These are really conspicuous instances of the confusion of text already existing, but I forbear to press them because, though I do not doubt myself the correctness of the account that has been given of them, still there is just the ambiguity alluded to, and I do not wish to seem to assume the truth of any particular view.

For minor variations the text of Irenaeus cannot be used satisfactorily, because it is always doubtful whether the Latin version has correctly reproduced the original. And even in those comparatively small portions where the Greek is still preserved, it has come down to us through the medium of other writers, and we have just had an instance how easily the distinctive features of the text might be obliterated.

Neither of these elements of uncertainty exists in the case of Tertullian; and therefore, as the text of his New Testament quotations has been edited in a very exact and careful form, I shall illustrate what has been said respecting the corruptions introduced in the second century chiefly from him. The following may be taken as a few of the instances in which the existence of a variety of reading can be verified by a comparison of Tertullian's text with that of the MSS. The brackets (as before) indicate partial support.

Matt. iii. 8. Dignos poenitentiae fructus (Pudic. 10). [Greek: Karpous axious taes metanoias] Textus Receptus, L, U, 33, a, g'2, m, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., etc. [Greek: Karpon axion t. met]. B, C (D), [Greek: D], 1, etc.; Vulg., b, c, d, f, ff'1, Syr. Hcl., Memph., Theb., Iren., Orig., etc. [Tertullian himself has the singular in Hermog. 12, so that he seems to have had both readings in his copies.]

Matt. v. 4, 5. The received order 'beati lugentes' and 'beati mites' is followed in Pat. 11 [Roensch p. 589 and Tisch., correcting Treg.], So [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, rel., b, f, Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., Aeth. Order inverted in D, 33, Vulg., a, c, ff'1, g'1.2, h, k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., Hil.

Matt. v. 16. 'Luceant opera vestra' for 'luceat lux vestra,' Tert. (bis). So Hil., Ambr., Aug., Celest. [see above, p. 134] against all MSS. and versions.

Matt. v. 28. Qui viderit ad concupiscentiam, etc. This verse is cited six times by Tertullian, and Roensch says (p. 590) that 'in these six citations almost every variant of the Greek text is represented.'

Matt. v. 48. Qui est in caelis: [Greek: ho en tois ouranois], Textus Receptus, with [Greek: Delta symbol], E'2, rel., b, c, d, g'1, h, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., Clem., [Greek: ho ouranios], [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, D'2, Z, and i, 33, Vulg., a, f, etc.

Matt. vi. 10. Fiat voluntas tua in caelis et in terra, omitting 'sicut.' So D, a, b, c, Aug. (expressly, 'some codices').

Matt. xi. ii. Nemo major inter natos feminarum Joanne baptizatore.

'The form of this citation, which neither corresponds with Matt. xi. 11 nor with Luke vii. 28, coincides almost exactly with the words which in both the Greek and Latin text of the Codex Bezae form the conclusion of Luke vii. 26, [Greek: [hoti] oudeis meizon en gennaetois gunaikon [prophaetaes] Ioannou tou baptistou]' (Roensch, p. 608).

Matt. xiii. 15. Sanem: [Greek: iasomai], K, U, X, [Greek: Delta], I; Latt. (exc. d), Syr. Crt.; [Greek: iasomai], B, C, D, [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], rel.

Matt. xv. 26. Non est (only), so Eus. in Ps. 83; [Greek: exestin], D, a, b, c, ff, g'1, 1, Syr. Crt., Orig., Hil.; [Greek: ouk estin kalon], B, C, [Hebrew aleph], rel., Vulg., c, f, g'2, k, Orig.

There are of course few quotations that can be distinctly identified as taken from St. Mark, but among these may be noticed:—

Mark i. 24. Scimus: [Greek: oidamen se], [Hebrew aleph], L, [Greek: Delta], Memph., Iren., Orig., Eus.; [Greek: oida se tis ei], A, B, C, D, rel., Latt., Syrr.

Mark ix. 7. Hunc audite: [Greek: autou akouete], A, X, rel., b, f, Syrr.; [Greek: akouete autou], [Hebrew: aleph] B, C, D, L, a, c, ff'1, etc. [This may be however from Matt. xvii. 5, where Tertullian's reading has somewhat stronger support.]

The variations in quotations from St. Luke have been perhaps sufficiently illustrated in the chapter on Marcion. We may therefore omit this Gospel and pass to St. John. A very remarkable reading meets us at the outset.

John i. 13. Non ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec ex voluntate viri, sed ex deo natus est. The Greek of all the MSS. and Versions, with the single exception of b of the Old Latin, is [Greek: oi egennaethaesan]. A sentence is thus applied to Christ that was originally intended to be applied to the Christian. Tertullian (De Carne Christ. 19, 24), though he also had the right reading before him, boldly accuses the Valentinians of a falsification, and lays stress upon the reading which he adopts as proof of the veritable birth of Christ from a virgin. The same text is found in b (Codex Veronensis) of the Old Latin, Pseudo- Athanasius, the Latin translator of Origen's commentary on St. Matthew, in Augustine, and three times in Irenaeus. The same codex has, like Tertullian, the singular ex sanguine for the plural [Greek: ex ahimaton]: so Eusebius and Hilary.

John iii. 36. Manebit (=[Greek: menei], for [Greek: menei]). So b, e, g, Syr. Pst., Memph., Aeth., Iren., Cypr.; against a, c, d, f, ff, Syrr. Crt. and Hcl., etc.

John v. 3, 4. The famous paragraph which describes the moving of the waters of the pool of Bethesda was found in Tertullian's MS. It is also found in the mass of MSS., in the Old Latin and Vulgate, in Syrr. Pst. and Jer., and in some MSS. of Memph. It is omitted in [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, D (v. 4), f, l, Syr. Crt., Theb., Memph. (most MSS.). Tertullian gives the name of the pool as Bethsaida with B, Vulg., c, Syr. Hcl., Memph. Most of the authorities read [Greek: baethesda]. [Greek: baethzatha, baezatha], Berzeta, Belzatha, and Betzeta are also found.

John v. 43. Recepistis, perf. for pres. ([Greek: lambanete]). So a, b, Iren., Vigil., Ambr., Jer.

John vi. 39. Non perdam ex eo quicquam. Here 'quicquam' is an addition (=[Greek: maeden]), found in D, a, b, ff, Syr. Crt.

John vi. 51. Et panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro mea est. This almost exactly corresponds with the reading of [Hebrew: Aleph], [Greek: ho artos hon ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes, hae sarx mou estin]. Similarly, but with inversion of the last two clauses ([Greek: hae sarx mou estin huper taes tou kosmou zoaes]), B, C, D and T, 33, Vulg., a, b, c, e, m, Syr. Crt., Theb., Aeth., Orig., Cypr. The received text is [Greek: kai ho artos [de] dae ego doso, hae sarx mou estin aen ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes], after E, G, H, K, M, S, etc.

John xii. 30. Venit (= [Greek: aelthen] for [Greek: gegonen]), with D (Tregelles), [also a, b, l, n (?), Vulg. (fuld.), Hil., Victorin.; Roensch].

The instances that have been here given are all, or nearly all, false readings on the part of Tertullian. It is, of course, only as such that they are in point for the present enquiry. Some few of those mentioned have been admitted into the text by certain modern editors. Thus, on Matt. v. 4, 5 Tertullian's reading finds support in Westcott and Hort: and M'Clellan, against Tischendorf and Tregelles. [This instance perhaps should not be pressed. I leave it standing, because it shows interesting relations between Tertullian and the various forms of the Old Latin.] The passage omitted in John v. 3, 4 is argued for strenuously by Mr. M'Clellan, with more hesitation by Dr. Scrivener, and in 'Supernatural Religion' (sixth edition), against Tregelles, Tischendorf, Milligan, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort. In the same passage Bethsaida is read by Lachmann (margin) and by Westcott and Hort. In John vi. 51 the reading of Tertullian and the Sinaitic Codex is defended by Tischendorf; the approximate reading of B, C, D, &c. is admitted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Milligan, Westcott and Hort, and the received text has an apologist in Mr. M'Clellan (with Tholuck and Wordsworth). On these points then it should be borne in mind that Tertullian may present the true reading; on all the others he is pretty certainly wrong.

Let us now proceed to analyse roughly these erroneous (in three cases doubtfully erroneous) readings. We shall find [Endnote 336:1] that Tertullian—

Agrees with Differs from x (Codex Sinaiticus) in Mark in Matt. iii. 18, v. 16, v. 48, i. 2 4, John vi. 51. vi. 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. 26, Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, v. 3, 43, v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. A (Codex Alexandrinus) in A in Mark i. 24, John i. 13, Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. B (Codex Vaticanus) in John B in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, vi. v. 2, (vi. 51). 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. 26, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, v. 3,4, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. C (Codex Ephraemi somewhat C in Matt. iii. 8, xi. 11, xiii. fragmentary) in John 15, xv. 26, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, (vi. 51). John i. 13, v. 3, 4, vi. 39. D (Codex Bezae in some D in Matt. (iii. 8), v. 16, v. 48, places wanting) in Matt. vi. xiii. 15, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, 10, Xi. 11, (xv. 26), John (vi. John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 4, v. 43. 51), xii. 30. GREEK FATHERS. Clement of Alexandria, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48. Origen, in Matt. (xv. 26), Mark Origen, in Matt. iii. 8, (xv. 26), i. 24, John i. 13 (Latin trans- lator), (vi. 51). Eusebius, in Matt. xv. 26, Mark i. 24, John i. 13 (partially). LATIN FATHERS. Irenaeus, in Mark i. 24, John Irenaeus in Matt. iii. 8. i. 13 (ter), iii. 36, v. 43. Cyprian, in John iii. 36, (vi. 51). Augustine, in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10. Ambrose, in Matt. v. 16, John v. 43. Hilary, in Matt. v. 16, (xv. 26), John xii. 30. Others, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, John i. 13, v. 43, xii. 30. VERSIONS. Old Latin a (Codex Vercellensis), in Matt. a, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, xi. 11, (iii. 8), vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, 26), John v. 3, 4, v. 43, (vi. iii. 36. 51), xii. 30. b (Codex Veronensis), in Matt. b, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 36), Mark i. 24. Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, (vi. 51), xii. 30. c (Codex Colbertinus), in Matt. c, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 26), Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, John v. 3, 4, (vi. 51). iii. 36, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. f (Codex Brixianus), in Matt. f, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, xiii. 15, Mark ix. 7. vi. 10, xi. 10, xv. 26, Mark i. 24, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, vi. 39, vi. 51, xii. 30. Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, vi. 10, Xiii. 5, (xv. 26), John v. 16, v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, iii. 36, v. 3, 4, vi. 39, (vi. 51), Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, xii. 30. iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, vi. 39, vi. 51, xii. 30. Vulgate, in Matt. xiii. 15, John Vulgate, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 3, 4, (vi. 51), xii. 30 v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, xv. 26, (fuld.). Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 43, vi. 39. Syriac Syr. Crt. (fragmentary), in Syr. Crt., in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10, Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, xiii. 15, xi. 11, John (i. 13, ? Tregelles) (xv. 26), John (i. 13, ? Crowfoot), iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43. vi. 39, (vi. 51.). Syr. Pst., in Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, Syr. Pst., in Matt. vi. 10, Mark Mark ix. 7, John iii. 36, v. 3, 4. i. 24, John i. 13, (vi. 51), xii. 30

[The evidence of this and the following versions is only given where it is either expressly stated or left to be clearly inferred by the editors.]

Egyptian Thebaic, in John (vi. 51). Thebaic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. Memphitic, in Mark i. 24, John Memphitic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. iii. 36. 16, (v. 48), Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4, vi. 51.

Summing up the results numerically they would be something of this kind:—

UNCIAL MSS.

[Hebrew: A B C D Alef]

Agreement 2 2 2 1 5 Difference 13 5 14 9 10

GREEK FATHERS.

Clement of Alexandria. Origen. Eusebius. Agreement 1 4 3 Difference 0 2 0

LATIN FATHERS.

Irenaeus. Cyprian. Augustine. Ambrose. Hilary. Others. Agreement 4 2 2 2 3 5 Difference 1 0 0 0 0 0

VERSIONS.

OLD LATIN. VULGATE. a b c f rel. Agreement 8 11 6 2 9 4 Difference 7 4 10 14 14 12

SYRIAC. EGYPTIAN. Crt. Pst. Theb. Memph. Agreement 7 5 1 2 Difference 7 5 4 6

Now the phenomena here, as on other occasions when we have had to touch upon text criticism, are not quite simple and straightforward. It must be remembered too that our observations extend only over a very narrow area. Within that area they are confined to the cases where Tertullian has gone wrong; whereas, in order to anything like a complete induction, all the cases of various reading ought to be considered. Some results, however, of a rough and approximate kind may be said to be reached; and I think that these will be perhaps best exhibited if, premising that they are thus rough and approximate, we throw them into the shape of a genealogical tree.

Tert. b / / O.L. (a.c. &c.) / / Syr. Crt. / Tert. O.L. / / Greek Fathers. / Tert. O.L./ Syr. Crt./ / / / / Best Alexandrine Authorities. / / Western. / Greek Fathers / Memph. Theb. / / / / / / / / Alexandrine. Western. / The Sacred Autographs.

In accordance with the sketch here given we may present the history of the text, up to the time when it reached Tertullian, thus. First we have the sacred autographs, which are copied for some time, we need not say immaculately, but without change on the points included in the above analysis. Gradually a few errors slip in, which are found especially in the Egyptian, versions and in the works of some Alexandrine and Palestinian Fathers. But in time a wider breach is made. The process of corruption becomes more rapid. We reach at last that strange document which, through more or less remote descent, became the parent of the Curetonian Syriac on the one hand and of the Old Latin on the other. These two lines severally branch off. The Old Latin itself divides. One of its copies in particular (b) seems to represent a text that has a close affinity to that of Tertullian, and among the group of manuscripts to which it belongs is that which Tertullian himself most frequently and habitually used.

Strictly speaking indeed there can be no true genealogical tree. The course of descent is not clear and direct all the way. There is some confusion and some crossing and recrossing of the lines. Thus, for instance, there is the curious coincidence of Tertullian with [Hebrew: Aleph], a member of a group that had long seemed to be left behind, in John vi. 51. This however, as it is only on a point of order and that in a translation, may very possibly be accidental; I should incline to think that the reading of the Greek Codex from which Tertullian's Latin was derived agreed rather with that of B, C, D, &c., and these phenomena would increase the probability that these manuscripts and Tertullian had really preserved the original text. If that were the case—and it is the conclusion arrived at by a decided majority of the best editors—there would then be no considerable difficulty in regard to the relation between Tertullian and the five great Uncials, for the reading of Mark ix. 7 is of much less importance. Somewhat more difficult to adjust would be Tertullian's relations to the different forms of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac. In one instance, Matt. xi. 11 (or Luke vii. 26), Tertullian seems to derive his text from the Dd branch rather than the b branch of the Old Latin. In another (Matt. iii. 8) he seems to overleap b and most copies of the Old Latin altogether and go to the Curetonian Syriac. How, too, did he come to have the paraphrastic reading of Matt. v. 16 which is found in no MSS. or versions but in Justin (approximately), Clement of Alexandria, and several Latin Fathers? The paraphrase might naturally enough occur to a single writer here or there, but the extent of the coincidence is remarkable. Perhaps we are to see here another sign of the study bestowed by the Fathers upon the writings of their predecessors leading to an unconscious or semi-conscious reproduction of their deviations. It is a noticeable fact that in regard to the order of the clauses in Matt. v. 4, 5, Tertullian has preserved what is probably the right reading along with b alone, the other copies of the Old Latin (all except the revised f) with the Curetonian Syriac having gone wrong. On the whole the complexities and cross relations are less, and the genealogical tree holds good to a greater extent, than we might have been prepared for. The hypothesis that Tertullian used a manuscript in the main resembling b of the Old Latin satisfies most elements of the problem.

But the merest glance at these phenomena must be enough to show that the Tuebingen theory, or any theory which attributes a late origin to our Gospels, is out of the question. To bring the text into the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian, a century is not at all too long a period to allow. In fact I doubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, though we should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at an advancing rate for every fresh copy that was made. The phenomena that have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such as might be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe. They are spread over whole groups of MSS. together. We can trace the gradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in the history of the text. A certain false reading comes in at such a point and spreads over all the manuscripts that start from that; another comes in at a further stage and vitiates succeeding copies there; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in; recourse is had to the best standard manuscripts, and a purer text is recovered by comparison with these. It is precisely such a text that is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we find accordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian. A still more systematic revision, though executed—if we are to judge from the instances brought to our notice—with somewhat more reserve, is seen in Jerome's Vulgate.

It seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point. I will only venture to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that if the whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters of the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus and Tertullian alone remained, as well as the later manuscripts with which to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the latest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first century. The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus confirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think we may say, within approximate limits, established.

But we must not forget that there is a double challenge to be met. The first part of it—that which relates to the evidence for the existence of the Gospels—has been answered. It remains to consider how far the external evidence for the Gospels goes to prove their authenticity. It may indeed well be asked how the external evidence can be expected to prove the authenticity of these records. It does so, to a considerable extent, indirectly by throwing them back into closer contact with the facts. It also tends to establish the authority in which they were held, certainly in the last quarter of the second century, and very probably before. By this time the Gospels were acknowledged to be all that is now understood by the word 'canonical.' They were placed upon the same footing as the Old Testament Scriptures. They were looked up to with the same reverence and regarded as possessing the same Divine inspiration. We may trace indeed some of the steps by which this position was attained. The [Greek: gegraptai] of the Epistle of Barnabas, the public reading of the Gospels in the churches mentioned by Justin, the [Greek: to eiraemenon] of Tatian, the [Greek: guriakai graphai] of Dionysius of Corinth, all prepare the way for the final culmination in the Muratorian Canon and Irenaeus. So complete had the process been that Irenaeus does not seem to know of a time when the authority of the Gospels had been less than it was to him. Yet the process had been, of course, gradual. The canonical Gospels had to compete with several others before they became canonical. They had to make good their own claims and to displace rival documents; and they succeeded. It is a striking instance of the 'survival of the fittest.' That they were really the fittest is confirmed by nearly every fragment of the lost Gospels that remains, but it would be almost sufficiently proved by the very fact that they survived.

In this indirect manner I think that the external evidence bears out the position assigned to the canonical Gospels. It has preserved to us the judgment of the men of that time, and there is a certain relative sense in which the maxim, 'Securus judicat orbis terrarum,' is true. The decisions of an age, especially decisions such as this where quite as much depended upon pious feeling as upon logical reasoning, are usually sounder than the arguments that are put forward to defend them. We should hardly endorse the arguments by which Irenaeus proves a priori the necessity of a 'four-fold Gospel,' but there is real weight in the fact that four Gospels and no more were accepted by him and others like him. It is difficult to read without impatience the rough words that are applied to the early Christian writers and to contrast the self-complacency in which our own superior knowledge is surveyed. If there is something in which they are behind us, there is much also in which we are behind them. Among the many things for which Mr. Arnold deserves our gratitude he deserves it not least for the way in which he has singled out two sentences, one from St. Augustine and the other from the Imitation, 'Domine fecisti nos ad te et irrequietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te,' and, 'Esto humilis et pacificus et erit tecum, Jesus.' The men who could write thus are not to be despised.

But beyond their more general testimony it is not clear what else the early Fathers could be expected to do. They could not prove— at least their written remains that have come down to us could not prove—that the Gospels were really written by the authors traditionally assigned to them. When we say that the very names of the first two Evangelists are not mentioned before a date that may be from 120-166 (or 155) A.D. and the third and fourth not before 170-175 A.D., this alone is enough, without introducing other elements of doubt, to show that the evidence must needs be inconclusive. If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertook to show this, he undertook a superfluous task. So much at least, Mr. Arnold was right in saying, 'might be stated in a sentence and proved in a page.' There is a presumption in favour of the tradition, and perhaps, considering the relation of Irenaeus to Polycarp and of Polycarp to St. John, we may say, a fairly strong one; but we need now-a-days, to authenticate a document, closer evidence than this. The cases are not quite parallel, and the difference between them is decidedly in favour of Irenaeus, but if Clement of Alexandria could speak of an Epistle written about 125 A.D. is the work of the apostolic Barnabas the companion of St. Paul [Endnote 346:1], we must not lay too much stress upon the direct testimony of Irenaeus when he attributes the fourth Gospel to the Apostle St. John.

These are points for a different set of arguments to determine. The Gospel itself affords sufficient indications as to the position of its author. For the conclusion that he was a Palestinian Jew, who had lived in Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem, familiar with the hopes and expectations of his people, and himself mixed up with the events which he describes, there is evidence of such volume and variety as seems exceedingly difficult to resist. As I have gone into this subject at length elsewhere [Endnote 347:1], and as, so far as I can see, no new element has been introduced into the question by 'Supernatural Religion,' I shall not break the unity of the present work by considering the objections brought in detail. I am very ready to recognise the ability with which many of these are stated, but it is the ability of the advocate rather than of the impartial critic. There is a constant tendency to draw conclusions much in excess of the premisses. An observation, true in itself with a certain qualification and restriction, is made in an unqualified form, and the truth that it contains is exaggerated. Above all, wherever there is a margin of ignorance, wherever a statement of the Evangelist is not capable of direct and exact verification, the doubt is invariably given against him and he is brought in guilty either of ignorance or deception. I have no hesitation in saying that if the principles of criticism applied to the fourth Gospel—not only by the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' but by some other writers of repute, such as Dr. Scholten—were applied to ordinary history or to the affairs of every-day life, much that is known actually to have happened could be shown on a priori grounds to be impossible. It is time that the extreme negative school should justify more completely their canons of criticism. As it is, the laxity of these repels many a thoughtful mind quite as firmly convinced as they can be of the necessity of free enquiry and quite as anxious to reconcile the different sides of knowledge. The question is not one merely of freedom or tradition, but of reason and logic; and until there is more agreement as to what is reasonable and what the laws of logic demand, the arguments are apt to run in parallel lines that never meet [Endnote 348:1].

But, it is said, 'Miracles require exceptional evidence.' True: exceptional evidence they both require and possess; but that evidence is not external. Incomparably the strongest attestation to the Gospel narratives is that which they bear to themselves. Miracles have exceptional evidence because the non-miraculous portions of the narrative with which they are bound up are exceptional. These carry their truth stamped upon their face, and that truth is reflected back upon the miracles. It is on the internal investigation of the Gospels that the real issue lies. And this is one main reason why the belief of mankind so little depends upon formal apologetics. We can all feel the self- evidential force of the Gospel story; but who shall present it adequately in words? We are reminded of the fate of him who thought the ark of God was falling and put out his hand to steady it—and, for his profanity, died. It can hardly be said that good intentions would be a sufficient justification, because that a man should think himself fit for the task would be in itself almost a sufficient sign that he was mistaken. It is not indeed quite incredible that the qualifications should one day be found. We seem almost to see that, with a slight alteration of circumstances, a little different training in early life, such an one has almost been among us. There are passages that make us think that the author of 'Parochial and Plain Sermons' might have touched even the Gospels with cogency that yet was not profane. But the combination of qualities required is such as would hardly be found for centuries together. The most fine and sensitive tact of piety would be essential. With it must go absolute sincerity and singleness of purpose. Any dash of mere conventionalism or self-seeking would spoil the whole. There must be that clear illuminated insight that is only given to those who are in a more than ordinary sense 'pure in heart.' And on the other hand, along with these unique spiritual qualities must go a sound and exact scientific training, a just perception of logical force and method, and a wide range of knowledge. One of the great dangers and drawbacks to the exercise of the critical faculty is that it tends to destroy the spiritual intuition. And just in like manner the too great reliance upon this intuition benumbs and impoverishes the critical faculty. Yet, in a mind that should present at all adequately the internal evidence of the Gospels, both should co-exist in equal balance and proportion. We cannot say that there will never be such a mind, but the asceticism of a life would be a necessary discipline for it to go through, and that such a life as the world has seldom seen.

In the meantime the private Christian may well be content with what he has. 'If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God.'



CHAPTER XIV.

CONCLUSION.

And now that we have come to the end of the purely critical portion of this enquiry, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few words on its general tendency and bearing. As critics we have only the critical question to deal with. Certain evidence is presented to us which it is our duty to weigh and test by reference to logical and critical laws. It must stand or fall on its own merits, and any considerations brought in from without will be irrelevant to the question at issue. But after this is done we may fairly look round and consider how our conclusion affects other conclusions and in what direction it is leading us. If we look at 'Supernatural Religion' in this way we shall see that its tendency is distinctly marked. Its attack will fall chiefly upon the middle party in opinion. And it will play into the hands of the two extreme parties on either side. There can be little doubt that indirectly it will help the movement that is carrying so many into Ultramontanism, and directly it is of course intended to win converts to what may perhaps be called comprehensively Secularism.

Now it is certainly true that the argument from consequences is one that ought to be applied with great caution. Yet I am not at all sure that it has not a real basis in philosophy as well as in nature. The very existence of these two great parties, the Ultramontane and the Secularist, over against each other, seems to be it kind of standing protest against either of them. If Ultramontanism is true, how is it that so many wise and good men openly avow Secularism? If 'Secularism is true, how is it that so many of the finest and highest minds take refuge from it—a treacherous refuge, I allow—in Ultramontanism? There is something in this more than a mere defective syllogism—more than an insufficient presentation of the evidence. Truth, in the widest sense, is that which is in accordance with the laws and conditions of human nature. But where beliefs are so directly antithetical as they are here, the repugnance and resistance which each is found to cause in so large a number of minds is in itself a proof that those laws and conditions are insufficiently complied with. To the spectator, standing outside of both, this will seem to be easily explained: the one sacrifices reason to faith; the other sacrifices faith to reason. But there is abundant evidence to show that both faith (meaning thereby the religious emotions) and reason are ineradicable elements in the human mind. That which seriously and permanently offends against either cannot be true. For creatures differently constituted from man—either all reason or all pure disembodied emotion—it might be otherwise; but, for man, as he is, the epithet 'true' seems to be excluded from any set of propositions that has such results.

Even in the more limited sense, and confining the term to propositions purely intellectual, there is, I think we must say, a presumption against the truth of that which involves so deep and wide a chasm in human nature. Without importing teleology, we should naturally expect that the intellect and the emotions should be capable of working harmoniously together. They do so in most things: why should they not in the highest matters of all? If the one set of opinions is anti-rational and the other anti-emotional, as we see practically that they are, is not this in itself an antecedent presumption against either of them? It may not be enough to prove at once that the syllogism is defective: still less is it a sufficient warrant for establishing an opposite syllogism. But it does seem to be enough to give the scientific reasoner pause, and to make him go over the line of his argument again and again and yet again, with the suspicion that there is (as how well there may be!) a flaw somewhere.

It would not, I think, be difficult to point out such flaws [Endnote 352:1]—some of them, as it appears, of considerable magnitude. But the subject is one that would take us far away out of our present course, and for its proper development would require a technical knowledge of the processes of physical science which I do not possess. Leaving this on one side, and regarding them only in the abstract, the considerations stated above seem to point to the necessity of something of the nature of a compromise. And yet there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as compromise in opinions. Compromise belongs to the world of practice; it is only admitted by an illicit process into the world of thought. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' is doubtless right in deprecating that 'illogical zeal which flings to the pursuing wolves of doubt and unbelief, scrap by scrap,' all the distinctive doctrines of Christianity. Belief, it is true, must be ultimately logical to stand. It must have an inner cohesion and inter- dependence. It must start from a fixed principle. This has been, and still is, the besetting weakness of the theology of mediation. It is apt to form itself merely by stripping off what seem to be excrescences from the outside, and not by radically reconstructing itself, on a firmly established basis, from within. The difficulty in such a process is to draw the line. There is a delusive appearance of roundness and completeness in the creeds of those who either accept everything or deny everything: though, even here, there is, I think we may say, always, some little loophole left of belief or of denial, which will inevitably expand until it splits and destroys the whole structure. But the moment we begin to meet both parties half way, there comes in that crucial question: Why do you accept just so much and no more? Why do you deny just so much and no more? [Endnote 354:1]

It must, in candour, be confessed that the synthetic formula for the middle party in opinion has not yet been found. Other parties have their formulae, but none that will really bear examination. Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, would do excellently if there was any belief that had been held 'always, everywhere, and by all,' if no discoveries had been made as to the facts, and if there had been no advance in the methods of knowledge. The ultimate universality and the absolute uniformity of physical antecedents has a plausible appearance until it is seen that logically carried out it reduces men to machines, annihilates responsibility, and involves conclusions on the assumption of the truth of which society could not hold together for a single day. If we abandon these Macedonian methods for unloosing the Gordian knot of things and keep to the slow and laborious way of gradual induction, then I think it will be clear that all opinions must be held on the most provisional tenure. A vast number of problems will need to be worked out before any can be said to be established with a pretence to finality. And the course which the inductive process is taking supplies one of the chief 'grounds of hope' to those who wish to hold that middle position of which I have been speaking. The extreme theories which from time to time have been advanced have not been able to hold their ground. No doubt they may have done the good that extreme theories usually do, in bringing out either positively or negatively one side or another of the truth; but in themselves they have been rejected as at once inadequate and unreal solutions of the facts. First we had the Rationalism (properly so called) of Paulus, then the Mythical hypothesis of Strauss, and after that the 'Tendenz-kritik' of Baur. But what candid person does not feel that each and all of these contained exaggerations more incredible than the difficulties which they sought to remove? There has been on each of the points raised a more or less definite ebb in the tide. The moderate conclusion is seen to be also the reasonable conclusion. And not least is this the case with the enquiry on which we have been just engaged. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' has overshot the mark very much indeed. There is, as we have seen, a certain truth in some things that he has said, but the whole sum of truth is very far from bearing out his conclusions.

When we look up from these detailed enquiries and lift up our eyes to a wider horizon we shall be able to relegate them to their true place. The really imposing witness to the truth of Christianity is that which is supplied by history on the one hand, and its own internal attractiveness and conformity to human nature on the other. Strictly speaking, perhaps, these are but two sides of the same thing. It is in history that the laws of human nature assume a concrete shape and expression. The fact that Christianity has held its ground in the face of such long-continued and hostile criticism is a proof that it must have some deeply-seated fitness and appropriateness for man. And this goes a long way towards saying that it is true. It is a theory of things that is being constantly tested by experience. But the results of experience are often expressed unconsciously. They include many a subtle indication that the mind has followed but cannot reproduce to itself in set terms. All the reasons that go to form a judge's decision do not appear in his charge. Yet there we have a select and highly-trained mind working upon matter that presents no very great degree of complexity. When we come to a question so wide, so subtle and complex as Christianity, the individual mind ceases to be competent to sit in judgment upon it. It becomes necessary to appeal to a much more extended tribunal, and the verdict of that tribunal will be given rather by acts than in words. Thus there seems to have always been a sort of half-conscious feeling in men's minds that there was more in Christianity than the arguments for it were able to bring out. In looking back over the course that apologetics have taken, we cannot help being struck by a disproportion between the controversial aspect and the practical. It will probably on the whole be admitted that the balance of argument has in the past been usually somewhat on the side of the apologists; but the argumentative victory has seldom if ever been so decisive as quite to account for the comparatively undisturbed continuity of the religious life. It was in the height of the Deist controversy that Wesley and Whitfield began to preach, and they made more converts by appealing to the emotions than probably Butler did by appealing to the reason.

A true philosophy must take account of these phenomena. Beliefs which issue in that peculiarly fine and chastened and tender spirit which is the proper note of Christianity, cannot, under any circumstances, be dismissed as 'delusion.' Surely if any product of humanity is true and genuine, it is to be found here. There are indeed truths which find a response in our hearts without apparently going through any logical process, not because they are illogical, but because the scales of logic are not delicate and sensitive enough to weigh them.

'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' 'I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.' 'Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.' The plummet of science—physical or metaphysical, moral or critical—has never sounded so deep as sayings such as these. We may pass them over unnoticed in our Bibles, or let them slip glibly and thoughtlessly from the tongue; but when they once really come home, there is nothing to do but to bow the head and cover the face and exclaim with the Apostle, 'Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.'

And yet there is that other side of the question which is represented in 'Supernatural Religion,' and this too must have justice done to it. There is an intellectual, as well as a moral and spiritual, synthesis of things. Only it should be remembered that this synthesis has to cover an immense number of facts of the most varied and intricate kind, and that at present the nature of the facts themselves is in many cases very far from being accurately ascertained. We are constantly reminded in reading 'Supernatural Religion,' able and vigorous as it is, how much of its force depends rather upon our ignorance than our knowledge. It supplies us with many opportunities of seeing how easily the whole course and tenour of an argument may be changed by the introduction of a new element. For instance, I imagine that if the author had given a little deeper study to the seemingly minute and secondary subject of text-criticism, it would have aroused in him very considerable misgivings as to the results at which he seemed to have arrived. There is a solidarity in all the different departments of human knowledge and research, especially among those that are allied in subject. These are continually sending out offshoots and projections into the neighbouring regions, and the conclusions of one science very often have to depend upon those of another. The course of enquiry that has been taken in 'Supernatural Religion' is peculiarly unfortunate. It starts from the wrong end. It begins with propositions into which a priori considerations largely enter, and, from the standpoint given by these, it proceeds to dictate terms in a field that can only be trodden by patient and unprejudiced study. A far more hopeful and scientific process would have been to begin upon ground where dogmatic questions do not enter, or enter only in a remote degree, and where there is a sufficient number of solid ascertainable facts to go upon, and then to work the way steadily and cautiously upwards to higher generalisations.

It will have been seen in the course of the present enquiry how many side questions need to be determined. It would be well if monographs were written upon all the quotations from the Old Testament in the Christian literature of the first two centuries, modelled upon Credner's investigations into the quotations in Justin. Before this is done there should be a new and revised edition of Holmes' and Parsons' Septuagint [Endnote 359:1]. Everything short of this would be inadequate, because we need to know not only the best text, but every text that has definite historical attestation. In this way it would be possible to arrive at a tolerably exact, instead of a merely approximate, deduction as to the habit of quotation generally, which would supply a firmer basis for inference in regard to the New Testament than that which has been assumed here. At the same time monographs should be written in English, besides those already existing in German, upon the date or position of the writers whose works come under review. Without any attempt to prove a particular thesis, the reader should be allowed to see precisely what the evidence is and how far it goes. Then if he could not arrive at a positive conclusion, he could at least attain to the most probable. And, lastly, it is highly important that the whole question of the composition and structure of the Synoptic Gospels should be investigated to the very bottom. Much valuable labour has already been expended upon this subject, but the result, though progress has been made, is rather to show its extreme complexity and difficulty than to produce any final settlement. Yet, as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' has rather dimly and inadequately seen, we are constantly thrown back upon assumptions borrowed from this quarter.

Pending such more mature and thorough enquiries, I quite feel that my own present contribution belongs to a transition stage, and cannot profess to be more than provisional. But it will have served its purpose sufficiently if it has helped to mark out more distinctly certain lines of the enquiry and to carry the investigation along these a little way; suggesting at the same time—what the facts themselves really suggest—counsels of sobriety and moderation.

What the end will be, it would be presumptuous to attempt to foretell. It will probably be a long time before even these minor questions—much more the major questions into which they run up— will be solved. Whether they will ever be solved—all of them at least—in such a way as to compel entire assent is very doubtful. Error and imperfection seem to be permanently, if we may hope diminishingly, a condition of human thought and action. It does not appear to be the will of God that Truth should ever be so presented as to crush out all variety of opinion. The conflict of opinions is like that of Hercules with the Hydra. As fast as one is cut down another arises in its place; and there is no searing- iron to scorch and cicatrize the wound. However much we may labour, we can only arrive at an inner conviction, not at objective certainty. All the glosses and asseverations in the world cannot carry us an inch beyond the due weight of the evidence vouchsafed to us. An honest and brave mind will accept manfully this condition of things, and not seek for infallibility where it can find none. It will adopt as its motto that noble saying of Bishop Butler—noble, because so unflinchingly true, though opposed to a sentimental optimism—'Probability is the very guide of life.'

With probabilities we have to deal, in the intellectual sphere. But, when once this is thoroughly and honestly recognised, even a comparatively small balance of probability comes to have as much moral weight as the most loudly vaunted certainty. And meantime, apart from and beneath the strife of tongues, there is the still small voice which whispers to a man and bids him, in no superstitious sense but with the gravity and humility which befits a Christian, to 'work out his own salvation with fear and trembling.'



[ENDNOTES]

[2:1] With regard to the references in vol. i. p. 259, n. 1, I had already observed, before the appearance of the preface to the sixth edition, that they were really intended to apply to the first part of the sentence annotated rather than the second. Still, as there is only one reference out of nine that really supports the proposition in immediate connection with which the references are made, the reader would be very apt to carry away a mistaken impression. The same must be said of the set of references defended on p. xl. sqq. of the new preface. The expressions used do not accurately represent the state of the facts. It is not careful writing, and I am afraid it must be said that the prejudice of the author has determined the side which the expression leans. But how difficult is it to make words express all the due shades and qualifications of meaning—how difficult especially for a mind that seems to be naturally distinguished by force rather than by exactness and delicacy of observation! We have all 'les defauts de nos qualites.'

[10:1] Much harm has been done by rashly pressing human metaphors and analogies; such as, that Revelation is a message from God and therefore must be infallible, &c. This is just the sort of argument that the Deists used in the last century, insisting that a revelation, properly so called, must be presented with conclusive proofs, must be universal, must be complete, and drawing the conclusion that Christianity is not such a revelation. This kind of reasoning has received its sentence once for all from Bishop Butler. We have nothing to do with what must be (of which we are, by the nature of the case, incompetent judges), but simply with what is.

[18:1] Cf. Westcott, Canon, p. 152, n. 2 (3rd ed. 1870).

[18:2] See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 60; also Credner, Beitraege, ii. 66 ('certainly' from St. Paul).

[20:1] The Old Testament in the New (London and Edinburgh, 1868).

[21:1] Mr. M'Clellan (The New Testament, &c., vol. i. p. 606, n. c) makes the suggestion, which from his point of view is necessary, that 'S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by Jeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Testament, and of which the passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduction.' Cf. Credner, Beitraege, ii. 152.

[25:1] We do not stay to discuss the real origin of these quotations: the last is probably not from the Old Testament at all.

[27:1] The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also found in Clement of Alexandria.

[34:1] It should be noticed, however, that the same reading is found in Justin and other writers.

[38:1] Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti (Gottingae, 1853).

[39:1] Beitraege zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften (Halle, 1832).

[40:1] The Epistles of S. Clement of Rome (London and Cambridge, 1869).

[49:1] The Latin translation is not in most cases a sufficient guarantee for the original text. The Greek has been preserved in the shape of long extracts by Epiphanius and others. The edition used is that of Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853.

[49:2] Horne's Introduction (ed. 1856), p. 333.

[52:1] Ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1859. [The index given in vol. iii. p. 893 sqq. contains many inaccuracies, and is, indeed, of little use for identifying the passages of Scripture.]

[56:1] Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, p. 407 sqq.

[56:2] In the new Preface to his work on the Canon (4th edition, 1875), p. xxxii.

[58:1] S.R. i. p. 221, and note.

[59:1] S.R. i. p. 222, n. 3.

[59:2] Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch. p. 74 (p. 82 S.R.?).

[59:3] Das nachapost. Zeitalter, p. 126 sq.

[60:1] Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien, p. 64; compare Fritzche, art. 'Judith' in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon.

[61:1] Vol. i. p. 221, n. I feel it due to the author to say that I have found his long lists of references, though not seldom faulty, very useful. I willingly acknowledge the justice of his claim to have 'fully laid before readers the actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made' (Preface to sixth edition, p. lxxx).

[65:1] i. p. 226.

[66:1] i. p. 228.

[69:1] Der Ursprung, p. 138.

[71:1] The Apostolical Fathers (London, 1874), p. 273.

[71:2] The original Greek of this work is lost, but in the text as reconstructed by Hilgenfeld from five still extant versions (Latin, Syriac, Aethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the verse runs thus, [Greek: polloi men ektisthaesan, oligoi de sothaesontai] (Messias Judaeorum, p. 69).

[73:1] A curious instance of disregard of context is to be seen in Tertullian's reading of John i. 13, which he referred to Christ, accusing the Valentinians of falsification because they had the ordinary reading (cf. Roensch, Das Neue Testament Tertullian's, pp. 252, 654). Compare also p. 24 above.

[73:2] Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum, Fasc. ii. p. 69.

[74:1] c. v.

[74:2] S. R. i. p. 250 sqq.

[76:1] Lardner, Credibility, &c., ii. p .23; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 50, n. 5.

[77:1] Since this was written the author of 'Supernatural Religion' has replied in the preface to his sixth edition. He has stated his case in the ablest possible manner: still I do not think that there is anything to retract in what has been written above. There would have been something to retract if Dr. Lightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles. As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to stand thus. On the one side are certain improbabilities—I admit, improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind—which are met about half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand, there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted in its turn by Irenaeus. Now I cannot think that there is any improbability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to be outweighed by this external evidence.

[81:1] Cf. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec., Fasc. iv. p. 15.

[81:2] Cf. ibid., pp. 56, 62, also p. 29.

[82:1] But see Contemporary Review, 1875, p. 838, from which it appears that M. Waddington has recently proved the date to be rather 155 or 156. Compare Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius, Der Maertyrertod Polycarp's in Z. f. w. T. 1874, ii. p. 180 f.

[82:2] Adv. Haer. iii. 3, 4.

[83:1] Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche, p. 586; Hefele, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, p. lxxx.

[84:1] Cf. S. R. i. p. 278.

[84:2] Ent. d. a. K. pp. 593, 599.

[84:3] Apostolical Fathers, p. 227 sq.

[84:4] Ursprung, pp. 43, 131.

[85:1] [Greek: mnaemoneuontes de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon; mae krinete hina mae krithaete; aphiete kai aphethaesetai hymin; eleeite hina eleaethaete; en ho metro metreite, antimetraethaesetai hymin; kai hoti makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi heneken dikaiosynaes, hoti auton estin hae basileia tou Theou.]

[89:1] Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 1. p. 138, n. 2.

[89:2] Einleilung in das N. T. p. 66, where Lipsius' view is also quoted.

[89:3] Cf. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 88, n. 4.

[89:4] As appears to be suggested in S. R. i. p. 292. The reference in the note to Bleek, Einl. p. 637 (and Ewald?), does not seem to be exactly to the point.

[89:5] Apol. i. 67.

[90:1] Dial. c. Tryph. 103.

[90:2] Apol. i. 66; cf. S.R. i. p. 294.

[91:1] The evangelical references and allusions in Justin have been carefully collected by Credner and Hilgenfeld, and are here thrown together in a sort of running narrative.

[101:1] This was written before the appearance of Mr. M'Clellan's important work on the Four Gospels (The New Testament, vol. i, London, 1875), to which I have not yet had time to give the study that it deserves.

[103:1] Unless indeed it was found in one of the many forms of the Gospel (cf. S.R. i. P. 436, and p. 141 below). The section appears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Hilgenfeld (N.T. extra Can. Recept. Fasc. iv).

[107:1] In like manner Tertullian refers his readers to the 'autograph copies' of St. Paul's Epistles, and the very 'chairs of the Apostles,' preserved at Corinth and elsewhere. (De Praescript. Haeret. c. 36). Tertullian also refers to the census of Augustus, 'quem testem fidelissimum dominicae nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt' (Adv. Marc. iv. 7).

[110:1] Beitraege, i. p. 261 sqq.

[110:2] Evangelien Justin's u.s.w., p. 270 sqq.

[110:3] The chief authority is Eus. H. E. vi. 12.

[110:4] Cf. Hilgenfeld, Ev. Justin's, p. 157.

[116:1] A somewhat similar classification has been made by De Wette, Einleitung in das N. T., pp. 104-110, in which however the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which I have assumed; several instances of variation which I had classed as decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I may consider this a proof that the classification above given has not been influenced by bias.

[119:1] Beitraege, i. p. 237.

[119:2] S.R. i. p. 396 sqq.

[120:1] Die drei ersten Evangelien, Goettingen, 1850. [A second, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared.]

[120:2] Die Synoptischen Evangelien, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88.

[120:3] Das Marcus-evangelium, Berlin, 1872, p. 299.

[120:4] Beitraege, i. p. 219.

[120:5] Dr. Westcott well calls this 'the prophetic sense of the present' (On the Canon, p. 128).

[122:1] 'This is meaningless,' writes Mr. Baring-Gould of the canonical text, rather hastily, and forgetting, as it would appear, the concluding cause (Lost and Hostile Gospels, p. 166); cp. S.R. i. p. 354, ii. p. 28.

[123:1] i. pp. 196, 227, 258.

[123:2] Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon (ed. Volkmar, Berlin, 1860), p. 16.

[124:1] Adv. Haer. 428 D.

[124:2] I am not quite clear that more is meant (as Meyer, Ellicott Huls. Lect. p. 339, n. 2, and others maintain) in the evangelical language than that the drops of sweat 'resembled blood;' [Greek: hosei] seems to qualify [Greek: haimatos] as much as [Greek: thromboi]. Compare especially the interesting parallels from medical writers quoted by McClellan ad loc.

[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by Mr. McClellan to Philo i.164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase is however [Greek: isos angeloi (gegonos)].

[129:1] S.R. i. p. 304 sqq.

[130:1] Ev. Justin's, p. 157.

[135:1] Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874).

[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more than I did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony. The phenomena of variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributed to allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from different Gospels. But the data will need a closer weighing before this can be determined.

[138:1] Contemporary Review, 1875, p. 169 sqq.

[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argument which follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot's, and is, I believe, in the main sound (Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? p. 113 sqq., 4th edition, 1866).

[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition of S. R. that the argument from silence is practically waived. If the silence of Eusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he is silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular Gospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving that the Gospels in question were acknowledged. The matter may well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence of Eusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them. I agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that the point is not one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of by other writers, e.g. Strauss and Renan. [The author has missed Dr. Lightfoot's point on p. xxiii. What Eusebius bears testimony to is, not his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth Gospel, but its undisputed canonicity, i.e. a historical fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If I say that Hamlet is an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, I mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but that all the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed it to be his.]

[140:1] H. E. iv. 22.

[141:1] S. R. i. p. 436.

[141:2] Einleitung, p. 103.

[141:3] Das Nachapost. Zeit. i. p. 238.

[141:4] Beitraege, i. p. 401.

[141:5] Nov. Test. extra Can. Recept. Fasc. iv. pp. 19, 20.

[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat parallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of Clement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek: aphiete, hina aphethae humin (kai aphethaesetai humin)].

[144:1] Contemporary Review, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, i. p. 281 ad fin.

[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the 'Ancient Syriac Versions' in Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that 'these words might be a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand' in the Curetonian text.

[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above.

[146:1] H.E. iii. 39.

[147:1] In Mr. M'Clellan's recent Harmony I notice only two deviations from the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller's Harmony (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which there are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20, xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson's English Harmony three, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these passages vi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place of which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in Cont. Rev., Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf in proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot be maintained. But Tischendorf's Harmony is based on the assumption that St. Luke's use of [Greek: kathexaes] pledges him to a chronological order, and Anger adopts Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark is a compilation from Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious harmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.]

[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining the points of resemblance between the Gospels in different coloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each section.

[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Credner by Bleek and De Wette. The results will be found in Holtzmann, Synopt. Ev. p. 259 sqq.

[154:1] Cf. Holtzmann, Die Synoptischen Evangelien, p. 255 sq.; Ebrard, The Gospel History (Engl. trans.), p. 247; Bleek, Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien, i. p. 367. The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has much plausibility.

[155:1] On the Canon, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word will bear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot's recent investigations, in view of which the two sentences that follow should perhaps be cancelled; see Cont. Rev., Aug. 1875, p. 399 sqq.]

[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touch those of Dr. Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review for August and October: neither do Dr. Lightfoot's arguments seem very much to affect them. The method of the one is chiefly external, that of the other almost entirely internal. I can only for the present leave what I had written; but I do not for a moment suppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particular standpoint that I have taken.]

[162:1] The lists given in Supernatural Religion (ii. p. 2) seem to be correct so far as I am able to check them. In the second edition of his work on the Origin of the Old Catholic Church, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admit that the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side, sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonable warning in Reuss (Gesch. h. S. N. T. p. 254) that the Tuebingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate the polemical aspect of the writing.

[162:2] It should be noticed that Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, though assigning the second place to the Homilies, both take the terminus ad quem for this work no later than 180 A.D. It seems that a Syriac version, partly of the Homilies, partly of the Recognitions, exists in a MS. which itself was written in the year 411, and bears at that date marks of transcription from a still earlier copy (cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 341, n. 1).

[163:1] This table is made, as in the case of Justin, with the help of the collection of passages in the works of Credner and Hilgenfeld.

[167:1] Or rather perhaps 'morning baptism.' (Cf. Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 162 sqq., where the meaning of the name and the character and relations of the sect are fully discussed).

[168:1] Hom. i. 6; ii. 19, 23; iii. 73; iv. 1; xiii. 7; xvii. 19.

[170:1] So Tregelles expressly (Introduction, p. 240), after Wiseman; Scrivener (Introd., p. 308) adds (?); M'Clellan classes with 'Italic Family' (p. lxxiii). [On returning to this passage I incline rather more definitely to regard the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], from the group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption. Still the Clementine writer may have had it before him.]

[170:2] ii. p. 10 sqq.

[172:1] ii. p. 21.

[172:2] Preface to the fourth edition of Canon, p. xxxii.

[174:1] Evangelien, p. 31.

[174:2] Das Marcus-evangelium, p. 282.

[175:1] Synopt. Ev. p. 193.

[176:1] Das Marcus-evangelium, p. 295.

[178:1] A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes and Parsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. vi. 4. For [Greek: sou] there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp. 104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718; Chrys. i. 482 et saepe, al.' For tuus, 'Iren. (int.), Tert., Cypr., Ambr., Anonym. ap. Aug., Gaud., Brix., Alii Latini.' No authorities for [Greek: humon]. Was the change first introduced into the text of the New Testament?

[178:2] S. R. ii. p. 25.

[179:1] Beitraege, i. p. 326.

[179:2] On the Canon, p. 261, n. 2.

[188:1] Hom. 1. in Lucam.

[189:1] H.E. iv. 7.

[189:2] Strom. iv. 12.

[189:3] S.R. ii. p. 42.

[189:4] Ibid. n. 2; cp. p. 47.

[190:1] Ref. Omn. Haer. vii, 27.

[190:2] ii. p. 45.

[191:1] Ref. Omn. Haer. vii. 20.

[192:1] S. R. ii. p. 49.

[197:1] Adv. Haer. i. Pref. 2.

[198:1] ii. p. 59.

[199:1] S.R. ii. p. 211 sq.

[200:1] Strom. ii. 20; see Westcott, Canon, p. 269; Volkmar, Ursprung, p. 152.

[203:1] Adv. Haer. iii. 11. 7, 9.

[203:2] Ibid. iii. 12. 12.

[204:1] The corresponding chapter to this in 'Supernatural Religion' has been considerably altered, and indeed in part rewritten, in the sixth edition. The author very kindly sent me a copy of this after the appearance of my article in the Fortnightly Review, and I at once made use of it for the part of the work on which I was engaged; but I regret that my attention was not directed, as it should have been, to the changes in this chapter until it was too late to take quite sufficient account of them. The argument, however, I think I may say, is not materially affected. Several criticisms which I had been led to make in the Fortnightly I now find had been anticipated, and these have been cancelled or a note added in the present work; I have also appended to the volume a supplemental note of greater length on the reconstruction of Marcion's text, the only point on which I believe there is really very much room for doubt.

[205:1] See above, p. 89.

[205:2] Apol. i. 26.

[205:3] Ibid. i. 58.

[205:4] ii. p. 80.

[205:5] Der Ursprung, p. 89.

[205:6] Cf. Tertullian, De Praescript. Haeret. c. 38.

[206:1] Adv. Haer. iv. 27. 2; 12. 12.

[209:1] Das Ev. Marcion's, pp. 28-54. [Volkmar's view is stated less inadequately in the sixth edition of S. R., but still not quite adequately. Perhaps it could hardly be otherwise where arguments that were originally adduced in favour of one conclusion are employed to support its opposite.]

[210:1] [Greek: oida] for [Greek: oidas] in Luke xiv. 20. Cf. Volkmar, p. 46.

[211:1] Das Ev. Marcion's, p. 45.

[211:2] Ibid. pp. 46-48.

[211:3] 'We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy or trustworthiness of any of their statements' (S.R. ii. p. 100). We have just the remarkable coincidence spoken of above. It does not prove that Tertullian did not faithfully reproduce the text of Marcion to show, which is the real drift of the argument on the preceding page (S.R. ii. p. 99), that he had not the canonical Gospel before him; rather it removes the suspicion that he might have confused the text of Marcion's Gospel with the canonical.

[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette, Einleitung, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.

[213:1]: S.R. ii. p. 110, n. 3. The statement is mistaken in regard to Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. Both these writers would make Marcion retain this passage. It happens rather oddly that this is one of the sections on which the philological evidence for St. Luke's authorship is least abundant (see below).

[215:1] There is direct evidence for the presence in Marcion's Gospel of the passages relating to the personages here named, except Martha and Mary; see Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 19, 37, 43.

[217:1] S. R. ii. 142 sq.

[217:2] This admission does not damage the credit of Tertullian and Epiphanius as witnesses; because what we want from them is a statement of the facts; the construction which they put upon the facts is a matter of no importance.

[217:3] The omission in 2 Cor. iv. 13 must be due to Marcion (Epiph. 321 c.); so probably an insertion in 1 Cor. ix. 8.

[218:1] Tert. Adv. Marc. v. 16: 'Haec si Marcion de industria erasit,' &c. V. 14: 'Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae.' V. 3: 'Ostenditur quid supra haeretica industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,' &c. Cf. Bleek, Einleitung, p. 136; Hilgenfeld, Evv. Justin's, &c., p. 473.

[219:1] 'Anno xv. Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatus est' (Tert. Adv. Marc. i. 19).

[220:1] I give mainly the explanations of Volkmar, who, it should be remembered, is the very reverse of an apologist, indicating the points where they seem least satisfactory.

[220:2] It is highly probable that many of the points mentioned by Tertullian and Epiphanius as 'adulterations' were simply various readings in Marcion's Codex; such would be v. 14, x. 25, xvii. 2, and xxiii. 2, which are directly supported by other authority: xi. 2 and xii. 28 would probably belong to this class. So perhaps the insertion of iv. 27 in the history of the Samaritan leper. The phenomenon of a transposition of verses from one part of a Gospel to another is not an infrequent one in early MSS.

[223:1] Die Synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, pp. 302 sqq.

[224:1] Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it is confirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion.

[229:1] An analysis of the words which are only found in St. Luke, or very rarely found elsewhere, gives the following results.—The number of words found only in the portion of the Gospel retained by Marcion and in the Acts is 231; that of words found in these retained portions and not besides in the Gospels or the two other Synoptics is 58; and both these classes together for the portions omitted in Marcion's Gospel reach a total of 62, which is decidedly under the proportion that might have been expected. The list is diminished by a number of words which are found only in the omitted and retained portions, furnishing evidence, as above, that both proceed from the same hand.

[231:1] This list has been made from the valuable work of Roensch, Das Neue Testament Tertullian's, 1871, and the critical editions, compared with the text of Marcion's Gospel as given by Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.

[231:2] It might be thought that Tertullian was giving his own text and not that of Marcion's Gospel, but this supposition is excluded both by the confirmation which he receives from Epiphanius, and also by the fact, which is generally admitted (see S.R. ii. p. 100), that he had not the canonical Luke, but only Marcion's Gospel before him.

[233:1] See Crowfoot, Observations on the Collation in Greek of Cureton's Syriac Fragments of the Gospels, 1872, p. 5; Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, 1874, p. 452.

[233:2] See Scrivener, Introduction, p. 307 sq.; and Dr. Westcott's article on the 'Vulgate' in Smith's Dictionary. It should be noticed that Dr. Westcott's literation differs from that of Dr. Scrivener and Tregelles, which has been adopted here.

[235:1] Cf. Friedlaender, Sittengeschichte Roms, iii. p. 315.

[238:1] See p. 89, above.

[238:2] Strom. iii. 12; compare S.R. ii. p. 151.

[239:1] [Greek: Ho mentoi ge proteros auton archaegos ho Tatianos sunapheian tina kai sunagogaen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion suntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasin, ho kai para tisin eiseti nun pheretai.] H. E. iv. 29.

[239:2] Beitraege, i. p. 441.

[240:1] Haer. 391 D (xlvi. 1).

[240:2] [Greek: Outos kai to dia tessaron kaloumenon suntetheiken euangelion, tas te genealogias perikopsas, kai ta alla, hosa ek spermatos Dabid kata sorka genennaemenon ton Kurion deiknusin. Echraesanto de touto ou monon oi taes ekeinou summorias, alla kai oi tous apostolikois epomenoi dogmasi, taen taes sunthaekaes kakourgian ouk egnokotes, all' aplousteron hos suntomo to biblio chraesamenoi. Euron de kago pleious ae diakosias biblous toiautas en tais par' haemin ekklaesiois tetimaemenas, kai pasas sunagagan apethemaen, kai ta ton tettaron euangeliston anteisaegagon euangelia] (Haeret. Fab. i. 20, quoted by Credner, Beitraege, i. p. 442).

[240:3] See S.R. ii. p. 15.

[241:1] S.R. ii. p. 162; compare Credner, Beitraege, i. p. 446 sqq.

[241:2] Adv. Haer. iii. 11. 8.

[241:3] Beit. i. p. 443.

[241:4] May not Tatian have given his name to a collection of materials begun, used, and left in a more or less advanced stage of compilation, by Justin? However, we can really do little more than note the resemblance: any theory we may form must be purely conjectural.

[242:1] [Greek: Epistolas gar adelphon axiosanton me grapsai egarapsa. Kai tautas oi tou diabolon apostoloi zizanion gegemikan, ha men exairountes, ha de prostithentes. Ois to ouai keitai. Ou thaumaston ara, ei kai ton kuriakon rhadiourgaesai tines epibeblaentai graphon, hopote tais ou toiautais epibebouleukasi.] H.E. iv. 23 (Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 181).

[243:1] [Greek: Allae d' epistolae tis autou pros Nikomaedeas pheretai en hae taen Markionos airesin polemon to taes alaetheias paristatai kanoni]. _H.E._ iv. 23_.

[244:1] [Greek: Akribos mathon ta taes palaias diathaekaes Biblia, hipotaxas epempsa soi.] Euseb. H.E. iv. 26 (Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 119).

[245:1] Westcott, On the Canon, p. 201.

[245:2] ii. p. 177.

[245:3] Adv. Marc. iv. 1 (cf. Roensch, Das neue Testament Tertullian's, p. 48), 'duo deos dividens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius instrumenti—vel, quod magis usui est dicere, testamenti.'

[246:1] [Greek: Eisi toinun hoi di' hagnoian philoneikousi peri touton, sungnoston pragma peponthotes agnoia gar ou kataegorian anadechetai, alla didachaes prosdeitai. Kai legousin hoti tae id' to probaton meta ton mathaeton ephagen ho Kurios tae de mealier haemera ton azumon autos epathen; kai diaegountai Matthaion outo legein hos nenoaekasin; hothen asumphonos te nomo hae noaesis auton, kai stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia.] Chron. Pasch. in Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 160.

[247:1] S. R. ii. p. 188 sqq. The reference to Routh is given on p. 188, n. 1; that to Lardner in the same note should, I believe, be ii. p. 316, not p. 296.

[247:2] Rel. Sac. i. p. 167.

[249:1] The quotations from Athenagoras are transcribed from 'Supernatural Religion' and Lardner (Credibility &c., ii. p. 195 sq.). I have not access to the original work.

[251:1] Credibility &c., ii. p. 161.

[252:1] Ep. Vien. et Lugd. Sec. 3 (in Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 297).

[252:2] S.R. ii. p. 203; Evv. Justin's u.s.w. p. 155.

[254:1] Wann wurden u.s.w. p. 48 sq.

[254:2] Ursprung, p. 130; S.R. ii. p. 222.

[255:1] Cf. Credner, Beitraege, ii. p. 254.

[256:1] Adv. Haer. i. Praef. 2.

[257:1] Strom. iv. 9.

[257:2] [Greek: Ton Oualentinou legomenon einai gnorimon Haerakleouna] ... Origen, Comm. in Joh. ii. p. 60 (quoted by Volkmar, Ursprung, p. 127).

[259:1] 'In affirming that [these quotations] are taken from the Gospel according to St. Matthew apologists exhibit their usual arbitrary haste,' &c. S.R. ii. p. 224.

[260:1] Celsus' Wahres Wort, Zurich, 1873. For what follows, see especially p. 261 sqq.

[263:1] Keim, Celsus' Wahres Wort, p. 262.

[263:2] Ibid. p. 228 sq.; Volkmar, Ursprung, p. 80.

[263:3] The text of this document is printed in full by Routh, Rel. Sac. i. pp. 394-396; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 487 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon und die Kritik des N.T. ad p. 40, n.; Credner, Geschichte des Noutestamentlichen Kanon, ed. Volkmar, p. 153 sqq., &c.

[264:1] See however Dr. Lightfoot in Cont. Rev., Oct. 1875, p. 837.

[265:1] Ursprung, p. 28.

[265:2] ii. p. 245.

[266:1] Cf. Credner, Gesch. des Kanon, p. 167.

[266:2] S.R. ii. p. 241.

[267:1] Quoted in S.R. ii. p. 247.

[269:1] Adv. Haer. ii, 22. 5, iii. 3.4.

[270:1] Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, i. pp. 141-143.

[273:1] Geschichte Jesu von Nazara. i. pp. 143, 144.

[273:2] On the Canon, p. 182 sqq.

[275:1] [Greek: Ouch haedomai trophae phthoras, oude haedonais tou biou toutou. Arton Theou thelo, arton ouranion, arton zoaes, hos estin sarx Iaesou Christou tou Huiou tou Theou tou genomenou en hustero ek spermatos Dabid kai Abraam; kai poma Theou thelo to haima aoutou, ho estin agapae aphthartos kai aennaos zoae.] Ep. ad Rom. c. vii.

[275:2] [Greek: Alla to Pneuma ou planatai, apo Theou on; oiden gar pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei, kai ta drupta elenche]. Ep. ad Philad. c. vii.

[276:1] Cf. Lipsius in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, i. p. 98.

[277:1] The second and third Epistles stand upon a somewhat different footing.

[277:2] Cf. S.R. ii. p. 269.

[278:1] S.R. ii p. 323.

[278:2] Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, i. p. 138 sq.

[280:1] Cf. S.R. ii. p. 302.

[280:2] So Dial. c. Tryph. 69; in Apol. i. 22 the MSS. of Justin read [Greek: ponaerous], which might stand, though some editors substitute or prefer [Greek: paerous]. In both quotations [Greek: ek genetaes] is added. The nearest parallel in the Synoptics is Mark ix. 21, [Greek: ek paidiothen] (of the paralytic boy).

[280:3] Wann wurden u. s. w. p. 34.

[283:1] ii. p. 308. [Has the author perhaps misunderstood Credner (Beit. i. p. 253), whose argument on this head is not indeed quite clear?]

[283:2] The New Testament &c., i. p. 709.

[284:1] See Apol. i. 23, 32, 63; ii. 10.

[284:2] [Greek: Hae de protae dunamis meta ton patera panton kai despotaen Theon kai uios ho logos estin.] This is not quite rightly translated by Tischendorf and in 'Supernatural Religion:' [Greek: uios], like [Greek: dunamis], is a predicate; 'the next Power who also stands in the relation of Son.'

[285:1] Prov. viii. 22-24, 27, 30.

[285:2] Wisd. vii. 25, 26; viii. 1, 4.

[286:1] Ecclus. xxiv. 9.

[286:2] Wisd. ix. 1, 2; xvi. 12; xviii. 15.

[287:1] Cf. Lipsius in S. B. L. i. p. 95 sqq.

[288:1] Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T. (Halle, 1863), p. 29; Einleitung, P. 43, n.

[288:2] Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien, p. 63.

[288:3] ii. p. 346.

[290:1] S. R. ii. p. 340.

[293:1] The force of the article ([Greek: tou paerou]) should be noticed, as showing that the incident (and therefore the Gospel) is assumed to be well known.

[293:2] S.R. ii. p. 341.

[295:1] Tischendorf, Wann wurden, p. 40; Westcott, Canon, p. 80.

[296:1] ii. p. 357 sqq.

[297:1] Adv. Haer. V. 36. 1, 2.

[297:2] S. R. ii. p. 329.

[298:1] Advanced by Routh (or rather Feuardentius in his notes on Irenaeus; cf. Rel. Sac. i. p. 31), and adopted by Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott. [The identification has since been ably and elaborately maintained by Dr. Lightfoot; see Cont. Rev. Oct. 1875, p. 841 sqq.]

[298:2] It is not necessary here to determine the sense in which these words are to be taken. I had elsewhere given my reasons for taking [Greek: erchomenon] with [Greek: anthropon], as A. V. (Fourth Gospel, p. 6, n.). Mr. M'Clellan is now to be added to the number of those who prefer to take it with [Greek: phos], and argues ably in favour of his opinion.

[299:1] The translation of this difficult passage has been left on purpose somewhat baldly literal. The idea seems to be that Basilides refused to accept projection or emanation as a hypothesis to account for the existence of created things. Compare Mansel, Gnost. Her. p. 148.

[301:1] Adv. Haer.. iii. 11. 7.

[302:1] Haer. 216-222.

[302:2] It should however be noticed that these words are given only in the old Latin translation of Irenaeus and are wanting in the Greek as preserved by Epiphanius. Whether the words were accidentally omitted, or whether they were inserted inferentially, for greater clearness, by the translator, it is hard to say. In any case the bearing of the quotations must be very much the same. If not made by Ptolemaeus himself, they were made by a contemporary of Ptolemaeus, i.e. at least by a writer anterior to Irenaeus.

[302:3] Adv. Haer. ii. 4. 1; cf. S.R. ii. p. 211 sq.

[302:4] The somewhat copious fragments of Heracleon's Commentary are given in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus, p. 938 sqq. Origen says that Heracleon read 'Bethany' in John i. 28 (M'Clellan, i. p. 708).

[305:1] ii. p. 378.

[306:1] S.R. ii. p. 379.

[307:1] There is also perhaps a probable reference to St. John in Section 6, [Greek: taes aionioi paegaes tou hudatos taes zoaes tou exiontos ek taes naeduos tou Christou.]

[307:2] Celsus' Wahres Wort, p. 229.

[308:1] [Greek: ho taen hagian pleuran ekkentaetheis, ho ekcheas ek taes pleuras autou ta duo palin katharsia, hudor kai aima, logon kai pneuma]. See Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 161.

[308:2] Lardner, Credibility, &c., ii. p. 196.

[315:1] Tregelles in Horne's Introduction, p. 334.

[315:2] Adv. Haer. iii. 11. 8.

[316:1] Adv. Haer. iii. 1. 1.

[317:1] See Lardner, Credibility, &c., ii. pp. 223, 224, and Eus. H.E. ii. 15 (14 Lardner).

[317:2] Compare H.E. ii. 15 and vi. 14.

[317:3] H.E. vi. 14.

[317:4] Strom. iii. 13.

[318:1] For the meaning of this word ('schriftliche Beweisurkunde') see Roensch, Das N.T. Tertullian's, p. 48.

[318:2] Adv. Marc. iv. 2.

[318:2] Ibid. iv. 5.

[318:4] Ibid. v. 9.

[318:5] Ibid. iv. 2-5; compare v. 9, and Roensch, pp. 53, 54.

[319:1] Eus. H.E. vi. 25.

[319:2] See M'Clellan on Luke i. 1-4. On the general position of Origen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld, Kanon, p. 49.

[320:1] So Westcott in S.D. iii. 1692, n. Tregelles, in Horne's Introduction, p. 333, speaks of this translation as 'coeval, apparently, with Irenaeus himself.' We must not, however, omit to notice that Roensch (p. 43, n.) is more reserved in his verdict on the ground that the translation of Irenaeus 'in its peculiarities and in its relation to Tertullian has not yet received a thorough investigation;' compare Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 797.