Essays on the work entitled "Supernatural Religion"
by J. B. Lightfoot · English · Gutenberg #18191 · 765,140 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Essays on the work entitled "Supernatural Religion"
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Essays on the work entitled "Supernatural Religion"
Author: J. B. Lightfoot
Release date: April 17, 2006 [eBook #18191]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18191
Credits: Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" ***
Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
[Transcriber's Note: Footnotes have been relocated to the end of the
text, and footnote anchors have been labeled with the original page and
footnote numbers. Inconsistent hyphenations by the author (including
co-extensive/coextensive, foot-notes/footnotes, hundred-fold/hundredfold,
mis-statement/misstatement, re-written/rewritten, two-fold/twofold)
have been retained as printed.]
ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"
Reprinted from _The Contemporary Review_.
BY
J.B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.
LATE BISHOP OF DURHAM.
LONDON:
MACMILLAN AND CO.
AND NEW YORK.
1893
_First Edition_, 1889.
_Second Edition_, 1893.
PREFACE.
This republication of Essays which were written several years ago has
no reference to any present controversies. Its justification is the
fact that strangers and friends in England and America alike had urged
me from time to time to gather them together, that they might be had in
a more convenient form, believing that they contained some elements of
permanent value which deserved to be rescued from the past numbers of
a Review not easily procurable, and thus rendered more accessible to
students. I had long resisted these solicitations for reasons which
I shall explain presently; but a few months ago, when I was prostrated
by sickness and my life was hanging on a slender thread, it became
necessary to give a final answer to the advice tendered to me. This
volume is the result. The kind offices of my chaplain the Rev. J.R.
Harmer, who undertook the troublesome task of verifying the references,
correcting the press, and adding the indices, when I was far too ill to
attend to such matters myself, have enabled me to bring it out sooner
than I had hoped.
When I first took up the book entitled 'Supernatural Religion,' I felt,
whether rightly or wrongly, that its criticisms were too loose and
pretentious, and too full of errors, to produce any permanent effect;
and for the most part attacks of this kind on the records of the Divine
Life are best left alone. But I found that a cruel and unjustifiable
assault was made on a very dear friend to whom I was attached by the
most sacred personal and theological ties; and that the book which
contained this attack was from causes which need not be specified
obtaining a notoriety unforeseen by me. Thus I was forced to break
silence; and, as I advanced with my work, I seemed to see that, though
undertaken to redress a personal injustice, it might be made subservient
to the wider interests of the truth.
Paper succeeded upon paper, and I had hoped ultimately to cover the
whole ground, so far as regards the testimony of the first two centuries
to the New Testament Scriptures. But my time was not my own, as I was
necessarily interrupted by other literary and professional duties which
claimed the first place; and meanwhile I was transferred to another and
more arduous sphere of practical work, being thus obliged to postpone
indefinitely my intention of giving something like completeness to the
work.
In republishing these papers then, the only course open to me, in
justice to my adversary as well as to myself, was to reprint them in
succession word for word as they appeared, correcting obvious misprints;
though in many cases my argument might have been strengthened
considerably. Recently discovered documents for instance have
established the certainty of the main conclusions respecting Tatian's
_Diatessaron_, to which the criticism of the available evidence had led
me. Again I have since treated the Ignatian question more fully
elsewhere, and satisfied myself on points about which I had expressed
indecision in these Essays. On the other hand on one or two minor
questions I might have used less confident language.
What shocked me in the book was not the extravagance of the opinions or
the divergence from my own views; though I cannot pretend to be
indifferent about the veracity of the records which profess to reveal
Him, whom I believe to be not only the very Truth, but the very Life. I
have often learnt very much even from extreme critics, and have freely
acknowledged my obligations; but here was a writer who (to judge from
his method) seemed to me, and not to me only [Footnote: See Salmon's
_Introduction to the New Testament_ p. 9.], where it was a question of
weighing probabilities, as is the case in most historical
investigations, to choose invariably that alternative, even though the
least probable, which would enable him to score a point against his
adversary. For the rest I disclaim any personal bias, as against any
personal opponent. The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' as distinct
from the work, is a mere blank to me. I do not even know his name, nor
have I attempted to discover it. Whether he is living or dead, I know
not. He preferred to write anonymously, and so far as I am concerned, I
am glad that it was so; though, speaking for myself, I prefer taking the
responsibility of my opinions and statements on important subjects.
In several instances the author either vouchsafed an answer to my
criticisms, or altered the form of his statements in a subsequent
edition. In all such cases references are scrupulously given in this
volume to his later utterances. In most cases my assailant had the last
word. He is welcome to it. I am quite willing that careful and impartial
critics shall read my statements and his side by side, and judge between
us. It is my sole desire, in great things and in small, to be found
[Greek: sunergos tê alêtheia].
BOURNEMOUTH,
_May_ 2, 1889.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1--31
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS 32--58
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES 59--88
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA 89--141
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS I. 142--177
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS II. 178--216
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN 217--250
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL 251--271
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 272--288
DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 291--302
INDICES 303--324
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.
I. INTRODUCTION.
[DECEMBER, 1874]
If the author of _Supernatural Religion_ [Footnote 1:1] designed, by
withholding his name, to stimulate public curiosity and thus to extend
the circulation of his work, he has certainly not been disappointed in
his hope. When the rumour once got abroad, that it proceeded from the
pen of a learned and venerable prelate, the success of the book was
secured. For this rumour indeed there was no foundation in fact. It was
promptly and emphatically denied, when accidentally it reached the ears
of the supposed author. But meanwhile the report had been efficacious.
The reviewers had taken the work in hand and (with one exception)
lavished their praises on the critical portions of it. The first edition
was exhausted in a few months.
No words can be too strong to condemn the heartless cruelty of this
imputation. The venerable prelate, on whom the authorship of this
anonymous work was thrust, deserved least of all men to be exposed to
such an insult. As an academic teacher and as an ecclesiastical ruler
alike, he had distinguished himself by a courageous avowal of his
opinions at all costs. For more than a quarter of a century he had lived
in the full blaze of publicity, and on his fearless integrity no breath
of suspicion had ever rested. Yet now, when increasing infirmities
obliged him to lay down his office, he was told that his life for years
past had been one gigantic lie. The insinuation involved nothing less
than this. Throughout those many years, during which the anonymous
author, as he himself tells us, had been preparing for the publication
of an elaborate and systematic attack upon Christianity, the bishop was
preaching Christian doctrine, confirming Christian children, ordaining
Christian ministers, without breathing a hint to the world that he felt
any misgiving of the truths which he thus avowed and taught. Yet men
talked as if, somehow or other, the cause of 'freethinking' had gained
great moral support from the conversion of a bishop, though, if the
rumour had been true, their new convert had for years past been guilty
of the basest fraud of which a man is capable.
And all the while there was absolutely nothing to recommend this
identification of the unknown author. The intellectual characteristics
of the work present a trenchant contrast to the refined scholarship and
cautious logic of this accomplished prelate. Only one point of
resemblance could be named. The author shows an acquaintance with the
theological critics of the modern Dutch school; and a knowledge of Dutch
writers was known, or believed, to have a place among the acquisitions
of this omniscient scholar. Truly no reputation is safe, when such a
reputation is traduced on these grounds.
I have been assuming however that the work entitled _Supernatural
Religion_, which lies before me, is the same work which the reviewers
have applauded under this name. But, when I remember that the St Mark of
Papias cannot possibly be our St Mark, I feel bound to throw upon this
assumption the full light of modern critical principles; and, so tested,
it proves to be not only hasty and unwarrantable, but altogether absurd.
It is only necessary to compare the statements of highly intellectual
reviewers with the work itself; and every unprejudiced mind must be
convinced that 'the evidence is fatal to the claims' involved in this
identification. Out of five reviews or notices of the work which I have
read, only one seems to refer to our _Supernatural Religion_. The other
four are plainly dealing with some apocryphal work, bearing the same
name and often using the same language, but in its main characteristics
quite different from and much more authentic than the volumes before me.
1. It must be observed in the first place, that the reviewers agree in
attributing to the work scholarship and criticism of the highest order.
'The author,' writes one, 'is a scientifically trained critic. He has
learned to argue and to weigh evidence.' 'The book,' adds a second,
'proceeds from a man of ability, a scholar and a reasoner.' 'His
scholarship,' says this same reviewer again, 'is apparent throughout.'
'Along with a wide and minute scholarship,' he writes in yet another
place, 'the unknown writer shows great acuteness.' Again a third
reviewer, of whose general tone, as well as of his criticisms on the
first part of the work, I should wish to speak with the highest respect,
praises the writer's 'searching and scholarly criticism.' Lastly a
fourth reviewer attributes to the author 'careful and acute
scholarship.' This testimony is explicit, and it comes from four
different quarters. It is moreover confirmed by the rumour already
mentioned, which assigned the work to a bishop who has few rivals among
his contemporaries as a scholar and a critic.
Now, since the documents which our author has undertaken to discuss are
written almost wholly in the Greek and Latin languages, it may safely be
assumed that under the term 'scholarship' the reviewers included an
adequate knowledge of these languages. Starting from this as an axiom
which will not be disputed, I proceed to inquire what we find in the
work itself, which will throw any light on this point.
The example, which I shall take first, relates to a highly important
passage of Irenæus [3:1], containing a reference in some earlier
authority, whom this father quotes, to a saying of our Lord recorded
only in St John's Gospel. The passage begins thus:--
'As the elders say, then also shall those deemed worthy of the
abode in heaven depart thither; and others shall enjoy the delights
of paradise; and others shall possess the splendour of the city;
for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they that see
Him shall be worthy.'
Then follows the important paragraph which is translated differently by
our author [4:1] and by Dr Westcott [4:2]. For reasons which will appear
immediately, I place the two renderings side by side:--
WESTCOTT. | SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.
|
'This distinction of dwelling, | 'But there is to be this
they taught, exists between | distinction [4:4] of dwelling
those who brought forth a | ([Greek: einai de tên diastolên
hundred-fold, and those who | tautên tês oikêseôs]) of those bearing
brought forth sixty-fold, and | fruit the hundred-fold, and of the
those who brought forth | (bearers of) the sixty-fold, and of
twenty-fold (Matt. xiii. 8)... | the (bearers of) the thirty-fold: of
| whom some indeed shall be taken up
| into the heavens, some shall live
And it was for this reason | in Paradise, and some shall
the Lord said that _in His | inhabit the City, and for that
Father's House_ ([Greek: en | reason ([Greek: dia touto]--
tois tou patros]) _are many | _propter hoc_) the Lord declared
mansions_ (John xiv. 2).' | many mansions to be in the (heavens)
[4:3] | of my Father ([Greek: en tois tou
| patros mou monas einai pollas]), etc.'
On this extract our author remarks that 'it is impossible for any one
who attentively considers the whole of this passage and who makes
himself acquainted with the manner in which Irenæus conducts his
argument, and interweaves it with texts of Scripture, to doubt that the
phrase we are considering is introduced by Irenæus himself, and is in
no case a quotation from the work of Papias [5:1].' As regards the
relation of this quotation from the Fourth Gospel to Papias any remarks,
which I have to make, must be deferred for the present [5:2]; but on the
other point I venture to say that any fairly trained schoolboy will feel
himself constrained by the rules of Greek grammar to deny what our
author considers it 'impossible' even 'to doubt.' He himself is quite
unconscious of the difference between the infinitive and the indicative,
or in other words between the oblique and the direct narrative; and so
he boldly translates [Greek: einai tên diastolên] as though it were
[Greek: estai] (or [Greek: mellei einai]) [Greek: hê diastolê], and
[Greek: eirêkenai ton Kurion] as though it were [Greek: eirêken ho
Kurios]. This is just as if a translator from a German original were to
persist in ignoring the difference between 'es sey' and 'es ist' and
between 'der Herr sage' and 'der Herr sagt.' Yet so unconscious is our
author of the real point at issue, that he proceeds to support his view
by several other passages in which Irenæus 'interweaves' his own
remarks, because they happen to contain the words [Greek: dia touto],
though in every instance the indicative and _not the infinitive_ is
used. To complete this feat of scholarship he proceeds to charge Dr
Westcott with what 'amounts to a falsification of the text [5:3],'
because this scholarly writer has inserted the words 'they taught' to
show that in the original the sentence containing the reference to St
John is in the oblique narrative and therefore reports the words of
others [5:4]. I shall not retort this charge of 'falsification,' because
I do not think that the cause of truth is served by imputing immoral
motives to those from whom we differ; and indeed the context shows that
our author is altogether blind to the grammatical necessity. But I would
venture to ask whether it would not have been more prudent, as well as
more seemly, if he had paused before venturing, under the shelter of an
anonymous publication, to throw out this imputation of dishonesty
against a writer of singular candour and moderation, who has at least
given to the world the hostage and the credential of an honoured name.
It is necessary to add that our author persists in riveting this
grammatical error on himself. He returns to the charge again in two
later footnotes [6:1] and declares himself to have shown 'that it [the
reference to the Fourth Gospel] must be referred to Irenæus himself,
and that there is no ground for attributing it to the Presbyters at
all.' 'Most critics,' he continues, 'admit the uncertainty [6:2].' As it
will be my misfortune hereafter to dispute not a few propositions which
'most critics' are agreed in maintaining, it is somewhat reassuring to
find that they are quite indifferent to the most elementary demands of
grammar [6:3].
The passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main question at
issue, the date of the Fourth Gospel. The second example which I shall
take, though less important, is not without its value. As in the former
instance our author showed his indifference to moods, so here he is
equally regardless of tenses. He is discussing the heathen Celsus, who
shows an acquaintance with the Evangelical narratives, and whose date
therefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain. Origen, in
the preface to his refutation of Celsus, distinctly states that this
person had been long dead ([Greek: êdê kai palai nekron]). In his first
book again he confesses his ignorance who this Celsus was, but is
disposed to identify him with a person of the name known to have
flourished about a century before his own time [7:1]. But at the close
of the last book [7:2], addressing his friend Ambrosius who had sent him
the work, and at whose instance he had undertaken the refutation, he
writes (or rather, he is represented by our author as writing) as
follows:--
'Know, however, that Celsus has promised to write another treatise
after this one.... If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise
to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with the eight
books in reply to his Discourse. If however, he has commenced and
finished this work also, seek it and send it in order that we may
answer it also, and confute the false teaching in it etc.' [7:3]
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, for 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]) [7:4]. Thus
Origen's language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict
accordance with the earlier passages in his work.
These two examples have been chosen, not because they are by any means
the worst specimens of our author's Greek, but because in both cases an
elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar. If any reader is
curious to see how he can drive his ploughshare through a Greek
sentence, he may refer for instance to the translations of Basilides
(II. p. 46) [8:1], or of Valentinus (II. p. 63) [8:2], or of Philo (II.
p. 265 sq) [8:3]. Or he may draw his inferences from such renderings as
[Greek; ho logos edêlou], 'Scripture declares,' [8:4] or [Greek: kata
korrês propêlakizein], [8:5] 'to inflict a blow on one side'; or from
such perversions of meaning as 'did no wrong,' twice repeated [8:6] as a
translation of [Greek: ouden hêmarte] in an important passage of Papias
relating to St Mark, where this Father really means that the Evangelist,
though his narrative was not complete, yet 'made no mistake' in what he
did record.
Nor does our author's Latin fare any better than his Greek, as may be
inferred from the fact that he can translate 'nihil tamen differt
credentium fidei,' 'nothing nevertheless differs in the faith of
believers,' [8:7] instead of 'it makes no difference to the faith of
believers,' thus sacrificing sense and grammar alike [8:8]. Or it is
still better illustrated by the following example:--
'Nam ex iis commentatoribus | 'For of the Commentators
quos habemus, Lucam videtur | whom we possess, Marcion seems
Marcion elegisse quem caederet.' | (_videtur_) to have selected Luke,
Tertull. _adv. Marc._ iv. 2. | which he mutilates.' _S.R._
| II. p. 99. [8:9]
Here again tenses and moods are quite indifferent, an imperfect
subjunctive being treated as a present indicative; while at the same
time our author fails to perceive that the "commentatores" are the
Evangelists themselves. His mind seems to be running on the Commentaries
of De Wette and Alford, and he has forgotten the Commentaries of Cæsar
[9:1].
Having shown that the author does not possess the elementary knowledge
which is indispensable in a critical scholar, I shall not stop to
inquire how far he exhibits those higher qualifications of a critic,
which are far more rare--whether for instance he has the discriminating
tact and nice balance of judgment necessary for such a work, or whether
again he realizes how men in actual life do speak and write now, and
might be expected to speak and write sixteen or seventeen centuries
ago--without which qualifications the most painful study and
reproduction of German and Dutch criticism is valueless. These
qualifications cannot be weighed or measured, and I must trust to my
subsequent investigations to put the reader in possession of data for
forming a judgment on these points. At present it will be sufficient to
remark that a scholarly writer might at least be expected not to
contradict himself on a highly important question of Biblical criticism.
Yet this is what our author does. Speaking of the descent of the angel
at the pool of Bethesda (John v. 3, 4) in his first part, he writes:
'The passage is not found in the older MSS of the Fourth Gospel, and it
was probably a later interpolation.' [9:2] But, having occasion towards
the end of his work to refer again to this same passage, he entirely
forgets his previously expressed opinion, and is very positive on the
other side. 'We must believe,' he writes, 'that this passage did
originally belong to the text, and has from an early period been omitted
from the MSS on account of the difficulty it presents.' [10:1] And, to
make the contradiction more flagrant, he proceeds to give a reason why
the disputed words must have formed part of the original text.
It must be evident by this time to any 'impartial mind,' that the
_Supernatural Religion_ of the reviewers cannot be our _Supernatural
Religion_. The higher criticism has taught me that poor foolish Papias,
an extreme specimen of 'the most deplorable carelessness and want of
critical judgment' displayed by the Fathers on all occasions, cannot
possibly have had our St Mark's Gospel before him [10:2], because he
says that his St Mark recorded only 'some' of our Lord's sayings and
doings, and did not record them in order (though by the way no one
maintains that everything said and done by Christ is recorded in our
Second Gospel, or that the events follow in strict chronological
sequence); and how then is it possible to resist the conclusion, which
is forced upon the mind by the concurrent testimony of so many able
reviewers, the leaders of intellectual thought in this critical
nineteenth century, to the consummate scholarship of the writer, that
they must be referring to a different recension, probably more authentic
and certainly far more satisfactory than the book which lies before me?
2. And the difficulty of the popular identification will be found to
increase as the investigation proceeds. There is a second point, also,
on which our critics are unanimous. Our first reviewer describes the
author as 'scrupulously exact in stating the arguments of adversaries.'
Our fourth reviewer uses still stronger language: 'The author with
excellent candour places before us the materials on which a judgment
must rest, with great fulness and perfect impartiality.' The testimony
of the other two, though not quite so explicit, tends in the same
direction. 'An earnest seeker after truth,' says the second reviewer,
'looking around at all particulars pertaining to his inquiries.' 'The
account given in the volume we are noticing,' writes the third, 'is a
perfect mine of information on this subject, alloyed indeed with no
small prejudice, yet so wonderfully faithful and comprehensive that an
error may be detected by the light of the writer's own searching and
scholarly criticism.'
Now this is not the characteristic of the book before me. The author
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. This charge will, I believe, be abundantly
substantiated as I proceed. At present I shall do no more than give a
few samples.
Our author charges the Epistle ascribed to Polycarp with an anachronism
[11:1], because, though in an earlier passage St Ignatius is assumed to
be dead, 'in chap. xiii he is spoken of as living, and information is
requested regarding him "and those who are with him."' 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 retranslated into the original language, [Greek:
tois sun autô], the 'anachronism' altogether disappears? [11:2] Again,
when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion of Papias
[11:3], 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
illustrate by oral tradition one already lying before him in written
documents? [11:4] 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. Again, when he
reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prejudice' of
Hegesippus against St Paul [12:1], 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, etc.',
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 know of the opinions of Hegesippus [12:2], the
view of 'apologists' might perhaps have been worth a moment's
consideration. And again, in the elaborate examination of Justin
Martyr's evangelical quotations [12:3], in which he had Credner's
careful analysis to guide him, and which therefore is quite the most
favourable specimen of his critical work, 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? [12:4] The former Justin supposed to be (as one of the
reviewers expresses it) 'almost automatically inspired,' whereas he took
a much larger view of the inspiration of the evangelical narratives. 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, mis-names, and
mis-quotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot be said that these
are unimportant points. In every instance which I have selected these
omitted considerations vitally affect the main question at issue.
Our fourth reviewer however uses the words which I have already quoted,
'excellent candour,' 'great fulness,' 'perfect impartiality,' with
special reference to the part of the work relating to the authorship and
character of the Fourth Gospel, which he describes as 'a piece of keen
and solid reasoning.' This is quite decisive. Our author might have had
his own grounds for ignoring the arguments of 'apologetic' writers, or
he may have been ignorant of them. For reasons which will appear
presently, the latter alternative ought probably to be adopted as
explaining some omissions. But however this may be, the language of the
reviewer is quite inapplicable to the work lying before me. It may be
candid in the sense of being honestly meant, but it is not candid in any
other sense; and it is the very reverse of full and impartial. The
arguments of 'apologetic' writers are systematically ignored in this
part of the work. Once or twice indeed he fastens on passages from such
writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main arguments
remain wholly unnoticed. Why, for instance, when he says of the Fourth
Gospel that 'instead of the fierce and intolerant temper of the Son of
Thunder, we find a spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness and
love,' [13:1] does he forget to add that 'apologists' have pointed to
such passages as 'Ye are of your father the devil,' as a refutation of
this statement--passages far more 'intolerant' than anything recorded in
the Synoptic Gospels? [13:2] Why again, when he asserts that 'allusion
is undoubtedly made to' St Paul in the words of the Apocalypse, 'them
that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
to idols [14:1],' does he forget to mention that St Paul himself uses
this same chapter in Jewish history as a warning to those free-thinkers
and free-livers, who eat things sacrificed to idols, regardless of the
scandal which their conduct might create, and thus, so far from a direct
antagonism, there is a substantial agreement between the two Apostles on
this point? [14:2] Why, when he is endeavouring to minimize, if not to
deny, the Hebraic [14:3] 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 in the
Fourth Gospel is Hebraic? Why again, when he alludes to 'the minuteness
of details' [14:4] in this Gospel as alleged in defence of its
authenticity, is he satisfied with this mere caricature of the
'apologetic' argument? Having set up a man of straw, he has no
difficulty in knocking him down. He has only to declare that 'the
identification of an eye-witness by details is absurd.' It would have
been more to the purpose if he had boldly grappled with such arguments
as he might have found in Mr Sanday's book for instance [15:1];
arguments founded not on the minuteness of details, but on the thorough
naturalness with which the incidents develop themselves, on the subtle
and inobtrusive traits of character which appear in the speakers, on the
local colouring which is inseparably interwoven with the narrative, on
the presence of strictly Jewish (as distinguished from Christian) ideas,
more especially Messianic ideas, which saturate the speeches, and the
like. And, if he could have brought forward any parallel to all this in
the literature of the time, or could even have shown a reasonable
probability that such a fiction might have been produced in an age which
(as we are constantly reminded) was singularly inappreciative and
uncritical in such matters, and which certainly has not left any
evidence of a genius for realism, for its highest conception of
romance-writing does not rise above the stiffness of the Clementines or
the extravagance of the Protevangelium--if he could have done this, he
would at least have advanced his argument a step [15:2]. Why again, when
he is emphasizing the differences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth
Gospel, does he content himself with stating 'that some apologetic
writers' are 'satisfied by the analogies which could scarcely fail to
exist between two works dealing with a similar (!) theme,' [15:3]
without mentioning for the benefit of the reader some of these
analogies, as for instance, that our Lord is styled the Word of God in
these two writings, and these alone, of the New Testament? He recurs
more than once to the doctrine of the Logos, as exhibited in the Gospel,
but again he is silent about the presence of this nomenclature in the
Apocalypse [15:4]. Why, when he contrasts the Christology of the
Synoptic Gospels with the Christology of St John [15:5], does he not
mention that 'apologists' quote in reply our Lord's words in Matt. xi.
27 sq, 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man
knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save
the Son, and he to whom soever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me,
all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest'? This
one passage, they assert, covers the characteristic teaching of the
Fourth Gospel, and hitherto they have not been answered. Again, our
author says very positively that the Synoptics clearly represent the
ministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his
preaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career
culminates at the fatal Passover;' thus contrasting with the Fourth
Gospel, which 'distributes the teaching of Jesus between Galilee,
Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend at least over three years, and
refers to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.' [16:1] Why then
does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as
Matt. xxiii. 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
[16:2]. If so, the coincidence is the more remarkable, because it does
not appear that St Luke himself, while recording these prophetic words,
was aware of their full historical import. But whatever may be thought
of this last point, the contention of 'apologetic' writers is that here,
as elsewhere, the Fourth Gospel supplies the key to historical
difficulties in the Synoptic narratives, which are not unlocked in the
course of those narratives themselves, and this fact increases their
confidence in its value as an authentic record [16:3].
Again: he refers several times to the Paschal controversy of the second
century as bearing on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. On one
occasion he devotes two whole pages to it. [17:1] Why then does he not
mention that 'apologetic' writers altogether deny what he states to be
absolutely certain; maintaining on the contrary that the Christian
Passover, celebrated by the Asiatic Churches on the 14th Nisan,
commemorated not the Institution of the Lord's Supper, but, as it
naturally would, the Sacrifice on the Cross, and asserting that the main
dispute between the Asiatic and Roman Churches had reference to the
question whether the commemoration should take place always on the 14th
Nisan (irrespective of the day of the week) or always on a Friday? Thus,
they claim the Paschal controversy as a witness on their own side. This
view may be right or wrong; but inasmuch as any person might read the
unusually full account of the controversy in Eusebius from beginning to
end, without a suspicion that the alternative of the 14th or 15th Nisan,
as the day of the Crucifixion, entered into the dispute at all, the
_onus probandi_ rests with our author, and his stout assertions were
certainly needed to supply the place of arguments. [17:2]
The same reticence or ignorance respecting the arguments of 'apologetic'
writers is noticeable also when he deals with the historical and
geographical allusions in the Fourth Gospel. 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), [17:3] omitting altogether to notice others [18:1]. But as a
rule, he betrays no knowledge whatever of his adversaries' arguments.
One instance will suffice to illustrate his mode of procedure. Referring
to the interpretation of Siloam as 'sent,' in John ix. 7, he stigmatizes
this as 'a distinct error,' because the word signifies 'a spring, a
fountain, a flow of water;' and he adds that 'a foreigner with a slight
knowledge of the language is misled by the superficial analogy of sound
[18:2].' Does he not know (his Gesenius will teach him this) that Siloam
signifies a fountain, or rather, an aqueduct, a conduit, like the Latin
_emissarium_, because it is derived from the Hebrew _shalach_ 'to send'?
and if he does know it, why has he left his readers entirely in the dark
on this subject? As the word is much disguised in its Greek dress
(_Siloam_ for _Shiloach_), the knowledge of its derivation is not
unimportant, and 'apologists' claim to have this item of evidence
transferred to their side of the account. Any one disposed to retaliate
upon our author for his habitual reticence would find in these volumes,
ready made for his purpose, a large assortment of convenient phrases
ranging from 'discreet reserve' to 'wilful and deliberate evasion.' I do
not intend to yield to this temptation. But the reader will have drawn
his own conclusions from this recklessness of assault in one whose own
armour is gaping at every joint.
But indeed, when he does stoop to notice the arguments of 'apologetic'
writers, he is not always successful in apprehending their meaning.
Thus he writes of the unnamed disciple, the assumed author of the Fourth
Gospel:--
'The assumption that the disciple thus indicated is John, rests
principally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other
Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid directly naming John, and
also that he only once [18:3] distinguishes John the Baptist by the
appellation [Greek: ho baptistês], whilst he carefully
distinguishes the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always
speaks of the Apostle Peter as 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' or but
rarely as 'Simon' only. Without pausing to consider the slightness
of this evidence, etc.' [19:1]
Now the fact is, that the Fourth Evangelist never once distinguishes
this John as 'the Baptist,' though such is his common designation in the
other Gospels; and the only person, in whom the omission would be
natural, is his namesake John the son of Zebedee. Hence 'apologists' lay
great stress on this fact, as an evidence all the more valuable, because
it lies below the surface, and they urge with force, that this subtle
indication of authorship is inconceivable as the literary device of a
forger in the second century. We cannot wonder, however, if our author
considers this evidence so slight that he will not even pause upon it,
when he has altogether distorted it by a mis-statement of fact. But it
is instructive to trace his error to its source. Turning to Credner, to
whom the author gives a reference in a footnote, I find this writer
stating that the Fourth Evangelist
'Has not found it necessary to distinguish John the Baptist from
the Apostle John his namesake _even so much as once_ (auch nur ein
einziges Mal) by the addition [Greek: ho baptistês].' [19:2]
So then our author has stumbled over that little word 'nur,' and his
German has gone the way of his Greek and his Latin [19:3]. But the error
is instructive from another point of view. This argument happens to be a
commonplace of 'apologists.' How comes it then, that he was not set
right by one or other of these many writers, even if he could not
construe Credner's German? Clearly this cannot be the work which the
reviewers credit with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature of the
subject. I may be asked indeed to explain how, on this theory of
mistaken identity which I here put forward, the work reviewed by the
critics came to be displaced by the work before me, so that no traces of
the original remain. But this I altogether decline to do, and I plead
authority for refusing. 'The merely negative evidence that our actual
[_Supernatural Religion_] is not the work described by [the Reviewers]
is sufficient for our purpose.' [20:1]
3. But the argument is strengthened when we come to consider a third
point. 'The author's discussions,' writes our first reviewer, 'are
conducted in a judicial method.' 'He has the critical faculty in union
with a calm spirit.' 'Calm and judicial in tone,' is the verdict of our
second reviewer. The opinion of our third and fourth reviewers on this
part may be gathered not so much from what they say as from what they
leave unsaid. A fifth reviewer however, who seems certainly to have had
our _Supernatural Religion_ before him, holds different language. He
rebukes the author--with wonderful gentleness, considering the gravity
of the offence--for 'now and then losing patience.'
Now whether calmness of tone can be said to distinguish a work which
bristles with such epithets as 'monstrous,' 'impossible,' 'audacious,'
'preposterous,' 'absurd;' whether the habit of reiterating as axiomatic
truths what at the very best are highly precarious hypotheses--as, for
instance, that Papias did not refer to our St Mark's Gospel--does not
savour more of the vehemence of the advocate than of the impartiality of
the judge, I must ask the reader to decide for himself. But of the
highly discreditable practice of imputing corrupt motives to those who
differ from us there cannot be two opinions. We have already seen how a
righteous nemesis has overtaken our author, and he has covered himself
with confusion, while recklessly flinging a charge of 'falsification' at
another. Unfortunately however that passage does not stand alone. I will
not take up the reader's time with illustrations of a practice, of which
we have seen more than enough already. But there is one example which is
sufficiently instructive to deserve quoting. 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."' [21:1]
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: (I) to assert the fact
that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition
represented Mark to be; or (II) 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.' [21:2]
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 [22:1], 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.
I will not retort upon our author the charge of 'deliberate
falsification,' which he so freely levels at others, for I do not
believe that he had any such intention. The lesson suggested by this
highly characteristic passage is of another kind. It exemplifies the
elaborate looseness which pervades the critical portion of this book. It
illustrates the author's inability to look at things in a
straightforward way. It emphasizes more especially the suspicious temper
of the work, which makes it, as even a favourable reviewer has said,
'painfully sceptical'--a temper which must necessarily vitiate all the
processes of criticism, and which, if freely humoured elsewhere, would
render life intolerable and history impossible [22:2].
It is difficult to see what end the author proposed to attain by all
this literary browbeating. In the course of my examination I shall be
constrained to adopt many a view which has been denounced beforehand as
impossible and absurd; and I shall give my reasons for doing so. If by
an 'apologist' [22:3] is meant one who knows that he owes everything
which is best and truest in himself to the teaching of Christianity--not
the Christless Christianity which alone our author would spare, the
works with the mainspring broken, but the Christianity of the Apostles
and Evangelists--who believes that its doctrines, its sanctions, and its
hopes, are truths of the highest moment to the wellbeing of mankind, and
who, knowing and believing all this, is ready to use in its defence such
abilities as he has, then a man may be proud to take even the lowest
place among the ranks of 'apologists,' and to brave any insinuations of
dishonesty which an anonymous critic may fling at him.
There is however another more subtle mode of intimidation which plays an
important part in these volumes. Long lists of references are given in
the notes, to modern critics who (as the reader would infer from the
mode of reference) support the views mentioned or adopted by the author
in the text. I have verified these references in one or two cases, and
have found that several writers, at all events, do not hold the opinions
to which their names are attached [23:1]. But, under any circumstances,
these lists will not fetter the judgment of any thoughtful mind. It is
strange indeed, that a writer who denounces so strongly the influence of
authority as represented by tradition, should be anxious to impose on
his readers another less honourable yoke. There is at least a
presumption (though in individual cases it may prove false on
examination) that the historical sense of seventeen or eighteen
centuries is larger and truer than the critical insight of a section of
men in one late half century. The idols of our cave never present
themselves in a more alluring form than when they appear as the 'spirit
of the age.' It is comparatively easy to resist the fallacies of past
times, but it is most difficult to escape the infection of the
intellectual atmosphere in which we live. I ask myself, for instance,
whether one who lived in the age of the rabbis would have been
altogether right in resigning himself to the immediate current of
intellectual thought, because he saw, or seemed to see, that it was
setting strongly in one direction.
This comparison is not without its use. Here were men eminently learned,
painstaking, minute; eminently ingenious also, and in a certain sense,
eminently critical. In accumulating and assorting facts--such facts as
lay within their reach--and in the general thoroughness of their work,
the rabbis of Jewish exegesis might well bear comparison with the rabbis
of neologian criticism. They reigned supreme in their own circles for a
time; their work has not been without its fruits; many useful
suggestions have gone to swell the intellectual and moral inheritance of
later ages; but their characteristic teaching, which they themselves
would have regarded as their chief claim to immortality, has long since
been consigned to oblivion. It might be minute and searching, but it was
conceived in a false vein; it was essentially unhistorical, and
therefore it could not live. The modern negative school of criticism
seems to me to be equally perverse and unreal, though in a different
way; and therefore I anticipate for it the same fate.
Mr Matthew Arnold, alluding to an eccentric work of rationalizing
tendencies written by an English scholar, and using M. Renan as his
mouthpiece, expresses the opinion that 'an extravagance of this sort
could never have come from Germany where there is a great force of
critical opinion controlling a learned man's vagaries, and keeping him
straight.' [24:1] I confess that my experiences of the critical
literature of Germany have not been so fortunate. It would be difficult,
I think, to find among English scholars any parallel to the mass of
absurdities, which several intelligent and very learned German critics
have conspired to heap upon two simple names in the Philippian Epistle,
Euodia and Syntyche; first, Baur suggesting that the pivot of the
Epistle, which has a conciliatory tendency, is the mention of Clement, a
mythical or almost mythical person, who represents the union of the
Petrine and Pauline parties in the Church [24:2]; then Schwegler,
carrying the theory a step further, and declaring that the two names,
Euodia and Syntyche, actually represent these two parties, while the
true yoke-fellow is St Peter himself [24:3]; then Volkmar, improving the
occasion, and showing that this fact is indicated in their very names,
Euodia, or 'Rightway,' and Syntyche or 'Consort,' denoting respectively
the orthodoxy of the one party and the incorporation of the other
[24:4]; lastly, Hitzig lamenting that interpreters of the New Testament
are not more thoroughly imbued with the language and spirit of the Old,
and maintaining that these two names are reproductions of the patriarchs
Asher and Gad--their sex having been changed in the transition from one
language to another--and represent the Greek and Roman elements in the
Church, while the Epistle to the Philippians itself is a plagiarism from
the Agricola of Tacitus [25:1]. When therefore I find our author
supporting some of his more important judgments by the authority of
'Hitzig, Volkmar and others,' or of 'Volkmar and others,' [25:2] I have
my own opinion of the weight which such names should carry with them
[25:3].
It is not however against the eccentricities of individuals except so
far as these can be charged to a vicious atmosphere and training, that I
would rest the chief stress of my complaint. The whole tone and spirit
of the school in its excess of scepticism must, I venture to think, be
fatal to the ends of true criticism. A reviewer of _Supernatural
Religion_ compares the author's handling of the reconstructive efforts
of certain conservative critics regarding the Fourth Gospel to Sir G.C.
Lewis's objections to Niebuhr's 'equally arbitrary reconstruction of
early Roman history.' From one point of view this comparison is
instructive. We have no means of testing the value of that eminent
writer's negative criticisms of early Roman history. But where
additional knowledge has enabled us to apply a test to his opinions, as,
for instance, respecting the interpretation of the Egyptian hieroglyphic
language, we find that his scepticism led him signally astray. It seems
to be assumed that, because the sceptical spirit has its proper function
in scientific inquiry (though even here its excesses will often impede
progress), therefore its exercise is equally useful and equally free
from danger in the domain of criticism. A moment's reflection however
will show that the cases are wholly different. In whatever relates to
morals and history--in short, to human life in all its developments--
where mathematical or scientific demonstration is impossible, and where
consequently everything depends on the even balance of the judicial
faculties, scepticism must be at least as fatal to the truth as
credulity.
The author of _Supernatural Religion_ proposes to himself the task of
demonstrating that the miraculous element in Christianity is a delusion.
The work is divided into three parts. The first part undertakes to prove
that miracles are not only highly improbable, but antecedently
incredible, so that no amount of testimony can overcome the objections
to them. As a subsidiary aim, he endeavours to show that the sort of
evidence, which, under the most favourable circumstances, we should be
likely to obtain in the early Christian ages, ought not to inspire
confidence. The second and third parts are occupied in examining the
actual witnesses themselves, that is, the four Gospels; the second being
devoted to the Synoptists, and the third to St John. The main contention
is that the four Gospels are entirely devoid of evidence sufficient to
satisfy us of their date and authorship, considering the momentous
import of their contents. These portions of the work therefore are
chiefly occupied in examining the external testimonies to the
authenticity and genuineness of the Gospels. In the case of St John the
internal character of the document is likewise subjected to examination.
Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first
part, the second and third are altogether superfluous [27:1]. It is
somewhat strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole
work should be devoted to this needless task. Impressed, as it would
seem, by the elaboration of these portions, reviewers have singled them
out for special praise, even when they have condemned the first as
unsatisfactory. With this estimate of their value I find myself
altogether unable to agree; and in the articles which will follow I hope
to give my reasons for dissenting. Regarded as a handbook of the
critical fallacies of the modern destructive school, _Supernatural
Religion_ well deserves examination.
For this reason I shall hereafter occupy myself solely with the two
latter portions of the work, and more especially with the external
evidences of the Gospels; but there is one point, affecting the main
question at issue, which it is impossible to pass over in silence.
Anyone who, with the arguments of the first part fresh in his memory,
will turn to the final chapter, in which the author gives a confession
of faith, must be struck with the startling dislocation between the
principles from which the work starts and the manifesto with which it
concludes. Our author has eliminated, as he believes, the miraculous or
supernatural element from the Gospel. He will have nothing to say to
'Ecclesiastical Christianity,' by which strange phrase is meant the
Christianity of the Apostles and Evangelists. He will not even hear of a
future life with its hopes and fears [27:1]. He will purge the Gospel of
all 'dogmas,' and will present it as an ethical system alone. The
extreme beauty, I might almost say the absolute perfection, of Christ's
moral teaching [27:2] he not only allows, but insists upon. 'Morality,'
he adds, 'was the essence of his system; theology was an after-thought.'
[27:3] And yet almost in the same breath he adopts as his 'two
fundamental principles, Love to God and love to man.' He commends a
'morality based upon the earnest and intelligent acceptance of Divine
Law, and perfect recognition of the brotherhood of man,' as 'the highest
conceivable by humanity.' [27:4] He speaks of the 'purity of heart which
alone "sees God.'" [27:5] He enforces the necessity of 'rising to higher
conceptions of an infinitely wise and beneficent Being ... whose laws of
wondrous comprehensiveness and perfection we ever perceive in operation
around us.' [28:1] All this is well said, but is it consistent? This
universal 'brotherhood of man,' what is it but a 'dogma' of the most
comprehensive application? This 'Love to God' springing from the
apprehension of a 'wondrous perfection,' and the recognition of an
'infinitely wise and beneficent Being,'--in short, this belief in a
Heavenly Father, which on any showing was the fundamental axiom of our
Lord's teaching, and which our author thus accepts as a cardinal article
in his own creed,--what is it but a theological proposition of the most
overwhelming import, before which all other 'dogmas' sink into
insignificance?
And what room, we are forced to ask, has he left for such a dogma? In
the first portion of the work our author has been careful not to define
his position. He has studiously avoided committing himself to a belief
in a universal Father or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God. If
he had done so, he would have tied his hands at once. Very much of the
reasoning which he brings forward against the miraculous element in
Christianity in answer to Dr Mozley and Dean Mansel falls to the ground
when this proposition is assumed. His arguments prove nothing, because
they prove too much: for they are equally efficacious, or equally
inefficacious, against the doctrine of a Divine providence or of human
responsibility, as they are against the resurrection of Christ. The
truth is, that when our author closes his work, he cannot face the
conclusions to which his premisses would inevitably lead him. They are
too startling for himself, as well as for his readers, in their naked
deformity; and with a noble inconsistency he clutches at these 'dogmas'
to save himself from sinking into the abyss of moral scepticism.
Mr J.S. Mill's inexorable logic may not be without its use, as holding
up the mirror to such inconsistency. On his own narrow premisses this
eminent logician builds up his own narrow conclusions with remorseless
rigour. Our author in his first part adopts this same narrow basis, and
truly enough finds no resting-place for Christianity upon it, as indeed
there is none for any theory of a providential government. But at the
conclusion he tacitly and (as it would seem) quite unconsciously assumes
a much wider standing-ground. If he had not done so, he himself would
have been edged off his footing, and hurled down the precipice. A whole
pack of 'pursuing wolves' [29:1] is upon him, far more ravenous than any
which beset the path of the believers in revelation; and he has left
himself no shelter. If he had commenced by defining what he meant by
'Nature' and 'Supernatural,' he might have avoided this inconsistency,
though he must have sacrificed much of his argument to save his creed.
As it is, he has unconsciously juggled with two senses of Nature. Nature
in the first part, where he is arguing against miracles, is the
aggregate of external phenomena--the same Nature against which Mr Mill
prefers his terrible indictment for its cruelty and injustice. But
Nature in the concluding chapter involves the idea of a moral Governor
and a beneficent Father; and this idea can only be introduced by opening
flood-gates of thought which refuse to be closed just at the moment when
it is necessary to bar the admission of the miraculous. Our author has
ranged himself unconsciously with the 'intuitive philosophers,' of whom
Mr Mill speaks so scornfully. He has appealed, though he does not seem
to be aware of it, to the inner consciousness of man, to the instincts
and cravings of humanity, to interpret and supplement the teachings of
external Nature; and he is altogether unaware how large a concession he
has made to believers in revelation by so doing.
Even though we should close our eyes to all other considerations, it is
vain to ignore the inevitable moral consequences which flow from this
mode of reasoning; for they are becoming every day more apparent. The
demand is made that we should abandon our Christianity on grounds which
logically involve the abandonment of any belief in the providential
government of the world and in the moral responsibility of man. Young
men are apt to be far more logical than their elders. Older persons are
taught by long experience to distrust the adequacy of their premisses:
consciously or unconsciously they supplement the narrow conclusions of
their logic by larger lessons learnt from human life or from their own
heart. But generally speaking, the young man has no such distrust. His
teacher has appealed to Nature, and to Nature he shall go. The teacher
becomes frightened, struggles to retrace his steps, and speaks of 'an
infinitely wise and beneficent Being'; but the pupil insolently points
out how
Nature, red in tooth and claw,
With ravin, shrieks against his creed.
The teacher urges, 'All that is consistent with wise and omnipotent Law
is prospered and brought to perfection:' [30:1] and the pupil replies:
'You have limited my horizon to this life, and in this life the facts do
not verify your statement.' The teacher says, Believe that you--you
personally--'are eternally cared for and governed by an omnipresent
immutable power for which nothing is too great, nothing too
insignificant.' [30:2] The pupil says: 'My Christianity did show me how
this was possible; but with my Christianity I have cast it away as a
delusion. I could not stop short at this point consistently with the
principles you have laid down for my guidance. I have done as you told
me to do; I have "ratified the fiat which maintains the order of
Nature," [30:3] and I find Nature wholly
Careless of the single life.
I will therefore please myself henceforth.' The teacher speaks of 'the
purity which alone sees God;' and to him the expression has a real
meaning, for his mind is unconsciously saturated with ideas which he has
certainly not learnt from his adopted philosophy: but to the pupil it
has lost its articulate utterance, and is no better than sounding brass
or a tinkling cymbal. Hence the pupil, having thrown off his
Christianity, too often follows out the principles of his teacher to
their logical conclusions, and divests himself also of moral restraints,
except so far as it may be convenient or necessary for him to submit to
them. Happily this has not been the case hitherto in the large majority
of instances. The permanence of habits formed in a nobler school of
teaching, the abiding presence of a loftier ideal not derived from this
new philosophy, and (we may add also) the voice of an inward witness
whose authority is denied, but whose warnings nevertheless compel a
hearing, all tend to raise the level of men's conduct above their
principles. The full moral consequences of the teaching would only then
be seen, if ever a generation should grow up, moulded altogether under
its influences.
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS.
[JANUARY, 1875.]
'It is very important,' says the author of _Supernatural Religion_, when
commencing his critical investigations, 'that the silence of early
writers should receive as much attention as any supposed allusions to
the Gospels.' [32:1] In the present article I shall act upon this
suggestion. In one province more especially, relating to the external
evidences for the Gospels, silence occupies a prominent place. This
mysterious oracle will be interrogated, and, unless I am mistaken, the
response elicited will not be at all ambiguous.
To EUSEBIUS we are indebted for almost all that we know of the lost
ecclesiastical literature of the second century. This literature was
very considerable. The Expositions of Papias, in five books, and the
Ecclesiastical History of Hegesippus, likewise in five books, must have
been full of important matter bearing on our subject. The very numerous
works of Melito and Claudius Apollinaris, of which Eusebius has
preserved imperfect lists [32:2], ranged over the wide domain of
theology, of morals, of exegesis, of apologetics, of ecclesiastical
order; and here again a flood of light would probably have been poured
on the history of the Canon, if time had spared these precious documents
of Christian antiquity. Even the extant writings of the second century,
however important they may be from other points of view, give a very
inadequate idea of the relation of their respective authors to the
Canonical writings. In the case of Justin Martyr for instance, it is not
from his Apologies or from his Dialogue with Trypho that we should
expect to obtain the fullest and most direct information on this point.
In works like these, addressed to Heathens and Jews, who attributed no
authority to the writings of Apostles and Evangelists, and for whom the
names of the writers would have no meaning, we are not surprised that he
refers to those writings for the most part anonymously and with reserve.
On the other hand, if his treatise against Marcion (to take a single
instance) had been preserved, we should probably have been placed in a
position to estimate with tolerable accuracy his relation to the
Canonical writings. But in the absence of all this valuable literature,
the notices in Eusebius assume the utmost importance, and it is of
primary moment to the correctness of our result that we should rightly
interpret his language. Above all, it is incumbent on us not to assume
that his silence means exactly what we wish it to mean. Eusebius made it
his business to record notices throwing light on the history of the
Canon. The first care of the critic therefore should be to inquire with
what aims and under what limitations he executed this portion of his
work.
Now, our author is eloquent on the silence of Eusebius. His fundamental
assumption is that where Eusebius does not mention a reference to or
quotation from any Canonical book in any writer of whom he may be
speaking, there the writer in question was himself silent. This indeed
is only the application of a general principle which seems to have taken
possession of our author's mind. The argument from silence is
courageously and extensively applied throughout these volumes. It is
unnecessary to accumulate instances, where 'knows nothing' is
substituted for 'says nothing,' as if the two were convertible terms;
for such instances are countless. But in the case of Eusebius the
application of the principle takes a wider sweep. Not only is it
maintained that A knows nothing of B, because he says nothing of B; but
it is further assumed that A knows nothing of B, because C does not say
that A says anything of B. This is obviously an assumption which men
would not adopt in common life or in ordinary history; still less is it
one to which a competent jury would listen for a moment: and therefore a
prudent man may well hesitate before adopting it.
With what unflinching boldness our author asserts his position, will
appear from the following passages:--
Of Hegesippus he writes [35:1]:--
'The care with which Eusebius searches for every trace of the use
of the books of the New Testament in early writers, and his anxiety
to produce any evidence concerning their authenticity, render his
silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct
utterance when speaking of such a man as Hegesippus.'
And again [35:2]:--
'It is certain that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the
testimony of Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly,
regarding the Gospels _and the Apocalypse_ [35:3], would not have
neglected to have availed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus,
for whom he has so much respect, had that writer furnished him with
any opportunity.'
And again [35:1]:--'As Hegesippus does not [35:2] mention any
Canonical work of the New Testament etc.' And in the second
volume he returns to the subject [35:3]:--
'It is certain that, had he (Hegesippus) mentioned [35:4] our
Gospels, and we may say particularly the Fourth, the fact would
have been recorded by Eusebius.'
Similarly he says of Papias[35:5]:--
'Eusebius, who never fails to enumerate [35:6] the works of the New
Testament to which the Fathers refer, does not pretend [35:7] that
Papias knew either the Third or Fourth Gospels.'
And again, in a later passage [35:8]:--
'Had he (Papias) expressed any recognition [35:9] of the Fourth
Gospel, Eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact, and this
silence of Papias is strong presumptive evidence against the
Johannine Gospel.'
And a little lower down [35:10]:--
'The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not
mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth
Gospel in the work of Papias.' [35:11]
So again, our author writes of Dionysius of Corinth [35:12]:--
'No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New
Testament occurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles still
extant; nor does Eusebius make mention of any such reference in the
Epistles which have perished [35:13], which he certainly would not
have omitted to do had they contained any.'
And lower down [36:1]:--
'It is certain that had Dionysius mentioned [36:2] books of the New
Testament, Eusebius would, as usual, have stated the fact.'
Of this principle and its wide application, as we have seen, the author
has no misgivings. He declares himself absolutely certain about it. It
is with him _articulus stantis aut cadentis critices_. We shall
therefore do well to test its value, because, quite independently of the
consequences directly flowing from it, it will serve roughly to gauge
his trustworthiness as a guide in other departments of criticism, where,
from the nature of the case, no test can be applied. In the land of the
unverifiable there are no efficient critical police. When a writer
expatiates amidst conjectural quotations from conjectural apocryphal
Gospels, he is beyond the reach of refutation. But in the present case,
as it so happens, verification is possible, at least to a limited
extent; and it is important to avail ourselves of the opportunity.
In the first place then, Eusebius himself tells us what method he
intends to pursue respecting the Canon of Scripture. After enumerating
the writings bearing the name of St Peter, as follows;--(l) The First
Epistle, which is received by all, and was quoted by the ancients as
beyond dispute; (2) The Second Epistle, which tradition had not stamped
in the same way as Canonical ([Greek: endiathêkon], 'included in the
Testament'), but which nevertheless, appearing useful to many, had been
studied ([Greek: espoudasthê]) with the other Scriptures; (3) The Acts,
Gospel, Preaching, and Apocalypse of Peter, which four works he rejects
as altogether unauthenticated and discredited--he continues [37:1]:--
'But, as my history proceeds, I will take care ([Greek: prourgou
poiêsomai]), along with the successions (of the bishops), to
indicate what Church writers (who flourished) from time to time
have made use of any of the disputed books ([Greek:
antilegomenôn]), and what has been said by them concerning the
Canonical ([Greek: endiathêkôn]) and acknowledged Scriptures, and
anything that (they have said) concerning those which do not belong
to this class. Well, then, the books bearing the name of Peter, of
which I recognise ([Greek: egnôn]) one Epistle only as genuine and
acknowledged among the elders of former days ([Greek: palai]), are
those just enumerated ([Greek: tosauta]). But the fourteen Epistles
of Paul are obvious and manifest ([Greek: prodêloi kai sapheis]).
Yet it is not right to be ignorant of the fact that some persons
have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was
disputed by the Church of the Romans as not being Paul's. And I
will set before (my readers) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata
kairon]) what has been said concerning this (Epistle) also by those
who lived before our time ([Greek: tois pro hêmon]).'
He then mentions the Acts of Paul, which he 'had not received as handed
down among the undisputed books,' and the Shepherd of Hermas, which 'had
been spoken against by some' and therefore 'could have no place among
the acknowledged books,' though it had been read in churches and was
used by some of the most ancient writers. And he concludes:--
'Let this suffice as a statement ([Greek: eis parastasin ...
eirêsthô]) of those Divine writings which are unquestionable, and
those which are not acknowledged among all.'
This statement, though not so clear on minor points as we could wish, is
thoroughly sensible and quite intelligible in its main lines. It shows
an appreciation of the conditions of the problem. Above all, it is
essentially straightforward. It certainly does not evince the precision
of a lawyer, but neither on the other hand does it at all justify the
unqualified denunciations of the uncritical character of Eusebius in
which our author indulges. The exact limits of the Canon were not
settled when Eusebius wrote. With regard to the main body of the
writings included in our New Testament there was absolutely no question;
but there existed a margin of _antilegomena_ or disputed books, about
which differences of opinion existed, or had existed. Eusebius therefore
proposes to treat these two classes of writings in two different ways.
This is the cardinal point of the passage. Of the antilegomena he
pledges himself to record when any ancient writer _employs_ any book
belonging to their class ([Greek: tines hopoiais kechrêntai]); 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 endiathêkôn eirêtai]). Any _anecdote_ of interest
respecting them, as also respecting the others ([Greek: tôn mê
toioutôn]), will be recorded. But in their case he nowhere leads us to
expect that he will allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and
however precise [38:1].
This statement is inserted after the record of the martyrdom of St Peter
and St Paul, and has immediate and special reference to their writings.
The Shepherd of Hermas is only mentioned incidentally, because (as
Eusebius himself intimates) the author was supposed to be named in the
Epistle to the Romans. But the occasion serves as an opportunity for the
historian to lay down the general principles on which he intends to act.
Somewhat later, when he arrives at the history of the last years of St
John, he is led to speak of the writings of this Apostle also; and as St
John's Gospel completes the tetrad of Evangelical narratives, he inserts
at this point his account of the Four Gospels. This account concludes as
follows [39:1]:--
'Thus much ([Greek: tauta]) we ourselves (have to say) concerning
these (the Four Gospels); but we will endeavour more particularly
([Greek: oikeioteron]) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata
kairon]) by quoting the ancient writers to set forth what has been
said by anyone else ([Greek: tois allois]) also concerning them.
Now, of the writings of John, the first (former, [Greek: protera])
of his Epistles also is acknowledged as beyond question alike among
our contemporaries ([Greek: tois nun]) and among the ancients,
while the remaining two are disputed. But respecting the Apocalypse
opinions are drawn in opposite directions, even to the present day,
among most men ([Greek: tois pollois]). Howbeit it also shall
receive its judgment ([Greek: epikrisin]) at a proper season from
the testimonies of the ancients.'
After this follows the well-known passage in which he sums up the
results at which he has arrived respecting the Canon. With this passage,
important as it is in itself, I need not trouble my readers.
Here again it will be seen that the same distinction as before is
observed. Of the Gospels the historian will only record anecdotes
concerning them. On the other hand, in the case of the Apocalypse mere
references and quotations will be mentioned because they afford
important data for arriving at a decision concerning its Canonical
authority.
Hitherto we have discovered no foundation for the superstructure which
our author builds on the silence of Eusebius. But the real question,
after all, is not what this historian professes to do, but what he
actually does. The original prospectus is of small moment compared with
the actual balance-sheet, and in this case time has spared us the means
of instituting an audit to a limited extent. With Papias and Hegesippus
and Dionysius of Corinth, any one is free to indulge in sweeping
assertions with little fear of conviction; for we know nothing, or next
to nothing, of these writers, except what Eusebius himself has told us.
But Eusebius has also dealt with other ancient writings in relation to
the Canon, as, for instance, those of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of
Polycarp, of Irenæus, and others; and, as these writings are still
extant, we can compare their actual contents with his notices. Here a
definite issue is raised. If our author's principle will stand this
test, there is a very strong presumption in its favour; if it will not,
then it is worthless.
Let us take first the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This Epistle contains
several references to Evangelical narratives--whether oral or written,
whether our Canonical Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for the present
to discuss [40:1]. It comprises a chapter relating to the labours and
martyrdom of St Peter and St Paul [40:2]. It also, as our author himself
allows (accepting the statement of Tischendorf), 'here and there ...
makes use of passages from Pauline Epistles.' [40:3] It does more than
this; it mentions definitely and by name St Paul's First Epistle to the
Corinthians, alluding to the parties which called themselves after Paul
and Cephas and Apollos [40:4]. Of all this Eusebius says not a word. He
simply remarks that Clement, by
'putting forward ([Greek: paratheis]) many thoughts of the
(Epistle) to the Hebrews, and even employing some passages from it
word for word ([Greek: autolexei]), shows most clearly that the
document [Greek: sungramma] was not recent (when he wrote).' [40:5]
This is strictly true, as far as it goes; the passages are too many and
too close to leave any doubt about their source; but the Epistle to the
Hebrews is not directly named, as the Epistle to the Corinthians is.
The IGNATIAN EPISTLES deserve to be considered next. The question of
their genuineness does not affect the present inquiry; for the seven
letters contained in what is commonly called the Short Greek recension,
whether spurious or not, were confessedly the same which Eusebius read;
and to these I refer. For the sake of convenience I shall call the
writer Ignatius, without prejudging the question of authorship. Ignatius
then presents some striking coincidences with our Synoptic Gospels
(whether taken thence or not, I need not at present stop to inquire),
_e.g._ 'Be thou wise as a serpent in all things, and harmless always as
a dove,' [41:1] 'The tree is manifest by its fruit,' [41:2] 'He that
receiveth, let him receive.' [41:3] He likewise echoes the language of
St John, _e.g._ 'It (the Spirit) knoweth whence it cometh and whither it
goeth,' [41:4] 'Jesus Christ ... in all things pleased Him that sent
Him,' [41:5] with other expressions. He also refers to the examples of
St Peter and St Paul. [41:6] He describes the Apostle of the Gentiles as
'making mention of' the Ephesians 'in every part of his letter' (or 'in
every letter' [41:7]). These letters moreover contain several passages
which are indisputable reminiscences of St Paul's Epistles [41:8]. Yet
of all this Eusebius says not a word. All the information which he gives
respecting the relation of Ignatius to the Canon is contained in this
one sentence [41:9]:--
'Writing to the Smyrnæans, he has employed expressions (taken) I
know not whence, recording as follows concerning Christ:--
"And I myself know and believe that He exists in the flesh after
the resurrection. And when He came to Peter and those with him
([Greek: pros tous peri Petron]), He said unto them, 'Take hold,
feel me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit' [literally,
'demon,' [Greek: daimonion asômaton]]; and immediately they
touched Him, and believed."'
It should be added that, though Eusebius does not know the source of
this reference, Jerome states that it came from the Gospel of the
Hebrews [42:1].
Now let us suppose that these Epistles were no longer extant, and that
we interpreted the silence of Eusebius on the same principle which our
author applies to Papias and Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth.
'Here,' we should say, 'is clearly a Judaising Christian--an Ebionite of
the deepest hue. He recognises St Peter as his great authority. He
altogether ignores St Paul. He knows nothing of our Canonical Gospels,
and he uses exclusively the Gospel of the Hebrews. Thus we have a new
confirmation of the Tübingen theory respecting the origin of the
Christian Church. The thing is obvious to any impartial mind. Apologetic
writers must indeed be driven to straits if they attempt to impugn this
result.' It so happens that this estimate of Ignatius would be
hopelessly wrong. He appeals to St Paul as his great example [42:2]. His
Christology is wholly unlike the Ebionite, for he distinctly declares
the perfect deity as well as the perfect humanity of Christ [42:3]. And
he denounces the Judaisers at length and by name [42:4]. What then is
the value of a principle which, when applied in a simple case, leads to
conclusions diametrically opposed to historical facts?
From Ignatius we pass to POLYCARP. Here again the genuineness of the
Epistle bearing this Father's name does not affect the question; for it
is confessedly the same document which Eusebius had before him. In
Polycarp's Epistle [42:5] also there are several coincidences with our
Gospels. There is a hardly disputable embodiment of words occurring in
the Acts. There are two or three references to St Paul by name. Once he
is directly mentioned as writing to the Philippians. There are obvious
quotations from or reminiscences of Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, not to mention other more
doubtful coincidences. Of all this again Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So
far as regards the Canon, he does not think it necessary to say more
than that 'Polycarp in his aforesaid ([Greek: dêlôtheisê]) writing
([Greek: graphê]) to the Philippians, which is in circulation ([Greek:
pheromenê]) to the present day, has used certain testimonies from the
First (former) Epistle of Peter [43:1]. Here again, we might say, is a
Judaiser, the very counterpart of Papias. This inference indeed would be
partially, though only partially, corrected by the fact that Eusebius in
an earlier place [43:2], to illustrate his account of Ignatius, quotes
from Polycarp's Epistle a passage in which St Paul's name happens to be
mentioned. But this mention (so far as regards the matter before us) is
purely accidental; and the sentence relating to the Canon entirely
ignores the Apostle of the Gentiles, with whose thoughts and language
nevertheless this Epistle is saturated.
When we turn from Polycarp to JUSTIN MARTYR, the phenomena are similar.
This Father introduces into his extant writings a large number of
Evangelical passages. A few of these coincide exactly with our Canonical
Gospels; a much larger number have so close a resemblance that, without
referring to the actual text of our Gospels, the variations would not be
detected by an ordinary reader. Justin Martyr professes to derive these
sayings and doings from written documents, which he styles _Memoirs of
the Apostles_, and which (he tells his heathen readers) 'are called
Gospels [43:3].' His expressions and arguments moreover in some passages
recall the language of St Paul's Epistles [43:4]. Of all this again
Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So far as regards the Canon of the New
Testament, he contents himself with stating that Justin 'has made
mention ([Greek: memnêtai]) of the Apocalypse of John, clearly saying
that it is (the work) of the Apostle.' [43:5]
His mode of dealing with THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH is still more
instructive. Among the writings of this Father, he mentions one work
addressed _To Autolycus_, and another _Against the Heresy of Hermogenes_
[44:1]. The first is extant: not so the other. In the extant work
Theophilus introduces the unmistakeable language of Romans, 1, 2
Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, not to mention
points of resemblance with other Apostolic Epistles which can hardly
have been accidental [44:2]. He has one or two coincidences with the
Synoptic Gospels, and, what is more important, he quotes the beginning
of the Fourth Gospel by name, as follows [44:3]:--
'Whence the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired men ([Greek:
pneumatophoroi]) teach us, one of whom, John, says, "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at
the first ([Greek: en prôtois]) God was alone, and the Word in Him.
Then he says, "And the Word was God; all things were made by Him,
and without Him was not anything made."'
This quotation is direct and precise. Indeed even the most suspicious
and sceptical critics have not questioned the adequacy of the reference
[44:4]. It is moreover the more conspicuous, because it is the one
solitary instance in which Theophilus quotes directly and by name any
book of the New Testament. Here again Eusebius is altogether silent. But
of the treatise no longer extant he writes, that in it 'he (Theophilus)
has used testimonies from the Apocalypse of John.' [44:5] This is all
the information which he vouchsafes respecting the relation of
Theophilus to the Canon.
One example more must suffice. IRENÆUS [44:6] in his extant work on
heresies quotes the Acts again and again, and directly ascribes it to St
Luke. He likewise cites twelve out of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul,
the exception being the short letter to Philemon. These twelve he
directly ascribes to the Apostle in one place or another, and with the
exception of 1 Timothy and Titus he gives the names of the persons
addressed; so that the identification is complete. The list of
references to St Paul's Epistles alone occupies two octavo pages of
three columns each in the index to Stieren's _Irenæus_. Yet of all this
Eusebius 'knows nothing.' In a previous chapter indeed he happens to
have quoted a passage from Irenæus, relating to the succession of the
Roman bishops, in which this Father states that Linus is mentioned by St
Paul 'in the Epistle to Timothy;' [45:1] but the passage relating to the
Canon contains no hint that Irenæus recognised the existence of any one
of St Paul's Epistles; and from first to last there is no mention of the
Acts. The language of Eusebius here is highly characteristic as
illustrating his purpose and method. He commences the chapter by
referring back to his original design, as follows [45:2]:--
'Since, at the commencement of our treatise, we have made a
promise, saying that we should adduce at the proper opportunities
the utterances of the ancient elders and writers of the Church, in
which they have handed down in writing the traditions that reached
them concerning the Canonical ([Greek: endiathêkôn]) writings, and
Irenæus was one of these, let me now adduce his notices also, and
first those relating to the sacred Gospels, as follows.'
He then quotes a short passage from the third book, giving the
circumstances under which the Four Gospels were written. Then follow two
quotations from the well-known passage in the fifth book, in which
Irenæus mentions the date and authorship of the Apocalypse, and refers
to the number of the beast. Eusebius then proceeds:--
'This is the account given by the above-named writer respecting the
Apocalypse also. And he has made mention too of the First Epistle
of John, adducing very many testimonies out of it; and likewise
also of the First (former) Epistle of Peter. And he not only knows,
but even receives the writing of the 'Shepherd,' saying, 'Well then
spake the writing' [or 'scripture,' [Greek: hê graphê]] 'which says,
"First of all believe that God is One, even He that created all
things;"' and so forth.'
This is all the information respecting the Canon of the New Testament
which he adduces from the great work of Irenæus. In a much later
passage [46:1], however, he has occasion to name other works of this
Father no longer extant; and of one of these he remarks that in it 'he
mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the so-called Wisdom of
Solomon, adducing certain passages from them.'
From these examples, combined with his own prefatory statements, we feel
justified in laying down the following canons as ruling the procedure of
Eusebius:--
(1) His main object was to give such information as might assist in
forming correct views respecting the Canon of Scripture.
(2) This being so, he was indifferent to any quotations or references
which went towards establishing the canonicity of those books which had
never been disputed in the Church. Even when the quotation was direct
and by name, it had no value for him.
(3) To this class belonged (i) the Four Gospels; (ii) the Acts; (iii)
the thirteen Epistles of St Paul.
(4) As regards these, he contents himself with preserving any anecdotes
which he may have found illustrating the circumstances under which they
were written, _e.g._ the notices of St Matthew and St Mark in Papias,
and of the Four Gospels in Irenæus.
(5) The Catholic Epistles lie on the border-land between the
_Homologumena_ and the _Antilegomena_, between the universally
acknowledged and the disputed books. Of the Epistles of St John for
instance, the First belonged to the one class, the Second and Third to
the other. Of the Epistles of St Peter again, the First was
acknowledged, the Second disputed. The Catholic Epistles in fact occupy
an exceptional position.
Respecting his treatment of this section of the Canon he is not explicit
in his opening statement, and we have to infer it from his subsequent
procedure. As this however is uniform, we seem able to determine with
tolerable certainty the principle on which he acts. He subjects all the
books belonging to this section to the same law. For instance, he
mentions any references to 1 John and 1 Peter (_e.g._ in Papias,
Polycarp, and Irenæus), though in the Church no doubt was ever
entertained about their genuineness and authority. He may have thought
that this mention would conduce to a just estimate of the meaning of
silence in the case of disputed Epistles, as 2 Peter and 2, 3 John.
(6) The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse still remain to be
considered. Their claim to a place in the Canon is, or has been,
disputed: and therefore he records every decisive notice respecting
either of them, _e.g._ the quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews in
Clement of Rome and Irenæus, and the notices of the Apocalypse in
Justin and Melito [47:1] and Apollonius [47:2], and Theophilus and
Irenæus. So too, he records any testimony, direct or indirect, bearing
the other way, _e.g._ that the Roman presbyter Gaius mentions only
thirteen Epistles of St Paul, 'not reckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews
with the rest.' [47:3]
(7) With regard to the books which lie altogether outside the Canon, but
which were treated as Scripture, or quasi-scripture, by any earlier
Church writer, he makes it his business to record the fact. Thus he
mentions the one quotation in Irenæus from the Shepherd of Hermas; he
states that Hegesippus employs the Gospel according to the Hebrews; he
records that Clement of Alexandria in the _Stromateis_ has made use of
the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and in the _Hypotyposeis_ has
commented on the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of
Peter [47:4].
It will have appeared from the above account, if I mistake not, that his
treatment of this subject is essentially frank. There is no indication
of a desire to make out a case for those writings which he and his
contemporaries received as Canonical, against those which they rejected.
The Shepherd of Hermas is somewhere about two-thirds the length of the
whole body of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul. He singles out the one
isolated passage from Hermas in Irenæus, though it is quoted
anonymously; and he says nothing about the quotations from St Paul,
though they exceed two hundred in number, and are very frequently cited
by name.
It is necessary however, not only to investigate his principles, but
also to ascertain how far his application of these principles can be
depended upon. And here the facts justify us in laying down the
following rules for our guidance:--
(i) As regards the anecdotes containing information relating to the
books of the New Testament he restricts himself to the narrowest limits
which justice to his subject will allow. His treatment of Irenæus makes
this point clear. Though he gives the principal passage in this author
relating to the Four Gospels [48:1], 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 [48:2]. Thus too, when he quotes a few
lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic elders who were
acquainted with St John [48:3], 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.
(ii) As regards the quotations and references the case stands thus. When
Eusebius speaks of 'testimonies' in any ancient writer taken from a
Scriptural book, we cannot indeed be sure that the quotations were
direct and by name (this was certainly not the case in some), but we may
fairly assume that they were definite enough, or numerous enough, or
both, to satisfy even a sceptical critic of the modern school. This is
the case, for instance, with the quotations from the Epistle to the
Hebrews in Clement of Rome, and those from the First Epistle of St Peter
in Polycarp. _In no instance which we can test does Eusebius give a
doubtful testimony._ On the other hand he omits several which might
fairly be alleged, and have been alleged by modern writers, as, for
instance, the coincidence with 1 John in Polycarp [49:1]. He may have
passed them over through inadvertence, or he may not have considered
them decisive.
I am quite aware that our author states the case differently; but I am
unable to reconcile his language with the facts. He writes as follows
[49:2]:--
'He (Eusebius) states however, that Papias "made use of testimonies
from the First Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter."
As Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages from Papias, we
must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from
some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from
these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made
a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the
so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds.'
[49:3]
For the statement 'as elsewhere' our author has given no authority, and
I am not aware of any.
The note to which the number in the text (^5) refers is 'Ad Phil. vii.;
Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14.'
I cannot help thinking there is some confusion here. The passage of
Eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how Polycarp
'has employed certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of
Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which he refers, contains a
reference to the First Epistle of St John, which has been alleged by
modern writers, but is not alleged by Eusebius. This same chapter, it is
true, contains the words 'Watch unto prayer,' which present a
coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this
one expression: the strong and unquestionable coincidences are
elsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,'
whereas the quotations from I Peter in Polycarp are numerous. Thus in c.
1 we have 'In whom, not having seen, ye believe, and believing ye
rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 8: in c.
2, 'Girding up your loins,' from 1 Pet. i. 13 (comp. Ephes. vi. 14);
'Having believed on Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the
dead and gave Him glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 21; 'Not rendering evil for
evil, or railing for railing,' from 1 Pet. iii. 9: in c. 5, 'Every lust
warreth against the Spirit,' from 1 Pet. ii. 11: in c. 8, 'Who bore our
sins with His own body ([Greek: to idiô sômati]) on the tree,' from 1
Pet. ii. 24; 'Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,'
from 1 Pet. ii. 22: in c. 10, 'Lovers of the brotherhood,' from 1 Pet.
ii. 17; 'Be ye all subject one to another,' from 1 Pet. v. 5; 'Having
your conversation unblamable among the Gentiles, that from your good
works both ye may receive praise, and the Lord may not be evil spoken of
in you,' from 1 Pet. ii. 12 (comp. iv. 14 in the received text). I am
quite at a loss to conceive how any one can speak of these numerous and
close coincidences as 'very insufficient grounds.' And though our author
elsewhere, as, for instance, in the quotations from the Fourth Gospel in
Tatian and in the Clementine Homilies [50:1], has resisted evidence
which (I venture to think) would satisfy any jury of competent critics,
yet I cannot suppose that he would hold out against such an array of
passages as we have here, and I must therefore believe that he has
overlooked the facts. I venture to say again that, in these references
to early writers relating to the Canon, Eusebius (where we are able to
test him) _never overstates the case_. I emphasize this assertion,
because I trust some one will point out my error if I am wrong. If I am
not shown to be wrong, I shall make use of the fact hereafter [50:2].
This investigation will have thrown some light upon the author's
sweeping assertions with respect to the arbitrary action which he
supposes to have presided over the formation of the Canon, and still
more on his unqualified denunciations of the uncritical spirit of
Eusebius. But such was not my immediate purpose.
_Hypotheses non fingimus._ We have built no airy castles of criticism on
arbitrary _à priori_ assumptions as to what the silence of Eusebius must
mean. We have put the man himself in the witness-box; we have confronted
him with facts, and cross-examined him; thus we have elicited from him
his principles and mode of action. I may perhaps have fallen into some
errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main
conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable. If they are not, I shall be
obliged to any one who will point out the fallacy in my reasoning; and I
pledge myself to make open retractation, when I resume these papers in a
subsequent number. 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.
Our author is quite alive to the value of a system of 'positively
enunciating.' [51:1] 'A good strong assertion,' he says, 'becomes a
powerful argument, since few readers have the means of verifying its
correctness.' [51:2] His own assertions, which I quoted at the outset of
this investigation, are certainly not wanting in strength, and I have
taken the liberty of verifying them. Any English reader may do the same.
Eusebius is translated, and so are the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
I now venture on a statement which might have seemed a paradox if it had
preceded this investigation, but which, coming at its close, will, if I
mistake not, commend itself as a sober deduction from facts. _The
silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is
an evidence in its favour._ Its Apostolic authorship had never been
questioned by any Church writer from the beginning, so far as Eusebius
was aware, and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses. It was
not excused, because it had not been accused. In short, the silence of
Eusebius here means the very opposite to that which our author assumes
it to mean.
If any one demurs to this inference, let him try, on any other
hypothesis, to answer the following questions:--
(1) How is it that, while Eusebius alleges repeated testimonies to the
Epistle to the Hebrews, he is silent from first to last about the
universally acknowledged Epistles of St Paul, such as Romans, 1, 2
Corinthians, and Galatians?
(2) How is it that he does not mention the precise and direct testimony
in Theophilus to the Gospel of St John, while he does mention a
reference in this same author to the Apocalypse?
And this explanation of the silence of Eusebius, while it is demanded by
his own language and practice, alone accords with the known facts
relating to the reception of the Fourth Gospel in the second century.
Its theology is stamped on the teaching of orthodox apologists; its
authority is quoted for the speculative tenets of the manifold Gnostic
sects, Basilideans, Valentinians, Ophites; its narrative is employed
even by a Judaising writer like the author of the Clementines. The
phenomena which confront us in the last quarter of the second century
are inexplicable, except on the supposition that the Gospel had had a
long previous history. How else are we to account for such facts as that
the text already exhibits a number of various readings, such as the
alternative of 'only begotten God' for 'the only begotten Son' in i. 18,
and 'six' for 'five' in iv. 18, or the interpolation of the descent of
the angel in v. 3, 4; that legends and traditions have grown up
respecting its origin, such as we find in Clement of Alexandria and in
the Muratorian fragment [52:1]; that perverse mystical interpretations,
wholly foreign to the simple meaning of the text, have already encrusted
it, such as we meet with in the commentary of Heracleon? How is it that
ecclesiastical writers far and wide receive it without misgiving at this
epoch--Irenæus in Gaul, Tertullian in Africa, Clement in Alexandria,
Theophilus at Antioch, the anonymous Muratorian writer perhaps in Rome?
that they not only receive it, but assume its reception from the
beginning? that they never betray a consciousness that any Church or
Churchman had ever questioned it? The history of the first
three-quarters of the second century is necessarily obscure owing to the
paucity of remains. A flood of light is suddenly poured in during the
remaining years of the century. Our author is content to grope in the
obscurity: any phantoms may be conjured up here; but the moment the
light is let in, he closes his eyes and can see nothing. He refuses
altogether to discuss Irenæus, though Irenæus was a disciple of
Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Even if it be granted
that the opinion of Irenæus, as an isolated individual, is not worth
much, yet the wide-spread and traditional belief which underlies his
whole language and thoughts is a consideration of the highest moment:
and Irenæus is only one among many witnesses. The author's treatment of
the external evidences to the Fourth Gospel is wholly vitiated by his
ignoring the combined force of such facts as these. A man might with
just as much reason assert that a sturdy oak sapling must have sprung up
overnight, because circumstances had prevented him from witnessing its
continuous growth.
The author of _Supernatural Religion_ was kind enough to send me an
early copy of his fourth edition, and I sincerely thank him for his
courtesy. Unfortunately it arrived too late for me to make any use of it
in my previous article. With one exception however, I have not noticed
that my criticisms are affected by any changes which may have been made.
But this single exception is highly important. A reader, with only the
fourth edition before him, would be wholly at a loss to understand my
criticism, and therefore some explanation is necessary.
In my former article [53:1] I pointed out that the author had founded a
charge of 'falsification' against Dr Westcott on a grammatical error of
his own. He had treated the infinitive and indicative moods as the same
for practical purposes; he had confused the oblique with the direct
narrative; he had maintained that the passage in question (containing a
reference to St John) was Irenæus' own, whereas the grammar showed that
Irenæus was repeating the words of others; and consequently, he had
wrongly accused Dr Tischendorf and Dr Westcott, because in their
translations they had brought out the fact that the words did not belong
to Irenæus himself.
I place the new note relating to Dr Westcott side by side with the old
[54:1]:--
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'Having just observed that a note | 'Canon Westcott, who quotes
in this place, in previous | this passage in a note (_On the
editions, has been understood as | Canon_ p. 61, note 2), translates
an accusation against Dr Westcott | here, "This distinction of dwelling,
of deliberate falsification of | they taught, exists" etc.
the text of Irenæus, we at once | The introduction of "they taught"
withdraw it with unfeigned regret | here is most unwarrantable; and
that the expressions used could | being inserted, without a word
bear an interpretation so far | of explanation or mark showing
from our intention. _We desired | its addition by the translator, in
simply to object to the insertion | a passage _upon whose interpretation
of "they taught"_ (_On the Canon_ | there is difference of opinion_,
p. 61, note 2), without some | and whose origin is in dispute, it
indication, in the absence of the | amounts to a falsification of the
original text, that these words | text. Dr Westcott neither gives
were merely supplementary and | the Greek nor the ancient Latin
conjectural. The source _of the | version for comparison.'
indirect passage_ is, of course, |
matter of argument, and we make |
it so; but it seems to us that |
the introduction of specific |
words like these, without |
explanation of any kind, conveys |
to the general reader too |
positive a view of the case. We |
may perhaps be permitted to say |
that we fully recognise Dr |
Westcott's sincere love of truth, |
and feel the most genuine respect |
for his character.' |
Considering the gravity of his accusation, I think that our author might
have been more explicit in his retractation. He might have stated that
he not only retracted his charge against Dr Westcott, but also withdrew
his own interpretation of the passage. He might have confessed that,
having in his earlier editions assumed the words to be Irenæus' own, he
had found out his mistake [55:1]; that accordingly he acknowledged the
passage to be oblique; that therefore, after all, Dr Westcott was right
and he was wrong; and that the only question with him now was how best
to break the force of the true interpretation, in its bearing on the
authenticity of the fourth Gospel.
The reader will not find in this fourth edition, from beginning to end,
the slightest intimation of all this. He is left with the impression
that the author regrets having used a strong expression respecting Dr
Westcott, but that otherwise his opinion is unchanged. Whether I have or
have not rightly interpreted the facts, will be seen from a
juxtaposition of passages from the fourth and earlier editions.
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'Now, in the quotation from | 'Now in the quotation from
Irenæus given in this passage, | Irenæus given in this passage,
_Tischendorf renders the oblique | _Tischendorf deliberately falsifies
construction_ by inserting "say | the text_ by inserting "say they;"
they," referring to the Presbyters | and, as he does not give the
of Papias; and, as he does not | original, the great majority of
give the original, he should at | readers could never detect how
least have indicated that these | he thus adroitly contrives to
words are supplementary. We | strengthen his argument. As
shall endeavour' [55:2] etc. | regards the whole statement of
| the case we must affirm that it
| misrepresents the facts. We
| shall endeavour' etc.
Lower down he mentions how Irenæus 'continues with a quotation from
Isaiah his own train of reasoning,' adding in the early editions--'and
it might just as well be affirmed that Irenæus found the quotation from
the Prophet in Papias as that which we are considering.' [56:1] As the
reference to Isaiah is in the indicative, whereas the clause under
consideration is in the infinitive, this was equivalent to saying that
the one mood is just as good as the other, where it is a question of the
direct or oblique narrative. This last sentence is tacitly removed in
the fourth edition.
In the translation of the infinitive [Greek: einai de tên diastolên] we
notice this difference:--
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
But ... there is this distinction.' | 'But there is to be this
| distinction.'
The translation of the passage containing these oblique infinitives is
followed by the author's comment, which is altered thus:--
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'Now it is impossible for anyone | 'Now it is impossible for anyone
who attentively considers the whole | who attentively considers the whole
of this passage, and who makes | of this passage, and who makes
himself acquainted with the manner | himself acquainted with the manner
in which Irenæus conducts his | in which Irenæus conducts his
argument, and interweaves it _with | argument, and interweaves it _with
quotations, to assert that the | texts of Scripture, to doubt that
phrase we are considering_ must | the phrase we are considering is
have been taken from a book | introduced by Irenæus himself_,
referred to three chapters earlier, | and is in no case a quotation
and _was not introduced by Irenæus | from the work of Papias.'
from some other source_.' |
Here the author has tacitly withdrawn an interpretation which a few
weeks before he declared to be beyond the reach of doubt, and has
substituted a wholly different one for it. He then proceeds:--
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'In the passage from the | 'The passage from the commencement
commencement of the second | of the second paragraph (§ 2) is
paragraph Irenæus enlarges upon, | an enlargement or comment on what
and illustrates, what "the | the Presbyters say regarding the
Presbyters say" regarding the | blessedness of the Saints, and
blessedness of the Saints, _by | Irenæus illustrates the distinction
quoting the view held_ as to the | between those bearing fruit
distinction between those bearing | thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one
fruit thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and | hundred-fold, so often represented
one hundred-fold, and _the | in the Gospel, _by the saying_
interpretation given of the saying_ | regarding "many mansions" being
regarding "many mansions."' | prepared in Heaven.'
After this our author, in the earlier editions, quotes a number of
passages from Irenæus to support his view that the words in question
are direct and not oblique, because they happen to begin with [Greek:
dia touto]. It is unfortunate that not one of them is in the infinitive
mood, and therefore they afford no illustration of the point at issue.
'These,' he there adds, 'are _all direct quotations by Irenæus_,
as is _most certainly_ that which we are considering, which is
introduced in precisely the same way. That this is the case is
further _shown_ etc.... and it is rendered _quite certain_ by the
fact that' etc.
All these false parallels are withdrawn in the fourth edition and the
sentence is rewritten. We are now told that '_the source of his_
(Irenæus') _quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the
exegesis of his own day_ [57:1].' So then it was a quotation after all,
and the old interpretation, though declared to be 'most certain' and
'quite certain' in two consecutive sentences, silently vanishes to make
room for the new. But why does the author allow himself to spend nine
octavo pages over the discussion of this one passage, freely altering
sentence after sentence to obliterate all traces of his error, without
any intimation to the reader? Had not the public a right to expect more
distinctness of statement, considering that the author had been led by
this error to libel the character of more than one writer? Must not
anyone reading the apology to Dr Westcott, contained in the note quoted
above, necessarily carry off a wholly false impression of the facts?
I add one other passage for comparison:--
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'We have disposed of his alternative | 'We have disposed of his
that the quotation being by "the | alternative that the quotation,
Presbyters" was more ancient even | being by "the Presbyters," was
than Papias, by showing that it | more ancient even than Papias,
_may be referred to Irenæus himself | by showing that it _must be
quoting probably from | attributed to Irenæus himself_,
contemporaries_, and that there is | and that there is no ground for
no ground for attributing it to the | attributing it to the Presbyters
Presbyters at all.' [58:1] | at all.'
Surely this writer might have paused before indulging so freely in
charges of 'discreet reserve,' of 'disingenuousness,' of 'wilful and
deliberate evasion,' and the like.
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
[FEBRUARY, 1875.]
The letters bearing the name of Ignatius [59:1], with which we are
immediately concerned, profess to have been written by the saint as he
was passing through Asia Minor on his way to martyrdom. If their
representations be true, he was condemned at Antioch, and sent to Rome
to stiffer death in the amphitheatre by exposure to the wild beasts. The
exact year of the martyrdom is uncertain, but the limits of possibility
are not very wide. The earlier date assigned is about A.D. 107, and the
later about A.D. 116. These letters, with a single exception, are
written to different Churches of Asia Minor (including one addressed
more especially to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna). The exceptional letter
is sent to the Roman Church, apprising the Christians of the metropolis
that his arrival among them may soon be expected, declaring his
eagerness for martyrdom, and intreating them not to interpose and rescue
him from his fate. His language supposes that there were at this time
members of the Roman Church sufficiently influential to obtain either a
pardon or a commutation of his sentence. The letters to the Asiatic
Churches have a more general reference. They contain exhortations,
friendly greetings, warnings against internal divisions and against
heretical doctrines. With some of these Churches he had been brought in
personal contact; with others he was acquainted only through their
delegates.
Of the three forms in which the Ignatian letters have been handed down
to us, one may be dismissed from our consideration at once. The Long
Recension, preserved both in the Greek original and in a Latin
translation, may be regarded as universally condemned. In the early part
of the last century an eccentric critic, whose Arian sympathies it
seemed to favour, endeavoured to resuscitate its credit, and one or two
others, at long intervals, have followed in his wake; but practically it
may be regarded as dead. It abounds in anachronisms of fact or diction;
its language diverges widely from the Ignatian quotations in the writers
of the first five centuries. Our author places its date in the sixth
century, with Ussher; I should myself ascribe it to the latter half of
the fourth century. This however is a matter of little consequence.
Only, before passing on, I would enter a protest against the argument of
our author that, because the Ignatian letters were thus interpolated 'in
the sixth century,' therefore 'this very fact increases the probability
of much earlier interpolation also.' [60:1] I am unable to follow this
reasoning. I venture to think that we cannot argue back from the sixth,
or even the fourth century, to the second, that this later forgery must
not be allowed to throw any shadow of suspicion on the earlier Ignatian
letters; and that the question of a prior interpolation must be decided
by independent evidence.
The two other forms of the Ignatian letters may be described briefly as
follows:--
(1) The first comprises the seven letters which Eusebius had before him,
and in the same form in which he read them--to the Ephesians,
Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnæans, and Polycarp.
It is true that other Epistles confessedly spurious are attached to them
in the MSS; but these (as will appear presently) do not properly belong
to this collection, and were added subsequently. This collection is
preserved not only in the original Greek, but also in Latin and Armenian
versions. Fragments also are extant of Coptic and Syriac versions, from
which last, and not from the original Greek, the Armenian was
translated. The discovery of these epistles, first of all by Ussher in
the Latin translation, and then by Isaac Voss in the Greek original,
about the middle of the seventeenth century, was the death-blow to the
Long Recension. Ussher's dissertations had the honour of giving it the
happy despatch. It is usual to call this recension, which thus
superseded the other, the Short Greek; but this term is for obvious
reasons objectionable, and I shall designate these Epistles the
_Vossian._
(2) The second is extant only in a Syriac dress, and contains three of
the Epistles alone--to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans--in
a still shorter form. These Syriac Epistles were discovered among the
Nitrian MSS in the British Museum, and published by Cureton in 1845. I
shall therefore call these the _Curetonian_ Epistles.
Cureton's discovery stirred up the Ignatian dispute anew. It was soon
fanned into flames by the controversy between Bunsen and Baur, and is
raging still. The two questions are these: (1) Whether the Vossian or
the Curetonian Epistles are prior in time; in other words, whether the
Vossian Epistles were expanded from the Curetonian by interpolation, or
whether the Curetonian were reduced from the Vossian by excision and
abridgment; and (2) when this question has been disposed of, whether the
prior of these two recensions can be regarded as genuine or not.
The question respecting the Ignatian letters has, from the nature of the
case, never been discussed exclusively on its own merits. The pure light
of criticism has been crossed by the shadows of controversial
prepossession on both sides. From the era of the Reformation onward, the
dispute between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism has darkened the
investigation; in our own age the controversies respecting the Canon of
Scripture and the early history of Christianity have interfered with
equally injurious effects. Besides these two main questions which are
affected by the Ignatian letters, other subjects indirectly involved
have aided the strife and confusion. The antagonism between Papal and
Protestant writers materially affected the discussion in the sixteenth
century, and the antagonism between Arianism and Catholicity in the
eighteenth. But the disturbing influence of these indirect questions,
though not inconsiderable at the time, has not been lasting.
In the present paper I shall not attempt to treat of the Ignatian
question as a whole. It will simply be my business to analyse the
statements and discuss the arguments of the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ relating to this subject. I propose, when I resume these
papers again, to say something of the Apostolic Fathers in reference to
early Christian belief and to the New Testament Canon; and this cannot
be done with any effect until the way has been so far cleared as to
indicate the extent to which we can employ the Ignatian letters as valid
testimony.
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.
The author of _Supernatural Religion_ has no hesitation on the subject.
'The whole of the Ignatian literature,' he writes, 'is a mass of
falsification and fraud.' [62:1] 'It is not possible,' he says, 'even if
the Epistle [to the Smyrnæans] were genuine, which it is not, to base
any such conclusion upon these words.' [62:2] And again:--
'We must, however, go much further, and assert that none of the
Epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the
end of the second, or beginning of the third, century, even if they
possess any value at all.' [62:3]
And immediately afterwards:--
'We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is,
for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the
Epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held
to be spurious.' [63:1]
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 inquire whether the writer shows that
accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies us in attaching
weight to his dicta, as distinguished from his arguments.
I will take first of all a passage which sweeps the field of the
Ignatian controversy, and therefore will serve well as a test. The
author writes as follows:--
'The strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which
space forbids our going in detail, has led the majority of critics
to recognise the Syriac Version as the most genuine form of the
letters of Ignatius extant, and this is admitted by most [63:2] of
those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the
Epistles.' [63:3]
No statement could be more erroneous, as a summary of the results of the
Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac Epistles, than
this. Those who maintain the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, in
one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided
on this question of priority. While Cureton and Bunsen and Ritschl and
Ewald and Weiss accept the Curetonian letters, Uhlhorn and Denzinger and
Petermann and Hefele and Jacobson and Zahn still adhere to the Vossian.
But this is a trifling error compared with what follows. The
misstatement in the last clause of the sentence will, I venture to
think, surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the literature of the
Ignatian controversy. Those, who 'deny the authenticity of any of the
Epistles,' almost universally maintain the priority of the Vossian
Epistles, and regard the Curetonian as later excerpts. This is the case,
for instance, with Baur [64:1], and Zeller [64:2] and Hilgenfeld [64:3]
and Merx [64:4] and Scholten [64:5]. It was reserved for a critic like
Volkmar [64:6] to entertain a different opinion; but, so far as I have
observed, he stands alone among those who have paid any real attention
to the Ignatian question. Indeed, it will be apparent that this position
was forced upon critics of the negative school. If the Ignatian letters,
in either form, are allowed to be genuine, the Tübingen views of early
Christian history fall to the ground. It was therefore a matter of life
and death to this school to condemn them wholly. Now the seven Vossian
Epistles are clearly very early [64:7]; and, if the Curetonian should be
accepted as the progenitors of the Vossian, the date is pushed so far
back that no sufficient ground remains for denying their genuineness.
Hence, when Bunsen forced the question on the notice of his countrymen
by advocating the Curetonian letters as the original work of Ignatius,
Baur instinctively felt the gravity of the occasion, and at once took up
the gauntlet. He condemned the Curetonian Epistles as mere excerpts from
the Vossian; and in this he has been followed almost without exception
by those who advocate his views of early Christian history. The case of
Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this point. Having at
one time maintained the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, retracted his
former opinion on both questions alike [64:8].
But how has our author ventured to make this broad statement, when his
own notes elsewhere contain references to nearly all the writers whom I
have named as belonging to this last category, and even to the very
passages in which they express the opposite opinion? To throw some light
on this point, I will analyse the author's general statement of the
course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage. He writes
as follows:--
'These three Syriac Epistles have been subjected to the severest
scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be
the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not
admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius,
still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and
consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess
(^1). As early as the sixteenth century however, the strongest
doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the
Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first
attacked them, and Calvin declared [p. 260] them to be spurious
(^1), an opinion fully shared by Chemnitz, Dallæus, and others,
and similar doubts, more or less definite, were expressed
throughout the seventeenth century (^2), and onward to
comparatively recent times (^3), although the means of forming a
judgment were not then so complete as now. That the Epistles were
interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller examination and more
comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed earlier
doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise that the authenticity
of none of these Epistles can be established, and that they can
only be considered later and spurious compositions (^4).'
The first note (^1) on p. 259 is as follows:--
'Bunsen, _Ignatius v. Ant. u. s. Zeit_, 1847; _Die drei ächt. u. d.
vier unächt. Br. des Ignat._, 1847; Bleek, _Einl. N.T._, p. 145;
Böhringer, _K.G. in Biograph._, 2 Aufl., p. 16; Cureton, _The
Ancient Syriac Version of Eps. of St Ignatius, etc._, 1845;
_Vindiciæ Ignat._, 1846, _Corpus Ignatianum_, 1849; Ewald, _Gesch.
d. V. Isr._, vii. p. 313; Lipsius, _Aechtheit d. Syr. Recens. d.
Ign. Br._ in _Illgen's Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol._, 1856, H. i.,
1857, _Abhandl. d. deutsche-morgenl. Gesellschaft._ i. 5, 1859, p.
7; Milman, _Hist. of Chr._, ii. p. 102; Ritschl, _Entst. altk.
Kirche_, p. 403, anm.; Weiss, _Reuter's Repertorium_, Sept. 1852.'
[The rest of the note touches another point, and need not be
quoted.]
These references, it will be observed, are given to illustrate more
immediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement that writers 'who
do not admit that even these [the Curetonian Epistles] are genuine
letters emanating from Ignatius, still prefer them to the version of
seven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the
letters which we possess.' The reader therefore will hardly be prepared
to hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the Ignatian letters
as spurious. Bleek [66:1] alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty,
while inclining to Bunsen's view; the other eight distinctly maintain
the genuineness of the Curetonian letters [66:2].
As regards the names which follow in the text, it must be remembered
that the Magdeburg Centuriators and Calvin wrote long before the
discovery of the Vossian letters. The Ignatian Epistles therefore were
weighted with all the anachronisms and impossibilities which condemn the
Long Recension in the judgment of modern critics of all schools. The
criticisms of Calvin more especially refer chiefly to those passages
which are found in the Long Recension alone. The clause which follows
contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz did not fully share the opinion
that they were spurious; on the contrary he quotes them several times as
authoritative; but he says that they 'seem to have been altered in many
places to strengthen the position of the Papal power etc.' [66:3]
The note (^2) on p. 260 runs as follows:--
'By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau,
etc., etc.; of. Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._, i. p. xxv; Cureton,
_Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_, 1846, appendix.'
Here neither alphabetical nor chronological order is observed. Nor is it
easy to see why an Englishman R. Cook, Vicar of Leeds, should be Cocus,
while a foreigner, Petavius, is Petau. These however are small matters.
It is of more consequence to observe that the author has here mixed up
together writers who lived before and after the discovery of the Vossian
Epistles, though this is the really critical epoch in the history of the
Ignatian controversy. But the most important point of all is the purpose
for which they are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be
interpreted from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of
any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.' The facts however are these
[67:1]. Bochart condemns the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans on account
of the mention of 'leopards,' of which I shall speak hereafter, but says
nothing about the rest, though probably he would have condemned them
also. Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise, reject all.
Humfrey (1584) considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated,
but he believes them genuine in the main. Cook (1614) pronounces them
'either supposititious or shamefully corrupted.' F. Socinus (A.D. 1624)
denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see, does
not question a nucleus of genuine matter. Casaubon (A.D. 1615), so far
from rejecting them altogether, promises to defend the antiquity of some
of the Epistles with new arguments. Rivet explains that Calvin's
objections apply not to Ignatius himself but to the corrupters of
Ignatius, and himself accepts the Vossian Epistles as genuine [67:2].
Petau, before the discovery of the Vossian letters, had expressed the
opinion that there were interpolations in the then known Epistles, and
afterwards on reading the Vossian letters, declared it to be a _prudens
et justa suspicio_ that these are the genuine work of Ignatius.
The next note (^3) p. 260 is as follows:--
[Wotton, _Præf. Clem. R. Epp._, 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into
original nature, etc., Evang. Church: Works_, ed. Russel, 1826,
vol. xx, p. 147; Oudin, _Comm. de Script. Eccles. etc._ 1722, p.
88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex Evang. Joan._, 1724, i. p. 184;
Lardner, _Credibility, etc., Works_, ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre,
_Hist. Crit. de Manichée, etc._, 1734, i. p. 378, note 3; Ernesti,
_N. Theol. Biblioth._, 1761, ii. p. 489; [Mosheim, _de Rebus
Christ._, p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in Memorab. Eccles._,
1745, p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._, 1763, p. 492;
Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._, 1775, ii. p. 341; Griesbach,
_Opuscula Academ._, 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmüller, _Hist. Interpr.
Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._, 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr. in
Epist. ii. Petri_, 1784, Præf.; Kestner, _Comm. de. Eusebii H.E.
condit._, 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i.
p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 357, anm. 1];
Baumgarten-Crusius. _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._, 1832, p. 83, cf.
_Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._, 1840, p. 79; [_Niedner, Gesch. chr. K._,
p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit_, p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._,
i. p. 115 f.]; cf. Cureton, _Vind. Ign. append._; Ziegler, _Versuch
ein. prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungs-formen_, u.s.w., 1798, p.
16; J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch üb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S.
Ignat._ in _Henke's Mag. f. Rel. Phil._, u.s.w. [1795; cf.
_Biblioth. f. Krit._, u.s.w., _N.T._, i. p. 463 ff., _Urspr. kath.
Kirche_, II. i. p. I f.]; _H'buch Chr. K.G._, i. p. 200.
The brackets are not the author's, but my own.
This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made
such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it stands, this
note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the
Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the gleanings of many years'
reading. It is important to observe however, that every one of these
references, except those which I have included in brackets, is given in
the appendix to Cureton's _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_, where the passages are
quoted in full. Thus two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been
compiled in ten minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the
order of the quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is
chronological in Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing
into his notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he
thought fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among
the rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional
references on which it has no bearing?
Moreover, several of the writers mentioned in this note express opinions
directly opposed to that for which they are quoted. Wotton, for instance
[69:1], defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles very decidedly,
and at some length, against Whiston, whose Arianism led him to prefer
the Long Recension. Weismann declares that 'the authenticity and
genuineness of the Epistles have been demonstrated clearly and solidly'
by Pearson and others, so that no valid objections remain affecting the
main question. Thiersch again, who wrote after the publication of
Cureton's work, uses the three Syriac Epistles as genuine, his only
doubt being whether he ought not to accept the Vossian Epistles and to
regard the Curetonian as excerpts. Of the rest a considerable number, as
for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner,
Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, with different degrees of certainty or
uncertainty, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus [69:2].
The next note (^4), which I need not quote in full, is almost as
unfortunate. References to twenty authorities are there given, as
belonging to the 'large mass of critics' who recognise that the Ignatian
Epistles 'can only be considered later and spurious compositions.' Of
these Bleek (already cited in a previous note) expresses no definite
opinion. Gfrörer declares that the substratum (_Grundlage_) of the seven
Epistles is genuine, though 'it appears as if later hands had introduced
interpolations into both recensions' (he is speaking of the Long
Recension and the Vossian). Harless avows that he must 'decidedly reject
with the most considerable critics of older and more recent times' the
opinion maintained by certain persons that the Epistles are 'altogether
spurious,' and proceeds to treat a passage as genuine because it stands
in the Vossian letters as well as in the Long Recension [70:1].
Schliemann also says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to
recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not satisfied with either
existing recension. All these critics, it should be observed, wrote
before the discovery of the Curetonian letters. Of the others, Hase
commits himself to no opinion; and Lechler, while stating that the seven
Epistles left on his mind an impression unfavourable to their
genuineness, and inclining to Baur's view that the Curetonian letters
are excerpts from the others, nevertheless adds, that he cannot boast of
having arrived at a decided conviction of the spuriousness of the
Ignatian letters. One or two of the remaining references in this note I
have been unable to verify; but, judging from the names, I should expect
that the rest would be found good for the purpose for which they are
quoted by our author.
I am sorry to have delayed my readers with an investigation which--if I
may venture to adopt a phrase, for which I am not myself
responsible--'scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise.'
[70:2] But these notes form a very appreciable and imposing part of the
work, and their effect on its reception has been far from
inconsiderable, as the language of the reviewers will show. It was
therefore important to take a sample and test its value. I trust that I
may be spared the necessity of a future investigation of the same kind.
If it has wearied my readers, it has necessarily been tenfold more
irksome to myself. Ordinary errors, such as must occur in any writer,
might well have been passed over; but the character of the notes in
_Supernatural Religion_ is quite unique, so far as my experience goes,
in works of any critical pretensions.
In the remainder of the discussion our author seems to depend almost
entirely on Cureton's preface to his _Ancient Syriac Version_, to which
indeed he makes due acknowledgment from time to time. Notwithstanding
the references to other later writers which crowd the notes already
mentioned, they appear (with the single exception of Volkmar) to have
exercised no influence on his discussion of the main question. One
highly important omission is significant. There is no mention, from
first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that this version
(so far as regards the documentary evidence) has been felt to be the key
to the position, and around it the battle has raged fiercely since its
publication. One who (like our author) maintains the priority of the
Curetonian letters, was especially bound to give it some consideration,
for it furnishes the most formidable argument to his opponents. This
version was given to the world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in
which Cureton's later work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and
therefore was unknown to him [71:1]. Its bearing occupies a more or less
prominent place in all, or nearly all, the writers who have specially
discussed the Ignatian question during the last quarter of a century.
This is true of Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he
cites, not less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to
cite. The facts established by Petermann and others are these;--(1) This
Armenian Version, which contains the seven Vossian Epistles together
with other confessedly spurious letters, was translated from a previous
Syriac version. Indeed fragments of this version were published by
Cureton himself, as a sort of appendix to the Curetonian letters, in the
_Corpus Ignatianum_, though he failed to see their significance. (2)
This Syriac Version conformed so closely to the Syriac of the Curetonian
letters that they cannot have been independent. Either therefore the
Curetonian letters were excerpts from this complete version, or this
version was founded upon and enlarged from the pre-existing Curetonian
letters by translating and adding the supplementary letters and parts of
letters from the Greek. The former may be the right solution, but the
latter is _a priori_ more probable; and therefore a discussion which,
while assuming the priority of the Curetonian letters, ignores this
version altogether, has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to
give an account.
I have no wish to depreciate the labours of Cureton. Whether his own
view be ultimately adopted as correct or not, he has rendered
inestimable service to the Ignatian literature. But our author has
followed him in his most untenable positions, which those who have since
studied the subject, whether agreeing with Cureton on the main question
or not, have been obliged to abandon. Thus he writes:--
'Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all
equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that
number were mentioned by Eusebius.' [72:1]
And again:--
'It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned
by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These
Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient
Latin MSS with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to
be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal
honour.' [72:2]
with more to the same effect.
This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius with
the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented themselves
to us with the same credentials, ignores all the important facts bearing
on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, betrays no
knowledge of any other Epistles, and there is no distinct trace of the
use of the confessedly spurious Epistles till late in the sixth century
at the earliest. (2) The confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in
style from the seven Epistles, and betray the same hand which
interpolated the seven Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed
part of the Long Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in
anachronisms which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of
their composition. (4) It is not strictly true that the seven Epistles
are mixed up with the confessedly spurious Epistles. In the Greek and
Latin MSS as also in the Armenian version, the spurious Epistles come
after the others [73:1]; and this circumstance, combined with the facts
already mentioned, plainly shows that they were a later addition,
borrowed from the Long Recension to complete the body of Ignatian
letters.
Indeed our author seems hardly able to touch this question at any point
without being betrayed into some statement which is either erroneous or
misleading. Thus, summing up the external evidence, he writes:--
'It is a fact, therefore, that up to the second half of the fourth
century no quotation ascribed to Ignatius, except one by Eusebius,
exists, which is not found in the three short Syriac letters.'
[73:2]
In this short statement three corrections are necessary. (1) Our author
has altogether overlooked one quotation in Eusebius from _Ephes._ 19,
because it happens not to be in the Ecclesiastical History, though it is
given in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ [73:3]. (2) Of the two quotations
in the Ecclesiastical History, the one which he here reckons as found in
the Syriac Epistles is not found in those Epistles in the form in which
Eusebius quotes it. The quotation in Eusebius contains several words
which appear in the Vossian Epistles, but not in the Curetonian; and as
the absence of these words produces one of those abruptnesses which are
characteristic of the Curetonian letters, the fact is really important
for the question under discussion [73:4]. (3) Though Eusebius only
directly quotes two passages in his Ecclesiastical History, yet he gives
a number of particulars respecting the places of writing, the persons
named, etc., which are more valuable for purposes of identification than
many quotations.
Our author's misstatement however does not in this instance affect the
main question under discussion. The fact remains true, when all these
corrections are made, that the quotations in the second and third
centuries are confined to passages which occur both in the Curetonian
and in the Vossian Epistles, and therefore afford no indication in
favour of either recension as against the other. The testimony of
Eusebius in the fourth century first differentiates them.
Hitherto our author has not adduced any arguments which affect the
genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles as a whole. His reasons, even on
his own showing, are valid only so far as to give a preference to the
Curetonian letters as against the Vossian. When therefore he declares
the whole of the Ignatian literature to be 'a mass of falsification and
fraud,' [74:1] we are naturally led to inquire into the grounds on which
he makes this very confident and sweeping assertion. These grounds we
find to be twofold.
(1) In the first place he conceives the incidents, as represented in the
Epistles, to be altogether incredible. Thus he says [74:2]:--
'The writer describes the circumstances of his journey as
follows:--"From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by
sea and by land, by night and day; being bound amongst ten
leopards, which are the band of soldiers: who even when good is
done to them render evil." Now if this account be in the least
degree true, how is it possible to suppose that the martyr could
have found means to write so many long epistles, entering minutely
into dogmatic teaching, and expressing the most deliberate and
advanced views regarding ecclesiastical government?'
And again:--
'It is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the quotation
above describes would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts
for professing Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at
every stage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for
which he was condemned. And not only this, but on his way to
martyrdom, he has, according to the epistles, perfect freedom to
see his friends. He receives the bishops, deacons, and members of
various Christian communities, who come with greetings to him, and
devoted followers accompany him on his journey. All this without
hindrance from the "ten leopards," of whose cruelty he complains,
and without persecution or harm to those who so openly declare
themselves his friends and fellow-believers. The whole story is
absolutely incredible.'
To this objection, plausible as it may appear at first sight, a complete
answer is afforded by what is known of Roman procedure in other cases
[75:1]. As a matter of fact, Christian prisoners during the early
centuries were not uncommonly treated by the authorities with this same
laxity and indulgence which is here accorded to Ignatius. An excited
populace or a stern magistrate might insist on the condemnation of a
Christian; a victim must be sacrificed to the wrath of the gods, or to
the majesty of the law; a human life must be 'butcher'd to make a Roman
holiday;' but the treatment of the prisoners meanwhile, even after
condemnation, was, except in rare instances, the reverse of harsh. St
Paul himself preaches the Gospel apparently with almost as much effect
through the long years of his imprisonment as when he was at large.
During his voyage he moves about like the rest of his fellow-travellers;
when he arrives at Rome, he is still treated with great consideration.
He writes letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates
with churches and individuals as he desires, though the chain is on his
wrist and the soldier at his side all the while. Even at a much later
date, when the growth of the Christian Church may have created an alarm
among statesmen and magistrates which certainly cannot have existed in
the age of Ignatius, we see the same leniency of treatment, and (what is
more important) the same opportunities of disseminating their opinions
accorded to the prisoners. Thus Saturus and Perpetua, the African
martyrs, who suffered under Severus [76:1] (apparently in the year 202
or 203), are allowed writing materials, with which they record the
extant history of their sufferings; and they too are visited in prison
by Christian deacons, as well as by their own friends. They owed this
liberty partly to the humanity of the chief officers; partly to
gratuities bestowed by their friends on the gaolers [76:2]. Even after
the lapse of another half-century, when Decius seriously contemplated
the extermination of Christianity, we are surprised to find the amount
of communication still kept up with the prisoners in their dungeons. The
Cyprianic correspondence reveals to us the confessors and martyrs
writing letters to their friends, visited by large numbers of people,
even receiving the rites of the Church in their prisons at the hands of
Christian priests.
But the most powerful testimony is derived from the representations of a
heathen writer. The Christian career of Peregrinus must have fallen
within the reign of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161). Thus it is not very
far removed, in point of time, from the age of Ignatius. This Peregrinus
is represented by Lucian, writing immediately after his death (A.D.
165), as being incarcerated for his profession of Christianity, and the
satirist thus describes the prison scene [76:3]:--
'When he was imprisoned, the Christians, regarding it as a great
calamity, left no stone unturned in the attempt to rescue him.
Then, when they found this impossible, they looked after his wants
in every other respect with unremitting zeal ([Greek: ou parergôs
alla sun spoudê]). And from early dawn old women, widows, and
orphan children, might be seen waiting about the doors of the
prison; while their officers ([Greek: hoi en telei autôn])
succeeded, by bribing the keepers, in passing the night inside with
him. Then various meals were brought in, and religious discourses
were held between them, and this excellent Peregrinus (for he still
bore this name) was entitled a new Socrates by them. Moreover,
there came from certain cities in Asia deputies sent by the
Christian communities to assist and advise and console the man.
Indeed they show incredible despatch, when any matter of the kind
is undertaken as a public concern; for, in short, they spare
nothing. And so large sums of money came to Peregrinus at that time
from them, on the plea of his fetters, and he made no
inconsiderable revenue out of it.'
The singular correspondence in this narrative with the account of
Ignatius, combined with some striking coincidences of expression [77:1],
have led to the opinion that Lucian was acquainted with the Ignatian
history, if not with the Ignatian letters. For this view there is much
to be said; and, if it be true, the bearing of the fact on the
genuineness of the Ignatian literature is important, since Lucian was
born in Syria somewhere about A.D. 120, and lived much in Asia Minor. At
all events it is conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that
Christian prisoners were treated in the very way described in these
epistles. The reception of delegates and the freedom of correspondence,
which have been the chief stumbling-blocks to modern criticism in the
Ignatian letters, appear quite as prominently in the heathen satirist's
account of Peregrinus [77:2].
In the light of these facts the language of Ignatius becomes quite
intelligible. He was placed under the custody of a maniple of soldiers.
These ten men would relieve guard in turns, the prisoner being always
bound to one or other of them day and night, according to the well-known
Roman usage, as illustrated by the case of St Paul. The martyr finds his
guards fierce and intractable as leopards. His fight with wild beasts,
he intimates, is not confined to the arena of the Flavian amphitheatre;
it has been going on continuously ever since he left Antioch. His
friends manage to secure him indulgences by offering bribes, but the
soldiers are exorbitant and irritating in the extreme [78:1]. The more
they receive, the more they exact. Their demands keep pace with his
exigencies. All this is natural, and it fully explains the language here
ascribed to Ignatius. A prisoner smarting under such treatment naturally
dwells on the dark side of the picture, without thinking how a critic,
writing in his study centuries afterwards, will interpret his
fragmentary and impulsive utterances. In short, we must treat Ignatius
as a man, and not as an automaton. Men will not talk mechanically, as
critics would have them talk.
(2) Having declared 'the whole story' to be 'absolutely incredible,' on
the grounds which I have just considered, our author continues [78:2]:--
'This conclusion, irresistible in itself, is, however, confirmed by
facts arrived at from a totally different point of view. It has
been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but
suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115
(^3), when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the
amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced
by the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month (^4).'
The two foot-notes contain no justification of this very positive
statement, though so much depends upon it; but the reader is there
furnished with a number of references to modern critics. These
references have been analysed by Dr Westcott [79:1], with results very
similar to those which my analysis of the author's previous notes has
yielded. In some cases the writers express opinions directly opposed to
that for which they are quoted; in others they incline to views
irreconcilable with it; and in others they suspend judgment. When the
references are sifted, the sole residuum on which our author rests his
assurance is found to be a hypothesis of Volkmar [79:2], built upon a
statement of John Malalas, which I shall now proceed to examine. The
words of John Malalas are--
'The same king Trajan was residing in the same city (Antioch) when
the visitation of God (_i.e._ the earthquake) occurred. And at that
time the holy Ignatius, the bishop of the city of Antioch, was
martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek: emarturêse]) before him
([Greek: epi autou]); for he was exasperated against him, because
he reviled him.' [79:3]
The earthquake is stated by Malalas to have occurred on the 13th of
December, A.D. 115. On these statements, combined with the fact that the
day dedicated to St Ignatius at a later age was the 20th of December
[79:4], Volkmar builds his theory. It will be observed that the cause of
the martyr's death, as laid down by Volkmar, receives no countenance
from the story of Malalas, who gives a wholly different reason--the
irritating language used to the emperor.
Now this John Malalas lived not earlier than the latter half of the
sixth century, and possibly much later. His date therefore constitutes
no claim to a hearing. His statement moreover is directly opposed to the
concurrent testimony of the four or five preceding centuries, which,
without a dissentient voice, declare that Ignatius suffered at Rome.
This is the case with all the writers and interpolators of the Ignatian
letters, of whom the earliest is generally placed, even by those critics
who deny their genuineness, about the middle or in the latter half of
the second century. It is the case with two distinct martyrologies
[80:1], which, agreeing in little else, are united in sending the martyr
to Rome to die. It is the case necessarily with all those Fathers who
quote the Ignatian letters in any form as genuine, amongst whom are
Irenæus and Origen and Eusebius and Athanasius. It is the case with
Chrysostom, who, on the day of the martyr's festival, pronounces at
Antioch an elaborate panegyric on his illustrious predecessor in the see
[80:2]. It is the case with several other writers also, whom I need not
enumerate, all prior to Malalas.
But John Malalas, it is said, lived at Antioch. So did Chrysostom some
two centuries at least before him. So did Evagrius, who, if the earliest
date of Malalas be adopted, was his contemporary, and who, together with
all preceding authorities, places the martyrdom of Ignatius in Rome. If
therefore the testimony of Malalas deserves to be preferred to this
cloud of witnesses, it must be because he approves himself elsewhere as
a sober and trustworthy writer.
As a matter of fact however, his notices of early Christian history are,
almost without exception, demonstrably false or palpably fabulous
[80:3]. In the very paragraph which succeeds the sentence quoted, he
relates how Trajan had five Christian women burnt alive; the emperor
then mingled their ashes with the metal from which the vessels used for
the baths were cast; the bathers were seized with swooning-fits in
consequence; the vessels were again melted up; and out of the same metal
were erected five pillars in honour of the five martyrs by the emperor's
orders. These pillars, adds Malalas, stand in the bath to the present
day. As if this were not enough, he goes on to relate how Trajan made a
furnace and ordered any Christians, who desired, to throw themselves
into it--an injunction which was obeyed by many. Nor when he leaves the
domain of hagiology for that of chronology, is this author any more
trustworthy. For instance, he states that Manes first propounded his
doctrine in the reign of Nerva, and that Marcion still further
disseminated the Manichean heresy under Hadrian [81:1]. An anachronism
of a century or more is nothing to him.
We have seen by this time what authority suffices, in our author's
judgment, to 'demonstrate' a fact; and no more is necessary for my
purpose. But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is
capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some earlier
authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. The words
[Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used especially of
martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense, including other modes
of witnessing to the faith: the expression [Greek: epi Traïanou] again
is ambiguous and might denote either 'during the reign of Trajan,' or
'in the presence of Trajan.' A blundering writer like Malalas might have
stumbled over either expression [81:2].
The objections of our author have thus been met and answered; and
difficulties which admit of this easy explanation cannot, I venture to
think, be held to have any real weight against even a small amount of
external testimony in favour of the Epistles. The external testimony
however is considerable in this case [81:3]. The Epistle of Polycarp,
which purports to have been written so soon after this journey of
Ignatius through Asia Minor that the circumstances of the martyr's death
were not fully known there, speaks of his letters in language which is
entirely applicable to the existing documents. Our author indeed
declares this Epistle also to be spurious. But Irenæus, the pupil of
Polycarp, bears testimony to the existence of such an Epistle; and I
pledge myself to answer in a subsequent paper the objections urged
against its genuineness by our author and others [82:1]. Besides this,
Irenæus, writing about A.D. 180-190, quotes a characteristic and
distinctive passage from the Epistle to the Romans, not indeed
mentioning Ignatius by name, but introducing the quotation as the words
of a member of the Christian brotherhood. And again, in the first half
of the next century Origen cites two passages from these letters,
ascribing them directly to Ignatius. I say nothing of the later and more
explicit references and quotations of Eusebius, important as these are
in themselves. Our author indeed seems to consider this amount of
testimony very insufficient. But even if we set Polycarp aside, it would
hardly be rash to say that the external evidence for at least two-thirds
of the remains of classical antiquity is inferior. We Christians are
constantly told that we must expect to have our records tested by the
same standards which are applied to other writings. This is exactly what
we desire, and what we do not get. It is not easy to imagine the havoc
which would ensue, if the critical principles of the Tübingen school and
their admirers were let loose on the classical literature of Greece and
Rome.
External testimony therefore leaves a very strong presumption in favour
of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters in one form or other; and
before rejecting them entirely, we are bound to show that internal
evidence furnishes really substantial and valid objections to their
authenticity. It is not sufficient, for instance, to allege that the
saint's desire for martyrdom, as exhibited in these Epistles, is
extravagant, because we have ample testimony for believing that such
extravagance (whether commendable or not) was highly characteristic of
the faith and zeal of the early Christians when tried by persecution.
Nor again, is it of any avail to produce some eccentricities of thought
or language, because there is no _a priori_ reason why St Ignatius
should not have indulged in such eccentricities.
Unless therefore really solid objections can be urged, we are bound by
all ordinary laws of literary evidence to accept as genuine at all
events the shortest form in which these Epistles are presented to us. In
other words, the Curetonian letters at least must be received. And as
these satisfy all the quotations and references of the second and third
centuries (though not those of Eusebius in the first half of the
fourth), perhaps not more is required by the external testimony. Against
the genuineness of these it may be presumed that our author has advanced
what he considered the strongest arguments which the case admits; and I
have answered them. I am quite aware that other objections have been
alleged by other critics; but it will be sufficient here to express a
conviction that these have no real force against even the slightest
external testimony, and to undertake to meet them if they are
reproduced. Thus all the supposed anachronisms have failed. Bochart, for
instance, was bold enough to maintain that the Ignatian Epistle to the
Romans could not have been written before the time of Constantine the
Great, because 'leopards' are mentioned in it, and the word was not
known until this late age. In reply to Bochart, Pearson and others
showed conclusively, by appealing (among other documents) to the
contemporary Acts of Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas (who suffered
when Geta was Cæsar, about A.D. 202), that 'leopards' were so called
more than a century at least before Constantine, while they gave good
reasons for believing that the word was in use much earlier. I am able
to carry the direct evidence half a century farther back. The word
occurs in an early treatise of Galen (written about the middle of the
second century), without any indication that it was then a new or
unusual term. This passage, which (so far as I am aware) has been
hitherto overlooked, carries the use back to within some forty years, or
less, of the professed date of the Ignatian letters; and it must be
regarded as a mere accident that no earlier occurrence has been noticed
in the scanty remains of Greek and Roman literature which bridge over
the interval. Of the institution of episcopacy again, it is sufficient
to say that its prevalence in Asia Minor at this time, whatever may have
been the case elsewhere, can only be denied by rejecting a large amount
of direct and indirect evidence on this side of the question, and by
substituting in its place a mere hypothesis which rests on no basis of
historical fact.
On the other hand, the Epistles themselves are stamped with an
individuality of character which is a strong testimony to their
genuineness. The intensity of feeling and the ruggedness of expression
seem to bespeak a real living man. On this point however it is
impossible to dwell here; anyone who will take the pains to read these
Epistles continuously will be in a better position to form a judgment on
this evidence of style, than if he had been plied with many arguments.
But if the Curetonian letters are the genuine work of Ignatius, what
must we say of the Vossian? Were the additional portions, which are
contained in the latter but wanting in the former, also written by the
saint, or are they later interpolations and additions? This is a much
more difficult question.
As a first step towards answering this question, we may observe that
there is one very strong reason for believing that the Vossian letters
cannot have been written after the middle of the second century. The
argument from silence has been so often abused, that one is almost
afraid to employ it at all. Yet here it seems to have a real value. The
writer of these letters, whoever he was, is evidently an orthodox
Catholic Christian, and at the same time a strong controversialist. It
is therefore a striking fact that he is altogether silent on the main
controversies which agitated the Church, and more especially the Church
of Asia Minor, in the middle and latter half of the second century.
There is not a word about Montanism or about the Paschal controversy. It
is difficult to believe that such a writer could have kept clear of
these 'burning' questions, if he had lived in the midst of them. Even
though his sense of historical propriety might have preserved him from
language involving a positive anachronism, he would have taken a
distinct side, and would have made his meaning clear by indirect means.
Again, there is nothing at all bearing on the great Gnostic heresies of
this age. The doctrines of the Marcionites, of the Valentinians, even of
the Basilideans (though Basilides flourished under Hadrian), are not
touched. On the contrary, the writer several times uses language which
an orthodox churchman, writing in the second half of the second century
or later, would almost certainly have avoided. Among other expressions
he salutes the Church of the Trallians 'in the _pleroma_'--an expression
which could not escape the taint of heresy when once Valentinus had
promulgated his system, of which the pleroma was the centre. Nor again,
is it likely that such a writer would have indulged in expressions
which, however innocent in themselves, would seem very distinctly to
countenance the Gnostic doctrine of the inherent evil of matter, as for
instance, where he says that he has not in him any 'matter-loving
([Greek: philoülon]) fire (of passion),' [85:1] and the like. The
bearing of these facts has (so far as I remember) been overlooked, and
yet it is highly important.
Having regard to these and similar phenomena, I do not see how it is
reasonable to date the Vossian Epistles after the middle of the second
century. But still it does not follow that they are genuine; and
elsewhere I had acquiesced in the earlier opinion of Lipsius, who
ascribed them to an interpolator writing about A.D. 140 [85:2]. Now
however I am obliged to confess that I have grave and increasing doubts
whether, after all, they are not the genuine utterances of Ignatius
himself. The following reasons weigh heavily in this scale. (1)
Petermann's investigations, which have been already mentioned,
respecting the Armenian version and its relation to a pre-existing
Syriac version, throw a new light on the Curetonian letters. When it is
known that there existed a complete version of the Vossian letters in
this language, the theory that the Curetonian letters are excerpts
becomes at least highly plausible, since the two sets of Syriac letters
were certainly not independent the one of the other. (2) Notwithstanding
Cureton's assertions, which our author has endorsed, the abruptness of
the Curetonian letters is very perplexing in some parts. Subsequent
writers, even while maintaining their genuineness, have recognised this
difficulty, and endeavoured to explain it. It is far from easy, for
instance, to conceive that the Ephesian letter could have ended as it is
made to end in this recension. (3) Though the Vossian letters introduce
many historical circumstances respecting the journey of Ignatius, the
condition of the Church of Antioch, and the persons visiting or visited
by him, no contradictions have yet been made out; but, on the contrary,
the several notices fit in one with another in a way which at all events
shows more care and ingenuity than might be expected in a falsifier. (4)
All the supposed anachronisms to which objection has been taken in these
Epistles fail on closer investigation. More especially stress has been
laid on the fact that this writer describes Christ as God's 'eternal
Logos, not having proceeded from Silence;' [86:1] and objectors, have
urged that this expression is intended as a refutation of the
Valentinian doctrine. Pearson thought it sufficient to reply that the
Valentinians did not represent the Logos as an emanation from Silence,
but from an intermediate Æon; and when the treatise of Hippolytus was
discovered, an answer seemed to be furnished by the fact that Silence
held a conspicuous place in the tenets of the earlier sect of Simonians,
and the Ignatian expression was explained as a reference to their
teaching. But fresh materials for the correction of the Ignatian text,
which Cureton and Petermann have placed in our hands, seem to show very
clearly (though these editors have overlooked the importance of the
facts) that in the original form of the passage the words 'eternal' and
'not' were wanting; so that the expression stood, 'Who is His Logos,
having proceeded from Silence.' They are omitted in the Armenian version
and in the passage as cited by Severus of Antioch [87:1]; while the
paraphrase of the Long Recension seems to point in the same direction,
though this is more doubtful. Severus more especially comments on the
quotation, so that his reading is absolutely certain. Such a combination
of early authorities is very strong evidence in favour of the omission.
Moreover it is difficult to explain how the words, if genuine, should
have been omitted; whereas their insertion, if they were no part of the
original text, is easily accounted for. In the middle of the fourth
century, Marcellus of Ancyra expressed his Sabellianism in almost
identical language [87:2]; he spoke of Christ as the Logos issuing from
Silence; and there was every temptation with orthodox scribes to save
the reputation of St Ignatius from complicity in heretical opinions, and
at the same time to deprive Marcellus of the support of his great name.
I call attention to these facts, both because they have been overlooked,
and because the passage in question has furnished their main argument to
those who charge these Epistles with anachronisms.
Of the character of these Epistles, it must suffice here to say that the
writer at all events was thoroughly acquainted with the manner and
teaching of St Ignatius. As regards the substance, they contain many
extravagances of sentiment and teaching, more especially relating to the
episcopal office, from which the Curetonian letters are free and which
one would not willingly believe written by the saint himself. But it
remains a question, whether such considerations ought to outweigh the
arguments on the other side. At all events it cannot be shown that they
exhibit any different type of doctrine, though the mode of
representation may seem exaggerated. As regards style, the Curetonian
letters are more rugged and forcible than the Vossian; but as selected
excerpts, they might perhaps be expected to exhibit these features
prominently.
For the reasons given I shall, unless I am shown to be wrong, treat the
Curetonian letters as the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the
Vossian letters will be accepted as valid testimony at all events for
the middle of the second century. The question of the genuineness of the
latter will be waived. I fear that my indecision on this point will
contrast disadvantageously with the certainty which is expressed by the
author of _Supernatural Religion_. If so, I am sorry, but I cannot help
it.
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA.
[MAY, 1875.]
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, is the most important person in the history
of the Christian Church during the ages immediately succeeding the
Apostles. In the eyes of his own and the next generations, Clement of
Rome appears to have held a more prominent position, if we may judge
from the legendary stories which have gathered about his name; but for
ourselves the interest which attaches to Polycarp is far greater. This
importance he owes to his peculiar position, rather than to any marked
greatness or originality of character. Two long lives--those of St John
and of Polycarp--span the period which elapsed between the personal
ministry of our Lord and the great Christian teachers living at the
close of the second century. Polycarp was the disciple of St John, and
Irenæus was the disciple of Polycarp. We know enough of St John's
teaching, if the books ascribed to him in our Canon are accepted as
genuine. We are fully acquainted with the tenets of Irenæus, and of
these we may say generally that on all the most important points they
conform to the theological standard which has satisfied the Christian
Church ever since. But of the intermediate period between the close of
the first century and the close of the second, the notices are sparse,
the literature is scanty and fragmentary. Hence modern criticism has
busied itself with hypothetical reconstructions of Christian history
during this interval. It has been maintained that the greater part of
the writings of our Canon were unknown and unwritten at the beginning of
this period. It has been supposed that there was a complete
discontinuity in the career of the Christian Church throughout the
world. The person of Polycarp is a standing protest against any such
surmises. Unless Irenæus was entirely mistaken as to the teaching of
his master, unless the extant Epistle ascribed to Polycarp is altogether
spurious, these views must fall to the ground. It is indispensable for
the advocates of the Tübingen theory respecting the origin of the
Christian Church and the Scriptural Canon to make good both these
positions alike. Otherwise it can have no standing ground. My object in
the following investigations is to show that neither position is
tenable.
Polycarp was born more than thirty years before the close of the first
century, and he survived to the latter half of the second. The date of
his birth may be fixed with some degree of certainty as A.D. 69 or 70.
At all events it cannot have been later than this. At the time of his
martyrdom, which is now ascertained to have taken place A.D. 155 or 156
[90:1], he declared that he had served Christ eighty-six years [90:2];
and, if this expression be explained as referring to the whole period of
his life (which is the more probable supposition), we are carried back
to the date which I have just given.
Thus Polycarp was born on the eve of a great crisis, which was fraught
with momentous consequences to the Church at large, and which more
especially made itself felt in the Christian congregations of his own
country, proconsular Asia. The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the autumn
of the year 70. But at the final assault the Christians were no longer
among the besieged. The impending war had been taken as the signal for
their departure from the doomed city. The greater number had retired
beyond the Jordan, and founded Christian colonies in Pella and the
neighbourhood. But the natural leaders of the Church--the surviving
Apostles and personal disciples of Christ--had sought a home elsewhere.
From this time forward it is neither to Jerusalem nor to Pella, but to
proconsular Asia, and more especially to Ephesus as its metropolis, that
we must look for the continuance of the original type of Apostolic
doctrine and practice. At the epoch of the catastrophe we find the
Apostle John for a short time living in exile--whether voluntary or
constrained, it is unnecessary to inquire--in the island of Patmos. Soon
after this he takes up his abode at Ephesus, which seems to have been
his head-quarters during the remainder of his long life [91:1]. And John
was not alone in choosing Asia Minor as his new home. More especially
the companions of his early youth seem to have been attracted to this
neighbourhood. Of two brother Apostles and fellow-countrymen of
Bethsaida this is distinctly recorded. Andrew, the brother of Simon
Peter, appears in company with John in these later years, according to
an account which seems at least so far trustworthy [91:2]. The presence
of Philip, the special friend of Andrew [91:3], in these parts is
recorded on still better authority [91:4]. Philip himself died at
Hierapolis in Phrygia; but one of his three daughters was buried at
Ephesus, where perhaps he had resided at an earlier date. Among other
personal disciples of Christ, not otherwise known to us, who dwelt in
these districts of Asia Minor, Aristion and a second John are mentioned,
with whom Papias, the friend of Polycarp, had conversed [91:5].
Among these influences Polycarp was brought up. His own words, to which
I have already alluded, seem to show that he was born of Christian
parentage. At all events he must have been a believer from early
childhood. If his parents were Christians, they probably received their
first lessons in the Gospel from the teachers of an earlier date--from
St Paul who had planted the Churches of Asia Minor, or from St Peter who
appears to have watered them, [92:1] or from the immediate disciples of
one or other of these two Apostles. But during the childhood and youth
of Polycarp himself the influence of St John was paramount. Irenæus
reports (and there is no reason for questioning the truth of his
statement) that St John survived to the reign of Trajan [92:2], who
ascended the imperial throne A.D. 98. Thus Polycarp would be about
thirty years old at the time of St John's death. When therefore Irenæus
relates that he was appointed bishop in Smyrna 'by Apostles,' [92:3] the
statement involves no chronological difficulty, even though we interpret
the term 'bishop' in its more restricted sense, and not as a synonyme
for presbyter, according to its earlier meaning. Later writers say
distinctly that he was appointed to the episcopal office by St John
[92:4].
At all events, he appears as Bishop of Smyrna in the early years of the
second century. When Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his way to
martyrdom, he halts at Smyrna, where he is received by Polycarp. At a
later stage in his journey he writes to his friend. The tone of his
letter is altogether such as might be expected from an old man writing
to a younger, who nevertheless held a position of great responsibility,
and had shown himself worthy of the trust. After expressing his
thankfulness for their meeting, and commending his friend's steadfast
faith, which was 'founded as on an immovable rock,' he proceeds:--
Vindicate thine office in all diligence, whether in things carnal
or in things spiritual. Have a care for unity, than which nothing
is better. Sustain all men, even as the Lord sustaineth thee.
Suffer all men in love, as also thou doest. Give thyself to
unceasing prayer. Ask for more wisdom than thou hast. Keep watch,
and preserve a wakeful spirit.... Be thou wise as the serpent in
all things, and harmless always as the dove.... The time requireth
thee, as pilots require winds, or as a storm-tossed mariner a
haven, so that it may find God.... Be sober, as God's athlete....
Stand firm as an anvil under the stroke of the hammer. It becomes a
great athlete to endure blows and to conquer.... Show thyself more
zealous than thou art.... Let nothing be done without thy consent,
neither do thou anything without God's consent, as indeed thou
doest not [93:1].
The close of the letter is addressed mainly to the Smyrnæans, enforcing
their reciprocal obligations towards their bishop.
This letter, if the additional matter in the Vossian Epistles may be
trusted, was written from Troas, when the martyr was on the point of
embarking for Neapolis [93:2]. The next stage of his journey would bring
him to Philippi, where he halted. Thence he proceeded by the great
Egnatian road across the continent to the Hadriatic, on his way to Rome.
Shortly after this, Polycarp himself addresses a letter to the
Philippians. He had been especially invited by his correspondents to
write to them, but he had also a reason of his own for doing so. During
this season of the year, when winter had closed the high seas for
navigation, all news from Rome must travel through Macedonia to Asia
Minor. At Smyrna they had not yet received tidings of the fate of
Ignatius; and he hoped to get early information from his correspondents,
who were some stages nearer to Rome where, as Polycarp assumed, his
friend had already suffered martyrdom [93:3].
This was the occasion of the letter, which for various reasons possesses
the highest interest as a document of early Christian literature, though
far from remarkable in itself.
Its most important feature is the profuseness of quotation from the
Apostolic writings. Of a Canon of the New Testament, strictly so called,
it is not probable that Polycarp knew anything [93:4]. This idea was
necessarily, as Dr Westcott has shown, the growth of time. But of the
writings which are included in our Canon he shows a wide knowledge and
an ample appreciation. In this respect he may not unprofitably be
compared with Clement of Rome. Clement of Rome, there is good reason to
believe, was a Hellenist Jew [94:1]; he must have been brought up in a
familiar acquaintance with the Old Testament Scriptures. On the other
hand Polycarp, as we have already seen, was probably the son of
Christian parents; at all events he was educated from his earliest
childhood in the knowledge of the Gospel; he had grown up in the society
of Apostles and Apostolic men. This contrast of education makes itself
apparent in the writings of the two Fathers. Though there are clear
indications in Clement that he was acquainted with many of the Apostolic
Epistles, yet his quotations are chiefly taken from the Old Testament.
Again and again he cites continuous passages, and argues from them at
length. But with Polycarp the case is different. The New Testament has
exchanged places with the Old, at least so far as practical use is
concerned. Notwithstanding its brevity, Polycarp's Epistle contains
decisive coincidences with or references to between thirty and forty
passages in the New Testament [94:2]. On the other hand, with the single
exception of four words from the apocryphal book of Tobit [94:3], there
is no quotation taken immediately from the Old Testament. Elsewhere
indeed he cites the words of Ps. iv. 4, but these are evidently quoted
from St Paul, and not directly from the Psalmist, as his context shows
[95:1].
Not less remarkable than the number of his quotations from the New
Testament is their wide range. Of the Evangelical references I shall
have occasion to speak in a subsequent article. Besides these there is a
strong coincidence with the Acts which can hardly be accidental [95:2];
and there are passages or expressions taken from most of the Apostolic
Epistles. Among the latter the most decisive examples frequently refer
to those very Epistles which modern criticism has striven to discredit.
It cannot reasonably be questioned for instance, that Polycarp was
acquainted with the Epistle to the Ephesians and with the two Epistles
to Timothy. Of the indisputable references to the First Epistle of St
Peter I have already spoken in a former paper [95:3].
But the most important fact, in its bearing on recent controversy, is
the relation of the writer to St Paul. According to the hypothesis of
the Tübingen school, there was a personal antagonism between St Paul and
St John, and an irreconcilable feud between their respective schools. It
is therefore with special interest that we look to see what the most
eminent scholar of the beloved disciple says about the Apostle of the
Gentiles. Now St Paul occupies quite the most prominent place in
Polycarp's Epistle. This prominence is partly explained by the fact that
he is writing to a Church of St Paul's founding, but this explanation
does not detract from its value. St Paul is the only Apostle who is
mentioned by name; his writings are the only Apostolic writings which
are referred to by name; of his thirteen Epistles, there are probable
references to as many as eleven [95:4]; there are direct appeals to his
example and his teaching alike: there is even an apology on the writer's
part for the presumption of seeming to set himself up as a rival to the
Apostle by writing to a Church to whom he had addressed an Epistle
[96:1]. Altogether the testimony to the respect in which St Paul is held
by the writer is as complete as language can make it. If therefore the
Epistle be accepted as genuine, the position of the Tübingen school must
be abandoned.
From considering the phenomena of the extant Epistle, we pass by a
natural transition to the second point which I proposed to investigate,
the traditions of the author's teaching.
Polycarp was no longer a young man, when his Epistle was written. But he
lived on to see a new generation grow up from infancy to mature age
afterwards; and as the companion of Apostles and the depositary of the
Apostolic tradition, his influence increased with his increasing years.
Before he died, even unbelievers had come to regard him as the 'Father
of the Christians.'
Of his later years a glimpse is afforded to us in the record of an
eye-witness. Among the disciples of his old age were two youths,
companions for the time, but destined to stand far apart in after life--
'Like cliffs that had been rent asunder;'
the elder, Florinus, who became famous afterwards as a heretical leader;
the younger, Irenæus, who stood forward as the great champion of
orthodoxy. The following is the remonstrance addressed by Irenæus to
his former associate after his defection:--
These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak without harshness, are
not of sound judgment; these opinions are not in harmony with the
Church, but involve those adopting them in the greatest impiety;
these opinions even the heretics outside the pale of the Church
have never ventured to broach; these opinions the elders before us,
who also were disciples of the Apostles, did not hand down to thee.
For I saw thee, when I was still a boy ([Greek: pais ôn eti]), in
Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring
prosperously in the royal court, and endeavouring to stand well
with him. For I distinctly remember ([Greek: diamnêmoneuô]) the
incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence; for
the lessons received in childhood ([Greek: ek paidôn]), growing
with the growth of the soul, become identified with it; so that I
can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to
sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and
his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses
which he held before the people, and how he would describe his
intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and
how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard
from them about the Lord, and about his miracles, and about his
teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of
the life of the Word [97:1], would relate altogether in accordance
with the Scriptures. To these (discourses) I used to listen at the
time with attention by God's mercy which was bestowed upon me,
noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart; and by the grace
of God, I constantly ruminate upon them faithfully ([Greek:
gnêsiôs]). And I can testify in the sight of God, that if the
blessed and Apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he
would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and said after his
wont, 'O good God, for what times hast Thou kept me, that I should
endure such things?' and would even have fled from the place where
he was sitting or standing when he heard such words. And indeed,
this can be shown from his letters which he wrote either to the
neighbouring Churches for their confirmation, or to certain of the
brethren for their warning and exhortation [97:2].
Unfortunately the chronological notices are not sufficiently precise to
enable us to fix the date either of this intercourse with Polycarp, or
of the letter to Florinus in which Irenæus records it. In the year 155
or 156 Polycarp died; in the year 177 Irenæus became Bishop of Lyons.
Putting these two facts together, we may perhaps assume that Irenæus
must have been a pupil of Polycarp somewhere between A.D. 135-150. The
mention of the 'royal court' seems at first sight to suggest the hope of
a more precise solution; but even if this notice be taken to imply the
presence of the Emperor for the time being in Asia Minor, our
information respecting the movements of Hadrian and his successors is
too scanty to afford ground for any safe inference [98:1].
Of the later career of Florinus, we are informed that he was at one time
a presbyter of the Roman Church; that he afterwards fell away, and
taught his heresy in the metropolis; that in consequence Irenæus
addressed to him this letter from which I have given the extract, and
which was also entitled 'On Monarchy' or 'Showing that God is no--the
author of evil' ([Greek: poiêtên kakôn])--this being the special heresy
of Florinus; and that afterwards, apparently by a rebound, he lapsed
into Valentinianism, on which occasion Irenæus wrote his treatise on
the Ogdoad [98:2]. As the treatise of Irenæus on the Ogdoad can hardly
have been written later than his extant work on Heresies, in which
Valentinianism is so fully discussed as to render any such partial
treatment superfluous, and which dates from the episcopate of
Eleutherius (A.D. 177-190), we are led to the conclusion that the letter
to Florinus was one of the earliest writings of this Father.
Thus we are left without any means of ascertaining the exact age of
Irenæus when he sat at the feet of Polycarp. But beyond this
uncertainty his testimony is as explicit as could well be desired. All
experience, if I mistake not, bears out his statement respecting the
vividness of the memory during this period of life. In a recent trial,
the most fatal blot in the evidence was the inability of a pretender to
give any information respecting the games and studies, the companions,
the familiar haunts, of the school and college days of the person with
whom he identified himself. It is the penalty which mature age pays for
clearer ideas and higher powers of generalisation, that the recollection
of facts becomes comparatively blurred. Very often an old man will
relate with perfect distinctness the incidents of his youth and early
manhood, while a haze will rest over much of the intervening period.
Those who have listened to a Sedgwick after a lapse of sixty or seventy
years repeating anecdotes of the 'statesmen' in his native dale, or
describing the circumstances under which he first heard the news of the
battle of Trafalgar, will be able to realize the vividness of the
stories which the aged Polycarp would tell to his youthful pupil of his
intercourse with the last surviving Apostle--the memory of the narrator
being quickened and the interest of the hearer intensified, in this
case, by the conviction that they were brought face to face with facts
such as the world had never seen before.
One incident more is recorded of this veteran preacher of the Gospel. In
the closing years of his life he undertook a journey to Rome, where he
conferred with the bishop, Anicetus. The main subject of this conference
was the time of celebrating the Passion. Polycarp pleaded the practice
of St John and the other Apostles with whom he had conversed, for
observing the actual day of the Jewish Passover, without respect to the
day of the week. On the other hand, Anicetus could point to the fact
that his predecessors, at least as far back as Xystus, who succeeded to
the see soon after the beginning of the century, had always kept the
anniversary of the Passion on a Friday and that of the Resurrection on a
Sunday, thus making the day of the month give place to the day of the
week. Neither convinced the other, but they parted good friends. This
difference of usage did not interfere with the most perfect cordiality;
and, as a sign of this, Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the
Eucharist in his stead [100:1]. About forty years later, when the
Paschal controversy was revived, and Victor, a successor of Anicetus,
excommunicated the Asiatic Churches, Irenæus, though himself an
observer of the Western usage, wrote to remonstrate with Victor on this
harsh and tyrannical measure. An extract from his letter is preserved by
Eusebius, in which these incidents respecting his old master are
recorded [100:2]. Irenæus insists strongly on the fact that "the
harmony of the faith" has never been disturbed hitherto by any such
diversities of usage.
To this visit to Rome Irenæus makes another reference in his extant
work against Heresies. The perfect confidence with which he appeals to
the continuity of the Apostolic tradition, and to the testimony of
Polycarp as the principal link in the chain, gives a peculiar
significance to this passage, and no apology is needed for quoting it at
length. After speaking of the succession of the Roman bishops, through
whom the true doctrine has been handed down to his own generation
without interruption, he adds--
And (so it was with) Polycarp also, who not only was taught by
Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse ([Greek:
sunanastrapheis]) with many that had seen Christ, but also received
his appointment in Asia from Apostles, as Bishop in the Church of
Smyrna, whom we too have seen in our youth ([Greek: en tê prôtê
hêmôn hêlikia]) for he survived long, and departed this life at a
very great age, by a glorious and most notable martyrdom, having
ever taught these very things, which he had learnt from the
Apostles, which the Church hands down, and which alone are true. To
these testimony is borne by all the Churches in Asia, and by the
successors of Polycarp up to the present time, who was a much more
trustworthy and safer witness of the truth than Valentinus and
Marcion, and all such wrong-minded men. He also, when on a visit to
Rome in the days of Anicetus, converted many to the Church of God
from following the aforenamed heretics, by preaching that he had
received from the Apostles this doctrine, and this only, which was
handed down by the Church, as the truth. And there are those who
have heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he
went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed
away from the room without bathing, with the words, 'Let us flee,
lest the room should indeed fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of
the truth, is within.' Yea, and Polycarp himself also on one
occasion, when Marcion confronted him and said, 'Dost thou
recognize me?' answered, 'I recognize the firstborn of Satan.' Such
care did the Apostles and their disciples take not to hold any
communication, even by word, with any of those who falsify the
truth, as Paul also said, 'A man that is a heretic after a first
and second admonition, avoid; knowing that such an one is perverted
and sinneth, being self-condemned.' Moreover, there is an Epistle
of Polycarp addressed to the Philippians, which is most adequate
([Greek: hikanôtatê]), and from which both his manner of life and
his preaching of the truth may be learnt by those who desire to
learn and are anxious for their own salvation. And again, the
Church in Ephesus, which was founded by Paul, and where John
survived till the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the
tradition of the Apostles [101:1].
I have given these important extracts at length because they speak for
themselves. If I mistake not, they will be more convincing than many
arguments. It is impossible to doubt the sincerity of Irenæus, when he
thus explicitly and repeatedly maintains that the doctrines which he
holds and teaches are the same which Polycarp had held and taught before
him. On the other hand, a school of critics which has arisen in the
present generation maintains that Irenæus was mistaken from b
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/18191