thinks that Jesus must have seen what feeble support followers, who understood him but imperfectly, were capable of giving against relentless foes. His idea is that when Jesus, as master of the household, broke the bread, and poured out the wine, for distribution among his disciples, the thought may have involuntarily presented itself to him that even so would his body soon be broken, even so his blood soon be poured forth, and that he may have expressed some such gloomy foreboding to his disciples. But if we grant, what Strauss admits to be possible, that Jesus, looking on his death as a sacrifice, may have regarded his blood as the con- secration of a new covenant between God and mankind, and that in order to give a living centre to the community which he desired to found he may have commanded the perpetual repetition of this distribution of bread and wine, we are led to EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEF AS TO THE EUCHARIST. 299 views of our Saviour which can hardly fall short of those held by the Church. At the moment when Jesus sees that death can be no longer escaped, and that the career which he had planned has ended in failure, he calmly looks forward to the formation of a new Society which shall own him as its founder. He foresees that the flock of timorous followers, whose disper- sion on the next day he ventures to predict, will recover the shock of their disappointment and unite again. As for the shameful death, the thoughts of which oppress him, instead of anticipating that his followers will put it from their thoughts, and blush to remember their credulity when they accepted as their Saviour one unable to save himself, he commands his disciples to keep that death in perpetual memory. Notwith- standing the apparent failure of his course, he conceives him- self to be a unique person in the world's history ; and, in Strauss's words, he regards his death as the seal of a new covenant between God and mankind. Further, he makes it an ordinance of perpetual obligation to his followers that they shall seek the most intimate union with his body and blood, and holds out to them this closeness of perpetual union with himself as the source of all spiritual life. He intimates that the rite then being enacted was comparable with the first setting apart of the Jewish nation to be God's peculiar people; and as Moses had then sprinkled the people with blood, say- ing, ' Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you ' (Ex. xxiv. 8), so now he calls his own the blood of the new covenant. This legislation for a future Church was made at a moment when his most attached dis- ciples could not be trusted to remain with him for an hour, and when he had himself predicted their desertion and de- nial. Surely, in the establishment of the Christian Church, with its perpetual Eucharistic celebrations, we have the fulfil- ment of a prophecy, such as no human forecast could have dreamed of at the time the prophecy was uttered. The case I have been considering must be added to the proofs given above (p. 218) that the Synoptic Gospels repre- sent our Lord as using, concerning His own claims, no less lofty language than does St. John's. For what mere man 300 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvii. has dared to set such a value on his own life as to speak of it as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, the source of all good to mankind ? If with respect to the institution of the Eucha- rist St. John is to be regarded as contradicting the account of the Synoptics, we must inquire which account is the more credible ; and then we have to consider that the Synoptic account is not only the earlier, but is confirmed by the per- petual practice of the Church. The very first time we read of Christian communities after the day of Pentecost we are told of their 'breaking of bread ' (Acts ii. 42, 46) ; and if we want more information about the rite, we obtain it from a docu- ment earlier than either the Synoptic Gospels or the Acts, namely, St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which, having spoken of * eating the Lord's Supper' (xi. 20), he goes on to give an account of the institution of the rite, in strict agreement with that in St. Luke's Gospel. How great value Christians, from the earliest times, attached to the eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood, appears from words which I cite without scruple, since the progress of criticism has tended to dispel the doubts once entertained about the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles, ' I wish for the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the Son of God, and as drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible ' (Ignat. Ep. ad Rom. 7). But now comes the most singular part of the discussion. So far is it from being the case that such language must be regarded as at variance with a Gospel which tells nothing of the institution of the Eucharist, that these words of Ignatius, or, if you will, of Pseudo-Ignatius, have been generally accepted as evidence that the writer was acquainted with St. John's Gospel. When St. John wrote, Eucharistic cele- l)rations were prevailing widely, if not universally, over the Christian world ; and many years before, St. Paul had told how our Lord had commended the rite with the words, 'This is my body', ' this is my blood'. Renan would have us believe that St. John intended by his silence to negative that account, yet no writer has done so much to strengthen the belief which we are told he desired to oppose. In fact one of the argu- XVII.] THE EUCHARIST RECOGNIZED BY ST. JOHN. 301 merits which sceptical writers have used to induce us to assign a late date to the fourth Gospel is the resemblance of the language of the sixth chapter to the Eucharistic language of the writers of the second century. They say that in the Syn- optic Gospels the Eucharist is but a memorial, or that at most there is a reference to some atoning efficacy attached to the Passion of Christ. In Justin Martyr, on the other hand, the Eucharist is a means by which spiritual nourishment is mysti- cally conveyed to the soul. He speaks of these elements as no longer common bread and wine, and he teaches that as the divine Logos became flesh and blood for our salvation, so our flesh and blood, by partaking of this heavenly nourish- ment, enter into communion with a higher spiritual nature [Apol. I. 66). This is evidently the same doctrine as that taught (John vi. 55), 'My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dvvelleth in me and I in him.' And in Lecture VI. I have taken pains to show that Justin derived his doctrine from St. John. I own I do not think it possible satisfactorily to explain John vi. if we exclude all reference to the Eucharist. If both the Evangelist knew and his readers knew that our Lord had on another occasion said, * Take, eat, this is my body; drink this, this is my blood', they could hardly help being reminded of these expressions by that discourse about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. On this point St. John's Gospel throws light on the Synoptic account. It softens the apparent harshness and abruptness of these words at the Last Supper, when we learn that this language about eating His flesh and drinking His blood was not then used by our Lord for the first time. We are told that in a discourse delivered at the Passover season of the preceding year (John vi. 4), our Lord had prepared the minds of His disciples to receive the idea of communion with Him by eating His flesh and drinking His blood. His language, then, at the Last Supper, instead of causing perplexity to the disciples, would remind them of the discourse spoken at the preceding passover season, and would remove the perplexity caused by His previous dark sayings. 202 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvii. The words, 'Take, eat, this is my body', would then mean to them, Hereby can you do that which perplexed you when I spoke of it before. In any case there can be no doubt of the fact that the discourse recorded in John vi. has had the effect of greatly increasing the value attached by Christians to the Eucharistic rite, and it cannot plausibly be maintained that this effect was one which the narrator neither foresaw nor intended ; that he was ignorant of this ordinance or wished to disparage it. And if the result of the previous investigation has been to establish that this Evangelist habitually relies on the pre- vious knowledge of his readers, we cannot doubt that in this as in other cases he speaks words (jxuvavTa aweTolaiv ; and that he gives no formal account of the institution of the Eucharist, only because he knew that his readers had other accounts of it in their hands. Very nearly the same things may be said about St. John's omission of our Lord's command to His disciples to go and baptize all nations. If by his silence he intended to disparage the rite of baptism, it is a strange accident that it is words of his which caused Christians to entertain an even exaggerated sense of the absolute necessity of that rite, and which sug- gested the name avay^wrjaig, by which in the middle of the second century baptism was generally known (Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 6 1, with an express reference to our Lord's words to Nicodemus). And so likewise as to the Ascension. Although John does not formally relate it, he not only refers to it in two texts already quoted, ' What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before ' (vi. 62) ; * Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father' (xx. 17); but he assumes the fact, not in a single verse, but throughout the Gospel. The Evangelist is never weary of teaching that Jesus is a heavenly person, not an earthly ; His true home heaven, not earth. The doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ is made to smoothe away all difficulties in admitting the fact of the Ascension. ' No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of XVII.] CAREFUL COMPOSITION OF FOURTH GOSPEL. 303 Man which is in heaven.' If, then, St. John, who so frequently declares that Jesus had been in heaven before He came to earth, does not bear formal testimony to the fact that Jesus returned to heaven after He left earth, it can only be that he was aware that this was already well known to his readers by the attestation of others.* I think it needless to multiply proofs that St. John did not write for men to whom the story of our Lord's life was un- known ; but that on the contrary he constantly assumes his reader's knowledge of the leading- facts. Instead of taking it as our rule of interpretation that lie contradicts whatever he does not report, we should be much nearer the truth if we held that he confirms what he does not contradict. And the more we study this Gospel, the more weight, we find, deserves to be attached to the Evangelist's even indirect indications of opinion. The Synoptic Gospels may fairly be described as artless narratives of such deeds and words of Jesus as had most fastened themselves on His disciples' recollection ; but the fourth Gospel is avowedly written with a purpose, namely, * that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name' (xx. 31). The Gospel bears the marks of having been written after controversy concerning our Lord's Person had arisen. The writer seems like one who has encountered objections, and who therefore anticipates difficulties by expla- nations. For example, he meets the difficulty, If Jesus walked on the sea because there was no boat in which He could follow His disciples, how was it that the multitude was able subsequently to follow Him ? (vi. 22,.) He meets the more formidable difficulty, How could Jesus be divine if He was deceived in His judgment of one whom He had chosen to be an apostle ? (ii. 24, vi. 71, xiii. 1 1.) He is emphatic in his testimony to facts which would confute the Docetic theories prevalent when he wrote (xix. 35). All this gives the more weight to those passages in the Gospel which assert or imply * Renan remarks (iv. 408) that the story of our Lord's Ascension was known to the writer of the Apocalypse ; for that on this story is base 1 the account of the resur- jection, followed by an ascension, of the two witnesses, xi. 12. 304 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvii. the doctrine of the Godhead of our Lord. We know that we are not wresting chance expressions to a use different from that which the writer intended ; but that these utterances are the deliberate expression of the Evangelist's firm con- viction. If we find reason to think that St. John knew of previous Gospels, it is difficult to believe that these were other than those we have now, which all own were written before his. There are several coincidences between St. John's Gospel and the Synoptics, but perhaps hardly sufficient of themselves to prove his obligation to them. He refers (iv. 44) to words of our Lord which he had not himself recorded, ' For Jesus him- self testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country' [see Matt. xiii. 57). In the story of the miracle of feeding the five thousand, which is common to all four Gospels, there are coincidences, which, however, may be explained as arising from independent familiarity with the facts. The mountain unto which our Lord ascended to pray is, as in the other Gospels, ' the mountain ' to opog. In Matthew and Mark a distinction is carefully made between the two miracles of feeding the multitude, the baskets taken up being in the former case Kocpivoi, in the latter airvpiSiQ — a distinction, by the way, scarcely to be accounted for if we assume that the common element of those Gospels was only Aramaic. St. John agrees with the earlier Gospels in the use of the word Kotpivoi. St. John preserves a feature that distinguishes Mark from Matthew, the 200 pennyworth of bread which the dis- ciples exclaim would be needed to supply the people. Some minute critics have accused John of love of exaggeration because he says (vi. 7) that Mark's 200 pennyworth (vi. 37) would not be enough. It is odd that there is another coinci- dence between John and Mark in which the difference is the other way. The ointment with which our Lord was anointed might, according to John (xii. 5), have been sold for 300 pence, according to Mark (xiv. 5) for more than 300 pence. The most striking coincidence between these two evangelists is in the words by which this ointment is described, pvpov vapSov TTiari/cfjc, the last a word which puzzled even Greek xvii.J ST. JOHN'S COINCIDENCES WITH SYNOPTICS. 305 commentators. If the conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel be genuine, there is a further coincidence in the relation of the appearance to Mary Magdalene. John agrees with Luke in naming one of the Apostles ' Judas, not Iscariot,' who is otherwise named in Matthew and Mark. We could not build much on the mere fact that Mary and Martha are named by both ; still less on the name Lazarus, which in Luke occurs in a different connexion ; but the description (xii. 2) of Martha as * serving', and the part ascribed to the two sisters in ch. xi. are in close harmony with St. Luke's account. Again, both Evangelists speak of Satan entering into Judas (Luke xxii. 3, John xiii. 27) ; and of the Holy Spirit as sent by Jesus (Luke xxiv. 49, John xvi. 7). There appears to be a reference to an incident, more fully recorded by John, in Luke xxiv. 12, but there is uncertainty as to the reading. An interesting question is. Where could John have read the story of our Lord's Ascension ? If I have been right in contending that John would not have omitted to state formally where our Lord had been born unless he knew that this had been done already, it seems also that he would not have omitted to tell of the Ascension unless he had known it to have been previously related. But if this be so, we have only the choice of three suppositions, and the acceptance of any of them leads to interesting consequences. Either (i) John read Mark xvi. ig, and then it would follow that words, which have been questioned because they were not in some of the copies seen by Eusebius, were in the copies used by St. John; or (2) he read the words ave^iptro tic t6v ovpavov in Luke xxiv. 51, and this is also opposed to the decision of modern critics ; or (3) John was acquainted with the Acts of the Apostles, and read the account of the Ascension in the first chapter. I have spoken of the things omitted by John and told by the Synoptics. I had intended to speak of the things told by John and omitted by the Synoptics ; but I have not left my- self time to speak of more than one. I refer to the fact, of which notice has often been taken, that the Synoptics relate no visit of our Lord to Jerusalem during His public ministry X 3o6 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvii. save that which ended in His death; while the scene of almost all the discourses recorded by John is laid at Jerusalem, and he relates visits of our Lord on the occasion of more Jewish feasts than one. In fact it is by the help of St. John's Gospel, and by the feasts there mentioned, that the duration of our Lord's ministry is calculated. If we had none but the Synop- tic Gospels we might acquiesce in the notion taken up by some of the early fathers from the phrase, ' the acceptable year of the Lord ', that His ministry lasted but one year. It used to be one of the stock objections to St. John that he is here opposed to the more credible account given by the Synoptics. But the tide has now turned, and Renan has pronounced that on this question there is a signal triumph for the fourth Gospel. In the first place, it would be ex- tremely improbable that our Lord should have failed to do what every devout Jew made a point of doing — attend the Jerusalem feasts. We know that our Lord's parents complied with this ordinance, and brought Himself up to Jerusalem, when He was only twelve years of age. We know that our Lord's Apostles scrupulously attended the feasts. After the Passover at which He suffered, they still came up to the following Pentecost. Even St. Paul, who was not considered sufficiently national, made it a point to attend the feasts ; and we are told how on one occasion he resisted the pressing entreaties of Gentile converts to make a longer stay with them, because he was anxious to attend a feast at Jerusalem (Acts xviii. 20; see also xx. 16). What, then, can we suppose to have been the conduct of Jesus Himself, who more than once declared that He came not to destroy the law but to iiilfil it ? Further, if our Lord made His appearance in Jeru- salem for the first time at His last Passover, it seems incredible that the Jerusalem priests and rulers should have conceived .so sudden a jealousy of their visiter, should instantly come to the conclusion that His existence was incompatible with the safety of the nation, should at once concert measures for His destruction, should immediately succeed in finding one of His followers accessible to bribery, and carry all their schemes into execution within a space less than a week. All becomes XVII.] OUR LORD'S VISITS TO JERUSALEM. 307 plain and intelligible, if we accept John's account that Jesus and the Jewish rulers had been on more than one previous occasion in collision, so that He was well known to these rulers, who had resolved on His death before His last visit to the city. St. John likewise gives a reason why on this last visit a crisis was brought about. According to him, it was the miracle of the raising of Lazarus which on the one hand made the Jews feel that it was necessary to take some decisive step in contravention of the claims of Jesus; and on the other hand roused the hopes of His ad- herents to such a pitch that they went out to meet Him, and led Him in triumphal procession into the city. Matthew harmonizes with this account, although he does not state distinctly, as John does, that the procession which escorted Jesus was made up of Galilean Jews who had come up to the feast. For Matthew (xxi. 10, 11,) represents the multitude as crying, This is Jesus the Prophet of Nazareth, of Galilee; while the inhabitants of Jerusalem are moved, saying. Who is this ? There seems to be no ground for the common illustra- tion of popular fickleness in the change of the cries from ' Hosanna ' to ' Crucify Him '. It would seem to be multitudes of Galileans who cried ' Hosanna ' ; of the native citizens who -shouted ' Crucify Him '. But to proceed with my argument, that the first visit of our Lord and His Apostles to Jerusalem was not that Passover at which He suffered. What is decisive is the fact, that when we turn to the Acts of the Apostles we find the headquarters of the disciples and the centre of the Apostolic mission at once established in Jerusalem : which would be highly improbable if they had arrived there for the first time only a few days before the Crucifixion. Thus, if there was a real contradiction between St. John and the Synoptic Gospels (and contradiction tliere is none, for his account is plainly only supplementary to theirs ; but if contradiction there were) we must, on all grounds of historic probability, accept John's account as the true one. But when we examine the Synoptic Gospels a little more closely, we find several traces of a Judaean ministry. I will not lay stress on the last verse of the 4tli of Luke, though, X2 2o8 THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. [xvii. according to the chief modern critics, we ought to read, * preached in the Synagogues of Judaea ', not Galilee. This is the reading of Codd. J^, B and c, three of the most ancient extant mss. But I may remark, in the first place, that, accord- ing to the Synoptic Gospels, Judas the traitor was (as the name by which he is commonly known indicates) a native of Kerioth in Judaea (Josh. xv. 25); that Joseph of Arimathea, *a city of the Jews' (Luke xxiii. 51), or Ramathaim, was a dis- ciple ; that the account of the borrowing of the ass at Beth- phage implies that our Lord was already known there; as does also the demand of the room at Jerusalem in which to eat the Passover. The supper given at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, was clearly given by friends, not by strangers. But most decisive of all are these words, recorded both by St. Matthew and St. Luke : ' O Jerusalem, Jerusalem^ haw often would I have gathered thy children together', which plainly implies previous warnings and visitations. The result is, that on this point, on which a former school of rationalist critics had pronounced John's Gospel not historically trust- worthy, because opposed to the Synoptics, he turns out not to be opposed to them, and to state nothing but what, on grounds of historic probability, we must pronounce to be true. We have here, then, as Renan has said, a signal triumph for the fourth Gospel. XVIII. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. r COME now to speak of the book of the Acts of the i- Apostles.* It is, as I said (p. 34), a very vital matter with unbelievers to bring this book down to a late date. For if it must be conceded that this work was written by a compa- nion of St. Paul, it will follow that the still earlier book, the rjospel, which confessedly! has the same authorship, must have been written by one in immediate contact with eye- witnesses, and must be regarded as thoroughly historical, I need not spend much time in discussing the external evidence. At the end of the second century, the earliest time of which we have copious Christian remains, the evidence of Irenaeus, TertuUian, and Clement of Alexandria, shows the authority of the Acts as well established as that of the Gos- pels.J The Muratorian Fragment treats of this book next after the Gospels. § There is an undisputed reference to the * This is the title of the book in Clement of Alexandria, in TertuUian, in the Muratorian Fragment, and in Cod. B. The title ' Acts ' in the Sinaitic MS., a title used also by Origen, must be regarded only as an abridgment. The full title is given in the subscription in the Sinaitic. t This is 'a fact which no critic ventures to impugn' (Davidson, ii. 146). 'On ne s'arretera pas a prouver cette proposition, laquelle n'a jamais ete serieusement con- testee ' (Renan, Les Apotres, p. x.). X Iren. iii. 14, 15; Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 12, Hypotyp. i. in 1 Pet. (p. 1007, Potter's edition), see Euseb. vi. 14 ; Tert., adv. Marcion. v. r, 2 ; De Jejun. x. § See p. 48. Notwithstanding the corruption of the passage which speaks of the Acts, the general drift is plain, viz. that the writer means to say, however erro- neously, that it was Luke's plan only to relate things at which he had himself been present ; and that we are thus to account for the silence of the Acts as to Peter's martyrdom, and as to Paul's journey to Spain. 3IO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. Acts in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, A. D. 177 (Euseb. v. i) ; and since it has been proved (see p. 207) that Marcion, in the early part of the century, found the third Gospel holding an established rank, we cannot doubt that the Acts had obtained currency at the same period. There are several coincidences with the Acts in other second century writers ; but about these I do not care to wrangle with critics who regard evidence that comes short of demonstration as no evidence at all. When, for example, Clement of Rome [ch. 2) praises the Corinthians for being ' fonder of giving than receiv- ing',* we cannot prove that he had in his mind our Lord's saying (Acts xx. 35), 'It is more blessed to give than to receive' ; and when Ignatius [ad Smyrn. 3) tells how our Lord, after the Resurrection, ate and drank with the disciples [awi^a-yiv Kai (TweTnev), we cannot demonstrate that he knew the o-ui/E^ayo/ucv Ktti (Twiiriofjiev of Acts x, 41, or that in calling heretical teachers * wolves ' [ad Philad. 2), he was thinking of Acts xx. 29. Let us allow that Hermas may have been ignorant of Acts iv. 12, when he says, that there is none other through whom we can be saved than through the great and glorious name ( Vis. iv. 2) ; and that it may be pure accident that Polycarp chanced upon words so like those of Acts ii. 24, when he says {ad Philipp. i.), ' Whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of Hades '. Eusebius tells (iv. 29) that Dionysius of Corinth relates that Dionysius the Areopagite, who was converted to the faith by Paul the Apostle, according to the account given in the Acts, was the first bishop of Athens ; and as we have not got the letters of Dionysius, we cannot confute anyone who may be pleased to say that the reference to the Acts was only made by Eusebius, and that it was through some other source Dio- nysius found that there had been an Areopagite of his own name. In like manner let us admit the possibility that Papias, who mentions Justus, surnamed Barsabas, may have derived his knowledge of him from some source different from the Acts ; and I frankly own that anyone may refuse to accept the opinion, which I hold myself, that Papias, who used St. XVIII.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 3 1 1 Matthew's Gospel, would have adopted the account which that Gospel gives of the death of Judas Iscariot, if he did not read a different story in some document to which he attributed equal authority.* It is true, that if we accept the traditional account of the authorship of the Acts, the coincidences I have mentioned, and several others, are at once accounted for; but if anyone choose to say that they are all accidental, though I think his assertion very improbable, I do not care to dispute the matter with him. In fact, it is much more important for a critic, who opposes the received authorship of the Acts, to impugn these early quotations than it is for us to maintain them. If Clement of Rome, before the end of the first century, read the book, there can be no reasonable ground for doubt that the work is as early as the Church has always held it to be; but if Clement makes no quotation from it, no inference can be drawn from his silence about a book to which his subject in no way called on him to refer. But in point of fact, our reception of the Acts scarcely at all depends on these proofs of the early use of the book. It is an important point, no doubt, to establish that the book we have now was received without hesitation by the Christian Church as far back as we can trace its history; yet if this work were a new 'find', recently disinterred from some Eastern library, we still might be confident that we have here some genuine remains of the apostolic age. In fact, the internal evidence of the latter chapters of the Acts proves irresistibly that these contain matter which must have proceeded from an eye- witness. In saying this, I say no more than our adversaries acknowledge. Davidson says (ii. 136) of the so-called 'we' sections of the Acts, that is to say, the sections in which the writer uses the first person plural, that they are 'charac- * ApoUinarius of Laodicea, through whom we obtain our knowledge 'of this matter, reconciles the accounts in Matthew and in the Acts by stating, as on Papias's authority, that Judas did not die when he hanged himself, but that his body afterwards so swelled that in passing through a place wide enough for a cart to go through, he was so crushed that all his bowels were emptied out (Routh, Rell. Sac. i. p. 9). 312 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. terized by a circumstantiality of detail, a vividness of description, an exact knowledge of localities, an acquaint- ance with the phrases and habits of seamen, which betray one who was personally present'. If you know nothing of the history of the controversy, you will perhaps imagine that such a concession as I have quoted, and which is no more than is readily made by all critics of the same school, amounts to a recognition of the antiquity of the book of the Acts. But this is not the only case where theorists of the sceptical school will make a forced concession, and hope to save the main part of their hypothesis from destruction. These hypotheses are like some living beings of low organization, which it is hard to kill, because when you lay hold of one of them, the creature will leave half its body in your hands, and walk off without suffering any apparent inconvenience. When we encounter a theory impugning the authority of one of our New Testament books, if we point out passages in the book containing marks of genuineness which cannot plausibly be contested, then so much of the theory will be abandoned as disputes the genuine- ness of these particular passages; but it is still hoped to maintain the spuriousness of the rest.* If it is pointed out that the passages acknowledged as genuine are indissolubly connected with some of those alleged to be spurious, the theory will then be modified again, just so far as is necessary to meet this new difiiculty. In the present case the marks of genuineness in the 'we' sections are too strong to be denied. It is therefore found unavoidable to own that this part of the book of the Acts is a real relic of the apostolic age; but the Tubingen theory is that some compiler who lived in the second century happened to get possession of memo- randa really made by a travelling companion of St. Paul, whose name we don't know, and that the compiler incorporated these in a narrative, in the main unauthentic, and intended to disguise the early history of the Christian Church. Thus, Hooykaas (see p. 286) says (v. 33), ' As to the later fortunes of St. Paul, the writer of Acts had access to some very good * In particular, this is the history of the criticism of the 2nd Epistle to Timothy. XVIII.] THE 'WE' SECTIONS. 313 authorities, the best of all being the itinerary or journal of travels composed by one of the Apostle's companions. Por- tions of this work he took up almost unaltered into his own. In this itinerary, then, we possess the records of an eye- witness. This is of incalculable value'. The 'almost unaltered' of this extract are words that all critics of the same school would not adopt. The evidence of identity of language and style is so strong as to convince even prejudiced critics that the *we' sections, as they stand now, bear marks of the same hand as that to which we owe the rest of the book ; while also these sections contain rela- tions of miracles which the same critics are unwilling to believe were told by a contemporary. So the theory which simply separated the authorship of the *we' sections from that of the rest is owned to be inadequate; and it is now usually presented with the addition that the second century compiler, when incorporating these sections in his book, revised and retouched them, and made to them some addi- tions of his own. Who was the original writer of the memoranda, rationalist critics are not agreed. The claims of Timothy have been strongly urged, notwithstanding that, to name no other objection, Timothy is expressly distinguished from the writer who uses the first person plural [ch. xx. 4, 5). Silas has had his advocates, but the favourite seems to be Titus ; and, accordingly, Hooykaas always refers to the author of the memoranda as Titus (?). Why St. Luke, with or without a note of interrogation, might not have been left in possession of the authorship of the memoranda, even if he were deprived of that of the rest of the book, is not, at first sight, easy to explain : for even with critics of this school it ought not to be thought a disadvantage to an hypothesis that it should have some amount of historical attestation. Paul's Epistles (Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11) show that he had a compa- nion of the name of Luke. If it were conceded that he was the author of the 'we' sections, at least in their original form, it would seem to explain why the whole book should be attri- buted to him. 314 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. But here is a circumstance of which it is well worth while to take notice. The name of Luke is not found in connexion with the Acts in any extant uncial MS. ; and we cannot but think that the ascription would have been preserved, had it been found in earlier MSS. On the other hand, the name of Luke is invariably inscribed to the third Gospel. We can- not, then, reasonably suppose the history of the ascription to be that the name of Luke was originally attached only to the latter part of the Acts; that it then passed to the whole book; and being accepted, on the faith of their MSS., by Christians of the second century, was afterwards extended to the Gospel which they perceived to be of the same authorship. The true history seems to be just the reverse. It would appear to be from the Gospel that the name of Luke passed to the Acts ; and then a verification of that ascription is afforded by the fact that we find from the Epistles that Paul had a compa- nion named Luke. In any case, I cannot account for the reluctance of rationalist critics to own Luke as the author of what they regard as the original portions of the Acts, except through a feeling on their part that the name of Luke is indissolubly connected with the third Gospel. It is time that I should formally remind you what those ' we ' sections of which I have been speaking are. They begin Acts xvi. 9. Luke appears to have joined Paul at Troas, and to have accompanied him to Philippi. There he seems to have been left behind; for when Paul leaves Philippi the use of the pronoun * we' ceases, and is not resumed until Paul returns to Philippi, some six or seven years after. Then [ch. XX. 5) the ' we' begins again, and continues till the arrival in Jerusalem (xxi. 18). It begins again in chap. 27 with Paul's voyage, and continues till his arrival in Rome, xxviii. 16. I may add that in Codex D, which in the Acts is full of untrust- worthy additions to the text, the tradition that Luke was of Antioch is attested by a * we ' in Acts xi. 28, the prophecy of Agabus being described as having taken place 'when we were gathered together '. I only mention this reading, but not as having any title to your acceptance. Some have excluded from the ' we ' sections the part containing Paul's address at XVIII.] THE 'WE' SECTIONS. 315 Miletus ; but unreasonably. For, though in the latter part of the 20th chapter the narrator has had no occasion to speak in the first person, he claims in the first verse of the next chapter to have been one of the party who had to tear them- selves away from the sorrowing embraces of their Ephesian friends. I may mention here that some thoughtless objectors* have taken for a note of spuriousness in this narrative what is really a proof of genuineness. Paul, it is said, is represented (xx. 17) as in such a hurry to get to Jerusalem that he will not visit Ephesus, yet afterwards he spends a week at Tyre (xxi. 4), and 'many days' at Caesarea [v. 10). But it is quite natural that Paul should calculate his time differently before crossing the sea and afterwards. Even in times much later than St. Paul's, travellers in those seas have not been able to count on expedition. The author of Eothen says that when he read the Odyssey he had thought ten years rather a long time for the hero to spend on his voyag-e home from Troy, but that since he had had personal experience of navigation in these parts, he had come to the opinion that Ulysses had a fair average passage. It appears (xx. 16) that Paul at the beginning of his voyage was by no means sure of being able to reach Jerusalem at the time he wished. Actually, he only succeeded in obtaining a passage in a ship which went no further than Patara. He could not foresee what delay he might encounter there ; but after he had caught a ship for Tyre, and made a prosperous voyage thither, he could calculate his time differently; and notwithstanding his week's delay at Tyre, might feel that he had several days at his disposal at Csesarea before he needed to begin his land journey to Jeru- salem. There are other frivolous objections, all proceeding on the assumption that Paul owned a yacht, or chartered a ship of his own, whereas I suppose the probability is, that he had to accommodate himself to the movements of the ships in which he found passage. Thus, why did not Paul go him- self to Ephesus instead of sending a messenger to fetch his * See Hooykaas, vi. 332. \ 3i6 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. friends from that city ? I daresay because he did not choose to run the risk that the ship might sail without him if he went away from Miletus, Why did not Paul send his message from Trogyllium, which was nearer, rather than from Miletus ? I suppose because he knew that the ship would not make a sufficiently long delay at Trogyllium, and that it would at Miletus. At the same time it may be remarked that MSS. are not unanimous as to the ship having touched at Trogyllium at all. But, in short, I think the best rationalist critics show their wisdom in abandoning all direct assaults on the *we' sections as futile, and in restricting their efforts to the sepa- ration of these from the rest of the book. But in this they have great difficulties. I pass over the initial difficulty, which to me seems sufficiently formidable : — How are we to account for the fact that an unknown person in the second century got exclusive possession of some of the mostprecious relics of the apostolic age — relics the authenticity of which is proved by internal evidence, and yet of which no one but this compiler seems ever to have heard, while the compiler himself vanished out of knowledge ? The rationalist critics would scarcely make their story more miraculous if they presented their legend in the form, that the * we' sections were brought to Rome by an angel from heaven, who imme- diately after disappeared. But new difficulties arise when they try to tear the 'we' sections away from the rest of the Acts ; for this book is not one of those low organizations which do not resent being pulled asunder. It is on the con- trary a highly organized structure, showing evident marks that the whole proceeded from a single author. Thus refe- rences, direct or implied, are repeatedly made from one part of the book to another. The speech of Paul in the latter part of the book (xxii. 20) refers with some verbal coincidences to the part he took in the martyrdom of Stephen (vii. 58, viii. i). In the 'we' section (xxi. 8) where Philip is mentioned, he is described as ' one of the seven ' (Acts vi. 5), while his presence at Ceesarea has been accounted for (viii. 40). Peter in his speech (xv. 8) refers to former words of his recorded (x. 47). Words are put into our Lord's mouth (i. 5) similar to words XVIII.] UNITY OF AUTHORSHIP. 3iy which in the Gospels are only attributed to John the Baptist, and these words are quoted as our Lord's (xi. i6).* I will notice one coincidence more between the earlier chapters and the later, which I think not only proves unity of authorship, but also that the author lived near the events — I mean the part which both divisions of the Acts ascribe to the Sadducees in the persecution of the infant Church. In the Gospels the chief opponents of our Lord are the Scribes and Pharisees. A Christian writer of the second century would hardly have known or cared much about the internal divisions among the Jews, and would naturally have followed the Gospels in giving greater prominence to Pharisaic hos- tility to the Gospel. But St. Luke makes us understand that, after the death of our Lord, His disciples obtained among the Pharisees toleration or friendship, which was refused them by the Sadducees. The Resurrection was the main subject of the Christian preaching, and this at once put the Christians on the side of the Pharisees in their chief subject of dispute with the Sadducees; while again the Pharisees found no diffi- culty in believing the Gospel accounts of angelic messages, which the Sadducees rejected as incredible. Further, the charge of having shed innocent blood most painfully affected the Sadducees, who at the time held the chief place in the government of the nation (Acts v. 17, 28]. These considera- tions make Luke's account highly credible, that the Jerusalem Church counted among its members a large proportion of Pharisees (xv. 5, xxi. 20). St. Paul in one of his Epistles (Phil. iii. 5) confirms the account of the Acts that he had him- self been a Pharisee ; and if Luke were a companion of Paul's we can understand how he should have imbibed the feelings which led him to give such prominence to the hostility of the Sadducees to Christian teaching (iv. i, v. 17). In this repre- sentation the book is consistent all through : the * Scribes that were of the Pharisees' part' (xxiii, g) interfere to protect Paul from the violence of the Sadducees, much in the same way as * Other cross references are to be found on coraparing xi. IQ, viii. i ; xi. 25, ix. 30; XV. 38, xiii. 13; xvi. 4, xv. 28; xviii. 5, xvii. 14; xxi. 29, xx. 4; xxiv. 18, xxi. 26 ; xxvi. 32, XXV. II. 3i8 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. the chief Pharisaic Rabbi, Gamaliel, is represented at the beginning of the book (v. 39), as interfering on behalf of the elder apostles. An independent proof of the unity of authorship is ob- tained from a study of the language. Tables have been made of words, phrases, and turns of expression characterizing the Gospel ; and these are found reappearing in the Acts, and in all parts equally, in the latter chapters as much as in the earlier. It is not easy to lay before you details of the proof of the homogeneousness of the diction of the book, because no inference could be fairly drawn from only a few examples of recurring phrases, and it would be tedious to produce a great many; but it is not necessary, since the point is acknow- ledged, and is accounted for, as I have said, by the theory that the later compiler revised and retouched the sections which he borrowed. * From these linguistic and other phe- nomena,' says Davidson (ll. 145), 'it is clear that the writer of the book was not a mere compiler but an author. If he used materials he did not put them together so loosely as to leave their language and style in the state he got them, but wrought up the component parts into a work having its own characteristics.' And yet we are asked to suppose that, with all this revision, the compiler did his work so clumsily as to leave in that tell-tale 'we', the sections, too, where the 'we' occurs being separated from each other in the most inartificial manner. Here comes in the consideration that the compiler of the Gospel and the Acts was evidently a person of con- siderable literary skill. The less you believe (I will not say in the inspiration of the writer, but) in his substantial truth- fulness, the more you must admire his literary skill. Where he and the other Synoptic evangelists differ in their language in relating the same story, the difference is often accounted for by the supposition that the third Evangelist gave the lan- guage of his predecessors a literary revision. Take the letter of Claudius Lysias in the Acts. If we are not to believe that this was the real letter the chief captain sent, what dramatic skill it required to have invented it, making the chief captain, by a gentle distortion of the facts, give them the colouring XVIII.] UNITY OF AUTHORSHIP. 31^ which sets his own conduct in the most favourable light. There is the same dramatic propriety in the exordium of Tertullus, the hearing before Agrippa, the proceedings before Gallio ; or, to go back still earlier, in the story of Peter knocking at the door, and Rhoda so delighted that she runs off with the news without waiting to open to him. A critic must be destitute of the most elementary qualifications for his art who does not perceive that the writer of the Acts is no uneducated clumsy patcher together of documents, but a literary artist who thoroughly understands how to tell a story. And yet we are asked to believe that this skilled artist, having got possession of memoranda of one of Paul's com- panions, shovels them into his book pell-mell, without even taking the trouble to hide the discontinuity of his work by turning the first person into the third. If we suppose Luke to have been the author, there is no want of literary skill, but only great modesty in the quiet way in which he distinguishes these parts of the history of which he claims to have been an eye-witness.* What, then, are the motives why such violence should be used to separate the ' we ' sections from the rest of the book ? There are two principal reasons. One of these is that which I explained in the first lecture. It is thought impossible that a book, so pervaded by miracles as the Acts, could be the work of one who was a contemporary with the events which he relates. There are those now who seem to have got be- yond the doctrine that a miracle is impossible ; they seem to * Renan agrees in the conclusions here expressed. With regard to the supposi- tion that the compiler merely retained the first person plural which he found in an earlier document, he says [Les Apotres. xi.) : ' Cette explication est bien peu admis- sible. On comprendrait tout au plus une telle negligence dans une compilation grossiere. Mais le troisieme Evangile et les Actes forment un ouvrage tres-bien redige, compose avec reflexion, et meme avec art, ecrit d'une meme main, et d'apres un plan suivi. Les deux livres reunis font un ensemble absolument du meme style, prcsentant les memes locutions favorites et la meme fa9on de citer I'Ecriture. Une faute de redaction aussi choquante que celle dont il s'agit serait inexplicable. On est done invinciblement porte a conclure que celui qui a ecrit la fin de 1' ouvrage en a ecrit le commencement, et que le narrateurdu tout est celui qui dit '-nous" aux passages precites.' 320 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. hold it impossible that anyone should ever have believed in a miracle. Whether the former doctrine be good philosophy or not, I am not going to disscus ; but I am very sure that the latter doctrine leads to bad criticism. The history of the criticism on this very book shows how very unsafe it is to take this principle as a guide. By denying the contemporary authorship of all but the *we' sections, it is, no doubt, possible to remove from the book much of the supernatural ; but much is left behind. The author of these memoranda also has several miracles to tell of. I may remind you of all the occurrences at Philippi, the testimony borne to Paul and Silas by the possessed damsel, and her cure by them, the earthquake in the prison, and the opening of the prison doors.* If the story of the shipwreck is, beyond any other part, full of touches showing that we have the report of an eye-witness, this part, too, contains the supernatural facts of a vision seen by Paul, and of his predic- tions as to the issue of the voyage, which are accurately fulfilled. And when Paul and his companions get safe to shore at Melita, we are told the story of the viper, and of miraculous cures effected by Paul on the island. So the remedy has been applied, of cutting out from the * we ' sections all the supernatural portions, and treating these as additions made by the later compiler.! * ' The circumstances relating to the imprisonment of Paul and Silas at Philippi are sufficient to disprove the authorship of an eye-witness' (Davidson, ii. 149). t This has been done, amongst others, by Overbeck in his Preface to his edition of De Wette's Handbook on the Acts. Overbeck has at least decisively proved that the ' we ' sections, as they stand now, are so full of the characteristics of the author of the rest of the book, that the hypothesis that those sections were borrowed from another is not tenable, unless we assert that the borrower interpolated them with much of his own, and that in these interpolations he dishonestly used the pronoun 'we'. Overbeck' s Preface has been translated, and included in the publications of the Theological Translation Fund. In the same volume is contained a translation of the chief work of the Tiibingen school on the Acts, that by Zeller. Zeller, a pupil and fellow-labourer of Baur's, was born in 18 14, and was Professor of Theology at Berne in 1847; afterwards Professor of Philosophy at Heidelberg, and at Berlin, 1872. Franz Overbeck, born at St. Petersburg, 1837, Professor of Theology at Basle,. 1870. XVIII.] SUPERNATURAL ELEMENT IN THE BOOK. 321 It can be shown that the parts which it is proposed to cut out are indissolubly connected with those which are left be- hind ; but I do not enter into the proof, because I hold that criticism so arbitrary does not deserve an elaborate refutation. And in truth it seems to me that the human intellect cannot be less profitably employed than in constructing a life of Paul, such as might have been written by a Christian of the first century who conceived miracle to be an impossibility. A critic might as well spend his time in making a new edition of the play of Hamlet or Macbeth, cutting out as non-Shaksperian every passage which implied a belief in the supernatural. But in addition to the predominance of the miraculous in the Acts, every disciple of Baur has a reason for rejecting the book, in its irreconcilable opposition to the Tiibingen theory of the mutual hostility of Paul and the original Apostles. Here we have what professes to be a history of Paul by one of his friends ; and the writer is absolutely no Paulinist in the Tiibingen sense of the word. He represents Paul as on friendly terms with Peter and James, and these Apostles as anxious to remove any cause of offence or sus- picion between the Apostle of the Gentiles and the Church of Jerusalem, while Paul himself is represented as most ready to meet their wishes in this respect. Paul is represented as observing Jewish ordinances, and as going up, on several occasions, to the Jewish feasts at Jerusalem ; while in his speeches, as reported by St. Luke, there is little or nothing said about the doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law. Peter's speeches in the Acts so thoroughly agree in doctrine with Paul, that they might have been written by Paul or by one of his disciples. Finally, Peter is made to anticipate Paul in the work of preaching to the Gentiles, while Paul himself is represented as only led into that work by the force of circumstances. When he and Barnabas start on their first missionary tour, the method with which they commence is to preach the Gospel only in the synagogues of the Jews (Acts xiii. 5). But in such syna- gogues there was always present a certain number of Gentiles, Y 32 2 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. who had revolted at the absurdities and immoralities of hea- then religions, and who heard with interest, or who had even formally embraced, the monotheism and pure morality of Jewish teachers. Among these Gentile members of the congregations Paul is represented as finding his most willing hearers. And at Antioch in Pisidia, when the Christian teachers encounter such violent opposition from the Jewish part of the audience that they can no longer continue their preaching in the synagogue, they gladly avail themselves of the friendly reception which the Gentiles are willing to give them, and continue their labours among them (Acts xiii. 46). But the system of beginning by preaching to the Jews is kept up in other cities. "We are told by Baur's disciples that the history of Paul, as told by Luke, which I have just summarized, is a complete falsification of the true history. This true history is that Paul, even before his conversion, had seen clearly that to become an adherent of Jesus of Nazareth, who had been con- demned by the Law, and been loaded with its curse, was to renounce allegiance to the Law. It involved the acceptance of a new way of salvation, in which Jews had no higher claim than Gentiles, and it thus abandoned all national privileges. In a word, the preaching of the Crucified drew with it the overthrow of the whole Jewish religion. Viewing the matter thus, Paul persecuted Christianity as a pestilent heresy. But when he came to be shaken in his conviction that the cross had refuted the claims of Jesus, and when he had accepted tlie Resurrection as a facty he did not cease to see, what had been evident to him before, that the acceptance of a crucified Saviour involved a complete breach with the Law. So he strove to find how this new revelation was to be reconciled ■with God's old one. He knew that he could get no light from the Twelve, who did not see what he had discerned before his conversion. So he retired to Arabia, thought out the whole matter for himself, and the result was that he broke entirely Avith his old past, and the Jew in him had died for ever. He Avent to Damascus, and there at once began to preach to the heathen. When obliged to flee thence, he preached to the XVIII.] THE TUBINGEN VERSION OF PAUL'S HISTORY. 323 heathen elsewhere, making Antioch his headquarters. As to his beginning by preaching to Jews, we are not to believe a word of it. The communities of Judea probably knew little of the substance of his preaching ; otherwise they would have had little reason to be satisfied with it, for Paul neither observed the Mosaic Law himself, nor permitted his converts, whether of Jewish birth or not, to do so. We are not to believe the author of the Acts, who would have us think (xxi. 24, 25) that a difference was made as to the con- duct of Jewish and of Gentile Christians in such matters. Now, on comparing these two accounts, we cannot help observing that it is the enemies of the supernatural who give a miraculous account of that wonderful fact — the trans- formation of Judaism, which was an exclusive and national religion into Christianity, which was a catholic and all- embracing one ; while St. Luke gives a perfectly natural one. According to the Tiibingen account, Paul not only passes with startling suddenness from the persecution of the new religion to the adoption of it, but he adopts it in such a way as to incur the opposition and hatred not only of the old friends whom he was forsaking, but of all the previous profes- sors of the new faith which he was joining. We are to look on Paul as choosing a position of absolute isolation. We are taught to believe that everything implying friendly relations between Paul and earlier Christians is mere invention of St. Luke. There is no truth, it is said, in the statement that Bar- nabas had introduced Paul to the Jerusalem Churches (Acts ix. 27) ; that Barnabas had been commissioned by the Jerusa- lem Church to preach at Antioch ; that it was in consequence of his invitation that Paul came there (xi. 22, 25); and that their earlier preaching had been confined to Hellenists. Paul had from the first struck out this new line of preaching to heathen. He had broken completely with his past, given up his Jewish observances, and was, in consequence, as soon as his practices became known, hated as cordially by Jews who owned Jesus to be the Messiah as by those who rejected Him. And yet the new type of Christianity introduced by tliis eccen- tric convert completely supplanted the old one. As soon as Y 2 324 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. the new religion comes under the congnizance of the historical student, we find the Christian communities in every town con- stituting parts of one great corporation, and all these commu- nities of the type invented by Paul. If we search for survivals of the original type of Christianity, we can find nothing making pretentions to be so regarded, except, in one little corner, a few Elkesaite heretics. All this is truly marvellous, while the account of the canon- ical writer is simple and natural. Luke knows what modern theorists are apt to forget, that this champion of the Gentiles was himself, by feeling and training, a Jew of the strictest sort, and he does not pretend that the traces of such training were suddenly obliterated. Paul's own Epistles show him to be thoroughly a Jew, loving his nation with such affection as even to be able to wish himself anathema from Christ for their sake. The same Epistles confirm Luke's account, that he who resisted the making Jewish observances obligatory on Gen- tiles, had no such fanatical hatred of them as to refuse to practise them himself. 'To the Jews,' he says, * I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews ; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law' (i Cor, ix. 20). And here let me say in passing that I cannot agree with some orthodox interpreters who regard the part which Paul cook by James's advice in the Nazarite's vow on his last visit to Jerusalem, as deceitful on his part, and as in its result a failure. St. Luke's representation all through is, that though Paul resisted the imposition of the Mosaic Law on Gentiles, he did not forbid the practice of its observance by Jews ; and it was as a practical proof of this that he exhibited himself in the Temple taking part in a Jewish sacrifice. Nor do I see reason to regard this step as unsuccessful : it was done for the satis- faction of the Jewish Christians, of whom we are told there were many thousands, and there is no reason to suppose it had not the desired effect. It was unbelieving Jews from Asia who set on Paul, and raised the cry that he had introduced uncircumcised persons into the Temple. I return to Luke's history of the admission of Gentiles into IMPROBABILITY OF THE STORY AS TOLD BY BAUR. 325 the Church. This is, that they ordinarily first became hearers of the word, through their having previously so inclined to Judaism as to frequent the Synagogue worship ; and then that when Gentile converts came to be made in large numbers, the question, Must these men be circumcised before they can be baptized ? came up as a practical one, and was decided by Paul in the negative. Now all this history is so simple and natural that I venture to say that if this were Baur's account, and Baur's had been Luke's, Rationalist critics would raise a loud outcry against the reception of a story so contrary to historic probability. That Paul's relations with the heads of the Jerusalem Church were friendly, whatever might have been the coolness towards him of inferior members, is attested by the Epistle to the Galatians, which tells that Peter was the object of Paul's first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, that he saw James on the same occasion, and that these Apos- tles with John afterwards formally gave him the right hand of fellowship, and divided with him the field of labour. The same Epistle also confirms Luke's account that Barnabas had been a party to the admission of Gentiles on equal terms to the Church ; for when afterwards, under the pressure of a depu- tation from Jerusalem, there was a temporary abandonment of this principle, Paul notes with surprise, as the climax of the defection, that even Barnabas should have been carried away. It is true that there is only one passage in Paul's speeches in the Acts where the doctrine of justification by faith without the deeds of the law is prominently dwelt on. I mean Acts xiii. 39 : * By Him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.' And perhaps we may add xxvi. 18. But then it must be remembered that Paul is a character in real life, and not a character in a play. In a play it is a common device to put into the mouth of a character some pet phrase which he is always repeating, and by which the audience learn to recognize him. If the author of the Acts had not been a real companion of Paul, but a literary man who made Paul the hero of his story, our modern objectors show us how the work would probably have been done. The Apostle's 326 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. Epistles show how earnestly he contended for the doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law ; and so phrases insisting- on this doctrine would have been tagged on to all his speeches. But in real life a man whose career is not very short has many battles to fight, and the controversies in which at one time he takes an earnest part often die out before his life-work is finished. These controversies with Judaizing Christians form the chief topics of four Epistles all written at the same period of Paul's life, namely, to the Ro- mans, to the Galatians, and the two to the Corinthians. But these topics are nearly as absent from the other Epistles* as they are from the speeches in the Acts. In these last, where he is addressing audiences of unbelievers, his subject natu- rally is the Messiahship of Jesus, and the truth of His Resur- rection. On the whole, I conclude that we are not justified in tearing so homogeneous a book as the Acts in pieces on either of the grounds alleged : that is to say, neither because the book tells of miracles, nor because it gives an untrue representation of the life and work of Paul. On another ground the book has been alleged to betray that it is not a real history, but a story made up to serve a pur- pose. It is said that the compiler, whose object was to recon- cile the Petrine and Pauline parties in the Church, put his materials together, with the view of drawing a parallel between Peter and Paul, and asserting their equality. If Peter is miraculously released by an angel from prison, when his life was threatened by Herod, Paul must be miraculously released at Philippi. If Peter strikes Ananias and Sapphira dead, Paul works a similar miracle on Elymas the sorcerer. And again, Paul's contest with Elymas is said to have been in- tended as a parallel to Peter's contest with Simon Magus. f Peter hais worship offered him by Cornelius ; the people of Lystra are on the point of sacrificing to Paul, and the people * Phil. iii. 9 is nearly the only instance of their introduction. t 'Paul's enoounter with Elymas the sorcerer in Paphos is similar to Peter's with Simon Magus. The punishment inflicted upon him resembles Paul's own blindness at the time of conversion ; and thus the occurrence is fictitious.' (Davidson, ii. 128). This ' thus ' is beautiful. xvin.] THE PARALLEL BETWEEN PETER AND PAUL. 327 of Melita call him a god. If sick persons are healed because the shadow of Peter fell on them, from the body of Paul there are brought to the sick handkerchiefs and aprons, and they recover. And, as I have already said, Paul's great work of preaching to the Gentiles has not only its counterpart, but its anticipation, in Peter's conversion of Cornelius. That a certain parallelism exists in the history of the Acts between Peter and Paul need not be denied. The only ques- tion is whether this was a parallelism existing in fact, or one invented by the narrator. In all true history we have nume- rous parallelisms. I barely allude to Plutarch's attempt to find in the life of each Roman worthy a parallel to the history of some Grecian great man. On the principles of criticism by which the Acts have been judged, the history of France for the first half of this century and the last years of the cen- tury preceding, ought to be rejected as but an attempt to make a parallel to the history of England one hundred and fifty years before. Both stories tell of a revolution, of the beheading of a king, of the foundation of a republic, suc- ceeded by a military despotism, and ending with the resto- ration of the exiled family. In both cases the restored family misgoverns, and the king is again dethroned ; but this time a republic is not founded, neither is the king put to death ; but he retires into exile, and is replaced by a kinsman who suc- ceeds, on different terms, to the vacated throne. The attempt to account for the book of the Acts as written for the sake of making a parallelism between Peter and Paul, and to find a purpose for every narration included in the book completely breaks down. It would only be a waste of time if I were to tell you of the far-fetched explanations that have been given as to the purpose why certain stories were introduced ; and I shall presently offer what seems to me a much simpler explanation of the choice of topics. But what I think proves decisively that the making a parallel between Peter and Paul was not an idea present to the author's mind, is the absence of the natural climax of such a parallel — the story of the martyrdom of both the Apostles. Very early tra- dition makes both Peter and Paul close their lives by martyr- 328 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. dom at Rome — the place where Rationalist critics generally believe the Acts to have been written. The stories told in tolerably ancient times in that Church which venerated with equal honour the memory of either Apostle, represented both as joined in harmonious resistance to the impostures of Simon Magus. And though I believe these stories to be more modern than the latest period to which anyone has ventured to assign the Acts, yet what an opportunity did that part of the story, which is certainly ancient — that both Apostles came to Rome and died there for the faith (Clem. Rom. 5) — offer to anyone desirous of blotting out the memory of all differences between the preaching of Peter and Paul, and of setting both on equal pedestals of honour. Just as the names of Ridley and Latimer have been united in the memory of the Church of England, and no count has been taken of their previous doctrinal differences, in the recollection of their joint testimony for their common faith, so have the names of Peter and Paul been constantly bound together by the fact that the martyrdoms of both have been commemorated on the same day. And if the object of the author of the Acts had been what has been supposed, it is scarcely credible that he could have missed so obvious an opportunity of bringing his book to its most worthy conclusion, by telling how the two servants of Christ, all previous differences, if there had been any, recon- ciled and forgotten, joined in witnessing a good confession before the tyrant emperor, and encouraged each other to stead- fastness in endurance to the end. The absence of this natural termination to the book of the Acts, while it is absolutely fatal to the theory on which I have been commenting, is indeed hard to explain on any theory which assigns a late date to the book. Every reader feels some disappointment at the story being prematurely broken off; and as I have already mentioned, this was one of the things which the author of the Muratorian Fragment tried to account for. We hear of Paul being brought to Rome, to plead his cause before the Emperor. It is unsatisfactory merely to be given to understand that for two years he got no hearine- We ask what happened after that? Was the XVIII.] PRINCIPLE OF LUKE'S SELECTION OF TOPICS. 329 Apostle then condemned, or was he set at liberty ? and if so, did he carry out his once expressed intention of preaching the Gospel in Spain, or did he return to visit the Churches which he had previously planted ? And are we to believe the story that he came a second time before the Roman tri- bunal, and closed his life by martyrdom. The connexion of St. Peter, too, with the Roman Church, is a subject on which we should wish to have some authentic information. To my mind the simplest explanation why St. Luke has told us no more is, that he knew no more ; and that he knew no more, because at the time nothing more had happened — in other words, that the book of the Acts was written a little more than two years after Paul's arrival in Rome. To this two principal objections are made — (i) that the earlier book, the Gospel, must have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem, which it distinctly predicts; and (2) that the Acts itself contains (xx. 25) a prediction that Paul should not return to Ephesus: a prediction which, it is supposed, the writer would not have inserted unless he had known that Paul's life had ended without any return to Asia Minor. On the latter objection I shall have more to say when I come to treat of the Pastoral Epistles; and neither objection makes the same impression on me as on those who believe prophecy to be impossible. I am aware, however, that some very good and orthodox critics assign the book a later date, and consider that the account of the Gospel message preached by Paul at the capital of the civilized world is a sufficient close and climax to the history. But unless we suppose that St. Luke projected a third work, which he did not live to execute, I find it hard to explain his silence as to the deeply interesting period of Church history which followed Paul's arrival at Rome, in any other way than by assigning a very early date to the book. I have already said that the explanations completely break down which try to find some purpose in St. Luke's selection of topics in the Acts ; and I need not tell you, for example, what far-fetched reasons have been given for the introduction of the Acts of the deacons, the account of the martyrdom of Stephen, the history of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, and 330 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xviii. so forth. The Muratorian Fragment explains Luke's principle of selection to be, that he tells of the things he had witnessed himself; and I believe that if you add to this, * or of which he had the opportunity of hearing- from eye-witnesses ', you will have the true explanation. So Luke tells in the preface to his Gospel how he made it his business to trace everything from the very first ; and the Acts show what opportunities he had of gaining information. If, for instance, we read the 8th chapter of the Acts in connexion with the 21st, which tells of several days which Luke spent in Philip's house, we have decisive proof that the companion of Paul's travels was also the compiler of the early history. To account for the inser- tion of the 8th chapter, I know no other way which is not forced in the extreme ; while nothing can be more natural than that a visitor of Philip's, who was making it his business to gather authentic records of the Apostles' labours, should be glad to include in his collection a narrative so interesting, communicated to him by the very lips of a principal actor. The account which the Acts give of this Philip may, I think, be regarded as proof of the antiquity of the book. For the name of Philip has an important place in early ecclesias- tical tradition. There is quite satisfactory evidence that a Christian teacher of this name early settled in Hierapolis, that he came to be known in Asia Minor as Philip the Apostle, and that daughters of his were believed to have the gift of prophecy, and were regarded with high veneration. Papias (Euseb. iii. 39) speaks of these daughters, and represents some of the traditions which he records as resting on their autho- rity, Clement of Alexandria {Strom, iii. 6, and see Euseb» iii. 30) says that Philip the Apostle had daughters whom he gave in marriage to husbands. Polycrates of Ephesus (Euseb. V. 24) states that Philip, one of the Twelve, had two daughters who remained virgins to old age, and who died at Hierapolis ; and a third daughter who had walked in the Holy Spirit, and who rested at Ephesus. If we are to lay stress on Clement's plural number, and to infer that Philip had more married daughters than one, then, since he had two who did not marry, we must conclude that he had at least four daughters. PHILIP THE DEACON AND PHILIP THE APOSTLE. 33^ In the dialogue between Caius and Proclus, written at the very beginning of the third century, the Montanist interlo- cutor Proclus speaks of four prophetesses, daughters of Philip, whose tomb was still at Hierapolis, and that of their father as well (Euseb. iii. 31). There can be little doubt that Proclus identified the Philip of Hierapolis with the Philip of the Acts, as Eusebius expressly does. Whether they were right in doing so is a question which cannot be confidently answered. The Philip of the Acts lived at Csesarea, and is described as one of the Seven ; the other Philip lived at Hierapolis, and was regarded as one of the Twelve, It is quite possible that two different Philips might each have four daughters ; yet the simplest way of explaining the facts seems to be that the Philip of the Acts, subsequently to Luke's visit, removed from Palestine to Asia Minor;* and certainly it seems more probable that the Hellenist Philip should so migrate than the Apostle, who presumably was a Hebrew. We can believe, then, that in process of time the veneration given Philip as a member of the apostolic company caused him to be known as an Apostle — a name which in early times had various ap- plications, as I shall afterwards have occasion to remark — and eventually to be popularly identified with his namesake of the Twelve. Of the four daughters who were unmarried at the time of Luke's visit, two may afterwards have married, and one of these may have died early, or otherwise passed out of sight. If the Philip of Hierapolis was really not an Apostle, it is needless to say what a stamp of antiquity the knowledge of this fact puts upon Luke's book. But at present I am not concerned with the question whether Philip the deacon after- wards went to Hierapolis. I am merely pointing out that Luke's intercourse with him accounts for the insertion of some sections in the Acts. We are distinctly told of ' many days ' of such intercourse, but it is likely that there was a great deal more. Paul was for two years a prisoner at * That this became the received opinion may be gathered from the fact that, in Jerome's time, they showed at Csesarea the chambers of the four daughters, not the tombs {£J>. 108, ad Eustochitwi). 332 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xvni. Caesarea ; and as Luke had been his companion in his journey to Jerusalem, and was afterwards his companion in his journey to Rome, it is likely that they were much together in the intervening time, and therefore that Luke at Caesarea would constantly see Philip. He would there hear from him of his mission to Samaria, and of the subsequent mission thither of Peter and John. He would also hear from him of the appoint- ment of the Seven, of whom Philip had been one ; and no doubt he would learn much from the same authority of the most distinguished member of the Seven, Stephen, and of his glorious martyrdom. At Caesarea Luke may very possibly have met Cornelius ; and in any case he would be sure to hear there of the remarkable step taken in his case by Peter. Among the sources used by Luke, I see no objection to include travelling memoranda made by himself; for though I quite disbelieve the myth of a journal of Paul's companion having fallen into the hands of an unknown person in the next century, such a journal might easily have been preserved and used by the writer ; and the exact details we meet with in the account of Paul's last journey to Jerusalem, and his voyage to Rome, have quite the air of a narrative made from a diary. This supposition will at least serve to answer some frivolous objections made to the 'we' sections from their inequality of treatment. In one place it is said they give a mere list of names. We took Paul in at Assos, and came to Mitylene, and the next day over against Chios, and the next day we touched at Samos, and the day after arrived at Mile- tus. Then there will be a pretty full account. Then the whole details of the shipwreck are given, but of the three months at Melita scarcely anything is told. But anyone who has kept travelling memoranda knows that this is exactly the kind of thing they are apt to be ; where nothing interesting occurred, only a bare register of the places where the night was spent ; then perhaps some record of greater length, and after the journey is for the time over, and the traveller settled down in a place, no entry made at all.* On the whole, I * Objections made by Baur to the credibility of the story told in the last verses of the Acts have been repeated by his followers, but to me seem very unreasonable. XVIII.] POSSIBLE USE OF TRAVELLING MEMORANDA. 333 consider that a study of the choice of topics in the Acts leads to a conviction both of the unity of authorship, and also of the author's care to write only of things concerning which he had full means of information. I come next to mention another consideration from which the antiquity of the book of the Acts may fairly be inferred. First let me premise that we may take it as acknowledged, that if the compiler of the Acts was not Paul's travelling companion, he was at least a Paulinist, well acquainted with his master's manner. The vocabulary of Paul's speeches in the Acts has been compared with that of Paul's Epistles, the result being to extort the confession from an unfriendly critic that the author of the Acts was undoubtedly familiar with the Pauline diction.* It has been attempted to extenuate the force of this concession by an attempted proof that the Pauline speeches in the Acts also contain many of Luke's favourite words. It is owned, however, that this cannot be said of all the Pauline speeches. Thus, with regard to Paul's The story is, that Paul, anxious to learn whether, on his trial before the emperor, his release will be opposed by the heads of the Jewish community at Rome, puts himself in communication with them. He finds that, during the long interval that had elapsed since his arrest, the rulers at Jerusalem had let him drop out of sight. They had given no commission against him, either by letter or message, to their friends at Rome. But though these last had heard nothing against Paul personally, they had heard much against his rehgion. He begs to be allowed to speak in its defence, and gets a hearing accordingly. But the result is, that though he makes a favourable impression on a few, the greater part go away unconvinced. This story seems to me to bear the stamp of simple truth. * The following is Davidson's abstract of the results of Lekebusch's study of Paul's speech to the Ephesian Elders at Miletus. I copy it, chiefly for the sake of the concluding sentence, in order to show how such e\'idence is met by a hostile critic. The list of instances given might easily be amended by striking out two or three of no great force, and adding others. ' SovXeveiv r^ Kvpltfi, Acts xx. 19, six times in Paul, only in Matt. vi. 24, Luke xvi. 13 besides ; raireiuocppoa-vvn, xx. 19, five times in Paul, only in i Peter v. 5 besides; viroffTeWcc, xx. 20, Gal. ii. 12; rh crvfupepov, xx. 20, three times in i Cor., only in Heb. xii. 20 besides; SiaKovia, xx. 24, twenty-two times in Paul; fiapTvpofiai, xx. 26, Gal. v. 3, Eph. iv. 17 ; Kadaphs iyci, xx. 26, Acts xviii. 6 ; a Chnsto instituuntur appareant. Hie evangeUum scripsit in Asia postea quam in Pathmos 376 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xix. But I must not conclude this account of legends of the Apostolic age without saying something about one of them, which, though one of the latest in birth, has been the most fortunate in its reception— I mean the story of the Assump- tion of the Blessed Virgin. It is, as you know, received as true in the Roman Catholic section of the Church. Some indeed have held [see Tillemont, i. 476) that the word means no more than the name Kot^rjatc, under which the same feast is kept in the Greek Church ; and the prayers appointed for the feast in the Roman Church make no distinct mention of a corporal assumption. But this is certainly in that Church a matter almost universally believed. And before the meet- ing of the Vatican Council, those entitled to speak with authority declared that at that Council the wish of Pius IX. would be carried out, and the fact of the Assumption erected into an article of faith, to deny which would forfeit salvation. The dispersion of the Council disappointed these anticipations, at least for the time. It were much to be desired that the story, if true, should receive some such infallible attestation, because on the ordinary grounds of historical evidence its pretensions are of the slenderest. Not that it had not wide extent of circulation, for it is handed down in Greek, Latin, Syriac,* Arabic, Ethiopic, and Sahidic. But none of the existing forms is earlier than the end of the fourth, or begin- ning of the fifth century; and the absence of any early authori- tative version of the story is evidenced by the great variety with which it is told, which is such as to embarrass me a little insula apocalypsin scripserat, ut cui in principio canonis incorruptibile principium in genesi et incorniptibilis finis per virginem in apocalypsi redderetur, dicente Christo, ego sum A et XI. Et hie est Johannes, qui sciens supervenisse diem recessus sui con- vocatis discipuHs suis in Epheso per multa signorum experimenta promens Christum, descendens in defossum sepulturse suae locum facta oratione positus est ad patres suos, tam extraneus a dolore mortis quam a corruptione carnis invenitur alienus. Tamen post omnes evangelium scripsit et hoc virgini debebatur. Quorum tamen vel scripturai"um tempore dispositio vel Ubrorum ordinatio ideo per singula a nobis non exponitur, ut sciendi desiderio collocato et qujerentibus fructus laboris et domino magisterii doctrina servetur. * The Greek and Latin versions are included in Tischendorf's Apocalypses apo- cryphcE ; and Syriac versions have been published by Wright, Coiitributions to the Apocryphal Literature, N. T., za.d jfoumal of Sacred Literature, 1865. XIX.] THE ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN. 377 in what form I shall present it to you. According to the oldest authorities, the time is the second year after the Ascen- sion, though later authorities give the Virgin a score more years of life. The Virgin prays the Lord for her release, and for the protection of her body and soul from earthly and spiritual enemies. Then the angel Gabriel is sent to her to announce her departure in three days, and gives her a palm- branch as a token. At her request the Apostles are all brought to Bethlehem to witness her departure, each being miraculously wafted on clouds from the quarter of the world whither he had gone — John from Ephesus, Peter from Rome, Thomas from India, &c. Three or four of the Apostles who had already died are raised to life and brought like the rest ; the angel who summons them warning them that they are not to suppose the general resurrection has yet come, as they are only brought to life in order to take part in the obsequies of the Virgin. By the fifth century the belief was entertained in Ephesus that the mother of our Lord had accompanied St. John to Ephesus; but the earlier story makes her die at Jerusalem. For the Jews having made an attack on the house at Bethlehem, which had become notorious by the multitude of the miracles wrought there, the Apostles smite the assail- ants with blindness, and transport the couch to Jerusalem. Then on the third day the Lord descends from heaven with his angels, and takes to himself the Virgin's soul. But the Jews are resolved to burn her body with fire ; and this they would do, but that they are smitten with blindness ; and so wander fruitlessly, while the Apostles bear her body to the Valley of Jehoshaphat, to bury her in a new tomb prepared by Joseph of Arimathea. Peter on the right hand bears the bier; but the honour of carrying the palm-branch before her is yielded to the virgin John. One of the chiefs of the Jews having laid hold of the bier, an angel with a fiery sword cuts off his hands ; but, on his repentance and conversion, the hands are, by the Apostles' intercession, joined on to his body again. Then, according to one account, the angels are heard for two days singing at the tomb; but on the third day the songs cease, and so the Apostles know that the body has 378 APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [xix. been transferred to Paradise. According to another account, Thomas had not been with the Apostles when they took leave of the Virgin ; but he sees her body being taken up to heaven, and at his prayer she drops him her girdle as a token. When he afterwards joins the other Apostles, and declares that she is not in the tomb, they suppose that it is only his habitual incredulity which makes him doubt their word that they had placed her there ; but he shows the girdle, and on opening the tomb they find the body is not there. The Greek version of this story, published by Tischendorf, in which the story purports to be told by the Apostle John, has all the marks of lateness, and is clearly not earlier than the fifth century. The Latin version bears a somewhat earlier aspect. Melito of Sardis, who, with some little dis- regard of chronology, is made a disciple of the Apostle John, is the narrator; and a preface states that his object is to give an authentic account of what Leucius had related with here- tical additions. This suggests that the existing versions may possibly be an orthodox recasting of an earlier Gnostic story ; and Lipsius holds that this is the case, but as it seems to me on no sufficient grounds, for I can find no evidence that the story had currency, even in heretical circles, so early as the third century. I have detained you a long time in the region of the fabulous, but the time is not altogether wasted that is spent on a study which gives one a keener sense of the difference between the legendary and the historical; and I never feel so strongly that the book of the Acts of the Apostles is a record of real history, as when I take it up after having laid down the not very cunningly devised fables in which men have exhibited the sort of Apostolic Acts pure invention would furnish us with. XX. THE PAULINE EPISTLES. IT is a satisfaction to me to escape from the quaking sands of apocryphal legends, and step on the firm ground of the Pauline Epistles. Of these there are four which, as you know, Baur does not question ; and later critics, who have no bigoted attachment to received opinion, find themselves obliged to make further acknowledgments. Hilgenfeld and Davidson agree in owning i Thessalonians, Philemon, and Philippians : Renan positively rejects none but the Pastoral Epistles, but has doubts besides concerning the Epistle to the Ephesians. But Baur is far from marking the lowest point of negative criticism. He found disciples who bettered his instruction, until it became as hard for a young Professor, anxious to gain a reputation for ingenuity, to make a new assault on a New Testament book, as it is now for an Alpine club man to find in Switzerland a virgin peak to climb. The consequence has been that in Holland, Scholten and others, who had been counted as leaders in the school of destructive criticism, have been obliged to come out in the character of Conservatives, striving to prove, in opposition to Loman, that there really did live such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, and that it is not true that every one of the Epistles ascribed to Paul is a forgery. And certainly it is not only to the ortho- dox that the doctrine that we have no genuine remains of Paul is inconvenient; it must also embarrass those who look 38o THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. for arguments to prove an Epistle to be un-Pauline. I leave these last to fight the battle with their more advanced bre- thren. I have constantly felt some hesitation in deciding what objections it was worth while to report to you. On the one hand, it is waste of energy to try to kill what, if let alone, will be sure to die of itself: on the other hand, there is the danger that you might afterwards find notions, which I had passed by as too contemptible for refutation, circulating among half-learned people as the 'latest results' which 'eminent critics' had arrived at in Germany. But in the present case, I think I am safe in deciding that it is practically unnecessary for me to trouble myself about the opinions of those who carry their scepticism to a further point than Baur. Let me say this, however, that I think young critics have been seduced into false tracks by the reputation which has been wrongly gained by the display of ingenuity in finding some new reason for doubting received opinions. A man is just as bad a critic who rejects what is genuine, as who accepts what is spurious. * Be ye good money-changers ' is a maxim which I have already told you (p. 2;^) was early applied to this subject. But if a bank clerk would be unfit for his work who allowed himself easily to be imposed on by forged paper, he would be equally useless to his employers if he habitually pronounced every note that was tendered him to be a forgery, every sovereign to be base metal. I quite disbelieve that the early Christian Church was so taken pos- session of by forgers that almost all its genuine remains were corrupted or lost, while the spurious formed the great bulk of what was thought worth preserving. The suspicions that have been expressed seem to me to pass the bounds of literary sanity. There are rogues in this world, and you do well to guard against them ; but if you allow your mind to be poi- soned by suspicion, and take every man for a rogue, why, the rogues will conspire against you, and lock you up in a lunatic asylum. In this lecture I must confine myself to speaking of the genuineness of Epistles, and I am glad that I can assume your acquaintance with Paley's admirable Horcs Paulince. How XX.] THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 381 very wide a field the general subject of the life and work of Paul would present, if I attempted to enter it, is evidenced by the mass of literature which of late years has been occupied with it. A beginning was made by Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul ; since then we have had works on St. Paul by Mr. Lewin and by Archdeacon Farrar, each in two large volumes. Renan, approaching the subject from another point of view, expressly devotes one volume to St. Paul, and finds him- self obliged to give also to that Apostle's work a consider- able portion both of the previous and of the subsequent volumes of his history. Then there are very interesting small volumes published by the Christian Knowledge Society on separate parts of the Apostle's labours — ' St. Paul in Greece,' ' St. Paul in Asia', &c. Much additional information is to be found in the Introductions to the Epistles in the Speaker's Commentary, and in Bishop Ellicott's. But chief among re- cent aids to knowledge of St. Paul may be reckoned Bishop Lightfoot's three volumes of Commentaries — a work, the dis- continuance of which we have seen with regret, perhaps not quite selfish. For it may be doubted whether the gain which the present generation in England receives from his episcopal labours compensates the loss which the Church at large has suffered in the interruption of the production of work which would have been of permanent value. Postponing the con- sideration of the Epistle to the Hebrews, I deal now with the letters which bear Paul's name. These divide themselves into four groups, separated by intervals of time of somewhere about five years: (i) the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, (2) the four acknowledged by Baur, (3) the Epistles written during the Roman imprisonment, (4) the Pastoral Epistles. With regard to the Pauline Epistles generally, it may be remarked that the very early and general recognition which they obtained throws fatal obstacles in the way of the theory that the party which rejected Paul's apostleship had any very long or wide possession of the Church. It is with reserve that I can appeal to Peter's second Epistle in proof of the authority of the Pauline letters, because the genuineness of that Epistle is denied ; but, whether written by Peter or not, it is unques- 382 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. tionably an early document ; and it is clear that at the time of its composition, a collection of Pauline letters had been made and was regarded as of high authority. Before the end of the first century the First Epistle to the Corinthians is for- mally quoted by Clement of Rome, who clearly shows ac- quaintance with other of the Epistles. Early in the second century Polycarp formally quotes the Epistle to the Philip- pians, and makes constant use of the other letters. The use of the Pauline letters by Ignatius may be probably, though not demonstratively, inferred from a great multitude of pas- sages ; but there are a few where his reproduction of Paul's language is so complete as to afford decisive proof. Marcion, who promulgated his heresy in the first half of the second century {see p. 17), is notorious for his exaggerated Paulinism ; but, though more than one answer to Marcion is extant, there is no indication that any of his orthodox opponents met him by questioning that Apostle's authority, reverence for which is common to both parties. When we come to the end of the second century, when first Christian literature becomes abun- dant, we find Irenseus, Clement, and Tertullian, not only owning the authority of the thirteen Pauline epistles, but apparently unconscious that there could be two opinions on the subject. If, therefore, I think it worth while to give a proof of the reverence in which Paul's authority was held in the time of Justin Martyr, it is not that there is any real necessity for showing that that father was no dissen- tient from the general opinion of the Church, but because the piece of evidence seems to me interesting in itself, and has only recently been brought clearly to light.* Only two works of Justin have come down to us with tolerable completeness, and are universally recognized as genuine, the Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho. The subject of the one being the controversy with heathenism, and the other that with Judaism, both works were intended to influence readers external to the Church ; and, accordingly, although in countless passages * I am indebted for my knowledge of it to a paper by Zahn {Zeitschrift f. Kirchen- geschichte, viii. I, Dec. 1885.) XX.] METHODIUS. 383 Justin's use of the New Testament writings is evident to one already acquainted with them, he never formally quotes any of them except (as already mentioned, p. 225) in one case, the Apocalypse. These two works, however, offer abundant evi- dence of Justin's acquaintance with the writings of St, Paul, whose ideas, and even whose language, he repeatedly repro- duces. Proofs will be found in Westcott's iV. T. Canon, p. 168, and also in a paper by Thoma in Hilgenfeld's Zett- schrtft, which I have already had occasion to quote for another purpose (p. 71). Indeed, as Justin tells us that he wrote a treatise in answer to Marcion, he could not possibly have engaged in that controversy without a knowledge of the Pauline writings. Thoma, however, imagines that the fact that Justin does not quote Paul by name implies that he did not attribute to him Apostolic authority. But this inference is inconsistent with the influence that Paul's writings evidently exercised over Justin's thoughts ; and is certainly not justified when we remember that it is not Justin's habit to quote any Christian writer by name, seeing that he wrote for persons who recognized Apostolic authority neither in Paul nor in anyone else. It is not superfluous, however, to produce another testimony. Methodius, who was bishop of Olympus,* in Lycia, in the very beginning of the fourth century, was an admirer of Jus- tin, whom he quotes more than once. The quotation with which we are now concerned occurs in a work by Methodius on the Resurrection, an extract from which has been pre- served by Photius [see p. 355). But here we have occasion to see the convenience of the modern device of inverted commas, which enables us to see at a glance how far a quotation is meant to extend. The want of some such mark left it uncer- tain how much belonged to Justin and what to Methodius. * This is the account of the earliest writers who cite him ; later authorities quote him as bishop of Patara, also in Lycia, and Jerome stands alone in making him bishop of Tyre. It is almost certain that in this Jerome made a mistake, of the origin of which Zahn gives an ingenious explanation. Zahn thinks that the idea that Methodius was bishop of Patara is also a mistake originating in the fact that the scene of one of his dialogues is laid in that place. 384 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. Otto, in his edition of Justin, only prints one sentence as Jus- tin's : the next sentence is introduced with a (prjal ; but it is free to the reader to take this as a word used by Photius in continuing his extract from Methodius, or as itself part of the extract, and as used by Methodius in continuing his extract from Justin. The doubt has been set at rest by the recovery of the passage of Methodius through a source independent of Photius,* It has thus become apparent that the second sen- tence, which contains a formal quotation from Paul, belongs to Justin as well as the first ; and internal evidence confirms this conclusion. Both Methodius and Justin assert the doc- trine of a literal resurrection of the body ; and both have ta answer the objection that Paul has said that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God' (i Cor. xv. 50). Metho- dius first gives his own answer, namely, that what Paul here means by ' flesh ' is not literal flesh, . but only the irrational impulse to fleshly lusts. But he goes on then to cite Justin's way of dealing with the same objection, in which quite a diffe- rent answer is given. True, says Justin, the body does not inherit the kingdom of God; it is inherited by the kingdom of God. That which lives inherits ; that which is mortal is in- herited. If the kingdom of God, which is life, were inherited by the body, life would be swallowed up by corruption. But now life inherits that which had died, that so death may be swallowed up by life unto victory, and that the corruptible should become possessed by incorruption. The complete diffe- rence of this reply from that which Methodius himself had given is evidence enough that he is here quoting the words of another. We could easily believe without confirmation, that a work which Methodius — writing soon after A. D. 300 — as- cribed to Justin really belonged to him. But some confirma- tion is found in the fact that an earlier writer, Irenaeus, who also used Justin, has got hold of the same maxim d 8a raXriOlg tiTTiXv, ov KXijjOOvOjua aXXa kXyj povo/nHT a i ri crap^ (Iren. v. 9). Now what we are concerned with here is not the goodness of this solution of Justin's, but the fact that in the middle of the second century the authority of Paul's Epistles w^as owned * See Pitra, Analecta Sacra, iii. p. 614; iv. p. 201. XX. I THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 385 alike by heretics and orthodox. Heretics thought that they had gained a palmary argument if they could produce a say- ing in these letters which seemed to make in their favour ; and the orthodox felt it to be a matter of necessity that they should in some way reconcile their teaching with the sentence so produced. I. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. — The foundation of the Church at Thessalonica is recorded, Acts xvii. It took place in the year 52, on Paul's second missionary journey. The first Epistle professes (iii. 6) to have been written on the re- turn of Timothy, whom Paul had sent from Athens on a mission to the Thessalonian Church. This would be at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5) at the end of 52, or beginning of 53. I am inclined to dismiss, as absolutely frivolous, the objec- tions which Baur and his followers have made to the accept- ance of this date. For there is one passage in the Epistle — a passage which Baur has been so uncritical as to reject as un-Pauline — which carries on the face of it the stamp of early date. I mean the paragraph (iv. 13-18) which treats of the future happiness of those Christians who had died before the time when the Apostle wrote. The passage manifestly belongs to the time when it was thought likely to be an exceptional thing for a Christian to die before the second coming of our Lord, and when those who themselves expected to meet their Master on his coming needed to be consoled lest those dear friends whom death had carried off should lose somewhat of the felicity destined for the rest. Evidently it was only at the very beginning of Christianity, when the second coming of our Lord was yearly expected, and when deaths as yet had been but few, that the destinies of those who departed before the Second Advent could trouble the minds of surviving friends, or that they could be supposed in danger of losing something which the mass of Christians would enjoy. Add to this, that if the Epistle had been, as has been imagined, fabricated after Paul's death, the forger would never have attributed to the Apostle the words 'we which remain' — words implying a belief on his part that it was possible he might live to witness our Lord's coming. 2 C 386 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. Looking on these considerations as absolutely decisive, I care little to discuss petty objections.* It is a little incon- sistent that critics who condemn the book of the Acts as un- historical, constantly, when they come to discuss Paul's Epistles, make disagreement with the history in the Acts a ground of rejection. In the present case the Epistle corrects an erroneous impression which the reader of the Acts might easily receive — I mean the impression that Paul only spent some three weeks in Thessalonica. The foundation of so flourishing a Church as the Epistle describes must have taken longer time ; and we learn from Phil. iv. i6 that his stay was long enough to allow time for his Philippian friends twice to send him a gift of money. He gained at Thessalonica two of his most attached friends — Jason, whom we find afterwards in Paul's company at Corinth (Rom. xvi. 21), and Aristarchus, who had been charged with conveying the Thessalonian con- tributions of money to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4), and whom we find afterwards sharing Paul's journey to Rome and his im- prisonment (Acts xxvii. 2, Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24). Thus we perceive that the preaching on three Sabbath days, which Luke records, only represents that part of the Apostle's work which was done in the synagogue. After that he must, as on a previous occasion at Antioch in Pisidia, have turned to the Gentiles; for the Gentile element predominated in the Thes- salonian Church (i Thess. i. 9, ii. 14). But we find from Luke's narrative of what occurred in several cities, that nothing was more resented by the Jews than that one of their own nation should, instead of acquiescing in the decision passed on his doctrine by the religious heads of their com- munity, disdainfully separate himself from his countrymen, and gather round him a schismatical society of Gentiles. We • One of those petty objections is worth repeating, because it turns on a curious coincidence, the discoverer of which, Holsten [Jahrbiicher f. Prot. Theol. 1877), regarded it as proof demonstrative that our Epistle is later than the Apocalypse. In Rev. ii. 2, we read, ' I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience ' : in I Thess. i. 3, 'Your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope.' Here Holsten contends we have the work of a later Paulinist, who has married the three Johannine words, works, labour, and patience, to the three Pauline, faith, hope, and charity. XX.] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 387 find, in the Acts, that on account of this conduct, which was regarded by the Jews as little less than apostasy, Paul was hunted by persecution from city to city. Five times, you will remember, he received from the Jews the forty stripes save one (2 Cor. xi. 24). If Baur had borne these facts in mind, he would scarcely have found a stumbling-block in the lan- guage in which Paul (ii. 14-16) expresses his indignation against ' the Jews ' who * forbade him to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved '. There is no warrant for asserting that the words ' the wrath is come upon them to the utter- most' (ii. 16), must have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem. The 'wrath' is the 'indignation' of Dan. viii. 19, xi. 36; and hq riXog is a common Old Testament phrase (Josh. X. 20 ; 2 Chron. xii. 12. xxxi. i). Again, it ought not to be thought strange that in this Epistle we should only read of the opposition Paul met with from unbelieving Jews, and that nothing should be said of his controversies with Jewish Christians. The letter was addressed to a Church which, as far as we know, had not yet been visited by any Christian preacher but Paul and his company. Baur notes several coincidences between this and other Pauline Epistles,* but strange to say he uses these to disprove the Pauline authorship. He holds that a letter, to be genuine, must be Pauline, but not too Pauline. If it con- tain phrases or thoughts for which we cannot find a parallel in Paul's acknowledged letters, Paul did not write it ; but if the flavour of Paulinism be too strong for Baur's delicate susceptibilities, he detects a forger who betrays himself by a clumsy imitation of his master. By such methods of criticism it would be easy to prove any document spurious. Tke Second Epistle to the Thessalomans. — I said (p. 34) that I had at one time thought of treating the books of the New Testament in chronological order, beginning accordingly with St. Paul's Epistles. If I had not found other reasons for choosing a different course, I should have been warned by * i. 5, I Cor. ii. 4 ; i. 6, i Cor. xi. i ; i. 8, Rom. i. 8 ; ii. 4, i Cor. ii. 4, 2 Cor i. 17 ; ii. 5, 2 Cor. vii. 2; ii. 6, 9, 2 Cor. xi. 9; ii. 7, i Cor. iii. 2. 2 C 2 388 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. Davidson's example to see how much there is arbitrary and uncertain in the chronological arrangement. Adopting that plan, he began the first edition of his new Introduction with this Second Epistle to the Thessalonians ; for he had ac- cepted an idea of Grotius, which has been received with approval by some subsequent critics, that the letter which we, in conformity with universal Christian tradition, call the Second Epistle, came in order of time before that which we count the first. The arguments in support of this opinion do not seem to me strong enough to induce me to spend time in discussing them with you. In Davidson's second edition, the first epistle heads the list of New Testament books ; we have to look a long way down before we come to the second ; for it is now pronounced to be not genuine, but a later book than the Apocalypse of St. John. On the greater part of the argu- ments used for rejecting the book I hardly think that David- son himself can place much reliance. Thus, on comparing the opening of the two Epistles, he pronounces the second un-Pauline, because, whereas Paul in the first Epistle had said ' we give thanks ', the second Epistle says * we are bound to thank God always as is meet': whereas Paul had con- tented himself with speaking of his converts' faith and love, this writer exaggerates, and says that their faith groweth exceedingly and their love aboundeth. There is a great deal more of what I count * childish ' criticism, that is to say, criticism such as might proceed from a child who insists that a story shall be always told him in precisely the same way. For instance, the commencement of ii. 1 1 with the words 'And for this cause ', is pronounced to be un-Pauline. Paul, we are gravely told, would have said, 'For this cause', without the ' and '. When the list of un-Pauline phrases is exhausted, Davidson, following Baur's lead, goes on to condemn the Epistle for its too great likeness to Paul. The ideas are often borrowed or repeated from the first Epistle, and it is depen- dent on other Pauline Epistles.* * 2 Thess. iii. 8 repeats i Thess. ii. 9; and iii. 10, 12 expands i Thess. iv. 11, 12. 2 Thess. iv. 14, follows i Cor. v. 9, 11, and i Cor. iv. 14. The Lordof peace (iii. 16) XX.] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 389 I hardly think it can be any of these arguments which induced Davidson to alter the opinion he expressed in his first edition, where he says (p. 27), 'The opinion of those critics who defend the authenticity of the first Epistle, but reject that of the second, seems most improbable, and is a mediatizing view that cannot stand. Both must go together either in adoption or rejection. Baur is consistent in reject- ing them ; Hilgenfeld will have few followers in maintaining the Pauline origin of the one, and disputing that of the other.' How is it, then, that the prophet should so soon do his best to falsify his own prediction by becoming a follower of Hilgenfeld himself? The reason for rejecting the Epistle can scarcely have been drawn from any of the small cavils of which I have given you specimens. The stumbling-block is found in the prophecy of the Man of Sin (ii. 1-12). It is not necessary for me to entangle you in any of the controversies which spring out of questions of interpretation of prophecy. We are here only concerned with the question of authorship —whether there is anything improbable in the supposition that such a prophecy should have been delivered at the date it must have had, if this Epistle was really written by St. Paul. Now con- sidering the paucity of documents from which our knowledge is derived of the growth of opinion in the apostolic age, and for half a century after the death of the last Apostle, I cannot sufficiently admire the courage of critics who, from their own sense of the fitness of things, assign dates for the first appear- ance of each phase of ritual or doctrine, and then condemn any document that refuses to fall in with their theory. It is true that apocalyptic prediction is in our minds chiefly asso- ciated with the book of the Revelation of St. John ; but I know no reason whatever for imagining that it was only about the year 70 that the minds of Christians began to occupy themselves with the thoughts of the second coming of our Lord, and the circumstances that should attend it. Those is taken from i Cor. xiv. 33, 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 4, iii. 13, are derived from Gal. i. 6, v. 10, vi. 9, respectively. The reader must decide whether he will take these coincidences as arguments for or against the Tauline authorship. 390 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. who own the first Epistle must allow that at the time when that was written the second coming of our Lord had a prominent place in the Apostle's teaching. There are traces also that the prophecies of Daniel were studied in connexion with that event ; and in this Christians seem to have had the sanction of their Master. Taking the very lowest view of the authenticity of the Gospels, it still seems to me unreasonable to doubt that the 24th Matthew and the parallel chapters of the other Gospels record in substance a real discourse of our Lord. The description (Matt. xxiv. 30, 3 1) of our Lord coming in the clouds of heaven, and sending his angels with a * great sound of a trumpet', seems to me to have prompted both St. Paul's phrase, * the last trumpet ', in i Cor. xv. 52, and the descrip- tion in I Thess. iv. of our Lord descending with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God, when his people should be caught up to him in the clouds. It is undeniable then that, long before the year 70, eschatological speculation was a subject of Christian thought. We have not materials to write its history, and I marvel at the assurance of the man who pretends that he so knows all about the progress of Christian ideas on the subject in the fifteen years between 54 and 69, that while he feels it to be quite credible that such n forecast of the end of the dispensation as is contained in 2 Thess. ii. might have been written at the latter of these two dates, he is quite sure it could not have been written at the former. There would, indeed, be some foundation for such an assertion, if it could be said that the view presented in the second Epistle contradicts that taken in the first ; but this is not so. The one Epistle presents our Lord's second coming as possibly soon, the other as not immediate — as needing that certain prophetic preliminary signs should first be ful- filled. It is quite conceivable that the teaching of the same man should present these two aspects. If no argument for late date can be founded on the passage in 2 Thess. which I have been discussing, I know of no other worth atten- tion. In respect of external attestation, no New Testament book stands higher than these Epistles. They are repeatedly used xx.j THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 391 without suspicion by Irenaaus, Clement, and TertuUian.* They are included in the list of Pauline Epistles given in the Muratorian Fragment which I have quoted (p. 48). They were included in the Apostolicon of Marcion in the first half of the second century. There are what I count traces of their uses by Clement of Rome [c. 38), while their employment by Ignatius and Polycarp is so distinct that the argument can only be evaded by denying the authenticity of these remains. f The passage about the 'Man of Sin' is plainly referred to by Justin Martyr {Trypho^ no). I must not omit to notice the token of genuineness given at the end of the Epistle, namely, that the salutation was written with the Apostle's own hand. All Paul's Epistles end with the salutation in an expanded or abridged form, *The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.' And it appears that even though the rest of the Epistle was written by an amanuensis (as was that to the Romans by Tertius), the salutation was written by the Apostle's own hand. It is remarkable that precautions against forgery should have been so early found necessary. The Apostle also shows his fears of it in cautioning the Thessalonians not to be misled by any Epistle as from him. It is remarkable also that this expres- sion, 'In every Epistle so I write' (iii. 17), should be found in only the second of Paul's Epistles which have reached us. The inference seems plain that Paul must have written other letters that have not come down to us. And this is a con- clusion intrinsically not improbable, and which I see no reason for rejecting. For I suppose there is no greater reason for thinking that every letter of an inspired Apostle must necessarily be extant, than there is for thinking that we must have an account preserved of every sermon he preached. We know from the end of John's Gospel, what our own reason would have otherwise told us, that the portion of our Blessed Lord's own words and deeds which His Spirit has preserved to us, bears no proportion to that which has been allowed to * For example : Ircn. v. 6; Clem. Al. Strom, iv. 12 ; Tert. De Res. Cam. 24. t Ignat. ad Polycarp. I, ad Ephes. lO ; Polycarp, cc. 2, 4, 11. 392 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. remain unrecorded. In the case of apostolic letters we can conceive that the earlier, before the Apostle's authority was fully recognized, would be less carefully preserved. If one whom we dearly love is removed from us by death, we treasure up the relics of his writings, and often regret our own care- lessness in having allowed papers to be destroyed which, because the writer was still with us, we valued lightly, but now would give much to recover. There is no improbability, then, in the loss of apostolic letters, unless God worked a miracle to preserve them. We may believe that if the loss would have deprived us of knowledge necessary for our sal- vation, He would have interfered miraculously; but otherwise we have no ground for asserting that God would supernatu- rally prevent the loss of any of the written words of the Apostles, when He has permitted the loss of so many of the spoken words not only of them but of our Blessed Lord. Another passage which implies a letter of Paul, not included in our Canon, is i Cor. v. g, * I wrote to you in my Epistle not to keep company with fornicators', which though it has been interpreted to mean in the Epistle he was then writing, is, I think, better understood as referring to a lost previous letter. Colossians iv. i6, speaks of a letter from Laodicea. On this Laodicean letter I refer you to Lightfoot's note* [Colossians y p. 340), merely saying here that I believe the letter has been rightly identified with that which we know as the Epistle to the Ephesians. IL The second group of Paul's letters is, in some points of view, the most important of all ; but inasmuch as their * The reader will find in Lightfoot the forged Epistle to the Laodiceans, which was clearly intended to pass for the Epistle referred to in the Colossians. It is only extant in Latin ; but Lightfoot gives good reasons for believing the original language to be Greek. It is short, and is a mere cento of passages from the genuine letters, containing scarcely a single original word. It was in circulation in St. Jerome's time {pe Vir. lllust. 5), and had previously been mentioned by Theodore of Mopsuestia {in Coloss. iv. 16, i. 314, Swete). It is doubtful whether it is this Epistle which is referred to in the Muratorian Fragment (see p. 49) ; for we should not otherwise take this forgery to be so early. Marcion had in his Canon an Epistle to the Laodi- ceans, but this was only what we know as the Epistle to the Ephesians (Tert. adv. Marc. V. 17). XX.] THE SECOND GROUP. 393 authenticity is universally acknowledged, it does not come within my plan to speak of them. I only mention some doubts that have been raised as to the concluding chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. The Epistle, previously to this, closes with a benediction at the end of chap. xv. Let me say, in passing, that we have one concluding benediction too many in the Authorized Version. Both at xvi. 20, and 24, we have * The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.' The oldest authorities differ as to which place this benediction ought to occupy ; but there is no good AIS. authority for putting it in both places. In some MSS. the concluding doxology (xvi. 25-27) is put at the end of ch. xiv. In addition to the fact that the Epistle seems to finish without chap, xvi., it has been remarked as strange that Paul should have known so many at Rome, which he had never visited, while he sends no salutation to individuals in his Epistle to the Church of Ephesus, where he had lived three years. On these grounds some reject this chapter. Renan imagines that the Epistle was a circular addressed to different Churches, with a different conclusion for each, and with his usual courage he picks out their several portions. He assigns the list of names to whom salutations were sent, as the conclusion of the Epistle sent to one Church, that of Ephesus ; the list of names from whom salutations are sent as the conclusion of that to another, and the doxology as of that to a third. Strange not to see that these three fit together, and make an harmonious whole. I cannot seriously discuss what is asserted with so little evidence. It is no uncommon thing with ourselves to add a postscript to a letter, and there is nothing to call for explana- tion if Paul, even though he had brought his letter to a close in the 15th chapter, should add a postscript. Considering how people pressed to Rome from all parts of the Empire, we have nothing to wonder at if Paul had many friends at Rome, even though he had not visited it. When he did eventually visit Rome, there were friends there who came to meet him, some as far as Appii Forum, a distance of forty-three miles. It is, I own, a little surprising that the Epistle to the Ephe- sians does not contain a corresponding list of salutations. 394 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. However, what has been ingeniously urged on the other side is worth mentioning. It is said that a man writing to a large circle of friends, because it would be invidious to mention some names and omit others, naturally might prefer to men- tion none : and that accordingly in Paul's Epistles to the Churches where he had personally laboured, those of Corinth and Thessalonica, no names are mentioned ; while several names occur in the conclusion of the Epistle to the Church of Colossee, a place where the Apostle apparently had never been. I should not think it impossible that the Epistle to the Ephesians, as originally written, may have contained a post- script chapter of private salutations like that which ends the Epistle to the Romans, and that this postscript was not copied when the Epistle was transcribed for the use of other Churches. But another, and more common explanation is, that the Epistle to the Ephesians was a circular not written to that Church exclusively. Certain it is, some of the most ancient copies omitted the words Iv 'E^to-fi) in the inscription. Origen, for instance, read the saints ' that are', and explained ToiQ ovatv as the saints which are really so ; and in this he is followed by St. Basil. And the omission of Ephesus is found in some very ancient MSS. at this day (J^, B). But since this rendering is extremely improbable, Archbishop Ussher con- jectured that the original letter was a circular, containing after the words * the saints that are ' a blank for the name of the Church addressed. Marcion filled it up with the name Laodicea, and called this the Epistle to the Laodiceans. Lightfoot has rvo\.Q,& [Journal of Philology, li. 264) certain peculiarities in some MSS. which make it probable that an edition of the Epistle to the Romans also had some circula- tion in which both the name Rome in the address and the last two chapters were omitted. On these peculiarities he founds the hypothesis that the Apostle, at a later period of his life, wished to give a wider circulation to the Epistle he had written to the Church of Rome : that, in order to adapt it to this end, he omitted the mention of Rome in the beginning, as also the last two chapters containing personal matters ; XX.] TIIK EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT. 393 and lluit he then, for the tiist time, added as a termination the doxology xvi. 25-27. This hypothesis was combated by Dr. Hort in the same journal (iii. 51), and again defended by its author (iii. 193). The discussion will well repay study; but the true solution of the problem belongs to a period earlier than any extant Christian history — the period, namely, when the Epistles first passed out of the exclusive possession of the Churches to which they were addressed, and became the common property of all Christians. III. The Epistles of the Imprisonmejit. — Among these, I think it necessary to say little concerning the Epistle to the Philippians, Baur's objections to its genuineness having been pronounced futile by critics not disposed to think lightly of his authority — Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Schenkel, Reuss, David- son, Renan,* and others. Baur has pronounced this Epistle to be dull, uninteresting, monotonous, characterized by poverty of thought, and want of originality. But one only loses respect for the taste and skill of the critic who can pass such a sen- tence on one of the most touching and interesting of Paul's letters. So far is it from showing signs of having been manu- factured by imitation of the other Epistles, that it reveals * A Frenchman cannot construct a drama without a love story, and Renan, by the help of this Epistle, with some countenance from Clem. Alex. {Strom, iii. 6), has contrived to find one in the life of St. Paul. He translates [Saint Paul, p. 148) yvfjcne av^vye (Phil. iv. 3) ' ma chere epouse ' ; and when afterwards he has occasion to speak of Lydia, does so with the addition, ' sa vraie epouse' [U Antechrist, pp. 18, 22). Hilgenfeld, who will not be suspected of any undue bias in favour of Episcopacy, interprets the passage of the president of the Philippian Church : 'Anstatt mit Renan in yv-fiffte 'jy//z^ 85, 138), and twice in substance (84, lOo)- The same expression is used by Theophilus of Antioch (ii. 22). Davidson owns (11. 177) that, 'as far as external evidence goes, the epistle is unanimously attested in ancient times '. We turn then to the internal evidence ; and the most trying test is to examine the personal references at the end of the Epistle. On the face of these there appears a close con- nexion with the letter to Philemon.* The same names occur * On this connexion Davidson, in his discussion of the Epistle to the Colossians, does not say a single word; Hilgenfeld touches on it very lightly. Renan's literary XX.] THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. t^^j in both : Epaphras, Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, as names of Paul's companions, Onesimus as a bearer of both letters, Archippus as one of those addressed. Yet there are differences which preclude the idea that the Epistle to the Colossians was manufactured out of the shorter Epistle. The longer Epistle names Jesus, surnamed Justus, in addition to those mentioned in the shorter ; while it says nothing about Philemon, the principal personage in the latter. Tychicus is named as the principal bearer of the longer Epistle ; but from the nature of the case, Onesimus alone would be entrusted with the shorter. Again, the title fellow-prisoner* is given to Aristarchus in the Epistle to the Colossians ; but in that to Philemon, it is given not to him, but to Epaphras. Combin- ing the Epistles, we obtain a clear and consistent account of the occasion of both. The fugitive slave Onesimus, formerly a resident at Colossae, is converted at Rome by Paul, who desires to send him back to his master. There is also with Paul at the time another Colossian, Epaphras, apparently the evangelist of the Churches on the Lycus (i. 7), through whose affectionate remembrance of these Churches the Apostle has heard much of their prosperous spiritual state (iv. 12, 13). He therefore joins Onesimus with Tychicus, whom he was sending on a mission to the Churches of Asia, and while giving the former a private letter to his master, entrusts them jointly with a public letter to the Church. Archippus, who is addressed in the salutation of the shorter letter, is commonly supposed to have been a son of Philemon : if not that, he could only have been the chief minister of the Church to which instinct often keeps him straight where German critics had gone astray. He had not been without difficulties as to the larger Epistle, but he finds it impossible to get over the fact of the connexion of the two. He says of the Epistle to the Colossians [Saint Paul, p. xi): 'Elle presente meme beaucoup de traits qui repoussent I'hypo- these d'un faux. De ce nombre est surement sa connexite avec le billet a Philemon. Si I'epitre est apocryphe, le billet est apocryphe aussi; or, peu de pages ont un accent de sincerite aussi prononce ; Paul seul, autant qu'il semble, a pu ecrire ce petit chef-d'oeuvre.' * The most probable meaning of the title is that these disciples shared St Paul's lodgings, and thereby voluntarily subjected themselves to some restrictions of liberty from the surveillance of the soldier in charge of him . 398 TIJE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. he belonged. It would seem from the order in which he is mentioned that the scene of his labours was not Colossse, but Laodicea. Possibly at the time of writing Philemon might also have gone to reside there. If this were so, it would be natural that there should also be a public letter to the Church over which Archippus presided ; and we find from iv. i6, that in point of fact there was a companion letter to be found at Laodicea. I feel little doubt that this is the letter, a duplicate of which was taken by Tychicus to Ephesus, where Paul had resided so long, and which we know as the Epistle to the Ephesians. But we have not yet come to discuss that letter, suffice it, then, to say now that on the supposition of the genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians, all the details of Paul's history which are indicated come out with perfect clear- ness ; while, if you want to convince yourselves of the un- reasonableness of the opposite supposition, you have only to take the Epistle to Philemon — acknowledged to be genuine — and try to conceive how a forger would be likely to utilize its contents for the manufacture of a letter intended to pass as contemporaneous. I am sure no forger could devise anything which has such a ring of truth as the Epistle to the Colossians. What, then, are the reasons why we are to reject a docu- ment coming to us with the best possible credentials, and presenting several characteristics which seem to exclude the hypothesis of fraud ? Three reasons are alleged. The first I shall not delay to discuss at length : I mean the argument founded on the occurrence of certain words in this Epistle which are not found in Paul's previous letters. I cannot sub- scribe to the doctrine that a man writing a new composition must not, on pain of losing his identity, employ any word that he has not used in a former one. Even Baur, who acknowledged only four Epistles, could hardly employ this argument consistently — for there are great dissimilarities between the first and second Epistles to the Corinthians — but when the Pauline authorship of the Epistles to the Thes- salonians and to the Philippians is acknowledged, as it now is, by all the best critics, it is admitted that we may disregard the objections made by Baur to these Epistles on the ground XX.] THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 3^9 of differences of phraseology, and it is recognized that it is not unnatural that certain differences of language should show themselves in letters written by Paul at some distance of time from each other. In the course of a few years the vocabulary of any man is liable to be modified, but more especially is this likely to happen to one who, as Paul did, goes about a good deal, and converses with many new peo- ple.* Critics strangely forget the probable influence on Paul's language of his two years' residence in Rome. In the next century Rome was a hotbed of heresy, all the leading Gnostic teachers having established schools there. We cannot but think it likely that in the first century also religious specu- lators of various kinds should find their way to Rome, and strive to gain disciples. What more natural than that some of them should visit the Apostle in his lodgings, and compare doctrines with him ? And might it not be accounted a note of spuriousness if letters alleged to be written after a long residence in Rome exhibited acquaintance with no phases of thought but those which are dealt with in the earlier letters ? The second objection is drawn from the Christology of the Epistle, the view of our Lord's Person and work which it presents, being in close resemblance to the Logos doctrine of St. John. But is it so impossible that the doctrine of two Christian teachers should resemble each other ? We have * What I have said above was suggested by a remark of Mr. jNIahaffy, which he has been good enough to put in writing for me: — ' The works of Xenophon show a remarkable variation in their vocabulary. Thus, I. and II. of the Hellenica, which are his earliest writings, before he travelled, con- tain very few lonisms, Dorisms, &c., and are written in very pure Attic. His later tracts are fuU of un- Attic words, picked up from his changing surroundings; and what is more curious, in each of them there are many words only used by him once; so that, on the ground of variation in diction, each single book might be, and indeed has been, rejected as non-Xenophontic. This variation not only applies to words which might not be required again, but to such terms as evapSpia (Comm. 3, 3, 12), varied to ev\!/vxia {Vejz. 10, 21), evToKfxia (quoted by Stobaeus), aySpet6Tris {Anab. 6, 5, 14), all used only once. Every page in Sauppe's Lexilogus Xen. bristles with words only used once in this way. Now, of classical writers, Xenophon is perhaps (except ; ^rodotus) the only man whose life corresponded to St. Paul's in its roving habits, OrVch would bring him into contact with the spoken Greek of varying societies.' 400 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. evidently here to do with an objection in which one brought up in the faith of the Church can feel no force before he has unlearned a good deal. But without assuming anything as to the unlikelihood of Apostles disagreeing on a fundamental doctrine, when once it is acknowledged that the Johannine writings, instead of only originating late in the second cen- tury, were the work of a contemporary of St. Paul, then the interval in time between the composition of the Epistle to the Colossians and of the Gospel of St. John is reduced so much, that it becomes very rash to declare that what was accepted as sound doctrine at the later of the two periods could not have been believed in at the earlier. Add that when we acknowledge the Epistle to the Philippians, the celebrated Christological passage (ii. 5-1 1) forces us to attribute to Paul such high doctrine as to our Lord's pre-existence and as to the pre-eminent dignity which he enjoyed before his humilia- tion, that I cannot understand how it should be pronounced inconceivable that one, whose conception of Christ was that expressed in the Philippians, should use concerning him the language we find in the Colossians, The third objection is the Gnostic complexion of the false teaching combated in the Colossian Epistle, which, we are told, could not have characterized any heresy existing in the time of St. Paul. But how is it known that it could not ? What are the authorities which fix for us the date of the rise of Gnosticism with such precision that we are entitled to reject a document bearing all the marks of authenticity, if it exhibit too early traces of Gnostic controversies ? The simple fact is, that we have no certain knowledge whatever about the beginnings of Gnosticism. We know that it was in full blow in the middle of the second century. The Church writers to whom we owe our best knovidedge of it wrote at the end of that century, or the beginning of the next, and were much more busy in refuting the forms of heresy then prevalent than in exploring their antiquities. But if we desire to describe the first appearance of Gnostic tendencies, we have, outside the New Testament books, no materials; and if we assign dfje date from our own sense of the fitness of things, we are bouidwh, XX.] THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 401 to do so with all possible modesty. * Bishop Lightfoot,' says Davidson, * following Neander, thinks that the Judaic Gnos- ticism combated in the Epistle to the Colossians was a heresy expressing " the simplest and most elementary conceptions " of the tendency of thought so called ; one whose speculations were so "vague and fluctuating", as to agree with St. Paul's time.' From this view Davidson dissents, regarding the heretical tenets of the Colossian teachers as more definite than Lightfoot represents. I myself fully believe the bishop to be in the right ; but for the purposes of the present argu- ment I count it absolutely immaterial whether he is or not. When we have got a well-authenticated first century docu- ment, that document is evidence as to the state of opinion at the time when it was written ; and whether the amount of Gnostic opinion which it reveals be much or little, we have no reason for rejecting its testimony, unless we have equally good countervailing testimony. But countervailing testi- mony deserving of regard, in this case there is none. David- son says : ' Lightfoot labours without effect to date the opinions of the Colossian errorists before A. D. 70, for in doing so he is refuted not only by Hegesippus, who puts the first exhibitions of heretical Gnosis under Trajan, but by Clement of Alexan- dria, who dates them under Hadrian, and by Firmilian of Caesarea, who dates them long after the Apostles.' Firmilian of Caesarea ! he might as well have said Theophylact. I think he misunderstands Firmilian ; but it is useless to dis- cuss the point : for what possible value can attach to the opinion which a writer of the middle of the third century held as to the extent to which Gnosticism had prevailed two hun- dred years before his own time ? There is no surer test of the merit of an historian than to observe what are the authorities on which he builds his story. If you find him relying on such as are worthless, you may know that he does not understand his business. It would be unjust to Davidson if the present example were offered as a fair specimen of his sense of the value of authorities ; and if he has not produced better, it is because there were no better to produce. If he appealed to the early haeresiologists his cause 2 D 402 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. would be lost ; for, following the lead of Justin Martyr, they commonly count Simon Magus as the parent of Gnos- ticism,* so that if their authority is to be regarded, the heresy existed in Apostolic times. Hegesippus, the earliest of the authorities on whom Davidson relies, wrote in the Episcopate of Eleutherus, that is to say, some time between 175 and 189. He is therefore more than a century later than the times concerning which he is appealed to as a witness ; and he is later than Justin Martyr, whose testimony I have just quoted on the other side.f But, strange to say, Davidson himself thinks (ii. 38) that Hegesippus was acquainted with i Tim. vi. 20, and thence derived the expression 'Gnosis falsely so called'. Hegesippus, therefore, must have believed that Gnosis existed in the Apostle's days. Thus it will be seen that the authorities that can be used to fix the date of the first appear- ance of Gnosticism are conflicting and untrustworthy ; nor do I believe that, even if we had fuller information, it would be possible to name a definite date for its beginning. For I take the true history to be, that there came a wave of thought from without, in consequence of which certain ideas foreign to Christianity floated vaguely about, meeting in different quarters more or less acceptance, for some time before any- one formed these ideas into a system. With respect to the * See Irenseus, i. xxiii. 4. t The work of Hegesippus is lost ; and in this case we have not even an extract from it, but only the report which Eusebius gives (iii. 32), in his own words, of the substance of what Hegesippus had said. For want of the context we cannot make a positive affirmation ; but it appears to me that when Hegesippus says that ' down to the times of Trajan the Church remained a. pure and incorrupt virgin,' he had specially in view the Church of Jerusalem (compare Euseb. iv. 22). The Elkesaites were the heretics with whom Hegesippus, as a Christian of Palestine, would have most to deal, and the reign of Trajan was the very date they claimed for the revelation of their peculiar doctrines. They held a kind of doctrine of development, believing that the latest growth of time was the best, and that the full truth was not to come until error had preceded it. Until Paul had promulgated his erroneous doctrines, the revelations of Elkesai were not to be made. Hegesippus gave a different account of the matter. While the Apostles were alive heresies were obliged to burrow in secret ; but when their sacred choir had departed, and the generation had passed away which had been vouchsafed the hearing of their inspired wisdom, then the preachers of know- ledge, falsely so called, ventured to invade the Church, as if now bare and un- protected. XX.] THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 403 history of this undeveloped stage of Gnosticism, I hold the Epistle to the Colossians to be one of our best sources of information ; and those who reject it because it does not agree with their notions of what the state of speculation in the first century ought to be are guilty of the unscientific fault of forming a theory on an insufficient induction of facts, and then rejecting a fact which they had not taken into account, because it does not agree with their theory. TJie Epistle to the Ephesians. — ' Among the letters which \ bear the name of Paul,' says Renan [Saint Paul, xxiii), * the Epistle to the Ephesians is perhaps the one of which there are most early quotations, as the composition of the Apostle of the Gentiles.' On internal grounds Renan has serious doubts as to the Pauline origin of this Epistle, and he throws out the idea that it may have been written under the Apostle's directions by Timothy, or some other of his companions ; but he owns that the external evidence in its favour is of the highest character. It is a matter of course to say that it is recognized by Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, , and in the Muratorian Fragment. The fact that it was among the Pauline Epistles owned by Marcion makes it unnecessary to cite authorities later than 140. There is what seems to me a distinct use of the Epistle by Clement of Rome ; for when he exhorts to unity by the plea, * Have we not one God, and one Christ, and one Spirit of grace poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ' ? [c. 46), I cannot think the resemblance merely accidental to * one Spirit', ' one hope of your calling' (Eph. iv. 4). There can be no doubt of the use of the Ephesians in what is called the Second Epistle of Clement : but though I think this is certainly older than the age of Irenaeus, I do not know whether it is older than that of Marcion. The recognition of the Ephesians in the letter of Ignatius to the same Church is beyond doubt. He addresses the Ephesians [c. 12) as UavXov (jvjXfxvaTm, a phrase recalling Eph. iii. 3, 4, 9, and goes on to say how Paul makes mention of them iv iraa^j siriaToXij, a puzzling expression, which obliges us to put some force on the grammar if we translate ' in all his Epistle ', or on the facts, if we translate ' in every Epistle '. The 2D2 404 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. recognition of our Epistle is express in the one case, prob- able in the other. There are other phrases in the Ignatian letters which remind us of the Epistle to the Ephesians^ of which I only mention his direction to Polycarp [c. 5) to exhort the brethren to love their wives, even as the Lord the Church (Eph. v. 25, 29). Polycarp's own letter refers {c. 12) to words of Scripture, * Be ye angry, and sin not', and * Let not the sun go down on your wrath', the former sentence being no doubt ultimately derived from Ps, iv. 5, but only found in connexion with the latter in Eph. iv. 26. Hermas more than once shows his knowledge of the text, ' Grieve not the holy Spirit of God' (iv. 30), (see Mandat. x. i, 2). There is another topic of evidence, the full discussion of which will come later on ; I refer to the fact that the first Epistle of Peter shows traces of acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles, and in particular with those to the Romans and Ephesians. This fact is recognized by Renan, who is much impressed with the evidence it offers of the early acceptance of the Epistle to the Ephesians as Paul's, and as a document of authority {Saint ^Paul, p. xxii). Renan, being disposed to accept Peter's Epistle, but having doubts about that to the Ephesians, is rather perplexed by this fact, which proves the priority of the latter ; and he suggests that it may have been Peter's secre- tary who turned to account his knowledge of the Epistle ascribed to Paul [U Afitechrtst, p. vii) ; but this very gratuitous suggestion does not affect the inference as to the relative date of the two Epistles. Several critics, who do not accept either Epistle, agree as to the fact of a connexion between them. If, as has been already suggested, the Epistle to the Ephesians had the character of an encyclical, it would be natural that a copy should be preserved for the use of the Church of Rome ; and we should then have a simple explanation of the fact that Peter, writing at Rome, should find there in constant use these two letters of Paul in particular — that to the Romans and to the Ephesians. What, then, are the reasons why it is sought to reject so weighty a mass of external evidence ? You will, perhaps, be \ surprised to hear that one of the chief is the great likeness of this Epistle to the Epistle to the Colossians. The fact of the XX.] THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 405 close affinity of the two letters is indisputable,* but the expla-'X nation which Paley gave of it is perfectly satisfactory, namely, that in two letters, written about the same time on the same subject by one person to different people, it is to be expected that the same thoughts will be expressed in nearly the same / words. Now the Epistle to the Ephesians is specially tied to that to the Colossians by the fact that both letters purport to have been carried by the same messenger, Tychicus, the para- graph concerning whom is nearly the same in both (Eph. vi. 21, 22 ;t Col. iv. 7, 8). That the letters which the Apostle wrote to be sent off by the same messenger to different Churches should be full of the same thoughts, and those thoughts frequently expressed in the same phrases, is so very natural, that instead of the mutual similarity deserving to count as an objection to the genuineness of either, this correspondence of the character of the letters, with the tra- ditional account of the circumstances of their origin, ought to reckon as a strong confirmation of the correctness of that account. Yet this explanation of the similarity of the two Epistles is commonly dismissed by sceptical writers with small con- sideration. DeWette, for instance, condemns the Epistle to the Ephesians as but a * verbose amplification ' of the Epistle to the Colossians. He says, ' Such a transcription of himself is unworthy of an Apostle, and must therefore be the work of an imitator.'^ The idea that it is unworthy of an Apostle to repeat himself, springs from the tacit assumption that the first of the two Epistles was a work published for general circu- lation (though indeed it is not uncommon to find authors repeating themselves even in such published works); but I\ am at a loss to see why an Apostle might not say the same * ' Out of the 155 verses contained in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 78 contain ex- pressions identical with those in the Colossian letter' (Davidson, ii. 200). t From the word ' also ' in Eph. vi. 21, Baur inferred the priority of the Colos- sian letter. X In like manner Renan (Samt Paul, xvii.), Comment Paul a-t-il pu passer son temps a contrefaire un de ses ouvrages, a se repeter, a faire une lettre banale avec une lettre topique et particuliere .'' 4o6 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. j things when writing to different people. No one finds any difficulty in the supposition that an Apostle might write a circular letter — that is to say, that he might send to different Churches letters couched in identical words. What greater impropriety would there be if, instead of directing a scribe to make a copy of his first letter, he dictated a second of like tenor for the use of a different Church ? Nor is the case much altered if, after the second letter had been written, he found that it added so much to what had been said in the first, as to make him wish that his disciples should read both (Col. A iv. i6). I Those who ascribe the two Epistles to different authors are not agreed which was the original, which the imitator. Mayerhoff, the first assailant of the Epistle' to the Colossians, made the Ephesian letter the earlier, and he has found some followers. But the more general, and as I think the more plausible, opinion reverses the order. Indeed, the personal details in the Epistle to the Colossians, and its connexion with the Epistle to Philemon, have caused it to be accepted as Pauline by some who reject the Ephesian letter. But what I regard as a complete refutation of the hypothesis of imi- tation on either side, has been made by one of the most /"recent ot German speculators on the subject — Holtzmann.* He has made a critical comparison of the parallel passages in the two Epistles, and his result is that the contest as to their relative priority ends in a drawn battle. He gives as examples seven passages in which he pronounces that the Ephesians is the original, and the Colossians the imitation ; and seven others in which he comes to the opposite con- l elusion. t * Holtzmann, Professor of Theology, formerly at Heidelberg, now at Strassburg. His most important work is on the Synoptic Gospels. That here cited is Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe, Leipzig, 1872. He has lately pubhshed an Introduc- tion to the New Testament. t These are: Priority of Ephesians — Eph. i. 4 = Col. i. 22; Eph. i. 6, 7 = Col. i. 13, 14; Eph. iii. 3, 5, 9 = Col. i. 26, ii. 2; Eph. iii. 17, 18, iv. 16, ii. 20 = Col. i. 23, ii. 2, 7; Eph. iv. 16 = Col. ii. 19; Eph. iv. 22-24 = Col. i"- 9) 1°; Eph. v. 19= Col. iii. 16. Priority of Colossians — Col. i. i, 2 = Eph. i. i, 2; Col. i. 3-9 = Eph. i. 15-18; Col. i. 5= Eph. i, 3, 12, 13; Col. i. 25, 29 = Eph. iii. 2, 7; Col. ii. 4-8 = Eph. iv. 17-21I; Col. iv. 5 = Eph. v. 15, 16; Col. iv. 6 = Eph. iv. 29. xx.j THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 407 The natural conclusion from these facts would be that the similarity between the Epistles is not to be explained by conscious imitation on either side, but by identity of author- ship.* The explanation, however, which Holtzmann offers is that only a certain nucleus of the Epistle to the Colossians is genuine — that a forger taking this for his guide, manufactured by its means the Epistle to the Ephesians ; and then, pleased with his handiwork, proceeded to interpolate the Epistle to the Colossians with pieces taken from his own composition. And such was the success of this attempt, that not only was the forged Ephesian Epistle universally accepted as St. Paul's, but no one cared to preserve the unimproved Colossian Epistle. Holtzmann, expurgating our present Epistle to the Colossians by removing this adventitious matter, publishes what he offers as the real original Epistle. The engineer Brindley declared that the reason rivers were made, was to feed navigable canals. Some German writers seem to think that in the ancient Church Apostolic documents were only valued as the possible basis of some ingenious forgery. I might seriously discuss this theory of Holtzmann's if I could find that even in his own school he had made a single convert to it.f If you study the Epistle in Lightfoot's commentary, you will find that each of those proposed expurgations is a real mutilation of the argument ; and the chief merit of Holtzmann's work is his success in showing that the theory that the Ephesian Epistle is the work of an imitator of the Colossians gives no adequate explanation of the facts. I have said enough to show that no good reason for reject- ing the Epistle to the Ephesians can be drawn from its like- ness to the sister Epistle to the Colossians. But I think that * The anacoluthca of the Epistle to the Ephesians (compare, for instance, iii. I, iv. i) afford another proof that we have here, not the calm work of an imitator of another man's production, but the fervid utterances of an original writer, whom a rush of fresh thoughts occasionally carries away from what he had been about to say. t Hilgenfeld, in his Journal for 1873, reviewing Holtzmann's book, expresses his complete dissent from his conclusions ; and having complimented the author on the ability of his performance, winds up with, Aber soUen wir in der Wissenschaft wirk- lich weiter kommen, so haben wir, meine ich, objectiver zu verlahrcn. 4o8 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. the real cause of hostility to this letter is not this, but rather the contradiction which it offers to modern theories of early Church history. According to these, the feud between Paul- inists and Anti-Paulinists continued long into the second century, and it was only at this comparatively late period that there arose the conception of the 'Catholic Church' embracing Jew and Gentile on equal terms, and giving to Paul and Peter equal honour. Men have refused to believe that the book of the Acts could have been written by a companion of Paul, even ten or twenty years after that Apostle's death, because they could not think that the conciliatory school, to which this book clearly belongs, could have arisen so early. But if we accept the Epistle to the Ephesians, we must own that Paul was himself no Paulinist, as Baur understands the word. He clearly belongs to the era of the ' Catholic Church ', concern- ing which he has so much to say ; and he even speaks of the 'holy Apostles' (iii. 5) as might one who had no cause of quarrel with the Twelve. And certain it is that in this Epistle we read nothing of St. Paul's controversy with those who ' forbade him to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved', nothing of his con- troversy with those who wished to impose on Gentile converts the yoke of circumcision. All such controversies are clearly over at the time of writing. Those whom he addressed, though Gentiles (iii. i), have won the position of recognition as ' fellow-citizens with the saints, an J of the household of God' (ii. 19). But is there anything incredible in the sup- position that Paul himself lived to see the dying out of the controversy that had once raged so violently ? Controversies soon die out in the face of accomplished facts. I have myself seen many hot political controversies — about the first Reform Bill ; about the Abolition of the Corn Laws ; about the Dis- establishment of the Irish Church. As long as any practical end could be obtained the battle raged fiercely ; but when a decision was made, which there was no hope of overturning, all parties acquiesced in the inevitable, and took no interest in wrangling over the old dispute. So it was with the dispute as to the obligation of Mosaism. When emissaries came XX.] THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 409 down from Jerusalem, assuring Paul's Gentile converts that unless they were circumcised Christ should profit them noth- ing, and when many of them appeared ready to give ear to such teaching, it was natural that the Apostle should protest loudly against a doctrine which subverted the whole Gospel he had taught. But he counteracted it in even a more effec- tual way than direct opposition. He and his disciples went on making new converts, and founding new Churches among the Gentiles, on whom no obligation of Judaic observance was laid, until it became hopeless for the zealots for the Mosaic Law in Palestine to dream of excommunicating so large and powerful a body. Nine or ten years of Paul's preaching were enough to put the position of the Gentile Churches beyond danger of assault. No one can doubt that at the time of Paul's Roman imprisonment there were Chris- tian Churches in Ephesus and other cities of Asia, in Greece, in Syria, in Rome itself, containing a multitude of Gentile converts, who did not observe the law of Moses, and who, nevertheless, did not doubt that they were entitled to every privilege which union with Christ conferred. Gentile Chris- tianity was by this time an accomplished fact, and it shows inability to grasp the historic situation if a man expects Paul's letters at this date to exhibit him still employed in controversial defence of the position of his Gentile converts, or if he is surprised to find Paul taking for granted that the barrier between Jew and Gentile had been thrown down.* It is as great an anachronism to expect to find Paul, at the time of his imprisonment, maintaining the right of a Gentile to be admitted into the Christian Church without circumcision, as it would be to expect to find a statesman of the present day * Davidson objects (ii. 213) that Paul's language in this Epistle ' suits an author who knew the widespread fruit of the Gospel among Gentiles, and witnessed its mighty effects long after Paul had departed, but is scarcely consonant with the per- petual struggle carried on by the Apostle against a Judaizing Christianity upheld by Peter, James, and John.' But there is evidence that Paul himself knew the wide- spread fruit of the Gospel among the Gentiles, and witnessed its mighty effects ; and there is no evidence that his struggle against Judaizing Christians was perpetual, or that Peter, James, and John, were his opponents : unless we take Baur's word rather than the Apostle's own. 4IO THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. dilating on the right of a Jew to be admitted into Parliament without swearing 'on the true faith of a Christian '. But though we can see that, at the time the Epistle to the Ephesians was written, there was no need of a struggle to claim for Gentiles admission on equal terms to all the privi- leges of the Gospel, we can see also that this struggle was then not long over. We take it now as a matter of course that we have a full right to every Christian privilege, and we should be amazed if anyone denied our title on the ground that we are not children of Abraham, or do not observe the Mosaic Law. The writer of this Epistle asserts it as a truth that in Christ the distinction between Jew and Gentile has been done away, and that the Jew has no longer any exclusive position of pre-eminence ; but to him this truth is no matter of course, but an amazing paradox. He is astonished as he contemplates this ' mystery of Christ ' which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, * that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel ' (iii. 4). He is thankful that to himself the revelation of this mystery had been made, and that by the grace of God he had been employed to pub- lish it to the world. Cavils have been raised both against the exaggerated humility of ' less than the least of all saints' (iii. 8), which has been taken for a mere imitation of i Cor. XV. 9, and against the boastfulness of iii. 4, where the language, it is said, is that of a disciple of Paul, who had witnessed the victory of his principles in the general recog- nition of Gentile Christianity. But let it be acknowledged that Paul lived to witness that victory himself, and that at the time he wrote his Gentile disciples were affected by no stigma of inferiority, and is it possible that he could be exempt from some human feelings of triumph at the great- ness of the revolution which, through his means, had been brought about ? That revolution he looked on as indicating no change in the Divine plans. It had been God's eternal purpose thus through Christ to adopt the Gentiles ' into his kingdom ' ; and it was Paul's great glory that God should have vouchsafed to choose him, unworthy though he was, to XX.] THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 411 receive the revelation of a mystery unknown to former ages» and to be made God's instrument for publishing it to the world. I am persuaded that anyone who studies the freshness and novelty with which the doctrine of the non-exclusive character of Christianity is regarded in the Epistle to the Ephesians, will feel that this is a document which cannot be pushed down to the second century.* It has been objected that Paul could never have directed the Colossian Church to procure what was but a diffuse and vapid copy of the letter addressed to themselves. Let me point out that though the two letters deal with the same themes, one who had read either would find in the other a varied presentation of doctrine. In the Colossian Epistle the dignity of the Head of the Church is set forth with a fulness greater than in any other Pauline Epistle ; in this Epistle the dignity of the Church itself has been exhibited. We are so familiar with the idea of the Catholic Church, that we cannot easily conceive how great an impression must have been made by the wonderful unlikeness of the Christian organiza- tion to anything the world had previously witnessed. In every great town throughout the empire there was now a community in which equality was the rule, and all the dis- tinctions which had kept men apart counted for nothing. Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, were united in mutual love ; the slave and the freeman had like privileges, male and female were on equal terms. There was no exclusiveness ; any who desired to join was welcome. And all these several communities were but parts of one wider organization. Dis- tance of place counted as little as difference of social condition. All were brethren in a common faith : eager to do good offices to each other because bound by love to a common Lord, whose glorious reappearing was the common hope of all. The Chris- tian Church impressed the imaginations of men, whose own claim to belong to it was not admitted. According to Valen- tinus, the Church on earth was but the visible presentation of * I have noted (p. 31) the Pauline trait that the writer (ii. 11) feels it an affront that the name ' uncircumcised ' should be applied to his Gentile disciples. 412 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. a heavenly Aeon which had existed before all time. And in this Valentinus agreed with what I count to be older heresies (Iren, i. xxx. i, Hippol. v. 6). Let no one say that it needed a century before such a phenomenon as this could arrest the attention or impress the imagination of men. The phenome- non existed in Paul's time. The unity of the Church was manifested when so many congregations of his converts made collections for the poor saints at Jerusalem ; when his dis- ciples sent money for his own support to distant cities ; when as he drew near to Rome brethren came as far as Appii Forum to meet him. His remaining letters (and he probably wrote many more) testify how many different communities claimed his care. Paul's earlier Epistles, especially those to the Corinthians, show that his mind had dwelt on the fact that Christians formed an organized body, which he describes as the temple of the living God ; as a body of which each par- ticular saint was a member, Christ the head. These figures are repeated in the Epistle to the Ephesians (i. 2;^, ii. 20, iii. 6, iv. 16, 25), but he adds a new one.* The closest tie of earthly love is used to illustrate the love of Christ for His Church ; and then by a wonderful reflection of the illustration, the love of Christ for His Church is made to sanctify and glorify Chris- tian marriage, husbands being exhorted to love their wives, even as Christ the Church. You will find some critics using very disparaging terms as to the literary excellence of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Questions of taste cannot be settled by disputation, but a critic may well distrust his own judgment if he can see no merit in a book which has had a great success ; and I do not think that there is any N. T. book which we can prove to have been earlier circulated than this, or more widely esteemed. At the present day there is no more popular hymn than thatf which but turns into verse the words of this Epistle ; and holding the opinion I have already expressed as to the proba- bility of the Apostle John's having visited Rome, I cannot but * Yet see 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; and Is. liv. 5. Ixi. 10; Jer. iii. 14. t ' The Church's one foundation.' XX.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 413 think that when he beheld in apocalyptic vision the 'new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband ' (Rev. xxi. 2 ; see also xix. 7 ; xxi. 9 ; xxii. 17), he only saw the embodiment of a conception familiar to him from his knowledge of an Epistle highly valued by the Roman Church.* I very strongly believe that it was the language (Eph. i. 4) about the election of the Church before the foundation of the world which was the source not only of the Ophite and Valentinian conceptions to which I have just referred, but also of the language employed by early orthodox writers. Hermas (Vz's. ii. 4) speaks of the Church as created before all things, and of the world as formed for her sake; and the so-called second Epistle of Clement of Rome {c. 14) speaks of the spiritual Church as created before the sun and moon, as pre-existent like Christ Himself, and like Him manifested in the last days for man's salvation. It is idle to discuss the literary excellence of the Epistle to the Ephe- sians, if I am right in thinking that it has had so great influence on Christian thought. IV. T/ie Pastoral Epistles. — I come now to the group of Pauline Epistles against which the charge of spuriousness has been made most confidently. Renan, who does not venture positively to condemn any of the others, and who has only serious doubts about the Epistle to the Ephesians, seems to have thought that his reputation for orthodoxy in his own school would be seriously compromised if he showed any hesitation in rejecting the Pastoral Epistles; and, accordingly, * According to modem sceptical writers the author of the Apocalypse was an enemy and a libeller of St. Paul ; but the real St. John read and valued St. Paul's writings. For if the Epistle to the Colossians be really Paul's, it scarcely needs the quotation of particular phrases to show that the Christology of that Epistle is repro- duced in the Apocalypse ; but we have the very phrases irpwrdroKos e'/c twv ueKpwv (Col. i. 18) in Rev. i. 5, and the apx'fl of the same verse, with Trpa)T6roKos irdaris Krlfffus (Col. i. 15), in f) apxh t^s /cricrecos rov deov (Rev. iii. 14). The writing of the names of the Apostles on the foundations of the heavenly city (Rev. xxi. 14) had been anticipated in Eph. iii. 20 ; and there is a close resemblance between Eph. iii. 5, and Rev. x. 7. There are very many other verbal coincidences which quite fall in with the supposition of St, John's acquaintance with the Epistle to the Ephesians, though they would not suffice to prove it. 414 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. apocryphal, fabricated, forged, are the epithets which he com- monly applies to them. Yet, not very consistently, he con- stantly uses them as authorities for his narrative.* Yet it is certainly for no deficiency of external attestation that these Epistles are to be rejected. Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment, Theophilus of Antioch, the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, unquestionably re- cognize them. Polycarp, at the very beginning of the second century, uses them largely, and there are what I count distinct echoes of these letters in Clement of Rome,t and in Justin ]\Tartyr. I must speak in a little more detail about Hegesippus. Baur has given students of early Church History so many new ideas, that they would have great cause to be grateful to him, if it were not that these ideas are for the most part wrong. I admire the ingenuity of Baur, as I admire the genius of Victor Hugo. But I think L' Homme qui rit gives as accurate a representation of English History in the reign of James II. as Baur does of the early Christian Church. I do not know any of Baur's suggestions wilder than that about Hegesippus and the Pastoral Epistles. I have already (5^^ p. 402) referred to a place in which Eusebius in his own words gives the sense of a passage in Hegesippus, employing there the words, * knowledge falsely so called'. Baur thinks that Eusebius found these words in Hegesippus; and though this cannot be proved, I think it very likely ; for we constantly find that where Eusebius, instead of transcrib- ing a passage, gives a summary of it, he is apt, as is very natural, to incorporate many of his author's words. It seems likely, then, that Hegesippus is to be added to the number of those who use the Pastoral Epistles. But instead of drawing this conclusion, Baur infers that the Pastoral Epistles use * See Saint Paul, 124, 132, 419, 439, but especially ZM«/^c-^r2J^, pp. 100, loi, which are altogether founded on these Epistles. At p. 103 he feels the necessity of malting an apology, and says, 'Nous usons de cette epitre comme d'une sorte de roman historique, fait avec un sentiment tres-juste de la situation de Paul en ses derniers temps.' There could not be clearer testimony from an unwilling witness to the internal marks of truth presented by the Epistle which he cites. t In addition to several in the previously known portions, see the newly recovered chapter Ixi., in particular the phrase b fiaaiKetis tUv aliivuv (i Tim. i. 17). XX.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 415 Hegesippus : a frightful anachronism, in which few of his disciples at the present day venture to follow him ; because, whether the Pastoral Epistles be Paul's or not, both external and internal evidence forbid our ascribing to them so late a date as the end of the second century. Baur has no better reason for his opinion than that Hegesippus, being an Anti- Pauline Ebionite, could not quote St. Paul. But for so describ- ing Hegesippus there is no evidence. He was a native of Palestine, no doubt ; but Eusebius, who was certainly no Ebionite, has no suspicion of his orthodoxy. Hegesippus approved of the Epistle of the Roman Clement, which has a strong Pauline colouring, and he was in full communion both with the Church of Rome and with other leading Churches of his time. The only set-oil to be made against the proof of the univer- sal reception of the Pastoral Epistles by orthodox Christians, is the fact of their rejection by some heretics. For the other Pauline Epistles we have the testimony of Marcion, but these three were not included in his Canon. We hear also of Basi- lides having rejected them. Clement of Alexandria [Strom. ii. 11) attributes this rejection solely to doctrinal dislike, naming in particular the verse about xpev^Mvvjuiog jvCjaig, just referred to, as the cause of offence. St. Jerome, in the preface to his commentary on Titus, also complains of the arbitrary conduct of these heretics in rejecting Epistles which they did not like, without being able to produce good reasons to justify their rejection ; and he says that Tatian, though he rejected some of Paul's Epistles, yet accepted that to Titus with par- ticular cordiality. From this it has been commonly imagined that the Epistles which Tatian rejected were those to Timothy. There is no evidence to prove this, but the thing is likely enough. At least, the first Epistle to Timothy contains matter offensive to an Encratite, in its condemnation of those who forbade to marry and commanded to abstain from meat, and in its advice to Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach's sake. Yet the first Epistle to Timothy and that to Titus so clearly stand or fall together, that to accept the one and reject the other is a decision which commands no respect. 4i6 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. The same traits which would make an Epistle disliked by Tatian would make it also disliked by Marcion, who shared his Encratite principles ; and Marcion was so very arbitrary in his dealings with the Gospels, that his rejection of Epistles does not count for much, especially when these Epistles have the earlier attestation of Polycarp. If, therefore, the battle had to be fought solely on the ground of external evidence, the Pastoral Epistles would obtain a complete victory. The objections to these Epistles on 'the grounds of internal evidence may be classed under three heads ; and the facts on which these objections are founded must be conceded, though we dispute the inferences drawn from them.* (i) There are peculiarities of diction which unite these epistles to each other, and separate them from the other Pauline letters. For instance, all three open with the saluta- tion, 'Grace, mercy, and peace'; in the other Pauline letters it is ' Grace and peace'. The phrase 'sound doctrine' BiEacT- KaX'ia vyiaivov(Ta, and Other derivatives from vyir}q in this metaphorical sense, are to be found repeatedly in the Pastoral Epistles, and not elsewhere. So likewise, the word ev(T'i(5tia and the phrase, ' this is a faithful saying'. The master of a slave is called S«a7rort}c in these epistles, Kvpiog in the others. The appearance of our Lord at His second coming is £7rt0av£«a, not Trapovaia, as in the earlier epistles. Several other exam- ples of the same kind might be given, but these are enough to illustrate the nature of the argument. The inference which sceptical writers draw from it is, that these three epistles have a common author, and that author not St. Paul. (2) The second topic is, that the nature of the controver- sies with which the writer has to deal, and the opponents whom he has to encounter, are different from those dealt with in Paul's other epistles. The writer does not insist on the worthlessness of circumcision and other Mosaic rites, on the importance of faith, or on the docrine of justification without * In what follows I repeat several things which I said in an article on the Pas- toral Epistles in the Christian Observer for 1877. XX.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 4iy the deeds of the law. On the other hand, he insists more sharply than in the other epistles on the necessity of good works. P'or the false teachers whom he had in view appear to have prided themselves on their knowledge, and the word Gnosis seems to have then already acquired a technical sense. But this boasted knowledge consisted merely in acquaintance with unprofitable speculations about endless genealogies, which only ministered questions; and they who possessed it neglected the practical side of religion, confessing God with their mouths, but in works denying him, ' being abomin- able and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.' In opposition to such teaching, the writer insists sharply on the necessity that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works, should avoid foolish and unlearned questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings about the law, inasmuch as these are unprofitable and vain. The false teaching combated seems to differ a good deal in complexion from that opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians, and to have a more Jewish cast (Titus i. 14). It has also been contended that the directions to Christian ministers in i Tim, and Titus imply a more developed hier- archical system than do Paul's acknowledged letters. These common characteristics of the Pastoral Epistles lead us to believe that they were written at a later time than Paul's other epistles, and when the perils of the Church were dif- ferent. The use, concerning the false teachers, of the word heretic (Titus iii. 10), has also been noted]as a sign of lateness ; but it must be remembered that ' heresies ' are enumerated among the ' works of the flesh' (Gal. v. 20). (3) There is great difficulty in harmonizing these Epistles with the history in the Acts. The Epistle to Titus implies a voyage of Paul to Crete, the first Epistle to Timothy implies other travels of Paul, for which we cannot easily find room in Luke's history. Take in particular the^Second Epistle. This was written from an imprisonment in Rome ; for we are told (i. 17) how Onesiphorus, when in Rome, searched diligently for the Apostle, and found him. And on his way to Rome we are told (iv. 20) that the Apostle left Trophimus at Miletus, 2 E 4i8 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. sick. Now, when Paul was last at Miletus, on his way to Jerusalem, he did not leave Trophimus there ; for we find that Trophimus accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, and that one of the causes why the Jews of Asia set on Paul in the Temple was that they had seen this Trophimus with him in the city, and supposed that the Apostle had brought him into the Temple (Acts xxi. 29). St. Paul's voyage from Csesarea to Rome is carefully traced by St. Luke, and we find that he did not touch at Miletus on his way. I will not trouble you with some far-fetched attempts to reconcile this statement about Trophimus with the supposition that the imprisonment from which the Second Epistle to Timothy was written is the same as that recorded by St. Luke. In my judgment these explanations utterly fail. Further, we are told in the verse just referred to that * Erastus abode in Corinth'; and the most natural explanation of this is that Paul had left him there ; but we find from the Acts that the Apostle had not been in Corinth for some years before his Roman imprison- ment, and Timothy had been with Paul since his last visit to Corinth, so that there was no occasion to inform him by letter about it. Once more, the verse about the cloak, or, as some translate it, the case for books, that Paul left at Troas (a verse, I may say in passing, which no forger would ever dream of inserting), would imply that Paul had been at Troas within some moderate time of the epoch when the Apostle was writing, for it is hardly likely he would have left articles on which he seems to have set much value to lie uncalled for at Troas for many years. But the last visit to Troas recorded in the Acts is distant some seven or eight years from the date of the Roman imprisonment. Other proofs of the same kind could be multiplied. Now, of these three difficulties, the first, arising from peculiarities of diction, is one which we have already learned to disregard. The Epistles which I have previously exa- mined exhibit in Paul's writings very great varieties of ex- pression, showing him to be a man of considerable mental pliability, and not one whose stock of phrases would be likely to be stereotyped when he came to write these letters. But I XX.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. ^ig willingly concede that the argument from the diction makes it likely that the Pastoral Epistles were written at no great distance of time from each other, and probably at some dis- tance of time from the other Epistles. For in Paul's Epistles we find great likeness of expression between Epistles written at nearly the same time, as, for instance, between the Romans and Galatians, between the Ephesians and Colossians, while the different groups of Epistles differ considerably in words and topics from each other. This is what we find on examin- ing the different works of any author who has written much, viz. considerable resemblance in style between works of the same period ; but often modifications of style as he advances in life. Now, though each group of Paul's Epistles has its peculiarities of diction, there are links of connexion between the phraseology of each group and that of the next in order of time ; and there are such links between that of the Pastoral Epistles and of the letters of the imprisonment. Thus the Pastoral Epistles are said to be un-Pauline because they call the enemy of mankind *the devil', and not 'Satan', as Paul does. But the name 'the devil' occurs twice in Ephesians (iv. 27, vi. 11). The name fTrt^dvcta, applied to our Lord's second coming, is said to be un-Pauline; but is found in 2 Thess. ii. 8 {see also the avepovv of Col. iii. 4). The oiKovofiia of the Ephesian Epistle (i. 10, ii. 2, 9) reappears in the most approved reading of i Tim. i. 4. The co-ordination of love and faith in Eph. vi. 2^, is said by Davidson (11. 214) to be un-Pauline, but to be found also in i Timothy. And so it certainly is (i. 14, iv. 12, vi. 11 ; 2 Tim. i. 13, ii. 22) ; but I should not have dreamed of building an argument on what seems to me one of the most common of Pauline combina- tions ; for instance, ' the breastplate of faith and love ' (i Thess. v. 8). The stress laid in the Pastoral Epistles on coming to * the knowledge of the truth' dg iiriyvwaiv aXrideiag (i Tim. ii. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25, iii. 7 ; Tit. i. i) has been imagined to indicate a time after Gnostic ideas as to the importance of knowledge had become prevalent ; but the term iTriyvojatg is frequent in Paul's Epistles [see in particular Eph. iv. 13 ; Col. i. 9, 10, ii. 2, iii. 10}. Dr. Gwynn [Speaker's Commentary on 2 E 2 420 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. Philippians, p. 588) has noted several coincidences between 2 Tim. iv. 6-8, and Philippians ; in particular the use of the three words airiv^o/xai, avaXvaig, aywv, the first two words being peculiar to these two Epistles, and the third being also a rare and exclusively Pauline word. On the whole, there is no- thing in the diction of these Epistles which is not explained by the supposition that these three are the latest of St. Paul's Epistles, and that they were written at no great distance of time from each other. We are led to the same conclusion on trying to harmonize these epistles with the Acts. I have already mentioned the difficulties attending the supposition that the second to Timothy was written from the imprisonment recorded in the Acts. The other two epistles present equal difficulties. The first to Timothy intimates that Paul had been in Ephesus not long before ; for it begins by saying, * As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia.' But on Paul's first visit to Ephesus mentioned in the Acts, he left it, not for Macedonia but for Jerusalem. On his second visit he did leave it for Macedonia ; but instead of leaving Timothy be- hind, he sent him on before. It has been said that Paul's three years spent at Ephesus did not exclude occasional absences, and that in one of these he had gone to Macedonia — a journey imagined for the sake of this epistle. Yet the whole tone of the epistle implies that it was not written during a temporary absence, but that Timothy had been left in charge of the Church at Ephesus for a considerable time. When further it is proposed to take out of Paul's three years at Ephesus time for a journey to Crete, in which to leave Titus there, and a winter at Nicopolis spoken of in that epistle, so large a gap is made in the three years at Ephesus that Luke's silence becomes inexplicable. Renan spends some twenty pages in proving satisfactorily enough the failure of all existing attempts to find a place for these epistles in the period of Paul's life embraced by the Acts; but he passes over almost in silence the solution which removes every difficulty, that Paul was released from his Roman imprisonment, that he afterwards made other journeys, and wrote the Epistle to Titus and the XX.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 421 first to Timothy, and was then imprisoned a second time, and wrote the second Epistle to Timothy. The distance of time which, according to this solution, separates these Epistles from the rest, at once accounts for the peculiarities on which I have already commented. What is said in answer to this is, that Paul's release from his Roman imprisonment is unhistorical — that it is a mere hypothesis invented to get rid of a difficulty. But this answer exhibits a complete misconception of the logical position ; for it is really those^who refuse to entertain the idea of Paul's release who make an unwarrantable hypothesis. Paul's release from his Roman imprisonment, we are told, is unhis- torical : so is his non-release. In other words, Luke's history of the life of Paul breaks off without telling us whether he was released or not. Under these circumstances a scientific inquirer ought to hold his mind unbiassed towards either sup- position. If new evidence presents itself, no good reason either for accepting or rejecting it can be furnished by any preconceived opinion as to the issue of Paul's imprisonment. Now the Pastoral Epistles are a new source of evidence. They come to us with the best possible external attestation ; and our opponents will not dispute that if we accept them as Pauline, they lead us to the conclusion that Paul lived to make other journeys than those recorded by St. Luke. We accept this conclusion, not because of any preconceived hypo- thesis, but because on other grounds we hold the Epistles to be genuine. But it is those who say, * we cannot believe these Epistles to be Paul's, because they indicate a release from his imprisonment which we know did not take place ', who really make an unwarrantable assumption. I am compelled to elaborate a point which seems to me too plain to need much argument, by the confidence with which a whole host of Rationalist critics assume that the Pastoral Epistles can only be received on condition of our being able to find a place for them within the limits of the history recorded in the Acts. Reuss, for instance, who gives a candid reception to the claims of the second Epistle to Timothy, for which he thinks he can find a place within these 422 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. limits, rejects the first Epistle and that to Titus, because he cannot force them in. Let us take, then, the argument about the Epistle to Titus, and it will be seen whether it is the accepters or the rejecters of that Epistle who make an un- proved hypothesis. We accept the Epistle because of the good external evidence on which it comes ; and we then draw the inference, Paul at some time visited Crete. Not that we had had any previous theory on the subject, but solely because this Epistle — which we consider we have good reason to regard as Paul's — states that he did. Nay, reply our opponents, the Epistle cannot be Paul's, because he never visited Crete. * How do you know he did not r ' ' Because we have in the Acts of the Apostles a full history of the Apostle's life, which leaves no room for such a visit.' ' Well, we are pleased to see you attribute such value to the Acts of the Apostles, as a record of Paul's life not only accurate but complete. But the history of the Acts breaks off at the year 63. May not Paul have visited Crete later r' ' No ; he could not have done so, for he never was released from his Roman imprisonment.' ' But how do you know he was not ?' Which of us now is making an unproved assumption r If we were arguing against a disciple of Darwin, and if we contended that the Darwinian theory could not be true because the six thousand years for which the world has lasted does not afford room for the changes of species which that theory asserts, would he not have a right to call on us for proof that the world has only lasted so long ? Might he not smile at us if we declared that it was he who was making an unproved assump- tion, in asserting the possibility that the world might be older ? So, in like manner, those who assert that the Pastoral Epistles cannot be Paul's, because there is no room for them in that part of his life which is recorded by St. Luke, are bound to give proof that this is the whole of his active life. If the Pastoral Epistles did not exist, and if we were left to independent speculation as to the issue of the Apostle's imprisonment, we should conclude that the supposition of his release was more probable than the contrary. We learn from the conclusion of the Acts that the Jews at Rome had not XX.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 423 been commissioned to oppose his appeal ; and since, until the burning of Rome in 64, the Imperial authorities had no motive for persecuting Christians as such, we should expect that the case against Paul, stated in such a letter as the procurator was likely to send (Acts xxv. 25, xxvi. 32), would end in such a dismissal as that given by Gallio. And this was Paul's own expectation both when he wrote to the Phi- lippians (Phil. i. 25, 26, ii. 24), and to Philemon [v. 22). Pos- sibly we have the Apostle's own assertion of his release as an actual fact. At least, when later he is looking forward to a trial, with no sanguine anticipations as to its issue, he calls to mind (2 Tim. iv. 16) a former hearing, when, though earthly friends deserted him, the Lord stood by him, and he was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. St. Chrysostom {m loc.) understands ' the lion ' here of Nero, and the verse as intimating that Paul's trial ended in an acquittal. However this may be, certain it is that there was in the early Church a tradition of St. Paul's release, quite indepen- dent of the Pastoral Epistles. I have quoted (p. 48) the passage in the Muratorian Fragment which speaks of Paul's journey to Spain, a statement which assumes his release from imprisonment ; and it is at least probable that Clement of Rome also recognizes the journey to Spain, when he speaks [c. 5) of Paul's having gone to the extremity of the West. On this evidence Renan accepts the fact of Paul's release [L'Ante- chrtst, p. 106) ; only he will not let it count anything in favour of the Pastoral Epistles, believing that the Apostle on his release went, according to the evidence just cited, to the West, and not, as these Epistles imply, to Asia Minor. For myself, I should think it less probable that the Apostle carried out the earlier intention expressed in the Epistle to the Romans than the later one expressed in the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon. But it is not impossible that he might have done both. The evidence is too slender to warrant any positive assertion as to the Apostle's movements; and we appreciate more highly the obligations we owe to the Acts of the Apostles when we find how much in the dark we are as to St. Paul's history as soon as that book no longer 424 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. guides us. My object has been merely to show that those who assert that St. Paul was not released from his Roman imprisonment assert not only what they cannot prove, but what is less probable than the contrary. And when once the possibility is admitted of apostolic labours of St. Paul later than those recorded in the Acts, all the objections that have been urged against the acceptance of the Pastoral Epistles immediately lose their weight. Two objections to the late date which I have assigned to these Epistles deserve to be noticed. One is that Paul, writing to Timothy, says, * Let no man despise thy youth' (i Tim. iv. 12); whereas many years must have elapsed be- tween the time at which we first hear of Timothy in the Acts, and the date which I have assigned to these Epistles. But when we consider the office in which Timothy was placed over Elders, with power to ordain them and rebuke ; and when we reflect that the name of Elder must, in its first application, have been given to men advanced in age (certainly I suppose not younger than forty-three, the legal age for a consulship at Rome), we shall see that even if Timothy were at the time as old as thirty or thirty-five, there would still be reason to fear lest those placed under his government should despise his youth. The other objection is that the first Epistle to Timothy was evidently written after a recent visit of Paul to Ephesus ; and if we suppose this visit to have taken place after the Roman imprisonment, we appear to contradict what Paul said at Miletus to the Ephesian Elders, * I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God shall see my face no more' (Acts xx. 25). Our first impres- sion certainly is that these words imply prophetic assurance ; yet when we look at the rest of this speech we find the Apostle disclaiming any detailed knowledge of the future. ' I go unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there,' save that he had this general knowledge that the Holy Ghost witnessed in every city, saying, bonds and afflictions abide him. If we are entitled thus to press the force of olSa, we might assert confidently that the Apostle was released from his Roman imprisonment, for he writes to the Philippians XX.] THE SECOND EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY. 425 (i. 25), ^ I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith, that your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again.' A little before, however, in the same chapter, * I know' in one verse (19) is modified by 'according to my earnest expectation and my hope ' in the next : and when Paul says to Agrippa, * Believest thou the prophets ? I know that thou believest ', I suppose he is not speaking of super- natural certain knowledge of Agrippa's heart, but merely of the strong persuasion which he entertained concerning the king's belief Thus, we see that, whatever our first impres- sion might have been, the Apostle's mode of speaking else- where quite permits us to understand that, in Acts xx. he is not speaking prophetically, but only expressing a strong belief, founded on grounds of human probability, viz. his knowledge of the persecutions which certainly awaited him, and his intended journeys to Rome and Spain, which were likely to take him far away from Ephesus. Renan, as you may believe, makes no difiiculty in con- ceding that Paul when [he spoke at Miletus had no infallible knowledge of the future. But that, he says, is not the question. * It is no matter to us whether or not Paul pronounced these words. But the author of the Acts knew well the sequel of the life of Paul, though unhappily he has not thought proper to tell us of it. And it is impossible that he should have put into the mouth of his master a prediction which he well knew was not verified.' I so far agree with Renan that I think it likely that if the author of the Acts had known of a subsequent return of Paul to Ephesus, he would have given some intima- tion of it in this place. But this only yields another argument in favour of the position in defence of which I have already contended, viz. that the'book of the Acts was written not long after the date to which it brings the history, viz. the end of Paul's two years' residence in Rome. It were, perhaps, enough to show that the objections break down which have been made to receiving the external testi- mony in favour of the Pastoral Epistles ; but in the case of one at least of these Epistles, the second to Timothy, the 426 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. internal marks of Pauline origin are so strong, that I do not think any Epistle can with more confidence be asserted to be the Apostle's work. To the truth of this the assailants of the Epistle bear unwilling testimony. There are passages in the Epistle which cling so closely to Paul that it is only by tear- ing the letter to pieces that any part can be dissociated from that Apostle. Thus, of those who reject the Epistle, Weisse, Hausrath, Pfleiderer, and Ewald, recognize the section iv. Q-2 2, or the greater part of it, as a fragment of a genuine Pauline letter ; and to this view Davidson gives some kind of hesitating assent. Hausrath, Pfleiderer, and Ewald further own the section i. 15-18, To my mind there cannot be a more improbable hypo- thesis than that of genuine letters of Paul being used only for the purpose of cutting patches out of them to sew on to forged Epistles, while the fragments left behind are thrown away and never heard of again. You will observe, too, that in this case the parts of the Second Epistle to Timothy which are owned as genuine are just those filled with names and personal details, in which a forger would have been most likely to make a slip. It is tantamount to a confession of defeat to surrender as indefensible all that part of the case which admits of being tested, and maintain that part only with respect to which prejudices and subjective fancies do not admit of being checked. Just imagine that the case had been the other way. If we were forced to own that the pas- sages which dealt with personal details were spurious, with what face could we maintain the rest of the Epistle to be genuine ? If we test the remaining part of the Epistle we shall find the genuine Pauline ring all through. Let us note first the exordium of the Epistle, The writer commences by thanking God for the unfeigned faith which is in Timothy, and tells him that without ceasing he has remembrance of him in his prayers night and day. Now, take Paul's ten other letters, and eight of them commence with thanking God for what he has heard or knows of the religious progress of those whom he addresses. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is XX.] THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 427 scarcely an exception, for that too begins with thanksgiving. The only clear exception is the Epistle to the Galatians, which is a letter of sharp reproof. None of the other New Testament Epistles resembles Paul's in this peculiarity. Of the eight Epistles which begin with thanksgiving, seven also have in the same connexion the mention of Paul's continual prayer for his converts. It is characteristic of St. Paul, that even when writing to Churches with which he has in many respects occasion to find fault, he always begins by fixing his thoughts on what there was in those persons deserving of praise, and by calling to mind his constant prayer to God on their behalf. Yet this characteristic of St. Paul is by no means obtrusive in his writings ; very few have noticed it. You can answer each for yourselves, whether, if you had been desired to write an Epistle in St. Paul's style, it would have occurred to you in what way you must begin. Strange that this characteristic should have been observed by an imitator so careless as to be unable to copy accurately the salutation, 'Grace and peace', with which Paul's Epistles begin ! The most plausible argument I can think of putting into the mouth of anyone who still maintains this Epistle to be non- Pauline, is that the forger has taken for his model the Epistle to the Romans, which begins in precisely the same way. Nay, there is a further coincidence, for the next topic is also in both Epistles the same, namely, that there was no reason for being ashamed of the Gospel of Christ before the face of the hostile or unbelieving world. But the hypothesis of con- scious imitation is in various ways excluded. In the first place, the mode of commencement is different in the other Epistle to Timothy and in that to Titus ; so that the forger, if forger there was, must have stumbled on this note of genuineness by accident, and without himself knowing the value of it. And, secondly, so far from there being the close imitation of the Epistle to the Romans which the hypothesis assumes, the writer completely abandons that Epistle and its leading ideas, the controversy concerning faith and justifica- tion being wholly absent from the Pastoral Epistles, And more generally, there is a freeness of handling utterly unlike 428 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. the slavishness of an imitator ; while the ideas introduced seem naturally to rise from the circumstances of the writer, and not to have been borrowed from anyone else. I would in the next place call your attention to the abun- dance of details concerning individuals given in these Epistles. A forger would take refuge in generalities, and put into the mouth of the Apostle the doctrinal teaching for which he desired to claim his sanction, without running the risk of exposing himself to detection by undertaking to give the history of Paul's companions, of which he must be supposed to know little or nothing. On the contrary, with the excep- tion of the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, there is no part of the New Testament so rich in personal details as these Epistles. Twenty-three members of the Apostolic Church are mentioned in the second Epistle to Timothy. And these are neither exclusively names to be found else- where, in which case it might have been said that they had been derived from the genuine writings ; nor all new names, in which case it might be said that the forger had guarded himself by avoiding the names of real persons, and only speaking of persons invented by himself; but, just as might have been expected in a real letter, some ten persons are mentioned of whom we read in the other scanty records of the same time which have descended to us, the remaining names being new to us. In the case of the old names new details are confidently supplied. Thus we have in the Epistle to the Colossians, ' Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you ' ; in that to Philemon, * There salute thee Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellow-labourers.' Now note the treat- ment of these four names in the second Epistle to Timothy. There we read, 'Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world. Only Luke is with me.' If this was forgery, what a wonderful man the forger must have been so to realize the personality of Paul's attendants, as to undertake to give their history subsequent to the time covered by the authentic records, and to put a note of disgrace on one who, as far as the genuine Epistles went, had been honourably recognized XX.] THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 429 as Paul's fellow-labourer. The second Epistle to Timothy has also to tell of Marcus. He is supposed not to have been at the time with Paul, but is commended as useful to him in the ministry. If a forger had wished to represent one of Paul's companions as failing- him in his hour of trial, he would surely have selected not Demas but Marcus, who is probably the same as he whose previous desertion of Paul caused the rupture between him and Barnabas. Lastly, of Aristarchus the Pastoral Epistles have not a word to tell, although his name ought to have come in in that enumeration of his attendants which the Apostle makes in accounting for his being left alone. The true explanation probably is that Aristarchus was dead at the time. But if it was a forgery, how is it that the forger, who can so courageously give the history of Paul's other attendants, fails in his heart when he comes to speak of Aristarchus ? We may also comment on the clause ' Titus to Dalmatia'. Surely, if it were forgery, the forger would have been consistent, and sent Titus to Crete. It is a note of genuineness when a document contains an apparent contradiction which is not real ; for forgers do not needlessly throw stumbling-blocks in their readers' way. Now the statement, 'Only Luke is with me' (iv. 11), seems inconsistent with the list of salutations {v. 21). But we see in a moment that the former verse does not mean that, save for Luke, the Apostle was friendless at Rome, but only that the company of personal attendants who travelled about with him had all been scattered, leaving only Luke behind. Now if we had been left to form our own conjectures we should have imagined that Paul, brought a prisoner to Rome, would have been completely dependent on the society and support of the Christians of the Church which he might find there. We should hardly have thought of him as this Epistle exhibits him, as if he had made this missionary journey of his own choice, surrounded by his little band of deacons, sending them on his missions, and feeling himself almost deserted when he has but one of his retinue in attendance on him. This state of things, not consciously disclosed in the Epistle but revealed in the most incidental way, could never have been taken for 430 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. granted in this manner except by one who lived so close to the Apostle's time as to have perfect cognizance of the con- ditions in which he lived at Rome. Of the members of the Roman Church whom he mentions, one is certainly a real person, Linus, whom very early tradition asserts to have been the first bishop of the Church of Rome. The Roman Church to this day, and we have reason to think that the practice is at least as old as the second century, com- memorates in her Eucharistic service the names of Linus, Cletus, Clemens. These are commonly supposed to have been, after the Apostles, the first bishops of Rome {see Ire- nseus, iii. 3), and, by the confession of everyone, were leading men in that Church in the latter part of the first century. Clement, in particular, became the hero of a number of legends, and was believed to have been an immediate disciple of the Apostles. Yet neither the name of Cletus nor of Clement appears in this list which, if the work were a forgery, we must therefore suppose to have been anterior to their acquiring celebrity. Linus does appear, but in quite a sub- ordinate position — 'Eubulus, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.' If the letter is genuine, it is quite intelligible that Linus, who at the time the Epistle was written was a leading disciple, though not then the principal one, might have held the chief place in the government of the Church after the Apostle's death ; but if the letter was com- posed after he had held that place, we may be sure there would have been some stronger intimation of his prominence here. Two other persons mentioned in the same connexion are possibly persons of whom we read elsewhere. One of Martial's epigrams relates to a marriage between Pudens and Claudia, and a very ingenious case has been made by putting together the notices in Martial and Tacitus to show that this Claudia was a British maiden and a Christian. The close contact of the two names in the Epistle is striking, but I can- not pronounce it more than a curious coincidence. One more personal reference I will direct your attention to— the twice- repeated mention of the household of Onesiphorus, You know, or will know, the controversial use that has been made XX.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 43 1 of this passage. But from the salutation being to the house of Onesiphorus, not to Onesiphorus himself, we may reasonably conclude that Onesiphorus was either dead, or at least known to the Apostle not to be with his household at the time this letter is written. There is no difficulty about this if all be real history. But that a forger should have invented such a refine- ment, yet in no way have called attention to it, is utterly incredible. I could add many more arguments; but the impression left on my mind is that there is no Epistle which we can with more confidence assert to be Paul's than the second to Timothy. When this is established, the judgment we form of the other two Pastoral Epistles is greatly influenced. If these two had come by themselves, the way in which both begin would excite suspicion. They do not open as do Paul's other Epistles, but commence by telling that Paul had left Timothy at Ephesus, Titus in Crete. This is information which his correspondents would not require ; and we are reminded of the ordinary commencement of a Greek play in which information is given, not for the benefit of any person- age on the stage, but for that of the audience. Yet as we proceed, our suspicions are not confirmed ; and we must own that there is no reason why St, Paul should not begin a letter to a disciple by reminding him of the commission he had entrusted him with. Critics of all schools agree that the three Pastoral Epistles have such marks of common authorship that all must stand or fall together. The three topics of objection which I have mentioned as urged against the Pastoral Epistles turn, when any one of the Epistles is acknowledged, into arguments in favour of the other two. We cannot say, for instance, that the diction is un-Pauline, when there is the .strongest possible resemblance to the diction of an Epistle which we own to be Paul's. The admission of the second Epistle forces us to believe that Paul was released from his Roman imprisonment, and then all the marks of time in the other two Epistles fit in with the late date which we are thus able to assign to them. I see nothing in the development indicated of Church organization which is inconsistent with 432 THE PAULINE EPISTLES. [xx. the period we assign to these letters. That Paul, who addressed the bishops and deacons of the Philippian Church (Phil. i. i ; see also Acts xx. 28), should give directions for the choice of such officers is only natural. If it were true that these Epistles intimated that there was only one tiriaKOTrog in each Church, I should have no difficulty in believing it on their evidence. But in my opinion this is more than we are warranted in inferring from the use of the singular number in i Tim. iii. 2 ; Tit. i. 7. The omission to say anything about deacons in the latter Epistle is more like what would occur in a real letter than in the work of a forger. It is not easy to see when the forger could have lived, or with what object he could have written ; or why, after having succeeded in gaining acceptance for one of the Epistles, he should hazard detection by writing a second, which seems to add very little. As for the general Pauline character of these letters, there cannot be a better witness than Renan, who, while still con- tinuing to assert them not to be genuine, every now and then seems staggered by the proofs of authenticity that strike him. He says, in one place, * Some passages of these letters are so- beautiful that we cannot help asking if the forger had not in his hands some authentic notes of Paul, which he has incor- porated in his apocryphal composition' [L' Eglise Chretienney p. 95). And he sums up (p. 104): 'What runs through the whole is admirable practical good sense. The ardent pietist who composed these letters never wanders for a moment in the dangerous paths of quietism. He repeats that the woman must not devote herself to the spiritual life if she has family duties to fulfil : that the principal duty of woman is to bring up children : that it is an error for anyone to pretend to serve the Church if he has not all duly ordered in his own house- hold. The piety our author inculcates is altogether spiritual. Bodily practices, such as abstinence, count with him for little. You can feel the influence of St. Paul : a sort of sobriety in mysticism : and amid the strangest excesses of faith in the supernatural, a great bottom of rectitude and sincerity.' XXI.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 433 xxr. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. In the controversies concerning the books which I have already discussed, we had usually the deniers of the super- natural ranged on one side, and those who acknowledge a Divine revelation on the other. There is no such division of parties in the controversies concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews, which may be described as being more important from a literary than from an evidential point of view. On the main point in dispute, whether or not St. Paul was the author, there was, as we shall presently see, difference of opinion in the early Church. At the time of the Reforma- tion, Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin, agreed in holding that St. Paul was not the author ; and at the present day this is the opinion of a number of divines whose orthodoxy cannot be impeached. On the other hand, critics of the sceptical school do not dispute the antiquity of this Epistle, nor the consideration it has always enjoyed in the Church. The general opinion is that it was written while the Temple was still standing, that is to say, before the destruction of Jeru- salem. In Hilgenfeld's hitrodudion it is placed immediately after the Epistle to the Philippians, and before any of the Gospels, or the Acts, before the Apocalypse, and before 2 Thess., Colossians, and Ephesians, which he does not own as Paul's, as also before the first Epistle of Peter. Davidson agrees with him in this arrangement. We have indisputable evidence to the antiquity of the Epistle in the fact that it is quoted copiously — perhaps more frequently than any other New Testament book — in one of the earliest of uninspired Christian writings, the Epistle of Clement of Rome. Euse- bius (iii. 37) takes notice of the attestation thus given by Clement to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Clement's quota- tions indeed are, as usual with him, without any formal 2 F 434 '^^^^' EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. [xxi. marks of citation, so that we are not in a position to say whether or not he believed the Epistle to have been written by St. Paul ; but we can at least see that he knew and valued it. One specimen out of many is enough to exhibit the un- mistakeable use he makes of it : ' Who being the brightness of his majesty, is so much greater than the angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For it is written. Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But of his Son thus saith the Lord, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. And again he saith to him. Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool' (Clement, c. 36 ; Heb. i. 3, 4, 7, 13). Of other early traces of the use of the Epistle, I only mention that Polycarp, both in his Epistle {c. 12) and in his last prayer at his martyrdom (Euseb. iv. 15), gives our Lord the title of Eternal high priest, which I look on as derived from this Epistle, wherein so much is said of our Lord's priesthood ; and that Justin Martyr [Apol. i. 63), besides other coincidences, gives our Lord the name of ' our Apostle ', an expression peculiar to the Epistle to the Hebrews (iii. i). The Epistle to the Hebrews was accepted as canonical by the whole Eastern Church, with no exception that I know of; and that it was St. Paul's was also the received tradition and popular belief of the East. Clement of Alexandria unhesi- tatingly quotes the Epistle as Paul's : ' Paul writing to the Hebrews, says so and so ; writing to the Colossians, says so and so', [Strom, vi. 8 ; see also Strom, ii. 22). Elsewhere in a passage referred to by Eusebius (vi. 14) he accounts for the absence of Paul's name from the commencement, by the sug- gestion that Paul designedly suppressed his name on account of the prejudice and suspicion which the Hebrews entertained towards him. He quotes another reason given by the 'blessed presbyter ', by whom there is no doubt is meant Pantaenus, Clement's predecessor as head of the Alexandrian Cateche- tical School, viz. that since our Lord had been sent as Apostle to the Hebrews, Paul, whose mission was to the Gentiles, XXI.] ACCEPTED AS PAUL'S AT ALEXANDRIA. 435 through modesty suppressed his name when doing this work of supererogation in writing to the Hebrews. Clement also gives his opinion that Paul wrote the Epistle in Hebrew, and that it had been translated by Luke, from which has resulted a similarity of style between this Epistle and the Acts. We need not scruple to reject the notion that a document is a translation from the Hebrew, which has the strongest pos- sible marks of being an original Greek composition ; and we cannot attribute much value to the reasons suggested for the omission of Paul's name ; but it is plain that it occurred neither to Pantsenus nor Clement to doubt that Paul was the author of the Epistle. In the next generation the traditional belief of Pauline authorship was still the popular one at Alexandria. Origen repeatedly cites the Epistle as Paul's [De Orat. § 27, where it is coupled with the Epistle to the Ephesians ; in Joann. t. 2 three times, citing as Paul's the passages Heb. i. 2, ii. g, § 6, and vi. 16, § 11; in Numer., Horn. iii. 3 ; in Ep. ad Rom. vii. § I, ix, § 36). In one place he refers to the fact that some denied the Epistle to be Paul's, and promises to give else- where a confutation of their opinion [Epist. ad Africanum^ 9). But in his homilies on the Epistle, of which extracts have been preserved by Eusebius, he shows himself to have become deeply impressed by the difference of style between this and the Pauline Epistles ; and he starts a theory that though the thoughts were Paul's, he might have employed someone else to put them into words. Who that person was he does not know : possibly Clement, possibly Luke. He says, *The style of the Epistle has not that rudeness of speech which belongs to the Apostle, who confesses himself rude in speech. But the Epistle is purer Greek in the texture of its style, as everyone will allow who is able to discern difference of style. But the ideas of the Epistle are admi- rable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the Apostle. Everyone will confess the truth of this who atten- tively reads the Apostle's writings,' Ag"ain he says, ' I should say that the sentiments are the Apostle's, but the language and composition belong to someone who recorded 2 F 2 * 436 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. [xxi. what the Apostle said, and, as it were, took notes of the things spoken by his master. If then any Church receives this Epistle as Paul's, let it be commended for this ; for it is not without reason that the ancients have handed it down as Paul's. Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly. But the account that has come down to us is various, some saying that Clement, who was bishop of Rome, wrote it; others that it was Luke, who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.* Notwithstanding this criticism of Origen's, the belief in the Pauline authorship was little affected. Dionysius of Alexandria refers to the Epistle as Paul's without any expression of doubt (Euseb. vi. 41), and at a later period Athanasius counts fourteen Epistles as Paul's {^Festal Epistle^ 39)- The Epistle is included in the Peshitto Syriac translation ; but placed as in our Bible ; and it has been doubted, I do not know whether or not with good reason, if this part is of the same antiquity as the rest. Such was the Eastern opinion ; but in the West quite a different one prevailed. I have already given proof that at the end of the first century Clement of Rome valued the Epistle. It would be natural to guess that he accepted it as Paul's ; but on that point we have no evidence, and doubts are suggested by the subsequent history of Western opinion. There are no authorities whom we can cite until the end of the second century, or the beginning of the third ; but at that time none of the Western writers whose opinion we know regarded the Epistle as Paul's. I have already mentioned (p. 50) that Eusebius was struck by the fact that in a list of canonical books given by the Roman presbyter Caius, at the very beginning of the third century, only thirteen Epistles of Paul were counted, and that to the Hebrews was left out. And I mentioned in the same place that the Muratorian Fragment agrees in not counting this among Paul's Epistles. It does not mention it either among canonical books ; and there is a question whether it does not even put on it a note of censure. For (see the passage quoted, p. 49) it rejects an Epistle to the Alexandrians, feigned under the name of Paul, XXI.] EARLY WESTERN OPINION ADVERSE. 437 and favouring the heresy of Marcion ; and many critics have thought that under this description we are to recognize the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this seems to me more than doubtful. We have no other evidence that this was ever known as an Epistle to the Alexandrians ; it is not under the name of Paul, and it does not favour the heresy of Marcion. That heretic did not include the Epistle in his canon. If I were to indulge in conjecture, I should say that the Epistle which goes under the name of Barnabas better answers the description ; but it is quite possible that forged documents, now lost, may have been put forward in heretical circles at Rome. We have other evidence that at the epoch of which I speak the Epistle was not recognized as Paul's. Photius (see p. 421) has preserved a statement of Stephen Gobar, a writer of the sixth century, that Irenseus and Hippolytus asserted that the Epistle was not Paul's. In point of fact we find very little use of the Epistle made in the great work of Irenaeus against heresies. There are a few coincidences, but we cannot positively pronounce them to be quotations, and certainly the Epistle is never referred to as Paul's. Eusebius, however, tells us (v. 26) that in a book now lost Irenseus does quote the Epistle ; but this still leaves the statement uncon- tradicted that he did not regard it as Paul's. The same thing may be said about Hippolytus, in the remaining fragments of whose works there are distinct echoes of this Epistle; but there is no proof that he regarded it as Paul's. But we have in Tertullian a decisive witness to Western opinion. The controversy as to the possibility of forgiveness of post-baptismal sin was one which much disturbed the Roman Church at the beginning of the third century. The suspicion then arises that opposition to this Epistle may have been prompted solely by the support afforded to the rigorist side on this question by the well-known passage in the sixth chapter, which seems to deny, in some cases, the possibility of repentance and forgiveness. But what is remarkable is that Tertullian quotes this passage in support of his Mon- tanist views ; yet though his interest would be to set the authority of the Epistle as high as possible, he seems never 438 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. [xxi. to have heard of the Epistle as Paul's, and quotes it as Bar- nabas's ; and not as canonical, but as only above the level of the Shepherd of Hermas. ' There is extant,' he says, ' an Epistle of Barnabas addressed to the Hebrews, written by a man of such authority that Paul has ranked him with him- self : *' I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?" And certainly this Epistle of Barnabas is more received than that apocryphal Shepherd of the adulterers ' {De Pudic. 20). This is the language of a man to whom the idea that the Epistle was Paul's does not seem to have occur- red ; and the proof appears to be conclusive that in Tertul- lian's time the Pauline authorship was not acknowledged in the Western Church. St. Jerome and St. Augustine, at the end of the fourth century, seem to have been the main agents in effecting a revolution of Western opinion. Jerome, though a Western, resided for a long time in the East, and was well versed in Greek Christian literature. He therefore could not be in- sensible to the fact of the general acceptance of this Epistle in the Eastern Church. He quotes it repeatedly, and more often than not without any note of doubt; but sometimes with some such phrase as 'Paul, or whoever wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews ', ' Paul, if anyone admits the Epistle to the Hebrews '. But his most distinct utterance on the subject is in his Epistle to Dardanus [Ep. xic), vol. i. p. 965). There he says that this Epistle is received as Paul's, not only by the Churches of the East, but by all previous Church writers in the Greek language, though many think it to be the work of Barnabas or Clement ; and that it is no matter who wrote it, since it is the work of an orthodox member of the Church, and is daily commended by public reading in the Churches. The Latins certainly do not receive it among Canonical Scriptures ; but then neither do the Greeks receive the Apoca- lypse of St. John ; and in both cases Jerome thinks that he is bound, instead of following the usage of his own time, to regard the authority of ancient writers who frequently quote both books ; and that not in the way that they cite apocry- phal books (for heathen books they hardly cite at all), but as ITS LATE RECOGNITION AS PAUL'S IN THE WEST. 439 canonical. Augustine also was influenced by the authority of Eastern opinion to accept the book ; and it was accepted in Synods in which he took part — Hippo (393); Carthag-e, iv- (397) ;* Carthage, v. (419) ; yet it is remarkable how often he cites the Epistle merely as that to the Hebrews, apparently studiously avoiding to call it Paul's. The place of the Epistle in our Bible testifies to the late- ness of the recognition of the Epistle as Paul's in the West. First we have Paul's Epistles to Churches, arranged chiefly in respect of their length, the longer ones coming first. Then we have Paul's letters to individuals. Then comes this Epis- tle to the Hebrews ; and this order, after Paul's acknowledged letters, is that which prevails in later, and especially in Western MSS. But the earliest order of all concerning which we have information is that of the archetype from which the Vatican MS. was copied. In the Vatican MS. itself, and in other Eastern MSS. this Epistle comes after that to the Thes- salonians, and before the letters to individuals; but the numbering of the sections shows that the Vatican MS. was copied from one in which the Hebrews stood still higher in the rank of Pauline Epistles, and came next after that to the Galatians. The Thebaic version placed it even a step higher, viz, immediately before the Epistle to the Galatians. In this conflict between early Eastern and Western opinion, if the question be only one as to the canonical authority of the Epistle, we need not doubt that the West did right in ulti- mately deferring to Eastern authority. It is only natural that an anonymous Epistle should be received with hesitation in places where the author's name was not known ; but since the oldest and most venerable of the Western witnesses, Clement of Rome, agrees with the Easterns in accepting the Epistle, and since dissent is not heard of in the West till the end of the second century, we have good grounds for acknow- ledging its canonical authority. But the tradition of Pauline authorship is not so decisively affirmed as to preclude us from * But the Epistle is not classed with those long recognized as Pauline in the West. The list runs : ' Epistolce Pauli Apostoli xiii., ejusdem ad Hebrx-as una.' 440 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. [xxi. reopening the question, and comparing this tradition with internal evidence. I have already said, that Clement of Alexandria took notice of one point in which this differs from all St. Paul's letters, namely, the suppression of his name ; and Clement's mode of accounting for this peculiarity is not satisfactory. In fact, through all the early part of the work, we should think that we were reading a treatise, not a letter. It is only when we come to the end that we find a personal reference — that to Timothy, and a salutation. That salutation, however, ' They of Italy salute you ' suggests a remark. This vague greeting is only intelligible on the supposition that the letter was written either from or to Italy. Either the writer is sending home salutations to Italians from their fellow-countrymen in a foreign land, or he is sending his correspondents a friendly message from the natives of the country in which he writes. In either case some connexion is established between Italy and the Epistle; and therefore we are disposed to consider the Italian tradition as to the authorship with more respect than we should do if the Epistle had been despatched from one Eastern city to another. There is another passage which very much weighed with Luther and Calvin in leading them to reject the Pauline authorship, viz. ' How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him ? ' (ii. 3). This sounds like the language of one of the second generation of Christians, who made no pretensions to have been himself an original witness of Christ ; and it contrasts strongly with the language in which St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians disclaims having learned his Gospel from men. I will not say that the argument is absolutely decisive, because I believe that, during the interval between the two Epistles, opposition to Paul had so died out that there was no longer the same need for self-assertion ; and it was no doubt true that he had not been a personal attendant of our Lord during his earthly ministry. It has been said, moreover, that when the writer XXI.] ITS DOCTRINE PAULINE. 441 says * us ' he is thinking rather of his readers than of himself. We may grant, therefore, that this verse is not by itself suffi- cient to disprove Pauline authorship ; but it must be counted among the considerations which are unfavourable to that sup- position. On the other hand, there is one passage which used to be quoted in confirmation of the Pauline authorship : * Ye had compassion on me in my bonds ' (x. 34), words which agree with references made by Paul to his imprisonment in uncon- tested epistles. But the best critics now are agreed that the reading Secrfio'tg juou probably owes its origin to the persuasion of scribes that this was a Pauline epistle, and that the true reading is ^ea/jiioig, which has been adopted by the revisers of the received version. This reading makes better sense with the context. The writer is referring to a time of persecution, not extending to taking of life (for he says ' they had not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin'), but reaching to fines and imprisonment. And he notes how cheerfully in this persecution the Christians bore pecuniary loss and other suf- ferings, and how those that were free exhibited their sym- pathy with the prisoners. * Ye endured a great fight of affliction, partly whilst ye were made a gazing stock both by reproaches and afflictions, and partly whilst ye became com- panions of those that were so used.' In every subsequent history of early Christian martyrdoms, a striking feature is the interest shown in the confessors during their imprison- ment by their brethren still free — interest shown both by gifts to them and to their jailers while they were confined, and by support and countenance given to cheer them at the hearing before the magistrates. St. Paul (2 Tim. iv. 16) notes it as one of the discouraging incidents of his first defence before the Roman tribunal, that no man had stood with him. A century later Lucian, in his tale about Peregrin us, scoffs at the contributions levied on their brethren by those under im- prisonment. One other passage remains to be noticed : ' Know ye that our brother Timothy has been set at liberty ' — or, as some translate the words, * has been sent away from us ' — ' with 442 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEUREWS. [xxi. whom if he come shortly, I will see you.' The passage shows that the writer was not in bondage at the time the letter was written ; and also that he was either Paul or one of his circle. It does not prove that he was necessarily Paul himself; but neither does it disprove it, even though we cannot fix any time in Paul's history for this imprisonment of Timothy. On a comparison of the substance and lang^uage of the Epistle with those of Paul's acknowledged writings, it ap- pears, I think, with certainty that the doctrine of the Epistle is altogether Pauline, Some critics, who have surrendered themselves to Baur's theories, have referred the document to the conciliatory school of which they take Luke to be a repre- sentative ; and some have even asserted for it a more pro- nounced Judaic character ; but as I quite disbelieve that at the date of the Epistle the Christian Church was divided into two parties of rancorously hostile Paulinists and anti-Paulin- ists, I see nothing in the letter which Paul or a disciple of his might not have written ; and it certainly has strong traces of Paul's influence. In fact this very letter may be looked on as furnishing one of the very numerous proofs how little truth there is in Baur's theory of a persistent schism in the early Church. We have here a document earlier than the destruc- tion of Jerusalem ; and, for the writer, the controversy between Paulinists and anti-Paulinists absolutely does not exist. The great distinction for him is between unconverted Jews and Christian Jews ; but that there were two classes of Christian Jews he seems not to have the slightest knowledge. He is himself a Paulinist : the only person he mentions by name is Paul's favourite disciple ; yet he addresses Jews in a tone of authority and rebuke without any apparent fear that his inter- ference will be resented, or that he will be an object of dislike or suspicion to them. As for the language, a number of parallelisms are adduced between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline letters. Thus, to give one specimen, Jesus is described in the 2nd Epistle to Timothy (i. 10) as ' having abolished death ' [Karap- yiiaavTOQ jutv tov Oavarov), the use of Karapyiu) in this sense being peculiar to Paul ; and again, in i Cor. xv. 26, 'the last XXI.] PAULINE CHARACTERISTICS. 443 enemy that shall be destroyed is death' {KaTapyuTm 6 OavaTog). Now we have in Hebrews (ii. 14), 'that through death he might destroy (KaTapyiiay) him that had the power of death.' So again Paley has noticed it as a habit of Paul's style to ring changes on a word, or to use in the same sentence several times the same word or different forms of it. An example will make plain what I mean. It is that in I Cor. XV. 27, in which the Apostle argues from the words, ' He hath put all things under his feet ', and the changes are rung on the word vTroraaaw. HavTa virira^iv viro tovq ttoSoq avTOv. "Otuv ds eiirri on Trdvra viroTeTaKTai, SriXov uti sktoc too virora^avTOg avTc^ ra iravTa. ' Orav St VTroTa-yi^ uvti^ to. Travra, roTt Koi avTog 6 vlog VTroTajiirrerai rt^ VTrora^avTi axird^ to. Travra. Here we have vTraraaah) six times in five lines. Now compare with this the commentary in Hebrews ii. 8, on the same verse of Psalm viii., in which changes are rung on the same word. ViavTa vTrira^ag viroKCtTU) tCiv ttoSwv uvtov. ' EiV yap t^o virora^ai avTio TO. Travra, oi/otv a(f)riKtv ai/ro) avvTTOTuicTov. Nuv o£ outtw opwjuev avT(^ ra iravra inroTBTayiuieva. Further, examples are adduced of similarity of construction with that used by St. Paul. Thus, the change of construction from the third person singular to the first nominative plural in the sentence (He- brews xiii. 5), ' Let your conversation be without covetousness : being content with such things as ye have ' [acpiXapyvpog 6 rpoTTog- apKovfxevoi ro'ig irapovaiv), is noted by Bishop Words- worth as exactly paralleled by a verse in Romans xii., 'Let love be without dissimulation, abhorring that which is evil' (}} aydwrj avviroKpiTog' cnrocTTvyovvTeg to irovi^pov). Lastly, the quotation ' Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord,' does not agree with the Septuagint, but is in verbal agree- ment with the citation of the same verse in Romans xii. 19. These, and other coincidences with Paul, are more than can be attributed to accident : if the writer is not Paul, he must have read some of Paul's Epistles — in particular those to the Romans and Corinthians.* On the other hand, all the * Other parallels are Heb. xi. 12, veviKpwfievos, Rom. iv. 19; Heb. xii. 14, ilp-i]vt)v SidoKere, Rom. xiv. 19 ; fj.eTa irdyrouv, Rom. xii. 18 ; Heb. i. 6, ttpoitStokos, Rom. viii. 29; Heb. xiii. i. 2 ; A.a (ppovovurts dwi rois Ta'ireivo7s avva- iraySfifVOi ttj Iw avTovg {Sim. viii. 6) ; and the exhortation [Mand. xii. 5), ' The devil may wrestle against you, but cannot overthrow you : for if ye resist him he will flee from you in confusion' (compare James iv. 7). In the Epistle of the Roman Clement there are several coincidences which, in my opinion, are best explained as indicating that he used the Epistle of James, though I do not venture to say that any of them quite amounts to a positive proof. Thus, the quotation [c. 30) ' God resisteth the proud ', &c., may have been suggested not by James but by i Peter ; and Clement's independent study of the Old Testament may have led him [c. 10) to call Abraham the ' friend of God'. But though this title is twice found in our English version (2 Chron. XX. 7, Isai. xii. 8), the corresponding Hebrew word is not literally translated by ' friend ' ; and the LXX. render it not by tpiXoq, but in the first place tu^ i^yaTrr]fxi\ni^ aov, in the second ov r\yaTTr\aa. It appears, however, from Field's Hexapla, that KNOWN TO IRENiEUS. 477 some copies of the LXX. have the rendering * friend' in the first passage, and that Symmachus had it in the second. There seems also to have been a various reading ^iXou for TTotSoc in Gen. xvii. 17, and Philo so cites the verse {De resipis. Noe^ c. 11) ; there is also an apparent allusion to it in Wisdom vii. 27. We therefore cannot argue as if it were only from James Clement could have learned to use the term. Still Clement's acquaintance with our Epistle must be pronounced highly probable, when we note how he dwells on the obedience as well as the faith of Abraham ; when we observe other coin- cidences, as for example, between l-yKavyj^ixivoiq \v aXa(^ovtia (Clem. 21), and Kovxaadi evraXg aXatiovtiaig vjjlCjv (James iv. 16); and when we bear in mind that James was certainly used by Clement's contemporary, Hermas. In any case we are forced to ascribe to the influence of James ii. 2},, the manner in which two Old Testament passages are combined by Irenaeus (IV. xvi.), 'Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God' : see also his use of the phrase *law of liberty' (IV. xxxiv. 4), a phrase which seems to have sug- gested some of the preceding arguments in the same book. Hippolytus has been quoted as using the Epistle, the words (James ii. 13) 'he shall have judgment without mercy, that showed no mercy ', being found in the treatise Concerning the End of the World [c. 47) ; but this treatise is not genuine. The resemblances that have been pointed out in the writings of Tertullian appear to me to furnish no proof that he knew St. James's Epistle; and no mention of it is found in the Mura- torian Fragment. On the other hand, the Epistle was early acknowledged by the Syrian Church,* and is found in the Peshitto. It is curious that, as far as I am aware, no clear proof of the use of the Epistle is found in the pseudo-Clementines, although in the sect from which these writings emanated, James, the head of the Church at Jerusalem, was accounted the highest personage in the Church. * See Ephraem Syr. 0pp. Grace . iii. 51 478 THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES. [xxiii. From this review of the external evidence it appears that, although the antiquity of the Epistle is sufficiently established by the use made of it by Hermas, it must in early times have had a very limited circulation, and been little known either in Alexandria or in the West. But, on the other hand, in- ternal evidence is altogether favourable to the claims of the Epistle. Very early tradition asserted that the Church of Jerusalem was first presided over by James, 'the Lord's brother'. Tho pseudo-Clementine writings so far magnify the office of this James as to make him not only head of the local Church, but supreme ruler of the Christian society. We find no warrant elsewhere for this extension of the claims of James; but with regard to the Jerusalem Episcopate, early authorities are unanimous. Hegesippus (Euseb. ii. 23, iii. 32, iv. 21) not only relates that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, but also states that on his death Symeon, another relative of our Lord after the flesh, was made the second bishop ; and it was probably from Hegesippus that Eusebius derived the list which he gives of successors to Symeon. Clement of Alex- andria also, in his Hypotyposets, cited by Eusebius (ii. i), says that Peter, James, and John, after our Lord's ascension, were not ambitious of dignity, honoured though they had been by the preference of their Master, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem. With this early tradition the Scripture notices completely agree. It is James to whom Peter sends the news of his release from prison (Acts xii. 17) ; James who presides over the meeting at Jerusalem (Acts xv.), and whose decision is adopted ; James whom Paul visits, and whose counsel he follows on a later visit to Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 18). The inferences drawn from these passages in the Acts are confirmed by the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 19, ii. 9, 12). I count it the more probable opinion that this James was not one of the Twelve. Possibly he had not been a believer in our Lord at the time the Twelve were chosen. Critics are so generally agreed that our Epistle purports to have been written by this James who presided over the Church of Jerusalem, that I do not think it worth while to XXIII.] WRITTEN BY A JEW TO JEWS. 479 discuss the claims of any other James. Now the letter itself completely harmonizes with this traditional account of its authorship, for it appears plainly to have been written by a Jew for Jewish readers, and in the very earliest age of the Church. Hug [Introductio7iy vol. ii, sec. 148) has carefully noted several indications which, though they do not amount to a proof, at least point to Palestine as the place of composi- tion. The writer appears to have lived not far from the sea. He takes his illustrations from the wave of the sea driven by the wind and tossed ; from the ships which, though they be so great and are driven by fierce winds, are turned about with a very small helm whithersoever the steersman desireth (i. 6, iii. 4). His land is the same as that of which it is written in Deut. xi. 14 : * I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil ' ; for he illus- trates patience by the example of the husbandman waiting for the precious fruit of the earth, and having long patience until he receive the early and the latter rain (v. 7). And that wine and oil, as well as corn, were among the natural produce of his land is shown by his question, ' Can the fig-tree bear olive-berries, or a vine figs ' ? (iii. 12). The hot burning wind {Kavainv) which, when it swept the land, withered up the grass (i. it), is the same as that of which, according to the Septua- gint translation, Ezekiel speaks, when he asks, 'Shall not the plant utterly wither when the east wind toucheth it ? it shall wither in the furrows where it grew' (xvii. 10). It is the same wind which burned up the gourd of Jonah ; the same probably whose approach our Lord (St. Luke xii. 54-57) represents his countrymen as exerting their weather-wisdom to forecast ; the same which caused the burden and heat of the day spoken of in the parable of the labourers of the vineyard. Salt and bitter springs are known to the writer (iii. 1 1), and his country was exposed to suffer from droughts (v. 17). The writer was not only a Jew, but he wrote for Jews. The address explicitly declares for whom it was intended — the Jews of the Dispersion,* the twelve tribes that were scat- * The term seems to have its original in Deut. xxviii. 25, fo-j; Ziaaitoph. eV iratracx 48o THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES. [xxiii. tered abroad ; that is to say, the letter was written by a Jew residing in his own land to his countrymen whom commercial enterprise had scattered over the empire ; with whom migra- tion from one city to another was an ordinary occurrence, as they said, * To-day or to-morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain * (iv. 13): a migration which may be illustrated from the New Testament references to Aquila and Priscilla, whom, though originally from Pontus, we find successively at Rome, at Corinth, and Ephesus, at Rome again, and at Ephesus again (Acts xviii. I, 19, Rom. xvi. 3, 2 Tim. iv. 19). But to return to the proofs that the letter is from a Jew to Jews, the writer speaks of Abraham as 'our father' (ii. 21); he gives their place of meeting the Jewish name of synagogue (ii. 2) ; he assumes the Old Testament to be familiarly known by his readers, referring to Rahab, Job, Elias, and the prophets (ii. 25, V. 10, V. 17): God is designated by the Old Testament name the Lord of Sabaoth (v. 4) ; and the Mosaic law is assumed to be an authority from which there is no appeal. The Jews, however, who are addressed are all Christian Jews. The writer describes himself as the servant of our Lord Jesus Christ, and addresses his readers as his brethren. He speaks of the worthy name by which they are called (ii. 7) ; and, in short, the whole letter assumes a community of faith between the writer and his readers. The history of the Acts relates a dispersion of Christian Jews resulting from the per- secution that followed the death of Stephen ; so that we are at no loss to seek for Christian Jews of the Dispersion to whom, at an early date, the letter might have been addressed. Syria in particular was full of them, and it is not improbable that this was the country to which the letter was in the first instance sent. I have already said the Epistle is found in the ancient Syriac Peshitto translation. PaatAflais T7JS yTJs, It occurs often O. T., e.g. Deut. xxx. 4, quoted Neh. i. 9; Ps. cxlvi. 2 ; 2 Mace. i. 27 ; Judith v. 19 ; but not in the technical sense in which it is here employed. And though Josephus {Bell. Jud. vii. 35), and Philo {Legat. ad Caium, 1023) speak of the dispersion of the Jewish nation, they do not use this word. We have real parallels in John vii, 35, and Justin Martyr {Trypho ii. 7). xxiii.] THE WRITER HAD HEARD OUR LORD. 48 1 Further, there is every appearance that the writer of this Epistle had been a personal follower of our Lord. We infer this from the number of passages where we have an echo of our Lord's discourses. In the Epistles of Paul, who was not a hearer of our Lord during His earthly ministry, though refe- rences to the person and to the work of Christ are of constant occurrence, there is but little trace of the influence of our Lord's discourses.* It is otherwise here. There is nothing indeed that we are entitled to say is directly copied from the Synoptic Gospels ; but there are very many resemblances to the discourses of our Lord which those Gospels record, such as find their most natural explanation in the supposition that a hearer of those discourses, on whom they had made a deep impression, is perhaps unconsciously reproducing the lessons he had learned from them. The most striking example will probably have occurred to you : * My brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath ; but let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, lest ye fall into condemnation' (James v. 12, Matt. v. 37). But there is a number of cases where, though the resemblance is not so complete, it is sufficient to leave little doubt that it is more than accidental. St. James says, *Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only' (i. 22): our Lord had said, 'Everyone that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand' (Matt. vii. 26). St. James, 'The doer of the work shrill be blessed in his doing' (i. 25) : our Lord, 'If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them ' (John xiii. 17). St. James speaks of the poor of this world as heirs of the kingdom (ii. 5) : our Lord had said, ' Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God' (Luke vi. 20). St. James, 'Humble your- selves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall exalt you' (iv. 10) : our Lord had said, ' He that shall humble himself shall be exalted' (Matt, xxiii. 12). 'Who art thou that judgtst * One of the few examples of such influence is the saying (i Thess. v. 2), that the day of the Lord cometh 'as a thief in th.' night.' Our Lord's discourse here re- ferred to seems to have dejply impressed His hearers {see 2 Pet. iii. 10, Rev. iii. 3, and xvi. 15). 2 I 482 THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES. [xxiii. another?' cries St. James (iv. 12) : our Lord had said, 'Judge not, that ye be not judged' (Matt. vii. i). St. James says, *If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, and it shall be given him ' (i. 5) ; echoing our Lord's words, ' Ask, and it shall be given you' (Matt. vii. 7). St. James goes on to say, * But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering' (jurjSlv SiaKpivofievog) : our Lord's promise (Mark xi. 23) had been : 'Whosoever shall not doubt in his heart {fxrj diuKpidy), but shall believe, shall have whatsoever he saith.' Again, our Lord's words, * Be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect' (Matt. v. 48), appear in James in the form, ' Let patience have her perfect work that ye may be perfect ' (i. 4). St. James's denunciations of the rich {c. v.) reproduce our Lord's, 'Woe unto you rich, for ye have received your consolation' (Luke vi. 24). St. James's, 'Let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness ' (iv. 9), answers to our Lord's, ' Woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shall mourn and weep' (Luke vi. 25). Other instances might be added, and in some of them, no doubt, the likeness may be only accidental ; but the cases are too numerous to allow us to think that they are all chance resemblances. They are, as I say, not cases of quotation from the Synoptic Gospels, but have all the air of being inde- pendent testimony to our Lord's teaching given by one who draws his lessons from his own memory of what he had learned from his Master. I have already (p. 222) thrown out the con- jecture that a great deal more of James's Epistle may be founded on sayings of our Lord than we have now the means of identifying; and, in particular, that what is said (i. 12) of our Lord's promise of a * crown of life ' may refer to an unre- corded saying of the Saviour. Turning now to examine the date of the composition, we can infer that it was written before the destruction of Jerusa- lem, from the entire aspect which it presents of the relations between the Christian Jews and their unconverted brethren. The Apostle represents the religious difference as in a great degree coincident with a difference in social condition. It is the poor of this world who have been chosen, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which God has promised to them WRITTEN BEFORE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 483 that love Him, The rich, on the other hand, oppress the dis- ciples, draw them before the tribunals, and blaspheme the worthy name by which they are called. And again, towards the end of the letter, the Apostle, in tones of one of the old prophets, denounces the luxury and wantonness, the grasping oppression and tyranny, of the rich, and lifts up his voice in warning of the misery that was to come on them. Now the picture here exhibited well corresponds with that which is presented by Josephus and other Jewish authorities, of the condition of Palestine in the time following the death of our Lord. The pride and luxury of the rich Sadducean party were at their height. They filled the high offices of the priesthood, which they had simoniacally purchased [with money. They tyrannized over the poor. Josephus tells how the high priests sent their servants to the threshing-floors to take away the tithes that by right belonged to the poorer priests, beating those who refused to give them ; and that some of the poorer priests, thus defrauded of their main- tenance, actually died of want {AntL XX. viii. 8, ix. 2).* It can easily be imagined that the religiously-minded of the Jews revolted against such practices, and 'that poverty and piety came to be naturally associated. It was most natural, too, that it should be among those who revolted against the worldliness and ungodliness of the men of high condition, that minds should be found best prepared for the reception of the Gospel. In fact, the poverty of the Jewish Church is proved by many indications. The Gentile Churches were, as a whole, not very rich. St Paul says that not many mighty, not many noble, had been called ; but yet the Gentile Churches, were rich in comparison with the native Jewish Church ; and in the Acts and in Paul's Epistles we read more than once of the contributions which the Apostle of the Gentiles collected among his converts, that he might bring them as alms to his nation and offerings. In somewhat later times, Ebionite, a name derived from poverty, was that by which the Jewish Christians were known. We see, then, how completely * See Derenbourg's Palestine, c. 15. 2 I 2 484 'i'HE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES. [xxiii. historical is the picture which St. James's Epistle presents of the social line of separation which, as a general rule, divided the Christians from their unconverted brethren. But this picture belongs to a time before the destruction of Jerusalem. The rich classes courted the favour of the Romans, and by purchasing their support were able to maintain the tyranny which they exercised over their poorer brethren. Thus they arrayed against themselves not only the religious but the patriotic feelings of the nation. At length this patriotism burst forth in wild fury, which drew down destruction on the city. And then the Sadducean power came to an end ; so that it would be a complete anachronism to put any later that representation of the heartless, God-forgetting prosperity of the upper classes which we find in St. James's Epistle. The argument which I have here used convinces Renan, who accepts this Epistle as written before the destruction of Jeru- salem.* We find other evidence of early date in the indistinctness of the line of separation between the converted and the un- converted Jew. The Christian Jew, as we know from the Acts, frequented the temple worship, and observed the national rites. James himself bore among his countrymen a reputation for the greatest sanctity.f But the Christians had besides of necessity synagogues of their own, private conventicles for their own worship. These were open to any unconverted brethren whom curiosity might lead to visit them. In the very natural picture drawn [ch. ii.) of the well- dressed stranger coming into the synagogue, received with high respect, and shown into the best seat, the poor visiter allowed to stand or pushed into the least-honoured place, it is plain that the visiters are men who have no recognized right to a place of their own ; that is to say, that they are strangers to the community. Further evidence may be drawn * Des tableaux evidemment relatifs aux luttes interieures des classes diverses de la societe hierosolymitaine, comme celui que nous presente I'epitre de Jacques (v. i et suiv.) ne se con9oivent pas apres la revoke de I'an 66 qui mit fin au regne des Sad- duceens [U Antechrist, p. xii.) t See the account of James given by Hegesippus (Euseb. ii. 23). xxiii.] INTENDED FOR JEWISH READERS. 485 from the statement that the rich oppressors harassed the Christians by bringing them before the tribunals. This can- not refer to Gentile tribunals. Down to a date later than any suggested for this letter, a charge brought against Chris- tians solely on the ground of their religion would be received by a heathen magistrate as Gallio received the accusation brought against St. Paul. But the Roman policy allowed to the Jewish authorities considerable power ©ver their own countrymen ; and that not only in the Holy Land itself, but in the countries to which the Jews were dispersed. With respect to Syria in particular, we have evidence in the mission of Saul to Damascus, where the power and authority given him by the chief priests at Jerusalem would have sufficed him for the imprisonment and further punishment of those who called on the name of Jesus. It is plain, then, that when the Epistle was written the Christians were in the eyes of their Roman masters but a sect of Jews, and were as such subject to their national tribunals. But we may go still further back, and argue from the total absence of all reference in the Epistle to the non-Jewish world. There is not a word of allusion to the existence in the Church of men of Gentile birth ; not the slightest notice of the controversies to which their^admission led as to the obliga- tion of such persons to observe the Mosaic law. It is often one of the surest criteria of the date of a document to notice what were the controversial interests of the writer. In the present instance there is no notice whatever of that great dispute on which the assembly, whose proceedings are re- corded in the 15th of Acts, was called on to pronounce, and of which the Epistles to the Galatians, Romans, and Corin- thians are full, namely, the terms of justification of the Gen- tile believer, and the extent to which he was obliged to observe the Mosaic law. In this Epistle all its readers are assumed to be under the obligations of that law. What I have stated would not be correct if the views could be maintained of those who look upon the latter half of the second chapter as an anti-Pauline polemic ; some even main- taining that the Apostle Paul is the * vain man ', who needed 486 THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES. [xxiii. to be taught that faith without works is dead ; though such language is so little fitted to the character of the historical James, that the theory that this chapter is anti-Pauline com- monly leads to the theory that the Epistle is not genuine, but is the late work of some Jewish Christian opponent of Paulinism who dignified his performance with the name of the ' pillar Apostle ' James. In fact, to a disciple of Baur there is no more disappointing document than this Epistle of James. Here, if anywhere in the New Testament, he might expect to find some evidence of anti-Pauline rancour. There is what looks like flat contradiction between this Epistle and the teaching of St. Paul. St. Paul says (Rom. iii. 28), 'There- fore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.' St. James says (ii. 24), 'Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.' Our first impression certainly is that not only is the teaching of the two Apostles different, but that the one wrote with the express purpose of controverting what the other had said. But that opposition to Paul which, on a superficial glance, we are disposed to ascribe to the Epistle of James, disappears on a closer examination. I postpone for the moment the question whether we can suppose that James intended to contradict Paul ; but whether he intended it or not, he has not really done so; he has denied nothing that Paul has asserted, and asserted nothing that a disciple of Paul would care to deny. On comparing the lan- guage of James with that of Paul, all the distinctive expres- sions of the latter are found to be absent from the former. St. Paul's thesis is that a man is justified not by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, James speaks only of works without any mention of the law, and of faith without any mention of Jesus Christ ; the example of faith which he considers being merely the belief that there is one God. In other words, James is writing not in the interests of Judaism, but of morality. Paul had taught that faith in Jesus Christ was able to justify a man uncircumcised, and unobservant of the Mosaic ordinances. He taught, and St. Peter also is re- presented in the Acts (xv. 11) as teaching, that it was only XXIII.] SILENT AS TO DISPUTES OF PAUL'S TIME. 487 through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ that Jew or Gentile could be saved, and that it was therefore wrong to put on the necks of the brethren the yoke of other conditions asserted to be necessary to salvation. For this Pauline teaching James not only has no word of contradiction, but he gives no sign of ever having heard of the controversy which, according to Baur, formed the most striking feature in the early history of the Church, On the other hand, no disciple of Paul would wish to con- tradict what James does say as to the worthlessness of specu- lative belief that bears no fruit in action. Paul himself had said the same things in other words, ' Thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law ; and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law. Thou, therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal ? thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery ? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege ? thou that makest thy boast in the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God ?' (Rom. ii. 17-23). I need not remind you what controversies there have been in the Christian Church on the subject of justification. Luther, you know, at one time regarded the difference between the two Apostles as irreconcilable, and applied a disparaging epithet to the Epistle of James. But whatever embarrass- ment the apparent disagreement between the Apostles has caused to orthodox theologians is as nothing in comparison with the embarrassment caused to a disciple of Baur by their fundamental agreement. For the disputes on the subject of justification all lie in the region of speculative theology, but about practical duties all are now agreed. Those who say that a man is justified by faith without works are careful to say also that a faith which does not bear fruit in good works is not a 488 THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES. [xxiii. genuine faith. Taking their doctrine from what they conceive to be the teaching of Paul, they do not dream of controverting his instructions to Titus (iii. 8), 'These things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.' But when Paul asserted that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law, he was not dealing merely with the question what relation to justification was borne by the works which all allowed ought to be performed. There was also the urgent practical ques- tion whether certain works of the law needed to be performed or not. One party said (Acts xv. i), 'Except ye be circum- cised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.' Paul himself said (Gal. v. 2), ' Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.' This was no speculative question, but one that affected the practice of every Gentile convert. As long as controversy on this subject was raging, it is inconceivable that anyone should discuss the subject of justification, and be absolutely silent on this great practical question. And therefore the fact that when James speaks of works, he seems to have only in his mind such works as men in all ages have accounted to be good, and makes no mention of the specially Mosaic ordinances, is con- vincing proof that he wrote either before the controversy con- cerning the universal obligation of these ordinances had arisen, or else after it had died out. Critics of the sceptical school generally choose the alter- native of assigning a late date to the Epistle, but they can hardly find one late enough to bring the Epistle into accord- ance with Baur's history of the early Christian Church. For, according to Baur, at the time the Epistles to the Seven Churches were written, that is to say, some time after the death of the historical James, the heads of Jewish Christianity regarded Paul as an enemy ; and hostility to Paul survived down to the time of publication of the pseudo-Clementines. But as long as the conflict about the universal obligation of Mosaism was raging, how was it possible that a Jewish Chris- tian should so completely ignore it as the writer of this Epistle does — a writer who seems to have no thought of XXIII.] DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 489 ceremonial observance, and whose sole interest is to maintain that speculative belief is worthless, if it do not bear fruit in holiness of life ? I could imagine an opponent of Paul affect- ing to believe that that Apostle's denial of the obligation of the Mosaic law included a denial of the obligation of the pre- cepts of the Decalogue, and insisting on these precepts with the controversial object of making it believed that his adver- sary was opposed to them. But no one can read the Epistle of James without feeling that the writer has no arriere pensee in his assertion of the claims of practical morality ; for he never makes the smallest attempt, under cover of establishing the obligation of the moral precepts of the law, to insinuate the duty of compliance with ceremonial ordinances. I consider that the proofs that the Epistle was written be- fore the destruction of Jerusalem, by one who had personally been a hearer of our Lord, and who lived while His second coming was still regarded as likely to be of immediate occur- rence (v. 8), are so strong as to force us to reject the hypothesis that it was written by someone later than the James to whom it has been traditionally ascribed. An objection to his author- ship has been raised on account of the goodness of the Greek in which the letter is written. But this argument is of no force. For though we should not beforehand have expected James to write in such good Greek, we see plainly that the letter was written by a Jew; and we can give no reason why James might not know as much Greek as another Jew. The only question, then, that seems to me worth discussing is, whether it was written late or early in that Apostle's life. As I hold that the controversy concerning the obligation of cir- cumcision on Gentiles was one of very short duration, I could admit the Epistle to be later than that controversy, and yet to have been written by James. The date we assign the Epistle depends very much on our determination of the question whether or not James had read St. Paul's Epistles. Several critics have held that the writer of the Epistle we are considering lived so late as to have become acquainted with an entire collection of Pauline Epistles, and with the Epistle to the Hebrews besides. I 490 THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES. [xxiik have already said that it seemed to me probable that this last Epistle was written in the lifetime of James, so that his acquaintance with it involves no impossibility. But the main proof of that acquaintance consists in the fact that in both letters Rahab the harlot is cited as an example of faith ; and though the coincidence is certainly remarkable, it is scarcely enough to establish obligation on either side, ignorant as we are of the examples in common use in the theological discus- sions of the time. In fact it seems to me that one who had read Hebrews xi. would have found in that chapter other examples of faith more tempting for discussion than the case of Rahab. I think also that if James had read the Epistle to the Hebrews, there would have been some reference to the high priesthood of Christ, which is so copiously dwelt on in that letter. And in every respect the Epistle to the Hebrews shows signs of being the later document of the two. All through the writer shows his anxiety lest his readers should be tempted to apostasy, of which there evidently had been examples even in men who had been partakers of the miracu- lous gifts of the Holy Ghost (vi. 4); but the persecution suffered by those whom James addressed appears to have been both less severe and less formal. The coincidences* alleged to prove that James had read the Pauline letters seem to me undeserving of attention, except in the case of the Epistle to the Romans. And even in this case there are considerations which make us hesitate before regarding these coincidences as proofs of obligation. If James had read the Epistle to the Romans, I think he would have * Thus we may dismiss the case for i Thess., which rests on the common use of one word, d\6K\r]pos (i Thess. v. 23, James i. 4) ; for Colossians, also depending on one word, TrapaAoyi^ta-Oai (Col. ii. 4, James i. 22) ; and for Philippians, with which again there is but a single coincidence, Kapirhs SiKaioa-vvrjs (Phil. i. 11, James iii. 18), the resemblance here being much closer between James and Heb. xii. 11. I do not think any stress can be laid on the formulae apparently in common use, viz. /iff trXauaffde (I Cor. vi. 9, xv. 33, Gal. vi. 7, James i. 16), and dA.A' ipeT t»$ (i Cor. xv. 35, James ii. 18). With Romans again the following coincidences deserve little atten- tion, irapa&ar-rjs v6fjLov (Rom. ii. 25, James ii. 11), v6ixov reXeXv (Rom. ii. 27, James ii. 8), the phrases being such as independent writers might naturally employ. The question of justification had probably been discussed in the Jewish schtols ; and xxiii.J AGREEMENT OF DOCTRINE WITH PAUL'S. 491 avoided the appearance of verbal contradiction to a letter with the doctrine of which he is in such substantial agree- ment. It is not merely that he is silent as to the bearing on Gentile obligation of the question of justification ; but on the general theological question he is quite in unison with St. Paul. The representations of James are as unfavourable as those of Paul to the idea of a man being able to claim salvation as earned by the merit of his good works. ' What hast thou that thou didst not receive ?' asks Paul (i Cor. iv. 7) : 'Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above ' is the doctrine of James (i. 17). The latter Apostle teaches also that if a man offend in one point, he can claim no merit even though he have fulfilled all the other commandments of the law ; the breach of that one precept makes him guilty of all (ii. 10). It is not merely the sinful act which brings condemnation ; the sinful desire begins a course which ends in death (i. 15). And he gives the name of sin not only to the unlawful act, not only to the desire from which that act sprang, but even to the omission to use an opportunity presented for doing good (iv. 17). When James describes the law whose claims he enforces, by the title ' law of liberty ' (ii. 12), he shows himself to be not at variance with Paul. There is then such a real identity of teaching between Paul and James that I am disposed to believe that if James had known the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, he would have guarded against the semblance of opposition even in words. Yet I do not deny that he probably had an indirect knowledge of the doctrines taught by Paul, and of the example of Abraham was one likely to have been brought forward. So the three following are the only cases which suggest to me that the verbal similarity is more than accidental : — ■ T] 6\7^is tnrofj,oi'7]v Karepyd^eTai, t] 5e inrofiov^ SoKifiriv (Rom. v. 3) I rb SoKi/xiov u/xuiy rrjs TricTTecos KaT€pya.^erai virofiov7\v (James i. 3) i v6fiov 4y ro7s fieXecrl fiov, ai'Ti(TTpaTev6fievov (Rom. vii. 23) ; Twv T]Sovci)v vixixiv Tuv (XTpaTevo/j.fvciJi' iv Tois /ueAeo'ij' vi^Siv (James iv. l). OX) yhp ol aKpoaral u6fx.ov SiKatoi aA.A.' ot irotrjral udfiov (Rom. ii. 13) yiufffde iroiTjTal K6yov Ka\ /u^; /xovov uKpoarai (James i. 22). 492 THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES. [xxiii. the arguments by which he was wont to support them. For the doctrine which James refutes has a certain likeness to the doctrine taught by Paul, though it is but a distortion and misrepresentation of it. We know, from the Acts of the Apostles (xv. i), that St. Paul, in the course of his pastoral labours, met with certain who came down from James, and who professed to speak by his authority, and who yet taught, concerning the absolute necessity of circumcision and other legal rites, doctrines which St. James subsequently denied ever to have emanated from him [tb. ig). Were the men who at Antioch misrepresented the teaching of James likely to give a fair report of the teaching of Paul when they returned to Jerusalem ? And very possibly it may have been true that there were some who professed to speak as they had been taught by Paul, and who yet used language implying that a barren historical belief was sufficient for justification ; and that good works not merely were to be excluded from the office of justifying, but might without injury be absent in him who is justified. We might expect that such teaching would be strenuously opposed by James, who shows that he had so carefully treasured up his Master's words, and who probably had heard him declare, * Not every one that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.' But we need not doubt that such teaching would have been equally disowned by St. Paul. If I am right in thinking that the Epistle of James is to be regarded as a document belonging to a very early age of the Christian Church, we can understand why specially Christian doctrine appears here in a less developed form than in later inspired writings, and why its teaching has more affinity with that of the Old Testament prophets,* and with the teaching of our Blessed Lord Himself, than with that of the letters of St. * There are coincidences, also, with the book of Ecclesiasticus, but they seem to me not enough to furnish a decisive proof that that book has been used. One of the most striking is Ecclus. xv. II, 12 : Mt; eX-rngs '6ti 810 Kvpiov airfffrriv, & yap ifiia-rifffv ov voi-fians. Mr) e'livps Sti avT6s fxe fTr\dvri. lb. XXIV.] THE BOOK OF ENOCH. ^U to prevent his being deceived by a falsely ascribed book ; and that if he referred to such a book at all, he would take care to make it plain to his readers that he attributed to it no autho- rity. Yet we follow a very unsafe method if we begin by deciding in what way it seems to us most fitting that God should guide His Church, and then try to wrest facts into conformity with our pre-conceptions.* • It has been already stated that the old Syriac translation only included three Catholic Epistles. The remaining four, viz., Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, were first printed by Pococke, in 1630, and were afterwards included in the Paris Polyglott, from a modem MS. now in the Bodleian, followed by most subsequent editions. But the evidence, both external and internal, forbids us to assign to this version an earlier date than the sixth century. They are probably part of the translation made about A.D. 508 by the authority of Philoxenus, bishop of Mabug. XXV. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. WHEN I pointed out, at the beginning of the last Lecture,, that we had no right to be surprised if it should appear that, in respect of historical attestation, all the| books of our Canon do not stand on the same level, I had chiefly in my mind the book on the discussion of which we are now about to enter — the Second Epistle of Peter. The framers of the Sixth Article of our Church use language which, if strictly understood, implies that there never had been any doubt in the Church concerning the authority of any of the books of Old or New Testament which they admitted into their Canon. Their language would have been more accurate if they had said that they rejected those books concerning whose autho- rity there always had been doubt in the Church. They had, no doubt, principally in view the apocryphal books of the Old Testament ; and these books, not included in the Jewish Canon, were not only rejected by many learned men in the earliest ages of the Church, but the doubts concerning them were never permitted to be forgotten ; for Jerome's prefaces, which stated their inferiority of authority, constantly continued to circulate side by side with the books themselves. At the time when our articles were drawn up there was no serious controversy concerning the books of the New Testament, nor had there been any for some centuries before. But you will have seen that it would not be true to assert that there never XXV.] ONE OF THE ' ANTILEGOMENA'. 513 had been controversy. Unfavourable opinions with respect to 2 Peter are expressed by Eusebius and Jerome.* There were four of the Catholic Epistles which the early Syrian Church did not receive into its Canon, and a fifth which was not universally received elsewhere. Traces of this diversity of opinion are to be found for some time, and especially where Syrian influence prevailed. Chrysostom, the great preacher of Antioch, never uses any of the four Epistles not included in the Peshitto ; f and I believe that the same may be said of Theodoret. Just towards the close of the first half of the sixth century, Junilius, a high legal official in the court of Justinian, turned into Latin, for the benefit of some African bishops :[: who were his friends, a tract on the Scriptures by Paulus, a distinguished teacher of Nisibis, at that time a centre of Eastern theological education. In this tract books are divided into three classes, ' perfectae ', ' mediae ', and ' nullius auctori- tatis ' : the first being those which he sets down absolutely as canonical, the second those which he states ' adjungi a pluri- bus'. In the first class he has fourteen Epistles of St. Paul (the Hebrews being last mentioned), ' beati Petri ad gentes prima, et beati Johannis prima'. Then in the second class, ' adjungunt quam plurimi quinque alias, id est Jacobi, secun- dam Petri', &c. Kihn shows that the exclusion of James, as well as of the other four, was derived from Theodore of Mopsuestia. Junilius himself (ii. 17) quotes 2 Pet. ii. 4 as * Tr]v Se avf7ffa, /jLera T u (Kuseh. HI. 3). Simon Petrus . . . scripsit duas Epistolas quae canonic^ [Catholicse] nominantur ; quarum secunda a plerisque ejus esse negatur, propter styli cum priore dissonantiam (Hieron. De. Vir. Illust. i). t T.he solitary instance adduced to prove his acquaintance with 2 Pet. ii. 22, eoiKev ToJ Kvv\ wphi rhv tSiov efierov iTravi6vri {in Joanii. Horn. XXXIV. 3), is really derived from Prov. xxvi. 11, the word in 2 Pet. being i^epaixa, not ifxerov. The same proverb, also with e/neroy, is the only apparent sign of acquaintance with the four Epistles I find in the index to Theodoret {In Dan. iii. i). But Chrysostom's friend Basil uses 2 Pet. {adv. Eimom. v. i) ; and we are bound to remember that the ab- sence of quotations may be explained by the fact that, of the four Epistles in question, three are extremely short, and the fourth not very long. X Consequently, Junilius has commonly passed for an African bishop himself, until his true history was tracked out by Kihn {Theodorvon Mopmestia, 1880). 2 L ^14 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. the words of blessed Peter without any sign of doubt. The tract of Junilius became speedily known to Cassiodorus, and thence- forward had considerable circulation in the West. So late as the beginning of the fourteenth century, Ebed Jesu, a Nes- torian metropolitan of Nisibis, has only three Catholic Epistles in his New Testament Canon (Assemani, Bibl. Orterii. III. 9). Notwithstanding isolated expressions of dissent, the general voice of the Church accepted all seven Catholic Epistles ; and this verdict remained undisturbed until the revival of learning. Then Erasmus on the one hand, Calvin on the other, express doubts as to 2 Peter. The latter, in the preface to his Com- mentary, shows himself much impressed by what Jerome had remarked as to difference of style from that of the First Epistle, as well as by other considerations leading him to think Pet not the author. But he says that, if the Epistle is cane-* '■' at all, Petrine authorship in some sense must be a.c ^^^ ledged, since the Epistle plainly claims it. And * sine •^^*-*^^ majesty of the Spirit of Christ exhibits itself in every r^ ^^^ the Epistle,' he scruples to reject it, though not recoiP^^y ^^ in it the genuine language of Peter. He is therefore do"^^^"§l to believe that it may have been written, at Peter's con^^P^^® , by one of his disciples. And this is almost precisely f^m^-^ci^ taken by Erasmus. Later critics have taken even a rr. ^® ^^^^- favourable view of the Epistle; and at the present (iioreuii^ generally rejected even by the less extreme critics p^Y ^^ ^3 sceptical school, while its cause has been abandoned bl °* ^"e within our own Church. J ^^"^ t I am not prepared to condemn those who do not i 1 to have a stronger assurance of the genuineness of th<*.^^^ than had Eusebius and Jerome ; but I may point out tlr ^^^r, authority can well stand notwithstanding the fact that v^ ^ ^ eminent critics entertained doubts of it. We have just ^^^^^ lo that to have been subject to early doubts is a lot which 2 P( ^'^ "^'i . . t ij^ \ prA shares in common with four other of the Catholic EpistU ,s)Epf and yet, as respects them, we have found reason to think, m " Ba/ that the case for these Epistles was bad, but that the scrutin' to which they were subjected was very severe. With respect to early attestation, the case for the Epistle of James is little XXV.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. ^i^ stronger than that for 2 Peter, yet I count that its authority cannot be reasonably impugned. I feel no doubt that the two minor Epistles of St. John come from the same hand as the First ; though if we referred the matter to the judgment of early critics the decision might turn out the other way. The evidence of early recognition of Peter's Second Epistle is certainly weaker than in the case of most other New Testa- ment books. Yet it is by no means inconsiderable ; and at the beginning of this course of lectures I remarked how many classical books there are as to the genuineness ot which we feel no doubt, notwithstanding the impossibility of giving proof of early recognition. By the fifth century, the authority of the seven Catholic Epistles, including 2 Peter, was acknowledged throughout the greater part of the Christian world ; and I believe this to be true of the fourth century also ; for I think that Eusebius and Jerome only express the closet doubts of learned men, and not popular Church opinion. In Jerome's case, what we know of his method of composition gives us reason to believe that he is rather repeating what he had read than stating the belief of his own time, or even his own deliberate opinion. For he elsewhere speaks of the Epistle without any doubt of its authorship {Ep. 53, «^ Paulin. de stud, script.) ;* and he offers the suggestion that the difference of style between the two Epistles might be accounted for by Peter's having used different interpreters! [Eptst. 120, ad Hedibiam Qu(Bst. xi.) Jerome's friend Epiphanius uses the Epistle without doubt+ {Haer. LXVI. 65). Didymus, the blind head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, has left a commentary on the Catholic Epistles, preserved in Latin by Cassiodorus, all through * The prologue to the CathoHc Epistles, printed as Jerome's, is not genuine. t It is natural to set down Mark as one of them, and it has been conjectured that Glaucias may have been the other ; but this suggestion is derived from an authority not entitled to much respect, namely, the heretic Basilides, who claimed to have received traditions from an interpreter of Peter so called (Clem. Alex. Strom. vu. 17). X Quoting it with tlie formula HeVpos eV t^ liriaroKTi, which, wlien used by earlier writers in a citation from the First Epistle, is commonly taken for an implied rejection of the Second. 2 L 2 5i6 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. which 2 Peter appears to be treated as possessing full canoni- cal authority, until in the very last sentence we are surprised to read, *Non est igitur ignorandum, praesentem epistolam esse falsatam, quae licet publicetur, non tamen in canone est.' Some doubt is cast on this clause by the fact that in the work De Trinitatej which appears to be rightly ascribed to Didymus, he ten times quotes our Epistle as Peter's, without note of doubt {see l. xv. p. 303, Migne, and the passages referred to in Mingarelli's note). But the clause has all the marks of being a translation from the Greek. 'Non est ignorandum, epistolam esse falsatam ', probably represents, Xariov cue voOeve- Tai 17 iTTKjToXi] [see Eus. ii. 2^), and merely means that the genuineness of the Epistle was disputed. That the opinion of Eusebius was unfavourable cannot be denied ; but I believe that he, too, is but echoing the doubts of predecessors. We have every reason to think that in his own time the current of opinion ran strongly in favour of the Epistle. On the establishment of Christianity by Constantine, an active multiplication of copies of the Scriptures became necessary, both in order to repair the losses suffered under the Diocletian persecution, and to provide for the wants of the many new converts. And all the evidence we can draw, whether from existing MSS.,* or from ancient catalogues of the books of Scripture, goes to make it probable that, wher- ever the production of a complete Bible was intended, it included the collection of seven Catholic Epistles, the existence of which Eusebius himself recognizes. These seven were owned as canonical by Athanasius and by Cyril of Jerusalem, both younger contemporaries of Eusebius. Among the predecessors whose opinion had most weight with Eusebius was Origen, who (in a passage cited p. 28 1} * The two earliest existing MSS., which probably are as early as the reign of Con- stantine, both include the seven Catholic Epistles. So does the Claromontane list, the original of which Westcott believes to be as old as the third century. In Codex B (where, as is customary, the Catholic Epistles follow the Acts) there is a twofold division of sections, an older and a later. In 2 Peter alone the older division of sec- tions is wanting ; from which it may be inferred that this Epistle was wanting in an ancestor of the Vatican ms. XXV.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 517 attests both that the book was known in his time, and that its genuineness was disputed. I have remarked that Origen's immediate purpose in that passage would lead him to present the least favourable view of the genuineness of disputed books. In several places elsewhere Origen quotes 2 Peter without expression of doubt. It is true these quotations are all found in works only known to us through the Latin translation of Rufinus, whose faithfulness cannot be depended on ; but, on examination of the passages, it does not seem to me likely that Rufinus could have invented them ; and I believe the truth to be, that Origen in popular addresses did not think it necessary to speak with scientific accuracy. It is implied in this solution that Peter's authorship was the popular belief of Origen's time ; and this is made probable to me by the fact that Origen's contemporary, Firmilian of Cappadocia, writing to Cyprian (Cyprian, Ep. 75), speaks of Peter as having execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them, words which can only refer to the Second Epistle. We can produce no evidence of knowledge of the Epistle from the writings of Cyprian himself, nor from those of his predecessor Tertullian. 1 have mentioned (p. 458) that the Muratorian Fragment does not notice the Second Epistle, but that its equal silence con- cerning the First makes us unable to build an argument on this omission. But that 2 Peter did not form part of the earliest Canon of the Latin Church appears probable from the fact that it was not translated by the same hand as other of the Catholic Epistles. The same Greek words in i Peter and 2 Peter are rendered differently ; as also the same words in the parallel places of 2 Peter and Jude.* I must leave it undetermined whether or not Clement of Alexandria used the Epistle. When we have the testimony of Eusebius and of Photius (see p. 474) that Clement wrote comments on the Catholic Epistles, we seem to have no war- * The evidence will be found in Westcott [N. T. Caiimt, p. 261). We have no Latin MSS. containing a pre-Hicionymian text of 2 Peter; nor indeed of any of the Catholic Epistles except James, and a small fragment of 3 John. The remark above a])pUes to the Vulgate, the text of which no doubt represents an earlier translation merely revised by Jerome. 5i8 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. rant for treating this as a loose way of stating that he com- mented only on some of them. Accordingly, Hilgenfeld and Davidson, although they both reject 2 Peter, yet believe that Clement commented on it ; and Davidson suggests that Cas- siodorus may have only been in possession of extracts from Clement's Hypotyposeis. But since I find in Clement's other writings no proofs of acquaintance with the two Epistles which Cassiodorus leaves out, I do not venture to assert posi- tively that Clement's comments included these two Epistles. Irenaeus makes no express mention of 2 Peter, and he seems to exclude it by the phrase ' in epistola sua ' (IV. ix. 2), when he speaks of the first Epistle ; but he has one or two coincidences with the second, which require examination. And first we have twice ' The day of the Lord is as it were a thousand years' (V. xxiii. 2, and xxviii. 3), words which recall 2 Peter iii. 8. But whatever may have been the ulti- mate source of this saying, it seems to me that in neither case was Peter the immediate source from which Irenaeus took it. In the first passage Irenaeus reproduces an explanation by "which Justin Martyr [Trypho 81) reconciles the long life of Adam with the threat, 'In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die '. The words in Irenteus are exactly the same as in Justin, y]}xipa Kvpiov wg x'^^^ ^'^''> ^^^ ^^ ^" Peter, fi'ia r^ju'epa irapa Kvpuo djg x- 'i. ; and the use Irenaeus makes of the words being the same as in Justin, and not as in Peter, the former is clearly the immediate source of the quotation. In the second passage Irenaeus expounds the statement in Genesis that God completed His works in six days as not merely a history of the past, but a prophecy of the future, intimating that the world was to last 6000 years, the day of the Lord being as 1000 years. The maxim is quoted in Jus- tin's form, but the ex]3osition had already been given by Barnabas {c. 15) ; and on comparing the passages it seems to me probable that it was to Barnabas Irenaeus was indebted for it. But though this maxim decides nothing as to Irenaeus's knowledge of 2 Peter, it would be still more to the point if it showed that two earlier writers were acquainted with the Epistle. There is nothing to show whence Justin XXV.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 519 derived what he calls to elpt^juivov ;* but Barnabas enunciates the principle, ' a day with him is a thousand years ', not as a quotation, but as a maxim of his own. And in proof of it he adduces avrbg 81 /uol fxapTvpu Xiycov' 'iSov (j{\ixipo\> i]i.iipa iarai loq X. £. This is clearly meant for a quotation of Ps. xc. 4 ; so that I fail to find evidence here of the antiquity of 2 Peter. f The warnings drawn in succession from the history of Noah, and from that of Lot in Iren. iv. xxxvi. 3, have been thought to be an echo of 2 Peter ii. 5-8 ; but it seems to me that Irenaeus does no more than comment on Luke xvii. 26-31. I am much more struck by the coincidence that in speaking of the death of Peter (iii. i), Irenaeus uses the word l^o'^oi; employed by Peter himself (2 Peter i. 15). Some carry the argument further, and contend that the author of 2 Peter is proved to be the Apostle, because, when speaking of the Transfiguration, he uses the word ' tabernacle ' in immediate connexion with f^oSoc, which is found in the same context (Luke ix. 31, 33). In this latter part of the argument I see no force, for it might as well be adduced to prove that the author of 2 Peter derived his knowledge of the Transfiguration from having read the Gospel of St. Luke. It is not certain whether in the passage of Irenaeus we are to render t'^oSoc ' decease ' or ' departure ' [from Rome] ; but undoubtedly the word t^o^og came very early into the Christian vocabulary, expressing as it does the doctrine that death is no more than removal to another scene. We have, for instance, to. paprvpia Ti]q i^o^ov cwtCjv in the his- tory of the martyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons (Euseb. v. i) ; and further on ayaXAttOyUU'r/ £7ri r^ t^oSw, and lir LCKppaj i ; while Peter describes the ' prophetic word ' as Xvxvog cpaiviov iv av-xjxr]p<^) Toirtij) ; and these words in Peter may have been suggested by 2 Esdras xii. 42, ' sicut lucerna in loco obscuro', unless the obligation is the other way. This passage by itself would yield but doubtful evidence ; but I am led to believe that it indicates a use of Peter by Theophilus, because close at hand there is another coincidence, 01 Se tov Qeov avdpunrot Trvevjua- TO(j)6pot TTitv/xaTog ayiov Koi Trpo(priTai yevoptvoi [ad A.utol. ii. 9); VT70 irviv fiar oc; liyiov (ptpontvoi tXaXrjo-av cnro Qeov avOpwirot (2 Peter i. 21). There is also a parallel to this last verse in Hip- polytus [De Antechristo 2), but the resemblance is not close enough to be decisive. Before the end of the second century the doctrine of the future destruction of the world by fire had become * The words are much nearer to Peter than either to John viii. 34, or Rom. vi. 16. t Dr. Quarry has pointed out to me that in the Clementine Homihes (xxi. 20) Tovvavriov /xaKpodvue'i, eh /xerdvoiav Ka\t7 taken in connexion with the whole context, there is very probably a us.e of 2 Peter iii. 9. XXV.] EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 521 an established and notorious point of Christian belief. The heathen disputant in Minucius Felix {c. 10) says of the Christians : ' toto orbi et ipsi mundo cum sideribus suis minantur incendium '. Tatian {Or. ad. Gr. 25), de- riving his doctrine from Justin [Apol. ii. 7), contrasts his Christian belief with that of the Stoics ; he holding, in op- position to them, that the world was to be dissolved, and that the iKTTvpwaiQ was to take place — not Kara Kaigovq, but daaira^. It is interesting to inquire whence, except from 2 Peter iii. 10-12, the Christians learned the doctrine. It is, indeed, found in the Sibylline Oracles (iii. 83-87; see also ii. ig6, vii. 118); but it was not a general article of Jewish belief; for Philo, in his treatise ' De Incorruptibilitate Mufidt', argues strongly against the notion, not as a Jewish but as a Stoic one, that one element could swallow up the other three. Many parts of the Canonical Scriptures speak of fire as the future punishment of the wicked ; but I do not remem- ber any other place where it is said that the whole world itself shall be burned up. Now Dr. Gwynn has pointed out to me what I believe to be a real coincidence wuth 2 Peter in 2 Cle- ment 16 : tp^trat rjSrj 17 i)uipa Trig Kpiaawg cog KXij^avog Kaiofiivog, Kca TaKi)(TOVTai riveg tCjv ovpavu)v, koi Traaa 1) 7JJ ojg /loXifSog etti TTvpl TT^KOfxevog, Koi TOTS (pavyjatrai ra Kpixpia Koi (pavepa kpya twv avOpwTTwv. The Old Testament passages here employed (Mai. iv. I, Is. xxxiv. 4) would not suggest a burning up of the world to one not familiar with the doctrine before. But it is the last clause which seems to establish a use of 2 Peter. There, after phrases nearly identical with irvpl tjjko/xevoc, we have, according to the best attested reading, 77) koi ev avry ipya evpsBiicTtTai. The last word has puzzled interpreters and transcribers ; but it seems to me probable that 2 Clement so read 2 Peter, and that he explains the clause by tots (pavriasTai ra tpya riov avOpiLirujv. There are phrases both in Clement of Rome and in Hermas which recall 2 Peter (for instance, /x£7aAo7rp£7rr)c S6E,a, 2 Pet. i. 17, Clem, ix.j ; but in neither case can we be sure that the coincidence is m^ore than accidental. On a review of the 522 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. Ixxv. whole external evidence we find clear proof that 2 Peter was in use early in the third century. With regard to second century testimony, the maintainers and the opponents of the genuineness of the Epistle make it a drawn battle. There is no case of quotation so certain as to constrain the acknow- ledgment of an opponent ; but there are probable instances of the use of the Epistle in sufficient number to invalidate any argument against the Epistle drawn from the silence of early writers. But on comparing the evidence for the first and second Epistles we have to own, however we are to account for it, that for a considerable time the latter had a much narrower circulation than the former, and was much slower in obtaining general recognition. Grotius suggested as an explanation of this difference that our Epistle was written, not by Peter the Apostle, but by Symeon who succeeded James as bishop of Jerusalem. It is to be remarked that, whereas the first Epistle begins ' Peter', the second begins 'Symeon [or Simon] Peter'. This has been made an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle ; but the opposite inference is more natural. For the writer of the second Epistle knew of the first (iii. i) ; and if he were a forger it is surprising that he should not conform to the model he had in his hands ; and when professing to write to the same people, should neither copy the address of the former Epistle, nor even write the Apostle's name the same way. This point deserves to be borne in mind when coincidences between the two Epistles are explained as arising from designed imitation on the part of the writer of the second. For if this writer were a forger, he was certainly a very careless one, who took little pains to give probability to his work by imitation of the genuine work in his posses- sion. But, to return to the conjecture of Grotius. This cannot be upheld, unless we combine it with arbitrary and unwarrantable changes in the text of the document we are considering. For nothing can be plainer than that the docu- ment, as it stands, professes to come from Peter the Apostle. Not merely does the author call himself Peter in his saluta- XXV.] THE AUTHOR CLAIMS TO BE PETER. 523 tion : he professes to have been a witness to the Transfigura- tion (i. 18); he claims to be the author of the first Epistle (iii. i) ; he sets himself on a level with Paul (iii. 15) ; and he refers (i. 14) to his death as foretold by our Lord, this being probably an allusion to His words recorded John xxi. 18. It has been made an objection to the genuineness of the Epistle, that the writer should betray such anxiety to identify himself with the Apostle. On the other hand, it has been re- plied with perfect truth, that this Epistle puts nothing into the mouth of Peter which the Apostle might not naturally have said in a real letter. I am disposed to attribute this much weight to the objection that, though it yields no argu- ment against the genuineness, it deprives us of an argument for it. In the case of most New Testament books, when we test by internal evidence the traditional account of their authorship, we find reason to conclude that the documents are both like what might have been written by the reputed authors, and very unlike the work of a forger. In the present case we must own that a forger, no doubt, would be likely to take pains to make the Petrine authorship plain ; but it would be absurd to deny that Peter himself might also leave on his work plain traces of his authorship. As for the reference to Paul : since we have seen that Peter in his first Epistle makes silent use of Pauline letters, there is nothing strange in his mentioning them by name in the second. It will seem to many that at the point at which we have now arrived our inquiry may well close. For if we proceed we are brought to a very painful alternative. In the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we can treat its authorship as an open question, notwithstanding that it has so long passed in the Church as Paul's, and that the Liturgy of our own Church recognizes the claim. For that Epistle itself does not profess to be Paul's, so that we can believe those to be mistaken who took the work for his, and yet impute no dishonesty to the author. But here we have only the choice to regard the Epistle as the work of Peter, or else as the production of a forger, who hoped to gain credit for his work by dishonestly 524 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. affixing to it the Apostle's name. Some who impugn the Petrine authorship desire to let us down gently, and deprecate the employment of the word 'forger', overtaxing the resources of the English language to find some name, ' pseudepigra- pher', or *falsarius', which shall soundless harshly. But I must call a spade a spade. Macaulay is not to be called a forger, though he gives the title ' The prophecy of Capys ' to a prediction which Capys never delivered. But where there is intention to deceive, forgery is the proper word. I do not deny that a fault may be less deserving of censure if commit- ted by one of lower moral culture. The man who thinks a pious fraud permissible may deserve to be beaten with fewer stripes than he who acts against his conscience in committing it. Whoever the author of this Epistle was, he was clearly a pious and orthodox mian ; and if he was a forger, we can dis- cern no motive for the forgery but that of supporting the disciples under the trial to their faith caused by the delay of their Master's promised coming. In the case supposed, there- fore, we can judge with all leniency of the author ; but I am sure he would have been much ashamed if he had been found out at the time, and would have fared no better than the presbyter who was deposed for forging the Acts of Paul and Thecla (see p. 349). The use of gentle language, then, will do little to mitigate the pain we must feel, if what we have been accustomed to regard as the utterances of an inspired Apostle should turn out to be the work of one for whom our mer- ciful consideration must be implored, on account of his imperfect knowledge of the Christian duty of absolute truth- fulness. To many the question will seem to be settled by a reductio ad ahsurdum, when it has been pointed out that the rejection of the Petrine authorship obliges us to believe that the Church has been for centuries deceived by a false pretence to inspira- tion. But as I have undertaken to make a historical investi- gation, in the same manner as if we were making a critical inquiry into the authorship of any classical writings, my plan precludes me from assuming that the Church could make no mistake in such a matter. And indeed it would evidently XXV.] ITS RELATION TO JUDE'S EPISTLE. 525 require longer discussions than can be here entered into before we could establish the principle proposed to be assumed or ascertain its necessary limitations. Anyone who uses the Revised New Testament must reject a good deal of what has been long accepted as inspired. To many pious men of old it seemed a shocking thing when the divine inspiration was denied of the Greek Old Testament, which the Apostles had committed to the Church. We do not receive the decisions on the Canon made at Carthage or at Trent, not believing that the opinions as to the authority of Greek and Hebrew books, expressed by men who had little or no knowledge of the languages in which they were written, can become binding on us by the fact that they have been accepted by men equally unlearned. And our acceptance or rejection of the Apocalypse does not depend on our ascertaining whether or not the book was included in the Canon of Laodicea. If it seem to us that God must have miraculously interfered in the fifth century, had it been then necessary, in order to prevent an uninspired book from being accepted as inspired, there seems an equal neces- sity for miraculous interference in the two previous centuries to prevent an inspired book from being rejected as spurious, by men whose souls were as dear to God as those of their posterity. I confess my inability to find out by the * high priori road ' in what way God must deal with his Church ; and I have faith to believe that the course by which He has actually guided her will prove to be right, even though it do not agree with our pre-c-onceptions. . Proceeding, then, with the inquiry, we have to notice the use made of Jude's Epistle. The coincidences between the second chapter of 2 Peter and the Epistle of Jude are so numerous, that it is beyond dispute that the one writer used the work of the other. I have carefully read the very able argument by which Professor Lumby, in the Speaker's Com- mentary, maintains the priority of Peter's Epistle. But I am unconvinced by it, and adhere to the opinion of the great majority of critics, that the priority rests with Jude. To take but one example : instead of regarding the verse in which Jude speaks about the body of Moses to be, as Professor 526 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. Lumby holds, an expansion of the corresponding verse in Peter, I think the latter verse is scarcely intelligible if we had not in Jude the explanation what was referred to. But is there anything inadmissible in the supposition that one Apostle should use the book of another } I have already observed that Peter in his first Epistle certainly uses the Epistle to the Romans, a work which we need not doubt was in his readers' hands. Why should he not here make still larger employment of Jude's Epistle, a work which (as we may infer from the copiousness of his use) he judged to be not likely to be known to his readers. In early times there was far less scruple about unacknowledged borrowing than at the ]5resent day. At the present day, indeed, in addresses not intended to go beyond the immediate audience, a speaker has not much scruple in using words not his own if they best ex- press his ideas, and if they are not likely to be familiar to his hearers. Before the invention of printing, each writer must have felt himself to be addressing a circle nearly as limited as that addressed by a preacher of the present day, and could not count that things he had read himself would be likely to be known to his readers also. And since an Apostle's letters were not prompted by vanity of authorship, but by anxiety to impress certain lessons on his readers, I do not see why he should have thought himself bound to abstain from using the words of another, if they seemed to him most likely to make the impression he desired.* But what strikes me as really remarkable is the great freedom with which Peter uses the work of his predecessor. In some places we might imagine that the two writers were translating independently from the same Aramaic, if the coincidences in the Greek of other places did not exclude that supposition. The variations are at times so considerable as to make us doubt whether Peter could have had Jude's Epistle before him when he was writing. And the idea even occurs whether it may not possibly be that Peter was writing from recollection, not of what he had read, but of what he had heard. I may mention one difference between * The identity of certain portions of the prophecies of Isaiah and of Micah is a fact of the same kind. XXV.] COMPARED WITH THE FIRST EPISTLE. ^527 the parallel passages in Jude and in 2 Peter, that whereas in the latter the censures are plainly directed against false teachers, this is not clearly so in Jude, where, for all that appears, the objects of censure may be only men of corrupt heart who somehow had found their way into the Church, but wliose immoral lives showed that they ought never to have been admitted (see p. 507). I come now to the objection noticed by Jerome, founded on the difference of style between the two Petrine Epistles. And it must be admitted that such a difference exists. It does not count for much that the second Epistle contains many unusual words, for it has not more than its fair propor- tion of aira^ \iy6/.i£va. Lumsden* counts 1686 in the whole N. T., or about one word in three ; for he computes the whole vocabulary as limited to 4956 words. Of these tnra^ Aeyojusva, there are fifty-eight in i Peter, and forty-eight in 2 Peter, numbers which fairly correspond to the lengths of the two Epistles. But the following points of dissimilarity have been noted : {a) the second Epistle differs from the first in fondness for repetitions of words and phrases: thus, Sojpioiuai, i. 3. 4; oTTtoXaa, ii. I (bis), 3, iii. 7, 16; ^iKaiog, i. 13, ii. 7, 8 (bis); iO> ^5> iii- 145 iuktOoq adiKiag, ii. 13, 15. [d] The particles connecting the sentences are different, par- ticles such as 'Iva, on, ovv, fxev, which are common in the first being rare in the second, in which we find instead sentences introduced with tovto, or ravra : see i. 8, 10; iii. 11, 14. [c] A use of wQ, which is common in the first Epistle (i. 14, 19, ii. 2, &c.), is rare in the second; where, on the other hand, we have a common formation of a subordinate clause with the preposition Iv and a substantive {e.g. rjjc ev tTriOvn'ia ^dopag, i. 4) of which there is but one doubtful instance (i. 14) in the first Epistle, {d] The first Epistle makes much more use of the Old Testament language. In Westcott and Hort's table (ii. 180) are enumerated thirty-one O. T. quotations in i Pet., but only five in 2 Pet., and these disputable. (^) Swrijp is frequently used in 2 Pet. as a title of our Lord, irapovala, of * ConiJemUum GrcECuin X. T. (Prefiice). 528 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. his second coming, the word tTriyvojaiQ is common, &c., none of which words occur in i Peter. But in these instances the usage of 2 Pet. well agrees with that of the Pauline Epistles, and we have seen that the use of Pauline diction is a charac- teristic of the first Epistle. With respect to the paucity of Old Testament quotations, it may be observed that there are no such quotations in St. John's first Epistle, though it is admittedly by the same hand as the Gospel, which quotes the Old Testament largely. On the other hand, Professor Lumby brings out with great ability, in an argument which will not bear abridgment, the features of resemblance between the two Epistles {Speaker's Commentary, p. 228) ; see also Davidson ii, 462, from whose list of coincidences I take the following : aotrx], of God. (i Pet. ii. 9 ; 2 Pet. i. 3) ; cnroOeaiQ (i Pet. iii. 21 ; 2 Pet. i. 14) ; aairiXog Koi afxwfiOQ (i Pet. i. 19 ; 2 Pet. iii. 14 : see also 2 Pet. ii. 13) ; liroTTTcViiv, Ittotttx]q (i Pet. ii. 12, iii. 2 ; 2 Pet. i. 16); irsTravTai afxapTiag (i Pet. iv. \ \ cf. 2 Pet. ii. 14). None of the above words or combinations occur elsewhere in N. T.* When it is proposed to account for these resemblances by the fact that the author of the second Epistle was confessedly acquainted with the first, we must bear in mind what has been already said as to his little solicitude about designed imitation. It is to be remarked also that these resemblances are not con- spicuous, or associated with repetitions in 2 Peter of the ideas of I Peter, as they would be if produced by design. And if it is urged that the resemblances are few, there remains St. Jerome's way of accounting for the absence of greater simila- rity of style between the two letters, viz. that Peter might have employed a different secretary on each occasion. In this connexion I mention some of the coincidences noted by Professor Lumby (p. 226) between 2 Pet. and Peter's speeches in the Acts : Aa7xn>'w, for ' to obtain ' (Acts i. 17 ; 2 Pet. i. i) ; tvaijiEia, in a peculiar sense (Acts iii. 12 ; 2 Pet. i. * In addition to the above, the salutation x^P's ii/juuKal elp7]vr) TcXridvvQe'n] is com- mon to the two Petiine Epistles. Jude alone has ■K\t]QvvQil7) in the salutation; and, if we were forced to choose between the explanations, that the author of i Peter used Jude, or that Jude used 2 Peter, the latter explanation seems the more probable. XXV.] ITS ALLEGED FAULTS OF STYLE. 529 7) ; ev(Tt(5iiQ (Acts X. 27 ; 2 Pet. ii. g) ; avofxa, of things (Acts ii. 2^ ; 2 Pet, ii. 8) ; ^Qt'yyo^at, ' to speak' (Acts iv. 18 ; 2 Pet. ii. 16, 18); r]ij.tpa KVfHov (Acts ii. 20; 2 Pet. iii, 10); niadog rfjc aliKiuQ (Acts i. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 13, 15); lirayuv (Acts v. 28; 2 Pet. ii. I, 5); KoXal^toQaL (Acts iv. 21 ; 2 Pet. ii. g). None of the above occurs elsewhere in N. T. I add as an indication of early date another coincidence with the Acts — the frequent metaphorical use of ?j oSoc (Acts xviii. 25, xix. g, &c. ; 2 Pet. ii. 2, 15, 21). Dr. Edwin Abbott has founded [Expositor, 1882, III. 204), on the style of 2 Pet., a new argument against its Petrine origin. He contends that the style is not only unlike that of the first Epistle, but also in itself so ignoble as to be un- worthy of an Apostle. Dr. Abbott prints from an Indian newspaper some choice specimens of * Baboo ' English ; and indeed it may be thought that the pleasure of giving greater publicity to these had some share in the production of Dr. Abbott's Paper. A few lines are enough to exhibit the character of the English of the passages cited : ' The not un- common hand of death has distilled with febrile wings from amongst a debris of bereaved relatives, friends, and submis- sive subjects, into the interminable azure of the past, an un- exceptionably finished politician and philanthropist of the highest specific gravity,' &c. Dr. Abbott's idea is that 2 Peter is written in ' Baboo ' Greek, the author aiming at the use of very fine words, but making himself ridiculous in the attempt by a constant violation of the usages of the language. And to make his meaning plain. Dr. Abbott translates portions of the Epistle into such English as in his opinion fairly represents the style of the Greek. Again a few speci- mens must suffice: * Setting baits to catch souls unconfirmed, having a heart practised of greediness, and children of curse, having left the straight way, they went astray, having followed after the way of Balaam, the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of iniquity, but had the refutation of his own law- breaking ; a dumb beast of burden with the voice of a man uttering a sound, hindered the maddishness of the prophet ' (ii. 14-15) : 'The dog having returned to his own evacuation, 2 M 530 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. and the sow having bathed to her wallowance' (ii. 22) : ' The day of the Lord shall come as a thief, wherein the heavens with a whirr shall pass away, and elements with fever heat shall be dissolved, and earth and things wrought thereon shall be burned up ' (iii. 10). If Dr. Abbott intended to render 2 Peter into Baboo English, what he has actually done is quite a different thing. His real model is, what he must be well acquainted with, the translation of a dull but diligent lower-school boy, who plods doggedly on, setting down for each word the first meaning he finds in his dictionary, regardless whether he makes sense or nonsense of the passage. Mr. Raven, in his Diversions of a Pedagogue (Macmillan's Magazine, Dec. 1875), has given many amusing specimens of what he calls the ' stupid good ' style of translation. Dr. Abbott's aTox\iia Kavaovfteva, 'elements in fever heat', may very well pair off with Mr. Raven's (7a\TriyK,(v avXovvTi^, 'playing the flute on trumpets'. It is quite true that outside the N. T. the word Kav(Tovf.ieva is now only known as used by medical writers. But it is manifest that fever is not the primar}^ signification of the word, which is akin to the Kav(T(A)v used of the sun's heat (Matt. xx. 12), and of a scorch- ing wind (Luke xii. 55). It is ridiculous to fancy that when a medical wTiter uses a word in a metaphorical sense, he thence- forward acquires an exclusive property in it, and can oust the original meaning. It might as well be contended that no one can legitimately use the word 'inflame', except in a medical sense. So again, in Kardpag rUva, ' children of curse', we re- cognize the schoolboy's hand. There is no classical author who could not be made ridiculous by a similar style of literal translation. And, certainly, there are other N. T. writers who are as open to Dr. Abbott's ridicule as 2 Peter. When he translates ^tXealovrag, ' setting baits to catch ', he apparently forgets that SfAta^w is used in the same way by St. James (i. 14), who of all the N. T. writers least deserves to be accused of Babooism, and whose letter we have already seen was known to Peter. So likewise, Dr. Abbott's censure of the way in which (pOtyyo/mi is used (ii. 16, 18) equally affects St. Luke {see Acts iv. 18) ; and I find the word employed in the XXV.] ITS ALLEGED FAULTS OF STYLE. 531 same way in a passage which I have just had occasion to refer to for another purpose (Ps.-Clem. Horn. xvi. 20). Besides, Peter might use the word of an ass speaking, with as much propriety as Herodotus of doves speaking (ii. 15). However, it is no business of mine to defend the propriety of Peter's Greek. What I am concerned with is the allega- tion that the Epistle displays such ' ignobility of thought ' as to be unworthy an Apostle ; and this is sufficiently refuted by the fact that, in order to make the Epistle contemptible, Dr. Abbott finds it necessary to make a new version of it. We thus see that its faults, if faults there are, lie in the language, not in the thoughts. Done into such English as that of the Authorized Version, we all feel its grandeur and power. But no translation could confer these qualities on it if it were the poor stuff Dr. Abbott thinks it. But with regard to the epithet 'Baboo', I must remark that the choice of an Indian example gives to the assailants of our Epistle a rhetorical advantage to which, in my opinion, they are not fairly entitled. Everyone writing a language that is not his own is liable to make mistakes. When he has attained so much proficiency as to be able to avoid offences against grammar, a foreigner will still betray himself by a wrong vocabulary, from time to time using words in a way that a native would not employ them. If we were shown a piece of queer English written by a German we might smile, but we should feel no contempt. But I fear there is some little national pride which is offended when one of a conquered race puts himself on a level with his masters, and aims at a superior style of English composition. So that we are not altogether displeased when his vaulting ambition overleaps itself, and he topples over from the sublime into the ridiculous. But we are not justified in transferring to the present case any of the scornful feelings which ' Baboo ' English excites in us ; and we must simply regard Dr. Abbott's specimens as illustrating that strange mistakes will be made by men who, as a literary tour de force, attempt to write in a language which they have only learned from books, and in which they have had no con- versational intercourse with natives. 2 M 2 532 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. And this suggests that, if Dr. Abbott has rightly charac- terized the Greek of 2 Peter, the inference ought to be precisely the opposite of that which he draws. In the Apostolic times there were Jews scattered all over the world, and known to their brethren in Palestine as Hellenists, from the fact that Greek was the language in which they thought and conversed. These people had little or no Aramaic ; and when they used the sacred books of their nation, they did so through the medium of a Greek translation. No doubt, the Greek they spoke was not of what grammarians would count the purest type ; but still to them it was not a foreign language, but the language of their daily life. If, then, it be really the case that the Greek of 2 Peter is not merely disfigured by what may be called provincialisms, but is utterly unlike the composition of one accustomed to think and speak the language, it follows this can be the work of no Hellenist. It must have been written by one imperfectly habituated to the literary use of Greek ; who also shows the poverty of his vocabulary by his constant repetitions of words, being anxious to get as much service as he can out of the few phrases he has got hold of.* If we are thus led to regard the writer as a Palestinian Aramaic-speaking Jew, it is natural to think he must be Peter himself, who may have employed the services of a secretary in writing the first Epistle, but dispensed with any assistance in writing the second. I think, then, that our decision as to the character of the Greek of 2 Peter need not be affected by the opinion we may form as to its genuineness. Those who believe it not to be Peter's may still inquire whether the forger were one to whom Greek was quite a foreign language, or one who habitually spoke Greek, though not of the purest kind. Those who accept it as Peter's have no cause for offence if evidence should be offered them showing that the Apostle's knowledge * It may be doubted, however, whether this repetition of words is more than a .trick of style ; for it must be noticed that if the author copies Jude, he constantly re- fuses to avail himself of Jude's vocabulary, but substitutes words of his own. In- stances of what Dr. Abbott calls 'inane ' repetition in 2 Pet. may be found even in St. Paul, e.g. Eph. vi. ii, 13. XXV.] ITS ALLEGED FAULTS OF STYLE. 533 of Greek was limited, and that he expressed himself ill when he had not the help of a Hellenistic interpreter. But the question we are called on to decide is by no means an easy- one. It is comparatively simple to determine whether gram- matical rules are violated in the Apocalypse; but here the question is not merely concerning transgressions of more subtle proprieties of language, but also as to the amount of such transgressions. One may readily acknowledge that 2 Peter offends at times against the proprieties of Greek speech,* without being convinced that his style is fairly represented in the English of Dr. Abbott's translations. Now, in respect of Greek, we are all more or less Baboos — I suspect there are few of our prize copies of Greek prose or verse to which a Greek of the age of Pericles would apply a more gentle epithet — so that if 2 Peter be written in Baboo Greek, it is odd that it should have been left for a Baboo to find it out. Of the Greek fathers — whether of those who accepted the Epistle like Athanasius, or those who rejected it like Eusebius — none seems to have made the remark that its Greek is abso- lutely grotesque and ridiculous. I should not use an epithet which may seem to disparage Dr. Abbott's judgment if the question concerned the Greek with which he is presumably most familiar — that of the period four or five centuries before Christ. But in the course of centuries languages are liable to suffer change ; and judgments founded on a thorough knowledge of one period may be quite inappli- cable to another. A critic whose knowledge of English had been derived from a study of Addison and Swift might, if he met a page of Carlyle's, or a poem of Browning's, confidently pronounce it to be the work of a foreigner. And the same style of criticism which Dr. Abbott applies to the Greek of 2 Peter would equally prove that Tertullian had no vernacular knowledge of Latin, and used a vocabulary consisting partly of words of his own invention, partly of phrases pedantically introduced from little-read authors. * As, for example : 0\4fj.fj.aTi koX aKofj (ii. 8), irapacppovia (ii. i6), if that be the iiL;lit reading, and not Trapa(ppjavvr], found in six manuscripts. A scribe may have been misled by the adjacent irapauofj-ia. 534 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. It is plain that the Greek of z Peter* can only be fairly- judged of by comparison with that in use in his own period, and among his own countrymen ; and of this later Greek Dr. Abbott apparently does not claim to possess any special know- ledge. At least I perceive that he generally contents himself with referring to a dictionary, and if he find there no authority for forms used by 2 Peter, passes sentence of condemnation^ But here the double doubt occurs, whether the dictionary completely represents the extant remains of later Greek ; and whether these remains present us with the whole vocabulary of the time when they were written. Dr. Abbott seems con- scious himself that it is possible that the authorities whom he consults may not give him adequate information as to the Greek of the period in question ; but he declares that, even if authorities can be found in little-read authors for some of the words he had imagined to have been used by 2 Peter without any authority at all, it will still have been gross pedantry to introduce so many out-of-the-way words into so short a letter ; and that the writer betrays himself, * not as one of the Apostles of Christ who had received from their Master the precept, " Be not anxious beforehand what ye shall speak", but as a collector and stitcher together of antiquarian word-scraps ' (p. 211). I have already had occasion to remark (see p. 79) that Dr. Abbott is ^singularly wanting in the faculty of historical imagination, and seems unable to judge the men of former days by any other standard than that of his own age. This defect shows itself to a surprising degree in his whole criti- cism of the Greek of our Epistle. Thus, a scholar of the present day might, perhaps, lay himself open to the charge of ' pedantry ' if he took pains to show that he was not only familiar with the great writers whose works are the ordinary subjects of study, but also was well read in the less known authors who wrote since the birth of Christ. But, if Peter * I find it convenient to use this abbreviation when I desire to speak of the writer of the second Epistle, without making any assumption as to whether or not he was identical with the writer of the first ; and whether he was St. Peter himself, or a secretary, or some person Avho unlawfully used the Apostle's name. XXV.] ITS ALLEGED FAULTS OF STYLE. 535 used the vocabulary of his own time instead of employing that of the great writers who had lived four or five centuries before, antiquarian research is the last fault that can be imputed to him. Dr. Abbott's whole tone is amusingly like that of one correcting a schoolboy's exercises ; and he constantly assumes that his author could have got up his Greek in no other way than that by which his own pupils acquire the language, namely, the use of lexicons and the study of ancient authors. Thus (p. 211), he censures 2 Peter for using a word not recog- nized by Liddell and Scott ; though surely this writer's want of acquaintance with that excellent book may be excused as his misfortune, not his fault.* Again, when authorities are produced for words imagined to have been coined by 2 Peter, he seems to think it intended that Peter got the words by consulting these authorities. Thus, when Dr. Abbott sup- poses it to be urged that one of the words objected to is found in DioscorideSjt he replies (p. 212) that Dioscorides flourished about A. D. 60, and that his works would probably not have been well known for some years after that date. Another of the words censured is found in Theodotion ; on which Dr. Abbott points out (p. 211) that Theodotion was too late to have been read by St. Peter, but that the author of our Epistle may have been late enough to make use of him. J I must therefore explain, though I should really have thought the explanation unnecessary, that, if we offer a citation to justify Peter's use of a word, we do not mean that the author cited was the source whence Peter got the word, but only intend to offer proof that the word belonged to the current Greek of later times, and therefore that it is not one on which a charge of 'Babooism ' can be founded. It must be borne in mind that we are only concerned with the character of the Greek of the Epistle as far as it affects * Perhaps the lexicon used by Peter was Rost and Palm, or the Paris Thesaurus, both of which give the word in question. t Wahl, however, refers to Dioscorides, not for the word in question, but for the cognate verb. X Dr. Abbott evidently did not refer to the passage in Theodotion, or he would have seen that the word kuAkt/xos is used in so different a sense that borrowing cannot be imagined. 536 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. the question of authorship ; and that we are not entitled to infer that St. Peter did not write the Epistle, even though we find in it what a teacher might properly censure as faults, if he were correcting it as a piece of Greek composition. Dr. Abbott forgets this when he remarks : * The word 'i^io^, private, ought not to be used where there is no antithesis between what is one's own and another's ; but the author is so fond of the abuse of this word that, even in quoting Prov. xxvi. II, he substitutes "i^iov for the LXX. kavTov.' But this very use or misuse of t'Stoc furnishes one of the arguments by which Alford tries to prove the common authorship of the two Petrine Epistles,* the word being used in the same way i Pet. iii. I, 5; though, really, this is no Petrine peculiarity [see Matt. xxii. 5, xxv. 14 ; John i. 42 ; Eph, v. 22 ; Tit. ii. g). And I may add that St. Chrysostom, in a passage already cited, also quotes Prov. xxvi. 1 1 with ''[Ziov instead of laurov, although I believe him to be quoting Proverbs directly, and not using 2 Peter. Another of Dr. Abbott's censures is founded on the im- proper use of Aowo-a^fin/ (2 Pet. ii. 22). He maybe quite right to teach his pupils to use Xoveadai of the bathing of men, and not of the washing of animals; but if he supposes that Greek writers invariably conform to this rule he is mistaken. I need not mention Homer's use of the word with respect to a horse (//. vi. 508), because Wetstein furnishes two illustra- tions exactly in point, one from Aristotle, the other from ^lian, the washing of swine being spoken of in both places. The latter passage is, Tra-)(yvtaQai St tov avv clkovoj /ht} Xovofxtvov fxaXiaTa, a\X iv tw j3opj36pi^ ^tarpi/3ovra re Koi (JTpetpOfXiVOv [Hist. Var. 43). Regarding, as I have said, the discussion of the Greek of the Epistle to be in a great measure irrelevant to our inquiry, I make no use of several illustrations with which my friend Dr. Gwynn has furnished me, of the use in later Greek of words objected to in 2 Peter by Dr. Abbott. I merely remark that * Alford, in the same place, mentions omission of the article as a feature common to the two Epistles. XXV.] ITS ALLEGED FAULTS OF STYLE. 537 no authority is necessary to justify the use of a word formed according to Greek analogy. Thus, whether anyone else has used the word Taprapoio or not, the employment of such a verb does not prove a man to be a foreigner, if he is acquainted with the noun raprapog. If Dr. Abbott is right in translating TapTapuxrag, 'helling', the next time he meets davartocrag he ought to translate it ' deathing '. So again, E^tpa^ia is a noun formed with perfect regularity from a sufficiently authenti- cated verb, l^epau). Dr. Abbott's translation ' evacuation ' is certainly not fair. It is true that ' evacuate ' and iE,ipa(o are both general words, meaning no more than ' to empty ' ; but usage limits the English word to evacuation by purge, and the Greek one to evacuation by vomit. Hippocrates, de- scribing a disease, mentions as two of the symptoms that the patient t^tpa, and that his bowels are confined [De Morh. iv. 507). There was then no reason why 2 Peter should not render the ^p of Prov. xxvi. 11, by £^f|0«^a, as Aquila does the corresponding verb by l^ipdi,) in Lev. xviii. 28. It is an interesting question, however, why 2 Peter de- viates from the LXX. translation 'kiarov ; and I will not venture to say which of the three following answers is the right one: — (i) St. Peter did not use a Greek Bible at all, but a Hebrew one, of which he made his own translation; (2) he cited the LXX. from memory, and inadvertently ^substituted an equivalent word ; (3) he was not directly quoting the book of Proverbs, but a Greek popular saying possibly derived from it. Many have thought that they recog- nized in iff KvXiapa (or KvXiapov) ftopfiopov, the end of a pair of iambic lines ; and some have attempted to restore them. It might merely have happened that the versifier found that t'iipai.ia fitted better than tfxtTov into his metre. I have noticed that in the verse of 2 Pet. under considera- tion there is a various reading, KvXicrpa being read by ^, A, K, L, and KuAtd/xoi/ by B and C. This is one of several instances where, there being good MS. authority on both sides. Dr. Abbott invariably refuses to give our author the benefit of the doubt, and always attributes to him the reading least creditable to his knowledge of the language. There is 538 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. [xxv. no N. T. book in which I think we can be less confident about our readings than 2 Peter. On one difficult case (iii. 10) M. Van Sittart [Journal of Philology^ iii. 356; see also Westcott and Hort, ii. 279) founded an ingenious specu- lation that our earliest authorities for the text of this Epistle, which in early times had very limited circulation, may have been ultimately derived from a single copy, of which some letters had become illegible. However this may be, I am disposed to be a good deal more timid than Dr. Abbott in arguing as if we were quite certain of our text. In particular, it is hard to believe that the man who uses the Greek article so correctly in ch. i, should make the gross and unmeaning mistakes charged against him in ch. 2 and ch. 3.* But accepting the reading KvXiafxov^ I will not delay to inquire whether it is not the better word of the two ; but suppose it to be mistakenly used, and put the mistake at its worst, it is matched by St. Paul's use of a pn ay fxog for aptrayfxa (Phil. ii. 6); and if we are to translate the one word ' wallowance ', we ought to translate the other ' seizance '. I think I have said more than enough on the question concerning the style of this Epistle. Some things would lead me to look on the author as not a Hellenist, such as his limited employment of connecting particles, and his small use of the Greek Bible. On the other hand, he employs Greek words with the boldness of one born to the use of the language, preserving for us several words which but for him might have been lost to us. I must reject as absolutely opposed to his- toric probability Dr. Abbott's account of the matter, that we have here innovations 'very natural for one who has acquired a language in great measure by reading, and who is fond of airing the varied treasures of his vocabulary'. The author was not a Bengalee trying to write the language spoken in an island some thousands of miles distant. No one supposes that he wrote in Palestine. Whoever he was, he must have lived where all about him, including his most intimate friends. * I ought, perhaps, to have examined the question. Supposing the author not to be Peter, might not his native language have been Latin ? XXV.] ITS ALLEGED OBLIGATIONS TO JOSEPHUS. 539 were using Greek as the language of their daily life. It is ludicrous to imagine that he shut himself up with Greek books in his study, and there concocted a production in a style meant to be very fine, but really so barbarous as to be almost unintelligible.* It remains to examine a much more serious assault by Dr. Abbott on the Epistle. He undertook to prove [Expositor, Jan. '82) that the writer borrowed from the Antiquities of Josephus, a work only published A. D. 93 ; and, if so, it is clear that the borrower could not be St. Peter. I can honestly say that I am conscious of no prejudice such as would preclude me from giving a candid consideration to Dr. Abbott's proofs. I had no such stubborn belief in the Petrine authorship of the Epistle as would render me inca- pable of giving a fair hearing to opposing evidence. Though each of the objections brought against the Petrine authorship admitted of an answer, yet their combined effect produced a sensible impression on me; and one difficulty in particular I felt very much. If I am right in thinking that the first Epistle was written after the breaking out of the Neronian persecution, and if St. Peter died during the reign of the same * Among the valuable materials given me by my friend Dr. Gwynn for my use in this lecture is a list of rare words in the Epistle to the Philippians, of which he made a special study when writing on it for the Speaker'' s Commentary. It will be seen that anyone who chooses to assume, as Dr. Abbott does, that the resources of the Greek language are represented in our dictionaries with absolute completeness, would find it as easy to estabhsh a charge against St. Paul as against 2 Peter, of the pedantic use of out-of-the-way words. 'A/caipe?(r0ai, nowhere else {uKatpelu, once in Diod. Sic.) : ap-rrayfiSs, in no author B. c, and after Christ only in Plutarch, and in a different sense: i^auaffracris in other Greek comes from i^aviffr-qiJii (act.), and means the 'act of causing another to get up and go out' ; from i^aviaTaixoLi (neut.), except in St. Paul only in Hippocrates, where it means 'getting out of bed to go to stool'. We can imagine how this word would have appeared in Dr. Abbott's translation had he found it in 2 Peter. 'EiriirdflrjTos, in no writer B. c. ; afterwards only in Appian : Kararo/jiT}, not used in the sense of mutilation by any secular writer : Trapal3o\eveffdat, not elsewhere ; only preserved by ^ and B, and by Hesych. (also Lat. Vet. 'parabo- latus') — so strange a word that it was lost even to Greek fathers, and forgotten for centuries : (tkoitSs, 'goal', everywhere else 'targe*;' or 'scout' : crvfx/ii/jLriTiii, fiifiKioj rt^ Xloiixivi (De Pritic. IV. II). XXVI.] THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 573 cipline. Tertullian, in reply, says nothing to disparage the authority of the book, but only contends that such an inference from it is not warranted. That the book then existed in a Latin translation may be inferred from Tertullian's describing it by its Latin name, Pastor, contrary to his practice in speaking of books which he knew only in Greek. In a work written several years later, and after the rise of Montanism [De Pudic. 10), Tertullian contemptuously repudiates the authority of the ' Shepherd ', declaring that it was not counted worthy of being included in the Canon, but had been placed by every council of Churches, even of the Catholic party, among false and apocryphal writings.* But that the book still continued to enjoy some consideration appears from Tertullian's going on to speak (c. 20) of the Epistle to the Hebrews as more received in the Churches than ' that apocry- phal " Shepherd " of the adulterers '. It is worth while to copy what Eusebius says of the book (iii. 3) : * It is to be observed that this book has been disputed by some, on whose account it cannot be placed among the homologoumena ; but by others it has been judged most necessary for those who have especial need of elementary instruction. Hence, also, we know that it has been publicly read in Churches, and I ob- serve that some of the most ancient writers have employed it.'t With regard to what is here said about introductory in- struction, it is to be remarked that the feeling grew up that the books of Scripture were the property of the Church, and there- fore could not so fitly be used in teaching those who had not yet been admitted to it. And so Athanasius [Ep. Fest. 39) classes the ' Shepherd ', with the teaching of the Twelve Apostles and with some of the deutero-canonical books of the Old Tes- tament, as not canonical, but useful to be employed in cateche- * ' Si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur.' We can infer from the 'vestrarum ' that the councils which condemned the Shepherd were later than the time of separation of Tertullian from the Church. t 'itrTeoc ois koX tovto Trphs fiev Tivaiv avTi\4\eKTai, 5i ovs oiiK h.v eV 6/io\oyov/ji.evoLS Tedeiri, v(p' erfpcev 5e avayKaiSrarov oTs fidAicrra Sel (XTOiXeicicrecas ei(rayoii'ytK7Js KeKpirat, tideu -^Sr) Koi 4v iKKArjaiais ta/jnv avrh SeSrifiocrievfj.ei'ou, koI tuv iraAaioTaToi;/ 8e ffvyypa- c X"^^' •*"' ^'^ 6^0aXjUoi avTov o)q (j>Xo^ irvpog kqI 01 TToSec avTov ofxoioi ^aXicoAtjSavw. Dan, vii. 9 (LXX,), t^^wy TTEjOt/SoXr/v uxrei \i6va kuX to TQi^uifxa Tr\Q Kt(paXr\Q avTov tjad kpiov XevKOv KaOapov' (Theod.), to evSvfxa avTOv XtVKOv worci \iiji}V, kolX 17 dp\^ rriQ Ki(paXr\q avTOV wad epiov Kadapov. Dan. X. 6 (LXX.), 01 ofpOaXfxol avTov ojaa XafjnraSeQ irvphg . . . icai ot irooeg wati XoXkoq t^acFTpaTTTtjjv' (Theod,), 01 6^0aXjUOi avTov wan Xaixiradtg TTvpbg . . . KQt Ta crKiXr) tjjg opaaig '^^oXkov ariX^ovTOg. XXVI.] HERMAS AND THEODOTION. 599 (2) Rev. xix. 16, jSncrtXjuc (iacTiXihw Koi KvpioQ Kvpiutv. So LXX. (Dan. iv. 31), Gjoc tCov deCov koX Kvpiog Tlov kvo'kvv Kol (iamXtvQ TU)v ftamXiuw, to which there is nothing corresponding in Chaldee or Theodotion. The former example proves, if proof were necessary, that St. John was not dependent on Theodotion's version ; but does not prove that he used the LXX. I do not know that any stronger proof of that can be given than whatever the latter example may be thought to afford. Dr. Gwynn has also examined the use made of Daniel in other N. T. books, and still with the result that that use can- not be accounted for on the supposition that the N. T. writers used only the Septuagint version of Daniel. For example, the words KaracTKiivouv and Iv roXg (cXaSotc, which occur Matt. xiii. 32, are found in Theodotion's version of Dan. iv. 7 ; but not in the LXX., which instead of KaT6(TKfivouv has evoaatuov. Again, Clement of Rome (<;. 34) quotes Dan. viii. 10 : 'Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him, and thousand thousands ministered unto him ' ; and for * ministered ' he has Theodotion's word iXuTovpyovu, not the LXX. Wepamvov. Further, the Apocryphal Book of Baruch contains several verses taken from Dan. ix. ; Baruch i. 15-18, being nearly identical with Dan. ix. 7-10, and Baruch ii. 11-16, with Dan. ix. 15-18. Some critics bring down this book as late as the reign of Vespasian, but none bring it later. Now, on com- paring the passages, Baruch is found to be considerably nearer Theodotion than the LXX. Thus, taking the latter passage : — Bar, ii. 11. ot,- tZi'iyy^Q ro\> Xaov ovopa wc n Vf^^P"^ avTij. So Theod. But LXX., Kara Tr)v nptpav TavTrjv. Bar. ii. 14. HaaKovcrov Kvpie. So Theod. But LXX., eiruKOvaov SiairoTa. Bar. ii. 16. kXIvov to ovq (tov. So Theod. But LXX., Trp()(T\^ii-, instead of kATi'oi'. 6oo NON-CANONICAL BOOKS. [xxvi. The instances adduced not only clearly prove all I want to establish, namely, that coincidences with Theodotion's version do not prove that a document is not as early as the first century ; but they seem to point distinctly to the ex- istence in that century of a version of the Book of Daniel having closer affinities with Theodotion's than with the LXX. If the latter was the only translation known to St. John, he must have deliberately rejected it, and preferred to render for himself. And such a course would certainly be adopted by any Jew who was able to read the original, and who at all valued faithfulness of translation. Is it then intrinsically probable that for centuries every Jew competent to ascertain the fact kept to himself his knowledge of the unfaithfulness of the current version ; and that none had the charity to make a better version for the use of his Greek- speaking brethren ? On the other hand, is it very improbable that such a version, if made, should now only live for us in its successors, as Tyndale's translation lives for us in the Authorized English version ? However, as far as the date of Hermas is concerned, it is not necessary that we should arrive at any certain conclusion, as to whether or not there existed in the first Christian century any translation of the Book of Daniel but the Hexaplar Sep- tuagint. All I want is to establish that we really know very little on the subject of first-century Greek translations. If, then, it can be established on other grounds that the Book of Hermas belongs to the early part of the second century, no reason for rejecting that date is afforded by the fact that we find in the book a verse of Daniel quoted in a form for which the Hexaplar Septuagint will not account. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. — It would evidently be impossible for me to keep within reasonable limits if I were to attempt to speak of all the remains of early Christian antiquity which present interesting subjects for discussion. I have therefore taken as my guide the list of works whose claims to be included in the public use of the Church Eusebius thought it worth while to take into consideration XXVI.] TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 6oi when making his list of canonical books [H. E. iii. 25). Of the books there mentioned there remains but one which I have not yet noticed. In company with the Epistle of Barnabas, Eusebius names ' what are called the Teachings of the Apostles' [tCjv arroaToXiov al X^yofxevai di^a\ai). I have already (see p. 574) referred to the list of canonical books given some years later by Athanasius, in his 39th Festal Epistle ; and there you find, excluded from the books of Scripture, but joined with the Shepherd of Hermas, as useful for employment in catechetical instruction, ' what is called the Teaching of the Apostles ' (AtSa;^ij KaXovfuivt) tCjv ctTroaToXdJv) : you will observe that the singular number is used. The AtSa^J? oTToaroAwv is also included in the Stichoindry of Nicephorus (see p. 178). It is found there in an appendix giving a list of apocryphal books of the New Testament, viz., the Travels of Peter, of John, of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas: then follows the Didache, and then books to which the name * apocryphal ' can only be applied in the sense that they have no claim to possess the authority of Scripture, viz., the Epistles of Clement, of Ignatius, of Polycarp, and the Shepherd. In this list the length of the AtSax*'? is given as 200 cstixoi* by which we see that it was a short book, since in the same list the Apocalypse of St. John is said to contain 1400 ariyoi. Until very lately we could only form a vague judgment that the work known to Athanasius and Eusebius must have been the nucleus round which gathered the institutions which form the extant eight books oi Apostolic Co7istitutions. It is now agreed that this work, in its present form, is not earlier than the middle of the fourth century; and in recent times much has been done to trace the history of the growth of the collection. The subject is too wide a one for me to attempt to enter into it ; but it is necessary to mention an ancient tract, the founda- tion of Egyptian Ecclesiastical Law, first published in Greek from a Vienna MS. by Bickell {Geschichte des Kirchenrechts^ 1843), but extant also in Coptic, ^^thiopic, Syriac, and • Harnack calculates that the Didache published by Bryennius would make 300 ariyoi. 6o2 NON-CANONICAL BOOKS. [xxvi. Arabic. Bickell called it Apostolische Kirchenordnung ; and, in order to distinguish it from the Apostolic Constitutio7is, which, in their present form, are certainly a later work, I shall refer to this under the name of the * Church Ordi- nances '. Its title in the Greek MS. is al '^lara-^aX al Sm KAi7jU£vroe, Kui KavovhQ \KKk\\(sia(yTiKoi tujv ayiutv aTToaroAwi'. It may be divided into two parts: in the first each of the Apostles is introduced as giving a piece of moral instruc- tion ; in the second part the Apostles in like manner seve- rally give directions about ordinations and other Church rites. I may mention that the number of twelve Apostles is made out in a singular way. Cephas is made an Apostle dis- tinct from Peter : he and Nathanael take the place of James the Less and Matthias. Paul is not mentioned at all. Now, when this tract is compared with the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions^ the latter is found to begin with a large expansion of the moral instruction contained in the first part of the former ; and the conclusion suggests itself that this tract was one of the sources employed by the compiler of the Apos- tolic Constitutions. Further, this moral instruction begins with what we may regard as a commentary on Jer. xxi. 8, * Behold I set before you the way of life and the way of death ', words which may themselves be connected with Deut. xxx. 15, * See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil '. The ' Church Ordinances ' set forth in detail the characteris- tics of these ' Two Ways '. One sentence of this exposition is quoted by Clement of Alexandria as Scripture [Strom, i. 20, P- 377)> whether he got it in the ' Church Ordinances ' them- selves, or in an earlier document, from which they borrowed, *My son, be not a liar; for lying leads to theft'. The use of an earlier document is made probable by our finding elsewhere this teaching about the ' Two Ways '. The Epistle of Barnabas consists of two parts. The first part, which con- tains the doctrinal teaching, is brought formally to a close in ch. 17, and then the writer abruptly says. Let us now pass to another doctrine and discipline (yvdnr/v icat 'hi^ayj]v]. And then he proceeds to give the teaching of the ' Two Ways ', present- ing numerous coincidences with the corresponding section in XXVI.] TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 603 the * Church Ordinances '. Now, a curious fact is, that this second section of Barnabas is not extant in the ancient Latin translation ; whence suspicion has arisen as to the genuine- ness of this portion of the Epistle. But any hesitation as to accepting the testimony of the Greek text is removed by the fact that passages from this section are expressly quoted as from Barnabas by Clement of Alexandria [Strom, ii. i8, p. 47 0> 3-"^ by Origen [De Princ. III. ii. 4). And it may be added, as bearing on the question presently to be considered, whether Barnabas was original in this part of his teaching, that Origen, at least, appears to consider him so, quoting him as the authority for the teaching concerning the ' Two Ways '. The probable explanation of the omission of this section by the Latin translator is that he left it out because the West was already in possession of the teaching concern- ing the * Two Ways ' in another form. Evidence of the existence of such a form is found in the commentary on the Creed by Rufinus, written towards the end of the fourth century. He gives [cc. 37, 38) a list of canonical and ecclesi- astical books, founded on that of Athanasius ; but whereas Athanasius couples the Didache with the Shepherd, Rufinus has in the corresponding place, ' libellus qui dicitur Pastoris, sive Hernias; qui appellatur Duse viae, vel Judicium Petri'. Now, it is to be observed, that whereas Eusebius (iii. 3), enumerating the apocryphal books bearing the name of the Apostle Peter, gives the titles of four works, the Acts, the Gospel, the Preaching, and the Revelation of Peter ; Jerome in his Catalogue adds a fifth, the Judgment of Peter. We cannot but think that the works mentioned by Rufinus and by Jerome are the same ; and the second title, the ' Two Ways ', leads us to think that it must have contained the same matter as is found in the second part of Barnabas, and in the ' Church Ordinances ', only that instead of this teaching being, as in the latter book, distributed among the Apostles, it was apparently, in the Western book, put into the mouth of Peter. The facts of which I have given a summary were discussed in an able Paper by a Roman Catholic divine, Krawutzcky, ia 6o4 NON-CANONICAL BOOKS. [xxvi. the Theol. Quartalschrift, 1882, who drew from them the follow- ing inferences : that, as early as the second century, the section in Barnabas which treated of the ' Two Ways ' was expanded and formed into a separate tract ; that it came into Church use, and was the work cited as Scripture by Clement of Alexan- dria ; that, to give greater weight to the teaching, it was put into the mouth of Peter ; that this work was made use of by the compiler of the ' Church Ordinances', who made the alte- ration of distributing the teaching among the twelve Apostles ? that the compiler of the seventh book of the Apostolic Consti- tuitons, without any aquaintance with the ' Church Ordinances', made independent use of the 'Two Ways '; so that by com- parison of the 'Constitutions' and 'Ordinances', a restoration of the earlier work which furnished a common element to both might be obtained. Within two years scholars found reason to think that it was quite true that the * Constitutions' and * Ordinances' had a common source, but that there was no need of conjectural restoration in order to recover it. I have related (p. 570) the discovery by Bryennius at Constantinople of a complete copy of Clement's Epistles. The same volume contained other Eccle- siastical writings, and in particular a complete Greek text of Barnabas. The attention of the discoverer seems at first to have been quite absorbed by the use to be made of his volume in restoring the text of previously known documents ; and though he published his edition of Clement in 1875, it was not till the close of 1883 that he gave to the world a previously unpublished work contained in the same volume. This bears the heading ' Teaching of the Twelve Apostles ' (A/Sa^r) TU)v StvdeKu awocTToXiov), and commences 'Teaching of the Lord by the twelve Apostles to the Gentiles'. It then goes on to give the teaching of the 'Two Ways', which occu- pies the first half of the tract. Then follows a second part, giving directions first about baptisms, then about Eucharistic formulae, then about Church teachers, and in conclusion there is an eschatological passage treating of the Second Coming of our Lord. This work bears every mark of very great anti- quity; and it has been commonly accepted as belonging to XXVI.] TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 605 the beginning of the second century, if not to the latter part of the first. And it has been generally recognized as the work known to Eusebius and Athanasius, and as the common source of 'Ordinances' and 'Constitutions', Kravvutzcky, how- ever, resists the temptation to regard the Didache as the ful- filment of his critical anticipations. He maintains that the result of a comparison of the ' Ordinances ' and the Didache is not that the one book borrows from the other, but that both have employed a common source. And he holds that the Didache displays Ebionite tendencies, and was probably not written before the close of the second century. And it is quite true that there is much in the book that not only a Roman Catholic, as Krawutzcky is, might naturally dislike to accept as orthodox teaching, but with which even a mem- ber of our own Church cannot feel satisfied. I do not count among reasonable causes of offence that the book displays great immaturity of Church organization, but rather accept this as a proof of the great antiquity of the document. In that part which treats of Church teachers the foremost place is given to Apostles and Prophets. But the word ' Apostle ' has not the limited meaning to which modern usage restricts it. The 'Apostles' are wandering missionaries or envoys of the Churches. Directions are given as to the respect to be paid to an Apostle, and the entertain- ment to be afforded him by a Church through which he might pass; but it is assumed that he does not contemplate making a permanent stay. On the contrary, if he demands lodging for more than two nights, or if on leaving he asks from his entertainers a larger supply than will suffice to carry him to his next lodging, he shows that he is no true prophet. Now, the word aTrotrToAoc was in Jewish use applied to mes- sengers sent by the rulers at Jerusalem with letters to Jewish communities elsewhere ;* it is used in the New Testament of envoys or commissioned messengers of the Churches (2 Cor. viii. 23 ; Phil. ii. 25) ; but those are called in a special sense Apostles who derived their commission not from men, but from * See references in Lightfoot [Galatiafis, p. 92). 6o6 NON-CANONICAL BOOKS. [xxvi. Jesus Christ. Hermas, also [Sim. ix. 15), appears to use the word in a wide sense, representing the building of the Church as effected by forty ' apostles and teachers', and these as not holding the foremost place in the work. The use of the word, therefore, in the Didache affords no cause of offence, but attests the antiquity of the document. The chief place in the instruction of the local Church is assigned to the ' pro- phets', whose utterances were to be received with the respect due to their divine inspiration, and who were entitled to re- ceive from their congregations such dues as the Jews had been wont to render to the high priests. The possibility is contemplated that in the Church there might be no prophet. In that case the first-fruits are to be given to the poor. Mention is also made of teachers, by which I understand persons who gave public instruction in the Church, but who did not speak 'in the spirit', as the prophets did. The place assigned to the prophets corresponds very well with the state of things which I infer from Hermas, but with this notable difference, that in Hermas the prophets appear to be subordi- nate to the presbyters. Here, on the contrary, the first men- tion is only of apostles and prophets ; then directions are given for Sunday Eucharistic celebration, and then is added ' elect, therefore* to yourselves bishops and deacons '. These, we are told, are to be honoured with the prophets and teachers, as fulfilling like ministration. The inference then suggests itself that at the time this document was written the Eucharist was only consecrated by the president of the Church assembly, who held a permanent office, and who, probably, might also be a preacher ; but that in the mind of the writer the inspired * The Didache fails to give any confirmation to the theory put forward by Mr. Hatch in his ' Bampton Lectures ', that bishops and deacons were primarily ap- pointed for the administration of the Church funds. Knowing that such administra- tion was one of the bishop's functions in the time of Justin Martyr, we are rather surprised to find no mention in the Didache that gifts intended for the poor passed through the hands of the bishops or deacons. Whatever may be meant by ' the gifts' in Clem. Rom., ch. 44, the function there ascribed to the presbyters is that of oiTering, not of administering them ; and the displaced Corinthian presbyters are commended, not for the integrity with which they had discharged the latter office, but for the meekness with which they had ' borne their faculties ' in the former. XXVI.] TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 607 givers of public instruction held the higher place. No men- tion is made of the necessity of obedience to any central authority at Jerusalem, Rome, or elsewhere. Whether the state of ecclesiastical organization here indicated agree or not with what we may think likely to have existed in apos- tolic times, and whether we accept the author as a witness to the general practice of the Church in his time, or only as to that which prevailed in his own locality, or according to his own notions of fitness, still there is no reason for setting him down as a heretic, and the unlikeness of his account to the constitution which we know became general before the second century was far advanced, may be taken as proof of the writer's antiquity. I find much more cause of offence in the Eucharistic prayers which are given {cc. 9, 10). In the first place, we are surprised to find information given as to the most sacred mysteries of the religion in a document clearly intended for the instruction of catechumens. It is free to us, no doubt, to suppose that in that early age no reserve was practised ; but Athanasius recommended that the book known to him as the Didache should be employed in catechetical instruction. Would he use it for such a purpose if it revealed what only * the faithful know ' ? These Eucharistic prayers themselves contain no mention of our Lord's institution of the rite, and no mention of His Body and Blood. And through the whole document I find no unequivocal proof that the writer really believed in our Lord's Divinity, or that he looked on Him as more than a divinely commissioned teacher. Krawutzcky remarks that the writer is silent as to the doctrines of the Incarnation and Redemption and of the sending of the Holy Ghost. Still, if he was an Ebionite, he belonged to the better sort of them ; he is certainly no Elkesaite. He gives directions for the blessing of the Cup ; but in the ascetic sect from which the Pseudo-Clementines emanated, wine does not seem to have been employed, even in Eucharistic celebration. In deciding as to the date of the Didache, a crucial question is the determination of its relation to Barnabas and Hermas. The coincidences between the Didache and Hermas are not I 6o8 NON-CANONICAL BOOKS. [xxvi. numerous, and there is room for controversy whether there is literary obligation on either side. I believe that the co- incidences are not accidental ; but as I take Barnabas to be older than Hermas, I need not spend time on the later writer of the two. In the case of Barnabas the obligations on the one side or the other are too extensive to admit of dispute. The parallel passages of Barnabas occupy four pages in Bryennius's edition. Bryennius himself entertained no doubt that the Didache was indebted both to Barnabas and Hermas, and this view is also taken by Hilgenfeld, Harnack, and Krawutzcky. But Zahn and other good critics hold the opposite opinion ; and they advance arguments which seem to me to prove decisively that in that part of the Didache which treats of the ' Two Ways ' there is no obligation to Barnabas. The precepts in the Didache are systematically arranged, following the order of the Decalogue, on which they serve as a commentary ; in Barnabas they are quite promiscuous. It is not a probable hypothesis that the author of the Didache went through Barnabas, picking out the moral precepts, and that he succeeded in arranging his ex- cerpts into a S5'mmetrical whole. Yet if I am right in re- ferring Barnabas to the decade A. D, 70-80, if the Didache was so much older, and had so much authority as to be thought worth pillaging by Barnabas, its claims to be really an Apostolic document deserve serious consideration ; and how are we to explain the very limited circulation which this truly Apostolic teaching obtained, so that it has had the very narrowest escape of perishing altogether ? In solving this difficulty I have found the greatest as- sistance from a study of the Didache in connexion with the Talmud, by Dr. Taylor.* It results from his investigations that the Didache is an intensely Jewish document, and that • The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, with Illustrations from the Talmud, by C. Ta3'lor, D.D., Master of St. John's College, Cambridge. Through Dr. Taylor's kindness I have just seen a forthcoming paper of his in the Expositor, in which he studies the parts of Barnabas which are common to the Didache, and establishes, by convincing reasons, the conclusion to which I had already come, that in these parts Barnabas is not original. XXVI.] TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 609 its contents are so well accounted for by the use of Jewish sources, that we lose all temptation to imagine that the author had need to resort to Barnabas for guidance. But Dr. Taylor's illustrations do more than convince me that the author of the Didache had received a Jewish training ; they seem to me to make it probable that the ' Two Ways ' is a pre-Christian work : in other words, that the author of the Didache has taken a Jewish manual of instruction for proselytes, and has adapted it for Christian use by additions of his own ; in particular by insertions from the Sermon on the Mount. This hypothesis would account for the heading", Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles. It has been remarked by several that there is nothing in the work which suggests that it is intended for exclusively Gentile use ; nay, that as I have intimated before, it does not even seem adapted for the use of catechumens, Jews, or Gentiles. But the title would be accounted for if the original of the document were a manual of instruction for Gentile proselytes to Judaism. There seems at least to be sufficient inducement to take this as a working hypothesis, and see how it will bear examina- tion. For there is a test which can be applied to it, namety, to examine whether Barnabas knew the Didache in its pre- sent Christianized form. If he did, Barnabas was so early that it is unreasonable to assume that there was an earlier form. On the other hand, if Barnabas knew, not the Didache but the supposed Jewish parent of the Didache, it is likely that when he adapted it to the use of his Christian disciples, the Jewish element in the work would no doubt remain the same as in the Didach^; but that the addi- tions of specially New Testament teaching would, except for some chance coincidences, be different. Now, when we look at the four pages in Bryennius which contain Barnabas's adaptation of the 'Two Ways ', we find that he has not Christianized it at all. There is no use of the Gos- pels, no mention of Jesus Christ, not a word that might not have been written before our Lord was born. I do not know how it will appear to others, but to my mind it comes with the force of demonstration, Barnabas never saw the Didache. 2 R 6io NON-CANONICAL BOOKS. [xxvi. I find it impossible to believe that if he knew that work he would have gone over it, adapting it to his use by carefully erasing every line which contained anything of specially Christian teaching, or which implied a knowledge of oral or written Gospels. Traces of such knowledge may be found in other parts of the Epistle of Barnabas, but not in this section. The supposition that theDidache had a Jewish original becomes thus something more than a mere hypothesis : it is a conclu- sion forced on us if we believe that Barnabas did not use the Didache, and that the Didache did not use Barnabas. The difference of order in the two documents is at once explained. The author of the Didache wrote with the Jewish original before him, and systematically followed its order; Barnabas, merely in giving practical exhortation, interwove, as his memory furnished them, precepts from a manual with which he had formerly been familiar.* And if he did not reproduce very accurately either the language or the order of the docu- ment he used, this, as Dr. Taylor has remarked, ought not to surprise anyone who considers how Barnabas deals with the Old Testament. If we admit that the Didache is but a Christianized form of an originally Jewish book, the question whether the writer who gave the work its present form knew Barnabas assumes a different aspect. For, besides the section on the *Two Ways', common to both books, there is one clear coincidence between the early part of Barnabas and the last chapter of the Didache, an entirely Christian chapter, which treats of the Second Coming of our Lord. If I am right in supposing that Barnabas did not know the Didache in its present form, the obligation cannot be on his side. On the other hand, all the marks of superior antiquity that have been found in the Didache belong to the Jewish element in the book, so that there is no reason for denying an acquaintance with Barna- bas on the part of the writer who contributed the Christian * This introduces a new element for the determination of the question (p. 562), whether or not the so-called Barnabas was a Jew. I now suspect that he had been XI Gentile proselyte to Judaism, and had thus become acquainted with the 'Two Ways'. XXVI.] TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 6ll element. There is a difficult phrase in this last chapter, which, if we could only be sure that we interpret it rightly, would afford a more direct proof of the dependence of that chapter on Barnabas. It gives as the first of three signs of our Lord's immediate coming, ctijjueTov eKTrsTacrewQ eu ovpavi^. I think Archdeacon Edwin Palmer has given the best explanation of this. He refers to the words of Isaiah (Ixv. 2), *I have stretched forth (l^eiriTacra) my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people '. Barnabas interprets this of our Lord's * stretching forth ' his hands on the cross ; and Justin Martyr [ApoL i. 35 ; Trypho 197), and several other fathers follow him in giving this mystical meaning to the verb fKTTfrai/vu/it. If we could count the author of the Didache in the number of these followers, his phrase is at once explained as meaning the sign of the cross. If this explanation be right, the rela- tive order of Barnabas and this part of the Didache is de- termined. If Barnabas came first, the phrase in the Didach6 is explained ; but if the Didache came first, a phrase so obscure would never suggest to Barnabas his interpretation of Isaiah, and without that interpretation we should be at a loss to know how the phrase came to be adopted. We can apply the same method of examination to the * Church Ordinances '. On the first glance, indications show themselves of the use of Barnabas ; for the commencement of both is the same : ' Hail, ye sons and daughters ' ! And in the sequel there are found other sufficient proofs of acquaintance with Barnabas on the part, at least, of the writer who gave the work its present form. But the section on the ' Two Ways ' follows precisely the order of the Didache, and not the order or disorder of Barnabas. The ' Two Ways ' are introduced with a Gospel quotation : * On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets ' ; but this quotation is not found in the Didache.* * There is a passage in Clement of Alexandria {Paed. iii. 12, p. 305) which sug- gests a use of the Didache by its interpolation in the Decalogue of the precept oh iratSocpOop^ffets, and the passage is introduced with the same New Testament quota- tion as in the ' Church Ordinances '. Clement, however, could so easily have supplied the quotation from his own resources that it would not be safe to infer 2 R 2 5i2 NON-CANONICAL BOOKS. [xxvi. And towards the conclusion there are other New Testament quotations not found in the Didache. But the general ab- sence of the Christian element is striking on a comparison of the ' Two Ways ' in the * Ordinances ' and in the Didache ; for the same order is followed in both, but the additions from the Sermon on the Mount which appear in the latter are absent from the former. I notice just one coincidence. Where Barnabas simply has 'Thou shalt be meek', the Di- dache has ' Be meek, for the meek shall inherit the earth ' ; the 'Church Ordinances', * Be meek, for the meek shall in- herit the kingdom of heaven'. I do not think this affords a proof that the ' Ordinances' used the Didache, but rather the reverse. Both agree in occasionally making New Testament additions to precepts which occur in Barnabas in a purely Jewish form ; but these additions are in every other case different. It is not strange if in this one case the precept of meekness suggested the same words of our Lord to the diffe- rent writers, who, however, show their independence by quot- ing them in different forms. The conclusion, then, to which I come is, that the first framer of the 'Church Ordinances' was not acquainted with the Didach6, and that the two works are independent attempts to throw Jewish instruction into the form of Apostolic teaching : but with this difference of form, that in the Didache the whole was generally described as Apostolic teaching, but that in the ' Ordinances ' the precepts were distributed among different Apostles. I should conjec- ture the latter to be an Egyptian work : the former, on ac- count of its strongly Jewish character, to have had its birth in the country east of the Jordan, where Christian Jews were numerous. There was, as I have said, a third form of the 'Two Ways' current in the West. For want of evidence, we cannot say whether the publisher of this form knew Didach6 or 'Ordinances', or, as is quite possible, only the Jewish parent of both.* that Clement knew the Didache in its Egyptian, not its Palestinian, form ; especially since it would be as easy to draw a contrary inference from Cohort, ad G elites, p. 85. * There is one Western quotation from Doctrina Apostolorum (Pseu Jo-Cyprian, XXVI.] TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 613 If we compare the Didache with the Seventh Book of the Apostolic Constitutions we find quite a different result. There the New Testament illustrations from the Didache are all re- produced ; and it is apparent that the compiler of the ' Con- stitutions' knew and used the Didache. It seems to me, then, that there is grave reason for ques- tioning the common opinion that we owe to Bryennius the recovery of a book of great importance in the history of our religion — a work which had enormous circulation, and which has left traces of its influence in distant places. If reference is made to the testimonies which I have already quoted, ex- hibiting knowledge of the existence of a book of ' Apostolic Teaching ', they will be seen to be very few. I do not find, for example, in the extant worksof Tertullianor Irenseus* evidence of knowledge of the existence of such a book. And I find no certain evidence that the Palestinian form of the Apostolic teaching was known at all in the East before the middle of the fourth century. The quotation by Clement is more likely to have been from the Egyptian form, with which he has a point of contact in regarding Cephas as a person distinct from the Apostle Peter (Euseb. H.E. i. 12). It seems to me that the book whose title Eusebius quotes in the plural num- ber, ot ^i^ayjxi Thiv cnrodToXwv, is more likely to have been composed in the form in which the teaching was distributed among several Apostles than in that form which does not suggest the use of any but the singular number. Athanasius uses the singular number, and the date of his 39th Festal Epistle is so late (a.D. 367), that I should willingly believe the Didache, as we know it, to be the book intended, if I did De Aleatoribus, p. 96, Hartel). It has affinities with a passage in Biyennius's Didache, but differs a good deal in form. * There is, I thinli, reasonable ground to infer knowledge of the Didache from one of the mysterious fragments, as from Irenaeus, published by Pfaff, from a Turin Catena, which has since disappeared. I see no feason to doubt that Pfaff found the extracts ascribed to Ireiiaeus in the MS. which he copied ; but Catenae often make mistakes in their ascription of authorship, and though I believe the extract in question to have been from the work of an ancient authoi", I do not beUeve that that author was Irenseus. Zahn's remark is conclusive, that this fragment quotes the Epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul's. 6 14 NON-CANONICAL BOOKS. [xxvi. not feel some hesitation arising from doubts already expressed as to whether this book is one which Athanasius would have put into the hands of catechumens. If the view I have taken be correct that the Didache, as we know it, was a work of very limited circulation and in- fluence, which spread but little and slowly outside the purely Jewish section of the Church, it ceases to be of much im- portance in the history of the Christian Church ; but it even gains in importance when regarded as a contribution to the history of Judaism, exhibiting the religious training which had been received by pious Jews before the Gospel was preached to them. I therefore turn back to examine how much of the Didache can be supposed to have been based on a previously existing Jewish manual. To that manual we naturally refer the first five chapters containing the 'Two Ways'. The sixth is a short chapter, giving license to the disciple, in matters of food, not to bear the whole yoke if he is not able, but insisting on his at least abstaining from things offered in sacrifice to idols. Nothing forbids us to think that this was a rule of life prescribed by Jews to a proselyte, and the whole chapter may have been found textually in the original manual. The seventh chapter treats of baptism. The candidate is previously to have been taught all the preceding instructions ; then he is to be baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The baptism is to take place in preference in running water ; if this cannot be had, in standing water ; if cold water cannot be had, it may take place in warm water ; by which we are apparently to understand that if neither river nor pond were accessible, the baptism might take place in drawn water, such as that of a bath. If water in sufficient quantity could not be had, water might be thrice poured on the head in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Both baptizer and baptized were to fast previously, and, if possible, others with them ; but in any case the person to be baptized must fast beforehand one day or two. It is evident this chapter has been Christianized ; but the original docu- ment could hardly have failed to contain in the corresponding XXVI.] TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 615 place instructions about baptism, which was a ceremony con- sidered essential in the admission of proselytes. The doctrine of the absolute necessity of the preliminary fast receives a curious illustration from the Pseudo-Clementines. In the part of that romance [Recog. vii. 36 ; Horn, xiii, 11) which relates the baptism of Clement's mother Peter directs that she must fast one day previously. She declares that she has eaten nothing for the last two days (a fact to which Peter's wife bears witness), and asks to be baptized at once. Peter smiles, and explains that a fast made without reference to baptism will not count. She must fast all that day ; they will all fast with her, and then she can be baptized the next day. The next chapter in the original in all probability treated of fasting and prayer. The Didache here directs the disciple to fast twice a week ; but not on Mondays and Thurs- days, like the hypocrites, but on Wednesdays and Fridays ; and to pray three times a-day ; but instead of praying like the hypocrites, to use the Lord's Prayer, which is given with the doxology. It appears to me that the adapter here de- signedly departed from his original ; and that the rules of fasting and the prayers which he calls ' of the hypocrites ', were those which he found in his original, and for which he substitutes purely Christian equivalents, Epiphanius [Haer. 16) speaks of the Monday and Thursday fast as a Pharisaic institution. The author of the Didache had, no doubt, in his mindj our Lord's words, which occur so often in Matt, xxiii., ' Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ' ! The ninth and tenth chapters of the Didache are generally understood as referring to the Eucharist. I have already in- timated some difficulty as to this view, and the difficulty is increased by the fact that the Eucharist is treated of in a later chapter (14). Why should it be treated of twice? I believe the answer to be, that in the corresponding ^place of the original Jewish manual the proselyte was taught as the con- cluding piece of his instruction forms of benediction to be used before and after solemn meals. These forms, I take it, the compiler of the Didache adapted for Christian use, leaving it 6i6 NON-CANONICAL BOOKS. [xxvi. free, however, to persons endowed with prophetical gifts to use different forms if they chose- These forms might be used in the Christian Love Feasts ; but I do not believe that the Eucharist proper is treated of before the fourteenth chapter. And, in fact, if I am right in my inference from the ' there- fore ' at the beginning of chap, xv., the Didache agrees with Justin Martyr in making consecration the office of the presi- dent of the assembly, and there could be no reason why for- mulae for the purpose should be taught to the ordinary disciple. It is true that the word ivxapiGTia is here used in the Didache, and it is ordained that no unbaptized person shall eat of it. Yet I am disposed to believe the explanation to be, that the word Eucharist had not yet come to be used exclusively of the Lord's Supper. In the Clementines great prominence is given to Peter's benediction of meals in cases, where if an administration of the Eucharist, as we understand the word, be intended, Peter must have made every meal a Eucharist. For example, Clement, narrating his intercourse with Peter, previous to his baptism, says : — * And when he had said these things, and had taken food, he by himself, he commanded that I also should take food, and he blessed over the food, and gave thanks after he was satisfied,* and exhorted me with a word concerning that [which he had done]' ; and after these things he said, God grant thee that thou mayest in everything be like unto me, and mayest be baptized, and this same food with me thou mayest re- ceive.'t * Compare juera rb einrXriffOrivai {Didache, ch. lo). t Clem. Recog. i. 19, translated for me from the Syriac by Dr. Gwynn. The strongest evidence that Clement of Alexandria knew the Palestinian form of the Didache is, that he uses (Quis dives salvus, 20) the phrase 'vine of David', which occurs in one of these benedictory prayers. The phrase itself we may well believe occurred in the Jewish benediction, and there meant the Jewish people. And it is possible that this benediction may have been copied into the Egyptian form of the ' Apostolic Teaching '. It is generally owned that the latter part of the ' Church Ordinances ', as we have them, is a later addition ; but in order to make room for that addition, the ' Way of Death', and possibly some other portions of the original docu- ment have been cut away. Bomemann notices {Theol. Literaturz. 1885, 413) that Origen also has ' verje vitis quae ascendit de radice David ' [In Librum Judicum, Hom. 17). XXVI.] TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 617 I do not know whether the influence of a Jewish original can be traced beyond chap. x. ; and yet it is quite possible that a Jewish manual might contain directions as to the reception of airoaToXoi, there being Jewish officers so called, as has been already remarked. And if the manual had contained orders as to the payment of first-fruits for the support of the high-priests, we could understand why the Didache, in direct- ing that first-fruits should be paid to the prophets, should add, ' for they are your high-priests '. At any rate, chaps, xiv., XV., and the last chapter, on our Lord's Second Coming, are not likely to have had anything corresponding in a merely Jewish book. But there is one passage about which a few words must be said. I have said that in the section of Barnabas on the * Two Ways ' there is no use of the Gospels ; but there is one passage which apparently exhibits a use of the Acts and of St. Paul. Barnabas says (ch. xix.) : ' Participate with your neighbour in all things, and say not that things are your own ; for if you have been participators in that which is incorruptible, how much more in corruptible things.' The passage strongly recalls Rom. xv. 27, and i Cor. ix. 11. But the same words are found both in the Didache and in the * Church Ordinances', save that instead of acpdaprio we have adavdrw. If we could take the three as independent witnesses, it would follow that there must have been corresponding words in the Jewish original; and then the question would arise whether that original may not have been old enough to have been known to St. Paul. But as there is also what looks like a use of Acts iv. 32, the passage can scarcely be pre-Christian ; and I am therefore disposed to believe that Barnabas is here the original, I have already come to the conclusion that the Christian adapter of the Didache had seen Barnabas, and he may have made an addition from that source. I have not made any systematic study of the ' Church Ordinances ' ; but I share the general belief that the latter half is not of the same date as the earlier portion ;* and the later compiler may have been acquainted with the Didache. * There is in the latter one very curious passage (§. 26), indicating jealousy of the women on the part of the Apostles, which I suspect owes its origin to something 6i8 NON-CANONICAL BOOKS, ETC. [xxvi. Since the above was in type, Dr. Schaff has kindly com- municated to me a note in the forthcoming new edition of his work on the Didache, from which I learn that an American scholar, Mr. Potwin, has called attention to the following" passage in Origen [De Princ. III. ii. 7) : * Propterea docet nos Scriptura divina, omnia quas accidunt nobis tanquam a Deo illata suscipere, scientes quod sine Deo nihil fit.' Now, since we have in the Didache (iii. 10), ra cru/xjSaivoira aoi lvepyr]iJ.aTa u)Q ayaOa irpocf^i^rj, tlSwg on arsp Oaov ovShv yivtrai, Mr. Potwin concludes that Origen knew the Didache, and regarded it as Scripture. But he overlooks that the same words are found both in Barnabas and in the ' Church Ordinances ', so that it remains undetermined from which source Origen drew the words. But in the preceding chapter Origen (see p. 603) had quoted as from Barnabas the section on the ' Two Ways ' ;* and since (see p. 558) he elsewhere quotes Barnabas as Scripture, we have no inducement to look beyond Barnabas for the source of the present quotation; and Mr. Potwin's interesting remark appears rather to furnish additional proof of the respect in which Origen held the Epistle of Barna- bas than to establish his knowledge of the Didache. Since Clement of Alexandria knew the Didache in some form, and since Origen, even if he had not met the book in Egypt, would be likely to have heard of it during his residence in Palestine, I should expect that a search through Origen's writings would elicit some proof of his knowledge of the Didache ; but no clear proof of this kind has, as far as I know, yet been pro- duced. in the Gospel according to the Egyptians. At least, the same feature shows itself in the Gnostic work, Pisiis Sophia, which is also Egyptian. In p. 57, when Mary, who has already been highly commended by the Saviour for her previous answer, is about to speak, Peter leaps forward, and says : ' Lord, we cannot suffer this woman to take place with us, for she will not allow any of us to speak, but is speaking very often;' and again, p. 161, Mary says : 'I would answer, but I am afraid of Peter, who is threatening me, and who hates our sex '. * This quotation cannot be used negatively to prove tliat Origen was not ac- quainted with the Didache, since the angels on account of whom Origen cites the passage are not mentioned in the Didache. INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. Abbot, Ezra, Dr., 6l, 71, 75, 78, 84. Abbott, Ed-win A,, Dr., on Fourth Gospel, 78 : on Encratism, 81 ; on Synoptic Gospels, 145, 148-51 ; on 2 Peter, 529-51. Abgar legend, 202, 346-8, 504. Abraham, 480, 559. Acts of the Apostles ; see Contents, Lecture xviii. Ada?ns, Professor, 266. Adulteress, pericope of, 97, 166. ^non, 271. African Church ; its language, 44. Alexander, Syriarch, 351. Alexandria, 42, 167, 230, 447, 564,594. Alexandrian MS. : see Codex A. Alexandrians, Epistle to, 49, 436, 563- Alford, Dean, 133, 141, 335, 534. Alogi, 229. Ambrose, 38, 349, 559. Amen, the Christian, 360, 361. Ammonius, harmony of, 83, 86. Amphilochius, 502. ^Pi.vay€VV7)(Tis, 302, 549. 'AvdKvffis, 420. Anastasius Sinaita, 264. Anatolius, 509. Andrew, Acts of, 364, 370. Anencletus, 567. Anger, no, 185. Anicetus, 261. Anne, mother of Virgin, 194. 'Avo/jLia, 21. Antitheses of Marcion, 205. Apelles, Gnostic, 177. Apocalypse of John, 224, 508, 601; see Contents, Lectures III., xir., XIII., XIV. ; and for its use of Daniel, 597, 598. of Peter, 227, 552-6, 566. of Baruch, 228. of Paul, 557. Apocryphal Gospels, 35, 120, 165, Lec- ture XI. ■ Acts, Lecture xix. Apocrypha, Jewish, 508, 555. Apollinaris of Hierapolis, 264. of Laodicea, 311, 508. Apollonius, 356. Apollos, 73, 445, 449- Apostle, name not Hmited to the Twelve, 283, 605. Apostles, false, 31, 32. Apostolic Church Ordinances, 602 sqq. 620 INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. Apostolic Constitutions, 360, 509, 569, 601 sqq. Aquila and Priscilla, 480. Aquila, translator O. T., 537, 588, 591. Aramaic, ii"], 143, 156, 532. Archippus, 397. 'Aper^, 547. Aringhi, 369. Aristarchus, 386, 396, 429. Aristion, 90, 91, 104, 279. Arnold, Matthew, 61. Artetnon, 52, 55. Ascension of our Lord ; believed by early Church, 164 ; recognized in Fourth Gospel, 292, 302 ; in the Apocalypse, 303 ; previous relation of, known to St. John, 305. Assumption B. V.M., 376-8. of Moses, 508, 510. Athanasius, 265, 436, 502, 516, 573-4, 613. Pseudo-, 285, 508. Athenagoras, 78. Augustine, 38, 127, 155, 178, 213,349, 357, 375, 438, 499, 508-9, 557- Autoptic touches in Mark, 155 ; in Fourth Gospel, 177. Bahooism, 529-39, 544. Bdbylo7t, the name how used, 462-4. Baethgen, 84. Balaam, alleged nickname for St. Paul, 27. Baptism, precept of, not directly men- tioned by St. John, 302 ; St. John and Justin, 74; female, 348 ; lay, 352 ; Gnostic administration of, 360 ; rules for, in the Didache, 614. Barcochba, 501. Bardenhewer, 593. Barnabas, -^21, ^2i„ 437-8; his claim to authorship of Epistle to the Hebrews, 445-54. Epistle of, 108, 474, 518, S53> 556-64 ; and the Didache, 601 sqq. Barsalihi, 83-5. Bartholomew, 167. Baruch, Book of, 599. Apocalypse of, 228. Basil, 394, 513. Basilides, 58, 61, 104, 415, 457, 515- Baur, 13; his Canon, 24, 124, 211, 213, 223, 256, 286; on Mark, 156; on the Acts, 312 ; on Paschal dis- putes, 260-3 ; 01^ Pauline Epistles, 379-86, 395-9, 405, 414, 442, 451. Baur's theory of early Church History, Lect. II., 320-6, 332, 364-5, 379, 460, 469, 482-3. Beast, of Apocalypse, 26, 225, 245-6. Beasts, four, 38. miracles on, in Gnostic Acts, 359-62. Bede, 497. Bel and the Dragon, 596. Benary, 245. Bentley, 5, 8, 164. Beroea, 168. Bickell, 601. Birthplace of our Lord, 289. Bishops and Deacons, 395, 606. Blastiis, 265. Bonnet, 344. Bomemann, 616. Borrowing, literary, 134, 524. Boycotting, 252. Brandes, 557. Brethren of our Lord, 504, Brindley, 407. Bruce, 509. Bryennius, 570, 601, 608-14. Bugs, story of, 372. Bunsen, 49, 551, 556. Burgon, Dean, 86, 160. Byrrhus, 375. Byzantium, 370. Caiaphas, 270, 274. Caius, of Rome, 50-57, 228, 331, 368, 436, 464, 552. INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. 621 Caius, of 3rd John, 284. Caligula, 253, 463. Calvin, 253, 433, 440, 514. Canon, how formed, 12 1-7, 193, 498- 500, 512-14, 525, 559, 560, 569. Carpocrates, 506. Carthage, Council of, 439, 525. Caspari, 267. Cassiodorus, 474, 514-8. Catacombs, 43, 369. Catholic Church, 408-11. Epistles, 473, 571. Cave, our Lord's birth in a, 71, 195. Celsus, 160. Cephas, 291, 602, 613. Ceriani, 228, 508. Cerinthus, 28, 228-31, 552. Chagigah, 258. Cherubim and the Gospels, 38. Chigi version of Daniel, 589 sqq. Chiliasin, 228-30. Christology, of fourth Gospel, 216; of Synoptic Gospels, 218 ; of Apoca- lypse, 220-4,413; of St. Paul, 224, 400, 413 ; of St. James, 494. Chrysostom, 257, 349, 423, 513, 536- Church (see Catholic). Church Ordinances, 602 sqq. Circumcision, a title of honour with St. Paul, 30-1, 562. Clement, of the Epistle to the Philip- pians, 336, 568. Clement of Alexandria, 41, 42, 43, 48, 60, 93, III, 167, 197, 203, 212, 213, 257, 281, 309, 330, 356, 363, 364, 372, 373, 391, 401, 434, 440, 457, 474, 478, 501, 506, 508, 517, 552, 558, 566, 593, 611, 616. Clement of Rome, 564-571, 14, 20, 32, 43, 88, 106, 310, 382, 391, 403, 414, 423, 430, 433, 439, 456, 457, 465, 476, 521, 548, 555, 599, 601, 611. his second Epistle, so-called, 671, 205, 403, 413, 521, 611. Clementines, Pseudo-, 14-20, 75-7 364-67, 80, 173, 356, 448, 460, 477, 500, 509, 520, 607, 615 ; their N. T. quotations, 176, 177. Codex J^, 108, i6r, 296, 308, 394, 516, 537, 539, 555, 557, 574- A, 537, 548, 555, 566, 571. B, r6r, 296, 308, 394, 439, 516, 537, 539- • C, 226, 308, 537. I>, 314. K, 537. L, 163, 537. Amiatinus, 375. Augiensis, 454. Aureus, 375. Cheltoniensis , 551. Chisianus, 589. Claromo7ttanus, 453, 516, 551, 555, 574- Coincidences, John and Synoptics, 304, John and Paul, 413. Acts and Epistles, 334, 338, 470. Peter and Paul, 466. Peter and James, 470. Lukeand Josephus, 341, 342. 2 Peter and Josephus, 541, 548. N. T. and Philo, 544-51. St. John and Theodotion, 596-8. Barnabas and Didache, 61 1. Colossians, 223, 396—403. Cofnmentary, earliest N. T., 60. Cotnmodus, 590-92. Contradictions between Fourth Gospel and Synoptics, 287 ; do not disprove early date, 258. Controversies, dying out of, 408-9. Conybeare, 380. Cook, Canon, 162, 336. Corinth, Church of, 564, 570. Corrections of N. T. text in third cen- tury, 56, 58. Cotterill, Mr. 548. 622 INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. Cross, Gnostic cult of, 371. Cross-references in Acts, 317. Crowji of Life, 222, 482. Cum?ning, Dr., 250. Cureton, 160, 189. Cyprian, 160, 369, 517, 551, 594. Pseudo-, 365, 612. Cyprus, 339, 447. Cyril of Alexandria, 160, 496. of Jerusalem, 160, 359, 516. Cythnos, 244. Damasus, 369, 504. Daniel, 219, 390, 587-99. Darwin, 422. Dathan and Abiram, 569. Davidson, Dr., 7, 236, 21 r, 311, 318, 326, 333. 379, 388-9, 395-6, 401, 409, 419, 426,433, 518, 528. Decretal Epistles, 7, 273. Demas, 350, 397, 429. Demetrius, 286. De Morgan, Professor, 266. Derenbourg, 483. De Rossi, 369. Derry, Bishop of, 210, 396. Des Cartes, 82. Development of Doctrine, 492-3. De Wette, 289, 320, 405. Diatessaron, 80, 83-86, 348. Didache, 283, 496, 601-18. Didymus, 502, 508, 515. Dillmann, 510. Diodorus, 86. Dionysius of Alexandria, 26, 225-35, 279, 436, 456- ^ 0/ Corinth, 87, 226, 310, 464, 565, 566. Barsalibi, 83-5. Dioscorides, 533. Diotrephes, 284-6. Discourses of our Lord, unique, 1 14-15. Dismas and Gestas, 202. Dispersion, 270, 479. Divinity of our Lord, taught by St. Jolm, 216-224. Divinity of our Zorrf asserted by Him- self, 218, 300. Docetism, 196, 199-201, 285, 362, 363, 371- Doddridge, Dr. 579. ' Domine quo vadis ', 367. Donaldson, 575. Dressel, 76. Drummond, 74, 78- Ducange, 360. Duchesne, 369. Easter Controversies, 259-264. Ebedjesu, 514. Ebionites, 14, 76, 607 ; meaning of word, 173, 483; two kinds, 18; their Gospel, 169, 173; their Acts, 364 ; opposed by St. John, 374. Edersheim, 257. Edessa, 17, 83, 345, 356, 364. Edinburgh Review, 245, 248. Egyptians, Gospel according to, 41, 203, 204, 618. Eichhorn, 147, 148. Eleutherus, 402. Elkesai, 18, 19, 173, 324, 365, 402, 607. Ellicott, Bishop, 381. Encratism, 81, 204-5, 345, 353, 363, 372, 415- Enoch, 501, 509, 510. Eothen, 315. Epaphras, 397. Epaphroditus, 395. Ephesus, 27, 72, 232, 241, 329, 375, 398, 420, 424, 480. Ephesians, Epistle to, 392, 394, 403- 413, 556- Ephraem Syrus, 83-6, 229, 282, 477, 502. ^'E.iriyvwiris, 4I9» 'ETTtouirjoj, 145. Epiphanius, 168, 16, 149, 173-76, 196, 197, 202, 2o5, 229, 349, 3:5, 504, 515. 557,565, 590-92,615. 'ETTi^aceja, 419. INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. 623 Episcopacy, 284, 395, 430, 565, 568, 584-6. Episemon, 253-4. Erasmus, 433, 514-15. Esdras, Book of, 595. Eucharist, institution not recorded by St. John, 298 ; Christian belief in, 300, 606-7, 616 ; evidential value of, 299 ; Gnostic rites, 360. Eusebius, 87-89, 50, 64, 83, 87-96 101-5, 152, 160, 166, 172, 181, 186, 227, 229, 248, 252, 264, 279, 305, 310, 346, 356, 402, 414, 433-4, 455, 463, 473, 499, 513, 517, 544, 553-4, 557, 564, 603, 613. Evodius, 508. Ewald, 426. 'E^^pafia, 537. "EioBos, 520, 546. Eznig, 458. Ezra, 596. Eabricius, 343, 555. Farrar, Archdeacon, 245-9, 252, 254, 381, 540-47- Fasting, 614. Feasts, yewish,m Fourth Gospel, 268. Firmilian, 401, 517. FitzGerald, Bishop, 68, 175, 253, 336, 541- Florinus, 37. Forgery, 57, 282, 380, 522-4. Friend of God, 476. Fritzsche, 228, 245, 509. Fumeaux, 5. Galatians, 16, 24, 325, 336, 491. Galen, 342. Gamaliel, 366. Gardiner, Col., 579. Garrett, Mr., 510. Gelasius, Pope, 504. of Cyzicus, 508. Genealogies omitted by Tatian, 85, Gentiles, their admission into the Church, 325, 408, 609. Gieseler, 213. Glaucias, 515, Gnosis, 417, 558. Gnosticism, date of commencement, 400-3 ; two types of, 353, 506 ; use of St. John's Gospel, 79; cult of cross, 371; Acts 346-55; and miracles, 372; tale about Hades, 457-8 ; story of death of Zacharias, 196. Gohar, Stephen, 437. Godet, 157, 254. Gospels, why four, 37-8; meaning of word, 124 ; ' according to ', no; lost Gospel, 67; genesis of, 128-30; their publication prehistoric, 123; (see Apocryphal). Grapte, 580. Greek, the language of early Roman Church, 43, 54; whether spoken in Holy Land, 187 ; of New Testa- ment, 239, 489, 533, 588. Gregory the Great, 369. Nazianzen, 349. Nyssen, 196, 349. Grotius, 388, 522. Gundephorus, 357. Gutschmid, 354, 357. Gwynn, Dr., 296, 395, 419, 521, 536, 539,541-51,590- 9,616. Hades, 202, 347, 457-9. Hadrian, 401, 501, 564. Hapax lego?nena, 527, 542, 547. Harmony of Gospels, 83-6, 103. Harttack, 84, 90, 105, 448, 551, 601, 608. Harris, Rendel, 555, 587. Harvey, 590. Hatch, 606. Hausrath, 426. Hebrew, alleged original language of St. Matthew, 92-3, 165-91 ; words preserved by St. Mark only, 69. 624 INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. Hebrews, Gospel according to, Lect. x., 165-90, 87, 343. Epistle to, Lect. xxi., 432- 54, 88, 335, 523, 551, 573, 588, 597. Hegesippus, 49, 87, 186, 401-2, 414, 478, 484, 503, 507, 566-7. Helena, 366. Hellenists, 43, 447, 532. Heracleon, 60, 81, 363, 364. Heretic, 417. Heretical testimony to Gospels, 57 ; Gospels, 192-209, Her7nas, 571-600, 43, 48, 114, 310, 4i3> 438, 457. 459, 475. 521, 555, 557, 602, 608. Hermogenes, 350. Herodotus, 360, 399, 531. Heumann, 254. Hilge7ifeld, 70, 76, 102, 108, 180, 185, 193, 194, 197, 222, 294-6, 341, 365, 379, l^l^ 389. 395-6, 407. 433. 468, 508, 518, 555, 608. Hippocrates, 342, 537. Hippolytus, 62-61, 160, 200, 203, 229, 257, 266, 366, 368, 411, 437, 477, 520, 556, 583. 593- Hitzig, 245. Hohart, Dr., 145, 342. Hohhes, 292. Holsten, 386, 587. Holtzmami, 341, 406-7, 466. Holy Ghost, the name feminine in Ara- maic, 180. Hone, 192. Hooykaas, Dr., 286, 312, 315, Hope, Apostle of, 471. Hort, Dr., 61, 64, 159, 164, 395, 447, 527. 538, 587, 596. Hospitality of Christians, 282. Howson, Dean, 380. Hug, 213, 478. Hugo, Victor, 247, 414. Hystaspes, 365. Iconium, 341. Iconoclasts, 371. "iStos, 536. Ignatius, 21, 106, 186, 300, 310, 382, 391. 565-6, 601. Inaccuracy of quotations, 69, 1 34-5. Inspiration of Scripture, 2, 3, 37, 54-6, 126, 510-11, 560. Irenmcs, 35-40, 48, 54-5, 65, 78-9, 88-9, 91, 105, III, 159, 200, 212, 226, 243, 252, 261, 279, 281, 309, 361, 366-8, 382-4, 391, 396, 402-3, 412-4, 437, 457-9, 509. 518, 558, 566-8, 592, 613. Irish Revisers C.P., 75. Irony of St. John, 293. Jafnes, the Lord''s brother, 178, 337, 478, 486, 493, 503. Epistle of; Lect. xxiii. and Shepherd of Hermas, 586. Gospel of, 120, 194, 198. Jason, 386. Jeremiah, Pseudo-, 459. Jerome, 38, 53, 85, 127, 168, 171, 176, 179, 180, 196, 229, 282, 331, 345, 352, 361. 374. 383. 391, 415. 438, 473, 499, 502, 504, 508, 512-15, Si7» 527-8, 558, 566, 588-9, 595. 603. Pseudo-, 345, 515. Jerusalem, how often visited by our Lord, 305-8 ; its Church, 402 ; its bishop, 478, 500. Jesus Justus, 397. Jews, the phrase, 23, 271, 387, 562; its use by St. Paul, 31. Jewish Christians fraternized with unconverted brethren, 262, 561. Jewish hostility to Christians, 31, 501. Joachifn, 194. John the Baptist (see Baptist). John the Apostle, not mentioned in fourth Gospel, 62, 280 ; whether visited Asia, 281 ; whether visited Rome, 255, 285 ; knew of other Gospels, 257 ; John and the robber, 370. INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. 625 John, Gospel according to, see Lects. XII. -XVI I., 562. the First Epistle, 201-3, 528. the Second and Third, 281-7. Acts of John, 371-5. John the Elder, 91, 231-2, 279-82. Jortin, 193. Josephus, 143, 188, 246, 257, 270, 273, 341-2, 462, 483, 520, 539-50. jfudas Iscariot, 308, 311. Thomas, 347, 355-64, 504- Jude, Epistle of, Lect. XXIV. Judith, 297. Julian, Emperor, 496. the Pelagian, 178. Julius Africanus, 569. Junilius, 513. Justin Martyr, 58, 63-80, 93, I02, III, 120, 142, 151, 157-9, 197, 203, 224, 301-2, 360, 365, 391, 396, 402, 414, 434, 459, 496, 501, 509, 518, 521,558,593,611,616. Justus Barsabas, 374. Juvenal, 42, 93, 495. Yiavtrwv, 479, 530. Keble, 231, 559. Keim, 185, 281, 461. Kerioth, 308. Kihn, 513. Klostermann, 157, Ko(;U7j(ris, 376. Krawutzcky, 603-8. Krenkel, 342. Labyrinth, 52. Lachmann, 164. Lactantius, 365. Lamb, as title of our Lord, 235. Laodicea, Paschal, disputes at, 263-4. Council of, 525. Laodiceans, Epistle to, 205, 392-5. Latin translation N. T., 42. words in St. Mark, 43. Laud, Archbishop, 253, Laurence, Archbishop, 509. Leathes, Dr. Stanley, 238. Lee, Archdeacon, 222. Lee, Bishop, 181. Lekebusch, 333. Leucius Charinus, 355, 370-379. Leusden, 527. Lewin, Mr., 381. Lightfoot, Bishop, 10, 18, 52, 70, 84, 88, 90, 97, 100, 102, 103, 105, 182, 186, 213, 284, 340, 381, 391, 394, 401, 407, 459, 465, 504-5, 558, 605. Linus, 430, 567. Lipsius, 344, 36, 149, 185, 202, 348, 369, 375, 448, 462, 553, 582. Liturgical use of Gospels, 93-4. Liturgy of Rome, 44, 568. Logia of St. Matthew, 98-103. Logos, 45, 72-3, 80-1, 208, 235, 275, 3or, 399- LoTnan, 379. Longinus, 68. soldier, 202. Lost Gospel, 67. — — Epistles, 391. Lots, drawn by Apostles, 356. Lucian, 441, 548. Lucifer of Cagliari, 502, 508. Luke, his literary skill, 317; his medi- cal knowledge, 145 ; his principles of selection, 329 ; Luke and Philip, 330 ; his means of information, 332 ; shows no knowledge of Paul's Epistles, 337-8 ; not named in MSS. as author of Acts, 314. Luke's Gospel, not anti-Jewish, 23 ; whether known to Papias, 99-101. Lumby, Dr., 525, 528-9, 551. Luther, 249,433, 440, 445, 487. Lyciis, 397. Lydia, 395. Lyons (see Vienne). Macarius Magnes, 164, 458, 554. M'Clellan, Mr., 257, 266. Mahaffy, Professor, 82, 134, 399. Mahomet, 200, 253. 2 S 626 INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. Mai, i8i. Maitland, 581. Malchion, 502. Manasses, Prayer of, 569. Man of Sin, 389, 391. ManichcEans, 355-6. Marcion, 17, 20, 60, 80, 205-9, 3 10, 382, 396, 403, 437, 562, 591- Marcus, heretic, 361, 397; Marcosians, 592. Mark's Gospel, not an abridgment of Matthew, 155 ; its relation to Peter, 92, 155, 464 ; its Aramaic words, 69 ; its Latin words, 43 ; its sup- posed original, 95 ; its autoptic touches, 155; occasion of composi- tion, 463 ; its accuracy attested by Papius, III. , Last twelve verses of, 159-164. Marsh, Bishop, 147-8. Martin of Tours, 8. Martyrdom of Paul, 327, 368-9 ; of Peter, 465 ; of other Apostles, 363. Massoretic text, 54. Matthew'' s Gospel, not anti-Pauline, 22; independent of Luke's, 140 ; its sup- posed original, 95, 96 ; whether written in Hebrew, Lect. x. Matthew, Pseudo-, 198. Matthias, 456. Mayerhoff, 406. Melito of Sardis, 264-6, 363, 378. Pseudo-, 345, 383. Memoriter quotations, 108-9, Menander, heretic, 366. Methodius, 349, 383, 553-4. Meyer, 141. Michael, Archangel, 509. Michaelis, 147. Milan, 47, 448. Millennariattism, 2 26-230. Minucius Felix, 521. Miracles, 5-13, 79> I5I» 3I9. 495- Moesinger, 84, 86. Mommsen, 368, 557. Money-changers, he ye good, 18, 177, 186, 380. Montanism, 50, 52, 79, 437, 572, 583-5. Morality, Christian, 495. Moses, Assumption of, 508. Law of, 204, 408-10, 480-8, 562. Muratorian Fragment, 46-63, 212, 227, 309-10, 328, 373, 391-2, 403, 414, 423, 436, 458, 477, 5or, 517, 552. 560, 571-4, 582-4. Murphy, Mr. J. J., 222. Nazarenes, 176. Neander, 401, 593. Nepos, 231. Nero, 243-7, 368, 423. Neuhauer, 188. Niccea, Council of, 192-3. Second Council of, 371. Nicephorus, 178, 200, 355, 508, 555-7, 566, 601. Nicodemus, Gospel of, 120, 201, 347. Nicholson, 177, 187. Nicolaus, 27. Oil, 359, 374- Olshausen, 540. Omissions of fourth Gospel, 62, 287- 308. Onesimus, 397. Onesiphorus, 349, 417, 430. Ophites, 413. Origen, 48, 60, l8l, 186, 196-7, 200, 230, 281, 356, 363-4, 370, 394, 435, 474, 501, 505-8, 516-7, 520, 558, 568, 572, 580, 592, 596, 603, 616-8. Otho, 563. Otto, 363, 384. Overbeck, 320, 592. Palestine, knovm to Fourth Evangelist, 321. Paley, 18, 380, 405, 443. Palmer, Archdeacon, 611, Pamphilus, 168. INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. 627 Pantcenus, 41, 167, 187, 434. Papias, 61, 79, 80, 87-106, no, 118, 122, 142, 155, 160, 165, 170, 187, 190, 212, 215, 226-7, 279, 310, 330, 374, 457, 463- Papylus, 90. Parallel between Peter and Paul, 326. 'Pantell, 252. Parthia, 244. Parthians, Epistle to, 213. Paschal Chronicle, 90, 257, 264-5, 59°' Controversies, 259-263. Passover, whether eaten at Last Supper, 259-263. Pastor, 573. Pastoral Epistles, 206, 413-32, 568. Paul, his personal appearance, 350; report of his speeches in the Acts, 333-6 ; whether released from Roman imprisonment, 422 ; martyrdom, day of, 368-9, 464 ; Apocalypse of, 557 ; Paul and Simon Magus, 16; and John, 225 ; and Peter, 326, 567 ; and Barnabas, 446, 561. Pauline Epistles, 33, 379-432, SSh 571 ; whether known to Luke, 337. Paulinists andanti-Paulinists, 20, 335 ; (see Baur's theory). Paulinisni of Apocalypse, 26-32, 224- 5; of Peter, 461. Paul of Nisibis, 513. Paulus, 10, 151. Pearce, Bishop, 68. Peregrinus, 441, 548. Peshitto, 160, 229, 282, 436, 477, 502, 513- Petavius, 590. Peter of Alexandria, 196. Peter the Apostle, his character, 461 ; his speeches reported in the Acts, 338, 528 ; his Roman Episcopate, 15 ; his martyrdom, 285, 369, 464 ; Peter and Mark, 92, 153-4, 4^4, ^'^^ Paul, 326, 567; legends of, 614, 618. the First Epistle, 92, Lect. xxii. Peter the Apostle, the Second Epistle, 29, Lect. XXV. Gospel according to, 196, 456, 505, 554- Acts of, 364-70, 554. Preachingof 19, 186,1356, 364, 554. Apocalj^se of, 227, 474, 552-6. Judgment of, 603 . PM, 613. Pflsiderer, 224, 395, 461. Pharisees, in Acts, 317. Philaster, 149, 229, 362. Philemon, 223, 396, 406. Philip, 330 ; Acts of, 364. Philippi, 262. Philippians, Epistle to, 395-6. Phillips, Dr., 83, 348, 551. Philo, 73, 99, 257, 461, 477, 519, 521 ; his influence on N.T. Greek, 544-51. Philoxenus, 511. Photius, 355, 52, 178, 362, 383, 437, 474, 517, 548, 566. Phrynichus, 145. Pilate, Acts of, 120, 201. Pistis Sophia, 373, 556, 618. Piiis I. of Rome, 48, 572-5, 582. Pliny, 341, 460, 495. Plutnptre, 257, 444. Pococke, 511. Poison, 314. Polemo, 354. Polycarp, 21, 31, 36, 39, 79, 106, 212, 261, 281, 310, 382, 391, 404, 414, 434, 457, 566, 601. Poly crates, 265, 330, 565. Porphyry, 7, 164, 204. Pothinus, 36. Potwin, Mr., 618. Preaching Christ, 112, 1 16. Proclus, 331. Proconsuls, 339. Prophet, False, of Revelation, 26, 246- 248, 252. Protevangelium, 194— 8, 505. Protonice, 348. Prudentius, 368, 559. 2 S 2 628 INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. Purists, 239. Pusey, 590. Quarry, Dr., 82, 466, 520, 541. Quartodecimans, 79, 255-70. Quotations, O. T., 68, 146, 527. Rahab, 490. Ramathaijn, 308. Raven, 530. Reeves, Bishop, 348. Regeneration, 74, 302, 549. Renan, 8, 25, 27, 77, 80, 89, 95-7, lOO, no, 113, 126, 15s, 185, 189, 200, 213, 218, 235, 243-s, 252, 268, 271, 285, 288-90, 294-6, 306-8, 319, 350, 379, 380. Resurrection, 33, 53, 317, 350, 383. Revelation (see Apocalypse"). Reuss, 139, 245, 395, 421. Rhoda, 576. Roberts, 188. Romans, Epistle to, 48, 394, 577 ; its use in Hebrews, 445 ; in i Peter, 466 ; whether in James, 491. Rome, Church of, 564-76, 579-584- Routh, 311, 541, 569- Royal La-cV, 475. . Rufinus, 15, 364, 474, 517, 603. Rushbrooke, 148, 150. Sacrifices and Elkesaites, 18, 21, 174. Sadducees, 317, 483. Sadler, Mr., 67, 131. Sagaris, 264. Salome, 195, 204-5. Samaria, 367. Sanday, Dr., 68, 208, 257, 268, 270, 541- Satan, 419. Saturniniis, 204. Sauppe, 399. Schaff, 618. Schenhel, 395, 50b. Schleiermacher, 95, 139, 185. Schisms, healing of, 20. Scholten, 109, 142, 212, 281, 286, Scriptures, the word how used, 37. Seal, 352, 359. Second Coining, 211, 248, 390, 604, 616 Septuagint, 268, 421, 507, 537, 545, 587-99- Serapion, 196. Sergius Paulus, 339. Sermon on the Mount, 66, 140, 609. Sethites, 458. Seufert, 466-9. Sibyl, 244, 365, 621. Silas, 313. Silence of tradition as to publication of Gospels, 121-3; of St. John, 289; of fourth Gospel as to St. John, 62, 280; of Acts as to Paul's Epistles, 338 ; as to martyrdom of Peter and Paul, 309, 328 ; of Eusebius, 87, 95. Simon Magus, 14, 246, 364-7, 402. Sinaitic MS. (see Codex )^). Sixtus of Rome, 369. 2Ka(^rj, 360. Smith of Jordan Hill, 6, 134. Socinians, 216. Solecisms of Apocalypse, 238. Solomon, Psalms of, 238. Sophocles, 293. Sophronius, 184. Soter of Rome, 261, 565. Sozomen, 555-7- Speaker's Commentary, 210, 255, 257, 336, 381, 395, 419, 525, 528. Stanley, Dean, 245, 271. Stichometry, 178, 200, 355, 454, 551, 555, 557- Stobceus, 399. Stoicism, 334, 475, 521, Stone, J., 412. Strabo, 339. Strauss, 8, 10, 14, 39, 46, 75, 77, lOO, 185, 216-17, 298. Sulpicius Severus, 9. Supernatural Religion, 9, 40, 76, 87, 207, 208, 341. Susanna, 596. INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. 629 Syjneon of Jerusalem, 478, 508, 522. Sym7nachus, 477, 588, 591. Syncellus, 509. Synoptic Gospels, 218, 303-7 ; Lect. VIII., IX. Synopticon, Rushhrooke'' s, 148, 150. Syriac versions, 457, 566, 571 (see Peshitto. Tacitus, 5, 244, 430. Tahnud, 257, 561, 608. Tarsus, 334, 557. Tatian, 78-86, 363, 415, 521. Taylor, Jeremy , 75. Dr. C, 608. Teaching of Twelve Apostles, 283, 496, 573, 600-617. Temebichus, 557. Tendency School, 13. Tennyson, 105, 240. Terence, 63, 292. Tertullian, 42-45, 54, 160, 196, 201, 206, 212, 309, 349, 373, 382, 39i» 396, 403, 414, 438, 445-6, 458, 464, 477, 501, 509, 517, 533, 558, 572, 593, 613. Pseudo; 149, Tertius, 391. Tetrapla, 588. Thaddceus, 202, 346-8, 504. Thamyris, 350. Tharshish, 595. Thebaic Version, 439. Thecla, 341, 349-54, 374, 524- Thegri, 586. Theodore of Mopsuestia, 178, 392, 513. Theodoret, 52, 78, 83, 160, 5x3. Theodotion, 533, 586-600. Theophilus of Antioch, 62, 77, 78, 85, 88, 127, 229, 396, 414, 520. Theophylact, 401. Thessalonians, Epistles to, 385-92. Thessalonica, 340. Thiel, 504. Thilo, 343. Thirlwall, 10, 293. TJioma, 71, 78, 81, 383. Thomas, Gospel of, 198-200, 456 ; Acts of, 347, 354-64. Thucydides, 413. Tillemont, 376. Timothy, 313, 441 ; (see Pastoral Epistles') . Tischendorf, 120, 161, 201, 296, 343, 367, 376, 557, 589- Titus, 313 ; (see Pastoral Epistles). Tradition, Triple, 148-154. silence of, 123. Trajan, 253, 281, 401-2, 460, 470, 503. Tregelles, 47, 163, 297. Trent, Council of, 569, 596. Trophimus, 417. Tryphcsjta, 352. Turibius, 359. Two Ways, 602-17. Tychicus, 397-8, 405. Tyndale, 608. Unleavened bread, 263. Ur-Markus, 95. Z/jjA^r, 394, 593. Valetttinus, 58-61, 79, 411-12, 559. Valerian, Emperor, 369. Van Sittart, 538. Variations of independent translators, 117; of Evangelists, 135. Various readings, argument from, 42, 56, 70. Vatican, 368. Council, 49, 376. Manuscript (see Codex B). Vegetarianism, 204. Velleius Paterculus, 5. Veronica, 202. Versions, use of, 57 ; old Latin, 457, 661. Vespasian, 246, 251, 563, 599. Fjcifor 0/ Ca^Ma, 82, 85. of Rome, 43, 265, 565. 630 INDEX TO PERSONS AND SUBJECTS. Vienne and Lyons, 36, 252, 310, 414, 457, 519, 567- Virgin, marriage of, 195 ; assumption of, 376-7. Virginity of Mary, 194; of John, 373. Vocabulary, changes in, 399, 419, 535. Volkmar, 26, 185, 207, 246, 365, 510. IVace, Dr., 84. Wahl, 533. Warfield, 541. ' We^ sections of Acts, 312-325. Weisse, 426. WeizsUcker, 185, 461. Westcott, Canon, 10, 47, 61, 67, 68, 70, 77, 159, 164, 176, 178, 187, 203, 210, 225, 229, 241, 25s, 257, 266, 268, 270, 383, 455, 458, 504, 516-17, 527, 538, 561. Wetstein, 520, 536. Whately, Archbishop, 74. Wieseler, 257, 266-7. Wisdom, description of, Prov. viii., 45- Book of, 444. Wordsworth, Bishop, 443. Works, good, 487. Wright, W., 344, 376. Wurm, 266. Xenophon, 399. Zacharias, death of, 195. Zahn, 84, 186, 370-6, 382-3, 551, 575, 608, 613. Zeller, 222, 320. Zephyrinus, 50, 583, I INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. I.— OLD TESTAMENT. PAGE Genesis iv. 15 99 vi. I 509 / xiv. 14 559 XV. 6 98 xvii. 27 559 xviii. 17 477 xxii. 7 , 293 Exodus iii. 14 . . . .• 239 xii. 6 260 46 256 xxiv. 8 299 Lev. xviii. 28 537 Num. ix. 12 256 xi. 8 175 Deut. X. 9 99 xi. 14 479 xviii. 22 250 xxi. 23 470 xxviii. 25 479 XXX. 4 480 15 602 Joshua X. 20 .""387 XV. 25 308 2 Samuel xii. 3 293 2 Chron. xii. 1 2 387 XX. 7 476 xxxi. I 387 xxxvi. 22-3 596 PAGE Ezra i. I 596 Nehemiah i. 9 480 Psalms i. I 558 iv. S 404 viii. 6 443 xxii. 6 458 xxiii. 4 459 xxxiv. 20 257 xl. 6 444 xii. 9 268 Ixxxvi. 13 459 xc. 4 519 cxviii. 22 338, 468 cxl. 3 229 cxlvi. 2 480 Proverbs iii. 34 47° viii. 12, &c 45 X. 12 470 xxvi. II 513.536-7 Isaiah i. i 198, 233 ii. I 233 6 595 vi. I 233 9, 10 268 viii. 14 466 xi. 2 182 ID 221 xxviii. 16 466, 468 632 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. Isaiah, xxxiv xli. xlii. xliii. xlix. lii. liv. Ixi. Ixv. Jer. iii. XV. xxi. xxxiii. xl. Ezekiel i. viii. xvii. • • ■ xviii. • 4 8, 12 21... ir... IS--. 5 ••• 2 ... lO... 2 .. . 14... 10. .. • • XXXIV •Daniel i. PAGE 521,554 476 547 547 563 347 412 306 412 611 412 179 602 546 546 ......... 38 180 479 203 182 ..•. 507 595 233 7-10 665 35. 594,597 44 592 5 655 9 . 9 . 6 . 3 . 10. 7 . 2 . 2 . 6 . PAGE Daniel iv. 7 599 31 599 V. 3 665 23 597 vi. 22 587-8 vii- — 593 I, 2 233 8, 24 563 9 597-8 15 233 21 597 viii. 10 599 19 387 ix. — 593, 599 7-10 599 15-18 599 X. 6 594, 597-8 II 593 20 597 xi. 36 387 ■ xii. 4 594 7,9,10 592,597 Hab. iii. 2 198 3 547 Zech. xii. 10 268 Mai. iv. I 521 II.— APOCRYPHA. I Esdras ii. 10 595 2 Esdras viii. 3 108 ] "-31 459 xii. 42 520 Wisdom ii. 1 7 444 iii- 2 519 vii. 22, 26 444 ' vii. 27 477 Wisdom xii. 10 444 xvi. 21 444 Ecclus. XV. 11,12 492 Judith V. 19 480 2 Mace. i. 27 480 Baruch i. 15-18 599 ii- 11-16 599 Bel and the Dragon 180 III.— NEW TESTAMENT. Matthew i. 3, 23 169 18 37 ii. — 67 i 22 Matthew iii. 4 143 iv. I 179 5,10 146-7 v. — 140 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. ^33 Matthew v. 20 37 PAGE 475 481 48 482 vi. 16 170 24 333 vii. 1,57 146,482 21 582 22,23 21 26 481 viii. 5, 1 1, 16 22, 141 ix. 6, 12 136, 144 14-17 146 IS 546 X. 3 504 27 22 32, 33, 40 218,222 xi. 10 147 15 222 27-29 205,218 xii, 13 118, 182 40 459 50 211 xiii. 14 „ 268 32 599 55 156,503-5 57 304 xiv. I 138 5 276 .. 33...., 159 36 144 , . XV. 8, 9 147 xvi. 27 222 xviii. 3 75 25 144 xix. 21 181 23, 24 144, 146 XX. . . . . 12.. .. 23 ... . 30.... xxi. 9, 15 10, II . 25.... 33 ... . 41.... 167 530 374 220 220 307 277 1x8 170 PAGE Matthew xxi. 42, 43 .... , 23, 468 44 H^i xxii. 5 536 23 169 43 221 xxiii. 12 481 35 196-7 37 308 xxiv. — 390 13, 30, 42 222 22 146 30, 31, .... 219,222,390 35 554 xxv. 14 536 31 219 xxvi. 17 256 xxvii. 8, 15, 33,46 169 19,24,25 23 49 86 56 506 65 219 xxviii. 15, 19 23, 169 18, 20 218 Mark i. — 153 2 147 6 144 29 105, 157 30 102 32 141 ii. 3 144 4 145 10 136 17 144 18-22 146 iii. 5 "8, 156, 159 7 188 17 Ill 18 504 21 156 V. 7 136, 145 23,41 145 vi.3 156,503 6 159 14 138 19 144 634 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. PAGE Mark vi. 20 276 27. 37. •39- 41. 52. 43 361 156 146 159 vii. 6, 7 147 «.i4,36 155-6 • '47.- 145 •X. 16, 17 156 23,25 144-6 xi. 15 145 • 23....... 482 • 31 277 xii. I 118 38.... 117 42 43 xiii. 20 146 XIV. 5 " - iz. ..... ,. • IS-.. ■ 62 6s XV. IS, 39, 44 • 43....... • xvi. I . . . . . . . . .... 304 .... 256 .... 146 .... 219 .... 145 .... 43 .... 145 .... 161 17-19 .... 160,305, 374 9-20 159-164 Luke i. — i 85 1-5.....; 120-22 ■ 4 127 ii. 46 200 iii. 2, 21, 23 17s 19 138 iv. I 317 • 8, 9... 146-7 • 19. 306 40 142 • 44... 307 •v:t7.. 317 •• 18, 31 144 • ' 24 136 • • ■ 33-39 146 vi. -^.. 140 ■ • 10. 118 Luke vi. 16.. , 20 24-5 42 vii.- 5 ■ 27.. 28.. 7 16 31,33,43. vni. ix. X. 8 . X. 18, 20. PAGE 504 481 482 146 23 147 136 138 146 ..519-20, 546 337 102 222 140 140 22 530 3 55 54, 57 479 — 140 26. 34. xiv. XV. xvi. xvii. xviii. XX. 13.... 26-31 24.... .5,6. 9 .... 18.... 46.;.. .... 21 .... 308 140, 167 .... 181 . . . . 140 .... 333 .... 519 . . . . 146 .. 276-7 .... 118 . . . . 146 .... 117 .... 97 .... 218 .... 7 .... 30s . . . . 146 15 24 3 12 IS... 175, 256 43, 44 70 60... 5i... 28 12 39 John i. 219 308 23 305 186 49, 51 305 1-3 71-83, 208, 223 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. 635 PAGE John i. II 208 13 235 '4 210, 236, 275 17, 22 276 25 269 28 271 29 223, 276 32,40,43 291-2 S3 175 34 296 42 536 44 105,271, 277 45, 46 272,289, 292 ii. — 81 I, II.. 209, 271,275, 278 5 269 II, 17, 22, 23,.. 275, 278 13, 23 268 14 236 16 209 18, 28 2X2 20 273,294 24 303 iii- 3 76, 302 4 294, 302 5 23s 13, 15 223, 292, 302 14 209 17 210 23 271 24 291 25 269 29 236 35 223 iy. 6 277 9 269 II 271 15 294 22 209, 270 24 81 27,33 270, 278 35 271 42 210 44 304 46 271 PAGE John iv. 52 277 V. I 269 18, 23 221, 223 24 210 28 211 32, 33 277 39, 46 209 vi. — 298 . 2, 4 269, 298 ..... 7,9,11.274,277,296-8,304 23 303 32 209, 236 37 304 41 271 42 292 47, 51,53 223 52 271,294 55 301 62 223,292,302 70 291 71 303 vii. I 271 15 270 22 61 24 236 27,31 61,275 35,36 270,294,480 37 236, 269 4i,42,49-52..272,289,296 viii. 15 97 20 277 34 520 39 234 48 269 51-55 236 56 209 58 223 ix. 1-3 77, 177 2 270 X. 7, 27 76 II 235 14-17 223 16 30 22, 23 269, 277 41 276 636 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. PAGE John xi. 2 296, 305 16 277-8 18 271, 296 23 277 25 223 44 236 48 274 49-52 235,270, 294 54 271,278 55 269 xU- 2, 5 304-5 16 276 xii. 21 277 31,34 275 35 210 40 268,327 41 209, 235 xiii. I 256, 269 3, 8 236 II 303 17 481 18 268 22, 23, 24.... 278-9, 285 27 305 29 256, 278 xiv. 5, 8 277 6, 10, 14, 20 223 23 223, 236 22 277,504 XV. 5,9,20 223, 236 xvi. 7 305 17 278 20 210 33 236 xvii. 3 2 10, 223 5, 10 223 6 236 xviii. 2 278 10 277 13 270 14 296 15 278,285 16 292 28 256, 269 12 274 PAGE John xix. 13 74, 272 21 294 26 278 31 269 35 275,296,303 36-37 209,256 39 296 XX. 2, 3 277, 279, 285 17 292, 302 19, 25 278 28, 29 223,347 31 132,223,303 xxi.— ..85, 212, 277, 295-6 2 271 3, 7 278-9, 285 8, 9 296 12 464 15-17 236 16 235 18 523 19 285 20, 22 212, 279, 296 24 275,278,296 25 282,294 Acts i. 5 316 13 504 17, 18 528 21 121 23 356 ii. 20 529 23 338,529 24 310 32 470 42, 46 300 . iiL I 285 12 528 15, 18 470 iv. I 317 II 338,468 12 310 18 529-30 21 529 28 338 32 617 36 446 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. 637 PAGE Actsv. 17, 28 317, 529 30 470 39.... 318 42 112 vi. I 448 s 316 vii. 38. 98 58. 316 viii.— 17, 330, 365 I 316-17 14... 285 18 17 40 316 58 ••• 446 ix. 7 13s 27 323, 446 30, 35 317,446 X. 27 529 33 547 38 116 39..-- 470 4i----- 310 42. 338,470 43 470 47 316 xi. 16, 19 317 20 112, 446 22, 25 317, 323 28 314 • xii. 2 279 12 447 13 318 17 478 xiii. 5 321 7 339 13 317,341 39 325 46 322 51 341 xiv. 6 341 13 446 . xv. — 478, 482 I 488, 492 5,8 316-17 II 486 PAGE Acts XV. 19 492 20, 25, 29 29 28,38 317 xvi. 4 29, 317 9 •••• 314 12, 20 340 15 282 xvii. — 334-6,385 5 282 6 340 H 317 xvii. 19-34 334-6 . .xviiu I,. 19 480 5 317,336,385 6 333 12 340 14 459 20 306 24 445 25 276, 529 xix. 3 276 9 529 27 546 38 340 XX. — 425 4, 5 ..•313-17,340, 386 6 262 16 306, 313-15 17 315 19-35 333 25 329, 424 28. 395,432 29., 310 34 396 35 106, 310 xxi. — 330, 451,562 4, 10 315 8, 16 282, 316 18 314, 478 20 317 21: 451 24, 25 29, 323 26 317 29. 317,418 38 343 638 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. PAGE Acts xxii. — 335 20 316 xxiii. 9 317 26 318 xxiv. 18... i 317 XXV. II 317 25 423 xxvi. 18 325 32 317,423 xxvii. — 6, 314 2 386 xxviii. 3-9 7. 320 16 314 Romans i. 4 335 8 387 17 444 ii. 13 491 16 Ill 17-23 487 25, 27 490 28 31 iii, 2 98 22, 24 223 28 486 iv. 19 443 V. 1,9, 10 223 3 491 vi. 7 467 10 470 16 520 vii. 23 491 viii. 17, 18 223, 467 29 443 34 164 ix. 3 324 5 223 25, 33 465-6 xii. — 443 I, 2 467, 549 6, 7 467 9 443 10-19 282, 443, 466 xiii, — 246 1,3,4 459, 466 xiv. 9 223 PAGE Romans xiv. 19 443 XV. 10 444 12 221 19 282 27 617 33 393,444 xvi. — 43,393 3 480 14 572 20-27 393 21 386 23 282-5 25 I", 393-5 I Cor. i. 12 291 "•4 387 6 444 iii. 2 387, 444 22 223, 291 iv. 7 491 9 453 14 388 V. 7 223, 263 9, II 388,392 vi- 4 75 9 490 II 496 viii. 6 223 23 605 ix. 5 291 II 617 15 396 20 324 X.— 507 I 98 27 337 xi. I 387 8 98 II 616 20 300 23 337 xiv. 16 361 26 585 33 389 XV. 3, 5, 7 34, 291 b, 7 179, 337,493 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. 639 PAGE I Cor. XV. 9 410 25 223 26, 27 442-3 33. 35 490 50 384 2 390 xvi. 7 444 8 262 xvi. 13 333 19. 20 452, 466 aCor.ii. 17 387 iv. 5 112 vi. 2, 16 444 vii. 2 387 viii. 9 223 24 444 xi. 2 412 xi. 3 98 9, 10 336, 387, 396 13 32 22 448 24, 25 337, 387 xii-2-4 557 21 506 xiii. I 444 5, 14 223 II 389 Galatians i. i 223 6 389 19 478, 503 ii. 9 28, 291, 478 II 16 12 333,478 16, 20 223 iii. 13 223, 470 16 444 19 444, 508 27 223 iv. 2 1 98 26 30 V. 2, 3 333, 488 10 388 13 466, 507 20 417 vi. 7 490 PAGE Galatians vi. 9 ogg "6 31 Eph. i. — 406,413 , 3-14 406, 413, 468 7 223 10 419 20-22.. 75, 164, 223, 468 23 412 "•2-9 223, 419 " 30,411 18 223,468 19 408 20-22 406, 412, 468 iii. 1-9 403-8, 410-13 9-11 468 16-20 406, 413, 468 iv. 1-4 403-7 8-10 444,459,468 13-27 419 16-25 406, 412 17-30 333,404-6 V. 5 223 H 444 15-25 406 22 536 25, 29 404 vi. II, 13 419,532 21, 22 405 23 419 Phil i. I 395, 432 II 490 15 113 18 396 19,25-26 423-4 ii.6, 7,10 223, 538 5-II 400 24 423 25 605 iii. 2 31 5 317,448 9 326 12 550 19 506 20 550 iv. 3 222,395, 568 640 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. PAGE Phil. iv. 14 547 16 336, 386 Colossians J. — 72 1-26 406 7 397 9, 10 419 IS 396,413, 550 15-18 222-3, 413 ii. 2. 4 406,419,490 ■8,7,19.. 406 II 31 21 204 iii. 1-16 164, 406 4, 10 419 iv. 5-8 405-6 10-13.. 385, 397, 428, 447 14 • 145, 313 16 392, 398, 406 21 429 I Thess. i. 1-3 386-7, 587 1,5,6,8 387 9 386 • ii.4. 5, 6, 7 387 9 387-8, 396 14-16.. 271,386-7 iii. 6, II 223, 385 iv. II, 12 388 13-18 385,390 V. 2 , . 481 6 466 8 419 12. 395 21 177 23 490 2 Thess. ii. — 390 1-12 389 2-1 1. 388-9 8 419 14 Ill iii. 3 396 • 4,8, 10, 12, 13, 16.. 388-9 ■ 17...... 391 ■ iv;'i4V. 388 I Tim.i. 1; 4, H 4^9 17. ..••■.'.••• 414 PAGE I Tim. ii. 4, 5 223, 419 14 98 iii. 2 282, 432 iv. 3 204 12 419, 424 V. 10 282 vi. II 419 vi. 20 402 2 Tim. i. 10 442 13 419 15-18 426 17 350,417 ii. 8 Ill 22, 25 419 iii- 7 419 iv. I 470 6-8 222,419 9-22 426-30, 480 " 313 16 423,441 19...... 480 20 417 Titus i. I, 7 419, 432 8, 14 282,417 ii-9 536 14 497 iii. 8 488 10 417 Philemon 22 423 24 313,385,428 Hebrews i. i 444 2 435.444 3 164,434,444 4, 6, 7, 13.. 434,443-4,550 ii. 2 444 3 440, 450 8, 14 442-3 9,17 435,550 iii- I 434 iv. 12 72 V. 12, 14 98,444,450 vi. — 437,450 3,10 444,450 4 490 16 435 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. 641 PAGE Heb. viii. 1,6 164, 508 10 444 ix. 28 470 X. — 452 12 164 5,28,38 444 33-37 441, 453 xi. — 489 12, 13 443, 465 33 588 xi. — 453 2-4 164,450-3 II 490 14-17 443-4 xii. 20 333 xiii. 1-3 282, 443, 453 5,7 443-4 20 444 23 442, 448 24 452 James i. 3, 4, 5 47°, 482, 49° b 479 7, 8 222, 475 II 470,479 12 222, 482 13 492 14 530 15-17 490-1 22 481, 490 25 481 26,27 475,495 ii. — 484 1 493 2 476, 480,482 5 481 6,7....222, 476,480, 493 8 476, 490 10-12 490-1 13 477 18 490 21 480 23 222,477 24 486 25 480 26 222 PAGE James iii. 2 476 3 222 4 479 5 222 ", 12 479 15-18 476,490 iv. 1-9 470, 476,482 James iv. 10 482 II, 12 476, 482 13, 16 477, 480 17 491 V. 1-6 476, 482 4, 10 480 7, 8, 9 . . 479, 489, 493-4 II, 12 476, 481 13 474 14, 15 494 17 479-80 I Peter i. 2 338 3-12 468, 471 7 235, 470, 549 10-13.,.. 235, 468, 470 14 465-7,527 18 235, 549 19 235,527-8 20 338, 468 22 235 23 235,471 24 470 ii- 2 527 4-7 338, 468 5 235, 467 6-8 338, 466 9-10..., 235, 465,528-9, 547, 552. 12 528 13, 14, 16 466-8 20 459, 471 24 470 25 549 iii- 1-5 522, 534 2 528 4 468 8, 9 466 18 235, 468, 470 2 T 642 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. PAGE I Peter iii. 19, 20 457, 468, 471 21 471, 528 22 164, 468 iv. I 467, 528 3 465 4 549 5 470 9 282 10, II, 13 98,467 12 471 16 459 19 549 V. I 286, 467, 470 2,1, 235,472 4,5 222, 333,470 8 466 9 471 13 92, 235, 462-4 14 466 2 Peter i. i 527-8 3-5 527-8, 547 7 527-8 8,9 527 10-16 523-8 12 520-1, 546 15 518 17 521 18 523 19, 21 520 ii. 1-3 ....519,527-8, 545 4, 58 •••• 333,513-519 7-9 527-8 12 527 13-15 29, 527-9 16, 18 527-9 19 520, 527 21, 22.. 513, 528-9,536 iii. I 458, 523 5-7 527 8 518 9 520 10 ....481, 521, 528-9 II, 12, 14 ..521, 527-8 15 29,523 16 527 PAGE I John i. I 275 3-5 79 4 210 7 223 ii. 2, 5 223, 236 11-13 210, 236 18, 28 212 iii. I 78 3-9 223, 235 12-14 210, 236 iv. 3 285 4 236 9, 14 210 13 223 V. 4 236 6 211 15-20 296 24 210 2 John— 212, 235, 283-5 3 John— 282-5 6 547 12 296 Jude I, 4, 17 502-511 6 510 7,8 27, 510 9 508 II 27 12, 13 507-10 14, 16 509, 510 20 333, 510 Rev. i. I, 6, 9 233, 235 5 413 7 236 8, 17 221 14 598 16 236 ii. 2 27, 386 4, 5 32 7, II, 17 236 9 26 10 222, 482 14, 15 27 20-22 506 iii. 3 481 5 222, 236 INDEX TO PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CITED. 643 PAGE Rev. iii. 8-10 26, 236 9, 12 27, 238 14, 21 ..220-21,234, 413 18 235 20 236 V. 1-3 229 5 221 6, 9 . , 30, 220, 235, 236 12, 13 220, 236 vi. 4, 9 236 9,10 255 vii. 4-8 30 14. 15 236 ix- 20 597 X- 5 597 7 282, 413 xi. 2 252 8 30 12 303 xii- 7 597 II, 12 235-6 xiii- 7 597 3, 6, 8, 12, 14.. 236, 244 II 246 xiv. 8, 12 235,438 xvi. 12 244 PAGE Rev. xvi. 15 481 xvii. 5 235 '^ 255,453 10, II 243-4 16, 17 246-251 xviii. 20, 24 236, 255 xix. 6 597 7 236,412-13 13 234,599 16 220, 597 20 246 XX. 2 238 4 597 6 221, 236 II 597 ^ii- 2 30,233,236, 413 3 236 6 252 7 236 9, 14 413 xxii. I, 3 221 2 233 7, 9 236 13, 16 221 17 236,413 18, 19 226 THE END. ?v ::mi ■'O'^ v. 'i * . • '- ."If , ^l'*" ■ '^ X (t