I need not further discuss here the statement of Epiphanius that some called Tatian's Diatessaron the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Epiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same ignorance as to its character.

It is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding the Diatessaron of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: "We should not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it told us something reliable about itself." [150:2]

We may now come to the documents recently published. The MS. of the Armenian version of the commentary ascribed to Ephraem is dated A.D. 1195, and Moesinger declares that it is translated from the Syriac, of which it is said to retain many traces. [150:3] He states that in the judgment of the Mechitarist Fathers the translation dates from about the fifth century, [150:4] but an opinion on such a point can only be received with great caution. The name of Tatian is not mentioned as the author of the "Harmony," and the question is open as to whether the authorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to Ephraem Syrus. In any case there can be no doubt that the Armenian work is a translation.

The Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version of Tatian's Diatessaron itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one belonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome from Egypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS. states, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabic translation of the Diatessaron of Tatian, made from the Syriac by the presbyter Abu-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to have flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of these notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given, which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end of the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. also ascribes the original work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or only ground for connecting Tatian's name with the "Harmony."

So little is known regarding the Diatessaron of Tatian that even the language in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. The name would, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a Greek composition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere fact that it does not seem to have been known to Greek Fathers, and that it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of Theodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it was written in Syriac. Nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can be produced. This alone shows how little we really know of the original. The recently discovered works, being in Arabic and Armenian, even supposing them to be translations from the Syriac and that the Diatessaron was composed in Syriac, can only indirectly represent the original, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to a restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work. Between doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision, the original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured.

It is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author of the Diatessaron. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of the composition and its object. We have met with three works of this description and it is impossible to say how many more may not have existed. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain that, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the first idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that it was the Diatessaron of Tatian. What means could there be of correcting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as if such a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style and invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels already current, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in details of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its authorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of an arranger's name?

An illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of Victor of Capua, and I will allow Dr. Lightfoot himself to tell the story.

"Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels, and began in consequence to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in Eusebius of such Harmonies; one in the Epistle to Carpianus prefixed to the canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the Ecclesiastical History, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in favour of the latter, because it does not give St. Matthew continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as Eusebius states Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in the preface to this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin dress.

"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship; for though the work is constructed on the same general plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs, therefore, at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius." [153:1]

How this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the Harmonist, as he might well have done in imitation of Tatian, commenced with the words, "In the beginning was the Word"! The most instructive part is still to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says: "There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship," &c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to the newly-discovered works, he adds: "On the relation of Victor's Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of Tatian ... See Hemphill's Diatessaron." [153:2] On turning to Professor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is discovered:—

"It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year 543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed pari passu." [153:3]

But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about such works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right about the reading Diapente?

I have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing how little we know of the Diatessaron of Tatian and, I may add, of the Commentary of Ephraem Syrus and the work on which it is based. It is not at present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the recently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time, I may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the assumption made by Dr. Lightfoot that we have actually recovered the Diatessaron of Tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or less corresponding with our four Gospels. Neither in the "Harmony" itself nor in the supposed Commentary of Ephraem Syrus is the name of any of the Evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information given as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. If these works were, therefore, the veritable Diatessaron of Tatian and the Commentary of Ephraem upon it, the Gospels would not be rendered more credible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of Divine Revelation.

* * * * *

It may not be uninstructive if I take the liberty of quoting here some arguments of Dr. Lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the "Letter of the Smyrnaens," giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. [154:1]

"The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering all the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early Christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more recent history of the Church—as, for instance, the rise of Jesuitism or of Wesleyanism—this document contains nothing which ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity.

"The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery. But it will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which had no place in the original document. Beyond this we have the voice from heaven calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (Sec. 9). But the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism. The brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker. This was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human utterance. Again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr like a sail swelled by the wind (Sec. 15). But this may be explained as a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the martyrdoms of Savonarola and of Hooper. Again, there is the sweet scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (Sec. 15); but this phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. In another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are told (Euseb. H.E. v. 1, Sec. 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet odour of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had been anointed with material ointment' ([Greek: hoste enious doxai kai muro kosmiko kechristhai autous]). Yet there was no pyre and no burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must have supplied the incident. Indeed, this account of the Gallican martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more startling occurrences than the record of Polycarp's fate.

"More or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the prophetic insight attributed to Polycarp. But what does this amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was accomplished and will be accomplished' (Sec. 16). But the future tense, 'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not the statement of a fact. We may, indeed, accept this qualification as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo martyrdom by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment, when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common instrument of death? I need not stop here to discuss how far a prescience may be vouchsafed to God's saints. Even 'old experience' is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' It is sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to a single authentic biography of any Christian hero—certainly of any Christian hero of the early centuries—of whom some incident at least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called, is not recorded. Pontius, the disciple and biographer of Cyprian, relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his master, and adds: 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (Vit. et Pass. Cypr. 12, 13)" [156:1]

I am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written long after the essays on Supernatural Religion, as it presents Dr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity of congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards freedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence of supernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the authenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude with which he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into naturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, without doubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence of miracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and insufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound to explain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which he has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but very sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the imagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes, I resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations.



VIII.

CONCLUSIONS.

We have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine. It is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the specific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be pronounced "the wildest delusions." "By no rational being could a just and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing announcements."

On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine Revelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are performed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive and for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify the Christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of performing.

The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, is not only without any special Divine character, being avowedly common also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or details. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to convince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more characteristic of human weakness than of Divine power.

The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles, connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all miraculous pretension.

There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural interference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a single valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that, wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely acknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and 'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural interference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles have ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to the present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of natural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken order. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for ever annihilated them.

To justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite Personal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution of which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this Infinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the Divine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably maintained.

The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited and unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God working miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order of nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles is further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is avowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other spiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not with the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of Revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived from the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise the assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as arguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and opposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as inconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them are opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles.

Whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena must at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously greater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. On the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and superstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses only reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the probability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation and testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and the circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are examining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural.

When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising the preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years ago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force and validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should be placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels, however, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works themselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of the writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and third Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus nor eye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, we are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels.

In examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite principles. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the date or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the Fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for information regarding the composition and character of these works and even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these could prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at the date of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were guided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based upon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the Fathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and character of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition preserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details of which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second Synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been composed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whatever directly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers to whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. With one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous use of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course, does not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actually in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence shows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception to which we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon our third Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the existence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest information as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to its infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the end anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do not themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from the ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the inferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minor contradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to reconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth Gospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must be pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous occurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. They cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation.

Applying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similar results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the third Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear. There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character, but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with miraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for it any serious consideration. When the statements of the author are compared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and with authentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, it becomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have been supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so suspiciously abound.

The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional testimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied belief in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so supersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine of four Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters attributed to him.

The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church is brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the unconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into supernatural occurrences.

As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the cardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of these events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict and exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the statements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul, which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient. His so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the belief in the Resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the statements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the bare fact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he had not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the risen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal testimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle. Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, of which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The testimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an earnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the active persecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the fact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is not an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce the evidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelessly inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in the case of any common question of property or title before a legal tribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to be established, the more complete must be the proof required.

If we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations, we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothing original in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation, and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed, or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished. There has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. There is not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single phase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies. Heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. The same may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevated precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated by ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the reality of Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianity has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds, and confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it could practically interest us now.

There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which can be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for the salvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, for whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost unanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to be repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the present day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a third of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as Supernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numerical position. Sakya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to Jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries never sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a scheme Divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human race and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be regarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate for a system of elevated morality.

We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed; but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It is to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and people. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus. The great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had never seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after it had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the East constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow the development of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas were expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents several stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had passed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples, who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life, piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate structure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of human superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy, displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which commenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of the Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility.

It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a substitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or silence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truth cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by considerations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious and suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments, although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent, have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and even in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far Christianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here venture adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that whatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, not to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic Theology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science. Wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science has been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of Genesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towards enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema of the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind. "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of Doctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of assimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theological resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the world; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals sufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than it must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of social experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theological question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have finally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion and modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed to say: Cui bono? and only practise morality, or be ruled by right principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost, for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation which can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action, we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as essential to Christianity.

As to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by such an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any means be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The Revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an illusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it and its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and green shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank. Rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the desert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other horizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of the man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whose fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly is it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five than to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs who represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special illusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that a former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of existence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we believe it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, to repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream.

The argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing absolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must our moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through natural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished as supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that we desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To attain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be certain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requires to know.

We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from the incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic visions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: aionios], and our eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of life there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable horror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless victims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous representations at all as part of the contents of "Divine Revelation," it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns to the Jewish superstition from which it sprang.

As myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be baseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although it cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for so long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can rightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us. That mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope.



[ENDNOTES]

[1:1] Originally published in the Fortnightly Review, January 1, 1875.

[4:1] On the Canon, p. 65.

[4:2] Ibid. p. 61, note 2.

[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this interpretation is one from Papias' Exposition."

[4:4] Reliq. Sacrae, i. p. 10 f.

[4:5] Lehre Pers. Christ, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62.

[5:1] Theol. Jahrb. 1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1.

[5:2] Synops. Evang., Proleg. xxxi.

[5:3] Komm. Ev. des Johannes, p. 6 f.

[5:4] Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh. p. 116 f.

[5:5] Basilides, p. 110 f.

[5:6] Zeitschr. fuer wiss. Theol. 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219, Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4.

[6:1] Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang. 1874, p. 72.

[6:2] Th. Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 674.

[6:3] Intro. N.T. ii. p. 424 f.

[6:4] Ibid. ii. p. 372.

[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part itself.

[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition.

[9:1] Contemporary Review, December, p. 4, n. 1; Essays on S.R. p. 4, n. 4.

[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within brackets.

[10:1] S.R. ii. p. 231 f.

[10:2] Contemporary Review, December, p. 5 f.; Essays on S.R. p. 7.

[10:3] S.R. ii. 228 ff.

[11:1] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 73 f.

[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as Tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is treated as a contemporary.

[12:1] S.R. ii. p. 229 ff.

[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho logos edelou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that Prudentius Maranus renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and Otto "... effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is [Greek: kata korrhes propelakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all' hostis se rhapisei epi ten dexian sou siagona, strepson auto kai ten allen], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata korrhes prospelakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tes kephales meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other side, of the head," &c., inserting the three Greek words after "side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised. Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The passage from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into the text. It was impossible for anyone to mistake the tense and meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say, the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the assurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores."

[14:1] I altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition, as Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence of the words given above.

[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument, but also to De Wette, who has "... dass er nie Joh. dem Tauefer wie der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistes] giebt" (Einl. N.T. p. 230), and to Bleek, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (Beitraege, p. 178, and Einl. N.T. p. 150), which could not be misread.

[16:1] Contemporary Review, December, p. 15; Essays on S.R. p. 21 f.

[16:2] Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above reference, but does not quote the passage.

[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias.

[17:1] Canon, p. 255 f.

[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius.

[18:1] Luthardt, Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang. 1874, p. 85 f.

[19:1] Strom. vii. 17, Sec. 106.

[19:2] Canon, p. 255.

[19:3] Contemporary Review, December, p. 16 [Essays, p. 22].

[20:1] Contemporary Review, December, p. 8 [ibid. p. 11].

[21:1] Contemporary Review, p. 8 [ibid. p. 11].

[21:2] A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine, i. 184 f. I do not refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view.

[22:1] Contemporary Review, p. 8 [ibid. p. 11 f.]

[23:1] Contemporary Review, p. 8 f. [ibid. p. 11].

[23:2] S.R. i. p. 441.

[24:1] Contemporary Review, p. 8 f. [ibid. p. 12 f.]

[24:2] S.R. i. p. 387 ff.

[24:3] Canon, p. 112 f.

[24:4] Contemporary Review, p. 9, note [ibid. p. 12, n. 4].

[24:5] S.R. i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly suppose" that "I had read the passage to which I refer."

[25:1] Contemporary Review, p. 9 [ibid. p. 13].

[26:1] Contemporary Review, p. 9 [ibid. p. 13].

[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that such a passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage Matt. xi. 27 seq. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the allusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar" Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.) sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers.

[27:1] Contemporary Review, p. 11 f. [ibid. p. 16].

[27:2] Ibid. p. 10 [ibid. p. 14].

[28:1] S.R. ii. p. 402.

[28:2] Ibid. ii. p. 406.

[28:3] See Acts iv. 13.

[28:4] S.R. ii. p. 410.

[28:5] Ibid. ii, p. 413.

[29:1] Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang. 1874, pp. 204-7.

[29:2] Einl. N.T. p. 625.

[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point out its existence, as, for instance, S.R. ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c., and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it had already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the composition of that work.

[30:2] S.R. ii. 421.

[30:3] Contemporary Review, 12 f. [ibid. p. 17 f.]

[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit."

[31:2] S.R. 421 f.

[32:1] Works, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; Horae et Talm. p. 938.

[32:2] Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv. p. 256, Anm. 1.

[32:3] Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh., umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f.

[32:4] Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T. i. 3, p. 84.

[32:5] Einl. N.T. ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32).

[32:6] Bibelwerk, iv. 219.

[32:7] Die Zeugnisse, p. 21.

[32:8] Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean, i. p. 475 f.

[32:9] Einl. N.T. p. 211.

[32:10] Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1856, p. 240 ff.

[32:11] Die Joh. Schriften, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; Jahrb. bibl. Wiss. viii. p. 255 f.; cf. Gesch. v. Isr. v. p. 348, Anm. 1.

[32:12] Das Ev. Joh. p. 107.

[32:13] Comm. Ev. n. Joh. p. 188 f.

[33:1] Comm. Ev. des Joh. i. p. 577 f.

[33:2] Jahrb. bibl. Wiss. viii. p. 255 f.

[33:3] Die Joh. Schr. i. p. 181, Anm. 1.

[33:4] Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel, 1872, p. 92.

[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf. Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with El Askar, &c." Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel, p. 93, note 1.

[34:1] Life of Christ, i. p. 206, note 1.

[34:2] La Geographie du Tulmud, p. 170.

[34:3] Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, iii. p. 1395 f.

[36:1] Bampton Lect. 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4.

[36:2] S.R. i. p. 61 ff.

[37:1] Contemporary Review, p. 19 [ibid. p. 26 f.]

[37:2] Three Essays on Religion, p. 216 f.

[38:1] Three Essays on Religion, p. 234.

[38:2] Ibid. p. 219.

[39:1] S.R. ii. p. 477.

[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition.

[45:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (Ibid. p. 32 ff.)

[45:2] S.R. i. p. 212.

[46:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 172 [ibid. p. 36].

[46:2] Ibid. p. 183 [ibid. p. 51].

[48:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 173 [ibid. p. 38].

[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (S.R. i. p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear.

[50:1] Cf. H.E. iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c.

[50:2] Ibid. ii. 15, vi. 14.

[50:3] Ibid. v. 8.

[50:4] Ibid. vi. 25.

[51:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 181 [ibid. p. 48].

[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5.

[51:3] Ibid. p. 181.

[51:4] H.E. iii, 24.

[52:1] H.E. ii. 23.

[52:2] Ibid. iii. 11.

[52:3] Ibid. 16.

[52:4] Ibid. 19, 20.

[52:5] Ibid. 32.

[52:6] Ibid. iv. 8.

[52:7] Ibid. 11.

[52:8] Ibid. iv. 22.

[53:1] H.E. ii. 15.

[53:2] Ibid. vii. 25.

[54:1] H.E. iii. 18.

[54:2] Ibid. 19, 20.

[54:3] Ibid. 20.

[54:4] Ibid. 20.

[54:5] Ibid. 23.

[54:6] Ibid. 24.

[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (S.R. i. p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements.

[55:2] H.E. iii. 39.

[56:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 183 [ibid. p. 51].

[57:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [ibid. p. 59 ff.]

[58:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 339 [ibid. p. 62].

[59:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 340 [ibid. p. 63].

[59:2] S.R. i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of reference.

[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. 63, n. 2). Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing.

[60:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 341 [ibid. p. 64].

[61:1] Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens, p. 7, Anm. 1.

[61:2] Zeitschr. wiss. Theol. 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his Apostolic Fathers (part ii. vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made.

[61:3] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 841 [ibid. p. 65].

[62:1] S.R. i. p. 259 f.

[62:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342 [ibid. p, 65 f.]

[62:3] S.R. i. p. 259.

[63:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr. Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works, where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority of these letters [ibid. p. 66].

[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (Inst. Chr. Rel. i. 13, Sec. 39).

[64:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342.

[64:3] Op. Theolog. 1652, 11, p. 1085.

[64:4] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342 [ibid. p. 66]. Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's Vindiciae Ignat. p. 28 (ed. Churton).

[65:1] Exam. Concilii Tridentim, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89).

[65:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 343 [ibid. p. 67].

[67:1] Critici Sacri, lib. ii cap. 1; Op. Theolog. 1652, ii. p. 1086.

[67:2] Vind. Ignat. 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, Patr. Apost. i. p. xxxviii.

[67:3] Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch. v. 8 Sec. 1, edit. Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii.

[68:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 343 f. [ibid. p. 67 f.]

[70:1] Die Kirche im ap. Zeit. p. 322.

[70:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 344 f. [ibid. p. 69.]

[72:1] K.G. 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1.

[73:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 345 [ibid. p. 69].

[75:1] Einl. N.T. pp. 144 f., 233.

[78:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 183 [ibid. p. 51].

[78:2] Ibid., February 1875, p. 346 [ibid. p. 71].

[79:1] Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1851, p. 389 ff.

[79:2] Hippolytus and his Age, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff.

[79:3] Gesch. d. V. Isr. vii. p. 321, Anm. 1.

[80:1] Patr. Apost. Proleg. 1863, p. xxx.

[80:2] Patr. Apost. ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in the Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.)

[80:3] Hippolytus, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff.

[81:1] S.R. i. p. 264.

[81:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 347 [ibid. p. 72].

[82:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 348 [ibid. p. 74].

[82:2] S.R. i. p. 265.

[83:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 347 [ibid. p. 72 f.] Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles come together, and are followed by the confessedly spurious Epistles in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, p. 111."

[83:2] Note to Horne's Int. to the Holy Scriptures, 12th ed. 1869, iv. p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.

[83:3] The Ancient Syrian Version, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f.

[84:1] Corpus Ignat. p. 338.

[84:2] Ibid. p. ii.

[84:3] Dressel, Patr. Ap. p. lvi.

[84:4] Cureton, Corp. Ign. p. iii.

[84:5] Dressel, Patr. Ap. p. lvii f.

[84:6] Cureton, Corp. Ignat. p. vii f.

[84:7] Ibid. p. xi; Dressel, Patr. Ap. p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii; Jacobson, Patr. Ap. i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart., Amstel. 1646.

[84:8] Dressel, Patr. Ap. p. lxi.

[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to Hist. of the Canon, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix.

[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to Hist. of Canon, 4th ed. p. xix f.

[87:2] S.R. i. p. 268.

[88:1] On the Canon, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx.

[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second note, but accidentally left out of note 3.

[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call attention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note.

[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an extended form. The work I quote is entitled Kirchengeschichte der ersten sechs Jahrhunderte, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth century.

[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference, but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to 'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different object of the two notes.

[93:1] On the Canon, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f.

[97:1] P. 213.

[98:1] On the Canon, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which reference was necessary.

[99:1] On the Canon, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv.

[100:1] Ruinart, Acta Mart. p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, Mart. Rom. 1631, p. 152.

[100:2] Cf. Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, iii. p. 3.

[101:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 349 [ibid. p. 75].

[101:2] Ibid. p. 350 [ibid. p. 76].

[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, Peregrinus Proteus, 1879.

[102:2] De Morte Peregr. 11.

[102:3] Ibid. 14.

[102:4] Gesch. chr. Kirche, i. p. 410 f.

[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish. Textes d. Ignat. Briefe, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, Ignatius v. Ant., 1873, p. 517 ff.

[103:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 350 f. [ibid. p. 77].

[104:1] S.R. i. p. 268, note 4.

[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of Trajan."—Hist. of Christianity, 1867, ii. p. 103.

[106:1] K.G. 1842, i. p. 171.

[106:2] Ibid. i. p. 172, Anm.

[108:1] Hist. of Christianity, ii. p. 101 f.

[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 352 [ibid. p. 79].

[109:2] Ibid. p. 353 f. [ibid. p. 80].

[109:3] Ibid. p. 352 [ibid. p. 79 f.].

[110:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 353 f. [ibid. p. 81].

[110:2] Ignatius v. Ant. p. 66, Anm. 3.

[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards translated to Antioch.

[112:1] Ruinart, Acta Mart. pp. 59, 69.

[112:2] Ignatius v. Ant. p, 68.

[112:3] Ruinart, Acta Mart. p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December. (Mart. Rom. pp. 87, 766 ff.)

[112:4] Ignatius v. Ant. p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2.

[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently" the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is nothing else to establish it.

[114:1] St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note. Cf. Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 358 f. (Ibid. p. 88)

[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition.

[117:1] i. p. 443 ff.

[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"]

[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's Essays, p. 163.

[119:1] Essays, p. 167 f.

[120:1] Essays, p. 170.

[121:1] Ibid. p. 169.

[122:1] Essays, p. 170.

[122:2] Ibid. p. 170.

[122:3] Ibid. p. 170.

[123:1] Ibid. p. 152.

[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f.

[124:2] Ibid. p. 171.

[124:3] Ibid. p. 172 f.

[124:4] i. p. 463 f.

[125:1] Ibid. p. 173.

[125:2] i. 236 ff.

[125:3] Note.

[125:4] Note.

[126:1] Clem. Rom. Sec. 53, Sec. 45; ibid. 173 f.

[130:1] I. p. 210 f.

[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases.

[133:1] S.R. i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here.

[134:1] S.R. i. p. 363 f.

[135:1] S.R. ii. p. 221, n. 7.

[135:2] Ibid. p. 220.

[135:3] Ibid. ii. p. 169 f.

[136:1] S.R. ii. p. 226.

[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito, Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from Supernatural Religion the following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore, is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the Contemporary Review, and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (S.R. ii. p. 181). If Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable to those who have none.

[137:1] S.R. ii. p. 182 ff.

[137:2] Ibid. p. 239.

[137:3] Ibid. p. 248.

[140:1] S.R. ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff.

[140:2] Ibid. 255.

[141:1] S.R. ii. p. 200.

[142:1] S.R. ii. p. 200 f.

[143:1] S.R. iii. p. 257

[143:2] Ibid. p. 25 f.

[144:1] Ibid., p. 259.

[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff.

[146:1] Euseb. H.E. iv. 29. (Ibid. p. 227 f.)

[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a note.

[146:3] Ibid. p. 278.

[147:1] Unters. N.T. Kanons, 1881, p. 15 f.

[147:2] On the Canon, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3.

[147:3] The Diatessaron of Tatian, 1888, p. xiv.

[147:4] Ibid. p. 279.

[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. Bibl. Orient. ii. p. 159 sq.

[148:2] Ibid. p. 280 f.

[149:1] The Diatessaron of Tatian, p. xxx.

[149:2] Euseb. Op. iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by Dr. Lightfoot (l.c. p. 281, n. 1).

[150:1] Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron, 1881, p. 70 f.

[150:2] Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr. iii. p. 26.

[150:3] Moesinger, Evang. Concor. Expositio, 1876, p. x f.

[150:4] Ibid. p. xi.

[152:1] Zahn, l.c. p. 38.

[153:1] Ibid. p. 286.

[153:2] Ibid. p. 288. The italics are mine.

[153:3] Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian, p. xxiv.

[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136.

[156:1] Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff.

[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different religions is estimated as follows:

Parsees 150,000 Sikhs 1,200,000 Jews 7,000,000, being about 1/2 per cent. of the whole. Greek Catholics 75,000,000 " 6 " " Roman Catholics 152,000,000 " 12 " " Other Christians 100,000,000 " 8 " " Hindus 160,000,000 " 13 " " Muhammedans 155,000,000 " 12 1/2 " " Buddhists 500,000,000 " 40 " " Not included in the above 100,000,000 " 8 " " —————- 1,250,350,000

We have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an excellent little work recently published by the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge—Buddhism, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6.



INDEX.

Acts of the Apostles, evidence for, 142 f., 164 Addai, Doctrine of, 147 Ammonius, Diatessaron of, 148 Anger, 5 Antioch, earthquake at, in A.D. 115, 107 f. Aphthonius; see Elias of Salamia Apocalypse, allusion to Paul in, 26, n. 2; language of, 27 ff. Apollinaris, Claudius; date, 137; evidence for Gospels, 137 Aristion, 55 Ascension, evidence for, 165 Aubertin, 65, 66 Aucher, 145

Baronius, 112 n. 3 Bar-Salibi, Dionysius, 147 f. Basnage, 65, 66 Baumgarten-Crusius, 70, 72 Baur, does not allude to Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 79; date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 f.; place of his martyrdom, 95 ff.; on Peregrinus Proteus, 102 Beausobre, 70, 71 Bleek, 7, 32, 60, 62, 68, 74, 80, 90, 93 Blondel, 65, 66 Bochart, 65, 66 Boehringer, 59, 62, 63, 80 Bunsen, 32, 62, 63, 79

Calvin, 64 Campianus, 64 Casaubon, 65, 67 Celsus, Origen on, 10 ff., 146 Centuriators, Magdeburg, 64 Chemnitz, 62, 64, 65 Christianity, claim to be Divine Revelation, not original, 166 f.; history and achievements opposed to this claim, 167 f.; census of religions, 168 n. 1; transformation of, 169 f. Chrysostom, 108, 110, 111 f. Ciasca, alleged Arabic version of Tatian's Diatessaron, 145, 150 f. Clement of Alexandria, on Basilides, 18 f. Cleophas, 52 Cook, 65, 66 Criticism, attitude towards, 1 Cureton, 62, 63, 65, 68 ff., 79, 83 f. Curetonian version of Ignatian Epistles, 59 ff., 67 ff., 74 ff., 80 f.

Dallaeus, 62 Davidson, Dr., on passage of Irenaeus, 6; date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 91; place of the martyrdom, 96 Delitzsch, 30, 31, 32 Denzinger, 78, 79, 80 n. 2, 103 n. 1 Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148 ff., 152 ff. Diatessaron of Elias of Salamia, 148 ff. Diatessaron of Tatian, 145 ff.; alleged Armenian version of Ephraem's commentary on it, 145 f.; Latin translation by Aucher and Moesinger, 145 f.; Arabic version of, translated by Ciasca, 145 f.; Eusebius on it, 146 f.; did Eusebius directly know it? 146 f.; Bar-Salibi on it, 147 f.; Theodoret suppresses it, 149 f.; the genealogies of Jesus said to be excised, 149 f.; not all suppressed in Armenian and Arabic works, 150; called 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' 150; Epiphanius had not seen it, 150; we could not identify it, 150; Arabic version of Ciasca, 150 f.; said to be translated from Syriac, 151; its date, 151; ascribed in notes to Tatian, 151; original language of Tatian's Diatessaron, 151 f.; Gospel texts in alleged versions affected by repeated translation, 151 f.; name of Tatian not on original work, 152; could it be identified? 152 ff.; case of Victor of Capua, 152 ff.; was he mistaken? 153 f.; Dr. Wace says: No, 153; value of evidence if alleged versions be genuine, 154 Dionysius of Corinth, 56 Doctrine of Addai, 147 Donaldson, Dr., on Epistle of Polycarp, 21; on Tatian's Diatessaron, 150 Dorner, 4 Dressel, 79

Ebrard, 7 Elias of Salamia, his Diatessaron, 147 f.; he finds fault with Canons of Eusebius, 148 Ephraem Syrus, his Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, 147 f.; date, 148; alleged Armenian version of his Commentary, 145; date of the MS., 150; translated from Syriac, 150; evidence, 150 f.; Tatian's name not mentioned, 150; value as evidence if genuine, 154 Epiphanius, 150 Eusebius, on Papias, 7; silence of, 45 f.; my only inference from silence of, 50 f.; procedure of, 50 f.; his references to Hegesippus, 52 ff.; his references to John, 53 ff.; on Claudius Apollinaris, 137; on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on Tatian's Diatessaron, 146 f.; on Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148 f.; his Epistle to Carpianus, 148 f., 152 Ewald, 32, 33, 62, 63, 79, 141

Farrar, Dr., 34 Francke, 97

Gfroerer, 7, 75 Glaucias, 15, 18, 19, Gobarus, Stephanus, 23 Godet, 32 Gospel, the Fourth, contrast with Synoptics, 26 f., 26 n. 2; Hebraic character of its language, 27 ff.; Eusebius regarding it, 49, 51, 53 f., 55 ff.; evidence to it of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; alleged evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; alleged evidence of Polycrates 137; supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 144; Tatian's Diatessaron said to begin with it, 147 f.; insufficiency of evidence for it, 162 ff.; its contents cannot be reconciled with Synoptics, 163 f. Gospels, Justin's use of, 24 f.; evidence of alleged quotations, 24 f.; object in examining evidence for, 37 ff., 41 ff.; numerous Gospels circulating in early Church, 131 f.; anonymous quotations not necessarily from canonical, 131 ff.; illustrations of this, 132 ff.; evidence of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; evidence of Melito of Sardis, 135 f.; evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; evidence of Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 141 ff.; principles on which evidence is examined, 162; insufficiency of evidence for, 162 ff. Greet, Hofstede de, 5, 9 n. 2 Grove, 34 Guericke, 7, 90 f., 93

Hadrian, 12 Hagenbach, 91, 93 Harless, 75 Hase, 76 Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 122 f., 123, 150 Hefele, 80 Hegesippus, his attitude to Paul, 23; references to him by Eusebius, 52 ff.; on Simeon, 52 Hemphill, Professor, did Eusebius directly know Tatian's Diatessaron? 146 f.; on Arabic Diatessaron, 149; it takes Matthew as basis, 149; its substantial identity with Victor's Diatessaron, 153 Hengstenberg, 31 Hilgenfeld, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 f.; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79; place and date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 97 ff.; on Papias and Matthew's Hebrew "Oracles," 122; Protevangelium Jacobi, 142; Eusebius on Tatian's Diatessaron, 146 f. Hippolytus, 17 f. Holtzmann, 135, 147 Hug, 32 Humfrey, 66

Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp regarding him, 20 ff.; date and place of his martyrdom, 87, 94 ff.; his alleged martyr-journey, 94 ff.; his treatment during it, 99 f.; compared with Paul's journey, 100 f.; compared with case of Peregrinus, 101 ff.; reasons opposed to martyr-journey to Rome, and for martyrdom in Antioch, 104 ff.; remains of Ignatius, 111 ff.; martyrologies, 112 f. Ignatian Epistles, Dr. Lightfoot on, 57 ff.; critics on priority of Syriac version, 59 ff., long recension, 64 ff.; Vossian Epistles, 67 ff.; version of Ussher, 67; Armenian version, 78 ff.; Eusebian Epistles, 80 ff.; their order in MSS., 82 ff.; their value as evidence, 113 f. Irenaeus, 3 ff.

Jacobson, 65 Jerome, 110 f. John, references of Eusebius, 53 ff.; Papias and Presbyters on, 55 f.; double use of name, 55 f. Justin Martyr, his quotations, 28 ff.

Keim, 135 Kestner, 70, 71 Kirchhofer, 7

Lange, 32 Lardner, 70, 136 Lechler, 76 f. Lightfoot, 32, 33 Lightfoot, Dr., objectionable style of criticism, 1 f., 3, 7 f., 13 n. 1, 14 f., 15 n. 1, 20, 21, 23 f., 24 n. 5, 25 f., 27, 30 f., 36, 44 f., 46 f., 57 ff., 68 ff.; 73 ff., 144; on a passage of Irenaeus, 3 ff.; discussion of date of Celsus, 9 ff.; Dr. Westcott on Basilides, 15 ff.; weightier arguments of apologists, 20 ff.; on Epistle of Polycarp, 20 f., object of Papias' work, 22; on Hegesippus and Apostle Paul, 22 f.; on Justin Martyr's quotations, 23 ff.; on duration of ministry of Jesus, 26 f.; on Hebraic character of language of the Fourth Gospel, 27 ff.; identification of Sychar, 30 ff.; on argument of S.R., 36 ff.; on silence of Eusebius, 45 ff.; the intention of Eusebius, 44 f.; procedure of Eusebius, 50 f.; silence of Eusebius as evidence for Fourth Gospel, 56 f.; on Ignatian Epistles, 57 ff.; on view of Lipsius, 60 f.; misstatements regarding references in S.R., 61 ff.; differentiation of Ignatian Epistles, 80 ff.; their position in MSS., 82 ff.; on martyr-journey and treatment of Ignatius, 99 f.; compared with Apostle Paul's, 100 f.; compared with case of Peregrinus Proteus, 101 ff.; on John Malalas, 108 ff.; on Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of his Epistle, 115; does not examine alleged quotations of Gospels, 116; on Papias of Hierapolis, 117 ff.; Papias on Mark, 117 f.; Papias on Matthew, 119 ff.; on accuracy of Papias, 120 ff.; translation of Hebrew Oracles of Matthew, 121 f.; on Gospel according to the Hebrews, 122 f.; on nature of Oracles of Matthew, 124 ff.; can Oracles include narrative? 125 f.; his misapprehension of argument of S.R., 129 ff.; on Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; on Melito of Sardis, 135 f.; erroneous quotation from S.R., 136, n. 2; on Claudius Apollinaris, 137 f.; on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 139 ff.; on the "testimony of Zacharias," 140 ff.; alleged reference to Acts, 142 f.; alleged reference to Fourth Gospel, 144; Tatian's Diatessaron, 145 f.; on Eusebius's mention of it, 146 f.; did he directly know it? 146; on Doctrine of Addai, 147; it mentions Tatian's Diatessaron, 147; Dionysius Bar-Salibi on Tatian's Diatessaron, 147 f.; on Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148; quite different from Tatian's work, 148 f.; similarity to Arabic version asserted by Hemphill, 149; case of Victor of Capua, 152 f.; Victor must have been mistaken, 153 f.; Victor not mistaken after all, 153; on Letter of the Smyrnaens, 154 ff.; a short way with its miraculous elements, 154 f.; practically justifies procedure of "Supernatural Religion," 156 Lipsius, on Ignatian Epistles, 60 f., 63, 78, 79; on Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135 Logia, meaning of, in N.T., 124 ff. Logos doctrine in Apocalypse, 30 n. 1 Lucian, 12, 101 f. Luke, Gospel according to, supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 141 f.; its use in Diatessaron, 149, 153 Luthardt, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Basilides, 18; on language of Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 28 ff.

Magdeburg Centuriators, 64 Malalas, John, on martyrdom of Ignatius, 108 ff. Marcus Aurelius, 105 f. Mark, Presbyters and Papias on, 117 f.; not eye-witness but interpreter of Peter, 118 f.; value of his Gospel as evidence, 118 f.; use in Diatessaron, 149 Matthew, Presbyters and Papias on, 55 f., 119 ff.; wrote oracles in Hebrew, 119 ff.; when translated, 121 ff.; use in Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148; also in that of Tatian, 149 f. Matthias, 16, 18 Mayerhoff, 91, 93 Melito of Sardis, 135 f. Merx, 78, 79 Meyer, on passage of Irenaeus, 5, 82 Mill, on miracles, 36 ff. Milman, 59, 62, 63, 105 n. 1, 107 f. Moesinger, Ephraem's Commentary, 145 f., 150 Mozley, on belief, 35 f.

Neander, 70, 71 f., 105 f. Neubauer, 30, 34 Nicephorus, 111 n. 1

Olshausen, 7, 32 "Oracles," meaning of, 124 ff. Origen, on Celsus, 10 f.

Papias of Hierapolis, alleged quotations from him, 3 ff.; object of his work, 22; references of Eusebius to him, 54 ff.; words of the Presbyters, 55 f.; double reference to "John," 55 f.; he had nothing to tell of Fourth Gospel, 55 ff.; on Mark's Gospel, 117 ff.; on Matthew's Hebrew Oracles, 119 f.; value of his evidence for the Gospels, 127 f. Parker, 65, 66 Paul, Apostle, his treatment as prisoner compared to that of Ignatius, 100 f.; unconscious testimony regarding the supernatural, 165; his testimony for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f. Pearson, 67 Peregrinus Proteus, 102 ff. Perpetua, Saturus and, 100 Petau, 65, 67 Petermann, 78 ff. Phillips, 147 Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of martyrdom, 115 Polycarp, Martyrdom of, 135, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot's short way with the miraculous elements, 154 f. Polycrates of Ephesus, date, 137; evidence for Fourth Gospel, 137 Pressense, de, 60 Protevangelium Jacobi, 142 Quadratus, Statius, date of proconsulship, 115

"Religion, Supernatural," argument of, 36 ff., 40 ff., 129 ff.; canons of criticism, 130 ff.; the "testimony of Zacharias," Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.; was Eusebius directly acquainted with Tatian's Diatessaron? 146 f.; argument of S.R. practically justified by Dr. Lightfoot, 154 ff.; conclusions of, 157 ff.; evidence of Divine Revelation which is necessary, 157; miracles as evidence destroyed by doubtful source, 157 f.; miraculous evidence not original, 158 f., stream of miraculous pretension, 158; true character of miracles betrayed, 158 f.; origin of belief in supernatural interference, 159; assumptions to justify miracles, 159 f.; an Infinite Personal God, 159 f.; Divine design of Revelation, 160; miracles antecedently incredible, 160 f.; evidence for the Christian miracles, 161 f.; principles upon which evidence examined, 162; evidence for Gospels, 162 f.; evidence for Acts, 164; the remaining books of New Testament, 164 f.; evidence of Paul, 165; evidence for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.; results tested by general considerations, 166 ff.; claim of Christianity to be Divinely revealed not original, 166 f.; history and achievements of Christianity opposed to it, 167 f.; census of religions, 168 n. 1; how far the Great Teacher was misunderstood, 168 f.; transformation of Christianity, 169 f.; alleged objections to disturbing belief, 169 f.; objections not valid, 170 f.; argument that Divine Revelation is necessary to man, 172 f.; we gain more than we lose by finding our theology to be mere human inventions, 173 f. Resurrection, evidence for, 165 f. Reuss, 147 Riggenbach, on passage of Irenaeus, 5; on Sychar, 32 Ritschl, 62, 63 Rivet, 64, 65, 67 Routh, on passage of Irenaeus, 4 Ruinart, anniversary of Ignatius, 112 Rumpf, 60

THE END