I.

_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_

[Endnote 1:1]

The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important,

that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work

should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his

remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible

that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge

fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and

in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws

and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose

perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained

application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel

otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes

which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing

more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which

may be fallacious.

Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of

silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the

face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the

case is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of

the Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the

December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering severe

lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance

and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens,

falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to

me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his

impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I

fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold

so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and

I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat

Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand.

I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his

attack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience

and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general

detraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be

pronounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the

threadbare maxim: "A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains

in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still

is. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in

translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with

which Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well

founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of

such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of

the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not

weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has

been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of

Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is,

however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there

is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which

have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked"

which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change

the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once

to reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to

sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the

weakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has

the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which 'most

critics' are agreed in maintaining." He will probably find that "most

critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune

to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many

points, from most critics.

The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is

regarding "a highly important passage of Irenaeus," containing a

reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers

that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive

and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy"

would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf

in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words

"say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of

a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation,

in the total absence of the original, that these special words were

supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of

Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr.

Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what

"the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and

he then proceeds (§ 2) with indirect construction, indicating a

reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in

question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This

passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of

Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of

Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text:

"In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears

to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a

note on an earlier page: "The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the

Elders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of

interpretation;" [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the

indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of

"they taught." [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the

slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing

this testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital

bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel."

The reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the

justness of the ascription of this passage to Papias, and who was not

acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical

opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements,

understand the real position of the case.

Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole

passage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he

was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion

to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom

I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot,

now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated

treatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against

Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there

is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate

the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is

no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing

the evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers

to this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in

italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as

Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points

out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters"

should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo

cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab

Irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est,

utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer,

[5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether

these presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the

saying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it

merely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, and

only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the

first half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the

translator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer,

brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the

circle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly

separates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts that

they may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt,

[6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does

not attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, but

merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it

formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does

not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it is

impossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D.

150," refers to this passage, and says: "It is precarious to infer with

Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters

from Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back

to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it not

evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without

an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr.

Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on a

passage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of

the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the

Apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, "In

my Father's house are many mansions."' Here it is equally uncertain

whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and

whether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something

borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel."

[6:4]

With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his

while to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the

external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in

discussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do

apologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer,

Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette,

Gfrörer, Lücke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it,

although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of

Zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so

indirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of

Eusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on

neither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and

whilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with

the fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of

apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved.

Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as

testimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly

have produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken

from the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that any

of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the

passage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject

generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in

which the quotation is discussed.

This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to

dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in

maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All

that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there

is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely

discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of

Dr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what

I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But

although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who

says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what

was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction,

a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly

trained schoolboy." I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note,

the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below,

but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai

de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of

showing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point

is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make

any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott,

beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and

that I proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the passage

is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the

work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended

to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation

made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had

been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately

withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different

from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my

argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which

Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it

as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this

was already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared,

and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2]

With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is

practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself.

"Tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der

Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,'

because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact

that the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition." Writing

of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not

altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the

contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he

has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted

to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct

assertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters,

those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not

giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of

most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the

"habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high

authorities of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own.

[9:2]

My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the

passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived

from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a

quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these

words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the

Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing

more than the exegesis of his own day.

The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with

a discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage

from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows:

"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes

that Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile

been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him

as a contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which

everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen

does not say 'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek:

epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledge

was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say

'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'If he _did not

write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]);

nor 'If he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'If he _commenced and

finished_' ([Greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language

itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with

the earlier passages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the

triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here

"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey

a totally wrong impression of the case.

The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy

between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report;

[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the

passage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary

observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually

fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose

rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The

manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this

passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself

by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick

of his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words

in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments

as follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than a

completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's

poverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen

rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words

of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition

of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]:

"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in

seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten

Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.'

'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht

geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genügt es uns mit diesen

acht Büchern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch

jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_],

'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'"

&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly,

but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words

of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon

these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases,

but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2]

Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen there

may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered

as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist.

Instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated,"

however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of

this or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point

is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than

my own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his

adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the

conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his

impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became

considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons.

In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that

his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a

little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he

is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean

actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to

whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians

which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as

a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert,

on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other

considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I

proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of

Lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date;

but, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus

attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the

circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against

Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated

about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short,

scarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders

it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the

Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors,

which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of

Divine Revelation.

I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding

translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of

passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and

expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main

issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural

context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as

Dr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot

interest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept

correction even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite

content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair

spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in

which Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely

rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.

[13:1]

I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical

errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and

magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his

apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as

"a highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking,

_en passant_, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the

"Age of Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally

omitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read,

"and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1]

In vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the passage,

I proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have

Originally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of

such a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24,

in which "only" has been substituted for "never" in deciphering my MS.

Since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot

points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon

the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation.

I can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him

the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once

distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition

[Greek: ho Baptistês]. [15:1]

I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks

me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of

dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says--

"Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:--

"'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who,

as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,'

p. 264)

"The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's

book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating

the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of

St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark

was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of

information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author

remarks--

"'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading

system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to,

in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as

St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics

are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only

have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact

that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition

represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers

that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the

interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been

the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and

infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal

of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the

allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the

apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459)

"Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself.

It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these.

I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed

Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage

so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be

sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself

would have thought of." [16:1]

In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to

quote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott

says: "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; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary

prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror

into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar

views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,

who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2]

and he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which

claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.'

[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a

'Life of Christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or

'The Philosophy of Christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth

of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them

as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony

of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear.

In the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain

references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c."

And in a note Dr. Westcott adds, "The following examples will be

sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [17:1]

Not a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary

statements, for a full criticism of which I must beg the reader to

be good enough to refer to _Supernatural Religion_, ii. pp. 41-54.

Setting aside here the important question as to what the "gospel"

of Basilides--to which Dr. Westcott gives the fanciful names of a

"Life of Christ," or "Philosophy of Christianity," without a shadow

of evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance,

that the statement that Basilides "admitted the historic truth of

all the facts contained in the canonical gospels" rests solely upon

a sentence in the work attributed to Hippolytus, to the effect that,

after his generation, all things regarding the Saviour--according

to the _followers_ of Basilides--occurred in the same way as they

are written in the Gospels. Again, it could scarcely be supposed

by an ordinary reader that the assertion that Basilides used the

"canonical gospels"--there certainly were no "canonical" gospels

in his day--"as Scripture," that his testimony to our 'acknowledged'

books is comprehensive and clear, and that "in the few pages of

his writings which remain there are certain references" to those

gospels, which show "his method of quotation," is not based upon

any direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages

in an epitome by Hippolytus of the views of the school of Basilides,

not ascribed directly to Basilides himself, but introduced by a

mere indefinite [Greek: phêsi]. [17:2] Why, I might enquire in the

vein of Dr. Lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of

the fact, which completes the separation of these passages from

Basilides, that the Gnosticism described by Hippolytus is not that

of Basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that

period, and notably Hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting,

as it might seem, by the use of an indefinite "he says," sentiments

into the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed

by his later followers? As Dr. Lightfoot evidently highly values

the testimony of Luthardt, I will quote the words of that staunch

apologist to show that, in this, I do not merely represent the views of

a heterodox school. In discussing the supposed quotations from the

fourth Gospel, which Dr. Westcott represents as "certain references"

to it by Basilides himself, Luthardt says: "But to this is opposed

the consideration that, as we know from Irenaeus, &c., the original

system of Basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the

'Philosophumena' is pantheistic. We must recognise that Hippolytus,

in the 'Philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect

responsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples,

so that from these quotations only the use of the Johannine Gospel

in the school of Basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the

part of the founder himself." [18:1]

It is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilides

regarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did

not know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work,

supplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if the

heretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity,

the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before

us. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the single

sentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileidês

kan Glaukian epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton Petrou

hermênea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statement

exactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order

to show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so much

stress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcott

says: "At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,

who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter.' [19:2]

Now we have here, again, an illustration," &c.; and then follows the

passage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the words

of Clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as St. Mark,"

seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilides

which I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to see

any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does,

let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the

strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, and

then founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after

the direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those inverted

commas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement,

and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well

indicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is,

that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. He

has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed

to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderful

illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness which

pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [19:3] It rather

exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article.

Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour may

safely be left to take care of itself." It would have been much better

to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such

advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would

be the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in

the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any

other have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt

motives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise,

and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost

that I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly

possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in

particular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and

unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which

should be more impartially made.

Dr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the

arguments of my adversaries. "The author," he says, "does indeed single

out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and

on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines

of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in

the same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes." [20:1]

I am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having had compassion

upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me

"samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists

which I have ignored.

The first of these with which he favours me is in connection with

an anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being

spoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested

regarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier

passage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:--

"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found

in any common source of information, that when the Latin version

(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated

into the original language, [Greek: tois sun autô], the 'anachronism'

altogether disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently

attach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for

not troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope,

may find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on

"Christian Literature and Doctrine," says: "In the ninth chapter

Ignatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians

of patience ... In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information

with regard to 'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur

only in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of the

difficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words

'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek:

peri ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean,

'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wish

particulars) and those who _were_ with him.' But even the Greek could

not be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is

no reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty

presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter." [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot,

however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugn

translations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handling

the tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen.

Here it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rock

of grammar."

The next example of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of

apologists which I have ignored is as follows:--

"Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion

of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by

Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict

interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in

his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative,

but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already

lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct,

entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and

its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main

question at issue." [22:1]

I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced

without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias

himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much

more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords

any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our

believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they

are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it

cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him,

the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch

as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels;

and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so

clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written

documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a

discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence,

it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of

Divine Revelation.

The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of

reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following:

"Again, when he reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the

strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the

often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer

refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the

words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these

words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of

initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that

Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as

misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tübingen

interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which

we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists'

might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1]

I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I

merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single

sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation

in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and

we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus

opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in

fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does

he not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that

Hegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that,

instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the

anti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based

upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain?

It was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling

against Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I

have to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the Acts

of the Apostles.

"And again," says Dr. Lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored

weightier lines of reasoning,

"in the elaborate examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical

quotations ... our author frequently refers to Dr. Westcott's book

to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are

discussed at great length. Why, then, does he not once mention

Dr. Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin Martyr's

quotations from the Old Testament as throwing some light on the

degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the

Gospels? A reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_

will have his eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind when

he turns to Dr. Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves,

misnames, and misquotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot

be said that these are unimportant points." [24:1]

Now the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination of

Justin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work;

and when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what

seemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention.

[24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations are

derived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the

very numerous citations in his writings "does Justin profess to give

the exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs.'" [24:3] The reason why I do

not feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcott

here mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note

quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it right

to omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer is

put in italics: "For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader

may be referred to Canon Westcott's work 'On the Canon,' pp. 112-139.

Dr. Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations

are different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for his

variations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident that

so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no

proof of identity is possible_." [24:5] It will be observed that

although I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer those

who desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his

work. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the

writings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to

what documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether

they afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, which

can warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous

contents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, for

instance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerous

quotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which

has an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of our

Gospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the Old

Testament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of

Divine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, I

probably go much further into the examination of Justin's "Memoirs"

than was at all necessary.

Space, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances,

regarding which Dr. Lightfoot says: "In every instance which I have

selected"--and to which I have replied--"these omitted considerations

vitally affect the main question at issue." [25:1] If Dr. Lightfoot had

devoted half the time to mastering what "the main question at issue"

really is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might

have spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. If

such considerations have vital importance, the position of the question

may easily be understood. Dr. Lightfoot, however, evidently seems to

suppose that I can be charged with want of candour and of fulness,

because I do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic

reasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have

rejected them as useless. He again accuses me, in connection with the

fourth Gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of "apologetic"

writers, and he represents my work as "the very reverse of full and

impartial." "Once or twice, indeed," he says, "he fastens on passages

from such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main

arguments remain wholly unnoticed." [26:1] I confess that I find it

somewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which I am said

to "make capital" and those which Dr. Lightfoot characterises as "their

main arguments," if I am to judge by the "samples" of them which he

gives me. For instance, [26:2] he asks why, when asserting that the

Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited

to a single year, and his preaching as confined to Galilee and

Jerusalem, whilst the fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus

between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over three

years, and refers to three passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem:

"Why then," he asks,

"does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as

Matt. xiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ...

_how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the

expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate

other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not

recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested

also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St.

Luke, 'I do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall

be perfected,' 'I must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day

following_,' points to the very duration of our Lord's ministry, as

indicated by the fourth Gospel. If so, the coincidence is the more

remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while

wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical

import." [27:1]

Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry

into the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape

charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations

of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like

this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task;

and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world

itself could not contain all the books that should be written." It is

very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any

other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but

is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not

exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not

only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his

work? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship

of the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the

explanations offered.

Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why,

when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character

of the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of

Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that

the whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?" [27:2]

Now my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse and

fourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: "The language in

which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New

Testament;" [28:1] and further on: "The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and

abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of

Galilee." [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: "Instead of the Hebraistic Greek

and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and

ignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the

purest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of

the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and

beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world," &c. [28:4]

In another place I say: "The language in which the Gospel is written, as

we have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other

Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according

to Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost

invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is

distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this

respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels." [28:5] I

believe that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language

of the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost

wholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth

Gospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other,

and that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might be

supported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of

"wholly ignoring" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived,

I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: "The difference of the

_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is,

of course, in a high degree remarkable ... As regards _grammar_, the

Gospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek." He

argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter,

and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse

wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written

otherwise. "The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional

emancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancient

prophetic style. Presently he proceeds: "If, then, on the one hand, the

Apocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author

was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the

Gospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and

Palestinian." Luthardt maintains "that the style of the Gospel betrays

the born Jew, and certainly not the Greek," but the force which he

intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the

conclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulf

between the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable." [29:1] This

result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic

character of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different

from my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent an

apologist as Bleek: "The language of the Apocalypse in its whole

character is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents

grosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilst

the language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyond

comparison more grammatically correct." [29:2] I am merely replying,

to the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding

the language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very different

arguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemma

which I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merely

dependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the

aggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on the

one hand and the Gospel on the other.

Space only allows of my referring to one other instance. [30:1] Dr.

Lightfoot says--

"If by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes

care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._

the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting

altogether to notice others."