,~~~~~~~~~~~~....l. ESSAYS ON THE SUPERNATURAL vOXIXIN OF C H - I ANIY, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE THEORIES OF RENAN, STRAUSS, AND THE TU[BINGEN SCIHOOL. BY REV. GEORGE P.r/ISIER, D. D. PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN YALE COLLEGE. 1EW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO., No. 654 BROADWAY. 1867. - Entered, according to Act of Congress, in ths year 1865, by CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO., In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. JOHN F. TROW & CO., PRmJTERS, STEREOTYPERS, 4 ELECTROTYPER4 50 GREENE STREET, N.T. i . 7, t il y I PREFACE. ALTIHOUGH this volume does not claim the charac. ter of a complete treatise, yet the Essays which compose it form a connected whole and deal with the most important aspects of the general theme under which they are placed. That theme is the origin of the religion of Christ-whether it be "from heaven or of men." The validity of the distinction between the Natural and the Supernatural is assumed, and something is done in various parts of the work-for example, in the Essay on Miracles-to elucidate this distinction. The fact of the constant presence and agency of God in Nature is held to be perfectly consistent with the proposition that the world is a reality distinct from Him. This being his theme, the author has deliberately abstained, as far as was practicable, from discussing the special questions involved in the subject of Inspiration, such as the alleged discrepancies between the 6 ,j, - 1, I . 7 -II, 11-11 PREFACE. various Gospel narratives. The question here considered is not that of Inspiration, but of Revelation. A great advantage is secured by keeping these two topics apart, and I have given heed to the canon of Paley that "substantial truth is that which, in every historical inquiry, ought to be the first thing sought after and ascertained." The portion of this work which has lately appeared in the form of Articles in Theological Reviews, has been much revised and, it is hoped, rendered more worthy to be submitted to the public. Especially is this true of the Essay on the Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, which has undergone not only a careful revision, but also a material amplification, since its first publication in the Bibliotheca Sacra. And in this place I gladly express my acknowledgments to an accurate scholar, Mr. Ezra Abbot, of Harvard College Library, for a number of important suggestions, as well as corrections, which he has kindly communicated to me, and of which I have availed myself in the present edition of that Essay. In the preparation of these dissertations, the author has chiefly made use of German writers, because in Germany these subjects have been canvassed of late with more earnestness and a greater outlay of learning than elsewhere. Germany has been the theatre not iv PREFACE. only of the most formidable assault upon the claims of Revelation, but also of the most effectual vindication of those claims. But I have diligently resorted to the original authorities, and have withheld my sanctionl from statements which did not appear to be sustained by their testimony. Although many of the special topics which are handled in the following pages, have only recently been brought forward, I have still found frequent occasion to consult Professor Norton's Genineiess of fie Gospels, a work which combines thorough learning with signal impartiality. I may be permitted to add that no attempt has been made to provide the reader with a bibliography upon the topics embraced in the present work. It would have been easy to multiply references to books, but it has been thought best to mention only such as are most importaut tothe student. The leading feature of the present volume is the consideration given to the system of the Tuiibingen school of historical critics, and especially to the tenets of the late Dr. Baur, incomparably the ablest, as he is the most conspicuous, representative of this school. Although the Tftbingen criticism is to be considered the ripe form of the one type of Unbelief peculiar to our age, as Deism was characteristic of the last century, and althloulgh this movement, from the learning and in v PREFACE. genuity of its promoters, is more entitled to notice than any other leading form of skepticism which has ever appeared in the Church, I am not aware that any full examination of it has been attempted before in English, unless the work of Mr. Mackay, a zealous partisan of the school, is to be counted an exception.' It will be observed that comparatively little space is devoted to the book of M. Renan. This is due partly to the fact that much that might properly be said respecting his work, is anticipated in the previous Essays, and partly to the conviction that its claim to scientific attention is small, compared with that presented in the productions of Baur and Strauss. The same remark is applicable to the Essay. on the opinions of Theodore Parker. These Essays are mainly devoted to the vindication of the genuineness and credibility of the New Testament Narratives. But in the final Essay, I have examined the Pantheistic groundwork on which most of the fabrics of skeptical criticism are reared. If- Pantheism is here met by other arguments than those furnished in the Hamiltonian "philosophy of nescience," it is because this philosophy did not appear to be requisite, and for the still better reason that I am not persuaded of its truth. It would seem that the 1 The Tiubingen School and its Antece(rents, by R. W. Mackay. London, 1863. vi PREFACE. human mind can know in a proper sense of the termthough it be inadequately-the Being above it, whom it yet resembles in spiritual constitution; that it can exclude its own limitations without thereby turning its knowledge of the object into a mere negation. But whatever may be the reader's opinion upon this question, the considerations which are here advanced in refutation of Pantheism remain valid, and are suffi cient, it is believed, for their end. On one point it may be well to guard against mis. construction. From. the prominence given to the subject of miracles, it might be supposed by a cursory reader, that these are considered the leading proof of Revelation. That the fact is quite otherwise, a more attentive perusal of this volume would immediately show. On the contrary, it is claimed that faith in the primal verities of religion has an independent root of its own. Such is the ancient and accepted teaching of Christian theology; the view not only of the Reformers, but also of all the mediaeval writers, including even the free-thinking Abelard. In keeping with this doctrine respecting the origin of faith in general, it is further held that the principal, most convincing source of faith in the divine origin of Christianity is the impression directly made on the spirit by the teaching, the life, and the death of its founder, and by the vii PREFACE. adaptedness of the Christian system to the practical necessities of the soul. But while all this is true, the investigation of the historical origin of Christianity is by no means superfluous. It must be remembered that the number of minds whose immediate discernment of the excellence of the Gospel delivers them from all doubt, and enables them to dispense with other proof of its divine origin, is comparatively small. The greater number of the cultivated class need to be fortified by evidence of a different nature; they need at least that obstacles should be removed out of the way, and that the historical conscience, if the phrase may be allowed, should be freed from uncomfortable misgivings. And it surely behooves the preacher of Christianity to address himself to the consideration of living questions, and not be content with answering objections which are no longer rife in the minds of thinking men. The older Apologies, like the ordnance of a former day, contain most valuable materials, but they are no longer serviceable until they are refitted in accordance with an altered state of things. Yet the disappearance of one after another of the previous types of unbelief, while the Christian faith still remains a living power, may teach a lesson of modesty. It is too much the habit of a class of writers to speak of Christianity as an antiquated system, and viii PREFACE. of faith in Revelation as something left behind by "the spirit of the age," "modern thought," "the consciousness of the nineteenth century." There is a cant on the side of unbelief, as well as among some of its opponents. It is well to bear in mind that these boastful phrases, or others analogous, were in vogue in the last century among those whom the later infidelity of the present day is forward to charge with shallowness. While these sheets are passing through the press, the information reaches me of the sudden death of my revered friend and former instructor, President Wayland. It affords me gratification, which I shall, perhaps, be pardoned for expressing, that he lived to read most of these Essays, and volunteered to convey to me in warm terms the too generous appreciation with which he regarded them. If any of these grave topics are found to be superficially handled, or if, in any respect, there is a want of fairness in the treatment of adversaries, these faults must be set down to a departure from his example and from the enlightened spirit of his teachings. N.Ew HAVEN, October 7, 1865. ix i .1 A 0 10 C ONTENTS. I. THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT OF CHRISTIAN FAITHT WITH SKEPTICISM AND UNBELIEF II. THE GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL [II. RECENT DISCUSSIONS UPON THE ORIGIN OF THE FIRS THREE GOSPELS. I V. BAUR ON PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH AND THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. V. 205 BAUR ON EBIONITISM AND THE ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY... VI. THE MYTHICAL THEORY OF STRAUSS STRAUSS'S RESTATEMENT OF HIS THEORY i I 33 . 153 283 339 vii. . 421 41 CONTENTS. VIII. THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN IX. THE CRITICAL AND THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS OF THEO DORE PARKER X. 449 AN EXAMINATION OF BAUR AND STRAUSS ON THE CON. VERSION OF ST. PAUL. XI. THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES XII. THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CONCERNING HIMSELF. XIII. 515 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD: IN REPLY TO THE POSITIV IST AND THE PANTHEIST. xii 433 459 471 539 ESSAY I. THE NATURE OF TIlE CONFLICT OF CHRISTIAN FAITH WITII SKEPTICISM AND UNBELIEF. WE purpose, in several Essays, to examine the foundations of the Christian faith, with particular reference to some of the leading theories of unbelief which are in vogue at the present day. It will aid us in performing the work we have taken in hand, if, at the outset, we present a statement of what we conceive to be the real question or questions, with which the controversy of Revealed Religion with Skepticism, in our day, is chiefly concerned. This discrimination seems important on account of the multiplicity of controverted points relating to the subject, which are brought into popular discussion. Physical science, historical study, metaphysical speculation, has each its own inquiries to raise and doubts to suggest, and the effect of the simultaneous agitation of so many different topics, none of them unimportant to a Christian believer, is, doubtless, to breed confusion. We shall do a service, therefore, as we hope, to some of our readers, if we stop amid the "confused noise" of the battle, survey the field where so many are running to and fro, and direct at 1 2 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. tention to the really essential points which are threatened, though not, as we trust, imperiled by tile assault. We shall not delay long for the purpose of characterizing the prevailing tone of the existing skepticism and unbelief, as contrasted with similar phenomena at other periods in the past. Yet not to leave this interesting topic altogether untouched, we extract a passage from a late volume of Bampton Lectures, in which the peculiarity of the present development of skepticism is correctly described. "The unbelief of the present day," writes the author, "differs from that of the last century in tone and character; and in many respects shares the traits already noticed in the modern intellectualism of Germany, and the eclecticism of France. It is not disgraced by ribaldry; hardly at all by political agitation against the religion which it disbelieves: it is marked by a show of fairness, and professes a wish not to ignore facts nor to leave them unexplained. Conceding the exist ence of spiritual and religious elements in human nature, it admits that their subjective existence as facts of consciousness, no less than their objective expression in the history of religion, demands explana tion, and cannot be hastily set aside, as was thought in the last century in France, by the vulgar theory that the one is factitious, and the other the result of pnriestly contrivance. The writers are men whose characters and lives forbid the idea that their unbelief is intended as an excuse for licentiousness. Denying TONE OF SKEPTICAL WRITERS. revealed religion, they cling the more tenaciously to the moral instincts: their tone is one of earnestness: their inquiries are marked by a profound conviction of the possibility of finding truth: not content with destroying, their aim is to reconstruct. Their opinions are variously manifested. Some of them appear in treatises of philosophyv: others insinuate themiselves indirectly in literature: some of them relate to Christian doctrines; others to the criticism of Scripture documents: but in all cases their authors either leave a residuum which they profess will satisfy the longings of human nature, or confess with deep pain that their conclusions are in direct conflict with human aspirations; and, instead of reveling in the ruin which they have made, deplore with a tone of sadness the impossibility of solving the great enigma. It is clear that writers like these offer a wholly different appearanlce from those of the last century. The deeper appreciation manifested by them of the systems which they disbelieve, and the more delicate learning of which they are able to avail themselves, constitute features formerly lacking in the works of even the most serious-minded deists,l and require a difference in the spirit, if not in the mode, in which Christians must seek to refiite them." 2 A general description like the foregoing is, of course, liable to much exception and qualification when it is applied to particular individ. 1 Such as Hierbert and Morgan. 2 Farrar's Bampton Lectures, Am. Ed., p. 307, 3 4 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. uals. Yet the drift of it will be recognized as correct by those who regard with a penetrative eye the skeptical literature of the day. In contrast with the past, unbelief is oftener now an infection than a willful attack. There are more at present who can be truly said to be aficeed with doubt. In the refinement and learning exhibited by the antagonists of Revelation, a decided superiority belongs to the present. Just place Paine's Aqe of Reason by the side of Renan's newly published bife of Christ! The difference of the old infidelity from the new, is instantly felt by the dullest observer. The spirit of the one is coarse and bitterly hostile to Christianity; the dependence is more on railing than reasoning; and the warfare is waged without the aid of historical knowledge. The Deistical writers were, to be sure, frequently above Paine in the character of the weapons they employed, and in the temper with which they wielded them; and yet the name of Paine fairly suggests the general character of the movement, at least in its later stages. The work of Renlan is the production of a scholar possessed of abundant philological and historical learning; it is dedicated to a departed sister who aided in its composition; it abounds in expressions of sentiment; it knows how to value much that is sacred to the Christian believer; it is founded upon laborious studies and upon travels in the land of the Bible. Skepticism has without doubt improved immensely in its general tone. And yet the SUBTLE CHARACTER OF MODERN SKEPTICISM. 5 sketch which we have quoted above, in order to be full, would require to be qualified by a distinct men tion of the fact that there is witnessed on the side of skeptical writers even of the more refined school, in our own times, the occasional development of an ani mosity toward the Christian faith, that ill accords with their habitual tone, and seems to imply that after all there lies deep down in the heart an unwholesome fountain of bitter feeling with reference to the doc trines and restraints of religion. For the reason that the peculiar traits of the mod ern skepticism, and the peculiar character of the class who are affected by it, are not clearly discerned, the comparative strength of the infidel party in our times is underrated by not a few even of Christian teachers. When the present is compared with the past, they begin at once to take a census of the known or avowed opposers of Christianity, and to put the result of this count of heads by the side of a similar reckoning made for an earlier epoch. They are not awake 'to the subtler form which skepticism has assumed. They fail to see that, though it be often less tangible and pugnacious, it is more diffused like an atmosphere. They are not aware how widely the seeds of unbelief are scattered through books and journals vlwhich find a hospitable reception even in Christian families. And they do not appreciate the significance of the fact that so large a number of the leaders of opinion on miatters outside of the sphere of religion, are adherents, 6 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. more or less outspoken, of the skeptical school.' Infidelity appears in better dress and in better company than of old; it takes on the function of the educator and social reformer; it prefers a compromise with Christianity to a noisy crusade against it; but the halffriendly attitude it assumes may render the task of exposing and withstanding it all the more difficult. This ambiguous, fluctuating tone of the skepticism of our day, renders the analysis c~ its fundamental position the more incumbent; and this we attempt in the present Essay. We begin with remarking that the principal question at issue is not the Inspiration of the Scriptures. There is one point of view, as we shall shortly explain, from which the importance of this question is not exaggerated. But the mere question of the relation of human agency to divine agency in the production of the Scriptures is, in itself considered, of not so great moment. The fact of Inspiration is chiefly important as containing a guaranty for the authority of the Bible. If the Bible were exclusively the work of men, and yet came to us attended with a divine attestation to the truth of its contents, the main end for which Inspiration is desired and thought necessary, would be attained. The authority of the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith and Practice is the doctrine of prime value; and Inspiration is required as a shield against the liabilities to hurtful error, which pertain to every exertion of the human mind without the aid of a higher THE QUESTION OF INSPIRATION. light. Something is gained, in our view, in the discussion of these topics, when we steadily keep in mind the great object to be secured (if it can be consistently with truth), which is none other than the Protestant principle of the Authority of the Bible as a guide to the knowledge of duty and salvation. Whether hlie proceed from a scientific or a practical motive, the inquirer for religious truth has first to settle the question, where shall this truth be found. This is obviously the first step. Until this point is determined, there is no criterion of truth, no "judge to end the strife" of diverse opinions. The Roman Catholic considers the Church, through the voice of its clergy and their head, the infallible expounder of truth. In every doubt, he has an arbiter at his side whose verdict, being the direct result of divine illumination, is held to be conclusive. The Protestant agrees with the Romani Catholic in holding to an objective standard, but the standard with him is the Bible, which he feels authorized to interpret for himself. Denying that the Church is either the unerring interpreter of Scripture, or the infallible guardian of oral teaching of Christ and the Apostles, which tradition has handed down, he falls back upon the Bible itself. The Bible alone is his Rule of Faith. This we take to be the fundamental position of Protestantism on the question which, as we have said, stands at the threshold of all profitable religious inquiry. On the contrary, the Rationalist differs from both the Roman Catholic and 7 8 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. Protestant, first in setting aside every objective Au thority, every Authority exterior to the mind itself, in matters of religion, and then in positively maintaining the sufficiency of Reason. Nothing is allowed tp stand which cannot justify itself at this tribunal of his own understanding. There is no divine testimony which is separate from the thoughts and deductions of the human mind, and entitled to regulate belief. We may stop to observe that an ingenious German writer 1 has not improperly classified the Mystic with the Rationalist, so far as the former takes his own feeling for a source and criterion of truth, superior to any external Rule. The Mystic and the Rationalist meet on the common ground of a renunciation of objective Authority, the one relying ultimately upon subjective reason, the other upon subjective feeling, for all his convictions of religious truth. And hence the Mystic is found to pass over, not unfrequently, by a natural and easy transition, to the position of the Rationalist, the difference between them often depending for the most part on a diversity of temperament and education. Now the Protestant principle which is thus distinguished from that of the Romanist and of the Rationalist, is of vital moment; and it stands in close connection with the other doctrine of Biblical Inspiration. Give up the principle of the Normative Authority of the Bible, and we are driven upon the alternative of either abjectly surren' Kliefoth, Ei?(ei?tI? in die XD,ginen,esch ichte. THE QUESTION OF INSPIRATION. dering ourselves to the Church, or of being set adrift, with the Rationalist, upon a sea of conjectures and uncertified reasonings of men. When, for exanple, I open an Epistle of St. Paul, and find there a passage upon the design and effect of the Saviour's death, and when I have ascertained the sense of the passage by a fair exegesis, may I then be sure of its truth? Or when I meet on the page of Scripture with practical injunctions pertaining to the duties of life, may I depend upon them as strictly conformed to the truth, and shape my conduct in accordance with them? IHere is the practical question concerning the Bible; and the fact of Inspiration, or of supernatural aid enjoyed by the writers, owes its value chiefly to the assurance it may afford upon this primary question. It is interesting to observe that the most discerning of those theologians at the present day who are dissatisfied with the old formulas concerning Inspiration, feel the necessity of still abiding by the cardinal Protestant principle of the Normative Authority of the Scriptures. The Bible is still held to be the safe and sufficient Rule of Faith, upon which the Christiall may cast himself without misgiving. Thus Dr, Arnold, holding that the apostles in the New Testament predict the speedy Advent of Christ to judgment, is, nevertheless, careful to remark, that by the recorded words of Christ which declare this point not to be a subject of Revelation, and by the circumstance that those injunctions of St. Paul which were 9 10 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. founded in his own mind on this expectation, are expressly given as not having divine authority, but as counsel, the error of the apostles is prevented from having the effect to weaken in our estimation their general authority. That is to say, this anticipation was all error, but an error into which they do not profess that Inspiration led them, and from the misleading influence of which all are saved who attend to the words of Christ in the passage above referred to. Another witness to the importance of upholding the Protestant view upon this subject is the learned and brilliant thleologian of Ileidelberg, D)r. PRothe. In the essays 1 which he put forth a few years ago, and which he has since collected in a little volume, the old theological definitions in regard to Inspiration are frankly discarded for the reason that, in the opinion of the author, they were constructed from a mistaken conception of the nature and method of Divine Revelation. Not only does he extend the influence of the human element, or factor, in the coinposition of the Scriptures so far as to admit of the introduction of errors in physical science and in history, but he does not hesitate to allow that the Apostles fell into mistakes in reasoning and in their method. of interpreting the Old Testament, and to distinguish between the doctrines they set forth, and the arguments First published in the Studien u. Kritiken. They are collected by the Author under the title, Zur Dogmnatik. THE QUESTION OF INSPIRATION. to which they resort in confuting adversaries, and which are more or less the result of their own fallible reflection. In these and other particulars, Rothe departs widely from the accepted formulas of doctrine. And yet he maintains, and feels it necessary to maintain, the Normative Authority of the Scriptures. This he endeavors to save by his view that the Bible is not only a self-explaining, but, to some extent, also a self-correcting, book. If we are able to discern the imperfection of an ethical senitence, or ethical judgment, in one portion of the Scriptures-for example in the Psalms-we do this only by means of a more advanced ethical standard which the Gospel, or the Scriptures as a whole, has given us, so that the Rule of Faith-the source of knowledge-still remains an objective one. We are still moving in the sphere of the Bible, seeing in the Bible's own teaching, judging by the Bible's own standard. A view not dissimilar from that of Rothe is suggested in various passages of the celebrated Letters of Coleridge on the subject of Inspiration. "Is it not a fact," he asks, "that the books of the New Testamient were tried by their consonance with the rule, and according to the analogy, of faith? Does not the universally admitted canon-that each part of the Scripture must be interpreted by the spirit of the whole-lead to the same practical conclusion as that for which I am now contending; namely, that it is the spirit of the Bible, and not the detached words and sentences, that is in 11 12 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. fallible and absolute?" 1 It is foreign to our pres. ent purpose to criticise these views of Rothe, which have evidently made a strong impression in Germany, or the somewhat similar, though less guarded, declarations of Coleridge. We advert to them both, simply to illustrate wherein lics the importance of the doctrine of Inspiration, and how essential it is, even in the opinion of profound theologians who are counted among the most liberal of the adherents of the Evangelical system, to uphold the Protestant doctrine of an objective and on tAle whaole unerring standard of religious truth and duty. Yet the subject of tile Normative Authority of Scripture is of subordinate interest when compared with the debate that has arisen upon the historical reality of the Scriptural miiracles. The attention of thoughtful men, everywhere, is concentrated upon the question of the verity of those parts of Scriptural history whichI describe miraculous events. If this be established, the speculative objections to the doctrinal system of Christianity at once fall to the ground. All opposition of this sort is then silenced, if not satisfied. On the other hand, if the miracles are disproved, Christianity is stripped of its essential peculiarity. The central fact of a Supernatural Interposition having for its end the restoration of I Coleridge, Cozfessions of an Inzgiiing ISpirit, in his Works, Am. Ed. vol. v. p. 612. THE QUESTION OF THE REALITY OF MIRACLES. 13 man to communion with God, is lost. The Christian system of doctrine is reduced to a mere product of the human mind, having no divine sanction, and mixed, we know not how largely, wvAth error. That this question of the historical reality of the Scriptural miracles involves the whole claim of Christianity to be a Revelation, is plain, for iRevelation and MIiracle are inseparable from each other.) In fact, the ablest skeptical writers of tlie present day have set themselves to the work of underminillng the evidence for the Scriptural miracles. To explain the origin of Christianity, and the origin also of the New Testament narratives of supernatural events, on some hypothesis that shall dispense with the need of putting faith in the latter, is the problem which they are struggling to solve. The Life of Christ by Strauss, in both the earlier and the recent form, is simply an elaborate attempt to set aside miracles, by propounding some hypothesis more plausible than the old exploded theory of a wilful deception on the part of the early disciples. The Life of Christ by Renan is likewise little more than an effort to account for Christ and Christianity and the Christian Scriptures, without giving credence to miraculous events. The recent criticism of the New Testament canon, embracing the attempt to impeach the genuineness of various books, is only a part of the great discussion of the historical truth of the New Testanient miracles; for it is difficult to attack the credi 14 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. bility of the Gospel histories without first disproving their genuineness. This main issue is never withdrawn from the mind of writer or reader. The resources of learning and skill which are expended by the Tuiibingen school of critics with Baur at their head, and in turn by their antagonists, in reference to the authorship and date of the Gospels and of other portions of the New Testament, are only a chapter in the controversy to which we allude. The spectacle presented is that of a conflict for the possession of a place not so much valued for itself, as for being the key that carries with it another position on which all thoughts centre. Thus the real issue between the believer and the unbeliever has become distinct and conspicuous. Did Christ do the works whiclh none other men could do? This is the vital question-we might almost say, the only question. The case of Christianity rests upon the decision of it. Its claim to a rank essentially different from that of other religions and philosophies, stands or falls according as this question is answered. Is the doctrine of God, or does Christ speak of himself, uttering a human wisdom which, however rare, is only human, bearing upon it no loftier sanction, and even mixed with an amalgam of error? This being a question so momentous, we have a right to expect of every one who enters into the discussion of the character of the Scriptures, especially if he be understood to represent the Christian cause, THE QUESTION OF THE REALITY OF MIRACLES. 15 that he shall declare himself in regard to it without ambiguity. Wvhatever view he may take upon special questions, upon this cardinal proposition of supernaturalism he has no right to appear to halt or to oscillate between two opinions. The volume of Ess8ays and- Reviews which lately kindled so great an excitement in the English Church, appears to us to be liable to this charge. In several of the dissertations that compose it, there is manifest an evasiveness and indecision, a disposition to pare down the supernatural in the Scriptures to a minimum, if not to doubt its existence altogether. An explicit, unshrinking avowal of at belief in the historical reality of the Christian miracles would have redeemed that book, in our judgment, firom its gravest fault. We remember that a critic of the Essays, in one of the English literary journals, cited from the book one skeptical insinuation after another, appending to each the question: "but what of the Resurrection?" This or that stricture may be just, or may not be-such was the purport of criticisnm -but what of tae Resurrection of CIlrist fromi tae dead? On what ground do these authors stand? Is it the design to shake the faith of men in supernatural Christianity and recommend a naturalistic theory? If not, why this hesitation to commit them. selves to a bold avowal on the subject of miracles, and to let their readers see how much is implied in the fact of the Resturrection of Christ? The concession that a single miracle took place in connection with Chris 16 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. tianity imparts to this religion an unspeakable elevation and awfulness in the view of every considerate mind. Although in these remarks we have chiefly in mind the New Testament, yet we should be inclined to bring a similar accusation against Stanley, for the ambiguous tone of his recent History of the Jewish Church, did he not expressly disclaim the ability to sever, in his own mind, in many cases, the natural and the supernatural. We are continually left afloat in regard to tlis most interesting and most important question. Now an event appears to be represented as miraculous, and in the next sentence it is resolved into a merely natural occurrence. Were it not for the distinct avowal of the author, to which we have adverted, his work would be justly chargeable with being written in a jesuitical tone-a tone least of all corresponding with the author's character. For ourselves we must acknowledge our preference for a single page of severe scientific criticism, over a library of volumes like this of Dr. Stanley,{where so little is decided and settled. What men crave in these days, is satisfaction upon the difficult questions which meet them in the early portions of the Old Testament,'and, if at all in earnest, they will not be content to be put off with pleasant description. In striking contrast with the censurable uncertainty of the Es8says and Reviews upon the subject of miracles, is the tone of Rothe in the little work to which we have already alluded. Starting with the avowed design to oppose the THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION AN HISTORICAL ONE. 17 views more commonly taken of the Scriptures, he is careful at the outset to avow his undoubting faith in miracles and in the supernatural character of Christianity. He desires it to be distinctly understood that on this subject he is full and clear. On this platform he will stand in the prosecution of the further inquiries to which he invites' attention. Such a course alone is worthy of a theologian who has a nobler aim than merely to instill doubts concerning the justice of received views. Thus, the principal question in the controversy with unbelief -s an historical one. Hardly a worse mnistakle can be committed in dealing with most skeptics at the present day, than to begin by insisting upon the inspiration of the Bible. We should rather place ourselves back in the position which the apostles occupied in preaching to the Gentiles, before the New Testament Scriptures were written. We should make it our first aim to substantiate the great facts which are recorded in the New Testament, and which formed the pith and marrow of the apostles' testimony. We must meet the skeptic on the ordinary level of historical investigation, and bring before him the proof that the Gospel miracles were actually performed, sub stantially as these histories of the New Testament narrate. There is no other common ground on which he and we can stand. Unless he can be satisfied of the credibility of the Gospels in these main particulars, it is useless to go farther and attempt to convince him 2. I 18 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. that this body of writings is the product of Divine inspirationsmuch less that they contain no sort of error. The first and the great proposition to be established is,'that (God has made a supernatural revelation; and this done, other points of truth may follow in their proper place. In this controversy, it behooves us to keep in mind the order of things to be believed. First comes the leading, the commanding truth, of a miraculous attestation to the mission of Jesus. Let this once become a firm conviction, and the next step is to ascertain his teaching and the contents of his religion. Every earnest mind will be ready to take this step; will immediately look about for some authentic source of knowledge on this subject; and then the peculiar character and claims of the Bible will be made a theme of investigation. While we hold that the direct question at issue with the skeptic and unbeliever is an historical one, we think that Apologists fall into a mischievous error in defining the nature of the evidence for Christian Revelation. This evidence, it is frequently said, being historical, is of a moral or probable kind, as distinguished from demonstrative. The appreciation of it, therefore, it is added, depends in no small degree upon the spirit of the individual by whom it is weighed. So far we fully agree with the ordinary Apologist, and could say with him that the force which the historical proofs will actually have in persuading the mind, differs with the tempers of feel THE RATIONALISTIC TEMPER. ing which are brought to the consideration of them. Only we say, it is a fatal error to confine the inward qualification for judging of this evidence, to the virtues of candor, simplicity, and honesty. On the contrary, we freely concede and contend that these virtues may exist up to the ordinary measure, and even beyond it, and yet this evidence fail of leading the mind to conviction. We freely grant that unbelievers have lived in the past, and some live to-day, whose ability for historical investigation is of an unusually high order. In the treatment of secular history, they evince no want of candor and no excessive incredulity. And although the' withhold their belief from the supernatural facts of Christianity, we cannot charge them with any marked disposition to pervert, conceal, or disparage the evidence by which these facts are supported. We would not for a moment deny that great names are on the roll of infidelity; names of men who, to say the least, are not _eculiarly liable to the charge of being uncandid and prejudiced in their investigation of any important subject. The Christian Apologist, as we think, is entitled and required to take higher ground, and to extend this qualification for appreciating the proofs of revelation beyond the common virtues of fairness and honesty. We are called upon distinctly to recognize the truth, that in the consideration of this subject we find ourselves in a sphere where the deep alienation of the human heart from God and Divine 19 20 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. things exerts a powerful influence upon the judg ment.1 When we are called to determine the truth or falsehood of any historical statement, our judgment will be affected inevitably by the view we take of the conditions and causes at work in connection with the event which is alleged to have occurred) The same law is applicable to the Gospel history. Were these events ordinary, or unmniraculous events, the evidence for them would not only be convincing, but, for all thorough students, overwhelming. Blt another element may come in to arrest the judgment and defeat the natural effect of the proof; the circumstance, namely, that the events are thought to be either out of the range of possibility, or in the highest degree unlikely to occur. The evidence may be felt to be all that could be asked, and more than could be required, in the case of any natural event, but the event being, if it occurred, a miracle, there is a positive incredulity beforehand, which, it may be, no amount of historical proof can overcome. This variable element, which may neutralize the strongest array of historical evidence, lies in the general habit of feeling with reference to supernatural things. At the bottom of unbelief is a rationalistic or unreligious temper. This truth is admirably set forth in one of the sermons of Arnold. "The clearest notion," It may be well to compare here what the New Testament itself has to say of the prerequisites of faith. See Matt. xi. 25; I Cor. i. 19-27; and like passages. THE RATIONALISTIC TEMPER. he says, "which can be given of Rationalism would, I think, be this: that it is the abuse of the understanding in subjects where the divine and human, so to speak, are intermingled. Of human things the understanding can judge, of divine things it cannot and thus, where the two are mixed together, its inability to judge of the one part makes it derange the proportions of both, and the judgment of the whole is vitiated. For example, the understanding examines a miraculous history: it judges truly of what I may call the human part of the case; that is to say, of the rarity of miracles, of the fallibility of human testimony, of the proneness of most minds to exaggeration, and of the critical arguments affecting the genuineness or date of the narrative itself. But it forgets the divine part, namlely, the power and providence of God, that He is really ever present amongst us, and that the spiritual world, which exists invisibly all around us, may conceivably and by no means impossibly exist, at some times and to some persons, even visibly." This Rationalism, however, is a thing of degrees. Where not including an absolute disbelief in the realities of a higher world, it may still involve a practical insensibility to their influence. They are left out of the account in determining the question of the truth or falsehood of the New Testament history. We would make this variable element- still more comprehensive, including within it the soul's sense of sin and discernment of 21 22 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. the beauty of holiness. The judgment which the mind forms in respect to the proofs of Christian Revelation, is greatly affected by the presence or absence of certain experiences of the heart, which are rational and just, but which belong in a very unequal degree to different men. An illustration of the general truth contained in Arnold's remark may be taken from another, but, in some respects, a kindred department. Let us suppose that a painting is discovered in some Italian town, which, it is claimed, is a work of Raphael. Now for the settlement of this question there are two sources of proof. There is, in the first place, all that bears on the outward authentication of the claim; as the consideration of the place where the painting is found, the integrity of those who had it in charge, the historical circumstances which are said to connect it with the artist to whom it is ascribed, the known facts in his life which tend to prove or disprove the truth of the pretension. As far as this kind of proof is concerned, any discriminating person may be pronounced competent to appreciate the degree of force that belongs to it, and, if the settlement of the point depended exclusively upon this branch of the evidence, to come to a just conclusion. But there is obviously another sort of evidence to be considered and weighed. The character and merits of the painting, as a work of art, in comparison with the high and peculiar excellence THE RATIONALISTIC TEMPER. of Raphael, must enter into the case, as a part of the proof. But how many are the acute and painstaking men who are here disabled from estimating -from feeling, we might rather say, the force of this branch 6f the evidence! They can examine the documents, they can question the witnesses, they can scrutinize all the outward testimony; but they are destitute of the perceptions and feelings which are the indispensable qualification of a critic of art! The analogy holds true in this particular, that in the question of the verity of the Gospel histories, one great part of the evidence lies in a province beyond the reach of the faculty of understanding, in the sense in which Arnold uses the term. The whole mode of thought and feeling concerning God, and His Providence, and His character, concerning human sin and human need, has a decisive influence in determining the judgment to give or refuse credit to the historical proof. Possi bly God has so arranged it, that while this proof is sufficient to satisfy one whose spiritual eye is open to these realities, it is yet endued with no power to create conviction where such is not the fact. He who magnifies the presumption against supernat ural interposition, not allowing for the moral emer gency that calls for it, and hardly recognizing the Power from whom it must come, puts on a coat-of mail which is proof against all the arguments for Revelation. He is shut up to unbelief by a logical 23 14 NATURE OF TIlE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. necessity. The effect of the internal argument for the supernatural origin of the Gospel is directly dependent upon that habit of feeling, either ra tionalistic or the opposite, the operation of which we have described. The various particulars of this argument, at least the most important of them, are lost upon an unreligious nature. The painful consciousness of sin, for example. is the medium through which is discerned the correspondence of the Gospel method of salvation with the necessities and yearnings of the soul. An experience of the disease opens the eye to the true nature and the value of the remedy. Such an impression of the evil of sin and of personal guilt, as men like Luther and Pascal have had, uncovers the deep things of the Gospel. In the Gospel system alone is the situation of the soul, which is slowly learned by the soul itself, understood and met. Another eye has looked through the heart before us, and anticipated the discovery, which we make imperfectly and by degrees, of its guilt and want. We might point out how the same selfknowledge will find in the spotless character of Christ a glory and impressiveness undiscernible by such as think not how great a thing it is to be free from sin. And so the tremendous power exerted by Christianity to reform the world-to move men to forsake their sins-will be estimated aright. It is no part of our present purpose to exhibit in detail the blinding effect of the rationalistic temper. Who THE RATIONALISTIC TEMPER. ever carefully surveys the more recent literature of skepticism, will not fail to see the source from which it springs. (It was by ignoring the existence and character of God that Hume constructed a plausible argument against the possibility of proving a miracle. The moment that the truth concerning God and the motives of His government is taken into view, the fallacy of Hume's reasoning is laid bare. The first canon which Strauss lays at the foundation of his criticism is the impossibility that a miracle should occur. Any and every other hypothesis, he takes for granted, is sooner to be allowed than the admission of a miraculous event. He assumes, from beginning to end, that "a relation is not historical, that the thing narrated could not have so occurred," when "it is irreconcilable with known, and elsewhere universally prevailing, laws." By this circumstance, before all others, the unhistorical character of a narrative is ascertained.' So M. Renan, at the outset of his late work, remarks: "That the Gospels are in part'legendary is evident, since they are full of miracles and the supernatural." Afterward, though he does not with Strauss openly affirm the strict impossibility of a miracle, he lays down "this principle of historical criticism, that a supernatural relation cannot be accepted as such, that it always implies credulity or imposture, that the duty of the Strauss's Leben Jesu, B. I., S. 100. a Renan's Vie de Jesus, p. xv. 25 26 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITHI UNBELI'IFF. historian is to interpret it, and to seek what portion of truth and what portion of error it may contain." But how futile is the attempt to convince one that an event has occurred, which he professes to know is either impossible, or never to be believed! Ill other words, how futile to argue with one who begs the question in dispute! The foregoing observations upon the reception that is given by skeptics at the present day to the proof of Christian miracles, bring us to the deeper and more general cause of unbelief, which is none other than the weakening or total destruction of faith in the supernatural. It is not the supernatural in the Scriptures alone, but the supernatural altogether, which in our day is the object of disbelief. At the root of the most respectable and *! formidable attack upon Christianity- that which emanates from the Tiibingen school of historical critics-is an avowed Pantheism. The doctrine of a God to be distinguished from the World, and competent to produce events not provided for by natural causes, is cast away. The apotheosis of Nature or the World, of course, leaves no room for anything supernatural, and a miracle becomes an absurdity. Indeed, the tacit assumption that a miracle is impossible, which we find in so many quarters, can only flow from an Atheistic or Pantheistic view of the Universe. The Deist can cons INCONSISTENCY OF MODERN DEISM. sistently take no such position. He professes to believe in a living and personal God, however lhe may be disposed to set Himin at a distance and to cumtail His agency. He must therefore acknowl edge the existence of a Power who is able at any moment to bring to pass an event over and beyond the capacity of natural causes. Nay, if his Deism )be earnestly meant, he must himself believe in a miracle of the most stupendous character in the creation of the world by the omnipotent agency of God. Holding thus to the miracle of creation as an historical event, he canrnot, without a palpable inconsistency, deny that miracles are conceivable or longer possible. For no sincere Deist can suppose that the Creator has chained Himself up by physical laws of His own making, and thereby cut Himself off from new exertions of His power, even within the sphere where natural forces usually operate according to a fixed rule. One of the marked characteristics of our time, therefore, is the loose manner in which Deism is held even by those who profess it, as shown in their reluctance to take the consequences of their creed and their readiness to proceed in their treatment of the subject of miracles upon Pantheistic principles. The theories and arguments of Strauss and the Tiibingen skeptics, which are the offshoot of their Pantheistic system, are adopted, for example, by Theodore Parker, who professes to believe in the personality of God. But 27 28 NATURIE OF THE CONFLICT WITHl UNBELIEF. though entertaining this different belief, it is plain that hlie generally brings to the discussion of miracles the feeling and the postulates of a Pantheist. His Deism is so far from being thorough and consistent, that he not only, here and there, falls into the Pantheistic notion of sin, as a necessary stage of developnient and step in human progress, but also habitually regards a miracle as equivalent to an absurdity. A gifted female writer has lately put forth a plea in behalf of a Christless Theism which she wishes to see organized into a practical, working system.' Anxious respecting the possible fate of the truths of Natural Religion in the crisis occasioned by the supposed downfall of faith in Revelation, she forgets that skepticism as to the supernatural origin of Christianity generally results from a prior adoption of an Atheistic or Pantheistic philosophy. The evil she dreads is not an accidental consequence, but an effective cause, of disbelief in the claims of the Gospel. At least, faith in Revelation and faith in the verities of Natural Religion sink together..) The same writer forgets also that the doctrine of Theism, lhowever sutpported by the light of Nature, came to us, in point of fact, from the Bible. Tile nations learned it from the Bible. It is a truth which we practically owe to Revelation. And as this is the case, so it is natural that with the denial of Revelation, that doctrine should be discarded. The result Frances Power Cobbe, Brokeit Lights. THE TENDENCY TO PANTHEISM. of previous experiments should warn against the indulgence of the hope that Natural Religion can succeed in the effort to embody itself in a practical system of worship. The Theophilanthropists of the French Revolution, who espoused the three principles -God, Virtue, Immortality-tried to maintain religious worship. In Paris alone their assemblies at one time numbered not less than twenty thousand persons, and occupied ten churches. But there was not vitality enough in the system to keep it alive, and this apparently promising sect quickly melted away. In the ancient world, among thinking men, skepticism as to the supernatural on the one hand, and the Christian faith on the other, were the two combatants, and so it will be now. As far as this class are alienated from Christianity, they are more commonly alienated in an almost equal degree from all religious faith. Signs of such an obscuration of faith appear in various quarters. Not a few illsupported speculations of physical science, which have been lately brought before the public, have their real motive in a desperate reluctance to admit a supernatural cause. The most unfounded conjectures are furnished in the room of argument, so earnest is the desire of some minds to create the belief that the worlds were not framed by the word of God, and that things which are seen wvere made of things which do appear. To this we must refer the ambition of some philosophers to establish their 29 I 30 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. descent from the inferior animals-a wild theory, only to be compared with the old mythologic doctrine of transmigration. The disposition to remove God from any active connection with the world, or to transport Him as far back as possible into the remote past, is the real motive of this attempt, which can plead no evidence in its favor, to invalidate absolutely the distinction of species and discredit our own feeling of personal identity and separateness of being. There can be no doubt that a powerful tendency to Pantheistic modes of thought is rife at the present day. The popular literature, even in our country, is far more widely infected in this way than unobservant readers are aware. The laws of Nature are hypostatized-spoken of as if they were a self-active being. And not unfrequently the same tendency leads to the virtual, if not explicit, denial of the free and responsible nature of man. History is resolved by a class of writers into the movement of a great machine-into the evolution of events with which the free-will neither of God nor of man has any connection.' We are thus brought back, in our analysis of the controversy with the existing unbelief, to the postulates of Natural Religion. On these the Chlris 1 The tendencies to X'atiuralism, at work at the present day, are forcibly and compircehiensively touched upon in Chapter I. of Bushnell's "Nature and the Supei-natuiral " —a work which, in its main parts, is equally profound and inspiring. THE TENDENCY TO PANTHEISM. tian Apologist founds the presumption, or anterior probability, that a Revelation will be given. These, together with the intrinsic excellence of Christianity, hle employs to rebut and remove the presumption, wvhichl, however philosophers may differ as to the exact source and strength of it, undoubtedly lies against the occurrence of a miracle. The antecedent improbability that a miracle will occur, disappears in the case of Christianity. The issue relates to the miracles; but the ultimate source of the conflict is a false or feeble view, on the part of the unbeliever, of the primitive truths of religion. This will explain how a new awakening of conscience, or of religious sensibility, has been known to dispel the incredulity with which he had looked upon the claims of Revelation. It is more and more apparent that the cause of Natural Religion, and that of Revealed Religion, are bound up together. But the native convictions of the human mind concerning God and duty cannot be permanently dislodged. Atheism is an affront alike to the inquiring reason and the uplooking soul of man. Pantheism mocks his religious nature. It is inconsistent with religion-with prayer, with worship-with that communion with a higher Being, which is religion. It is inconsistent, also, with morality, in any earnest meaning of the term; for it empties free-will and responsibility, holiness and sin, of their meaning. Every one who acknowledges 31 32 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF. the feeling of guilt to be a reality and to represent the truth, and every one who blames the conduct of another, in the very act denies the Pantheistic theory. Conscience must prove, in the long run, stronger than any speculation, no matter how plausible. In the soul itself, then, in its aspiration after the living God and its conviction of freedom and of sin, there is erected an everlasting barrier against the inroads of false philosophy, and one that will be found to embrace within the shelter of its walls the cause of Christianity itself. 0 ESSAY II. TIlE GENUINENESS OF TIIE FOUP.TH GOSPEL. THE Gospel that bears the name of John is one of the main pillars of historical Christianity. Christianity would indeed remain were the apostolic authorship and the credibility of this Gospel disproved; for before it was written, Jesus and the resurrection had been preached by faithful witnesses over a large part of the Roman world. Christianity would remain; but our conception of Christianity and of Christ would be materially altered. The profoundest minds in the Church, from Clement of Alexandria to Luther, and from Luther to Niebuhlr, have expressed their sense of the singular charm and surpassing value of this Gospel. In recent times, however, the genuineness of the fourth Gospel has been impugned. It was denied to be the work of John by individual skeptics at the close of the last century; but their attack was not of a nature either to excite or to merit much attention. Not until Bretschneider published (in 1820) his Probabilia did( the question become the subject of serious discussion. But the assault which has been renewed by thle critics of the Tuiibinrgen school, with Baur at their head, has uiore lately given rise to a most earnest and imipoitallt .3 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. controversy. The rejection of John's Gospel by these critics is a part of their attempted reconstruction of early Christian history. Starting with the assertion of a radical difference and hostility between the Jewish and the Gentile types of Christianity,-between the party of the Church that adhered to Peter and the original disciples, and the party that adhered to Paul and his doctrine,-they ascribe several books of the New Testament to the effort, made at a later day, to bridge over this gulf. The Acts of the Apostles proceeds frem this motive, and is a designed distortion and misrepresentation of events connected with the conflict about the rights of the Gentile converts. And the fourth Gospel is a product of the same pacifying tendency. It was written, they say, about the middle of the second century, by a Christian of Gentile birth, who assiumed the name of John in order to give an apostolic sanction to his higher theological platform, in which love takes the place of faith, and the Jewish system is shown to be fulfilled, and so abolished, by the offering of Christ, the true paschal Lamb. We hold that the fundamental proposition, which affirms a radical hostility between Pauline and Petrine Christianity, can be proved to be false, even by the documents which are acknowledged by the Tubingen school to be genuine and trustworthy; and that the superstructure which is reared upon this foundation can be proved, in all its main timbers, to be equally unsubstantial. In the present Essay, however, we shall take 34 PLAN OF THE ESSAY. up the single subject of the authorship of the fourth Gospel, and shall make it a part of our plan to refute the arguments which are brought forward by the skeptical critics on this question - the most important critical question connected with the New Testament canon. But while we propose fairly to consider these arguments, we have no doubt that the attack upon the genuineness of John has its root in a determined unwillingness to admit the historical reality of the miracles which that Gospel records. This feeling, which sways the mind of the critics of whom we speak, is the ultimate and real ground of their refusal to believe that this narrative proceeds from an eyewitness of the life of Jesus. And were there nothing in Christianity to remove this natural incredulity, and to overturn the presumption against the occurrence of miracles, the ground taken by the Titbingen critics in reference to this question might be reasonable. It is right to observe that behind all their reasoning there lies this deep-seated, and, in our opinion, unwarrantable prejudice. We have recorded below the titles of some of the miore recent defences of the Johannean authorship: Bleek's Introduction, in which the author discusses l Bleek's Einkeitung in das X. T., 1862, and BcitrIge zur Eva??gelien-Kritik, 1846. Meyer's Komn. ieber das Evang. des Johannes, 36 A., 1856. De Wette's Kom. i%beJ das Evang. des Johannes, 4o ed. (edited by Bruickner), 1852. Schneider's Aechtheit des Jo7hann. Evang., 1854. Mayer's Aechtheit des Evacng. nach Johann., 1854. EI,)rard's TViv.ecncheftl. IJritik der -Eangel. Ge,chichte, 2a A., 1850, pp. 35 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. the question at length, with his wonted clearness and golden candor, and his Contributions to the Criticism of the Gospels, in which some important points are treated more fully; Meyer's Introduction to his Commentary on John, which contains a brief, condensed exhibition of the principal points of argument; Briickner's edition of De Wette's Commentary on John, in which the later editor has presented the internal proofs with much force, and has noticed in detail the interpretations of Baur; Schneider's little tract, which handles with ability certain parts of the external evidence, but falls far short of being a complete view; Ewald's Essays, which contribute fresh and original thoughts upon the subject, but are not without faults in opinion as well as temper; Ebrard's Critical Examination of the Evangelical History, which, notwithstanding an occasional flippanicy of style and tendency to overstatement, contains many valuable suggestions; and Mayer's copious treatise, in which the external testimonies are ably considered, though too much in the temper of a contro 828-952. Ewald's Jahrb., III. s. 146 seq., V. s. 178 seq., X. s. 83 seq. -The following are among the most important Essays in opposition to the Genuineness of John: Baur, Ki'itische liatersuchungen fiber die Kanon. Erangelien (1847), and -)ie Johanneische Frage u. ihre zeuesten Beantwortungen, in Baur and Zeller's Theologische Jahrbiucher, 1854, pp. 196-287; Zeller, Die aussern Zeugnisse iber das D)aseyn und den Ursprung des vierter Evangeliums, in his Theol. Jahrb. 1845, pp. 579-656, comp. 1847, pp. 136-174; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien u. s. w. (1854); Strauss, D)as Lebei Jesu fir dass dezitsche Volk (1864), p. 62 seq. 36 RESIDENCE OF JOHN AT EPHESUS. versialist, and with occasional passages not adapted to convince any save members of the Roman Catholic church, of which the author is one. We intend to present our readers with a summary of the arguments, most of which are touched upon in one or another of these writers; although we lay claim at least to independence in weighing, verifying, and combining the various considerations which we have to bring forward. That the apostle John spent the latter part of his life in Proconsular Asia, in particular at Ephesus, is a fact fully established by trustworthy testimony of ancient ecclesiastical writers. At the conference of Paul with the other apostles in Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1 seq.; Acts xv.), which occurred about twenty years after the death of Christ, John is mentioned, in connection with Peter and James, as one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church. Whether he was in Jerusalem on the occasion of Paul's last visit, we are not informed. It is in the highest degree probable that John's residence at Ephesus began after the period of Paul's activity there, and either after or not long before the destruction of Jerusalem. Among the witnesses to the fact of his living at Ephesus in the latter part of the second century, Polycrates and Irenaeus are of especial importance. Polycrates was himself a bishop of Ephesus near the end of the second century, who had becoene a Christian as early as A. D. 131, and seven 37 38 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. of whose kinsmen had previously been bishops or presbyters. In his letter to Victor, he expressly says that John died and was buried at Ephesus.' Irenaeus, who was born in Asia, says of the old presbyters, immediate disciples of the apostles, whom he had known, that they had been personally conversant with John, and that he had remained among them up to the times of Trajan (whose reign was from the year 98 to 117). Some of them, he says, had not only seen John, but other apostles also.2 Whether the ancient stories be true or not, of his fleeing from the bath on seeing there the heretic Cerinthus, of his recovering the young man who joined a company of robbers, or the more probable story, found in Jerome, of his being carried in his old age into the Christian assemblies, to which he addressed the simple exhortation: "Love one another," they show a general knowledge of the fact of his residing at Ephesus, and of his living to an extreme old age.3 His Gospel, also, according to the testimony of Irenaeus, Clement, and others, and the general belief, was the last written of the four, and the tradition places its composition near the close of his life. I Euseb., Lib. V. c. 24; of. Lib. III. c. 31. Adv. Haer., Lib. II. c. 22, al. 39. ~ 5. I Iren. adv. HIaer., Lib. III. c. 3. ~4. (Euseb., Lib. IV. e. 14)Clem. Alex., Quis dives salvetur, c. 42. (Euseb., Lib. Il. c. 23.)Ilieron. in Ep. ad Galat. VI. 10. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. Mayer begins his argument by an appeal to Jerome and Eusebius; the one writing in the later, and the other in the early, part of the fourth century; both having in their hands the literature of the Church before them; both diligent in their researches and inquiries; both knowing how to discriminate between books which had been received without contradiction, and those whose authority had either been disputed or might fairly be questioned; and yet neither having any knowledge or suspicion that the fourth Gospel was not known to the writers of the first half of the second century, with whom they were familiar. This appeal is not without force; but instead of dwelling onl the inference which it appears to warrant, we choose to begin with the unquestioned fact of the universal reception of the fourth Gospel as genuine in the last quarter of the second century. At that time we find that it is held in every part of Christendom to be the work of the Apostle John. The prominent witnesses are Tertullian in North Africa, Clement in Alexandria, and Irenaeus in Gaul. Though the date of Tertullian's birth is uncertain, a considerable portion of his life fell within the second century, and his book against Marcion, from which his fullest testimony is drawn, was composed in 207 or 208. His language proves the universal reception of our four Gospels, and of John among them. These together, and these exclusively, 39 40 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. were considered the authentic histories of the life of Christ, being composed either by apostles themselves or by their companions.' The testimony of Clement is the more important from his scholarly character and his wide acquaintance with the Church. He became the head of the Catechetical school at Alexandria about the year 190. IHaving been previously a pupil of various philosophers, he had in his mature years sought instruction from Christian teachers in Greece, in Lower Italy, in Syria, in Palestine, as well as in Egypt; and his works which remain prove his extensive learning. Not only is the genuineness of the fourth Gospel an undisputed fact with Clement, but, not to speak of other testimony from him, he gave in his lost work, the Institutions, quoted by Eusebius, "a tradition concerning the order of the Gospels which he had received from presbyters of more ancient times;" that is, concerning the chronological order of their composition.2 But of these three witnesses, Irenaeus, from the circumstances of his life as well as the peculiar charac 'XAdv. Aarcion., Lib. IV. c. 2; also c. 5. IIe says in this last place: "In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod et ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse ab apostolis traditum, quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum." Then shortly after: " eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum caeteris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis, quae proinde per illas, et secundum illas habemus: " here follows the enumeration of the four. It is historical evidence-the knowledge possessed by the churches founded by the apl)ostles,-on which Tertullian builds. 2 Easeb., Lib. VI. c. 14. That the four Gospels alone were regarded as possessed of canounical authority is evident from other THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: IRENAEUS. ter of his testimony, is the most important. A Greek, born in Asia Minor about the year 140, comning to Lyons and holding there first the office of presbyter, and then, in 178, that of bishop, he was familiar with the Church in both the East and the West. Moreover, he had in his youth known and conversed with the aged Polycarp of Smyrna, the immediate disciple of John, and retained a vivid recollection of the person and the words of this remarkable man. Now Irenaeus not only testifies to the universal acceptance in the Church of the fourth Gospel, but also argues fancifully that there mmst be four and only four Gospels to stand as pillars of the truth; thus showing how firmly set. tled was his faith, and that of others, in the exclusive authority of the canonical Gospels.' To the value of places in Clement. In reference to an alleged conversation between Salome and Jesus, Clement says: "We have not this saying in the four Gospels ihich have been handed down to us, but in that according to the Egyptians,-EZv ros 7rapa8,E8yolEvot i17Tv T~TTaportv EvayyyEXots ov EX(,i9Ev To' p'rTrv, aXXl' Ev r, KaT' Ayvorrrovv. Strom., Lib. III. c. 13. (See Lardner, Vol. II. pp. 236 and 251). 1 Ads. Hcaer., Lib. III. c. 1. ~ 1. This noted passage on the four Gospels thus begins: "Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus, quam per eos, per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem tune praeconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in scr-pturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nostrae futurum." Like Tertullian, he makes his appeal to sure historical evidence. In speaking of Polyearp and the men who followed him, he says of the former (III. 3.4): "qui vir multo majoris auctoritatis et fidelior veritatis est testis, quam Valentinus et Marcion et reliqui, qui sunt perversac sententiae." The curious attempt to shlow that there could not be more or fewer than four authoritative Gospels is in Lib. III. c. 11. 8. 41 i 42.GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. his testimony we shall have occasion again to refer. We simply ask here if it was possible for Irenaeus to express himself in this way-to affirm not merely the genuineness of the four Gospels, but the metaphysical necessity that there should be four-if John's Gospel had been made known for the first time during his lifetime, or shortly before. With these noteworthy witnesses, we associate the great name of Origen, the successor of Clement at Alexandria, although Origen's theological career is later, terminating near the middle of the third century, he having been born but fifteen years before the end of the second; for his extensive journeys through the Eastern Church, and as far as Rome, and especially his critical curiosity and erudition, together with the fact that he was born of Christian parents, give extraordinary weight to the evidence he affords of the universal reception of John's Gospel. In the same category with Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian, belong the Canon of Muratori, or the list of canonical books which Muratori found in an old manuscript in the Milan library, and which is certainly not later than the end of the second century; and the ancient Syriac version of the New Testament, the Peshito, having a like antiquity. In both these monuments the Gospel of John is found in its proper I)place. Nor should we omit to mention here Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, who, as we have said, represented the Asia Minor churches in the controversy concerning the celebration of Easter in the year 196, THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. and in his letter to Victor, the Roman bishop, alludes to John, who, he says, "leaned upon the Lord's breast," 6 ~iT To' 6rY,o; Tol XV,o iQov avceCll'rlo,1.1 Even Hilgenfeld, one of the most forward of the .Tuibingen critics, does not longer deny that the expression is drawn by Polycrates from John xiii. 25 (xxi. 20). It proves the acceptance of John's Gospel by the Christians of Asia Minor. Looking about among the fragments of Christian literature that have come down to us from the second half of the second century, we meet with Tatian, supposed to have been a pupil of Justin Martyr, though after the master's death the disciple swerved from his teaching. It is now conceded by Baur and Zeller that in his apologetic treatise, the Oratio ad Graecos, composed not far from the year 170, he quotes repeatedly from the Gospel of John.2 There is also no reason to doubt that his work entitled Diatessaronl a sort of exegetical Harmony-was composed upon the basis of our four Gospels. Eusebius says that Tatian "having formed a certain body and collection of Gospels, I know not how, has given this the title Diatessaron, that is, the Gospel by the four, or the Gospel formed of the four, which is in the possession of some even now." 1 Euseb., Lib. V. c. 24. 2 The following are examples,-Oratio, c. 13: KaL rolro T'orTv pa rO r'p7,avo v'OK aKor 6a rTo' oZ Ka(rTaXa!tate3E. C. 19: 7arvra VTr' av'rov, Kal XcopLv a'roT 7yiOuv o VEg. c. 5: 6 X6yov Esv jpx, yEvvqZE,[. c. 4: rvfrrva 6 2ed6. See Bleek, s. 229. * Lib. IV. e. 29. 43 44 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Precisely how the work was constructed from the four Gospels, Eusebius appears not to have known. Hie testifies, however, to the fact of its being in the hands of catholic Christians. At the beginning of the fifth century Theodoret tells us that he had found two hundred copies of Tatian's work in circulation, and had taken them away, substituting for them the four Gospels.' A Syriac translation of this work began, according to a later Syrian writer, Bar Salibi, with the opening words of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word." To this Syriac edition, Ephraem Syrus, who died in 378, wrote a commentary, as Syriac writers inform us; and this translation must therefore have been early made. The attempt of Credner to invalidate this evidence on the ground that the Syrians confounded Tatian with Ammonius, the author of a Harmony in the early part of the third century, is overthrown by the fact that Bar Salibi distinguishes the two authors and their works.2 Considering all the evidence in the case, together with the fact that Tatian is known to have quoted the Gospel of John in his Oratio, there is no room for doubting that this Gospel was one of the four at the foundation of the Diatessaron. Contemporary with Tatian was Theophilus, who became bishop of Antioch in 169. In his work Ad Autolycum, he describes John's Gospel as a part of the Holy Scriptures, and John himself as a writer guided 1 Theodoret, Haeret. Fab., I. 20, as cited by Bleek, s. 230. 2 See Meyer's Einl., s. 9. Lardner, Vol. II. p. 445. Bleek, s: 280. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. by the Holy Spirit.' This explicit statement is a most weighty item of evidence. In addition to this, Jerome states that Theophilus composed a commentary upon the Gospels, in which he handled their contents synoptically: "quatuor evangelistarumn in unum opus dicta comnpingens." 2 There is no good reason for questioning the statement of Jerome respecting a work with which he appears to have been himself acquainted. A contemporary of Theophilus is Athenagoras. His acquaintance with the Prologue of John's Gospel may be inferred with a high degree of probability from his frequent designation of Christ as the Word. "Through him," lie says, " all things were made, the Father and Son being one; and the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son;" 3-language obviously founded on John i. 3; x. 30, 38; xiv. 11. Another contemporary of Theophilus, Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, in a fragment found in the Paschal Chronicle, makes a reference to the pouring out of water and blood from the side of Jesus (Johnl xix. 34), and in another passage clearly implies the existence and authority of the fourth Gospel.4 The Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, written in 177, 1 O,FV aL8(fo'KoVarLz laa al aytat Ipaaal KaL arers' ot 7rvcvzaro opot, ;t v'IwoovVE XKEye f' V apx,O, K.r.X., quoting John i. 1, 3 (Lib. II. c. 22). 2 Hieyon. de virsa ill., 25, and Ep., 151. Bleek, s. 280. 9 Suppl. pro Chratianis, c. 10. 4 Ckron. Pasch., pp. 13, 14, ed. Dindorf, or Routh's Reliq. Sa(erae, I. 160, 161,2d edit. See Meyer's Einl., s. 9. There appears to be no 45 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. and presenting an account of the sufferings of their martyrs in their great persecution under Marcus Aurelius, an epistle from which Eusebius gives copious extracts,1 contains a clear reference to John xvi. 2, in the passage where they say: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord, that the time will come when whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." The same epistle, applying the thought of 1 John iii. 16 (comp. John xv. 12, 13), praises the love of one of their martyrs who "was willing in defense of the brethren to lay down his own life." 2 But every testimony to the first epistle is, for reasons to which we shall advert hereafter, virtually a testimony for the Gospel. We go back now to the first half of the second century, and among the remnants of early Christian literature which remain, where so much has irrecoverably perished, the writer who is most entitled to consideration is Justin Martyr. He was born about the year 89, and his life extended at least ten years beyond the middle of the next century. A native of Flavia Neapolis, near the ancient Sichem, he had visited various countries, having been at Alexandria and Ephesus before he came to Rome. Hie had, therefore, all extensive acquaintance with the Church. It is well known sufficient reason for questioning the genuineness of these fragments, as is done by Lardner (Vol. II. p. 315), and Neander (Church Hist., Vol. I. p. 298, N. 2). See Schneider, s. 52. 1 Euseb., Lib. V. e. 1. 2 Epist.Elccl Vin. e t Lugd. cc. 3,4. Routh. Reliq. Sacrae, I. 298, 800. 46 THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: JUSTIN. that Justin in different places refers to works which are styled by him the Records or Memoirs by the Apostles and their Followers or Companions, and which, as he observes, "are called Gospels." 1 He quotes from these as the authentic and recognized sources of knowledge respecting the Saviour's life and teaching. He further states that they are read on Sundays in the Christian assemblies, where "all who live in cities or in country districts" meet together for worship. They are read, he says, in connection with the writings of the Old Testament prophets: and when the reader concludes, the people are instructed and exhorted " to the imitation of these excellent thiings." 2 The evangelical histories which he has in mind, then, were used in the public worship of Christians everywhere. What were these Records or Memoirs? This title, we may observe, was probably given to the gospel histories, partly for the reason that in Justin's view they bore a character analogous to Xenophon's Memorabilia of Socrates, and also because it was a designation intelligible to those for whose benefit he was writing. Of the r&1 d7roixvw/AovE/zara -r' v Ta7roar6Xcov. Apol., I. c. 67. d'7ro,vrt7ovE!aort, a q o1'1 Tvro rY a'7rooro'Xa(v arTov K'r KELIVOS 7rapaKoXoUVZ(-aVrc)v avvTervXuat. Dial. C. Tryph., c. 103. o -yap ardoroXot fv rovo yE'volzvoS vLr' azrwv a'7rol.ptmiovEvla'tv, a KaXELva c'ayy,eta ovtrwc i'apa)coKav. Apol., I. c. 66. Justin twice uses the term rO' EvayyetOv, as the later fathers often do, to denote the Gospels collectively. (Dial. c. Tryph., cc. 10, 100.) This designation implies that the Gos pels to which he refers-the collection of Gospels-were possessed of an established authority. 2 Apol, I. c.67. 47 48 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. direct citations from these Gospel Memoirs in Justin, and of the numerous allusions to sayings of Christ and events in his life, nearly all plainly correspond to passages in our canonical Gospels. That the quotations are inexact as to phraseology, is not a peculiarity of Justin. He probably quotes from memory; and for his purpose it was not requisite that he should be verbally accurate. Before we proceed to speak of his use of John in particular, we will advert to the question which has been warmly discussed, whether he quotes from other gospel histories than those in our canon. Considering that the cases of an allusion to sayings or transactions not recorded in the canonical Gospels, are so very few, and that of these not one is explicitly referred by Justin to the Memoirs,1 it is not at all improbable that the source of his knowledge in these exceptional cases was oral tradition. Living so near the time of the apostles, when, as we know, some unrecorded sayings of Christ and circumstances in his life were orally reported from one to another, this supposition is by no means unnatural. Yet as written narratives, besides the four of our canon, were extant, and had a local circulation-especially the Gospel of the Hie ' Such a reference to the Memnoirs has been supposed in )ial.c. Tryph., c. 10% (p. 352 ed. Otto), but erroneously. Nor is there a reference to the Memoirs in Dial. c. Tryph., c. 88 (p. 306 ed. of Otto), where e'ypa+av oL a7ro'CToXot auroo refers grammatically only to the last part of the sentence. There is no citation by Juistin from th MJemoirs, which is not found in the canonical Gospels. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: JUST'IN. brew's among the Ebionite Christians-Justin may have been acquainted with one or more cf these, and thence derived the exceptional passages which we are considering. That either of these, however, was generally read in the churches (as were the Memoirs of which Justin speaks) is extremely im probable; for how could any Gospel which had been thus made familiar and dear to a multitude of Chris tians by being read in their assemblies, be suddenly thrown out and discarded without an audible word of opposition? How can such an hypothesis stand in view of the fact that by the time Justin died Irenacus had already reached his manhood? It is clearly established that Justin had in view the same Gospels which we read in our Bibles, although, as we have said, he may have been acquainted with other less trustworthy narratives of the life of Christ.' If we suppose, as there is no necessity for doing, that he derived a few facts or sayings from such a source, it by no means follows that he put these writings on a level with the authoritative Memoirs-the o,/o,etccrc. Be it observed, that in the multitude of his 1 That by the arrolrt?7zovtzvlara Justin had in mind solely the four Gospels, is earnestly maintained by Semisch, and by Professor Norton in his very able work on the Genuineness of the Gospels. Bleek holds that he had these mainly, if not exclusively, in view. Ewald, without any just reason, thinks that because the records are said to emanate from the apostles and their followers, he had reference t4 many such writings, which were in his hands. Jahrb. d. Bibl Wit VI. 60. 4 49 50 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. allusions to the evangelical history, those which cannot be distinctly traced to the canonical Gospels do not exceed six in number. The evidence that the fourth Gospel formed one of Justin's authoritative Records or Memoirs cannot be gainsaid. In a long list of passages collected from Justin by Semisch and other writers, there is a marked resemblance in language and thought to places in the fourth Gospel.' In regard to many of these, to be sure, we are not absolutely obliged to trace them to this source. They may have been derived from unwritten tradition. But we are authorized to find the origin of this class of expressions in John, when we have assured ourselves, from other passages which admit of no doubt, that Justin made use of the fourth Gospel. And fromin this conviction there is no escape. We mention here only one, but perhaps the most obvious and striking, of the special quotations which Justin has drawn from this Gospel. Having described with some detail the method of Christian baptism, Justin adds: "For indeed Christ also said:'except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And that it is impossible for those who are once born to enter into their mother's womb, is plain to all." 2 Here is a 1 The work of Semisch to which we refer-Die Denkwiirdigkeiten des Mdrtyrers Jt8tinu8-is a thorough examination of the question: What Gospels were made use of by Justin? 2 Apol., I. c. 61: Ka y('p ~ Xp6ror Lv Prv', Av I dvayEvvrlTrE, ov,ui EZl~XArr-E ct?;t tf3aOXIEIav rcv ovpavc&)v.'OTL 8E K(1aL dtarov isE rhl THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: JUSTIN. passage so peculiar, so characteristic of John's Gospel, that we are precluded from attributing it to any other source. Is it credible that Justin drew tlis passage from solme other gospel, which suddenly perished and was supplanted by that bearing the name of John? Wnriters of the Tuibingen school have suggested that this, as well as other passages seeming to be from John, were taken by Justill from the Gospel of the Hebrews. Aside from the entire absence of proof in support of this assertion, all the information we hlave concerning the Gospel of the Hebrews warrarts the declaration that it contained no such passages. The Gospel of the Hebrews bore a great resemnblance in its contents to our Gospel of Matthew. It was the product of a translation and mutilation of our Greek Matthew. There is much to be said in favor of the opinion, for which Bleek argues, that the known fact of its resemblance to Matthew first gave rise to the impression that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue.' jurpasv 7-WY TEKOV(1wV rov' 67rat yEYvvYotovg F'lyr:'vaL, 4avfpu'v' 7av e'71. There is no reasonable doubt that the quotation in -)ial. c. Tryph., c. 88, OVK eIA'L 6 XpLTaro6s, E'y f v ro~po, is from John i. 20, 23: OUK fLe EIwXpL(7TS.E.l./. fEw XwO plog vrom fvl O'p7w. 1 The occurrence of this passage relative to regeneration in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (Hom. xi. 26), with the same deviations from John that are found in Justin's quotation, was made an argument to prove that both writers must have taken it from some other Gospel -the Gospel of the Hebrews. But the additions to the passage in the Homilies, and the omission of the part concerning the impossibility of a second physical birth,-points of difference between Justin and 51 GENUINENESS OF TIlE FOURTHII GOSPEL. Tile factt of Justin's acquaintance with John's Gospel, however, does not rest solely upon the evi dence afforded by the citation of isolated passages. the Itomilies,-are quite as marked as the points of resemblance, which may be an accidental coincidence. The deviations in Justin's citat.on from the original in John are easily explained. They are chiefly due to the confusion of the phraseology of this passage with that of John iii. 5 and Matt. xviii. 3,-than which nothing was more natural. Similar inaccuracies, and from a similar cause, in quoting Jo'iii iii. 3, are not uncommon no v-. That Justin uses the compound verb,;,,,yevduio, is because he had found occasion to use the same verb just before in the context, and because this had become the cur rent term to designate regeneration. Baur in one place adduces John iii. 4 as an instance of tihe fictitious ascription to the Jews, on the part of the author of this Gospel, of incredible misunderstandings of the words of Jcsus. If this be so, surely Justin must be indebted to Jolfin for the p)assage. Anxious to avoid this conclusion, and apparently forgetting what hlie had said before, Baur, in another pI)assage of the same work affirms that this same expression is borrowed alike by the author of John and by Justin firom the Gospel of the Ilebrews! See Baur's Ifanonische ~rangeie)i, pp. 290, 300, comparecd with pp. 352, 353. There were two or three other citations, however, in the Homilies, in which it was claimed that thle same deviations are found as in corresponding citatious in Justin. But if this circumstance lent any plausibility to the p)retoenee that these passages in Justin were drawn from some other document than the canonical John, this plausibility vanishes and the question is set at rest by the publication of Drcssel's ed. of the Hlomilies. Tlhis edition gives the concluding portion, not found in Coteler:.us, and we are thus furnished (I[om. xix. 22, comp. Johln ix. 2, 3) with an undenied and undeniable quotation from John. This makes it evident that Hom. iii. 52 is a citation of John x. 9, 27, and also removes all doubt as to the source whence the quotation of John iii. 3 was derived. The similarity of the Ilomnilies to Justin, in the few quotations referred to above, is probably accidental; if not, it EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: JUSTIN. In his doctrine of the Logos and of the Incarnation, and in the terms under which thie person of the Saviour is characterized, are indub:table marks of a familiarity with John. This peculiar type of thought and expression pervades the whole theology of Justin. We can hardly doubt that it was derived by him from an authoritative source. In one passage, Justin directly attributes the truth of the Incarnation, "that Christ became man by the Virgin," to the Memoirs.' Are we to believe that this whole Johannean type of doctrine was found in some unknown Gospel, which in Justin's day was read in the Christian congregations in city and country, but was suddenly displaced bl another Gospel having just the same doctrinal peculiarity; a change which, if it took place at all, must have occurred in the later years of Justin's life, and in the youth of Irenaeus? And yet Irenaeus knew nothing of it, had no suspicion that the fourth Gos simply proves that Justin was in the hands of their author. This may easily be supposed. The date of the Homilies is in the neighlborhood of 170. See on these points Meyer's Einl., s. 10. Bleek, s. 228. Semisch, 193 seq. lDialc.c. Tr!ph., c. 105. The explicit reference to the Memoirs is grammatically connected only with the clause which we have cited above, and not with the entire sentence, as has been frequently supposed. Yet, it is scarcely doubtful that the whole conception of Christ, of which this clause was a part, was derived from the same source. "For I have proved," says Justin, "that he [Christ] was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being properly begotten by Him as his Word and Power,"-here follows the clause, with the reference to the Memoirs, which is quoted above. 53 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPET,. pel had any author but Johln, or that the fixed alld sacred nuniber four was made up by so recent an intruder! The value of this testimony of Justin is evinced by the various and incongruous hypotheses which have been resorted to, for the purpose of undermining it.1 But all now admit (what ought never to have been disputed) that under the name of Memoirs he refers to no single Gospel exclusively, but to a number of Gospels. It is admitted, also, that among them were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But the Memoirs were by "Apostles and their Companions." Besides Matthew, Justin's collection must necessarily have embraced one other apostle. Whose work was this but that of John? No other work which pretended to emanate from an apostle can supply the vacant place., No evidence which is worth consideration points to any other; no other ever had the currency which Justin ascribes to the documents to 1 We have not thought it necessary to refute HIilgenfeld's hypothesis, that one of Justin's principal authorities was the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. (See Hilgenfeld, -Die Evangelien Justin's, 1850, s. 259 seq.) This Gospel Hilgenfeld assumes to have been the basis of the canonical Gospel of Mark,-a groundless assumption, resting upon a misinterpretation of Papias, who refers to the canonical Gospel itself, and not to any unknown work out of which this Gospel is thought to have grown. ThIe idea that the Gospel of Peter, a book so insignificant and so little known in the early chlurch, was one of the authoritative documents of Justin! The proofs which Hilgenfeld adduces, are, in our judgment, far-fetched and destitute of force. 54 EXTERNAL EVIDENCEI': JUS'TIN. which he refers. When we find in Jllstin, therefore, the same designation of the authors of his Gospels,"Apostles and their Companions,"-whilch Irenaeus and Tertulliaii use to denote the four canonical writers, how can we resist the conviction that these are the writers to whom he, as well as they, refer? "The manner," says Norton, "in which Justin speaks of the character and authority of the books to which he appeals, proves these books to have been the Gospels. They carried with them the authority of the Apostles. They were those writings from which he and other Christians derived their knowledge of the history and doctrines of Christ. They were relied upon by him as primary and decisive evidence in his explanations of the character of Christianity. They were regarded as sacred books. They were read in the assemblies of Christians on the Lord's Day, in connection with the Prophets of the Old Testament. Let us now consider the manner in which the Gospels were regarded by the contemporaries of Justin. Irenaeus was in the vigor of life before Justin's death; and the same was true of many thousands of Christians living when Irenaeus wrote. But he tells us that the four Gospels are the four pillars of the church, the foundation of Christian faith, written by those who had first orally preached the gospel, by two apostles and two companions of apostles. It is incredible that Irenaeus and Justin should have spoken of different books." When "we find Ire 55 66 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. naeus, the contemporary of Justin, ascribing the same character, the same authority, and the same authors, as are ascribed by Justin, to the Memoirs quoted by him, which were called Gospels, there can be no reasonable doubt that the Memoirs of Justin were the Gospels of Irenaeus." 1 But we have testimonies to the genuineness of the fourth Gospel prior even to Justin. The first of these we have to mention is Papias, who flourished in the first quarter of the second century. He wrote a work in five books entitled "An Explication of the Oracles of the Lord," in the composition of which he depended mainly on unwritten traditions which he gathered up in conversation with those who had heard the apostles. Eusebius states that "he made use of testimonies from the First Epistle of John." 2 That this Epistle and the fourth Gospel are from the same author, has been, it is true, called in question by the Tuibingen critics. But if internal evidence hals aney weight, is ever entitled to any regard, we must conclude, in agreement with the established, universal opinion, that both these writings have a common author. In,style, in language, in spirit, in tone, they have the closest resemblance; and to ascribe this resemblance in either case to the imitation of a coinmterfeiter, is to give him credit for an unequalled I Gen. of thie Gospels, Vol. I. pp. 237-239. 2 Eutiseb., Lib. III. e. 39. i i i EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. refinement of cunning.I So that the testimony of Papias to the first Epistle is likewise evidence of the genuineness of the Gospel. The attempt is made, indeed, to invalidate this testimony by the suggestion that possibly Eusebius gives, in this instance, simply an inferen-ce of: his ownL from passages ill Papins which that author himself may not have found in John. But this suggestion rests upon no proof, and has not the force of a probability, in view of the explicit assertion of Eusebius. The Tubingen critics make much of the circumstance that Papias is not said by Eusebius to have made use of John's Gospel; but until we know what particular end Papias had in view in his allusions to New Testament books, this silence is of no weight. That he did acknowledge the First Epistle of John, indicates that he also knew and acknowledged the Gospel. Turning to the Apostolic Fathers, we find not a few expressions, especially in the Igna'tian Epistles, which remind us of passages peculiar to John; but in general we cannot be certain that these expressions were not drawn from oral tradition. Yet in some cases they are much more naturally attributed to the fourth Gospel, and in one instance this can hardly be avoided. Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, says: "for every one who does not confess that Jcsus 1 On the certainty that the first Epistle was written by the author of the Gospel, see De WTette's Einl. in das N. Testarent. ~ 177T a. 57 58 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Chlrist is come in the flesh is antichrist."' The resemblance of language to 1 John iv. 3 is striking; but a thought which in that form is so peculiar to this canonical epistle, being, as it were, the core of the type of doctrine which it presents, can hardly, when found in Polycarp, an immediate pupil of John, be referred to any other author.2 Another and still earlier testimony is attached to the fourth Gospel itself (John xxi. 24). This passage purports to come from another hand than that of the author, of whom it says: "we know that his testinmony is true." It has been attached to the Gospel, as far as we are able to determine, from the time when it was first put in circulation. If it be not part and parcel of a flagrant imposition, it proves the work to have been written by the beloved disciple. An important part of the external evidence for the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, is the tacit or express acknowledgment of the fact by the various heretical parties of the second century. Significant, in connection with this point, is the circumstance that the Artemonites, the party of Unitarians who came forward in Rome near the end of the second century, did not think of disputing the apostolical origin of that Gospel to which their opponents were indebted for their strongest weapons. Had the fourth Gospel I7ras yap o a',v r p6oXo-y'Iqio- vrlOv Xptru'v cp EapK'L Xrvce'ac rT'xpLo-ros forL. Ad Phil. 7. 2 Meyer's Einl., s. 5. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: MIARCION. first been heard of within the lifetime of the old mien then living in the Romian ichurch, we should look for an attack from this Unitarian party, who did not lack ability, upon its authority. But no doubt of this kind was expressed. From the disputes which agi tated the middle part, of the century, however, the argument we have to present is mainly derived. If the fourth Gospel was acknowledged to be the work of John by Marcion, the Valentinian Gnostics as well as their opponents, and at the epoch of the Montanistic controversy, the most skeptical miust give up the attempt to bring down into the second or third quarter of the second century the date of its authorship. We begin with Marcion. Marcion was a native of Pontus, and came to Rome about the year 130. In his enthusiastic and one-sided attachment to Paul's doctrine, he exaggerated the contrast of law and gospel into an absolute repugnance and contrariety, rejected the Old Testament, regarding the God of the Old Testament as an inferior Divinity, hostile to the Supreme Being, and consequently was led to make up a canon of New Testament writings to suit himnself. His Gospel, as the church Fathers testify, was a mutilated copy of Luke, so altered as to answer to his peculiar tenets. The priority of our Luke to Marcion's Gospel is now generally allowed, even by the Tiibingen critics who had previously taken the opposite ground. There is, indeed, no room for doubt 59 60 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. in reference to this fact. Not only is Marcion known to have altered the Pauline Epistles to conform them to his opinions, but the fragments of his Gospe] which have been preserved, are plainly the product of an alteration of corresponding passages in our third Gospel. But our present inquiry relates to John. Was Marcion acquainted with the fourth Gospel? The negative has been stoutly maintained by the school of Baur, in opposition, however, to decided proof. We learn from Tertullian that Marcion rejected John's Gospel-a fact which implies its existence and general reception; and Tertullian explains his motive in this procedure. Tertullian says: "But Mlarcion having got the Epistle of Pautl to the Galatians, who blames the apostles themselves, as not walking uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, and also charges some false apostles with perverting the gospel of Christ, sets himisef to weaken tAe credit of ithose Gospels whichi are trit'ly 8sch, and are published under the name of apostles, or likewise of apostolical men."1 That is to say, conceiving, like the 1 Sed enim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas, etiam ipsos apostolos suggillantis ut non recto pede incedentes ad veritatem evangelii, simnl et accusantis pseudapostolos quosdam pervertentes evangelium Christi, connititur ad destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum quae propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum, ut scilicet fidem, quam illis adimnit, suo conferat. Adv. Marcion., Lib. IV. c. 3. This accounts for his not selecting John's Gospel instead of Luke. His zeal for Paul, which was attended witb hostility to the other Apostles, was his prime characteristic. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: MARCION. modern school of Baur, that there was a hostility between Peter, James, and John on the one hand, and Paul on the other, and making himself a partisan of Paul, he rejected everything that came from them. Tertullian makes it clear that by "the Gospels published under the name of apostles or likewise of apostolical men," he intends the four of our canon.1 Hence the Gospels which he says were rejected by Alarcion must be Matthew, Mark, and John. Again, Tertullian, speaking of the adoption by Marcion of Luke's Gospel alone, says: "Now, since it is known that these (Matthew, Mark, and John) have also (as well as Luke) been in the churches, why has Marcion not laid hands on these also, to be corrected if they were corrupt, or received if incorrupt? "2 Tertullian would convict Marcion of an inconsistency in laying aside the other Gospels,3 not pretending to purge them of fancied corruptions, and yet not receiving them. Once more, in regard to a certain opinion of Marcion, Tertullian says, addressing Marcion, that if he did not reject some and corrupt otAers of the scriptures which contradict his opinion, the 1 Adl. Mfarcion., Lib.IVc. 2. "Denique nobis fidern ex apostolis Icannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant," etc. Adv. farcion., Lib. IV. c. 5. " Igitur dum constet laec quoque apud ecclesias fuisse, cur non haec quoque Marcion attig,it ant emendanda, si adulterata, ant agnoscenda, si integra?" etc. I Quod omissis eis Lucac potius institerit." Ibid. 61 62 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Gospel of John would convict him of error.' The correctness pof Tertullian in these statements has been impeached, but he had taken pains to inform himself concerning the life and opinions of Marcion, and there is no good ground for charging him here with error. IHis accuracy is confirmed by the explanation he gives of the origin of Marcion's hostility to the apostles, as proceeding from his wrong view of the passage in Galatians. We must conclude, therefore, that when Marcion brought forward his doctrine, the fourth Gospel was extant, the acknowledged work of John. The general reception of John as an apostolic work preceded the Valentinian Gnosticism. Valentinus, the author of the most vast and complete of all the fabrics of Gnostic speculation, came to Rome about the year 140. That the Gospel of John was admitted to be genuine, and used as such, by his party, is well known. Irenaeus speaks of the Valentinians as making the most abundant use of John's Gospel: eo quod est secundum Johannem plenissime utentes.2 Heracleon, one of the followers of Valentinus, wrote a commentary upon John's Gospel, from which Origen in his work upon John freqiuenitly 1' Si scripturas opinioni tuae resistentes non de industria alias rieiecisses, alias corrupisses, confudisset te in hac specie evangelium Ioannis," etc. -)e Carne Christi, c. 3. For other passages to the same effect firom Irenaeus and Tertullian, see De Wette's Einl. in d. N. T. ~ 72 c. Anm. d. 2 Adv. fccer., Lib. III. c. 11. { 7. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: VALENTINE. quotes.' Ptolemaeus, another follower, expressly designates the Prologue of John as the work of the apostle, and puts his own forced explanation upon its contents.2 The precise date of Heracleon and Ptolemaeus we cannot determine, but they must have written not far from the middle of the century. But did Valentinus himself know and acknowledge the fourth Gospel as the work of John? This we might infer with great probability from its acceptance by Heracleon and his other followers. We should draw the same conclusion from the silence of Irenaeus as to any rejection of John's Gospel by Valentinus, and from his statement as to the use of it by the school in general. Moreover, Tertullian contrasts Valentinus and Marcion in this very particular, that whereas the latter rejected the Scriptures, the former built up his system upon perverse inter The passages. in Heracleon referred to by Origen are collected in Grabe's Spicilegium, Vol. 11., and in Stieren's ed. of Irenaeus, I. 938-971. 2 Epist. ad Floram, c. 1, ap. Epiph7. Haer., xxxiii. 3. See Grabe's Spicilegium, II. 70, 2d ed., or Stieren's Irenaeus, I. 924. The work which passes under the name of Excerpta Tleodoti, or Doctrina Orientalis, a compilation from the writings of Theodotus and other Gnostics of the second century, contains numerous extracts from one or more writers of the Valentinian school, in which the Gospel of John is quoted and commnented upon as the work of the apostle. See particularly cc. 6, 7. These Excerpta are commonly printed with the works of Clemient of Alexandria; they are also found in Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca, Vol. V., and in Bunsen's Analecta Ante-Nicaena, Vol. I. 63 64 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. pretation. Valentinus, he says, did not adjust the Scriptures to his material-his doctrine but his material to the Scriptures.' Marcion made havoc of the Scriptures; Valentinus attera vepercit. And Tertullian says, directly, that Valentinus makes use of the whole instrument, i. e. canonical Gospels. Tertullian's phraseology has been sometimes erroneously supposed to indicate doubt upon this point. He has been translated as follows: "for if Valentinus appears (videtur) to make use of the entire instrument (i. e. our Scriptures), he has done violence to the truth with a not less artful spirit than Marcion."2 Were this the exact sense of the passage, the videtur might naturally be considered the concession of an adversary, Tertullian not being able to charge his opponent with the actual rejection of any of the Gospels, however tempted by polemical feeling to throw out such an imputation. But the term videri is frequently used in the writings of Tertullian, not in the sense of "seem," but "to be seen," "to be fully apparent;" and such we are persuaded is its meaning in the present passage.' But aside from " Valentinus autem pepercit, quoniam non ad materiam scripturas excogitavit.....auferens proprietates singulorum quoque verborum." -De Prcescript. Haeret., c. 38. 2 "Neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur, non callidiore ingenio quam Marcion manus intulit veritati." De Praescript., c. 38. 8 Comp. Toret. AfI,. Poar. c. 26, 29; A(iv. af(r,c., iv. 2; De Orat., . 21; Apol., c. 19; Adv. Jttd., c. 5, quoted from Is. i. 12. w EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: VALENTINE. this evidence, we are furnished with direct proof of the fact that Valentinus used and acknowledged the Gospel of John, through the lately-found work of Hippolytus. Hippolytus wrote the "Refutation of all Heresies" in the earlier part of the third century. He devotes considerable space to the systems of Valentinus and the Valentinians, which he traces to the mathematical speculations of Pythagoras and Plato. In the course of his discussion, referring to Valentinus, he writes as follows: "All the prophets agd the law spoke from the deiuiurg, a foolish god, he says —fools, knowing nothing. On this account it is, he (Valentinus) says, that the Saviour says ' all that came before me are thieves and robbers.'" The passage is obviously taken from John x. 8. The pretension of the Ttibingen critics that the author here ascribes to the master what belongs to his pupils, is improbable; since Hippolytus, while coupling Valentinus and his followers together in cases where their tenets agree, knows how carefully to distinguish the different phases of belief in the schools. The peculiarities of the Italian Valentinianss, Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, of the oriental Valentinians, Axionikus and Ardesianes, and the special opinions of other individuals of the party, are definitely characterized. We have in their disposition of this case a specimen of the method of I Hippolytus (Duncker and Schneidewin's ed.), Lib. VI. c. 35. 5 65 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTHII GOSPEL. reasoning adopted by Baur and his followers. Hippolytus, we are told, may have attributed to Valentinus what belongs only to his pupils. Granted, he may have done so. The supposition is possible. But what is the evidence that in this instance he did so? We are to assume that he is right until lie is proved to be wrong. We are not arguing about what is possible or impossible; but we are discussing points where probable reasoning alone is applicable. So, these critics tell us it is possible that Polycarp quoted an anonymous sentence current at the time, which is also taken up into the first epistle bearing the name of John. It is possible that this or that writer drew his passage from some lost apocryphal work. The possibility we grant, for in these matters demonstration is of course precluded. But the suggestion of a mere possibility on the opposite side against a presumptive, natural, and probable inference, cannot pass for argument. When we look at the interior structure of the system of Valentinus, we find that the characteristic terms employed by John are wrought into it, some of them being attached as names to the aeons which, in a long series of pairs, constitute the celestial hierarchy. Among these pairs are such as tovoy,o;,' and cii,t, Alo;h and ~o. The artificial and fantastic scheme of Valentinus, so in contrast with the simnplicity of John, wears the clhtaracter of a copy and caricature of the latter That it has this 66. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: BASILIDES. relation to John we cannot, to be sure, demonstrate; for it may be contended that both the Gnostic and the author of the fourth Gospel took up current terms and conceptions, each writer applying them to suit his own purpose. But the freshness and apparent originality of Johii's use of this language, not to speak of the other proofs in the case, aire decidedly against this theory of Baur. When we lbring together all the items of evidence which bear on the point, we feel warranted to conclude with confidence that not only Ptolemaeus and the other disciples of Valentinus, but also their master, alike with his opponents, acknowledge the apostolic authorship of the Gospel.' Through Hippolytus we are provided with another most important witness in the person of Basilides, the other prominent Gnostic leader, who taught at Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century. Among the proof-texts which Hippolytus states that Basilides employed, are John i. 9: "This was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;" and John ii. 4: "My hour is not yet come." 2 In the passage in Hippolytus containing these quotations ascribed to Basilides, and in the closest connection with them, stand his essential principles and characteristic expressions; so that the suggestion of a confounding of master and pupils on the part of Hippolytus has I2 Hippol., Lib. VII. cc. 22, 27. ISee Schneider, s. 35. 67 68 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. not the shadow of a support. In connection with this piece of evidence, we may advert to the statement of Agrippa Castor, a contemporary of Basilides, that he wrote "twenty-four books on tlte Gospel." It has been rendered highly probable that this denotes a commentary on the four Gospels.2 The same expression-"the Gospel"-it will be remembered, is used by Justin Martyr, as well as by the Fathers subsequent to him, for the Gospels collectively. How widely extended was the knowledge and use of the fourth Gospel among the heretics of the second century, is further illustrated by the numerous quotations that were made from it by the Ophites or Naasseni, and the Peratae, which are preserved by Hippolytus.3 We have to touch upon one other movement in the second century, the controversies connected with Montanism. The main features of Montanism were the Chiliasm, or expectation of the Saviour's millennial reign and speedy advent, and the prophecy or ecstatic inspiration. In the millennial doctrine, as well as in the belief in the continued miraculous gifts of the Spirit, there is a striking resemblance between the Montanists and the followers of Edward Irving. We cannot say how far Montanism professed to found itself on John's Gospel, because we know not 1 Euseb., Lib. IV. c. 7. 3 See Norton's Gen. of the Gospels, Vol. HI. p 238. 8 Hippol., Lib. V. cc. 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17. I EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. precisely when in the development of the sect the claim to the presence of the Paraclete, in this form, was set up. We allude to Montanism, therefore, to speak of a certain party that opposed it. Irenaeus speaks of some who, in their opposition to the re cent effusions of the Divine Spirit upon men, do not accept of the Gospel of John, "in which the Lord promised that he would send the Paraclete, but at the same time reject both the Gospel and the pro phetic Spirit."' Shortly before, he had spoken of some who would fain exhibit themselves in the character of searchers for truth, possibly referring to this same class. Epiphanius describes a class of zealous opponents of Montanism, who were probably the same mentioned by Irenaeus. Epiphanius styles them Alogi, as opposing the Logos Gospel. They maintained that the Gospel of John did not agree with the other three Gospels, in regard to various points in the life of Clirist,-as in the omission of the forty days' temptation, and in the number of passovers he is said to have kept.2 Their opposition, ' Irenaeus, Lib. III. 11.9. Let the reader mark that this is the only allusion to a rejection of the fourth Gospel, as not by John, which we find in any writer before the latter part of the fourth century. The party to which Irenaeus refers consisted probably of a few eccentric individuals, who attracted no attention, and none of whose names are preserved. Moreover, as we have remarked above, any slight weight which their opposition could be conceived to have, is neutralized by their equal opposition to the Apocalypse. 2 For a f;ll ex)'ication of the character of the Alogi as they are described by Epiphanius and Irenaeus, see Schneider, s. 38 et seq. 69 70 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. however, is really an argument for the genuineness of John. It shows the general acknowledgment of this Gospel at the time when they made their opposition, which was not long after the middle of the second century. It proves that their opponents, the Montanists, and the Church generally, received it. Moreover, their groundless ascription of the Gospel to Cerinthus is a valuable testimony from them to its age; for Cerinthus was a contemporary of John. Baur's unfounded praise of the critical spirit of this insignificant party, is strange, considering that they also rejected the Apocalypse, which he holds to be the genuine work of John, and that they ascribed both the Apocalypse and the Gospel to the same author. It seems probable that the Alogi were led by their strong hostility to the Montanistic enthusiasm to dislike the fourth Gospel when Montanism claimed to find a warrant for itself in the promise of the Spirit, and on this doctrinal ground, making use also of the apparent historical differences between the fourth Gospel and the other three, they rejected it. Precisely what was the nature and reason of their opposition to the doctrine of the Logos we know not; but their feeling on this subject accords with their rationalistic turn of mind. The circumstances of their opposition, as we see, are a strong indirect argument for the antiquity and genuineness of the Gospel they rejected. 1 We are also entitled to cite Celsus as a witness to the fourth EXTERNAL EVIDENCE Before we leave this topic-the use of the fourth Gospel by the heretics-we ask our readers to consider the full weight of the argument that is founded upon it. The great doctrinal battle of the Church in the second century was with Gnosticism. The struggle with this first heresy of a Gentile origin had its beginnings early. The germs of it are distinctly perceived in the Apostolic Age. At the middle of the second century, the conflict with these elaborate systems of error was raging. By Justin, the Valentinianis, the Basilideans, the Marcionites (followers either of Marcus or of Marcion), and other Gnostic sects, are denounced as warmly as by Gospel. The date of Celsus is about the middle of the second century. He professed to derive his statements concerning the evangelic.al history from the writings of the disciples of Christ. The great body of his statements are plainly founded on passages in our canonical Gospels, especially in Matthew. But Celsus speaks of Christ being called by his disciples the Word. He speaks of the blood which flowed from the body of Jesus,-a circumstance pIeculiar to John's narrative. He also says: " To the sepulchre of Jesus there came two angels, as is said by some, or, as by others, one only." Matthew and Mark mention one only, Luke and John two. Again, Celsus gives the Christian narrative of the Resurrection as containing the fact that Christ, "after he was dead, arose, and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands had been pierced." This circumstance is recorded only in John xx. 27. It is indeed " possible," as Meyer suggests, that Celsus found thlese thiniigs in apocryphal gospels, but the probability is the other way. rfeyer should not have so lightly valued the testimony afforded by Celsus. These passages from Origen against Celsus may be found in Lardner, Vol. VII. pp. 220, 221 and 239. To the testimony of the Clementine Hoinilies we have before adverted. 11 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTIt GOSPEL. Irenaeus and his contemporaries.' And by both of the parties in this wide-spread conflict, by the Gnostics and the church theologians, the fourth Gospel is accepted as the work of John, without a lisp of opposition or of doubt. If the fourth Gospel originated as the Tubingen school pretend, it appeared in the midst of this distracted period; it was cast into the midst of this tumult of controversy. With what incredible skill must this anonymous writer have proceeded, to be able to frame a system which should not immediately excite hostility and cause his false pretensions to be challenged! How can we suppose that a book, appearing for the first time at such an epoch, having of necessity so close a bearing on the great themes of controversy, and claiming to be thile production of an apostle, would encounter no denial? The acknowledgment of this Gospel, both by the Gnostic who was obliged to pervert its teachings through forced interpretations, and by the orthodox theologian, furnishes an irresistible argument for its genuineness. Thus far we have dealt, for the most part, with those isolated passages of the early writers wherein the existence and authoritative standing of John's Gospel are presupposed. Not all these separate items of evidence are of equal strength. Together they constitute an irrefragable argument. And yet Dial. c. Tr'yph., c. 82. 72 i EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: TRADITION. the main, most convincing argument for the genuine ness of this Gospel, is drawn from the moral impossi bility of discrediting, in such a case, the tradition of the early Church. Let us consider for a morment the character of this argument. We begin with observing that, on matters of fact in which men are interested, and to which, therefore, their attention is drawn, and in regard to which there are no causes strongly operating to blind the judgment, the evidence of tradition is, within reasonable limits of time, conclusive. An individual may perpetuate his testimony through the instru mentality of one who long survives him. The testi mony of a generation may in like manner be trans mitted to, and through, the generation that comes after. Next to the testimony of one's own senses is the testimony of another person whom we know to be trustworthy. And where, instead of one individ ual handing over his knowledge to a single successor, there is a multitude holding this relation to an equal or greater number after them, the force of this kind of evidence is proportionably augmented. Moreover, the several generations do not pass away, like the successive platoons of a marching army, but the young and the old, the youth and octogenarian, are found together in every community; so that upon any transaction of public importance that has occurred during a long period in the past, witnesses are always at hand who can either speak from personal 73 74 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. knowledge or from testimony directly given them by individuals with whom they were in early life familiar. Few persons who have not specially attended to the subject, are aware how long a period is sometimes covered by a very few links of traditional'testimony. Lord Campbell, in his Lives of the Chancellors, remarks of himself, that he had seen a person who had seen a spectator of the execution of Charles I., in 1649. A single link separated Lord Campbell from the eyewitness of an event occurring upwards of two hundred years before.'Suppose this intervening witness to be known by Lord Campbell to be a discriminating and trustworthy person, and we have testimony that is fully credible. We borrow two examples from Mr. Palfrey's excellent History of New England. The first relates to the preservation of the knowledge of the landing,-place of the Pilgrims. Plymouth Rock, says the Historian, "is now imbedded in a wharf. When this was about to be built, in 1741, Elder Thomas Faunce, then ninety-one years old, came to visit the rock, and to remonstrate against its being exposed to injury; and he repeated what he had heard of it from the first planters. Elder Faunce's testimony was transmitted through Mrs. White, who died in 1810, ninety-five years old, and Deacon Ephraim Spooner, who died in 1818, at the age of eighty-three." 1 In another place, Mr. Palfrey 1 Palfrey's Hist. of N. Engltand, Vol. I. p. 171. N. 8. I k It i EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: TRADITION. has occasion to observe: "When Josiah,Lincy, of Boston, was twelve or thirteen years old, Nathanael Appleton was still minister of Cambridge, and a preacher in the Boston pulpits; Appleton, born in Ipswichl in 1693, had often sat, it is likely, on the knees of Governor Bradstreet, who as his father's neighbor; and Bradstreet came from Eng,land, in John Winlthrop's comipany, in 1630. Eyes that had seen men who had seen the founders of a cisatlantic England, lave looked also on New England as she presents herself to-day." 1 Mr. Quincy died in 1864. Every man of seventy who can unite his memory withll the memories of the individuals who had attained the same age when he was young, can go back through a period of more than a hundred years. He can state what was recollected fifty years ago concerning events that took place a half century before. If, in reference to a particular fact, we fix the earliest age of trustworthy recollection at fifteen, and suppose each of those, whose memories are thus united, to give their report at tihe age of eighty, there is covered a period of one hundred and thirty years. We can easily think of cases where, from the character of both the witnesses, the evidence thus derived would be entirely conclusive. But traditionary evidence had a special security and a special strength in the case of the early Christian Palfrey's Hiat., Vol. III. p. vi. of the preface. 75 76 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Church. The Church, as Mayer forcibly observes, had a physical and spiritual continuity of life. There was a close connection of its members one with another. "Like a stream of water, such a stream of youths, adults, and old men is an unbroken whole." The Church was a community-aan association. A body of this kind, says Mayer, recognizes that which is new as new. It is protected from imposition. How would it be possible, he inquires, for a new Augsburg Confession to be palmed upon the Lutheran churches as a document that had long been generally accepted? In estimating the force of this reasoning, we must take notice of the number of the early Christians. We must remember that at the close of the first century Christianity was planted in all the principal cities of the Roman Empire. It was in the great cities and centres of intercourse, as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria, Rome, that Christianity was earliest established. As early as Nero's persecution (A. D. 64) the Christians who were condemned, constituted, according to Tacitus, a "great multitude." 1 In Asia Minor, in the time of Trajan, or at the close of the century, they had become so numerous that, according to Pliny, the heathen temples were almnost deserted. A century later, making due allowance for the rhetorical exaggeration of Tertullian, and not depending on him alone, we are certain that the number of the Christians had vastly multiplied. In 1 Ann., I. xv. c. 4a. i %L il -I EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. every part of the Roman Empire, in all places of con sideration, and even in rural districts, Christian assem blies regularly met for worship. And in all these weekly meetings the writings of the apostles were publicly read, as we learn from so early a writer as Justin Martyr. Now we have to look at the Christian churches in the second century, and ask if it was possible for a history of Christ, falsely pretending to be from the pen of the Apostle John, to be brought forward twenty, thirty, or forty years after his death, be introduced into all the churches east and west, taking its place every where in the public services of Sunday? Was there no one to ask where this new Gospel came from, and where it had lain concealed? Was there no one, of the many who had personally known John, to expose the gigantic imposture, or even to raise a note of surprise at the unexpected appearance of so important a document, of which they had never heard before? How was the populous church at Ephesus brought to accept this work on the very spot where John had lived and died? The difficulty, nay the moral impossibility, of supposing that this Gospel first saw the light in 160 or 140 or 120, or at any of the dates which are assigied by the Ttibingen critics, will be rendered apparent, if we candidly look at the subject.1 We have spoken of I The latest asailant of the Genuineness of John, Scehenklel, in his work, J)as Charakterbild Jesu, places the date of the Gospel from 77 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Ireiaeaus alAl of his testimony to the undisputed, Ullndoubting reception, by all the churches, of the fourth Gospel. If this Gospel first appeared as late as or later than 120, how does it happen that he had not learned the fact from the aged presbyters whom he had known in Asia Minor? Irenaeus, before becoming bishop, was the colleague of-Pothinus at Lyons, who perished as a martyr, having, as the letter of his church states, passed his ninetieth year. Here was a man whose active life extended back wvell-nigh to the very beginning of the century, who was born before John died. Supposing John's Gospel to have appeared as late as 120, the earliest date admitted by any part of the skeptical school, Pothinus was then upwards of thirty years old. Did this man, who loved Christianity so well that he submitted to torture and death for its sake, never think to mention to Irenaeus an event of so great consequence as was this late discovery of a life of the Lord from the pen of his most beloved disciple, and of its reception by the churches? Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, at the time of his controversy with Victor, describes himself as being "sixty five years of age in the Lord," as having, "conferred A. D. 110-120. This indicates progress in the right direction among the skeptical critics. But as they push back the date, they have to encounter a new source of difficulty. The nearer they approach to the ti!me of the Apostle, the greater the number of persons who were filtiiar with him and his circunmstantces, and the greater the obstacle, from this cause, to a successful imposture. It may here be observed that Schenkel contributes nothing new on the question before us. i 78 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. with the brethren throughout the world, and studied the whole of the Sacred Scriptures;" as being also of a family, seven of whose members had held the office of bishop or presbyter. Accordin,g to his statement, his own life began as early at least as the year 125, while through his family hlie was directly connected with the contemporaries of John. How is it that Polycrates appears to have known nothing about this late appearance of the wonderful Gospel which bore the name of John, but was the work of a great unknown? How is it that the famnily of Polycrates either knew nothing of so startling an event, or if they knew anything of it preserved an absolute silence? Clement of Alexandria had sat at the feet of venerable teachers in different countries, of whom he says that they "have lived by the blessing of God to our time, to lodge in our minds the seeds of the ancient and apostolic doctrine." From none of these had he derived any information of that event, so remarkable, if we suppose it to have occurred-the sudden discovery of a gospel history by the Apostle John, of which the Clristian world had not before heard. Justin says that in the churches there are many men and women of sixty and seventy years of age, who leave been Christians from their youth; and he is speaking only of the unmarried class.' So at every preceding and subsequent moment in the first half of the second century, there were many 1 Apol., I. c. 15. 79 .6 80 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. old persons in every larger church whose memory went back far into the apostolic age. Now if the statement of Irenaeus and his contemporaries as to the composition of the fourth Gospel by the Apostle John was false, and this work in reality saw the light not till long after his death, when some forger offered it for acceptance, how is it possible that there should be none to investigate its origin when it first appeared, and none afterwards to correct the prevalent opinion concerning it? There is no way for the skeptical critic to meet this positive argument, founded on the unanimous voice of tradition, and this negative argument ab silentio in refutation of his theory, unless he can prove that the Christians of the second century were so indifferent as to the origin of their scriptures that they received whatever might offer itself to their acceptance, provided the contents were agreeable to their doctrines and prepossessions. If there were few or none who were either inquisitive or competent to judge of the real claims of a book that professed to be an authentic and apostolic history of Christ, then anl imposture of this magnitude might be successful, provided a person were found shrewd and unscrupulous enough to undertake it. But how stands the fact? The greater portion of the early Christians were undoubtedly from the poorer class. Even these must have been deeply interested in obtaining authentic accounts of that Master for whom they were offering i 1. a EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. up life itself. But they had among them trained, inquisitive scholars - men educated in the schools of philosophy. Justin Martyr and the Greek Apolo gists are not liable to the charge of illiteracy. It was a time when Christianity had to answer for itself, as well in treatises addressed to the public magistrate as before the civil tribunals. It is, moreover, a note worthy fact that the writers bring to the Scriptures the test of historical inquiry. They do not ask what book is doctrinally acceptable, but what book bears the stamp of an apostolic approval. Referring to a say ing of Christ adduced from an apocryphal Gospel of the Egyptians, Clement's first remark is, that it is not contained in the four Gospels which "have been handed down to us." Irenaeus and Tertullian insist / only upon the historical evidence that the canonical Scriptures are apostolic. Nothing but authentic tradi tionl is of any weight with them on the question. It is true that Schwegler, Strauss, and some other writers are in the habit of asserting that the Christians of the first a wes were wholly uncritical, and were satisfied with the claini of any book to be apostolic, if it seemed edifyiii,-. But scholars need not be told that sweeping representations of this nature are not sustained by proof and are grossly exaggerated. Origen, that most learned and inquisitive scholar, was born when Irenaeus was still in the midst of his activity. The earlier conflicts with Judaizing and Gnostic heresy which carry us far back of Irelnacus towards the comlnmencemlent 81 C) I GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. of the century, stimulated Christians to the exercise of discrimination in respect to writings which claimed an apostolic sanction. Appeal is made to the instance of the partial acceptance, at the end of the second or early in the third century,- of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. This work, however, was accompanied with pretended documents in attestation of its apostolic authorship, and with an explanation of the reason why it did not sooner appear; 1 and was hence supposed to be a genuine work which had been altered and interpolated by heretics. A few facts of this nature are no more sufficient to convict the contemporaries of Origen, Irenacus, and Justin of utter indifference or heedlessness in respect to the authorship of books, than the acceptance of Ossian or the credence given to the Shaksperian forgeries of Ireland suffice to convict the contemporaries of Porson and Johnson of a like stupidity. Moreover, the incomparably greater import alnce which belonged to the histories of the life and teachings of Christ, in the estimation of the early Christians, by the side of such works as the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, destroys the parallel. The latter mnight be accepted, in certain circles at least, witl) little inquiry; that a deception should be success ful, and universally successful, in the case of the former, is inconceivable. All the knowledge we have relative to the formation of the New Testament canon goes to disprove the impuLtatioi of carelessness or inconmpetency I See Gieseler's If. G., B. I. 285. N. 21. 82 I EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. brought against the. Christians of the second century. There is proof that the four Gospels of our canon were distinguished, as having preeminent authority, from all other evangelical histories -in the early part of the second century. All other narratives of the life of Christ, includilno, those of the many writers of whom Luke speaks ill the introduction to his Gospel, as well as those of subsequent authors, were discarded, and, if used at all, were explicitly treated as not endued with authority. Four, and only the four, in the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian, were regarded as apostolic and canonical. Lechler 1 mentions an example from Eusebius illustrating the feeling of church teachers at that time. Serapion, who was bishop of Antioch about 190, found in circulation at Rhosse (Orossus), a town of Cilicia, an apocryphal gospel called the Gospel of Peter. He says in regard to it: "We, brethren, receive Peter and the other apostles as Christ himself. But those writings which falsely go under their name, as we are well acquainted with them, we reject, and know also that we Aave not received sgC/ handed down to us."2 This is one expression; but it falls in with the whole current of the evidence in relation to the temper of Irenaeus and his contemporaries. Having thus surveyed the external proofs of the genuineness of John, we pass to cansider Studien u. Krit., 1856. 4. s. 871. 2 Euseb., Lil). VI. c. 12. 83 84 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 1. The fourth Gospel claims to be the work of the Apostle John; and the manner of this claim is a testimony to its truth. The author explicitly declares himself an eyewitness of the transactions recorded by him (i. 14, compared with 1 John i. 1-3, iv. 14; John xix. 35; compare also xxi. 24.) In the course of his narrative, one of the disciples, instead of being referred to by name, is characterized as that " disciple whom Jesus loved" (xiii. 23; xix. 26; xx. 2 seq.; xxi. 7). Ill the appendix to the Gospel (xxi. 24; compare ver. 20) this disciple is declared to be its author. And we cannot well explain this circumlocution, except on the supposition that the author resorts to it in order to avoid the mention of his own name. Now, who of the disciples most intimate with Jesus is referred to under this description? Not Peter; for Peter is not only repeatedly spoken of by his own name, but is expressly distinguished from the disciple in question (xiii. 24; xx. 2 seq.; xxi. 7; 20 seq.). Not James; for besides the proof derived from the universal supposition of the ancient Church, that James was not the person denoted, we know that he was put to death early in the apostolic age (Acts xii. 2), while we may infer from John xxi. 23, which is otherwise confirmed, that the disciple in question must have reached an advanced age. If it be granted that the author, whoever he may have been, was one of the original disciples, James is excluded, i I INTERNAL EVIDENCE. because the Gospel was evidently written later than his death, and out of Palestine. But if the disciple whom Jesus loved is not Peter or James, who can it be but John? That the author would represent himself to be John, is also strongly suggested by his omitting to attach to the name of John (the Baptist) the usual appellation 6 18"crt,ar, especially when we observe that he is elsewhere careful, as in the case of Peter and of Judas, to designate precisely the person meant. Supposing the writer to be himself John the Evan elist, and moreover to have stood, as a disciple, in an intimate relation with the Baptist, we have a double reason for his omitting in the case of the latter this usual title. The connection of the beloved disciple with Peter (xx. 2 seq.; xxi. 7; and also xviii. 15 seq., where the cc/;ob utccz9.'ri is none other than the beloved disciple) is another argument tending to show that John is meant; since we find afterwards, in the Acts, that John and Peter are closely associated.' Indeed, it is held by Baur that the design is to lead the reader to the inference that John is the author. Now, if we suppose that this inference is the simple fact, we have in the modest suppression of his name by John the manifestation of a certain delicacy of feeling, which is consonant with the spirit of the work. It would be connected with its real author by those to whom he gave it, without any - 1 See also Luke xxii. 8. 85 86 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. proclamation on his part of his relation to it; as in truth it was ascribed to John from the outset. On the contrary, supposing the Gospel not to be genuine, we are obliged to attribute to the author a refinement in fraud, an outlay of skill in deception, wholly inconsistent with the simplicity and pure tone of this Gospel, and not likely to exist in a literary forger. Judging from other known specimens of apocryphal literature, and from the intrinsic probabilities in the case, we should expect of such a fraudulent writer, that he would boldly and openly assume the name and apostolic authority of John, instead of leaving the authorship to be ascertained in the manner we have indicated, by a careful inspection and combination of passages. The indirect, modest way, then, in which the author discovers himself, carries with it the unmistakable character of truth. 2. The truth of this claim of the fourth Gospel to have John for its author, is confirmed by the graphic character of the narrative, the many touches characteristic of an eyewitness, and by other indications of an immediate knowledge, on the part of the writer, of the things he relates. In respect to these points, which mark the narrative as the product of an eyewitness and of one directly cognizant of the facts, none of the other Gospels can be compared with the fourth. We have not in mind here the general plan and outline of the history, which will be considered under another ,i i INTERNAL EVIDENCE. head, but rather the style in which the various incidents are presented. Of this pervading peculiarity of the fourth Gospel our readers will be reminded by a few examples. As one instance, we may refer to Joihn i. 3o seq., where an account is given of the calling of the disciples: "again the next day after "-the day is thus definitely given-" John stood and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked,"-here we have the position of both Johln and Jesus,-" he saith,'Behold the Lamb of God!' And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned and saiv tleJi following, and saith," etc. In reply to their question, "' WVhere dwellest thou?' He saith unto them,'Come and see.' They camne and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day, for it was abomt the tenth hour." Supposing the writer to have been one of these two disciples, speaking of an event that would be indelibly stamped upon his memory, this minuteness of description would be natural. If we have not an eyewitness, we have a subtle and painstaking deceiver. For another example of vivid recollection we may refer to John xiii. 21 seq., in the description of the last supper. We are told that Jesus was troubled in spirit, "and said,'Verily, verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray me.' Then the disciples looked one on a:io/ler, doubting of whom lie spake." There is first an interval of silence, and looks of inquiry and 87 88 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. fear cast from one to another; but who would venture to ask the question, which of their number was to be faithless? "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to himn"-he signified his wish by a motion of the hand-" that he should askl who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast, saith unto him,'Lord, who is it?'" Jesus replies that he will point out the individual by handing him the sop. This silent act, understood by John, was followed by the remark of Jesus to Judas: "That thou doest, do quickly. Now no manr at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him." Some of them, we are told, thought that Judas was directed to buy those things that they "had need of against the feast, or to give something to the poor." Who can avoid feeling that the writer is here presenting a scene that was pictured on his memory? How unnatural, as well as painful, is the supposition of a carefully contrived fiction! Another instance of particular recollection is found in John xviii. 15 seq., where, in connection with the account of the bringing of Christ before Caiaphas, we read: "And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple; that disciple was known unto tlte hiJl _riest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. Blut Peter stood at tAe door witlAoitt." Peter had no such means of admission. "Then went out that other disciple which ( i i f il INTERNAL EVIDENCE. was known unto the high priest, and space unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter." There the inquiry of this door-keeper drew from Peter his first denial of a connection with Christ; and we read further: "The servants and officers stood there, who had mzade a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves, and Peter stood with them and warmed himself." The circumstance of there being a fire is mentioned by Luke, but in the manner of stating it in John, as well as in the preceding circumstances that are peculiar to him, we find the clearest signs of a personal recollection. The record of the inward conflict and vacillation of Pilate as displayed ill his conduct (ch. xix.), is characterized by the same features, which show it to be a vivid recollection of circumstances witnessed by the writer. So there is much in the narrative of the crucifixion having the same peculiarity. Thus we read (vs. 26, 27): "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother,'Woman, behold thy son.' Then saith he to the disciple,'Behold thy mother.' And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home." And again we read (vs. 34, 35): "One of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there outblood and water. A4nd he that 8aw it bare record, and his record is true; and hle knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe." Is this too a fiction, which the author sought to commend to 89 90 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. credence by a solemn asseveration, or is it a simple, faithful reminiscence? What a life-like description, and how true to the conception elsewhere gained of the respective characters, is the account of the running of Peter and John to the empty sepulchre! They "ran both together;" but the other disciple, outrunning Peter and arriving first at the sepulchre, pauses, and, stoopiny dowzi to look in, sees "the linen clothes lying;" yet struck, perhaps, with a feeling of awe, enters not. "Then cometh Simon Peter following him;" but not sharing in the hesitation of his companion, with characteristic impetuosity, at once goes in, "and seetl.k the linen clothes lie, and the zapkin thlat was ht: / his head sot lying with thie linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then," encouraged by the example of his more forward associate, "went in also that other discqiple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed" (xx. 3-9). The same freshness and naturalness which belong to the record of outward events are found in the portrayal of mental experiences. We mention, as an example, the notice of the refusal of Thomas to believe without seeing, and of the reaction of his mind on being shown the print of the nails (John xx. 24-29); and the refusal of Peter to have his feet washed by the Master, followed by the request: "Not my feet only, but also my hands and my head" (John xiii. 9). The ninth chapter, which I I t INTERNAL EVIDENCE. describes the healing of a man who had been blind from his birth, and the eleventh chapter, containing the narrative of the raising of Lazarus, in their naturalness, vividness, and fLdlness of detail, cannot fail to impress the candid reader with the conviction that the writer was personally cognizant of the cir cumstances he relates. In how simple, unartificial a strain does the narrative, in each case, proceed! And in how life-like a way are the circumstances linked together! Observe, in the first narrative, the exclamation of the neighbors on seeing the man's sight restored: "Is not this he that sat and begged?" the different voices: "some said,' this is he;' others said,'he is like him; but he said,'I am he;'" the evident perplexity of the Pharisees; the parents' way of prudently evading a direct answer to their interrogat6ries by referring them to the man himself: "he is of age, ask him;" the navf energy with which he confronted the Pharisees' queries. In reading this passage of the fourth Gospel, it is difficult to resist the impression that the writer is stating, in a perfectly artless manner, circumstances that fell within his own immediate knowledge. Not less strongly is this impression miade of the writer's immediate knowledge, as well as fidelity, in reading the eleventh chapter. Notice, for example, this passage in the conversation of Jesus with his disciples before he started for Bethany: "after that he saith unto them,' Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go 91 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. that I may awake him out of sleep.' Then said his disciples,'Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.' Howbeit Jesus spake of his death; but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly,'Lazarus is dead.'" This conversation was surely remembered. What motive would lead one to invent such a conversation? Observe, also, the graphic minuteness of the following statements (vs. 28 seq.): Martha, who had gone out to meet Jesus, when she had spoken with him, "went her way and called J[ary her sister secretly, saying,'the Master is come and calleth for thee.' As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly and came unto him. Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him. The Jews then which were with her in the house, when they saw Mary that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, ' she goeth unto the grave to weep there.'" We must suppose here either an accurate knowledge on the part of the writer, or an elaborate and gratuitous skill in contriving falsehood. Who can follow this narrative through, and note the expressions of deep-felt human feeling,-including the reference, in a single word, to the tears of Jesus,and not be struck with the obvious truthfulness of the writer? Or are there no marks by which sincerity and truth can be distinguished from fraud? 1 1 Among the illustrations of the present topic referred to by i i i I 92 t i INTERNAL EVIDENCE. There are many passages which show incon testibly that the author of the fourth Gospel wrote from an interest in the history as such.1 There are numerous uncontrived and unmistakable signs that he is writing from recollection, and not from invention. Among the examples of this peculiarity are the allusions to Nicodemus in three places, which are widely apart from each other (John iii. 2; vii. 50; xix. 39), and which imply an increasing faitl in his mind. The particular mention of the time of the occurrence of. different events, as on this or that day, is not important to the narrative, and simply indicates that the writer brings out facts as they lie in memory! see John ii. 13; iv. 6, 40, 43; v. i.; vi. 4, 22; vii. 2, 14; xii. 1, 12; xviii. 27 seq.; xix. 14. The name of the servant whose ear was cut off by Peter is given: John xviii. 10. Localities are designated, where no other than a historical interest can prompt the writer to do so. For example, it is said (c. iii. 23) that John was baptizing "in Aenon near to Salim:" the Evangelist describes a pool at Jerusalem (John v. De Wette (Einil. in das zV. T. ~ 105, a), and which we have not especi.tlly noticed, are John v. 10 seq. (the circumstances that followed the cure wrought at the pool of Bethesda; the questions put to the man who had been healed, by the Jews; his not knowing who it was that had healed him; his subsequent meeting with Jesus in the temple); vii. 1 seq. (the secret journey of Christ to the feast of Tabernacles, after the conversation with his unbelieving relatives); xii. The whole of chap. iv. (the interview of Christ with the woman of Saltlaria), is a striking example of vivid, detailed narration. 1 See Briiuckner's De Wette, Einl., s. xv. 93 94 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 2), as being by the sheep-gate-gate and not market should have been supplied by the English translators -and "called in the Hebrew tongue, Bethesda, having five porches:" in c. viii. 1, we read that "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives, and early in the morning he came again into the temple;" so that the fact of his going at night to the mount of Olives is simply recorded, with no mention of anything that he did, or that occurred there-a striking instance of historical recollection, since no significance attached to the bare fact of his.going to the mount: Philip is designated (c. xii. 21) as "of Bethsaida of Galilee," although this has no apparent connection with the incident there recorded of him it is narrated that Pilate sat down in his judgmnentseat "that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha;" a description of no moment in itself, but involved in the writer's recollection of the spot. A similar mnark of historical faithfulness is contained in the incidental allusions to features of the gospel history which yet the Evangelist does not record, but which were preserved either by the Synoptics or in oral tradition. These things, it is assumed, are known to his readers. We have in John iii. 24, in the allusion to John's being cast into prison, a signal inlstance of this sort. Jesus is spoken of as from Nazareth (John i. 45, 46), although no explicit statement about his residence there had been given. He is designated by the people of I i I INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Nazareth as "the son of Joseph, whose father and mother" were known to them (John vi. 42; comp. i. 45). For the first time, in c. vi. 67, "the twelve" are incidentally mentioned. Didymus, the Greek name of Thomas, is associated with the Hebrew designation of this apostle in John xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2. In c. xi. 2, the Evangelist explains parenthetically that Mary, the sister of Martha, was the same Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair. This incident, which is given in Matthew xxvi. 6-13, Mark xiv. 19, is assumed by the Evangelist to be well known, although he had not himself recorded it, and it appears in his narrative at a later point (c. xii. 3). We have Pur need to pursue the topic further. We find evervyrhere in this Gospel the air and manner of an eyewitness and participant in the scenes recorded. 3. The general structure and contents of the fourth Gospel, considered as a biography of Christ, are a convincing argument for its historical truth and genuineness. We come now to the decisive point in the conflict between the advocates and the opponents of the genuineness of this Gospel. It is contended by the latter that the representation which is found in the fourth Gospel, both of the course of events in the life of Christ and of the character of his teachings, is not only "divergent from that of the other Gospels, 95 96 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. but absolutely incompatible with it;" and that since these Gospels in this respect are right, the fourth cannot be the work of an apostle. The difference between the fourth Gospel and the other three, in the particulars referred to, is in truth very palpable and very important. The imnpression made by the first three, or synoptical Gospels, regarded by themselves, is that Jesus, after his baptism and temptation, repaired to Galilee, and remained there until shortly before his death, when he went up to Jerusalem to the passover. They record his teachings and miracles in Galilee and on this journey to Jerusalem, but say nothing of any intermediate visits to that city, and nothing of any prior labors there. From the synoptical Gospels alone, the impression would be gathered that the period of his ministry was only a year. On the other hand, Jolhn distinctly mentions not less than two journeys of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem previous to the last (ii. 13; v. 1), and seems to justify the conclusion that in each of these visits he remained a considerable time either in the city or in its neighborhood. The duration of his ministry, according to the fourth Gospel, cannot be less than two years and a half, and may possibly exceed three years. Not less remarkable is the differ. ence in the style of the Saviour's teaching in this Gospel, compared with the representations found in the other three. In the synoptical Gospels, Christ utters either brief, sententious apothegms, or parables; I t I I I I I INTERNAL EVIDENCE. while in the fourth Gospel we have extended dialogues and long discourses in quite a different vein. Other minor points of difference might be mentioned, but these which we have named are of chief importance. Before we proceed to consider in detail the bear ing of these peculiarities of John upon the main question before us, we offer one preliminary remark. The more serious the difference between the contents of the synoptical Gospels and of John, the greater is the difficulty to be met by the opponents of the genu ineness of the latter. For how could a Gospel which so runs athwart the accepted views of the life and teaching of Christ, be brought forward and gain cre dence unless it were knoWzvn to have the sanction of an apostle? The later the date assigned to the Gospel, the greater is the difficulty. What motive for a forger, fabricating his work long after the apostolic age, to depart from the traditional and certified conception of Christ's life and teaching? And supposing him to have a motive to do this, how could he succeed? These are questions to which the opponents of the genuineness of the Gospel find it impossible to give any satisfactory answer. Even if they were to show that the contrast between John and the synoptical histories almost amounts to an incompatibility, they only increase thereby the difficulty of solving the problem we have suggested. What inducement had a writer of the second century to deviate, without necessity, and to so extraordinary 97 7 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. an extent, from the long, prevalent and authorized view of the Saviour's life? And how was the Church persuaded to accept this new version of his career? Such is the hard problem presented to the skeptical critic. On the contrary, if it can be made to appear on a careful investigation, that, in these very particulars which are made the ground of objection, the fourth Gospel unquestioniably presents historical truth; that incidentally it supplements the other three just where they need explanation; and especially that this Gospel alone presents a consecutive and connected view of the life of Christ, we have gone far toward establishing its. apostolic authorship. We have not only obviated the principal objection; we have also furnished a positive and convincing argument on the other side. Its historiel peculiarities, so far from being a fatal objection against, will be seen to be a conclusive argument for, its genuineness. Only an apostle could have thrown this flood of light upon the course of events in the life of Christ. Only an apostle could have brought to the support of his narrative an authority sufficient to obtain for it cre dence. We shall be obliged to notice with brevity the various considerations connected with the present topic. 1. The journeys of Christ to Jerusalem and his ministry there. For reasons which we cannot with certainty determine, the synoptical Gospels confine themselves to the Galilean ministry. The ques, 98 i I i .i INTERNAL EVIDENCE. tion is: Have we ground for concluding, independently of John, that Jesus had repeatedly visited that city and labored there? The synoptical Gospels say noth ing inconsistent with his having done so; they are simply silent upon the subject. It would certainly be more natural to suppose that Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah, even if his ministry had continued but a yelar, would during, this time have gone up to Jerusa lem, both as an act of compliance with the law and as a means of gaining access to such a multitude as the festivals brought together. It is not easy to accouInt for the fanatical hatred of the Pharisees in Jeru saleni towards him, if we suppose that he had never crossed their path, save in casual encounters with them away from Jerusalem, in Galilee. Various facts mentioned in the synoptical Gospels seem to presuppose such previous labors on his part in the capital. Thus Joseph of Arimathlea, a member of the Sanhedrim, is said, in the synoptical Gospels, to be a disciple of Jesus (Matt. xxvii. 57 seq.; Luke xxiii. 50 seq.; Mark xv. 42 seq.); but Joseph was a resident of Jerusalem, having, as we are told, a tomb there. There, it is probable, he became acquainted with Christ. Again, we learn from Luke (x. 38 seq.) that Jesus stood in such intimate relations with the family of Martha and Mary, as imply a previous stay in that neighborhood prior to this last visit. But we are happily furnished with a conclusive proof of the Saviour's repeated visits ~ *.A.@ e.-.. 99 I 100 GENUINENESS OF TIlE FOURTI-I GOSPEIL. to Jeriu:alein, in tlie la.nentation he uttered over the city, as recorded by both Matthew and Luke (Luke xiii. 34 seq.; Matt. xxiii. 37 seq.):'I,oov6a A~i~n'I eovisx8zyz.... E~o sexy VyECs l/ (Z ~. ts CC txV, dov.... X;a ov;e lr,:.r.~. Baur would make it out that the whole Jewish people are apostrophized under the term " Jerusalem," as the centre and home of the nation. This interpretation seems improbable, when we remember that when the Saviour uttered these words he was gazing upon the city. It is demonstrated to be false by the context in Luke. Immediately before, in the preceding verse, the Saviour says: "for it camnot be that a p)ropTetvperish out of Jerusaleml." It may Be well to notice the last device of interpretation, by which Strauss struggles to avoid the inevitable inference to be drawn from this passage.1 WVe notice his new hypothesis more willingly, because it offers so fair an illustration of his general method of criticism. "This expression," says Strauss, "can Jesus least of all have used where Luke puts it, on his journey to Jerusalem, and before he had once during the period of his public activity seen that city. But even in Jerusalem itself, after a single stay there of only a few days, he cannot have pointed out how often he had attempted in vain to draw its inhabitants to himself. Here all shifts"-such as . eLeben Jesu fib' das deutsche Volk, s. 249. *:!'.'.'... t. l I INTERNAL EVIDENCE. that of Baur, noticed above-" are jfitile, and it must be confessed: if these are really the words of Christ, hle must have labored in Jerusalem ofte,zer aizd longer than would appear from the synoptical reports." Now, the reader will ask, how is this conclusion to be escaped? Nothing more easy. "These are sot his words," says Strauss. It is true that MIatthew gives them as such, in connection with the other decla rationL: "wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and somne of themrl ye shall kill and crucify," etc. But this last expression, as quoted by (Luke xi. 49 seq.), is disconnected from the apostrophe to Jerusalem, which is found later, in c. xiii. 34, 35. And that expression concerning the rejection of the divine messengers, though occurring in the midst of a discourse of Christ, is introduced by Luke with the words: "therefore also said the wisdom of God." On these data, Strauss sets up the theory that the whole passage, as found in MAatthew, is a quotation from some lost christian book written about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the personified wisdom of God was represented as speaking! It is interesting to mark the process by which he arrives at this conclusion. Matthew is held to be right in conjoining the two expressions, and Luke wrong in separating them. But alatthew is wrong in leaving out the introductory words: " therefore also saith the wisdom of God." Luke, again, is wrong in not connecting both 101 102 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. expressions withl this formula, and in making the iapostrophe to Jerusalem to be the words of Christ himself. WThy Matthew, whom Strauss elsewhere pronounces altogether the best authority, especially in regard to the discourses of Christ,' should leave otMt the formuLla of citation, and attribute to Jesus words extracted from the supposed lost book, is indeed a difficulty. Strauss says that it was owing to the singularity-seltsamzk4eit-of this formula! Why Luke should attribute to Christ himself the words of lamentation over Jerusalem, when they stood connected with the passage relative to divine messengers ii a book tfat did not purport to be a record of tze words of Cirist, is another unexplained circumstance. It is plain that Strauss credits, or discredits, each evangelist, in an entirely arbitrary imanner, in order to meet the exigencies of a theory. The apostrophe to J erusalem must be regarded as the outpouring of Christ's own feeling and as uttered by him. Both evangelists explicitly declare this. And apart from the considerations already mentioned, the conclusion of the passage has no propriety unless it were spoken by J esus: "for I say unto you, ye shall not see m e henceforth, till ye say, Blessed is'lle that cometh in the name of the Lord." In the passage (Luke xi. 49): "therefore also saith the wisdom of God," tlie l ast phrase probably denotes Jesus himsell, and may have been attached in current speech to this cita 1 Leben Je8sutfit,r d. deutsche Volk, s. 115. i aI I INTERNAL EVIDENCE. tion of his words. Hence Luke takes it up into his report.' The apostrophe to Jerusalem proves, therefore, that Jesus had again and again preached in that city and labored to convert its inhabitants. The fourth Gospel is incidentally but convincingly sustained in attributing a prolonged ministry to Christ and repeated labors at Jerusalem, by the synoptical Gospels themselves. But suppose a writer in the second century to have set himself to the work of composing a fictitious gospel for the purpose of indirectly inculcating a dogmatic system of his own; how certain that he would have adhered to the traditional view of the course of the Saviour's ministry! By giving it a longer duration, and introducing visits to Jerusalem and labors there not mentioned by the received Gospels, he would only invite suspicion and expose himself to detection. No advantage could be conceived to follow such a wide departure from the prevalent conception, which would not be immeasurably outweighed by the certain disadvantages and perils I This is the opinion of Neander and Meyer. Strauss is not so original as he claims to be, in this piece of interpretation. Baur, after suggesting his own explanation, of which we have spoken above, remarks in a note that if this interpretation is unacceptable, then the lament over Jerusalem may be taken as the words of some (unknown) prophet, which in this definite form were (fictitiously) put into the mouth of Christ. See Baur's Kanon. Evang., s. 127. In plainer language: if you cannot explain away the meaning of the passage, deny that Christ said it! I 103 N 104 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. attending it. It must have been, then, frbm a regard to historical truth and from a knowledge of the facts, that the author of the fourth Gospel has so cojstructed his history. And this author, whoever he was, had an authority with Christians so great as to enable him to vary thus widely, without the imputation of error, from the prevalent tradition. The more the general plan of the fourth Gospel is examined, the more is it seen to rest upon the solid foundation of historical verity. The progress of events in the life of Jesus, from the beginning onward to the final result, is clearly understood from this Gospel. We see how it came to pass that though "he came to his own, his own received him not." The vacillation of the people, now turning in his favor, and now, as he disappointed their expectations, turning against him, together with the origin and growth of the implacable hostility of the Jewish leaders, are made entirely comprehensible. And the fourth Gospel alone gives an adequate explanation of the way in which the catastrophe was brought on. We see how the consequences of the raising of Lazarus obliged the Pharisees to proceed at once to the most decisive measures against Jesus. It was this event, and the effect of it upon the minds of the people, that precipitated the result. In regard to this closing portion of Christ's life, we have in John the clue to the solution of what is left, in part, unsolved ill the other Gospels. Even Renan finds that "the last I I i i k INTERNAL EVIDENCE. months of the life of Jesus in particular are explained only by John."1 A -narrative is commlended to credence by being thus consistent and intelligible. The same distinction, the same verisimilitude, belongs to the account of the Saviour's resurrection, a section of the history in which the synoptical Gospels are espe cially fragmentary. In John we have a view, as clear and coherent as- it is artless and natural, of the trans actions that followed his reappearance from the tomb. 2. In considering the credibility of the fourth Gospel, as this question is affected by a comparison of its matter with the contents of the other three, we have to notice the difficulty and apparent discrepancy upon the date of the crucifixion, and also the paschal controversies of the second century, in their bearing upon this point of clhronolog,y. It is well known to every student of the Gospels that there is difficulty in reconciling the statement of the first three, respecting the date of the last supper, and consequently respecting the date of the death of Christ, with the statement of Jolhn. All the evangelists agree as to the day of the week-that the supper was on Thursday evening, and the crucifixion on the next or Friday morning. The synoptical Gospels, however, appear to place the last supper in the evening when the Jews ate the passover-meal; i. e. on the evening of the 14th Nisan, or, according to the Jewish reckon *1 Rcnan, Tie de Je8us, p. xxxiii. I i 105 f I 106 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. ing, the beginning of. the 15th Nisan. The fourth Gospel, on the other hand, appears to place the last meal of Jesus with the disciples on the evening before the passover-supper of the Jews; i. e. on the 13th, or, according to the Jewish reckoning, the 14th, Nisan, and the crucifixion on the morning irmmediately before, instead of after, this Jewish festival. The Ttibingen critics regard the two representations as really inconsistent and irreconcilable; and on this ground, as they hold that the fourth Gospel is incorrect, they maintain that it could not have proceeded from John. If the two representations can be fairly harmonized with each other, of course their argument vanishes with the foundation on which it is built. Without pronounncing judglment on the various modes which have been proposed by Dr. Robinson and other hlarmionists for reconciling the two accounts, let us coln sider the effect, as regards the credibility and genu ineness of the fourth Gospel, of a,dmitting that the discrepancy is real and irremovable. The diversity of the principles of criticism which are adopted by the major part of the able defenders of supernatural Christianity and evangelical doctrine in Germniiany, fromn those in vogue among us, is remrnarkably exemplified by - their treatmeneit of the particular question before us. Not only do Neander, Bleek, Meyer, and others hardly less distinguished, coincide with their adversaries in admiitting that the discrepancy is irremovable; but Bleck builds upon it an earnest argumeiit for the I i I I i t I INTERNAL EVIDENCE. credibility and apostolic authorship of John.' He insists, with much force, upon the improbability that a writer in the second century, who wished to be con sidered an apostle, would contradict the three Gospels and the accepted tradition of the Church, on such a point as the date of the last supper and of the cruci fixion. Who but an apostle, or one thoroughly acquainted with the facts, would think of making him self responsible for such a deviation? Who, but an apostle, could hope to be believed? In a word, how extremely unnatural that a forger should think of assigning another date to these leading facts in the evangelical history! Bleek, also, endeavors to show that the supposition that the crucifixion took place on the morning before the passover-lamb was eaten, is corroborated by incidental statements in the synoptical Gospels themselves,2 as well as by all the probabilities in the case; so that the accuracy of the fourth Gospel, in this particular, is established, and thus a strong argument is furnished for its general credibility.3 It should be stated that these critics do not consider the first Gospel, in its present form, to emanate from the Apostle Matthew. See Neander's Leben Jesu, s. 10. Bleek's Einl., s. 88 seq. The first Gospel is held to stand in substantially the same relation to the apostles as the other two; and the historical position of all three is indicated in Luke i. 1, 2; i. e. they record the things which were delivered to their writers by eyewitnesses. It is not the eyewitnesses themselves, but those to whom they spoke. 2 Matt. xxvi. 5, xxvii. 59 seq.; Mark xv. 42, 46; Luke xxiii. 56. Ellicott, in hlis Life of (hrist (Amn. Ed. p. 292, N. 3) considers 107 108 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. The opponents of the genuineness of John attempt to draw a support for their cause from the paschal contfroversies of the second century. These arose from a difference in practice in regard to a certain festival celebrated about the time of the Jewish passover. There was discussion onl this difference, in which the churches of Asia Minor were opposed by the church of Rome, on the occasion of Polycarp's visit to Ainicetus of Rome about the year 160; then ten years later, in which Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, and Melito of Sardes, took part; and especially at the end of the second century, when Victor, bishop of Rome, proposed to break off fellowship with the Asia Minor bishops on account of their refusal to abandon their ancient custom. In these controversies, and in the defence of their practice, the Asia Minor bishops were in the habit of appealing to the authority of the Apostle John, who had lived in the midst of them. Everything turns upon ascertaining the real point of difference and the real character of the Asia Minor observance. So much is certain, that this observance, whatever may have been its origin or significance, occurred on the evening of the 14th, or, in the Jewish reckoning, the beginning of the 15th, Nisan. Baur that no other interpretation of John is admissible but that which places the last supper on the evening before the usual passover-meal of the Jews. "The statements," says Ellicott, "are so clear, that to attempt, with Wieseler (CUhon. Synops.), Robinson (Rib. Sacsa for Aug. 1845), to explain them away, must be regarded as arbitrary and hopeless." See John xiii. 1, 29, xviii. 28, xix. 31. I f k I i INTERNAL EVIDENCE. holds that it was established as a commemoration of the last supper, the passover-meal of Jesus with his disciples; and hence infers that John, whose authority supported the Asia Minor observance, could iiot have written the account of the last supper in our fourth Gospel. But Baur's argument is on a foundation of sand. It is clear, from the earliest discussions on the subject, that the difference did not consist in a diverse mode of observing the same festival; but that in Asia Minor there vas afestival vhich did not evist at ]tome. This commemoration was on the 14th Nisan, on whatever day of the week it might fall; whence the adherents of the Asia Minor custom were called Quartodecimani, while Occidental Christians observed Friday and Sunday of each week as the days, respectively, of the Lord's death and resurrection. A day was observed by the Asia Minor Christians which was not observed at Rome. Nor is there any probability that the Asia Minor festival was established as a coimmmemoration of the last supper. There are two views as to the origin of their festival. It was the final view of Neander, and is the opinion of Meyer and Schneider, that it commemorated thlie death of Christ- the sacrifice of the true paschal Lamb, of which the Mosaic paschal lamb was the type (1 Cor. v. 7; John xix. 36). If this be the fact, the festival accords with the supposed chronology of John's Gospel. The fragment of Apollinaris has been sup 109 110 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. posed to connect the Asia Minor festival with the last supper, and to defend the correctness of the day of its observance by an appeal to Matthew. But Schneider forcibly argues that Apollinaris is reporting, not his own view, which was that of the Quartodecimani, but the view of a smaller party of Judaizers, from which he dissents; so that Apollinaris (as also the fragment of IHippolytus) is really a witness to the agreement of the Quartodecimani with the chronology of the fourth Gospel. The other hypothesis concerning the design of the Asia Minor festival, is that of Bleek, De Wette, and others, who consider this festival to have been originally the Jewish passover, which the Jewish converts at Ephesus and elsewhere had continued to observe, and with which in their minds Christian ideas and associations were more and more connected. In particular, there was naturally associated withi it the recollection of the last supper of Jesus with the disciples. There was no such reference originally connected with the festival, nor did this association of it with the last supper grow up until long after the death of John. This apostle did not interfere with a commemoration which he found established in Ephesus and other places in that region. Bleek shows that the theory of an original reference of the Asia Minor festival to the last supper would imply an earlier origin of the yearly Christian festivals than we have any reason to think belonged to them. It is not inconsistelt with Bleek's general view, to adopt Schncider's I II f I, i I II I i INTERNAL EVIDENCE. interpretation of Apollinaris, in which case even this wtriter affords no proof of an association by the Quartodecimani of their festival with the Saviour's last supper. This hypothesis relative to the character of their commemoration, that it was at the outset simply the Jewish passover, which in Rome, and in other churches where the Gentiles were more predominant, was not kept up, appears to us to be best supported. In any case, the charge that a contradiction exists between the early Asia Minor tradition concerning John's testimony and the chronology of the fourth Gospel is without fo-tindation. 4. The discourses of Christ irn the fourth Gospel. ThIese have been used as an argument against the apostolic origin of this Gospel: an argument founded on their inherent character; their relation, both as to form and matter, to the teaching of Christ recorded by the synoptical evangelists; the portraiture of Christ which they convey; their fitness to the circumstances under which they are alleged to have been spoken; their uniformity, both with each other and with the expressions of other characters in the Gospel, as well as with those of the author himself.' Under this head we shall chiefly follow Bleek, regretting, however, that we are under the necessity of abridging his excellent suggestions. That the discourses of Christ in John stand in contrast, in important respects, with his teaching in the 1 Bleek, s. 194. I I III 112 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL, other Gospels, is not denied. Thle first question is, whether the contrast is so great that both styles of teaching could not belong to the same person. Here Bleek pertinently refers to the case of Socrates, and to the opinion that is coming to prevail, that the representation in Plato has much more of truth than was formerly supposed; an opinion held by such men as Schleiermacher, Brandis, and Ritter, and commended by the apparent necessity of supposing a more spectulative element in the teaching of Socrates than Xenophon exhibits, if we would account for the schools of speculative philosophy that took their rise from him. He must have had'another side than that which we discern in Xenophon's record.' How much easier is this to be supposed in the case of IHim who was to act effectually upon every variety of mind and character! How natural and inevitable that each of his disciples should apprehend Christ from his own point of view, according to the measure of his own individuality; so that for the understaniding of Christ in his fulness, we have to combine these various, but not incongruous, representations of him. But, as in a former instance, we find in the synoptical writers proof that the fourth Gospel, in the 1 Whoever will examine cc. ix. and x. of the fourth Book of the Memorabilia, will see that these are fragmentary specimens from another vein than that which furnishes to Xenophon most of his reports. A like feeling is produced when we compare the last cllapter of the [ITem. with Plato. Socrates mntst have said much more, in this closing period, than Xenol)ihon has recorded. I I i i I I -i la i i I k I INTERNAL EVIDENCE. character of the discourses attributed to Christ, doesnot depart from historical truth. As to their form, we are told, especially in Matt. xiii. 10 seq., that the Saviour, at least in discoursing to the disciples, did not confine himself to the gnomes and parables; that he spake thus to the people on account of the dulness of their understanding, while to the disciples it was "given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." The statements (Matt. xiii. 34; Mark iv. 34) that he never spake to the people save ini parables, are of course of a general character, and, fairly interpreted, are not inconsistent with his addressing the people at times in accordance with the reports of John. Occasionally in the synoptical Gospels, moreover, we meet with expressions of Jesus in striking consonance with his style in the Johannean discourses, and thus giving us a glimpse of another manner of teaching which the synoptical writers sparingly report. The most remarkable example is Matt. xi. 25 seq. (compare Luke xi. 21 seq.), the ejaculation of Jesus, beginning: "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." How perfectly in liarmony with the style of Jesus in the latter part of John! 1 l In John, also, examples of the aphoristic style, silch as prevails in the synoptical reports of the teaching of Christ, are not wanting. See John xii. 24, 26; xiii. 16, 20. - 8 113 114 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. As to the contents of the fourth Gospel, it is freely granted that the higher nature of Christ and the relation of the Son to the Father are here a much more predominant theme. Essentially the same conception of Christ, however, is found in the first three Gospels. In them he is the Son of God, in a higher than any official sense: he is the judge of the world. And in several passages, we find him claiming the lofty attributes given him in John, and in the same style. Thus in Matt. xi. 27 he says: "All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knowetl any man the father save the Son, and he to whom t(e Son will reveal him." This mutual knowledge, exclusive, superhuman, and perfect, on the part of tlhe Son and the Father, is affirmed here in the peculiar manner of the fourth Gospel. In Matt. xxii. 41 seq. (compare Mark xii. 35 seq.; Luke xx. 41 seq.) we have a plain suggestion of the fact of his pre-existence. The objection that the discourses of Christ in John have a close resemblance to the style of the evangelist himself and to that of his first Epistle, is obviated when we remember that, as a result of his peculiar relation to Christ, the Saviour's mode of expression would naturally be taken up; that we are under no necessity of supposing that he aimed to give a verbally accurate report of the Master's teaching; and that some freedom as to style is unavoidable in abbreviating and selecting the portions ,k i i It I N i t I i I II I INTERNAL EVIDENCE.' of his discourse for which there was a place in so brief a work. All this, as well as that thorough inward digestion and assimilation, on the part of the evangelist, of the Saviour's discourses, which were consequent on the length of time that had elapsed since they were heard, will account for the peculiarity in question, without impairing in the slightest degree the historical truth and substantial accuracy of the Johannean reports. The falsehood of the assertion that these discourses are fictitious and put into the mouth of Jesus by the writer, after the manner of ancient Greek and Roman historians, is evinced in particular by certain briefer expressions which are interspersed in them, and which admit of no explanation except on the supposition that the reports are faithful A signal example is John xiv. 31, where, in the midst of a long discourse to the disciples, occur the words: "Arise, let us go hence!"1 They are not followed by any intimation that the company actually arose and left the place where they were. On the contrary, the discourse goes on, in the words "I am the true vine," etc. But if we suppose what follows to have been spoken by the way; or, which is perhaps more natural, if we suppose that having spoken the words first quoted which summoned the disciples to quit the place where they were, the Saviour's 1,E'7E;EOE ayoozpEPEv E. 115 -]116 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. interest in his theme and love for them led him to go on still longer, while, it may be, they all remained standing, then these words have a proper place and meaning. Tile circumstance would imprint itself on the recollection of John, and it affords an impressive proof of his fidelity in reporting his Master's discourses. But no reason can be given why a forger should have introduced this fragmentary, unexplained phrase. Had he chosen to interrupt the discourse by such a phrase, he would infallibly have added some other statement, such as: then they arose and went. This little phrase, to a candid reader, is a most convincing item of evidence. Bleek also dwells upon the character of the prophetic utterances of Christ in John, especially of the predictions relative to his own death. The fact that they are in the form of intimations, rather than distinct declarations, will better account, in the view of Bleek, for the misunderstanding of them on the part of the disciples. The form in which they appear in John wears, in his opinion, the stamp of historical truth, since it is altogether probable that in this form they were actually spoken. Especially, as Bleek thinks, is the historical fidelity of the evangelist shown by those passages from Christ upon which the evangelist puts his own interpretation, drawn from an observation of the subsequent event. Such are John ii. 19: destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again," where we are told that the obscure reference I i I I t i INTERNAL EVIDENCE. to the temple of his body was discerned by his disciples not till after the resurrection; and John xii. 32: "and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me," to which the evangelist appends a similar explanation. There can be no doubt in these instances that the apostle has faithfully reported the sayings of Jesus; and this fact must be even more evident to those critics who do not hesitate to question, in these cases, the perfect correctness of the disciples' interpretation. 5. The Hellenic culture and the theological point of view of the author of the fourth Gospel are made an objection to the Johannean authorship. They prove, it is maintained, that the work does not belong to the apostolic age, was not written either by a Palestinian or by any other Jew, but by a Gentile Christian of the second century. In the notice of these several points we principally follow Bleek. (1) Was the author of the fourth Gospel a Jew? It is objected that his manner of referring to the Jews proves him not to be of their number. Thus we read of the "Jews' Passover," "the Jews' feast of tabernacles," the "feast of the Jews," the preparation of the Jews," the " ruler of the Jews (ii. 6, 13; iii. 1;v. 1; vi. 4; vii. 2;xi. 55); and frequently the author, alluding to the adversaries of Jesus and those with whom he came in contact, speaks of them in general as o0'Iouv(Stc,ot. This style is capable of explanation only on the hypothesis 117 115 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. that the Gospel was written late in the apostolic age, when the Christian Church had come to be fully independent of the Jewish, and by a writer who was himself outside of Palestine, and addressed his work not only to Jews, but also, and still more, to Gentiles and Gentile Christians. And this supposi. tion, which removes the difficulty, is itself the church tradition concerning the composition of John.1 But independently of this tradition, there can be no doubt that the author was of Jewish extraction. In proof of this, Bleek refers to the writer's familiarity with the Jewish laws and customs, which is so manifest in his account of the events connected with the Saviour's death; to the pragmatical character of the Gospel, so far as the fulfilment of Old Testament predictions and promises is frequently pointed out; and to the fact that a portion of these citations are translated directly from the Hebrew, instead of being taken from the Septuagint,-a fact that is conclusive in favor of his Jewish, and strongly in favor of his Palestinian, origin. It occurs to us, also, that Baur, in conceding that the author professes to be the Apostle John, may be himself challenged to explain why he is so negligent in affording evidence of a Jewish extraction. Surely, so expert a counterfeiter would not have forgotten a point so essential 1 Even Paul speaks of his "former conversation in the Jews' religion;" of his profiting " in the Jews' religion," Gal. i. 13, 14. t I 6 INTERNAL EVIDENCE. to a successful attempt to personate the Apostle. The charge that errors are found in John inconsistent with the hypothesis that the author was a Palestinian Jew, is without foundation. That Bethany (the true reading for "Bethabara beyond Jordan," in John i. 28) was either the name of a place in Peraea, or was a slip of the pen for Bethabara; that, at any rate, the writer did not misplace the Bethany where Lazarus dwelt, is demonstrated by John xi. 18, where this town is expressly said to be fifteen stadia from Jerusalem. The assertion that in the designation of Caiaphas as high priest for that year, CC'O/I,,V'o To1 ivGtevzO dxeivov (xi. 51; xviii. 13,) the author implies a belief that the high priest was changed every year, is entirely unwarranted by anything in the text. The term "Sychar" for the old city Sichem, instead of being a blunder, may be an old pronunciation of the Jews and Samaritans of that time. As used by the Jews there may lurk under it a reference to the hated character of the Samaritans; or, finally, it may be simply an error of transcription.x See Bleek, s. 209. The supposition that it is really the name of a town distinct from Sichem, though near it, agrees with the oldest traditions, and on several accounts seems more probable. So Hug (Introd. Part II., sec. 59), Ewald (Die Johan. Schriften, I. 181), Brucekner, Baumlein, Thomson, (The Land and the Book, II. 206), and others. Comp. Grove's art. in Smith's Bible Deict. The explanatlons given above (from Bleek) rest purely on conjecture; this rests an historical and topographical arguments, confirmed by the existence at the present day of a place with a similar name ('Askar) near the site of Jacob's well. Lightfoot (CUJorog. Enguiry, 119 120 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. (2) The objection is made that a Galilean fisher. man, like John, could not be possessed of so much Greek culture as the fourth Gospel discovers. But the family of John were neither in a low station, nor in straitened circumstances. He was certainly trained by his pious mother in the knowledge of the Old Testament. He may have been early taught the Greek language, which was then so widely diffused. The report which the members of the Sanhedrim had heard, that Peter and John were unlearned and uncultivated men (Acts iv. 13) can only signify that they were not educated in the schools of the Rabbis. Had John' not attained some mastery of the Greek language, it is not so likely that he would have taken up his residence in the midst of Asia, where only Greek was spoken, even by the Jews. And during his prolonged residence there his familiarity with the language would doubtless increase. (3) The type of doctrine in the fourth Gospel, and especially its Christology, have been thought to be an argument against its composition by John, the Palestinian Jew. In particular, the Logos idea in John, it is said, was an Alexandrian notion, borrowed from the Greek philosophy, and introduced into Christian theology at a later period. We cannot prefixed to John, ch. iv. sec. 5) finds "the valley of the well of Soklar" spoken of in the Talmud as at a great distance from Jerusalem. He also suggests, as does Hug, that the name'ltD may denote a burial-place. I I k I I INTERNAL EVIDENCE. eniter at length into the discussion of this point. We simply say that, as regards the language or the formb of the doctrine, it may have been derived from the book of Proverbs and from Sirach, and not improb ably was derived from this source, though further developed, by Philo himself. Elsewhere and earlier in the New Testament itself, if not in the Epistle to the Hebrews, yet undeniably in the Apocalypse, we meet with the Johannean terminology. But, even if the language pertaining to the Logos came at first from the Greek philosophy, it may have been taken up by John, as a fit designation of the pre existent Christ. Properly qualified, it became a vehicle for conveying his conception of the Son in his relation to the Father. In the use of this term, John enters upon no speculation. He would rather turn away the mind from vain speculations, from the unprofitable discussions about the Logos that may have been current, to the living, historic Revealer of God, the actual manifestation of the Invisible One, the Word made flesh, which had "dwelt among us." Accordingly, after the first few verses, we hear no more of the Logos. No allusion to the Logos is introduced into his report of the discourses of Jesus. As to the matter of the conception, we utterly deny the theory of the school of Baur, that the early church was Ebionite, regarding Christ as a mere man. We hold that this theory is abundantly refuted by passages in the synoptical Gospels and Pauline Epistles, and 121 122 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. is proved to be false by a fair view of the early history of the Church. The theology of Phlilo, it deserves to be remarked, contains nothing more than the vaguest conception of the Messiah, and is throughout far more speculative than ethical; affording, therefore, no materials for that conception of Jesus Christ which is found in John, and which only an intuition of the living person of Christ could have awakened. The conception of Christ in John is the product of the impression made by Christ himself upon the soul of the disciple. (4) We have to notice another objection emanating from the school of Baur, that the free and liberal spirit of the fourth Gospel toward the Gentiles is inconsistent with the position attributed to John in Galatians ii. 9. But this objection proceeds from the assumption, underlying the whole system of the Ttibingen school, that Peter and the other Jerusalem apostles were radically opposed to the doctrine of Paul relative to the rights of the Gentiles; that they were, in short, Judaizers. We hold this assumption to be demonstrably false, and the fabric of historical construction reared upon it to be a mere castle in the air. There is nothing improbable in the circum stance of the inquiry for Jesus made by the devout Greeks (John xii. 20) at which Baur stumbles. Even in Matthew, which Baur regards as preeminently a Jewish-Christian Gospel, is recorded the Saviour's em phatic commendation of the Centurion's faith (viii. i t .L I INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 10 seq.); the distinct prediction that the kingdomi should be taken from the Jews, and given to another people (xxi. 43); tle injn',ction to preach the gospel to every creature (xxviii. 19); the prophecy that it should be preached to all nations (xxiv. 14); and the parables describing the universal spread of the gospel (ch. xiii.). WVve are not to leave out of view, in coLnsidering the spirit of the fourth Gospel with reference to Gentile Christianity, the inevitable effect of great providential events, of which the destruction of Jerusalem was one, and of the long interval of time during which the distinct character of the Christian Church and the broad design of Christianity had become more and more plain. In this objection of Baur, the attempt is made to uphold one false proposition by another that is equally false. There is one objection not to be separated entirely from the one last considered, but which is more serious and plausible than any we have named. The other difficulties, which we have noticed, though not unworthy of consideration, vanish, and in most cases even turn into arguments for the contrary side. But the difficulty we have now to speak of, is urged with especial emphasis. It is strongly maintained by those who impugn the genuineness of John, that the Apocalypse, which they hold to be his work, cannot come from the same author as the fourth Gospel. It cannot be denied that there exists a degree of disparity, both in language and thought, between the 123 I i 124 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTI' GOSPEL. Apocalypse and this Gospel. "The language [of the Apocalypse] is incomparably rougher, harder, more disconnected, and exhibits greater errors than is true of any other book in the New Testament, while the language of the Gospel, though not pure Greek, is in a grammatical view incomparably more correct." 1 This contrast between the style of the two books was stated as long ago as the middle of the third century, by Dionysius of Alexandria.2 So there are various special peculiarities of language in the Gospel which are missed in the Apocalypse. "A still greater and more essential difference is discovered when we look at the contents, spirit, and whole character of these w]itings." 3 Under this head Bleek refers, in particular, to the different position of the Apocalypse with reference to the Jewish people, so opposite to that of the Gospel, where oi'Iovccc ot is often, without qualification, the designation of the opposers of Christ; to the definite expectation of the second advent and millenninm, together with the conception of anti-Christ as a particular individual, which is unilike the conception found in 1 John ii. 18 seq.; iv. 3. We have to weigh the objection to the genuineness of the Gospel which these differences have suggested. 1. The impossibility that both books should have the same author is far from bcing established. The 1 Bleek, s. 626. 2 Euseb., Lib. VII. c. 25. {~ i I I Bleek, s. 626. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Apocalypse was written shortly after the deLath of Nero and shortly before the destruction of Jeriisalem. The interval prior to the composition of the Gospel was not far from twenty years,-a period giving room for important changes in the style and habits of thought of any writer; an era, too, most eventful, as concerns the development of the plan of providence relative to the Jewish nation. That they were des tined, as a body, to reject the gospel, and to be rejected of God, was made manifest. It list be confessed that the force of our remark, so far as it pertains to the change in style and modes of thought, is weakened by the fact that, when the Apocalypse was written, John must have been sixty years old; a period of life after which important changes of this character are less likely to occur. But another con sideration is to be taken into the account,-that the mood of mind and feeling out of which the Apocalypse was written was altogether peculiar and extraordinary, as was the state of things in the midst of which the author wrote. The same author, at such a time, 'when his soul was stirred to its depths by the terrible events, either present or "shortly to come to pass," and writing under the impulse of prophetic inspiration, would fall into quite a different style from one that would be natural in a calmer mood, when his only object was to set down recollections of Christ and his teaching. Moreover, there are not wantingo various points of resemblance, both in language and matter, 125 126 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. l),twveen the two works. To prove this relationship, w- hav e tle authlority of Baur himself, from whom we tian iate tL-,e following passage: "W\e cannot ignore the fact that the evangelist put himself in thought in the place of the Apocalypsist, and designed to make use, for the ends aimed at in his Gospel, of the consideration enjoyed by the Apostle John, who, as apostle, as author of the Apocalypse, and as having been for so many years the principal head of their churches, had become the highest authority with the Asia MAinor Christians. Nay, it is not merely the borrowing of the external support of so distinguished a name; there are not wanting, also, internal points of affinity between the Gospel and Apocalypse; and one cannot forbear to wonder at the deep geniality, the fine art, with which the Evangelist, in order to transmute spiritually the Apocalypse into the Gospel [um die Apokalypse zunii Evangeliurn zu vergeistigen], has taken up the elements wlhech, from the point of view of the Apocalypse, led to the freer and higher point of view of the Gospel."' Now, admitting that so close an inward relationship connects the Gospel with the Apocalypse, why not refer this to the natural Ldevelopmenlt of the author's own mind and the pro(,ress of his views, rather than ascribe it to a hateful frauxd aind- lie? If the art of tlhe forger was so (lever and admirable, how can we accept Baur's further view, that hlie has plialpaly and obviously betrayed 1 Baur's "Das Christenth1lin: " etc., s. 147, 2d Ed. i I INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Ihiniself? Whatever opinion is entertained of the authlorshlip of the Apocalypse, the Tuibingen theory is convicted of a gross inconsistency. That both works, the Apocalypse as well as the Gospel, come from the Apostle, is the judgment of Gieseler; and as far as authority is concerned, the confident assertions made on the other side are more than balanced by the calm opinion of this deeply-learned and impartial schlolar. Says Gieseler: "the internal difference, in language and modes of thought, between the Apocalypse which Johi wrote before he had passed beyond the Hebrew training and the Palestinian Jewish Christianity, and the Gospel and the Epistles which he wrote after living from twenty to thirty years among the Greeks, is so inevitable a consequence of the circumstances in which he was placed, that, had this effect not occurred, the fact would have awakened suspicion. And yet there exist in the two works many points of resemblance, and evidences of the continuity of the author's development and culture."' 2. But even if it were established that the Apocalypse and the fourth Gospel are not from one author, the verdict must still be given in favor of the genuineness of the Gospel. Bleek agrees, on the whole, with De Wette and Baur in supposing that we are com pelled to reject the Johannean authorship of one or the other, and, in common with Neander and many other' critics of the evangelical as well as the unbelieving Gieseler's K. G., B. I. s. 127. N. 8. 127 I 128 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. school, holds the opinion that the Apocalypse is not the work of John. As we have said, provided tMe d7leizfjia can be Yiza,le oi(t to exvist, this is the reasonable opinion. The Apocalypse has no doubt been in the church since the date we have assigned for its compositionl. As early as Justin Martyr it was quoted as the work of the Apostle John; but its genuineness was also early questioned. It was questioned not only by the Alogi, but also by the Roman presbyter Caius (circa 200) who likewise ascribed it to Cerinthus.' Dionysius of Alexandria, the pupil and successor of Origen, to whose opinion on the style of the Apocalypse we have adverted, endeavors to prove from internal evidence that the Apostle John did not write the work, and is inclined to attribute it to a contemporary of the Apostle at Ephesus, John the presbyter. Eusebius leans to the same opinion. IHe, also, hesitates about placing it among the ilomologoimenia, or New Testament writLings which were universally received as apostolical.2 It was not included in the ancient Syrian version. Long, after it was received universally in the Western church, doubts concerning its genuineness continued in the East. If written by John the presbyter, "a holy and inspired man," as Dionysius supposes him to be, the later habit of ascribing it to the Apostle, may have been a mistake for which the real author was not respon Euseb., Lib. III. c. 28. 2 Euseb., Lib. IlL c. 25. i iL i i .1 I I INTERNAL EVII)ENCE. sible. And if the denial of its genuineness sprang from the great reaction of the Church in the second century against Chiliastic views, it was supported, as we have seen in the case of Dionysius, by critical arguments. The evidence for the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse is far from being equal to the accu nmulated u-eilght of evidence for the Johllannean author ship of the fourth Gospel. For the former, the main proofs of a composition by the Apostle are external. In the case of the fourth Gospel, besides hlaving all that can be asked in the way of external evidence, we are able to add the most impressive internal proofs of its genuineness. In givilng the internal evidence for the genuineness of John, it would be a great oversight to omit a notice of the proof afforded by the last chapter. Every reader of the Gospel will observe that in the last verses of the twentieth chapter the author appears to be concluding his work. It was held by Grotius, with whom agree many living critics on the evangelical side, as well as Zeller and other disciples of the Ttibingen school, that the entire twenty-first chapter is from another hand. Others are of opinion that this is true of the last two verses alone. That such is the fact respecting the last verse and the last half of the verse preceding, from the words, "and we know that his testimony is true,"-admits of no rational doubt. The remainder of the chapter bears strong Iuarks of genuineness, although it is not improbable 9 129 i I i 130 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. thl.t Jolin adedl thie chapter to his Gospel as a sort of stu)pplemient. Iii any case, it is obvious that the convcersation upon the question whether John was to survive until the advent of Christ, would possess no interest and have no pertinency at any time long, subsequent to his death. But the concluding verses, regarded, As they must be, in the light of a testimony to the genuineness of the Gospel on the part of the person or persons by wlLoin it was issued, constitute an impressive proof. Thlo fact that this attestation is anonymoius indicates that he or they who made it, were well known to those for whom it was desi,gned; it is utterly inconsistent with the supposition of fraud. VWhat meaning, or value woull an attestation iwholly anon-ymious have possessed, at the first appearance of the Gospel, unless the source whenice this testimony proceeded were well known? An impostor would have named the church of Ephesus or its bishop, if he liad intended to give a factitious credit to his forgery, by claiming their sanction for it. Suppose this conclusion to have been written by friends to whom John had'delivered his Gospel, and fronm whom it wvent forth to the world, and the whole phenomenon is explained. In the preceding pages, various objections from the side of disbelievers in the genuineness of this Gospel have been incidentally considered. Yet the aim lhas hee'l positively to establish our proposition, f k I 0 i 4 REFUTATION OF BAUR. with the introduction of no more of polemical matter than seemed indispensable to this end. We now propose to subject the theory of Baur to a more detailed examination. BAUR's THEORY REsPECTING THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTHTi GOSPEL. To reduce the observations of Baiir to a self consistent hypothesis is not an easy task. In general, however, he holds that the main idea of this Gospel is the development of the unbelief of the Jews in its conflict with the self-manifestation of Christ, until that unbelief culminates in the taking of his life. Baur is not original ill supposing this to be a leading thought in the writer's mind. But nothing is thereby proved against the verity of the history, since the actual course of Christ's life was attended with the development of a spirit of disbelief, which finally broke out in the great act of violence. But Baur goes farther. Ile pretends that the history is fictitious and is artificially contrived as a vestment for the idea. This, however, is not the sole idea for which, as it is claimed, the writer weaves a fictitious dress. That faith, in order to be real and of any value, must be- self-sustained by an inward power of its own, with io help from outward proof through miracles, is supposed to be another leading thought of the writer; ,and this, it is pretended, he illustrates by means of invented narrative. Besides, Blaur professes to find the 131 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. traces of Gnostic Dualism in the antithesis of light and darkness, to which the Gospel writer more than once adverts.' Sometimes, the language of Baur would seem to imply that the Evangelist, misled by the vividness of his own conceptions, actually confounds them with reality. But, notwithstanding an occasional vague expression of this kind, it is Baur's real meaning, as he abundantly explains, that the narratives of the fourth Gospel are intentional fictions composed to embody certain ideas and recommend them to acceptance. This remarkable hypothesis Baur undertakes to support by exegesis. The character of his interpretations we shall now exhibit to the reader. We should observe that in this department of our inquiry we have derived essential aid from the acute observations of Briickner. 1. There is no truth in the charge that a Dualistic theory is taught in Johln's Gospel. In connection with every passage which Baur cites, the distinction between light and darkness is declared to be ethical. It is not a physical or metaphysical separation, but is founded in voluntary character. Men remain in darkness "because their deeds are evil;" they will not come to the light for fear of being rebuked. See John iii. 19-21; also, compare John viii. 47 with viii. 34, and John xii. 35, 36 with John xii. 43. It is said that "all tMi,ys were made by" the Word, and that 1 Baur, Die cKano2. Evangelicn, s. 88, 89. 3 132 I I k I I 4 REFUTATION OF BAUR. He "came unto His ow?n," i. e., to the Jews (John i. 3, 11). How baseless then is the imputation of a Gnostic Dualism to the Evangelist, in which the Jews, or most of them, are destitute of" the lightnature!" 2. Baur's exposition of the passages relative to John the Baptist is most unnatural.- In c. i. 32, 33 there is given the testimony of John the Baptist to the descent of the Spirit, as a dove, upon Jesus. This sign, he said, had been appointed "by Him who sent me to baptize with water." How plain, especially with the narrative of the Synoptics before us, that the recognition of Jesus was at his baptism, which the Evangelist notices here, though it had taken place earlier than the events just before recorded! Yet Baur denies this, and even denies that the passage implies that Jesus was baptized by John! Baur attempts to establish the existence of an artificial chronology-a double trias of days, beginning with c. i. 29 and terminating with c. ii. 12; but we need say no more than that the double trias is made out by assuming a new day, falsely and without the slightest support fromn the text, at ver. 41. Had the Evangelist contrived the chronological scheme which his critic imputes to him, he would not have omitted to make the division of time at ver. 41, which the critic interpolates. Baur's treatment of the narrative of the miracle in Cana is extraordinary. Wily a circumstantial ac 133 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. count of this kind should be deliberately fabricated by such a writer as the Evangelist, is a question not easy to answer. Baur sees in it an allegorical representationll of the position of John the Baptist (which is indicated by the water), and the transition to the higher position of Jesus (which is denoted by the wine); together with a further reference to Jesus under the symbol of the bridegroom. Not that the Evangelist means that his readers should regard his narrative as a fiction; he would palm it off on them as fact. But it is the force of "the idea" in his own mind, which moves him to the invention of the story. It is hardly necessary to say that the notion of an allegory is favored by not so much as a hint in the narrative itself; niay, it is excluded by the declaration (in ver. 11) that the end of the miracle was the manifestation of the glory of Christ. A good illustration of the style of Baur's exegesis is afforded by his comments on John iii. 22, where Jesus is said to have tarried with his disciples and baptized. In the next chapter (John iv. 2), it is incidentally explained that Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. That this explanation, omitted in the first passage, should be thrown in afterwards, is nothing strange. But Baur sees in the two passages the proofs of a deep design. The Evangelist, he thinks, would elevate Jesus above John, but would do it gradually, with a kind of artful rhetoric. First, he equalizes the former with the latter, by stating that 134 zi t t 1. 1111 i ;.1 I',l REFUTATION OF BAUR. Jesus baptized; then, after an interval, he advances a step by adding that Jesus did not (like John) himself baptize, but caused this rite to be performed by his disciples. Such a puerile device is gravely imputed to the artluess writer of this Gospel! 3. On other points in the earlier chapters of John, Baur's interpretation will not bear examination. It is represented that the author of the Gospel makes Judaea "the country" of Jesus (John iv. 44); although it is perfectly evident from the context that such is not his meaning, but that he ascribes the increasing admiration of Jesus on the part of the Galileans, his countrymen, to the commotion which he had occasioned at Jerusalem. Nicodemus is pronounced a fictitious character, introduced as a representative of the unbelieving Jews who require miracles, while the woman of Samiaria is said to represent the susceptible Gentiles who believe without the need of miracles. Unfortunately for Baur's theory, Nicodemus is sot described as an unbeliever, but as having some degree of faith, and the Samaritan woman believes in consequence of the evidence which she had of the miraculous knowledge of Christ, by whom she was told all things that ever she did (John iv. 29). 4. The effort of Baur to destroy the credibility of the seventh chapter, a portion of the Gospel which is stamped with irresistible evidence of truth, leads him into still more perverse interpretation. Jesus (ver. 10) went up to the feast, not with his brethren, not openly, 135 i I I 136 GENUIENENSS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. "but as it were in secret " —c iv xv,TrO. This plain statement, Baur not only twists into a declaration that Jesus made himself, after a Docetic fashion, invisible, but, also, that he presented himself before the Jews in a form different from his own. And this is only one of the misinterpretations which the seventh chapter is made to suffer. Of this misrepresentation of the sense of co; &v xeov, r, Briuckner says: "it is not sustained by the words themselves, it rests upon the false interpretation of vs. 15 and 20, and it is fully refuted by ver. 14, where the public appearance of Christ without any such Docetic transformation is related, as well as by ver. 25, where Jesus is actually recognized by some at the same moment when others do not know him,-so that, if Baur's view were right, lie must have taken on a shape which veiled the identity of his person from some, while it was disclosed to others." Baur's treatment of the entire chapter, Bruckner has well exposed. "According to Baur," says this able critic, "the theological end (tendency) to be accomplished by the seventh chapter is to show how the dialectics into which unbelief enters carry their own dialectical refutation; and in this way, that Jesus in three different sorts of self-manifestation confronts the unbelief of the Jews: iu the first, i, xQvrc; in the second, at ver. 28; in the third, at vs. 37 seq. This whole arrangement by Baur breaks to pieces on the correct interpretation of ver. 10, which refers to no appearance of Christ before the Jews, such as Baur i. i REFUTATION OF BAUR. pretends to be referred to by the iv,ov,-rco5; it, also, clashes with the fact that the favorable inclination of the people to Jesus (vs. 12, 31, 40, 41) is just as often brought forward, as is the unbelief of the Jews; it ignores the distinction between "the people" (oX6o~) and the Rulers, which runs through the whole chapter, and which greatly influences the words of Christ, as well as the replies to him and the judgment concerning them; it robs the narrative, in which the Evangelist is much more concerned with things done than with things said, of its life; and it imputes to the Evangelist purposes which are nowhere indicated, and have no more plausibility than a great many others which might be suggested with an equal or greater show of justice." 1 If we could reasonably ascribe to the author of the Gospel any "tendency," it would be more rational to say that he designed to set forth the schism between the people and the rulers, and even amiong the rulers themselves, than to exhibit the unbelief of the Jews as a body. And Baur's exegesis of this chapter may serve as a touchstone of his theory. He is under the necessity of finding in this, as in every other narrative in the Gospel, some occult design, "the idea," which sways the writer in the contrivance of his alleged fiction. To explain the narrative in detail conformably to this theory is found quite impossible, without a resort to the most fanciful and violent interpretation. l Briuckner's Do Wette, s. 139, 140. 137 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTHTlI GOSPEL. 5. Baur would have us believe that the Evangelist has made up various tales and conversations in order to exhibit a particular conception of faith and of unbelief. Thus, the belief of the Samnaritans and the belief of the nobleman (John iv. 39, 50) are designed, we are assured, to commend a faith which is founded on the words of Christ, instead of on miracles. It is impossible not to see the difference of the two cases. The faith of the Samaritans was first awakened by the saying-(-&c ro' ),ro';yov-of the woman: " IHe told me all that ever I did." It rested on belief in her testimony to the exhibition of miraculous knowledge. The nobleman, on the contrary, believed the wordr) Ro-,,co-dof Jesus; that is, credited a particular declaration; and he "believed," at least was assured in his faith, after the miracle and in consequence of it, ver. 53. Equally fanciful is Baur's notion that the design Qf the sixth chapter is to depict the manner in which a faith that is produced by miracles, shows itself a mere semblance of faith; that the allusion to Judas (vi. 64) is to show how a perverse will becomes likewise the mere counterfeit of faith; that the inquiry, "have any of the Rulers or the Pharisees believed on himi," is put into the mouth of the Pliar isecs and Priests for the purpose of presenting the climax of unbelief, wlienl it rests upon no grounds at all! Thile case of Thomas is considered by Baur to be a fiction to illustrate the doctrine that faith, when based on sight, is no faith. But Jesus does not say that 138 I k 'I t 11 . I REFUTATION OF BAUR. Thomas has no faith; he says the opposite. Ilie says, "because thou hast seen, Ntoe hoist believe&," and then exalts the faith of those who have not seen. But these last are not those who believe without evidence, but who believe on the evidence of testimony, which Thomas (ver. 25) had refused to do. That Baur's interpretation of the Evangelist's design is false, the verses immediately following the account of the skep ticism of Thomas decisively prove: "Mlany other signs truly did Jesus.... but these are written, tlat yej mnti believe tlat Jesus is tile CI)rist, tle Son of God." 6. Certain circumstances in the narrative of John which to an unprejudiced reader afford irresistible evidence of its historical truth, are construed by this hostile and suspicious criticism into proofs of sinister, mendacious contrivance. For example, the anointing of the eyes of the blind man with clay (c. ix. 6) is pronounced an invention to make the breaking of the Sabbath more marked; and the delays and reluctance of Pilate, which are so true to nature, are fabricated to enhance the guilt of the Jews in condemning him. In the same spirit Baur charges that the hearing of Jesus before Annas is a fabrication to heighten the guilt of thie Jews; although John does not stop to record the actual condemnation of Jesus bv either Annias or Caiaphas, and a careful examiniiation of his nartve (cm. Joh xlii 24wt s s 5 I sostathdeIal fPtrto lc fc eu 139 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. that occurred in the interview with the former is recorded. One of the most extravagant specimens of the Tubingen method of criticism is the notion that in this Gospel there is a studied depreciation of Peter. The honor put upon Peter by his Master's solemn charge (John xxi. 15, 18), an incident recorded by no other evangelist, would seem to be a sufficient refutation of a charge' which rests on trivial grounds. It is even affirmed by these critics that in John xviii. 26, where one of the servants who interrogated Peter is characterized as a kinsman of the person "whose ear Peter cut off," the Evangelist goes out of his way to bring in an act discreditable to Peter; an act, too, which these critics also say is falsely attributed to him. A double falsification is thus laid to the charge of the Evangelist, and in one instance, at least, a very cunning falsification. Our readers must judge whether thoughts like these really had their birth in the mind of the Evangelist, or only in the mind of his critic. 7. Baur dwells with much emphasis on the account of the piercing of the side of the crucified Jesus by a soldier's lance, as a passage fully sustaining his hypothesis respecting the general character of the Gospel, and in particular his theory that the author dates the crucifixion on the morning before the occurrence of the Jewish passovermeal, in order to make that event coincide chronologically with the slaying of the passover-lamb. Having said that the soldiers did not Baur, s. 323. ft II! 140 I ,I REFUTATION OF BAUR. break the legs of Christ, but that one of them pierced his side, probably in order to assure himself that lihe was dead, as he appeared to be, the Evangelist adds (John xix. 36, 37): "these things were done that the scripture should be fulfilled,'a bone of him shall not be broken.' And again another scripture saith,'they shall look on him whom they pierced.'" Now this passage is all that the Gospel says which can be thought to imply a similitude between Christ and the slain lamb of the passover.' We are willing to concede that such an analogy is here implied, in the circumstance that the bones of Christ were not broken. But the attention of the Evangelist is more drawn to the fact that predictions are fulfilled (see ver. 37), irrespective of the thought that thereby Jesus was exhibited as the Passover-Lamb; and his interest is still greater in the surprising fact that water with blood flowed from the wound in his side. Had it been a leading purpose on his part to set forth a parallelism between the crucifixion and the slaying of the lamb, a purpose so prominent in his mind as to lead him to contradict the received authorities by misdating Christ's death, it is impossible that the analogy should have been suggested in so cursory and incidental a way. He would infallibly have made his theological idea clear and conspicuous. The Apostle Paul himself, The exclamation of the Baptist (John i. 29) refers to tile conce)tion of the Messiah which was drawn from Isaiah liii., and not to the lamb of the passover. 141 142 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. whlo, according to Baur, undoubtedly placed the death of Jesus on thle m'orning after the Jewish passovermeal, brings forward even more explicitly the same analogy which John is supposed to suggest, and probably does suggest, in the passage on which we are commenting. Paul says (1 Cor. v. 7): "for even Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us." It is worthy of note that the same thought which is innocent when suggested by Paul, is made to bear so tremendous a burden of consequences when suggested by the Evangelist. The reader will not forget that this passage in John in respect to the piercing of the body of Christ by the soldier's lance, is accompanied by a solemn asseveration of its truth, the Evangelist for it is of himself that the writer speakls-professing to have been an eyewitness (c. xix. 35). It is curious to inquire how Baur disposes of this passage, which if it be false, must be held to resemble very closely wilful lying, notwithstanding the disquisitions of the Tutbing,en critics about anonymity, the license allowed to literary forgery in the old time, and "the power of the idea." Iaur's language, in commenting on this asseveration of the Evangelist, is unusually hazy. He appears to say that it is only the truth of the intuition that Christ in dying opened the fulness of spiritual life for the believing world, which "the Evangelist testifies to with the immediate certainty of his Christiaii consciousness." It cannot be Baur's intention to say that the Evangelist does not design to make his I II REFUTATION OF BAUR. readers believe in the objective facts which he here records; and yet the critic shrinks, with a somewhat commendable feeling, from distinctly charging liiii' wvith conscious mendacity. It will be plain to every unsophisticated mind that what is called "the might of the idea," granting that such a force was operative in the Evangelist's mind, would lead no one but a liar deliberately to affirmn that he had seen a certain person struck with a lance by a soldier, when he had not. S. It would be easy to multiply from Baur's treatise examples of what we cannot but consider a wholly improbable, and even forced, exegesis of passages in this Gospel. For the present discussion, however, it is only essential to notice his interpretations so far as they are employed to sustain his leading hypothesis. Yet, we cannot forbear to mention one or two additional instances of this unnatural colnstruction of the Evangelist's words. The critic finds in the reply of the risen Jesus to the salutation of MIary: "go unto my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father," an expression of the purpose of Clhrist to ascend on the instant; and, according to Baur, that he did then and there ascend, is the Evangelist's idea. It is hardly necessary to say that the present tense of the verb does not at all confine us to this strange inference, which is contradicted by vs. 26, 27. It is obviously the idea of the Evangelist that Christ had been on the earth up to the time of his meeting Mary (vs. 1-17), which of itself overthrows 143 144 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Baur's notion that he is represented as ascending imme. diately on his rising from the dead. A signal instance of a similar style of exegesis, as well as illustration of the embarrassment in which Baur involves himself in his arraignment of the Evangelist, is the explanation he gives of John xiv. 31, a passage which we have adduced in proof of the fidelity of the Evangelist's report of the discourses of Christ: "Arise, let us go hence" (yet~, co/). These words, which were doubtless a current phrase, happen to be used by Christ, according to Matt. xxvi. 46, in another connection. The author of John, says Baur, found them in the Synoptics and introduced them at this place, in order to make a pa8use! It happens that a pause is made without this phrase, which in any event would be perfectly inapposite to the purpose. As far as we can see, the Evangelist might as well be conceived to introduce the fragment of a genealogy for the sake of making a transition to a new topic, as a phrase like this. These curiosities of interpretation remind us of the incongruous representations of the Tftbingenl criticism in regard to the relation of the Evangelist to the synoptical writers. All concede that the fourth Gospel, in structure and contents, has the character of an independent narrative. This independence the Tuibingen critics, in many instances, exaggerate into an intended contradiction, and a seemingly needless i REFUTATION OF BAUR. contradiction on essential points. Yet they affirm, in the same breath, that even on these points where the Evangelist wantonly breaks loose from the synop tical authorities, lhe slavishly borrows from them. It is in imitation of the synoptical writers that John makes Jesus visit Jerusalem to attend festivals; yet he does not scruple to contradict them in multiplying the number of these visits: he takes from the other Gospels the circumstance of the scourging in the temple, but transfers it from the end to the beginning of his ministry: he is dependent on the same writers for much that is said of John's baptism "with water," and his recognition of Jesus (John i. 31, 35), and yet implies that Jesus was not baptized. For these and nunmerous other supposed deviations from the Synoptics, the critics are able to assign no sufficient reasons. The Synoptics might have been followed, and the ends attributed to the Evangelist equally well secured. The Ttiibingen pretension is most inconsistent when single words and scraps of sentences are alleged to be borrowed from the first three Gospels, although the passages where they are found in the Evangelist are, in their matter, original and wholly independent of those Gospels. A good example is the passage, "Arise, let us go hence" (John xiv. 31), which has already been referred to. Sometimes Baur is obliged to fall back on hypotheses more characteristic of Strauss, in order to provide his readers with some explanation of the narratives of miracles. Thus, the 10 145 146 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. raising of Lazarus is to present an exertion of miraculous power, which is a grade above the case, in the Synoptics, of the raising of the son of the widow of Nain. Of course, not a particle of proof is vouchsafed in support of this empty conjecture. Again, Baur contends that the narrative of the healing of the nobleman's son (John iv. 46 seq.) is a copy or imitation of the narrative in Matt. viii. 5 seq. of the cure of the centurion's servant. Baur supposes that the former narrative was to prove the superiority, in the judgment of Christ, of a faith which rests on his word alone; and he further supposes that a constant aim of the fourth Gospel is to covertly extol the susceptibility of the Gentiles, in contrast with the unbelief of the Jews. Now in Matthew's narrative (Matt. viii.), Jesus is represented to have marvelled at the centuLrion's faith, and to have said: "Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel!" If the author of John were following Matthew's narrative, this would be the most welcome and the most apposite passage in the whole of it. Yet lie omits it altogether! Can a hypothesis receive a more complete overthrow than is experienced by that of Baur concerning this portion of John? We have judged it desirable thus to sift the interpretations of the Tilbingen critics, for the sake of thoroughly acquainting our readers with the character of the arguments which are relied upon in the assault upon the genuineness of this Gospel. Be it remem IL I REFUTATION OF BAUR. bered that all this unsound, artificial interpretation is indispensable to the success of their cause. A correspondence must be found between the various incidents, conversations, discourses, in John and the theological "tendency" which has the credit of fabricating themn. A failure to detect this correspondence, in the detailed investigation of the Gospel, and by a fair exegesis of it, is the downfall of the entire theory, even if there were nothing else to be said against it. That such a failure is justly attributable to the critic, the foregoing examination has sufficiently evinced. In a previous part of this Essay, we have re mnarked upon the proofs of an interest in the history as such-a genuine historical feeling- on the part of the author of this Gospel. These are proofs which, being obviously undesigned features in the narrative, are peculiarly impressive. And since the variations in John from the synoptical Gospels can be accounted for on no such theory as that of the Tuibingen critics, we are authorized in pronouncing them evidences of the faithful recollection of the Evangelist. Let the reader examine his account of the baptism of Jesus and the testimony to Jesus by the Baptist (John i. 19-37); his record of the calling of the apostles (John i. 35-43); his description of the designation of the traitor, at the last supper (John xiii. 21-3();. his narrative of the denials of Peter (John xviii. 15 147 0 148 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. seq.); his specification of the dates of the supper and the crucifixion; his relation of the circumstances attending the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem. Let the reader compare the Evangelist in these places with corresponding passages in the Synoptics, and he will feel that he has in his hands an independent and accurately informed historian. When Baur, leaving the special criticism of the Gospel, proceeds to state his conception of the character and motives of the author of this extraordinary composition, he betrays, if we mistake not, in his lowered, apologetic tone, some feeling of embarrassment. What conception have the Tuibingen critics of the writer of this Gospel? He was a man, as Baur says, of remarkable mind, of an elevated spirit, and penetrated with a warm, adoring faith in Christ as the Son of God and Saviour of the world. That faith must have been founded on the evangelical history. At least, it must have involvcd a reverential sense of the sacredness of that history. How could such a man fabricate a life of his Master, as a substitute for the authentic lives with which he was acquainted? How could he pervert, distort, falsify transactions, with the reality of which his holiest feelings were bound up; artfully assuming to be an apostle and confidant of the Lord, for the sake of ascribing to him discourses that he never uttered and deeds that he never performed! Baur compares the I REFUTATION OF BAUR. Evangelist with the Apostle Paul. He, says Baur, was not one of the original disciples. It was only through,l visions that be.personally knew Christ. Andl Baur draws a deliberate parallel between the Apostle to the Gentiles, and the unknown but gifted and ardently believing author of this Gospel. The com parison is an unhappy one for his theory. Imagine the Apostle Paul sittiing down to fabricate a fictitious history of the Saviour! Imagine him casting away the authentic deeds and words of Christ and invent ing in the room of them a fictitious tale of his life The thotught of so sacrilegious an act could never occur to his earnest soul. Had it been suggested by another, with what indignation and horror would he have repelled the proposal! No reader of the Pauline Epistles will have a doubt on this point. Yet an im posture even more flagrant is attributed to the author of the fourth Gospel, for he claims to be a comn panion of Christ; while at the same time his accusers associate him with Paul, as a counterpart in intellec tual and moral qualities, and in the depth and ardor of his faith in the Lord. The religionists, weak-minded and of obscure moral perceptions, who are responsible for the clumsy fabrications found in the apocryphal Gospels, for the most part confined themselves to l those periods of Chlist's life where the canonical authors are silent, such as the infancy of the Lord. They sought to connect with the authentic narratives 1 Baur's Kan. Evangelien, s. 384. q 149 r 150 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. their silly inventions. It was reserved for the writer of the fourth Gospel to attain to that pitch of audacity, or that confusion as to the distinction between truth and falsehood, which qualified him to extend his cleverly executed fraud over the whole contents of the evangelical history. And yet he was one fit to be placed in the same category with Paul! It is incredible that a work of the power and loftiness of the fourth Gospel should have sprung up in the second century. Let any one who would understand the difference between the apostolic and the next following age undertake to read the Apostolic Fathers. He will be conscious at once that he has passed into another atmosphere. He has descended from the heights of inspiration to the level of ordinary, and often feeble, thinking. In the first half of the second century there is no writer of marked originality; none who can be called fresh or suggestive. To set a work like the fourth Gospel in that age is a literary anachronism. That a writer, towering so above all his contemporaries, should stoop to wear a mask, and gain his end by a hateful, jesuitical contrivance, is a supposition burdened with difficulties. The irrational character of this hypothesis, Neander has well shown in a passage which is valuable alike for its thoughts and for the source whence they come, and with which we conclude the present Essay. "The whole development of the Church from Justin Martyr onward testifies to the presence of such a I II REFUTATION OF BAUR. a Gospel, which operated powerfully on meni's minds. It cannot be explained from any single mental tendency in the following age, nor from the amalgama. tion of several. To be sure, this production existed as a representation of a higher unity, as a reconciling element with reference to the contrarieties of that age, and could exert an attractive power over minds of so opposite a kind as a Heracleon, a Clement of Alexandria, an Irenaeus, and a Tertullian. Where should we be able to find in that age a man who was elevated above its contrarieties of opinion [Gegensatze], by which everything is more or llss swayed? And a man of so superior a Christian soul, must needs skulk in the dark, avail himself of such a miask, instead of appearing openly in the consciousness of all-conquering truth and in the feeling of his mental preeminence! Such a man, so exalted above all the church Fathers of that century, had no need, forsooth, to shrink from the conflict. He must certainly have put more confidence in the might of truth than in these arts of darkness and falsehood. And how can it be shown that such a man, when he is contemplated from the point of view of his own age, would have been restrained by no reverence for sacred history, by no scruples, from falsifying a history, the contents of which were holy to him, through arbitrary fictions, manufactured in the interest of a given dogmatic tendency,-through lies, in fact, which were to find their justification in the end to be attained by means 1 51 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. of them? And how unlskilfully would he have pro. ceeded if, in order to attain his end, he presented the history of Christ in a way that was in absolute contrast with the universally accepted tradition? Nay, only from such an apostle, who stood in such a relation to Christ as a John stood, who had thus taken up into his own being the impression and image of that unique personality, could proceed a work which stands i in such a relation to the contrarieties of the postapostolic age. It is a work out of one gush, original throughout. The Divine in its own nature has this power of composing differences, but never could a product so fresh, so original in its power [urkr:aftiges], proceed from a contrived, shrewdly planned, reconciliation of differences. This Gospel, if it do not emanate from the Apostle John and point to that Christ, the intuition of whom, on the part of the writer, gave birth to it, it the greatest of enigmas." 1 Neander's Geschichte d. Pflanz. u. Leit. deir K'irche, 4 A. B. 2 s. 637 152 ESSAY III. -RECENT DISCUSSIONS UPON TIIE ORIGIN OF THlE FIRST THIREE GOSPELS. THE characteristics which belong in common to the first three Gospels, and distinguish them from the Gospel of John, we suppose to be familiar to the reader. The first three Gospels-the Synopltics dwell chiefly upon the Galilcan ministry of Jesus. Compared with John, they are less heedful of the chronological order. In truth, the chronological out line of the Saviour's ministry can be gathered from the fourth Gospel alone. The Synoptics not only have a large amount of matter in common, but their consonance in phlraseology extends too far to be the result of accident; at the same time that the divergences, existing side by side with this reseCinblance, equally demand an explanation. This mingled divergence and coincidence have put to the test the ingenuity of critics. One general theory is that of an original Gospel, existing prior to the three, but revised or enlarged by each historian independently. But this theory has two branches, there being some who hlold that the originial Gospel was a written work, whilst others consider it a mass of oral tradition which r I I I I r I ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. had acquired a fixed form. The other general theory is that of a priority on the part of one of the evangelists, the use of whose work by a successor gives occasion to the peculiarity in question. But the various hypotheses which have been brought forward under this theory, or the different views as to the order in which the Gospels were written, exhaust the poasibilities of supposition. They form, in fact, an example in permutation. MIatthew, Luke, and Mark, was the series in the hypothesis of Griesbach, which has been extensively followed. Another set of critics are equally confident that the precedence in age belongs to Mark.' Others, again, are satisfied with neither of these views. The long-continlued diversity of opinion on the subject is a sign of the difficulty of the problem. This problem we do not propose to discuss in the present Essay. We might even waive the question whether these three narratives were composed by the persons to whom they are respectively ascribed, were it not that this question cannot be wholly disconnected from the proposition which we deem to be of prime importance. Could it be shown, as is maintained by some critics who accept the narrative as substantially historical and credible, that the first Gospel was not written by Matthew, the proposition with which we are at present concerned, would 1 For a full classification of critical op)iniois oion this subiect, sea '[eyev's Eii7eititng to the first volutme of Ihis c()in.l tary on tlio N. T., or Holtzimann's recent work, Die Syn,o)1tiscle Evangelicon. 154 AIM OF THE SKEPTICAL SCHOOL. iiot be seriously affected. What, then, is the question of fundamental importance, on which the credibility of the Gospel history turns? The main thing which the skeptical school seeks to accomplish, as far as the first three Gospels are con cerned, is to bring down their date into the post-apos tolic age. History is testimony. The credibility of testimony depends-supposing that those who give it wish to tell the truth on their means of information. The credibility of the Gospels is conditioned on the fact that they emanate either from actual witnesses of the events recorded, or from well-infolrmed contempo raries. If it could be established that these narratives were drawn up long after the actors in the events, and the generation contemporaneous with them, had passed away-that they comprise floating stories and traditions which were gathered up at or after the end of the century in which Christ and his immediate disciples, and those who heard their teaching, lived-their historical value might wvell be called in question. To support some hypothesis of this kind, or at least to throw a mist of uncertainty over the whole question of the origin and date of the Gospels, is the end and aim of skeptical criticism. We, on our part, maintain that nothing has been brought forward in behalf of the skeptical cause, which tends to weaken the established view that the Gospels belong to the apostolic age, embody the testimony of the eyewitnesses and earwitnesses of the life of Christ, and come 155 156 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. down to us with the seal and sanction of the apostolic Church. We are not required to review in detail the proofs of the early date of these histories. It will be sufficient to examine the grounds odn which the received view is sought to be impugned. It may be well, however, to remind the reader, in a few words, of the nature of the proof which has been relied on for establishing the early origin of the first three Gospels -as it is these wh-lich we are now to consider. Every fair and discerning reader must feel how well the whole tone and style of these writings comport with the belief that they emanate from the first age of Christianity. Galilee is reflected in them in a thousand indefinable touches. Clri8t-to mention a single peculiarity-has not come to be an habitual name of the Saviour, as it begins to be even in the Epistles and inri John, but is purely an official title. In these Gospels he is simply called Jesus. For the early date of the first three Gospels, we have the unanimous voice of Christian antiquity. They are considered and declared by the early Church to be authoritative productions handed down from the apostolic age. We find in the writers of the post-apostolic period no other conception of the life and ministry of Christ than is presented in the canonical Gospels. We meet here and there with a saying of Christ or an incident in his life which they would seem to have derived from some other source of knowledge; but these ex i J DATE OF THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. ceptions are so very few and unimportant as to render the prevailing fact of the coincidence between the representation of the Fathers and' thlat of the Gospels the more striking. The apostolic Fathers do not formally state the sources whence their quotations are drawn. They commonly bring forward a fact of the Saviour's life or a passage of his teaching, without formal reference to the authority from which they derived it. Nor do they evince any care for verbal accuracy. But the apostolic Fathers, the contemporaries and survivors of the apostles, contain many passages which are unmistakably drawn from the synoptical Gospels. The peculiar method of introdacing New Testament passages favors the supposition that they quote from recognized documents. At least in one important passage, an authoritative written source is expressly referred to. Barnabas remarks:1 "Let us therefore beware, lest it should happen to us as it is written: there are many called, few chosen." This quotation, which is found in Matt. xx. 16 and xxii. 14, is introduced by the same phrase which the Jews made use of in citing from their sacred books. Barnabas referred to some book having a like authority among Christians, andi in no other book of this class except our Matthew is the passage found. The value of this quotation as a decisive proof that, when it was made, the Gospel of Matthew 1 c. iv. Whether the Epistle of Barnabas be genuine or not, it is certainly very early. 157 158 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. was clothed with canonical authority, has been fully established by the recent discovery of the Greek text of Barnabas in the Codex Sinaiticus. By this document the phrase, it is written, is proved to be a part of the original, and not an addition of the Latin translator, as Credner and others had been inclined to maintain. The Epistle of Barnabas belongs in the early part of the second century. That a canon of the New Testament had begun to be formed, is also clearly indicated by this manner of quotation. That Matthew did not stand as the sole Gospel in this canon, Tischendorf has argued on good grounds.' The drift of the evidence points to the conclusion that the four Gospels enjoyed then the preeminence which they bear in Justin and the writers that follow him. This we know, that the long scrutiny which has been directed to the quotations in Justin has established, beyond all reasonable doubt, the fact of a use by him of all of our canonical Gospels. And Justin was born a little more than ten years before the end of the first century, and less than twenty years after the capture of Jerusalem, and at a time when the Apostle John was probably still living. From Matthew and Luke especially, his citations are very numerous. Let us now take up the Synoptics in their order, commencing with I Seo Tischendorf, Wann wurden die Evangelen, vcrfa,st? p. 42 seq. I MATTHEW. MATTHEW. I. We begin with an examination of the testimony of Papias, which, in respect to both Matthew and Mark, is most valuable, and has properly attracted the earnest attention of modern critics. Renan builds upon this testimony, or rather upon his misconception of it, his theory respecting the origin of the Gospels. Scholars of every school unite in their estimate of the importance to be attached to this piece of evidence. Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first half of the second century. He is described by Irenaens 1 as "an ancient man," a contemporary and friend of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Evangelist. Irenaeus also states that Papias had himself heard the Apostle John, but Eusebius considers that Irenaeus errs in this particular by wrongly interpreting the language of Papias. But Papias says of himself that he made inquiries of many persons who had been familiar with the apostles, and he was certainly acquainted with John the Presbyter, who was a contemporary of John the Apostle at Ephesus. Partly, but not wholly, on account of his millenarian views, so offensive to Eusebius, Papias is pronounced by the latter a man of inferior talents. But however moderate his intellectual powers, he was justly regarded as an honest witness or reporter of what lihe 1 Quoted in Euseb., H. E., Lib. iii. a. 89. 159 160 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. had seen and heard.' He reports what he had received from companions of the apostles. He busied himself with gathering up from oral tradition the declarations of the apostles, which he published, with comments of his own, in a work consisting of five books. From this work, Eusebius presents us with the following extract: "And John the Presbyter said this:'Mark being the interpreter of Peter wrote accurately whatever he remembered, though indeed not [setting down] in order what was said or done by Christ, for he did not hear the Lord, nor did he follow him: but afterwards, as I said, [he followed] Peter, who adapted his discourses to the necessities of the occasion, but not so as to furnish a systematic account of the oracles of the Lord (z;eCotcxv ).o/vcov or;o'yov); so that Mark committed no fault when he wrote some things as he recollected them. For of one thing hc took care-to pass by nothing which he heard, and not to falsify ill anything."' "Such," adds Eusebius, "is the relation in Papias concerning Markl. But of Matthew this is said:'Matthew wrote the oracles (-r;Oc't ) in the Hebrew tongue; and every one interpreted them as he was able."' I The often-quoted passage in Papias relative to the colossal grapes to be expected in the Millennial age awakens no doubt as to his veracity. It only shows that apocryphal sayings of Christ were early set in circulation, and by its contrast with thle style of tile canonical Gospels, confirms their veracity. I MATTHEW. The passage had always been considered, up to a recenift date, as referring to our Gospels of Matthew and'Mark. It was suggested, however, by Schleier macher that the log/ia, which we have rendered ora cles, signifies only disco0trse,; and hence a number of critics, including the distinguished commentator, Meyer, have founded upon this testimony of Papias the opinion that at the basis of our first Gospel, and prior to it, was a collection by Matthew of the teach ings of Christ, and that the canonical Gospel was the product of a subsequent addition of narrative matter to that earlier work. We believe this restriction of the sense of loyia, in the passage, to be unauthorized and erroneous, and that the old interpretation of Papias, the interpreta tion which Eusebius evidently gave the passage, is the true one. It is well, however, to see how the case stands, provided the term receives the limited meaning whvich these critics affix to it. Papias, in what he says of Matthew, does not quote the Presbyter; yet it may safely be concluded that hle derived this information from the same earlier authorities whence the rest of his work was drawn. The principal remark we have to make here is, that even supposing loyia to mean discourses simply, yet Papias is speaking, as Meyer concedes and maintains, aoristically-of something that had occurred at a former time, but was no longer the fact. That is, when he says that "every one interpreted the 11 161 162 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. Hebrew Matthew as he could"-',uVE' azre o- 4,;v'vro'.axca6TOg-he means, and implies.in his language, that the necessity of rendering the Hebrew into the Greek had once existed, to be sure, but existed no longer. Why not? Evidently because the Greek Matthew was now in the hands of Christians. This Greek Matthew which Papias and his contemporaries used, was unquestionably our first Gospel in its present form. Our Greek Matthew is represented by the Fathers to be a translation of a Hebrew Gospel. If we admit the correctness of the tradition, then, as Meyer shows, the Hebrew Matthew must have received its supplement of narrative matter, and in its complete form been generally connected with the name of this apostle, before the Greek version was made. The hypothesis that this Gospel received essential change or additions of matter, subsequent to the time of Papias, is excluded by an overwhelming weight of evidence. There is, indeed, other and sufficient proof that our Matthew existed in its present form within thirty or forty years of the Saviour's death. But independently of this proof, and even when the sense of lo(ia is limited, the testimony of Papias himself-still more, if that testimony emanates, as is probably the fact, from pupils of apostles whom he had consulted-carries back the aate of our Matthew, in its present form, into the apostolic age. But if logia cover the narrative matter as well as the discourses, and if Papias thus refers to the Gospel I MATTHEW. of Matthew as we have it, the early origin of the Gospel is explicitly attested. That such is the real purport of the logia is apparent from the following considerations: 1. The word is capable of this more extended import. It denotes sacred iwors8-oracles; and with its kindred terms has this meaning not only in ecclesiastical writers, but also in the New Testament. It is probably used in Heb. v. 12 as an equivalent for the whole Christian revelation. The restriction of its meaning by Meyer, in this place, is opposed by other good critics, including Bleek.1 We have a clear example in Luke i. 4: "that thou mightest know the certainty of those things —o'/O"ov-wherein thou hast been instructed." Luke writes a consecutive history of the life and ministry of Jesus in order to assure Theophilus of the certainty of the things which were believed among Christians, and had been taught him. The contents of the Gospel of Luke which follows, X' dyta is used for the Old Testament-the whole revelation of God-in Romans iii. 2. Other passages where the word is found, are Wisdom xvi. 11 (comp. v. 5); Acts vii. 38; 1 Peter iv. 11. For the sense of the word in ecclesiastical writers, see Suidas stb voce; also Wettstein, T. ii. p. 36. Important illustrative passages are Ignatius ad Smyr. c. iii, and the classification of the Scriptures by Ep)hraem Syrus (in Photius). In this last place, ra KvptaKa X;Yta seems to be plainly a designation of the Gospels. We may observe here, that even if the sense of logia in Papias were, philologically considered doubtful, the existence of another work than our MIatthew, for which there is not a particle of evidence from any other source, could not be inferred from a single doubtful expression. 163 161 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. donstitute the loeoi. Even Meyer allows that the narrative matter is included in the word, though indirectly. The objection of Credner, that the application of the term logia, in the sense of divine words, to the New Testament writings, presupposes a view of their inspiration which was not prevalent so early as the time of Papias, has, in our judgment, no validity. The reverence of Papias for the declarations of the apostles, which breathes through the whole passage in Eusebius, accords well with such a mode of characterizing them. The form of the quotation from Matthew in Barnabas, on which we have commented above, shows the error of Credner's opinion. The whole of the apostles' testimony in regard to the teachings and works of Christ, constituted the logia the oracles of the Lord, or the oracles pertaining to the Lord.' 2. It is well-nigh certain that in the account which Papias gives of Jlark'8 Gospel, the logia includes the works as well as words of Christ. Papias attributes a want of order to Mark's record of the words and works of Christ-the things " said or done" by Him. He then proceeds to explain the reason of this peculi arity. Mark had derived his information from listening to the discourses of Peter. But Peter was in the habit 1 It has been thought by some that the works and words of Christ were termed the "logia of the Lord," as being the total expression which He made of Himself. But this is less natural. Nor do we think that other critics are right in referring the logia to the discourses, as being the predominant feature of the gospel, or the feature with which Papias was chiefly concerned. 4 MATTHEW. of selecting his matter to suit the occasion, and there fore did not furnish a systematic statement of the lo(ia of the Lord.' How can the loyia here denote anything less than "the things said or done?" Papias adds, that in writing some things according to his recollec tion, Mark committed no fault. Even here Meyer's lexical scrupulosity would fain limit the logia to the discourses of Christ, and then make the "some things," which Mark set down without following the chrono logical order, relate only to this part of his reports. But this interpretation is obviously strained, and appears to be directly overthrown by the circumstance that Papias attributes the absence of order to Mark's reports of the deeds as well as the words of Christ. Why should Peter observe the chronological order more carefully in referring to incidents in the life of Christ, than in recalling his discourses? That logia has the comprehensive meaning in the description of Matthlew, is thus proved by the extended sense which we are under the necessity of attributing to it in the passage that follows respecting Mark. 3. If the logia do not embrace the whole of Matthew, then Papias furnishes no account of the origin of the Gospel, with the exception of that part of it which includes the discourses of Christ. He had in his hands, as Meyer and all sound critics admit, our complete Gospel of Matthew. It would be natural for him, if he began to give an account of its origin, The reading of Heinichen here is Xolyov; but Xoylcov is the readii, adopted by other good critiec. See Meyer and Bleek. 165 ORIGIN OF TIlE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. to explain how the narrative portions of the Gospel were brought into it. Eusebius takes it for granted that Papias is explaining the origin of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, and for this reason cites the passage. Neither Eusebius nor any writer before him, nor any writer for fifteen centuries after him, knew anything of a collection of discourses of Matthew, or of any work of Matthew, save the entire canonical Gospel which bears his name. 4. Irenaeus, whom Meyer elsewhere 1 pronounces an independent witness on the subject, says that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew. Irenaeus gives the same tradition which is given by Papias, who was an old man when Irenaeus was a youth. Irenaeus knows nothing of a composition of a report of the Saviour's discourses by the Apostle Matthew, which received a narrative supplement from some later hand. The other writers of the second century are equally ignorant of a fact which, if it be contained in the testi mony of Papias, must have been generally known. 5. The work of Papias himself was entitled an Exposition of the Oracles (Xoy/Iro) of the Lord. But, as we know from the fragments that remain, it was partly made up of narrative matter. Incidents in the life of Christ, and teachings of Christ, equally found a place in this work. Meyer, unjustifiably as we think, would make the narrative matter in Papias a part, not of the loyia, but of the Exposition attached to the logia. The truth seems to be that Papias gathered up ' Meyer's Einl. z. AVatthaus, s, 5, 166 i I MATTHEW. all that he could hear of what the disciples of Christ had reported of him, and accompanied this record with observations of his own. We are persuaded, and we trust that the considerations above presented will convince our readers, that this restriction of the sense of lo 7ia, which goes no farther back than Schleiermacher, and is a subtlety that escaped Eusebius and Irenaeus, is without any good foundation. And we are brought to the conclusion that the testimony of Papias, that "ancient man," who had been conversant with many of the disciples of the apostles, establishes the fact of the origin of the first Gospel in the apostolic age. II. The relation of the Gospel of Matthew to the uncanonical Gospel of the Hebrews, affords proof of the early date of the former. The Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Aramaic dialect, was the most widely known of all the uncanon. ical Gospels. It was the Gospel in use among the Hebrew Christian sects, which were separated from the general Church. It existed, however, in varying forms. Thus, the stricter Ebionites had cut off the first two chapters, in which the circumstances attending the miraculous birth of the Saviour were related. The numnerous allusions in the Fathers to the Gospel of the Hebrews-the zvce??J o, xceT'E,8coiov;-make it clear that it had a close resemblance to the canonical MAatthew. A careful comparison demonstrates that it 167 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. was our Matthew, altered and amplified. That the priority belongs to the canonical Gospel-whether it existed originally in the Hebrew or the Greek, we will not now inquire-is established. For example, in the Latin translation of Origen's commentary on Matthew, there is quoted from the Gospel of the Hebrews a narrative of the conversation of the young man with Jesus, a passage corresponding to Matthew xix. 16 seq. The young man, as in Matthew, comes to Jesus with his question as to the method of attaining eternal life. Jesus tells him to obey the law and fthe propohets. "He replies,'I have done so.' Jesus said unto him, 'comes sell all that thou hast and divide among the poor, and come, follow me.' But the rich man be,,an to scratch his head, and was not pleased," etc. No one can doubt in regard to such a passage, that it springs from the amplification of the simple narrative in Matthew. The narrative is spun out with apocryphal details.' We are concerned to ascertain, next, the age of the Gospel of the Hebrews. It was certainly known to Hlegesippus, before the middle part of the second century. And there is no reason to think that it was then new. Himself a Hebrewv Christian by birth, he had probably been long acquainted with it. But we will not indulge in conjecture. It is safe to affirm that the Church received no evangelical history from the The priority of Matthew has been convincingly shown by various writers; among them by Franck, in a thorough Article in the Studien u. Eritiken, 1848; 2. 168 I MATTHEW. judaizinig Christians after the latter had become separa ted. The existence of the Gospel of Matthew among them-for the Gospel of the Hebrews was an altered Matthew-requires us to conclude that it enjoyed a general acceptance before the Jewish-Chlristian parties were formed. But these acquired a-distinct existence, according to the trustworthy testimony of Hegesippus, at the beginning, or about the beginning, of the second century. Before this, however, and from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, the movement towards separation began. The judaizing Christians looked with growing jealousy and hostility upon the Gentile believers and their churches. To our mind, it is altogether improbable that the Gospel of Matthew could have been composed, and have been accepted by both classes of Christians, at any time subsequent -to say the least, long subsequent-to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. Besides the difficulty of accounting for its acceptance on both sides, on the supposition of a later date, the partisan feelings of the judaizing Christian would infallibly have been reflected on its pages. But in this artless chronicle there is not the slightest trace of judaizing bitterness. III. We have to consider now the prophecies of the second advent of Christ, which are contained in Matthew, in their bearing on the date of the Gospel. In touching upon this topic, we are brought in contact, indeed, with the principal exegetical difficulty 169 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. in the New Testament. The final advent of Christ to judgment, and the destruction of Jerusalem, appear to have been connected together in time, as if the former were to follow immediately upon the latter. After what seems clearly to be a prediction of the downfall of Jerusalem (Matthew xxiv. 1-29), wc read that "immediately (v,d'escog) after the tribulation of those days," the Son of Man will come in the clouds of heaven, in the sight of "all the tribes" on earth, and "gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (vs. 29-32, comp. c. xxv. 31 seq. and Luke xxi. 27, 31). And we read (in ver. 34): "this generation (yevcc') shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." We are not called upon, in this place, to consider the difficulty that is presented by these passages. The paramount question of the origin and date of the Gospel is the question which we have in hand. That our Saviour did not predict that the world would come to an end instantly on the destruction of Jerusalem, is shown by other parts of his own teaching. He is represented in the synoptical Gospels as declaring that the time when the end would occur was not a subject of Revelation, but a secret of the Father. In a more comprehensive way, he said to the disciples (Acts i. 7): "It is not for you to know the iti)es or seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power," And the apostles, though hoping and looking for the end, did not claim in their Epistles to be taught by Inspiratioli 1 7 (i a I MATTHEW. when the end would come. Moreover, there are various teachings of the Saviour in regard to His king dom, which imply a slow progress and a long operation of the gospel in the world. It is like leaven. It is like a grain of mustard-seed. It is the salt of the earth. It is to be preached to all nations. He compares Himself, as to the moral effect of His death, to the corn of wheat which, if it do not fall into the earth and die, "abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." We can afford, in the present discussion, to waive the inquiry how these predictions as they are set down in the first Gospel (and so substantially in Mark and Luke), are reconcilable with these other teachings of Christ and with historical fact. It is enough that skeptics, almost with one voice, have maintained that here is really a distinct prediction that the end of the world would occur in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and within the lifetime of the generation then on the stage. Theodore Parker has expressed this view. Gibbon makes the supposed prediction a theme of his elaborate satire. Now, if this be their interpretation, they are compelled to acknowledge that the Gospel which contains this erroneous prophecy appeared in its present form before Jerusalem was captured by Titus, or before the year 70. It must have been written as early as thirty or forty years after the Saviour's death. No Gospel-writer would set forth without explanation a prediction of a mighty event, which all his readers would know had not been verified. 171 172 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. No writer in the year 80, or 90, or 100, would fix the date of the end of the world at the destruction of Jerusalem, in a document which he wished to be believed. We may even taklie a step farther. If some interpretations of the passages in Matthew be adopted, which recognize an infallible accuracy inll the synoptical reports of the Saviour's teaching, yet it may be safely held that had the Evangelist been writing at a later time, some explanation would have been thrown in to remove the seemnin discrepancy between prophecy and fulfilment. If it be supposed, for example, that in the perspective opened to the prophetic vision, two grand events, though parted in reality by a long, interval, were brought together-as distant mountainpeaks when approached are found to be far apartyet it would be natural to expect that when the interval had actually disclosed itself to the observer, some intimation of the fact would be dropped. So that even on the orthodox, as well as on the skeptical, interpretation of the eschatology in the Synoptics, their early date is manifest. It remains for us to notice the Tiibingenl hypothesis concerning Matthew. Baur's general theory is not the mythical theory, but "the tendency-theory." Hle has discussed and pointed out the weakness of the procedure of Strauss in his attempt to disprove the statements of the fourth Gospel by opposing to them the authority of the Synoptics, and at the same time to contradict the Synoptics by quoting the fourth I MATTHEW. Gospel against them. If there is to be any positive construction of the evangelical history, as Baur perceived, there must be gained somewhere a firm standing-place. This he finds in the first Gospel. Not that even this Gospel is fully authentic and historical. Yet there is in Matthew a substantial kernel of historical truth. All the Gospels are, more or less, the product of a theological tesidency; that is, they result from the artificial recasting and amplifying of the veritable history in order to suit the views of some theological party or interest in the primitive church. In Matthew, the Jewish-Christian side is the prevailing motive determining the cast and tone of the narrative. Lukle represents the opposite, or Gentile, party. But the first Gospel is less inspired by a definite, dogmatical interest, which leads in the other Gospels to the conscious alteration and fabrication of history; and Baur is disposed to concede to Strauss that there is a larger admixture of the myth or the unconscious creations of feeling in Matthew, than is true of the remaining Gospels. When we come to inquire for a precise explanation of the origin of the first Gospel, we are met with very divergent responses from the various choir-leaders of the Tuibingen school. In fact, with respect to the whole of the special criticism by which they seek to convict the Gospels of being tendenz-scrif/en, they are hardly less at variance with each other than with the Christian world generally. Passages that 173 174 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. are confidently quoted by one critic in proof of a certain "tendency," are alleged by another as illustrations of a "tendency" exactly opposite. With regard to Matthew, Hilgenfeld, who agrees in this particular, with Strauss, does not limit the sense of the loria of Papias so as to exclude narrative matter; yet he pretends to be able to dissect the first Gospel and to separate a primitive Matthew-an Ur-~lfatthds-from later accretions. We are absolved from the necessity of following him in the baseless and arbitrary division which he seeks to run through the contents of Matthew, since his construction has gained so little applause even from his master. But we may attend for a moment to Baur's own view. HIe appears to take the loyia in the restricted meaning, and to attach some importance to the supposed tradition of a collection of loyia, forming the basis of our Matthew. This hypothesis we have already examined. Baur's effort to bring down the date of the Gospel into the second century is a bad failure. Desirous of holding that the second advent is foretold as immediately subsequenit to the predicted destruction of Jerusalem, he is obliged to refer the latter prediction to some other war than that of Titus. Accordingly, he interprets it as applying to the war of Hadrian in the year 131 or 132, and therefore fixes the date of the composition of the Gospel between 130 and 134! It is unfortunate for this bold assertion, that our Matthew was an au thoritative writing among Christians, and read as such I MATTHEW. in their assemblies "in city and country," in the time of Justin Martyr, who was born near the end of the first century. But aside from this historical testi mony, which it is vain to attempt to invalidate, Baur's interpretation can be easily proved to be palpably false. In the destruction of Jerusalem foretold in Matthew (xxiv. 1-4) the temple was to be laid in ruins. This was accomplished by Titus, and not by Hadrian. With what face then can the prophecy be referred to the war of Hadriani? It is doubtful, indeed, whether, in this last war, there was even a destiuction of the city. The parallel passages in the other evangelists (see Luke xxi. 5-7, 12, 20), determine the reference of the prediction to the war of Titus, beyond the possibility of doubt. Moreover, "this generation" was not to pass away before this event was to occur. Baur claims that this phrase7i LEVYc aura-may cover a period as long as a century. But this claim is void of truth. The phrase everywhere in the New Testament signifies the average term of human life, and was held, according to the Greek usage, to be equivalent to a third of a century. Besides, explanatory expressions occur in the prophetic passages of Matthew, which define the meaning of the phrase in the way we have stated.' The difficulty presented by these passages, we are firmly convinced, is not to be escaped by affixing another than the proper and uniform meaning to this phrase. 1 See Matthew xvi. 27, 28. 175 176 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.. The forced and manifestly false interpretation of Baur, which has been noticed above, is due to the straits into which he is brought by his untenable theory. Confronted by unimpeachable historical witnesses, he is not only obliged to ignore, or unjustifiably to disparage, their testimony, but also to resort to shifts in interpretation which only mark the desperation of his cause. There is absolutely nothing to conflict with the supposition that our first Gospel comes down, in its integrity, from the apostolic Church; while the positive evidence, both direct and corroborative, fully establishes the fact. MARK. The ancient testimonies, of which that of Papias is the first, to the genuineness and early date of the second Gospel, would seem to preclude the possibility of a question on these points. Mark is declared to have been an attendant of Peter and to have derived his knowledge of the life and ministry of Jesus from the discourses of that apostle. This is substantially the declaration of all the writers in the second half of the second century; and it has been thought by some good critics that even as early as Justin Martyr, and in one passage of Justin himself, the Gospel of Mark was styled Peter's Gospel. But it has been contended of late that the description of Papias does not answer for our Mark and I MARK. must refer to some other work. In the later form of the theory, Papias is made to describe an earlier Mark -an U;r-fIarkus,&-which is the germ of our present Gospel. Now of the existence of this earlier work there is no intimation in any of the Fathlers. How did the fact of its existence escape the knowledge of Irenaeus and his contemporaries? When did all the manuscripts of it disappear? In truth, the theory in this form is preposterous, and even Baur is driven to a different hypothesis. Before attending to this, however, let us revert to the statements of Papias and see how far they are from lending support to the notion that he had in mind any other work than our Mark. Papias, or John the Presbyter, his informant, represents that Mark, though a careful and accurate writer, depended on the oral discourses of Peter for his knowledge and therefore did not dispose his matter-iv rcz,t-in the chronological order. Tlhis is all the evidence on which the theory of an earlier Mark is founded! But, in any event, this remark is only the impression of an individual as to the character of the second Gospel. He doubtless compared Mar k with the more consecutive narrative of Matthew. Mloreover, it is plain that he had in mind the lack of completeness in Mark, which begins abruptly with the preaching of John. For he afterwards explains that Mark wrote down "somle things "-whatever he recollected; thlough it is added that he left out notli 12 177 178 ORIGIN OF TIlE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. iigo that hle heard. The necessary gaps and omissions constituted in part the want of order —r ctt1-which he noticed in Mark.' The second Gospel did not seem tc be a full, systematical digest-a 6cv'vrc,,t — of the words and deeds of Christ, like Matthew, but had a more irreg,ular, fragmentary structure. Not that Mark neglected arrangement altogethler and simiply pasted togethler the reports of Peter in the order in which he heard them. This is not at all implied; but only that he had not the means of exactly arran,ging and filling out his history. To call into existence another work, different from our Mark, on no other ground than this observation of Papias, is a folly of criticism. The Titbingen wvriters have set iip the wholly unsupported assertion, that our Mark is the amplificafion of an earlier "Gospel of Peter;" but- as might be expected, they have little agreement with each other in the forms lwhichl they give to their theory. Hilgenfeld is persuaded that MIark is tle product of a recasting, in the Petrine interest and that of the Roman Church, of the Gospel of Mattlhew.2 Marvellous that this Petrine, iloman Catholic partisan shol], 1 Meyer is plainly wrong in miaking the "some things " —',t(cover only aportion of what Mark set down. The mnleanin;, is tiiat only a part of the teachings and works of Christ find a place in hlis Gosp)el. The w.-:.nt of order, as we have said before, is predicated as much of the record of the "things done," as of the "things said." 2lilg(enfeld's Die Evangelien, s. 148. MARK. have left out of his work the passage: "Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my church!" Strange that he should have stricken out the passage which, above all others, was suited to his purpose! Baur, seeing that the supposition of an earlier Gospel of Clark is incredible, on account of the absence of all traces of such a work and all allusions. to it, has invented a new hypothesis which is, if possible, more irrational than Hilgenfeld's. Papias has mixed up, wve are told, things that have no connection-the existence of the Gospel of Mark, with which he was perhaps not even acquainted, and the legend of discourses which were thought to have been delivered by Peter on his missionary journeys. But of what weight is this naked conjecture in opposition to the distinct testimony of Papias? If a witness is to be set aside on so flimsy a pretext, there is an end of historical investigation. Besides, it is not Papias alone who testifies to the Gospel of Mark and the connection of Mark with Peter. Irenaeus, Clement, Eusebius, say the same; and there is no reason to suppose that they simply reecho the statement of Papias. All these writers represent what was unquestionably the general belief at the time when Papias wrote. These assaults upon the integrity of the Gospel of Mlark, by critics Who do not stick to any one hypothesis as long as it takes the seasons to revolve, have not weakened in the slightest degree that argument in 179 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. behalf of the Gospel on which the Church has rested from the apostolic age until now. Are historical testimonies to be blown away by the empty guess of a theorist? LUKE. The school of Baur have been especially confident in asserting that Luke's Gospel was written to further a certain theological interest. It is a tendezz-schrift, they are sure, which emanates from the Pauline side, and represents the gospel history in a way to favor the Gentile claims and privileges. Now, every historian who is not a mere storyteller, writes from his own point of view. Every historian will disclose in the complexion of his work his own character and situation. Certain aspects of the subject which have for one writer a peculiar interest, are thrown by a writer of a different cast more into the background. The position and chlaracter of an historian affect his selection and disposition of the matter. But the question is whether he is betrayed into inveracity and perversion by the bent of his mind and his party connections. It is clear that Luke, a disciple of Paul and writing for a heathen convert, is more interested in the intention of the author of the gospel to provide salvation equally for the Gentiles. But is he thereby led to indulge in misstatement and invention? Does he omit import 180 LUKE. ant facts because they would clash with a view which he wishes to make out? And does he not scruple to fabricate incidents for the sake of helping forward a party interest? This is charged by Baur-charged, as we believe, without proof, and falsely. There is no inconsistency between the representation of the life and teachings of Christ in Matthew, and that made in Luke. The design of Christianity to embrace the Gentiles, even to bring to them an advantage above the unbelieving nation to whom the gospel first comes, is abundantly attested in Matthew. What are the proofs by which Baur would sustain his impeachment of Luke? They are, one and all, destitute of weight. Luke omits to mention the distinction put upon Peter when he was styled the Rock; but so does Mark. It is charged that Luke contrives to disparage the twelve disciples, in order to pave the way for an inference to the honor of Paul. This is pure fancy, and has against it such passages as Luke xxii. 29, 30, where the Lord declares that a kingdom is appointed for this band of disciples, even as the Father had appointed for him; and that they should "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Ililgenfeld is acute enough to find in this promise a designed depression.of the twelve, since they are to judge Israel alone! What, then, is the purport of the same promise in "judaizing" Matthew?' That the kingdom is preached in Samaria, according 1 Matt. xix. 25. 181 182 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. to Luke, is also, if we are to believe Baur, a fiction designed as a typical prelude to Paul's free offer of salvation to the heathen, and to pacify objectors to this last procedure. Especially is the mission of the Seventy (Luke x. 10) discredited, and ascribed partly to the desire to diminish the consideration of the twelve, and partly to the wish to furnish a justifying parallel or preparation, in the manner just mentioned, for the Pauline liberality to the Gentiles and for the missions among them. But in sending out the Seventy, Christ did not organize them into a permanent body. There is no trace of such a body of disciples in the Acts, as there certainly would be if they had been a permanent body, or if the narrative in Luke had been a doctrinal fiction. The Seventy were provisionally employed, in the course of this last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, when He was desirous of making Himself more widely known to the people. The number was fixed at seventy, not because the Jews reckoned the languages of the world at seventy, which is Baur's explanation, but more likely in allusion to the seventy elders appointed by Moses, just as the twelve disciples corresponded with the number of tribes. Nor did the Seventy go to the heathen. It does not appear that they went to the Samaritans even; and Luke himself records that by the Samaritans Jesus himself had been inhospitably received.' It has been properly suggested, in reply to Baur, that 1 Luke ix. 51 seq. 4 LUKE. were this incident a wilful fiction, it would be so contrived as to present a greater resemblance to the later apostolic history, than the occult, remote, farfetched analogy which Baur imnagines himself to discern. So slender are the principal grounds on which important portions of the third Gospel are pronounced a fabrication! They illustrate the morbid suspicion of these critics, and their slavish subjection to a preconceived, indefensible theory concerning the original character of Christianity. One of the most important topics connected with miodern discussions relative to the origin of the third Gospel, is the relation of that Gospel to the Gospel of Malarcion. In the genial portraiture which NOeander has drawn of this noted heresiarch, it appears that the love and compassion of Christ had struck into his soul. Not discerning that this love and compassion presuppose and require the feelings of justice, he conceived that the representations of the character'of God in the Old Testament are inconsistent with the image he had formed of Christ. Moreover, the apostles, with the exception of Paul, seemed to him to be entangled in Old Testament views and to have perverted the pure doctrine of Jesus. On the contrary, the expressions in Paul about the Christian's emancipation from the law and about free grace, being imperfectly understood by Marcion, fell in with the current of his feeling. Hence, though starting from 183 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. a practical and not a speculative point of view, he developed a gnostical theory, according to which the God of the Old Testament was a Demiurg, inferior to the Father of Jesus. He shaped his scriptural canon to suit his doctrinal belief. The Gospel of Luke, as written by a companion of Paul, and as bringing out the Pauline doctrine, he regarded with favor; but, according to the unanimous testimony of the Fathers, he mutilated and abridged this Gospel in order to conform it to his own system. Similar liberties he took with the Pauline Epistles, which he also received. He may have fancied that the changes which he made in all these documents were a restoration of them to their original form. Yet there is no indication whatever that these changes were made on any other authority than his a-priori theory of what Christ and the apostles must have taught. A native of Pontus in Asia Minor, Marcion came to Rome about the year 140-possibly ten years later. Hence, if the statement of Tertullian and the rest of the Fathers is correct, respecting the relation of his Gospel to that of Luke, he is a most important witness to the early and general reception of Luke's Gospel in its present form. It would seem to be well-nigh impossible to call in question this early testimony. It is true that Marcion did not succeed in removing from Luke all features not in keeping with his system. But this is only to say that he did not do his work with entire thoroughness and consistency. Irenacus 184 I LUKE. and Tertullian and their contemporaries, be it observed, lived shortly after MIarcion. Irenaeus had grown to be a young man before Marcion died. Tertullian had taken great pains to collect information concerning Marcion's career and system. But, independently of their testimony in itself considered, how can it be supposed that a Gospel which Marcion and the Marcionites alone received, was taken up by Catholic Christians, and enlarged and improved for their own use? What possible miotive could prompt them to appropriate to themselves this heretical, spurious Gospel, and add it to those which they knew to be authentic? How did the churches drop out the work which Marcion used-supposed to be the real Luke-and substitute for it the newfangled Gospel which was fabricated on the basis of it? How is it that we have no notice of this exchange-no traces of a previous use of the curtailed Luke of Marcion, on the part of the churches? And such a procedure would bring down the date of the canonical Gospel to 130 or 140! The first to dispute the received view as to Marcioln's Gospel, was the founder of German rationalism, Seiler. He suggested that our Luke and Marcion's Luke are different recensions, or editions, of the same work. Others after him assigned the priority to the Luke of Mlarcion. Opinion swayed from one side to the other on this question, until Baur strenuously contended that Marcion's Gospel is first and the 185 186 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. canonical Luke was made on the basis of it. This hypothesis he defended at length in his work on the CanoJzical GospelsJ. But a careful comparison of the numerous passages of Marcion's Luke, which are found in the Fathers, made it impossible longer to dispute the priority of the canonical Gospel. And after the publication of the work of Volkmar on this subject, Balur himself retracted his previous hypothesis and came on to the same ground. In his work on i\lark's Gospel, he says: "It is not longer to be denied, as I have become convinced by a repeated examination, that most of the variations between Marcion's Gospel and our own are, with a prevailing likelihood, to be regarded as arbitrary alterations in the interest of a given system." The priority of our Luke is now an established, uncontradicted fact. See how much this fact involves! Marcion took an accepted, generally received Gospel, and applied to it his pruning-knife. Our Luke, then, was most certainly an authoritative document in the churches early ill the second century. But a more valuable deduction may be made with entire confidence. Marcion selected a work which he regarded, and others regarded, as the composition of a disciple of Paul, and deriving its authority and value firom this circumstance. We may safely infer that our Gospel was generally considered at the beginning of the second century, or about thirty years after we suppose it to have been written, to be the work of an ' Baur's Kanonische Evaigelien, s. 393 seq. (1847). i LUKE. earlier nwriter, an associate of the apostles. As concerns the argument from tradition for the genuineness and early date of Luke, we could ask for nothing more. Baur's whole theory concerning Luke was, in reality, shattered by the demolition of the false and most improbable hypothesis of a priority of Marcion's Gospel. Yet, in his later works, he does not wholly abandon his erroneous construction. The canonical Luke, he still holds, was originally composed by a strictly Pauline and anti-Petrine Christian. Various passages which are plainly and palpably irreconcilable with such a theory, he declares to be interpolated by a subsequent writer whlose position is "mediatory," or half-way between the two parties, into which Baur falsely supposes the early Church to have beer split. For this theory of a later editor, there is not an iota of historical evidence. It is, like so many other hlypothe ses, spun out of the bowels of the critic. The dissection of the Gospel, which is attempted, is from beginning to end a purely arbitrary proceeding, and has no better foundation than had the mutilation attempted by Marcion. To illustrate the groundless and arbitrary character of Baur's criticism of Luke, we bring forward a single instance. In Luke xvi. 16, there is recorded the saying of the Saviour: " It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fdil." In place of "the law" —ro Vo'iJou-thliere was found in Marcion's Gospel —rcv?o'&v juov 187 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. "my words." The existence of this declaration in Luke concerning the perpetuity of the law, is at war with Baur's idea of the anti-Jewish character of the Gospel. It is one of the clearest proofs of the unfounded nature of his theory. Hence, he puts forward the assertion that Marcion has the true reading. For the reading of Marcion there is no manuscript support whatever. It comports, moreover, with the character of all the rest of his alterations. He aims to erase whatever gives a sanction to the Old Testament law. Yet we are expected to accept the wholly unsupported and groundless doctrine of that oracular personage styled -Die Kritik, who reverses his own decision with every new moon! Much of the mistaken and mischievous speculation adverse to the genuineness of the third Gospel, has sprung from Schleiermacher's hypothesis of the composite character of this Gospel and of the Acts. He proposed the theory that the Gospel of Luke is a series of earlier documents linked together, the task of Luke being merely that of a compiler. This view was ingeniously advocated. A similar hypothesis was held concerning the Acts, the second work of the same author. But this hypothesis, both in respect to the Gospel and the Acts, has been proved to be unfounded. Whatever written materials were in the hands of Luke, neither of his works is a mere compilation. Each of them has a coherent outline, and is pervaded by qualities of style peculiar to the evange 188 LUKE. list. One of the ablest refutations of the Schleiermiacherian theory is contained in the work of Lekelusch upon the Acts. The prologue of Luke's Gospel evinces the error of that theory. Luke avows his intention to prepare an orderly, a systematic and connected, narrative of the life and ministry of Jesus. And the impression made by the prologue that he designs to fuse his materials into a regular composition, is sustained by an inspection of the contents of the work. This prologue of Luke's Gospel is chiefly valuable as a testimony to its genuineness and credibility. As such, it well deserves examination. Many before him had written accounts, more or less full, of the life and ministry of Jesus. He has carefully followed down the course of the Saviour's history from the beginning -for this is the meaning of the passage rendered: "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first." But how did he, and "the many" to whom he refers, ascertain the facts "most surely believed among us?" He answers that "they delivered them unto is-,Tc,oac'eo v tit-vwhich firom the beginning" of the Saviour's career "were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Two things are here affirmed: first, that Luke's knowledge came from the apostles and other immediate disciples of Chlrist; and, secondly, that it came to him directs firom them, without the intervention of third persons. 189 l )0 OltI,IIN OF TIE FIRST TIIREE GOSPELS. 'Flils l1st is imll)lic(l in tihe phrase " delivered to us —.'r:)'o0 ~. /,IttIr-as niay be seen by an exami iiationi of otlher p)assages where thle same phrase occurs; as, for example, 1 Cor. xi. 23. The informtllits of Lilue were eyewitnesses of the history which lie itidertakcs to record. Ite was contemporary with tllel. Tltc earlv (late of his work is verified by his otwn dlistinct stateniteit. TIIE RELATION OF TIIE APOCRYPItAL TO TlHE CANONI CAL GOSPELS. Thle fact of tlhe existence of apocryphal Gospels hlas given occasion, anmonig those who have not studied the sutl)ject, to erro neous ii)ressions. It has been supposed by some that a consi(lerable nunmber of Gospels, belsides the four of the canon, were in the hands of theC early Clluiicl, all(1 t-iat, for rcasonls w1lichl miay not have been futlly sulificiellt, tlicse ]last were selected, and clotlhed w-itll'Itltllority.'liis belief, or conjecture, is unfoi()n(lc(, as we shlall soon point out. And a careful attention to the subl)ject of the ap)ocryphal Gospels has the effect to set forthl in a clearer light the antiquity all(l authority of tlhe received( Gospels. A few remnarks wNill bring before the read(ler the more important con si(l(e ations.' 1'I'l old and stan(]dlard work on the subject of tlhe al)ocryplud liter'Lturc is that of Fabricins. " A New and Full Method of Settling tle Canonical Autliority of the New Testament, etc.," by Rev. J. Jones (Oxford, 1798), is Fabricius with English translations. The 11 LUKE. 1. None of the works now extant under the name of apocryphal Gospels, have any claim to be considered authentic histories of Christ, or to be regarded, in the remotest degree, as rivals or competitors of tlie canonical Gospels. It is the fashion of writers like Strauss to quote froma these apocryphal. Gospels as well as from the Gospels of the canon, for the sake of creating an impression that both belong to the same category, which no person pretending to be a scholar would venture to assert. The apocryphal Gospels are at a world-wide remove frolm the canonical Gospels, in the character of their contents. They relate almost exclusively to the nativity and infancy of Jesus and the glories of his mother, or to circumstances attending and following his death. They are chiefly made up of silly tales, which are too plainly fabulous to merit any attention. Nor have they any title to attention on remarks and deductions of Jones are sometimes good, but often illjudged. Thilo began to edit the apocryphal Gospels in a most scholarly manner, but only published a first volume. Tischendclorf, besides his critical edition of the Evangelia Apocrypha (1853), has discussed the bearing of the apocryphal Gospels upon the question of the genuineness and credibility of the Gospels of the canon, in his prize essay de Evangeliorum apoc. origine et usu (1851), and in his recent dissertation, Wann Burden die Evangelien verfasst (1805). Norton's chapter (Geaiuineness of the Gospels, Vol. iii. cl. xii.) is lucid and instructive. iHe goes farther than most scholars would approve, in discrediting the existence of apocryphal books which ecclesiastical writers mention by their titles. But his skepti(;.ism in this particular is a healthy antidote to extravagances in the (opposite direction. 191 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE OSPELS. the score of age. All of them are demonstrably later than our Gospels. Most of them are even centuries lator. It is supposed by Tischendorf that three of these are alluded to by early Fathers, but of this we cannot be certain. Justin Martyr twice mentions the Acts (ccx cc) of Pilate, as a document where could be found an attestation of the Saviour's history. Tertullian has a similar reference. A book called Gesta Pilati, or Acts of Pilate, forms a part of the so-called Gospel of Nicodemus. But the Acts of a Roman governor-such a work as Justin designates-was his official Report to the Emperor, which was deposited in the archives at Rome. Whether in the time of Justin there was any 26lis8ed narrative of that sort, purporting to be Pilate's report of the judicial proceeding in the case of Jesus, we are unable to say.1 But the Gesta Pilati which we possess is a narrative of Christ's life on the basis of our Gospels, which it is pretended that Nicodemus wrote and the Emperor Theodosius (which Emperor of that name, we are not told) found among the public records in the hall of Pontius Pilate, at Jerusalem. This Gospel of Nicodemus is unquestionably a composite work, and the part embraced in the Aeta Pilati may be, as Tischendorf thinks, as old as Justin. Yet there has 1 Perhaps Justin refers to no writing which he had seen, but to a public document which he supposes to exist. In the same way (Apo7., I. 34) he says: "As you may learn from the lists of the taxing, which were made in the time of Cyrenius, the first governor of yours in Judea." 192 LUKE. been confessedly great license in altering the text; and after all, the opinion of Norton that this production is of a later date, is not conclusively disproved. Origen, in the first half of the third century, once refers to a book of James, as containing the statement that the brothers of Jesus were children of Joseph by a former marriage; and the apocryphal Protevangelion of James contains a similar statement. But there is no other allusion to such a work until near the end of the fourth century. The work now extant is a silly legend concerning the birth of Mary and the birth of Jesus, and is thlought by Noiton to be of much later date than the likewise unimportant book which Origen casually notices, and to which he attributes no authority. Tischendorf, however, is convinced that some traces of an acquaintance with the Protevangelion are found in Justin and in Clement of Alexandria, and that the manuscripts now extant substantially correspond to the work which was in their hands. But the first of these points must still be considered doubtful, and the conclusion of Tischendorf as to the antiquity of the work is therefore equally uncertain. Origen, also, alludes to a spurious Gospel of Thomas. A passage in Irenaeus is thought to indicate that it was in use among the heretical Marcosii, and Hippolytus states that a Gospel of Thomas was received by the Naasseni.' An apocryphal work professing to emanate I Iren. Adv. Haer., Lib. i. c. 20; Hippol. (Duncker and Schneid, Ed.) pp. 140, 142. 13 193 194 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. from Thomas, is now extant (though in very divergent forms), of which the work alluded to by Origen may have served as the basis. It is composed of fabulous tales of the boyhood of Jesus. But Norton even doubts whether the Gospel of Thomas, which is mentioned by Origen, was a narrative. He thinks that, like other spurious works bearing the name of Gospel, it may have been a doctrinal homily. Tisclendoirf is of the opinion that the Jcta and the Prole'aiz,gelion were composed somewhere in the first decades of the second century. From the evident dependence of these works on the Gospels of the canon, he infers that the latter were in general use at an earlier day. This conclusion stands or falls, according to the judgment which is formed as to the correctness of the date assigned to the 4cta and the Protevangelioiz. At all events, these and the other apocryphal Gospels now extant show what sort of works would have been produced, had the canonical writers followed their own fancy and invention. In this aspect, the apocryphal Gospels afford an impressive confirmation of the verity of the canonical histories. Tihe sobriety and simplicity of the latter, together with their distinct statement that no miracles were performed by Jesus prior to his baptism, are inll wonderful contrast with the fanciful and fan 1 Tischendorf suil)poses that the Descenszis C/Iristi ad i)?feros in the Eviangeliumn Nicodemi is also as old as tile middle of tho second c- ntury. THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. tastic complexion of the spurious Gospels. The clumsiness of the cotmterfeit sets off the perfection of the original. 2. The apocryphal Gospels which are mentioned by the early Fathers, and most if not all of which have perished, had only a local circulation, had no authority save with minor heretical parties, and had no effect on that generally prevailing conception of the life and teaching of Christ, which was founded exclusively on the four authentic and canonical narratives unanimously received by the early Church. We must explain that we do not include in this statement the Gospel of the Hebrews and MAarcionl's Gospel, for the reason that both of these works were produced by the alteration of canonical Gospels. The Gospel of the Hebrews existed in many varyiing forms, and under different titles. The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, for example, and other books the titles of which have come down to us, were different editions of the Gospel of the Hebrews. This work, as we have said, was our Matthew altered.' The Gospel That the Gospel of the Hebrews was never put by the church and church writers on a level with the canonical Gospels, has been fully proved. See, for example, the Article of Franck (Stud. u. Krit., 18-8, 2), to which we have before referred. As to the use of it by IIegesippus, Eusebius merely says that he brought forvward some things from the Gospel of the Hebrews, as he did from unwritten Hebrew traditions. Origen and Jerome were too intelligent to rank it with the canonical Gospels. Eusebius places it among the Antilegomena, it being the Gospel used by the Hebrew Christians. Euseb., III. 25. . 195 196 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. of AMarcion was our Luke abridged and otherwise changed. The truth which we wish to convey is, that there wvere no Gospel histories in the second century which were contending for acceptance by the side of the Four; none which had come into general use and were discarded; none having any claims to be authentic, which required to be seriously weighed. As far as we can ascertain, there were no other Gospels which had a consideration sufficient to render them candidates for public favor in the Church. It should be remarked that the first attempts at evangelical writing which Luke mentions in his preface, were early supplanted by the canonical histories, so that none of the former, as far as we can discover, were known to the ecclesiastical writers of the second century. The Gnostics were the falsifiers and fabricators of Scripture, according to the statement of the Fathers. In the controversy of Irenaeus and Tertullian with the Gnostics, both sides take for granted a life and teaching of Christ, which, with wholly insignificant exceptions, is identical with the representation of our canonical Gospels. He is assumed to have done and said just what they record. The leading sects of the Gnostics were therefore governed in their conception of the career and ministry of Christ, by the authority and the representations of the canonical histories. I THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. Tertullian, who has so much to say of the falsifi. cation of Luke by Marcion and of his rejection of the rest of the Gospels on dogmatic grounds, does not mention any apocryphal Gospels as in use among the Valentinlians, the principal gnostical sect, and the rest of his opponents. In one place only, Irenaeus speaks of a gospel as used by the Valentinians, bearing the title of the Tirte Gospel or the Gos pel of Trut. We know not whether this was narrative or homily. We know not whether Irenaeus had ever seen the work. We know not whether it really existed, or whether Irenaeus did not mistake the claim on their part to be possessed of the true Gospel, or the true interpretation of the Gospel, for an allusion to a book. But of this we are certain, that hlie, and, as far as we know, they, brought forward no passage from it. The Gospel of Basilides is another work which, if indeed such a work existed, was probably not a narrative. It was little known; and not a sentence from it is quoted by the ancient writers. Origen says that Basilides wrote a Gospel and prefixed his own name to it; a statement which is repeated by Ambrose and Jerome. But the refutations of Basilides take notice of nothing drawn from such a work. He is said by Elusebius (quoting fromn Agrippa Castor) to have written a work in twenty-four books "upon the Gospel "-apparently an exegetical work; and this fact may not improbably have given rise to the supposi. tion that he had fabricated a new Gospel. 197 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. In order to show how obscure, comparatively, these apocryphal Gospels were, and how far the existence of them is from weakening, in the least degree, the evidence for the antiquity and verity of the canonical four, we will state all that is known concerning the two most prominent of these fictions the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of the Egyptians. The Gospel of Peter has been made to figure conspicuously in the manifold hypotheses of the skeptical school of critics. It is instructive to see just how much is noizcn'concerning this work, which, from the ado made about it by the critics in question, one would1 infer to be a document of great notoriety and importance in the early Church. It has been said that Justin Alirtyr, in a passage of his Dialogue with Tryphlo, makes reference to a Gospel of Peter; but this is a mistake.1 The first notice of the Gospel of Peter is from Serapion, near the end of the second century. Serapion, bishop of' Antioch, had, as we learn from Eusebius, found that some disturbance 1 The passage is in Tiyp7., c. 106. See Otto's excellent note, (Otto's Ed. of Justin, Vol. II. p. 361). There may be an omission of a'rcor6Xov before azrov, as Otto supposes; or the avrov may refer to Christ; or, again, the allusion may be to Mark, which was kInown as Peter's Gospel. We think that the context (see C. 105) renders it in the highest degree probable (as Otto thinks) that Justin, according to his usual custom, refers in this place to the drrojrvqovelpara collectively and in the plural-that is, to our four Gospels. 198 11 I THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. had been created in the church at PRhosse, a town ill Cilicia, by a so-called Gospel of Peter which was in the hands of some of the church-mnembers. At first, thinking that the book was harmless, he deemed the affair undeserving of notice. But afterwards he procured a copy of the book from some of the Docetae, who used it, and found it to contain objectionable matter. Origen has a single allusion to this Gospel, as containing, like the book of James, the statement that the brothers of Jesus were children of Joseph by a former marriage. It is afterwards barely men. tioned, as an apocryphal book, by Jerome. This is all that we know of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter! It is not clear that Origen had ever seen it. The bishop of what was then the principal See in the East had never heard of the book until he met with it at Rhosse; and when he wished to examine it, he was obliged to borrow a copy of some heretical Docetac by whom it was used!'Moreover, there is nothing to show that it was a narrative. The way in which Serapion speaks of it would rather suggest the inference that its contents were of a doctrinal nature. Eusebius reckons it among the evidently spurious works " which were never esteemed valuable enough to be cited by any ecclesiastical writer." 1 The Gospel of the Egyptians is first mentioned by Clement of Alexandria near the end of the second century. He notices a fabulous conversation of ' Euseb., III. 25. 199 200 GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Jesus with Salome, cited from it by certain heretics, but expressly characterizes the book as apocryphal. A passage similar to that referred to by Clement of Alexandria is found in the spurious fragment entitled the Second Epistle of Clement (of Rome) to the Corinthians, which was not written earlier than the time of Clement of Alexandria; and it is possible that the forger of the last work was acquainted with this fictitious Gospel. It is enumerated by Origen and Jerome among the titles of apocryphal Gospels, which they furnish. Epiphanius says that the Sabellians made use of it; but his statement needs confirmation. So much, and so much only, is known of the Gospel of the Egyptians. Some have considered it one form of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Others, including Norton, have held it to be, not a narrative, but a doctrinal work. It was written in an obscure and mystical vein, and probably presented the ascetic notions of Egyptian gnostical sectaries, among whom it originated. It must have had a limited circulation. No Christian writer has ever attributed to it any historical authority. We might proceed to notice other spurious gospels, or books called by the name of gospels, which are the subject of casual allusion in ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries. But we have said enough to give our readers a fair impression of their insignificant importance. Reminding the reader of what we have said of the Gospel of the lHebrews, I THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. which was framed on the basis of our Matthew, we may distinctly affirm, not only that the four Gospels of the canon were universally accepted by the Christianl of the second century, but also that no other gospel narratives can properly be said to have divided their honors with them. It may be affirmed, with hardly any qualification, that they stood without competitors. The spurious gospels secured little or no recognition outside of heretical parties or coteries from which they emanated. On the contrary, if not wholly unknown, they were rejected by the church teachers everywhere, and by the great body of Christian people.1 It has been already remarked that the principal anti-gnostical writers of the second century, and their adversaries, alike proceed on a conception of the life and ministry of Jesus, which is identical with that of the canonical Gospels. That is to say, both parties assume that the history of Christ which we find in our Gospels, is alone authentic. A like confirmation of the authority of the canonical Gospels is obtained from Justin Martyr. They were undeniably the Gospels to which he refers as being authoritativethe writings of the Apostles and their Companions. 1 For an enumeration of these apocryphal writings, see De Wette's Einl. in d. N. Testament, ~ 73 a; also Hofmann's Art. Pseudepigraphen, etc.-in Herzog's Real-Eneye. This last Article, however, refers to the real and supposed-allusions in the ecclesiastical writers to the uncanonical gospels; and the references require much sifting. 201 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. But, apart fiom this, in the multitude of Justin's allusions to the life and teachings of Christ, there are only six which cannot be at once traced to the Gospels of the canon. Among these there is only one, or at most two, sayings of Christ. Both of these are found, also, in Clement of Alexandria, who regards the four Gospels alone as authoritative. The other four cases of deviation from our Gospels in Justin, are of trivial consequence-slight details added to the canonical narrative. With these unimportant exceptions, the whole representation of the history of Jesus in this Father, coincides with that of the accepted evangelists.1 Now Justin lived through the half century that followed the death of John. Hie had travelled extensively. He was held in honor bv his contemr poraries and successors. He gives proof, therefore, that the prevailing conception of the life and teachings of Christ in his time, was identical with that of the canonical historians, and was derived from them. There was only one tradition in the Church from the beginning. We subjoin brief remarks on the probable mode in which the earliest records of the life of Jesus originated. Jesus himself wrote nothing. He acted with quickening and renovating power upon the world's life. But for Him to become anll author would 1 Semisch, Denkw.irdigkeiten des Justin, s. 344. The statement of Semisch we have verified by a carefill and repeated perusal of Justin's writing. 202 I I ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS. violate a subtle feeling of propriety of which all of us are sensible. At first, the fresh recollections of the men and women who had known him, especially of the disciples who had composed, as it were; his family, were the unwritten book which all, who desired, could consult. But in that age, and when the gospel soon found numerous adherents among Greeks, both foreign Jews and heathen, it was impossible that the teachings of Christ and the events of his life should long remain unrecorded. At the outset, it is probable that isolated memoranda were made of particular events or discourses. These rudimental records first came into being in Galilee and about Capernaum. In this way, a cluster of traditions would easily come to exist. Then, and before long, followed the combination of them, and the earliest efforts at framing a connected history. Such were the essays which Luke notices in his prologue. At length, within thirty or forty years of the death of Christ, there were efforts at more regular composition, of which the works of Luke are the maturest specimen. The first three Gospels present indubitable traces of such an origin as we have indicated. We are not to look for chronological precision in narratives thus constructed. We are not to look for light on all parts and points of the Saviour's earthly life. The Gospel of John, an original composition, enianating, from the mind and heart of the loved disciple, is the document to be first consulted in the 203 204 ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. scientec construction of the Saviour's history. The four together enable us to gain a knowledge of Jesus, not so full as we crave, yet sufficient for every practi. cal need. ESSAY IV. BAUR ON PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CItURCII AND THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK OF ACTS.' THE great question which the Church in the apostolic age was required to consider and determine, was the relation of Christianity to the ritual law of the Old Testament. Was that law still binding? Or rather-for in this form, as was natural, the question first came up-was that law binding on the Gentile believers? In short, could a man be a Christian without first becoming a Jew? It cannot be denied that the full extent of the commotion which this question stirred up, is better understood in the light of recent discussions than was the case formerly. Discounting very much, as we shall, from the extravagant representation of the Tiibingen critical school, we still feel that the sound of this great conflict reverberates through no inconsiderable portion of the New Testament Scriptures. The Epistle to the Galatians is a 1 Das Christenthurn u. die Christlice Jirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, von Dr. Ferdinand Christian Baur. Titbingen, 1853. (Author's last Ed., 1860.) I)ie Comnposition U. Entstehung der J2ostelgeschichte, von Eduard Lekebusch. Gotha, 1854. 1. 206 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. fervid argument on this one theme. The Epistle to the Romans, though not devoted-the opinion of Baur to the contrary notwithstanding-to this distinctive subject, gives to the matter of the relation of the Jew to the Gentile, a prominent place. The two Epistles to the Corinthians bear witness to the dissension which the samue question had provoked. The Epistle to the Hebrews is an argument designed to reconcile the Jewish believer to the abrogation of the old ordinances, and to keep him from lapsing, out of love to them, from the faith in Christ. The book of Acts, and most of the other monuments of the apostolic age, contain more or less of allusion to the grand question we have described. For it was a grand question. It was not simply the question-which of itself to a Jew could not fail to have the deepest interest-of the transitory or perpetual validity of the Mosaic laws and institutions. But it was, also, the question whether Christianity was, in its real nature, a spiritual, and so a universal, religion, or only an improved sect or phase of Judaism. In this transitional era, when the kingdom of God was breaking through and casting off its rudimental and provisional form, and assuming the permanent features of a religion of the spirit and a religion for mankind-in that crisis of history, it was inevitable that such commotion and controversy should arise. It was one illustration of the truth that the Son of Man did not come to bring peace, but a sword. As new chemical BAUR'S THEORY. changes and combinations are attended with heat and combustion, so is it with every such revolution and new beginning in the course of history. And we may add that even to the present day, the Protestant definitions of the essential nature of the gospel and of the method of salvation, are sought especially in those fervent declarations against bondage to rites and ceremonies, and in favor of the sufficiency of Christ, which were elicited from the Apostle Paul in the progress of this momentous controversy. The history of this controversy, -and of the question and parties involved in it, has lately acquired a new importance, from the place which it is made to fill in the historical theory of Baur and his school. Strauss, in his Life of Christ, had said little of the book of Acts, and that little of not much weight. This book remained a bulwark of faith for any who were disturbed by the skeptical criticism to which the evangelical histories had been subjected. Here, at least, was the testimony of a contemporary of the apostles, and a companion of one of them, which established the fact of a miraculous dispensation, and afforded proof of the prior miracles of the gospel. But things could not be left by the Tiibingen critics in this unsatisfactory state. The book of Acts was next made the object of attack; and, what we have now specially to observe, this attack was a part of a systematic theory, by which the origin of catholic Christianity, or of Christianity in the form we have it, and of the larger 207 208 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH part of the canonical writings of the New Testament, is explained in a naturalistic way, through a peculiar view of the character of the conflict to which we have adverted, and of the consequences to which it led. This attempted reconstruction of the history of the apostolic age, on account of the extraordinary learning and ability with which it has been defended, especially by Baur; on account, also, of the light which it incidentally throws on the condition of the apostolic church; and, above all, on account of that increased confidence in the strength of the Christian cause which the failure of this assault upon it is fitted to inspire, deserves a fair examination. Before engaging in this task, it may be well to say a word in answer to an inquiry that is likely to occur to the mind of a reader not conversant with the early history of the Church. How, it may naturally be asked, can such a theory as that of the modern Tibingen school, denying as it does the accepted views respecting the origin of most of the canonical books of the New Testament, have even a show of plausibility? How can it keep the field for a moment in the face of the testimony of the early Church? Such theories are possible, we reply, for the reason that so scanty and fragmentary remains of literature have come down to us from the period immediately following the apostolic age. After the death of the leading apostles and the destruction of Jerusalem, there succeeds an interval which may be properly styled a saeculm I BAUR'S THEORY. obscmrum. We have the writings of John which appeared in the latter part of the first century. Then we have the apostolic Fathers. But thesq writings are not of a nature to satisfy many of the most important inquiries in regard to the state of the Church. The early Greek Apologists, if we possessed them intact, would be invaluable; but the first copious works emanating from this class of writers are the treatises of Justin Martyr, whose earliest extant production falls into the second quarter of the second century. Precious, from a historical point of view, as these works of Justin are, they consist of Apologies to the Pagan and to the Jew, and leave unnoticed many points on which light might have been thrown, had their author been writing, for example, on some subject of doctrinal theology. In brief, so far as this very interesting era is concerned, we have peculiar occasion to lament-to borrow the language of Grote when speaking of Greek literature in general-that "we possess only what has drifted ashore from the wreck of a stranded vessel." 1 We do not mean that the internal evidence of the New Testament documents, the numerous items of proof gathered from relics of the literature of the next period, and the testimony of the great writers of the second half of the second century, are insufficient. They do constitute a body of evidence which effectually refutes the main positions of the Tiibingen school. Grote's Preface to the History of Greece. 14 209 210 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. But for the reasons we have stated, there is room for the essays of conjectural criticism. A picture of the state of things in the early Church may be drawn, a theory ingeniously framed, whose inconsistency with the truth is not, at the first blush, so patent as to preclude the need of a careful refutation. Not until such a theory is thoroughly probed and compared with the multiform evidence pertaining to the subject, is it clearly seen to be untenable. The following are the essential points in Baur's theory.' The doctrine of Christ was, in principle, an abolishment of the Old Testament ritual and of the distinction, as to religious rights and privileges, between the Jew and the Gentile. But the original disciples did not advance to the conclusion which lay impliedly in the religious ideas of the Master. On the contrary, they persisted to the end in the traditional persuasion that the way of salvation was through Judaism; that the Gentile must enter the Church by that door, and that the uncircumcised had no part in the Messiah's kingdom. The Apostle Paul alone was 1 We have drawn our representations of the Tuabingen views chiefly from the work of Baur, the title of which is given at the beginning of this Essay. This work is the final, condensed presentation of his theory relative to the origin and early history of Christianity. The work of Lekebusch (the title of which is also given above) is the ablest refutation, with which we are acquainted, of Baur's theory in its bearing on the Acts of the Apostles. In this branch of the discussion, especially, we have frequently availed ourselves of his sug gestions. 'BAUR7S THEORY. so enlightened as to perceive that the old rites were abrogated by the nature of the new religion, and that the Gentile stood on an equality with the Jew, faith being the sole requirement. Nay, he held that cir cumcision and the ritual were no longer admissible, since they implied some other object of reliance than Christ, some other condition of salvation besides faith. IIonce, there was a radical difference in doctrine between Peter and the Jerusalem Christians on the one hand, and Paul and his followers on the other, which led to a personal disagreement and estrangement between these two apostolic leaders. There grew up two antagonistic types of Christianity, two divisions of the Church, separate and unfriendly to each other. Such was the state of things at the end of the apostolic age. Then followed attempts to reconcile the difference and to bridge the gulf that separated Gentile from Jewish, Pauline from Petrine Christianity. To this end, various irenical and compromising books were written in the name of the apostles and their helpers. The only Epistles of Paul which are counted as genuine are that to the Romans, that to the Galatians, and the two Epistles to the Corinthians. But the most important monument of this pacifying effort is the book of Acts, written in the earlier part of the second century by a Pauline Christian who, by making Paul something of a Judaizer and then representing Peter as ag,reeing with him in the recognition of the rights of the Gentiles, hoped, not in vain, to produce a mutual 211 212 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. friendliness between the respective partisans of the rival apostles. The Acts is a fiction founded on facts, and written for a specific doctrinal purpose. The narrative of the council or conference of the apostles, for example (Acts xv.), is pronounced a pure invention of the writer, and such a representation of the condition of things as is inconsistent with Paul's own statements, and, for this and other reasons, plainly false. The same ground is taken in respect to the conversion of Cornelius and the vision of Peter attending it. Before we directly examine these views, let us observe the main facts in the history of the reception of the Gentiles into the Church, assuming, for the present, that the documents are trustworthy. We shall show hereafter, especially in regard to the Acts, that the impeachment of their genuineness and credibility cannot be sustained. Without doubt, Christ himself observed, during his life, the ceremonial law.' Until that law should be supplanted by his finished work-by the act of God who gave it-he considered it obligatory. As a faithful servant, he came under the law. He rejected, indeed, the traditions of the elders, the ascetic, superstitious practices which the Pharisees had appended to the Old Testament legislation. So he signified the 1 On the position of Christ in reference to the law, we have little difference with Baur. Baur's observations on this topic are marked BAUR S THEORY. authority that belonged to him to modify the law by fulfilling it, or carrying it forward to a form answering fully to the idea underlying it-as when he declared himself the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark ii. 28).1 It is true, however, that complying with the ritual him self, he also bade others comply with it, even with its minute provisions. At the same time, both by impli cation and explicitly, he authorized the conclusion that in the new era which he was introducing, the ceremonies of the law would have no longer any place, nor would they be required. They belonged to another, a rudimental, preparatory system, that was passing away. The barrier between Jew and Gentile was about to fall down. The sublime declaration of Jesus at the well of Sychem respecting the nature of acceptable worship and the abolishment of all restrictions of place, as well as many other passages hardly less significant, will readily occur to the reader. We will accommodate ourselves to the predilection of the Tuibingen critics for the Gospel of Matthew, and draw some illustrations from that source. First, the spiritual character of the doctrines and precepts of Jesus is a most impressive characteristic. Righteousness and piety, as described in the Sermon on the Mount, belong to the tempers of the heart. The inwardness of true religion was never so thoroughly and sublimely laid down as in this teach by his usual perspicuity and force. See Dcas Citristenthitm, etc., a 25 seq. 1 So De Wette and Meyer. 213 i 214 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. ing. For him who thus taught, what value could forms, in themselves considered, possess? The love of God and man is the sum and substance of duty; to be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect, the sole aspiration. Secondly, in his direct opposition to the Pharisees, the real character of the principles of Christ comes out. It is formalism-a trust in forms-which calls forth his reprobation. "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth." "Those things which proceed out of the mouth coyyze forth from the heart; and they defile the man" "But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." (Matt. xv. 11, 18, 20). What a simple and luminous exposition of the nature of good and evil! How clear that in the eyes of Jesus, forms had no inherent value, no abiding existence! The abrogation of the former system he affirmed and explained by saying that new wine must not be put in old bottles, or new cloth patched into an old garment. How could he more pointedly affirm that he was establishing a system so far different from the old, that the features of the two could not be blended.? To cling to the old ritual, as something essential, would have the effect to destroy the fundamental peculiarity of the new system. Attempt it not, "lest the bottles should break and the wine be spilled" (Matt. ix. 17 paral.). This, be it remembered, was in reply to the question, why his disciples abstained from fasting. Thirdly, Christ forewarned his Jewish hearers that the BAUR'S TIIEORY. Gentiles would even take their place in gainilig posses sion of the blessing,s of the new kingdom. In connection with the centurion's exhibition of faithl in the power of Jesus to hecal his al)sent servant, hec said that many would come froin the east aid wvest,, niiiay Gentiles, and sit down with the Patriarchs in the kiiigdoli of Heaven, whilst the chlildren of the kingdom-tlhe natural expectants of the inlheritance-would be cast out (MIatt. viii. 11, 1 2). In the parable of tlle vineyard and thle rebellious liusbandmiien, who stand for the Jews, their crime ill slaying the messengers of the owner, and finally hi son and lheir, leads to their destruction and to the lettinlg out of " the viiilyard unto other husbandiilli." Thle Jews, rejectilg the Messiah, are to be supplanted by the Gentiles. In keeping with such teaching are the predictions utteredl by Christ concerning the destrucetion of Jcrtisaleiii aii(1 the downfall of the temple. LookiiL,f,1wn ill)on tlhe city, he said: "Behold your llouise is left lnto you desolate! " But the discip)les were comniaided to carry the g,ospel to the Gentiles-to discip)le the nations. That the Gentiles were to be emb)raced in the Messianic kingdom was a familiar part of prophecy. As to how the kingdom was to be extended over them, was a point in regard to which the prevalent aiticipations were colored by the mista'cn ideas and unspi)ritl('d ambition of the people. But the incorporation of the Gentiles, in some way, into the MAessiali's kingdom, all the Jews expected. Clirist colnimanded that the same 215 216 PARTIES IN TIlE APOSTOLIC CHIURCII. gospel wlich thec disciples had received themselvcs should bec offered to their acceptance-addig, the direction that the believer sloul(l be baptized, and the promise that he should be saved. All other points he left to be settled in the light of providential events and under the subsequent teaching of the Holy Spirit. In accordance with that reserve which adapted the disclosure of truth to the recipiency of the learner, Christ went no fartlier than to throw out the great principles, the commland and the intimations which have been adverted to, not deflining precisely either what course the heathen were to take with reference to the Mosaic ritual, or what was to become of ceremonial Judaism. These things the apostles were left to learn, in the prosecution of their work, by the outward inistruction of providential events and the inward illumination by the Spirit. This reserve on the part of Christ is a characteristic and impressive example of the divine mctllod of teaching. Instead of tearing lup the old Istitutionls-sweepillng them away by a peremptory c(lict, before the mind was prepared for the change l)y perceiving that they had become superfluous, he left the Church to be first educated up to the requisite point. The dropping of the old forms was to result, as a log,ical and necessary consequence, from the expan. sive force of the ll ewv system. The logic of eventsthe full comprelieision of the gospel-the distinct understanding of the offices of Christ-wold undermine and supplant the ritual law. How much better BAUI S TIIEORY. for tlle revolution to take place tlins, tlhan to )ce )prc(ci)i tated T)y an abrupt decree, enforced as a law fio,i without upon mindis lwhich had gainied no insight ilto the ground and reason for a seeiniigc repeal of divinely given statutes! Let us now proceed to note the mianner in wNlic the great lesson was learned. The apostles, an(d tle infant church at Jerusalem under their guidalcc, continue to observe the ceremionies of the law as ot old. They have no tlloughlt of dispensing, with circumcision and the other requirements of the ritual. They are Jews, believing in the MIessiahl. Tllhe first murmur of difference in that youn-g cotnininiiity, of which the opening part of Acts 1)resents dcligllitftl a picture, is the complaint of thle I-lellenists —thle foreign, Greek-speaking Jcws —tlat their poor are neglected in the distributioIl of alms. This little incident, apart fiom its imitediate coins(qclleice, is significant as bring,ing before us tlle two classes of Jews, which, tlhoughl closely and( cordially united l)y a common descent and common creed, are yet in soilie respects dissimilar, as subsequent events prove. Of the deacons chosen, one is said to have been a proselyte of ri,litcousncss; tlhat is, a iheatlhen adlIittCd(l by circumcision to a full participation in thlle I)rivilc,cgs of the Jew. Tllc p(rscctttioi attell(ling, the i1iitty(lolin of Stephen1 disperses tlc Cliurcli and l e(Ids to tl ' Stephen was a Ilellenist. Ile w.as clrged ly " fls' witnessces" with blaspheming the temiple and the law, anid with saying tlhat .01 1 7 218 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. first effective preaching of the word beyond Jerusalem. The vision of Peter, and the baptism of Cornelius, are the earliest recognition of Gentile Cliristianity. Whether Cornelius was, or was not, a proselyte of the gate, cannot be determined, nor is the question very material. The previous feeling of Peter and the Jerusalem Christians, as to the qualifications for admission to the Christian Church, is seen in his remark on the occasion of his interview with Cornelius: "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation." 2 Moreover, on his return to Jerusalem, "they that were of the circuincision"-the Jewish Christians-call him to account for having eaten with Gentiles (Acts xi. 2, 3). His defence is a recapitulation of the circumstances of his vision and a statement of the fact that the gifts of Jesus of Nazareth would " destroy this place," and "change the customs" delivered by Moses (Acts vi, 13, 14). The witnesses were "false," since doubtless they maliciously perverted what Stephen had said. Yet it is evident from the tone of his speechsee especially Acts vii. 47-50, and the denunciation he was uttering when he was interrupted-that the charge was not a pure invention, but was built up on what Stephen had said. See Neander's Gesch. d. Pflanz. u. Leitung. u.s. w. 2 Abstinence to this extent from intercourse with the heathen was not enjoined in the Pentateuch. But Peter's remark represents the feeling and usual practice of the later Jews. The prose lyte of the gate was uncircumcised, so that there was a like repugnance to intercourse with him-at least to sitting at the table with litr. I BAUR'S THEORY. the Spirit had been exhibited by the new converts. "Forasmuch," he says, " then, as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I could withstand God?" This explanation for the time appeases the discontent. B3ut the principal event is the establishment of a. Gentile church, or a church made up partly of con verted and baptized heathen, at Antioch. We read that those who were scattered abroad by the persecu tion following the death of Stephen "travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching Iie vorid cnto nonpe but unto Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which when they were come to Antioch spake unto the Grecian,s," not Hellenists but Hellenes, "preaching the Lord Jesus." A great number of the Grecians-uncir cumcised Gentiles-moved by that sense of spiritual necessities which prevailed so extensively among the heathen throughout the Roman world, believed in Christ. Observe it was men of Cyprus and CyreneHellenists-who laid the foundation of this Gentile church. B3arnabas, himself a Jew by birth, but a native of Cyprus, is sent from Jerusalem to visit this risilg church so strangely composed. Seeing the reality of the worlk of grace which had been effected, - he rejoiced in it, and having brought Paul-who was also, by birth a Ilellenist-from Tarsus, whither he had retired, the two labored together for a year, "and taught nmuch people." Paul is now fairly 219 2.20 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. cmbarled upon the grand work of his life. Partly ol account of the peculiarity of his inward experience and partly onl account of the depth and logical force of his mind-not to speak of special enlighteniment from above-he discerned most clearly that faith, and faith alone, is the condition of salvation; that to make the soul depend for pardon upon legal observ-ances along with faith, is to set the ground of salvation, partially at least, outside of Christ, and to found the Christian hope upon self-righteousness instead of his merits. He went straight to the unavoidable inference that the ritual system is not to be observed as a means of salvation, and is in no sense obligatory upon the Gentiles. Thus Paul stands forth, in this part of the apostolic age, the glorious champ)ion of the freedom and universality of the gospel. It is a religion for the world —not for the Jew alone, but for the Gentile equally. The wall that div ided the two classes of mankind, " the hand-writing of ordinances" being now blotted out, has been levelled to the ground. The missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas greatly enlarged the number of heathen converts; for when they had first preached to the Jews in the places they visited, they then turned to the Gentiles. After their return they continued their labors at Antioch, now the parentof churches among the heathen, and the second metropolis, as it were, of Christianity. But the church of Antioch is disturbed by certain men which 1 4 BAUR'S THEORY. came down from Judea-judaizers-who declared the necessity of circumcision for salvation. As the result of the "no small dissension and disputation with them," it is determined to send Paul ai-id Barnabas at the head of a deputation to Jerusalciii to confer with the apostles and elders upon thii question. Of this visit, besides the narrative in tlih Acts, we have the advantage of an invaluable notice firom the pen of Paul himself (Gal. ii.). Waiving for the present the consideration of this last passage, eve see from the account of Luke, that when the mes sengers from Antioch had been received by their brethren at Jerusalem, "'certain of tAle sect of the PAlriiees wAiiclt believed" brought forward their demand, that the Gentile converts should be circum cised and required to observe the Mosaic law. It is interesting to notice that the zealous judaizers were converted Phlarisees. After much disputing, Peter and James interpose; the former referring to the events connected with the baptism of Cornelius, and both rejecting the proposition of the judaizers. Their judgment and that of the church was, that certain statutes wlhich the Jew deemed most essential, should tec complied with by the heathen converts. They were to abstain "from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." The fact of the reading of the law of AIoses in the syniagotgues of every city on the Sabbath, is set t(rth as a reason for the propriety of this re 221 222 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. qlliireflCent. 1 Thus, so far as the ilifluence of the apostleCs went, this great question was put to rest, 1 The precise significance of this reason has been a mooted point anmong commrnentators. Of the various interpretations which have been suggested, it appears to us that the choice lies between two. Some would paraphrase the passage thus: "as to the Jews, they need no prescription, since tIey will of course follow the law which is read on the Sabbath." This was the interpretation of Chlrysostom, and is adopted by Neander. Others, including Meyer and Lekebusch, make the passa.-ge a statement of the reason why the Gentiles were to conform in these particulars to the Jewish law; the reason, namely, that the reading of the law in the synagogues every Sabbath, rendered it more offensive to the Jews to see that law, in these conspicuous points, disregarded. This appears to us to be the true sense of the passage. Gieseler, and also Baur, would make the passage signify by implication, that "the Jewish law had proved itself ineffectual for the conversion of the Gentiles, whilst the opposite result in connection with the preaching of Paul and his associates, had shown the ceremonial law to be the only hindrance to the spread of the true religion." Ewald suggests that the reason was advanced to pacify the fear of those who thought that the Mosaic law would fall into disutse if this indulgence were extended to the Gentile converts. Bthl these interpretations seem to us much less natural than the one we have approved. The view we adopt is supported by the authority of Professor IIackett in his scholarly work on the Acts. As to the decision itself, it consists of four particulars. The heathen converts were to abstain from the flesh of animals slain as a sacrifice to idols, from using the blood of animals for food, fro,,i fornication, and from eating animals who had been strangled or plt to death by any other mode than by shedding their blood. The first of these wvas in compliance with Ex. xxxiv. 15. The second and( the fourth were Levitical statutes, and founded on the sacredness if blood. The third, a lmoral prohibition, was joined with these aZdieplora, because in the progress of heathen corruption it had come to be regarded as almost an adiaphoron-a thing morally BAUR'S THEORY. and on grounds satisfactory to Paul and his coadjutors. But the judaizing party was far from resting satisfied under this most Christian arrangement. As all know, they pursued the Apostle Paul wherever hlie went, sowing division in the churches he planted and striving to destroy the esteem in which he was held by his converts. They seem to have sometimes made use of the name of Peter, and to have pretended to be his followers, and we find a self-styled party of Peter among the opponents of Paul in the Corinthian church. After the conference at Jerusalem, there are two occurrences that deserve special notice. The one is the controversy of Paul and Peter, or, rather, the rebuke of Peter by Paul at Antioch. Peter had associated freely with the Gentile converts-had eaten with them. But on the arrival of certain judaizing Christians from Jerusalem, he changed his course out of a timnid regard to their prejudice, and withdrew from the Gentile believers. Even Barnabas was led to follow his example. Paul publicly "withstood" Peter, saying: "If thou then, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles (g x), why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews (iov~aiA,tr)?" We shall hereafter consider this controversy more at length. IHere we merely call indifferent. See on this point, Winer's Realworterb., Art. Hure, and Meyer on Acts xv. 20. 223 II 224 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCII. attention to the ground of Paul's complaint, which was a dereliction from his own principles, or hypocritical conduct, on the part of Peter. The charge waas that "he walked not uprightly." It was not an error of opinion, but a moral error, which Paul censured. The other occurrence requiring special notice, is the last visit of Paul to Jerusalem. The narrative of Luke gives us a clear view of the state of things in the church there. Paul and his associates were cordially received. But when he had recounted to the apostles the fruits of his ministry among the Gentiles, and they had welcomed the intelligence, James informs him of a prejudice against him in the minds of many, owing to a report which had gained credence. He had been charged, doubtless by Jews and Judaizers from Asia and the west, with having urged the foreign, Greek-speaking Jews-the I-lellenists-to forsake the Miosaic law and abstain from circumcising their children. This accusation was false. The Jewish-Christian members of the Gentile churches were, not unlikely, as Ewald conjectures, falling away from the observance of the ritual. And this might have given occasion to the charge against Paul. But there is not a particle of evidence tending to show that he ever sought to dissuade Jews from complying with the ritual. He rejected the doctrine that the ob)servance of the law is essential to salvation. iHe rejectecd the doctrine that the observance of it was I POSITION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. obligatory upon Gentile converts; and the adoption by tlhemi of the Jewish ritual under the idea that salvation was contingent upon observing it, he rega.rded as a fatal error-as a dishonor to the sufficiency of Christ, and a method of self-righteousness. But his opposition to tlthe law extended no farther. Oni the contrary, as he himself said, to the Jews he made himself a Jew. He respected their national feelings and customs. Hence he found no difficulty ill taking upon him the vow which James recommended, as a visible proof that the charges against him were false, and that he was no renegade from the religion of his fathers.' But this act did not save him from the fanatical hatred of the Jews from Asiathe unbelieving Jews who had so often stirred up tumults against him in the towns where he had preached. However he may have pacified the believiyzg Jews by showing respect for the national customs, he did not secure himself from the violence of the Asian Jews who were present in the city in large numbers, and in addition to their old enmity were exasperated by the erroneous impression that Paul had taken Trophimus, an Ephesian Gentile whom they had seen with him, into the temple. Hence the mlob, which had for its final consequence the journey of the apostle to Rome. From this survey we are brought to the conlclusion The fecling of James respecting the propriety of observing thle laLw is I)lainly discov%ered in Acts xxi. 24. I 225 115 2,26 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. thlat while it is true that the Apostle Paul understood the relations of the new and the old dispensation with peculiar clearness, and vindicated the liberty of the Gentiles with a singular depth of conviction and an unvarying consistency, it is nevertheless true, also, that Peter and thlle orig,inal apostles, and the church of Jerusalem, as far as its public action is concerned, w-ere in cordial felloiwship with Paul and willingly tolerated the Gentile branch of the church, not imposing ulpon it the yokle of the law, with the exception of the few prudential reg,ulations recoimmended by the apostolic convention. Batr and his followers maintain an opposite opinion. There existed, they hold, a radical opposition in princil)le between these two branches of the churchl, whichl involved a miutual antagonisll on the part of their apostolic leaders. The proof of this positioni Baur professes to find chiefly in certain expressions of the Apostle Paul in his Epistles, which are alleged to be inconsistent with many of the representations found in the Acts. Fromi the two Epistles to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians, Baur draws miost of the arguments on whlich he relies to establish his position. There was in the Corinthian church, we are told, a party which denied that Paul had a right to consider himself an apostle, and sought to supplant him by setting up the superior authority of Peter and the rest of the original disciples of Christ. This party was stirred BAUR'S THEORY. up by Jewish Christians who brought the letters of recommendation from Jerusalem, to which Paul sarcastically alludes.' In the Epistle to the Galatians, it is said, the radical diversity of principles between the two types of Christianity, already developed in the Epistles to the Corinthians, is attended with the record of a personal alienation between Peter and Paul, which, so far as we know, was never healed. In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul is supposed to write in a milder and more conciliatory spirit; announcing his intention to carry the contribution of money to Jerusalem, and in other ways manifesting a disposition to overcome the hostility which, it is pretended, existed against him and' his doctrine on the side of the mother-church. Especially does Baur dwell upon the account in the Acts of the circumcision of Timothy, asserting that such an act would be absolutely incompatible with the doctrine laid down by Paul (Gal. v. 2): "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you niothing." Other instances of conformity to the Jewish law, which are attributed to Paul in the Acts, he pronounces to be equally ufnhistorical. The entire representation given there of the personal relations of Paul to Peter and his associates, Baur affirms to be contrary to the intimnationls and assertions of Paul, and to be contradicted, in particular, by Paul's narrative of his 1 Such letters might be taken, probably, by any Christiau who was rectus in ecclesia, in case he wished to travel. 227 228 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. conference with the apostles, in the second chapter of Galatiains. We believe that these propositions of the Tu-bingen critics are not sustained by the evidence to which they appeal, but are flatly contradicted by it, and that their positions are contrary to the truth. What evidence is there, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, of such a division and hostility as Baur affirms to have existed? There was a faction which claimed to be the disciples of Peter. But what proof is there that he gave them any countenance? There was also, among the opponents of Paul, a party claiming to follow Apollos-himself a disciple of the Pauline doctrine. Who pretends that Apollos encoLuraged such a movement? To our mind, all the language of Paul in reference to the other apostles which is found in these Epistles, proves the opposite of Baur's proposition. The apostles are spoken of as one body of fellow-laborers. In vindicating his authority against the aspersions cast upon him, Paul asserts, to be sure, that "he is not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" (2 Cor. xi. 5). But he does not say or insinuate that "the chiefest apostles" are no apostles, or that they are perverters of the truth. The opposite of this is everywhere implied. He says: "God has set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death;" and in the record of hardship that follows, he associates with himself his fellowapostlecs. Witniess also his appeal to the testimony I BAUR7S THEORY. of the other apostles-of Peter, James, and the rest in proof of the Resurrection of Christ, and the coupling of their testimony with the reference to the appearance of Christ to himself: "For I am tle lea8s oCf fIe apostles and not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God." He compares himself with the other apostles and takes the lowest place among them! But a more striking refutation of Baur's view is contained in the remarks of Paul upon the contribution he was collecting for the poor brethren at Jerusalem. In the First Epistle he exhorts the Corinthians to aid in making up this contribution for the saints "-saint8 it appears they were, notwithstanding their supposed heresy and hostility! And in the Second Epistle he speaks of the matter more at length. He had long been engaged in this charitable service (ix. 2). He says that the conveyance, by his instrumentality, of this contribution, will not only relieve "the wants of the saints," but will call forth at Jerusalem " thanksgiving unto God;" that the church at Jerusalem will find occasion to glorify God for the faithfulness of the Corinthians in thus practically carrying out their Christian profession, and for the genuineness of their Christian fellowship (xotvo),/ice) manifested in this liberality. He adds that the saints at Jerusalem with prayer " will long after you" on accoiunt of the abounding grace of God vouchsafed to you. A deep, yearning, prayerful interest will be excited tow,ards 229 230 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. the Corinthian Christians in the hearts of theii brethren at Jerusalem. Who can believe that this contribution is going to a church which is considered by Paul to be made up of Judaizers-professors of what he calls another gospel? If the Corinthians had understood Paul's letter to them as Baur does, what must have been their surprise at these incon. gruous exhortations and expressions of fraternal regard for the Jerusalem believers! Turn we now to the Epistle to the. Romans, written not long, after. There we find the apostle pouring out his love and compassion for his kinsmen according to the fleshexplaining that the apparent rejection of them by Divinie Providence is temporary. Of the contribution he says: "Now I go unto Jerusalem to Ininister unto the saints. For it bath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily, and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things " for Jerusalem was the mother-church whence Christianity with all its blessings flowed out to the Gentiles -" their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things" (Rom. xv. 25 seq.).' Here the Apostle Paul honors the Jerusalem church as the fountain whence the Gentiles have derived their Christianity. Are these expressions compatible with the notion that this 1 Principally on account of its alleged complaisance towards the Jewish Christians, the xvth chapter (as well as the xvitli) of this I BAUR S THEORY. church had no fellowship with the uncircumcised converts of Christianity, and that its leaders were hostile to Pauld, and in turn considered by him to be involved in fundamental error? The assertion or insiiituation by Baur, that there was any essential change in Paul's feeling between the writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, and that to the Romians, is without foundation. During the iwhole period in which the composition of the firstnamed Epistles occurred, Paul was interested in the business of gathering the contribution which he afterw ards carried to Jerusalem. But the main reliance of Baur is on Pautl's narrativ-e, in the second chapter of Galatians, of his conference with the apostles and his subsequent conflict with Peter at Antioch. But an examination of this interesting passage, instead of confirming Baur's theory, will, as we think, demonstrate its falsity. Be it remembered that Paul is writing to a church which the Judaizers had tried to turn away both from his Epistle is declared by Baur-iwithout the shadow of external proof and contrary to the internal evidence of both style and thought-to be an interpolation. His argument is a mere petitio priacipii. The arbitrary attempt to'cast these inconvenient passages out of the Epistle,'is well answered by Meyer in his Commentary on the Romans (K. xv.). Bleek, a cautious and unprejudiced critic, says, in reference to the denial by Baur and Schwegler of the genuineness of the last two chapters of the Epistle: " The grounds for this denial are wholly false and untenable, and the genuineness of these chaptelrs, as well as the fact of their belonging to our Epistle, is to be regarded as certain." Cial. ii, d. N. T., s. 416. 231 232 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. doctrine and from their esteem and respect for his person and apostolic authority. He is placed under the necessity of explaining his relations to the other apostles; and this he does by showing, on the one hand, his own independence and equality with them, and, on the other, the full recognition and fellowship which they had accorded to him. He is speaking of the same visit which Luke describes in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts. Fourteen years after his first visit to Jerusalem, when he had spent a fortnight with Peter (i. 18), he went there in company with Barnabas and Titus. He conmmunicated "privately to them which were of reputation" (TOI SozoXO6t), the gospel which he was in the habit of preaching.1 His motive in taking this course is set forth in the following words: "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." That is to say, he explained his method of preaching in order that hlie might be rightly judged and appreciated by his fellow-apostles. We shall see, as we proceed, whether or not he was successful Before stating the result of his conference, he describes the ineffectual attempt of "false brethren unawares brought in" to procure the circumcision of Titus, and his own prompt and effectual resistance 1 This account by Paul, and the narrative in the xvth of Acts, supplement each other. The latter relates to the public transaction, including the decision which was reached; the former, as above stated, refers to a conference of a more private nature. But the phraseology in Gal. ii. 2 imprlies that there was a vitblic conference also. See Ellicott and A[eycr un the passage. I BAUR'S THEORY. to their endeavor. The "false brethren " are judaiz ing reactionists having no right in the Christian brotherhood, but having crept in, as it werei-ltrud ed where they do not belong. They made it their business "to spy out the liberty" of the Gentile converts; that is, they watched with an inimical intent, designing to bring these converts to accept the yoke of the Mosaic law. Here the difference between such false brethren and the apostles is palpable. Would Paul have undertakenl to explain his gospel to these " false brethren," lest he should run in vain? Rather would he, as be did, sternly resist them. But the refusal of Paul to circumcise Titus is used as an argument to disprove the historical truth of the circumicision of Timothy. It is said that Paul would not have done at one time what he absolutely refused to do at another. But why did he refuse to,circumcise Titus? First, because he was a heathen by birth, and secondly, because his circumcision was demanded on doctrinal grounds, so that to yield would have been to give up at once the rights of the Gentiles and justification by faith. But Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother, and he was circumcised for a totally different reason from that for which the circumcision of Titus was demanded. Timothy was circumcised out of respect to unconverted Jews, not converted Jud(aizers. His circumcision neither imperilled the rights of the Gentiles, nor clashed with the doctrine of Justification. In this act, Paul simply made him. 233 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. self "a Jew unto the Jew," on his maxim of making himself all things to all imen —so far as no principle was violated.' There is, then, no inconsistency such as is charged by the Tuibingen critics. The circumcision of Timothy as truly accords with the principles of Paul, as the circumcision of Titus would have contradicted them. Having mentioned the circumstances concerning Titus, Paul now returns to his conference with the apostles: "But of those "-from those"who seemed to be somewhat,"-that is, were regarded with most respect-here Paul breaks off the sentence by throwing in this parenthetical remark: "whatsoever they were, it iuaketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person;" and then he adds: "for they who seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing to me." The mnode of characterizing the apostles as "those who seem to be somewhat," is misinterpreted when it is supposed to contain a tinge of irony. Nothing of that sort belongs to the phraseology. It is the equivalent of the earlier expression-"themn which were of reputation." And as to the parenthetical clause, it must be remembered that Paul's enemiies were endeavoring to disprove his claim to be an apostle, and to represent that the older apostles wvere possessed of superior authority. His purpose is to express, as against this disparagemient, his consciousness of a perfect equality in respect to rights and claims, with the other apostles. And 1 1 Cor. ix:. 20 seq. 234 iI BAUR S THEORY. hl(ving, been led to allude to the high estimation in i-hich they stood, hle adds a cautionary explanation -which would exclude the inference that he considered himself in any degree subordinate to them. "What ever they were-however high may be the standing of men, God is not thereby rendered partial towards them." The last clause in the quotation above, is, lhowevevr, the most important. Paul says of the apostles, that in conference they added nothing o)v'@,ooca1?7e,'Pro-to him. He had shortly before said that on his arrival in Jerusalem he "communica ted"-civt,ct, r is the word-to the apostles the gospel lie had preached. And now he says that tley -oi;0v5,,r o eocex vro-had nothing to add to that gospel by way of correction or supplement. They hlad no fault to find withl it, no new principles to suggest; "bet coitrariwive " they-what? for everything turns on the statement that is to follow-" tMey gave to me aj,d Barniabas tle right hlands of fellowsfil)." Seeing that Paul had been successful in converting the Gentiles as Peter had been successful in converting the Jews, and heeding this instruction of Providence; seeing, moreover, the "grace that was given" to Paul, the other apostles-who seemed to be pillars, or, rather, were esteemed as the leaders and supporters, of the Jerusalem church-Peter, Jamles, and John, gave the hand of fraternity and fellowship, it being understood that in accordance with the plain sugges tions of Providence, Paul and Barnabas should labor 235 I 236 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. in heathen countries, whilst the other apostles should "go unto the circumcision." These statements, instead of supporting, utterly demolish Baur's theory. To say as he does, in effect, that this union was on the outside-was, in fact, a peaceable division and schism in the church, in which those who affirmed the necessity'of circumcision and those who denied it, being unable to walk together, concluded to divide without an open quarrel, is to offer as gross a misinterpretation of a Scriptural passage as can well be conceived. The Apostle Paul expressly says that the other apostles had nothing to add to the principles which governed him in his preaching. He implies, and intends to convey the idea, that Peter, James, and John, were satisfied with the gospel which he preached. The imputation that Paul gave the right hand of fellowship to those who maintained, to use his own language, "another gospel," when neither he nor they felt that they were brethren, holding a common faith and engaged in a common work, is wholly inconsistent with his known character, and would reflect upon him and them the deepest dishonor. That the fellowship was cordially meant is proved in a manner which no audacity of denial can gainsay, by the reasons which Paul assigns for the act,-the perception, namely, that a great work of God had been done among the Gentiles, and that Paul was himself endued with heavenly grace for the work of an apostle. The same thing is rendered still more I PAUL'S REBUKE OF PETER. evident by the circumstance that the Jerusalemi apos tles requested Paul and Barnabas to remember the poor at Jerusalem and collect for them contributions to which request they willingly agreed. Of the zeal with which Paul addressed himself to this work of charity and fellowship, we have abundant evidence. Did Peter, James, and John, seek for the money of heretics and heretical teachers? Did Paul and Barnabas labor to minister to the wants of Judaizers"dogs," as Paul plainly calls them in the Epistle to the Philippians? No! the fellowship of the Jewish' and Gentile teachers was genluine and cordial: and so the underpinning of the whole Tiibingen theory falls away. It would argue, however, not only an ignorance of the subsequent history, but also an ignorance of human nature, to suppose that this friendly and fraternal interview and the decisions of the apostolic convention would avail either to define, in all points, the relation of the two branches of the church, or to suppress permanently the judaizing faction. That 1 It had been a custom of the Jews scattered in foreign lands to send up gifts to the capital, expressing thus their sense of the preeminence of the Judaean church gathered about the centre of their religion. Ewald associates this old custom with the record of the repeaLted contributions sent from the Gentile churches to the nmotherchurch at Jerusalem. These were, to be sure, only voluntary tokens of love. Yet the Jewish Christian would naturally be reminded of the old custom we have mentioned. IlHence the fact of the sending of tLese contributions would be a peculiar sign of respect as well as fellowship. See Ewald's Geschichte, &c., B. VI. s. 438. 237 238 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. this faction was still alive and influential, was shown by the transactions at Antioch which Paul proceeds to explain. Peter had not hesitated to eat with the Gentile converts there; to break over thus the restriction which the Jew placed upon himself, as to inltercourse with the heathen.1 But on the arrival of certain Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, he changed his course and withdrew from them; the other Jewish converts and even Barnabas following his example.2 This conduct of Peter roused the indignation and called forth the plain and earnest rebuke of Paul. In mingling freely with the Gentile Christians, Peter acted in keeping with the liberal views which he had acquired in connection with the conversion of Cornelius and had expressed at the apostolic convention. This convention had not defined what course the Jewish Christians were to takle on the point in question. We cannot say, therefore, that Peter, in case he had abstained fromn eating with the Gentiles, would have violated the terms of that arrangement. It is not remarkable that in the conference at Jerusalem See Luke xv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 11. These Christians from Jerusalem are said (ver. 12) to have come aU,r'IaKW'oov-that is, to have been sent by James. The business on which they were sent, we know not, just as we know not the particular object of Peter's visit. There is no intimation that James had given any sanction to the course which they chose to take with respect to the Gentile believers. To suppose that he had, would be as unwarrantable as to infer, from the course which Peter had first taken, that he had been sent, or had come, expressly to eat with the Gentiles and live as one of them. I PAUL'S REBUKE OF PETER. this particular question was not settled or considered; and although this freedom of intercourse which swept down all the old barriers between Jew and heathen might be a logical deduction from the spirit of that agreement, it is not remarkable that Jewish believers -even those of a liberal turn and in favor of the fellowship concluded upon at the convention-should fail to perceive at once the propriety of such a practice. Peculiar embarrassments, as we shall hereafter more fully point out, lay in the way of such a concession. We must not forget the force of a life-long, hereditary prejudice which is intrenched among religious beliefs. Simple abstinence from this kind of fellowship with the Gentile Christians could not, therefore, be regarded as an absolute breach of the covenant which secured to them their rights and the recognition of their Christian standing. There were still two branches of the church. But the offence which Paul charged upon Peter was threefold. He was guilty of an inconsistency in departing from the course which he had pursued before the arrival of the Jewish Christians; of hypocrisy, since in thus altering his conduct, he acted against his real convictions and from fear; and of the virtual attempt to lead the Gentile converts to judaize, or to make them feel that they ought to be circumcised. Peter was not accused of an error of doctrine, but of an error in conduct. He behaved in a manner inconsistent with his real views, just as Barnabas did, and there is just 239 240 PARTIES I-N THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. as little ground for imputing to Peter a judaizing principle on account of his conduct on this occasion, as there is for imputing the same principle to Barnabas. Peter acted from the same cowardly feeling which had once moved him to deny his Master. If Paul had complained that Peter held a false principle, that he did not understand the rights of the Gentiles, this controversy might be urged in support of Baur's theory. But inasmuch as the censure of Paul presupposes an essential agreement between himself and Peter in their views upon the matter in question, Baur's theory not only gains no foothold, but is effectually overthrown by the record of this conflict. We simply add that Paul's reasoning on this occasion is a most forcible exposition of the principal ground of his unflinching opposition to the laying of the ceremonlial law upon the Gentiles. Such an act would derogate fiom the sufficiency of Christ as a Saviour, and imply that when a man believed on him, he had nQt secured his salvation, but was still in his sins. If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vainll." 1 The continuance of a judaizing party after all these events, and notwithstanding the fellowship between the apostle to the heathen and "the pillars" at Jerusalem, is not to us a cause of wonder. Remember how ingrained was the prejudice that must be removed before the requirement of circumcision I Gal. ii. 16-21. REFUTATION OF BAUIt. could be dispensed vith! AI(Ind hlow inveterate wA(s the obstiiiacy of the pharisaical Jew, wllo liad been so tra'inied as hardly to distinguisli between the moral (nd cerenmonial precept, ill respect citler to sacredness or perpetuity, and who had accel)ted the \lessiili, having no thougolt that the law or any portion of it was to pass away! And the rapid spread of Gentile Christianity, a fact which threatened to reduce ultimately the party of the ritual to a hopeless minority, would naturally rouse them to adhere niiore zealously to their position, and to put forthl fresh efforts to obtain for it a triumph. The objections of 13aur to the narrative of Lutke disappear in the light of the precedinig review. As to Peter, the fellowship he exteinded to Paul (Gal. ii. 9), and his liberality in reference to the Gentile Cliristians at Antiocli-withl the exception of the temporary infidelity to his real convictions-were the proper sequel of his vision in the case of Cornelius. Thelre is nothling, in Peter's course, whlicll throws the least doubt upon the record of that event. We must suppose, indeed, that in the interval of about fifteen years, between the affair of Cornelius and the apostolic convention, the judaizing spirit had grown stronger, rather than weaker, in the Jerusalem church. This was natural. Pharisees (Acts xv. 5) had becoile convinced of the AlessiahlsliI) of Jesus, and had brought into the chlurcl tlicir ze.tl iil bIelltlf of a, strict 10 I-) ZI I I 0 - -i - I 242 " PARTIES IN TIlE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. adherence to the Mosaic ritual. And We have only to ilLagiine the situation of that Church, to perceive the difficulties that beset this whole subject. The Jewish Christians themselves kept up the observance of the old forms. They frequented the temple, like other devout Israelites. That they should give up the ceremonial law had not been claimed or suggested. As patriotic Jews, they could not break away from the national custoIis. But a religious motive bound them to the old observances until these should be repealed, or until they should disceni that the gospel had virtually supplanted them. Luthler's doctrine of justification carried with it logically the abolition of a great part of the existing ritual of the church. But it was only by degrees that the Wittenberg reformers felt the incongruity, and shook themselves clear, so to speak, of forms whose vitality was gone. And yet these forms were of merely human institution. But if the Jewish Christians would observe the law, how could they break over it in their intercourse with the Gentiles? hlow should they adjust their relations to the heathen converts P The state of things, as we gather it from Luke, is just what we should expect to result from this anomalous situation. On the one hand, there is rejoicing in the mother-church at the conversion of the Gentiles. It is seen that they have become recipients of the Spirit. There is a tlhankfu acknowledgment of them as fellow-believers. Yet the question of freely mingling with them —of treating c i I ! -i l I REFUTATION OF BAUR. them in all resp)ects as Jete(is l)retllrcn were treatedwas encumbered witl tlhe (liflicultics we have mientioned. A bigoted but iinflucntial fitcLetion strenuously contended against the lawvfulness of eatino with heathen converts, and soughlt to impose on /lh,i/i circumcision and tlic other p)oints of the l ritld. Tt I, apostles, al(d thlic cliur('hi acting as a I)ody, refi.s(l tlhis last adeiiad, l(l siook halil(ls witih Patil, thle determnined defender of the ri,ghts of thle CGetiles. Peter, cnligliteiiecd by the teaching of the Spirit, could not refuse to cat with his Gentile brethren; yet yiel(led for a titlie at Antioch to the prcssure of judaizing ol)inioll. The afflair of Cornleliuts, if it excited discontent at Jeriisaleii, and had( no pecrllanent effect on the judaizing elemlent wliich rather grew than declined in strelngtl, left a lasting, iimpression on his miind, and led liiiii,it the aipostolic coInvention to take the side of the Gentiles.' It is easy to understand, we obscrvec further, lhow there might be many who had no sympathy withl the Judaizers in their requirement that the heathen convert should be circumcised, but were still unp)reparcd(l for that degree of liberality in intercoursc with their Gentile brethren which Peter had exhibited at ' For good remarks oni the topics tolicld,1pon ill thlle il,,'L.ig'tlk above, see Ewald's Ges. d. V'olkes Ilael, 3. vi. s. 226 4 e2., 4 s t.. We may add that the narrative of the conversion of Corn.lIitis iii tlhc Acts is full of graphic details. Peisons. pl)ees, iid 1 titsice,'ll' exa(tly designated. If it be a fiction, it is aii exatJliile of tlhe "lio circumstantial." P- 4 3 2:1/ PARTIES IN TIl APOSTOLIC CIIURCII. Antioch. AWC have a,oli,g us a numerous and resl)cct,,l)le body of Christianista fricld has suggested tlhe illustration —whlo believe tlhat baptism is an essential prerequisite of communiiion, and that immersion alone is baptism; who, therefore, decline to sit at the Lord's table with those wlionm they cordially love as fellow-Clhristians, and whose labl)ors in spreading the gospcl tlicy look uipon witli hecartfelt symnpathy. The 1.1l)tist (loes inot (ldey tli( naiec of Clhristian brother to tlhose froli wlom lie is ol)li,gcd(l to withhold certain fOiII1s of f(,Ilow.si1ip. So it was, we doubt not, with ln tI)y Jewisli Chlristian-s. 1 As concerns Paul, the narrative of Luke is equally relieved( of difficulties. That Paul,' in Galatians ii., does not mention the _ptblic conference, which Luke describ)es, is easily cxplained. It was no part of his pI)osC to givec a compl)lete history of the proceedings at Jcrttustle~n. The particula(r point to which his mild iwas directed, was his re(lation to tllc otlier apl)os ties. 1(1a tlhi )lll)li( tril.sa('tiou liloiiicd, ii any esseltiail I:lrticlr, the iesult of his private interview withll them, lie mighlt have been called upon to speak of it. Such, however, was not the fact. lie could conscientiously say that nothing was added-ov'o~v -rO6rceviv',rO-to his gospel. The conclusions of the convention, founded as they wvere on a desire to It lardly need be slidl thallt we illl)ly liero no judg,ment as to tlic justice or injustice of tlohe )osition whicli the Bap)tist takes. The illustration is pertinent, whether he be right or wrong. REFUTATION OF BAUR. put no needless ol)strtuction in thle way of tlhe sl)pre(l of thle gosp)el'allongi tle Jew-s, al(1d accolil)allie(tl l)y anl cxpress acknowledgmnent of thle rig,itfiil cxeiiil)tion of the Gentiles from the yoke of tle law, were fitlly consistent withl Paul's position. Itit if P'aul was not called upion to allitde, ill G(al. ii., to the p)ublic i)roceeding on the occasion of his visit to Jelsaleln, tllhe plupose hle lhad iii iew rendce(le it(l iilitl)l)rol)riatc tlhalt lie should do so. I Is iumediate piurpose wias to guard against the impression that lie stood(l, in any sense, in a subordinate positioia with reference to tlhe other apostles. Aln a.llusion to the arraiigciiient of the coinvention li,ligt hlave furnished h1is enguies withl a pretext for tie unfounded cliarge of a de)pendence on his part upon " the pillars" (it Jerutsalen. It is oljectcd to It'kc's narrative of tllc convention, that the decision ivlwicl is sid(l to llav'e l)Cel made there would if(itllil)ly have )eili referred to ly Paul in 1 Cor. viii., whlere the ilattcr of cartitig flesh offered to idols is consi(ler(d(. In aswerI to tlis ol)jection, we remark that the apostle iii this passa,ge does olI)OSe the practice referred to, and on the same (ge/eral groulnd as that assigned in the Jerusalen-i letter; namely, a regardl for those who tllhought,t tle practice wrong (co-mp. Acts xv. 21 and 1 Cor. viii. 9 seq.). I-lis aim was to ilnstil a riglit fccliog ilito thle minds of the Coriilltliians, a(nd to ilculcat'e a principle onl whicli they cold( act intelligectly. An appeal to authlority-or what \voltLld be tkelcn for 1 Ir &~ 245 246 PARTIES IN TIIE AI'OSTOIIC CHUgItCII. atitllority wvohl hIae (lef(atec(l this desi,gn. Besides, it wa5s niot the danger of givilng needless offence to the Jews, but it was the consciences of weak Gentile l)retlrenI whlich Paul had to consider. Moreover, the rlingement at the conference applied to thle churches of Syria and Cilicia, in particular to Antioch and to tlie dissension that had( broken out there. After Gentile Christianity had I)ecomIe widely prevalent, after Paul lhad(l ftlly entered, as an independent al(l)orcr, into llis own p)culiar field, and( when, especially, the Jewish Cl'istitns (of the Jilaizing type) kept up their nmischievous efforts to deprive the Gentiles of their liberty, it imay well.be assumed that the arrangement in question, based, as it was, on a )prud(lential consideration, had become obsolete. It had been lnade to meet an emergency. When Paul had found(le numerous churches, and churches, too, iliad(l ii1) chiefly of Genitile convcrts, that recommen(lation, adopted for tlie sake of sparing the feelings of the Jecws and of 1)r(elrting tle iliference that the Gentil(es werce enemies of tle 01(1 Testaileiit religion, wotl(l cease to have any vali(lity. It had( no resell1)lh1uc to the decree of a' lat'ter coulcil. It wvas a firatiernal recoiinmendatioii sent to Antioch, thlrough Silas and Jl(las B3a,rsal)as (Avcts xv. 22), tho substance of it being also )tput into a le'ttcr whlich they cai'ied. There was not a ji[(i('il l)r)(b'e(lig, )ut a colsultatioIli of l)rethren.1'Ticy (didl not come toogether to 1 Seo, on this subject, Neander's PflJanz. u. Leit. d. Kirche, B. I., I I .= l t GENUINENESS OF TIE ACTS. give law to the Church, but to quiet a particular disturbance. W\e are now prepared to consider the question of the genuineness of the Acts. If we have shown that the representation which is there given of the respective positions of Paul and Peter, and of the mutual relations of the Jewish and Gentile Christians, is Hot discordant either with the statements of Paul or with the probabilities in the case, we have destroyed the sole argument of any weight against the genuineness of the book. For on this imaginary discordance the objection to the early cop:l)osition of the Acts is founded. But, in our judgment, the gelluinieness of this book can be fully established, and the attack which has been made upon it shlowni to be groundless. 1. The testimony of the author, direct and incidental, when we consider the form in which it is given, is a strong proof of the genuineness of the book, anid in the absence of counteracting cvidence, a convincing proof. We assume, what is low a conceded fact, that the third Gospel aond the Acts have the samie autlhor. Independently of the evidence afforded by the prefiace to the Acts, the resemblance of the two books in language and style is conclusive. Nowv the third Gospel purports to be written by one personally s. 422 seq., Lekebusch, s. 314 seq., Bleck's Ei~;,7. in d. At. T., s. 371 seq., Meyer, Gal. Einl. ~ 3, Apo3stelgeschichte, s. 280. 247 248 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. .acquiaiji i te( ll tCe aipostlcs. IIe records wvhat he had reccived froiii " eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke i. 2). The Acts, addressed to the same TlIcophliluts, and referring in its preface back to the Gospel, is the sequel of the latter work. Tlhe author of the Acts, therefore, claims to be an acquaintance of the apostles. And we may observe-though the rem,ark migilt properly be miade a special topic of cevidence-that, since 1ll the proof of the early dlate of tlhe (Cosl)cl teli(ls cequally to est(ablislh tie early date of thle Acts, and slice we have internal proof that tlhe Gospel was written Inot later than about the (late of the destruction of Jerusalemt, the genuineness of the Acts is a necessary inference. Proving that Luke wrote the Gospel, we have proved that he wrote the Acts also. And the phlraseology in the prologue of the Gospel obliges us to suppose either that the writer is a conscientious and well-informed historian, or consciously and basely false. I-le declares that he writes in order that Thleoplilus lnay T)c assured of the ceitaiiily, the unassailable rcality-rz, p'c,,tc, — of the truthls of Cliristiaiiity in which he had been instructed. But not to dwell on the connection of the Gospel with the Acts, and considering this last book by itself, we are happily provided with an incidental testimony of the imost COllvincil,g Claracter. We allude to the passages in which thle writer speaks in the first person pliral, thus inCludilng lhijiseilt' ainolig tlie participants ill Lltc c\"clts I(" records. Th'llis use of tie " we" GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. begins with Paul's leaving Troas (xvi. 11), and continues in the account of his stay at Philippi. It is resumed on the return of Paul to Philippi (xx. 5-15) -thus raising the presumption that the author of these passages had in the interval tarried at that place. The remaining passages in which this peculiarity appears, are xxi. 1-18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 17. Now, what is the explanation of this phenomenon? Only two hypotheses are open to discussion among those who ascribe the book to Ltuke. The first is the old, generally received, and, as we think, well sustained view that Luke was himself, in these places, the attendant of Paul. The second is the hypothesis of Schleiermiaclier, variously modified by other writers, that Luke here introduces, without formal notice, a document emanating, as they commonly suppose, fiom Timothy, or, as some have thought, from Silas. Thlis last form of the hypothesis, that Silas wrote the passages in question, is supported by no argument rorthy of attention, and is fully refuted by the cirt cionmstance that in connection with at least one of the passages (see Acts xvi. 19-25), Silas is mentioned in the third person. But the theory that Timothy is the author of these passages, though adopted by so able and candid a writer as Bleek, has been, as we believe, effectually disproved.' This theory does not, to be 1 The examination of the'"Timothy-hypothlesis" by Leklebusch (s. 140-167), is one of the finest parts of his excellent treatise. We present the miore 1)roi.inent considerations bearing on the topic. 249 250 PARTIES IN TtIE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. sure, slhake the general credibility of thie book, or the fact of its being composed by Luke. But how stands the evidence in regard to it? We read (in Acts xx. 4, 5): "And there accompanied hirn [Paul] into Asia, Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchlus and Secundus; and Gaius of Decrbe, c,iz/d _7'2]/lofcYs; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. Tlese going before tarried for Hs at Troas." If, under the term "tlese," aTI whlo are named before are referred to -which is the mlost natural interpretation 1 -the so-called Timothy-hypothlesis faills to the ground. In connection with this piece of evidence, it deserves remark that the absence of all detail the summary style of the narrative-in passaCges directly connected witlh those under consideration, and covering a portion of Paul's career in which Timothy bore an equal part, is against the supposition that Luke had at his conmmand a diary of this apostolic helper. But the decisive argmeent against the Schleiermachlerian hypothesis, is the wrong view of the general structure and character of the book which that theory implies. Were it true that the book presents the appearance of being a compilation of documents imperfectly fused togethler-left in a good degree in their original state -it might not unreasonably be assumed that the author had taken up a document from another's pen, without taking care to alter the pronominal feature whliclh we are discussing. This idea of the book was 1 See Meyer, ad loc. i GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. a part of Schleiermacher's theory. But a more thorough examination of the Acts has made it clear that, from whatever sources the author draws his information, it is one production, coherent in plan; its different parts connected by references forward and backward; uniform in style; and flowing from a single pen. If Luke took up into his work a documient of Timothy, he could not have given it the complete harmony with his own style which it exhibits, without changing its form and phraseology to suc/t an extent as renders it i)ossible to s8ppose tle retention of the "we" to be artless or accidental. Memoranda of Timothly, if Luke had such, were rewritten by him; but this leaves the retaining of the "we," with no explanation, an insoluble fact. We infer, then, with confidence, that Luke, in these passages, professes to speak in his own person.1 This fact Zeller and the other Tuibingen critics admit; and their conclusion is, that whlilst the author of the Acts, writing in the second century, used a previously written document, he intentionally left the "we" as it stood —although the document in other parts was materially wrought ' There remains, to be sure, the unanswered question, why Luke does not more expressly state the fact of his joining Paul, but leaves it to be gathered from this use of the pronoun. But this difficulty is, to say the least, not greater than the difficulty of supposing him to introduce a document of this sort without notice and without altering the pronominal form. The book was written for a private individual. Of the circumstances of Luke's companionship with Paul, Theophlilus may have known something before. 251 252 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. over by him-in order to produce the false impression that he was the contemporary and associate of Paul! This refined fraud is attributed, and it is thought necessary to attribute, to the author of the Acts! But if we are not prepared to adopt this theory, we have no alternative but to accept the testimony of the author concerning himself; that is, to ascribe his work to a contemporary and companion of the apostles. 2. The assumption that the book of Acts is spurious, and its contents in great part fictitious, is irreconcilable with the moral spirit that characterizes the work. The presumption adverse to Baur's theory, which is raised by the author's own testimony respecting himself, is confirmed by the moral tone of the book. It is true that every well-meaning book is not thereby proved to come from the writer from whom it pretends to emanate. Nor would we contend that the ideas of antiquity, and of Jewish antiquity in particular, in regard to this matter of authorship accorded in all respects with the ethical feeling of a modern day. 1 Apocryphal and other ancient works are extant, which bore the name of some revered person of an earlier time, and which, notwithstanding this groundless pretension, were designed to promote the cause of religion. But an elaborate outlay of cunning for the purpose of creating a false impression in respect to the real author of a book, especially when the motive is to promote the interests of a party, This Lckebuschl fiankly allows. _;t4 GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. deserves reprobation, whether the book be ancient or recent. An effort of this kind must always have been considered a piece of knavery. Where there is plainly discovered an earnest regard for the law of veracity, we are cut off from supposing anything like a pious friaud. In this case, we must give credit to the testi mony which the book itself offers respecting its author. Much more are we precluded, in that case, from considering a large part of the narrative a deliberate fiction. Now there is manifest throughout the book of Acts a penetrating discernment of the sacredness of truth and the obligation of veracity. He who set down the record of the sin and punishment of Ananias and Sapphira was incapable of palming off, as a veritable history of the apostles and of the manner in which they were guided by the Holy Spirit, a series of fictitious stories invented by himself. Dropping for the moment the question of the general verity of the narrative, let us observe the amount of duplicity which the above-described theory of Zeller imputes to the author of the Acts. The retention of the "we" in a document which he has recast and recomposeda retention deliberately resolved upon, we are told, for the sake of deceiving the reader into the belief that the author lived long before-is certainly equivalent, in a moral point of view, to tire insertion of this pronoun by the writer for the same end.' If the author, writing, it is supposed, in the second century, 1 See Lekebuscli. 253 254 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. were charged with inserting this word, here and there, in his own composition, the duplicity would not be worse. How foreign this refined method of selfadvertisement is from the universal habit of apocryphal writers, who are apt to blazon their assumed names on the front of their workls, will strike all who are acquainted with this species of literature. A writer capable of such a trick as is charged upon the author of the Acts, would almost infallibly have introduced the passages which contain the "we" with an explicit declaration that here he joined Paul, or became a participant in the events that follow. But the particular point on which we now insist is the incompatibility of such detestable deceit with the pure and truthful air of the historian, and his recognition of the law of veracity. 3. An irrefragable argument for the genuineness and credibility of Acts is afforded by the relation in which it stands to the Pauline Epistles. The coincidences and diversities are each an impressive proof of the correctness of the old and accepted view concerning the book. As to the former, the peculiarity of them, as Paley, in the Horce Paulinc, has very ingeniously shown, is that they are undesigned. There are such correspondences with the data furnished by the Epistles as could not have been contrived, for they can only be detected by searching. The omissions in the Acts are an equally remarkable feature. We learn from the Epistles various facts of GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. importance respecting Paul, which a writer of the second century would certainly have worked into a history or historical romance in which the Apostle was to figure so prominently. Thus, for example, we have no notice in the Acts of the sojourn of Paul in Arabia, shortly after his conversion, which he himself mentions (Cal. i. 17). Luke describes him as preaching in )DamAascus, and, " after that many days were fulfilled," as flying fi'rom the machinations of the Jews to Jerusa lem. For aught that appears, the author of the Acts is ignorant of the fact of his visiting Arabia. But a later writer, with the Epistle to the Galatians in his hand, woul(l not have failed to show, at least, his klino1 —lcdge of an event so distinctly stated by the Apostle himself. The three shllipwreclks, and mnost of thl other hardships which Paul had endured (2 Cor. xi. 24 seq.), are not mentioned in the-Acts.' And if we look at what is actually narrated by Luke, although Bair's theory of an inconsistency between the general representations of the Acts and the Epistles is false, vet the former shows itself an independent narrative. It is not built up on the basis of information derived from the writings of Paul. These are not made use of in its composition. Now, this fact demonstrates the early date of the Acts. Suppose that a Gentile Christian of the second century had conceived the plan of writing a work for the purpose which Baur attrib ' The shipwreck recorded in the Acts was subsequeit to the writing of this Epistle. 255 0 256 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. utes to the author of this book: his very first act would have been to resort to the Epistles for the materials out of which to construct his work. Conscious that a comparison of his production with these well-known documents would be inevitable, he would guard against the semblance of contradiction. He would seek throughout to dovetail his work with the authentic records of the apostolic age. HIence, in laboring to swell their list of discrepancies between the Acts and Paul, the Tftibingen critics are unconsciously beating down their own theory. 4. Baur's theorv is not sustained, but is overthrown, by a candid view of the contents of the Acts. Lekebusch has shown that the alleged parallelism in the career of Peter and of Paul is chiefly in the imagination of the critics, and that the differences in their respective deeds and fortunes are vastly more numerous and more conspicuous than the points of resemblance. In truth, there are no such resemblances which are not accidental and to be expected in the case of the two leading apostles, both of whom were engaged in the same work and exposed to like perils. That, in the Acts, Paul is said to have addressed himself, in the places he visited, first to the Jews and then to the heathen, rather confirms than weakens the authority of Luke; for such was unquestionably the historical fact. An opposite course would have been in the highest degree unnatural. The gospel was a means of salvation " to the Jcw first, GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. and also to the Greek" (Romin. i. 16); and if Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, this meant simply that his field of labor was in Gentile countries. But there are passages in the Acts which a writer having the end in view which Baur imputes to the author of the book would never have admitted. HIe is, by the supposition, a Pauline Christian, and designs to make it appear that Paul was a recognized apostle, on a footing of perfect equality with the original disciples. Yet he begins, in the very first chapter, by describing the choice of an apostle, at the instance of Peter, to fill up the number of the twelve. lie must be, said Peter, one who "has companied with us" through the whole life of Christ, from the baptism of John, and be ordained "to be a witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts i. 21, 22). In treating of the Apocalypse, Baur-vithout reason, as we think-regards the allusions to "the twelve " apostles as an indirect thrust at the Apostle Paul, and a sign of the judaizing character of the book. Yet here we have a Pauline Christian falling into a similar style! A partisan of Paul, inventing history for the purpose of exalting his equal apostolic claims, it is safe to say, would never have introduced the passage in question. But let us turn to the narrative of the last visit of the Apostle Paul to Jerusalem-that visit which was so important in its results, and is so fully described by the author of the Acts. It is one main design, they say, of this author to extenuate and hide 17 257 258 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. from view the mutual opposition of the two branches of the Church, and to produce the impression that the body of Jewish Christians agree on the ritual question with Paul. Now, what do we find in the midst of this very passage in which Paul is brought into contact with the church at Jerusalem and the Jewish Christians who thronged the city? Why, James and the elders at Jerusalem are reported as saying to Paul: "Thou seest, brother, how many tlousands "literally myriads, Ftvocc'}ge-" of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of tle law;" and they were all jealous of Paul on account of the information they had received that he was in the habit of dissuading Jews from observing the Mosaic law and circumcising their children. That is, a writer, who is inventing and altering history for the purpose of hidilng a fact, gives to that fact a conspicuous place in his narrative! Baur has no other solution than the remark that the writer here "forgets the role he is playing." But the answer is, that supposing so shrewd a writer as he is represented to be, to forget (izywAere the design he had in view, he could not forget it in the crisis of the whole history, when Paul ilet the Jewish-Christian Church for the last time, and when this very point of the authority of the ritual, and the views and feelings of the Jewish believers, is the thellie of the narrative.' Baur more than insinuates that the Jewish Christians took part in this violent attack upon Paul, and that Luke is at Ipains. to GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. We have adverted above to the manner in which the author of the Acts begins his work. Not less incompatible with the Tubingen theory is the manner in which he concludes. The reader must bear in mind that, according to Baur and Zeller, a main aim of the writer is to represent the Apostle in a friendly attitude towards his Jewish countrymen. A Gentile Christian holds out the olive-branch to the Jew. But how ends this "reconciling" and "pacifying" production? It winds up with a denunciation from Paul against the unbelief of the Jews, in which, using the stern words of the prophet Isaiah, hlie charges upon them a judicial blindness, and adds: "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent uznto tle Gentiles, and that they will hear it." That is, the divine rejection of the Jews and choice of the Gentiles is the last word from Paul which the reader hears! How would that sound in the car of the zealous Judaizer whom this book was to conciliate, and win to the esteem of Paul and of his type of doctrine? Is it not plain that the "tendency" ascribed to this work is read into it by the critics? Their interpretation is not drawn from an unprejudiced examination of the contents of the book, which are flatly inconsistent with it, but from the demands of a supprI) ss tlhe fiact. If we are to believe Baur, then, the same writer -who so flagrantly " forgets his part" as to make miention of the zeal of "many thousands" of believers for the law, recovers his memory so fully as to falsify in the very next breath I 259 I 260 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CIIURCIH. preconceived, and, we believe, unfounded historical theory of their own contriving. The neglect of the writer to avail himself of the most natural means of promoting his alleged purpose, is, also, a proof that this purpose belongs only to the critic's brain. A single example of this negligence, unaccountable on Baur's theory of the design of the book, is the omission of the writer to bring Paul and Peter together in Rome, where, according to a belief then current, they both perished as martyrs in the Neronian persecution. WVhat would the writer of an irenical fiction lay hold of so soon, as the supposed conjunction of the two apostles in the capital of the world, and their common fate? Hlow easily night a tale be spun out of this meeting of the leaders of the two branches of the Church, which would effectually promote the author's plan! Yet the book closes abruptly-the author seeming at last to hasten to the conclusion -with no mention of Peter's visit to Rome, connection with the Gentile capital, or interview with Paul. 5. The unfitness of such a work as the book of Acts to secure the end for which, according to Baur, 1 For proof that the report of Peter having suffered martyrdom at Rome is met with prior to the date assigned by the Tiabingen critics to the Acts, see Gieseler's Church fistory, B. I. s. 27, N. 6. In truth, there is no sufficient reason for disbelieving the tradition so early and widely current. For a full examination of the point, see Dr. Schaff's J7istory of the Apostolic Church, p. 372 seq. See also Bleek's Einil., s. 563. I GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. it was composed, stands in the way of the acceptance of his theory. Here, if we are to believe the Ttibingen critics, was a great division in the Church. Jewish Christians, on the one hand, following the doctrine of Peter, required circumcision and a compliance with the ritual as a condition of fellowship with the Gentile Christians. The latter, on the contrary, following the authority of Paul, as decidedly refused to yield to this demand. Efforts are at length made from different sides to bring about an accommodation. And this writer composes an historical romance for the purpose of spreading such a conception of the apostolic history as shall remove, especially, the Jewish-Christianl prejudice agamist communion with the heathen believers. To this end he represents Peter as tolerating the Gentiles in their uncircumcision, as takling part in the reception of Cornelius into the Church, and as resisting the imposition of the yoke of ritual observances upon the Gentiles. But how would the judaizing party relish this representation of their great Apostle? Were they so little wedded to their principles as to abandon them the moment they were told by some writer, pretcnding to be an associate of Paul, that their views relative to the course taken by Peter and in respect to his doctrine were contrary to the truth? Had they only to be told, in a book falsely purporting to come from a Pauline Christian of a former day, that Peter really fraternized with Paul and was in favor of the 261 262 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. immunuity of the Gentile converts? And similar inquiries are pertinent when we consider how such a work would be received by the followers of Paul. If this great Apostle had, in truth, forbidden circumcision altogether, as the Baur school pretend, and if his disciples were rooted in their attachment to his principles, as they were certainly familiar with his writings, how would they be satisfied with the narrative of the circumcision of Timothy and the other examples of conformity to the law, recorded in the Acts? Would they not have spurned this misrepresentation of the principles and conduct of their great leader, and made their appeal to the very passages in his Epistles on which the TLibingen critics found their thesis as to his real position? It is unaccountable that a work which flies in the face of the cherished opinions and traditions of the two rival parties, should pass uncontradicted, and even contribute to secure a most important change in the platforms on which they respectively stand. Yet this unknown writer in the first quarter of the second century, audaciously perverting the facts of history and adding incidents which sprung from his own invention, succeeded, if we are to believe the Tfibingen critics, in this unexamrpled imposture. To this extent do these critics task our credulity. To what desperate shifts the Tiibingenl critics are driven, in their effort to read into the Acts a deep-laid plot which has no existence outside of their own GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. suspicious fancy, may be seen from one or two examples. Luke records a contention between Paul and Barnabas which led to their separation from each other. Will it be believed that he is charged by Baur with making this record of a comparatively "unimportant" dispute, in order to divert the thoughts of his readers from the more serious quarrel with Peter, which he is desirous of covering up? As if his readers, with the Epistle to the Galatians in their hand, could be kept in ignorance of this dispute with Peter! As if the allusion to one conflict could suppress the recollection of another! Why, as Lekebusch inquires, should he not rather pass over in silence the minor quarrel also, provided his aim were such as Baur imagines? The earlier prominent record of the friendship of Paul with Barnabas, that "distinguished and meritorious member of the Jerusalem church," is attributed to the apologetic or conciliatory design of the author of the Acts. Yet the same author now describes a sharp controversy between them! The simple truth is, that the conflict with Barnabas is mentioned because it had an influence on the history of the missions to the Gentiles and of the spread of Christianity among them, which it is the leading purpose of Luke to narrate, The controversy with Peter had no such influence. It was merely an example of the inconsistency of Peter, which Luke, if he was informed of it, had no occasion to record. 1 See Lekebusch, s. 305. 263 264 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC ChURCH. Another illustration of that stranige, morbid suspicion which is a prime quality of the Tiibingen criticism, is the charge that the journey of Paul to Jerusalem (Acts xi.), which the Apostle in Gal. ii. does not mention, was invented by Luke for the purpose of bringing Paul as often as possible into intercourse with the Jerusalem apostles! Now if we look at Luke's narrative, we find that all he says of that journey is in one verse (v. 30): " and they sent it [a contribution for the poorj to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." If Luke had the purpose of which he is accused, why should he confine himself to a bare mention of the fact of the journey?. Would he not infallibly have given details of the interview? Would he not, at least, have stated that Paul met the other apostles and conferred with them? Would he, as he does, make it known that Peter, the JewishChristian leader, was at that time in prison, so that he and Paul could not have met? Luke describes, with some detail, the occasion of the contribution. Agabus, one of the prophets who had come from Jerusalem, predicted a dearth, and the Antioch Christians accordingly determined to send relief to their brethren in Judea. We are required, then, to suppose that Luke took pains to invent all this to serve as a preface to the bare, solitary remark that Saul was sent to Jerusalem with the money. This, says Lekebusch, is to make Luke build up mountains that a mouse may come forth. We have no warrant for supposing GENUINENESS OF TIl-IE ACTS. tlhat Patil intclidcd to record in Galatltians all tllc vi.sits lic had iiade to Jerusalem.' In faet, wc (lo not klnow thlat on the occasion referred to l)y Luike, in Acts xi., 1Paul cntered Jerusalem. lIc was indeed sent wiitl Silas, but, as Luke says nothingl, fiutllir, it is not improbable that lie was I)revcented, for sonme reIsoii, fr'ont goiing so fitr as tie city. III any cvlet, t-li trcatment of this topic by Baur and his followers is t fair example of that hyper-criticisim -hiicli fin(ls ii1i occult, and generally a bad, ilotive undlcrniieatli the simplest historical statement. The historical discrepancics a-lleged to exist betweenC Luke and1 the otlecr aut.loities, -Nliectlier sacred or secular-wvlicli diser,cpaiieis, were tley made out, cainot be shlown to iipl)ly any dcsigl, ay leilde2ciy, oil tl,c parlt of the autlior-afl'or(1 no licl) to tlie Tulbin,gen cause. Tlhec colisideratiol()n of thecl, iii case the subject of inquiry were the llatuCre ai(d cxtent aud the proper formula of iwirtio, ould be I)crtiuenct; b)ut admitting them to be insollil)le, tliey are not sufficient to affect the general cedibility of the historian, whicli is the question under discussion. Take, for exanmple, the reference to Tlheudas (Acts v. 36), and suppose him to be the samie Theudas whlom Joseplius refers to (An4iq. xx. 5, 1), and tllat Lluke is therefore gulilty of an aniaclronismi; or, stU)l)OSe an (error in tllche reference in the Gospel to a taxifng under Cyrenius 1 ir(itx, (again, another time), not 8e,'Er)Ot, is the word lie iuses (ii. 1). 2 6;,), PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHI. (Luke ii. 1), and that the cause which drew Joseph and the miotlher of Jesus to Bethlehem is mistakenly given-that their visit to Betlileliemn was occasioned by some other tax, and that Luke's chronology on this point is at fault: would his general credibility as a historian be impaired? If so, there is no secular historian who does not fall under a like condemnation. There was a traditional belief that Martin Luther was born duringo a visit of his mother to a fair in Eisleben. The statement is found in so good an authority as Seckeiidorf, who doubtless derived it from what he considered an authentic source; and after him it is found in a multitude of writers. It is now known, however, that the parents of Luther had removed their abode to Eisleben before the birth of Luther, and that no fair was held in the place at that time! Shall the former historians of Luther be for this reason convicted of carelessness or witful falsification? Or will it be denied, on accouitit of their discrepancy with later biographies, that Lutlier was )Orn in Eisleben? This would be parallel to the course taken by Strauss and his friends, even if the chlronological difficulty in Luke were proved to be insoluble. Macaulay attributes the epithet Silent, attached to the name of William, the founder of the Dutch Commlonwealth, to his taciturn habit;1 although the truth is that he had no such habit, and acquired this title from his prudent reticence on a single occasion. The same historian probably con 1 Macaulay's Life of Williain Pitt, iii thlo Etcyclopjaelia lrit(anneica. lI e I 266 iI t GENUINENESS OF TIlE ACTrS. founded George Penn, a pardon-broker, itlI Will,iamn Pe)nn the Quaker. rThis lnlay, l)clltrhps, su(,(ecst thle possibility of ticre beinlg ior e tliaii onIe T1lleudas. But however this may be, who will chiarge the Eni,lislh historian with being careless ill his researcihes and iniinformed in thfile atters whiereof ic writes? It lilay )c said tihat ill IJ,iilc tlec ditlictilty is cnhanced by the occurrence of the reference to Theudas in a speccli of Gamaliel. ]3ut-on the supp)ositionl, ag,ain, tlhat an error here were proved-is absolute correctness in the report of a public speech, and inI all the historical references it may contain, so very coimmon? Siuppl)ose thiat Gamaliel was known to have referred, ilii liis address to tlhe Saniliedriii, to val'ioius fltctions wlilic had,ll proved to be sliort-liv-ed, and tlhat ill the versioii of the speech wilch reacehed Luke, the iname of Tleudas hlad erroneously crcl)t in, owing, possil)ly to the circuinstanlce that his niaile waN,is often liniked(l, ill common speech, with that of Jud(l,,s of Galilee, whoni Gamaliel had really mentioned wve affirm thlat analo gous exampl es of inaccuracy can be found in the most apl)proved and trustworthy historians. These alleg,cd discrepancies, and all others, should, each by itself, ])c made the subject of fair and searching investigation. But the aplologist and the skleptic bothl err whien the latter claims, and the former consents, to stake tlhe credibility of the New Testamcit, mnicli illorc tlhe cause of supernatural Christianity itself, ltl)oll tle possibility of harmonizing all inior diversities.'To 11) (i 7 206 PARTIIS IN TIIE AP'OSTOLIC CtIURCIT. t]1e ant~lgonist o0 rcvclatioll we say, Grant that it c'uln()t e)C done1; cveii gialllt tliat tle sacred lustoriaus stalld in all res pects upon a level wvith unlillsi)ire(d writers of e(lllaI qulnificaitions for ascertaining tllc truth and of c(qnal integrity iii conmlnunicating it; yet you are as far as ever fronm succeeding in your attack upon revelation. Were it our purpose, in this Essay, to go l)eyon(1 the Sl)ecia'l ol)jections characteristic of tlc Tiibilo'cn schlool, wet mliht dwell upon the numl~crltss Illttsi(olls ill thle Acts to )oillIts of geography and history, to existing fcatturcs of law andl governlliCent, to Ctistottis and liiam.Clers, mtost of whici are inci!lecntt'l and such as only a contemi)orary writer couild weave into a na(lrrative. it is not too niuch to say tlat the general correctii'ss of Llide in tiese 1lanift(ld larticulals has been positively established. TL'he 1)assage, for.exaiiple, relating to the voyage and sl1ilj rcck of St. Paul, has been subjected to a most II1)r(;roll scrittilly, an(l thle 1):ttliway of tl.c silip ftillowcd fr.l'i 1)o)i,lt to 1)oilt.'lhe result is a striking vxciiit'ation of I ltIkc's nalrative. lIc is shown to be, lhy this p)assage ill lis narrative, an observing and truitlhful writer.x ' See Smith's Voyaye andi Shtijureck of St. _Patli; also the excel lent Life of St. Paul hy Conybcare and Ilo1wson. A beautiful instance of Luke's ca^idlot is Acts xxi. 29. Descrihing the rage of the fanatical Jews from Asisl, and their cry that Paul had introduced Greeks into the temple, lie adds, itarcutlhctically: "For they land s~e,i before with hir in the city, TroItluilnus, aii Ephlesiani, whom they .},:2,]o~,)l thatt Patul had brotyh1t ijuto th temple." The effect of this rcnark of Luke is to palliate tlhcir guilt in offering violence to Paul. I ., GENUINENESS OF TIlE ACTS. The speclies reco(rded by Lukkc iii thec Acts li,ave been a favorite subject of skeptical attack. ltt tlc force of this attack is broken whlcii it is conlcc(leded tlhat the language in whiclh tlc slpeeclhes iic plresecnte(l, is, generally speaking, that of tlhc listorl'i.n. Solne of thllcI wvere not ima(lde ill tll( (frc, )ltt ill,liotll(,r tongi tce; aid ill regard to tllc rcst, it ii' ist 1)c inl fiirness, and miay l)c with safety, (allowc(l tthat thle lormi ill whichi they arc recorded is givcli tlheC 1),y Lutke. Tiis accounts for their resemIblance in phrI)Iiiscology to tlle ordinary style of Luke's narrative. Ancient lhistorialus, as all scholars knowv, were in the habi)t of tlirow ilg into the direct for —tlie o-alio (Ii'ec/(i-or tlie folil of quotation, rwhlat a lo(lern writier prcscits i follll as well as in fi,ct in his own lI,angua, ge. 1Bitt wlell -we Icok at the cotenCts of tli spe) heslcs in tlle Acts, tlucy are fo.und to harmtonize wvitli te k(l)o c~llrcters of the various p)ersons to AVwioiii tll('y aIr ascril)ed a ll( with thle circunilst(ances in wlli(.l tlhey wecre sevellly uttered. As an offset to tlhe coiipl')lint tlitt P(att's peculiar doctrine is missing from his speeches, and fronm tlhe book generally, we iiiay p)ut the judgmenlt of Luthler that the principal purpose for whicli thle book was written was to " teachl all Christendomn tlhe gr(at Tlhey hlad dr.awn a f;ls inference fl(-)In seeilng Tro)I;olii,ll, V- itI lltll iii another I)lace. Witli } s usul fliciity, 1,ei;ngl l1(iis (tt tle accordance of this circumstance of l',1' - I;, \;t;.t itII'r,I' li,rl.s. witli thle ",stle's c hlar'.lcter:''"IPalus T'1rl,i-ii l tI i Iiti,()d1xiit in terplumlii: neq(ilc emin tinmenI 1,1ac e tit Ivit Jtt)Ic.ai),l n Cl,'t;I.i G?io, OLo (,Acts xxi. 29). ii 269 270 PARTIES IN TIlE APOSTOLIC CIIURCH. fundaimentatil Cliiistiali doctriue " of jllstification by faitli alone.''rlie reader llhas only to recall such passa,ges as the direction,givenll to the tremblig, jailer who il(llired vwhat lie sloutld do to be saved, to be convinced of thle groundless nature of this piece of criticism. The speeches of Paul have been made the subject of a special, instructive discussion fromi thle pen of TlIoluck.2 The pI)rincipal part of his article is taken uI) witlh a colin)-,risoni of the fai'ewcll address of tlle Apostle to the cl(lers of Epl)llesuts, it Ailletus, witll tlhe writings of Panil-tlie l)irpose being to sllow the correspondence of that address withl the Apostle's character and miiodes of tlhoughllt. That the reader may be enabled to follow out this investigation for hilmself, we ftiriiisli here a very brief outline of most of the points in the comlparison. The address is contained in the twentieth chapter of Acts. Paul's description- of his pastoral fi(l(lity (vs. 18-21), is shiowni to harmonoize strikinl-y witli allulsions to the saiiile topic in 1 Tlecss. ii. 10 aiid 2 Cor. vi. 3, 4. It is tlle habit of Pauil fic(lqently to,pl)l)cal to his own life and cond(luct, p)artly in answcr to caltiinicies, and partly tb excite other Cliristiaiis to follow his exaniple, as in 2 Cor. i. 12; 1 Cor. xi. 1; lPhiil. iii. 15. The mention of his tcars, in thie addrcss (ver. 31), brings ouit a characteristic of Pl5iul wlhiclh is also discovered fromi 2 Cor. ii. 4, wlhere tlhe Apostle says that lie wrote to tle Corinthians witl " iiiany tears." Iii cachi case ' Qu(,ted iii Lckeb., s. 235. 2 Ii the Stu. u. A'it., 1839, II. GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. it is tears of love and of yearning over them for whose sp)iritllal safety he is anxious. A little, yet striking iairk of the authenticity of Luke's report is Paul's allusion (ver. 19) to what hle had suffered at Ephesus fiom " the lying in wait- of the Jews; " since in his narrative Luke had not mentioned any such persecu tion, but only the tumult raised by Demetrius. Had the address been invented by Luke, there would allmost certainly be in the narrative an explanatory passagte. In ver.:20, Paul reminds the elders of his preaching in privrate as well as in public; which falls in with 1 Thess. ii. 11, and withl his exhortation to Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 2) to preach "in season and our of season." His boldness in preaching and his freedom from the fear of man (ver. 27), are the same qualities to which he adverts in 2 Cor. iv. 2 and 1 Thless. ii. 4, professing in the last passage that he did not speak "as pleasing men, but God which trieth our hearts." In ver. 22, he anticipates Jpersecution in Jerusalem; in Rom. xv. 31, he expresses the same fear. How accordant is the Apostle's expression of the cheap estimate he puts upon life, if he might finish the ministry committed to him by the Lord Jesus (ver. 24, to be compared with xxi. 13), with the expression of self-sacrifice in Phil. ii. 17, and of triumph in 2 Tim. iv. 7! The presage of future dangers to the Church (vs 29, 30) may be compared with 1 Tim. iv. 1, and is shown by the Epistle to the Ephlesians to have been verified. The same diligence 271 I PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCII. and tenderness with whichl he had warned the Ephesians (ver. 31), we find him claiming to have exercised in regard to the Thessalonians, to whom he says (1 Thess. ii. 11), "ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father does his chilclren." The commending of the elders to God and the word of His grace, which was able "to build themn up " (ver. 32), chlimes with the benediction in Ron. xvi.' 5, beg,inning,: "Now unto Him that is able to establish you." In ver. 33, we hear the Apostle reiiiind the elders how, coveting no man's silver, or gold, or apparel, he had sustained himself and his attendants by the labor of his own hanilds. His motives for pursuing this course are not explained here, but must be learned from the Epistles, in 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 7-9; 1 Cor. iv. 12, ix. 12; 2 Cor. xi. 8. Especially worthy of note is the expression "these hands " — c,i (), auvrca (ver. 34)words requiril us to suppose a gesture to accompany them. Still more deserving of remark is the quotation of a saying of Christ not elsewhere recorded: "it is more blessed to give than to receive" (ver. 35). The saying itself is worthy to emanate fromi Christ, and is conformed to the spirit and style of his teaching. Coming in so simply and naturally, it seems to bear witness to the truth and fidelity of the entire report of the Apostle's discourse. In the preceding observations we have employed for the I)purlose of refuiting the Titbingen hypothesis 272 i GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS. except in the last remarks on the speeches of Paul only the four Pauline Epistles accepted by Baur. But when we inquire for the grounds on which the genuineness of the remaining canonical Epistles ascribed to this apostle is denied, we find that the principal reason is the inconsistency of their repre sentations with the theory which the four are supposed to authorize. On this ground, chiefly, even the Epistles to the Colossians and Philippians, which were never before doubted, and the marks of whose Pauline authorship are so irresistibly evident in their style and contents, are declared to be spurious! One would think that the inconsistency of these documents with Baur's theory would raise in his mind a strong presumption, not against them, but against that. But when we discover that his theory is overthrown by the testimony of the very documents on which he chooses to rely, and that his main objection to the genuineness of the other leading Epistles of Paul is thus taken away, we may resort to them for further illustration of the view which the Apostle took of the Jewish Christians. WAVe find him, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, telling the Gentiles that they are no more " strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God," and "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Epli. ii. 19, 20). How fully does this harmonize with the spirit of the beautiful passage in the l{omians, where Paul compares the Gentiles, in their relation to 18 273 7.-1, PARTIES IN TIIE APOSTOLIC CIIURCII. Isracl, to t-ce wil( olive-tree graftedl il)on tle native olive a(d p)artakiIng of its "1root ail(l fiatncss" (Roein. xi. 17)! Ac find hiiiii in tlle 1st Epistle to thec Tl'1lcsslo1)lialns, salyilg: "for yc, brethlren, became fi)/ot(c(rs of t/,e cI!)cl,,c,es (f Godl itwlich in J(clea ae in ('i../Jsl(:it, for yc, l,s,,, I1(vc suitflcid Iike tling s of yolI oVII collltry)(lll(, " v i, 4is tll(y hIv tve of the Jcws -tlie J-ews, wilo livcise' foll)id 1its to s)pe(k to the (entilCes tlhat they migllt l)c savc(l " (I Tlless. ii. 14 seC(1.). Tlhe TlcssaloiiaIls, in tlie heroic spirit withl \vllill til(ey lia(l llet l)est' l lIt i(), lan(1 resembled tlheir (liristi; ~1l I)rct,llre ill Jtll(lea, wliose firmne,ss iunder s,,cli tliall was A-ell1 lI()Wl11.'t'lis onc exlpression of lI()IIO to thc fitllfitil ('lristiaus of Jid(lea, joined, as it is, i-tIt rel)lo)ltiol of tie col(lu(t of tlte ub)e liex'ig Jeows, (I(sti()ys tle t l(cory (,f'llatr.1 T'lie'itttlck of tlhe Ti'il)ingen s(olool ui)ol tlhe genuinieness of most of tire Ptu1,.. Ei,iisties, resting as it does ii1)o01 filso assunlpti(ns, sliotild not 1)c allowed for a inomient to affect the jutidgiiient wvltic i is fim)ide(1 o0l p)ositiv-e,.tl)undtiit l)roofs. Take, for example, tiliec 1st ElIistle to thio Tliessailoniiians. Its P.aulitie anitloshi)p was iiever doil)te(ld uiiltil it was (ldouibted( by lB)alr. It is not only rec(ghiz/ed by tle great cliiirch tenchers in the second hlalf of tile s,(()ud ceintury,'Jut is foiund( in the Syrian versioln, inl tle caon otf Mir:ttori, ev-ei in the cainoni of Marcion. Its language is Paulitic. Its t(,ii, andi( sl)irit are Patli,ie. Its (olitelits iare.tdld tcd to 11 state of tlio Tlicssaloliin chirch whicl may well I)e sil)l)()scd to hlave e\isted. It has corresp)ondeices with the Acts, vwhich are obviously itucuntrived, yet exact. Compare 1 Tless. iii. 1, 2 witli Atts xvii. 15, xviii. 5. Aniid if tle p)assa,ge-iv. 15, 17 —exl)ress a l,ol,e or atin eNl)e~(tatioii (f tlie 7r(i)Lt,oa(I during thle. AIostlc's litetiiiine, it d,iiionstrates tlle I'a.line autllorshil), since no writer of tlie seco,,l., -,t,ry,,)al(l attiili,te sll(li a (isil'p,ited exjt;etii,, to FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. There are three other documents in the New Testament canon which throw important light upon the subject of this Essay. These are the 1st Epistle of Peter, the Epistle to the Hlebrews, and the Apocalypse. Pau;l. The objections of Baur to tihe Pauline origin of this Epistle are of no weight, and mainly rest upon misinterpretation. There are thirteen canonical Epistles bearing the name of Paul. No criticism-save that of the Baur school-which by any stretch of charity can be called sober, pretends to deny the genuineness of the Ep)istles to the Philippians, to the Colossians, the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, and the Epistle to Phlilemon. The Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Ephesians may be said to have been completely -indicated against the doubts suggested by De Wette and others. In fact, one of the main grounds of doubt-the absence of personal greetings-is an argument for the genuineness of the work; since, thlough w-e can only conjecture the cause of this peculiarity, it is one whlich a forger would last of all have permitted to exist. Of the Pastoral Epistles, the 2d of Timothy and the Epistle to Titus are fully plroved to be Pauline, and recognized as such by unprejudiced critics, like Bleel and Meyer, who hold themselves at liberty to judge with perfect freedoom of the claim of a book to a place in tlre callon. Of the 1st Epistle to Timothy, Neander says that he is not convinced of its genuineness with the "same assurance that he has in reference to thie authorshiip of the other Pauline Epistles.".Pfianz. it. Le'titng. B. I. s. 538. N. Such misgivings, however, in respect to either of the Pastoral Epistles, are not shared by critics of equal candor and penetration; for example, by the late Dr. Arnold. As to the author of the Epistle to the Itebrews, a point about which the opinion of the ancient Church was divided, he is now generally conceded to have been, not Paul himself, but a disciple of Paul. This was the opinion, also, of Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin. It is the view of Neander, Bleek, Meyer, and, in fact, of all or nearly all the German critics. Its early date is, however, established; and if not written by Paul, it has the same relation to him as the writings of Like lhave, and the s.ae right il the canon as the second and thlird C(T,,ipels an')e Acts. 275 276 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The 1st Epistle of Peter is reckoned by Eusebius among the Homologoumena-the writings of undisputed genuineness. Among the witnesses to its authenticity are Papias and Polycarp.1 It is addressed apparently to the first generation of converts from heathenism, and not to their children or grandchildren (e. g. 1 Peter i. 14). It purports to come from "a witness of the sufferings of Christ" (1 Peter v. 1); a fact introduced so briefly and naturally as to convince Schlleiermacher that the expression was not put into the mouth of Peter, but was truly his own. It is addressed to "the strangers scattered throughout Asia Minor; " and yet the contents of the Epistle make it clear that Gentiles are meant; so that in this designationl of them as ctrtc,Tocl, the metropolitan character, so to speak, of Judaean Christianity is assumed in a manner natural to Peter. It was written fromn Babylon-the literal, as we think, and not the mystical, Babylon-where Jews were so numerous, and where Peter would naturally be drawn in the prosecution of his missionary labors. A suitable occasion for his writing was afforded by the journey of Silas (1 Peter v. 12), formierly a member of the Jerusalem church and afterwards concerned with Paul in founding and train 1 Eusebius, iii. 89, iv. 14. Those who deny the genuineness of the 2d Epistle of Peter, must yet place it not later than the beginning of the second century; and hence the testimony of this document (2 Peter iii. 1) to the 1st Epistle, as a work of Petcl, is valuable. See on this and the other 1oinits of proof, Bleek's Einl., s. 565 seq. EPISTLE TO THE. HEBREWS. ing the very churches to which he now carried this letter. In these churches there were those who, as we learn from Paul in his later Epistles, had, through the influence of Judaizers, begun to fear that they had not received the true gospel. Now Peter reassures this class by simply saying at the close of his letter: "I have written briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the trae yrcace of God cherein ye stand." It is an expression of confidence and fraternal sympathy from the Apostle "to the circumcision," written within a few years preceding the destruction of Jerusa lem and shortly before his own death. Another most interesting monument of the state of things at that critical time, is the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was written while the temple was yet standing, but not very long before the siege and capture of the city by Titus. It was addressed to Jewish Christians, and, as we believe, to the Palestinian Christians. It was written to keep them from apostasy-from lapsing into mere Judaism. This, every one must see, was the great danger so long as the Jewish Christians continued to cling to the ritual. It would seem that there were some of this class who had ceased to meet with their brethren (Hebrews x. 25). It is probable that with the rapid growth of the Gentile branch of the church, which was attended by a growing indifference to the ceremonial law still sacred to the native Jew, the disaffection of the Jewish Christians increased; and it is not improbable that in that class 277 r 278 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH who are described as "forsaking the assembling of themselves together" is to be recognized the germ of heretical judaizing sects which become known to us at a later day. The great aim of the author of the Epistle is to persuade the Jewish Christian that in Christ the ritual is fulfilled; that in Him all that he had in the law is retained in a perfect and satisfying form. -Not less interesting as a memorial of the state of things which we are attempting to depict, is the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse was written-this fact, we take it, is now established, notwithstanding the continued dissent of a critic here or there-shortly after the Neronian persecution, and shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. The Apostles Peter and Paul had been put to death. The bitter fanaticism of the Jews and all the signs of the times foretokened the judgments soon to fall upon the Jewish state. The condition of the churches in Asia Minor, coupled, we may well believe, with the persecuting animosity of his countrymen "according to the flesh" in Jerusalem, had drawn the Apostle John to Ephesus. The preponderance of proof, in our opinion, is in favor of the more common opinion that the Apostle is the author of the Apocalypse. But if not his work, it was certainly written by some one who belonged to his school and his neighborhood. Baur, who holds that the Apostle himself wrote it, has most unsuccessfully attempted to find in it a judaizing and anti-Pauline character. The distinction put upon the twelve apos I THE APOCALYPSE. ties (Rev. xxi. 14) is one of his arguments. If this have any force, then Acts was written by a Judaizer (see Acts i. 21 seq.); and Luke's Gospel also (see Lukel xxii. 30), which Baur considers especially Pauline in its spirit. Baur even discerns in the reference to false or pretended apostles (Rev. ii. 2) a side hit at Paul! Ewald, with just as little reason, considers them Judaizers. It is probable that they were leaders of thle Nicolaitans, who seem to have been a sect of antiinomian, giostical libertines-abusing their freedom in the gospel by joining the heathen in licentious pleasures, and blendiing a sort of gnosis, which the writer designates a knowing of "the depths of Satan (Rev. iii. 24); using, perhaps, the term Satcti], as in the other phrase-the synagogue of Satan-where t(ei would use God. A judaizing spirit is inferred by B-lur from the distinct mention of the "hundred and forty and four thousand" from the tribes of Israel (Rev. vii. 4) who were among the redeemed. How ill-founded is this conclusion we see when we further read that those gathered from "all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues," instead of being a definite, symbolical to be sure, yet limited, number, were "a great multitude which no man could count" (ver. 9). But the Apocalypse affords a happy confirmation of the historical truth of the apostolic convention. Having alluded (Rev. ii. 20) as he had done before (vcr. 14) to the obligation to abstain from fornication and from meat sacrificed to idols, the writer 279 280 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. adds (vs. 24, 25), "I will put upon you none otfer burdent: but that which ye have already "-namely, the true faith-" hold fast till I come." Here the context requires us to suppose that " burden" signifies injunction; and thus we are obliged to explain the passage by referring back to what he has said on the two points of duty above mentioned. IIn the requirement to abstain from fornication and from flesh offered to idols, he would add no other burden-cc'Slo,cJ(oothe very word used in the rescript of the apostolic convention (Acts xv. 21)! 1 To our mind, this passage affords a striking corroboration of the narrative of Luke. A portion of the Asia Minor Christians had neglected the warnings of Paul, had abused their freedom, making it an obedience to lust, and had mingled with the heathen in their licentious feasts. Hence the need of imposing the old restraints, and the Apostle revives the rules suggested by that early conference in which he had himself taken part. We may sum up in a few words the main points in the view we have taken. The apostles and most other Jewish Christians kept up the observance of the ceremonial law, and felt bound so to do until Christ should appear to abrogate that law, or in some other way should explicitly declare the old ritual abolished. Peter was divinely instructed in the affair of Cornelius, 1 The interpretation we have given above is sanctioned by high critical authlority, including that of I)istcrdicck (in Meyer) and Alford. 4 THE APOCALYPSE. that free intercourse with the Gentile convert was no sin. This lesson by him was not forgotten. At Antioch he ate with the Gentile believers, except when, -inder temptation, he was false to his convictions. The Jewish believers, seeing that the Gentiles had actually become Christians and received the Spirit without having been circumcised, cordially and thankfully acknowledged them as brethren, and refused to yield to the judaizing faction which required that they should be circumcised. At the same time there was a difficulty in overstepping the legal restrictions upon intercourse with them as long as the law continued to be observed. They could not cast aside all these restrictions without casting aside the law itself-a step for which they were not prepared. Hence the door was open for the efforts of the active party of Judaizers. These efforts, however, had not the sympathy or countenance of "the pillars" of the Jewish-Christian church. The fundamental error of Baur, as we believe, is the doctrine that t]e Jeritsale)i ajostles reqiri)ed thie circitm)icision) of Mie Geizlile converts. In supporting this error, he is obliged'not only to attack the genuineness of the Acts and the moral character of the author, but also to do violence to the positive testimony of Paul himself in Gal. ii. The progress of the Gentile church led to the sharpening of the opposition from the side of the judaizing party, and probably to an augmentation of its strength. Only great providential events could clear the Christian Church of its connection with the 281 282 PARTIES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. Old'Testament system. These events at length came; first, the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, after the Jew ish Christians had mostly fled to the neighborhood of the Dead Sea: then, after the insurrection by Barchochebas, the absolute prohibition by Hadrian (A. D. 135) of the temple-worship in the city, to which he gave the Roman name of Elia Capitolina. This last event was the crisis that determined the fate of Jewish Christianity. IHenceforward only a church on Gentile foundations could exist in Jerusalem. That portion of the former church which could not abandon the ritual became resolved into the heretical sect which lingered for centuries under the name of Ebionites, but consisting of two main subdivisions-one that of Ebionites proper, who refused to recognize- the Gentiles as Christians; the other that of the Nazarenes, who clnmg with patriotic attachment to the ceremonies of the law, not denying, however, the Christianity of the Gentiles for not joining them in its observance. The headquarters of the Ebionite party was the region on the eastern border of Palestine, whither the Jewish Christians had originally taken refuge. The apostasy which to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was an - imminent danger, actually occurred in the case of no small fraction of the Jerusalem church. And thus the saying of the Apostle John had a new and pathetic verification: "HIe came unto his own, and his own received him not." 4 ESSAY V. BAUR ON EBIONITISM AND TIlE ORIGIN OF CATHIOLIO CHRISTIANITY. Tir, rise of the ancient Catholic church, that church, which, with its unity in doctrine and creed, its type of theology too legal to be strictly Pauline, and its hierarchical order, emerges to view in the latter half of the second century, is one of the most interesting problems of history. If we takle our stand at the time of Irenaeus, we find that genuine Christianity begins to be recognized as confined to one visible body, having for its great centres the churches supposed to be founded by the apostles, among which Rome, the see of Peter and of Paul, especially of Peter the head of the apostles, has the preeminence in dignity and respect-the potioret principj)alitate)i, to use the phrase by which Irenaeus affirms the distinguished reliability of its traditions.' Beyond the pale of this Catholic church there is no salvation. The outlying parties have no title to the blessings of the gospel. The church is comparatively pure in doctrine and free in government; yet the incipient and germinant Papal system is clearly discernible. 1 Iren., Lib. iii. c. 3. 284 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. By what steps did simple, unorganized, apostolic Christianity attain to this new form? What agencies effected the transformation? Such is the problem to which we refer. It involves the whole question of the character of the Christianity of the apostolic age, as well as the nature of the changes it afterwards underwent. It has drawn to itself of late, in particular since the rise of the new Tiibingen school of historical critics, the zealous attention of scholars. One principal topic, the consideration of which involves the most important inquiries connected with the whole subject, is Ebionitism. Ebionitism is the general designation of that jutdaizing Christianity which existed during the first centuries, in several distinct parties, in separation from the Catholic church. The strict Ebionites-the vulgar Ebionites, as they are called in the classification of some German writers-not only observed the Mosaic ritual, but refused to fellowship any who failed to do likewise. The Nazarenes, another party, though observing the law themselves, willingly left the Gentiles to the enjoyment of their freedom. The former party was hostile to Paul and his doctrine; the latter was not. Both made use of Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the Gospel of Matthew, differing somewhat, however, from that Gospel, as they differed somewhat from each other. There was a third party, also, of theosophic or gnostical Ebionites, described by Epiphanius and represented in the Clementine Homilies, a spurious EBIONITISM. work of the latter part of the second century. It is anl old and often-repeated assertion that primitive, apostolic Christianity-that Christianity which was established and fostered by the immediate followers of Chlrist —was Ebionite. This proposition was maintained by Socinian writers of a former day, who, considering the Ebionites to have been Unitarians, inferred that the early Christians held the humanitarian view of Christ's person. Hence the character and opinions of the Ebionite parties come up for discussion in the polemical writings of Bull, who combats the views of Zwicker, and in the spirited controversy, in the last century, of Horsley with Priestley. The subject was handled in a special dissertation by Mosheim, in an early essay of great merit by Gieseler, and has been further illustrated by Neander and the other masters in the department of church history. Of late the historical speculations of Baur have provoked new and fruitful investigations in the same field, and have called forth numerous publications, both from his followers and opponents. In stating the theory of Baur upon this subject and upon early Christianity in general, we may remark at the outset that he agrees with the old Socinians in the statement that the Jewish Christianity of the apostolic age was Ebionite. But, unlike them, he holds that we find within the canon a great departure froli), and advance upon, this humanitarian doctrine of Christ's person. He professes to discern in thle 285 286 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. New Testament the consecutive stages of a progress, which, beginning with the Unitarian creed, terminates in the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity. To be sure, a considerable portion of these canonical writings, including all those which contain this last tenet, he pronounces post-apostolic and spurious. But he differs very widely from the Socinians in his exegesis of them, and approximates nearer, especially in regard to the sense of the writings of John, to the ordinary orthodox interpretations. Baur's general theory proceeds on the foundation of the hostility conceived to exist, in the apostolic age, between the Pauline and Petrine parties. In the study of the Epistles to the Corinthians, he supposed himself to have discovered that the long prevalent idea of the relation of Paul to the rest of the apostles, and of his doctrine to theirs, is mistaken; and for this new view he found support, as he thought, in the Epistle to the Galatians.1 While the original apostles insisted that the Gentile converts should be circumcised and keep the law, Paul looked on circumcision as involving a forfeiture of the benefits of the gospel. Baur carries out his novel thesis with relentless consistency. Hie denies the Pauline authorship of all of the epistles usually ascribed to Paul, except four, and the genuineness of all the other books of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse. The 1 For an interesting account of the growth of his critical theory in his own minld, see Baur's posthumous Geschichte des l9tn. Jahrh., s. 395 seq. BAUR'S THEORY. Gospels, as to a part of their contents, are either monuments of this great division in the Church, or of the attempts to heal it. The Gospel of John is a fictitious product of the early part of the second century. The Acts is the work of a Pauline Christian of about the same date, who misrepresents the apostolic history for the sake of reconciling to each other the partisans of Peter and of Paul. At the close of the apostolic age, or at the death of these leaders, the Church had been left in this divided state. The Gentile or Pauline Christians, and the Jewish Christians, formed two opposing camps.1 We cannot enter into a detailed refutation of these fundamental positions of Baur, without repeating what we have said in another place. The assumption that the older apostles required that the heathen converts should be circumcised, and that Paul directly resisted the observance of the law by Jewish Christians as inconsistent with the Christian faith, is unproved and groundless. The mutual alienation of the Jerusalem apostles on the one hand, and of Paul on the other, is a figment- of the imagination; as is shown by the direct testimony of Paul himself in documents which even Baiir admits to be his.2 The main objection to the credibility of the Acts is thus annulled. The positive proof of the genuineness of this book, as well l For the full and final statement of Baur's positions, see his Chr,istenthuni in d. drei eosten Jahrh., 2 A. 1860. 2 Gal. ii. 9, 10; 1 Cor. xv. 9, xvi. 1, et al. 287 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. as of the rejected epistles of Paul, is abundant. The historical speculations of the Tuibingen school, being built upon a false foundation, fall of themselves. There were, indeed, strong peculiarities belonging severally to the two branches of the Church in the lifetime of Paul; but with the exception of the judaizing party, there was no hostility between them. On the contrary, especially among the leaders, there was a cordial fellowship. But at present we are concerned with the Tiibingen theory so far as it relates to the Church of the sub-apostolic age. Baur pretends that after the death of Paul, there ensued the process of reconciliation between the two belligerent parties, to promote which, as we have explained above, most of the New Testament books were contrived. The Jewish Christians gave up circumcision, being satisfied with baptism, when regarded as necessary for salvation. Exactly how and when this remarkable step was taken, we are not informed. But most of the concessions were from the Pauline side. In fact, there occurred at the end, or before the end, of the apostolic age, a reaction of the Jewish Christianity, which with Baur is identical with the judaizing or Ebionite element, and this i type of Christianity prevailed through the larger part of the second century. In the church of Asia Minor, little or no value was set upon the authority and the doctrine of Paul, which were supplanted by the Ebionite views of Christianity. The same was true 288 BAUR S THEORY. of the Roman church, which Baur claims to have been, even at the beginning, chiefly composed of believing Jews. The diffusion and reception of the doctrine of the authority of tradition, of legal justifica tion, of the saving efficacy of rites, of the superior merit of ascetic piety, of the clergy as a priestly class, of the primacy of Peter, and of other elements of Catholic theology, the Tiibingen critics attribute to the great reaction and partial triumph of the Jewish Christian, anti-Pauline party. So tenacious of life, we are told, was Judaism, that the powerful influence of the Apostle Paul was, to a large extent, neutralized and overcome by the revived power of the judaical element in the Church. Not that the Pauline element was ineffective. It was not without its representatives, and played a not unimportant part in tho ferment from which Catholic theology resulted. Of course, these views of Baur affect his construction of the history of the doctrines concerning the Person of Christ and the Trinity. The first view of the Church respecting Christ was humanitarian. Then followed, according to Baur, the other form of Monarchianism, the Patripassian theory. The Logos doctrine was the intermediate, compromising theology, which was finally developed into the dogma of the Saviour's true and proper divinity, and the Nicene formulary.' The topics which we propose to examine in the On this branch of Baur's theory, besides his " Christiaity in the first Three Centuries," which has been referred to above, see his 19 289 290 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. remarks that follow, are, first, the alleged Ebionite character of the period immediately subsequent to the apostolic age, and then, in particular, Baur's representation of the early doctrine concerning Christ. I. One marked vice of the Tuibingen critics is the habit of attributing to a distinctly Jewish-Christian party or influence phenomena which more commonly originate in other causes. The tendency to regard Christianity as a system of laws, is not peculiar to the Jews and to Judaism alone. This tendency develops itself ill other ages, even within the bounds of Protestant Christianity. Hence, when this spirit appears in an early Christian writer, to charge it forthwith to Ebionitism is an obvious fallacy. The same may be said of the overvaluing of external rites. A tendency to formalism may spring up independently of Jewish influences; in the nineteenth century as well as the ttird, in modern Oxford as well as ancient Rome. To say that religious phenomena, because they resemble each other, are historically connected, is a rash, and frequently unfounded, inference. This neglect to discriminate between what springs from a distinctively judaic party, and what merely bears some likeness to judaic principles, but only indicates an extensive work on the History of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Die Christl. Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit u. Menschwerdung Gottes in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickl. (1841), B. I.; and his Dogmengeschichte, 2 A. (1858), s. 104-112, 126-130. REFUTATION OF BAUR. analogous way of thinking, runs through much of the Tuibingen criticism, as we shall hereafter illustrate. But what are the proofs by which Baur would subvert the established views of early Christian history and verify his own hypothesis? In following the Tiibiingen critics -through their classification of the ancient writers, we are constantly struck with the arbitrary character of the procedure. To make out that the Ebionite type of doctrine belongs to an early Father, they are under the necessity of ignoring expressions which are at war with such a view, and of magnifying the significance of artless phrases to which no emphasis is properly attached. One sign of the justice of our remark is the fact that these critics differ so widely among themselves in respect to the place to be assigned to the different writerseven to such a writer as Justin Martyr. Baur is constantly obliged to mediate between his two disciples, Schwegler and Ritschl, and to interpose the weight of his decision where these younger doctors disagree. Let us examine the proofs and witnesses which are adduced to establish the predominantly Ebionite character of the early Church. Even Clemnent of Rome, or the first epistle which bears his name, but which, wholly without reason, is denied by the Tuiibingen critics to be genuine, is made to stand on a neutral or half-way position between the Ebionite and Pauline doctrine-Clement, who speaks of justification as "not by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or 291 292 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. knowledge, or piety, or the workls which we have done in the holiness of our hearts; but by that faith by which God Almighty has justified all men from the beginning; 1 who alludes to the epistle which "the blessed Paul the apostle had written to the Corinthians before; "2 and whose view of Christ is so dissonant in spirit from that of the Ebionite! It is true that he associates Peter, as a martyr to be held in honor, with Paul.3 And why should he not? It is true that Clemlent lays stress upon the practical duties of Christians, and often connects obedience with faith.4 But the reason of this is found in the disturbed state of the Corinthian church, and the disaffection towards its officers.5 Whoever will read the epistle from beginning to end will see that here is the motive for the enforcing of practical obligations, in conjunction withl passages obviously derived, though not verbally cited, from the Epistle to the Hebrews. Papias, in the fragments cited by Eusebius, is another of Baur's witnesses for the Ebionitism of the early Church. It is thought to be highly significant that in the scriptural books which are mentioned by Eusebius as having been cited by Papias, the Pauline epistles are not found; nor is it stated that Papias made mention of Paul. As if Eusebius professed to give all the canonical books to which Papias made reference, or Papias made reference to all the canonical C. 82. 2 C. 47. 4 C. 10, 11, 12, et passim. s0C. 5. ' See C. 1, 48, etc. II REFUTATION OF BAUR. books which he received! Of Polycarp, in like manner, Eusebius says that he made use, in his Epistle to the Philippians, of the 1st Epistle of Peter; 1 but we know, though Eusebius does not nmention the fact, that he also made abundant use of the Epistles of Paul.2 Eusebius had reasons of his own for specifying certain books in these allusions to the use of the Scriptures by earlier writers. We are not authorized to suppose that he intends to give an exhaustive list. The insinuation of a hostility to Paul on the part of Papias hardly merits a serious refutation. If he did not explicitly mention this apostle in his "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord "-and whether he did or not we have no means of deciding-it would not be strange, since his aim was to gather up unrecorded reminiscences of the life and teachings of Jesus. His chiliasm, or millenarianism, is very far from proving him an Ebionite. He shared this doctrine not only with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, but even with Barnabas, whom all the skeptical writers put on the Pauline side. Although chiliasm cannot be shown to have been the universal belief of the Church in the next age after the apostles, it was, without doubt, a very widely diffused opinion. It is not at all confined, however, to writers of a single school. In truth, as Dorner has clearly shown and we may stop here to observe, chiliasm, whatever may have been the first Euseb., Lib. iv. c. 14. 2 See, for example, in Polyc. ad Philip., c. v. (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10). 293 294 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. source of the belief, was widely diverse from the cutrrent Jewish expectation of a temporal reign of the Messiah.' The earthly reign of Christ after the second advent, even in the view of those inclined to conceive of the millennial period in too material a way, was a limited time, and was to be followed by a spiritual, heavenly life, to continue forever. But-to return to Papias-we need no other proof that he was not an Ebionite and had no inimical feeling towards Paul, than his friendship with Polycarp,2 and the circumstance that Irenaeus, and Eusebius after him, with the writings of Papias before them, have no quarrel with him, except that Eusebius, as we should expect, objects to his chiliastic notions, and considers him, probably on account of them, a man of limited understanding.3 Indeed, the circumstance which Eusebius mentions, that Papias made use of testimonies from the 1st Epistle of John and the 1st Epistle of Peter, is of itself conclusive against the Tuibingen judgment concerning him. Still more reliance is placed by Baur and his followers on the evidence drawn from the fragments of Hlegesippus. This earliest historian of the Church came to Rome about the middle of the second century. He was an Ebionite, it is claimed; and as he had 1 Dorner's E~twcikel lzigsgeschichte d. Le7/ie v. d. Person Chri8ti, B. I. s. 2-10 seq. See especially s. 240, N. 76. Irenaeus calls Papias a friend (EraLpog) of Polyearp. a Euseb., Lib. iii. c. 89. i REFUTATION OF BAUR. travelled extensively for the purpose of visiting the churches, and had found them, according to his own statemenit, agreeing in doctrine, it is confidently asserted that the churches east and west, including the Roman church, which he especially commends, were also Ebionite. This deduction might be just, were the premise established. But what is the proof that Hegesippus was an Ebionite? In the first place, much is made of the description, quoted by Eusebius, of the character of James, the head of the church at Jerusalem, in which he is made out a punctilious observer of ceremonies.' That this fictitious portraiture accords with Ebionite taste, is granted. It is probable, however, that Hegesippus derived it from an Ebionite tradition. That he himself followed such a pattern of life, there is no more reason to think than there is to suppose the same of Gregory Nazianzen, who gives a similar description of Peter, and Clement of Alexandria, who gives a similar description of Matthew, both of which were also probably borrowed from Ebionite sources.2 But Hegesippus reports that in every city "the doctrine prevails according to what is declared by the law, and the prophets, and the Lord;" 3 and this statement is seized upon as an undoubted sign of Ebionitism in the author! Hegesippus was zealous against the Euseb., Lib. ii. c. 23. 2 See Schliemann, Die Clementinen, s. 429. 9 Euseb., Lib. iv. c. 22. 295 296 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. Gnostics, and this mention of the Old Testament, which, however, would not be remarkable in any case, was very natural, it being a part of his testimony to the freedom of the churches from the taint of gnostical heresy. But there is another passage from HIegesippus which was quoted by the Monophysite, Stephen Go barus, and is found in Photius, in which he says that those who affirm that "eye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor hlath it entered into the heart of man, the good things prepared for the just," maintain what is false and that this declaration is itself foolish. Here, ve are assured by the Tibingen critics, is a direct condemnation of an expression of the Apostle Paul, and a condemnation of the apostle himself. Supposing Hegesippus to be quoted right, it is still not easy to judge of the real intent of a passage which is thus torn from its connection. There is little reason to doubt, however, that Ilegesippus is attacking a gnostical interpretation or application of the passage, as was long ago conjectured. In the sense in which the Gnostics employed the expression, he might call it foolish. That he could not have designed to attack a statement of Paul, is demonstrated, first by the circumstance that Patil himself quotes the passage in question from Isaiah, and a censure of the apostle would involve a rebuke of the prophet; and, secondly, by the fact that in Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, wllicll is approved by I-egesiplpus, this identical I REFUTATION OF BAUR. passage of Scripture is also found.' Hegesippus is, rather, a witness against Baur's theory. He says that the Church was united and unpolluted by heresy until the apostles and the generation taught by them had passed away.2 How does this accord with the idea that the church of the apostolic age was rent in twain, and that Paul was considered then by the Jewish Christians to be a leader of heresy? "If there were any at all,'~ adds Hegesippus, "that attempted to subvert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats." The surmise of Baur, that this expression relates to Paul, is so plainly a desperate effort to escape from a difficulty, that it requires no answer. How far from Ebionitism Ilegesippus was, though probably a Hebrew Christian by birth, is evinced by his tracing even the gnostical heresies to a JeivisAl origin, by his approval of Clemenlt's epistle to the Corinthians, and by his testimony that the church of Corinth, to which Clement wrote, had "continued in the true faith." The same thing is proved incontrovertibly to the sober student of history by the simple fact that Eusebius, himself hostile to Ebionitism, and surely not less able to detect its presence than any critic of the Tuibingen school, and with the whole work of Hegesippus before him, speaks of this old writer with entire respect and approbation. Against Hermas thle charge of Ebionitism can be Clemient, 1. Coi-. c. xxxiv. 2 Euseb., Lib. iii. c. 32. 297 I I .1 298 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. made with more plausibility; but even with reference to him it cannot be sustained. Although he does in terms make faith the parent of all Christian virtues, yet in his far-fetched and long-drawnvl allegories the gospel is generally presented in a legal aspect, as a system of commands, on obeying which salvation hinges. Alorceover the idea of fasting as a meritorious act, and a general tendency to asceticism, correspond to certain features of Ebioniitism. But we have here to reiterate the observation that was made before, that legalism and asceticismn spring up in the Church from other causes than the influence of Judaism. Such is the fact in the case of Hermas and of the Church in the second century so far as it sympathized with his type of thinking. In Ilermas there is no exaltation of the Jews as a nation, no recognition of their national pretensions, no ascription to them of a preeminence in privileges and hopes. Hence, however he may resema ble the Ebionites in sundry points of doctrine, he is wholly distinct from them in historical position. A decisive proof that Hermas is not an Ebionite, is the doctrine he holds concerning Christ, to whom he attributes preexistence and a part in the creation of thle world. Another very striking proof of the same thing-a proof that his ritualism did not spring from an Ebionite root-is his notion that the Old Testament saints will have to be baptized by the apostles in the underworld, in order to be saved! 1 I Pastor Hermae, Liber III. Simil. ix. 16. " Hlermas male intel { i F I I REFUTATION OF BAUR. We come now to the main prop of the Tiibingen criticism, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. There existed from the beginning of the second century, in parts of Palestine and the neighborhood, a Jewish Christian party called Elkesaits. They were composed of Ebionite sectaries, who had probably fallen under the influence of the Essenes, and whose creed was a compound of their old belief and their newly-gained ascetic tenets.' The Spirit of God had united itself, they held, with Adam, constituting thus the true prophet, and afterwards with a series of individualsEnoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesuswho all taught in substance the same truth. Christianity was thus regarded as the restoration of the primeval religion, with which, also, primitive and pure Judaism was identical. The Elkesaits abjured the eating of flesh, and discarded sacrifices, which were ligens verba Apostoli I Petr. 3. 19 haec scripsisse videtur," says Hefele in his note, p. 424. 1 Gieseler attributes the theosophie ingredients of the Elkesait system to the influence of the Essenes. Schliemann, following Neander, would account for the same by the fusion of oriental elements with Judaismr. But according to Neander, as Gieseler points out, Essenism itself is partly the product of this very fusion. See Gieseler's K. G., B. I. ~ 32. n. 9. The best edition of the Homilies is that of A. Dressel (1853). This edition contains the last two Homilies, which are not found in the edition of Cotelerius. A very thorough monogram on the whole subject of the Pseudo-Clementine writings is "Die Olementinen" of A. Sehliemann (1844). Uhlhorn, the author of a later work on the same subject, gives a condensed statement of his views in lUergog's Real-Encyc., Art. Clenmeitinen. 299 i. II ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. held to have come in through a corruption of the true religion. They advocated the obligation to renounce riches. The forgiveness of sins was procured by baptism, which, as it would appear, was often repeated. They rejected, among other scriptures, the Pauline Epistles. The Pseudo-Cleimentine Homilies, which were written by some Roman towards the end of the second century, bring forward, with additions and modifications, the same tenets. The work falsely pretends to emanate from Clement, the first bishop of the Roman church after the apostles, who, being confounded, doubtless, with Flavius Clement, the relative of Domitian, is represented as a cultivated Roman of rank. Impelled by a thirst for truth, which he had sought in vain, he journeys to the east, and through the agency of Barnabas is introduced to Peter, whose instruction fully satisfies his mind, and who is made, in the room of Paul, the real apostle to the Gentiles, the founder and first bishop of the Roman church. Peter is portrayed as the antagonist of all sorts of errors, especially of the Gnostics in the person of Simon Maagus. He combats, also, Chiliasm, the Hypostatic Trinity, and Montanism. Paul, though not mentioned by name, is made the adversary of Peter, and is regarded with hostility. Peter is made to teach the Elkesait doctrine of a primitive religion which was afterwards corrupted; of the identity of the true Mosaic system with Chrisltianity; of the seven men, 300 REFUTATION OF BAUR. together with Jesus, in whom the true prophet was manifest; of opposition to sacrifices, abstinence from eating flesh, voluntary poverty, and frequent fasts and baptisms. In conjunction with these views, other notions are found. The earthly kingdom with Satan, its head, is set in antithesis to the heavenly kingdom, both forming together a pair; and a similar contrast or coupling is carried, in a series, through the whole history of the world and of man. Thus, Adam was endowed with all intellectual and moral gifts, but from him proceeded the woman, the source of sensuousness and weakness. So, along with the true prophet, false prophets are always found to pervert the truth. The hierarchical theory is decidedly supported, but chiliasm is opposed. Interwoven with the work is a not unattractive story, embracing the personal fortunes of Clement; and the whole is commended to credence by accompanying vouchers: a letter of Peter entrustimg his discourses to James at Jerusalem, who is represented as the head-bishop of the whole Church; an attestation that the trust was faithfully discharged by James; and a letter of Clement to James, purporting to be written after the death of Peter, and transitting the work which Clement had composed by his direction. At a later period, it seems to have been thought that the Homilies were a work actually composed by Clement, but corrupted and interpolated by heretics. Accordingly, early in the third century, somle one, 301 302 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. probably an Alexandrian, undertook to clear them of supposed interpolations and restore them to the original form. The product was the so-called Recognitions of Clement. The Epitome is the result of a still later revision.1 Strange to say, the Clemnentine Homilies, a spurious production, the work of an unknown writer, and abounding in fantastic, anti-Christian ideas which could never have gained the assent of a sober-minded Christian, is made by Baur a sort of text-bookl for the illustration of the opinions of the Roman church, and of the churches generally, in the second century. Its authority is deemed sufficient, on many points, to outweigh the testimony of the approved writers who have heretofore been depended on by scholars of all theological affinities. Because this work is Ebionite and anti-Pauline, such must have been the prevailing Christianity of the time! But the Clementine Homilies represented the opinions of an individual and not the sentiments of any important body of Christians. Not until after the Homilies were written did the party whose notions were, to a considerable extent, embodied in them, obtain adherents in Asia Minor, Cyprus, or Rome. Hence Origen, who was acquainted with the church at Rome, as well as with the churches elsewhere, speaks of this party as having "lately arisen." 2 The See Gieseler's K. G., B. I. s. 285. ' Origen in Etuseb., Lib. vi. c. 38. I REFUTATION OF BAUR. most plausible and best supported hypothesis which we have met with, concerning the origin of this unique ,ork, is that presented by Gieseler. The Roman church, as is well known, in the early centuries was far more practical than speculative. Instead of originating theological discussions, it gave a hearing to the more intellectual and versatile theolog,ues of the East. In the second century in particular, Rome was the place to which theological sectaries resorted in order to gain, if possible, countenance from the influential church of the metropolis. In such a state of things it was natural that many should become unsettled in their faith and unable to satisfy themselves upon disputed questions. Among these was a young Roman, educated in philosophy, who determined to resort to Palestine, and seek for the truth amonog the remnants of the original, Judacan church. Falling in with the Elkesaits, he conceived himself to possess in their tenets a satisfactory system, and one on which divergent parties could be united. In opposing Gnostics and other parties with whom the Elkesaits had not come in contact, he was naturally led to amplify and modify the doctrine which he had learned, and to blend with it the results of his own speculation. This mode of accounting for the Homilie has the merit of being consistent with the known facts, and the bare statement of it will suggest how entirely exaggerated is the Tiibingen estimate of the significance of the work. 303 304 ORIGIN OF CATHIIOLIC CHRISTIANITY. The method which these critics adopt in dealing with the authorities from which the early history of the Church is to be deduced, we may illustrate by a modern parallel. Towards the close of the American Revolution, there appeared in London a history of Connecticut, from the pen of Rev. Samuel Peters, who had been a missionary in Hebron in that State, but had left the country in consequence of the unpopularity he had incurred by taking the side of the English Government. This work, though prefaced by protestations of fidelity and painstaking, is an odd mixture of fact and fiction. Among other fabulous stories, Peters promulgated the notion that unrecorded laws, which are styled "blue laws," of an ascetic and whimiisical severity, were in force among the early Puritans of the colony. This singular, mendacious chronicle is thought worthy to be cited, though not without somie expressions of distrust, by so recent an author as the learned Dr. Hessey in his Bampton Lectures upon the history of the observance of Sunday. Now what would be thought of an historical critic, who at some time in the remote future should take Peters for the governing authority in his investigation of the ancient history of Connecti cut? Other documents, let it be supposed, are extant, which have been universally regarded as authentic. But these, together with historians'like Bancroft and Palfrey, who lived much nearer the events and were in possession of a great amount of traditionary and docu REFUTATION OF BAUR. nmcntary evidence which has siIce )perished, he cliooses to set aside. Such a course would matchl that taken by the critics who would convert the Cleinentine fiction into an authority sufficient to override tlie firmest historical testimonies. That a judaizing party had( swvay ill the Rtoni-an chlurchl in the next period after the apostolic age, is a declaration maide in thle face of convincing evidence to the contraly. Baur has contended that the church of Rome was made up, at the outset, chiefly of Jewish converts. But this proposition is refuted by the copilexion of Paul's E,pistle to the Romnais. Tlice fact of his writing an cpistle to this church, w\lclic lic had not personally planted and had never visite(d, is itself a strong presumption that the chiurcl wa.-s predominantly Gentile. Thle various expressions in the first chapter, relative to his cllling to preaclh to the Gentiles and his willingness to fulfil it cvene at Roime (vs. 5, 6, 14, 15), would I)e out of pl)ace ill n a'ldlcss to born Jews. -And how unlatural is tle lhypotlicsis that the first eight chapters were written mierely to serve as an introduction to the two chapters whicl follow! The observances of the Roman church were anti-Jewish. The custom grew up there of fasting on Saturday, or of continuing the fast of Friday tlhrough the following dlay, whlilst Sunday was nla(le a joyous festival. The Roiman church, iii t-le d(liscussions of the second century concerning laster, took ground against conforming to the Jewishl calendar or continuing the 20 305 ORIGIN OF CATHOLIC CIIRISTIANITY. Jewishl fcstivals. These are iuideiiiabl)le facts. They arce met l)y the uncertified conjecture, that they indicate a Pautliec reactioni against the judaizing spirit whichl is assumed to have prevailed before! But this rcejoinder is a subterfuge. If arbitrary conjectures of this ki,1d are to pass for evidence, there might as well be atin end of llistorical study. The effort to trace the hierarchical theory and system to a distinctively Jewish-Christian and Petrine party, is not less unsuccessful. There was, without doubt, the transfer of the idea of the Jewish priest11oo(1 to the Christiaii clergy. The analogy of the Old Testan,,eit systemi was at once a model, and to some extcnit a inotive, which determined the rank and func tions of the Christian ecclesiastics. But the Jewish prejudice was peculiarly a natiotial feeling. It was a feeling of pri(le in race and blood. This peculiar feeling, and the demands connected with it, hardly a(lImit of being satisfied by the ascription of priestly I)rerogatives to Gentiles-by a seeming revival of the o1(1 religious system, attended, however, by the total loss of national preeminience. Jewish Christians, to be s,ire, might be liable to confound Old Testament with1 Christian ideas, and transfortn the preacher into tlhe priest. This tendency, lhowever, is to be distin guislied froiiio the teclhnically judaiziig spirit, which had its roots ill It lationail jealousy. But cvo the Jewisli-Cliristian feeling which was not judaizing, was far from being the controllingi cause of that change in 306 I REFUTATION OF BAUR.t Christian viewvs vlwhichll paved the way for the lierarclical systemi. Tendencies to such a system sp)rung up on heathen soil. EIspecially mighlt tlis be the fact where the Old Testament, with its Levitical system, was in the hands of Christians, and when the question of the distinctive character of justification under the gospel no longer excited a living, interest or continued to stir up controversy. The growtli of the hierarchy, as a part of doctrinal belief aud as a practical system, was imperceptible. It wvas rathcr due to the fact that the Church had becomie oblivious of the points of doctrine on whlicl Paul insisted, or of the principles which underlie them, than to any distinct exertion or influence of an Ebionite party. But how shlall we explain the exaltcd rank which was given to Peter, and the position ascrilbed to lhim, of principal founder of the. Roman church? These views, we reply, were not inspired by any anti-Pautline party. The wlole tradition of Peter's visit to Rome and nmartyrdom there, as well as the later story of his episcopal supremacy in the Roman church, is attributcd by the Tiibingen critics to El)ionitc partisanship. But as to the doctrine of Petcr's headsliip among the apostles, it was not the offspring of an anti-Pauline theology. The idea of the hierarchy involved the need of an apostolic centre and head. And this place was naturally assigned to Peter. The reading, of the Gospels and the Acts made the impression that Peter was the foremost of the apostles and was constituted i 307' I t ORIGIN OF CATIIOLIC ClIRISTIANITY. thelcir clader. Nor was thlis imiii)ressiotili o cevcr false tle doctrine of an essential diffrrence of ralk e)ctween Peter anld tlhe rest miay be-whlolly imfoitndc(l. Even Paul in more than one p)lace scCmrs to regard Peter as the principal apostle, though a position hardly inferior seems to be held by James.' But the tradition of thle visit of Peter to Rome and of his death there, ante(dates the hierarchical pretensions of thle Roman cllurchl. AMoreover, hlad the story been originated by a Petrine i)arty in order to (Iel)less the consideration of Paul, as 13Baur p)rctelndls, it iwonl( leave found ii-istant contradiction from the Pauline party at Rome, instead of being attested, as it is, by the Presbyter Caius, him self a Christian zealous for the honor of Paul.2 in truth, thl idea that Peter llelped to found the Roman church, and the association of his name with Paul in this work, is a sign that no partisanship respecting thle nlerits and claims of these apostles existed. The liotioli that Peter was tlie first hisol) of the Itlomani chmuch, is something (liffbr(n,it fromI the tradition of his concern iii foundigii it, and was probably set in cir cldation by the Pscido-Cleiiientine writings; first by the Hlomilies, but especially by the Recognitionis, which passed for a genuine work. The inroads of Gnosticism and AIontanism, and other agencies, con. tributed to comibine orthodox Christianity into a more compact body. As tlle result of a variety of causes, the deepest of which lie in inherent tendencies of 2 Euseb., Lib. II. o. 25. i I 308 ,: i i I - 1. i! i :.i i; ; I i; I! I; i 'k. 4 I Gal. i. 18, ii. 7, 8. REFUTATION OF BAUR. hIiuman nat l'c, an externalized (colcel)tioii of (Christiltiity be,gan uiorec and ilorc to pievail. The gIr (it, liietrop)olitail chlurchl, in the city whcerc P.anl and Peter hlad died, the only chlurchl in tllc wcst citligiiiig to )e cstal)lishle(l an(l gtilded by all -tl)ostlc, toweced(l al)ove aill other westcei ch1iirclI(s aIi(d cvci ll)()ovc;t1 otlicr a,postolic sces.'Tlie id(eca of aii (Il)()stolic ilililliacy on thlle )lart of IPcter ilsensibly colllle(tc(l itself witll tllhe story of aii cl)iscopal dtity suistaline(ld hy liiiii'il tllhe Roman church. In tlhese chaluges of (loctrine and organization, we recognize, to be sir'e, tlhe establlislhmenlt of a systeiii aiinatlogous to tlhat of tire 01(1 Testaient, alid, in a great deg,ree, witlh iore or less coInsciousness, mllodelled after it; ut wc dicer n l110 evidence of tihe presence of a distille(t, colI-trolli,ng Ibhionite or judaizing party. In the foregoi,ng rel rs w hv l lot taken into view those important writiligs, t liC epistle of 13trliabnahs, the epistle of Polycarp, and the I,gnatian ep)istles,' tlhe prevailing drift of whichl is colnfesse(d to 1)c distillctly Pauiiline.2 It has been possible, as we tlhink, coni We may observe tl,at the genuiIeness of t]hec s1lI()oter Ignatia epistles-tlhiogil they may ]lave slle,-e(l interp)olation-is iiot jioWv iiiip-igned l)y judicious sclolairs. After the discovery of the Syriml versioni of thlree of tlise el,istlvs, l)IInseO caLme oit witli tlie lia.ty st'iteluelut tliht oilly these, or so mudlel of tlhemi as thlle Sy' iatll vers;ioi contained, are geinuine. Tlie SNyri.- ram1sl:l io,Is, 1()wl Cr, ]ltaI been proved to b)e tlhe )lodtlct of:in:tl)ridg-liiet {if tlie, ]gl,{til origiiials, and to -tff,rd h(o, evidence N\liatec, -ver aiiit the ge,iciineies.s of tlI i'ieiiitiiriiiig four. 2 See Scliwe,lel's.acliala)ostoliscliey Z'italter, B. I. 309 310 OItI(GIN Ut' C.'AT'IIOLIC CIIlISTIANITY. )ietely to refute tle p)osition of thle Ttl)iingen school by a 1)la'ili ainialysis of their own evidence. Nor have we tlhouglut it necessary to answer the criticism which is quick-scented enough to detect in Justin Martyr a modicum of the judaizing leaveii. Justin speaks mildly of the more liberal Ebionites who sought not to interfere with the freedom of the heathen converts; 1 and in tlie same spirit Paul would have sp)oken. ATlioecver will read withl an impartial eye wliat Justin says of salvaItioi by faitlh-that Ab)ralam was justified "for the faitlh whlich he had being yet in uncircumecision"2 (a st,atclicnt doubtless borrowed from Paul), or peruse wlat hle says of the sabbaths and fasts of the Jews,3 or attend to his doctrine con cerning the exalted dignity of Christ, will need no argu,cent to convince him tliat Justin had no affinity withl Ebionitism. The Church in the era following the apostolic age was not swayed by Ebionitismi. There was no party, save a party kown and rl~ ecog,ized as heretical, which was hostile to thec Ap)ostle Paul or called in question his righ,t to be considered an apostle. IHowever the Cliurchi may have gradually lapsed from his interpreta tion of the gospel, there was among orthodox Chris tians no conscious and wilfiul opposition to his doc trine. The whole tlieory. of an anti-Pauline, Ebionite Dial. c. Tryph., c. 47. 2 Dial. c. Trj) c., c. 23. ' E. g. Dial. c. Tryph., c. 19 seq. THE EBIONITE PARTIES. Clhristianiity in tlhec second century, is not only 1111s111)ported by any solid evidence, but is positively proved to be false. Rather is it true that judaizing Christiaafity shrunk away and fell into a powerless sect, in the presence of the widc-sprcead cstabl)lishmnent of the gospel among the heathen, and wlhen Jerusalem, the sacred seat of the ancient worship, becamie a lheatp of ruils. Panlliiie Cliristianity achllieve(l tlhe victory; aid then in Gentile churches themselves there sprulig lip conceptions of religion at variance with the spirit and tenor of the great apostle's teaching. II. We proceed to the second topic which we proposed to consider-Thle Early Viewis conicerning Christ, and the Doctrine of his Divinity. In comnmon with the older Sociniaris, 13atir seeks to prove that the humanitarian view of the persoil of the Saviour was the original doctrine, or the doctrine of the Jewish Christians, partly on the ground that the Ebionites of the post-apostolic period, the remnant of the Judaean church, adhlered to this conception, and were unitarians of the humanitarian type. In order to test the validity of this aigumient, we shall have to state, as concisely as we can, what is known respecting the rise and character of the carly Ebionite parties.' I On this subject, there is nothing to supersede the lutcid, n-i.asterlv dissertation of Gieseler in StiiitlliIi?. Tzschir)ler's Arc(i? far iAiichengeschichte, iv. 2. Later ilvestigattions of Neander, Scllie'LflUn 311 312 ORIGIN OF CATIIOLIC CIlRISTIANITY. Trliere is 11no (IouI)t, as l have sai(d ab)ove, tl(hat tlcice were ill the apostolic age two l)ranchels of the C'l,nucli. T'ie (Gentiles, or the chlurcIes composed of the (lis(iI)les of 1Paul, anid " tllhey of thlle.circunicision", were distilnguisled by tllhe fact that tlie latter kept lip the observance of the Old Testamient ritual. It is a false position of Baur, as we affirm once more, that James, Peter, and tlhe otlier Jerusalem apostles, togetlier witl thle l)o(ly of tle Judacan church, were disp)osed to (lisfellowslii) Paul anid llis disciples. Yet thlere was a party of Jewishl Cliristiaiis-thle Ju(laizers -imbued wNithl a pliariisaical spirit, and including many forimer me,mbers of tlle pharisaical sect, whllo were bent on iaL.king circumcision obligatory upon the iheatlhen converts, and were inimical to the Apostle Paul. There is reason to believe that the judaizing party grew ill iiumbers in proportion as the Gentile branchl of tlhe church gaiiie(1 in strength, and that tleir attaclmnent to the ritual became more an(d more f-,iatical. At the (dcstrlnctioll of Jerusalem, the Jewish Cliristians had taken refuge for tle time in Pella and iii the aL(ljacent re,ions of eastern Palestine. But in consequence of repeated( insurrections of the Jews, tlley were at leiigtli forbidden by Iladrian (A. D. 135) to enter the nuew city vwhiclh ie established on the site of Jerusalenm; ati(I the celebration of the Mosaic ritual, (in the work already notic(le), I)ornecr, and others, lhave rectified, however, the representations of Gieseler in certain particulars, and have brought forward some new information. -TIIE 1,BIONITE PARTIES. Vhl itlier l)y Jew S Or Jcvisli Chlristians, illt('rlict('(1. I",Iciinceforward the C1iristian cliur(i at J cr1salcli ('eased to observe thle ccreimoniail ilj(iw,.id was extcrn1lly, as well as.in spirit, ill full acco(rd witlI the GCeltile chIurchIes. Not far friom tIhe timie whici tlis d(ecree wis i SSit(, we fiInd Jtsti iartyr distini1iisling lTI)ctwNccI tN-() (-lasses of Jewisli-Ciristiai sectaries, wiithI one of wioani lie can have no coinmtmunion, whilc lie loolks lipon tlhe other with clharity. The first class observe the ceremonial law and insist that Gentile Christians sliall observe it; the second class, tliogiiI ob)ser'viing the law tlieiliselves, whllicll Jnstiii conults a CweaIlIness, yet freely tolerate their Gentile l)retlIrein ad(1 maCke io -itteinl)t to p)ut the yolkec of cir,uiicisiol alil s-,l,)atl s lipoln tlieil'. It is pliin that Jti'tiai has iii iii,ii,l tle tvo p)arties ilichl are knowiii to l iater witeis as Ebionites iand Nazarenes; both howeveri l)eing ficquently merged under the common niame of Ell)iolite. Justin immediately proceeds to consider tllhe opillion wlhich was entertained by some Clhristians, that Clirist did liot pr/exist, lI)nt is a man, not essentially (listi,guislied fronm otlher mten; 1(and lis langiag e renders it clear tlhat Jewish Chiristians are referred( to. Ir1ecacus (w-1to fitst us,es tChe 1.1me ]io))i(c.) aIldTertullian treat )ioniitisiii as a heresy, ad( l)ring 111) the fact of the emity of tlhe sect to the Apostle P,(iil. Tlhis antagonisii to Paul, however, le!(:.:ged, as wec ' l)ictl. c. ly2])., 47, 48. 31,3 i. i I r I I I 314 ORIGIN OF CATIIOLIC CIIRISTIANITY. know, only to the strict EIbionites, and was not shared by the iiilder p)arty of Nazarenes. Origei explicitly distiing,uislics these two divisions of the Ebionite class. The former, lie says, deny and the lattecr accept the umiraculous birth of Christ froni the Virg,in.' 1Eusebius describing both parties under the commlnon designation of Ebionites, yet distinctly states that a portion of tliemi did not deny" that the Lord was born of the Virg,in by the IIoly Glhost."2 From Jerome and El)il)lianiuis, iii the latter l)art of thle fourth century, we derive a nlore full explanation of the characteristic tenets of the different jtudaizinig sects. Epiphanius describes a third class of Ebionites, who had miingled with their judaizing tenets thleosoplic or gnostical speculations and thlus concocted a distinct and peculiar schlieme of doctrine. One phase of this eclectic thellology, as we have already explained, is presented in the Psendo-Clementine Iloiiilics.3 The IIomilies, it will be remembered, along with otller elemients -which separate their systemi fioni tHle do,gmas of either of the two parties which we have just described, are yet Ebionite in their hostility to the Apostle Paul, their rejection of the doctrine of Clrist's divinity, and in various other points. Jeromne, whlo lived in the neighborhood of the Jewish Christians and held intercourse with them, is our best authority, esi)ccially so far as the Nazarclles are concerned. Both tllese Origen, c. Celsum2, v. 61, lso c. 65. ' Euseb., I,ib. III. (. 27. ' EI)il)li., II(iei-. xxx, TIIE EBIONITE PARTIES. I)rlties mad(le ius- excltsively of thle Gos)pel or tle l tCl)l'cws, a gospl)cl ill thlle Ar.-iaiiac (dialect, whlicli b)ore a near rcsemblanlce to the canonical Gospel of [lattlew. Tlle Ell)iolliites pirop)er, however, unlike the Nazarellecs, rejecte(l tlc first two chapters. Botli ol)served the requireImenits of the ceremonial law. It is clear that tle ll)io)ites )propl)er considlered( Jcsiis to b)e a llere mailln, l)egottcn l)y a 1iiiiiiai fi'ttlher; a )liol)lIct, receivillg the miiessianic call at his baptislI, an( ell(llled at that time with the H-oly Spirit for the d(liscliar,ge of his office. Withlout circumcision, there was 110 salvation. Christ woiltl comie agail to estalfisll his thllrone at Jeritsalei andi( bring all nations into sldljecctioii. Whetlier the Na'zalrenes hleld the cliliastic, or1 SCIlS1S mlllennial, (doctrine of the stricter El)ioinites, we cainnot deternille.' But ili ilany fe.atures tlhe Nazarenes were l)road(ly distii,gllisled fron tllis 1)arty of radical Jud(laizers. Tlley rejected(l tlle ljlllrisai cal traditions and spirit. Tlhey l)clieved(l tlat Jess was conceived of the Iholy Ghost aid )borni of a virgin. They cherished a fraternal feeling towards tlhe Genitile Chrlistians. They honored the Apostle P'a l. Thley waited, withl longing, for the conversioii o,f their Jcewish coiiiitrymcn to the fitlit iii Clrist. Such(, in brief, was tlel cllaracter of tl(i,l( isih.Christiaii sects, as it is gatlhered fi'oii tlie fi'g,iiiciitary information to be glcaned fioni the 1'(ltrs. We cannot fail to recognize i tie EIl)ioiiites 1)rol)per tle See, on this topic, Selieliann, s. 457. 0 3-t 5 ORIGIN OF CATIIOLI(' CIIRIS'I'IANITY. !:.es:cc(!(nts of the party of Jud(laizers who, during tle life of P-alil, (lisl)lziyc(l a fiiatical ol)pposition to his lricil)les anid persoli. Nor do we err ill regal(dinlg the Nazarenes as the successors of that nil(ler 1)arty of Judacan Chlristianls, wlho, iiii(ler tle lea(l of tld(c apostles, observed, to be sure, the laws and custOlms of tleir people, but were in fraternal union with Paul anl(l 1is Gentile clhurcles. Thfe territorial situation of tlhese I)ost-al)ostolic sects, in P1alestine and the vicinity, togetler witIl l thtl e rest of the knoiwledge we possess coiccrlinig tlhel, corroborates tlis vicewv. lhen and how (li(l tlhese l)alties sel)parate fi'Oiii eachl other and forni the rcst of the chllurclh? AVc arc not wAitliout the rmeans of ansiwering this question. Hlegesi)p)us, towards the cid of the seconi( ceitutry, states'expressly that dutiring tlde lifetime of the apostles, and down to the timnes of Trrajan, there was no heresy or division in the Jerusalem clrcelh, an(I tlhat the first movemcnts of tlhis sort occl'rred( after tlhe (leatli of Sillcoin, the siccessor of Jaimes, or al)oiit tlie year lO8. U1) to this timre the Clinreli li-,(l rciicile(I a pure an(d un-spotted virgin-a miode of expression sigifyinrg the absence of heretical parties.' It miay be that little reliance is to be put upon the statement that an individual named Thebuthlis was the first fomenter of schism, or I that personal rivalry lay at thle bottom of it; but as to tlle main clhronological fact, there is no good reason for doubt. When the filnial decree expelling the Jews See Ifeinicbei's nioto (R) to Eusob., Lib. III. 32. 316 THE EBIONITE PARTIES. an(l Jewisli ritual firom Jerusalem, was issued, a large number of Hebrew Christians abandoned the ceremio nies of the law and identified themnselves with the Gentile church.1 But the Jewish Christians who were not prepared to take this step and were likewise Ullnp)repared to give up their Christian faith altogether, were thrown into the position of separate sects. The precise relations of the two divisions of the j'idaistic party to each other, it is not so easy to determine. But this we know, that the name of the Nazarenes had been applied from the beginning, by the Jews, to Christians generally; 2 and that the Nazarene party, in their principle relative to circumcision and their feeling towards Paul, harmonized with the liberal Jewish Christians of the apostolic age and were bitterly hated by the stricter Ebionites. It is natural, therefore, to suppose, with Gieseler, that the Ebionites proper-the strict Judaizers-broke off from the Nazarenes at the time when Hlegesippus states that heresy and division began. When the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, or shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the judaizing party had shown signs of withdrawing itself from their more liberal 1 Gieseler's Essay (in Stiiud,lin u. Tzschirner), s. 325. Itis references are to Epiph. de Pond. et Mens. ~ 15, and Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Sacr. II. 31. Where there is so great an inherent probtbility that the fetc was as they state, these authorities mniay be considered sufficient. 2 Paul was called by Ihis Jewish accusers "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." Acts xxiv. 5. 317 318 ORIGIN OF CATIIOLIC CIIRISTIANITY. ( d1ts -Y. T., p. 87; De Wette, Ei1l. ini das N. T. (5 A.) p. 1 0. 2 Vie de Jesus, pp. xvi., xvii. I Vie de Jeus, p. xxiv. seq. THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. assigned to it. It is plain that his misgivings in regard to the discourses in John are wholly subjective, and are incompatible with the external evidence for the genuineness of the Gospel, which he himself ad duces. A great part of the discourses in John are linked inseparably with incidents in the narrative. If the discourses are given up, the narrative must share their fate. In his comments on Matthew and Mark, Renan has committed the gravest errors. He as sumes that the discourses recorded in the first Gospel formed the basis of the work, to which the narrative matter was afterwards added; and, likewise, that the Gospel of Mark has been enlarged since its first com position. The collection of Discourses, he thinks, took up narrative matter from the primitive Gospel of Mark, and this Gospel in turn took up sayings of Christ from the Discourses. The theory is built on the foundation of the testimony of Papias, and this is done after Renan has expressly admitted that the descriptions of this Father "correspond very well to the general physiognomy" of the first two Gospels in their present fornm. This admission is just, as we have shown in a previous Essay. If Papias did refer to an original collection of discourses, the basis of the first Gospel, which is very improbable, yet it has also been shown that he describes a state of things which lay in the past, and that he himself had in his hands the same Greek Matthew that is found in our Bibles. Renan has allowed himself to be misled in this par. Vie de Td'Uq p. Xix. 437 438 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN, ticular, in consequence of overlooking the aoristic form in which the statement of Papias appears. The only other ground on which Renan would infer this mutual indebtedness of the two Gospels to one another, is the well known frequent similarity in the phraseology employed. This proves, indeed, either that one of the two was partly founded on the other, or that both drew from a common source of information, either oral or written. But either of these hypotheses is more probable than the theory proposed by Renan. At the same time, had he confined himself to the statements cited above, he would leave untouched the substantial authenticity of the first two Gospels. He only finds a part of Matthew in Mark and a part of Mark in Matthew. But he finally gives to this borrowing system a far greater latitude. Founding his statement on the remark of a single individual, Papias, concerning himself, and exaggerating the purport of that remark, he affirms that in the early Church "little importance was attached" to the written Gospels. He proceeds to say that for a hundred and fifty years the evangelical texts possessed little authority; that there was no scruple about inserting additions, combining them diversely, or completing some by others;" that the early Christians "lent these little rolls to one another: each transcribed on the margin of his copy the sayings and the parables which he found else where and which touched him." 1 Now these extra. ordinary propositions are not only without proof, but 1 ie de Jesus. T). xxHi. THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. can be demonstrated to be false. The habit of citing passages inexactly and ad sens8um, which belongs to Justin and other writers of his time, proves nothing to the purpose; for this is not peculiar to them, but be longs equally to Fathers of the next age, and Justin's quotations from the Old Testament are marked by the same kind of inaccuracy. Does Renan mean his readers to believe that down to "the latter half of the second century," Christians individually altered their copies of the Gospels ad libitumi by interpolations of the character described? This appears to Be his de sign. Yet conjectures of this nature have been proved to be not merely uncertified, but inconsistent with known facts.: The number of copies of the received Gospels in the early part of the second century must have been great. These copies were early multiplied and widely scattered over the Roman Empire, whereever Christians were found. Any essential variations in the text of either of the Gospels would inevitably have perpetuated themselves, and would appear in the later transcriptions. The essential agreement of all the manuscripts of the Gospels which are now extant, demonstrates that no changes of the character supposed by Renan could have taken place. Besides, he admits that Luke's Gospel is from a single pen, and was composed about the time of the capture of Jerusalem.2 Why did not Luke's Gospel undergo See the argument of Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. 2 Vie de Jesus, p. xvii. 439 440 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN. similar transformations? What protected that from the lot which befell its companions? But Renan involves himself in a labyrinth of inconsistencies on this subject, for Luke is declared to be later than Matthew and Mark, and "a compilation much more advanced." 1 And the resemblance in phraseology between the third Gospel and each of the first two presents the same problem as does the resemblance between the first and second. Such is Renan's treatment of the question of the origin of the Gospels. Compared with the theories of the German skeptical critics, it deserves commendation. The most serious defects of it are the view taken of the discourses in John, and the notion that the Gospels, at least the first two, were long subject to arbitrary changes in their contents; a notion, however, which is incongruous with Renan's own previous concessions. 2. As concerns the history recorded in the Gospels, and especially the accounts of miraculous events, Renan adopts what may be styled the legendary, in distinction from the mythical, theory. These accounts were rather the transfigiuration of fact, than a pure creation of pious enthusiasm. Renan is decided in affirming that at least a great part of these accounts emanate from the apostles themselves, and that acts which passed for miraculous figured largely in the life of Jesus. On this point he cannot acquit the Master FVie de Jesus, p. xviii. THE NARRATIVES OF MIRACLES. at the cost of the disciples. He himself permitted the belief that he miraculously healed the sick and raised the dead. Renan is driven to this conclusion by his more sober view of the evangelical documents. What explanation of the testimony of the Gospels and of the extraordinary phenomena in the life of Christ, can be given? Renan replies that the Gospels are legendary narratives, like the lives of some of the mediaeval saints; and that the events in the life of Jesus which seemed miraculouis, wore this character partly through the blind enthusiasm of the apostles, and partly through pious fraud in which they had an active, and their Master a consenting, agency. In defendinig his thesis, Renan declares that Jesus had no idea of a natural order governed by laws, and was not conscious of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural, the normal and the miraculous. The attentive reader of the Gospels will not need to be assured that this proposition is devoid of truth.' When Jesus says that God makes the sun to rise and the rain to fall, did he mean or does he imagine that the shining of the sun, or a shower of rain, is a miracle? 'Did he not know full well that the growth of the grass in the field is a totally different sort of event from the multiplying of the loaves, albeit the power of God is requisite for both? Did he not understand that his miraculous works belong ill a different category from the ordinary labors of the physician? After the cure See, on this point, J. Muller' Essay on Miracles, p. 33. N. 441 442 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN. of a dumb demoniac, Matthew records that "the mltitudes marvelled, saying,'It was never so seen in Israel.'" The miracles of Christ excited among the witnesses the same kind of amazement which events of a like character would occasion now.1 Equally unfortunate is Renan's comparison of the company of Christ with St. Francis and his followers. We have already, in the review of Strauss, pointed out the mistake of transferring to the apostolic church the characteristics of the mediaeval age. The disciples of St. Francis were full of the spirit of their master; and enthusiasm that falls below absolute madness, can rise no higher than in the example of this monk. His asceticism stopped short of no austerities which the body could endure. His inward life, like his outward career, was a continual romance. His mystic fervor betrayed itself in his ordinary speech-in his apostrophes to birds and beasts and even to inanimate things. "His life," says Milman, "might seem a religious trance. Incessantly active as was his life, it was a kind of paroxysmal activity, constantly collapsing into what might seem a kind of suspended animiation of the corporeal functions." As to the witnesses to the "wounds" of Christ on his person, one of them testifies to seeing the soul of St. Francis, after his death, in its flight through the air to heaven! And we are to believe that the author of the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel Parables, together with See, for example, John ix. 32; ~Iark iv. 41. THE NARRATIVES OF MIRACLES. the chosen disciples who sat at his feet, were the victims of the same sort of hallucination! But hallucination, as Renan feels and frankly allows, will not serve to explain these events in the Gospels. They were either miraculous, or there was fraud. He faces the dilemma and does not scruple to call in the aid of the fr'aecs pia to account for them. The resurrection of Lazarus was a pretended resurrection, which the disciples contrived for popular effect, and in which Jesus reluctantly, but knowingly and wilfully, played his part! It is a hateful supposition; Renan himself, notwithstanding the sentimental apologias which lhe offers for the conduct of the parties to whom he attributes a proceeding so low and deceitful, find(s his own theory ungrateful.1 Yet he adopts it because, unable to believe in a miracle, he is fairly cornered by the evidence, and knows no other escape. There is a condition of mind in which devotional sentiment has broken firom its natural alliance with conscience, and the moral sense is lost in the haze of an artificial morality, when a man may think he can serve heaven b)y cheating his fellow-men even in the things of religion. Pious frauds are the spawn of this terrible delusion, that one may "lie for God." But who that is not blind to the marks of simple, faithful, uncompromising rectitude, can entertain for a moment the suspicion that Jesus and his apostles were untruthful? that they sought to forward their cause by means of 1 Tc de J;sts, p1p). 265, 266. 443 444 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN. disgusting frauds? The supposition is too irrational, and will find few, if any, to embrace it. Renan's work, regarded from a scientific point of view, has the effect of an argument for the Christian faith and for the verity of the Christian miracles. For the alternative to which webare brought by his discussion is that of believing in the miracles or charging Christ and his apostles with fraud. We have either truth or gross cheating. Such is the real alternative, and Renan has unintentionally done a service to the Christian Church by impaling unbelief upon this dilemmIa. 3. The special criticism in Renan's work, if not sophistical like much of the criticism of Strauss, may be justly termned lawless. Starting with his unproved assumption that the canonical Gospels are legendary narratives, he seems to be governed in his beliefs and lisbeliefs, in his acceptance and his rejection of their statements, by no fixed rules. This part of the narrative is accepted, and that thrown out, when frequently there is no assignable reason beyond the critic's arbitralir will. But in styling Renan's critical procedure lawless, we had chiefly in mind his exegesis of the New Testament, and in particular his interpretations of the teaching of Christ. It is often true that while these interpretations are in some degree plausible, they are unsound and false. The effect of them, not unfrequently, is to foist upon Christianity and its author doctrines which he never taught. The reader must INTERPRETATIONS BY RENAN. permit us to vindicate this judgment by some illustra tions. Witness the mode in which Renan seeks to support the false assertion that the Saviour enjoined poverty and celibacy. We may first observe, however, that the most which the Roman Catholic interpreters have pretended to find in the Gospels, is a recom mendzation of these monastic virtues. They are placed by the Roman Catholic theology among the Evangelica conslicia,-as not being commanded, not essential to salvation, but as qualities of the higher type of Christian excellence. The charge that the renunciation of property is required, as a condition of salvation, finds no support in the invitations of Christ addressed to theli poor, in common with all who were in suffering, nor in the implication, which was the actual fact, that a spiritual susceptibility, not usually found in the more favored classes, belonged to them. Confronted by a fact like the discipleship of the wealthy Zaccheus, of whonl no surrender of his property was required, Renan says that Christ made an exception in favor of rich men who were odious to the ruling classes! As if Jesus could think that the sin of possessing wealth was washed out when the rich man happened to be unpopular! Renan's perverse interpretation of the Saviour's rebukes of covetousness and an ungenerous temper towards the poor, he supports by appealing to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. "Afterwards," he says, "this was called the parable of the ' wicked rich man.' But it is purely and simply the 445 446 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN. parable of the'rich man.' "1 As if the rich man were sent to a place of torment for being rich! His desire, we must infer, to return to the earth "to testify" to his five brethren, was a wish to warn them not to possess property! But what of the response of Abraham: "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead!" Even Renan will not contend that the Old Testament considers the possession of property a sin. He would be much more apt to dilate on the earthly character of the rewards promised there to the pious. Renan derives from Matt. xix. 10-13, a law of celibacy, instead of the lawfulness of celibacy when spontaneously practised, as in the case of Paul, for the sake of greater freedom in promoting the progress of the kingdom of God,-which is the real sense of the text. He is even disposed to follow Origen in the revolting absurdity of literally construing the phraseology (Matt. xix. 12) by which the Saviour describes the condition of celibacy. In the context of this very passage, the Saviour implicitly puts honor upon marriage. It was at a wedding that he first manifested forth his glory. The married state and the family are held sacred in the gospel. Yet Renan does not hesitate to found upon the injunction to for sake father and mother, in obedience to the higher law of Christ, the charge that he required, as an indispensable condition of discipleship, the rupture of all 1 Vie de J8su8, p. 175. INTERPRETATIONS BY RENAN. the ties of kindred! These preposterous interpreta tions are refuted by numerous places in the Gospels themselves and by the whole history of the primitive church. But these inconvenient passages it is easy for Renan to ignore or summarily cast out. Othei examples of arbitrary and unfounded assertion in Renan's work are the statement that the Eucharist originated long before the Last Supper; that Judas was led to betray Christ out of jealousy of the other disciples; that John exhibits in his Gospel a feeling of rivalship towards Peter,-though Renan must have observed that Peter and John are frequently brought into conjunction in the Acts as well as in John's Gospel; that Christ had not the least idea of a soul as separate from the body,-as if he did not speak of "both soul and body," and imply the same distinction in a hundred passages besides; that Jesus, for the moment, thought of using force to prevent his arrest,-an interpretation which, if it came from anybody but a professed orientalist, would be held to indicate a singular incapacity to understand the tropical method of instruction, which was habitual with Christ, and, in this case, was employed to impress on the disciples the change in their situation, involving dangers to which they had not before been exposed. These examples of baseless criticism might be indefinitely multiplied. 4. The impossibility of forming a consistent conception of Christ, when the supernatural is rejected, is strikingly shown by the abortive essay of Renan. Tile 447 448 THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENAN. most incongruous assertions are made concerning Christ. Now he is credited with sublime attributes of intellect and heart, declared to be the greatest of the sons of men, a character of colossal proportions, and now he is charged with a vanity that is flattered with the adulation of the simple people who followed him; is accused of weakly yielding to the enthusiasm of his disciples, who were anxious that he should be reputed a miracle-worker, and is said to have given way to a gloomy resentment and to a morbid, half-insane relish -for persecution and martyrdom. He is thought-this highest exemplar of mental and moral excellence, of wisdom and goodness, that has ever appeared or ever will appear on earth-to have not only cherished the wildest delusion concerning himself, his rank in the universe, and his power to revolutionize the Jewish nation, but he is also said to have declared against civil government and the family ties, and thus to have attempted a movement, most impracticable and mischievous, for the virtual disorganization and overthrow of society! Renan describes under the name of Jesus an impossible being. Although incompatible actions and traits are imputed to him without necessity, even upon the naturalistic theory, yet the prime, the insurmountable obstacle in the way of the task which Renan has undertaken, lies in the impossibility, so long as the supernatural elements of the narrative are re. jected, of attributing to Jesus the excellence which undeniably belongs to him. ESSAY IX. THlE CRITICAL AND THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS OF THEODORE PARKER. THEODORE PARKER will be known, not as the inventor, but as a bold expositor and propagator, of new opinions. His Theology was a not very well digested compound of doctrines drawn from various and conflicting schools of Naturalism. Notwithstanding his robust intellect and his wide knowledge of books, his discriminating admirers will hardly claim that he was either an accurate scholar, or a consistent thinker. In a review of the second edition of the Life of Jesus by Strauss, which Parker published in April, 1840,1 he takes a tone of opposition to that writer, implies his own belief in the resurrection of Christ and in other miracles, and welcomes the partial admission of the genuineness of John which Strauss then made, but afterwards recalled. In May of the next following year, Parker delivered the noted Sermon, in which he avowed his disbelief in the Gospel miracles. Afterwards, in his )Discourse of Religion and elsewhere, he adopts the Titbingen theories 1 Christian Examiner, Volume XXVIII. 29 TIlE OPINIONS OF THEODORE PARKElL. concerning the Gospels and the canon-but scarcely undertakes to support them by regular argument. this critical remarks, unconnected as they are, and resting on no independent researches, are possessed of little scientific value. Of the canonical Gospels, he says, "we must reject the fourth as of scarcely any historical value. It appears to be written more than a hundred years after the birth of Jesus, by an unknown author, who had a controversial and dogmatic purpose in view, not writing to report facts as they were; so he invents actions and doctrines to suit his aim, and ascribes them to Jesus with no authority for so doing." 1 "The Gospel ascribed to John is of small historical value, if of any at all."2 Of Matthew, he says that "the fragmentary character of this old Gospel" is clear;3 and of the Synoptics generally, that we know not "when they were written, by whom, or with what documentary materials of history." 4 These are the familiar propositions of Baur and his followers, and have been sufficiently examined on preceding pages of this volume. From his premises Parker deduces the proper inference that the Gospels are untrustworthy and full of errors.5 If this be so, what are we to believe respecting Jesus? The answers to this question are indecisive and self-contradictory. Now we are told that the Discourse of Religion, p. 236. ' Ibid., p. 237. ' Ibid., (e.g.) pp. 231, 839. 450 - tbid., p. 258. 1 Ibid., p. 236. PARKER ON MIRACLES. Gospel writers " would describe the main features of his life, and set down the great principles of his doctlrine, and his most memorable sayings, such as were poured out in the highest moments of inspiration." In the same breath it is affirmed that no stress can be laid on particular events recorded in the narratives; that they are a mass of truth and error, collected about a few central facts.' In his practical use of the documents, Parker is not less arbitrary than his Tiibingen compeers. He believes where it suits him to believe, and elsewhere the authority of the evangelists goes for not-hing. For example, though he holds that the Gospel writers have egregiously erred in reporting the sayings of Jesus, and, among other things, in the application of general predictions, wishes, or hopes to specific times or events,2 hlie still confidently appeals to some of these predictions, to prove the fallibility of Jesus. There is one entire class of events which form no small part of the Gospel histories, which Parker pronounces wholly fictitious. It need not be said that we allude to the miracles. He agrees with Strauss in styling the narratives of supernatural events " mythical stories; 3 and like Strauss he deviates from the mythical theory to make room for the diverse hypothesis of Baur. But why should Parker deny the truth of this portion of the Gospels? Unlike Baur Disco?urse of Religion, p. 233, and Note. 2 Ibid., p. 233. s Ibid., p. 234. 451 452 THE OPINIONS OF THIIEODORE PARKER. and Strauss, he professes to be a Tlheist, and to be lieve that miracles are possible. Why should he not believe them actual? Absence of competent testimony cannot be the reason, for it is plain that disbelief in the miracles is the real cause, and not the consequence, of his impeachment of the testimony. To render a satisfactory answer to this question, attention must be directed to Parker's theological principles. It will appear that the denial of miracles is part and parcel of the denial of Revelation, and that the latter springs from a failure to perceive the ground of the need of Revelation. The fundamental point of Parker's theology is his doctrine of the absolute religion. With his eloquent paragraphs on the universality of the religious sentiment, and on the indestructible power which religion exerts over mankind, we cordially sympathize. They constitute a fine refutation of the Positivist assumption that religion is an excrescence to be lopped off in the progress of the race from childhood to maturity. But our concern now is with the doctrine about the absolute religion. Absolute religion, or religion in its pure, complete form, is sometimes described by Parker, in accordance with the Kantian definition, as obedience to the moral law regarded as the will of God,' and sometimes as love to man from love to God, or simply as love to God and man. Probably he would modify Kant's definition'by introducing the element 1 -Discourse of Religion, p. 43. THE ABSOLUTE RELIGION. of love. Religion, then, is declared to be expressed in the law enjoining love to God and love to man. The wonder is that Parker should seem to suppose that this definition is in any sense original or peculiar. There is hardly a symbol, catechism, or systematic treatise on theology, from any branch of the church, whether Latin, Lutheran, Reformed, Socinian, or Quaker, which does not set forth the same truth. The greater wonder is that Parker should suppose that Christianity, as generally understood, is superseded by this idea of religion. Christianity is a method of redemption from evil, and evil is the control acquired in the hearts of men by the principle antagonistic to this law. That is to say, Christianity is the means of salvation. To hold up the idea of the absolute religion in the midst of a world under the sway of uingodliness ,nd selfishness, can only be compared to the conduct of one who, when the plague is raging, runs about with an excellent definition of health. P,arker is naturally gratified at seeing the law in its simple form; but Pald's reply is: "the law worketl wrath;" " wve /nowv that the law is spiritual," we subscribe to all yotg laudation of it, "but I am carnal, sold under sin," for what I would, that do I not, but what I hate, that I do;" "who shall deliver rie?" Thus, Parker's rejection of revealed religion (which is onlyi the disclosure of the divine redemptive systeiiim) i logically and practically connected witli his rejection of the Chlristian doctrine of sin. If the Bible doctrine 453 t . i - THE OPINIONS OF THEODORE PARKER. o,1)ccting the present moral condition of mankind is false, the falsity of the Gospel is the proper corollary. But Parker's shallow apprehension of the great fact of the bondage of mankind to evil, which heathen religions as well as Christianity acknowledge, and to which not Paul alone, but earnest and discerning men in every age, have borne painful witness, is the fatal defect in his theology. He could see the outbreakings of sin in oppressive institutions and the selfish conduct of individuals, and these particular expressions of sin he denounced without stint. But he attained to no deep and large apprehension of the principle of sin, which pertains exclusively to no individual and no class of men. The consequences of this fatal ignorance are easily traced. The attribute of holiness was almost stricken from the conception of the divine character. Justice was hardly distinguished from the personal passions of hate and revenge. Hence, the Bible representation of the character of God excited the strongest feeling of repugnance. This narrow view prevented Parker from attaining to any just appreciation of the Old Testament. He stuck in the phraseology, and was never weary of scoffing at the idea of a "jealous" or an "angry" God. But the New Testament, in its doctrine of the desert and penalty of sin, was scarcely less offensive. How Jesus, whom he professed to consider the highest embodiment of love and excellence, could be all this at the same time that he PANTHEISM IN HIS THEOLOGY. cherished these obnoxious ideas and feelings, is a problem which is left unsolyed. Though he was professedly a Theist, and though a volume of his prayers has appeared in print, Parker's tieology is strongly tinctured with Pantheistic modes of thought. In the first place, his expressions in regard to the nature and origin of sin are more Pantheistic than Pauline. He speaks of sin as the tripping, of a child who is learning to walk; that is, a necessary, and, if his illustration holds, an inculpable, stage in human progress. The idea that sin is a phase in the development of the soul and of the race, and is eliminated by the operation of a physical law, is only consonant with a feeble impression of the guilt of sin, and properly belongs in a system of Pantheism. The confounding of natural law with ethical law, and constitutional imperfection with moral transgression, is a mode of thought which Christianity regards with intense antipathy. Iniquity and innocent infirmity belong in totally different categories. The Pantheistic doctrine virtually calls evil good, and good evil, puts darkness for light and light for darkness, puts bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. The free and responsi. ble nature of man is really denied, and admitted only in words. If sin is not a voluntary apostasy from obedience to a law which commands but constrains not, the foundation of the Christian system is gone, and the superstructure must of course suffer a like fate. In the second place, Parker discusses the ques 455 456 THE OPINIONS OF THEODORE PARKER. tion of the history of religions in a Pantheistic spirit He adopts the Positivist speculation, tracing Mono theism to Polytheism, and Polytheism back to Feti chism.' That is, the most degraded type of religion was first. This doctrine is against history, which gives no instance of a nation spontaneously exchanging Polytheism for Monotheism. Polytheism may gene rate skepticism, as in Greece, but does not lift itself to a better faith. Heathenism generally brutifies and degrades humanity. But the hypothesis of such an upward progress is consistent with the general theory that the mutations of religion obey a natural law of progress, and that religion is one effect of civilization, so that in the infancy of mankind heathenism, and the lower forms of it, necessarily prevailed. In Ilthe third place, when Parker comes to define his conccption of God, he differs little from Spinoza. There is lo definite ascription to God, of the distinctive eleasents of personality, self-consciousness and self-determination. "We talk of a personal God. If thereby -ve deny that He has the limitations of unconscious matter, no wrong is done." " God must contain in Ilimself, potentially, the ground of consciousness, of personality-yes, of unconsciousness and impersonality." "All mental processes like those of men are separated from the idea of Him." 2 His language implies not creation, but emanations-a development ' )iscourse of Religion, Clhap)ter V. I Ibid., pp. 152, 153, 158. VACILLATION BETWEEN THEISM AND PANTHEISM. 457 of the world out of a prior potential existence. Par ker's doctrine appears to come to this, that God is the infinite essence of which matter and spirit are the divine manifestations. He does not express himself with philosophical precision or strict consistency. But this appears to be the prevailing representation at the bottom of his remarks. It is the proposition of Spinoza. In fact, from Spinoza and Schleiermacher the principal ideas of Parker on this subject appear to have been learned. It is true that in other places in the writings of Parker, expressions hardly consistent with that representation, and decidedly theistic in their purport, may be met with. But this is just the characteristic of his position-an uneasy equilibrium between the two systems. Had Parker been thorough in his theism, hle would have attained to profounder 1ews on the subject of sin, and might have advanced to the proper corollary, the need of supernatural redemption. Had he been thoroughly logical in his Pantheism, other elements in his system, especially his practical dealing with the evils of the day, would have been sensibly modified. As it was, he walked in neither path with firmness and consistency; and therefore, though his popular influence was large, he will leave no durable n('rk on scientific theology, It would not be difficult to show that generous ideas of philanthropy have no stable foundation except in the Christian doctrine respecting man and 458 THE OPINIONS OF THEODORE PARKER. human sin. Theories of the origin of heathenism and of the origin of evil, such as are broached by Parker, have a close affinity with the philosophy which treats portions of our race as semi-human, or at least hopelessly degraded. Slavery and other sorts of barbarity seek in this philosophy their theoretical support. But let the doctrine of Paul that paganism is the fruit of a fall and degeneracy be held let his solemn arraignment of the human family in the opening of the Epistle to the Romans be heartily subscribed, and the connected principle that " God has made of one blood all men" will not be given up. Only in the pure atmosphere of Christian theism, can the law of human brotherhood take root and flourish. ESSAY X. IN EXAMINATION OF BAUR AND STRAUSS ON TiHE CONVERSION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.1 WHEN we speak of the conversion of the Apostle Paul, we mean not only the adoption by him of new religious tenets which he had before denied, but likewise the moral revolution in his tempers of feeling and principles of action. We refer to that great transformation which rendered him "a new creature." He was convinced that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth was in truth the Messiah; but his conversion also induced and included a new moral spirit and an allabsorbing consecration to the cause which he had previously hated. This entire change Naturalism attributes exclusively to the operation of physical and psychological laws. The theory propounded by Baur in his Life of the Aposlle Paul is reiterated with some variations in the last Life of Jesus by Strauss.2 A zealot for the Phar. 1 Lord Lyttelton's little work on the Conversion of St. Paul is a sound argument. It is largely taken up, however, with proving that Paul was no impostor; and the remarks to show that he was not an enthusiast, though judicious, are not adapted to meet the more recent skeptical theories. 2 Lel)en Jesu fir (1. deutsche Volk, p. 33. THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. isaic type of religion, Paul was irritated and alarmed at the progress of a sect which held the ceremonies of the law to be of subordinate consequence, and pretended that their crucified Master was the promised King of Israel. His vehement spirit impelled him to active measures of persecution. Yet the nobler feelings of his nature could not fail to be touched by the demeanor of the dying Stephen; nor could he wholly suppress the misgivings which the unfaltering testimony of the disciples to the resurrection of Jesus stirred up in his breast. To him, a Pharisee, it was no impossible event; and if it were true, the difficulty occasioned by the ignominious death of Christ was removed or alleviated. In this divided state of feeling, when the will was maintaining a half-conscious struggle with the better impulses which rose against his present determination and his life-long convictions, and his soul was agitated with contending forces, he seemed to himself to behold in a vision Jesus rebuking him for the conduct for which he had begun to rebuke himself. Perhaps he was struck by lightning while on an errand of persecution; and this circumstance, together with the physical effects that followed, may have been the immediate occasion of the imaginary vision. Strauss argues that an infirmity of the nervous system probably belonged to Paul and partly accounts for remarkable experiences which he attributed to a supernatural cause. Baur, especially in his earlier discussion of the subject, dilates upon the tendency of the mind to pass 460 THEORY OF STRAUSS AND BAUR. from one extreme to the opposite. The more ardently and thoroughly a man enters into an erroneous system, the more likely he is, we are told, to be awakened to the falsehood of his position. In proportion to the intensity of his zeal is the force of the self-induced reaction. To the credit of Baur it must be added that after wards he appears to have become dissatisfied with his own solution. In the last edition which he prepared, of his History of Cliri8tianity in the first TSree Cen turies, he says that "neither psychological nor dialectical analysis can explore the mystery of the act in which God revealed to him his Son." He even says that in the conversion of Paul, "in his sudden transformation from the most vehement adversary into the most resolute herald of Christianity, we can see nothing short of a miracle (wunder)." 1 And the same word he soon after applies again to the same event. If we are not at liberty to suppose that Baur admits in this case a strictly supernatural'agency-an admission which would fundamentally alter his whole theological system-yet it is something to find him willing to use the obnoxious word, and to acknowledge the impossibility of accounting for the conversion of Paul. Baur explains that, however mysterious the transaction was, the turning-point in the great change which took place in the mind of Paul was a new view of the death of Jesus. He came to understand that his death ' Baur, das Christenthutn, etc. (2 A.) p. 45. 461 THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. might be the transition to a more exalted life. With this new view, his prejudice against a crucified Messiah vanished, but with it his Jewish particularism disappeared also; since the Christ in the heavens was raised above the narrow Jewish conception of the Messiah, and their exclusive, carnal theory of his office and relation to men fell to the ground. What portion of truth is contained in these interesting suggestions we shall inquire in the course of the remarks which follow. 1. It is important to notice the testimony of the authorities and to compare the statements of Strauss and Baur with that. The conversion of Paul is three times circumstantially related in the book of Acts, once by Luke himself (c. ix.), and twice by the Apostlethe first time, in his address to his countrymen at Jerusalem (c. xxii.), and again in his speech before Agrippa (c; xxvi.) The variations in these three narratives relate to slight matters of detail, and are unimportant. Yet Strauss, as might be expected, expends upon them his trivial criticism. Paul was journeying towards Damascus for the purpose of seizing Christian men or women whom he might find there, and dragging them to Jerusalem. Suddenly a bright and dazzling light shone down upon him and his attendants. The whole company were filled with consternation. But the "trembling and astonished" Paul distinctly heard the words that were addressed to him. Then followed his blindness and his conjunction with Ananias at 462 THE TESTIMONY. Damascus, each having been supernaturally guided to the other. The skeptical critics do not scruple to avail themselves of any circumstances from Luke which fit into their scheme. Thus, the presence of Paul at the murder of Stephen is a fact of which Luke is the only witness. Strauss even supposes an effect on Paul from disputations with Christians, while the only evi dence he offers that such disputation took place is Acts ix. 29, where Paul's disputing with the Jews after his conversion is alone mentioned. In the Acts we have the testimony of one who had been for a time associated with Paul, and who had resorted for his information (see Luke i. 5) to the authentic sources. But we cannot here enter into the question of the credibility of Luke, which, as we believe, has been fully vindicated in a previous Essay. Happily we have the testimony of the Apostle himself, in his undoubted Epistles, to several of the main facts, if not to the special circumstances, of his conversion.. He tells us that prior to that event he had "beyond measure persecuted the church of God and wasted it" (Gal. i. 13). He says that he deserves not to be called an apostle, because he had "persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor. xv. 9). He had made himself famous among the churches of Judea as a persecutor (Gal. i. 22, 23). He had outrun the Jews about him in his fanatical zeal (Gal. i. 14.) He was unquestionably a furious enemy of the disciples and their cause. A Pharisee, he had entered with all his heart into the measures of 463 THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. his party for exterminating the infant Church. More over, it is undeniable from his own statements in the Epistles that his conversion was sudden. It was the result, as he declares, of a revelation of Jesus Christ to him. And when he connects with his claim to be an apostle the declaration that he too had seen Christ (1 Cor. ix. 1), it is rendered in a high degree probable that his conversion was one of the occasions when this occurred. The most of what has just been said, the skeptical critics allow. They generally concede that Paul's conversion resulted from a vision in which he supposed himself to behold Christ. They would only resolve this vision into a mere subjective impression, the product of intense mental excitement. 2. The skeptical theory assumes without evidence and against the evidence, that the mind of Paul before his conversion was deeply exercised with misgivings as to the rectitude of his course. The naturalistic solution requires the supposition that an inward tumult and conflict of this sort prevailed in his soul. This hypothesis not only lacks support, but is positively excluded by the proofs. It is founded on the words of Christ, in Acts xxvi. 14-the same passage in Acts ix. 5 is interpolated-" it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." The "pricks" are the goad with which the ploughman from behind urged forward the oxen. The phrase was a proverbial one, and is thus correctly explained by Dr.'Hackett: "the meaning is, that his opposition to the cause and will of Christ must be un 464 HIS PREVIOUS FEELING. availing; the continuance of it would only bring injury and ruin on himself."1 The illustrative passages from Wetstein establish this interpretation. There is no implication that the Apostle was strugghling against conscientious impulses: the opposite rather is indicated. He was engaged in a resolute, pertinacious, but ineffectual endeavor to stop the progress of the Christian cause. When we turn to Patil's own words we find satisfactory evidence that he was disturbed by no misgivings, but was wholly absorbed in the work of persecution. He had been, he says, a blasphemer ant persecutor, but found mercy because he "did it ignorantly, in unbelief."2 He says again:"I veril tlOIi/(t ivitl g,yself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." 3 He was sincere and perfectly confident that he was striking at a heresy. When he "made havoc of the church," entering into private houses and hurrying to prison women as well as men, and when he left Jerusalem to hunlt down the fugitive disciples in other cities, he had 1no doubt that he was performing an acceptable service to God. The idea that he rushed into extreme measures of cruelty to drown the rebuke of conscience is pure fancy. Everything shows that it was the depth and ardor of his conviction that stimulated him to outdo his Pharisaic brethren in his exertions to crush 1 Hackett, Conmme7,tary ol the Acts, p. 402. See, also, Meyer and De Wette, on Acts xxvi. 14. 21 Tim. i. 13. Acts xxvi. 9. .,0 465 THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. the new heresy. The foundation of the skeptical solu. tion of the problem of his conversion is therefore taken away. 3. Baur's conjectural explanation of the change in the religious ideas of Paul is essentially defective. The earlier notion that great zeal in a bad cause naturally leads the subject of it to reverse his course, will obtain little applause. We do not find that Torquemada was converted to Protestantism and to gentleness by the excess of his own cruelty in managing the Spanish inquisition. Nor will it avail to answer that Paul was of a milder and more generous nature.. As Neander has remarked, there were among those who beheld the burning of Huss many good men who saw in the spectacle nothing but the just punishment of a contumacious and mischievous heretic. There is no ground for supposing that the death of Stephen made a different impression on Paul. Baur is right in holding that the conversion of Paul from narrow Pharisaism to the broadest Christianity, however that conversion may have begun, involved a process. It was a rational change of principles and views. He attained to a new conception of the nature of religion, as not consisting in the puinctilious observance of ceremonies, nor ultimately in any works of legal obedience, but in faith which worketh by love. Unquestionably he saw, as Baur affirms, a meaning and use in the death of the Messiah, which rendered that event no longer repugnant but grateful 466 DEFECT OF BAUR S THEORY. to his feelings. The proximate cause of this change, however, was the awakening of a sense of sin and a conviction of the utter inadequacy, from a legal point of view, of that obedience which he had been able to render. His feeling respecting the death of Christ was the correlate of his consciousness of sin and of the helpless condition into which sin had brought him. But all this peculiar experience, as far as we are able to ascertain, was posterior to that revelation of Jesus as the Messiah, which first broke up his feeling of selfsatisfaction. Reflection upon the death of Jesus, as long as Paul was imprisoned in his Pharisaic conception of the Messiah, could only serve to confirm him in his opposition to the Christian cause. That Jesus had suffered death was of itself sufficient proof that his pretensions were false and his followers heretics and apostates. Not until Paul was convinced of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus, could he put faith in his claims and become reconciled to the fact of his death. This is allowed by Strauss; and now the question is, how Paul became convinced that Jesus had really risen from the grave. Strauss conjectures that Paul was overcome by the testimony of the disciples, the event to which they bore witness being one which he, as a Pharisee, must admit to be possible. But Strauss ignores the essential circumstance that the whole career of Jesus, terminating as it did in the crucifixion, constituted in the judgment of Paul an overwhelming presumption against the probab)ility of his resurrection 467 THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. and against the credibility of his disciples' testimony. Moreover, it is clear from the Apostle's own language that it was not the weight of human testimony, in the first instance, that caused him to believe, but a supernatural revelation, or something which he supposed to be this. There is not a shadow of proof that he had begun to consider with himself whether the testimony of the disciples might not be true. On the contrary, he thoroughly disbelieved it, and, inspired with the fanatical hatred of an inquisitor, he was eager to exterminate the new sect. The naturalistic criticism in vain casts about for some explanation of this sudden, total revolution of opinion which was attended by a revolution equally signal in character and conduct. 4. There is no proof that the revelation of Christ, which caused the conversion of Paul, was a vision; and if it were, there is no explanation of it save on the supposition of its reality. In a vision, through a powerful impression made on the mind there is a real or supposed direct perception of objects not presented to the senses. Were the event which changed the career of Paul shown to be a vision, not a step would be taken towards proving it an illusion. For the skeptical criticism will not be permitted to assume that the human mind cannot be supernaturally acted upon, and that the visions recorded in the Bible are the product of an excitement having its origin exclusively in the mind itself. It has been shown already that this criticism has wholly failed to 468 HIS SIGHT OF CHRIST ACTUAL. point out any psychological preparation in Paul for such a deceitful exercie of ikuagination. A vision, even though it be unreal, cannot spring from nothing. Little is gained, therefore, were we to concede that Patil's first conviction of the resurrection of Jesus was through a vision. But even this concession there is no warrant for making. It is true that Patul at various times in his life, after his conversion, had visions, as he himself relates. But it is also true that he makes no mention of his conversion as one of these, since the vision to which he refers in 2 Cor. xii. 1-4 occurred fourteen years prior to the time of his writing, whereas his conversion was at least twenty years before the date of the Epistle. Nor is there reason to think that Paul could not distinguish between the phenomena of a vision and an affection of the outward senses.1 We find this distinction explicitly made by Luke in Acts xii. 9, where it is represented that Peter who had followed the angel out of the prison was in such perturbation of mind that he "wist not that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he saw a vision(oet)." That which was "true" (d v), or actual, is expressly discriminated from the vision, or subljective impression. Peter knew not for the instant whether his liberation had been supernaturally represented to his mind with the vividness of reality, or 1 For valuable remarks on this topic, see Beyscblag's Article, -Di6 Be7,eh,t?gq (les A]oste7s Pc tlus, Studien u. Kritiken, 18641. 2. 469 THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. whether he had been actually set free. There is no warrant for supposing that the strong understanding of Paul did not make the same distinction between vision and external fact. And when he says that he, as well as the other apostles, had seen Jesus, and connects his apostleship with this circumstance (1 Cor. ix.), we properly conclude that he refers to something besides a purely spiritual, inward perception, or such a perception as a vision could vouchsafe. Peter had seen Jesus in his bodily presence, and Paul puts himself in this regard on a level with Peter.' And the objective reality of this transaction on the road to Damascus can be disproved only by discrediting the thrice-repeated narrative in the Acts. 1 Beyschlag shows that the argument of Paul for the resurrection of believers (1 Cor. xv.), which is founded on the resurrection of Jesus, implies a perception of Christ in his bodily presence. A sense of the presence of Christ, however vivid it might be, which did not exhibit him in the body, could not constitute a basis for this argument. 470 ESSAY XI. THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. THEIRE are those who find it hard to believe in a miracle, because the word is associated in their minds with the notion of a capricious act, or of a makeshift to meet an unexpected exigency. They conceive of a miracle not as an event planned and fitting into an established order, but as done in obedience to a sud- ) den prompting, as a kind of desperate expedient to prevent the consequences of a previous neglect or want of forecast. Such an act, they properly feel, cannot be attributed to God. Anxious to remove the prejudice just described, another class of writers set up definitiolis of a miracle which destroy the distinction between a miracle and an event occurring in the course of Nature. In flying from one error, they plunge into another lying opposite. The mistake in the conception which they would correct can be exposed without confounding a miracle with a natural event,,or stripping the former of the distinguishing attributes that constitute its value as a proof of divine revelation. A miracle belongs in a wholly different category from natural events; yet it forms no element of discord, is I THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. due to no mistake in the structure of the world, which requires to be remedied, and it conspires with natural events to produce harmony in the whole system. In this Essay we shall make the attempt to define ) the nature, and determine the appropriate and ap pointed use, of miracles. Objections and errors of recent origin call for a fresh discussion of this impor tant subject. And if the path of our inquiry leads in part through a field not unfamiliar; yet more pre cise conceptions of accepted truth are sometimes of hardly less value than new discoveries. For the sake of greater clearness, the remarks that follow will be arranged under a series of special topics. WHAT IS THE IDEA OF A MIRACLE? In answering this question we reject at the outset what the Germans call tle relative nature of the miracle, or the notion that the miraculous quality of such an event is merely relative to human feeling and apprehension. This definition does not go beyond the etymology of the term. But an event which excites wonder in an extraordinary degree is not thereby constituted a miracle. The authority of Augustine has often been pleaded in favor of this faulty definition. He says that a miracle is not contrary to Nature, but only to that Nature which is known to us. The ordinary operations of Nature, he says, were they ulfamiliar, would excite not less amazement, and are in reality not less woiderfuil, than miracles. But in 472 THE IDEA OF A MIRACLE. Augustine's view, which results from his anti-manichean philosophy, all the operations of Nature are immediate exertions of the Divine will. In this respect, therefore, he can place miracles in the same category with the every-day operations of Nature, while he holds, at the same time, that the miracle, when regarded from another point of view, is an altogether exceptional event.' Spinoza, identifying God with Nature, is consistent in denying that any distinctive characteristic of an objective kind belongs to a miracle. This term, he says, has respect only to the opinions entertained by men, and signifies no more than this, that we, or at all events they who narrate the occurrence in question, are unable to explain it by the analogy of any other event familiar to experience. On Spinoza's scheme, a miracle in the proper sense is a complete absurdity.' Schleiermacher, never wholly able to es Augustine, De Civ. D)ei, xxi. 8, 2. Omnia quippe portenta contra Naturam dicimus esse: sed non sunt. Quomodo est enim contra Naturam, quod Dei fit voluntate, cum voluntas tanti utique Conditoris condite rei cujusque natura est? The will of God-the voluntas of the Creator-is Nature. 2 Spinoza devotes c. vi. of the Tract. Theolog-Polit. to the subject of miracles; and further considers the subject in his Letters-Epist. xxi. and xxiii. He says (in the chapter above referred to): "Ex his -sequitur, nomen miraculi non nisi respective ad hominum opiniones posse intelligi, et nihil aliud significare, quam opus, cujus causam naturalem exemplo alterius rei solitm explicare non possumus, vel saltem ipse non potest, qui miraculum scribit aut narrat." With Spinoza keges saturales are one and the same with Dei natura. See the context of the passage. 473 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. cape from the atmosphere of Pantheism, comes no nearer the true idea, when he says that any event, even the miost natural, may be styled a miracle, provided the religious view of its origin is spontaneously awakened in the mind, with a forgetfulness of the proximate natural causes.' The relative notion of the 1 Wunder ist nur der religiose Name fur Begebenheit: jede, auch die allernaturlichste, sobald sie sich dazu eignet, dass die religiose Ansicht von ihr die herrschende sein kann, ist ein Wunder. Mir ist alles Wunder, &c. Reden (6 A.) s. 106. See, also, N. 16, s. 145. Schleiermacher's views are more fully set forth in his System of Theology-the Glaubenslehre-~ 14 Zusatz, ~ 84, 2, 8, and ~ 47. Though not rejecting the New Testament miracles, as historiceal occurrences, he still professes his agreement with those who hold " dass Gott die Wunder auf eine uns unbegreifliche Art in der Natur selbst vorbereitet gehabt." B. I. s. 240. But his reasoning to prove that a divine act must be performed through the system of Nature and be provided for in that system, is unsound and of a Pantheistic tendency. Schleiermacher has again discussed the subject of miracles in his Lectures upon the Life of Jesus, published lately for the first time. Hle has taken, however, no new positions. In his endeavor to refer the miracles of Jesus to energies belonging to Nature, he is perplexed by the control which Christ exercised over inanimate existence, as in stilling the tetnpest, multiplying the loaves of bread, and raising the dead. (See p. 223.) Such events, he perceives, can be attributed to no mysterious natural energy, which is supposed to have enabled him to produce extraordinary effects-for example, in healing-in contact with living men. Yet the miracles of the class mentioned above are historically as well attested as any of the rest. This fact Schleiermacher is constrained to allow, and hence finds it impossible to extricate himself from the difficulty into which he is thrown, and which is due to the false assumption as to the relative nature of the miracle, with which he sets out. A view homogeneous with that of Schleiermacher has been at 474 THEI IDEA OF A MIRACLE. miracle fails to separate it objectively and really from a natural event-an event occuing by natural law. Neither the degree of astonishment with which events are regarded, nor the question whether they can be referred to a previously ascertained law, nor, again,. the question whether they are attributed spontaneously to the power of God, forms the defining characteristic of a miraculous occurrence. An attentive observation of the com )zon phenomena of Nature, as Augustine and after him Luther and many others have forcibly pointed out, may well kindle wonder, and in a reli tributed to Stanley on the foundation of passages in his work on the Old Testament History, and is styled the providential theory. (See Frances Power Cobbe, Broken Lights, p. 31). Events recorded in Scripture are said to be neither strictly natural nor strictly supernatural, but specially providential. They are such as to suggest impressively the agency of God, and are related to each other as parts of a great, consistent plan. This theory seems not to differ essentially from that of Schleiermnacher. Whether it be justly ascribed to Stanley's interpretation of the Old Testament History, we do not assume to determine. That the miracles of Christ could not have been performed by any power embosomed in Nature-as, for example, by an energy belonging naturally to preeminent human virtue-would seem to be an obvious truth. Yet a recent writer (Furness, Veil partly Lifted, p. 216) takes this position, even respecting the resurrection of Jesus. Aside from the tremendous difficulty of supposing such anomalous events, as the miracles recorded in the Bible, to be due to any power latent in human nature, we are cut off from that supposition by the testimony of Christ himself, and are obliged to refer them to a supernatural author. It is true respecting some, though not respecting the writer last referred to, that this theory springs from a reluctance to admit the agency of a living, personal God. 475 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. gious mind will carry up the thoughts to God. But such phenomena are not, on this account, to be deemed miraculotls.1 In defining a miracle we pledge ourselves to no particular theory concerning the constitution of Nature. If the new doctrine of the persistency of force-the correlation of forces, Mr. Grove calls it-should be established; if all the phenomena of matter should be found to be due to varieties of motion- to be varied manifestations of one essence; our present discussion would not be sensibly affected. If occasionalism be adopted as the true philosophy; if it be maintained that the operations of Nature proceed immediately from the volitions of God, the efficiency of second causes being denied, or even that the phenomena of Nature are indistinguishable from these volitions, what we have to say, would, with some verbal modifications, hold good. For occasionalism does not question the reality of the facts of Nature; nor does it scruple to admit the sequences of Nature, the system in which these facts conjoin. We proceed, however, upon the position which is commonly taken by theists, that secondary causes are real-that matter is an entity manifesting forces, though requiring the direct sustenance and co-working of the power of God. The 1 For good remarks on the relative notion of a miracle, see the valuable Essay of Julius Mualler on the subject of Miracles, to which we shall again refer, c. iv. Relativa quam vocant miraculi nrotlo examinatur. 476 THE IDEA OF A MIRACLE. forces resident in Nature subsist and act, but they subsist and act, not without the Divine preservation the concars8s -Dei. A miracle is an event which the forces of Nature, or secondary causes, operating thus under the ordinary Divine preservation, are incompetent to produce.' Secondary causes may be concerned in the production of a miracle. For a miracle (except in the case of creation de nililo) is wrought in Nature, or in the realm of second causes; but these are insufficient to explain it. It is an event which only the intervention of the First Cause is adequate to produce. Beyond the constant upholding of Nature in the normal exercise of its powers, there has been an interposition of God to effect that which otherwise could not have taken place. Pascal has exactly hit the true nature of a miraele, when he terms it a result exceeding the natural force of the means employed. If the axe floats on the water, some power is exerted above the powers of Nature. They, if left to themselves, would necessarily carry it to the bottom. 1 In this definition we use the term Nature as a synonym for the sum of second causes, or the creation in distinction from God. If the term be taken less comprehensively, as embracing only man and the material universe, or that portion of the material universe of which he has any knowledge, then in order to differentiate a miracle from other supernatural events-events, for example, which it may be thought possible for superhuman, created intelligences to bring to pass —we must add another element to the definition and explicitly connect the miracle with a volition of God. 477 11 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. is A MIRACLE TO BE CONSIDERED A SUSPENSION OR VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW? More commonly this question has been answered in the affirmative. Yet the point is one on which theologians are not yet agreed. For example, Dr. N. W. Taylor, whose discussion of the general subject is marked by his wonted acuteness, styles a miracle a "deviation" from some law of Nature, and appears, also, to sanction the statement that miracles may involve a violation of natural law.' On the contrary, Dr. Julius Muiller considers the statement improper and unfounded.2 The difference is really due to the different mode in which the phrase, "law of Nature," is defined by the parties respectively. Dr. Taylor means by a law of Nature "that established course, or order, of things or events, which depends solely on the constitution, properties, or nature of any created thing, and which admits of no deviation by any created power." The stated connection between a given event and a certain set of physical antecedents, which that event is observed invariably to follow, is taken as the idea of a law of Nature. Under this conception, a miracle is properly said to involve a counteraction, or suspension, or violation of natural law; for in the case of the miracle the presence of a given set of physical antecedents is not followed by the usual event. When a I See Dr. Taylor's Moral Government, Vol. II. pp. 888, 890. 2 M'lecr's Essay on Miracles, Caput III. 478 MIRACLE AND NATURAL LAW. leper is healed, as the effect of a word uttered by a human voice, the connection usually observed to sub sist between physical antecedent and consequent, is dissolved. If the law of Nature be this stated connec tion, then of course the natural law is suspended or violated. But there is another and more exact meaning to be given to natural law, which does not involve this consequence. What is natural law but the method in which a force or energy is observed to operate? The laws of Nature are the method of the operation of the forces which inhere in Nature. Such laws are not a norm for an energy that is outside of Nature, or is imported from without. We need not affirm-we are not authorized to affirm-that a miracle involves a change in the constitution of matter or mind, or in the law under which they act. And if it did involve such change so that matter, for example, were transformed into something different from matter-even then the miraculous event would be no violation of the laws of matter, since matter, by the supposition, has ceased to exist, and has been displaced by a substance endowed with diverse properties. Suppose the axe to float miraculously upon the water. There is here no violation of the laws of Nature. For the extraordinary event is not due to the abnormal action of the energies that belong either to the water or to the iron; but is owing rather to the introduction of a new and extrinsic cause which operates according to a law of its own. 479 THE CIHRISTIAN MIRACLES. There is no more violation of natural law than if the axe were upheld upon the water by the human hand. The effect which a given antecedent, or sum of antecedents, would otherwise produce, may be counteracted by the presence of other forces which are also natural. This is done whenever a stone is thrown into the air, or water raised by a pump, or lightning diverted from a building by an iron rod. In these cases there is not, as we conceive, any violation of natural laws. For the law of gravitation is notproperly stated when it is made to involve the bringing to the earth of a stone in those circumstances under which we observe the stone to rise; and the same is true of the other examples of a supposed infringement of natural law. So the resurrection to life of a man who has once died is an effect which the natural causes connected with the event could not have produced, but, acting by themselves, must have excluded. But this change of event is not to be ascribed to an alteration of the norm under which they act, but wholly to the introduction in connection with them of a new and supernatural cause. The effct which the physical antecedents, if left to themselves, would have produced, is set aside in consequence, however, of an added antecedent, the Divine power supernaturally exerted. We conclude, therefore, that a miracle, strictly speaking, is neither a suspension nor a violation of natural laws, but rather an event which world be this, were it not for the fact that with the physical ante 480 MIRACLES AND EXPERIENCE. cedents tl( i has been associated a supernatural agency. The English writer who deserves credit for clearly refuting the idea that a miracle suspends or violates the laws of Nature, is the Scottish philosopher, Brown.' However he may err in unwarrantably extending the sense of the term Nature (a point on which Dr. Taylor animadverts), and however defective may be his general theory of causation, his observations on the particular topic before us appear to be conclusive. IS A MIRACLE CONTRARY TO EXPERIENCE? Here, likewise, attention is required to the meaning of terms. If experience be a synonym for the course of things as deduced from observation, then a miracle is contrary to experience. If we are told that a leper is cured by a word from human lips, we are told of an event which is contrary to experience-that is, inconsistent with what has heretofore been observed to follow upon the same natural antecedents. If we submit the case to experiment and reiterate the trial, using the utmost scientific caution in applying the test, no such event is observed to follow. But if the opposition to experience that is predicated of a miracle be understood to involve the idea that in asserting a miracle we ascribe to the same set of causes an event different from that which they have Brown's Inguiry into the Relations of Cause and Effect. Appendix, Note E. 31 481 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. always been observed to produce, then a miracle is not contrary to experience. For a miracle, we repeat, implies no contradiction to the maxim that the same effect is to be expected to follow the same causes. A miracle is, by the supposition, an event resulting from the association of a new cause with a given set of physical antecedents. It is true that (save in the cases, the reality of which is under discussion) we have no experience of this association of the supernatural agency with the physical antecedents. But this last fact is better expressed by the statement that a miracle is above or beyond experience-transcends experience -than by the statement that it clashes with experience. That a miracle should occur when the power of God is specially exerted in connection with physical agencies, does not clash with experience. THE POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES. The possibility of a miracle is the next topic to be considered. Is it necessary to argue this point before a believer in God? Is ovnnipotence incompetent to produce events that outreach the capacity of created Nature? Has He who gave existence to second causes, exhausted His resources of power in the act of producing and sustaining them? Was not the pro. duction of these causes itself a stupendous miracle? There is nothing in our knowledge of the constitution of matter, and of the internal processes of Nature, of which only the phenomena aire presented to our 482 THE POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES. observation, to afford the shadow of a support to the presumptuous proposition that events like the recorded miracles of the Bible are inherently impossible to be effected. How in the regular course of nature the handful of grain multiplies itself in the harvest which springs from it, is al insoluble problem. It is an inexplicable fact which, after the closest observation of the successive phenomena attending the change, we still find to be a mystery. That the five loaves should be multiplied by an agency both different from that of Nature and superior, so as to furnish food for five thousand, is another mystery, but a fact which none but the atheist can consistently declare impossible. A man who would otherwise sink in death is restored to health by a medicinal agent administered by a physician's hand. We can only point out the visible antecedents of the effect. Ihow they do their work in the hidden laboratory of Nature, we cannot go far in explaining. We cannot pierce through the veil that hides the interior process from our eyes. In this respect, we believe where we cannot see or explain. But if it be asserted that the invalid can be restored in a briefer time and by the exertion of a power different from any remedial agent in the natural world-say, by the direct volition of God-who is bold enough to affirm, who has the slightest ground for affirming, that the thing is impossible? That a miracle is possible is a proposition commended to credence by the survey of the actual phe. 483 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. nomena of Nature in its various kingdoms. We see that higher forces so far control the action of lower that the latter cease to produce the effects which would result from their exclusive activity. Mechanical forces are subordinated to chemical attraction. Inorganic nature is subjected to the operation of vital forces. Vegetable and animal existences are endued with powers which are, so to speak, superior to the forces of unorganized matter. The force of gravitation, for example, gives way, or is apparently overborne, by a heterogeneous and superior agency. If we could suppose ourselves divested of all knowledge of organic Nature, we should then have the same right, no less and no more, to deny, on account of the force of gravitation, the possibility of the upward growth of a tree, as the skeptic has now to deny the possibility of a miracle. The former event would be not less foreign to experience, not less unprovided for in the existences which we had beheld, and in the causes whose operation we had observed, than is the instantaneous cure of blindness by a volition, or the raising of a dead man to life. Nature is the spectacle of realm above realm, where the subordinate order is taken up and embraced within the superior. Ascending from one grade to another, we meet with new and -diverse phenomena, and with a seeming reversal of the laws which operate on the plane below. This change is due, however, to the incoming and modifying agency of a new and heterogeneous class of causes. I 484 THE POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES. Still more suggestive is the relation of the intelli gent will of man to the forces of the unintelligent creation. Here, within the domain of Nature, effects are produced analogous to the miracle. The will in relation to the matter with which it is connected and over which it has power, is a heterogeneous and super natural cause. The changes in matter which it pro duces take place, to be sure, in agreement with the laws of matter, yet they are changes and effects which originated not in the sphere of matter, but in a motor outside and above material forces. A gesture of the hand is the result of a train of causes-as the action of the brain, the nerve, the muscle-a train, however, which begins in a volition. It is true, there is no analogy, as far as we can judge, between the influence of the will upon existences exterior to it, and the exertion of creative power. The will, in its'action on matter, can modify that which already existed, but cannot call into being what is not. Here the limits of human power are reached. A miracle that involves creative power has no parallel, as far as we can judge, with any possible exertion of man's voluntary agency. But with this exception, the control of the human will over matter bears a striking resemblance to the more potent operation of the Divine will, and exhibits impressively the possibility of such a miraculous operation. 485 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. THE PROBABILITY OF MIRACLES: THE PRESUMPTION ADVERSE TO THE OCCURRENCE OF MIRACLES. That a miraculous event, looked at by itself, is improbable, needs no proof. The incredulity which the report of such an event awakens in an educated mind, implies an anterior presumption opposed to its occurrence. There are some defenders of Christianity who are inclined to put a miracle, in regard to the proof required to establish it, on the same footing with an ordinary event. They take, as we conceive, an untenable position, and one that is liklely to harm more than it helps their cause. It is freely admitted that a presumption lies against the occurrence of a miracle. But before we can measure the strength of this presumptive disbelief, we must inquire into the sources of it. This presumption is founded in our belief in the uniformity of Nature. But what is the nature and ground of this belief? It is not, as some philosophers have held, an instinctive faith that things will continue to be as they are-that the future will reproduce the present.' For our belief in the uniformity of Nature points back ward, as well as forward. It relates to what has occurred in the past, not less than to what is expected to occur hereafter. Moreover, the supposed axiom is 1 Just objections to this form of statement are presented by J. S. Mill, in his Logic. 486 THE PROBABILITY OF MIRACLES. inexact in leaving room for the assumption of a kind of sameness in the recurrence of physical phenomena, which experience disproves. For example, the climate of our latitude has not always been what it is now; nor is it now what it will be hereafter. The globe and the whole physical universe, by the mere operation of physical causes, have undergone vast and various changes. New and before unobserved phenomena have sprung into being. The saying, that things will be what they are or have been, describes no original belief of the mind, or is, at best, a vague and inaccurate statement of any such belief. The presumptive disbelief of the educated mind in miracles is founded in our conviction that there is a system of Nature. Scientific investigation has inspired a belief in the sway of general laws, as opposed to preternatural intervention. The progress of science, from Thales downward, has largely consisted in the elimination of supposed divine interferences and in the disclosure of an established order. One department of Nature after another has been brought within. the circle of ascertained law. Phenomena, seemingly capricious, have been found to recur with a regularity not less unvarying than the succession of day and night. Events that were once thought to be wholly owing to a preternatural cause can be predicted in advance by a process of mathematics. Not two centuries ago, leading ministers of New England considered a comet to be a special messenger fron God to 487 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. forewarn men of punitive calamities which were impending over them.' The conviction which is excited by the results of scientific investigation, relative to the unvarying control of natural law, is not without support from another quarter. Such an arrangement, generally speaking, best harmonizes with our ideas of the wisdom and majesty of God. We should expect that He would stamp regularity upon the operations of Nature. Moreover, the uniformity of Nature-the exemption, in general, of Nature from supernatural interventionis a most benevolent arrangement. The fixed course of Nature is a vast and indispensable blessing to man. It is essential that we should be able to count upon the future; to anticipate the rising of the sun at a given hour; to foresee that the bread which we take for the nourishment of life will not turn out to be poisonous; to be certain that when vitality is gone there is no hope of revoking the principle of life. Were it not for the order of Nature, all human calculations would be baffled, human judgments left without 1 See, for example, Dr. Increase Mather's " Ko/zqToypag0ta, or a Discourse concerning Comets, wherein the Nature of BLAZING STARS is enquired into," &c., &c., with "two Sermons occasioned by the late Blazing Stars." Boston: 1683. We have quoted but a small fraction of the title. In the Discourses are stated "the horrible massacres, fires, plagues, tempests, hurricanes, wars, and other judgments" which have followed the appearance of Comets in all ages. It is an amusing instance of the fallacious confounding of the propter hoc witi the post hoc. 488 PRESUMPTION AGAINST MIRACLIES. a foundation to rest upon, and infinite disorder and confusion everywhere prevail. The ends of a wise benevolence are best met by marking out the course of Nature and leaving it to move on the appointed track. Such is the force of these considerations that we unhesitatingly reject the testimony by which most alleged miracles are supported. In reading early historians, like Herodotus, or mediaeval chroniclers, like Gregory of Tours, or in listening to the modern necromancers, whenever we perceive, and in propor tion as we perceive, that an event which they report involves a miracle, we instantaneously disbelieve the narrative. Such disbelief is felt to be the dictate of reason. And this aversion of the mind to give credence to a miracle is augmented by the necessity under which the historical student is placed, of rejecting so vast an amount of miraculous narrative. It may be said, to be sure, that the evidence from testimony is defective; for such is the truth in numberless instances of pretended miracle. Yet, in some cases, were the events which are too much for our faith, unmniraculous, we should deem the testimony on which they rest to be sufficient. In these cases we deny credence simply and solely on the ground of a rational reluctance to believe in miracles. For example, we credit Herodotus in a thousand places, where the proofs-apart from the character of the events reported-are no greater 489 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. than those which he brings forward in relating the miraculous. We fully concede, then, that there is an antecedent, rational presumption against the truth of a narrative involving miracle, a presumption resting proximately upon the experience of the uniformity of Nature, and ultimately upon our conviction of the wisdom and desirableness of such an arrangement; and acquiring additional force from the knowledge, which history and observation afford, of the credulity of mankind and the prevalence of superstition. HOW MAY THE PRESUMPTION- ADVERSE TO MIRACLES BE REMOVED? The uniformity of Nature, in the sense of excludiing supernatural intervention, is not an intuitive truth a truth of reason. That like causes will produce like effects is indeed-as far as the physical world is concerned, for we leave out of consideration the will-an axiom of reason. But the uniformity of Nature involves another proposition, namely, that the sum of forces operating in Nature remains the same-with no introduction of supernatural power. And our belief in the uniformity of Nature has no greater strength than belongs to the presumption that supernatural interposition will not occur. But every theist knows that supernatural interposition has occurred in the past; that all things which he b)eliolds owe their existence to such an exertion of 490 THlE PRESUMPTION REMOVED. the Divine will. For he traces them all to an act of creation. Moreover, science affords a kind of historical proof that acts of creation have occurred. The origination of all the types or species of living beings found on the earth, requires the supposition of a creative act, since Geology points back to a time when no germs of animnated being existed on the globe. If the old doctrine of the original distinctness of existing species be still held, which no facts have thus far disproved, we are led to the necessary assumption of a series of creative acts. The uniformity of Nature is thus seen to be no absolute truth. But for what end does material Nature exist? Surely not for its own sake. The end for which Nature exists must be sought outside of Nature itself. Nature is only a part of a more comprehensive system. Nature is an instrument, not an end. The moral administration of God is superior and all-comprehensive. The fixed order of Nature is appointed to promiote the ends of wisdom and goodness. The same motive which dictated the establishment of this order niay prescribe a deviation from it; or rather may have originally determined that the natural order should at certain points give way to supernatural manifestation. That is to say, if the object to be secured is sufficiently commanding, or, in other words, if the benefit to result outweighs all the evils which may be sup 491 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. posed to attend a Divine intervention, the antecedent presumption against the miracle is set aside and overborne. Supposing an end worthy of the intervention of God, a miracle is perfectly consistent with the immu. table character of the Divine administration. This lies in the unity of the end. The same end is pursued, but the means of attaining it are varied. Now He makes use of natural law, and now of special intervention. There is no disturbance of the grand harmony tht pervades the Divine administration. The acts of Divine Providence, both natural and miraculous, form together one consistent whole. A commander, who commonly issues his orders through subordinates, does not interfere with the ends he has in view, if he chooses, now and then, to ride over the field and personally convey his commands. He is guilty of no fickleness, if he alter the disposition of his forces to suit a new set of circumstances. This alteration may even have been embraced in his foresight. Nor is the Ruler of the country inconsistent with himself, when he augments, or diminishes, or wholly disbands, the military force which he has himself organized. For this force does not exist for its own sake. It was created for a special end outside of itself, and is moulded with sole reference to the benefit sought. A miracle is not a prodigy, a mere wonder (-E'ceg), fulfilling no moral end, a disturbance of the natural order, carrying with it no advantage. But a miracle 492 IMMUTABILITY OF GOD. is also a sign (6 o), signifying something, fulfill ing an idea, and serving an end.1 Hence, a miracle implies no afterthought on the part of God-as if he resorted to a measure which He had not originally purposed. In the plan of this world, miracles not less than natural events had their appointed place. The Divine Being as truly deter mined to exert supernatural power at the points where miracles occur, as to act elsewhere through general laws. In short, miracles are fully accordant with the laws of the Universe, or of the universal system which includes God. A departure, in one sense of the terms, from the law of Nature, they are yet harmonious with, and required by, the laws of the Universe. The higher law prescribes their occurrence.2 1 Of the three terms used in the New Testament to designate a miracle, repas corresponds to miraculum and denotes the subjective efiect on the mind; aozrLov denotes the significance of the event; and avvz'jLu,E the supernatural energies to which it must be due. 2 It is a relief to turn from the vagueness of many modern writers to the greater precision of the Schoolmen. Thomas Aquinas (Sume,a, P. I. Quest. 105, Art. 6) handles the question whether God can do anything praeter ordinem rebus indutum. Hle explains that every order is dependent upon a cause, and that one order may be subject to another that is higher and more comprehensive: as the family which is dependent on the father is embraced in the city, which, in turn, is included in the kingdom. A miracle is no violation of the order of things, as dependent upon the First Cause. In another passage (P. I. Quaest. 110, Art. 4), Thomas discusses the question utrum angeli possint facere mziracula. He admits that superhuman creatures can bring to pass events which are miracles quoad nos; that is, events which surpass the power of any created causes with which we are acquainted. But he responds to tle ques 493 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. It will be objected that we are unqualified to say when a moral emergency that calls for a miracle is constituted. To a certain extent, this may be granted. We cannot take into view the entire Divine system. We may be disposed to set up a claim for the intervention of God in cases where a wiser being would be of another mind. This, however, may fairly be demanded of every theist, that as he believes in an intervention of God at the successive epochs of creation, so he shall be prepared to expect a similar intervention at epochs equally momentous in the new spiritual creation, or the redemption of mankind from their bondage to evil. The antecedent presumption against the occurrence of miracles may exist in different degrees of strength. It may, in a given set of circumstances, be greatly weakened without wholly disappearing. But a crisis can be conceived to exist, an exigency can be conceived to arise, where this presumption wholly vanishes and even yields to an expectation of the opposite character. The need of Revelation, and of miracles to verify and give effect to Revelation, constitutes an occasion justifying the Divine intervention. THE FALLACY OF HUME'S ARGUMENT. The preceding remarks suggest the proper answer to the reasoning of Hume against the possibility of tioni negatively, because a miracle, properly speaking, is praeter ordinem totius?zatitrae creatae-somethling, therefore, which ornly God CanI do 494 FALLACY OF HUME'S ARGUMENT. proving a miracle. He ignores the fact of a supernatural moral government over the world of Nature and of men. Our belief both in the constancy of Nature and in human testimony, says Hume, is founded on experience. In regard to the former point, this experience is uniform (since the cases of supposed miracle, being under discussion, are not to be assumed as exceptions). In respect to the credibility of testimony, however, if we suppose apparently credible testimony to be piled never so high, nothing more is required for believing it to be falsely given than to suppose a violation of natural law; that is, of the laws connected with the giving of credible testimony. But if we accept the testimony, and believe the fact it alleges, we are obliged to assume the same thing; namely, the violation of natural law. In other words, we are required by the reporters of a miraculous event to accept one miracle in order to avoid another! We have stated the gist of Hume's argument. The fallacy does.not consist in the postulate that a miracle is contrary to experience; for there is a logical propriety in this provisional assumption. But the fallacy lies in the assumption that a miracle is just as lilkely to occur in tme one place as in tle other; that we may as rationally expect a miracle to be wrought in the matter of testimony, whereby the laws of evidence are miraculously converted into a vehicle for deceiving and mis. leading mankind, as to suppose a miracle in the physical world, like the healing of the blind. IHuime's 495 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. argument is valid only on the hypothesis that God is as ready to exert supernatural power to make truthful men falsify, as to perform the miracles of the Gospel. Introduce the fact of a personal God, a moral Government, and a wise and benevolent end to be subserved through miraculous interposition, and Hume's reasoning is emptied of all its force.1 THE SPECIAL FUNCTION OR USE OF MIRACLES. This is a topic deserving of more fill examination. Why is Revelation attended with miracles? What particular end is subserved by supernatural manifesta 1 Most of the opponents of Hume have failed to overthrow his reasoning. Assuming that the uniformity of Nature is ascertained from testimony, they have claimed that testimony does not prove this uniformity to be unvarying, and that Hume, in taking the opposite position, begs the question in dispute. If they are correct, there is no greater a priori improbability of a miracle than of a natural event; and the same amount of proof which satisfies us that a man has sunk in the water, suffices to prove that he has walked on the water or subdued the billows with a word. If they are correct, an event inexplicable by natural laws is as credible as the every-day phenomena of Nature. They forget that the uniformity of Nature is a legitimnate generalization from experience. It is not a bare record of facts and observations, but an authorized (though not absolute) generalization-on the basis of them. It is true that J. S. Mill and philosophers of the Positivist type who exclude an a priori element from induction, have no good warrant for any generalization-any dictum more comprehensive than the cases actually observed. Hume, to be sure, is logically involved by his philosophical theories in the same embarrassment. But on a sound philosophy, we are obliged to admit a presumption against miracles, which requiresbe removed. 496 THE FUNCTION OF MIRACLES. tion in connection with Christianity? These are the questions to be considered. It has been sometimes thought that the miracles of Christ were to prove His Divinity. But this, in our judgment, is an error. The miracles of Christ do not differ in kind from those which are attributed to the prophets of the Old Testament. By the prophets the sick were healed and the dead revived. Nothing in the quality of the works wrought by Christ, therefore, can authorize us to put this interpretation upon them. If we look at the teaching of the New Testament, we discover that neither Christ nor the apostles attach this peculiar significance to His miraculous works. On the contrary, they are explicitly said to be performed by the Father, or by the Father through Him. They are said to be effected by a power which, though it permanently abide in Him, was yet given Him of God. They are sometimes preceded by the offering of prayer to the Father. They are declared to be a manifestation of the power and majesty of the Father. And in keeping with these representations is the circumstance that no miraculous works proceeded from Jesus prior to the epoch of His baptism and entrance on His public ministry. The Divinity of Jesus is a truth which rests upon His testimony and that of the apostles, and not upon the fact that He performed works exceeding human power.' 1 The scriptural pfoof that the miracles of Christ were not to prove his Divinity, is presented more in detail in the Essay of Mniller. 32 497 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. The old view that miracles are to authenticate the divine mission of a religious teacher, is the correct view. They are a proof which God condescends to afford, that the person by whom they are wrought is clothed with an authority to speak in His name. This being their special office, Christ never performed miracles for the promotion of His own personal comfort. That miracles are in this way a testimony of God, is declared by the Saviour. "The works which the Fathler hath given me to finish, the same works that I do;bear witness of me, that thle Father atali sent nme." 1'If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.' Jesus answered them,' I told you and ye believed not; the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.'" 2 We need not cite the numerous passages in which the miracles are set forth as the proper signs of Messiahship,; An emphatic example is the response of Jesus to the messengers who came from John the Baptist with the question whether He was indeed the Christ. The miracles of Christ, then, See Mark vii. 84; John xi. 41, 42, v. 36,'ix. 25, 33, xiv. 10, xi. 40; cf. Luke ix. 43. See also Acts ii. 22, cf. Acts x. 38. There is only one passage (John ii. 11) which could be thought to suggest a different view. But the 8o'a which Christ manifested forth by the miracle at Cana was the messianic grory, implying, indeed, in the view of John, divinity (see John i. 14); yet not identically the 86oa for which Christ prays in John. xvii. 5. HIence John ii. 11 cannot be considered as inconsistent with the general tenor of the New Testament representations on this subject, which is seen in the passages above cited, many of which are from John. I John v. 36. 2 John x. 24, 25. 498 IMPORTANCE OF MIRACLES. are the testimony of God to His supernatural, divine mission; and the miracles of the apostles have a similar design and import.1 Is this end unimportant? Surely, if the Christian religion is important, it is essential that its authoritative character should be established. Whether the doctrine is of God, or Christ speaks of himself; whether the Gospel is only one more experiment in I Muller has attempted, successfully, as we think, to show that the miracles of Christ were also intended to be symnbolical of His spiritnal agency, and of relations in His spiritual kingdom. The miracles of healing symbolized, and commended to faith, His ability to cure the soul of its disorders. The feeding of the multitude set forth the possibility, through Him, of accomplishing great things in IHis cause by apparently insignificant means. His resurrection from the dead is a standing symbol, in the writings of Paul, for the spiritual awakeninig from the death of sin. That the miracles of Christ, besides the principal end of authenticating his mission had other collateral motives and ends, is not questioned. They undoubtedly serve to impress the mind with the fact of the pe?soa7ality of God. They are thus an antidote to Pantheistic sentiment, as well as to the Deism which puts God far off. They are, also, a natural expression of the compassionate feelings of Christ towards all in distress. Says Chastel, in his excellent Etudes Hiistoriques, upon the Influence of Charity in the early Church, p. 30, " Ctest parce que Jesus aimait gue, tout en publiant la nouvelle du royaume des Cieux, il gu6rissait, dit l'historien, les maladies et les langueurs du peuple (Matt. iv. 23, 24). Cette meme compassion qui le saisissait a la vue de la foule errante et sans guide (Matt. ix. 36), l'attendrissait aussi sutir d'autres souffrances; il allait de lieu en lieu faisant du bien et laissant partout des marques de son inepuisable sympathie." This is true; yet there was another, which was, also, the principal motive-the attestation of His messianic mission and office. 499 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. speculation, one more effort of erring reason to solve the problems of life, is surely a question of capital importance. Every sober and practical mind desires, first of all, to know if the Gospel can be depended upon. The authority and certainly of the Christian system are of inestimable value; and these are guaran. teed by miracles. Just at this point we encounter one of the most popular objections to the attestation of a Revelation by miracles. A miracle, it is urged, is an exertion of power. But how can a display of power operate to convince the reason or quicken the sense of obligation? The binding force of a moral precept lies in its intrinsic character. Obedience on any other ground is worthless. Now can a miracle add to the obligation to follow that which is right? or create a sense of obligation which the law itself fails to excite? Is not a miracle in such a case something heterogeneous, impertinent? The objection is equivalent to the discarding of the principle of authority in religion altogether. We answer, that as far as Christianity is preceptive, the force of authority is a distinct motive superadded to the perceived rectitude of the law, and is both a legitimate and effective motive-as truly as parental authority, including the whole influence of a parent's will and a parent's love, is a proper influence in the heart of a child. As far as Christianity is a testimony to truth which the human mind cannot discern or cannot to its own full satisfaction prove, every 500 THE FUNCTION OF MIRACLES. thing depends on having this testimony fully estab lished. And, in general, there is a fallacy in the sup position that religious truth must be either discerned intuitively and with perfect clearness, or be cast-aside as of no use. Reason may be educated up to the understanding and appreciation of what was once comparatively dark and unmeaning. The outward reception of that which is commended by authority may be followed by insight. This is that elevation of reason to the level of revealed truth which Lord Bacon declares that we are bound to accomplish. We recognize the principle of authority whenever we devote ourselves to the study of a scientific treatise which we know to be true, but have not yet mastered. Every boy who engages in the study of Euclid, does this with the prior conviction that his text-book contains truth, but truth which he can appropriate to himself not without strenuous exertion. The Gospel system, when attested by miracles, makes an analogous claim upon the soul. It calls for obedience, consecration; it rewards these with apprehension, insight. The credentials which attest it put the mind in the right attitude for inwardly receiving its lofty and inspiring lessons. While it is the office of the Christian miracles to verify the supernatural, divine mission of Christ, we are far from considering that they are the exclusive, or even the foremost, proof of this great truth; or even that, by themselves, they are adequate to the production of an inward faith. But of their relation to the 501 THE+ CIIRISTIAN MIRACLES. other sources of Christian evidence, we shall speak more fully under another head. A recollection of the end for which miracles are wrought, will expose the fallacy of the current skeptical objection that miracles would imply a flaw in the constitution of material Nature, which needs to be repaired through a special intervention. The need of miracles is not founded on the existence of any defect in Nature. The system of Nature is good and is worthy of God. It is fitted, in itself considered, to disclose the attributes of the Creator and to call forth feelings of adoration in the human mind. The defect is not in Nature. But the mind of man is darkened so that this primal revelation is obscurely discerned; his character, moreover, is corrupted beyond the power of self-recovery, in consequence of his apostasy from God. Now, if God shall mercifully approach with new light and new help, why shall He not verify to man the fact of His presence, by supernatural manifestations of His power and goodness? In this case, Nature is used as an instrument for an ulterior moral end. The miracle is not to remedy an imperfection in Nature, but is, like the Revelation which it serves to attest, a product of the condescension of God. He condescends to address evidence to the senses, or to the understanding through the senses, in order to open a way for the conveyance of the highest spiritual blessing to mankind. Material Nature, be it remembered, 502 MIRACLES AND MORAL EVIDENCE. does not include the end of its existence in itself. It is a subordinate member of a vaster system, and has only an instrumental value. Of a piece with the objection just noticed, is the vague representation that somiething sacred is violated by a miracle. Hume styled a miracle a trans qression of natural law-skilfully availing himself of a word which usually denotes the infringement of a moral law, and so carries with it an association of guilt.' Several recent writers have more directly propounded a like notion. Such views may be pertinent under a scheme of sentimental Pantheism where Nature is deified. Only he who holds, with Spinoza, that Nature is God, can deem a miracle repugnant to the attributes of God. When the attempt is made to connect such notions with any higher theory of the universe, they deserve no respect, but rather contempt. As if it were derogatory to the Divine Being to save a human life by any other than physical agencies, even when the principal end to be attained is the verification of a heavengiven remedy for the soul and for the disorders which sin has brought into it! THE RELATION OF MIRACLES TO THE MORAL PROOFS OF CHRISTIANITY. The question has often been discussed whether the strongest proof of the divine origin of Christianity is found in its doctrine or its miracles. Some have gone 1 Hume's Essays, Vol. II. Appendix, K. 503 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. so far as to say that the doctrine proves the miracles, not the miracles the doctrine. The truth on the subject has been more properly set forth in the aphorism of Pascal: "Doctrines must be judged by miracles; miracles must be judged by doctrines." It is plain that a doctrine vlwhich the unperverted conscience pronounces immoral or inconsistent with the perfections of God, cannot be received on the ground of alleged or supposed miracles attending it. This principle is declared in the Bible itself, in a memorable injunction given to the Israelites.' We must conclude, to be sure, that all wonders which the teacher of such doctrine performs, are "lying wonders;" that they are either the product of jugglery or are wrought by supernatural evil beings whose force surpasses that of men, and who are, therefore, able to counterfeit the works of Divine power. In accordance with the tendency of this principle, is the reply of Jesus to the charge that his miracles were wrought by the power of Satan. He does not deny that works, surpassing the power of men, may be done through the aid of devils; but he responds to the charge by a moral consideration. An evil being would not work against himself and exert power against his own minions. So much is clear, then, that a doctrine must be negatively unobjectionable on the score of morality or of moral tendency, in order to challenge our faith, I Deuteronomy xiii. 1-4. 504 MIRACLES AND MORAL EVIDENCE. whatever wonderful works may attend the annunciation of it. But a still more positive and important place belongs to doctrine in the evidence for the divine origin of Christianity. The foregoing discussion has evinced that in order to prove miracles, the anterior presumption adverse to their occurrence must be set aside. The necessity of Revelation and of a method of salvation which man is unable to originate, partially prepares the minind to expect miracles. But the contents of the professed Revelation are of not less moment in their bearing on this anterior expectation. The more excellent the doctrine, the more it seems to surpass the capacity of the unaided human faculties, the more it appears adapted to the necessities of our nature, in fine, the more worthy it is to have God for its author, so much the more credibility is given to the miracles which, it is claimed, have accompanied it. The doctrine and the miracles are two mutually supporting species of evidence. The more the mind is struck with the divine excellence of the doctrine, the more likely does it seem that this doctrine should be attended with miracles. If the doctrine is noble and worthy and sufficient, we naturally look for miracles, and only require that they shall be recommended to belief by faithful testimony. In these remarks we have compared tie doctrine with the miracles, as sources of proof. The moral proofs of Christianity, however, comprehend much 505 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. more than what is understood by Christian doctrine. As affecting the presumption relative to the occurrence of miracles, we must take into view the character of Jesus, the entire spirit and plan of his life, all the circumstances connected with the planting of Christianity in the world. It is unwarranted and unwise to isolate one element of Christianity, as the miracles, or the doctrine, from the other elements which are connected with it, and form, as it were, one vital whole. Christ and Christianity, as they are presented in the New Testament Scriptures, stand out as one complex phenomenon, which we are called upon to explain. Nothing can be appreciated by itself, but everything must be looked at in its organic relation. The moral evidence of the supernatural origin of Christianity includes the teaching of Christ and the Christian system of doctrine, but it embraces much more-much that is inseparably associated with the doctrine. Farther still, we are required to consider Christianity in the light of a mighty historic movement, beginning in the remote past, extending in a continuous progress through many ages, culminating in the advent and life of Christ, and in the establishment of his Church, but flowing onward in its effects, through an ever-widening channel, down to the present day. We have to contemplate the striking peculiarity of this great historic movement, which embraces the unfold ing, through successive stages, or epochs, of a religion distinct in its spirit as well as in its renovating power 506 MIRACLES AND MORAL EVIDENCE. from all other religions known among men. And we have to connect with this view a survey of its subse quent diffusion and leavening influence in human so ciety. Comparing this religion with the native charac. teristics of the people among whom it appeared, and from whose hands the priceless treasure was at length delivered to mankind, we are to ask ourselves if this religion, so pure and salutary, so enduring and influen tial, so strong as to survive temporary eclipse and withstand through a long succession of ages, before the full light appeared, an adversary as powerful as human barbarism and corruption, can be the product of man's invention. And whatever reason there is for rejecting this supposition as irrational, is so much argument for the Christian miracles. It deserves remark that miracles appear especially at the signal epochs in the progress of the gradually developing system of religion. This circumstance has been pointed out by Christian apologists.' In connection with Moses, who marks an era in the communication of the true religion; then, after a long interval, in connection with the prophets, who introduce an era not less peculiar and momentous, and then, after a long suspension of miraculous manifestation, in conjunction with the final and crowning epoch of Revelation, with the ministry of Christ and the founding of the Church, the supernatural is seen to break into the course of history. There is an impressive analogy be See Dr. A. P. Penbody's Christianity, the Religion of.Yttctre. 0 507 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. tween the spiritual creation or. renewal of humanity, and the physical creation, where successive eras are inaugurated by the exertion of supernatural agency in the introduction of new species, and after each epoch history is remanded, as it were, to its natural course in pursuance of an established order. Miracle would seem to be the natural expression and verification of an opening era in the spiritual enlightenment of mankind, when new forces are introduced by the great Author of light and life, and a new development sets in. In this place may be noticed a criticism which is frequently heard, in these days, from the side of disbelief. Miracles, it is said, are put forward as the evidences of Revelation, but miracles are the very thing which require to be proved. "Miracles," it is triumphantly asserted, "instead of affording satisfactory proof of anything, are now usually found in the dock instead of the witness-box of the court of criticism." 1 To this we reply, that when the testimony of a witness is such as to conclude the case, and that witness is impeached, of course the main effort is turned in the direction of establishing his credibility. When a messenger brings a communication of a momentous nature, the character of his credentials becomes a question of vast consequence and draws to itself a proportionate degree of attention. Are these credentials genuine, the contents of his message will command respect. I Mackay, The Tu bingen School, &c., p. 56. 508 MIRACLES AND MORAL EVIDENCE. Are the credentials fabricated, his message is devoid of authority. To scrutinize the credentials and, in case they are worthy of credit, to remove the doubts of the skeptical, is thus a matter of prime importance. But the fallacy of the objection implied in the quotation above, does not rest on this consideration alone. If miracles attest the Christian Revelation, they are also a part-one side-of that Revelation itself. They are con8sitmtive of Revelation, so that in proving them we are establishing not so much a collateral circumstance as a part of the main fact. They are one element in the immediate manifestation of God. The doctrine is divine, but the works also are divine. The presumption in favor of the miracles, that is created by the excellence and credibility of the doctrine, does not supersede the need of miracles, nor does it supersede the need of faithful testimony to their occurrence. He has a poor understanding of logic who does not know that two sources of evidence may lend to each other a mutual support. The excellence of the doctrine sustains the testimony to the miracles; the proof of the miracles establishes the divinity of the doctrine. It is sometimes urged that if miracles are necessary in the original communication of Christianity, they are not less to be expected in the propagation of it. And the question is asked why we refuse to give credit to reports of more modern miracles, or why such miracles 509 I THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. are not wrought now in conjunction with missionary labor? We do not consider the supposition that miracles have been wrought since the apostolic age to be so absurd as many seem to regard it. So thorough a historical critic as Neander hesitates to disbelieve the testimony to the miracles said to be performed by that devout and holy preacher, St. Bernard, and so great a man as Edmund Burkle takes the same ground in respect to the miracles attributed to early Saxon. missionaries in Britain. But there is generally a defect in the character of the testimony, in the habits of careful observation, or of trustworthy reporting, which, apart from other considerations, prevents us from giving credit to the Catholic miracles. It is remarkable that some of the most eminent mediaeval missionaries disclaimed the power of performing miracles. This is true of Ansgar, the famous apostle of the North of Europe, and of Boniface, the still more celebrated apostle of Germany. They were ready to give credence to the pretensions of others, but for themselves professed to be endued with no supernatural powers. Besides this, however, there is another consideration of almost decisive weight. The origination of Christianity, a method of salvation, is beyond human power; not so the propagation of the religion which is once communicated. We agree that the general method of the Divine government is that of leaving men to discover for themselves what the unaided human faculties are competent to find out. The laws of astronomy, 510 POST-APOSTOLIC MIIRACIL.ES. the physical structure and history of the globe, with all the sciences and arts which belong to civilization, it is left for human investigation, in the slow toil of centuries, to develop. But the true knowledge of God was practically inaccessible; salvation was something which fallen man could not achieve of himself. It accords, therefore, with the method of God to leave the diffsion of the blessings of Christianity, when they are once communicated, to the agency of men, withholding miraculous (though not supernatural) assistance to their endeavors.' It is plain that in the Divine administration there is what has been called an economy, or sparing use, of miracle. The Saviour's whole manner of speaking on the subject, as well as the course which he pursued, appears to indicate that miracles are an accommodation to human weakness, and are granted in response to an unwonted exigency. Comparing ourselves, or any heathen nation, with the age contemporary with Christ, we find ourselves in possession of other proofs derived from the operation of Christianity in the world, which may well stand in the room of any ocular demonstration of its heavenly origin. 1 That supernatural agency of God which is not manifestly supernatural, but which is so connected with the operation of natural causes that its presence is not palpable, we do not style miraculous. To this supernatural, but not miraculous, agency, belongs the Regeneration and Sanctification of the soul. Providential answers to prayer may fall under the same head-to prayer, for instance, for the restoration of the sick. 511 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. The foregoing remarks will prepare the reader for the observation that miracles are an inferior species of proof, compared with the moral evidence of the divine Drigin of Christianity, and, independently of the im. pression made by this last kind of evidence, must fail to convince. Such is undeniably the rank assigned to miracles by the Saviour himself. Apart from miracles, there was proof of his divine mission, as he considered, which ought to satisfy the mind. But if this proof left the mind still skeptical, he pointed to the miracles. "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake." 1 Aweak faith, an inchoate faith, miracles might confirm. Where there was a receptive temper, some degree of spiritual susceptibility, miracles were a provocative and aid of faith. But where there was an entire insensibility to the moral side of the gospel, or an absence of any such craving for the truth as gave it a degree of self-evidencing power, the Saviour refused to work miracles. Miracles have for such minds no convincing efficacy. They would be referred either to occult natural causes or to diabolical agency. Miracles could develop and reinforce the faith which moral evidence had partially awakened. They could not create that faith outright. They could not serve as a substitute for the proofs which touch directly the reason and conscience. They could not kindle spiritual life under the ribs of death. They were an appeal to 1 John xiv. 11. 512 MIRACLES AND MORAL EVIDENCE. the senses, symbolizing the spiritual operation of the gospel, and subordinately aiding the confidence of the darkened soul in the divine reality of the gospel. All the teaching of Christ concerning the place and use of his miracles, and concerning the comparative value and dignity of the proof from miracles and from the moral evidence of his divine mission, corroborates the doc trine we have laid down, that the former are subsidiary and secondary, and are due to the condescension of God, who affords an extraordinary prop, and one we have properly no right to demand, to that hesitating, incomplete faith which has been excited by the superior appeals flowing directly from the Christian system itself and the character of its Author. It was the tendency of the school of Paley to give the greatest prominence in the Evidences of Revela tion, to the miracles. The internal argument in their hands often received less than justice. Belief was sought to be produced by the constraining influence of authority through the medium of supernatural interposition. In that reaction against this school, of which Coleridge more than any other individual was the efficient promoter, the position of the two sources of proof was reversed. It became common to speak of the evidence from miracles in disparaging terms, as if it was deserving of no respect. This tendency of course found support from such as rejected the supernatural altogether from any concern in the origin of Christianity. In some quite recent writers, the pen,o,o 513 THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. dulumn oscillates again to the former place. The sound view, in our judgment, lies between the two extremes, and this view has the sanction of the Saviour himself. 514 ESSAY XII. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CON CERNING HIMSELF. PHAIRISEES on a certain occasion taunted Jesus with pretending to be a witness to his own claims. A record which he bore of himself, they said, deserved no credit, onl the accepted principle that a man cannot be witness in his own case. He replied that his testimony, although it related to himself and his own pretensions, was nevertheless true and credible. To be sure, there was, besides, an objective proof answering to the subjective witness of his own consciousness, and verifying that witness to others, if not to himself. There was, namely, the testimony which God gave through the works which Jesus wrought; works which man without God could not have done. Yet his own testimony, the testimony of his own consciousness, his inward conviction or intuition relative to his mission, and to the office that belonged to him among men, he justly held to be of itself, under the circumstances, a valid proof.l ' John viii. 14: "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." Only in verbal opposition to this affirmation is John v. 31. "The seeming contradiction between the present declaration and the former concession of Jesus is explained, if we suppose that he there 5] 6 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. To develop and support this proposition is the pur pose of the present Essay. In respect to the contents, or proper interpretation, of the testimony of Jesus regarding himself, there is, of course, some difference of opinion. But the points, to which we now draw attention, certainly formed a part of it, as all sober criticism must allow. In the first place, Jesus claimed to act in virtue of a special divine commission. He had been sent into the world in a sense altogether peculiar, and for the discharge of a mission which was of strictly supernatural origin. This was the primary, the generic, the often-repeated, claim of Jesus, which it were idle to attempt to fritter away or to resolve into a figure. He was preeminently, and by supernatural appointment, the Messenger of God in this world. In the second place, he affirmed of himself a lofty and peculiar relationship to God. We need not here say all that we believe upon this point. It is sufficient for our present argument to notice his claim to a knowledge of that invisible Being, thought proper to follow the common human rule, and to adduce the testimony of others in his behalf; whilst here, on the contrary, he proceeds in conformity with the higher principle that the Divine can only be testified to and proved by itself. Besides, there is in the thing itself no contradiction. His self-testimony, resting upon the consciousness of his divine mission, corresponds in a sense to the testimony of his works (John v. 36), inasmuch as these always presuppose such a consciousness." (De Wette on John viii. 14). See, also, Meyer (on John v. 31), where Euthymius is quoted to the effect that in this passage Jesus is merely anticipating the objection of the Jews-not littering his own sentiment. CLAIMS OF JESUS. which in kind and degree surpasses that possessed by all other men, and to a spiritual union with Him as intimate as language is capable of expressing. He professes to stand in this exalted, mysterious fellowship with God; to be a partaker of divine prerogatives; and, after departing from the world, to sit oni the throne of universal dominion. In the third place, he assumes towards men all office the most elevated which imagination can conceive. He claims to be the moral Guide and Deliverer of mankind. He does not hesi tate to style himself, in this relation, the Light, or the Illuminator of the world; taking the same place in the kingdom of souls that belongs to the Sun in the material system. In the exertion of the office committed to him, he forgives sin. This awful prerogative, which it were impious for a mortal to take upon himself, he does not hesitate to exercise. He invites the world of men, in their conscious infirmity and guilt, to rest uponi him. He undertakes to procure for them reconciliation with God. He bids them pray with confidence, in his name. He promises, even, to work within them moral purification through potent agencies of which he is the prime mover. In short, he assumes to be the Deliverer of the souls of men from their bondage to sin and exposure to retribution. How exalted, how unparalleled the claim! And to crown all, judgment over the race is lodged in his hands. iHe is the arbiter of destinies. "Before him shall be gathered all nations." 517 518 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. In this sketch of the extraordinary claims of Jesus, we have exaggerated nothing, but rather have purposely stopped short of their full magnitude. They are all included within his consciousness. That is to say, his conscious relation to God involved all this. "I know," he said, "whence I come, and whither I go."' Back of all these claims was a full, inward persuasion or intuition of their reality. Now the question is, Was this consciousness of Christ veracious or deceptive? Did it represent the reality, or was it the fabric of enthusiasm? Plainly such is the alternative to which we are brought. It is understood that we leave out of sight for the present, the miracles-the objective verification of the consciousness and the claims of Christ. Is this consciousness for so we may be allowed to style the intuitive conviction to which we refer-of itself, in the case before us, trustworthy? Or, have we in these claims an instance of unexampled selfdelusion? We proceed to offer reasons why this last hypothesis cannot rationally be entertained. One very remarkable feature of the Gospel history, which has an important bearing on the present inquiry, we must notice at the outset. The peculiarclaim of Jesus was most deliberately made, and was made persistently in the face of all the opposition and scrutiny which it underwent. Moreover, the utmost stress was laid upon it by Jesus himself. It CONSCIOUS GREATNESS OF HIS CLAIMS. cannot be said that he was not distinctly aware of the momentous import of the claim which he put forth. This he understood in all its length and breadth. It is plain that he had a calm, yet full and vivid, appreciation of its nature. Had he needed any spur to reflection, this would have been furnished by the unbelieving and inimical attitude of almost all around him. Never were pretensions more constantly and ingeniously challenged. Think how assured his own spirit must have been, to pass through this life-long ordeal without sharing, in the faintest degree, the misgivings and distrust of the surrounding world! Among the rulers and leaders of the nation, among his own kindred, on every side, there was pitying or scornful disbelief. Yet he did not doubt himself! Moreoverand this is a point of especial significance-he made this belief in him the cardinal requirement, the turningpoint, and test. His extraordinary claims and asser, tions respecting himself and his mission are not left in the background. On the contrary, they stand out in bold relief. Confidence in them is the one great demand, the first and fundamental duty which, in the preaching of his religion, men are called upon to perform. How much do we read about belief and unbelief on the pages of the New Testament! The same question was agitated then, even in the verv presence of Christ, that is discussed now. Was he, or was he not, worthy of belief? Was he, indeed, sent from God, or did he speak of himself? 519 520 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. Now it is adapted, we cannot but feel, to make a strong impression on every thoughtful mind, to reflect that this question of believing or disbelieving in him was clothed, in the estimation of Christ himself, with all the importance that justly attaches to it. However vast his claim, he knew and felt how vast it was. Not only did he stake his all, and sacrifice all, in the maintenance of it, but he concentrated, so to speak, his whole system in it, by making the full assent to this claim the one foremost and essential requirement. "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom He hath sent." He examined his disciples as to the view which they took of his person and office. Who think ye that I am? was his question to them. He was acquainted with the various theories concerning him that were entertained by his contemporaries. When there was everything to excite self-questioning, the consciousness of his divine mission was not in the least disturbed. Through all denial of him, under the frown of men in power as well as the fierce outcries of the fanatical mob, in view of his apparently unsuccessful career, even amidst the terrors of death, the consciousness of his divine mission remains a deep, immovable conviction. It was a conviction which reflection - self-knowledge - had no tendency to weaken. Self-deception, in a matter like this, is incompatible with the transcendent holiness and goodness of Christ. HOLINESS OF CHRIST. It would argue such a degree of self-ignorance and self-exaggeration as could spring only from a deep moral perversion. We shall not enter into an elaborate argument to prove the spotless character of Christ. It is enough to convince us of his sinless purity, that while his moral discernment was so penetrating and sure, and his ideal of character absolutely faultless, and his dealing with others marked by a moral fidelity so searching, he had yet no consciousness of sin. When the tempter came he found nothing in him —no province in his heart, no strip of territory, which he could call his own. The teaching of Christ presents the purest description of rectitude and holiness. Every man finds in it practical rebukes of sin-of his own sinwhich are more pointed and awful than he can find elsewhere. His precepts are the embodiment and expression of a pure conscience. Yet the feeling of selfreproach never entered the heart of Jesus. It is impossible to account for this, except on the supposition that he was absolutely free from sin. Without dwelling on the excellence of Christ, on that blending of piety and philanthropy, that union of the active virtues with the passive graces of character, that exquisite combination and harmony of virtues, we may still advert to one or two special features in which his perfection shines out. Men who rise far above the common level of character are still frequently open to temptation from two sources, ambition and friendship. 521 522 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. In each of these particulars, Jesus affords an example of stainless virtue. The love of power and worldly advancement was kept far away from his heart. He was proof against self-seeking in this enticing form of personal aspiration. Even more difficult is it to resist subtle temptations to yield something of truth or duty for the sake of friendship. But Jesus, though patient and tender towards all the erring, is unsparingly faithful in dealing with his most -intimate disciples. There is no exception, no tacit indulgence, no accommodation of the moral standard, out of favor to them. The foremost.of them, when he would suggest to Jesus a departure from the hard path of self-sacrifice, is sternly rebuked under the name of Adversary and Tempter.' Even their resentment at injuries offered to him brings upon them his disapprobation.2 He tolerates in the best loved, and in the seclusion of private intercourse, no temper of feeling which is repugnant to the principle of goodness.3 Now we aver that the holy character of Christ pre. eludes the possibility of a monstrous self-delusion such Matt. xvi. 23. 2 Luke ix. 55. 3 Among the delineations of the character of Jesus, the pregnant aphorisms of Pascal in the Pensees have, perhaps, never been surpassed. Ullmann's little work on The Sinlessness of Christ (much enlarged and improved in the later editions) is convincing and impressive. Tle Christ of -History, by John Young, a Scottish writer, is a forcible airgument on the same general subject. As an extended portraiture of the excellence of Christ, the chapters in Horace Bushnell's Nature and the Superniatural, on "the Character of Jesus," besides their eloquence, are full of instructive suggestion. THE HUMILITY OF JESUS. as must be attributed to him in case his claims are discredited. The soul is not so made as to fall a victim to this enormous self-deception, whilst the moral part is sound and pure. The principle that if the eye be single the whole body is full of light, is applicable here. There is a shield for the judgment in thorough moral uprightness. God has not made the intelligence of man to mislead him so fearfuilly, provided he abides ill his integrity. The mind is a witness to the truth, and was made for that end. To assume that the inmost consciousness of a holy, unfallen soul, in the full communion of God, is no criterion of truth, would be almost equivalent to supposing that the world is made and governed by an evil being. We found the credibility of the consciousness of Christ on his perfect goodness. This conclusion is fortified when we consider, in particular, the humility of Jesus. Notwithstanding the extraordinary dignity to which he lays claim, humility marks his whole demeanor. He is careful to keep within the bounds of his calling; for himself, regarded apart from the relationship he sustains to God and from his office, he exacts nothing; from every symptom of an elated mind, from every feeling of self-glorification, he is utterly exempt; while, in his intercourse with his fellow-men of every rank, there appears a winning lowliness of heart. This mixture of humility with so lofty claims-elements seemingly incongruous, yet in the evangelical portraiture of Jesus so naturally 523 524 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESIYS. uniting-makes his character altogether unique. Asserting for himself a station so exalted, he is yet the impersonation of self-renouncing regard for others. The singular humility of Christ, emanating, as it does, from the very core of his character, renders it well-nigh inconceivable that he could have been bewildered and blinded by a self-exalting delusion respecting his rank in the universe and his authority among men. Such an impression, if it be false, must have its roots in an immoderate self-estimation. Nothing short of a most inordinate self-love could breed a persuasion of this nature, if there was in truth no foundation for it. But if this occult misleading principle had been operative, other and offensive manifestations of it would have appeared. On the contrary, a rare humility before God and men is one of the striking characteristics of Jesus. It would seem as if he were desirous of requiring for himself the least that he could require in consistency with truth. And even this he requires, not from any personal love of honor or power, but rather in the interest of truth, and as compelled in the faithful performance of the work which it was given him to do. Had he been a lover of power, conspicuity, authority, rule, we might possibly account for the rise in his soul of a delusive sense of personal importance. But in one who was actuated by motives wholly antagonistic, in whose eyes the doing of the humblest act of love was nobler than to wear a coronet, in him who was "meek and of a lowly heart," the existence of a CONFUCIUS. self-magnifying illusion of this nature is psychologically insoluble. No case analogous to that of the founder of Chris tianity can be cited from the abundant records of reli gious enthusiasm. It is true that multiplied examples of such enthusiasm exist in the past. There have been professed prophets and founders of religions, who have believed in their own pretensions, which were yet the offspring of a morbid imagination. But none of these, in respect to character and to surrounding circumstances, resembles Christ, or helps us to explain his consciousness.. There is this radical difference, that none of these have been exempt from the corrupting operation of sin. The effect of that deranging, disturbing force, has been experienced not only in the character, its immediate seat, but also in the intelligence. Because they who are groping in the dark lose their path, it follows not that such will be the lot of him who walks in the day. Point us to the prophet or saint who can claim the unclouded vision which is the attribute of the unfallen soul, and we admit the parallel. But let us glance at some of these leaders whose names are sometimes flippantly coupled with the name of Jesus. Confucius cannot be placed in the category of religious teachers pretending to a divine mission. He was simply a teacher of moral and political axioms; entitled to credit, indeed, for certain commendable features in his ethical doctrine, but disclaiming any special 525 5 6 CREDIBILITY OF THiE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. knowledge of the invisible world. He laid claim to no higher character than that of a sage, drawing from no other fountain than human wisdom. Buddha was likewise a moral reformer, a true philanthropist, the propounder of humane ethical precepts. Though subsequently invested by his followers with a halo of supernatural glory, it is not ascertained that this monk and mystic himself claimed to be the organ of a divine revelation. His work, as far as it was religious, was chiefly negative, consisting in the deliverance of his followers from the slavish superstition of the brahminical system, by denying the reality of the objects of their previous worship. The speculative part of his system was his own discovery, and was atheistic. Of Zoroaster too little is known to enable us to judge intelligently of his mental characteristics. If he claimed to have received communications from heaven, we know too little of his history to determine the shape and extent of this pretension. How far he was really infected with a mystic enthusiasm, and how far the supernatural elements in the traditional accounts of his career have sprung from the fancy of later generations, we are not in a situation to decide.' Skeptics have sometimes endeavored to draw a parallel between ' A tolerably full, and doubtless in the main authentic, account of Zoroaster and Buddha, and of the wide-spread religious systems called respectively by their names, may be found in Duncker's Geschichte des Alterthums (Vol. I.), a work which offers a consecutive and readable, as well as learned, exhibition of the results of modern APOLLONIUS: MOHAMMED. Apollonius of Tyana and the author of the Gospel. But the earliest life of Apollonius, the work of Philostratus, was not written until a hundred years after he lived, and the resemblance of his pretended miracles to the miracles of the Gospel is probably, for the most part, a designed parody of the Saviour's history. Of Apollonius we know little more than that he was one of thie more famous of the roving magicians and dealers in the preternatural, who, in that epoch of spiritual distraction, found a ready hearing in the Roman world. The appeal to Mohammed, as a notable example of sincere but unfounded confidence in one's own divine mission, has been urged with more frequency and persistency. Happily the investigations which have been made into the history of the Arabian prophet, have furnished the explanation of his remarkable selfdelusion. This solution is found in a great degree in his peculiarly morbid physical constitution. Subject from his youth to a form of epilepsy, and combining with this nervous infirmity a mystic fervor of religious aspiration, he conceived the impression that the extraordinary states of body and soul into which he occasionally fell, were due to the action of celestial beings, and at length came to consider himself the organ,of a divine revelation. His zeal for a rigorous monotheism inflamed the fanaticism of his fiery temperament, and finally impelled him to missions of conquest; though investigation in the department of oriental history. It is understood that the more recent researches into the Zoroastrian system yield imiportant fruit. 527 528 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. it seems to be admitted that after his establishment at Medina, and with his advancing success, he lost much of the comparative sincerity and singleness of his motives. A large alloy of base ambition became mingled up with the enthusiasm of the zealot. In the case of Mohammed, there were present all the materials which are needful for the composition of an enthusiast. His hot blood, his morbid temperament, his inward yearnings and conflicts, the seasons of hallucination through which he passed, his solitary vigils and selfmortification, are sufficient to explain the origin of the delusion which gained possession of his mind.' 1 The best biography of Mohammed is the late work of Dr. Sprenger, who has had the command of wider materials than were before accessible. He describes with much fulness the maladies to which Mohammed was subject. In the portions of this copious work which we have read, the author makes the impression of great knowledge on the subject, but of small literary skill, with a tendency to prolixness. The English biography of Mohammed, in best repute, is the recent work of Mr. Muir. In one o(f his articles in the Calcutta Review (which are incorporated into his subsequent work), Muir discusses " the Belief of Mohammed in his own Inspiration." He traces with plausibility the psychological origin of this belief. " Hiow far," says Muir, "the two ideas of a Resolution subjectively formed, and involving a spontaneous course of action, and of a Divine Inspiration objectively imparted and independent of his own will, were at first simultaneously present, and in what respective degrees, it is difficult to conjecture. But it is certain that the conception of a divine commission soon took entire and undivided possession of his soul; and, colored though it often was by the motions and inducements of the day, or mingled with apparently incongruous desires, retained a paramount influence until the hour of his death."' (P. 320.) Of Mohammed at Medina, Muir says (p. 830): "Ambition, PYTHAGORAS: SOCRATES. But there were men, we are sometimes told, in the ancient world, of another make and of a different order of mind from this, who were yet believed by themselves to be charged with a divine mission. Pythagoras was one. Unfortunately, the earliest extant biographers of Pythagoras, Porphyry and his pupil, Jamblichus, did not write until seven or eight hundred years after the philosopher whom they commemorate, flourished; and the best of the biographers whom they cite date no further back than about two centuries after their master's death. In the absence of contemporary withesses, the knowledge we possess both of the mental and moral character, and the pretensions, of Pythagoras, is scanty and, to a considerable extent, inferential. It would be nothing strange if a man like him, at that time, imagined that natural gifts of knowledge' were hnparted to him by a special inspiration of the divinity. It is difficult to see how anything can be gathered unfavorable to the claims of Christ, from the example of a heathen mystic so indistinctly known, and standing, withal, at the dawning period of scientific thought. There is, however, one man of antiquity, who, in some other respects, has not unfrequently been set in comparison with Jesus, and the conjunction of whose name with that of Christ may give a less shock to reverential feeling. Yet, in the points in which the rapine, assassination, lust, are undenied features of his later life, openly sanctioned by an assumed permission, or even command, fi'om the Most High I " 34 529 530 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. position of Socrates is more usually compared with that of Christ, Socrates is better likened to the forerunner of Christ; as, indeed, he was styled by the Platonist of Florence, Marsilius Ficinus, the John the Baptist of the ancient world. The Socratic philosophy prepared many noble minds for the reception of the gospel, by its congenial tone, and by the cravings which it awakened but failed to satisfy. But Socrates believed himself to have been entrusted with a divine mission, and believed that he enjoyed an inward supernatural guidance. We are quite willing to consider this persuasion on the part of the greatest man of the ancient heathen world, for the reason that a careful consideration of the character of this belief of Socrates and of the nature of his pretensions generally, will serve to corroborate strongly the argument which has been presented on the foregoing pages. Socrates, like all the Greeks of the time, save individuals here and there who may have disbelieved in anything divine, thought that the gods made known their counsels through the medium of dreams and oracles. This will be called a superstition. So, he thought that the study of physical science, when carried beyond the small stock of knowledge indispensable for the practical pursuits of life, was an impiety -a meddling with what belonged to the gods. This, too, was a superstition. Such views simply indicate that we are not to look, even in Socrates, for a miraculous degree of enlightenment. But we are concerned SOCRATES. here with the view which he took of himself and his mission. And here it is to be observed that in refer ence to the opportunity of being taught by dream and oracle, and the like, he claimed nothing more for him self than what he attributed to others. In this matter all stood on the same footing. The gods heard prayer, he held, and gave answer in these ways. In respect to the work to which he devoted himself, the verdict of the Delphian oracle in favor of his preeminent wisdom doubtless had an important influence in leading him to the career which he embraced of a public interrogator and exposer of pretended knowledge, and teacher of such as cared to learn of him. And this work he considered a calling, in the literal sense, which he was not at liberty to forsake. He supposed, also, that an inward monitor, whose restraining impulse he experienced on various occasions, was given him to hold him back from a mistaken or injurious course of action. For the office of the demon, according to what must be considered the statement of Socrates himself, in the Apology, was negative-never suggesting what to do, but simply, on occasions, interposing resistance to stay him from unwise action.' Now, it 1 Apologia, c. xix. Socrates says of the inward voice: aELt rop;t e TroVrov,'a!a' co IrparrELv, 7rpoTpe'rEt 8E' oV7rore. Compare, also, c. xxxi., where Socrates says that through all the legal proceedings in his case, the voice in his soul had interposed no check to the course he was taking, and where he defines the function of the supernatural Monitor in the same way. The representations of Xenophon in the Memorabilia (I. 1, 4, et al.), as is well known, are 531 532 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. may be held, that this supposed demon was the intuitive moral impulse of Socrates himself, which, in the promptitude of its action, struck him as the voice of another in his soul; or, in common with some of the Christian Fathers, and with others whom it were harsh to tax with credulity, we may even suppose that supernatural enlightenment was not withheld from this man by the Being before whom those in every nation who fear Him-even though their knowledge of Him be imperfect —and work righteousness, are accepted. But when we look at the claims of Socrates respecting himself, we find that he is far from assuming preeminence or authority. It is true that he considered his work an important one, and himself not a harmful but a needed and useful citizen. But this was the limit of his pretensions. He distinguished himself from other men, not through any superiority of knowledge which he thought himself to possess, but through that consciousness of ignorance which belonged to him and which they lacked. Ite, like them, knew nothing, but, unlike them, Ae knew that lie knew nothing. He asserted for himself no greater knowledge, and no more certainty of knowledge respecting the future life, than other men had. He claimed to exercise no authority over the opinions or the conduct of others. If less accurate; and those contained in the Theages (like the work itself) come not from Plato. Yet in this Dialogue it is stated, in conformity with the Apology, that the demon only forbids, never instigates. SOCRATES. the demon negatively guided him, he received thereby no authority or wisdom for the control of other men. He was simply a man among men; a humble searcher for truth; pretending to the exertion of no authority save that which was willingly accorded to the force of his reasonings. In fact, a principal charm of Socrates is his humble sense of the narrow boundaries of human knowledge, and his waiting for more light. Let us now change the picture which history presents of this remarkable man. Let us suppose that Socrates had claimed to be invested with all power in heaven and on earth, had required the acceptance of his doctrines on his mere authority, had demanded of all men an implicit obedience to his will, had styled himself the lord and master of his disciples, had assumed to pardon impiety and trausgression, had professed an ability to allot to men their everlasting destinies, besides delivering them from the bonds of death, and had declared himself to be the constituted judge in the future world of the entire race of man. The question we put is, whether assumptions of this character, notwithstanding acknowledged virtues of Socrates, would not evince either a demented understanding or an ingrained, monstrous self-love and self-exaggeration, only to be explained on the supposition of a deep moral perversion? Should we not be driven to conclude that claims so extravagant and presumptuous in a sane mind imply that character is off its true foundations? How else could self-deception and self-exalta 533 534 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. tion reach this height?. And would not complacency for certain traits and actions of Socrates be lost in the repugnance we should feel for this arrogancy of pretension? An enthusiast is ordinarily looked upon with compassion by sober minds. But when enthusiasm leaps so high, and leads to the usurping of a rank far beyond the allowance of truth and the moral law, it inspires a feeling of moral aversion. Had Jesus stood forth simply in the character of a promulgator of some high, and, perhaps, forgotten truth in theology or morals, with which his whole being was penetrated, we might look upon the mistaken belief in a supernatural mission with a less unfavorable judgment. It is conceivable that the light which flashes on the intelligence should be wrongly attributed. to a supernatural source, that the intuition should be taken for miraculous revelation, and that a glowing, absorbing conviction should be held to come from above in a supernatural way. Such, we should be willing to grant, was the principal source of Mohammed's original faith in his own inspiration. The feebly recognized truth of the sovereign control in this world of one almighty will came home to his soul with a vividness which nothing, in his view, but preternatural influence could account for. In this, or some similar way, a man comes to recognize himself as the chosen repository of a great, vital truth, and the chosen instrument for propagating it. And such a conviction is even consistent with humility, so long as CHRIST NOT SELF-DECEIVED the truth is kept uppermost and the function of the prophet is felt by himself to be merely subordinate and ministerial. Nay, the very contrast between the sublimity of the truth of which he has been made the recipient, and his own poor merits, may intensify the feeling of personal unworthiness. The prophet or saint feels abashed at being made the channel for conveying the divine communication. It is true that pride ever stands near, and self-flattery and arrogance gain easy admission. The humility is apt to be retained only in semblance, while it is really supplanted by a principle wholly antagonistic. Still more important is it to remember that even this sort of self-deception belongs to men who, whatever may be thought of their earnestness and relative excellence, partake of the sinfulness of humanity. If they fall into the error of supposing that they are specially chosen agents of heaven when they are not, this is among the delusions which are due to the darkening influence of the sin that is common to mankind. Apart from this consideration, there was, in fact, no one idea of religion to which the mind of Jesus was surrendered, and in which he was swallowed up. The fertility, the variety, the consistency, and symmetry of his teaching, not less than its whole tone and temper, forbid this hypothesis respecting him. But the decisive answer to the suggestion that he was an enthusiast of this description is gathered from what was said in the beginning of the extent of his claims. These claims are far from being satisfied when he is 535 536 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. looked upon as the simple repository and organ of a divine communication. His exalted claims, then, in case they are not allowed, must be credited to the selfseeking which corrupts the simplicity of the enthusiast, and moves him to put himself before his truth. Pride and ambition, however hidden and subtle in their working, are at the root of this gross, unwarranted self-elevation. We are brought back to the dilemma which was proposed in the earlier part of this discussion. The unbelief of the time professes to reject all claims of a supernatural sort which were put forward by Jesus, at the same time that it loudly professes admiration for his personal excellence. It is true that Renan throws out the suggestion that he was guilty of a tacit concurrence in pious frauds; but, as far as we know, Renan stands alone in a view which is repugnant to the common sense of every sober-minded student, whether infidel or believing, of the evangelical history. And even Renan allows that Jesus had full faith in his ownl Messiahship. Infidelity must take the ground, and, at the present day, almost universally does take the ground, that Jesus was a religious enthusiast. His ethical system and, perhaps, a part of his religious teaching, are praised, but his distinctive claim to be the Messiah of God is rejected as decidedly as it was by the Jewish elders who crucified him. As if to make up for this dishonor put upon his pretensions, abundanilt laudation is bestowed, as we have said, upon INCONSISTENCY OF SKEPTICS. the character of Jesus. Skeptical writers of the present day have much to say of the fine balance and equipoise of his faculties. Even Strauss, in his latest work, pays homage to the harmony of his nature. But these writers frequently go farther; they describe him as the embodiment of whatever is pure and good, the highest exemplar of moral excellence. We deny the consistency of their position. We deny the justice of this judgment concerning Jesus, if, indeed, as they tell us, his extraordinary claims were founded in illusion. We are obliged with all solemnity to affirm, that the indulgence of the thought that these awful claims were the fruit of self-deception, carries along with it, as a necessary consequence, a feeling towards Jesus quite opposed to the reverence and abundant admiration which they are still disposed to lavish upon him. In other words, the cherishing of a delusion of this character is incompatible with that moral soundness, that clear and thorough truth of character, the lack of which debars one from being the legitimate object of such reverence and admiration. In short, the skeptical view of the claims of Christ strikes indirectly, but with equal effect, at his character. It is impossible to stop with attributing to him the weakness of an enthusiast. Such a delusion, though it be unconscious, can have no other ultimate source than moral infirmity. That profound truth of character, which ensures self-knowledge, clarifies the intellect, and keeps a moral being in his own place, can no 537 538 CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. longer be supposed. A sentiment of mislike of aversion-must take the place of moral reverence. In ordinary life, any one who dreams himself entitled to more of honor and deference than belongs to him, and more of control than he has a right to exert, excites a natural disesteemn. Men divine that false pretensions, even when they are unconsciously false, spring from some occult fault of character. And when claims are mistakenly put forth which would lift the subject of them to a higher than earthly pinnacle of dignity and power, the same verdict, with proportionally augmented emphasis, must follow. The supernatural claims of Jesus are thus identified with the excellence of his character. Both stand or fall together. Trust in him has a warrant in his transcendent goodness. He could not be self-deceived, and therefore his testimony respecting himself is credible. He who lived and died for the truth was not himself enslaved by a stupendous falsehood. But respecting himself, not less than in respect to the other great themes of his teaching, he saw and uttered the truth. "To this end," he said, "was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. He that is of the truth heareth my voice." ESSAY XIII. THE PERSONALITY OF GOD: IN REPLY TO THE POSI TIVIST AND THE PANTHEIST. THE truth of the Personality of -God is impugned, in these days, by two diverse and mutually repugnant systems, Positivism and Pantheism. Agreeing in this negation, they stand at a world-wide remove from one another, as to the grounds on which it is based. Positivism is hardly to be called a Philosophy unless we abandon the ancient and proper sense of this much abused term.' It rather disdains philosophy, in the usual acceptation of the word, as a fictitious and now obsolete phenomenon in the progress of thought. It cannot be denied that M. Comte has displayed considerable ingenuity in framing his classification of the Sciences, though in this task he is far from being without rivals to dispute with him the palm of merit, if not of originality; and so far as his classification of the objects of science ascends above unintelligent nature and draws in men and society, it is open to the essential objections which lie against his system in general. Man, as an individual, is placed under the See Hamilton's Metaphysics (Amt. Ed.) p. 45. It will be understood that we refer, in these remarks, exclusi-vely to the philosophy of Comte. J. S. Mill anid tierbert Spencer, whose systems pass under tlie goncraJ dosign 0on of Positivism, oppos, Comte's depreciation of Psychiology. THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. head of Physiology; and if the social man is honored with a separate rubric, no better reason is assigned than that every animal develops a distinct set of qualities in intercourse with his kind. Mental philosophy, inll its recognized ends and methods of obtaining them, Comte not only casts out of his scheme, but treats with scorn as a pretender to the name of science. The old and often refuted pretension, by which the impossibility of Psychology is sought to be demonstrated, that the introspective act of ccnsciousness puts a stop to the mental operation which consciousness would observe, Comte parades anew with the air of a discoverer. He acknowledges, in his principal work, that he has not read Kant, Hegel, and other great modern writers in the field of Metaphysics.' The great business of the human intellect, according to Positivism, is to observe facts and to register them by the rules of chronological sequence and of similarity. That false imaginations are not to be suffered to cloud the mind of the inquirer, so as to hinder him from a full and unprejudiced investigation of the phenomena presented to experience, is in truth a legitimate lesson of the Baconian system, and of high practical importance, especially in the physical sciences. Nor is Positivism to be denied the merit of having brought prominently forward this valuable truth. The mischief is that this truth is presented in both an exaggerated and onesided form. For even in physical studies the inquirer l Cotrmql de Philosophie Positive, T. I. p. xxxvi. 540 PHILOSOPHY OF COMTE. is piloted by that scientific imagination which awakens hypotheses in respect to the producing and final causes of phenomena; and it was in the light of theories which were conjectural until observation had established them, that some of the finest discoveries, in Astronomy and Chemistry, for example, were made. Hypothesis, in the sense just defined, like a torch, has lighted the explorer on his path. Of this fact, ignored by the Positivist school, Whewell has given some noteworthy illustrations. But the Positiv. ist is generally one-sided in the application of his favorite maxim. There are phenomena in the moral, religious, and aesthetic experience of man which are undeniable, and which are, as they have always been, most potent in their influence, which yet are tacitly ruled out of the realm of truth acknowledged by the votaries of this school. If we are to be confined to the observation of facts, let not that observation be narrowed down to that single class of phenomena of which the senses take cognizance. Otherwise Positivism is nothing better than materialism under a less odious name. But the fatal defect in Comte's handling of the axiom to which we have adverted, and the vice, at the same time, of his whole system, is his denial of efficient and final causes.' The universe is the sequence of 1 Phil. Positiv., T. I. p. 14, and _passin. J. S. Mill states (Westminster Review, April, 1865), that Comte does not deny the existence of causes beyond phenomena] antecedents, but that hle simpY 541 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. phenomena which are connected, as far as we know, by no causative agency, and related to no intelligible ends. The felicity of him who explores into the causes of things, which has heretofore been deemed his strongest incentive and best reward, is no more to be affirms that they are inaccessible to us. Comte's language is that the Positive Philosophy considers, "comme absolument inaccessible et vide de sens pour nous la recherche de ce qu'on appelle les causes, soit premieres, soit finales." But the question is whether there be causation-causative agency-dependence of one thing on another, such as invariable sequence, or, to adopt Mill's improved formula, "unconditional invariable sequence," does not express. On this point, all the language of both Comte and Mill seems to imply a negative answer. The inquiry into causes Comte abandons ",A l'imagination des theologiens, ou aux subtilites des metaphysiciens." Philosophy knows of nothing but sequences of phenomena. Mill, in his Logic, notwithstanding his general disclaimer, constantly implies that the belief in causation (beyond stated sequence) is without scientific warrant. "Nothing," he says, "can better show the absence of any scientific ground for the distinction between the cause of a phenomenon and its conditions than," etc., (Mill's Logic, B. II. c. v.). "Force" and "attraction" (the former, as well as the latter) applied to the earth, he pronounces logical fictions. He declares that the relations of succession and similarity among phenomena are the only subject of rational investigation. He protests (c. xxi) against taking necessity of thinking as a criterion of reality. Events, he thinks, may be conceived of as occurring at random. The law of causation is a generalization by simple enumeration. In distant parts of the stellar system, he says, the law of causation (uniformity) may not prevail.. If we remember right, he derides the notion of "a mysterious tie" between the cause (antecedent) and consequent. The essential question is whether there be such a thing as efficiey, and whether this is the peculiar property of a cause in the strict sense of the term. And on this question, Mill's position is sufficiently clear. His theory has little advantage over that of Hume. 542 THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSATION. looked for. He may find out what is, but must abjure the thought of seeing a rationality in what is.' Now as far as the first point in the Positivist skepticism is concerned, the denial of the validity of the principle of causation is the rejection of one of the necessary deliverances of the human mind. We are under the necessity of thinking that every change is mediated by the exertion of power, is connected with a force or ageincy existing in its antecedents. If the necessity of thought is not to be accepted here as the criterion of truth, then Comte has nothing on which to rest his faith in the reality of the external world. The alternative, in fact, is universal skepticism. Now, that our belief ill efficient causation is necessary, can be made plain. Let any one suppose an absolute void, where nothing exists. He, in this case, not only cannot think of anything beginning to be, but he knows that no existence could come into being. He affirms this every man in the right use of reason affirms it-with the same necessity with which he affirms the impossibility that a thing should be, and' not be, contemporaneously. The opposite, in both cases, is not only untrue, but inconceivable-contradictory to reason. Comte admits that besides the practical and economic use of positive science, there is a higher advantage from it. We are under the necessity of having some arrangement of facts-for example, to escape the painful feeling of astonishment which a disconnected phlenomnenon produces, and to keep off metaphysics and theology! This verily reduces the ideal interest of scientific study to a minimum. See Phil. Positiv., T. I. pp. 63, 64. 543 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. Such is the foundation of the principle, ev nihilo nihil fit. But if a phenomenon is wholly disconnected from its antecedents, if there be no shadow of a causal nexus between it and them, we may think them away, and then we have left to us a perfectly isolated event, with nothing before it. In other words, it is just as impossible to think of a phenomenon which stands in no causal connection with anything before it, as it is to think of an eventj or even of a universe, in the act of springing into being out of nothing. Futile is the attempt to empty the mind of the principle of efficient causation; and were it successful, its triumph would involve the overthrow of all assured knowledge, because it would be secured at the cost of discrediting our native and necessary convictions. Not less ill-founded is the Positivist opposition to the doctrine of Final Causes. One may cavil at particular forms of statement in which this doctrine has been embodied; but that, in the various kingdoms of Nature, there is a selection of means with reference to ends, is a truth which is irresistibly suggested to the simplest as well as the wisest; as the reception of it by mankind, in all nations and ages, sufficiently attests. Speculation cannot dislodge this conviction from the human mind, for it will return again with every fresh view of the objects of nature. It has been the clue, as is well known, to important discoveries, for instance in Animal Physiology. The use of a given organ, its fitness to an end, its designed office in a system, has en 544 COMTE' S PHILOSOPHY. abled the naturalist to anticipate observation and com plete the fragmentary animal structure. Witness the remarkable discoveries of Cuvier. Of the place of the doctrine of Final Causes in the argument for Theism we shall speak hereafter. Here we simply affirm that the fact of a singular adaptedness of means to ends, such as cannot be fortuitous, but must be the fruit of selection, is established by universal observation, and is not shaken by any arguments from the Positivist side. What inference we are authorized to make as to the being of God, is a question reserved for a subsequent part of this Essay. Cointe's well-known description of the stages of human progress, of which the first is the Mythological, the next the Metaphysical, and the last the Positivist,' though at the first sight it strikes one as ingenious, will not bear the historical test, and is moreover vitiated by an underlying fallacy. There is no proof that the principal nations of the Indo-germanic and the Semitic stocks ever practised fetish-worship, in the lower sense of this term, or that they ascended from the meanest types of mythological religion to something higher. All the proof is the other way. There is no proof that mankind were originally on the lowest stage of religious knowledge and feeling. Apart from revelation even, the hypothesis of a fall and degradation from a primitive state which was morally more elevated, is equally rational, and, in our judgment, far better sus' Phil. Positiv., T. I. p. 3 seq. and Tome v. 35 545 THE PIRSONALITY OF GOD. tained, than the supposition of a gradual ascent from a moral and spiritual life little superior to that of the brutes. The phenomena of conscience, which the philosopher has no right to overlook, sustain the Christian hypothesis and are incompatible with its opposite, while the existence of a law of progress, such as the anti-Christian theory assumes, cannot be inductively established, but is rather disproved by the facts of history and observation. Comte's imaginary law of succession is inconsistent also with facts in one other particular. The three eras, to use his own phraseology, the Mythological in which personal deities are believed in, the Philosophical in which notions, such as essence, cause, and the like, are substituted for them, and the Positivist or the era of facts, are not found to succeed each other in this fixed order. Comte allows, to be sure, that one may overlap the other; but this concession falls far short of the truth. Who will venture to affirm that a metaphysician like Hegel belongs in an earlier era of intellectual progress than his contemporary, Comte? In the case of the former, there is not only the supposed advantage of living in the same advanced period with the latter, but of being immensely superior in mental power and in the range of his acquisitions. Who will affirm that Kepler and Newton believed in God, either for the reason that Positivism had not been announced, or because they were too unphilosophical to receive it? Skepticism and disbelief in the supernatural are not peculiar to 546 COMPTE'S PHILOSOPHY. modern times. They have appeared and re-appeared in the world's history ever since men began to speculate. This generalization of Comte is, therefore, hasty and incorrect. But a most glaring error connected with this theory of Comte is the assumption that the mythologies sprung from the scientific or intellectual motive. The mythological epoch is pronounced the earliest effort of the human mind to explain the changes occurring in nature. The religious motive, the instinct of worship, the yearning for the supernatural and divine, is for the most part, or wholly, left out of the account. How strangely superficial this view of the religions of the world is, no thoughtful scholar needs to be told. As if religion, with all its tremendous power in human feeling and human affairs, were simply a form of knowledge, the crude offspring of curiosity! Were the Positivist to look deeper into human nature and history, he would see that religion, even in the perverse and corrupt forms of it, rests on other foundations; and this perception would uncover the groundlessness of his whole hypothesis. For if the religions of the heathen have their root in the constitution of the soul, and spring from ineradicable principles in our nature, it follows that, although they may pass away, religion will not cease, but will survive this wild outgrowth, in a life undying as the soul itself. The advancement of science has no more tendency to extirpate religion than it has to extirpate morality. A better under 547 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. standing of nature may enlighten religion and tend to purify it from certain errors, but to destroy it-never. One might as well contend that the progress of Art tends to annihilate the sense of beauty, or that clearer and truer conceptions of the family relation tend to eradicate the domestic affections. Positivism is Atheism. It would bind human knowledge down to a bare registry of facts, and chiefly to facts which the senses observe and arithmetic calculates. Other facts, the most real, the most precious, and the most influential upon human happiness and human destiny, it scornfully throws aside. Instead of offering an answer to the great problems which we cannot banish from thought without a conscious abasement of our nature and a choice of indifference and torpor instead of a noble disquiet, this system bids us cast them away as unpractical and fictitious. If Paganism be, as Positivism asserts, the lower plane of knowledge, one may still be pardoned for preferring to stand upon it, and for exclaiming, in view of a system so unsatisfying as this - " I'd rather be A Pagan, suckled in a creed outworn, So might I, standing on this pleasant lea, Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn; Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea, Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn." More fascinating to a minld of a speculative cast, because more rich in contents and more coherent and 548 PANTHEISM DEFINED. self-consistent in form, are the later systems of Panthe ism. Pantheism, negatively defined in its relation to religion, is the denial of the Personality of God. Pantheism is the doctrine that God is synonymous with the totality of things, and attains to self-con sciousness only in the finite consciousness of men. It is the doctrine that all things are the forms, or manifestations, or developments of one being or essence. That being. is termed God. Monism, or the identifying of the world as to its substance with God, is the defining characteristic of Pantheism. Philosophy early started in quest of a common ground or essence of all existence. Ancient systems, one after another, suggested their crude solutions of the problem. The Pythagoreans, for instance, were disposed to find the groundwork of all being, or the one originant and pervading principle, in numbers. These early theories which are so fully handled in the great work of Cudworth, as well as by later historians of philosophy, we have no call at present to examine. The founder of modern Pantheism was Spinoza. Assuming the monistic doctrine, he laid down the proposition that the one and simple substance is known to us through the two Attributes of infinite thought and infinite extension. Neither of these Attributes implies personality, the essential elements of which are denied to the Substance.' The latter is 1 In the interpretation of Spinoza's system, the difficult point is the relation of the Attributes to the Substance. Does he mean that 549 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. self-operative, according to an inward necessity, with. out choice or reference to ends. All finite existences, whether material or mental, are merely phenomenal. Spinoza also laid down the famous axiom: omnis determinatio est negatio; or all predication is limitation. To attach predicates or qualities is to reduce to finitude. In this notion, whether consciously or not, Spinoza was following in the track of Christian theology itself, which, as represented by Augustin and other Platonic theologians, had claimed that Deity is exalted above the distinction of essence and attribute. Some had even maintained that God is hyperousian, or that the term essence or substance is inappropriately applied to the Being who is truly Ineffable. It need not be said that, with the exception of that anomalous product of the ninth century and marvel in the history of philosophy, John Scotus, theology had never organized itself into Pantheism, from which these Attributes belong objectively to the Substance, or are they only relative to the intellect of the individual beholding it? The last is the more usual interpretation of Spinoza. So says Erdmann, Geschichte der Neuern Phil., I. (2) 59 seq.; Ritter, Geschichte der Clrist. Phil., vii. 224; Ulrici, Geschichte der Neuern Phil., I. 44 seq.; Schwegler, Geschichte der Phil., s. 107, and other critics. The opposite interpretation is upheld by another class of writers. Passages favoring the former opinion may be quoted from Epistles of Spinoza, especially Ep. xxvii. It also harmonizes better with the maxim, omnis determinatio, etc. The second interpretation, however, better accords with the mathematical character which Spinoza endeavors to give to his system, in the Ethics. In whatever way this question may be decided, it is plain to all that the "infinite thought" which is attributed to the Substance excludes self-consciousness and choice. 55.0 SYSTEM OF SPINOZA. all the great teachers of the Church would have shrunk with horror. Their object in these statements was to elevate God to the greatest imaginable height by affirming His incomprehensible nature. The system of. Spinoza is built up, with an attempt at mathematical demonstration, on the primary assumption respecting the one and simple substance-the una et unica substantia. Of course, the personality of God, a supernatural Providence, miracles in the proper sense, and Revelation, are given up. Of the effect of the Spinozistic system upon the conception of moral liberty and responsibility, we shall speak hereafter. Although Spinoza borrowed his definition of substance from Des Cartes, he is original in the main features of his scheme. He is the forerunner of the later German systems, as some of their leading representatives, including Hegel, have allowed. Yet these systems would not have arisen, but for the impulse communicated from an intervening thinker, himself a firm believer in the principles of theism, the foremost philosopher of modern times, Immanuel Kant. In undertaking to criticise the knowing power, and to determine how far knowledge is a product of the subjective factor, a resultant from the operation of the mind itself, Kant took hold of a great problem of philosophy. He set out to dissect knowledge, and to separate its constituent elements according to their origin whether subjective or objective. This involved an inquiry into the nature of things-the nature of 651 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. being-the object as well as the subject of knowledge. The question to be determined was, what is given to the knowing organ and exists independently of it, and what does this organ itself contribute. The conclusion of the theoretical philosophy was that we are assured of nothing save the bare existence of the object which sets in motion the mechanism of thought. All else that constitutes knowledge is of subjective origin. Space and time are a.)riori forms of sensuous intuition the frame in which objects are set by the perceiving subject. The so-called categories-substance and accident, cause and effect, and the rest-are the a priori forms of the judging faculty, a description of the nature of the understanding, not of the nature of things. The ideas of Reason, the ultimate conceptions presupposed in the three forms of logical judgment, or the three phases of the unconditionednamely, the Soul as a thinking substance, the World as a whole, and God, the highest condition of the possibility of all things-are only the rubrics under which the categories are reduced to unity. Not having an empirical, but all apriori, origin, they do not admit of an application to external objects, nor can they be assumed to represent realities; and if this be done, the antinomies, or logical contradictions, that inevitably result, warn us that Reason is out of its province, and that the undertaking is illegitimate. The objective factor was thus reduced to a minimum. In this department of his philosophy IKant stopped only 552 KANT AND FICHTE., oniie step short of universal skepticism. For of what avail that a-priori truth is supported, against Hume, by the criteria of universality and necessity, if this truth is after all endued with lno objective validity? Of what value is a subjective certainty which simply reveals a law of thought, but contains no assurance of a corresponding law of things? The practical philosophy of Kant rescued his system from the consequences so fatal to religion. But the theoretical philosophy was the starting-point of the subsequent systems. Fichte took the short step which Kant steadfastly refused to take. He drew the object itself, whose bare existence was all that is known concerning it, within the subjective sphere. If the object is assumed merely as a cause to account for states of consciousness, while the principle of causation is itself purely subjective, merely a law or mould of thought, then Idealism seemed to be logically inferred. The Idealism of Fichte evolves the external world (so called) from the thinking subject. All. things which constitute the objects of thought are modifications of consciousness which are wholly due to the self-activity of the subject. The impression of externality results from the check put upon this self-activity by its own inward law. It is not, however, from the particular, individual ego, that all existence thus issues forth, but rather from the absolute, impersonal Ego, which evolves at the same time the individual subject, and the object which is inseparably related to it. The 553 THE PERSONALITY OF. GOD.. relativity of consciousness, in which the ego and the object of thought stand in correlation, belongs to the finite subject, and not to the Absolute Being; yet the Absolute is viewed as a subject and denominated the Ego.' Schelling modified Fichte's conception of the Absolute. The Absolute, the root of all particular existences, is no more to be called subject than object. It belongs equally to the thinker and the thing. In truth, it lies equidistant from both poles of consciousness, the subjective and the objective. It is the. indifference-point between them. That is to say, both the external world and the percipient subject are identical in essence and in origin. They flow from the same fountain, which is the absolute, impersonal being. Connected with this view, was Schelling's dynamical conception of Nature. Nature is made up of forces. Nature is pervaded through and through with rationality. For this reason, it is possible for Nature to be an object of knowledge. The mind and Nature are bound to each other by the closest affinities. The knowledge of Nature is Nature itself attaining to self-consciousness. For knowing is a form of being of the identical being of which Nature is a lower expression. But how to cognize the hypothetical Absolute? Relation and dependence cleave inseparably to conscious thought, and the thinking'sub The different phases or modifications of Fichte's system we do not here attempt to describe. 554 SCHELLING AND HEGEL. ject can escape from itself-get behind itself only by abolishing thought. But this does not secure the end, for the cessation of thought is not the cognition of the Absolute. Hence Schelling supposed a pecu liar organ of.Intellectual Intuition, by which the soul, freeing itself from the ordinary bonds of consciousness, gains a direct vision of the Absolute. He took refuge in a mystical theory, which reminds us of Plotinus. It is no wonder that the rigorous intellect of Hegel was dissatisfied with this mode of bridging the gulf between finite and infinite being. Accepting the general notion of the Absolute, as defined by Schelling, Hegel professed to set forth the process in which the entire universe is necessarily evolved. Thought and being are identical: hence the universe, including God, nature, self, is resolved into a thought-process, or a chain of concepts self-evolved through an inward necessity, and comprising and exhausting in themselves all reality. Indeterminate being, the notion first in order, necessary and self-supported, implies, or, according to the Hegelian language, changes into; another notion, and the two in turn are merged in a third which is more specific than either; and so the process goes forward until all concrete existences take their places in the series of concepts. To the philosophic eye all reality is summed up in this realm of concepts. But the philosophic view is the last stage in the development of consciousness. It is interesting to inquire what account Hegel gives of sense-perceptions 555 6THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. as they are found in the common consciousness of men. Schelling was not a Berkleian. Notwithstanding his dynamical, idealistic theory of Nature, and his monism, the object had not less reality, in his system, than the subject. The external world was real, as well as the mind that perceives it. The same is affirmed by Hegel. Yet he constantly speaks of a transmuta- tion of consciousness from the state of perception to that of conception, and of the transmutation of the tling also, which is the object of perception, into the mental concept. It is plain that with Hegel both subject and object, thinker and thing, are engulfed in the logical thought-process, and that both coalesce and are identified in the Absolute. The object has nothing more than a transient reality. The ordinary sense-perception is only the first stage in a movement which soon liberates consciousness from this impression of a distinct externality in the object, and in the consummation of which both object and subject resolve themselves into the one, identical, absolute being. Thenr all reality is fathomed, and thence, as from a new starting-point, the universe is reconstructed by the philosopher, or rather rises of itself, by its own inherent and necessary movement, in his consciousness This process as it takes place in the consciousness of the philosopher, is the self-unfolding of the innermost nature of things. In it and through it Deity attains to self-consciousness.1 1 Among the multitude of German dissertations which have a a 556 THE HEGELIAN THEOLOGY. The Hegelian school pretended to find an equiiva lent for the objects of Christian faith and the proposi tions of Christian theology in the dogmas of their system. The latter were said to be the pure and final rendering of that which Christianity presents illn a popular form. The substantial contents of both were averred to be identical. The Trinity, the Atonement, and the other doctrines of the orthodox creed had now -so it was claimed-received a philosophical vindication; and the vulgar Rationalism which had flippantly impugned these high mysteries, was at length laid low. These sounding pretensions could only mislead the undiscerning. A philosophy which denies the distinct personality of God, and consequently must regard prayer as an absurdity, can by no legerdemain be identified with Christian doctrine. The appearance of the Life of C~lrist by Strauss, and the subsequent productions of Baur and his school, through the applications which they made of the Hegelian tenets to the New Testament history and the teaching of the apostles, placed this conclusion beyond a doubt. Having thus noticed the leading forms of Pantheism, we offer some remarks which may serve to evince the untenable character of this philosophy. 1. The fundamental assumption of Pantheism that bearing on the origin and character of the new philosophy, we may refer here to one, the beautiful Essay of Schelling fiber die Quelle der Ewigen TJahrheiten, which was read in the Berlin Academy in 1850. See Schelling's Works (II. Abth. I.), p. 575. 557 t THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. all things are of one substance, whether taken in the Spinozistic sense, or in that of the later German philosophers-is not supported by evidence, but is contrary to the truth. The doctrine of one Substance, this grand postu late of Pantheism, is an uncertified dogma for which no proof is vouchsafed. Yet it forms the foundation on which the Pantheistic systems rest. There is the best reason for concluding that the objects of perception are essentially distinct from the percipient mind. These objects are seen face to face, and known as external. In their manifestations they are totally diverse from the characteristics of mind, which are revealed in consciousness. It is a just inference that materialism and idealism, the two forms of the monistic theory, are alike false. As concerns the Hegelian scheme, Schelling, in his new system, has suggested a sufficient refutation. If the logical development in Hegel were allowed to be throughout coherent and demonstrative, we have only a string of abstractions. We have only a theory, or ideal framework, of the universe, but no reality, no real being. If there are no realities corresponding to the idea and known through experience; the universe is still a void. It were as rational to confound the plan of a castle with the actual edifice, as to identify a concept with a real being, or the aggregate of concepts with a universe of realities. Therefore, HIegel's logic at best describes only the possibility of things. .. 558 PANTHEISM UNTENABLE. It is a merely negative philosophy. If this philosophy were all, and if real being were not brought to our knowledge through experience, the result would be Nihilism. Thought and being are distinct, and with the admission of the truth of this proposition, Pantheism falls to the ground. 2. The Pantheistic dogma, even though it were admitted, does not solve the problem which it pretends to explain. Knowledge is not accounted for by being wholly resolved into self-knowledge; for selfknowledge is a phenomenon not a whit less mysterious and inexplicable than the knowledge of not-self. The Pantheist takes it for granted that the knowledge of anything distinct in substance from the knower, is out .of the question: as if the knowledge which the knower has of himself were a thing more easy to understand. 3. The Pantheistic conception of the Absolute is 'self-contradictory and false. We believe in an Absolute Being, that is, in a being for whose existence no other being is necessary, or who stands related to no other being, as a condition of existence. But the Pantheistic Absolute includes in itself and develops out of itself the relative. Here is the contradiction. The Absolute Ts placed in a necessary relation to finite, relative existences. They emanate de necessitate naturae from the bosom of the Absolute. The conception of the latter is thus directly violated; and this inconsistency cannot be removed from the Pantheistic scheme. 559 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 4. The deduction of finite existence from infinite being the Pantheist fails to make conceivable. How cogitative and ineogitative existences are developed out of the characterless substance, Spinoza wholly fails to render intelligible. How is the world and all things in it to issue forth from unlimited, uncharacterized being? What is the moving force, and what the iodaes operandi? Hegel, in his system, is obliged at the outset to proceed on the supposition that motion or activity belongs inherently to the primitive notion, and thus introduces a quality with which we become acquainted through experience; but even then the transition from being without attributes to being specially characterized, from nothing to somethling, is effected by sleight of hand. 5. The Pantheist's conception of God does not satisfy his own description of the infinite and absolute being. The God of the Pantheist is dependent on a process of development for the realization of his own being. It is only in the last stage of this progress that self-consciousness is reached; and then in no individual, but only in the human race collectively, through the course of its history. But what kind of God is that which must emerge by slow gradations from a merely potential existence to the manifestation and comprehension of his own being? 6. At the same time, the objections of the Pantheist to the theistic conception are groundless. 560 PANTHEISM UNTENABLE. (1) The Pantheist objects that self-consciousness cannot belong to God in Himself considered, because for the awakening and development of consciousness an external object is required. But this statement is an unauthorized inference from what is true of personality in man. We are connected with a materi,l organism, and placed in a relation of dependence upon it for the unfolding of our spiritual natures. But we have no right to conclude that this peculiarity attaches, as a necessary condition, to all personality. The uncreated, eternal spirit is subject to no such condi tion. (2) Nor does personality clash with infinitude of perfections. God is infinite, because all conceivable perfections belong to Him, and belong to Him without limit in their measure. Infinity is a negative predicate. As applied to a given quality in God, it means that this quality is not partially possessed, but possessed in the fullest conceivable measure. As applied to the sum of excellencies, it denotes that this sum admits of no addition. (3) Nor is the existence of the world as distinct in its essence from God, inconsistent with His being the Absolute. If the world were a necessary existenlce, if God would not be God without the world, if lie were constrained to give being to the world, then indeed the assertion of the pantheist might be true. But the.limitation which God puts- upon himself ill creation is voluntary. It is a self-i)?ittlioiz. 36 561 TIIE PERSONALITY OF GOD. Creation is no wise essential to the realization of His attributes, but is a most free act, performed in the exercise of benevolence. We have touched upon the weakness of Pantheism when regarded from a speculative point of view. There is another objection of a different kind, but of decisive weight, against all the Pantheistic systems. 7. Pantheism runs counter to our moral intuitions. This is a practical objection, an objection to the consequences of the Pantheistic philosophy, but not the less pertinent and valid on that account; for a system which involves among its legitimate consequences the denial of known truth, is thereby effectutally disproved. Every Pantheistic scheme is, and must be, thoroughly necessitarian. The world is not a creation, but a necessary development. All events take place by the same rigid necessity. A holy or a sinful act must be when and where it is, just as a star must revolve or a plant grow. Moral liberty, as apprehended by the common understanding of men, is illusive. The distinction between physical and ethical experiences of the soul is extinguished. Even personality itself is only phenomenal. Evil is not evil, save to finite apprehension; seen from a loftier plane it is a form of good. The one is equally essential and desirable with the other. Crime, remorse, the selfapproval of virtue, are robbed of their essential 562 PANTHEISM UNTENABLE. significance. Moral responsibility, in the deep and true sense in which conscience affirms it, has no place. These consequences, though sometimes disguised under an obscure or sounding terminology, inevitably attend Pantheism in all its forms. The ablest advo. cates of this philosophy, including both Spinoza and Hegel, have involuntarily betrayed the embarrassment which these conclusions are well fitted to awaken. Against them the moral sense of every unperverted mnind will forever lift an indignant denial. But the irresistible protest of conscience tells with equal effect against the whole system with which they are inseparably connected. The Pantheistic systems of philosophy which have appeared in Germany since Kant, regarded as exertions of intellectual power, have hardly been surpassed since the best days of the Greek-. philosophy. But they are built upon a false foundation, and hence, though they contain materials of high and lasting value, they are structures which cannot stand. Their splendor is like the deceptive lustre of that "fabric huge" which was reared by the fallen spirits, where "from the arched roof, Pendent by subtle magic, many a row Of starry lamps and blazing cressets, fed By naphtha and asphalt.is, yielded light As from a sky." There are two generic opinions among Christian theologians respecting the origin of our belief in God 563 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. By some it is considered to be implanted in the mind and spontaneously developed; by others it is thought to be imported into the mind, or to be the result of a process of reasoning. Perhaps the difference might be resolved into a verbal one; since the first class gen erally allow that this native belief is educed by training and the view of the works of God, and the second confess that an original tendency to believe in God belongs to the human soul. And such an original tendency is hardly distinguishable from a )is,?s —a germinant belief. This disagreement in regard to the genesis of our faith in God is generally connected with differences in Psychology, or in the mode of stating the functions and the early operations of the mind. It must be conceded that those who hold that the knowledge of God is intuitive, have often failed to state their doctrine with clearness, or to set it in connection with acknowledged principles of mental philosophy. Our own position is that the belief in God does not originate in external, traditionary teaching, like a fact in history or science, which is handed down from one generation to another; it does not originate, properly speaking, from the view of the objective manifestations of God, for instance in the works of Nature, or the course of history;. nor does it flow from any empirical source. But this belief is potentially inherent in the mind, and is obscurely present in the earliest operations of intelligence. Dependent for its full explication upon instruction, and upon the various 564 I FAITH IN GOD. proofs which corroborate at the same time that they explicate and develope it; subject, also, in common with the moral sense, with which it is vitally connected, to the darkening and perverting influence of evil, faith in God is yet seminally native to the soul, and is seldom, if ever, so extinguished that it may not, in favoring circumstances, again revive, and even assert itself against every attempt of the will to eradicate it. The tremendous hold which religion has had upon mankind in all nations and ages forbids the supposition that it owes its origin to tradition merely, to processes of argument, or even solely to a perception of the marks of design in Nature. A phenomenon so deep and universal must be due to a profounder cause, and a cause more directly operative. The shallow theory which ascribed religion to the craft of priests and lawgivers was long ago exploded. The theory, which is only a little less superficial, that religion took its rise from the alarm excited by startling occurrences in Nature, is also well-nigh obsolete. Impressions from this source are fleeting, and impressions of terror are quickly effaced by those of a different character, which are awakened by opposite aspects of Nature. 'aith, moreover, is too deeply imbedded in the moral feelings to be accounted for by this external and accidental cause. If it be said that religion is due to the personifying imagination of uncultured men, we have the same answer. This may account to some extent for the form which heathen religions take; but without 565 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. a prior belief in the supernatural and yearning for it, without the principle of worship, and the sense of accountability to a higher Being, the religions of Paganism could never subsist. Nor is the argument from design, important as this argument is in its place, to be considered either the primary source, or the principal ground, of the belief in God. It may be objected that the belief in a supernatural Power is not universal, and that religion in some peoples is feebly manifested. The Chinese are said to be such a people. But if the religious feelings are susceptible of decay, the same is true of the moral feelings, the sense of ethical justice and ethical truth. If the feebleness and corruption of conscience does not militate against the doctrine of a native and universal principle of rectitude, the same is true of a similar low state of religious convictions. In both cases, the seeming exception establishes the rule. The two essential characteristics of the human mind are self-consciousness and self-determination. The one is indispensable to the other; for if the determination of the will is a c6nscious act, it is not less true that if the voluntary power were absolutely inactive or wanting, that distinct separation of self from the world without, which is involved in self-consciousness, is not supposable. Now, for the realizing of self-consciousness, the mind is thus dependent upon the existence of the world without us, and in our mental states are always found elements derived from 566 FAITH IN GOD. this outer world to which we are so closely united. In this dependence, we have decisive proof that the soulthe spiritual part-is not self-originated. At the same time we know equally well that it is not derived from material nature, for it is toto qenere distinct from the world of matter, and in the sphere of Nature the law holds that like produces like. In this twofold conviction lies the first suggestion of an infinite personality, the living creator and God, from whom our finite soul derives its being. Intimately connected with this presage or incipient faith, is the conscious subjection of the will to an authoritative law which yet the will does not impose upon itself, but which is identified with the will of the Being from whom the soul springs, while at the same time through this law, his holy character, if not clearly discerned, is indistinctly divined. Thus in the background of our moral and spiritual natures, God is immediately revealed, the ground of our being, at once our Creator and Lord. Thus we can understand how, with every fresh awakening of conscience, God is vividly present to the consciousness; and the natural voice ot guilt, as well as of dependence, is prayer.' ' The doctrine of the preceding paragraph is presented, in substance, by Julius Miiller, Lehre von der Sicnde, I. 101 seq. Compare the argument of Hugo of St. Victor from the existence of the soul, and the similar argument of Locke (Essay on the Understanding, B. iv. c. 10). The main proposition of Locke is that cogitable existence cannot be produced out of incogitable, the minor premise being that the hum.an mind is a cog,itable existence. 567 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. It should be observed that we have not been framing an argument to prove the existence of God. What we have said is rather an analysis of consciousness for the purpose of unfolding the elements that enter into it, and of showing that the consciousness of self involves as a condition, not only an immediate knowledge of the external world, but equally a faith in God. The world, self, and God, are the three factors, which are the elements of our personalconsciousness. It is the prevailing habit of German writers to describe our immediate faith as the consciousness of God [Gottes-bewusstsein]. We are said to be conscious of that which is the object of immediate knowledge. That we are conscious of the outward world, or the objects of sense-perception, is phraseology sanctioned in the philosophy of Sir William Hamilton. That we are conscious of self, or phraseology equivalent to this, is current in speech. The external object so directly manifests itself to us that we know that it exists. Thus, also, self or the conscious ego, is so manifested in consciousness that we know that we exist. The aftalogous fact respecting the Divine being is denoted by the term God-consciousness, or consciousness of God. The phenomena of our religious consciousness would be imperfectly described, if we pointed out sim That faith in the unconditioned being is "an original factor of our thinking," not derived from the law of causality, but implied in it, is well shown by Ulrici, GotIt u bd die latue, p. 606. 568 THE ROOT OF FAITH IN FEELING. ply the belief in God which is awakened in the man ner delineated above. Vitally associated with this awakening faith, is the attraction towards communion with God, or the inward gravitation of the soul towards the Being in whom it lives, which forms an essential foundation of prayer and worship. Attention is also required to the fact that faith in God is primarily a matter of feeling. They who are wont to consider the mind a congeries of faculties, in which thought, feeling, and will are coordinate, find it hard to comprehend this.' But when we look to the genesis of our ideas, to the process in which intelligence is developed, we discover that feeling is antecedent. In regard to the knowledge we have of the outer world, sensation, in which the mind is acted upon, precedes perception. Now the feeling of God, or, to use a more expressive term, the sense of God, precedes the distinct idea. The recognition of God, though including an activity of the intelligence, is grounded in, and pervaded by, feeling. The error of Schleiermiacher did not consist in his founding piety in feeling, as a psychological fact, but it lay in his confining piety to the incipient stage of faith. He would shut up the mind, as far as the exercise of piety is concerned, to the consciousness of its own state, with no reference 1 "Eine Psychologie, die aus Erkennen, Begehlren und Fuihlen drei coor?dinirte Formen des Bewusstseins mnacht, hebt alle M/Jglichkeit auf, in dieser Sache etwas zui erkl,iren." Nitzschli, System d. Christ. Lehre, p. 23. Compare the note on p. 27, in reply to Schwartz. 569 04 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. of that state to a distinct personal object. It is just as if we were to stop with simple sensation, instead of through sensation advancing to the perception of the world without us. We are supposed to be conscious of a certain mental state, the feeling of dependence, as we are sensible of an ache in a limb, and there, as far as piety is concerned, the matter ends. - Schleiermacher was also wrong in resolving piety wholly into the feeling of dependence; since the yearning for communion with God, not to speak of the feeling of obligation, is an equally essential element; but this is comparatively a venial error. The mystic, who makes feeling directly percipient, is still more at fault. As we humbly conceive, the truth is that the mind is affected in certain ways, in the department of feeling, by the great Being in whom we live and move, just as self and the outward world make themselves felt in consciousness; and the states of consciousness thug originating from God involve and beget an immediate faith in His existence-a faith, however, in which feeling, as it is the root, is likewisethe predominant element. For example, remorse of conscience includes a sense of accountability, and this implies a sense of God. The feeling itself is God's work in the soul, and is felt to be so. God is believed in, through this feeling, not by a process of argument, but immediately. He is, literally speaking, manifesting Himself to the soul. It is true that men may discredit the manifestations of God in the soul, and disbelieve in him. So 570 ORIGIN OF FAITH IN GOD. they may speculate themselves out of the belief in the reality of the external world, or even of their own existence. They may deny, and have denied, the reality of a moral law binding on the conscience, and quench this light that is in them. The belief in God is, also, largely dependent on the state of the will; in this respect, that the alienation of the will and heart from that Being may weaken and well-nigh deaden this faith. Nor should we overlook the truth that it is also dependent upon the will of God, who may withdraw or intensify those manifestations of Himself in which it originates. Unquestionably, the effect of sin is to reduce this implanted faith, so that in most men it appears as an obscure yearning after an object distant and dimly conceived. This state of the sinful mind is described in Scripture as a feeling after God. Men grope, as in the dark, for Him "who is not far from every one of us," but whom we "did not choose to retain in our knowledge." 1 It is remarkable that in Germany almost all the writers of note, of all schools in philosophy, unite in regarding belief in God as an immediate act of the soul, and as rooted in feeling. This is conceded even by the Hegelians. They allow that such is the character of this faith in the primitive stage, and only contend, in accordance with their system, that such faith 1 Clear psychological explanations relative to our primitive religious faith or feeling maybe found in the excellent work of Ulrici, Gott und die Natur, pp. 610, 620. The entire chapter is valuable. 571 W. THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. is only a rudimentary condition of consciousness, to be supplanted by its maturer development. Theologians who, though influenced by Schleiermacher, have constructed their systems in an independent spirit, such as Nitzsch and Twesten, Julius Mtiller and Rothe, in common with Trendelenburg, Ritter, Ulrici, and other philosophers of various schools, substantially agree in the doctrine that religion originates in an immediate faith, and emanates from no empirical source. Such, in fact, is the old doctrine of theology. An obscure knowledge of God-a notitia dei-was held to be implanted in the soul, and to be the immediate witness to God's existence. Such is the doctrine of Calvin and Melanethon, to say nothing of their forerunners and followers.' What now is the purport and the force of the several arguments for the existence of God? We reply that these proofs are the different modes in which faith expresses itself, and seeks confirmation. 1 Calvin pronounces it an incontrovertible truth that " the human mind, even by natural instinct, has some sense of Deity "-ivinitatis sensum. He affirms that "men universally know that there is a God; " that "some sense of the Divinity is inscribed on every heart." "Undo colligimrus," he adds, "non esse doctrinam quae in scholis' discenda sit, sed cujus sibi qtisqgue ab utero magister est." There is a natural "propensity to religion" in men, says Calvin, and an ineradicable knowledge of God, which manifests itself in the worst men in spite of their will. See the Institutes, B. I., cc ii. and iii. Melancthon says: "vult enim deus agnosci et celebrari; et fulsisset illustris et firma notitia Dei in mentibus hominum, si natura hominum mansisset integra." Loci Co?nmunes, I. De Deo. 572 THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. In them, faith, or the object of faith, is more exactly* conceived and defined; and in them is found a cor roboration, not arbitrary but substantial and valuable, of that faith which springs from the soul itself. Such proofs, therefore, are neither, on the one hand, of themselves sufficient to create and sustain faith, nor are they, on the other hand, to be set aside as of no weight. The arguments for the being of God are capable of being classified in various ways. We shall consider them here under the three heads of the ontological, the cosmological, and the teleological arguments-the moral argument being embraced under the teleological, where it properly belongs. 1. The Ontological proof proceeds from the idea of God, attempting to deduce therefrom the truth of His existence. The germ of this proof is in Augustin. It appears in its riper form in the celebrated argument of Anselm. The objection that the idea of the most perfect being imaginable is after all only an imagination, Anselm endeavored to parry by the statement that this idea is far from being an arbitrary notion, like the image which fancy forms of the lost island (the illustration of Gaunio), but is strictly a necessary idea, in the sense that the mind cannot escape from entertaiiiing it. The argument of Anselm stands in vital connection with his Realistic philosophy.' But he 1 A being in the mnind and a being in re, require the supposition of a genus —hence a being, according to Realism-embracing both. The true sense of Anselm's argument is best appreciated by Rittei,'. 573 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. fails to show that existence in re is an attribute entering into a concept, and falls into the errolr of inferring the existence of a thing from the definition of a word. Des Cartes assumed the existence of God to account for the presence in the human mind of the idea of the infinite and perfect being. As much reality, he thought, must belong to the cause as is found in the effect; and this holds good where the effect is an idea. The idea of the infinite and perfect God cannot be produced in the mind, by the things that surround us in the world. It implies, therefore, for its cause the Being himself. This reasoning does not carry full conviction; and if the additional fact of a yearning to break through the bonds of our finite being and to commune with a higher Power, be introduced, we are brought back to the original faith which precedes logical argument. Yet the ontological argument, even though it be fallacious, is not without an indirect value; It presents a true conception of God, regarded as a possible being. The.being than whom no higher can be conceived, in case He exists, exists necessarily. Gesechith d. Christ. Phil., III. 337. The validity of Anselm's argument is maintained by the Cambridge Platonist, Henry More, in the early part of his Antidote to Atheism. It should be observed that Anselm's argument is to be found in the Proslogium, and in the Reply to Gaunilo. The earlier form of the argument in the Monologiunt resembles more nearly the argument of Augustin. Yet it is important as showing the Realistic foundation on which the later argument rests: 574 0 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 2. The Cosmological argument starts from the con tingent character of all things presented to observation. Their changeful and dependent character implies the existence of an unchangeable and independent Being. The principle of causation unquestionably involves a belief in a First Cause, or a Cause which is not at the same time an effect: otherwise existences are traceable to no cause, and the principle of causation is made void. An eternal series is an absurd hypothesis, since it would be a series of effects without a cause. Eliminate the element of time (which is not a cause), and the series becomes like a single momentary event, which would be an event without a cause. We are, therefore, compelled to believe in something which is eternal and independent. The defect of the argument is that it contains no strict proof of the personality of this eternal Being. It does not carry us necessarily beyond the Absolute of Pantheism. This is the defect of Dr. Samuel Clarke's attempted demonstration of the being of God from the attributes of necessary existence. When he would prove the intelligence of the necessary being, -he falls back upon the a-posteriori proof from marks of design in the world. Thus the cosmological argument establishes the existence of an eternal being, the cause or ground of all things, but does not fully satisfy the mind that He is intelligent and free. 3. The Teleological argument is the proof from 575 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. final causes. We discern, for example in the structure of our own bodies, and in the material existences around us, features which, as we involuntarily feel, presuppose the agency of a free and intelligent cause. Through the action of our minds and the works of man, we are made familiar with the operation of intelligenlce; and when we are confronted by phenomena strikingly analogous to the known expressions of our intelligence, we are authorized to attribute them to a like cause. The theory of a plastic force, or blindly working agency in Nature, similar to the supposed working of instinct in an animal or of the principle of growth in the plant, is sometimes brought forward in opposition to the doctrine of final causes. The objection is fallacious; since the admitted "blindness" of that which is conceded to operate with the wisdom and precision of intelligence, is the very circumstance which carries us beyond the secondary cause and inspires the belief in a free and intelligent Power. Sir William Hamilton affirms that the argument from final causes is not valid, unless it be presupposed that the human mind is a free intelligence.' It is true that if the human mind itself be the product of an unintelligent force, as materialistic theories imply, the external world might not irrationally be thought to emanate from the same source. Both man and nature might be thought to be due to a common cause. It 1 Hamilton's Metaphysics (Am. Ed.), p. 22. 576 TIHE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. should be added, however, that the impression made by external Nature is a sign of our inbred conviction that we do indeed originate our actions, in the exercise of intelligence and freedom; and under this supposition, the argument from final causes in Nature retains its force. To set before it ends and choose means for attaining them is the distinctive act of mind. The physico-theological proof, or the proof from design in the works of Nature, is one of the oldest, most universally impressive, and justly convincing of the various arguments for a personal God. It has been set forth by a series of writers from Socrates and Cicero to Paley, and acquires fresh illustration with every new discovery in physical science. It is brought forward in the Scriptures, as being sufficient to render iungodliness a sin. The devotional parts of the Bible abound in appeals to the testimony to the, existence of God which his woirks present.' The validity of this argument is not destroyed by the Darwinian theory that all living species are descended fiom a common parentage; unless indeed this theory is allowed to run into materialism by bringing the human soul into the same category with animal and veg,etable life. Were the Darwinian speculation establishled as a truth of science, the physico-theological proof would still be good. For if all species are re 1 One of the most impressive discussions of the subject of Final Causes is the chapter on the Zweck, in Trendelenlburg's Logisc7te U/t'rs8tch?t7gen (revised ed). ., I 7 .577 THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. duced to one, the same marks of design still remain in that one comprehensive species; and however far back we go in tracing the genesis of living things, the signs of the agency of a superior intelligence are indelibly stamped upon the whole system. Yet it must be confessed that the physico-theological argument, considered in the light of a strict proof, lacks completeness. In the first place, it rather suggests the idea of a builder or moulder of matter, than of an original Creator. To be sure, the Being who constructed Nature must have a profound knowledge of the properties of matter; but then there have been philosophers, ancient ana modern, who have held that matter itself is eternal. In the second place, Nature is at best a finite product, and we'are not authorized, in strict logic, to infer an infinite wisdom and power in its Maker. To identify omnipotence with exceedingly great power as Paley does, is to reason loosely and to abandon the proper conception of God. We will not dwell on seeming infelicities which meet us in the constitution of Nature, and which occasion perplexity. Finally, it is possible, without any violation of logic, to consider Nature to be the product of unintelligent forces operating in pursuance of an inherent law. The Pantheistic hypothesis is logically admissible. 1 Yet, this objection of Kant proceeds on the notion of a possible separation of matter and force, which science does not favor. See Ulrici, Gott tend die Natltr, p. 401. 578 THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. The office of the physico-theological ai gumient, therefore, is, first, to educe and, secondly, to corroborate the faith in God which, as we have before explained, is an original possession of the human soul. It is a probable argument, deriving its probability from the anticipating faith which is defined and fortified through these outward manifestations of God in Nature. There is a teleology in History, as well as in Nature. Events conspire, through long periods of time, for the accomplishment of certain ends. All things are seen to work together for the securing of these ends. The thoughtful student of History is not less impressed with the proofs of forecast and farreaching providential control, than the thoughtful student of Nature is struck with the traces of creative wisdom and will in the material world. The moral argument is put by Kant in the following form: we are made for two ends, morality or holiness, and happiness. These two ends, in the present state of existence, frequently fail to coincide; the former is chosen at the expense of the latter. Hence we are obliged by the practical reason to suppose a future state, and a God by whom the system is adjusted or completed, and righteousness connected with happiness. Far more impressive is the proof which lies in the more direct evidences of a moral administration over this world. The distribution of natural good and evil, even though the system of moral government is 579 TIlE PERSONALITY OF GOD. unfinished in this life, is sufficient both to prove the existence of a divine Governor, and to evince, as Butler has cogently argued, that He approves of virtue and condemns vice. History is the record of judgments exercised over beings endued with a free and responsible nature. Rewards and punishments are allotted to individuals and nations, and the spectacle is one which is adapted to convince reflecting minds that God reigns. Yet this argument is not one that compels acquiescence. It is possible for the mind to rest in the thleory of a self-executing moral system or moral order, to the exclusion of the agency of a personal being. Nor are there wanting adherents of such a theory. True, it seems untenable save on a necessitarian philosophy in which moral liberty is sacrificed. Yet the theory is one from which its adherents can be driven by no compulsion of logic. As in the case of the previous arguments, we have to fall back on the immediate feeling of the mind. Faith is elicited and confirmed, but not begotten, by the traces of a righteous moral administration, which are observed in the course of this world's history. 580 I N D E X. CTA PILATI, origin of, 192. Acts, genuineness of the book of, 247; proved by the author's testimony, 247, by its moral spirit, 252, by its relation to the Pauline Epistles, 254, by its contents, 256, by its unfitness to the end for which it is charged with being written, 260; its alleged discrepancies with other books, 265 seq.; the speeches in, 269 seq. Alogi, their opposition to John's Gos pel, 69. ANSELM, his Ontological argument for the existence of God, 573 n. Apocryphal Gospels, their relation to the Canonical, 190 seq. Apocalypse, authorship and date of, 123 seq.; corroborates the book of Acts, 278; on the person of Christ, 327. APOLLO.NIUS of Hierapolis, his testi mony to John's Gospel, 45. APOLLONIUS of Tyana, his history, 527. Apostolic Convention at Jerusalem, 221. ARNOLD, on Inspiration, 9; on the mythical theory, 372; on the char acter of the middle ages, 372. Artemonites, their use of John's Gos pel, 58. ATHENAGORAS, his testimony to John's Gospel, 45. AUGUSTINE, on miracles, 473. BARNABAS, date of his Epistle, 158. BASILIDES, his use of John's Gospel 67. BAUR, F. C., on Justin's quotation of John iii. 3, 52 n.; on the Alogi, 70; admits that the fourth Gospel professes to be from John, 85; on Luke xiii. 34 seq. (Matt. xxiii. seq.), 103 n.; on the Paschal controver sies of the second century, 108 seq.; on the affinity of John's Gospel and the Apocalypse, 126; his theory respecting the authorship of the fourth Gospel examined, 131 seq.; his imputation of Dualism to this Gospel, 132; his exposition of passages in this Gospel, 133; on the relation of this Gospel to the Synoptics, 144; on the character of the author of the fourth Gospel, 148 seq.; on the date of the first Gospel, 174; on Luke's Gospel, 181 seq.; on Marcion's Gospel, 185, 187; on parties in the apostolic church, 205 seq.; on Gal. ii., 231; refutation of his view of the book of Acts, 247 seq.; his theory as to the Ebionites and the rise of the Catholic church, 285; his view of the Early Doctrine respecting Christ, 311; his exegesis of pas sages respecting the person of Christ, 321 Feq., on the doctrine INDEX. of the person of Christ in the sub apostolic age, 328; his theory as to the conversion of Paul, 459. See liibinicen Sclool. Bcsn.'ELL, Horace, his i.zatu-c and the Su6per-,alteral, 30 n., 522 n. BLEEK, 49 n.; 51; 163. BRETSCHNEIDER, his PI-obabilia, 33.. BUDDtIIA, his character, 526. ELSU S, his testimony to Johnii's Gospel, 70 n. CIIRIST, his repeated visits to Jerusa lem proved by the gynoptical Gos pels, 99 seq.; his lamentation over Jerusalem, 100; date of his cruci fixion, 105 seq.; his discourses recorded in the fourth Gospel, 111; his attitude in respect to the cere monial law, 210; the Early Doc trine respecting His person, 311 seq.; doctrine of his person in Matthew, 322; in the Epistles of Paul, 324; in the Ep. to the He brews and Apocalypse, 327; in the sub-apostolic age, 328 seq.; in the ante-Nicene -witers, 332 seq.; inll the -icene c.eed, 336; his Resurrec tion, 379 seq.; credibility of his testimony concerning himself, 515; contents of this testimony, 516 his persistence ill his claim, 518 his spotless character precludes self-deception, 520; his claim with out analogy in the records of enthu siasm, 525; contrasted with Socra tes, 533. Christians, number of, in the second century, 76. CLARKE, Dr. Samuel, his demonstration of the being of God, 575. CLEMENT of Alex., his testimony to John's Gospel, 40, 79. CLEMEN.T of Rome, not a Judaizer, 291. COBnBE, Frances Power, criticism of, 28. COLERIDGE, on In piration, 11; on the nature of myths, 345 n. CONFUClus, his doctrine, 525. COMTF, his scorn for mental philoso phy, 540; his ignorance of meta physical writers, 540; the merit of his philosophy, 540; his denial of final and efficient causes, 541 seq. his theory of human progress, 545; his false view of mythology, 547. EISM, inconsistency of modelm, 27. DE WETTE, 92 n. DIOGNET, the Ep. to, on the person of Christ, 335. FBIONITISM, its origin and charac. ter, 283 seq.; Baur's theory on, 285; did not have sway in the sub apostolic age, 310; alluded to by Justin, 313; when divided into two parties, 317. Egyptians, Apocryphal Gospel of the, 199. Epistle of the Churches of Vienuc and Lyons, its testimony to John's Gospel, 45. F,ssays anil Pleviews, criticism of, 15. EusEBIUS, his testimony to John's Gospel, 39; his references to the use of Scriptures by the F,itliers, 292, 293. EWALD, 49 nI., 213 n. FICIITE, his system, 553. GNOSTICS, their use of Jolhn's Gos pel, 71. GOD, origin of the belief in Him, 563; the belief in Him an immediate act, 564; genesis of the belief in God, 566; primary seat of this be lief in feeling; Schleiermacher's theory respecting this belief, 569; that faith in God is immediate, the g-nieral tenat of theology and phi 582 INDEX. losophy, 571; relation of faith in God to the arguments for his exist ence, 572; the Ontological proof, 573; the Cosmological proof, 575; the Teleological proof, 575; re mark of Hamilton on the Teleologi cal proof, 576; relation of the Te leological argument to the Darwin ian theory, 577; the moral argu ment for the being of God, 579. Gospels, synoptical, evidence from them for the protracted ministry of Christ, 99 seq.; origin of, 153 seq. See Jfatthliew, Lukte. Gospels, how they first originated, 202; their genuineness established, 360. GROTE, on the origin of myths, 345, 370 seq. H BEBREWIS, Gospel of the, 51,168; posterior to M1atthew's Gospel, 195. Hebrews, Ep. to the, on judaizing ten dencics, 277, 320; on the perison of Christ, 327. HEGEL, his system, 554; his philos ophy applied to theology, 557; re futed by Schelling, 558. zIEGErSIpPUS, not an Ebionite, 294. IIER.AcLEo, his commentary on John's Gospel, 62. HIERMAS, not an Ebionite, 297; on the person of Christ, 335. HILGENFELD, 43;.54 n.; on the Gos pel of Matthew, 174. HIPPOLYTUS, 67. IIu.ME, fallacy of his argument against mniracles, 494. GNATIAN Epistles, genuineness of, 309. Inspiration, importance of the doc trine of, 6 seq.; Rothe's view of, 10; Arnold's view of, 9; Cole rid +'s X iew of, 11. 583 IRENARus, 38; testimony to John's Gospel, 41, 78; on the traditions of the Roman church, 283. EROME, 38; testimony to John's Gospel, 39. JoIIN's Gospel, its genuineness ques tioned by Bretschneider, 33; by the Tiibingen school, 33; defences of, by Bleek, Meyer, Briickner, Schneider, Ewald, Ebrard, and Mayer, 36; external evidence for, 39 seq.; attested by Jerome and Eusebius, 39; by Tertullian, 39 by Clement of Alex., 40; by Ire nacus, 41; by Origen, 42; by the Canon of Muratori, 42; by the Peshito, 42; by Polyerates, 43 by Tatian, 43; by Theophilus of Antioch, 44; by Athenagoras, 45; by Apollinaris, 45; by the Ep. of the churches of Vicnne and Lyons, 45; by Justin Martyr, 46 seq.; by Papias, 56; by Polycarp, 57; by the Artemonites, 58; by Marcion, 59 seq.; by Valentinus and his followers, 62; by Basilides, 67; by the Ophites and the Peratae, 68; by Celsus, 70 n.; by tradition, 73 seq.; internal evidenice for, 84 seq.; shown by its claim to be the work of John, and by the manner of this claim, 84 seq., by the graphic character of the narrative, 86 seq., by its general structure and con tents, 95 seq.; its statement as to the duration of Christ's ministry, 98; as to the date of the crucifix ion, 105; its relation to the Pas chal controversies, 108; its reports of the discourses of Christ, 111; the Hellenic culture and theological character of its author, 117; its relation to the Apocalypse, 123 seq.; its last chapter as proving its genuineness, 129; its genuineness defended ag.ainst Baur, 131 seq. 4 INDEX. John, the Apostle, his residence at Ephesus, 37; his knowledge of the Greek language, 120. See John's Gospel. JUSTIN MARTYR, his date, 46; his use of" Memoirs by the Apostles," 47; alleged use of uncanonical gospel histories, 48; use of the fourth Gospel, 50 seq.; his devia tions from the Gospels, 201; on judaizing Christians, 313; on the person of Christ, 335. KANT, his system, 551. OGOS, origin of the idea of, 120 seq. LuKE's Gospel, its origin, 180 seq.; value of its prologue, 189, 248, 367. ARCION, his tenets, 59, 183; his treatment of the Gospels, 59; his acquaintance with John's Gos pel, 60 seq.; relation of his Gospel to the Gospel of Luke, 184 seq. MATTIhEW, Gospel of, its relationto the Gospel of the Hebrews, 167; the prophecies of the Second Advent in, 169; Tiibingen theories respect ing, 173. MEYER, his wrong interpretation of Papias, 161. MILL, J. S., on Comte, 541 n. Miracles, the question of their reality of prime importance, 12; nature and function of the Christian, 471; not merely relative, 472; defined by Augustine, Spinoza, Schleiermach er, 473, 474; not violations of nat ural law, 478; not contrary to ex perience, 481; possibility of, 482; probability of, 486; fallacy of Hume's argument against, 494; special function of, 496; fallacy of objections to, 500; their relatior to moral proofs, 503, why nC longer necessary, 510. MOHAMMED, his character, 527; his life by Sprenger, 527. MULLER, Julius, on miracles, 478, 499; on the genesis of the belief in God, 567 n. MULLER, K. 0., on the origin of my thology, 341. Mysticism, characterized, 8. Myths apd mythology, definition of a myth, 341; origin of myths, 342 seq. ' AZARENES, origin of the, 317; their opinion respecting Christ, 318. NORTON, his view of the Gospel Me moirs used by Justin, 49 n.; 55. -)AINE, his Age of Reason, 4. - Pantheism, diffusion of, 26; at the bottom of modern unbelief, 30; definition of, 549; as held by Spi noza, 549; of Fichte, 553; of Schel ling, 554; of Hegel, 555; an un tenable theory, 557 seq.; error of its fundamental position, 557; fails to solve the problem of knowledge, 559; its false conception of the Absolute, 559; unable to deduce finite from infinite being, 560; its God, not the Absolute, 560; its ob jections to theism, groundless, 560 seq.; against our moral intuitions, 562. PALEY, his lorae Paulinae, 254. PAPIAS, his testimony to John's Gos. pel, 56; his testimony respecting Matthew and Mark, 160 seq., 363; his work, 166; on the origin of Mark's Gospel, 177; not a Judai zer, 292. PARKER, Theodore, character of his criticism, 450; on the canonical 5S4 INDEX. Gospels, 450; on miracles, 451; his doctrine of the Absolute Reli gion, 452; defect of his theology, 453; his position as to Theism, 455. PASCAL, his definition of a miracle, 477. PASCHIIAL controversies of the second century, 108 seq. PAUL, his controversy with Peter, 223; his last visit to Jerusalem, 224, 257; his relations to Peter and the other apostles, 232 seq.; his circumcision of Timothy, 233; genuineness of the Epistles ascribed to himn, 275; his doctrine of the person of Christ, 321 seq.; his evi dence of the Resurrection of Christ, 3 9, 386; theory of Baur and Strauss as to his conversion, 459; testimony of the authorities as to his conversion, 462; fallacy of the skeptical theories as to his conver sion, 464; defect of Baur's theory, 466; his conversion not a vision, 468. P,AULUS, his scheme of interpretation, 346. PETER, the Apostle, his 1st Epistle, 275; why thought to be the found er of the Roman church, 307. PETLE:i, apocryphal Gospel of, 198. PHILO, his conception of the Messiah, 122. POLYCARP, 41; his testimony to John's Gospel, 57. POLYCRATES, 37; his testimony to .John's Gospel, 43, 78. Positivism. See Compte. PoTYiIss, 78. Protestantism, its doctrine concerning the Rule of Faith, 7. Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, 51 n.; their reception accounted for, 82; origin and character of, 299 seq.; represented no considerable party, 302; perverse use of by the Tii 585 bingen school, 304; their type of Ebionitism, 284. PTOLEMAEUS, his use of John's Gos pel, 63. RATIONALISM, characterized, 7, 19 seq. RENAN, his Life of Clirist contrasted with Paine's Age of Reason, 4; his disbelief in miracles, 13; his concessions, 362; his legendary theory, 433 seq., 440; on the monotheism of the Semitic nations, 433; on the date and authorship of the Gospels, 435; his interpre tations, 444; his conception of Christ, 448. Roman Catholic church, its Rule of Faith, 7. Roman church, predominantly Gen tile, 305; not under judaizing influ ence, 305; tradition of its founda: tion by Peter, 307. RoTHE, his doctrine of Inspiration, 10. CIIELLING, on the origin of myS thology, 344; his philosophical system, 554. SCHLEIERMAcHEP., his interpretation of ao AoyLa in Papias, 161; his hy. pothesis respecting the Acts, 249; his notion of miracles, 473; his theory as to the origin of religion, 570. SOUWEGLER, 81. SERAPIoN, on the Gospel of Peter, 83. SCHENKEL, on the date of John's Gos pel, 77 n. Skepticism and Unbelief, tone of, 1 seq.; diffusion of, 5. SOCRATES, his idea of his mission, 530. SPINOZA, his definition of a miracle, 473; his system, 549 seq. STANLEY, his History of the Jewish church, 16. INDEX. STRAUSS, D. F., his interpretation of Luke xiii. 34 seq. (Matt. xxiii. 37 seq.), 100 seq.; his use of the apo cryphal Gospels, 191; his mythi cal theory, 339 seq.; begs the ques tion, 341; his mythical theory ex plained, 347; and disproved by the belief of the Apostles and of Jesus in his Messiahship, 351; by the ab sence of a body of disciples to whom the myths can be ascribed, 354; by the genuineness of the Gospels of the canon, 360; by the want of time for myths to spring up, 366; by the character of those times, 369; by the faith of the Apostles in the Resurrection of Christ, 379; by the testimony of the book of Acts, 389; by the con nection of the supernatural and the natural in the life of Christ, 390; by the arbitrary character of the criticism of Strauss, 396; by the inability to connect myths with their alleged models and motives, 407; by its inconsistency with a fair view of the tempers of the founders of Christianity, 411; by its inability to explain Christ and Christianity, 414; by the false and demoralizing philosophy at its root, 41 7; his restatement of Ahi theory, 421 seq.; his relation to Baur, 421; his remarks on the origin of the Gospels, 424; on the use of the Gospels in Justin, 427, in Papias, 427; on Marcion, 428; spirit of his second book, 430; its stoicism, 431; on the conversion of Paul, 459. r'ATIAN, his testimony to John's - Gospel, 43. TERTULLIAN, his testimony to John's Gospel, 39; on Marcion's treatment of the Gospels, 60; on Valentinus' treatment of the Gospels, 63; on the tendency to monarchianism, 337. THIEOPIIILUS of Antioch, his testimony to John's Gospel, 44. Tradition, nature of the argument from; proves the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, 77 seq. Tubingen School, its rejection of mir acles, 14; its theory as to the fourth Gospel, 34; its theory as to the first Gospel, 173; on Mark's Gospel, 178. See Baur, P. C. LRICI, on primitive religious faith or feeling, 571. -TALENTINUS, his use cf John's Gospel, 62 seq. 586 FROUDE'S "ENGLAND.'" $ Nistorp of (ggglau, fro ilt Ilyeau of Nauseaa to tat State of atiab ttll. By JAMES ANTmo FROUDE, M. A., late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. From the fourth London edition. In crown octavo vols. Price, $3.00 per vol. (The first eight volumes of this editions now ready; the other volumes will follow shortly. Vols. I. to IV. Reign of Henry VIII. Vols. V. add VI. Reigns of Edward VI. and Mary. Vols. VII. and VIII. Reign of Elizabeth. Mr. Froude has shown in his admirable history what new results may be derived, even in the most beaten track, from a thorough investigation of the original authorities. His researches have thrown a flood of light over the personal character of Henry the Eighth and his relation to the great event of modern history, the Reformation of Religion in Europe and the British Isles, that it would be in vain to seek elsewhere. His views often run counter to received opinions, but they are always supported by a weight of evinence and a classic polish of style that place him high in the rank of modern historians. The work has received the most favorable notices from the leading English journals, and has already passed through four editions in England. The vast amount of fresh and authentic materials which the author has brought to bear on the periods of which he writes, give his work an interest and value beyond any previous history of the same events. "We read these volumes with the pleasure derived from interesting materials worked up in an attractive form."-Edinburgh Review. "The style is excellent; sound, honest, forcible, singularly perspicuous English; at times with a sort of picturesque simplicity, pictures dashed off with only a few touches, but perfectly alive.... We have never to read a passage twice.... We see the course of events day by day, not only the more serious and important communications, but the gossip of the hour. ".. If truth and vivid reality be the perfection of history, much is to be said in favor of this mode of composition."-London Quarterly. With an analysis of the Divina Commz4ia, its Plot and Episodes. By Pro fessor BOTTA. 1 vol., crown 8vo. $2.50. The Nrew York Evening Post says:-" We have seen a portion of this work, and regard it as decidedly the best account of the poet that has appeared in the English language. It is careful, learned, discriminating and eloquent, written in terse and eloquent English that is remarkable in the pen of an author not native to our soil. The analysis of the poem is full and philosophical, alive with Italian enthusiasm, yet calm and truly catholic in its humanity and trust. It will do more than anything within reach to answer the question that so many are now asking: "Who is this Dante, whose name is now so much on the lipr of scholars, but who is as much in the dark to most of us as the dark ages in which he lived? " Copies sent by mail, post paid, on receipt of price. I vSautet as Vtilossttr, Patriot and A~t. ffmbraciqit a Sitrvey of the Present State of Pj otestant Thtcology. By Rev. JOHN F. IHunRST, A. M. 1 vol., 8vo. $3.50. These six hundred pages are most refreshing and satisfactory. They are just what every minister and thoughtful Christian in these times must have in his library, and what we sincerely thank the discerning publishers for giving to the world just now. Rationalists, the world over, are here divided into four classes, and traced through all their varieties, from the earlier German Rationalists, through the English Schools, down through Maurse, Kisigaley, Carlyle, and Westnsinistes lieview tiibes, even to our own Universalists and Uniitarians in this country. Hlere is found the clearest view of Theodore Parker and his influence we have ever seen."-Boston Recorder. "We have here a full and clear exposition of all the forms of Rationalism which have appeared in Europe since the Reformation, by one who views them from a thoroughly orthodox standpoint. We have examined portions of the work which refer to controversies with which we are most familiar, and find them to be faithfully explained, and we welcome it as supplying a desideratum in the history of religious opinion.........A comprehensive, historical, and( critical survey of all the developments of this spirit was a want which we believe to be here creditably supplied."-Episcopal Recorder, (Philadelphia.) W22 i202taatlrlvlvlrgill pf f~tlaia With special reference to the Theories of Renan, Strauss, and the Thbingen School. By Prof. G. P. FISHIER, of Yale College. 1 vol., 8vo. $3.50. "The style of Prof. Fisher is very clear and suitable to such subjects, and his way of handling these abstruse topics is extremely able and satisfactory. We know of nothing so good as this volume for the reading of any intelligent mind which is itself disturbed by the rationalism which it combats and refutes, or which desires to learn how to handle such discussions in the arena of daily discussion."-Congregationalist, (Boston.) "This work is prepared in the spirit of a reverent disciple, yet with a readiness to see every difficulty, and to understand every honest doubt. We have no hesitation in recommending this volume, and believe that it will help many a minister who has not sufficient time to examine every question for himself, in his attempts to remove difficulties and to dislodge unbelief." —1ti'onal Bajtist, (Philadelphia.) Grounded on Principles of Universal Obligation. By HORAcE BUSHNELL, D.D., author of "Sermons for the New I'fe," "Nature and the Supernatural," etc. In 1 vol., 8vo. $3.00. "It is aremarkable production, original in thought, masterly in style, and Dr. Bushnell's singular acumen and power has been nowhere more effectually displayed than in this weighty volume." —iew York Ereeinig Post. "It is superfluous for us to say that this treatise is exceedingly able. The learned author seems to have gathered up all his strength of mind and all his wealth of scholarship for the preparation of this great work."- Christiaos Intelligetcer. ersonal Reminiscences of the Life and Times of Gardiner Spring, Pastor of the Brick Presbyterian Church in the city of New York. With a fine steel portrait. 2 vols., crown 8vo., on tinted paper. Price $4. " No one can read this book without deriving both profit and information, and few will rise from its perusal without feeling as if they had been holding personal converse with a king among men, who, having laid aside the scarred armor that he wore, and relinquished the cares of office, awaits the crown which his religious faith has taught him to believe is the reward of a life spent in defending and extending that faith among men."-Round Tabl& Copies sent by siail, POSTPArID, on receipt of price, by C. S. 6 Co.