We have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or
conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we
could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which
are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested
in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine.
It is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the
specific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of
which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its
doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be
pronounced "the wildest delusions." "By no rational being could a just
and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing
announcements."
On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine
Revelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the
supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would
be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to
one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are
performed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and
are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive
and for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are
beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the
human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a
nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify the
Christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of
performing.
The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, is
not only without any special Divine character, being avowedly common
also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or
details. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first
promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for
centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has
flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed
through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has
entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and
commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian
miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to
convince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The
selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more
characteristic of human weakness than of Divine power.
The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that
their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance
and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or
place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and
ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There
is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate
the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so
freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the
witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of
knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No
miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent
reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of
imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles,
connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all
miraculous pretension.
There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural
interference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have
sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a
single valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that,
wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure
occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely
acknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and
'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as
knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural
interference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles
have ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to the
present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and
phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of
natural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken
order. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for
ever annihilated them.
To justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite
Personal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution
of which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is
argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate
causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this
Infinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the
Divine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably
maintained.
The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited and
unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can
possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God working
miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order
of nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles is
further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is
avowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other
spiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to
prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not
with the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of
Revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived
from the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise
the assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as
arguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine
design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and
opposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any
theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the
human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of
creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as
inconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed
punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them
are opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially
inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles.
Whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena
must at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute
knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and
it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of
nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously
greater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. On
the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of
the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only
possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of
phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more
especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and
superstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses only
reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the
probability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of
miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the
order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation
and testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and the
circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are
examining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which
wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural.
When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian
miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising
the preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case
turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere
narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years
ago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force
and validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should
be placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable
of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels,
however, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now
distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works
themselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of the
writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are
even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and
third Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus nor
eye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, we
are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding
the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels.
In examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite
principles. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the
date or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the
Fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for
information regarding the composition and character of these works and
even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these
could prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at the
date of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were
guided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based
upon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the
Fathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a
complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and
character of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition
preserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details
of which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second
Synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been
composed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whatever
directly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers to
whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no
value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence
from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. With
one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a
half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous
use of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course,
does not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actually
in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere
suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence
shows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception to
which we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon our
third Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the
existence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest
information as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against
it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to
its infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the end
anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do not
themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from
the ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the
inferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minor
contradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to
reconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth
Gospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must be
pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by
unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous
occurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. They
cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of
Divine Revelation.
Applying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similar
results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the
third Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear.
There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character,
but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with
miraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the
narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for
it any serious consideration. When the statements of the author are
compared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and with
authentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, it
becomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have been
supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be
regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends
to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so
suspiciously abound.
The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate
examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional
testimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied belief
in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is
unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles
believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so
supersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the Catholic
Epistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine of
four Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders
it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters
attributed to him.
The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church
is brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After
elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating
conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the
unconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with
which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into
supernatural occurrences.
As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the
cardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of
Jesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of
these events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict
and exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such
stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the
statements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul,
which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an
Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries
of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient.
His so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the
belief in the Resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and
undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the
statements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the bare
fact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he
had not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the
risen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal
testimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which
we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle.
Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, of
which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation
in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in
all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The
testimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to
ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an
earnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the active
persecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the
case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the
fact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is
not an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce the
evidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelessly
inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must
consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or
even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting
the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be
accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in
the case of any common question of property or title before a legal
tribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to be
established, the more complete must be the proof required.
If we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations,
we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothing
original in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation,
and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed,
or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished.
There has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst
men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written
books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. There
is not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not
substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single
phase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous
conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and
ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies.
Heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held
an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. The
same may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevated
precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had
already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated
by ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the reality
of Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianity
has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds,
and confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it could
practically interest us now.
There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which
can be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for the
salvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a
single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, for
whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost
unanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to
be repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the
present day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of
salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a
third of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction
could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as
Supernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numerical
position. Sâkya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to
Jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even
now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries
never sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a scheme
Divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human
race and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself
incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the
cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be
regarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate
for a system of elevated morality.
We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher
may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances
have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to
him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed;
but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by
the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It
is to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we
owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and
people. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the
doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus.
The great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had
never seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after
it had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the
East constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow the
development of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most
instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas
were expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents
several stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had
passed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples,
who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life,
piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and
humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate
structure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of
human superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy,
displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which
commenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of
the Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of
churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have
naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of Immaculate
Conception and Papal Infallibility.
It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such
conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but
remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before
existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a
substitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or
silence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truth
cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by
considerations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious and
suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be
premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a
humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality
is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments,
although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent,
have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and
even in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and
civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far
Christianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here
venture adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that
whatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, not
to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic
Theology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science.
Wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science has
been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of
Genesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towards
enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema
of the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been
tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind.
"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not
enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of
Doctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of
assimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theological
resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early
enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to
the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the
world; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher
principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals
sufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating
rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine
institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than
it must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of
social experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theological
question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have
finally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion and
modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will
necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent
on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed
to say: _Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right
principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost,
for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation
which can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever
been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any
degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the
true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action,
we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and
punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as
essential to Christianity.
As to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by
such an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any
means be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The
Revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an
illusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it and
its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the
traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and
green shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool
fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his
wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank.
Rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the
desert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not
vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other
horizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to
ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search
elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of
the man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make
four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whose
fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly is
it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five
than to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs who
represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special
illusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that a
former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of
existence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we
believe it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, to
repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at
least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream.
The argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is
necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation
are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived
from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing
absolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must
our moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the
expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through
natural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished
as supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that we
desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to
complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To
attain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should
be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be
certain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is
as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requires
to know.
We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human
invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from the
incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine
government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the
place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic
visions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of
unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered
from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: aiônios], and our
eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured
in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of
life there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light
of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable
horror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless
victims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous
representations at all as part of the contents of "Divine Revelation,"
it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways
of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the
perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call
wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now
the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns
to the Jewish superstition from which it sprang.
As myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be
baseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass
away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although
it cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for
so long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can
rightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish
between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from
characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us.
That mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply
an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which
excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope.
[ENDNOTES]
[1:1] Originally published in the _Fortnightly Review_, January 1, 1875.
[4:1] _On the Canon_, p. 65.
[4:2] _Ibid._ p. 61, note 2.
[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the
similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards
referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this
interpretation is one from Papias' _Exposition_."
[4:4] _Reliq. Sacrae_, i. p. 10 f.
[4:5] _Lehre Pers. Christ_, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62.
[5:1] _Theol. Jahrb. _1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1.
[5:2] _Synops. Evang._, Proleg. xxxi.
[5:3] _Komm. Ev. des Johannes_, p. 6 f.
[5:4] _Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh._ p. 116 f.
[5:5] _Basilides_, p. 110 f.
[5:6] _Zeitschr. für wiss. Theol._ 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219,
Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4.
[6:1] _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 72.
[6:2] _Th. Stud. u. Krit._ 1866, p. 674.
[6:3] _Intro. N.T._ ii. p. 424 f.
[6:4] _Ibid._ ii. p. 372.
[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with
such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part
itself.
[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition.
[9:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 4, n. 1; _Essays on S.R._
p. 4, n. 4.
[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the
example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he
introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within
brackets.
[10:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 231 f.
[10:2] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 5 f.; _Essays on S.R._ p. 7.
[10:3] _S.R._ ii. 228 ff.
[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. 73 f.
[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as
Tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which
is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is
treated as a contemporary.
[12:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 229 ff.
[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation
attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho
logos edêlou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase
from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is
surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that
Prudentius Maranus renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and
Otto "... effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from
the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is
[Greek: kata korrhês propêlakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is
rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The
phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all'
hostis se rhapisei epi tên dexian sou siagona, strepson autô kai tên
allên], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata
korrhês prospêlakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tês kephalês
meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of
the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to
those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other
side, _of the head_," &c., inserting the three Greek words after
"side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the
sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised.
Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The passage
from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the
uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which
reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into
the text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and
meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and
their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say,
the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian
proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel
of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the
assurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could
have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores."
[14:1] I altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition,
as Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of
exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that
I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting
the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence
of the words given above.
[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my
having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic
might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument,
but also to _De Wette_, who has "... dass er _nie_ Joh. dem Taüfer wie
der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistês] giebt" (_Einl. N.T._
p. 230), and to _Bleek_, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (_Beiträge_,
p. 178, and _Einl. N.T._ p. 150), which could not be misread.
[16:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 15; _Essays on S.R._ p. 21 f.
[16:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above
reference, but does not quote the passage.
[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias.
[17:1] _Canon_, p. 255 f.
[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by
Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius.
[18:1] Luthardt, _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 85 f.
[19:1] _Strom._ vii. 17, § 106.
[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255.
[19:3] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 16 [_Essays_, p. 22].
[20:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].
[21:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].
[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do not
refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view.
[22:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11 f.]
[23:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 11].
[23:2] _S.R._ i. p. 441.
[24:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 12 f.]
[24:2] _S.R._ i. p. 387 ff.
[24:3] _Canon_, p. 112 f.
[24:4] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9, note [_ibid._ p. 12, n. 4].
[24:5] _S.R._ i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly
suppose" that "I had read the passage to which I refer."
[25:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].
[26:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].
[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that
such a passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage
Matt. xi. 27 _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the
contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the
allusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even
by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar"
Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument
regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.)
sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers.
[27:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 11 f. [_ibid._ p. 16].
[27:2] _Ibid._ p. 10 [_ibid._ p. 14].
[28:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 402.
[28:2] _Ibid._ ii. p. 406.
[28:3] See Acts iv. 13.
[28:4] _S.R._ ii. p. 410.
[28:5] _Ibid._ ii, p. 413.
[29:1] _Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang._ 1874, pp. 204-7.
[29:2] _Einl. N.T._ p. 625.
[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being
silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the
Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point
out its existence, as, for instance, _S.R._ ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c.,
and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the
doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it
had already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the
composition of that work.
[30:2] _S.R._ ii. 421.
[30:3] _Contemporary Review_, 12 f. [_ibid._ p. 17 f.]
[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more
especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere
Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit."
[31:2] _S.R._ 421 f.
[32:1] _Works_, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; _Horae et Talm._ p. 938.
[32:2] _Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv._ p. 256, Anm. 1.
[32:3] _Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh._, umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f.
[32:4] _Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T._ i. 3, p. 84.
[32:5] _Einl. N.T._ ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to
the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32).
[32:6] _Bibelwerk_, iv. 219.
[32:7] _Die Zeugnisse_, p. 21.
[32:8] _Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean_, i. p. 475 f.
[32:9] _Einl. N.T._ p. 211.
[32:10] _Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche_, 1856, p. 240 ff.
[32:11] _Die Joh. Schriften_, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._
viii. p. 255 f.; cf. _Gesch. v. Isr._ v. p. 348, Anm. 1.
[32:12] _Das Ev. Joh._ p. 107.
[32:13] _Comm. Ev. n. Joh._ p. 188 f.
[33:1] _Comm. Ev. des Joh._ i. p. 577 f.
[33:2] _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ viii. p. 255 f.
[33:3] _Die Joh. Schr._ i. p. 181, Anm. 1.
[33:4] _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, 1872, p. 92.
[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the
current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who
deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf.
Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with
El Askar, &c." _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, p. 93,
note 1.
[34:1] _Life of Christ_, i. p. 206, note 1.
[34:2] _La Géographie du Tulmud_, p. 170.
[34:3] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 1395 f.
[36:1] _Bampton Lect._ 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4.
[36:2] _S.R._ i. p. 61 ff.
[37:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 19 [_ibid._ p. 26 f.]
[37:2] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 216 f.
[38:1] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 234.
[38:2] _Ibid._ p. 219.
[39:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 477.
[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition.
[45:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (_Ibid._ p. 32 ff.)
[45:2] _S.R._ i. p. 212.
[46:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 172 [_ibid._ p. 36].
[46:2] _Ibid._ p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
[48:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 173 [_ibid._ p. 38].
[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ i.
p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used
the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and
not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this
edition I have made my meaning clear.
[50:1] Cf. _H.E._ iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c.
[50:2] _Ibid._ ii. 15, vi. 14.
[50:3] _Ibid._ v. 8.
[50:4] _Ibid._ vi. 25.
[51:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 181 [_ibid._ p. 48].
[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, _Adv.
Haer._ iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5.
[51:3] _Ibid._ p. 181.
[51:4] _H.E._ iii, 24.
[52:1] _H.E._ ii. 23.
[52:2] _Ibid._ iii. 11.
[52:3] _Ibid._ 16.
[52:4] _Ibid._ 19, 20.
[52:5] _Ibid._ 32.
[52:6] _Ibid._ iv. 8.
[52:7] _Ibid._ 11.
[52:8] _Ibid._ iv. 22.
[53:1] _H.E._ ii. 15.
[53:2] _Ibid._ vii. 25.
[54:1] _H.E._ iii. 18.
[54:2] _Ibid._ 19, 20.
[54:3] _Ibid._ 20.
[54:4] _Ibid._ 20.
[54:5] _Ibid._ 23.
[54:6] _Ibid._ 24.
[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to
the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (_S.R._ i.
p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and
the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements.
[55:2] _H.E._ iii. 39.
[56:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
[57:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [_ibid._ p. 59
ff.]
[58:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 339 [_ibid._ p. 62].
[59:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 340 [_ibid._ p. 63].
[59:2] _S.R._ i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of
reference.
[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is
explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. 63, n. 2).
Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing.
[60:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 341 [_ibid._ p. 64].
[61:1] _Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens_, p. 7, Anm. 1.
[61:2] _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have
added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the
text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his _Apostolic Fathers_ (part ii.
vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this
appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made.
[61:3] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 841 [_ibid._ p. 65].
[62:1] _S.R._ i. p. 259 f.
[62:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p, 65 f.]
[62:3] _S.R._ i. p. 259.
[63:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr.
Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works,
where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages
further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the
authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority
of these letters [_ibid._ p. 66].
[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii
nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum
impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (_Inst. Chr.
Rel._ i. 13, § 39).
[64:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342.
[64:3] _Op. Theolog._ 1652, 11, p. 1085.
[64:4] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p. 66].
Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignat._ p. 28 (ed. Churton).
[65:1] _Exam. Concilii Tridentim_, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89).
[65:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 [_ibid._ p. 67].
[67:1] _Critici Sacri_, lib. ii cap. 1; _Op. Theolog._ 1652, ii. p. 1086.
[67:2] _Vind. Ignat._ 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._ i.
p. xxxviii.
[67:3] _Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch._ v. 8 § 1, edit.
Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii.
[68:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 f. [_ibid._ p. 67 f.]
[70:1] _Die Kirche im ap. Zeit._ p. 322.
[70:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 344 f. [_ibid._ p. 69.]
[72:1] _K.G._ 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1.
[73:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 345 [_ibid._ p. 69].
[75:1] _Einl. N.T._ pp. 144 f., 233.
[78:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
[78:2] _Ibid._, February 1875, p. 346 [_ibid._ p. 71].
[79:1] _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1851, p. 389 ff.
[79:2] _Hippolytus and his Age_, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff.
[79:3] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ vii. p. 321, Anm. 1.
[80:1] _Patr. Apost. Proleg._ 1863, p. xxx.
[80:2] _Patr. Apost._ ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in
the _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight
lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.)
[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff.
[81:1] _S.R._ i. p. 264.
[81:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72].
[82:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 348 [_ibid._ p. 74].
[82:2] _S.R._ i. p. 265.
[83:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72 f.]
Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The
Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is
embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection
in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before
the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles
come together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious Epistles
in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are
together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn,
_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 111."
[83:2] Note to Horne's _Int. to the Holy Scriptures_, 12th ed. 1869, iv.
p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.
[83:3] _The Ancient Syrian Version_, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f.
[84:1] _Corpus Ignat._ p. 338.
[84:2] _Ibid._ p. ii.
[84:3] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvi.
[84:4] Cureton, _Corp. Ign._ p. iii.
[84:5] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvii f.
[84:6] Cureton, _Corp. Ignat._ p. vii f.
[84:7] _Ibid._ p. xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii;
Jacobson, _Patr. Ap._ i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart._,
Amstel. 1646.
[84:8] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lxi.
[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to _Hist. of the
Canon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix.
[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to _Hist. of Canon_, 4th ed.
p. xix f.
[87:2] _S.R._ i. p. 268.
[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx.
[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first
quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second
note, but accidentally left out of note 3.
[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call
attention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note.
[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an
extended form. The work I quote is entitled _Kirchengeschichte der
ersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is
part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth
century.
[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference,
but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to
'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different
object of the two notes.
[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f.
[97:1] P. 213.
[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a
note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display
of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second
edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might
reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had
reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which
reference was necessary.
[99:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv.
[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom._
1631, p. 152.
[100:2] Cf. Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, iii. p. 3.
[101:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 349 [_ibid._ p. 75].
[101:2] _Ibid._ p. 350 [_ibid._ p. 76].
[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether
inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, _Peregrinus Proteus_, 1879.
[102:2] _De Morte Peregr._ 11.
[102:3] _Ibid._ 14.
[102:4] _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, i. p. 410 f.
[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, _Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish.
Textes d. Ignat. Briefe_, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, _Ignatius v. Ant._,
1873, p. 517 ff.
[103:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 350 f. [_ibid._ p. 77].
[104:1] _S.R._ i. p. 268, note 4.
[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the
almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the
Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of
Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of
Trajan."--_Hist. of Christianity_, 1867, ii. p. 103.
[106:1] _K.G._ 1842, i. p. 171.
[106:2] _Ibid._ i. p. 172, Anm.
[108:1] _Hist. of Christianity_, ii. p. 101 f.
[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 352
[_ibid._ p. 79].
[109:2] _Ibid._ p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 80].
[109:3] _Ibid._ p. 352 [_ibid._ p. 79 f.].
[110:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 81].
[110:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 66, Anm. 3.
[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these
relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards
translated to Antioch.
[112:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ pp. 59, 69.
[112:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p, 68.
[112:3] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of
the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December.
(_Mart. Rom._ pp. 87, 766 ff.)
[112:4] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2.
[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in
Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere
allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently"
the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been
celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is
nothing else to establish it.
[114:1] _St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians_, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note.
Cf. _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 358 f. (_Ibid._ p. 88)
[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in
these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition.
[117:1] i. p. 443 ff.
[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"]
[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's _Essays_, p. 163.
[119:1] _Essays_, p. 167 f.
[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170.
[121:1] _Ibid._ p. 169.
[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170.
[122:2] _Ibid._ p. 170.
[122:3] _Ibid._ p. 170.
[123:1] _Ibid._ p. 152.
[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f.
[124:2] _Ibid._ p. 171.
[124:3] _Ibid._ p. 172 f.
[124:4] i. p. 463 f.
[125:1] _Ibid._ p. 173.
[125:2] i. 236 ff.
[125:3] Note.
[125:4] Note.
[126:1] _Clem. Rom._ § 53, § 45; ibid. 173 f.
[130:1] I. p. 210 f.
[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases.
[133:1] _S.R._ i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here.
[134:1] _S.R._ i. p. 363 f.
[135:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 221, n. 7.
[135:2] _Ibid._ p. 220.
[135:3] _Ibid._ ii. p. 169 f.
[136:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 226.
[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito,
Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _Supernatural Religion_ the
following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except
that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore,
is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the _Contemporary Review_,
and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume
that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have
no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is
unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (_S.R._ ii. p. 181). If
Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the
press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable
to those who have none.
[137:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 182 ff.
[137:2] _Ibid._ p. 239.
[137:3] _Ibid._ p. 248.
[140:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff.
[140:2] _Ibid._ 255.
[141:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200.
[142:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200 f.
[143:1] _S.R._ iii. p. 257
[143:2] _Ibid._ p. 25 f.
[144:1] _Ibid._, p. 259.
[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff.
[146:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 29. (_Ibid._ p. 227 f.)
[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a
note.
[146:3] _Ibid._ p. 278.
[147:1] _Unters. N.T. Kanons_, 1881, p. 15 f.
[147:2] _On the Canon_, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3.
[147:3] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, 1888, p. xiv.
[147:4] _Ibid._ p. 279.
[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii.
p. 159 sq.
[148:2] _Ibid._ p. 280 f.
[149:1] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxx.
[149:2] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by
Dr. Lightfoot (_l.c._ p. 281, n. 1).
[150:1] Zahn, _Tatian's Diatessaron_, 1881, p. 70 f.
[150:2] _Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr._ iii. p. 26.
[150:3] Moesinger, _Evang. Concor. Expositio_, 1876, p. x f.
[150:4] _Ibid._ p. xi.
[152:1] Zahn, _l.c._ p. 38.
[153:1] _Ibid._ p. 286.
[153:2] _Ibid._ p. 288. The italics are mine.
[153:3] Hemphill, _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxiv.
[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136.
[156:1] Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff.
[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different
religions is estimated as follows:
Parsees 150,000
Sikhs 1,200,000
Jews 7,000,000, being about ½ per cent.
of the whole.
Greek Catholics 75,000,000 " 6 " "
Roman Catholics 152,000,000 " 12 " "
Other Christians 100,000,000 " 8 " "
Hindus 160,000,000 " 13 " "
Muhammedans 155,000,000 " 12½ " "
Buddhists 500,000,000 " 40 " "
Not included in the above 100,000,000 " 8 " "
-----------
1,250,350,000
We have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an
excellent little work recently published by the Society for the
Propagation of Christian Knowledge--_Buddhism_, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6.