_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--CONTINUED._

_"It remains a possibility that Christ actually was what He supposed

Himself to be."_

John Stuart Mill.

CHAPTER IV.

_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--CONTINUED._

BASILIDES--VALENTINUS--MARCION--TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF

CORINTH--MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS

APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND

LYONS--PTOLEMÆUS, HERACLEON, CELSUS--CANON OF MURATORI.

Our author says of Basilides, "He was founder of a system of

Gnosticism, who lived at Alexandria about the year 125. With the

exception of a very few brief fragments, none of his writings have

been preserved, and all our information regarding them is derived from

writers opposed to him. Eusebius states that Agrippa Castor, who had

written a refutation of the doctrines of Basilides, 'Says that he had

composed twenty-four books upon the gospel.' This is interpreted by

Tischendorf to imply that the work was a commentary upon our four

Gospels, a conclusion the audacity of which can scarcely be exceeded"

(p. 42). I remark that by "the gospel" would be meant the gospel

which was preached by the apostles, and Tischendorf is not far wrong

in supposing that the written records of it in the hands of the first

Christians was the subject of the commentary. Our author has certainly

not proved the contrary. He says: "We know that Basilides made use of

a Gospel, written by himself it is said, but certainly called after

his own name; ... but the fragments of that work which are extant are

of a character which precludes the possibility of the work being

considered a Gospel." Neander affirmed the Gospel of Basilides to be

the Gospel according to the Hebrews. I remark that that is not only

probable, but that the Gospel to the Hebrews may have been the Hebrew

translation of the Greek Gospel of Matthew, with its additions and

modifications, to suit the Jewish Nazarene sect, who, we know, had a

Hebrew text of their own, which they did not hesitate to alter and

adapt to their own views. Basilides, says our author, expressly states

that he received his knowledge of the truth from Glaucis, the

"interpreter of Peter," whose disciple he claimed to be. Basilides

also claimed to have received from a certain Matthias the report of

private discourses which he had heard from the Saviour for his

special instruction. Canon Westcott writes: "Since Basilides lived on

the verge of the apostolic times, it is not surprising that he made

use of other sources of Christian doctrine besides the canonical

books. The belief in Divine inspiration was still fresh and real."[38]

Our author says: "It is apparent, however, that Basilides, in basing

his doctrine on these apocryphal books as inspired, and upon

tradition, and in having a special Gospel called after his own name,

ignores the canonical Gospels, offers no evidence for their existence,

but proves that he did not recognise any such works as of authority."

I remark, the question is not their authority, but, Did they exist?

Basilides wrote a book, called it a Gospel, or commentary of the

Gospel, and made as much use as suited his heretical purpose of the

canonical records, of tradition, and of other books. This seems to be

what we can arrive at. Hippolytus, writing of the Basilideans and

describing their doctrines, uses the singular pronoun "he"--"he says,"

in a passage of which our author gives an unintelligible translation.

This pronoun is an inconvenient witness. Our author wants it to be

"they," in order that the disciples of Basilides living at a later

period, when the Gospels were generally recognised, may be meant, and

not Basilides, who lived A.D. 125. Hippolytus has a sentence of

Basilides, which our author translates as follows:--"Jesus, however,

was generated according to _these_, as we have already said. But when

the generation which has already been declared had taken place, all

things regarding the Saviour, according to _them_, occurred in a

similar way as they have been written in the Gospel." This means that

the things referring to the Incarnation were as _written_ in the

Gospel, not as preached, but as written; and if Basilides, as the

founder of the sect, is referred to, the statement testifies to the

existence of the Gospels in the year 125, and the doctrine of the

Incarnation being in them. But our author says the statement is not

made in connection with Basilides, but his followers; that it is made

about A.D. 225, by Hippolytus, and affords no proof that either

Basilides or his followers used the Gospels or admitted their

authority. "The exclusive use, by any one, of the Gospel according to

the Hebrews, for instance, would be perfectly consistent with the

statement" (p. 48). "No one who considers what is known of that

Gospel, or who thinks of the use made of it in the first half of the

second century by perfectly orthodox Fathers, before we hear anything

of our Gospels, can doubt this" (p. 48). I remark, that those who

adopt Tischendorf's view, that Matthew was written in Greek, and a

corrupted version in Hebrew, used in certain countries, will not have

to resort to any such explanation as our author suggests. His

examination in detail of the several quotations is important, because

it exhibits his want of appreciation of the evidence they afford. The

first passage Tischendorf points out is found in the "Stromata" of

Clement of Alexandria, and it is certainly from our Gospel of

Matthew,[39] however that work may have been compiled (for it is not

necessary to insist that no other records than Matthew's own are

included in the book which, we contend, was at very early date read in

the Churches, and is what we now have). "They say the Lord answered,

All men cannot receive this saying. For there are eunuchs who are

indeed from birth, but others from necessity."[40] Our author says

"this passage in its affinity to, and material variation from, our

First Gospel, might be quoted as evidence for the use of the Gospel

according to the Hebrews, but it is simply preposterous to point to it

as evidence for the use of Matthew. Apologists ... seem altogether to

ignore the history of the creation of written Gospels, and to forget

the very existence of the πολλοἱ of Luke." We value his

acknowledgment, and find no difficulty, notwithstanding the silence of

some apologists, in reconciling our belief in the four Gospels with

the facts or probabilities of what can be ascertained as to their

"creation." We allow that the word Luke uses (πολλοἱ) refers

to many, which is consistent with the idea that many committed to

writing what they knew, and that their records were embodied in the

Synoptic Gospels.

[38] "On the Canon," p. 255.

[39] See Matt. xix. 11, 12.

[40] "Strom." iii. 1.

The next passage referred to by Tischendorf is one quoted by

Epiphanius: "And therefore he said, Cast not ye pearls before swine,

neither give that which is holy unto dogs."[41] "It is introduced in

the section of the work of Epiphanius directed against the

Basilideans. As in dealing with all these heresies there is continual

interchange of reference to the head and later followers, there is no

certainty who is referred to in these quotations, and in this

instance nothing to indicate that the passage is ascribed to Basilides

himself. His name is mentioned in the first line of the first chapter,

but not again until the fifth chapter" (p. 50).

[41] "Hær." xxiv. 5.

I remark, it was the founder of the sect and not the followers who

wrote the book, and those who opposed the heresy would, although they

alluded to the sect, have regard to the founder when they referred to

the doctrines held, and quoted the written opinions which

distinguished the party on gospel matters. To make the matter as plain

as I can, I will suppose a case as an illustration of the point.

Supposing that in Pliny's letter to Trajan there were found these

words referring to the Christians: "They say, the rule which should be

observed in regard to an enemy is, Love your enemies, bless them that

curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which

persecute you"--would it be right to assert that the quotation is no

proof that Christ so taught, but His disciples, long afterwards? This

is something like what our author's objection, referring to the

pronouns "he" and "they" in Hippolytus, amounts to. "They" does not

mean "he" when thus used; and "he," when actually used in the first

line of the first chapter, and afterwards means, "they;" that is, "He

(Basilides) says," means "They (his followers at a later date) say."

The plural pronoun is used, indicating the sect, Basilides and his

followers. Therefore our author says there is uncertainty as to who he

is when used in the same sentence. He says "Hippolytus is giving an

epitome of the views of the school with nothing more definite than a

subjectless φησἱ (he says) to indicate who is referred to.

None of the quotations which we have considered are directly referred

to Basilides himself, but they are introduced by the utterly vague

expression, 'He says' (φησἱ), without any subject accompanying the

verb."

The suggestion (p. 51) that Hippolytus "consciously or unconsciously,

in the course of transfer to his pages, corrected the text," is very

unsatisfactory. An intelligent reader cannot fail to see how an

obvious inference is avoided, and how ingenuity is taxed to make words

square with foregone conclusions.

Tischendorf asks: "Who is there so sapient as to draw the line between

what the master alone says, and that which the disciples state,

without in the least repeating the master?" (p. 59) and our author

says, "Tischendorf solves the difficulty by referring everything

indiscriminately to the master" (p. 59). To say that Tischendorf does

this is reckless assertion.

When our author has to account for such a passage in Basilides as,

"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest

shall overshadow thee," he says it _happens_ to agree with the words

in Luke i. 55; and resorts to his usual mode of avoiding the

acknowledgment that such a verbatim quotation is against his

hypothesis, by saying, "There is good reason for concluding that the

narrative to which it belongs was contained in other Gospels." The

following sentence is startling, and apt to mislead those who do not

take the trouble to be sure of his meaning. He says (p. 67): "Nothing,

however, can be clearer than the fact that this quotation, by whomsoever

made, is not taken from our Third Synoptic, inasmuch as there does not

exist a single MS. which contains such a passage." What does he mean?

We turn to Luke i. 35, and read: "The Holy _Ghost_ shall come upon

thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore

also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the

_Son of God_." Does he mean the whole passage is not in any MS? No: he

means the following, with the slight variation at the end, is not in

any MS. "The Holy _Spirit_ shall come upon thee, and the power of the

Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore the thing begotten of thee

shall be called _holy_." Only the words in italics are different in

the two passages, and the meaning is the same, the only difference

being that the latter does not include the words "the Son of God." The

remark that the quotation _happens_ to agree with the passage in Luke

i. 35, should not be unnoticed.

Happens! Mark the peculiar inappropriateness of the word. It indicates

our author's whereabouts, and is a beacon in the book to warn the

reader. Events transpire, and they _happen_ to agree with prophetic

visions which plainly foretold them! Reason being unequal to an

explanation, coincidence must be resorted to. Was it an accident that,

"at one particular point in history, and in one special individual,

the elements of a new religious development, which, _per se_, were

already extant, should have concentrated themselves in a new life?"

This, says Baur, is "the wonder in the history of the origin of

Christianity which no historical reflection can further analyse." Did

it _happen_ that the Messiah came as was predicted centuries before?

Did Paul _happen_ to have a vision just at the time when the whole

course of his life underwent a change, and from being a chief

persecutor of the faith he became a chief apostle--no less an apostle

than the most prominent among the Twelve? If the Saviour did not meet

him on the way to Damascus he could not be an apostle; and as he was

an honest man, and no impostor, could what _happened_ to him have been

other than what he asserted? Baur was in a great difficulty about the

matter, and said, "_No analysis, either psychological or didactic, can

clear up the mystery of that act in which God revealed His Son in

Paul._" Jeremiah prophesied that the Jews should return to their own

land after seventy years of exile, and they _happened_ to do so!

The artful way in which the evidence from the writings of Hippolytus

is disposed of is one of the most notable things in the book we are

reviewing. The reader's attention is taxed to keep up with the

sophistical argument, and our author finds it necessary to explain why

he has been forced to go at such a length into these questions, as to

risk "being very wearisome" to his readers (p. 73).

These remarks apply to a great extent to the examination of the

evidence of Valentinus, described as "another Gnostic leader, who,

about the year A.D. 140, came from Alexandria to Rome, and flourished

till about A.D. 160." "Very little remains of the writings of this

Gnostic, and we gain our only knowledge of them from a few quotations

in the works of Clement of Alexandria, and some doubtful fragments

preserved by others" (p. 56).

Marcion, the son of a bishop of Pontus, became a conspicuous heretic

in the second century, and there was a book called "Marcion's Gospel,"

which has long furnished a field for criticism. He was a Pauline

heretic, denouncing the Jewish party which insisted upon dragging

Jewish observances into Christianity. He went to Rome about A.D.

139-142, and taught there some twenty years. His opinions were widely

disseminated. His collection of apostolic writings, which is the

oldest of which we have any trace, includes (says our author) a single

Gospel and ten Epistles of Paul--viz., Galatians, Corinthians (2),

Romans, Thessalonians (2), Ephesians (in the superscription of which

there is, "to the Laodiceans)," Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon.

The Gospel of Marcion is not extant, but it is referred to by his

opponents, who affirmed that his evangelical work was an audaciously

mutilated version of Luke's Gospel. Our author gives a brief account

of the various opinions which have prevailed about the book during the

last hundred years, and considers the discussion upon it far from

closed. Is it a mutilation of Luke, or an independent work derived

from the same source as his, or is it a more primitive version of that

Gospel? Whence are the materials from which the portions of the text

extant are derived? Tertullian and Epiphanius denounced Marcion's

heresy. The former called him "impious and sacrilegious," which, our

author says, implies anything but fair and legitimate criticism. I

remark, Did he deserve the epithets? Would Paul, who tells the

Colossians to "beware lest any man spoil them through philosophy and

vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the

world, and not after Christ," have been less emphatic in his

denunciations in such a case? Marcion was more Pauline than Petrine,

but would Paul have failed to censure in the strongest language such a

misrepresentation of Jehovah and the Old Testament economy as Marcion

disseminated?

Can our author's assertion be absolutely true that "Tertullian and

Epiphanius were only dogmatical, and not in the least critical"? How

could they be otherwise than to a certain extent critical? They were

not critics in the way of taking nothing for granted, after the modern

fashion; but they must have weighed, compared, and tested Marcion's

views while writing against them. "The spirit of the age," he says,

"was indeed so uncritical, that not even the canonical text could

awaken it into activity." This is a sentence which suggests that the

position in the Church of the canonical text was so evident, that to

question it was then unwarrantable, as, indeed, it has continued to be

to this day. The combined internal and external evidences harmonising

with the believer's consciousness, his necessities, and his

aspirations, were sufficient to preclude sceptical and captious

criticism.

The Christian contemporaries of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius

were uncritical in that they did not doubt that the foundations of

their faith were sure. The gospel which had been preached to them,

which had changed the whole course of their lives, corresponded in its

main features with the four books which were held in estimation by

the Church at that time above all other writings; and they would not

be likely to wrangle about the title instead of cultivating the faith

they possessed. They could not, perhaps, prove by the rules of logic

that "God is, and is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him;"

that Christ is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express

image of his Person; but they knew that He had said,--"Ye believe in

God believe also in me;" "In my Father's house are many mansions;"

and, "I go to prepare a place for you." "Be thou faithful unto death,

and I will give thee a crown of life." They lived in the consciousness

of these truths, and died (Bishop Pothinus, for instance) a martyr's

death rather than deny them.

There is this remark to be made in reference to the alleged uncritical

age of the Fathers. How is it that Marcion is seen to be so critical?

He is surely after the modern model. He who wrote the "Antithesis,"

and, as our author says, anticipated in some of his opinions those

held by many in our own time; he who wrote,--"If the God of the Old

Testament be good, prescient of the future, and able to avert evil,

why did he allow man, made in his own image, to be deceived by the

devil, and to fall from obedience of the law into sin and death?[42]

How came the devil, the origin of lying and deceit, to be made at

all?"[43] surely he is an instance of a man in that age possessing the

critical faculty. He has the boldness to question, and say,--"Yea,

hath God said?" "Anticipating the results of modern criticism," says

our author, "Marcion denies the applicability to Jesus of the

so-called Messianic prophecies" (p. 106).

[42] Tertullian, "Adv. Marc." xi. 5, cf. 9.

[43] Ibid. xi. 10.

If the research which is going on as to the Gospel of Marcion be

conducted in a proper manner, and from a proper motive, not from

antipathy to "parsons" and ecclesiastical assumptions, which was the

incentive of Strauss in attacking Christianity, good will come of it.

As Justin Martyr did not, as far as we know, suppose the book to be a

corrupted version of the Gospel according to Luke, Tertullian may have

been mistaken, and it may have been an independent work, one of the

many Luke refers to, the existence of which does not necessarily

invalidate the canonical ones. We may naturally suppose that events of

such marvellous speciality and importance as those which had "come to

pass" in those days among the Jews, would be more or less described

in letters and other writings by many persons who were eye-witnesses.

Such writings would be collected and read when the first Christians

assembled. The difference between the four canonical Gospels and other

manuscripts would consist in their being compiled by persons competent

to the task, who, like Ezra, were instruments Divinely influenced to

compile and "set forth in order a declaration of those things," for

the benefit of future ages and the religious instruction of the race.

The analysis of the text of Marcion by Hahn, Ritschl, Volkmar,

Helgenfeld, and others, who have examined and systemised the data of

the Fathers, is supposed to be sufficient to awaken in any inquirer

uncertainty, and stimulate conjecture (p. 101). I do not doubt it.

German hypercriticism is able, by a process of ratiocination, to

discredit any truth, even to persuade men that the Throne of the

universe is vacant, and that the only altar that man has the knowledge

to rear is one to the Unknown God; but

"He sits on no precarious throne,

Nor borrows leave to be."

They who believe in the inspiration by the Holy Ghost of the prophets

of the Old Testament see no difficulty in regard to the inspiration of

the writers of the New. If Isaiah and Jeremiah and Daniel had

supernatural communications made to them, in order that the Eternal

Creator might be manifested, why not Paul and John and Matthew? It is

the foregone conclusion, on the part of critics, that the miraculous

is impossible, which embarrasses their researches. One of John Stuart

Mill's last sentences is: "It remains a possibility that Christ

actually was what He supposed Himself to be." If this had occurred to

the great reasoner at the outset of his career instead of the close,

how much might the world have been advantaged!

Tatian is a witness whose evidence our author next tries to set aside.

He was an Assyrian by birth, a disciple of Justin Martyr at Rome, and

afterwards, having joined the sect of the Eucratites, a conspicuous

exponent of their austere and ascetic doctrines. The only one of his

writings extant is his Oration to the Greeks, written after Justin's

death, as it refers to that event, and it is generally dated A.D.

170-175. One point contested is Canon Westcott's affirmation that it

contains a "clear reference" to a parable recorded by Matthew:[44]

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hidden in a field, which

a man found and hid, and for his joy he goeth and selleth all that he

hath and buyeth that field." And the supposed reference by Tatian is,

"For by means of a certain hidden treasure he has taken to himself all

that we possess, for which, while we are digging, we are indeed

covered with dust, but we succeed in making it our fixed

possession."[45]

[44] Matt. xiii. 44.

[45] "Orat. ad Gr." § 30.

There is certainly not much similarity between the two passages,

although Tatian may be well supposed to have had the parable in his

mind when he wrote. The more important question is, Did Tatian write

"A Harmony of Four Gospels," which recognises our four Evangelists?

Was his Diatessaron such a book, or was it the Gospel according to the

Hebrews? If the latter, what is the Gospel according to the Hebrews? I

say it is probable it is the corrupted Hebrew translation of the Greek

Gospel of Matthew, and this conjecture has more in its favour than our

author's hypothesis.

Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius tells us, wrote seven epistles to

various Churches, and a letter to Chrysophora, "a most faithful

sister." Only a few short fragments exist, which are all from the

epistle to Soter, Bishop of Rome, whose date in that pastorate is A.D.

168-176. In these fragments we find the following words:--"For the

brethren having requested me to write epistles, I write them. And the

apostles of the devil have filled these with tares, both taking away

parts and adding others, for whom the woe is destined. It is not

surprising, then, if some have recklessly ventured to adulterate the

Scriptures of the Lord, when they have corrupted these, which are not

of such importance."[46] After quoting this passage, our author

reiterates his statement that "We have seen that there has not been a

trace of any New Testament Canon in the writings of the Fathers before

and during this age." Does he suppose his readers will have seen as he

sees, or rather refuse to see what is plain enough? He has his own

opinion, but he need not assume that he has convinced his readers that

he has proved what he alleges. He talks of Westcott's boldness, and of

his imagination running away with him, and that it is simply

preposterous to suppose that this passage refers to the New Testament.

I leave Canon Westcott to defend his own words, but I say it is not

preposterous to infer that when Dionysius speaks of the "Scriptures of

the Lord" he means Gospel writings, which are included in our New

Testament. If it be assumed that the defence of the authority of the

New Testament writings and of evangelical views is necessarily based

on the synodical authority of the early Church, there may be some

weight in his objections; but Christianity has a position independent

of ecclesiastical pretensions to infallibility, and the latter may be

overthrown without the great institution established by Divine mercy

for the recovery of humanity from sin and its consequences being in

the slightest degree damaged. Dr. Donaldson is quoted, who remarks:

"It is not easy to settle what this term, 'Scriptures of the Lord,'

is; but my own opinion is that it most probably refers to the Gospels,

as containing the sayings and doings of the Lord. It is not likely, as

Lardner supposes, that such a term would be applied to the whole of

the New Testament."[47] The word "Scripture," in Greek, Γραφἡ

(Graphé), in Latin, _Scriptura_, has, no doubt, a meaning

which denotes an inspired writing. It is used fifty-one times in the

New Testament in the same sense, for Christ and the authors of the

New Testament regarded the Old Testament as distinguished from all

other writings, as _the_ writing--the writing of God. By speaking of

their own books as Graphai, the apostles place them on a level with

the Old Testament, and thus assert their Divine character.[48]

[46] Eusebius, "H. E." iv. 23.

[47] "Hist. Christ. Lit. and Doct." ii. p. 217.

[48] See Chr. Wordsworth, "On the Canon," p. 55. Lec. ii. and Ed.

1851.

Dr. Davidson speaks of the New Testament writings being ranked as

"Holy Scripture" by Dionysius of Corinth, A.D. 170.

Our author asserts (p. 167) that "many works were regarded as inspired

by the Fathers besides those in our Canon," and mentions especially

the Gospel of Peter having been read at Rhossus. He says: "The fact

that Serapion, in the third century, allowed the Gospel of Peter to be

used in the Church of Rhossus shows the consideration in which it was

held, and the incompleteness of the canonical position of the New

Testament." Now, he ought to have quoted Serapion's own explanation,

which we have preserved by Eusebius. He says (in his treatise written

to confute what was false in the Gospel of Peter): "We receive Peter

and the other apostles even as Christ; but the writings falsely called

by their names, we, as competent critics, renounce, knowing that we

received not such things. For when I was with you I supposed that all

were agreed with the true faith; and, without reading the Gospel

called Peter's, which they brought forward, I said, If this is the

only thing that seems to cause you dissension, let it be read."

Serapion says he borrowed the book and read it, and found many things

agreeable to Christ's doctrine, but some discrepant additions.

Thus the reading of the Gospel of Peter at Rhossus cannot be instanced

as a proof that other Gospels besides the canonical ones were used as

inspired books, nor can any other be mentioned as having been thus

regarded, the Gospel according to the Hebrews not being apocryphal,

but a part of the New Testament, whether we take it to be, as our

author supposes, the basis of Matthew's Gospel, or, as we say, a

corrupted version of that apostle's Greek work. "To argue that because

one spurious Gospel was temporarily received among a few persons,

therefore there was no real canon of Scripture, and we cannot be sure

that any Gospel is genuine, shows about as much common sense and

logical acumen as would be displayed by a critic eighteen centuries

hence, who, discovering in one of our newspapers an account of the

conviction of a gang of coiners, should argue that because their base

half-crowns had got into circulation, and had passed current with some

persons who might have been expected to detect the fraud, therefore

there was no such thing as a legal currency of intrinsic value among

us; or if there were, still we did not know or care to inquire into

the genuineness of the coin which we accepted and passed."[49]

[49] See Kentish Bache's "Letters to Dr. Davidson," p. 22.

Our author says (p. 16): "'The Pastor of Hermas,' which was read in

the churches, and nearly secured a permanent place in the Canon, was

quoted as inspired by Irenæus."[50]

[50] "Adv. Hær." iv. 20, § 2; Euseb. "H. E." v. 8, and cf. iii. 3.

The word Irenæus uses is _Graphé_, which is sometimes translated, when

found in his works, _Scripture_, and at other times _writings_, as may

best suit the argument of a critic like Dr. Davidson, who does so

adapt the translation to suit his purpose.

Whatever erroneous notions might prevail as to apocryphal writings,

the discrimination of Serapion, in regard to the Gospel of Peter,

shows that such a work as the "Pastor of Hermas," in which, as

Mosheim says, the angels are made to "talk more insipidly than our

scavengers and porters," would not be put on a level with the books

whose internal evidence, as well as historical pretensions, placed

them in a much superior position. The contrast is too great for such

men as Irenæus and Tertullian, as well as Serapion, not to have

recognised the difference. The "gross forgeries" were too gross to be

at once accepted as genuine by the Fathers of the slight critical

faculty and the ready credulity of our author's argument.

Melito of Sardis, whose writings, it is generally agreed, belong to

A.D. 176, because the fragment extant has a phrase indicating that

Commodus had been admitted to share the Imperial Government with

Marcus Aurelius, is the next witness. He writes to Onesimus, "a

fellow-Christian who had urged him to make selections for him from the

Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and the faith generally,

and furthermore desired to learn the accurate account of the old

(Palaion) books." "Having gone to the East," Melito says, "and reached

the spot where each thing was preached and done, and having learned

accurately the books of the Old Testament, I have sent a list of

them." Dr. Westcott excites our author's ire because he says "that the

use of the word 'old' in this way implies that there must have been a

New Testament, and the form of language implies a familiar recognition

of its contents." This is "truly astonishing," says our author. I

remark, it is truly astonishing that any one should assert that the

use of the adjective "old" in this sentence does not plainly indicate

the existence of other books of a New Covenant or Testament. If the

Jewish Scriptures had been merely described as _old books_, we could

have understood the objection; but as the words occur, "_having

learned accurately the books of the Old Testament_," we must side with

Dr. Westcott, in spite of our author's astonishment.

Claudius Apollinaris, Eusebius says, was Bishop of Hierapolis, and

there is the fragment of a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch,

which supports the statement, and in which Apollinaris is referred to

as the "most blessed." The date of his writings, in consequence of an

allusion to the Thundering Legion of the army of Marcus Aurelius, may

be fixed at about A.D. 174. None of them are extant. We have only two

brief fragments, in which the controversy respecting the observance of

the Christian Passover is alluded to. The following passage is

important: "There are some, however, who through ignorance raise

contentions regarding these matters in a way which should be pardoned,

for ignorance must not be pursued with accusation, but requires

instruction. And they say that the Lord, together with His disciples,

ate the lamb on the great day of unleavened bread, and they state that

Matthew says precisely what they have understood; hence their

understanding of it is at variance with the law, and according to them

the Gospels seem to contradict each other." Tischendorf and Westcott

naturally adduce this passage in support of the position of the four

canonical Gospels. Our author demurs, arguing that "there is such

exceedingly slight reason for attributing these fragments to Claudius

Apollinaris, and so many strong grounds for believing that he cannot

have written them, that they have no material value as evidence for

the antiquity of the Gospels" (p. 191).

Athenagoras wrote an apology, entitled "The Embassy of Athenagoras the

Athenian, a Philosopher and a Christian, concerning Christians, to the

Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus,

Armeniaci Surmatici, and, above all, Philosophers;" and also a

"Treatise on the Resurrection of the Body." A passage from the former

occurs in the work of Methodius on the Resurrection, and is preserved

by Epiphanius and by Photius.

"For we have learnt not only not to render a blow, nor to go to law

with those who spoil and plunder us; but, to those who inflict a blow

on one side, also to present the other side of the head in return for

smiting; and to those who take away the coat, also to give besides the

cloke."[51]

[51] "Leg. pro Christ." § 1.

Of this our author says: "No echo of the words of Matthew has lingered

in the ear of the writer, for he employs utterly different phraseology

throughout; and _nothing can be more certain than the fact_ that there

is not a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance with our Synoptics"

(p. 194).

The value of our author's conclusions may be measured by what he here

asserts. It seems to me that the reverse may be asserted. (1) That

words in Matthew _did_ "linger in the ear of the writer;" (2) that he

_does not_ "employ utterly different phraseology throughout;" and (3)

that many things "_can_ be more certain than the fact that there is

not a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance with our Synoptics."

The next passage which is referred to is as follows:--"What, then, are

those precepts in which we are instructed? I say unto you, Love your

enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that persecute you;

that ye may be sons of your Father which is in the heavens, who maketh

his sun," &c.[52]

[52] "Leg. pro Christ." § 11. See Matt. v. 44, 45.

There is also the following:--"For if ye love, them which love you,

and lend to them which lend to you, what reward shall ye have?"[53]

[53] "Leg. pro. Christ." § 12. Comp. with Matt. v. 46.

Of this passage, our author says it is evident that it does not agree

with either of the Synoptics. "We have seen," says he, "the persistent

variation in the quotations from the Sermon on the Mount which occur

in Justin, and there is no part of the discourses of Jesus more

certain to have been preserved by living Christian tradition, or to

have been recorded in every form of Gospel. The differences in these

passages from our Synoptics present the same features as mark the

several versions of the same discourse in our First and Third Gospel,

and indicate a distinct source" (p. 195). I remark, every step our

author takes in this sort of criticism tends to the confirmation of

our Christian faith, which is not the Christianity of a creed or a

Church, but the belief in a Person. The more independent accounts of

His life and discourses which can be traced, the greater the proof of

His advent and mission. The Sermon on the Mount cannot be accounted

for apart from the superhuman. "Never man spake like this man." The

more it is quoted the more it is established as a sublime fact in

literature, which neither the Jewish race, nor the Augustan era, nor

indeed any other race or any other age, could have originated apart

from Divine intervention.

The Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, written from the Churches in those

towns to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, about the year A.D. 177,

giving an account of the terrible persecution which had broken out, is

in part preserved by Eusebius. It contains words similar to those used

in regard to Zacharias and Elisabeth, where they are said to have

"walked in all the commandments and ordinances of God, blameless." And

it has also the words, "And himself having the Spirit more abundantly

than Zacharias," which compares with Luke i. 67: "And his father

Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied." In

reference to these passages, our author's comment is as follows: "The

state of the case is, we find a coincidence, in a few words in

connection with Zacharias, between the Epistle and our Third Gospel;

but so far from the Gospel being in any way indicated as their source,

the words in question are, on the contrary, in association with a

reference to events unknown to our Gospels, but which were indubitably

chronicled elsewhere. It follows clearly, and few will venture to

doubt the fact, that the allusion in the Epistle is to a Gospel

different from ours, and not to our Third Synoptic at all" (p. 204).

The event unknown to our Gospels is the martyrdom of Zacharias, which

our Gospels make no mention of.

Ptolemæus and Heracleon, two Gnostic leaders, are next referred to. Of

the former, Epiphanius has preserved "The Epistle to Flora," addressed

to one of his disciples, which contains passages similar to sentences

found in Matthew xii. 25, xix. 8, 6, xv. 4-8, v. 38, 39.; but our

author objects that the Epistle "was in all probability written

towards the end of the second century, and therefore it does not come

within the scope of our inquiry;" and he goes into considerable detail

to justify this statement.

Celsus wrote a work entitled "True Doctrine," which is not extant,

and of which Origen wrote a refutation. Our author says "it refers to

incidents of Gospel history and quotes some sayings which have

parallels, with more or less of variation, in our Gospels;" but

"Celsus nowhere mentions the name of any Christian book, unless we

except the Book of Enoch, and he accuses Christians, not without

reason, of interpolating the Book of the Sibyl, whose authority he

states some of them acknowledged" (p. 236). He goes into the question

of the date, which he makes out to be probably not between A.D.

150-160, as Tischendorf suggests, but much later.

In the last fragment of early literature examined--the Canon of

Muratori--the Book of Luke is alluded to as "_the third Gospel_," and

our author says (p. 241) "the statement regarding the Third Gospel

_merely_ proves the existence of that Gospel at the time the fragment

was composed," and that "the inference" that there was a first and

second Gospel is a _mere_ conjecture. I remark that if the statement

does prove that Luke's Gospel existed at the time the fragment was

composed, we gratefully accept the acknowledgment; and as to the

adverbs "_mere_" and "_merely_," which qualify the noun "_conjecture_"

and verb "_proves_," when our author's third volume appears, if it

does not furnish more than "_mere conjecture_" that the first and

second preceded it, we will allow the adverbs properly applied, and

the logic perfect.

The sentences in which such words as _certainly_, _it is certain_, _it

is undeniable_, _there is no question_, _it is impossible to suppose_,

_it is obviously mere speculation_, &c., are used, where the reasoning

does not warrant them, are innumerable; and it is only after becoming

familiar with the special pleading which is characteristic of the work

throughout, that the unsophisticated reader escapes from the

bewilderment into which the evidences of Christianity seem to get

entangled. The author seems to have got the reader into a gloomy

cavern of criticism, and it is only after the eye has become

accustomed to the partial darkness that he can make out whether what

he is taken to see are real figures, images, or ghosts. When he has

got to the middle of the second volume, however, he begins to see the

light again, and breathe more freely. He sees a way right through the

cavern, and finds that the figures of this underground chamber of

horrors are all phantoms.

The "Examiner" justly says: "For our part we see no reason why the

Synoptic[54] Gospels may not have assumed their present form by the

end of the first century;[55] and we cannot think that our author's

German oracles have succeeded in establishing their dissimilarity from

the documents quoted by the Primitive Fathers. Justin Martyr's

references to the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, appear to us to

be actually derived from Matthew. If, however, as is contended, they

were taken from the lost "Gospel of the Hebrews," this merely proves

the substantial identity of the two. The question of Justin's

acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel is more difficult. We are

nevertheless disposed to resolve it in the affirmative."

[54] The word Synoptics, applied to Matthew, Mark, and Luke's Gospels,

indicates abridgment--the bringing of all parts under one view.--_See

Dr. Hyde Clark's Dictionary_.

[55] "Negative critics, as we have seen, have been compelled again to

raise the age of the Gospels, and to place them in the apostolic age,

between A.D. 50 and A.D. 100."--_Dr. Christlieb_, p. 541.

This is a sensible comment on our author's general argument.

CHAPTER V.

_THE FOURTH GOSPEL._

_"Every trace has vanished of the great nameless one."_

Baur.

_"The denial of the authenticity of John's Gospel is a source of far

greater difficulties than its acknowledgment."_

Ritschl.

_"The doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the fundamental

doctrine of Christianity. Without it Christianity, as a theological

and as a philosophical system, cannot rank above Rabbinism and

Mahommedanism."_

Bunsen.

CHAPTER V.

_THE FOURTH GOSPEL._

The evidence that to John the Apostle is to be ascribed the Fourth

Gospel, is worthy of the best attention we can bestow upon it. After

that apostle had been dead half a century, this book, as is

acknowledged by our author and all other critics, occupied a prominent

place among the manuscripts of the Christians, with the name of John,

as the author, attached; and the question now arises, after nearly

eighteen centuries of belief in its authorship and authority, is there

reasonable ground for doubting that it can be properly attributed to

the apostle who was the companion, disciple, and bosom friend of

Jesus? I think the question may be answered with confidence upon the

evidence within our reach.

In the first place, Irenæus believed it was the Gospel according to

John the Apostle; and who was Irenæus, that his belief in it should

be good evidence? He was not John's contemporary, but there was one

between John and Irenæus who was so intimate with both that the link

of evidence is fully to be relied upon, and that link is Polycarp.

Therefore, Irenæus, who was a hearer of Polycarp, can tell us

something about it. Now Polycarp was born in the time of Nero, so he

was for thirty-two years a contemporary of John's, and was his

disciple. And Irenæus says in a letter written to a person called

Florinus, and preserved by Eusebius: "When I was yet a youth, I saw

thee in Asia Minor, at Polycarp's house, where thou wert distinguished

at court, and obtained the regard of the bishop. I can more distinctly

recollect things which happened then than others more recent, for

events which happened in youth seem to grow with the mind, and to

become part of ourselves. So I can tell the place where the blessed

Polycarp used to sit and discourse, and his going out and coming in,

and the manner of his life, and his personal appearance, and his

discourses to the people, and how he related his intercourse _with

John_, and the rest who had seen the Lord; and how he rehearsed their

sayings, and what things there were which he had heard from them

about the Lord, and about His _miracles_, and about His doctrine; and

how Polycarp, having learned from the eye-witnesses of the Word of

Life, narrated all things agreeably with the Scriptures. And to these

things, by God's mercy bestowed on me at that time, I used diligently

to listen, writing the remembrance of them, not on paper, but in my

heart; and, by God's grace, I am always meditating affectionately upon

them."[56]

[56] "Hist. Eccl." v. 20.

Now we may be certain that Polycarp would be likely to know the truth

of the matter, and Irenæus declares that "_John, the disciple of the

Lord who leaned on the bosom of the Lord at supper_, wrote the

Apocalypse."[57] So we have here reliable evidence that John wrote

both the Apocalypse and the book whose author leaned on our Lord's

bosom at supper. Not only this from Polycarp. There is extant "The

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians," which Irenæus believed to be

genuine, and in it we find these words: "For whosoever doth not

confess Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is antichrist." I compare

this with the words in John's Epistle: "And every spirit that

confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God,

and this is that spirit of antichrist." Our author says it is not a

verbatim quotation. I say it is a quotation, if not verbatim. It is

acknowledged that the author of the First Epistle of John and the

Fourth Gospel is the same, the ideas and style being so much alike.

"The two writings," says Rénan, "present the most complete identity of

style, the same peculiarities, the same favourite expressions."

[57] Ibid. iv. 32.

It is impossible to doubt that Polycarp would have learned from John

himself whether he was the author of a Gospel; and if Irenæus had

never heard Polycarp allude to the Gospel as John's, he could not have

believed in it as he did, and have plainly stated that John wrote it

and the Apocalypse. There would have been in this case a justifiable

inference from "silence." If Polycarp in his teaching had never

alluded to John's Gospel, it would have been so strange that Irenæus

would have deemed it spurious altogether, and unworthy of the

estimation with which he regarded it; for it is one of the four

Gospels that he fancifully likens to the four corners of the earth,

the four principal winds, and the four wings of the Seraphim. It is to

be remembered that our author acknowledges Irenæus so regarded all

the four Gospels, for he alludes (p. 91) to "the arbitrary assumption

of exclusive originality and priority for the four Gospels" by

Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius. It is evident that this Fourth

Gospel could not have first appeared as late as A.D. 150, but must

have been in existence long before; and on the testimony of Irenæus,

through Polycarp, from John himself, its authenticity may be

considered established.

The evidence from the work of Hippolytus, entitled, "The Refutation of

all Heresies," that Basilides quoted from the Fourth Gospel, our

author dismisses in one paragraph (p. 371), having fully referred to

the testimony from that writer in treating of the Synoptics. There

are, however, two very distinct passages which cannot be objected to

as quotations, and the attempt to get rid of them by the substitution

of the plural pronoun "they" for the singular one "he," in the text of

Hippolytus, is an utter failure. The first is from John i. 9, "The

true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;" and

the words in "The Refutation," by Hippolytus, are, "And this, he says,

is that which has been stated in the Gospels, 'He was the true Light

which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.'" The other is,

"Mine hour is not yet come," agreeing with John ii. 4. The discovery

of the work, "The Refutation of all Heresies," in the year 1841, at

Mount Athos, by the erudite Minoides Mynas, a Greek, in the employ of

the French Government, was important as bearing on this question, for

it proves that the Fourth Gospel was in existence thirty years earlier

than the Tübingen criticism asserted. Our author's want of

appreciation of the evidence found in Hippolytus is one of the weakest

points in his book.

Is the Fourth Gospel quoted by Justin Martyr? Our author says, No! I

say, Yes! to the question. In his Dialogue with Tryphon (p. 316) occur

the words, "I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying," which

is evidently from that Gospel, for we know of no other which makes

John the Baptist say the same. He says "the evangelical work of which

Justin made use was obviously different from our Gospels, and the

evident conclusion to which any impartial mind must arrive is, that

there is not only not the slightest ground for affirming that Justin

quoted the passage (as above) from the Fourth Gospel, from which he so

fundamentally differs, but every reason on the contrary to believe

that he derived it from a particular Gospel, in all probability the

Gospel according to the Hebrews" (p. 302). I remark, that the words,

"I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying," could not be

quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews if that supposed

independent book did not contain them, and there is no evidence that

it did. On the contrary, our Gospel of Matthew, compiled, as we

suppose, partly from it, would have in that case had the words; and as

it has not, and as only John's Gospel has them, the inference is clear

that Justin had seen the latter, as well as the other Gospel or

Gospels from which the earlier part of the sentence is taken. The

whole of Justin's sentence is as follows: "For John sat by the Jordan

and preached the baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle

and raiment of camel's hair, and eating nothing but locusts and wild

honey." Men supposed him to be the Christ, wherefore he cries to them,

"_I am not Christ_, but the voice of one crying (or preaching). For he

cometh who is greater than I, whose shoes I am not meet to bear."

We find in the second "Apology" (p. 94) these words: "Christ said,

'Except ye be born again ye may not enter into the kingdom of

heaven;" and in the very same line is continued the reference to the

conversation with Nicodemus, in these words: "But that it is

impossible for those who have been once born to enter into their

mother's womb, is plain to all." I scarce need remind you how the

statement of Christ and the question of Nicodemus are as close

together in the Fourth Gospel. The passage there is, "Except a man be

born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto

him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second

time into his mother's womb and be born?" The two sentences, coming

together in both, leaves no doubt that Justin used the Fourth Gospel,

for there is nothing like them in any of the other Gospels.

It is something to have from Justin Martyr the evidence that Jesus

taught Nicodemus that a man cannot see the kingdom of God without

being born of the Holy Ghost. If Justin quoted from an earlier Gospel,

it is against our author's non-superhuman theory; and if from our

Gospels, it is equally so. But, supposing that he could prove that

Justin did not quote, that would _not_ prove that the books were not

in existence. Paul's Epistles, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1

Corinthians, and Romans, all written not later than the year 58, are

they quoted, as we might suppose they would be, by Justin? We know

nothing as to the extent of his library. He might have had copies of

all these Gospels and Epistles, or none at hand to quote verbatim

from. Was there a concordance, to help a writer to be exact, after the

modern demand?

The internal evidence of the Fourth Gospel is, perhaps, not so

appreciable by our author as the external, on account of his foregone

conclusion that the superhuman is incredible. But as "there is no

feasible explanation of the Divine origin of Christianity without

acknowledging the Divine mission of Jesus," so is there no possible

explanation of the Fourth Gospel without a recognition of the

evangelical doctrine of the triune in the Divine Nature--the threefold

manifestation of the one God. Exclude from the Fourth Gospel the idea

of the Holy Spirit having inspired John to write it, and there

naturally follows the attempt to exclude the book from its historical

and authoritative position. It has a perfectly harmonious place in the

superhuman means by which spiritual truth is exhibited and enforced

for the benefit of mankind, but that place is an advanced one. It was

the last of inspired utterances, and it presupposes the development

that it supplements, and which it designs to promote. The Holy Spirit,

"the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus,

that Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting

covenant," to make us "perfect in every good work to do His will,"

must be recognised and duly honoured if the Bible is to be understood

and Christianity successfully exhibited and defended. Let us turn to

the book. It opens with allusions to the dignity of Christ the Messiah

which no philosophy known in Alexandria had a conception of. Philo and

his Platonic school discoursed of the Logos; but their doctrine is

distinct from that of this Gospel. Justin takes up their idea, as our

author shows (p. 278), and draws a distinction between the Logos and

Jesus, describing Jesus Christ as being made flesh by the power of the

Logos; for Justin says,--"Through the power of the Word, according to

the will of God the Father and Lord of all, he was born a man of a

virgin."[58] Philo says,[59]--"The Logos of God is above all things in

the word, and is the most ancient and most universal of all things

_created_." I do not deny that Justin got ideas of the Logos from the

Old Testament and from the writings of Philo, as shown by our author,

but I submit that he confused their doctrine with the more developed

truth of the New Testament. "It is certain," he says (p. 291), "that

both Justin and Philo, unlike the prelude to the Fourth Gospel, place

the Logos in a secondary position to God the Father, indicating a less

advanced stage in the doctrine. 'He calls the Word constantly the

first-born of all _created_ beings'" (p. 292). Our author says,--"We

do not propose in this work to enter fully into the history of the

Logos doctrine" (p. 280). Had he done so, he could not have shown that

the doctrine reached to the height of the apostolic conception. There

is no allusion to the Divinity of the Logos, as John and Paul assert;

and no reference to the unquestionable statement of Scripture that, in

the Word made flesh, we have a revelation of the mysterious triune

nature of Jehovah. A vague notion of it is found in many idolatrous

systems of religious worship, and its prevalence is an indication of

the truth which tradition, from primitive revelation, has handed

down; but the mystery, as Paul says, was hidden for ages and

generations, and was not made manifest until, in the fulness of time,

the scheme of Redemption was fully unfolded. The gospel is called by

Paul "the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the

world began, but now is made manifest by a clear interpretation of the

scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the

everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of

faith."[60] To concentrate the doctrine in the Fourth Gospel and

Paul's later epistles, and then repudiate the writings, is a mode of

sustaining the denial of it which is far from being successful. This

doctrine is evidently one of the essential elements of Christian

truth. As the bread which sustains our bodily life, so the bread of

the life of the soul, may be decomposed, but none of the elements must

be left out of it if it is to be of use. In the Old Testament we find

many passages which show the plurality in the Divine nature. The

doctrine, it is true, was not so revealed as to be conspicuous at the

time, for if it had been, it would have been misunderstood, and thus

tended to interfere with the schooling which the Jews were undergoing

to cure them of their proneness to idolatry; but with the New

Testament in our hand we see what, without it, would be still hidden

in obscurity. As we read the Fourth Gospel in the light of this

doctrine, how it harmonises with the "plan of salvation" which

believers in all evangelical Churches call Christianity! The book

professes to be written that men, believing in Jesus Christ, may have

eternal life; records the testimony of John the Baptist that Jesus was

the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (i. 29); and

announces the important dogma that the supernatural influence of the

Holy Spirit is indispensable to overcome the unwillingness of the soul

of man to receive the truths of the Divine revelation. "No man can

come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (vi. 44).

"Except a man be born of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of

God." It testifies to the Divine nature of Jesus in the most explicit

manner. "Therefore the Jews sought to kill him," because he said "God

was his Father, making himself equal with God" (v. 18). "That all men

should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father" (v. 23). "If ye

had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (viii. 19).

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (viii. 58).

"It is he (the Son of God) that talketh with thee. And he (the man who

had been blind) said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him" (ix.

38). "I and my Father are one" (x. 30). "For blasphemy" (we stone

thee), "and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (x. 36).

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that

believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever

liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (xi.

25, 26). "Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is

glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify

him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him" (xiii. 32). "He

that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (xiv. 9).

[58] "Apol." i. 46.

[59] "Leg." iii. § 61.

[60] Rom. xvi. 25, 26.

The doctrine of what we call (not having a better word) the

personality of the Holy Spirit is clearly indicated in such passages

as the following:--"I will pray the Father, and he shall give you

another Comforter, that _he_ may abide with you for ever; even the

Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth _him_

not, neither knoweth _him_: but ye know _him_; for _he_ dwelleth with

you" (xiv. 17). "But the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father

will send in my name, _he_ shall teach you all things, and bring all

things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (xiv.

26). "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away,

the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send

_him_ unto you. And when _he_ is come, _he_ will reprove the world of

sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" (xvi. 7). "When _he_, the

Spirit of truth, is come, _he_ will guide you into all truth: for _he_

shall not speak of _himself_; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall

_he_ speak: and _he_ will show you things to come" (xvi. 13). The

seventeenth chapter I will not refer to in part, but specify entire,

begging the reader to meditate on its marvellous comprehensiveness and

expressiveness.

Much of the teaching of Jesus would be so far above the comprehension

of the disciples when they heard it, that it would not be likely to be

impressed on their memory. The Holy Spirit was to be sent, to bring

all things to their remembrance; and it is only by this promise being

fulfilled that we can understand the inspired words of the Fourth

Gospel.

Could Jesus have said what He is described in this book to have said,

if God had not been with Him as He never was with any other man? If

such a question be pertinent, how utterly needless the further

question, Could the book have been written by the _nameless unknown

some one_ whom the hypothesis of its non-Johannine origin substitutes

as the author?

Whatever difference there is between the composition of the Fourth

Gospel and the Apocalyse, there is, at all events, a striking analogy

between the opening verses of the former and those in the latter,

where the faithful and true witness is referred to as "the beginning

of the creation of God,"[61] and as being set down with His Father

upon His throne. In the preface to each of the addresses to the seven

Churches Christ assumes the attributes and prerogatives of the Deity.

The prominence given to the mysterious doctrine of the Divinity of

Christ is as great in the one as the other.

[61] Rev. iii. 14.

It is somewhat singular that from Rénan, who so utterly rejects the

miraculous, we should have such a decided opinion that it is

appropriately entitled the Gospel according to John. After saying, "I

dare not be sure that the Fourth Gospel has been entirely written by

a Galilean fisherman," he writes in his introduction to the "Life of

Jesus": "No one doubts that towards the year 150, the Fourth Gospel

did exist, and was attributed to John. Explicit texts from Justin,

Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenæus, show that

from thenceforth this Gospel mixed in every controversy, and served as

corner-stone for the development of the faith. Irenæus is explicit.

Now he came from the school of John, and between him and the apostle

there was only Polycarp. The part played by this Gospel in Gnosticism,

and especially in the system of Valentinus, in Montanism, and in the

quarrel of the Quartodecimans, is not less decisive. The school of

John was the most influential in the second century, and it is only by

regarding the origin of the Gospel as coincident with the rise of the

school, that the existence of the latter can be understood at all."

"The First Epistle, attributed to John, is certainly by the same

author as the Fourth Gospel. Now this Epistle is recognised as from

John by Polycarp, Papias, and Irenæus. But it is, above all, the

perusal of the Fourth Gospel itself which is calculated to give the

impression that John must have written it. The author always speaks

as an eye-witness. He wishes to pass for the Apostle John. If, then,

this work is not really by the apostle, we must admit a fraud of which

the author convicts himself. Now, although the ideas of the time

respecting literary honesty differed essentially from ours, there is

no example in the apostolic world of a falsehood of this kind.

Besides, not only does the author wish to pass for the apostle, but we

see clearly that he writes in the interest of this apostle."

As to the difference in language and style between it and the

Apocalypse, it is not altogether unusual for an author to produce

works which differ greatly from each other. An instance is mentioned

by the Rev. Kentish Bache, in his letter to Dr. Davidson. "William

Penn, within one and the same year (1668) wrote two different works,

entitled 'The Sandy Foundation Shaken,' and 'Innocency with her Open

Face.' The former pamphlet is circulated by the Unitarians as a tract

demolishing the doctrine of the Trinity, while the latter is an

earnest defence of that very doctrine; and yet Penn protests that his

belief had undergone no change" (p. 35).

One of the difficulties in the way of the reception of the Fourth

Gospel is the raising of Lazarus from the dead, which the Synoptics do

not record. A probable explanation is suggested by Grotius, who says,

as Lazarus was living when the Synoptics were written, and as "the

chief priests consulted that they might put him to death, because that

by reason of him many of the Jews went away and believed on

Jesus,"[62] the publication of the miracle would have exposed Lazarus

to more intense hostility, and endangered his life.

[62] John xii. 10.

Our author makes the strange assertion that "the Fourth Gospel, by

whomsoever written--even if it could be traced to the Apostle

John--has no real historical value, being at best the glorified

recollections of an old man, written down half a century after the

events recorded" (p. 467). This bold assertion ignores the fact that

the impressions of early life are, as a rule, indelibly fixed on the

memory. Of no historical value, though written by John! Our author

knows perfectly well that such an event as the raising of Lazarus from

the dead could never fade from the memory of those who witnessed it.

Does he overlook, or suppress, the consideration that John's

recollection would be daily refreshed by the teaching of the

principles of a gospel which consisted of these events and discourses?

We can as well conceive of the Duke of Wellington having forgotten,

when he was eighty years old, the campaigns of the Peninsula and the

battle of Waterloo, as John forgetting the memorable transactions in

the life of his Master with which he was so closely identified.

Besides, we do not know that the materials for John's book had not

long before been noted down. It is not probable that he who wrote the

Apocalypse in the year 68 would put nothing into writing of the

memoirs until close upon the time when the book was published. Such is

not the mode of authorship now, and was not then. Supposing the

apostle to have died, leaving behind him unarranged materials,

including notes and memoranda made at various times, and that these

were, with fidelity, but with more scholarship than John possessed,

transcribed, edited, and made a book of, entitled "The Gospel

according to John," we have an explanation of the linguistic

difficulty which does not overstep the limits of reasonable

probability.

Well may Dr. Davidson acknowledge "it is not easy to account for the

early belief of its Johannine origin;" and that "if a disciple of

John wrote it, he had learned more than his master." It _would_ have

been "strange if such an author had continued unknown." If we reject

the Johannine origin, we have to believe that during the fifty years

between John's death and the time of the book's _general acceptance as

his_ there lived some one capable of writing it, of whom history and

tradition are silent. This is certainly a large matter for sceptical

credulity to swallow. How much easier to believe that the refinement

and beauty of composition, whose charm has captivated the world, is

the work of a Grecian disciple, who wrote under the superintendence,

if not dictation, of the apostle who only could have furnished the

materials at the time when it was written. At the close of the first

century all the other apostles were dead, and for its authorship we

cannot look beyond the circle which surrounded Jesus at the

instituting of that ever-abiding memorial of Him, "The Lord's Supper."

Among the anomalies of our author's hypothesis we have to think of the

apostles living in the first century, and attaining their reputation

as writers during the second. In the first century men appear, but

without their writings. In the second century the writings come to

light, but without the men. How unnatural, says Dr. Christlieb, is

this! Who can fail to see that the hypothesis is incredible?

"We invariably find that an age which is fertile in literary

productions is followed by a conservative period, in which the

productions of the foregoing period are collected and digested--first

the classical, then the post-classical. Does the second century, in

other respects, bear the impress of a productive classical period in

literature? On the contrary, its undoubted products breathe a spirit

which bears the same relation to the New Testament writings as does

the tenour of a post-classical age bear to that of the age preceding

it. Did these writings, especially the Fourth Gospel, belong to

'unknown' authors, they would be perfectly inexplicable phenomena as

compared with all the other products of that period. It has been well

said that it were no less absurd to ascribe the most inspiriting

writings of Luther to the spiritless period of the Thirty Years' War,

than to transfer the Gospel of John to the middle of the second

century."[63]

[63] Dr. Christlieb, p. 541.

"Notwithstanding their warm Christian life, the writings of the second

century evince such a remarkable dearth of new ideas that one plainly

sees how, after the spiritual flood-tides of the first century, the

ebb had set in."[64]

[64] Dr. Christlieb, p. 541.

"Compare, for instance, the clear and sober-minded spirit of the New

Testament epistles, or the quiet sublimity of the Gospel of John, with

the epistles of Ignatius, the enthusiasm of which degenerates into a

well-nigh fanatic desire for martyrdom; or with the Pastor of Hermas,

and the value ascribed by him to ascetic rigour; or with the epistles

by Clement of Rome, which tell the fable of the phœnix as a fact; or,

again, with the Epistle of Barnabas, which delights in insipid

allegories, and gives the most absurd typical interpretations of the

Old Testament, justifying Neander's remark, that here we encounter

quite another spirit than that of an apostolic man."[65]

[65] Ibid. p. 541.

Our author produces such a mass of evidence from the early writers,

confirmatory of the truths of the Gospel, that his criticism tends to

opposite conclusions. Supposing he can prove that the canon of

Scripture is not _un_assailable, he has not accomplished much. It is

of more value to have confirmation of the facts and principles of

Divine truth, than to be assured that the authorship, construction,

compilation, or arrangement of the Scriptures, are just what the

Church of Rome authoritatively pronounced. Because we cannot

positively settle certain questions of little comparative importance,

are we to surrender our faith in essentials? Are we to let the

conjectures and queries of German cavillers, with their "Yea, hath God

said," destroy our cherished faith and hope? God forbid! It is not the

preservation or infallibility of the apostolic writings which makes

His incarnation, death, and resurrection, facts in the history of our

race. The facts make the history, not the history the facts. Europe

was saved from Oriental despotism by Leonidas at Thermopylæ, and the

valour and patriotism of the Greeks; by Charles Martel in the eighth

century; and again by Prince Eugene in the seventeenth century; but it

is not because history has truly or imperfectly recorded these facts

that we enjoy to this day the great benefits resulting to civilisation

from their heroism.

The truth of Christianity does not, at all events, rest on the

_quotations of the early Fathers_, and our author would have

accomplished but little had he proved that there were none found. In

the first ages of the Church, when the events were fresh, the voice

of the preacher was the channel which conveyed the saving gospel to

the souls of men, and there was not the same necessity for reference

to the written records as in after times. When a century had elapsed

after the death of Christ, then the records of the first disciples

became of importance. They then came into prominence, and were

abundantly quoted, as our author acknowledges. As time went on that

importance increased, and about three hundred years after the events

the Emperor Constantine ordered Eusebius to have fifty copies of the

Holy Scriptures fairly inscribed on parchment, the use whereof he

tells Eusebius he "knew to be absolutely necessary to the Church."

Eusebius gives us the emperor's entire letter. They were not so

absolutely necessary when most of the Fathers wrote whom our author

has referred to. _I_ do not want any written record to prove to me

that the Spaniards in the Peninsular War, seventy years ago, poisoned

the bread of the British troops. I lived in my youth with an old

Christian soldier and his wife who were in the campaign, and used to

amuse me with their experience of such facts, as we sat round the fire

on a winter's evening. Nor of the American War of Independence do the

people of the present generation depend entirely on writings or books

for the proof that it took place. Two lives reach from date to date,

and no evidence can be stronger than such.

Until we have better reason than our author has adduced for altering

our estimate of these sacred writings, so often assailed, but

maintaining serenely, century after century, their high pretensions as

a message from heaven to culture our moral and spiritual nature, and

guide us thither, we should be foolish, oh, how foolish! to question

their authority or neglect their guidance. Because we cannot be sure

that the Bible is in every detail the perfect transcript of Divine

revelation, we are to abandon the only solace that humanity possesses,

the only theory which accounts for the wickedness which, without its

teaching, is such an anomaly to all else in creation, the only bond

which binds society in brotherhood, and makes social existence capable

of including happiness here, or the hope of life hereafter. Better a

misunderstood revelation than none at all. Better a glimpse of

immortality, than the negation which is utter darkness, and makes the

issue of existence only death.

CHAPTER VI.

_CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE._

_"Hoist with his own petard."_

CHAPTER VI.

_CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE._

We now come to the question of contemporary evidence. Our author says

the testimony of the New Testament in favour of the miraculous is

inadequate because it is not contemporary. I have to endeavour to show

that he has himself proved it to be contemporary.

The "Spectator" describes him as virtually saying: It is as if you

tried to prove some unheard-of facts of the civil war in the time of

Charles I. by testimony not to be traced higher than the reign of

George III. I say we trace the testimony to one of Cromwell's own

officers, and our author's own criticism shall be shown to prove it.

I take one piece of evidence of his own which he has elaborately

presented. I compare it with proofs of the same kind from other

sources. I refer to the authorities specified, and I accept it and

endorse it. But I make a different use of it. He uses it to prove that

because John, the apostle, wrote the Apocalypse, he cannot have

written the Fourth Gospel. I use it to prove that because John wrote

the Apocalypse _the facts of the Gospel are by contemporary testimony

substantiated_; and I contend that this evidence--clear, direct, and

irrefragable--neutralises his main argument and the object of his

book, which is to invalidate supernatural religion and the reality of

Divine revelation.

He says (on page 392 of his second volume): "The external evidence

that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse is more ancient than that

for the authorship of any other book of the New Testament, excepting

some of the epistles of Paul. Justin Martyr affirms in the clearest

and most positive manner the apostolic origin of the work. He speaks

to Tryphon of a certain man whose name was John, one of the apostles

of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation made to him, of the

Millennium and subsequent general resurrection. The genuineness of

this testimony is not called in question by any one."

"As another most important point we may mention that there is probably

not another work of the New Testament the precise date of the

composition of which, within a very few weeks, can be so positively

affirmed. No result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis, and

is now more universally accepted by all competent critics than the

fact that the Apocalypse was written A.D. 68, 69. The writer

distinctly and repeatedly mentions his name. 'The revelation of Jesus

Christ ... unto his servant John. John to the seven Churches which are

in Asia;' and he states that the work was written in the island of

Patmos, where he was 'on account of the word of God and the testimony

of Jesus'" (p. 395).

"It is clear that the writer counted fully upon being generally known

under the simple designation of John; and when we consider the

unmistakable terms of authority with which he addresses the seven

Churches, it is scarcely possible to deny that the writer either was

the apostle, or, distinctly desired to assume his personality" (p.

397).

"The whole description (of the New Jerusalem) is a mere allegory of

the strongest Jewish dogmatic character, and it is of singular value

for the purpose of identifying the author" (p. 399).

"There is no internal evidence whatever against the supposition that

the 'John' who announces himself as the author of the Apocalypse was

the apostle. On the contrary, the tone of authority adopted

throughout, and evident certainty that his identity would everywhere

be recognised, denote a position in the Church which no other person

of the name of John could possibly have held at the time when the

Apocalypse was written. The external evidence, therefore, which

indicates that Apostle John as the author is quite in harmony with the

internal testimony of the book itself" (p. 402).

I have quoted sufficient to show that our author, whose object is to

discredit the Fourth Gospel, elaborately and successfully proves that

John the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse.

There is other testimony to prove this, easily got at, besides what

our author supplies.

Sir Isaac Newton long ago fixed upon the year 68 as the date.

Dr. Davidson says: "We should despair of proving the authenticity of

any New Testament book by the help of ancient witnesses, if that of

the Apocalypse be rejected."

In the present quarter's "Edinburgh Review" (October 1874) there is a

remarkable confirmation of the importance I am attaching to the

Apocalypse as a book written by the Apostle John during the nine

months' reign of the Emperor Galba, that is, between May 1, 68, and

January 15, 69. The writer of the article, which is a review of

Rénan's "Antichrist," says: "The arguments which support the

assignment of A.D. 68 as the date of its composition are absolutely

irresistible." And he adds: "Here we have a book the date of which is

positively ascertained, and the writer almost certainly known, while

its contents are of a prophetic character, and lay claim (in a marked

manner) to inspiration, yet are so peculiarly historical in their

character, and deal with a period of history so perfectly well known

down to its minutest details, that it can be checked and verified at

every turn. Might we not almost say that we have here (as in the Book

of Daniel) a _gauge_ by which to measure inspiration, a _sample_ by

which to understand prophecy, a _key_ for a full comprehension of what

Holy Scripture is and means?"

The Apocalypse is, as our author describes it, an ecstatic and

dogmatic allegory. What it is besides, which the believer in Divine

inspiration would include in the definition, is out of the range of

such a critic's comprehension, and he would not be likely to attach

much importance to the words, "Write the things which thou hast seen,

and the things which are, and the _things which shall be hereafter_."

But he seems to have overlooked how much essential evangelical

doctrine it expresses, and how much it is imbued with its spirit; that

it testifies to the resurrection of Christ and the atonement. Although

it _is_ an allegory, its author could no more have written it, if he

had known nothing of those doctrines, than Bunyan could have written

"The Pilgrim's Progress," or Milton "Paradise Lost" and "Regained." By

proving John to be the author of this "highly dogmatic treatise," as

he calls the Apocalypse, he takes us to the essence of the dogmas.

They must have either been in existence before John wrote it, or he

invented them, for they are certainly there.

He seems unconsciously to have furnished the very contemporary

evidence which such critics as himself pretend _not_ to have found,

and profess they require, before they can accept the miracles and

evangelical doctrines of the gospel.

He allows that Matthew was an _eye-witness_, but denies that he wrote

of _miracles_. He allows that Paul wrote of _miracles_, but he was

_not_ an _eye-witness_.

Now John both saw them and wrote of them, for he was the son of

Zebedee, and he wrote the Apocalypse. This being proved, we have in

it, from him, as an eye-witness of the miracles of Jesus, evidence

which confirms the Gospels. The vision is from Him "_who liveth and

was dead; the first begotten of the dead, who cometh with clouds_,"

and to one who was "_in the spirit on the Lord's day_."

It as evidently presupposes the miraculous facts of the Gospels, and

is supplementary to them, as certainly as it presupposes the

prophecies of the Old Testament, and supplements the predictions of

Daniel.

The allegory of "a Lamb as it had been slain," which is prominent in

the vision, is unmistakable. No critic could be so perverse as to deny

that this plainly indicates that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and

that His death is referred to as a sacrifice for sin in fulfilment of

the ancient types and sacrificial rites; nor can it be doubted that

the same is in harmony with the gospel which Paul preached and wrote

about in his absolutely unquestionable epistles, to which alone we

refer, avoiding, for obvious reasons, allusion to the Acts of the

Apostles, as our author seems to ignore that book altogether.

Let us turn to the sublime words of this Apocalypse, proved to have

been written by John the Apostle, and as we read, imagine, if we can,

that the author himself, and the Christians of the seven Churches of

Asia and elsewhere, knew nothing of the miraculous facts of the

Gospels and the doctrine of the atonement with which they are

inseparably connected; and imagine, if we can, that they were both

added, according to our author's hypothesis, to the original and lost

Gospels a century later. It is entitled "The Revelation of Jesus

Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things

which must _shortly come to pass_."

Among such things--"shortly to come to pass"--affecting the Church, we

cannot be wrong in understanding the attack upon Jerusalem by the

Romans to be included. If so, the saying of the angel--"Rise and

measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship

therein," implies that Jerusalem was still standing when the book was

written. Also, among the things shortly to come to pass, must be

understood the impending judgments on Rome (the mystical Babylon) for

the terrible and bloody persecution which had lately happened; for

Rome is evidently referred to in the seventeenth chapter, where we

read: "Upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the

great; and I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and of

the martyrs of Jesus." We are left in no uncertainty as to the

interpretation of this chapter, for it is given us in the last verse,

where we are told--"And the woman which thou sawest is that great city

which reigneth over the kings of the earth." "The seven heads are

seven mountains on which the woman sitteth. _And there are seven

kings, five are fallen, and one is, and the other is_ not yet come."

It is all but certain that the kings referred to are--1 Augustus, 2

Tiberius, 3 Caligula, 4 Claudius, 5 Nero, and the 6th, "_which now

is_," Galba, who reigned nine months, from 1st May, 68, till 15th

January, 69; the 7th, to come next, being Otho, who, when he cometh,

must continue a short space. It was but "a short space," for on the

20th of April in the same year Vespasian ascended the throne. The

beast which was to appear next is undoubtedly Nero; for though he was

dead, Tacitus tells us there was a wide-spread rumour, which created

great alarm, that the report of his having committed suicide, when the

senate had denounced him, was false. He is said to have been

personified by a slave, who took up his abode in an island not far

from Patmos. When we think of the Roman coins of that date having on

them the words "Nero Cæsar," the Hebrew letters for which are

identical with the "six hundred threescore and six," the number of the

beast, which "he that hath understanding is to count," we cannot avoid

the conclusion that Nero, under the symbol of a beast, is referred to.

If this be the correct interpretation, there is no uncertainty about

the date and authorship of the book.

The preface or title closes with the words, "Blessed is he that

readeth, and they that hear, the words of this prophecy, and keep

those things which are written therein; for _the time is at hand_."

And then the book opens with an apostolic salutation to the Churches,

and a fervent ascription of praise to Jehovah, and to the risen and

exalted Messiah and Redeemer.

"John to the seven Churches which are in Asia (Churches planted by

Paul years before): Grace unto you, and peace, from him which is, and

which was, and which is to come; and from Jesus Christ, the faithful

witness, the first begotten from the dead, and the prince of the kings

of the earth. Unto him who loved us, and washed us from our sins in

his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his

Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever."

"I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and

in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is

called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus

Christ." "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." (To be "in the

spirit on the Lord's day" is in harmony with evangelical Christianity,

and quite meaningless apart from it. The first day of the week is,

undoubtedly, called the Lord's day, because on that day He rose from

the dead; and bread has been broken and wine drunk on that day, in

obedience to His commands, and in remembrance of His death, ever since

the day of Pentecost.)

"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for

evermore, and have the keys of hades and of death."

"The Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to

open the book, and to loose the seals thereof."

"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne ... a Lamb as it

had been slain; and they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to

take the book, and open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and

hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue,

and people, and nation."

"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches," &c.

"Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth

upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever."

"These are they that came out of great tribulation, and washed their

robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

"And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under

the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard

I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that

sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever."

There is nothing in the Fourth Gospel, nor in any other part of

Scripture, that more emphatically proclaims the Godhead of Jesus

Christ than this worship of Him by the whole host of heaven. The

whole creation, as twice described in the second commandment, fall

down and worship Him. It is identical with the language Paul uses in

his letter to the Philippians: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted

him, and given him a name that is above every name, that in the name

of Jesus _every knee should bow_, of things in heaven, and things in

earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue should confess

that Jesus Christ _is Lord_, to the glory of God the Father."

This sort of language pervades the whole book. The allegory of a Lamb

slain to wash away sin by the shedding of His blood occurs a score

times.

It is not possible to read it and believe what our author insinuates.

He wants some proof that the four Gospels are not religious romances

written long after the events occurred which they record. I point out

that the author has the proof in his own argument that John wrote the

Apocalypse, and that the evidence therein given to the miracles is not

affected by any uncertainty whether the Gospels were produced by

eye-witnesses, or constructed on second-hand evidence, by such

disciples as Mark and Luke.

No criticism ever questions that Paul preached a miraculous gospel,

or ever doubts the genuineness of certain of his epistles in which the

doctrines are fully stated.

There are, at least, four which have never been questioned--viz., the

First of Thessalonians, written about the year 50; the Epistle to the

Galatians, A.D. 52; the First of Corinthians, A.D. 57; and the one to

the Romans, A.D. 58; and in all those letters the miracles and

doctrines are referred to which, years before, when he first went

forth to preach, were the themes of his ministry. His insight into

spiritual matters increased as he grew older, as his later writings

indicate; but from first to last it was the same gospel.

He writes to the Corinthians in the year 57, to remind them of the

gospel he had preached unto them. He says, "I delivered unto you first

of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins,

according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose

again the third day, according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen

of Peter, then of the twelve; after that he was seen of five hundred

brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present,

but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of me also, as of

one born out of due time." Now as Paul's written version of the

gospel at this time was in the main identical with John's, we get from

the evidence that John wrote the Apocalypse a very definite

conclusion.

It has been absurdly suggested by John Stuart Mill, and others,[66]

that Paul originated the dogmatic doctrines of Christianity. Now we

know that Paul, in the early years of his ministry, communicated with

James, Peter, and John, at Jerusalem, respecting that gospel which he

was preaching among the Gentiles; for he writes to that effect in his

unquestioned epistle to the Galatians, and tells them that when "those

three apostles, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was

given to him, they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of

fellowship." Would John and Peter and James have done this if the

miraculous gospel Paul told them he was preaching was inconsistent

with their own knowledge of the circumstances and events in Christ's

life of which they were all eye-witnesses?

[66] "Nothing can be more false than the fashionable notion of our day

that Paul was the author of Christianity. The true founder of

Christianity was Jesus."--_Rénan_ ("The Apostles," p. 3).

We have John writing a book before the destruction of Jerusalem, and

Paul an epistle before the reign of Nero, and they both bear testimony

to the fact that Jesus was the Messiah of Jewish prophecy, who

descended into our world to be its Saviour and Redeemer by the

sacrifice of His life on the cross--His miraculous resurrection from

the dead being the attestation of His atoning work, while His promise

to come again to earth in like manner as He was seen to go away, they

both relied upon with implicit confidence.

As early as the year 52 Paul writes from Corinth to the Thessalonians,

reminding them "how they turned from idols to serve the living and

true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom He raised from the

dead, even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come;"[67] and he

charges them by the Lord that this epistle be read in all the Churches

in Macedonia.[68] Its genuineness has never been questioned.

[67] 1 Thess. i. 9.

[68] Ibid. i. 27.

Thus it is quite certain that Paul, at the commencement and throughout

his ministry, preached the dogmatic doctrines of the Divinity of

Christ, the resurrection, the atonement, the depravity of human

nature, justification by faith, and the work of the Holy Spirit in

renewing and sanctifying the souls of men, which constituted the

Christianity of the first three centuries, and undoubtedly

emanated--not from the depths of Paul's moral consciousness, but from

the events, Divine utterances, and superhuman circumstances which were

the theme of the earliest Christian records.[69] The Apocalypse is

absolute proof as to how they originated, and that they were prevalent

when it was written.

[69] Paul tells the Thessalonians he is thankful that they received

what he preached as the word of God, not as the word of men.

This, I contend, is sound argument, and neutralises that of our

author. Other objections of cavillers have their appropriate answers.

They may say that the eye-witnesses might honestly believe and teach,

but were deceived. No one would, I think, say they were dishonest, and

invented the miracles. It may be said that a single eye-witness such

as John is insufficient. But if a jury has _one_ such, and all the

circumstantial evidence in the case supports his testimony, the

verdict is easily arrived at. A tree that is grafted usually yields

fruit after the process, not before; but we have here this tree of

Christianity proved to be fully developed in the year 68, and its

fruit described, and we are asked to believe that it was grafted to

bear its evangelical dogmas a century afterwards! The fact is that the

same apostle, who describes its fruit in the year 68, was present

when it was planted, and we know from his evidence that the tree

needed no grafting to produce such fruit.

This evidence, from a hostile critic of such ability and scholarship,

to the authenticity and authorship of the book of Revelation, is

surely of considerable value. As Professor Owen could, from a single

bone of a fossil animal, show what the whole was of which the bone

formed a part, so might be used this evidence that John wrote the

Apocalypse.

The Christian apologist may show our author his own argument, and

pointing out the word _Apocalypse_, exclaim, "I thank thee, Jew, for

teaching me that word!" _Thou art hoist with thine own petard!_

CHAPTER VII.

_CONCLUSION._

_"The final and surest proof of the actuality and Divine origin of

revelation is its manifestation in individuals, as a healing,

sin-constraining power, diffusing everywhere light and life."_

Christlieb.

_"The most important controversies are those which a man finds in his

own heart."_

J. A. Bengel.

_"The Key to Scripture is the Person and Office of Messiah."_

CHAPTER VII.

_CONCLUSION._

At the close of his work our author attempts to console his readers

for having demolished their evangelical belief in the following

eloquent language:--

"In surrendering its miraculous element and its claims to supernatural

origin, therefore, _the religion of Jesus_ does not lose its virtue,

or the qualities which have made it a blessing to humanity. It

sacrifices none of that elevated character which has distinguished and

raised it above all human systems; it merely relinquishes a claim

which it has shared with all antecedent religions, and severs its

connection with ignorant superstition. It is too divine in its

morality to require the aid of miraculous attributes. No supernatural

halo can heighten its spiritual beauty, and no mysticism deepen its

holiness. In its perfect simplicity it is sublime, and in its

profound wisdom it is eternal" (p. 489).

This may be eloquently expressed, but it will not bear analysis. If

"the religion of Jesus" has an "_elevated character_," which has

"_distinguished and raised it above all human systems_," it must have

a superhuman "_elevated character_," and, if so, a supernatural

_character_, and, therefore, the religion of Jesus is a _supernatural

religion_. To take from the Bible all that is miraculous, and pretend

it would "_not lose its virtue_," or "_the qualities which have made

it a blessing to humanity_," is simply absurd. The teachings of

Christ, apart from His recognition of Abraham's faith in God having

spoken to him; of Moses, as divinely commissioned to give the law of

Sinai; and of David, to prophesy of Himself as the Messiah, is

inconceivable. It is not possible to strike out of the Bible all that

is supernatural and leave it intelligible. What would be left, far

from being "perfect simplicity and profound and eternal wisdom," would

be, for religious instruction, indeed, a blank.

Knowing what human nature is and has been in all ages, where, we may

ask, could such perfect and sublime morality have come from apart

from Divine interference? As Henry Rogers says in his recent work,

"The Superhuman Origin of the Bible inferred from itself," "_The Bible

is not such a book as man would have made if he could, or could have

made if he would._"

Even John Stuart Mill, in his book just published, describes Christ as

the "pattern of perfection for humanity;" and "a unique figure, not

more unlike all His precursors than all His followers, even those who

had the direct benefit of His personal teaching."

The late Dr. Priestley, the eminent Unitarian, said that the actual

resurrection of Jesus Christ is more authentically attested than any

other fact in history.[70]

[70] See his work, "Matter and Spirit," p. 247.

The fact is, in short, just this: the whole Scripture testimony to the

work of man's redemption is, to the believer, explicit and harmonious,

while the emasculated and perverted creed of the moralist who rejects

the miraculous is sheer confusion and absurdity.

We appreciate the admonition of the apostle Paul, where he says: "Oh,

Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane

and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, so called, which,

some professing, have erred concerning the faith."

It is of importance to note that the writings which record the deaths

of some of the principal persons, such as John the Baptist, James the

Apostle, and Stephen, would, probably, have mentioned the decease of

others if they had died before the books were composed. Supposing they

originated at a later date, the writers would have had no motive for

omitting any such particulars. Surely, the Acts of the Apostles would

have told us of the death of Paul and Peter, Matthew and Barnabas, and

the other men whose doings it records. If we imagine the book a

fiction, then, we ask, where are the stories which apocryphal books

contain, such as the crucifixion of Peter, which would, certainly,

have been included? This must be accounted for before we set aside the

book as not history, but fiction.

This anonymous sceptical work has to encounter the damaging objection

that it enters a verdict before the case is complete. The judge, that

is, impartial criticism holding the balance evenly, may justly say,

How can the verdict be pronounced in the absence of witnesses of such

importance as the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul? The

final reflections at the conclusion of the second volume are

premature. Instead of it being "right not to delay a clear statement

of what the author believes to be the truth and its consequences," it

is the opposite; and we venture to predict that, when he has done his

worst, when he has made the most of the silence of primitive writers

whose works time has reduced to fragments; when he has fully exposed

the irrelevancy of many of the assertions of over-sanguine apologists

(such as Tischendorf and Canon Westcott); when he has magnified to the

utmost the difficulties inseparable from the investigation of matters

eighteen centuries distant, between which period in history and the

present time there have intervened revolutions in nations, invasions

of barbarians, cities burned, libraries destroyed, and all that is

conceivable of obliteration, falsification, fraud, and superstition,

in what are called the dark ages--his ability, learning, research, and

logic will not have convinced the majority of his readers that

Christianity is to be placed in the category of the world's religious

delusions and impostures. His complete work will be fully replied to

by critics of his own calibre and acumen, and the highest honour it

will ultimately attain will be to be relegated to the unenviable

position in literature in which are placed Spinoza, Hume, Baur,

Strauss, Rénan, Mill, and all those able doubters who have boldly but

unsuccessfully assailed the truth as it is in Jesus.

I close with the remark that the Bible is regarded by the Evangelical

Protestant Nonconformists from an independent point of view. The

authority of the councils of the Popish Church is nothing to them. The

decision of the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, furnishes evidence of

the Holy Scriptures being, in the main, what we esteem them to be; but

we do not recognise its authority.

We are in a position to welcome any light which any critic can throw

upon the records of Divine revelation, and can be grateful for any

laborious research which separates the gold from the dross, and

selects the real coin from the counterfeit. But it is undoubtedly true

that, as the religion of the Bible is a spiritual matter, it is best

discerned by those whose hearts are open to receive it.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it

be of God."[71] "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness

in himself."[72] "Filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom

and spiritual understanding."[73]

[71] John vii. 17.

[72] 1 John v. 10.

[73] Col. i. 9.

On the assumption that man is not a spiritual being, the investigation

of what the Bible teaches is not likely to be successful. The most

prominent statements will be foolishness. The primary fact that God is

a Spirit will not be apprehended, and all analogous doctrines deemed

the outgrowth of superstition. It is the vainest of all inquiries from

such a foregone conclusion. Man is not placed at such a point of

observation in the universe as to be competent to conduct a

theological investigation, based on a negative hypothesis, regarding

the essential proposition of all religious truth. Among the

indispensable requisites in the pursuit of such knowledge, are, the

receptive disposition, the listening attitude, the becoming humility,

the consciousness of a tendency to go wrong, and of dependence on the

Divine illumination of the Holy Spirit. "Blind unbelief is sure to

err." The inquirer who does not lay aside pride and self-sufficiency

is not in a condition to take the first step. If intellectual power,

acuteness of perception, and the logical faculty, could ensure the

successful pursuit of spiritual truth, we may suppose that Satan's

knowledge would convince him of the folly of his opposition to the

Divine authority. That which intervenes betwixt the Almighty Creator

and the fallen angel intercepts the vision of the depraved human soul.

Only "the pure in heart can see God." The blindness is not removable

until, as in the case of Saul of Tarsus, those conditions are complied

with which are implied in the statement, "Behold he prayeth." His soul

is humbled, his eyes are opened, and he gets nearer to the truth. "The

Lord is nigh unto them who call upon him."[74]

[74] Psa. cxlv. 18.

The summary of what I have endeavoured to make plain to you respecting

the book is briefly this:--

1. That it chiefly consists of German scepticism made plain to English

readers; of a recast of the exploded fallacies of Hume; and an

unsuccessful attempt to eliminate the miraculous from the Gospels.

2. That the assumption that there are in the Bible Satanic miracles,

thus putting Jewish superstition on a level with revealed truth, is

reasoning on false premises.

3. That the miracles of the Bible do not admit of their being

accommodated to the laws of nature, to satisfy the scientific and

philosophical theologians.

4. That the objection to the testimony of the first disciples, on the

ground of their not being learned, scientific, and critical, has no

weight, especially as applied to Paul, whose education would enable

him to weigh the evidence of the eye-witnesses, which he would compare

with the revelation to himself; and thus he was in a position to know

the exact truth.

5. That the abstract argument against miracles not having sufficient

force to merit Mr. Arnold's endorsement, its further discussion was

not necessary, the first part of the book being sufficiently

neutralised.

6. That the argument from the silence of early Church writers is not

conclusive, because we have only fragments of their writings, and that

there was not the same need to refer to written records while

tradition was fresh.

7. That the objection to a quotation because it is not verbatim is

frivolous.

8. That the hypothesis that the original records of Christ's life,

which are not our Gospels, and are lost, did not contain any miracles,

is a German conjecture, which is totally unsupported and absolutely

incredible.

9. That the assumption of uniform and verbal inspiration is not an

essential of orthodox views, and that Christianity has been more

damaged by its friends than its enemies.

10. That the author's mode of presenting his facts is not to be relied

upon, any more than his conclusions.

11. That offensive epithets and unwarrantable boldness of assertion do

not strengthen his arguments; nor is eloquent language always sense.

12. That the question is not whether the Gospels establish the reality

of miracles, so that Christianity is false if they do not sufficiently

do so; but is the general evidence, resting on a great variety of

proofs, sufficient to prove it true?

13. That special pleading is found throughout the book.

14. That whatever information is wanting, as to the exact manner in

which the four Gospels were compiled--whatever probability there may

be that Matthew's is made up of materials from several other sources,

such as the lost "Gospel of the Hebrews," as well as from that

apostle's own record of what he heard and was eye-witness of--whatever

probability there may be that the Fourth Gospel is only the Apostle

John's to the extent of his having furnished the materials, which

Grecian, rather than Jewish, pens put into elegant language and

artistic form--it is undeniable that if John the son of Zebedee, the

apostle, wrote the Apocalypse, as our author proves he did, the fact

furnishes the strongest evidence, "clear, direct, and irrefragable,"

that he knew, being an eye-witness of the events of the Gospel

records, the Resurrection of Christ to be no "cunningly devised

fable," but the fact of facts, the truth of truths, the miracle of

miracles.

15. That the religion of the Bible being spiritual, its truths are

best discerned by those whose hearts are open to receive them.

The vast expanse of evangelical Christian evidence, shining around us

like the sky on a clear night, has its nebulæ which only faith's

telescope can reach; but there are stars and constellations which are

so conspicuous that no inquirer after truth can fail to see them. John

to the seven Churches, whose angels are seven stars, is as obvious as

the Pleiades; Paul and Barnabas, as of old, are Mercurius and Jupiter;

Abraham's descendants, still distinct from all other races, in all

lands, are prominent as Sirius; Pliny's letter to Trajan is radiant as

Arcturus; the martyr-story of the Catacombs and of history is as

demonstrative as Mars; while the institution to show forth the Lord's

death, by the breaking of bread on the Lord's day, glows like Venus.

These, requiring no telescope,

"Confirm the tidings as they roll,

And spread the truth from pole to pole."

UNWIN BROTHERS, THE GRESHAM PRESS, CHILWORTH AND LONDON.