_THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES._ [Endnote 40:1]
This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but
both in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjected
to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of
opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to
review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express
my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed
generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its
completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my
conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the
courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must
necessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a
course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not
diminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments.
There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of
argument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have
objected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition
advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have
been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is
only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now
I contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the
philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to
completeness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation
is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently
incredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be
antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is,
therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent
incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that
certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry
into the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third
parts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until
other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ...
The second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has
frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to
prove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of
the second century. This error is of course closely connected with that
which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how
anyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of
the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The
fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the
Gospels. The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that,
so far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in
the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently
incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the
Gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to
have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and
truth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish
some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument
has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at
the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as
evidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear
and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for
the canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary
requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of
serious consideration.
It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special
gospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in
existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief
as the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without
shaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however,
totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious
belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the
sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors
urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual
occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out
of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took
place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious
age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful
investigation, have written an account of them, and other persons,
equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I venture
to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring
can have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the
relation of miracles to the order of nature.
The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the
statement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences
precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how,
if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four
Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the
second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as
Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account
for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature
in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready
acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment
regard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century
either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which
concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but
the beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of
Irenaeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian and
Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as
personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are
shown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct
trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses
for miracles.
After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced
against this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the
truth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which able
divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main
argument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by
inference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who have
professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically
attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth
defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have
shown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable
breach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference
to the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no
sense of my own individual share in its maintenance.
I must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who,
with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most
elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and
official zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot
and Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my
book. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of
course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in
reply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has
assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred,
although I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so
in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of
hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or
error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main
argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr.
Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at
all weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to
details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent
against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed
against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such
words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may
have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render
it worth while once for all to meet it in detail.
The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by
Dr. Lightfoot regarding the "SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS." [45:1] I had called
attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers,
under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious
limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as
singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province more
especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence
occupies a prominent place." Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this
"mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will
not be at all ambiguous." I might again agree with him, but that
unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for
the Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only
the eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere
that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or
say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that
they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and
authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present
at least, limited to Eusebius.
The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole
of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete
blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal
works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I
supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their
lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not
contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary
that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main
argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has
expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it,
and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose
that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot
says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of
Eusebius:--
"This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis
of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how
much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to
be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his
foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he
piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether
neglected to do." [46:1]
Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his
belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:--
"If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part
of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces."
[46:2]
I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must
allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the
importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the
representations made in the above passages are a very strange
exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with
criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and
strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever,
and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an
amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that
vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion,
proved that I have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an
inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it
was. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument
which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding
some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be
withdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is
to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers
regarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of
three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not
find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works
mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing
Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in
this does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact
that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers
contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have
we any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of
Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius
warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these
writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical
books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend
to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was
the purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements,
which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose
that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any
kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand?
Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and
Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The
reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement
Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _Supernatural
Religion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has
asserted.
We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He
carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared
intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention
or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of
the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words,
merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his
statement into three paragraphs. He says:
"Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings
in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage.
"(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any
ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek:
tines hopoiais kechrêntai]);
"(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only
professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell
about them_ ([Greek: tina peri tôn endiathêkon eirêtai]). Any
_anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the
others ([Greek: tôn mê toioutôn]), will be recorded.
"(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will
allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise."
[48:1]
In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we
can differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to
point out mere quotations of the books which he considered
undisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in
the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John,
which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be
undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he
omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in
the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to
the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down
as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did
mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged
himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much
might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little
importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing
it. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise
include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations
of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very
subsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it
altogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had
occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they
could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book
quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done
nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In the
evidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfully
have received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely
any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to
establish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If this
point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position?
We are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the
Gospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
Corinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the other
hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any.
The only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius
is precisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his
promise and practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient
writer "has something to _tell about_" the Gospels, "any _anecdote_
of interest respecting them," Eusebius will record it. This is the
only information of the slightest value to this work which could
be looked for in these writers. So far, therefore, from producing
the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _Supernatural
Religion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself,
Dr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of
Eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner.
Before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under
discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of
Eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the
matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have
to tell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that
Eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the
Gospels and other canonical works. [50:1] Upon two occasions he
quotes the account which Clement of Alexandria gives of the
composition of Mark's Gospel, and also cites his statements
regarding the other Gospels. [50:2] In like manner he records the
information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart about the
four Gospels and other works, [50:3] and what Origen has to say
concerning them. [50:4] Interrogating extant works, we find in fact
that Eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or
interesting regarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot
says that Eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which
justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the
case of Irenaeus. He says: "Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal
passage in this author relating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus,
_Adv. Haer._ iii. 1, 1) he omits to mention others which contain
interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the
question, _e.g._ that St. John wrote his Gospel to counteract the
errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii.
11, 1)." [51:1] I must explain, however, that the "interesting
statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted,
is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only
in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it
from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well
have passed it over. Dr. Lightfoot further says: "Thus too when he
quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the
Asiatic Elders who were acquainted with St. John, [51:2] he omits
the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important
bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for it declared
that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus
confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the
apparent chronology of the Synoptists." [51:3] Nothing, however,
could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to
represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to support the one
at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he enters into an
elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy
between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular
quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three
Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after
the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the
other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not
embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the
extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the
Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could
not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although
Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the
Presbyters who were acquainted with John.
It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to
record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the
undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant
writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the
conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three
writers with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silence
of Eusebius."
I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high
estimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that
he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings.
Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the
martyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for
the statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus,
Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of
Joseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by
reference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story
regarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who
were brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of the
martyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the early
Church; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account of
Hegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to the
statement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of
Eleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions
his observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about
the Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general
state of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] I
mention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them
in turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have
escaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works
were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these
was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a
single remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate
inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus
did not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, as
Eusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man of
whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in
confirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding the
composition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, as
well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that
Eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by
Hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he
speaks with so much respect.
I have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted
anything with regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to
go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No
one can read Eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care
with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially
apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any
doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to
the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles
called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and
the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having
written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully
quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently
made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to
the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of
the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics.
The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the
tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution
under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in
support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the
close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the
persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command
given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as
also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the
historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded
Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the
latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and,
according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He
states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist,
governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his
return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan
succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account
of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must
be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly
put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he
gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his
account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition,
which he states to have been John's receiving the other three
Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did
not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this
reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings
of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very
extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully
considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at
variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably
omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them.
[54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking
of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and
interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings
attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting
traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities,
would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any
information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so
frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any.
In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius
quotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark,
[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative
regarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in
confirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose
that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not
have enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their
information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if
Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of
the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?
Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not
only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case
which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had
to say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very
reference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims
of the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it still
more certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth
Gospel,--and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have
had something, to tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The
first quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop
of Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the
words of the Presbyters, "what John or Matthew or what any other of the
disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John,
disciples of the Lord, say." [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly
points out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the
former, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles,
evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly
distinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this
proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of
John in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the
name of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second
of the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation.
What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the
subject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted
with both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very
moment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I
am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the
peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of
Eusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or
fourth Gospels.
I need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning
equally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a few more words
to say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he intended
to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the
constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following
statement, which he prints in italics: "_The silence of Eusebius
respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in
its favour_." [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by
Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means,
not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are
witnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply
that if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel
by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century,
classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does
not undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is
very small.
Professor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection
with "THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES," [57:1] which is equally abortive and
limited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which
the article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that
readers may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy
is carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of
misstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute
criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression
that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most
right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It
is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like
this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not
possible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course
entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even
alive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a
spirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be
accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown
that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon
himself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to
all such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, with
some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the Ignatian
Epistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which
they commit themselves.
Dr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon
which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its
difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says:
"The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the
student of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the
considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate.
A writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of
familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally
expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with
some diffidence." [58:1] My critic objects that I express my opinions
with decision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would
here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for
Dr. Lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question
make it easy for me. It requires but little logical perception to
recognize that Epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult
to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels.
The statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack,
and war is declared in the following terms:
"The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use
such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery
of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references
to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the
author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon
it. It becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer
shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies
us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his
arguments." [59:1]
This sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play
a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to
them--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would not
be in the least degree affected.
The first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is
one of mere critical history. I wrote: "The strongest internal, as well
as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led
(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most
genuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted
by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the
epistles." [59:2]