5 OED, AE RN καρ RN Nee Cone ne a νυ δεσν γκίμλονς, τοι τ δε On ete tee ele Ln αν ον ee weed ang tee tN Tete SO στ σ oem ᾿ . - mete τσ - αν BN οασα eto Soh wd cts agp 6 OTA a WAP ROA AS ELOY TIL gS PARES oct AMG FA. EI! πάν αν ν ἀφ ον mtn etn IEA. APM fant Pasta ies Ne ON μεν ἡ πρήνξοφόῤτῳν» σα tlle RP oh aan ΝΣ on ΣΝ ον ΣΝ SO Ne Ne eit ate a as VAR Par’: » ΩΝ ἍΜΑ Ede Hata τὸν ἐκ δέον ἀπε oS OT LOO πλατὺ οὶ Η SES ον εν oP OP oO IN Ere De pee ee Nea «εώλοσλ νυν να νι συν he Te EN ane “νον oe ee ee ae ay κα ee el ae ee a ie ote τ f, arb ened nates inion is bs ta neech ciate tinier eeaete th aie ae a « ee a ee σ᾿ ee tee ae ete oS ee = Se ee ee pvt ἘΠ ree AY, ent γα ΣῊΝ ἢ AY es Re aa ne ἊΨ Ὃ τον Ate Nene eee BR ΤΕ: 55 1570 its ἡ THE BAMPTON LECTURES 1890 PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODR AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE LONDON MODERN CRITICISM CONSIDERED IN ITS RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL . Ι ΤᾺ BEING THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1890 BY HENRY WILLIAM ‘WATKINS, M.A. DD. SOMETIME SCHOLAR OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD; FELLOW OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON ; ARCHDEACON AND CANON OF DURHAM, AND PROFESSOR OF HEBREW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM LONDON JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE §TREET 1890 All rights reserved et es reece ᾿ ἀν 4 ee A Ce FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, ‘I give and bequeath my Lands and Hstates to the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford for ever, to have and to hold all and singular the said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the intents and purposes hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, I will and appoint, that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford for the time being shall take and receive all the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions made) that he pay all the remainder to the endowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established for ever in the said University, and to be performed in the manner following : ‘T direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in Easter Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of Colleges only, and by no others, in the room adjoining to the Printing-House, between the hours of ten in the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary’sin Oxford, between the commencement of the last month in Lent Term, and the end of the third week in Act Term. ‘Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be preached upon either of the follow- vi EXTRACT FROM FOUNDER'S WILL. ing Subjects—to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics—upon the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures—upon the authority of the writings of the primitive Fathers as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church—upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ—upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost —upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. ‘Also I direct, that thirty copies οὗ the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two months after they are preached, and one copy shall be given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the City of Oxford, and one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library ; and the expence of printing them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Lands or Estates given for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the Preacher shall not be paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are printed. ‘Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath taken the Degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge; and that the same person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons twice.’ PREHEFATORY NOTE. i ee To the Revd. the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford. Dear Mr. Vicre-CHANCELLOR, One of the duties which is imposed upon a Bampton Lecturer by the ‘ Last Will and Testa- ment’ of the Founder is to print the ‘eight Divinity Lecture Sermons’ ‘within two months after they are preached,’ and to present copies to certain official persons. You will, 1 hope, permit me, while I have the pleasure of asking your acceptance of this copy of the lectures for 1890, the last of which was delivered yesterday, to accompany it with some brief prefatory remarks which may help the reader, in so far as he may care to do so, to approach these lectures from the point of view of the writer. The story of the genesis of this book is simple :— One day while walking with the late Bishop of Durham, when we hoped he was regaining strength, Vill PREFATORY NOTE. I took the opportunity of asking him how he accounted for the fact of the frequent assertion that the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel was disproved by modern criticism, in the presence of the strong and accumulating evidence in its favour. Those who have endeavoured to extract an opinion from that great Bishop and scholar during an afternoon’s walk, will not be surprised to hear that at the end of our stroll my question was not answered, but that I had been asked several others in the meantime, and that the suggestion was made that the subject might be profitably treated in a course of Bampton Lectures. The conversation recurred to my mind in a wakeful night, and I drew out a rough outline of the arguments which presented themselves. This I forwarded to the Bishop, who wrote the following note in reply :— I have read your scheme, and entirely approve of it. No subject could be more useful at the present day, and I think that the time has arrived when it can be effectively treated. Of course it will take much time, but it will be worth the ex- penditure. J. B. DUNELM. He was also kind enough, I believe, to express his opinion to more than one of the Heads of Colleges, and it was probably in consequence of that opinion that 1 was appointed to deliver the lectures of 1890. PREFATORY NOTE. ΙΧ The ‘much time’ which the Bishop saw would be needed for, and which he wished that I should give to the subject, has been largely filled by events which, if they had been foreseen, must have prevented my undertaking the duty that has now been ended rather than fulfilled. The Bishop’s own illness and death brought necessarily a large increase of public and private obligations; and these brought in their train a protracted inability for the vigorous performance of any duty. At the beginning of this year the time seemed to have come when I could hardly hope to be sufficiently well, or sufficiently free from pressing en- gagements, either to prepare the lectures or to deliver them. One of my oldest and kindest friends wrote :— It is impossible that he can do justice to himself, or what he will think of far greater importance, justice to his subject ; it would be in every way better that he should seek release from a duty which he cannot perform. I felt bound by no ordinary obligation to yourself and the other Heads of Colleges whose kindness had entrusted me with so great a responsibility, but I think that in my prostration I might have followed my friend’s advice, had not my eye fallen upon the last words which my Bishop had written to me just before his death. They seemed now to come from another world as a command which must be obeyed, and for which strength would be supplied. x PREFATORY NOTE. The lectures will, I hope, need little explanation to any thoughtful reader; but as their purpose has been somewhat mistaken, you will perhaps allow me to point out :— (1) That they are a course of eight lectures. No one lecture aims therefore at any com- pleteness in itself, but forms only a single step of the stairs. And the whole is a course of eight Lecture Sermons, with obvious limitations of time and place, and not an independent work, and cannot therefore aim at full treatment of so wide a subject. The eight steps can at most form a staircase, and are not a furnished house. (2) That the subject is not the Fourth Gospel, nor yet the evidences, external or internal, in favour of its authenticity or genuine- ness, but ‘ Modern criticism considered in its relation to the Fourth Gospel.’ The evidences are abundantly discussed elsewhere. My purpose is to estimate the criticism which this century has produced in our own and other countries. I believed before commencing these investigations, and believe now, with ἃ confidence which does not fall short of certainty, that there is no foundation for the asser- PREFATORY NOTE. ΧΙ tions which are so often made and ac- cepted, to the effect that modern criticism is fatal to the claims of the Fourth Gospel ; and 1 have tried to show this. (3) That the examination which I have en- deavoured to make has relation to the Fourth Gospel, and to the Fourth Gospel only. It cannot in fairness be fully ex- tended to any other book of the New Testament, and still less to any book of the Old Testament. The evidence in re- lation to any given book in one of these libraries must be examined separately. The case of the Fourth Gospel is, however, admittedly the one in which there has been the greatest array of hostile critics and the loudest assertions of victory. If these critics are disarmed and the victory is shown to be on the other side, we may well doubt whether a similar array of hostile criticism and similar shouts of victory are not in the same way to be distrusted in analogous cases. But the argument from analogy must not be un- duly pressed. The wise man will use it with caution, but he will nevertheless use it. ΧΙ PREFATORY NOTE. (4) That in these lectures no reference has been intentionally made to any work which is not named in them. Iam of course not unaware that considerable discussion has arisen in Oxford with regard to more than one recent utterance which has been made there. But from the day of my appoint- ment as lecturer, I have thought it my duty to abstain from reading or hearing any such utterance. It seemed to me to be right to speak of my own subject with- out introducing any tinge of feeling which might seem to come from possibility of personal reference to any member of the University before which these lectures were to be delivered. Perhaps some few words should be added as to the method which has been followed. To examine evidence required the production of witnesses, and the number of witnesses has rendered the treatment much more technical than I could have wished. I have allowed every witness, as far as possible, to speak for himself, and have supported his evidence by reference to its original sources. It will appear to every reader that I have for this purpose made full use of the many guides to this PREFATORY NOTE. Xl knowledge which are now within reach. To the scholar it will, 1 hope, appear also that these guides have been used only as roads to the quarries. Con- siderable pains have been taken to make the references really useful to the student. They will be often found to differ from those in other works which cover com- mon ground and to which I am frequently indebted. It is too much to hope that they will not sometimes be found to be wrong, for there is many a slip between the page of the author who is quoted, and the printed page of the writer who quotes ; but it should not be concluded that they are wrong, because they differ from those in other works :— Tlli in nos seviant, qui nesciunt cum quo labore verum inveniatur, et quam difficilé caveantur errores. It will be specially evident that I have made con- stant reference to German authorities, and while I have had occasion to dissent from the position which has been assigned to some of them by certain English writers, | should be indeed ungrateful if I did not feel that the investigations of German scholars— investigations perhaps rather than results—have placed all workers in this field under an obligation which cannot be too fully acknowledged. On more than one occasion in the lectures I have had to apologize for a too cursory treatment of an X1V PREFATORY NOTE. important point, and I feel on reviewing them as a whole, that there are few pages which do not offer a peg on which an ercursus may well be hung. I had intended to make at least some such additions, but to do so with any approach to completeness would add a second volume as bulky as the present one. This would make it, moreover, impossible for me to fulfil the Founder’s condition as to printing the lectures, and impossible to keep the price of the book within moderate limits. Perhaps there is now as much of technical detail as ‘eight Divinity Lecture Sermons’ can fairly bear. If anyone who heard the lectures should do me the honour of reading them, he will find that several passages in each lecture were omitted in delivery, and that some were condensed. As it was,I fear that I trespassed somewhat unduly on the kindness and attention of my hearers. I have also changed a word or two in a few passages ; but I have not ventured to make any important change or to alter the ‘ Lecture Sermon’ form of the whole. It seems to have been the intention of the Founder that this form should be preserved, and that the lectures should be printed as they were delivered before the University. It remains for me to add that these lectures owe much to the fact that more than one kind friend has PREFATORY NOTE. eV looked at them as they have passed through the press. If I do not publicly thank these friends by name, it is because they ought not to be made in any way respon- sible for much with which they would possibly not agree. ‘The name of one dear friend, Bishop Lightfoot, has been mentioned in connexion with them :— Multis ille bonis flebilis occidit. What I owe to him is more than I can tell or can myself know, and it would be my greatest happiness to think that any trace of this debt were to be found in these lectures which came from his suggestion ; but it is due to his memory and to my readers, to make prominent the fact that no word of them was known to him. The general plan has his zmprimatur, but this cannot be extended to any part of the execution. I cannot doubt that this execution would have fallen far below his idea ; for I know that it has fallen far below my own. Of some passages he would certainly have disapproved, and were he still with us they could not have been spoken. Of these the reader will as certainly approve; for no estimate could rightly be made of the criticism of the Fourth Gospel in this century, without frequent reference to the most competent witness that the century has produced. There is one who is more than a friend, whose hand never tired when I was able only to dictate, and Xvi PREFATORY NOTE. without whose constant help these lectures could not have been written and could not have been printed. To yourself, Sir, and the other Heads of Houses, my thanks are due, not only for the honour conferred upon me by your appointment, but for much generous courtesy which has been freely extended to me. I have the honour to remain, dear Mr. Vice-Chancellor, Your faithful and obliged servant, H. W. WarxKINsS. ATHENZUM CLUB: June 9, 1890. *.* The Lectures were delivered on the following dates in conformity with University arrangements: In Lent Term : Lectures I.-ITI., March 2, 9, 16. In Easter Term: Lectures IV.-VII., April 27, May 4, 11, 18. In Trinity Term: Lecture VIII., June 8. CONTENTS: LECTURE I. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. 2 Cor. xiii... I. INTRODUCTION. A. The Subject stated : Modern criticism and the Fourth Gospel . B. Divisions of the Subject : The ‘judgment of centuries.’ ‘Our age.’ Width of inquiry. C. Tone of discussion: Anti-theological prejudice. Renan. Mental achromatism. This achromatism impossible Illustrations :-— (a) James Mackintosh (8) David Hume (y) The Adventurer (δ) ‘Cowardly Agnosticism ἡ (ε) Mark Pattison (¢) Fortnightly Review (7) Pope D. Friendly and adverse witness : Dean Stanley. Advo- cate or judge? Position of a Bampton Lecturer al PAGE 10 13 Xvill CONTENTS. PAGE _ IL. Evmence or THE SEcoND CentTURY: The Third Genera- tion :— A. Church of Lyons : Irenzeus : His date, and work against Gnosticism. His use of the Fourth Gospel ; : pees | B. Church of Alexandria : Clement: His origin, date, teachers, and pupils. His frequent use of the Fourth ane John and the ‘spiritual Gospel’ . Α Say ace C. Churches of Rome and Carthage : Tertullian: His position as a writer, date, and training. His frequent quotations from the Fourth Gospel. Passages from his works :— (a) Rule against heretics (8) The Apostolic churches (y) Authors of ‘ Evangelical Instrument’ (5) Apostles handed down that which was from the beginning (ε) The Evangelist and beloved disciple . . 22 D. Church of Antioch : Theophilus: His writings testified to by Jerome and Eusebius. His Commentary on the Gospels doubtful. Importance of the treatise To Autolycus. Its undoubted reference to the Fourth Gospel, which is included among ‘ Holy Scriptures,’ and the author among ‘ spirit-bearing men’ : ΠΥ E. Churches of Asia Minor : Melito: Witness from Sardis. The probable date of his writings. List given by Eusebius. Other lists. His full testimony to the Fourth Gospel ©5 Go Apolinaris: Witness from Hierapolis. List of his works given by : (a) Eusebius (8) Theodoret (y) Photius His reference to the Fourth Gospel ᾿ . 36 CONTENTS. X1X PAGE Testimony to the writings of Melito and Apoiinaris given by: (a) Polycrates (8) Hippolytus (vy) Tertullian (quoted by Jerome) (δ) Clement of Alexandria (ce) Anastatius of Sinai (¢) Serapion, and other bishops (7) Jerome (6) Socrates ~I sy) Polycrates: Witness from Ephesus. His testimony to the Fourth Gospel in a letter addressed to Victor of Rome. His own account of his position 41 F. The Old Latin and Peshito Versions, and the Mura- torian Fragment : Liddon’s approval of Westcott’s opinion on : (a) The Old Latin (8) The Peshito (y) The Muratorian Fragment . oom bh Force of the evidence if their early date is esta- blished Recent opinions : (a) Bishop Lightfoot (8) Von Dollinger Result independent of these opinions . Ξ . 44 Summary: Strength of testimony. Its extent and unan- imity in the third generation of the Second Century. The corporate life of the Church. Answer of the author of Supernatural Religion is no answer. Conclu- sion iN =P) xx CONTENTS. LECTURE II. Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations ; Ask thy father, and he will show thee ; Thine elders, and they will tell thee. Deut. xxxii. 7. PAGE I. EvipENCE OF THE SEecoND CENTURY: The Second Genera- tion :— A. Justin Martyr: His conversion. His estimate of the ethics of opinion. His writings. Chronology not accurately known 53 Opinions of : (a) Credner (8) Volkmar (y) Hort . , ‘ : : ; ee Date of the First Apology and Dialegue: Their evidence to the use of the Fourth Gospel. Nature of an apology. The Dialogue an apology addressed to the Jews. Position of an apologist in the Second Century illustrated by later apologists : OS Examples : (a) Tatian (8) Athenagoras (y) Tertullian (δ) Cyprian. : f ᾿ ‘ : | ties Direct reference in Justin to the Evangelists ought not to be expected. What traces of the Fourth Gospel are actually found . ; : ‘ . 4 Memoirs : Recurrence of term. Examples : (a) The Memoirs (8) Memoirs of the Apostles (y) Memoirs of His Apostles (5) His Memoirs Memoirs further described . : ; ᾿ ᾿ oe CONTENTS. XX1 Memoirs considered as, ss (a) a written record of the Lord (8) sacred books (y) of Apostolic authority (δ) coming from the Lord Himself . : Aen 1 Use by Tertullian, Irenzeus, and other contempo- raries and followers. Identity therefore of the Memoirs with the Four Gospels. This proved by Tatian’s Diatessaron, the key to Justin’s Memoirs. The identification is made by Justin, and known to Irenzeus and others. The Fourth Gospel cer- tainly included in the Memoirs . : . . 68 Results of recent investigations of this question by: (a) Thoma (8) Hilgenfeld (vy) Ezra Abbot (δ) James Drummond (ε) Sanday (ὦ Westcott Consensus of opinion : : : : A Lis Why did not Justin quote more fully from the Fourth Gospel? Reasons suggested. Existing works only fragments . ‘ ς ; - δὶ B. The Clementines: Now certain that the Fourth Gospel is quoted in the Homilies. Their probable date. Importance of their evidence ᾿ : 2 18a C. Valentinus: His date. His importance as a witness. His followers form two schools : (a) Inthe East : the Excerpta Theodoti and Doc- trina Orientalis (8) In the West: Ptolemzeus and Heracleon . 85. Testimony to their works and knowledge of 8. John by: (a) Irenzeus (8) Epiphanius (vy) Clement (5) Origen (ε) Hippolytus . d : : ; : ee XX CONTENTS. PAGE The testimony of Valentinus to the Fourth Gospel. The Valentinians a school. The Catholics also a school. Statements by Irenzeus and Tertullian. Conclusion as to the use of the Fourth ‘(ian by the Valentinians . ᾿ ᾿ g ee D. Marcion: His date. Reason for his rejection of the Fourth Gospel. The testimony of Tertullian and Irenzeus shows that he was acquainted with it . . 93 Il. EvipeNcE OF THE SECOND CentURY: The First Genera- tion :— A. Polycarp: Date of martyrdom . ‘ : : τ Ὸθ B. Papias: The writings. Testimony οὗ Irenzus to Papias and Polycarp. His Letter to Florinus. Testimony of Eusebius to Papias_ . : . 96 C. Basilides: Probably referred to by Papias. His date, treated more fully in Lecture VII. : ; . 100 Summary: Result of the evidence of the Second Century in the third, second, and first generations: That the Fourth Gospel was accepted throughout the Century as the work of John the Apostle and Evangelist : . 102 LECTURE III. And... many... believed . . . because of the word of the woman, who testified, .. . And many more believed because of his word ; and they said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy peablan: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.—John iv. 39, 41, 42. I. Facts or THE Receprion. THEe EVIDENCE OF SIXTEEN CENTURIES. Fulness of evidence to the use of the Fourth Gospel in the third and succeeding centuries. Details not needed, but bird’s-eye view . ; ᾿ : + 107 A. Evidence of the Third Century : The Muratorian Fragment. The Versions . . 108 CONTENTS. XXi Eastern Church: Origen: His division of the sacred writings Dionysius : His opinion on the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse opposed to that of modern nega- tive criticism The Apostolical Constitutions Western Church : Evidence of : (a) Caius (8) Hippolytus (y) Cyprian B. Evidence of the Fourth and succeeding Centuries : In the East : (a) Eusebius (8) Cyril of Jerusalem (vy) Athanasius (5) Didymus (ε) Gregory of Nazianzus (¢) Amphilochius (n) Epiphanius (6) Theodore of Mopsuestia (.) John Chrysostom Period of the Uncial MSS. Survey of the lists, canons, and councils. Close of Canon in the Kast. No doubt as to the Fourth Gospel On the borderland : (a) Hilary of Poitiers (8) Philaster of Brescia (y) Rufinus of Aquileia In the West : (a) Jerome (8) Augustine. Close of Canon in the West The Alogi: an apparent exception to universal acceptance of the Fourth Gospel. Name appears first in Epiphanius. They ascribe the Gospel to Cerinthus. Rejection by Zeller. These supposed antagonists are really positive evidence PAGE . 109 1 110 . 120 . 122 . 122 . 123 XX1V CONTENTS. PAGE II. PrincreLes oF THE RECEPTION. A. Views now commonly held : (a) The authority of the Church (3) The inner witness (y) Verbal inspiration (5) Canons of historical and literary criticism . 127 B. Treatment of the question in the Apostolic age : Idea of writing excluded. Oral tradition and writings side by side. Reasons why the early Church did not provide a Canon of Scripture. New Testament writings not regarded as ‘Scrip- ture.’ Examples 3 : : : : . 140 ©. The question in the post-Apostolic age : Gospels not quoted as Canonical. Johannine influ- ence. Growth of reference to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Constant appeal to the ‘ Word of the Lord.’ mines Of Individual churches and writings. 3 : . 142 The idea of a Catholic Church not yet realized. Heretics the first to quote the Scriptures. Obli- gation, therefore, of the Church to draw up a Catholic Canon. The Canon a question of history, not of dogma. Tradition the first for- mative principle. In the third and fourth cen- turies, tradition became one with the sacred Scrip- tures. The Scriptures depend on the Church; the Church on the Scriptures. : : . 146 Testimony of : (a) Augustine (8) Jerome ; : : : : 5 . 149 The Canon accepted on the authority of the Church until the Reformation. Acceptance of the Fourth Gospel in the Dark Ages. ; : : . 151 D. Altered view of the Scriptures at the Reformation : Position of : (a) Bodenstein of Carlstadt (8) Luther (y) Calvin (δ) Zwingli.. 4 : ᾿ ; : . 152 CONTENTS. XXV PAGE The Council of Trent. Theinfallibility of Scripture substituted for the infallibility of the Church. This infallibility attacked by modern criticism . 155 EK. Verbal inspiration a new departure : Opinions of : (a) Westcott (8) Bishop of Carlisle (vy) Newman (5) Bishop of Amycla (ec) Richard Baxter (Ὁ Neander . ᾿ ‘ : : 3 » LD Summary: Result of the ‘judgment of centuries.’ Com- prehension exemplified in width of the induction. Depth of conviction shown by instances : (a) Venerable Bede (8) Bishop Lightfoot : : s : > 168 LECTURE IV. Is there a thing whereof men say, See, this is new ? it hath been already in the ages, which were before ws.—Eccles. i. 10. CrITICISM oF ‘OuR AGE.’ Assertion cannot be accepted as proof, nor yet originality Destructive criticism not sufficient. Constructive demanded . 4 i 2 ἣν ; : : 109 A. Evanson : The Dissonance of the Gospels. The author. The work, unworthy of the subject. : ‘ 174 Replies by : (a) Priestley (8) Simpson. : : ᾿ : . 170 Survey of German influences at the opening of this century. The Romanticists and others. Bearing of these years on the Gospels. : : Ὁ 177 ΧΧΥῚ CONTENTS. B. Bretschneider : Life and earlier works : The Probabilia. Its purpose and scope. The J ohan- nine discourses largely imaginary. The author not the Apostle, nor a Palestinian, nor a Jew. The Gospel sprung from Jewish anti-Christian zeal, and cannot be supported from the Apocalypse nor from the Epistles. The Epistles themselves are not proved to be Johannine, and they strengthen adverse views about the Gospel. The external evidences not sufficient. Weight of opposing internal evidence. The place probably Kgypt. Summary Importance of the book \ Bretschneider convinced by replies: His definite and repeated retractation, ‘ Question is settled’ Bretschneider’s character in the Autobiography C. Strauss : Home life. Blaubeuren. Tiibingen. Berlin. Tutor at Tiitbingen. Influence of Schleiermacher. The calm of 1834. The storm of 1835 The Leben Jesu. The replies. ‘Nothing new’ in the Leben Jesu Strauss’s critical methods. The ‘ mythical bmg ἡ Later investigations of myths Position of : (a) Bunsen (8) Ullmann (y) Baur . The Leben Jesu contained no critique of the Gospels Strauss’s incredible uncertainty about John, described by Baur Strauss’s life between the third aia uae editions of the Leben Jesu Nomination to Ziirich The fourth edition The Christliche Glaubenslehre No theological work produced by Strauss in period 1840-64. Agnes Schebest. Strauss in parlia- ment ; ° : . . : . 180 . 187 ae) E . 194 . 196 . 197 CONTENTS. XXVIl PAGE The new Leben Jesu, 1864. Its scope. Written for the laity. ‘Theologians are the least impartial.’ Renan. Earlier Lives of Jesus. Critique of the Gospels. The ‘ Theologian’ clings to the Fourth Gospel 4 : Σ ; : . 202 The external evidence : (a) Its weakness (8) Papias (y) The Fourth Gospel itself (8) Second Epistle of Peter (ε) Ignatius (¢) Justin Martyr (η) The Philosophumena . : : : . 206 The internal evidence : (a) The Valentinians (8) The Montanists (vy) The Clementines (δ) Apolinaris (c) The Apologists (¢) Theophilus (n) Ireneeus. : ; : : : . 209 The Alogi: Their tactical mistake in rejecting the Apocalypse. Summary. : : : 911 Strauss returns later to the Johannine question. His critique is really that of the Tiibingen School. The older work will not fit on this new critique. Conscious and unconscious fiction. Strauss and Baur. Re-writing of the theory of myth. Bruno Bauer. Volkmar. Larlier and later theories of myth ‘ ‘ : F ὃ ΤΟ Strauss’s disappointment His view of (a) Ewald (8) Baur The ‘mythical theory’ dead. Myth cannot live with Design. Renan’s theory of legend. . 217 Summary: Strauss makes no substantial addition to the criticism of the Fourth Gospel. : : : . 219 XXVIil CONTENTS. LECTURE V. And not even so did their witness agree together.—Mark xiv. 59. I. Toe New TUBINGEN SCHOOL: A. Baur: PAGE Evangelical sympathies Influenced by Schleier- macher and Hegel : : : Α : . 223 Work αὖ Blaubeuren and Tiibingen Extent of his literary work. List of books and shorter writings . Ξ : " , ‘ . 225 Baur’s method of investigation. Pauline and Petrine parties. Four Pauline Epistles. . 228 At first took no part in the ‘Johannine question,’ but was afterwards convinced that it was a ‘tendency-writing.’ Application of the principle to the ‘mythical theory’. : : : . 230 Combination of results: Three stages :— (a) To a.v. 70: The documents (8) τὶ 70 το Τρ τὰ (y) From a.p. 105 ,, " The Johannine Gospel . : : : : . 232 B. Followers of Baur : Schwegler Ritschl Hilgenfeld Ko6stlin Volkmar Holsten Zeller 3 Σ ; ; i - i . 234 Baur bound by the Hegelian ean Development of philosophy . ‘ ; : 3 : . 237 Baur’s theory an arch. The arch tested. The foundations doubted . : : Ἶ - . 298 CONTENTS. ΧΧΙΧ PAGE The workmen questioned : (a) Volkmar (8) Hilgenfeld (y) Ritschl (δ) Holsten The arch aruin . : : : : i : . 240 French writers : Stap D’Kichthal . : 2 : Ἶ ἃ . 244 German criticism of the Tiibingen school : (a) De Wetie (8) Meyer . - . : : ; ‘ . 245 Il. THe Partition THEORIES: Eckermann Ammon Paulus Weisse Schenkel Schweizer Tobler Ewald Hase Reuss Renan Sabatier Weizsicker Wendt ; ς ; : : : ; . 246 Ill. Tot NEGATIVE SCHOOL : A. German : Keim Holtzmann, Heinrich Honig Thoma Mangold Holtzmann, Oscar c ; : : ‘ . 258 XXX CONTENTS. PAGE B. Dutch : Scholten : : Σ : : ; : . 263 ©. English : Tayler Author of Supernatural Religion Opinions of this work by : (a) Zahn (8) Salmon Abbott Davidson : : ‘ ‘ : ; Σ : . 266 Examination of his works: The First Introduction. Dedication. The newer criticism. The author’s position. View of the Fourth Gospel. Conclu- sion as to its authenticity . : : : B72 The Second Introduction Change of view and later opinions on the Fourth Gospel. Similar treatment of the Acts of the Apostles. Criticism on this change by Schiirer. Both views cannot beright. His position between the two editions . ; ς : : : . 218 D. The two latest critics : Martineau His general position ‘ : Ἶ ‘ . 286 Views on: (a) The unity of composition (8) Author (y) External evidence (5) Internal evidence (ε) The Apocalypse (¢) Paschal controversy (η) The ‘ Marks of Time (0) The First Epistle . ἶ : : . 287 Delff ᾿ ; : ; ‘ . 292 CONTENTS. XXX1 PAGE Views of these critics on: (a) Eye-witness (8) Unity (y) Period (δ) Subjective criticism Compared and found to be diametrically opposed . 293 CONCLUSION : ε Η ᾿ Ἶ : ε ᾿ . 295 LECTURE VI. At the mouth of two witnesses or three shall every word be established.—2 Cor. xiii. 1. I. INTRODUCTION : Schleiermacher : His position, influence and character. His writ- ings. Free treatment of the New Testament. Special views on the Fourth Gospel. Johannine authorship upheld throughout : : ; 200 Neander : Change of name from Mendel to Neander. Special qualifications. His Life of Jesus, and Lectures on 8. John : ὶ : : ; : . 304 De Wette : Karly essays. His character and life. Liberal views. The Johannine question. His Introduction and Commentary. ; : ὶ : : : i DOT Liicke: The Berlin group. The Commentary. The religious sense. Acquaintance with the newer theories. Result of his criticism . ; : : ὶ . 310 Bleek : Estimate of his powers. Carlier writings. The Beitrige. The Introduction . : ' . 313 ΞΕ Ἐς ὦ ΧΧΧΙΪ CONTENTS. PAGE Bunsen : ᾿ Arnold’s opinion of him. Fourth Gospel a ‘ cardinal point’ . : : ; : : : . 315 Ebrard : Writings on the subject. Strong views on the Fourth Gospel and on negative criticism. " 4 Pa wg Tholuck and Hengstenberg : Their influence and weight of opinion. Commentaries on S. John. ; - : : ς . 918 Meyer : Wide range of work and time. Review of the nega- tive criticism. Delight in Luther’s testimony . O19 Lechler : His works. Doctrinal forms prove Johannine author- ship. Changeof view. Intellectualism. Abides by view of S. John : : ; : : ‘ . d21 Weiss : His works. Johannine authorship maintained throughout. Summary of his conclusions - . 929 Luthardt : His works devoted to the Johannine question. Results . : : : : : : ; . 326 Godet : His Commentary on S. John. Conviction by impres- sion and by scientific study . : 3 : . 328 Beyschlag : His writings. Result of his examination of Baur’s theory . Ξ : : 5 F Ξ : . 929 Zahn : His independence. The History of the Canon. The Fourth Gospel : . ; : . 330 Franke : His Old Testament in John. Scope of work. Johan- nine type of doctrine. Form of the writing. The author a Hebrew-speaking Jew of the first century . - ; : > ; 5 : . 332 CONTENTS: XXXIll PAGE Other writers who hold the positive view : The value of their testimony . } ; : . 994 Four English names reserved for special treatment : Character of the witnesses : (a) Bishop Lightfoot (8) Bishop Westcott (vy) Salmon (δ) Sanday . ! ὃ : A : ᾿ . 337 Their position unnoticed by many Continental critics : Examples: (a) Bleek (8) Weiss (y) Meyer . : : ‘ : : : . 342 Their evidence : Bishop Lightfoot’s: The school of 8. John in the second century : Σ : : : . 343 Bishop Westcott’s : Internal evidence. External evi- dence. All evidence points in one direction . . 345 Salmon’s: The Gospel and First Epistle by the same writer. Date. External evidence. Conditions of authorship met only by S. John . : : . 346 Sanday’s: Advance of positive evidence. Internal evidence. One key only fits the wards . . 348 CONCLUSION : Personality. Anonymity Evidence largely a question of reputation Requisites in a witness ὰ ν : : : . 390 XXXIV CONTENTS. LECTURE VII. Therefore every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like wnto a man that is a householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.—Matt. xiii. 52. PAGE I. Discovertes oF ‘Our AGE.’ Statement of subject. Width of inquiry . } . 357 A. Villemain’s search expedition. Discoveries of Mynas. The Philosophumena edited by Miller. ; . 359 Discussion of the authorship : Views held by : (a) Jacobi (8) Duncker and Schneidewin (y) Bunsen (5) Lommatzsch (ec) Von Dollinger (¢) Cruice (η) Baur and Fessler Consensus of opinion in favour of Hippolytus . . 361 Importance of the discovery Which is the true Basilides ? Critics generally prefer Hippolytus. Exceptions. Opinions of : (a) Hort (8) Renan This conclusion independent of any view of the Fourth Gospel . : : , ; : . : . 364 But this Basilides contains clear quotations from the Gospel. Meaning of φησίν. Critical opinions of : (a) Bunsen (8) Keim (y) Renan (5) Arnold . ; : : ὶ ; : . 368 εἶ CONTENTS. XXXV PAGE B. The Clementine Homilies : Dressel’s discovery. Quotation now admitted on all sides. Zeller’s unfortunate assertion. : - 373 C. Tatian’s Diatessaron : The modern discovery Reference to the work by (a) Eusebius (8) Epiphanius Not known in the Western Church . : Ἷ . 375 Known in the Syrian Church and written in Syriac Homilies of Aphrahat Doctrine of Addar Theodoret Bar-Salibi The Mechitarist Fathers Mosinger Ezra Abbot Wace Zahn’s restoration of the text Older than the Curetonian Syriac Result stated by Harnack Arabic MSS. in the Vatican and in Egypt, edited by Ciasca Importance of the discovery : : : : . 980 D. The Martyrdom of Polycarp : Older view a.p. 167. The key Usher, Pearson and others Letronne and Borghesi Waddington decides for Feb. 23, a.p. 155 General acceptance of this result Bishop Lightfoot’s investigations confirm it Importance of this date. : A : : . 387 E. The Heads agaist Caius : Commentary of Bar-Salibi Gwynn on Hippolytus and Caius. Both accepted the Fourth Gospel . : : : : : . 392 ΧΧΧΥῚ CONTENTS. PAGE F. No discoveries oppose the Johannine authorship Fragments of Papias do not oppose but support it Weight of this negative proof. : 4 : . 393 II. RerNveEstTIGATION oF MATERIALS. A. The Ignatian Epistles : Bishop Lightfoot convinced on investigation Zahn’s statement of the change. Result Still fresh materials confirm the view Harnack’s judgment Date of the Epistles Johannine quotations about a.p. 110 Other contemporary writings . : : : . 395 B. Epistle of Polycarp: Harnack’s view Importance of the Letter Silence of Eusebius Syriac version of Eusebius. Cureton. Dindorf. Wright Armenian version. Merx Syriac Apology ἃ ‘ 4 : : : . 402 CONCLUSION : No body of negative criticism which is not self- destructive The positive is to the negative criticism as }=oc Suggestions of author other than S. John, valueless The river of the past strengthened in the present . 409 CONTENTS. XXXVll LECTURE VIII. Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.—John xx. 30, 31. PAGE I. Resutts From EARLIER LECTURES. The ‘judgment of centuries’ confirmed by ‘our age.’ The Fourth Gospel accepted as the Gospel according to 8. John Inspiration is of the essence, not of the form The vessel is not, the contents are, divine . : . 417 II. Tuis Discussion NOT MERELY AN Apologia. The Fourth Gospel the treasure of humanity Danger of missing it ; : 4 A : . 419 III. Dirrerent Forms OF THE ONE GOSPEL. Such differences necessary in a Revelation from God to man Fundamental differences between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics This expressed by : (a) Bretschneider (8) Renan . : : ὃ : - . 421 IV. Tue FourtuH ΟὌΌΒΞΡΕΙ, 18 A TENDENCY-WRITING, AND CLAIMS TO BE SO. The three-fold purpose stated. Baur Difference in form admitted. Details not essential and may be here passed over. The difference as a whole is essential, and therefore the subject of inquiry . : 4 ; : : : : . 422 VY. Tue Key To THE Form OF THE GOSPEL LIES IN Translation, WHICH IS NECESSARY TO THE JOHANNINE AUTHORSHIP. A. Realization of the Apostle’s position: . : . 426 XX XVII CONTENTS. PAGE Life in Ephesus : (a) The Church (8) The concourse of peoples (y) The sects of philosophy. The East. The West. Philo. The cult of Diana (δ) The city The Apostle’s work and teaching. The close of life. Natural desire fora record. : : Ξ . 427 B. The traditional account of the origin of the Gospel : The circle of disciples and friends ᾿ς The work, if Johannine, necessarily Ephesian Example: The doctrine of the Logos. ; . 438 C. Translation explains the uniform tone of thought and expression, and the opposing views of critics : No human view expresses the fulness of the Divine . 442 VI. TRANSLATION A QUESTION FOR ALL TIME. The problem of to-day A nineteenth-century Ephesus Relation of Universities to this problem Army waiting for leaders. Difficulty of the task. Only leaders can lead. Leaders must lead. . 444 VII. Practica, Hints ror YouNGER HEARERS. A. Characteristics of present-day thought: Law and prin- ciple. Scientific laws not ultimate : ‘ . 458 B. The Fourth Gospel and our present ‘laws’ : No plea for the temporary expressions of theology or science : ‘ ; : 2 : : . 456 The immensity of nature. The ultimate explana- tion. Scientific leaders have no word to speak : (a) Herbert Spencer (8) Tyndall (y) Darwin (δ) Clifford (©) Asa Gray 3 ; ; : ‘ , . 458 CONTENTS. XX XIX PAGE ‘Origination’ the essential thing Answer of the Fourth Gospel The Incarnation the only explanation of existence . 460 C. Modern ethical science : The categorical imperative Illustrations in modern University life and work The true principle. Illustrations The shadow of Christ. Altruism : : : . 401 D. Agnosticism : Its attractiveness. Reasons (a) Modern use of term (8) S. Paul’s (y) 5. John’s ; F : : : : . 465 Intellectual agnosticism necessarily true Conclusion without premises. Examples Agnosticism is the assertion of faith The Fourth Gospel is a Gospel of faith, and appeals to the faculty of faith Lessons for the individual . : 2 : ᾿ 207 9 4 o vs ol aaa Py. ἔν Aptis Pash Ae ee ΠΕΡ ἌΚΡΟΝ ᾿ on: ΝΕ Ax ake τεὸς Υ ἜΡΟΝ Ψ Δι ΠΕ ‘Pe ἐν ("- hie E ot ee, 59 Lv dist HECTUBE ἢ THE ‘JUDGMENT OF CENTURIES’ THE SECOND CENTURY: THIRD GENERATION ‘IL FAUT SAVOIR DOUTER OU IL FAUT, ASSURER OU IL FAUT, ET SE SOUMETTRE OU IL FAUT; QUI NE FAIT AINSI N'ENTEND PAS LA FORCE DE LA RAISON. Pascal. LECTURE LI. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. 2 Cor, xii 8: THE subject on which I propose to speak in the present course of lectures is ‘ Modern Criticism.’ It was suggested by a remark of the late Dr. Keim, which expresses, in the deliberate words of a man who was as reverent as he was learned, the conviction that ‘Our age has cancelled the judgment of cen- turies.’' Others have expressed and have accepted, sometimes with httle reverence and with little learn- ing, similar opinions; and there has grown up around us—in the drawing-room, indeed, rather than in the lecture-room, in the magazine and in the novel, rather than in the serious and responsible treatise, in the characters of fiction and of anonymous writers, rather than in the persons of scholars of established reputation—a method of thinking, or at least of say- ing, that these opinions are ascertained truths which must with fuller knowledge gain general acceptance. Dr. Keim’s statement was made with special reference to the Fourth Gospel ; and for this reason, 1 “Ks ist unser Jahrhundert, Jesu von Nazara, 1867, i. pp. 103 welches das Urtheil der Jahr- sq. English Translation, 1879, i. hunderte kassirt hat.’ Geschichte’ p. 142. Introduc- tion. The subject stated : Modern criticism and the Fourth Gospel. Divisions of the subject: The‘ judg- ment of centuries,’ 4 LECTURE I. as well as because the Fourth Gospel has been made the central position upon which the forces of modern criticism have been directed, and because it stands out pre-eminently among the treasures of the New Testament writings, I propose to confine our atten- tion to this chief problem of present-day thought. Thus limited, our subject becomes ‘ Modern Criticism considered in its relation to the Fourth Gospel.’ Further limitations will be imposed by the scope of this course of ‘ lecture-sermons,’ and it will be found necessary, in order that your patience may not be unduly taxed, to add in notes, details and refer- ences in support of the principles which will be submitted. The method of examination is marked out for us in the terms of the subject. The first step will be to ascertain what, as a matter of fact, the ‘judg- ment of centuries’ on the Fourth Gospel is. With this end in view, the dawn of real knowledge in the last quarter of the second century will be a convenient starting-point, from which we may look backwards into the twilight of the preceding decades, and forwards into the history of sixteen centuries. Three short lectures will not allow us to take more than the most cursory review of these periods ; but of the time at our command this may be considered a sufficient proportion. It will be the less necessary for us to enter into fuller detail, as the position of the Fourth Gospel in the second century has been the subject of much recent examination; and the LECTURE I. 5 history of the sixteen centuries which follow is for the most part a history of unquestioned acceptance. After arriving at an estimate of what the ‘judg- ment of centuries’ is, we shall be in a position to inquire how far ‘our age’ has cancelled it. For the purpose of this inquiry, and with the limits laid down for it, ‘our age’ dates from the close of the last century ; and I propose to devote two lectures to an examination of the negative positions which have been asserted during this period. The names Evanson, Bretschneider, Strauss, Baur, Hase, Weisse, Ritschl, Keim, Scholten, Loman, Renan, will for the present sufficiently indicate the course which this examination is intended to take ; and it will probably be found convenient to make the divisions which are demanded by a system of lectures, so as in the fourth lecture to take the period from Evanson to Strauss, and in the fifth, the work of Baur with the school which this master created. One lecture, at least, must be given to a brief sketch of the work of positive criticism, and one to the additions which have been made to our actual knowledge by the discovery and investigation of MSS. and other fresh materials. An opportunity will then be left for a concluding lecture, in which we may consider the influence which modern thought should have on our concep- tions of the Fourth Gospel. Many who hear me will know well, that the plan which is thus roughly marked out embraces a wide field of inquiry, in which views, differing from ‘ Our age.’ Width of inquiry. Tone of discus- sion : 6 LECTURE 1. each other by every degree of difference, and crossing each other at every conceivable angle, have been put forward with the claim for each that it alone could represent the truth. Some writers, indeed, have looked so exclusively to the origin of their own theories, and along the line of their own investi- gations, as to believe not only that all other theories and results are wrong, but that their authors must have been blinded by prejudice, or have even con- sciously and deliberately chosen error. Now con- traries may both be wrong, and of contradictories one cannot be right; but it does not follow that the holder of either one or the other is not perfectly sincere. From a man’s antecedents and position we may know what general value to put upon his judgment, and may in special cases feel bound to discount it ; but we have no right to impute motives to him, or to brand him with names which he would be unwilling to apply to himself. We have heard more than enough—and painful has it been to hear— of ‘counsels for creeds,’ of ‘ ecclesiastical bigotry,’ of ‘professional convictions.’ ‘Mr. Wendover,’ it will be remembered, ‘in spite of his philosophy, had never been proof all his life against an anti-clerical instinct worthy almost of a Paris municipal councillor.’? We have heard also more than enough—and painful indeed has it been to hear—of ‘advocates of atheism,’ of ‘criti- cism made subservient to party,’ of ‘light rejected in the interests of darkness.’ A divine Judge speaking ? Robert Elsmere, vol. ii. p. 243. LECTURE I. Ἶ with the certainty of omniscience can say, ‘ Ye love darkness rather than light, because your deedsare evil ;’ but human ignorance should judge no man. Human charity will believe all things, and even when it cannot believe, will hope all things ; and if there is no room left even for hope, it will endure all things. But in our own generation it has strangely come to pass, that in questions of biblical and theological knowledge, one who holds the views which have been held, and are held, by mankind at large, especi- ally if he holds them so strongly that he thinks it. his duty to give up all else that he may teach them, and if he has devoted the best years of his life and the best thoughts of his mind to the study of them, is supposed to be zpso facto disqualified to judge of them. A truth is thought to be less certainly true because it is held by a man who is ready, if need be, to die for it, or—and the martyrdom is far more real —is ready to live for it; while a man is often supposed to be specially qualified to judge of alleged truths which he has hardly examined, because he thinks them a priorz to be impossible, or because he has attained eminence in a wholly distinct region of inquiry.” To deny that a miracle has happened or can happen—that is, to deny that there is a divine Being, or that He has revealed or can reveal Him- self to man—is a strange qualification, but it has been widely accepted as a real one, by which a man is fitted to judge without bias, of the authenticity or $ See opinion of Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Lecture VI. p. 298. Anti-theo- logical prejudice. M. Renan. Mental achroma- tism. ὃ LECTURE I historic truth of a writing which asserts that miracles have occurred, and that God has revealed Himself to man. ‘To have held, and to have ceased to hold, a public position as a teacher in the Christian Church, to have passed through all the throes of a crisis in faith, is a strange qualification by which a man is fitted to judge, without feeling or prejudice, of the new and fuller evidence of one of the sacred writings of the Church ; but this is the position of many of the leaders of the negative criticism with which we shall have to deal—the position of Evanson, of Strauss, of M. Renan, of Dr. Davidson. M. Renan tells us, in a well-known passage, how he had learnt from Descartes that the first condition for discovering truth is to be free from all party. The eye must be completely achromatic if it is to find truth in philosophy or politics or morals.* But is the eye completely achromatic to be attained ? Is not the extreme delicacy of the optic organs in danger of being injured in the effort to attain it? Has not blindness rather than clearness of vision been sometimes the result ? If complete mental achromatism, in despite of all laws of heredity and environment, were attainable, would those who could attain it be better fitted to see truth, or is the pure light of truth the result of the harmony of complex views, as the pure light of physical vision is the harmony of all the colours of the rain- bow ? Has the eye of the animal world, in all the “ Souvenirs d’Enfance et de Jeunesse, 1883, p. 285. LECTURE I. 9 gradations of genera and species, in all the width and variety of time, place, climate, light, atmosphere, temperature, been adapted to the exact object of its vision, and has the mental eye, in similar width and variety of conditions, been adapted not to clearness but to confusion, not to truth but to prejudice ? Has it come to be that the primary condition of seeing truth in this nineteenth century is to break with all the training of the past, to declare the years of child- hood and receptivity, the years of youth and educa- tion, the existence of schools and universities, a fatal mistake in the economy of the human race? [5 the untrained eye of the untutored savage more to be trusted in the use of the complicated instruments of our modern knowledge, than the skilled eye of the observatory or the museum? ‘That M. Renan does not mean this, is clear from more than one passage of his writings. In the preface to the book from which I have quoted, for example, he asserts that The true men of progress are those who have for their start- ing point a profound respect for the past.° That his own effort to secure the achromatic eye which can find truth, is not an example that would induce us to follow him, is seen from the fact that, upon the subject of our present thoughts, he has in different works, and in different editions of the same work, so often changed his opinion, that one is tempted to think that the mind may itself indeed be colourless, but, like the chameleon, assuming 5 Souvenirs, ut supra, Preface, p. xxii. This achroma- tism im- possible : Sir James Mack- intosh, 10 LECTURE I. the colour of the tree upon which it is for the moment resting. That the attempt to divest the mind of every tinge of feeling, to make it necessary to scoop out the emotions before admission to the order of critics, as it was necessary to pluck out the will before admission to the order of Jesuits, may result in paralysis of the muscles of our moral nature, and unman the man who is trying to be manly, appears from such words as the following :— For myself, when people deny these fundamental dogmas, I have a strong desire to believe them; when they affirm them, unless it be in good verse, I am seized with invincible doubt.® But that the attainment of the purely achromatic mental eye is as a matter of fact impossible, is a commonplace of every-day life which is illustrated in the whole history of literature. I take some in- stances from English books which happen to lie close to my hand; and if I devote what may seem an undue proportion of our time to this part of the sub- ject, it is because it lies at the root not only of the present lecture, but also of those which are to follow. Sir James Mackintosh is ordinarily supposed to be a philosophical historian of calm and excellent judgment. He has occasion to refer to the works of Sir Henry Vane, and does so in the following terms :— * Séance de VAcadémie Fran- de M. Pasteur. Réponse de M. φαῖδε du 27 Avril 1882. Discours Renan, p. 41. LECTURE: I. 11 Sir Henry Vane was one of the most profound minds that ever existed, not inferior, perhaps, to Bacon. His works which are theological display astonishing powers. They are remarkable as containing the first direct assertion of liberty of conscience.’ Sir Henry Vane, when seen through the mind of the historian David Hume, appears in the light which follows :— This man, so celebrated for his parliamentary talents, and for his capacity in business, has left some writings behind him: They treat, all of them, of religious subjects, and are absolutely unintelligible: No traces of eloquence, or even of common sense, appear in them. A strange paradox! did we not know, that men of the greatest genius, where they relin- quish by principle the use of their reason, are only enabled, by their vigour of mind, to work themselves the deeper into error and absurdity.® It is a little difficult to realize that it is the same man and the same works; and yet Sir James Mackintosh proposed to continue the ‘ History of England by David Hume.’ This example is from Dr. Hawkesworth’s Ad- venturer :-— Two men examining the same question proceed commonly like the physician and gardener in selecting herbs, or the farmer and hero looking on the plain; they bring minds impressed with different motions, and direct their inquiries 7 North American Review, Oct. Cromwell, ii. p. 6. Hosmer, Life 1832 ; Report by A. H. Everett of young Sir Henry Vane, 1888, of a conversation between him- pp. 492 sq. self and Mackintosh in London, 8 History of Great Britain, in 1817. Cf. Carlyle’s deprecia- 1757, ii. 152. tory estimate of Vane in his David Hume, The Ad- venturer, ‘ Cowardly Agnosti- cism,’ Mr. Mark Pattison, 12 LECTURE I. to different ends; they form, therefore, contrary conclusions, and each wonders at the other’s absurdity.® This is the conclusion of a recent essay on what the writer calls ‘Cowardly Agnosticism’ :—_ I have now gone through the whole case for duty and for religion, as stated by the Agnostic school, and have shown that, as thus stated, there is no case at all. I have shown their arguments to be so shallow, so irrelevant, and so con- tradictory, that they never could have imposed themselves on the men who condescend to use them, if these men, upon utterly alien grounds, had not pledged themselves to the con- clusion which they invoke the arguments to support.! The late Mr. Mark Pattison stood before us as the very ideal of a man who had snapped asunder every fetter of prejudice. We had forgotten, until we were lately reminded of it, that he was the trans- lator of Thomas Aquinas’s Catena Aurea on ὃ. Matthew’s Gospel,” and that he at one time lived in terror of what would become of him if he died out- side the pale of the church of Rome.*? To some of us at least he seemed to move in a higher atmosphere of calm and severe reason, and had Oxford men been asked to think of one who had attained the achromatic mental eye, his name would have come unbidden to many minds; but this is how his collected Essays strike a really able reviewer, whose right to speak can hardly be unknown :— If he fails, as he often seems to us to do, in the justice and balance of his appreciation of the phenomena before him, ° Adventurer, No. 107, Nov. Review, April 1889, p. 551. 13, 1753. * Oxford, 1841. ' W. H. Mallock, Fortnightly 5. Memoirs, 1885, pp. 221-2. LECTURE 1. 13: if his statements and generalisations are crude and extrava- gant, it is that passion and deep aversions have overpowered the natural accuracy of his faculty of judgment. ... We hear of people being spoilt by their prepossessions, their party, their prejudices, the necessities of their political and ecclesiastical position. Mr, Pattison is a warning that a man may claim the utmost independence, and yet be maimed in his power of being just and reasonable by other things than party.* While this reviewer was writing these words, an- other was writing on the Great Missionary Success as follows :— ‘Les préjugés,’ it has been said, ‘sont la défroque des gens d’esprit, and, indeed, prejudices, judging by the general unwillingness to part from them, even when they are quite worn out, seem to be as comfortable wear as old clothes. With all of us, the accidents of early association, the chances of relationship, are sufficient to make us accept unquestioningly and hold tenaciously opinions for which we have not the shghtest ground.° Yes : Pope is right— ‘Tis with our judgments as our watches, none Go just alike, yet each believes his own.® Dean Stanley, in his essay on Zhe Creed of the Early Christians, introduces a series of quotations the matter of which does not affect the present ques- tion, with the following formule : It is not the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, it is Matthew Arnold, who afirms,— 4 Guardian, May 1, 1889, p. wiew, May 1889, p. 677. 685. δ. Hssay on Criticism, part i. Ὁ Lady Dilke, Fortnightly Re- lines 9, 10. Lkort- nightly Revien, Pope. Friendly and ad- verse witness: Dean Stanley. 14 LECTURE I. It is not Bishop Lightfoot, it is the author of ‘ Super- natural Religion,’ who asserts,— It is not Lord Shaftesbury, it is the author of ‘ Ecce Homo,’ who says,— It is no Bampton lecturer, it is John Stuart Mill, who says,— It is not Lacordaire, it is Renan, who affirms,—‘ Now these formule show that the force of a statement was in the opinion of Dean Stanley the stronger, because it was not made by a person who would naturally have been expected to make it, but by one whose general habit of thought was in the opposite direction, and by whom the opposite would have been stated, if it could have been stated by any- one.® And no one questions that in a large degree it is so; but the superior validity of evidence which arises simply from the fact that it comes from an adverse witness, may be more than balanced by the superior knowledge of a friendly witness, or by his consciousness of the enormous stake which is at issue both for others and for himself, and his consequent painful anxiety to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Few who have followed the whole course of the controversy will be prepared to admit, that a statement favourable to Christianity would, if made by the author of Supernatural Reli- * Christian Institutions, 1882, δ. Cf. Whateley, Elements of cap. Xiv. pp. 273 sq. Rhetoric, 1846, ed. 7, p. 64. LECTURE I. 19 gion, be stronger than one made by Bishop Light- foot. The real question which lies at the root of an inquiry such as we are undertaking is, Are we in the spirit of our text, and without influence of purpose or fear of result, seekers after truth? Do we plead as advocates, or weigh evidence as judges? An advocate is from his very position one-sided ; a judge should be impartial: an advocate will present and make prominent all the facts and arguments which tell in favour of his own contention, and will sup- press or keep in the background, as far as he honourably can, all which are opposed to it; a judge should take care that the facts on both sides are equally present to his mind, and that nothing which is important to the result shall be passed over or unfairly dealt with. Now no one who realizes the true issues in any question which affects Christianity, or the position of one of its sacred books, could pos- sibly assume the character of an advocate unless it were for the purpose of establishing the truth. I shall not venture to state at this moment, but I hope the statement will assert itself before these lectures shall be concluded, that a Bampton Lecturer, if indeed an advocate, is one who pleads in the temple of truth, and before a Judge to Whom the secrets of the thoughts of the heart are known. ‘ We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.’ He has perhaps little right to complain if he is some- times supposed to be merely ‘a counsel for creeds.’ The conclusions at which his investigations will Advocate or judge? Position of a Bampton Lecturer. 16 LECTURE I. arrive are more or less fully known before they are completed. If they are not such as can be with propriety expressed in ‘ Divinity Lecture Sermons,’ in accord with ‘the last will and testament of the late Rev. John Bampton,’ he has no right to deliver them on this Foundation. But he may urge, that no man is compelled to be Bampton Lecturer, and that no man would accept the office if the honest results of his own investigations were not in accord- ance with the conditions imposed. It is indeed con- ceivable that the more complete examination of his subject may lead him to conclusions which are incon- sistent with the will of the Founder, but in that case his duty would be clear. Upon the altar of truth everything must be sacrificed: traditional beliefs, friendships, office, position, prospects, everything. Sacrificed? Yes; but it is only in the sacrifice that the offerer knows what the chief blessing of life really is. Sacrificed? Yes; but ‘the truth shall make you free ᾿ :— Truth, which only doth judge itself, teacheth, that the Inquiry of Truth, which is the Love-making or Wooing of it ; the Knowledge of 7’ruth, which is the Presence of it ; and the Belief of V’ruth, which is the enjoying of it; is the Sovereign Good of human Nature.’ I make no claim then to enter upon my subject without definite convictions upon it, nor do I claim freedom from the bias which necessarily accompanies definite convictions, and from which I believe no 9. Bacon’s Essays : 1, Of Truth. »- LECTURE I. ΠῚ man, and least of all the discoverer of a new theory, or the possessor of the completely achromatic eye, to be free; but I claim nevertheless to enter upon it with the one purpose of seeking the truth, and helping my younger brethren to seek it :— Aufrichtig zu seyn kann ich versprechen: unparteiisch zu seyn aber nicht.! The first question which has been marked out for inquiry is the evidence for the reception of the Fourth Gospel which is furnished by the second century ; and in examining a question which is admittedly made difficult by the scantiness of the remnants of literature which have come down to us, it will be simpler to pass from the more known to the less known, and to trace the lines of investigation back- wards. ‘The main lines have during these later years been sufficiently disclosed by the labours of many eminent scholars, prominent among whom are Bishop Lightfoot and our own Professor of Exegesis, the Cambridge Professors Westcott and Hort, and the Cambridge editor of Ireneus the late Mr. Wigan Harvey, Dr. Salmon of Dublin, Dr. Charteris of Edinburgh, the too little known and too early lost Dr. Ezra Abbot of Harvard ; and, on the Continent, Drs. Baur, Credner, Schweeler, Von Otto, Oehler, Ronsch, Hilgenfeld, Schiirer, Weizsiicker, Lipsius, Zahn, and Harnack. But almost every day sheds its new side-lights on these investigations, and of 1 Goethe, Ethisches, 3te Abtheil, Evidence of the second century : The third genera- tion: Church of Lyons: Irenzus, fl.174-189. His work against Gnosti- cism. 18 LECTURE I. some of them I hope to speak in a future lecture. For our immediate purpose it will be sufficient to deal with the main facts in the presence of these lights ; and the facts may be conveniently grouped in three periods, corresponding with the three generations of human life at the end, the middle, and the beginning of the century. We will, in the first place, then, inquire of the generation which lived towards the close of the second century. Irenzeus is the most important person in the literary history of the Gospels. He stands at the very dawn of the period when this history emerged from twilight into clear day ; and it is as certain that the Fourth Gospel existed in substantially the same form as that in which we now possess it, in the days of Irenzeus, as that it exists in our present English Bibles) We know moreover without doubt that Irenzeus succeeded the venerable Pothinus in the episcopal see of Lyons in the year Α.Ὁ. 177 or 178. His great work? against Gnosticism was probably written during the early years of his episcopate, about A.D. 180-185. The five books of which the work is composed were not all issued at the same time ; but the date of the third book, which is our most impor- tant witness, is roughly fixed by the statement that * "EXeyxos καὶ ἀνατροτὴ τῆς Πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις, Contra Hereses, ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως Which is com- ΟἹ κατὰ αἱρέσεων, Adversus Hereses monly quoted by the shorter title or Adversus Hereticos. LECTURE 1. 19 Eleutherus, the twelfth from the Apostles, was then bishop of Rome. It was in any case therefore not later than a.p. 189, and not earlier than Α.Ὁ. 174 or 175. Now in this third book, Irenzus not only quotes largely from the Fourth Gospel as he does else- where, but he also tells us in the most definite terms that John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned His use of the Fourth Gospel. on His breast, put forth his Gospel while he abode in , Ephesus in Asia ;* that in the course of preaching this faith, John, the disciple of the Lord, being desirous by the preaching of the Gospel to remove the error which Cerinthus had been sowing among men, and long before him those who are called Nico- laitans® .... began the instruction which his Gospel contains ; that the school of Valentinus made very full use of the Gospel of John, and were from that very Gospel shown to be wholly in error ;° and he seeks to demonstrate by the fanciful analogy with the four regions and the four winds and the four faces of the Cherubim, the four forms of the living crea- tures,’ the four covenants, that there could be only four Gospels; and that the Gospel according to S. John, which he places first in order, answers to the character of the lion, which ‘is the first living 3 Cf. Lipsius, Chronologie der natwral Religion, pp. 260 sqq. Rémischen Bischéfe, pp. 184 sqq. ; 4 Adv. Her. lib. iii. cap. i. §1; article Irenews in Smith and ed. Harvey, tom. ii. p. 6. Wace’s Dictionary of Christian 5 Ibid. cap. x. § 1; ibid. p. 40. Biography, iii. pp. 253 sqq. ; and ὁ [bid. cap. xi. § 7 ; ibid. p. 46. Bishop Lightfoot, Hssays on Super- 7 ‘Rev. ty..2. c 2 Church of Alexan- dria: Clement, f1.190-203. His origin, and teachers. His pupils. 2.0) LECTURE T. creature, and is full of confidence, and therefore tells in its opening words of the princely and glorious birth from the Father.® The fact of the acceptance of the Fourth Gospel by Irenzeus and by both Catholics and Gnostics of his time, is placed then beyond any possible question. While Irenzus was thus presiding over the see of Lyons, and defending it from the Valentinian heresy which had invaded the valley of the Rhone, Titus Flavius Clemens, who was probably an Athenian by birth, and was widely read in the philosophy and literature of Greece, had passed, as he himself tells us,’ from his other teachers in Greece and Italy and Asia Minor and Palestine to his true master, last in order but first in power, whom he found hidden in Egypt. This was almost certainly Pantenus who was head of the catechetical school at Alexandria. Clement became under his influence a presbyter, and, after probably acting for a time as his assist- ant, succeeded him, and was eminent as the great Alexandrian teacher for a period which cannot be determined with certainty, but probably rather more than covered the last decade of the second century. Origen was among his distinguished pupils, and per- haps Hippolytus learned of him as well as of Irenzeus. Now Clement naturally asks no question and has no doubt about the Fourth Gospel. He names the series ® Loc. cit. cap. xi. § 8; utsupra, Klotz, tom. ii. p. 9. Cf. Eusebius, pp. 47 sq. Hist. Eccles. v. 11. * Stromateis, i. 1. § 11; ed. LECTURE I. y) and nationality of his teachers in order to lay stress upon the fact, that these men ‘ preserved the tradition of doctrine directly from the holy Apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul, son receiving it from father —though few were like their fathers—until by God’s will the seeds of truth from ancestors and Apostles came unto them.’! He tells us again how John, writing after the other Evangelists, and perceiving that the external facts had been set forth by them, being divinely influenced by the Spirit and encouraged by his friends, composed a spiritual Gospel.? In another place Clement declines to give credence to an apocryphal statement which was made on the autho- rity of the gospel of the Egyptians—and the passage is of wider importance in the history of the Canon and in the question of Clement’s use of apocryphal writings, than the inference which we are now de- riving from it—on the definite ground that it was not to be found in the four Gospels which had been handed down.° The well-known story of John and the youth who was captured by the robber band, is introduced by the statement that it is a story, or rather that it is a real record of John the Apostle, which was preserved in the memory and handed down; and that the Apostle, after the death of the tyrant, had returned from Patmos to Ephesus, and had gone to the heathen regions in the neighbourhood, here appointing bishops, ' Stromateis, ut supra. 5 Stromateis, iii. 18, ὃ 95; ed. 2 Kuseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 14. Klotz, tom. 11. p. 266. John and the ‘ spiri- tual Gospel.’ Churches of Rome and Car- thage: Tertullian, c. 150-240. His posi- tion as a writer. 22 LECTURE I. there founding new churches, in a third place setting apart for the ministry those who were chosen by the Holy Spirit.’ The frequent use by Clement of individual passages in the Fourth Gospel is unquestioned. In the Exzhortation to the Heathen, he quotes each of the Gospels, and SS. Matthew, Luke, and John frequently, but he mentions only $8. John by name.° Tertullian is almost an unknown person, apart from his writings and from the impression which these writings have produced upon the thought and language of both the Church and _ individuals. ‘Give me the Master,’ was the formula with which Cyprian, bishop But what an impression it has been! of Tertullian’s native town, asked for his works which he read daily.® ‘ What can exceed the learning, what the perception of Tertullian ?’ asks Jerome, and he finds answer to his own question: ‘ His Apology and his treatises against the heathen embrace all the erudition of the age.’* And in our own day a master 4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 877. Cf. ‘Et beatus Cyprianus 23. ° Protreptikos, §59 ; ed. Klotz, tom. i. p. 52. ® *. . . referreque sibi solitum nunquam Cyprianum absque Ter- tulliani lectione unum diem pre- terisse, ac sibi crebro dicere, Da Magistrum: Tertullianum vide- licet significans.’ Jerome, De Viris illustribus, cap. lili. ; ed. Bene- dict., Verona, 1735, tom. ii. p. Tertulliano magistro utitur, ut ejus scripta probant; quumque eruditi et ardentis viri delectetur ingenio, Montanum cum eo Maxi- millamque non sequitur.’ bid. tom. 1. p. 519-20. 7 “Quid Tertulliano eruditius, quid acutius? Apologeticus ejus, et contra Gentes libri, cunctam sxeculi obtinent disciplinam.’ Ibid. tom. i. p. 427. IND (hs) LECTURE 1. of both thought and style calls him ‘the most powerful writer of the early centuries.’ ὃ We shall certainly be not far from right, if we place his life at from the middle of the second to about the third or fourth decade of the third cen- tury, that is from about A.p. 150 or 160 to a.p. 290-- 240. We know further that he was born at Carthage, and that he was a convert from heathenism ; and his skill in argument, his judicial power of estimating evidence, and his use of legal terms, all suggest what is in itself likely in the case of the son of a captain of a Roman legion, that he was trained for official, per- haps legal employment. Carthage and Rome are the only centres in which we find traces of his life and work as a layman, as a presbyter, as a Catholic, as a Montanist. Eusebius tells us that, in addition to his general eminence, he was specially distinguished among the chief men of home ; and that his Apology, which was written for Roman Christians, was also translated into Greek.’ Tertullian himself tells us incidentally, when speaking of the value of gems depending only on their rarity, of his own presence at Rome.’ Jerome moreover accounts for his lapse to Montanism by the treatment which he received at the hands of the Roman clergy ;” but it was 8 Cardinal Newman, Tracts Theological and EHeclesiastical, p. 220. 9 Hist. Eccles. ii. 2. "*Gemmarum quoque nobili- tatem vidimus Romzx de fastidio Parthorum et Medorum cetero- rumque gentilium suorum coram matronis erubescentem, nisi quod nec ad ostentationem fere haben- tur.’ De Cultu Feminarum, 1. 7 ; ed. Oehler, tom. i. p. 709. * ‘Hic cum usque ad mediam atatem presbyter Hcclesiz per- His train- ing. His fre- quent quotations from the Fourth Gospel. Passages from his works : rule against heretics, 2.4 LECTURE I. in Carthage that he laboured as a Montanist, and it was in North Africa that the ‘ Tertullianists ’ took their rise. Tertullian is then a witness speaking at once from the rival cities of Rome and Carthage, from the bosom of the Church and from the heresy of semi- Montanism. His writings contain constant citations of Holy Scripture, and a reference to a good index ὅ will show that there are quotations from every chapter, and in some chapters from almost every verse, of the Fourth Gospel. More important than these quotations are the passages in which Tertullian dwells on the unity and corporate life of the Church, and bases the reception of her sacred writings upon their immediate deriva- tion from Apostolic sources. Thus in the Demurrer against Heretics, he says : From this, therefore, we draw up a rule. If the Lord Jesus Christ sent forth Apostles to preach, no preachers are to be received except those whom Christ commissioned, be- cause no one has known the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son has revealed Him, and the Son does not seem to have revealed Him to any but to the Apostles whom He sent to preach; and of course they preached that which He revealed to them. But what they preached, that is what Christ revealed to them, can be known—and here 1 must lay . down a rule again—only by means of those churches which mansisset, invidia postea et con- bus, wt supra, cap. liii. tom. ii. tumeliis clericorum Roman Ee- pp. 875 sqq. clesie, ad Montani dogma de- δ΄ See especially the Index Scrip- lapsus . . . .᾽ De Viris illustri- twrarum in Oehler’s edition. BSD Or LECTURE I. the Apostles themselves founded and themselves declared the Gospel to them, both vivd voce, to use a common expression, and afterwards by means of letters. But if this be so, it is also clear that all doctrine which agrees with those Apostolic churches which are the wombs and sources of the faith, must be accepted as truth, for it undoubtedly contains that which those churches received from Apostles, Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God. It follows, on the other hand, that all doctrine is known beforehand to be false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches, of Apostles, of Christ, of God. It remains, therefore, for us to show whether this our doctrine, the line of which we have set forth above, has its origin in the Apostolic tradition, and whether all others do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We have communion with the churches of the Apostles in that our doctrine is in no way different. This is the witness of truth.* A few pages later in the same tract, he expresses the same thought in these words :— . run through the churches of the Apostles in which the very thrones of the Apostles are still prominent in their places, in which their own authentic letters are read, so that the voice and face of each is recalled. You are close to Achaia, and there you have Corinth. Or you are not far from Macedonia, and there you have Philippi and the Thessalonians. Or you are able to go as far as Asia, and there you find Ephesus. Or again you are close to Italy, and there is Rome from whence we also have our authority at hand. Happy indeed is that church for which Apostles poured forth their whole teaching as well as their blood; where Peter suffers like his Lord, where Paul is crowned by a death like John’s [i.e. the Baptist’s], where the Apostle John, after he had been plunged into boiling oil and escaped unhurt, is sent back to his island! Let us see what this church has learned, what she 4 De Prescriptione Hereticorwm, cap. xxi.; ed. Oehler, tom. 1]. p. 19. the Apostolic churches, authors of ‘Evangeli- cal In- strument,’ Apostles handed down that which was from the beginning, 26 LECTURE I. has taught, what communion she has had with our own churches in Africa.° In like manner, when replying to Marcion, Tertullian takes the following position :— We assert, to begin with, that the Evangelical Instrument® has for its authors Apostles, on whom this duty of proclaiming the Gospel has been imposed by the Lord Himself. And if there are also some who are Apostolic but not Apostles, these are not alone, but they are with Apostles and after Apostles; for the preaching of disciples might be suspected of some envying of glory if it were not supported by the authority of their masters—yes, by the authority of Christ, which made the Apostles masters. Of the Apostles then, John and Matthew first plant faith in us, and of Apostolic persons Luke and Mark renew it.’ A little further on in the same treatise, he sums up in these words :— If it is clear that the earlier is the truer, and that the earlier is that which was from the beginning, and that from the beginning is that which was from the Apostles; then at all events it will be equally clear that that is handed down from the Apostles which was sacred among the churches of the Apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drew from 8. Paul, by what standard the Galatians were corrected, what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read ; what sound the Romans give forth who are close at hand, and to whom both Peter and Paul left a Gospel sealed by their own blood. We have also the churches which are children of John. For though Marcion rejected his Apocalypse, still the order of bishops, when traced to its origin, will rest upon John δ De Preser. Her. cap. xxxvi.; Testamentum. Cf. Adv. Mare. iv. ed. Oehler, tom. ii. pp. 33 sq. 1, ‘alterius instrumenti vel, quod “ Tertullian uses Instrwmentum, magis usui est dicere, testamenti.’ perhaps because as a legal term it 7 Adversus Marcion. iv. 2; ed. ἕ 3 implies validity, as equivalent to Oehler, tom. ii. p. 162. LECTURE L ον as founder. In like manner is the noble origin of the other churches recognised. I say then that among them, and not only among those planted by Apostles, but among all churches which are bound together in the Christian fellowship (de societate sacramenti confeederantur) that Gospel of Luke which we most earnestly defend, has stood its ground from its first publication ... The same authority of the Apostolic churches will support the other Gospels which we have equally through them and according to their use. I mean the Gospels of John. and Matthew, while that which Mark published may be maintained to be Peter’s, whose inter- preter Mark was... . These are the summary arguments which we use when we do battle for the faith of the Gospel against heretics, maintaining both the order of time which sets aside the later works as belonging to forgers, and the authority of churches which supports the tradition of the Apostles; because truth necessarily precedes falsehood, and comes from those by whom it has been handed down.? Or once again, when opposing Praxeas, he speaks of δ. John in the following terms :— In what way these things were said, the Evangelist and beloved disciple John knew better than Praxeas.° From Antioch, we have similar clear and definite evidence. The sixth bishop of this see in succession from the Apvustles was Theophilus.1 He addressed three books on the elements of the faith to Autolycus, and wrote a work, Against the Heresy of Hermogenes, in which he uses testimony from the Revelation of 5. John. He also wrote some catechetical works, and a work of no mean order against Marcion, ® Tertullian, Adversus Marcion. 9 Adversus Praxean, cap. XXiil. ; iv. 5; ed. Oehler, tom. ii. pp. ed. Oehler, tom. 11. pp. 686. 165-7. 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 20. the Evan- gelist and beloved disciple. Church of Antioch : Theophi- lus, fl. c. 171-185. His writings, testified to by Jerome and Eusebius. His Com- mentary on the Gospels doubtful. 28 LECTURE I. all of which were preserved in the time of Eusebius, to whose Histury we are indebted for this description of them.? Jerome also refers to the works of Theophilus from personal knowledge of them,* and makes some We know further from the Chronicle of Eusebius that he stood out as a additions to the list in Eusebius. writer of literary eminence, many of whose books were in wide circulation.* The only one of these works which is now certainly extant is that addressed to Autolycus.’ 6 > \ Xapav οτι eyevvnon ανσρωπος εἰς TOV ~ ce ie ~ ~ ποιοῦνται, ὅπως πληρωθῇ 6 τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος εἰς τὸ αὐξάνεσθαι καὶ πληθύ- νεσθαι τὸ γένος τῶν ἀνθρώπων. κόσμον. John xvi. 21. wbid. 11. 25; ed. Von Otto, viii. 120, 3. ‘Alludit ad Joann. xvi. 21.’ 7 oN 7 > A , ἌΡ > “ > θ , > bak) Kai οὕτως ἀρχὴ θανάτου ἐγένετο ἐκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπ εἰς τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ὁδοιπορεῖν ἕως ἀρχῆς. John viii. 44. Cf. οὐ τοῦ δεῦρο ἐπὶ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώ- πων. Ibid. ii. 29; ed. Von Otto, Vili. 138, 8. το a \ , © δ οὗ καὶ θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κύσμον. καθὼς Καὶν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. 1 John 111. 12. Clemens Rom. 1 Cor. 111. ad fin., Lightfoot, ed. 1, p. 42; ed.'2, ii. p. 21. Gospel included among * Holy Scrip- tures,’ author among * spirit- bearing men.’ oe LECTURE I. © and that which makes them of great importance, is that they are found side by side with an undoubted quotation from the Fourth Gospel. This is one of the many instances which show the incidental way in which reference may be made to a work which is well known to the writer. That the Fourth Gospel was well known is clear from the quotation which occurs in the twenty-second chapter of this same second book of the Apology, where Theophilus says :— Whence we are taught by the Holy Scriptures and all spirit-bearing men, among whom John says: ‘In the begin- ning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’ showing that at first God was alone and the Word in Him. Then he saith, ‘ And the Word was God. All things were made by Him ; and without Him was not any thing made.’ ® This distinct reference to ὃ. John by name, this inclusion of him among ‘ spirit-bearing men,’ and this exact citation of his words, occur in a context in which the writer has been dealing with the Scriptures c -“ " Ὅθεν διδάσκουσιν ἡμᾶς αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ καὶ πάντες ol πνευ- , > 2 ματοφόροι, ἐξ ὧν λέγει. Ἔν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λύγος, καὶ e / > \ \ ΄ ῷ ὁ λόγος ἢν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν δεικνὺς ὅτι ἐν πρώτοις μόνος ἢν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ὁ λόγος. Ἔπειτα λέγει: καὶ Θεὸς ἢν ὁ λόγος" πάντα δι αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ > ΄ Iwavyns "EK > - φ > Xo ‘ ς ν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ λογος, καὶ ὁ , > \ ‘ , λόγος ἢν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, Ν \ > Ψ ΄ καὶ Θεὸς nv ὁ λόγος. .. πάντα δι αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. John i. 1-3. Westcott and Hort. χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. Ut supra, ii. 22 ; ed. Von Otto, Vili. 118, 120, 13-15. πνευματοφύροι is the accentuation of the codices. See Von Otto’s note 13, ad loc. ; and cf. cap. 9, note 1, and lib. iii. cap. 12 infra. LECTURE I. 33 of the Old Testament, and it is impossible to deny that he thinks and writes of the Fourth Gospel as a divinely inspired work, which is to be placed on a level with the Law and the Prophets. If there were room for doubt as to his meaning, it would disappear before such words as are found at the beginning of the twelfth chapter of the third book :— Now concerning righteousness of which the Law speaks, the statements of the Prophets and Gospels are in harmony because all spirit-bearing men speak by one Spirit of God.! The churches of Asia Minor must necessarily appear as witnesses, when the question is the origin of the Fourth Gospel. Nor are they silent in the period to which our inquiry is directed. Two great controversies, both of which took their rise from the churches of Asia, then divided Christendom from Ephesus to Lyons, from Alexandria to Carthage and Rome. One is known to us from the name of its author, as Montanism ; the other from its subject, as the Paschal controversy. Montanism, with its central doctrine of the Paraclete, cannot avoid touch- ing the writings of S. John, in which alone of the sacred Scriptures the term Paraclete occurs ; and the disputants in the Paschal controversy, which is im- mediately concerned with the practice of the Asiatic churches, cannot avoid some reference to the Scrip- 1 Ἔτι μὴν Kal περὶ δικαιοσύνης, πνευματοφόρους ἑνὶ πνεύματι Θεοῦ ἧς 6 νόμος εἴρηκεν, ἀκόλουθα εὑρί- δλελαληκέναι. Ibid. iii. 12 ; ed. Von σκεται kal τὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν Otto, viii, 218, 1 εὐαγγελίων ἔχειν, διὰ τὸ τοὺς πάντας Churches of Asia Minor: Witnesses from Sar- dis and Hiera- polis: Melito, f1.150-180. List in Eusebius. 34 LECTURE I. tures which they received. Now towards the close of the second century, two Asiatic bishops, Melito of Sardis the capital of Lydia, and Apolinaris’ of Hierapolis in Phrygia, were voluminous and widely read authors. ‘Their writings are at present known to us only by scanty fragments ; but Eusebius and Jerome*® have preserved the titles of their works, and we can form a probable opinion of the nature and extent of their influence. The period of Melito’s literary activity may be taken as from about A.D. 150 to 180. that activity may be estimated from the following list of his works, which is given by Eusebius as an The area of imperfect one and based only on his own personal knowledge :— 1. On the Paschal Fes- tival (two books). 2. On the right method of Life and on the Prophets. 3. On the Church. 4, On the Lord’s Day. 5. On the Faith of Man. 2 ᾿Απολινάριος constanter apud Greecos dicitur, non ᾿Απολλινάριος, quod exspectabas, h.e. Latinorum Apollinaris . . . Von Otto, Cor- pus, ix. 479. 3 De Viris illustribus, capp. Xxiv. xxvi. ; ed. Bened., wtsupra, tom. 11. pp. 851 sqq. περὶ πλάσεως. Rendered ‘On Creation’ by Bishop Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 225; and ‘On the Formation 6. On the Creation of Man.‘ 7. On the Obedience of Faith. 8. On the Senses. 9. On the Soul and Body. 10. On Baptism. ll. On Truth. of the World’ by Dr. Westcott, On the Canon, ed. 6, p. 223. But the word seems to have ac- quired a technical sense which was limited to the creation of man, Cf. Gen. i. 7, ARSE Tim. ii. 13; Justin, Dial. cme Tryph. cap. 40. See esp. Von Otto’s note, Corpus, tom. ix. p. 392 ; and Von Gebhardt und Har- nack, Texte wu. Untersuchungen, Bd. i. p. 246. LECTURE I. 12. On the Birth of Christ. 13. On Prophecy. 14. On Love of Strangers. 15. The Καὶ Oreation and (BX) Cx 17. On a Corporeal God. 18. An Apology to Anto- minus. 19. Haxtracts from the Law and the Prophets (six 16. On the Devil and the Apocalypse of John. books).® Some other works which are ascribed to Melito by later writers are of doubtful authority; but it is probable that the treatise On the Incarnation of Christ, from the third book of which Anastatius of Sinai quotes, when writing in the seventh century, against the Monophysites, and that On the Passion, which is also quoted by Anastatius ;‘ and the writings On the Faith and On the Cross, which are now known only from Syriac fragments,’ are genuine works which are not included in the Eusebian list. The Syriac furnishes also fragments of an Apology to Antoninus, which no less an authority than Dr. Westcott thinks to be a ‘genuine book of Melito of Sardis,’ and which clearly shows the influence of 5. John’s writings. Its authenticity cannot however be said to be quite certain,’ and I do not therefore lay any stress upon it. 5 This work does not exist in the Syriac MS. version of Eu- sebius ; and the attempt of Car- dinal Pitra to prove that the Clermont MS. contains a Latin Kritiken, 1857, p. 584. 6 Hist. Eccles. iv. 26. 7 Οδηγός seu dux vize adversus Acephalos, ed. Gretser, 1806, CG. kil. p. 216 ; xi, ρὲ 260: translation of the second century Greek original, cannot be said to be successful. Cf. Spicileqiwm Solesmense, tom. ii. pp. 1-519 ; iii. pp. 1-307 ; and Steitz, Studien wu. 8 Cf. Cureton, Spicilegiwm Syria- cum, 1855, pp. 52-3. 9. Canon of the New Testament, ed. 6, p. 222. 1 Cf. Lecture VII. p. 408. po Other lists. Apolina- ris, mati. Lists in Eusebius, Theodoret, and Photius. LECTURE 1. Claudius Apolinaris, a successor of Papias in the see of Hierapolis, was a somewhat younger contem- porary of Melito. Eusebius speaks of him as a strong and irresistible weapon against Montanism,* and refers to several works by him which were preserved by many, and gives the titles of four which were known to himself :—* 1. An Apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius. 2. Against the Greeks (five 3. On Truth (two books).4 4. Against the Heresy of the Phrygians (Montanists). books). Theodoret refers to a work Against the Severians,? which is otherwise unknown, and notes the wide ac- quaintance of Apolinaris with general literature.® Photius of Constantinople, writing as late as the ninth century, relates that he had read three works by Apolinaris, Against the Greeks, On Godliness, and On Truth, which may be wholly or partly identical with parallel works in the list of Eusebius, and adds :— There are said to be other works of this author which are worthy of notice, but we have not yet met with them.’ 2, Hist. Eccles. v. 16. 5. Ibid. iv. 27. 4 ¢Textus Vulgatus ap. Euseb. addit: καὶ πρὸς ᾿Ιουδαίους πρῶτον Sed hee verba non comparent in optimis codd. mstis (BC D F* K ἘΠ) neque apud Ruf- finum et Hieronymum: qua- propter, quum a librario quodam moleste sedulo addita sint, recte omittuntur a Leemmero et Heini- cheno.’ Von Otto, Corpus, tom. A ’ καὶ δεύτερον. ix. p. 481, note 3. Ὁ Hereticarum Fabularum Com- pendium, i. 21; ed. Migne, iv. p. 372. ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀξιέπαινος, καὶ πρὸς τῇ γνώσει τῶν θείων καὶ τὴν ἔξωθεν παιδείαν προςειληφώς. Heret. Fab. ut swpra, iii. 2; ibid. p. 404. 7 ᾿Ανεγνώσθη ᾿Απολιναρίου πρὸς Ἕλληνας καὶ περὶ εὐσεβείας καὶ περὶ ἀληθείας. ἔστι δὲ ἹἹεραπολίτης ὁ συγ- γραφεύς, τῆς ἐν ᾿Ασίᾳ Ἱεραπόλεως LECTURE 1 at Two extracts from a treatise by Apolinaris On the Paschal Festival are preserved in the Paschal Chronicle, both of which contain references to the Fourth Gospel. They are quoted by Bishop Light- foot,® whose argument I am here following, and also by Dr. Salmon,’ but I de not produce them as wit- nesses, Inasmuch as their authenticity, though in the highest degree probable and admitted even by Strauss ! and Scholten,” cannot be considered to have been placed beyond doubt.* The real significance of the evidence of these two bishops arises moreover not from existing fragments but from the extent of their writings, and the im- pression made by these writings on contemporary and succeeding literature; from the fact that the questions which occupied the anxious thought of the Church, and in which they took a prominent part, were questions which specially concerned Asia Minor His reference to the Fourth Gospel. Testimony to writings of Melito and Apolina- ris, by and Ephesus, and specially concerned the Fourth > Gospel ; and from the fact that there is nowhere the slightest hint that in all the width of these volumi- \ sas ” Sh UES γεγονὼς ἐπίσκοπος. ἤνθησε δὲ ἐπὶ Μάρκου ᾿Αντωνίνου Βήρου βασιλέως Bruchstiicke, die Neander be- “Ῥωμαίων ἀξιόλογος δὲ 6 ἀνὴρ καὶ φράσει ἀξιολόγῳ κεχρημένος. λέγεται δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕτερα συγγράμματα ἀξιομνημόνευτα εἶναι, οἷς οὔπω ἡμεῖς ᾿ ἐνετύχομεν. Bibliotheca, cod. 14 ; ed. Bekker. p. 4. 8 Essays on Supernatural Reli- gion, p. 239. 9. Introduction, ed. 3, p. 264. 1 Das Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 69. zweifelte, ist jetzt kein Zwiespalt mehr.’ Scholten-Manchot, Die diltesten Zeugnisse betreffend die Schriften des Neuen Testamentes historisch untersucht, p. 484. 3 Cf. Lardner, Credibility, part ii. c. 28,11. Donaldson, History of Christian Literature, vol. 111. p. 247. 2 Ueber die Kchtheit dieser - Poly- crates, Hippoly- tus, Tertul- lian, Clement, 38 LECTURE I. nous writings, which practically formed the theo- logical encyclopedias of the day, there is any doubt whatever about the reception of the Fourth Gospel in the churches of Asia. To Polycrates of Ephesus, Melito is one whose walk was entirely guided by the Holy Spirit, who now rests at Sardis waiting for the episcopate from heaven when he shall rise from the dead.* Hippolytus asks Who is ignorant of the works of Irenzus and Melito and the rest in which Christ is declared to be God and man ᾿ ὃ Jerome quotes Tertullian as saying of him that he was reckoned a prophet by most of our people.® Clement of Alexandria wrote a treatise on the Paschal Festival, which was suggested by Melito’s work on the same subject,’ and the opinion that Melito was himself the Ionian who is included in the list of Clement’s teachers ὃ cannot be considered to be improbable. In Carthage, in Ephesus, in Rome, in Alexandria, Melito is then a recognized authority in the Church at the close of the second century. His critical inquiries about the Canon of the Old Testament connect him also with the East, of which he speaks * Eusebius, Hist. Hecles. ν. 24. cavillatur, dicens eum a plerisque > Ibid. v. 28. nostrorum Prophetam putari.’ * *Hujus elegans et declama- De Viris illustribus, c. xxiv. ; ut torium ingenium Tertullianus in supra, tom. ii. p. 853-54. septem libris, quos scripsit ad- 7 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 26. versus Ecclesiam pro Montano, S Tid. v.11. LECTURE:-T 39 as ‘the place where these things were proclaimed and done.’ ® To Anastatius of Sinai he is the divine and all wise among teachers.! That is, in the monasteries of Sinai as late as the seventh century, the echoes of the second-century judgments are still heard, and Melito is esteemed as a well-known and orthodox Father of the Church. The reception given to the works of Apolinaris is not less general. We have seen in what light they were regarded by Eusebius, Theodoret, and Photius. Serapion, who was bishop of Antioch at the close of the second century, and himself a considerable theological writer, names Apolinaris in a letter which he wrote to Caricus and Ponticus, who were also ecclesiastical writers, in the following terms :— But in order that you may see that the influence of this false school of new prophecy, as it is called, has been abhorred by all the brethren in the world, I have sent unto you the writings of Claudius Apolinaris most blessed, who was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia.? Eusebius relates that this letter was subscribed also by many other bishops, among them being Aurelius Cyrenius, and Alius Publius Julius, bishop of Debeltum, a colony of Thrace, in their own hand,? so that it becomes a witness on the part of many 9. Kusebius, Hist. Hecles. iv. 26. supra, xiii. p. 260. 1 ὁ θεῖος καὶ πάνσοφος ἐν δι- 2 Kuseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 12. δασκάλοις Μελίτων, ---ἰΟδηγός, ut 5 Ibid. v. 19. Anasta- tius, Serapion’s letter which is sub- scribed by other bishops, Jerome, Socrates. 40 LECTURE I. dioceses to the position and influence of Apolinaris. The witness of Serapion himself is moreover of high value, not only from his date and the honour in which he was held as a bishop and as an author, but also from his care in respect of the Canon, of which we have an example in the fact that he recalled the permission which had been given to the church of Rhossus on the gulf of Issus to read the so-called gospel of Peter.* Jerome also classes Apolinaris with Melito and others, as a writer who had full knowledge of heathen literature, and used it in refuting heresies,’ while Socrates places him with Ireneus, Clement, and Serapion, as teaching that our Lord, when He became man, had a human soul.° The general esteem in which both these great Asiatic theologians were held by the churches of Christendom at the close of the second century, -and in succeeding generations to whom that second- century history was a living reality, makes it clear what their own position was in relation to the * EKuseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 12. > *Quid loquar de Melitone Sardensi Episcopo? quid de Apollinario Hierapolitanze Kce- clesize Sacerdote, Dionysioque Co- rinthiorum Episcopo, et Tatiano, et Bardesane, et Irenzo Photini Martyris successore : qui origines hereseon singularum, et ex quibus Philosophorum fontibus emanarint, multis voluminibus explicarunt ?’ ΜΠ ἰδέ. xx. ad Mag- num, Opera, ed. Bened. wt supra, tom. 1. p. 426. 6 Kal yap Εἰρηναῖός re καὶ Κλήμης, ᾿Απολινάριός τε ὁ ‘leparoXirns καὶ Σαραπίων ὁ τῆς ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ προεστὼς ἐκκλησίας ἔμψυχον τὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, ἐν τοῖς πονηθεῖσιν ὁμολογούμενον αὐτοῖς φάσκουσιν. Socrates, Hist. Eccles. iii. 7; ed. Hussey, tom. i. p. 398. > ΄“ , c αὐτοῖς λόγοις ὡς LECTURE I. 4] Fourth Gospel; while that position is on the other hand a declaration, not only that the churches of Asia, but also that the best scholarship and criticism of the day, accepted the Fourth Gospel as the work of S. John, without even a hint that any other view is possible.’ Polycrates of Ephesus is another witness from the churches of Asia at the close of the second century. A letter was addressed by him in the name of these churches to Victor of Rome, in reply to an inquiry about their practice in keeping Easter, and a large extract from this letter has been preserved in Eusebius. He bases the Asiatic practice, as he tells us, on the teaching of the great luminaries of Asia, Philip of Hierapolis, John of Ephesus, Polycarp of Smyrna, Sagaris of Laodicea, Papirius, and Melito. He was the eighth bishop of his own family, and had been sixty-five years in the Lord; he had studied every Holy Scripture, he had taken counsel with brethren in all parts of the world. The bishops who were assembled with him were a great number, and knew that he did not bear his grey hairs for nought, and that he had always ruled his life by the Lord Jesus.2 This venerable bishop, writing for himself 7 On Melito and Apolinaris, cf. generally, Dr. Salmon’s articles s.v. in Smith and Wace’s Dic- tionary of Christian Biography, 1. p. 192, 111. p. 894; Bishop Light- foot, Essays on Supernatural Reli- gion, pp. 223 sqq., 237 sqq.; Von Otto, Corpus, tom. ix. pp. 374- 511; Routh, Reliquie Sacre, tom. i. pp. 111-174 ; and especially the remarkable monograph by Dr. Adolf Harnack, Von Gebhardt und Harnack, Texte w. Untersuch- ungen, Bd. i. pp. 232-282. 8 EKuseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 24. Polycrates of Ephesus, fl. 190. Letter addressed to Victor of Rome. His position. His testi- mony to the Fourth Gospel. Old Latin and Peshito Versions : Dr. Liddon’s approval of Dr. Westcott’s opinions : on the Old Latin, 49 LECTURE I. and his episcopal brethren and sons, describes S. John in the exact words of the Gospel, as ‘ he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord ;’* and although we are perhaps not justified in asserting that this is necessarily a reference to the Fourth Gospel,’ it is natural to believe it to be so, and it is impossible to doubt that this Ephesian bishop was in harmony with ‘the great luminaries of Asia’ in accepting the Gospel as the work of ὃ. John. It has been customary to attest the position of the New Testament Canon, and therefore of the Fourth Gospel, in the closing decades of the second century, by the Old Latin and Peshito Syriac Versions, and by the Muratorian Fragment. The Bampton Lecturer for 1866, for example, quotes with approval the opinion of Dr. Westcott, that the Old Latin must have been made before a.p. 170, and that Tertullian’s use of it shows, that at the end of the century the Latin translation of St. John’s Gospel had been so generally circulated in Africa, as to have moulded the popular theological dialect.? Few among us will question the high authority—I 9 »~ ‘ , ΠΝ , c > 4 A > Ν ᾽ ΄- 4 » 4 ‘ ἔτι δὲ kal Ἰωάννης ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναπεσὼν, 6s στῆθος τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ. . . John xiii. > , € ‘ ‘ ‘4 ~ A Ν > ᾿ » ΄“ ’ ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον mepopek@s, 25. ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ ‘ , \ ΄ bp > 5 τῆς ι A αν τ καὶ μάρτυς καὶ διδάσκαλος" οὗτος ἐν ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ... John Ian ΄ . . - Edéoo κεκοίμηται. Eusebius, Hist. xxi. 20. Eccles. v. 24. ' But see Bishop Lightfoot, * Liddon, Bampton Lectures, Essays on Supernatural Religion, 1866, ed. 13, 1889, p. 215. p. 249. LECTURE. I. 45 should certainly be very far from doing so—of the Oxford Lecturer who quotes, or that of the Cambridge Professor who is quoted. ‘The opinion weighed and re-weighed with fulness of knowledge and fairness of judgment during a quarter of a century, has been expressed again quite lately by Dr. Westcott,’ to- gether with the allied opinion that the Latin translation of Irenzeus was probably known to Tertullian,‘ and the belief that Tertullian and the Translator of Irenzeus represent respectively the original African and Gallic recensions of the Vetus Latina.® The same Bampton Lecturer, following the same Cambridge Professor, says of the Peshito Syriac, That it was complete then in A.D. 150-160, we may assume without risk of serious error.® And in the latest edition of his work On the Canon, published last year, Dr. Westcott has seen no sufficient reason to desert the opinion which has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that its formation is to be fixed within the first half of the second century.’ The same high authorities claim in the same way that at Rome St. John’s Gospel was certainly received as being the work of that Apostle in the year 170. This is clear from the so-termed Muratorian fragment ; ὃ 7 On the Canon, ed. 6, 1889, 7 On the Canon, ut supra, p. p. 251. 243. * Ibid. p. 256. 8 Bampton Lectures, ut swpra, > Ibid. p. 257, note. p. 214, based upon Westcott, On © Op. cit. p. 214, note. the Canon, p. 214. on the Peshito, on the Mura- torian Fragment. Force of the evidence, if their early date is esta- blished. 44 LECTURE I. and in 1889, Dr. Westcott again expressed the view that The statement in the text of the Fragment is perfectly clear, definite, and consistent with its contents, and there can be no reason either to question its accuracy or to interpret it loosely.® Now, here are witnesses of the first importance ready to our hands, and if these statements about the Versions, and the Fragment of Muratori,! with all that would follow from the texts of the Versions and the antecedent conditions of the Fragment, could be established beyond question—and perhaps they will be established—we should be far on the way to render any discussion of the acceptance of the Fourth Gospel in the second century wholly unnecessary. And if [do not deduce from this testimony all that would seem to follow from it, it is not because I am convinced that it is not trustworthy, or that I should in any case venture to assert my own opinion against the opinion of those who believe that it is; but because I cannot claim more than a small fraction of the completeness of knowledge of this subject which ought to be the substructure of a definite statement upon it ; and because, as far as I can follow the currents of present criticism, it cannot be re- garded as settled beyond question that any known Version of the New Testament or any distinct portion of it, was committed to writing before the close of ° On the Canon, ut supra, p. " But ef. Salmon, Introduction, 212 1888, pp. 46-53. LECTURE I. 45 the second century, or that the Muratorian Frag- ment is of quite so early a date as that which critics have generally assigned to it. These matters are still before the judgment of experts. For my own part, 1 should like to await the verdict, which the not-distant future must almost certainly give, with- out offering any opinion—though I am far from not having one—as to what that verdict will be. Meanwhile, few among the theologians or critics of this century will be regarded as entitled to speak on this question with greater weight than the lamented and revered Bishop Lightfoot and Dr. von Dillinger. One of Bishop Lightfoot’s latest articles shows it to be at least probable that the original of the Fragment must have been in Greek verse, and confirms the view that it was almost certainly in the Greek language.’ Dr. Dollinger was kind enough but a short time before his death, to give me permission to state his opinion on the Fragment in the following terms :— I regard it as certain that the Muratorian Fragment is to be placed between A.D. 150 and 4.p. 175, and that accord- ingly the Pastor of Hermas falls in the period from a.p. 130 to about A.D. 150. ‘This is also the prevailing and best sup- ported opinion among German theologians, both Catholic and Protestant.? * The Academy, September 21, 1889, pp. 186 sqq. See also reply by the author of Supernatural Religion, in The Academy, Sep- tember 28, p. 205. 3 ‘Ich halte fiir sicher, dass das Fragm. Muratorianum in die Zeit von 150 bis 175 zu setzen sei, und dass also der Pastor des Hermas in die Zeit von 130 bis etwa 150 falle. Diess ist auch unter den deutschen Theologen beider Con- fessionen die ueberwiegende und best vortretene Ansicht.’ Ign. Doellinger, Miinchen, 5 Aug. 1889. Recent opinions : Bishop Lightfoot, Dr. von Dollinger. Result in- dependent of these opinions. Summary : 46 LECTURE I. But the question which is at present occupying our attention—the reception of the Fourth Gospel towards the close of the second century—will not be seriously affected by any verdict on these points. If it should be proved that the Versions and the Fragment belong to the early years of the third rather than to the closing years of the second century, it will not take from the abundant evidence which we already possess ; and if it should be proved that they belong to the second century, it cannot make more certain that which is quite certain now. And quite certain it is ; for every witness who has been brought before the tribunal of modern criticism has testified to it, every cross-examination has con- firmed it, every re-examination has brought out some new point in favour of it. No advocate known in the courts of criticism has ventured to call rebutting evidence. Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, Scholten and Loman, Strauss and Renan, Davidson and the author of Supernatural Religion, all admit it ; and there is no more reason to doubt that the Fourth Gospel was known and read as the work of 8. John in the closing decades of the second, than that it is so known and read in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. Why then have I taxed your patience with even the outlines of evidence—many who hear me will know how much 1 have spared you—to prove that which is undoubted ? Partly because the longer LECTURE 1. 47 a man lives, the more does he learn to take nothing for granted ; and the more does he find that the force of the well-known is not always felt, and that references to authorities are not always followed out. But chiefly because the importance of the facts which are admitted, lies not so much in themselves, as in the evidence on which they are based. It is not that the Fourth Gospel was known and read as the work of 8. John in the year a.p. 190 or 180 or 170 ; but that it was known and read through all the extent of Christendom, in churches varying in origin and language and history, in Lyons and Rome, in Carthage and Alexandria, in Athens and Corinth, in Ephesus and Sardis and Hierapolis, in Antioch and Edessa ; that the witness is of churches to a sacred book which was read in their services, and about which there could be no mistake, and of individuals who had sacrificed the greatest good of temporal life, and were ready to sacrifice life itself as a witness to its truth; that these individual wit- nesses were men of culture and rich mental endow- ment, with full access to materials for judgment, and full power to exercise that judgment; that their witness was given in the face of hostile heathenism and opposing heresy, which demanded caution in argument and reserve in statement; and that this witness is clear, definite, unquestioned. It is not that the Fourth Gospel was known at the end of the second century, but that it was received as divine in churches each of which had a corporate Strength of testi- mony. Its extent and unan- imity. The corporate life of the Church. Answer of author of Super- natural Religion. 48 LECTURE I. life and unity, stretching back to the foundation by Apostles and Prophets ; and that its chief witnesses are men whose lives bridge wide intervals of place and time. The witness of Irenzus is the product of a life spent in Gaul and Rome and Asia Minor, and extending backwards for threescore years and ten from the close of the second century. Tor a quarter of a century he was a contemporary of Polycarp, who must have been for a like period a contemporary of S. John. Tertullian’s witness is that of a life spent in North Africa and Rome. Clement’s witness links together Greece and Italy, the far East and Egypt, and teachers of almost every nation. These writers all claim, in terms which cannot be mistaken, and with a force which cannot be resisted, their unity with those who had preceded them even to Apostolic times. The author of Supernatural Religion in his general reply to criticisms on his work, which he issued as a preface to the sixth edition in 1875, and repeated in the seventh and complete edition in 1879, and again last year, cannot avoid some answer to the question how, if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as Irenzeus. He admits the fact in the terms which 1 have just read, and adds, My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudo- LECTURE I. 49 nymic literature in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment regard the canonical posi- tion of any Gospel at the end of that century either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but the beginning of the first century. Hven if we took the statements of Irenzeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian and Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are shown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses for miracles.‘ Now an author has a perfect right to decide what is necessary and due to his subject and to himself, but if he thinks it totally unnecessary to account for the most important and best established fact in the whole case, and then proceeds to make general remarks which certainly do not account for it, he abandons the judicial inquiry of a critic, and assumes the posi- tion of a special pleader for a desperate cause. We stand on the banks of a river which we are tracking to its source. We can follow it here by rapid stream, and there by calmer deep, now through fertile plain, and now over mountain rock. Our way is blocked. Beyond is the gloom of an almost im- penetrable forest ; but here, as it emerges from the forest, our river is broad, full, well defined. What traveller doubts that if he could make a way through 4 A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot’s Essays, 1889, p. 43. Con- clusion. 00 LECTURE I. the forest he would find the river again ? It is here, and is in strength and volume such as prove it to be far from its source. It must be, it is, yonder. It will be our task in the next lecture to follow some of the tracks which have been made in the forest, and see if we come upon our river. LECLU Rit | 1 THE ‘JUDGMENT OF CENTURIES’ THE SECOND CENTURY: EARLIER GENERATIONS EQ ‘IT DESERVES LIKEWISE TO BE ATTENDED TO ON THIS SUBJECT, THAT IN A NUMBER OF CONCURRENT TESTIMONIES, (IN CASES WHEREIN THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO PREVIOUS CONCERT) THERE IS A PROBABILITY DIS- TINCT FROM THAT WHICH MAY BE TERMED THE SUM OF THE PROBABILITIES RESULTING FROM THE TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES, A PROBABILITY WHICH WOULD REMAIN EVEN THOUGH THE WITNESSES WERE OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS TO MER!T NO FAITH AT ALL. THIS PROBABILITY ARISETH PURELY FROM THE CONCURRENCE ITSELF. THAT SUCH A CONCURRENCE SHOULD SPRING FROM CHANCE, IS AS ONE TO INFINITE; THAT IS, IN OTHER WORDS, MORALLY IMPOSSIBLE. IF THEREFORE CONCERT BE EXCLUDED, THERE REMAINS NO OTHER CAUSE BUT THE REALITY OF THE FACT.’ Principal Campbell. LECTURE IL. Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations ; Ask thy father, and he will shew thee ; Thine elders, and they will tell thee. Deut. xxxii. 7. Fiavius Justinus, philosopher and martyr, is for the middle what Irenzus is for the later decades of the second century, the chief ecclesiastical author and the most important witness for the sacred writings of the Church. We know few details of his life, and these come for the most part from himself. He tells us that he was by descent a Samaritan,’ but he does not mean by this more than that his ancestors had settled at Flavia Neapolis, a town which had been built near the ruins of Sychem, and is now known as Nablous. The town was named after Flavius Vespasian, and so was Justin himself, and perhaps he belonged to the colony planted there by the emperor after the destruction of Jerusalem. His father’s name, Justinus Priscus, was, like his own, Latin ; his grandfather’s, Bacchius, was Greek.” He 1 Dialogus cum Tryphone, cap. cxx. ; ed. Von Otto, Corpus, tom. i. p. 432. 2 Apologia, i. 1; Von Otto, i. 4. Evidence of the second century: The second genera- tion. Justin Martyr, fl.130-160. His con- version. 54 LECTURE II. describes himself as a Gentile, who was uncircumcised and had been trained as a Greek.? The story of his conversion as told in his own words is familiar, but always interesting, and is for our present inquiry important. It is not Justin only who speaks, as we hear the record of the soul in search for truth at any cost, and telling how he sought it in every creed of philosophy ; how he spent a good deal of time with a Stoic, but found that he acquired no full knowledge of God because his agnostic tutor did not know God himself, and therefore did not think such knowledge necessary ; how he then tried one who was called a Peripatetic, and was a shrewd fellow in his own opinion, but was after a few days too anxious for his fee, and was therefore in his pupil’s opinion no philosopher at all; how, impelled by intense desire, he next tried a very famous Pythago- rean, who made a great show of wisdom, and assumed that his hearer would have passed through the pre- liminary courses of music, astronomy, and geometry, and as soon as he confessed that he knew nothing about them sent him away ; how, in his disappoint- ment and helplessness, he thought he would try the Platonists, who had great fame, and was able to do so because a leading Platonist had lately come to live in his city ; how he got on rapidly in his studies, and rose by intelligence of incorporeal things, and by contemplation of ideas, as on wings of the mind, until δ΄ Apol. i. 53; Von Otto, i. pp. 142-4. Dial. capp. ii. and xxix. ; ibid, 1. pp. 6 sqq., and 96-8. LECTURE IL 5) he thought that he was wise, and in his folly expected at once to attain the end of philosophy, the vision of God ; how one day, in a field not far from the sea, chosen as fitting for his contemplative walk, he met an old man, rather striking in appearance, gentle and grave in manner, who entered into conversation with him, and led him step by step as in a Platonic dialogue, to doubt all human wisdem ; how, since he was unable himself to resist the questions closing around him, he endeavoured to shield himself behind authority, and asked whether these things had escaped the wisdom of Plato and Pythagoras, who were as a wall and fortress of philosophy ; how he received the answer that truth is independent of what these or any men have held, that long before any philosophers there existed prophets who did not demonstrate truths but witnessed to them, being filled by the Holy Spirit, and speaking the things which they saw and heard ; how, after telling him these and other things, the old man left him alone, and bade him think of them ; and how a flame was forthwith kindled in his soul, and he found this philosophy alone to be profitable and safe.* Such was the training of our present witness. Here is his view of the ethics of opinion :— Reason dictates that men who are indeed good and worthy to be called philosophers, should give honour and regard only to the true, refusing to follow the opinions of those who have gone before, if these opinions are worthless. The same sound reason dictates also, that we should not * Dial. capp. ii.-viii. ; Von Otto, i. pp. 6-34. His ethics ofopinion. His writ- ings. Chrono- logy not accurately known. 56 LECTURE IL. follow those who have done or taught anything wrong; but that a lover of truth must by all means, even if it be at the cost of life, and in the very presence of death, choose both to say and do the right.° That in this statement we have no mere form of words, but the convictions of a true man, the term Martyr, which has been always associated with Justin, will serve to remind us. Justin was a voluminous writer, and not a few works which bear internal evidence of a later date have claimed the support of his name. Men who are attracted by the microscopic investigations of the six- teenth or seventeenth, as well as of the nineteenth century, will find here an abundant. field for them which has been by no means neglected ; but there is now little disagreement among scholars of the most opposed general positions, as to the genuine writings of Justin. The two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho are his; more than this cannot be said with confidence. The Second Apology, which consists of only a few pages, is not free from difficulties, but it has no connexion with the present question, and they need not be considered here. The First Apology and the Dialogue are documents of primary import- ance. The chronology of Justin’s life, and the dates of his writings, have not been, perhaps cannot be, accu- rately established, and with our present knowledge we must remain content with approximations ; but δ Apol. i. 2; Von Otto, i. pp. 6-8. LECTURE IL, 7 it is admitted that this imperfection has no practical effect on the evidence. Credner, of whom his pupil and editor, Dr. Volkmar, speaks with hardly too great confidence when he predicts that ‘his name will remain honoured as long as the science of Intro- duction to the New Testament shall exist,’® places in his chief and, alas, posthumous work, the writings of Justin soon after a.D. 130, and his death soon after A.D. 166.7 Volkmar, in a note to this passage, naturally calls attention to later investigations of his own,® by which the possible limits of the writings had been narrowed from a.p. 130-166 to a.p. 140- 150, but adds that this does not affect the result. You will remember that both Credner and Volkmar represent distinctly liberal and negative lines of thought. Side by side with Volkmar, and indeed earlier—for the main conclusions of the article were worked out in 1852, though it was not published until 1857—Dr. Hort had been making independent inquiries, which issued in results that were consist- ent with Volkmar’s, but gave still narrower limits.? The chief difference in the course of the investiga- tions consists in the fact that Dr. Hort accepts, and Volkmar does not accept, the evidence of Epiphanius about Tatian.’ This gives ‘a.p. 149 or 150 as the ® Geschichte des Neutestament- 9. Journal of Classical and lichen Kanon, 1860, Vorwort, Sacred Philology, iii. pp. 155-193. Dec. 1858. 1 Ibid. p. 156. Epiphanius, 1-Ibid. § 3. p. 5. Panaria, i. 391; ed. Oécehler, ὃ Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1855, Corpus, ii. pp. 708 sqq. pp. 227 sqq. and 412 sqq. Opinions of: Credner, Volkmar, Dr. Hort. The First Apology, δῶ LECTURE lI. posterior, or rather post-posterior, limit of Justin’s life ;’ and Dr. Hort concludes that We may without fear of considerable errour set down Justin’s first Apology to 145 or better still to 146, and his death to 148. The second Apology, if really separate from the first, will then fall in 146 or 147, and the Dialogue with Tryphon about the same time.? This is practically a return to the older position of Pearson, who was followed by Dodwell, Massuet, and others. Modern critics had, for the most part, given considerable weight to the absence of the title Caesar from the names of Marcus Aurelius (Verissimus Philosophus ) and Lucius Verus (Lucius Philosophus) in the dedication of the First Apology, and had con- cluded that it could not have been written after their adoption by Antoninus Pius in July a.p. 138. The earlier date, A.v. 158 or 139, has the high authority of M. Waddington,’ and is also accepted by, among others, Dr. Caspari of Christiania,* and Dr. Adolf Harnack.° The position of Justin is a key-stone in the eccle- siastical history of the second century, and you will feel therefore that some details of his date are essential to our purpose, but it is unnecessary to enter at any greater length on a discussion which is after all chiefly of literary interest,® and, as we have been reminded 2 Journal, ut supra, p. 191. Taufsymbols und der Glaubens- δ Mémoire de VAcadémie des regel, Thi. iii. 1875, pp. 362 sqq. Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 1867, ° Theologische Literaturzeitung, tom. xxvi..pt. i. pp. 264 sqq. 1876, No. 1, col. 14. * Quellen eur Geschichte des ® *Au_ reste, c'est 1a une LECTURE II. 59 by Dr. Volkmar, does not really affect the result. As far as the writings with which we shall have to deal are concerned, that is, the First Apology and the Dialogue, we have a consensus of opinion that they fall within the ten or twelve years from a.p. 138 to A.D. 148 or 150. It will not escape your atten- tion that every year by which they are shifted back- wards increases their importance as early evidence, while every year by which they are pressed forwards welds more closely the essential unity of Justin and Trenzeus as witnesses for the use of the Gospels. The period included in the composition of the Dialogue itself, probably covers at least the dozen years which have just been marked out as our limits. It must have been written before the First Apology, for this work contains a distinct reference to it ;7 but in the first chapter of the Dvralogue, Trypho describes himself as a fugitive from the war,’ and in the ninth chapter, when Trypho’s friends fall into conversation among themselves, the natural subject is the war in Judea. We may suppose therefore that the Dialogue took place at no great interval after the insurrection of Bar-Kochba, that is, not much later than a.p. 135. Justin intimates in the course of the discussion,’ that it is his intention to draw question de pure curiosité litté- laid on the expression τὸν νῦν raire.’ Aubé, Saint Justin, p. 39. γενόμενον πόλεμον. Cf. Apol. i. cap. 7 Dial. cap. cxx. ad fin.; Von xxxi. ; ibid. p. 94, note 8. Otto, i. p. 432. Cf. Apol. cap. ® Dial. cap. lexx. 5 abd. pp. xxvi. ; ibid. i. pp. 76 sqq. 286 sqq. 8 Too much stress must not be and the Dialogue, c.138-15v. 60 LECTURE I. up a statement of the arguments on either side, and early in the Dralogue’ addresses an unknown friend who is disclosed at the end as Marcus Pom- peius,” for whose benefit the account of the discussion seems to have been written some years after it actu- ally took place. How far the account is strictly historical, and how far it has been cast by the writer into its present shape after the fashion of a dialogue of Plato; whether Trypho is really the renowned Rabbi Tarphon,’ whether portions of the Dialogue have been lost, are questions which need not here concern us.* Our witness is Justin, and the evidence is not affected by the doubt whether Justin or Trypho really said certain things in a certain definite form 1 Dial. cap. viii.; Von Otto, ii. pp. 32 sqq. Opp. p. 144, Relandus ad Othonem, p. 129, Cavius in ? Ibid. cap. exli. ad fin. ; ibid. p. 496. δ “yep Tarphon, ut Judei pronunciant, sive ut Carpzovius in Introd. ad Theol. Jud. p. 84, mavult, Trwphon, vel potius Try- phon, quod nominis in Oriente, Syria inprimis et A.gypto usita- tissimum fuisse ex Scaligeri Ani- madverss. ad Euseb. p. 146, et Ezech. Spanhemio de Usu et prestantia Numism. p. 454, observat Relandus ad Othonem p. 151. . . . Disputatur alioquin inter eruditos, noster ne Tryphon cum Judzo illo, contra quem Jus- tinus Martyr disputat in dialogo, idem sit, an minus. Affirmant id Bartoloccius Parte II. p. 862, Drusius de Sectis Judzorum lib. 11. ο. ii. (8), Jo. Lightfootus tom. Histor. Liter. p. 28 et alii, qui de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis ex- posuerunt: ex nostratibus autem Carpzovius 1. c. Sententie huic applauserunt plerique, quia in- primis temporis ratio eam com- mendare videbatur. Tryphon enim hica Judzis Akibe statui- tur zqualis, Akibe scilicet illius, qui princeps rebellionis Judaice, Coziba Pseudo Messia preeunte, in urbe Bitter excitate, pars fuit, et in isto bello vitam finiit secundum Judzeos a.M. 3880, vel 3901, i.e. a.c. 120, vel 141.’ Wolf, Bibliothece Hebree, part li. 1721, pp. 836-7. * See esp. Zahn, Studien zur Justin in Zeitschrift fiir Kirchen- geschichte, 1886, pp. 1-84. LECTURE II. 61 about a.D. 135, or whether Justin, writing some years later, describes them as saying these things at that time. Justin’s representation of the position in which the interlocutors stood towards the Gospels, would be his own testimony to the position of the Gospels at the time when the Dzalogue took place. A dramatist of contemporaneous events does not introduce ana- chronisms. What then is the evidence of Justin, as furnished by his First Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho, to the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel in the fourth and fifth decades of the second century? What traces have we a right to expect in these writings, on the assumption that the work was then known and accepted, and what traces do we as a matter of fact find ? It will not be forgotten that the Apology is a short defence of Christians, addressed to the emperor, senate, and people of Rome. It is not a treatise on doctrine for the use of Christians, nor yet a declara- tion of the truths held by the Church in opposition to the perversions of heresy. It will not be expected therefore to contain full and clear statements, such as are found in the great work of Ireneus Against Heresies ; nor would those to whom it was addressed care much about the Christian writings. The ques- tion for them was tbe nature of Christianity itself, and its relation to the empire. The writer of the Apology would limit himself to such materials as would serve the purpose in hand, and would keep Their evi- dence to use of the Fourth Gospel. Nature of an apo- logy. The Dialogue anapology addressed to Jews. Position of an apo- logist in the second century : 602 LECTURE II. before the mind his august but heathen readers. He had himself been a heathen, and had been largely influenced in accepting the truth of Christianity by the fulfilment of Hebrew prophecy, and the moral elevation of Christians. On both of these he will naturally dwell in addressing other heathen. The Dialogue with Trypho is, in like manner, an apology for Christianity addressed to the Jews; but Trypho would not admit the authority of the Gospels any more than a heathen emperor would. For him the Old Testament is the book of oracles, and to this the appeal is therefore constantly made. To no writing of the New Testament can there be any such appeal. The facts of the Gospel history are referred to as facts, and they are not disputed ; but Justin cannot claim any special value for them, nor would Trypho grant any such claim on the ground that they were related by inspired authors, or were contained in documents of more than human authority. An apologist of the second century cannot more- over, from his very position, refer to books which he himself considers to be sacred, as inspired or authoritative. This would be to beg the question at issue. Nor would the names of the writers give any weight to statements which might be quoted from them. On the contrary, to omit the names of the sacred writers, and to avoid all reference to their writings, may be taken as the normal use in apolo- getic treatises of this period, by men whose other works show a familiar acquaintance with them. LECTURE II. 63 This will appear from two or three examples. Justin’s own pupil Tatian was, as we shall have occasion to see presently, the compiler of a harmony of the four Gospels. He also wrote an apologetic Discourse to Greeks,? which nowhere refers by name to any sacred writing or any author of such writing. Athenagoras presented an Apology ὃ to Marcus Aure- lius in the last quarter of the century, when there was no question as to the Gospels, but he makes no reference by name to them or to their authors. Ter- tullian constantly refers to the Gospels and their writers in his other works; but if we stood to Tertullian in a similar position to that in which we stand to Justin—that is, if only his Apology’ and address To the Gentiles,? were extant—we should have no proof that he had any knowledge either of the Gospels or of their writers. Cyprian, to whom the Gospels were as familiar as they are to ourselves, in his address to Demetrian nowhere names the Gospels or the Evangelists. He quotes the New Testament writings, and in three instances quotes the Gospels ; but Lactantius is of opinion that even this is a wrong method of treatment, for Demetrian was in his view ‘not to be confuted by authorities from that scripture which he regarded as false and fabricated, but by arguments and reason.’? It is not, therefore, a mark 5. Oratio ad Grecos. Von Otto, tom. i. Corpus, tom. vi. ® Ad Nationes. Ibid. © Supplicatio pro Christianis. ° Lactantius, Institut. lib. vy. Ibid. tom. vii. § 4. Norton, Genwineness of the 7 Apologeticum, ed. Ochler, Gospels, ed. 2, pp. 137 sq. Tatian, Athena- goras, Tertullian, Cyprian, Direct re- ference to Evange- lists not to be expected. 64 LECTURE IL. of higher knowledge, but of ignorance, to seek verbal quotations in apologists of the second century. To expect then in these writings of Justin any formal claim to inspiration or Apostolic authority for the Gospels, or any reference by name to the Evan- gelists, is to ignore the essential conditions under which they were written ; to expect that, in works in which fulfilment of prophecy is the central idea, the subject-matter of the Fourth Gospel should be as prominent as that of ὃ. Matthew, or that, in works in which the outlines of our Lord’s teaching are ne- cessarily to be presented in their simplest form, the deeper teaching of the Fourth Gospel should be as prominent as the Sermon on the Mount, is to fail wholly in the historic imagination, which is a first requisite to the understanding what these apologies really were ; and to expect that quotations from the Gospels should be made by Justin with minute and verbal conformity to the text of any one Gospel, is to demand from him what is found in no ante-Nicene Father, and is much less frequent in writers of every age than is generally supposed to be the case. A smile of contempt has not seldom been indulged in at the expense of simple Christian folk who have some- times spoken as though, at the close of the first and in the earlier years of the second century, the whole New Testament was collected into a volume of con- venient size, and was in this form widely circu- lated throughout Christendom. But the demand for quotations, as it is often formulated, implies LECTURE II. 65 such a volume with chapters and verses, or at least some collection with simple methods of division and reference ; and it cannot possibly be satisfied by the condition of things which existed at that time. Let us turn then to the pages of Justin, with a correct impression of what may fairly be expected, and see what traces of the Fourth Gospel are actually found there. If our limits will allow us to make only a brief examination of a very wide subject, it will be a satisfaction to remember that in the present state of modern criticism, a detailed treatment of this point is less necessary than that of some others. Now, one of the first things which strike the student of Justin is the recurrence of the term Memoirs of the Apostles, which, with some variations, is found alike throughout the Apology and the Dza- logue. We find the term now in the simplest form :— . .. it is written in the Memoirs. ! Again, we have ‘ Memoirs of the Apostles’ :— . . the Apostles in the memoirs composed by them which are called Gospels . . .? And upon the day called Sunday all who live either in town or country meet together at one place, and the memoirs 1 2 - > ’, , Ω « A > , > ΄“ ἐν τοις αἀπομνημονευμασι γε- Ot yap ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς yevo- γραπται. Dial. cap. ον. ad fin., μένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, quoting Matt. v. 20. Von Otto, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, Apol. i. cap. Corpus, i. p. 378. γέγραπται ἐν xvi. Then follows the Eucha- τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, cap. cvii. ristic formula from Luke xxii. 19 ; ad init., quoting Matt. xvi. 1,4, cf. Matt. xxvi. 28. Ibid. i. 182. ef. xii. 39. Ibid. i. 382. F Traces of Fourth Gospel in Justin. Recur- rence of term Memoirs : The Memoirs, Memoirs of the Apostles, Memoirs of His Apostles, his Memoirs. 66 LECTURE II. of the Apostles and the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits.’ For this devil . . . is saidin the memoirs of the Apostles to have drawn near to Him, and to have tempted Him.* Then again we have the form ‘ Memoirs of His Apostles,’ where ‘ His’ distinctly refers to our Lord:— . we find it recorded in the memoirs of His Apostles that He is the Son of God.? . which things are also written in the memoirs of His Apostles.® . . as has been shown in the memoirs of His Apostles.’ . . which things indeed are reported to have happened in the memoirs of His Apostles.® Then the form ‘ his Memoirs ’:— It is said that one of the Apostles was called Peter after his name was changed, and this is recorded in his memoirs— 3 where ‘his memoirs’ may mean the ‘memoirs of Peter,’ 1.6. the Gospel of Mark, where the change of name is recorded, or the ‘memoirs of Christ ;’ but neither usage has any parallel in Justin, and there is 3 Καὶ τῇ τοῦ Ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἢ ἀγροὺς μενόν- των ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀπο- στόλων ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ. Apol.i. cap. lxvii. ; Von Otto, i. 184-186. ΄ ΄ a 4 ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασι τῶν » ἀναγινώσκεται ἀποστόλων γέγραπται προσελθὼν αὐτῷ καὶ πειράζων μέχρι τοῦ εἰπεῖν αὐτῷ Then follows a citation from Matt. iv. 9, 10. Dial. cap. ciii. ; ibid. i. 872. Cf. another reference to this chapter infra. 5 ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασι TOV ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ. Dial. cap. ¢. ; ibid. i. 356. ὁ Dial. cap. ci. ad fin., The mockery on the cross, Ps. xxii. Ibid. i. 362. 7 Dial. cap. cii., The silence before Pilate. Ibid. i. 364. ® Dial. cap. civ., The prophe- cies of Ps. xxii. 15-18. bid. i. 374. ® Kat αὐτὸν Πέτρον ἕνα τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμα- owavtov... Dial. cap. cvi., Mark 111, 16, 17 ; ibid. i. 380. See esp. Von Otto’s note 10 in loc. » »" ΄ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι LECTURE II. 67 every reason to think with Von Otto that the reading is wrong, and that the word ‘his’ should be ‘ their,’ referring to the preceding ‘ Apostles,’ or, better still, that ‘ Apostles’ has dropped out. With this emen- dation it becomes another instance of ‘memoirs of His Apostles,’ forms of which we have just noted in this immediate context. The Memoirs are further described in two impor- tant passages :— They who have written memoirs of all things which relate to our Lord Jesus Christ .. |! In the memoirs which I say were composed by His Apostles and those who followed them . . .? The first reflection which will occur on examin- ing these quotations is, 1 think, that Justin regards the Memoirs as a whole, and that he regards them as an authoritative written record of the life of our Lord. To them, and to them only, is the appeal made. They are ‘memoirs of all things which relate to our Lord Jesus Christ.’ The description of the Sunday service, moreover, shows that the Memozrs are regarded as sacred books. They are read—and it is clear from the context that a general use is referred to, not that of any particular church—together with the writings of the Prophets. > A “ > * Ἔν yap Tots ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, [ἢ ς A “ > “a a φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ 1 ὡς οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν, . . . Apol. 1. cap. Xxxiil., where the corre- sponding verb is used; ibid. i. 102. \ ~ > , 4 καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων συντετάχθαι, . . . Dial. cap. ciii. ; ibid. i. 372. ; τ Ὁ Memoirs further described: con- sidered as, a written record of the Lord, sacred books, of Apostolic authority, coming from the Lord. Use by Tertul- lian, 68 LECTURE IL. They are placed in order before the writings of the Prophets, and had obtained therefore the position of first in honour and importance. It will not escape notice, though the line of thought must not now be followed, that this position of the Memozrs carries any possible date which can be assigned to them, to a time long before that of which Justin is speaking. Another obvious reflection is, that in Justin’s thought there lies behind these M/emozrs the authority of the Apostles. They are to him not only ‘memoirs,’ but ‘memoirs of the Apostles.’ And behind the Apostles there lies the authority of the Lord. They are not only ‘memoirs of the Apostles,’ but ‘memoirs of His Apostles,’ ‘memoirs composed by His Apostles, and those who followed them.’ The student will find that the successive steps by which all teaching is traced through the Apostles to the Lord Himself are quite as certain, if not quite so definitely expressed, as they are in the passages of Tertullian which were quoted in the last lecture.® He will need therefore no guidance to an answer, if he should meet with the assertion that Justin derived any part of his doctrine from human teachers, as, for example, the doctrine of the Logos from the pages of Philo ; no guidance, I mean, other than the pages of Justin himself. This reference to Tertullian brings another thought in its tram. We know what Gospels he used, and how he traced them back in the unity of 3 Lecture I. pp. 24 sqq. LECTURE II. 69 the Church’s life and teaching to the Lord Himself. We know, too, what language [reneus used about the four-fold Gospel, and the Gospel according to S. John, and we remember that Tertullian is a witness from Rome, and that Ireneus is a witness from Ephesus and Rome as well as from Lyons. But Ephesus is the scene of the Dialogue with Trypho, and Rome is the place where both the Apology and the Dialogue were written. And Irenzeus was for a quarter of a century a contemporary of Justin, and probably at one time ἃ fellow-citizen with him in Rome. In any case he was in immediate contact with his life and work, and had a full and exact know- ledge of his writings ; for in the work of Irenzus Against Heresies, the Apology and Dialogue are quoted or referred to at least thirty times.* Tertullian’s references to Justin are known to be still more full, and his works were used also by Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Felix, Melito.° The works of Justin are then in familiar use by his contemporaries and followers. For the most prominent of these writers, the four Gospels stand out as clearly as they do for Origen or Eusebius. Is it, therefore, within any possible limits of even an unbeliever’s credulity, that [renzeus should be minutely acquainted with Justin, should know all 4 Cf. Adv. Her. iv. 6. 2, καὶ See the list in Von Otto’s Index καλῶς “lovativos ἐν τῷ πρὸς Map- iv. Corpus, tom. 11. pp. 595-6; and κίωνα συντάγματι φησίν, and v. 26. WVonGebhardt und Hurnack, Texte 2, καλῶς 6 ᾿Ιουστῖνος ἔφη. Ed. wid Untersuchungen, Bd. 1. p. 181. Harvey, tom. ii. pp. 158 and 396. ° See Von Otto, ut supra. Irenzus, and others. Identified therefore with the four Gospels. This proved by Tatian’s Diates- saron. 70 LECTURE IL. about the Memoirs of the Apostles, the Memoirs of His Apostles, the Memoirs composed by them which are called Gospels, the Memoirs which are read on the day called Sunday, the Memoirs which were composed by His Apostles and those who followed them, the Memoirs of all things which relate to our Lord Jesus Christ, and should, without one word to indicate the change, write all that he does write about the four-fold Gospel and S. John, unless he himself believed, and meant his readers to believe, that the four Gospels are identical with the Memoirs of which Justin speaks so much, and that the Gospel according to ὃ. John was widely read with the others in Church services between the years a.p. 130-140 ? I will not waste time by asking a similar question about Tertullian, because I have already with some fulness quoted his language,® and that language read in the light of his use of Justin, and of his connexion with Rome, leaves no possible room for doubt. Nor will I seek to answer questions which have sometimes been asked about the interval between Justin and Irenzus, be- cause in the truest sense there was no such interval. Corporations do not die. The corporate life of the Church flows ever on. But one visible link is so striking that 1t must not be passed over. Tatian’s relation to modern criticism will meet us again,’ but the great fact which seems to be now established beyond question, that Tatian, the pupil of Justin, composed a har- ὁ Cf. Lecture I. pp. 24 sqq. 7 Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 375 sqq. LECTURE II. Vai mony—a Diatessaron—of four Gospels, which are practically identical with our own, is, apart from every other consideration, sufficient to show what writings were included under the term, Memoirs of the Apostles. 'The Diatessaron of Tatian is the key to the Memoirs of Justin. In one of the passages which I have quoted ὃ from the Apology, Justin himself identifies the Memoirs with the Gospels—‘the Memoirs . which are called Gospels.’? Some attempts have been made to invalidate the force of this identification by sup- posing the words to be a gloss; but there is no MS. authority for doubting their genuineness,’ and In the Dialogue, a passage which is apparently quoted from S. Matthew is referred to as ‘ written in the Gospel ;’” and in another place Trypho speaks of the Christian precepts which are contained ‘in the so-called Gospel.’® The fact seems to be that Trypho is acquainted with one or more of the individual writings which col- lectively formed the ‘ Gospel,’ their use as lessons being probably the bridge by which the term passed from the good news which the writings contained, to the writings themselves, and to him, as a student of them, Justin uses the term (Gospel; while in they are quite in accord with Justin’s usage. 8 Cf. supra, p. 65. ® Apol. i. cap. lxvi.; Von Otto, Corpus, i. 182. 1 «Forte sunt qui audacter illa verba expungerent ac sibi gratu- larentur de emendatione. Sane Schleiermachero (Hinl. ins N. T. Ber. 1845, p. 71) glossam videntur olere. Verum nihil muto.’ Von Otto, ὧν loc. note 5. 4, Dial. caps ex; Vom Otto, i. p. 356; Matt. xi. 27. Cf. Luke Χ ae 3 Dial. cap. x.; rbid. p. 38. The identifica- tion is made by Justin, and known to Irenzus, and others. Fourth Gospel certainly included in the Memoirs. ΤᾺ LECTURE II. other portions of the Dialogue, in the presence of Trypho’s friends, he uses the term Memoirs. But in the Apology, the regular term for the outside world is Memoirs, which in this instance he identifies with the Gospels of the inner Christian circle. In the same way he explains ‘ Baptism ’°—the word itself not occurring in the Apology, though not infrequent in the Dialogue—‘ Eucharist,’* ‘Christos,’? and the technical use of ‘ brethren.’ ° Irenzus,’ and Tertullian, when they wrote so much about the Gospels, and used so fully this Apology of Justin’s, were perfectly aware that while he employed the term Memoirs in addressing out- siders, he and other Christians used the term Gospels, or, to express the unity of a collected plurality, Gospel ; and that he formally asserted the two sets of writings to be identical. The (Gospels of Ireneus and Tertullian are thus further identified with the Memoirs of Justin. If these general statements are accepted, there remains no question about Justin’s use of the Fourth Gospel. It is included in the Memoirs, which were read in the services of the Church. It would seem then to be an idle task to inquire whether in this short Apology to Gentiles, for whom the elementary terms of the Christian life have to be explained, ὁ Apol. i. cap. lxi. ; Von Otto, 6. Apol. cap. Ixv. ; ibid. p. 176- Corpus, pp. 162 sqq. 180. * Apol. cap. lIxvi.; ibid. p. 7 Cf. Zahn, Geschichte des 180-182. Neutestamentlichen Kanons, 1889, 5 Apol. cap. xxx. ; ibid. p. 90. Bd. i. 2 Hiilfte, p. 467. ΠῚ LECTURE II. 79 there are any references to the most spiritual repre- sentation of the doctrine of Christ; or whether in this Dialogue with an ideal Jew, his attention will be formally directed to the writing which, more than any other, had tolled the knell of an exclu- sive Judaism. The task, moreover, has been very adequately performed by others, as we shall see, and my own special duty in these lectures is to estimate modern criticism, not to add to it. I will therefore pass over a somewhat full ex- amination of the pages of Justin, which I had myself made for this purpose, and that the more gladly as a minute comparison of texts is not easily presented in a ‘sermon-lecture,’ and will ask you to consider some results of the more recent critical investigations of this question. Part of them will be thought by some persons whom my words may reach to be much more authoritative than any induction which could be made by a Bampton Lecturer. Herr Albrecht Thoma is one of the ablest opponents of the view that ὃ. John wrote the Fourth Gospel. In the year 1875 he discussed in two long and important articles in Hilgenfeld’s Review, the relation of Justin to Paul and the John-Gospel.® The article devoted to 8. John occupies seventy- five closely-printed pages, and includes a detailed examination of every chapter. The writer is not convinced that Ὁ. John is included in the Alemoirs— he does not approach this question, as we have done, 8 Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, xix. pp. 490-565. Recent investiga- tions: Herr Albrecht Thoma, T4 LECTURE II. from the side of history—nor yet that he is quoted as an authoritative historical source ; but taking chapter by chapter, and verse by verse, he finds what he calls a ‘literary community of goods’? which leaves, in his opinion, no room for doubt that Justin knew and used 8. John. To adopt Herr Thoma’s own expressive phrase :— He cites the Synoptists, he thinks and argues according to John.! Again :— John is to the Martyr no historic writing in the sense of the Synoptists. It is to him no book of history, but much more a manual from which he draws precious materials for his Christology.? Again :— The Fourth Gospel is to Justin in a similar position to that of the Epistles [of S. Paul]. The final conclusion is that :— As a manual of Christian gnosis, but not as a source of historical knowledge, it may after all be called a ‘ Gospel,’ and we may place it among the Gospels.! 9. *Hine literarische Giiterge- meinschaft.’ Zeitschrift, ut supra, p. 545. ' “Die Synoptiker citirt er, nach Johannes denkt und argumen- tirt er.’ Ibid. p. 554. * ‘Johannes ist dem Miirtyrer keine historische Schrift im Sinne der Synoptiker, kein Ge- schichtsbuch, er ist ihm vielmehr ein Lehrbuch, aus dem er schiitz- bares Material fiir seine Christo- logie herausholt.’? Ibid. pp. 557, 558. 5 * Das vierte Evangelium steht Justin auf gleicher Linie, wie die Episteln.’ Ibid. p. 558. * © Als Lehrbuch der christlichen Gnosis, aber nicht als Quelle geschichtlicher Erkenntniss, mag man’s auch immerhin ein ‘‘ Evan- gelium” nennen und unter die Evangelien stellen.’ Ibid. p. 565. LECTURE II. 70 Dr. Adolf Hilgenfeld is probably the best known living representative of the negative Tiibingen school, and his Review, from which I have just quoted, took the place of Baur and Zeller’s Tiibingen Year-book, and has been for more than thirty years the leading exponent of what has been considered to be advanced teaching. In 1875 he published a critical and learned Introduction to the New Testament, 11 which he sums up the results of his previous studies. In this work he admits the difficulty of denying Justin’s use of the Fourth Gospel, and adds :— I have long recognized the possibility of Justin’s acquaint- ance with the John-Gospel.’ .. . Dr. Ezra Abbot, an American divine, whose too early death in 1884 was regarded on both sides of the Atlantic as a severe loss to the science of criti- cism, published in 1880 a work on the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,® which was republished last year, in a volume of Dr. Abbot’s collected papers. Nearly all subsequent writers on the subject have acknow- ledged their indebtedness to this essay. Perhaps no other portion of it is so valuable as that in which, with all the microscopic exactness and care of a laboratory, he analyses, examines, and weighs the quotations in Justin. This is how he states the results of his examination :— We are authorized then, I believe, to regard it as in the highest degree probable, if not morally certain, that in the > Historisch-kritische Einleitung 5 Authorship of the Fourth in das Neue Testament, 1875, p. Gospel. Haternal Evidences, 1880. 67. Dr. Adolf Hilgen- feld, Dr. Ezra Abbot, Professor James Drum- mond, 76 LECTURE IL. time of Justin Martyr the Fourth Gospel was generally received as the work of the Apostle John.’ It will add to the value of these results in the opinion of some persons, if they are reminded that Dr. Ezra Abbot was a professor in the University of Harvard, and that this essay was first read before the Ministers’ Institute, and was first printed in the Unitarian Review. On this side of the Atlantic we have been not less indebted on many questions connected with the Fourth Gospel to the patient investigations of a learned Unitarian minister. Professor James Drum- mond has the honour of being one of the few English theologians who are stated, in an article which has attained some celebrity,® to be in the van of modern progress. He has the much higher honour of worthily filling an office which was made great by the intellectual and moral stature of Dr. James Martineau. Professor Drummond discussed the re- lation of Justin to the Fourth Gospel in three articles in an English Unitarian quarterly, The Theological Review, in October 1875,? and in April and July 1877.1 Dr. Ezra Abbot has expressed what is, 1 believe, the general estimate of these articles, m the 7 Authorship, ut supra, p. 80. 1 Ibid. vol. xiv. pp. 155, 829. 8. Mrs. Humphry Ward, The Cf. also Prof. Drummond’s inte- New Reformation: Nineteenth resting review of Von Engel- Century, March 1889, p. 468, hardt’s Das Christenthum Justin’s note. des Mértyrers. Ibid. vol. xvi. pp. ® Theological Review, vol. xii. 365 sqq. pp. 471-488. LECTURE II. ΓΜ following words which he applied to the first of the series :— He has treated the question with the ability, candor, and cautious accuracy of statement which distinguish his writings generally.? The evidence of Professor Drummond as a wit- ness should have therefore exceptional weight in de- termining our opinion. It is expressed in language which is clear and definite :— It does seem to me surprising that anyone, in comparing the passages in Justin and John, should doubt for one moment that the dependence is on the side of the former. John has all the impress of original genius, and gives his thoughts with the terse suggestiveness of one who for the first time commits them to writing. Justin never rises above the level of a prosy interpreter of other people’s ideas.* On another page he says :— There are two hypotheses by which to account for the quotation in Justin: 4 (1) that a Gospel which in the genera- tion after Justin was, as we know, confidently believed to have been in existence for the greater part of a century, was really in existence sufficiently early to be used by Justin; and (2) that a Gospel with a precisely similar vein of thought, a Gospel which in the generation after Justin had passed out of ecclesiastical use, and the very existence of which is merely inferred from the present quotation, was cited by Justin as an apostolical authority. The latter hypothesis, being framed for the express purpose, will of course explain the pheno- menon. If the reasoning in this paper be correct, the former hypothesis, framed not for the purpose, but on the ground * Authorship, ut supra, p. 34, 4 *Apol. i. c. 61,’ quoting John note. ili. 3-5. Cf. Von Otto, Corpus, i. 3 Review, ut supra, vol.xii. p.483. pp. 164-166. Dr. Sanday, his view in 1876, 78 LECTURE IL. of historic probability, also affords an adequate explanation of the facts. Surely, then, it is the part of sound criticism to accept an explanation which is founded upon what we know, instead of resorting to the boundless field of conjecture, where the severity of scientific study is in danger of being sacrificed to the facile pleasure of piling up shifting and unsubstantial hypotheses.” And he sums up the results of the last article as follows :— I must conclude, therefore, as best satisfying on the whole the conditions of the case, not only that Justin regarded the fourth Gospel as one of the historical Memoirs of Christ, but that it is not improbable that he believed in its Johannine authorship. This is a very old-fashioned conclusion; but I have endeavoured simply to follow the evidence without any ulterior object, and must leave the result to the judgment of the reader.® The writer of the article in the Nineteenth Century to which I just now referred, singled out our present Professor of Exegesis as another of the few English thinkers whose work was worthy of being classed with that of modern Germans. I agree so fully at least in the inclusive part of this opinion, that I will quote Dr. Sanday’s judgment on Justin’s relation to S. John. And first from his work on the Gospels in the Second Century :— ‘The word became flesh,’ is the key by which Justin is made intelligible, and that key is supplied by the fourth Gospel. No other Christian writer had combined these two ideas before—the divine Logos, with the historical person- ality of Jesus. When therefore we find the ideas combined 5. Theological Review, xii. wt supra, pp. 487 sq. 6 Ibid. xiv. p. 333. LECTURE II. 79 as in Justin, we are necessarily referred to the fourth Gospel for them; for the strangely inverted suggestion of Volkmar, that the author of the fourth Gospel borrowed from Justin, is on chronological, if not on other grounds, certainly unten- able.’ In his Inaugural Lecture on the Study of the New Testament, delivered before this University in 1883, the Professor marks the advance which had taken place in the ten years which had passed since the publica- tion of his earlier work on the Authorship and His- torical Character of the Fourth Gospel, in 1872. Then he had excused himself from dealing with the ex- ternal evidences on the ground that the results were inconclusive. This cannot, he observes, be said now, and among other changes he notes that Justin gives no uncertain sound.’ He thinks also that the labours of the two scholars to whom 1 have referred, Dr. Ezra Abbot and Professor Drummond, had placed quite beyond question Justin’s acquaintance with the Gospel ; and he adds :— Greater importance attached to the opinions of Professor Drummond and Dr. Ezra Abbot, as they presented, perhaps, a nearer approach to rigid impartiality than had yet been seen in any English work dealing with the subject. Both these writers are Unitarians—the one English and the other American—and they are besides scholars, as it seems to me, of singularly calm and balanced judgment.® 7 Gospels inthe Second Century, ° Inaugural Lectwre, 1883, pp. 1876, p. 287. 28, 29. * Lbid: p. 8: his view in 1883, Dr. Westcott, 80 LECTURE II. In addressing the Church Congress at Reading later in the same year, Dr. Sanday returned to the subject, and with special reference to the arguments urged upon the other side by Dr. Edwin A. Abbott? he writes :— I have been lately reading Justin again, with a view to test the force of this conclusion [that Justin regarded the Fourth Gospel as not possessing Apostolic authority]; and it is impressed upon me more forcibly than ever that Justin really implies the Fourth Gospel, and implies it, not only on the surface, but deep down in the substance of his thought. Frequently as Justin brings in the Logos doctrine, it is almost always in immediate connexion with the subject of the Incarnation. Page after page, time after time that the one is mentioned, the other immediately follows. ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο seems to be ringing in Justin’s ears. But these are the words of St. John and not of Philo.? I am not sure that the last witness whom I am about to quote, fared quite so well in the article which suggested those whom we have just heard, but few names will seem of more weight to many of those whom I am addressing than that of Dr. Westcott. His studies of Justin and of the whole field of critical and patristic learning are not of to-day or of yes- terday. It is now thirty-five years since the first edition of his work On the Canon of the New Testament was published, and it is hardly too much to say that every leaflet which has appeared on this subject during all these years has had the fullest weight given to it in the sensitive balance of an exceptionally ' Modern Review, July and October, 1882. * Official Report, 1883, p. 93. LECTURE II. 81 exact and widely read scholar’s judgment. In 1881 he writes :— It is unlikely that I shall ever again be able to revise what now stands written ; and under the impression—happily a mistaken one— that his pen was touching for the last time the work of his life from early manhood onwards, he says :— In one particular of some importance I have felt able after a fresh consideration of the evidence to speak more con- fidently than in former editions. There is, I think, no reason- able doubt that the writings of Justin Martyr shew that he was acquainted with the Gospel of St. John. I submit that in the remarkable consensus of opinion which [ have just quoted, there is a solid foun- dation for the belief that Justin knew and used the Fourth Gospel. I submit that it is anecessary deduc- tion from Justin’s clearly stated position in relation to the Apostolate, as the channel through which truth came to the Church from the divine Head, that he could not possibly have used the Fourth Gospel as a manual of doctrine without believing in its Apostolic origin. [ submit that in the historic nexus between Justin and Irenzus there is proof that the Gospels of the Church in a.p. 130-140 were the same as the Gospels of the Church in a.p. 170-180, and that the Fourth Gospel was certainly included. Shall I be asked by some of my younger hearers, ‘Why, if Justin admitted the Fourth Gospel as he > On the Canon of the New Testament, Notice to ed. v. 1881, p. xliii ; ef. ed. vi. 1889, pp. xlii, xiii. G his view in 1881 repeated in 1889. Consen- sus of opinion. Why Justin did not quote the Fourth Gospel more fully. Reasons suggested. 82 LECTURE II. did the other two or three, did he not more fre- quently quote it for matters of fact ?’ ‘Why does he even seem to avoid a quotation which was ready to his hand in 8. John, to find a much less appro- priate one in ὃ. Matthew or 5. Luke?’ My answer is simply that I do not know. But I have already pointed out that a fully suffi- cient reason may be found in the characteristics of the writing and of the persons whom Justin addressed. It is possible that two or more of the synoptic Gospels had been formed into a harmony, such as we know was arranged by Justin’s pupil Tatian, in which the Fourth Gospel had not yet found a place. It is possible that a merely accidental reason made it difficult for Justin to have access at the moment to a roll which contained S$. John. It is possible Dr. Keim’s explanation is right, and that Justin did not make use of $. John because of its opposition to chiliastic doctrine.* It is admitted that the Fourth Gospel did not pass into circulation until much later than the others, and it is quite possible that it had not so fully left its mark on the distinctly Pauline church in Rome. All this is matter of more or less uncertainty. The fact is that we really know very little about Justin. He lived more than seven- 4 *Tch zweifle nicht, dass ganz Schluss: ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ εἴ τινές εἰσιν vorziiglich der Bruch des Evan- ὀρθογνώμονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοὶ, geliums mitdem Chiliasmus Justin καὶ σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν γενήσεσθαι zuriickstiess. Hier ist Tryph. 80 ἐπιστάμεθα καὶ χίλια ἔτη ἐν Ἵερου- ungemein belehrend. So mild σαλὴμ, κ.τ.λ.᾽ Geschichte Jesu v. ersich ausdriickt gegen die Nicht- Nazara, i. p. 140. Chiliasten, so sagt er doch zum LECTURE IL. 83 teen hundred years ago, and most of his writings have | been lost in the wreck of time. The Apologies with uxisting which we are dealing are but fragments which have bes been saved. But we know that he wrote other works ™™* which from their nature must have dealt more fully with questions like that of the Fourth Gospel; and we know with certainty what men thought who were contemporaries and immediate successors of Justin, and were familiarly acquainted with his books.’ The argument from ignorance is never worth much, but it is worth nothing in the presence of this full know- ledge. It is impossible to overrate the importance of the The testimony of Justin, but he no longer stands alone ana as a witness from the middle of the second century. While he is defending Christianity against heathen- ism, there are by his side in Rome, representatives of the extreme forms of Jewish-Christian teaching which meet us in the so-called Clementines ; and the rationalist Gnostic tendencies are represented by Valentinus on the one hand, and by Marcion on the other. ΑἹ] are in different ways evidence of the wide acceptance at that time of the Fourth Gospel. That the Clementine Homilies quote it, is scarcely They now a matter of opinion. Professor de Lagarde, in dhe the Prolegomena to his edition of the Clementina,® gives Gers fifteen instances of quotation from or reference to 8. John. The list is not quite complete and some of > Cf. supra, pp. 68 sqq. 6 Clementina, 1865, Preface, p. 30. ; G2 their probable date, 84 LECTURE II. the instances are of little importance, but they are as a whole perfectly conclusive. Since the discovery of the complete MS. of the Homilies in 1853, to which we shall refer hereafter, their use of the Fourth Gospel has been recognized on all sides. The author of Supernatural Religion is of course not con- vinced, though even Strauss’ was, and Dr. Hilgen- feld has taken occasion, in a review of the work, to express his own dissent from the writer’s opinions, and his own belief that be will find no support for them in Germany or Switzerland. The question which we now have to ask about the Clementines is, not whether they quote ὃ. John, but what is their own date, and what is therefore the value of their evidence. Now we shall find that modern criticism has assigned them to almost every period of the second century. On the one hand a pillar of the papacy, and on the other hand one of the momenta in the development of Baur’s scheme of the history of doctrine, no writings have ever obtained a more entirely un- deserved fame, and no writings have ever been more subject to the baneful influence of extreme partisan- ship. Their date cannot yet be considered as settled ; but while the present Roman form is probably to be assigned to the latter half or even to the close of the 7 Das Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 69. von Joh. 9, 1-3 unabhiingig sein Cf. Lectures IV. p. 210, and VII. sollte.’ Review of Supernatural pp. 374 sq. Religion, ed. vi. in Zeitschrift fiér δ. *In Deutschland und der’ wissenschaftliche Theologie 1875, Schweiz wird es kaum jemand xvii. p. 584. Cf. Hinlcitung 1875, glauben, dass Clem. Hom. xix. 22 p. 43, esp. note 1, and p. 734. LECTURE IL. 85 century, the original form, Eastern in origin and Aramaic in language, cannot be later, and is probably much earlier, than the middle of the century. The student of these writings will remember their hardly- concealed antagonism to 5. Paul, and therefore to 5. John, and will see that they are in the position of an unwilling witness. This makes them for our present purpose the more valuable ; as does the fact that, speaking in Rome and under the name of Clement, they are really the voice of the East speaking the language of the Elkesaites. Valentinus was the master of a school which promulgated the most profound and wide-spreading system of Gnosticism, and numbered among his disci- ples, Ptolemzus, Heracleon, Marcus, and Theodotus. He was probably by birth an Egyptian, by training an Alexandrian,’ and by residence a Cypriote, before he came to Rome, which he must have made his head-quarters between A.D. 138 and a.p. 160. He had not left the communion of the Church on his arrival in Rome,’ but while there, according to what seems to be the meaning of Ireneus,’ he flourished as a leader of his sect during the episcopate of Pius. What led to the separation we need not inquire. It may have had its root, as his opponents are not slow ® Epiphanius, Heres. xxxi. tom. li. ἢ. 34. cap. 2, Panaria; ed. Oehler, 2 Adv. Her. 1 iv. 2; ed. Corpus, tom. 11. pp. 306 sqq. Harvey, tom. 11. p. 17. Euse- 1 Tertullian, De Prescriptione bius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 11. Hereticorum, xxxvi. ; ed. Oehler, their evidence. Valen- tinus, fl. 138-60. Followers form two schools: In the East : 86 LECTURE II, to tell us, in the disappointed ambition of an able man who saw his inferiors preferred to himself— a not infrequent cause of division in the Church, or of perverted critical judgment; or it may be that here, as certainly in other instances, the apologists of the second century have set the unhappy example to their successors in later years, of imputing motives which had no real existence. Whatever the cause may have been, it is obvious that, as a witness to the use of the Fourth Gospel, Valentinus is of the greater value to us just because he speaks from both sides of this cleavage. Let us remind ourselves that the witness of his followers is also of the greater value, because they were divided into two schools—one spreading over Syria and Egypt, the other and chief division having its centre in Rome and its extensions through Italy and Gaul. From the East come the HLacerpta Theodoti and Doctrina Orientalis, a series of extracts with cri- ticisms, ascribed to Clement of Alexandria and printed in his works, which contain frequent quota- tions from 8. John.’ 5. Ἔκ τῶν Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ava- of the Analecta Antenicaena τολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας ἐπι- τομα. Fabricius, Bibliotheca treca, tom. v. pp. 194-178. Clem. Alex. Opp. ed. Dindorf, iii. pp. 424 sqq. ‘The only useable edition (along with the older edi- tions of Sylburg and Potter) is that of Bunsen in the first volume (London, 1854), pp. 205-278. ... Clemens made use of a Valen- tinian writing, which appealed to Theodotus as its chief authority.’ Lipsius, art. Valentinus in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. p. 1082. Cf. esp. Heinrici, Die Valentinianische LECTURE II. δ᾽ From the West we have Ptolemeus and Hera- cleon. Ptolemzeus was among the earliest disciples of Valentinus and lived on to the time of Irenzus, who represents him as the head of a party. It was from the commentaries of these disciples of Valen- tinus, and from personal intercourse with some of them, that Irenzeus obtained his own knowledge of the subject; and it was to counteract the then existing form of the heresy—namely, the school of Ptolemzeus, which he describes as an offshoot of that of Valentinus—that he devoted his great work.* One section at least is an extract from Ptolemeus him- self? This is a connected exposition of part of the Prologue of 8. John, who is referred to as ‘John the disciple of the Lord,’ and it ends with the words, ‘et Ptolemeeus quidem ita.’® A little earlier in the same chapter there is a quotation with an interpretative change of text by which our Lord’s question ‘ Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ?’ becomes ‘(When He said) What I shall say, I know not.’ ? Ptolemeus to Flora which is preserved by Epiphanius,* There is also extant an Lpisile of Gnosis und die Heilige Schrift, pp. 88 sqq. ; and Zahn, Forschungen w.s.W. 111. Ὁ. 122. 4 Adv. Her. i. Preface, § 2; ed. Harvey, tom. i. p. 5. 5 Ibid. i. 8, § 5; ed. Harvey, tom. i. p. 80. 7 ἐν τῷ εἰρηκέναι" καὶ Ti εἴπω οὐκ οἶδα; Adv. Her. i. 8, ὃ 2 ad jin. ; ed. Harvey, tom. i. p. 70. 8 Her. xxxiii. 3-7 : ed. Oehler, ὁ These words occur in the contemporaneous Latin, but there is no equivalent in the Greek or in the account of Epiphanius (Her. xxxiii.) which is based on it. It is certain, however, that it is Ptolemzeus who is quoted. νῦν ἡ Ψυχή μου τετάρακται, καὶ τί εἴπω; John xii. 27. Corpus, tom. ii. pp. 400-412. In the West: Ptole- meeus and Hera- cleon, ΠΕ 170-180. Evidence of Irenzus, of Epi- phanius, of Cle- ment and Origen, 88 LECTURE IL. and in which the words ‘ All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made,’ are quoted with the formula ‘ The Apostle saith.’ ® Dr. Hilgenfeld, to whom we are indebted for the most careful edition of this Letter to Flora,’ and whose negative position will not escape your memory, recog- nizes the unhesitating acceptance of 8. John by the Valentinians.” Irenzeus mentions Heracleon in immediate con- nexion with Ptolemeus,® and Clement calls him ‘the most esteemed representative of the school of Valen- tinus;’* Origen tells us that he was an acquaintance of Valentinus,’? using the same term which Ireneus applies to Ptolemeus. Now Heracleon wrote the first known commentary on ὃ. John, large portions of which have been preserved by Origen,° and have been collected by Grabe,’ and in a more convenient form by Hilgenfeld.® These extracts give comments 9 " A a , ὃ Α ὃ 3 > i Sa \ ετι γε THY του κοσμου ημι- TavTa t auTouvu EVEVETO, και ουργίαν ἰδίαν λέγει εἶναι (dre πάντα χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, δ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ χωρὶξ Johni. 3. αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι οὐδέν) ὁ ἀπό- otodos,. . . Ptolemxi ad Floram Epist. 1. Ὁ. a ὃ 45. Epiphanius, Her. xxxili. ed. Oehler, ut supra, p. 402. 1 Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1881, γνώριμον Ἡρακλέωνα. A > ¢ , > τὸν Οὐαλεντίνου λεγόμενον εἶναι Origen In pp. 214-230. Joannem, tom. ii. 8. ? Ibid. Ὁ. 230. δ In Joannem, ut supra. * Adv. Ter, (ti; (A Ae) ee: 7 Spicilegium, ed. 2, 1714, tom. Harvey, tom. i. p. 259. 4 Strom. iv. 9. 73; ed. Klotz, tom. ii. p. 316. ii. pp. 87 sqq. and 237 sqq. 8 Ketzergeschichte, uw. s.wW., pp. 472-498. LECTURE II. 89 on passages of considerable length, and it is certain that the author of them regarded the text which he was expounding as of divine authority. The evidence which is furnished by Hippolytus, of of Hippo- whom I shall have to speak more fully in a subsequent "* lecture,’ to the use of the Fourth Gospel by the Valen- tinians is also clear. When we read, ‘On this account, he says, the Saviour says, “‘ All that came before me are thieves and robbers,”’’! we have no doubt that the writer is quoting 8. John, as he is also when he uses the familiar Johannine phrase ‘ the ruler of this world,’ ? But while this is positive evidence for the Valenti- nians, itis not quite certain that Valentinus is person- ally quoted by the formula ‘he says.’ The context however makes it in the highest degree probable that it is the founder of the school to whom reference is made ; and we shall find later that the probability is strengthened by a similar method of reference to Basilides.® ® Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 365 sqq. and 392 sq. 1 Διὰ τοῦτο, φησί, λέγει 6 cwrnp’ πάντες ὅσοι ἦλθον πρὸ , c A > “ 2 > “ ’ > ‘ Ἀ Πάντες οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἐληλυ- ἐμοῦ κλέπται εἰσὶν καὶ μ η μ θότες κλέπται καὶλῃσταὶ εἰσί. λῃσταί: Johnx. 8. Hippolytus, fefutatio Omniwm Heresium, vi. 35; ed. Duncker et Schneidewin, p. 284. 2 διάβολος, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμον νῦν 6 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου τούτου,. .. Ut supra, vi. 389, ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω: John xii. 31. p. 280. Cf. John xiv. 30 and xvi. 11. ὁ διάβολος δὲ ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου, . Ut supra, vi. 34, p. 282. 5. Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 370 sqq. Testi- mony of Valen- tinus to Fourth Gospel. The Val- entinians a school. The Catholics also a school, 90 LECTURE IL. But that the system of Valentinus himself, and the names of the wons as expressed in the well- known passage of Irenzeus in the eleventh chapter of his first book, which is probably based upon an earlier written statement,’ implies the Fourth Gospel, just as do the thirty eons of the Ptolemean systems in the first chapter, would seem to be beyond all possi- bility of doubt were it not for the fact that it has been doubted. The question really is, Which comes first, germ or development, the simple or the compound, the source or the stream ?° The Valentinians, moreover, form aschool. Pto- lemzeus and Heracleon were, as we have seen, personal disciples of the master, and the teaching of master and pupils forms a whole, developing indeed but homogeneous, which occupied much of the _ best thought of the second century from the fourth de- cennium onwards. ‘Through its whole history this teaching implies the Fourth Gospel. A caricature presupposes an original. And as the school is one, so also the Catholics who oppose it are one. ‘Tertullian tells us that the opinions of these heretics had been met in careful works by holy men who had lived before himself, and that some indeed were contemporaries of the heresiarchs. He names, as we should expect, Justin, the philosopher and martyr, and Irenzeus, the minute * Cf. esp. Lipsius; art. Valen- tin. Gnosis, ut supra, p. 40. tis in Smith and Wace’s Dic- 5. Cf. Hxcursus A. (Watkins) in tionary of Christian Biography, iv. Ellicott’s New Testament Com- p- 1080 ; and Heinrici, Die Valen- mentary, 1879, p. 552. LECTURE II. 9] investigator of all doctrines, and includes also Mil- tiades whom he calls the sophist of the churches, and Proculus the Montanist, of chaste old age and eloquence. We remember that Irenzeus was the younger contemporary of Justin, whose works he knew well and quotes frequently, and Hippolytus was the disciple of Ireneus. But among the works written by Justin, which are not now extant, was a Syntagma against all Heresies, which may with very great probability be taken to be the chief source from which later writers derived their knowledge of the heresies of Justin’s time, and may especially be assumed to be the written source from which Irenzeus is drawing, in his account of Valentinus.’ Ter- tullian, moreover, had the works of both Justin and Irenzeus before him, and his treatise Against the Valentinians is little more than an expansion of the account in Ireneus. Justin, Ireneus, and Tertullian are a triad of Catholics, as Valentinus, Ptolemzus, and Heracleon are a triad of Gnostics. We are now in a position therefore to estimate the bearing of the following general statements :— Irenzeus speaks of ‘those who are followers of Valentinus and make very full use of the gospel which is according to John.’ .. .° Tertullian contrasts Valentinus and Marcion in ® Adversus Valentinianos, cap. Hist. Hecles.iv. 11. Cf. Caspari, v.; ed. Oehler, tom. ii. p. 387. Quellen zur Geschichte des Tauf- 7 Justin, Apol. i. 26, 58; symbols, 111. 363, note 171. Ireneus, Adv. Her. iv. 6, 2, ed. 8 “Hi autem qui a Valentino Harvey, tom. ii. 158; Eusebius, sunt, eo quod est secundum State- ments by Irenzus, and Ter- tullian. Conclu- sion as to use of Gospel by Valen- tinus. 92 LECTURE II. their use of Scripture, in that while the latter used the knife and not the pen, Valentinus perverted the truth by misinterpretation, but accepted ‘ the whole instrument.’ ® The conclusion which the inquirer for truth will draw is, 1 think, not less than this: that, while we cannot consider some of the subsidiary arguments to be beyond doubt, the general position of the Valen- tinian school of Gnostics in relation to the Fourth Gospel is fully established, and that this evidence carries it back to a time earlier than the division from the Catholic Church. Here Theodotus is one with Clement; Heracleon is one with Tertullian ; Ptolemy is one with Ireneus ; Valentinus is one with Justin. Here the unity of a school of dissi- dents is one with the unity of the Catholic Church, in the higher unity of their earlier communion ; Johannem plenissime utentes. . .’ Adv. Her. iii. 11.7; ed. Harvey, proprietates singulorum quoque verborum et adiciens disposi- tom. ii. 46. tiones non comparentium rerum.’ ® ¢ Alius manu scripturas, alius Tertullian, De Prescr. Heret. sensus expositione intervertit. xxxvill. ; ed. Oehler, tom. ii. p. Neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur, non calli- diore ingenio quam Marcion manus intulit veritati. Marcion enim exerte et palam machzra, non stilo usus est, quoniam ad materiam suam czdem scriptu- rarum confecit : Valentinus autem pepercit, quoniam nonad materiam scripturas, sed materiam ad scrip- turas excogitavit, et tamen plus abstulit et plus adiecit, auferens 36. Cf. ibid. xxx. ; and De Resur- rectione Carnis, Ixiii., ed. Oehler, tom. 11. p. 550. For meaning of videtwr= con- stat, cf. Oehler’s note in loc., and especially Adv. Mare. iv. 2 ; ibid. 11. p. 162. ‘Lucam videtur Mar- cion elegisse quem ceederet.’ For meaning of instrwmentwm = testumentum, cf. Lecture I. p. 26, note 6, LECTURE II. 93 and in that unity they accepted the Gospel according to Ὁ. John. Marcion was also a contemporary and fellow- citizen with Justin. The commencement of his work in Rome may be placed at a.p. 139-142. His gospel is admitted to have been a mutilated S. Luke, and we do not look for any traces of 5. John, though it is not quite certain that these are wholly absent.’ The questions which meet us here are such as these: ‘ Why was 5. John not chosen?’ ‘ Would not the Fourth Gospel have suited Marcion’s purpose better than 8. Luke ?’ ‘Is not the fact that he rejected it, so far evidence that it was not at that date regarded as Apostolic and authoritative ?’ These questions are to be answered in part by a careful comparison of the teaching of Marcion with that of S. John. The one is through and through opposed to Judaism and to the Old Testament; the other presents a Gospel which has grown indeed as a tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nations, but all its roots are in the Jewish Scriptures. And in part we find the answer in Marcion’s principle of selection as it is described by Tertullian. We read, for ex- ample, that ‘ when Marcion observed how ὃ. Paul in τ the Epistle to the Galatians rebukes even Apostles for not walking according to the truth, and accuses false Apostles of perverting the Gospel of Christ, he endeavoured to destroy the position of the Gospels 1 Cf. Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, 1889, i. pp. 678 sq. Marcion, fl. 139-142. Testi- mony of er- tullian, and Trenezus. 94 LECTURE IL. which are peculiar to and published under the names of Apostles or persons immediately connected with them.’ 5. John is named in the context, and it follows that, in Tertullian’s opinion, Marcion rejected the Fourth Gospel, not because it was not Apostolic, but because it was.” In another passage Tertullian addresses Marcion in these words :— If you had not carefully rejected some of the scriptures which disprove your views and corrupted others, the Gospel of John would have confounded you in this instance.? It is probable that Tertullian is following Irenzeus * in his treatise Against Marcion, as he certainly was in his treatise Against the Valentinians, and it seems to be certain, that both Irenzus and Tertullian assumed that Marcion knew and rejected the Fourth Gospel. They would not in controversial treatises have taken for granted that which their opponents might have 9° 2 Sed enim Marcion nactus 331, ad med.; ‘interpolatum a epistolam Pauli ad Galatas, etiam ipsos apostolos suggillantis ut non recto pede incedentesad veritatem evangelii, simul et accusantis pseudapostolos quosdam perver- ‘tentes evangelium Christi, conni- titur ad destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum quee propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum, αὖ scilicet fidem, quam _illis adimit, suo conferat.’? Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iv. 3; ed. Oecehler, tom. ii. p. 163, Cf. ‘ pseudapo- stoli nostri et Judaici evangeliza- tores.’ Adv. Marc. v. 19; ibid. p. protectoribus Judaismi.’ Ibid. iv. 4, p. 164, ad fin. 8 51 scripturas opinioni tus resistentes non de industria alias reiecisses, alias corrupisses, con- fudisset te in hacspecieevangelium Joannis.’ De Carne Christi, iii. ; ed. Harvey, ii. p. 430. * Trenzeus certainly planned a treatise Against Marcion: ‘ Nos autem ex his que adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos, don- ante Deo, in altera conscriptione.’ Adv. Her. iii. 12. 12; ed. Har- vey, tom. il. p. 67. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 8. LECTURE II. 95 at once disproved. The fact that they assumed his knowledge of the Gospel is itself proof of that know- ledge ; which indeed there is no real reason to doubt. Now Marcion was the son of a bishop of Sinope, in Pontus, and was so wide a traveller that Ter- tullian constantly calls him the ‘ship-master.’ His evidence, which is obtained only by the cross-exami- nation of an adverse witness, strikes therefore alto- gether independent veins of corroborative testimony. When we pass to the first generation of the second century, we have to do with persons many of whom had themselves been, and whose parents had been, contemporaries with $. John ; some of whom had been his converts and his personal acquaintances ; some of whom had been his disciples. Of the Christians who died during this generation, many would have known his hfe and work for from twenty to fifty years. Let us take an example. Polycarp’s martyr- The second century : The first genera- tion. Polycarp, c. 69- dom is now fixed by an increasing consensus of 155-6. critical authorities, to which we shall have to refer hereafter, at A.D. 155 or 156.° Before his death he testified that he had served Christ for eighty and six years. ‘This would place his birth not later than A.D. 69. 8. John lived on to the reign of Trajan; that is, he died not earlier than a.p. 98. Polycarp was then about thirty years old at the time of the Apostle’s death, and men who died during the first generation of the second century—that is, from thirty ὅ Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 389 sq. and Papias, fl. 130. Their writings. 96 LECTURE IL. to fifty years earlier than Polycarp—might, without exceeding the average of human life, have had a longer personal knowledge of 5. John than he had. Papias lived at a time when it was still possible to collect and test the oral traditions of those who had themselves been followers of the elders; and to ‘learn what was said by Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or other disciples of the Lord ;’ and he himself knew two of those who had been personal ‘disciples of the Lord, Aristion and the presbyter John.’® He was a bishop of Hiera- polis, and knew there the daughters of Philip ;’ and on the other hand there is nothing improbable in the opinion that he was personally known to Ireneus, who makes frequent mention of him and had local associations with him. Of the five books which Papias wrote as an Ev- position or Expositions of Oracles of the Lord, we pos- sess only a few lines which are preserved to us in Eusebius, and some lately discovered fragments which do not materially add to our knowledge.® Of Poly- carp we have only part of one short letter which is certainly genuine.? That Papias and Polycarp both made use of the First Epistle of 5. John, and that the Epistle cannot be really separated from the Gospel, are among the data of the best modern criticism; and that Papias is made by the statements of Ireneus and 5 Kusebius, Hist. Eccles. ili. 39. 8. Cf. Lecture VII. p. 394. 7 Ibid. loc. cit. ° Cf. ibid. pp. 402 sqq. LECTURE IL. 97 Eusebius, and still more by the ‘ silence of Eusebius,’ a strong direct witness to the use of the Fourth Gospel in the first generation of the second century, has obtained a high degree of probability and accep- tance since Bishop Lightfoot published his Lssays on the Work entitled Supernatural Religion.' The whole meaning of the history of this period has often been missed, because men have looked at the fossils of it as interesting specimens of an extinct life, instead of clothing them with flesh and blood, and seeing what that life really was. It is only the man who will think out the Church life and work of these years until the names Polycarp, and Barnabas, and Clement, and Ignatius, and Papias, represent to him actual living beings, who can understand the first conditions of the problem before us. I will not occupy your time by referring at greater length to proofs which are now easily accessible. I am more concerned to emphasize once again the unity of the life, and therefore of the testimony of the Church during these early years. Let me ask you, then, to consider the bearing of the following state- ments of Irenzus, writing towards the close of the century. Of Papias he tells us that he was a hearer of John, a companion of Polycarp, and a man of the olden time.” * Contemporary Review, Jan. κάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονὼς, ἀρχαῖος Aug. and Oct. 1875. Republished ἀνὴρ,. .. Adv. Her. v. 33-4; Essays, 1889, ii. pp. v, vi. ed. Harvey, tom. ii. p. 418. 2 Ωωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς, Πολυ- Ἡ Testi- mony of Irenzus to Papias, to Poly- carp. His Letter to Florinus. 08 LECTURE II. Of Polycarp he says :— And (so it was with) Polycarp also, who not only was taught by Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse [cuvavactpadels| with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from Apostles, as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna, whom we too have seen in our youth [ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ, for he survived long, and departed this life at a very great age, by a glorious and most notable martyrdom, having ever taught these very things, which he had learnt from the Apostles, which the Church hands down, and which alone are true. To these testimony is borne by all the Churches in Asia, and by the successors of Polycarp up to the present time, who was a much more trustworthy and safer witness of the truth than Valentinus and Marcion, and all such wrong-minded men. He also, when on a visit to Rome in the days of Anicetus, converted many tothe Church of God from following the afore-named heretics, by preaching that he had received from the Apostles this doctrine, and this only, which was handed down by the Church, as the truth... . Moreover, there is an Epistle of Polycarp addressed to the Philippians, which is most adequate (ἱκανωτάτη), and from which both his manner of life and his preaching of truth may be learnt by those who desire to learn and are anxious for their own salvation. And again, the Church in Kphesus, which was founded by Paul, and where John sur- vived till the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradi- tion of the Apostles.’ Or let the mind portray the scene which is thus described by Irenzeus in a letter to Florinus, who had been his fellow-pupil in boyhood, but had now in old age wandered from the faith :— These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak without harshness, are not of sound judgment; these opinions are not ° Adv. Her. iii. 3, 4. Bishop Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 100, 101. LECTURE IL | 99 in harmony with the Church, but involve those adopting them in the greatest impiety; these opinions even the heretics outside the pale of the Church have never ventured to broach ; these opinions the elders before us, who also were disciples of the Apostles, did not hand down to thee. For I saw thee, while I was still a boy (παῖς ὧν ἔτι), in Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring prosperously in the royal court, and endeavouring to stand well with him. For I distinctly remember (διαμνημονεύω) the incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence; for the lessons received in childhood (ἐκ παίδων), growing with the growth of the soul, become identified with it ; so that I can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses which he held before the people, and how he would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord, and about his miracles, and about his teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would relate altogether in accordance with the Scriptures. ΤῸ these (discourses) I used to listen at the time with attention by God’s mercy which was bestowed upon me, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart; and by the grace of God I constantly ruminate upon them faithfully (yunoiws). And I can testify in the sight of God, that if the blessed and Apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and said after his wont, ‘O good God, for what times hast Thou kept me, that I should endure such things ?’ and would even have fled from the place where he was sitting or standing when he heard such words. And indeed, this can be shown from his letters which he wrote either to the neighbouring Churches for their confirmation, or to certain of the brethren for their warning and exhortation.‘ * Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v.20. Bishop Lightfoot, wt swpra, pp. 96, 97. H 2 Papias and Basilides, fi. 125. 109 LECTURE IL. In the few lines which Eusebius has preserved from the lost work of Papias, we learn that the writer did not delight in those who have very much to say, but in those who teach the truth ; ° and there is great probability in the suggestion that he refers to the ‘very much’ which was said by Basilides, who, according to the account of his op- ponent Agrippa Castor, as given in Eusebius, wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospels.° These are doubtless to be identified with the Hwegetica, from the twenty-third of which there is an extract in Clement of Alexandria.‘ The date of Basilides is admittedly not later than the reion of Hadrian, a.p. 117-138. The Groningen Professor Hofstede de Groot puts his life at a.D. 65-135, and his florwit in the reign of Trajan, A.D. 97-117 ;* but this work, though not without acute observations, leaves too much of the impression of an advocate to carry full conviction. We shall probably not be erring on the side of too early a date, if we put it, with De Groot’s Leyden opponent, Dr. Scholten,’ at a.p. 125. The important question is whether EHippolytus, when he treats of the system of Basilides, in which he admittedly makes clear quotation from $. John, is dealing at first hand 5 Hist. Eccles. iii. 39. melhrte Ausgabe, 1868, pp. 4-8. © Ibid. iv. 7. ° “Er lebte zur Zeit Hadri- * Strom. iv. §§ 89 sqq.; ed. ans, um 125 zu Alexandrien.’ Klotz, tom. ii. p. 322. Scholten-Manchot, Die diltesten ὁ Basilides u.s.w., Deutsche ver- | Zeugnisse, 1867, p. 64. LECTURE. Ἢ TOL with the founder of the system or with a later dis- ciple.’ I shall not, at the close of a lecture, enter upon this difficult and delicate question of. criticism. I shall for the present assume, without forgetting that it will be my duty to justify the assumption here- after, that there is, at least, a distinct inclination of the balance of probability in favour of the opinion that Hippolytus is dealing with Basilides personally. If I anticipate a later discussion only to add that this view is strongly expressed by such critics as Mr. Matthew Arnold and M. Renan, it will show, mean- while, that it is supported by thinkers of an inde- pendent position. We shall find that Mr. Arnold further believed that Gnosticism in its primitive forms is to be traced to a time earlier than the second cen- tury, and that the existence of Gnostic elements in any writing is far from being proof ef a second-cen- tury date ; a conclusion which is borne out by the most recent discussions on the subject.” Nor can I now do more than refer to results—the evidence for which I shall endeavour to present in a later lecture “—which have followed from recent in- vestigations of the position of Ignatius and other Apostolic Fathers. ‘Some among us may not be pre- pared to admit the earliest dates now claimed for the Ignatian Epistles, but few will refuse to admit the 1 Hippolytus, Refutatio Omm- pp. 346, 356-378, 514 sq. um Heresium, vii. 2. 20-27, x. 2 Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 371 sqq. 14; ed. Duncker et Schneidewin, — °* Cf. abid. pp. 395 sqq. Other points referred to a succeed- ing lec- ture. Result of the evi- dence of thesecond century: 102 LECTURE Π. genuineness of the Vossian recension, or will fail to see that if these seven letters are by Ignatius, they connect the Fourth Gospel immediately with the age of S. John. To these points we shall recur. Now, however, our study of the evidence of the second century, brief and cursory as it has necessarily been, must come to a close. What deductions are we justified in drawing from it ? What from the acceptance of the Third Generation of the century, represented by Irenzeus, Clement, Tertullian, Theophilus, Melito, Apolinaris, Poly- crates, the Gnostics ? What from the acceptance of the Second Genera- ation, represented by Justin the Martyr, Tatian, the Clementines, Valentinus, Marcion ? What from the acceptance of the First Generation, represented by Papias, Basilides, Polycarp, Ignatius ? What from the acceptance alike by Catholics and heretics ? What from the acceptance alike in every part of Christendom ? What especially from the acceptance in Asia Minor, the scene of the Apostle’s labours, in the generation which witnessed and immediately suc- ceeded the Apostle’s life ? What from the acceptance of the century taken as a whole, for human life may be classed in generations with sharply-marked divisions, but is lived in the unity of a web whose threads intertwine at every point ? LECTURE IL. 103 What from the probability which arises from the mere co-existence of these separate witnesses, and is entirely independent of the witnesses themselves ? + What from the union of these distinct arguments, which interpenetrate and support each other ? The force of evidence will, of course, vary, as it is presented to different minds ; but I confess that the fuller examination, which I have been able to submit to you only in outline, seems to my own mind to leave no possibility of doubt. I invite you to the a of an outline, always imperfect, and in present circumstances of time and person specially so, but—of the evidence itself ; and to the earnest and candid student of that evidence it will, I am confident, appear, that it is as certain that the Fourth Gospel was believed throughout every decade of the second The Fourth Gospel accepted as work of Apostle John. century to be the work of the Apostle John, as any | fact of the second century can to us be certain. We have found, chiefly by aid of pioneers who have gone before, tracks here and there in the unknown forest of second-century history. Wherever we can follow them we meet the stream which we are seeking to trace. We are now near the source. The stream which enters the century here must be—yes, it is— one with the river which passes from it yonder. In the next lecture we shall meet it again in the flow of sixteen centuries of history. 4 See opinion of Principal Campbell, ut supra, p. 52. othe! “iy athe “oss κί, ἰδὲ a ΝΥ ΤΟΣ w we \ ᾿ Ἵ ἡ ὮΝ! ἥν vba banlhag ita ie } Minin pia Rs As) ee HE) Eke ee THE ‘JUDGMENT OF CENTURIES’ END OF SECOND TO END OF HIGHTHEENTH CENTURY **"OLD THINGS NEED NOT BE THEREFORE TRUE,” O BROTHER MEN, NOR YET THE NEW; AH! STILL AWHILE THE OLD THOUGHT RETAIN, AND YET CONSIDER IT AGAIN! THE SOULS OF NOW TWO THOUSAND YEARS HAVE LAID UP HERE THEIR TOILS AND FEARS, AND ALL THE EARNINGS OF THEIR PAIN,— AH, YET CONSIDER IT AGAIN! WE! WHAT DO WE SEE? EACH A SPACE OF SOME FEW YARDS BEFORE HIS FACE; DOES THAT THE WHOLE WIDE PLAN EXPLAIN ? AH, YET CONSIDER IT AGAIN! | ALAS! THE GREAT WORLD GOES ITS WAY, AND TAKES ITS TRUTH FROM EACH NEW DAY; THEY DO NOT QUIT, NOR CAN RETAIN, FAR LESS CONSIDER IT AGAIN.’ Clough. LECTURE III. And ... many ... beliewed ... because of the word of the woman, who testified, ... And many more believed because of his word ; and they said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviowr of the world.—John iv. 39, 41, 42. WHEN we pass from the second to the third and the succeeding centuries, we pass in the critical history of the New Testament from the glimmering light of dawn to the full and clear light of day. Evidence of the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel now appears on every hand, and the validity of this evidence is admitted by all competent judges. There is a point at which the unconscious colouring of a preconceived theory can no longer alter the com- plexion of facts; and this point we have reached. Our task to-day, therefore, is not to adduce the evi- dence in detail—that would be impossible; but to estimate it as a whole, and to examine the principles on which it is founded. Even this would be impos- sible if we were to attempt more than a bird’s-eye view ; but more is not needed for our purpose. On the threshold of the third century there meets us much which cannot in any case be placed later, Facts of the recep- tion. Evidence of sixteen centuries : Third cen- tury : The Mura- torian Frag- ment. The Versions. “TY Eastern church: Origen, 186-253. 108 . LECTURE IIL and ought, in the opinion of many men of best trained critical judgment, to have been placed earlier. Now at latest, the fragment of the list discovered by Muratori and known by his name, not only testifies to the acknowledged use of the Fourth Gospel in the churches of Italy, but also supplies the first account of its origin. Now, if not long before, come the Versions. How far back do the churches which demanded transla- tions carry the existence of the original! How highly prized was that which each church, no longer content with the voice of the preacher, or the interpretation of the reader, took such pains to acquire! How widely spread, and therefore how deeply rooted, is the tree which already has branches in the Greek of Ephesus and Athens and Rome, the Latin of Carthage, the Coptic of Egypt, the Syriac of the East! Our knowledge of the history reminds us that every writing of the New Testament was not included in all these Versions—not the Apocalypse, for example, which some of our modern critics take to be the best attested book of the New Testament, and an argu- ment from which to prove that the Fourth Gospel cannot be by 8. John—but that the now disputed Fourth Gospel was then nowhere questioned. Here is the evidence of Origen, in criticism the sreatest of the Fathers, whose manhood extends over nearly the first half of the century. Scattered through his voluminous writings are frequent refer- ences to questions of the Canon, many of which LECTURE III. 109 are collected by Eusebius.‘ He does not clearly mark out his divisions, but in effect he foreshadows the more distinct analysis of Eusebius and makes three classes of writings—the genuine, the mixed, the spurious. The Jast class includes no writing in our present Bibles ; the second class includes the Epistle of S. James, 5. Jude, the Second Epistle of S. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of 8S. John; the first class includes the remainder, that is, nearly the whole of our present New Testament. On the Gospel of 5. John he wrote commentaries, the earliest portion of which belongs to his Alexandrian life, that is, to a date before a.p. 231, as we may infer from his own statement.” He considers the Gospels to be the ‘ first-fruits’ of Scripture, and the Gospel according to 5. John to be the ‘first-fruits’ of the Gospels.* He knows that there are ‘four Gospels alone uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven,’ and of the writer of the Fourth Gospel he asks :— Why is it necessary for me to speak about him who reclined upon the breast of Jesus, John, who has left behind a single Gospel, though he confesses that he could write so many as not even the world could contain ? 4 Immediately after Origen, and in part represent- ing him, comes his most eminent pupil Dionysius, 1 Hist. Eccles. vi. 25. 6 ; ed. ut supra, tom. ii. pp. 5, 6. ; ᾽ Ppp. 9, ? Origen, Commentaria wm * Euseb. Hist. Hecles. vi. 25. Toannem, tom. vi. ὃ 1 ; ed. Huet., Cf. Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen 1668, tom. 11. p. 94. Cf. Euseb. Schriften, ὃ 311; Davidson, Hist. Eccles. vi. 24. Canon, p. 115; and Westcott, * Commentaria, ut supra,tom.i. Canon, ed. 6, pp. 358 sq. His divi- sion of the sacred writings. Dionysius of Alex- andria, Οὐ 95-265. The Fourth Gospel and the Apoca- lypse. 110 LECTURE III. president of the catechetical school and bishop of Alexandria. Eusebius has preserved a portion of his work On Promises, which contains the first example of a considerable argument on one of the sacred Scriptures based upon internal evidence. It is per- haps also an example of the unconscious bias of party. Nepos, bishop of Arsinoé in Egypt, had published a work against the allegorical school of Alexandria, as Eusebius also tells us,° and had sought to establish the literal chiliastic interpretation of the Apocalypse. Dionysius was strongly opposed to this view, and in support of his arguments tries to show that the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse could not, on account of differences in the character, language, and construction of the two writings, be by the same author. The writer of the Apocalypse may have been, he thinks, a man named John. He fully allows that he was a holy and inspired man, but he could hardly concur in the opinion that he was John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, who wrote the Gospel and the Catholic Epistle. Dionysius is then the forerunner of much later criticism which has distinguished between these writings; but his distinction leads to results exactly the opposite of those of some critics with whom we shall have to deal. For him the Gospel is quite certainly the work of the Apostle, and therefore the Apocalypse is by another, though an inspired hand. For them the Apocalypse is quite 5 "EXeyxos ᾿Αλληγοριστῶν, Hist. Eccles. vii. 24. ® Ibid. vii. 25. LECTURE II. pet certainly by the Apostle John, and the Gospel is therefore by another, and not an inspired hand. To the third century and the Eastern Church, probably to the diocese of Ephesus, belongs also the first part of the ecclesiastical code which is known as the Apostolical Constitutions. It contains the fol- lowing official reference to the Gospels :— Afterwards let a deacon or a priest read the Gospels which I, Matthew and John, have handed down to you, and which Luke and Mark, the helpers of Paul, have left to you.’ In the Western Church we find the same con- _sensus of statement. To Caius and Hippolytus of Rome, whose period overlaps the close of the second and the opening of the third century, it will be necessary to refer later, but we may at once note that their testimony to the Fourth Gospel is beyond ques- tion. Hippolytus indeed wrote a Defence or Hxposi- tion of the Gospel and the Apocalypse ;* and Caius, as we shall see, clearly admits the authenticity of the Gospel. Of the African writers of the third century, Cyprian is in every way the chief, and may be taken as the representative. For him there is no doubt as to the four Gospels, which are symbolized by the four rivers of paradise.’ A more formal list of 7 Constitutiones Apostolorum, ture VII. pp. 392 sq. ii. 57, ed. Cotelier, Patres Apo- ® ‘Has arbores rigat quatuor stolici, tom. 1. p. 262. fluminibus, id est, evangeliis 8 “γχὲρ τοῦ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην evay- quatuor, quibus baptismi gratiam γελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως. Cf. Lec- salutaris czlesti inundatione lar- The Apo- stolical Constitu- tions. Western Church : Cyprian, fl. 246-258, Fourth and suc- ceeding centuries : East: Eusebius, Ὁ. 260— 999. Copies prepared for Con- stantine. 112 LECTURE III. the books which were generally read in the African church of the third century is furnished in the Codex Claromontanus ;+ and here the four Gospels stand, as a matter of course, at the head of the stichometrical list, and $. John according to Western usage takes the second place. The fourth century is marked out in the history of the New Testament Scriptures by the investiga- tions of Eusebius; and whatever opinion may be formed of some of this writer’s statements, there can be no doubt that, in reference to our present subject, he had access in both the East and the West to full information as to the usage of the churches and the opinions of individuals; and that we have in him, for the first time, a careful examination of evidence on a distinctly historical principle. His division of the books of the New Testament, founded in part on that of Origen, is familiar to the beginner in the study of ecclesiastical history ; and I need hardly pause to note that among the books which he regards as un- doubted and generally acknowledged, come first of all the holy quaternion of the Gospels, and among them the Gospel according to 8. John.’ Eusebius must have exercised in another way an important influence on the Canon of the Greek church. About the year A.D. 532, the emperor Constantine gitur.? Cyprian, Lpistole 73. Neutestamentlichen Kanon, pp. Opp. ed. Benedict. Venet. 1758, 175 sq. p. 317. * Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 3, 1 Cf. Credner, Geschichte des 25, 31, 39; vi. 14. LECTURE III. 113 directed him to have fifty copies of ἃ collection of the Scriptures specially prepared for public use. They were to be written by caligraphists who knew their work, in a readable hand, and upon parchment. Everything necessary for this important task, inclu- ding two public carriages, was placed at the bishop’s command, and the commission was duly executed. The choice of the contents was left to Eusebius as best acquainted with the use of the Church. He does not formally tell us how he fulfilled this difficult and important trust, but his own writings give us safe guidance, and we shall not be wrong if we follow Credner* in supposing that the collections thus pro- vided included all our present books of the New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse which was not then generally received in the Greek church. They would quite certainly have included the Fourth Gospel. Cyril of Jerusalem devotes part of his Catechesis to an examination of the books of Holy Scripture. He advises that the works which are generally acknowledged should alone be read ; and that works which are not read in churches should also be omitted in private reading. He places in the first rank the four Gospels, the Acts, the seven Catholic Epistles ;° 3 Eusebius, Vita Constantini, iv. 36, 37; ed. Migne, tom. viii. p. 80. * Credner, ut supra, pp. 205- 218. ° Τῆς δὲ καινῆς διαθήκης, τὰ τέσ- σαρα μόνα εὐαγγέλια : τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ψευδεπίγραφα καὶ βλαβερὰ τυγχάνει. “ “ a Ἔνγραψαν καὶ Μανιχαῖοι κατὰ Θωμᾶν εὐαγγέλιον, ὅπερ εὐωδίᾳ(αϊ. ὅπερ, ὥσπερ εὐωδίᾳ) τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς ἐπωνυμίας ἐπικεχρωσμένον (al. προσωνυμίας) διαφθείρει τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἀπλουστέρων. Δέχου δὲ i Cyril of Jeru- salem, c. 315-386. Athana- sius, c. 296-373. Identity of his Canon 114 LECTURE III. and when he has later to speak of the Antichrist, he takes occasion to imply that he specially excludes the Apocalypse from his authorities. It is not that he denies its authenticity, but that he does not receive it as a divinely inspired and Canonical work. Athanasius was a contemporary of both Eusebius and Cyril, and represents Alexandria and Kgypt, as they represent Constantinople and Palestine. He took the opportunity of an annual pastoral letter, which the patriarchs of Egypt were in the habit of addressing to their flocks, to enter upon the question of the Canon. He does so with some hesitation, and offers an apology for venturing to deal with the sub- ject, justifying himself by the example of 5. Luke’s preface. His method of treatment is not that of the critic entering upon an investigation for the benefit of scholars ; but that of a bishop giving directions to the clergy and others of his own diocese, upon a matter which was still under discussion and upon which they naturally looked to him for guidance. ‘In these books alone,’ he asserts, ‘is the doctrine of religion proclaimed. Let no one add to them. Let no one take anything from them.’ The list of the writings of the New Testament which is thus made out is remarkable, in that it includes, for the first \ A ’ cal , > , A , > , , καὶ Tas πράξεις τῶν δώδεκα ἀπουστό- λοιπὰ πάντα, ἐν δευτέρῳ κείσθω λων. Πρὸς τούτοις δὲ καὶ ras ἕπτὰ (αἰ. ἔξω κείσθω ἐν δευτέρῳ). ᾿Ιακώβου, καὶ Πέτρου, καὶ ᾿Ιωάννου Καὶ ὅσα [μὲν] ἐν ἐκκλησίαις μὴ ’ὔ > / ’ ~ καὶ ᾿Ιούδα καθολικὰς ἐπιστολάς - ἀναγινώσκεται, ταῦτα μηδὲ κατὰ ἐπισφράγισμα δὲ τῶν πάντων, καὶ σαυτὸν ἀναγίνωσκε, καθὼς ἤκουσας. μαθητῶν τὸ τελευταῖον, Tas Παύλου Catechesis, iv. 36, ed. Reischl, δεκατέσσαρας ἐπιστολάς. Ta δὲ i. 128, 130. LECTURE III. 115 time in an Eastern catalogue, the Apocalypse, in opposition to both Eusebius and Cyril; and that it excludes all that is not contained in our present New Testament. The Canon which Athanasius drew up for his own people in the thirty-ninth year of his episcopate, that is, in the year A.D. 365, is identical with that which we commonly accept to-day.° This direction of the bishop would meet with ready acquiescence throughout the diocese; but it did not of course affect other dioceses, nor did it necessarily command the allegiance of all scholars in Alexandria itself. On a question which was still open, and which was one of literary criticism, the director of the catechetical school might think himself as much entitled to express an opinion as a bishop and a patriarch. We accordingly find Didymus, who lived in Alexandria at the same time as Athanasius, publishing an exegetical work on the Catholic Epistles, which is now extant in Latin only, and teaching that the Second Epistle of S. Peter is not Canonical. The work is one for use in public service, its authenticity is not questioned, but it is not, in the opinion of Didymus, of Canonical authority.’ Gregory of Nazianzus is another famous con- temporary of Athanasius who dealt with the books of 8 ἐκ τῆς λθ΄, ἑορταστικῆς ἐπιστο- satam, quee licet publicetur, non λῆς. Opp. ed. Bened. 1777, tom. tamen in canone est.’ Didymus i. p. 765. Cf. the Syriac in Festal Alexandr. ed. Migne, p. 1774. Epistles, Oxf. 1854, p. 139. Cf. Liicke, Quest. Didymian. i. 7*Non igitur ignorandum, 13; Credner, ut supra, p. 230. presentem Epistolam esse fal- rg with our own. Didymus of Alex- andria, c. 309-395. Gregory of Nazi- anzus, c. 325-390. Amphi- lochius, 374-394. 116 LECTURE III. the sacred Scriptures. Following the natural bent of his own poetic fancy, and following perhaps examples which go back as far as the Muratorian Fragment,*® he composed his list of the Old and New Testament in verse. ‘ Matthew,’ in Gregory’s view, ‘described the wonders of Christ for the Hebrews ; Mark, for Italy ; Luke, for Achaia ; John, the great The list does not include the Apocalypse; and the con- herald who had crossed the heavens, for all.’ ° cluding lines prove that it is definitely excluded from the undoubted writings.’ At the same time Gregory quotes it,? and the description of the author of the Fourth Gospel which I have just read is taken from it. Included in the same volume with the works of Gregory has been commonly printed the catalogue of his friend Amphilochius, archbishop of Iconium in Lycaonia. He is aware of the doubts which some have as to the Hebrews, but dismisses them in a word. Whether three or seven Catholic Epistles are to be received he is less certain. ‘The Apocalypse,’ he tells us, ‘some would include, but it is excluded by most writers.’ The Fourth Gospel is, though ® Cf. Lecture I. p. 45. ® Ματθαῖος μὲν ἔγραψεν Ἑβραίοις θαύματα Χριστοῦ" Μάρκος δ᾽ ᾿Ιταλίῃ, Λουκᾶς ᾿Αχαΐ- ad" Πᾶσι δ᾽ ᾿Ιωάννης, κήρυξ μέγας, οὐρανοφοίτης. Gregory Nazianz. Carmina xii. ; ed. Benedict. tom. ii. p. 260. 1 Ἰούδα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἑβδόμη. Πάσας ἔχεις. Ei τι δὲ τούτων ἐκτὸς, οὐκ ἐν γνησίαις. Ibid. 2 Oratio xvii. Opp., ut supra, i. p. 536. 3 Τὴν δὲ ᾿Αποκάλυψιν τὴν ᾿Ιωάννου πάλιν Τινὲς μὲν ἐγκρίνουσιν, οἱ πλείους δέ γε Νόθην (νόθον) λέγουσιν. Amphilochius, Iambi ad Selew- cum. Opera, ed. Cambefis, p. 134 ; LECTURE III. 117 fourth in order, first in doctrinal importance, for this son of thunder gives forth in mighty sound the word of God.’* In the concluding lines Amphi- lochius speaks of this Canon of the inspired Scrip- tures as the ‘ probably most unfalsified ;’° by which he seems to indicate on the one hand that no definitely fixed rule had yet obtained official recognition in the churches of Asia Minor, and, on the other hand, that more or less imperfect or intentionally altered lists were not unknown. Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia or Salamis, is known to us chiefly as the historian of heresies, which he marks with a keen and ever-watchful eye. While dealing with the Aétians,° he introduces parenthetically a list of the Scriptures, which is in the New Testament almost identical with that of Athanasius. But Wisdom and Sirach are also called divine Scriptures,’ and the Apostolical Constitutions are a ‘divine word and doctrine,’ ὃ though both are de- scribed elsewhere as ‘ doubtful.’ ° The Greek church and school of Antioch is represented by Theodore bishop of Mopsuestia, who Gallandi, Bibliotheca vi. p. 495. Opera, ed. Benedict., 1840, 4 προσθεὶς, ἀρίθμει τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην p. 1104. χρόνῳ 6 Heres. \xxvi.; ed. Oehler, Τέταρτον, ἀλλὰ πρῶτον ὕψει Corpus, tom. ii. pt. ili. p. 240. δογμάτων" 7 Cf. e.g. Heres. lxiv. ; op. cit. Βροντῆς yap υἱὸν τοῦτον εἰκότως tom. ii. pt. 11. p. 316; and xxxiii. καλῶ, op. cit. tom. 11. pt. 1. p. 412. Μέγιστον ἠχήσαντα τῷ Θεοῦ 9. Heres, Ιχχχ Oh ο Ὁ Χ Ibid. 414. ᾿ Οὗτος ἀψευδέστατος 9. Heres. viil. ; op. cit. tom. ii. Κανὼν ἂν εἴη τῶν θεοπνεύστων pt. i. p. 58. Heres. ἸΙχχ. ; op. cit. γραφῶν. tom. li. pt. 111. p. 26. Epipha- nius, c. 320-403. Theodore of ~Mop- suestia, c. 350-428. 118 LECTURE III. was known as the Hzegete. He is said by his op- ponent Leontius of Byzantium, who wrote towards the close of the seventh century, to have interpreted the Scriptures in a poor and spiritless fashion ; by which is meant probably that, after the manner of the Antiochene school, he did not follow the exuberant interpretation of the allegorists; and he is further said to have subtracted from the divinely prescribed number of books. He rejected, Leontius tells us, Job, the Chronicles, the Song of Solomon, the titles of the Psalms, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, the Epistle of 5. James, the Second Epistle of S. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of S. John, ὃ. Jude, and the Apocalypse.’ This is, however, to be taken as the statement of an opponent, writing after a long interval and from a very different point of view. But Theodore, free as he was in his treatment of the Canon, wrote a commentary on the Fourth Gospel which is largely preserved in the Catena of Corderius,” as are some important passages of the twentieth chapter in the acts of the fifth council.’ It is said to exist entire in a Chaldee MS. version in the Monastery of ὃ. George on the Tigris, near Catena Patrum ' Leontius Byzantinus contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, lib. ill. ; Gallandi, Bibliotheca, xii. p. 687. Cf. Credner, Kanon u.s.w. p. 229, and Hinleitung, ὃ 239, p. 649 ; Fritzsche, De Theodori Mop- suestent Vita et Scriptis, 1836, p. 88 ; and especially Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Afri- canus, 1880, ὃ 54sqq., esp. ὃ 56. * Corderius, Grecorum in sanctum Joannem, 1630. See especially the extract from Theodore in the Proemium ; and Fritzsche, Theodori in Novum Testamentwm Comm., Turici, 1847, pp. 19-42. 5. Labbé-Mansi: Oonciliorwm Collectio, ed. 1763, tom. ix. pp. 207-209. LECTURE IIL 119 Maussul ; * but in any case it establishes beyond doubt the fact that Theodore regarded the Fourth Gospel as an inspired book which was written by S. John. A better known and in many ways greater repre- sentative of the Antiochene school, but not greater as an exegete and a critic, was John of the Golden Mouth, afterwards patriarch of Constanti- nople. In the wide range of his works there is no reference to the Apocalypse or to the four shorter Catholic Epistles.’ Of the Fourth Gospel it need not be said there is constant use. The synopsis of the Old and New Testaments which is printed with the works of Chrysostom ° excludes the Apocalypse, and expressly speaks of the three Catholic Epistles. An anonymous homily belonging to the same age and locality, printed also with Chrysostom’s works, speaks of the second and third Epistles of δ. John as rejected 4 <. . . Alter est fama inclytus Theodorus Mopsuestenus a Nes- torianis Doctor cecumenicus, et Commentator per antonomasiam dictus et habitus, in suo Eruditis desideratissimo Commentario in Joannem, cujus exemplar in codice unico Chaldaico, anno superiori a@ me, maximo cum gaudio, in Coenobio 8. Georgii ad Tigrim, prope Maussul reper- tum, nescio an uspiam alibi habeat exemplum.’ Khayyath, Syri Orientales, p. 76, note. Cf. Professor Swete’s article in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. p. 940. > *Eit vere sanctus hic doctor, qui Scripturze sacrz libros omnes in Homiliis suis adhibet, quatuor illarum Epistolarum loca nusquam affert ; aut saltem hujusmodi loca in ejus scriptis nondum depre- hendi: etiamsi vero deprehende- rentur, non tamen inde sequeretur eam Scripture partem canonicam haberi : nam illis temporibus non pauca erant in quibusdam Kc- clesiis, que legebantur quidem, sed canonica esse non reputa- bantur : ἀναγινωσκόμενα μὲν, μὴ Ka- νονιζόμενα δέ.᾽ Montfaucon, Chry- sostomi Opera, Paris, 1834, vi. p. 635. δ᾽ Synopsis Veteris et Novi Tes- tamentt. Op. cit. vi. pp. 372-3. John Chryso- stom, c. 347-407. Period of Uncial MSS. 120 LECTURE IIL. from the Canon by the Fathers, whereas the first Epistle all with one accord declared to be by S. John.’ It will be clear to the reader of Chrysostom that for him the sacred Scriptures are books—Aiblia— in a special sense; and it is probable that the later meaning of the word Bible arose from his frequent use of the term. ‘ Obtain books,’ he cries in an often- quoted sermon—‘ obtain a Bible—that medicine of the soul; and if you care for no other, get at least the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospels, your perpetual teachers.’ ὃ The result of this inquiry into the Canon of the Greek church in Syria in the beginning of the fifth century is that we find it to be identical with that which existed in the Peshito, the received Version of the Syrian church, more than two centuries before. The third and fourth centuries are the golden age of Greek theology and criticism. We need not follow them into the ages of silver and lead; we need not pass to the extremer limits of the East ; nor yet examine the period of the great Uncial manuscripts—actually existing witnesses which go back in material and form to the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, tracing their text from the second century onwards, and finding their local history alike in Eastern and Western Christendom. It is nothing to our purpose to examine the lists of Anastatius Sinaita, 7 Opera, ut supra, vi. p. 503. reading τῶν ἀποστόλων τὰς Πρά- δ᾽ Homil. IX. in Coloss. Op. cit. ἕεις, τὰ Ἐὐαγγέλια, διδασκάλους διη- xi. p. 451. I follow Montfaucon’s νεκεῖς. LECTURE III. 191] of the Apostolic Canons, of Cosmas Indicopleustes, of John Damascene, of the Stichometry of Nicephorus, of Photius of Constantinople, of the pseudo-Athan- asian synopsis, of Zonaras, of Alexius Aristenus, of Theodorus Balsamon of Antioch, of the monks Arsenius and Matthew, of Nicephorus Callistus, of Metrophanes Critopulus patriarch of Alexandria, of Cyril Lukar patriarch of Constantinople. Itis nothing to our purpose to discuss the Canons of the earlier council of Laodicea in the fourth century ; or those of the Trullan council of Constantinople, which de- voted special labours to the settlement of the lists of the sacred books ; nor need we pause at the second Nicene council of the eighth century ; nor at the last council of the, Greek church, which assembled in Further survey not necessary. Close of Canon in the East. January of 1672 ‘at Constantinople, and in March at | Jerusalem, and finally undoing the work for which Cyril and Metrophanes had striven, followed the Roman decrees of Trent and canonized the Apocrypha. It is nothing to our purpose to trace the growth of the Syrian Canon in succeeding Versions ; or the list which the African bishop, Junilius, framed from knowledge which he derived from the Persian school of Nisibis ; or that which Bar-Hebreeus formed from the use at Antioch; or that of the Ethiopian, or Armenian, or Russian churches. These include points which are of greater or less—some of them of very great—interest for the history of the Canon and of the disputed books ; but throughout them all no word of discussion or doubt is ever raised as to the No doubt as to the Fourth Gospel. Border- land: Hilary, t 368. Philaster, ΤῸ: 387. Rufinus, c.345-410. In the West : Jerome, c. 346.- 420. 123 LECTURE III. Fourth Gospel. Ifit is singled out from the others, it is to occupy a place of honour, and to be made the chief, or ranked among the chief, of the sacred writings which God has given to the Church. If we turn again from the history of the East to that of the West, we find similar results. Three names are prominent as links between these separate halves of Christendom :— Hilary of Poitiers, whose Canon is almost iden- tical with that of Origen; Philaster of Brescia, chiefly known as the historian of heresies, who has for us this special interest that he speaks® of the heresy of those who rejected the Gospel and Apo- calypse of S. John, a heresy the knowledge of which he almost certainly borrowed from Hippolytus, as we shall have occasion to see; Rufinus of Aquileia, who follows Athanasius as closely as Hilary follows Origen. But while the border-land was thus occu- pied, the general distinction that the Greek church did not accept the Apocalypse, and that the Latin church did not accept the Epistle to the Hebrews, still remained. : The two great Fathers of the Western church in the fourth century, Jerome’ and Augustine,? both wrote commentaries on the Fourth Gospel, which was to each of them, without shadow of doubt, an 9. Heres. lx.; Oehler, Corpus, unico volumine comprehensum, i. p. 60. qui periit.? Lampe, Commen- ‘ *Hieronymus Stridonensis, tarius, tom. i. p. 251. florens a.c. 378, im Hvangelia 2 InJoannis Evangelium. Trac- quatuor Commentarium dedit, tatws cxxiv. ; ed. Migne, tom. ili. LECTURE III. ! 123 inspired and sacred Scripture coming from the Apostle John. Their works in relation to the Canon are full of interest, though we may not here dwell on them. They found their completion in the synod of Hippo in A.D. 393, the more decisive synod of Carthage in A.D. 397, the decree of Innocent the First, the renewed synod of Carthage in a.p. 419. For the West, the question of the Canon was settled at the beginning of the fifth, to be opened again only at the beginning of the sixteenth century. There is one seeming exception to this universal testimony which cannot be passed over, inasmuch as attention has been recently directed to it. The so-called Alogi are a shadowy people whose sub- stantial existence is doubtful, and whose position in time and place, assuming that they did exist, is necessarily more doubtful still. But during the last few months they have again been brought into prominence by references made to them in Dr. Zahn’s new History of the Canon*® in which, follow- ing an earlier article of Dr. Harnack’s,* he assumes that they were referred to by lIreneus. Zahn’s treatment of the subject does not escape Harnack’s trenchant criticism : nor are either Zahn or Har- nack allowed to pass unheeded by Dr. Hilgenfeld, pp. 1879 sqq. Cf. ‘Ioannesquoque Halfte, pp. 220 sqq. apostolus in Evangelistis quatuor 4 Zeitschrift fiir die historische eminentissimus.’ De consensu Theologie, 1874, 11. pp. 163 sqq. — evangelistarum, tom. 11. cap. Vi. ; > Das Neve Testament wm das ibid. tom. ili. p. 1085. Jahr 200. Theodor Zahn's Ge- 3 Geschichte des Neutestament- schichte . . . gepriift, 1889. lichen Kanons, 1888, Bd. i. 1 Augus- tine, 354-430. Close of Canon in the West. The Alogi: Name appears first in Epipha- nius. 124 LECTURE Il. who thinks that both have drawn conclusions from false premises, and that the Alogi of the second century—the Ur-Aloger as he calls them—are nothing more than the invention of Harnack.* The name occurs first in Epiphanius,’ who is proud of his pun, and begs others to call those who denied the Johannine Logos by the name which he gave them, A-logoi, creatures deprived of reason, as they were. It is of course possible that he borrowed his _ pun, as he certainly borrowed his matter, from Hip- polytus, who wrote, as we know from the inscription on the chair of his statue, a work on the Gospel and Apocalypse of 5. John.2 Hippolytus may have named the Alogi in his own now lost Syntagma of Thirty-two Heresies, may have derived his information from Irenzeus, and may have meant the persons whom Ireneeus (though he mentions Marcion, with whom he contrasts them in the same short paragraph) does not think worthy of more than the following notice :-— But others, in order that they might make void the gift of the Spirit which was in the last times poured out upon mankind at the Father’s good pleasure, do not admit that idea which is peculiar to John’s Gospel, that is, that the Lord promised He would send the Paraclete, but they cast away at once both the Gospel and the prophetic spirit.° ° Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaft- liche Theologie, 1889, iii. 330-348. 7 Ti φάσκουσι τοίνυν οἱ 'Αλογοι ; Ταύτην γὰρ αὐτοῖς τίθημι τὴν ἐπωνυ- μίαν " ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς δεῦρο οὕτως κληθή- σονται, καὶ οὕτως, ἀγαπητοὶ, ἐπιθῶ- μεν αὐτοῖς ὄνομα, τουτέστιν ἤΑἈλογοι. Εἶχον γὰρ τὴν αἵρεσιν καλουμένην, ἀποβάλλουσαν ᾿Ιωάννου τὰς βίβλους. Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸν λόγον οὐ δέχονται τὸν παρὰ ᾿Ιωάννου κεκηρυγμένον, "Αλογοι κληθήσονται. Heres. li. 3; Oehler, Corpus, ii. pt. 11. p. 50. 8 Cf. Lecture VII. p. 362. ® Adv. ‘Heres. iii. 11. 9; ed. Harvey, li. p. 51. LECTURE III. 125 Heresy makers who are intent on extending their catalogues do not find it difficult to create a sect out of very doubtful materials, as anyone who will con- sult the pages of Philaster’ or Epiphanius,? or the histories by Lipsius* or Hilgenfeld,* may readily see ; and theory makers who are intent upon. spinning their webs do not find it difficult from a very small amount of fact to cover a large field of fancy, as we shall have more than abundant occasion to observe in the course of these lectures. But if the Alogi represent anything real at all, or anything more than an argument pressed here and there, on internal grounds alone, against the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse, by some stray persons who did not approve the doctrine’ which they con- tained, the whole line of the evidence, such as it is, tends to confirm the Apostolic authorship. For it ascribes these writings to the quite impossible Cerin- thus, or in any case to his time; and in doing so it declares that objectors to the Fourth Gospel in the second or the early third century, could find no place or period for its composition, but that which is as necessary to the Johannine authorship, as it is vehemently denied by modern negative criticism. But the whole position of the Alogi in this argu- 1 Oehler, Corpus, tom. 1. christenthums, 1884. 2 Ibid. tom. ii. ° Rein dogmatischer Art, und 5. Zur Quellen-Kritik des Epi- darum fiir die historische Kritik phanios, 1865. Quellen der dltesten bedeutungslos.’ Credner, Hinlei- Ketzergeschichte, 1875. tung, 1836, ὃ 103, p. 261. 4 Die Ketzergeschichte des Ur- They ascribe the Gospel to Cerin- thus. Rejection by Zeller, 126 LECTURE IT. ment is not more than that of a weapon which is seized in desperation to meet an opponent. As long ago as 1845 it was openly cast aside by Dr. Zeller in an article against the Johannine authorship of the Gospel which was published in the Tiibingen Year-Book.® (And ort! 16:°a weapon which is fatal to the user when the opponent is armed by knowledge 6 © Wie wenig eine geschichtlich nachweisbare Tradition iiber das Johannesevangelium vorhanden war, zeigt auch der Widerspruch, welcher um das Ende des zweiten Jahrhunderts von den _ sog. Alogern gegen dasselbe erhoben wurde. Ks ist wahr, die Griinde, auf welche sich dieser Wider- spruch stiitzt, sind, so weit wir von ihnen wissen, durchaus dem Gebiete der inneren Kritik ent- nommen, und auch das urspriing- liche Motiv desselben scheint das dogmatische gewesen zu sein, den Montanisten die Stiitze zu entziehen, welche ihnen die Johanneischen Ausspriiche iber den Paraklet darboten. Insofern moégen sich die Vertheidiger des Evangeliums nicht mit Unrecht dagegen verwahren, dass die Aloger als Zeugen fiir eine dem- selben entgegenstehende Tradition gebraucht werden. Jaauch das méchte ich nicht geradezu behaup- ten, dass die Aloger ihren Wider- spruch gegen eine allgemein als apostolisch anerkannte Schrift nicht halten wagen kénnen: die Apokalypse war diess in Kleinasien ohne Zweifel, und doch wurde sie von ihnen fiir ein Werk des Cerinth erklirt. Der Verfasser der Clementinen wagt sogar, die Authentie der mosaischen Biicher zu bezweifeln, was in jener Zeit ungleich mehr hiess, als die einer neutestamentlichen Schrift in Anspruch nehmen. Um so mehr zeigt aber der ganze Verlauf dieses Streits, so weit wir von ihm wissen, wie wenig es sich hier iberhaupt um Fragen der litterarischen Kritik handelte. Die Aloger bestreiten das Evan- gelium wegen seiner inneren Beschaffenheit, und Ireniius ant- wortet darauf, es miisse unsere vier kanonischen Evangelien geben, weil es auch vier Himmels- gegenden und vier Hauptwinde gebe, und weil die Cherubim viererlei Gestalten haben. An die Frage, von der die Entschei- dung des Streits doch zuniichst abhieng, die Frage nach den Zeugnissen fiir den apostolischen Ursprung des LEvangeliums, scheint Niemand gedacht zu haben. Das ist das historische Bewusstsein der Kirche am Ende des 2 ἢ Jahr- hunderts.’ Zeller, Die dusseren Zeugnisse tiber das Dasein wnd den Ursprung des vierten Hvange- liums. Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1845, pp. 645-6. DECTURE: ΠῚ 121 The records of the past are searched and re-searched for men who reject the Fourth Gospel. No living men can be found: the ghosts of Alogi are said to be seen in the darkness. and turns it back upon him. But there were real men—Celsus, Julian, Porphyry, Arius, are instances—to whose position it was as vital to deny the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, as it is to their nineteenth century suc- cessors. History supplies no hint that any one of them ever made the attempt. Their silence becomes only the more emphatic when it is broken by the inaudible whispers of Alogi, and utters witness more decisive than even the all-consentine voices of the Church.’ Accepting then the fact, which is hardly ques- tioned, and with our present knowledge is really not questionable, that from the last quarter of the second 7 Since this was written I find that Dr. Salmon has lately ex- pressed the following opinion :— ‘In fact I now believe that “the Alogi” consisted of Caius, and, as far as I can learn, nobody else. . . . 1 consider the work of Hippolytus, of which Epiphanius made use, must have said very little about the opponents of the Gospel. When Epiphanius deals with the opponents of the Apoca- lypse, the objections and replies have every mark of antiquity, and were no doubt derived from Hip- polytus. But the section on the Gospel is distinctly Epiphanius’s own. He cites authors later than Hippolytus: Ephraem (c. 22); Porphyry (c. 8). The system of chronology is not that of Hippo- lytus, nor does he agree with Hippolytus as to the duration of our Lord’s ministry on earth. The whole section gives me the impression that Epiphanius, being obliged by his title to answer objections to the Gospel, and finding none specified in his au- thorities, was reduced to manu- facture objections, as well as answers, by his own ingenuity.’ Introduction to the New Testament, ed. 4, pp. 229-31, note. Their negative witness. Principles of the reception, Views now commonly held: The authority 128 LECTURE III. century to the close of the eighteenth century, the Fourth Gospel was received throughout Christendom as an Apostolic and inspired writing, we proceed further to inquire, in order that we may have a clear view of the ‘judgment of centuries,’ upon what prin- ciples this acceptance was based. The object of our immediate inquiry is the Fourth Gospel only, and if our principles prove to be often of wider application than is necessary for the task which we are under- taking, and to refer to the New Testament generally, we must be content to limit our inferences to our own part of the subject. And perhaps to some the inquiry will gain in clearness if we first approach it from the standpoint of the present, rather than from that of the past. Now if the question were put to a number of ordinary Christian men and women: ‘ What is your own ground for accepting the Fourth Gospel as a sacred book coming to you from God, and in what sense do you understand it to be so ?’, and if each one tried to answer frankly and fully, exactly as he thought, and not in the meaningless language of platitudes, some would find that they had hardly thought at all, and the answers of those who had thought would be on widely differing lines. But the most important of them would be something like the following :— One would say, ‘T believe in the holy Catholic Church. I believe in the pure and Apostolic branch of it, in which by the LECTURE III. 129 providence of God I was born, in which [I live, in which I hope to die. The Church has from the first received this writing as part of her sacred Scriptures. She has never had any doubt about it. She has not only been a witness to its reception as part of history, but has in her own sacred synods decreed its accept- ance as a doctrine. I recognize in the voice of the Church the voice of my Lord who promised to abide in the Church, and the voice of the Comforter whom He promised, to guide the Church into all truth; and IT accept this writing as vouchsafed unto me by God in and through His Church. ‘And I accept it in the exact sense in which the Church accepts it. I do not find that she has. ever marked out a limit of inspiration, or that she has ever defined the matter or method of inspiration, and I do not draw lines where she has not done so. No attack on the external form of the sacred writing touches my faith in its inner substance as taught to me by the Church. Nor am I in any way alarmed by critical attacks upon the authenticity or genuine- ness of the book. I cannot judge of these subjects, and [ am not sure that it would be part of my duty to do so if I could. Do you tell me that in obedi- ence to Apostolic precept it is my duty ‘ to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh me a reason of the hope that isin me’? Yes; but the Apostle adds, ‘with meekness and fear,’ and he is addressing the body, not the individual member. The command, moreover, has no special reference to K of the Church. 130 LECTURE III. the reception of a sacred book, and if it had, the knowledge of my fathers and brethren-—the authority of the Church—may be a better reason than my own ignorance. There is an ecclesia docens, but I form no part of it. The Church has always had, will always have, doctors and teachers, and will always have the divine Teacher. My duty is to obey, not to judge. 1 have indeed the right of private judgment and its responsibility. JI exercise it by submitting myself to the Church. Did I need other inducements to follow this which seems to me the only safe course, I should find them in the almost countless number of divisions and _ subdivisions of Christian people, all of whom base their often conflicting faiths on their own views and interpreta- tions of the Bible, and in the strange alarm of even Church people when some attack which for the moment seems successful, and may be really success- ful, is made, not on a doctrine of Scripture or of the Church, but on some accretion which is no part of either. As a Churchman, I am a member of a great household. The family has lived in the house for centuries. The signs of its historic past meet the eye at every turn—in the picture galleries, the libraries, the heraldic quarterings, the chapel, the mausoleum. There is an unwritten record going back beyond knowledge in its institutions, customs, traditions. Who will dare challenge its possession ? Who will question its title? And if anyone ignorant of its claims and history does so, the question is not one for LECTURE III. 151 me but for the heads of the family. I seek to do my duty and live a peaceful life, anxious only about what affects the family from within, disturbed about nothing which threatens it from without. I know the sweet blessings of a corporate life, and of the sub- mission which is necessary to my own union with it.’ Such has been the language, not of weakness, but of strength ; not of ignorance, but of some of the greatest intellects in our own and in preceding gene- rations, in our own and in other branches of the Catholic Church of Christ. Now, for the man who accepts the authority of the Church, criticism upon such a question as the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel has no point of attack. The Church is for him ‘a witness and a keeper of holy Writ.’ He does not believe the Church to be infallible apart from Holy Scripture ; nay, he accepts her very creeds*® because they ‘may be proved by most certain warrants of’ Holy Scrip- ture, and if he is an Anglican churchman, he believes further that ‘Holy Scripture containeth all things by Dr. Hawkins, especially to the notes ; to the Bampton Lectwres of Bishop van Mildert, 1815, to those of Mr. W. D. Conybeare, 1839 ; and to Dr. Salmon’s recent work, Infallibility of the Church, 1888. And fora fuller discussion, to the works of H. J. Holtzmann, 8 *Romanist writers admit the ‘ sufficiency of Scripture for the proof at least of all the Articles in the three creeds.’ Dr. Hawkins, Bampton Lectures, 1840, p. 317. On the general question of Tradition and the Interpretation of Scripture, which is quite another question from that of the Canon and the Church which is noticed in the text above, the younger student may perhaps be referred to this standard treatise Kanon und Tradition, 1859 ; and Tanner (a Romanist), Ueber das katholische Traditions - und das protestantische Schrift - Princip, 1862. kK 2 The inner witness. 135 LECTURE IIL. necessary to salvation.’ But the Church is to him the witness of what Scripture is ; she is ‘the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.’? Hostile critics ask him to meet them and discuss these Scriptures. Certainly not; why should he? He is quite com- fortable, and quite safe in his walled city, where he has his life to live and his work to do. [5 it because there is no breach left in the wall that they ask him to meet them in one of the villages ? But he is doing a great work so that he cannot come down. Why should the work cease while he leaves it to come down to them ?' They threaten to attack his fortress and drive him out of it. But their weapons are not quite of the kind for this warfare. By all means let them seek others, read history and philosophy, study the Church’s foundations and her wondrous super- structure, confer with her master builders. Per- adventure the issue will be that they will themselves see the only place of safety to be within her walls. Another answer which in more or less definite language would be not unfrequently given, may be stated in terms like these :— ‘I believe on other grounds than those contained in the Bible that God exists, and if He exists it is a priort probable that He will reveal Himself to man. There are other revelations of God, as in nature or in history, but the revealed word of God is the full utterance of the Creator to the creature. The Bible ® 1 Tim. iii. 15. 1 Cf. Neh. vi. 1-4. LECTURE III. Raa comes to me with the attestation of prophecy and miracle and history, but the ultimate test of the word of God to me is, that it is a word of God to me. It finds me. It tells me of a Saviour. It converts my soul. It changes my life. I take counsel with my brother man and find that his expe- rience agrees with my own. I look at the work of missions and of Bible societies. It is quite certain that here is truth which human nature, as human nature, needs; and with which alone it is satisfied. You ask me how I know all this? How do I know light from darkness, bitter from sweet ? ‘T say nothing about the extent or method of inspiration. ‘That is inspiration which inspires me. That is the word of God which speaks to my soul. I would rather not draw distinctions where I reverence all; but of course I know, as all Christian people know, that there are portions of the New Testa- ment which have an influence that others have not. The marked Bibles of devout Christians are a Bible within a Bible ; the texts of a spiritual ministry are the sacred words of life. No one would place the saluta- tions of the sixteenth chapter of the Romans, for ex- ample, side by side with the prologue to δ. John. The mass of Christian experience, as expressed in biogra- phies, letters, journals, asserts that the Fourth Gospel is a writing which most fully meets the wants of the great world of humanity. Tell the missionary to the most civilized or to the most barbarous heathen- dom, that he can have at present only one book of 134 LECTURE II. the Bible translated into their new language. Which will he choose ? Tell a Christian philosopher or a Christian peasant, that he can only give one book of the Bible to his child. Which will he choose ? Go to the bed-side of some poor outcast in the slum of a great city, and ask to be allowed to read to him from a book of the New Testament ; endeavour to interest him by asking which is his favourite book. Which will he choose ? ‘No question of criticism materially affects my position. If the contents are divine, the vessel is of comparatively small importance. If the word of God is certainly spoken, it matters little in what form or by what person it is spoken.’ Such is the lancuage of a large number of men of robust intellect, of holy and devoted lives, in our own and in other communions. And for the man who thus believes in the inner witness as the true test of Scripture, external criticism has no point of attack. ‘Come and discuss with me,’ says the critic, ‘whether your Scripture is divine.’ ‘Discuss with you that about which I am quite sure, why should I? ‘There is no ground on which we can meet. I know my wants and what satisfies them, my life and what supports it, my inmost being and what fills it through and through.’ ‘But I want to show you that the data of your consciousness are not trustworthy. You are guided by feeling ; I want to guide you by reason.’ LECTURE III. 139 ‘That is shifting the whole position. It is not the Fourth Gospel you wish to discuss, but human nature. I am quite content with the practical ex- perience of my own inner life and of that of millions who have gone before and of millions who are living now. ‘One thing 1 know, that whereas I was blind, now I see. . . . Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. . . . If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.’ ’ ” A third answer, which I find more difficulty in expressing because I have seldom known men who consistently hold it, though not a few profess it ; and because I do not know any standard work of any English body of Christians which declares it, is that of verbal inspiration. It is not inconsistent with, and as a matter of fact is sometimes held in conjunc- tion with, either of the previous theories ; though it can be held by a loyal child of the Church who accepts her authority only together with the conviction that the Church herself holds it. A man who gives this answer might use much of the language which we have just supposed others to use, but he would add :— ‘When I speak of the Scriptures, I mean the whole Scriptures, the Bible and nothing but the Bible.’ I understand the language of the New Testament to 2 John ix. 26, :30;:33: Plumptre, in Masters in English 3 Cf. a striking lecture on Theology, 1877, pp. 113-145. ‘William Chillingworth’ by Dean Verbal inspira- tion. 136 LECTURE III. teach me the sacredness of every jot and tittle of the Old Testament, and to promise me a like full and infallible, verbally, literally inspired word of God. I mean that every statement and circumstance, scientific and historical as well as doctrinal, is ne- cessarily and exactly true. If modern science and history and literature disagree with any of these statements, so much the worse for modern science and history and literature.* I accept the Gospel according to ὃ. John, just as I accept the Epistle of Ὁ. Jude. I do not trouble myself with details of criticism or of authenticity, nor do 1 care much for questions of text or translation. I take my fathers’ English Bible, which has come to me in the provi- dence of God, as the absolutely sacred and absolutely perfect word of God, the unerring guide and chart of my life. The Holy Spirit who dictated it will protect it and will interpret it.’ Perhaps this state of thought and feeling is not often expressed in definite forms of language; but it lies at the root of no small portion of the less educated, it may be, but not the less real religious life and activities of this and other countries. The man who believes in this mechanical verbal inspiration of Holy Scriptures must admit that dis- coveries in science, and investigations of history, and the whole development of modern criticism, have made his position, to say the least, exceedingly diffi- * *Wer will wagen, die Auto- Calovius; see Herzog-Plitt, Real- ritiit eines Copernicus iiber die Hncyklopiidie, iii. p. 76. des heiligen Geistes zu stellen ἢ ἢ LECTURE III. d less cult ; but he must defend himself. We shall see that his theory is no part of the ‘judgment of centuries,’ no part of the Church’s judgment at all. One more answer would come to us from so many persons of high culture and attainment, that it would deserve the most careful attention at our hands. This answer is also not inconsistent with some of the language which we have already considered, and as a matter of fact often co-exists with it :— ‘The Fourth Gospel,’ one of these persons would say, ‘must be judged primarily just as any other writing would be, by the ordinary canons of literary evidence and criticism, and I accept it because it satisfies those canons. I have this difficulty about the authority of the Church taken absolutely alone—it may be the best authority for the masses, and | have not a word to say against it —but for myself, as a critic accustomed to weigh evidence, there is the difficulty that I am asked to accept the Fourth Gospel and other Scriptures on the authority of the Church, and the Church on the authority of the Scriptures. The world rests upon the elephant, and the elephant rests upon the tortoise ; the tortoise cannot then rest upon the world. The argument is not free from the vice of the circle. ‘And I have this difficulty about the inner witness —that it varies with the individual. For example, if I were making for my own edification a Canon of the writings which were read in the Church in the early centuries, I should include the Epistle of Clement or Canons of historical and literary criticism. 138 LECTURE III. the letter to the Laodiceans or the Epistle to Diogne- tus, rather than the Second Epistle of $. Peter or the Epistle of S. Jude. If I were drawing the line between the Canonical and the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, I should value the wondrous teaching of the book of Wisdom more highly than some of the records of the books of Chronicles. If I am to think indeed of the Fourth Gospel only, the inner witness has been so unanimous, and the verification in the life of humanity so unique, that 1 am bound, regarding them merely as historical phenomena which stand quite alone, to accept the evidence as conclusive. Still my general position is, that this writing is to be judged as every other writing ; and | accept it as the authentic work of ὃ. John because this is the only theory which explains all the complicated facts of the case. It is not free from difficulty—but no question of historical criticism of the first or second century is, or can be— and it is infinitely more free from difficulty than any other theory which has been suggested to explain the same facts. As a mere question of history and criti- cism, and writing for writing, altogether apart from the contents, I have much more reason to accept the Fourth Gospel as the work of the Apostle, than 1 have to accept the histories of Herodotus or Thucy- dides or Xenophon, of Tacitus or Livy or Cesar,’ as genuine documents. And if I am convinced that Ὁ It is, of course, generally ment date from the fourth to the known, but it is not always re- sixth, and the Versions and text membered, that while the great can be traced to the second and Uncial MSS. of the New Testa- third centuries, there is no known LECTURE III. 139 it is the work of the Apostle, it follows that it is an authentic record of the life and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the fullest spiritual truth which can be presented to the soul.’ The man who gives this answer would of course feel that any challenge of criticism must be met upon its own ground; that the wounds of reason can be healed only by reason ; that the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is a question of history and evidence and not one of dogma ; that the witness and keeping of the Church is a fact of first importance ; that the consciousness of humanity is a fact of first importance, but that these facts are to take their place with all others ; that the objections of critics cannot be met in the nineteenth century as Tertullian met the ob- jections of heretics in the second century by prescrip- tion or demurrer; but that the whole case must be brought into open court and tried at the bar of justice and truth, with acknowledged experts as judges, and for a jury honest men who will shape their verdict by the evidence alone. These general remarks upon the way in which the manuscript of Herodotus or of Bekker, 1844, vol. i. p. 578. Thucydides earlier than the tenth, Nor are the Latin classical his- nor of Xenophon earlier than tories better attested. The first from the eleventh to the thir- six books of the Annals of Tacitus, teenth centuries. There is no for example, depend upon one reference in existing literature to manuscript, which was written Thucydides, the chief authority ποῦ earlier than the ninth century, for the history of Greece, for and was discovered in Westphalia two centuries after his death. in the sixteenth century. See Polybius, Hist. viii. 13 ; ed. Treatment of ques- tion in Apostolic age: Terms used. 140 LECTURE III. question now presents itself will help us to under- stand the principles upon which this and other sacred writings have been received at different periods in the history of the Church. In the Apostolic age, if we may draw conclusions from the New Testament itself, there is no traceable idea of any new collection of writings for the use of the Church. The only hint of a word having been written by our Lord’s hand, is of a writing upon the sand of the floor; and there is no suggestion that He directed His disciples to write. Nor is there in the special gifts of the Spirit to the Church, the charismata which were to qualify men for the service which God called them to render to mankind —many and varied though they were—any reference to writing or qualifications for authorship. The terms used in the history of the promulgation of the Gospel and the foundation of the Church never include the idea of writing, and they express every cognate idea so fully that they must be taken to exclude it. We read of ‘proclaiming good news,’ of ‘preaching,’ of ‘exhorting, of ‘speaking,’ of ‘hearing,’ of ‘ testifying,’ of ‘handing down’; of ‘the Gospel,’ of ‘the Word,’ of ‘ tradition,’ of ‘witness, of ‘the opening of the mouth’; of ‘the preacher,’ of ‘the evangelist,’ of ‘ the mission- ary. ® §. Paul’s question is: ‘How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed ? ὁ Cf. Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften, Neues Testament, ed. 6, § 36. LECTURE III. 141 and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard ? and how shall they hear without a preacher?’ And his answer is, ‘So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ.’ It does not appear that any one of the writers of the New Testament thought of his writing as one which would become of general use in the Church, or would be read apart from the oral teaching which had been already communicated, and which formed the substance of the ‘faith once delivered to the saints.’ No writing is addressed to persons to whom the truth was not otherwise known. Many of the writings are largely personal, and those intended for public reading were for individual churches, and for churches connected with them, and with the writer. So far from setting before themselves the task of providing Scriptures for a future Church, there is no evidence that any of the Apostolic writers expected that there would be a Church on earth far beyond the generation in which they themselves lived. For them, the sacred Scriptures are the writings of Moses and of the Prophets. They would have shrunk, with the reverence of Jews, from placing their own writings by the side of the closed Canon of the Old Testament. ‘The only clear instance’ in which the ΤΑ friendly critic invites my is worthy of his reward,’ as attention to 1 Tim. v. 18, ‘For another instance, and one which the scripture saith, Thou shalt disproves my assertion. But a not muzzle the ox that treadeth careful study will show that it is out the corn. And, Thelabourer exactly in accord with the asser- Oral tra- dition and writings. Reasons why early Church did not provide a Canon. New Tes- tament not re- garded as ‘Scrip- ture.’ In the post- Apostolic age 142 LECTURE III. term ‘Scripture’ is applied in the New Testament to any part of the New Testament itself, is in the Second Epistle of 5. Peter,® where reference is made to a collection of Pauline Epistles ; and your knowledge will prevent your laying too much stress upon this passage. No part of the New Testament is quoted in the New Testament, as an authority for a fact or for a doctrinal statement. ὃ. John must have been acquainted with some form of one or more of the earlier Gospels, of portions of the Acts of the Apostles, of the teaching of 5. Peter and 5. Paul, especially, as his writings show, with the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy; but he never quotes or refers to them in the Fourth Gospel or inhis Epistles. They were not to him Scriptures. 5. Paul more than once appeals to a fact of the Gospel history, and does so as late as the Second Epistle to Timothy, but the reference is not made to any writing, but to ‘my Gospel,’ that is, to his own oral teaching of the truth.’ And as it was in the age of the Apostles, so was it also in the generation which immediately followed. There is comparatively little of formal quotation from the New Testament Scriptures in any of the Apostolic Fathers. Sentences and words occur, some of which tion. The term ‘scripture’ is context, even to the word of the applied to the quotation, if it be Lord Himself. one—cf. Alford’s note im loco— 8 2 Peter iii. 16. from the Old Testament, and is ° εὐαγγέλιόν pov: 2 Tim. ii. 8. not applied in the immediate Cf. Rom. ii. 16; xvi. 25. LECTURE IIL. 143 are so exactly parallel as to make it impossible to be- lieve that the writers were not making definite refer- ence to our present Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. Ihave elsewhere referred to the fact that the Johannine current of thought coloured the teaching and wording of the Didache, of Barnabas, of Clement, of Ignatius, of the Shepherd; though it did not leave the writer’s hands until the stream of traditional teaching and of the synoptic Gospels was already full and strong.’ But while we have this evidence of the existence of the Gospels, they are not quoted by name, they are not quoted as authorities, they are quoted together with an oral traditional Gospel, and perhaps together with written Gospels which are not It will be remembered that there are several sayings of our Lord known, which do not now extant. occur in any Canonical writing.’ On the other hand, the Old Testament Scriptures are quoted as they are in the New Testament; that is, in the circle of the Apostolic Fathers as in the circle of the Apostles, it is the Old Testament and not the New Testament which is definitely regarded as Scripture,® as the ‘word of the Lord.’ 4 1 Cf. Lecture II. p. 101; and Lecture VII. p. 402. 2 Cf. Westcott, Introduction to the Gospels, Appendix C; and especially Von Gebhardt und Harnack, Texte wind Untersuch- ungen, Bd. v. Heft 4. Resch, Agrapha Aussercanonische Hvan- gelienfragmente, 1889. 3 The passage in Polycarp, cap. xil., which is referred to by Bishop Wordsworth in his note on 1 Tim. v. 18, is primarily a quotation of the LXX Version of Ps. iv. 4. 4 *The title the Word of God, though common afterwards, and especially in modern times, is Johannine influence. Reference to the ‘Word of the Lord.’ Examples. 144 LECTURE III. But in the Apostolic period there had already grown up quite naturally by the side of the ‘ word of the Lord,’ contained in the Old Testament, the custom of referring to the word of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was the Lord. He was the Word. What He said was the very word of God. The Apostles could not place their own words as authori- tative by the side of the Old Testament Scriptures ; but these sacred Scriptures were fulfilled in Him. ‘The word of the Lord endureth for ever: and this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you.’° Again, the Apostolic period gives a rule of practice to that which followed it. In the post-Apostolic age, when the current of oral teaching in individual churches was vigorous, and had been strengthened by evangelic records and letters ; and now above all when the tradition of the Ephesian church had been per- fected by the Fourth Gospel, and communion between the churches was being established, and ecclesiastical literature was putting forth its first efforts, the con- stant appeal is made to the ‘word of the Lord,’ to the ‘commands of the Lord,’ to ‘thus saith the never used as a title of Scripture generally by any of the New Testament writers. No quotation is headed ‘‘ As it is written in the Word of God,” ‘ What saith the Word of God?” &c. No state- ment concerning Scripture is introduced by mention of this title. Yet it is a phrase used, in one or other of its many forms, some hundred times in all, and clearly, therefore, could not have been omitted asa title of Scrip- ture except on the ground that in the Apostles’ days it was not so applied.’ Warington, Inspira- tion, 1867, p. 46. Cf. the valua- ble Appendix, pp. 273-8. 5.1 Peter 1. 25. LECTURE III. 145 Lord. It will be remembered how emphatically this is the case in the two works which are connected with the name of the Eastern archbishop, Bryen- nios, the so-called Second Epistle of Clement, and the Didache. The latter writing is, indeed, entitled ‘The Teaching of the Lord, by means of the Twelve Apostles.’® We have seen that the five books of Papias are called ‘ Hxpositions of the Sayings of the Lord, * and that in Justin the Memoirs of the Apostles ὃ are quoted for their constant reference to the sayings of the Lord. ‘The few lines from Papias which are preserved in Eusebius are of special interest in illus- trating the thought of the post-Apostolic Church. He seeks ‘not for foreign precepts, but for those which are given from the Lord to our faith,’ and tells us that he ‘did not profit so much from books as’—and the phrase is very remarkable—‘ from the living and abiding voice.” That is his comment, as it is S. Peter’s comment, on the text, ‘ The word of the Lord endureth for ever.’ It is the living voice, the voice of the Lord in the Church, ‘ the word which by the gospel is preached unto you,’ which abideth for ever. This means, and the study of the Apostolic Fathers and of the fragments preserved in Eusebius 6 ςΔιδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστό- 8 Cf. ibid. pp. 65 sqq. Awv’ καὶ 6 Διδαχὴ Κυρίου διὰ τῶν 5. παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης. δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν Hist. Eccles. 111. 89. Butcf. Zahn’s Ed. Bryennios, 1883, p. 2. interpretation of these words, 7 Aoyiwy κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις. Cf. Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Lecture II. p. 96. Kanons, 1889, Bd. i. p. 866. L Individual churches and writings. Idea of a Catholic Church not yet realized. 146 LECTURE III. will serve to remind us, that the Church in the first vigour of her life felt no need for, and had no cause to form, a Canon of her writings. The writings, let us bear in mind, were to a considerable extent the pro- perty of individual churches. Some of the Epistles contained references to matters of a private and not always very creditable nature ; some contained special injunctions which had no meaning for other churches ; some contained injunctions to individual persons. Nor did all churches at first possess, or perhaps care to possess, copies of all the Gospels. Each church had its own founder, its own present teachers, its own special characteristics, its own oral Gospel, in some cases its own Apostolic Epistle. The Catholicity and corporate life of the whole Church had from the first existed in idea; but to work it out in practice was still in the future. No one who knows the history of the Church in the post-Apostolic age will demand a Canon of her writings at that period; and the apologist who attempts to answer the demand is doing no true service to the writings or to the Church. There were canons of the churches, rather than a Canon of the Church, side by side with the ‘living voice,’ and the ‘word of the Lord.’ The Canonicity of the New Testament could not be, until the Catholicity of the Church was. The first framers of a Canon, and the first who largely quoted the Scriptures of the New Testament, were not the Catholics, but the heretics. The Church had no need to quote them. She had her full living voice LECTURE III. 141 and her teachers to whom she could appeal in case of doubt or difficulty. But when the Gnostics and other heretics quoted texts of the Church’s writings, and adduced other writings in support of their own views ; and when they alleged a secret traditional interpretation by which even the writings of the churches were made to support their heresies, the churches were driven to the task of comparing and deciding upon their own Apostolical books ; and the Church was obliged to draw up her Canon and her own traditional interpretation, her rule of faith, her first forms of creed, by which the meaning of these books should be fixed. The materials of the Canon in the second century, then, were, the tradition of the Church in her living voice, the written evangelic statements of the words of the Lord, the Apostolic letters, the records of Apostolic teaching in the Acts, and the prophetic Revelation of 5. John. The fundamental principle was to ascertain what was truly the word of the Lord Jesus. This did not necessarily imply any writing. As late as Irenzus, who thinks of the four-fold Gospel as consonant with the natural order of things, it is still possible to con- ceive of a Church without a Bible, but not of a Bible without a Church.’ But with this tradition, there ecclesias? Cui ordinationi assen- tiunt multz gentes barbarorum 1 ¢Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam _ tradi- derunt iis quibus committebant eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charta vel atramento scrip- tam habentes per Spiritum in EY A Catholic Canon becomes necessary. The Canon a question of history not of dogma. In the third and fourth centuries, 148 LECTURE III. was the exercise of judgment upon the writings. Did the so-called Gospels come from the earliest direct sources of knowledge, that is, were they imme- diately or mediately Apostolic ? Were the other writings from Apostolic sources ? The acceptance of a writing did not rest upon the decree of any council, for the time of councils was not yet. The Canon was a question of history, not one of dogma ; and churches might differ, and did differ, and Fathers of the Church might differ from each other, and sometimes be inconsistent with themselves—and did differ and were inconsistent—as to the use of the doubtful books or the exact principle on which a book should be received. Tradition, but tradition critically tested in the presence of heresy, was the first formative principle of the Canon. The New Testament was the child of the Church. As we pass from the second century onwards, we find that the current of tradition flowed necessarily in wider channels, but with less fulness and force. Men were no longer in the presence of those who had themselves known the immediate descendants of Apostles ; and with the growth of Christian literature there came the fuller power of criticism, and the wider opportunities for exercising it. And there were cordibus suis salutem, et veterem authorities in Tanner, Ueber das traditionem diligenter custo- katholische Traditions - u. das pro- dientes.’ Irenzeus, Adv. Her. _ testantische Schrift-Princip, pp. iii. 4, 1; ed. Harvey, tom. ii. p. 4-8. 16. Cf. the valuable collection of LECTURE‘? III. 149 The sacred books stood out more and more prominently, as the presence of the original tradition was less fully felt, and they became the centres round which that tradition was deposited The tradition of the second century became in the third and giants in those days. in continuous expositions and commentaries. following centuries, one with the sacred Scriptures. Witness the commentaries and homilies of Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Basil, Chrysostom, the Gregorys of Nyssa and Nazianzus, and the Cyrils of Jerusalem and Alexandria. There is no fallacy of the vicious circle then in the paradox which is simply historical truth, that the Scriptures depend upon the Church, and the Church The relation of the mutual dependence varied in different circumstances. depends upon the Scriptures. There is a young mother carrying her boy who can- not yet walk alone. Years pass on. There is a woman leaning upon the arm of a strong man whose strength has been born of her and now supports her. It is the same mother ; the same child. How rapidly the sacred Scriptures of the New Testament became part of the daily life of the Church, and how precious men held them to be, we recognize as early as the Diocletian persecution at the opening of the fourth century, when they chose to die rather than to part with them ; and how fully tradition continued to hold its place side by side with the Bible, as late as the close of the century, is seen in the declaration of Augustine, tradition one with Scrip- tures. The Scriptures depend on the Church, the Church on the Scrip- tures. Testi- mony of Augus- tine, and Jerome. 150 LECTURE IIT. ‘I would not believe the Gospel unless the autho- rity of the Church should move me thereto.’? Here we have language than which none could be more plain, and it by no means stands alone, in which Scripture is made to depend absolutely upon the authority of the Church. While the same Father declares also—and, again, the language by no means stands alone—that ‘all things necessary to faith and morals are comprised in the sacred Scriptures,’ and ‘that the Christian system will come to an end if the authority of these writings is allowed to waver.’ ® Jerome, to take another example, when speaking of the Epistle to the Hebrews, illustrates in this way the general principle :— It does not matter who the author is as long as he is a son of the Church, and it is approved by being read in the daily lessons. But if the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the sacred and Canonical books, and the Greeks do not receive the Apocalypse, yet we receive both, for we are not careful to adapt ourselves to the custom of the present, but to follow the authority of the ancients.’ * *Kgo vero Evangeliononcre-_ vacillat auctoritas: porro fide derem, nisi me catholice ecclesie titubante, charitas etiam ipsa commoveret auctoritas.’? Contra languescit.? Ibid. i. 37; ed. Epist. Manich.—Fundam.—cap. Migne, p. 35. v.; ed. Migne, tom. viii. p. 176. * Ep. ad Dardanum. “ Et nihil 5. ‘In iis enim quee aperte in interesse, cujus sit, quum Eccle- Scripturis positasunt,inveniuntur _ siastici viri sit, et quotidie Eccle- illa omnia que continent fidem, siarum lectione celebretur. Quod moresque vivendi, spem scilicet si eam Latinorum consuetudo non atque charitatem.’ . . De Doctr. recipit inter Scripturas canonicas ; Christ. 11.9; ed. Migne, p. 42. nec Gracorum quidem Ecclesize ‘Per fidem enim ambulamus, non apocalypsin Joannis eadem liber- per speciem; titubabit autem tate suscipiunt; et tamen nos fides, si divinarum Scripturarum utramque suscipimus ; nequaquam LECTURE III. 151 We have seen that for the East the Canon was practically closed at the councils of Laodicea and Constantinople, and for the West at the councils of Hippo and Carthage.° From that time to the Reformation—that 15, for a period, in round numbers, of nine hundred years— there was no fresh investigation of the authority, almost no fresh interpretation of the substance of the Scriptures. ‘They were the years of Catena, of Postille, of commentaries, of compilations, which consisted of little more than of extracts from the Western Fathers, especially from Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary. The Canon was now nota question of historical inves- tigation, but a dogma of the Church. From the time of Gregory the Great onwards, the pope was in effect the authority of the Canon throughout Western Christendom. It is customary to speak of the earlier centuries of this period as the Dark Ages; on many departments of literature and thought they certainly shed no light. They make little addition to our knowledge of the Bible. They received both the Scriptures and the interpretation of them, as the earlier centuries handed them down, without venturing to question either; but their sons lived the lessons which they received, with unhesitating faith, and in the spirit of absolute devotion. And what deeds they wrought hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum Scriptorum auctori- tatem sequentes, qui plerumque utriusque abutuntur testimoniis’ . . . Epist. cxxix.; Opera, ed. Veron, 1734, tom. i. 965 B. 5 Cf. supra, pp. 121 and 129. Canon accepted on autho- rity of the Church until the Re- formation. Accept- ance in the Dark Ages. 152 LECTURE 1Π. by faith! These were the ages of missionaries, of the great religious orders, of crusades, of schoolmen. These ages founded monasteries and builded cathe- drals. ‘These ages established schools such as there were at Jarrow and York and Bec; universities at Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna, Paris. These ages witnessed in their darkest years lives such as those of Beda and Alcuin, and as the light dawned it shone upon Anselm, Roscelin, Abelard, Peter Lombard, John of Salisbury, Alexander de Hales, Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Bradwardine. If it is night, there are at least many bright stars in the firmament. It would be an interminable Fourth task to seek to trace the influence of the Fourth tees Gospel during this period. Where all were received, above all. and the Gospels more than all, the Fourth Gospel was most of all. If here and there a critical spirit, like Hugo of δ. Victor, or Abelard, raises the ques- tion, it is never to do other than honour to S. John.°® Miercd The position of the sacred Scriptures was not the ἩΘΗΗ primary question of the Reformation, but the struggle at the with Rome soon led to the seeking and the finding of an authority independent of the Roman church. ® A full and able account of Bible? New York, 1888. They the general position of the Holy Scriptures in history is furnished in Professor Ladd’s Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, 2 vols. 1883, and in the same writer’s What is the are a valuable addition to other and better-known works, for the student who reads not without knowledge and thought. LECTURE III. 153 There had been signs of an altered view of the Scrip- tural position in reformers before the Reformation, and this found a striking expression in the work of Bodenstein of Carlstadt.’ His principle is critical and historical, and he is as wholly opposed to the un- hesitating acceptance on the authority of pope or church, as he is to Luther’s test of subjective con- sciousness. He has three orders of rank. In the first he would place the Pentateuch—though he does not accept the Mosaic authorship—and the Gospels; in the second, the Jewish Prophets and the fifteen Epistles ; in the third, the Jewish Hagio- grapha and the seven Antilegomena of the New Testament. He would exclude even from the Apocrypha, the third and fourth books of Esdras, Baruch, Manasseh, and portions of Daniel. Luther’s own views are expressed in different passages in his works, especially in the prefaces to individual books; and although the expressions were modified as years passed on, they remain, as a whole, a definite outspoken assertion of his absolute right to judge for himself what was and was not sacred Scripture :— What does not teach Christ, that is not Apostolic, whether it be S. Peter or ὃ. Paul who teaches it ; but, on the other hand, what preaches Christ that is Apostolic, whether it be Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herod who teaches it.® 7 De Canoncis Scripturis, shorter form for popular use, 1520, 4to; best ed. in Credner, Welche Biicher heilig und biblisch Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp. δεῦπα, 1520. 291-412; published also in 8 Preface to the Epistle of S. Reforma- tion. Boden- stein of Carlstadt, 1251: 1641. Luther, 1483- 1546. Calvin, 1509- 1564. 154 LECTURE III. Or let us take this view of the subjective recep- tion of God’s word :— It is true it is all God’s Word. But with God’s Word here and God’s Word there, I must know and consider to whom the Word of God is spoken. We are a long way still from the certainty that you are the people with whom God has spoken.® For Luther, that is, as for the Church of the first generations, the Canon is a Canon of the word of the Lord, and a writing is sacred and inspired just in proportion to the measure in which it contains that word. His test is the preaching of Christ, but of this he is himself the judge. Applying his test, he declares in his preface to the New Testament of 1524 :— To sum up, St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first Epistle—these are the books that will show thee Christ and teach thee all that is necessary and blessed, though thou never more seest or hearest any other book or doctrine. St. James’s Epistle is therefore a right strawy Epistle, since it has no kind of Gospel.! The subjective position of Calvin is equally defi- nite, though at first he accepted the traditional view. He says :— Many are in this pernicious error, that the Scripture has only that importance which is given to it by the consent of the Church, as if the eternal and immutable truth of God was founded upon the pleasure of men. . . . And as concerns their question how do we know that the Scripture James and 5. Jude, 1522; Werke, ° Werke, ed. Walch, iii. p. 14. ed. Walch, 1744, xiv. pp. 148 sqq. 1 Ibid. xiv. p. 105. LECTURE III: 159 “proceeds from God, if we do not have recourse to the decree of the Church, it is just as if anyone should ask us how we learn to discern light from darkness, white from black, sour from sweet.” Zwingli is not less positive :— Whoever asserts that the Gospel is nothing without the patronage and approval of the Church, errs and blasphemes against God. Meanwhile the council of Trent had taken its un- happy step, April 8, 1546, of canonizing all the books of the Vulgate, including the Apocrypha, basing the decision upon the usage of the Church, making all books of equal value, and anathematizing all who did not accept the decree. We are now concerned with these questions only as they affect the Fourth Gospel, and we will not pause to recall the history of the council, nor the strong differences of opinion on this subject in the council itself, and among Roman theologians without. Still less is it needful to recall the fact that the Anglican reformers were happily guided to avoid the extremes of both Rome and Geneva. One step was possible more fatal even than that of Trent, or the extremest position of a sub- jective decision. It was to declare the fallible, infallible ; the imperfect, perfect ; the human, divine. The Reformation had cast to the winds the claims to human infallibility as the outer form of the divine 2 Institutiones, 1559, lib.i. cap. rich, 1523 ; Werke, ed. Schuler u. vii. p. 14. Schulthess, 1828, Bd. i. pp. 175- 3 Thesis for Conference at Zii- 179. Zwingli, 1484— 1531. Council of Trent, 1546. Infalli- bility of Scripture substi- tuted for in- fallibility of the Church. 156 LECTURE IIL. infallibility of the Church ; but all her children had not learnt her truest lessons, and for the infallibility of man they substituted the infallibility of a book. Scripture became, in the period from a.p. 1600-1750, —first in the reformed churches, later in the Lutheran, then in general public opinion—identical with the word of the Lord. in the history of the Bible. You see what a weapon it gave the Protestant against the church of Rome. You see what a weapon it gave him against the It was a new departure sceptics. An infallible divine writing, the inspira- tion extending to words, letters, the Hebrew vowel- points,* the Greek breathings.° still remained, but the spirit and the need which re- The interpretation placed one infallibility by another quickly replaced Regule fide, Confessions, Articles, Institutes, Bodies of Divinity sprung up on one tradition by another. all sides, and became almost as sacred as the Scrip- tures themselves. * “In specie autem Hebraicus Veteris Testamenti Codex, quem ex traditione Kcclesizw Judaice, cuiolim Oracula Deicommissa sunt (Rom. 111. 2), accepimus hodieque retinemus, tum quoad consonas, tum quoad vocalia, sive puncta ipsa, sive punctorum saltem potes- tatem, et tum quoad res, tum quoad verba θεόπνευστος, ut fidei et vitz nostre, una cum codice Novi Testamenti sit Canon unicus et illibatus, ad cujus nor- mam, ceu Lydium lapidem, uni- verse, que extant, Versiones, sive orientales, sive occidentales exigendee, et sicubi deflectunt, revocande sunt.’ Formula Con- sensus Helvetica. Canon 11]. Augusti, Corpus Librorum Sym- bolicorum, 1827, pp. 445-6. δ᾽ “Tt is impious and profane audacity to change a single point ‘in the Word of God, and to sub- stitute a smooth breathing for a rough one ora rough for asmooth.’ Calovius quoted in Ladd, The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, vol. ii, p. 190. LECTURE III. Lad A weapon against the Roman! a weapon against the sceptic! but it was a two-edged sword, and none suffered such fearful wounds as those who essayed to wield it. It is against this modern human struc- ture that the science and criticism and history of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have directed their shafts and pierced it through and through. And men thought they were destroying the divine. Little blame to them; little blame to anyone ; but tears of pity that men should raise their own puny defences and call them God’s, and that other men should mistake these human frailties for divine realities. He sitteth in the fortress of the eternal truth which needs no buttress of human building ; which men indeed have sometimes dared to attack, but as they have drawn nigh, they have gazed upon its wondrous strength and beauty, and have been led in humblest submission to yield themselves to the King. I have called this identification of Scripture with the word of God, this view of a mechanical, verbal, literal inspiration—for though I am seeking to avoid technical terms it is not possible to do so—a new departure, because the Church had never, has never, accepted it. Is it necessary to show that the Anglican communion has never done so? Her formularies and the works of her Fathers are in your hands. Let me but quote a statement from one of her trusted living teachers, whose nomination to the bishopric of Durham during the last week has been This in- fallibility attacked by modern criticism. Verbal in- spiration, a new de- parture. Opinions of Dr. Westcott, Bishop of Carlisle, Cardinal Newman, 158 LECTURE ὙΠ’ received with a harmonious chorus of thanksgiving in which there is no discordant voice :— The purely organic theory of Inspiration rests on no Scriptural authority, and, if we except a few ambiguous metaphors, is supported by no historical testimony. It is at variance with the whole form and fashion of the Bible, and is destructive of all that is holiest in man, and highest in Religion, which seeks the co-ordinate elevation of all our faculties, and not the destruction of any one of them.® And let me remind you of the caution of one of her living Bishops, spoken in a Hulsean Lecture now thirty-five years ago :— And indeed it is a question worthy οἱ solemn considera- tion, whether almost as much mischief has not been done to the cause of Christian faith, by those who have endeavoured to force upon their brethren untenable views of the nature of Holy Scriptures, as by those who have rudely treated them as merely human books.’ That the Roman communion has never fully decreed this doctrine, even in the fatal steps of Trent and the Vatican, may be gathered from the following words of Cardinal Newman :— These two councils [the Tridentine and the Vatican] decide that the Scriptures are inspired, and inspired through- out, but not inspired by an immediately divine act, but through the instrumentality of inspired men; that they are inspired in all matters of faith and morals, meaning thereby, not only theological doctrine, but also the historical and pro- phetical narratives which they contain, from Genesis to the Acts of the Apostles; and lastly, that, being inspired because 6 Westcott, Introduction to the Harvey Goodwin, Hulsean Lec- Study of the Gospels, ed. 4, p. 6. tures, 1855, pp. 79-80. τ Bishop of Carlisle, then Mr. LECTURE II. 159 written by inspired men, they have a human side, which manifests itself in language, style, tone of thought, character, intellectual peculiarities, and such infirmities, not sinful, as belong to our nature, and which in unimportant matters may issue in what in doctrinal definitions is called an obiter dictum.® In a word, Inspiration of Scripture in omnibus suis par- tibus is one thing; in omnibus rebus is another.® This opinion of Cardinal Newman is supported by a recent utterance of the Bishop of Amzycla, assistant to the Archbishop of Westminster :— Catholics are under no sort of obligation to believe that inspiration extends to the words of Holy Scripture as well as to the subject-matter which is therein contained.! That English Protestants did not always think it necessary to accept the view of verbal infallibility, and that they did not shrink from teaching what they held, is proved by the following words from Richard Baxter’s Catechising of Families, and his opinion is by no means singular :— And here I must tell you of a great and needful truth, which ignorant Christians, fearing to confess, by over-doing, tempt men to infidelity. The Scripture is like a man’s body, where some parts are but for the preservation of the rest, and may be maimed, without death: the sense is the soul of the Scripture, and the letters but the body or vehicle. The doc- trine of the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and Decalogue, and Baptism, and Lord’s Supper, is the vital part, and Christianity itself. The Old Testament letter (written as we have it about 8 What is of obligation for a 5 bid. Β. 2d. Catholic to believe concerning the 1 Inspiration, reprinted from Inspiration of the Canonical the Homiletical Magazine, 1884, Scriptures, 1884, pp. 4, 56. p. 195. Bishop of Amycla, Richard Baxter, 1615- 1691, Neander, 1789- 1850. 160 LECTURE III. Ezra’s time) is that vehicle which is as imperfect as the reve- lation of those times was: but as after Christ’s incarnation and ascension the Spirit was more abundantly given, and the revelation more perfect and sealed, so the doctrine is more full, and the vehicle or body, that is the words, are less imperfect, and more sure to us; so that he that doubts of the truth of some words in the Old Testament, or of some small circumstantials in the New, hath no reason, therefore, to doubt of the Christian religion, of which these writings are but the vehicle, or body, sufficient to ascertain us of the truth of the history and doctrine. Be sure, first, that Christ is the very Son of God, and it inferreth the certainty of all his words, and enforceth our own religion.” That foreign Protestants have not thought it necessary to accept the doctrine of mechanical verbal inspiration, may be seen from the words of Neander, than whom no man has been held in higher honour by the Protestant churches of Germany, France, Holland, and America :— It must be regarded as one of the greatest boons which the purifying process of Protestant theology in Germany has conferred upon faith as well as science, that the old, mechanical view of Inspiration has been so generally aban- doned. ‘That doctrine, and the forced harmonies to which it led, demanded a clerk-like accuracy in the evangelical accounts, and could not admit even the slightest contradic- tions in them; but we are now no more compelled to have recourse to subtilties against which our sense of truth rebels. In studying the historical connexion of our Saviour’s life and actions by the application of an unfettered criticism, we reach a deeper sense in many of his sayings than the bonds of the old dogmatism would have allowed. The inquiring 2 Catechising of Families, cap. vi. question 11, answer. Practical Works, 1830, vol. xix. p. 32. LECTURE III. 161 reason need no longer find its free sense of truth opposed to faith ; nor is reason bound to subjugate herself, not to faith, but to arbitrary dogmas and artificial hypotheses.* But it would be to no purpose to multiply quota- tions to establish the view which the Church in all her history has held as to the facts of the reception of the Fourth Gospel, or the principles on which that reception has been based. We have now examined both the facts and the principles, not indeed with any degree of fulness in proportion to the subject, but still with such enlargement as is possible under present circumstances. At the risk of the objection Quis negavit, Quis dubitavit? rising to many lips, I have ventured to extend our instances over a large area of known facts ; and I now submit that they all converge to the induction that, with the possible exception of the Alogi,—and this exception we saw to be really unimportant, and to be such as it is in favour of the tradition of time and place and therefore to support the induction,—there has been no decade of any century of the Church’s history, from the end of the second down to the end of the eigh- teenth century, in which the undisputed acceptance of the Fourth Gospel in the Church cannot be traced. Catholics— Anglican, Roman, and Greek ; Protestants —Lutheran, Reformed, Nonconforming ; tradition of the Church, consciousness of the individual, history, 5 Leben Jesu Christi, ed. 4, * For extension of this induc- 1845, pp. 12, 13. Eng. Trans. tion to the second century, cf. 1851, pp. 8, 9. Lecture II. pp. 102 sq. M Result of the ‘judg- ment of centuries.’ Compre- hension exempli- fied in width of induc- tion. Depth of convic- tion. Examples: The Venerable Bede, 162 LECTURE III. criticism, the practical test of use and effect in Chris- tendom during these hundreds of years all utter one voice. Ask whom you will, examine on what prin- ciple you will. Here is a result in which all agree. The Fourth Gospel is an Apostolic and sacred work, coming to us from δ. John, in the fullest sense inspired, that is, inspired in the essence’ of its inner realities, but not in the accident of its external form—though some, with zeal which has outrun wisdom or knowledge, have claimed even this—and taking the very first place, if first place there be, among the Scriptures of the New Testament. I have invited your attention to the width of the area of instances on which this induction is based. Let me close this lecture by asking you to consider in two instances the intensity of devotion to the Fourth Gospel and of conviction of its Apostolic authorship. In the eighth century, the Monastery of Jarrow on the banks of the Tyne was one of the intellectual lights of Europe, and Bada was the pride of England and one of the foremost scholars of Christendom. He died in the year A.D. 735. This is the closing scene of his earthly life :— Two weeks before the Easter of 735 the old man was seized with an extreme weakness and loss of breath. He still preserved however his usual pleasantness and gay good- humour, and in spite of prolonged sleeplessness continued his lectures to the pupils about him. Verses of his own English tongue broke from time to time from the master’s LECTURE III. 163 lip—rude rimes that told how before the “ need-fare,’ Death’s stern ‘must go,’ none can enough bethink him what is to be his doom for good or ill. The tears of Beeda’s scholars mingled with his song. ‘ We never read without weeping,’ writes one of them. So the days rolled on to Ascension-tide, and still master and pupils toiled at their work, for Bada longed to bring to an end his version of St. John’s Gospel into the English tongue and his extracts from Bishop Isidore. ‘I don’t want my boys to read a lie,’ he answered those who would have had him rest, ‘ or to work to no purpose after I am gone.’ A few days before Ascension-tide his sickness grew upon him, but he spent the whole day in teaching, only saying cheerfully to his scholars, ‘ Learn with what speed you may; I know not how long I may last.’ The dawn broke on another sleepless night, and again the old man called his scholars round him and bade them write. ‘There is still a chapter wanting, said the scribe, as the morning drew on, ‘and it is hard for thee to question thyself any longer.’ ‘It is easily done,’ said Beeda; ‘ take thy pen and write quickly.’ Amid tears and farewells the day wore on to eventide. ‘There is yet one sentence unwritten, dear master,’ said the boy. ‘Write it quickly, bade the dying man. ‘It is finished now,’ said the little scribe at last. ‘ You speak truth,’ said the master ; ‘all is finished now.’ Placed upon the pavement, his head supported in his scholars’ arms, his face turned to the spot where he was wont to pray, Bada chanted the solemn ‘Glory to God.’ As his voice reached the close of his song he passed quietly away.° In the ninth decade of the nineteenth century— the incident is rather later in time than the logical fitness of our subject requires, but the parallel will justify its use as an illustration—in the castle of Auck- > Green, History of the English rabilis Bede; Bede’s Works, ed. people, 1878, i. 66 sq. Cf. Giles, 1. clxiii-clxvi. Cuthberti Hpistola de Olitw Vene- Bishop Lightfoot. 164 LECTURE III. land on the banks of the Wear, lived a scholar bishop of the English Church. Bishop of a populous diocese and administering it as if he lived for the diocese alone, he was, at the same time, a scholar like Beda, surrounded by pupils loving and beloved, and living the humble student’s devoted life. In the autumn of 1888, he lay sick, and, in the opinion of all who saw him and of himself, the sickness was unto death. He had long been urged by ‘strangers and friends in England and America alike’ to collect and reprint a series of essays which are grouped around the Fourth Gospel as a centre. But he had hoped to extend the series, and had always declined the request. And now, to use his own words, ‘ when I was prostrated by sickness and my life was hanging on a slender thread, it became necessary to give a final answer.’ His pupil and chaplain filled the office of the boy at Beeda’s hand. [rom the very presence of death his testimony on the external evidence of the Fourth Gospel was given to the world. It pleased God for a time to restore him to some measure of strength. Hours of weakness which as we thought ought to have been claimed for rest were devoted to work. ‘It is hard for thee to ques- tion thyself any longer,’ said those around him. ‘It is easily done,’ was the constant reply. The late autumn of 1889 found him again obliged to leave his northern home. The last days were in part occu- pied by revising, as the hands of his chaplain copied, ° Essays on Supernatural Religion, 1889, preface, p. vii. LECTURE ΗΠ’ 165 a lecture upon the /nternal Evidence for the Authen- ticity and Crenuineness of St. John’s Gospel delivered eighteen years before, and now to be re-delivered with the weight of all these years of thought. ‘ His sickness grew upon him.’ On the festival of 5. Thomas he fell on sleep. On the eve of S. John the Evangelist’s day his remains rested beneath the same roof with those of Cuthbert and Bede, on the festival of S. John they were committed to their resting-place in the chapel at Auckland. The lecture on Ὁ. John was the last public document to which he affixed his name, and it was given to the world from the open grave. He being dead yet speaketh. Let us hear him :— Whatever consequences may follow from it, we are com- pelled on critical grounds to accept this Fourth Gospel as the genuine work of John the son of Zebedee. ... As a critical question, | wish to take a verdict upon it. But as I could not have you think that I am blind to the theological issues directly or indirectly connected with it, I will close with this brief confession of faith. I believe from my heart that the truth which this Gospel more especially enshrines— the truth that Jesus Christ is the very Word incarnate, the manifestation of the Father to mankind—is the one lesson which, duly apprehended, will do more than all our feeble efforts to purify and elevate human life here, by imparting to it hope and light and strength, the one study which alone can fitly prepare us for a joyful immortality hereafter.’ Such, in all the width of a comprehension, in all the depth of an mtension, which I am able simply to 7 Expositor, March 1890, p. 188. 166 LECTURE III. indicate, is the ‘judgment of centuries’ upon the Fourth Gospel. Next term we will inquire into the judgments of ‘our age’ and consider how far they have can- celled it. | LECTURE IV ‘OUR AGE’ EVANSON. BRETSCHNEIDER. STRAUSS “WITHOUT DOUBT HUMAN TESTIMONY IS TO BE DULY AND STRICTLY SIFTED, AND EVERY DEFECT IN ITS QUANTITY OR QUALITY IS TO BE RECORDED IN THE SHAPE OF A DEDUCTION FROM ITS WEIGHT. BUT AS THERE IS NO PRO- CEEDING MORE IRREVERENT, SO THERE IS NONE MORE STRICTLY IRRATIONAL, THAN ITS WHOLESALE DEPRECIATION. SUCH DEPRECIATION IS AN INFALLIBLE NOTE OF SHALLOW AND CARELESS THINKING, FOR IT VERY GENERALLY IM- PLIES AN EXAGGERATED AND ALMOST LUDICROUS ESTIMATE OF THE CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCES OF THE PRESENT GENERATION, AS COMPARED WITH THOSE WHICH HAVE PRECEDED IT.’ Gladstone. LECTURE IV. Is there a thing whereof men say, See, this is new ? it hath been already, in the ages which were before us.—Kccles. i. 10. In the earlier lectures of this course we have endea- voured to estimate the ‘judgment of centuries’ on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. It remains for us to consider the criticism of ‘ our age,’ which is said to have cancelled it. That it should be so cancelled is a priori not impossible, but if the facts and the arguments to which 1 have invited your attention have any real force, it is in a high degree improbable. The convictions of the past may be wholly wrong; but we are bound to demand proof of this, and those who assert it have no right to feel aggrieved, if strength and frequency of assertion are not accepted in the place of proof. Still less have they any right to feel agerieved if, when some among them condescend to personal attack upon their opponents, the opinion of bystanders should be, in accord with the legal maxim, that they have no case. If ‘our age’ has come to the knowledge of new facts, let them be adduced. If new inductions from old facts have been established, let the inductions and the processes by which they have been arrived at, be stated. It will not produce conviction to tell us in general terms that all this Criticism of ‘our age.’ Assertion cannot be accepted as proof, 170 LECTURE IV. vast revolution has been accomplished, and that we must therefore accept the new position. We have lately read, to take an example of such statements, the following words :— He paused, and then very simply, and so as to be understood by those who heard him, he gave a rapid sketch of that great operation worked by the best intellect of Europe during the last half century— broadly speaking—on the facts and docu- ments of primitive Christianity. From all sides and by the help of every conceivable instrument those facts have been investigated, and now at last the great result—‘ the revivified, reconceived truth—seems ready to emerge ἢ] Now, we must necessarily inquire before we accept this assertion, ‘On what array of facts is the generalization made?’ And if we are held in a momentary spell and are tempted to yield our weaker judgment to one who can speak confi- dently of the fifty years’ work of the best intellect of Europe, and of the facts and documents of primitive Christianity, and of investigations by every conceivable instrument, the spell is soon broken when we remember that the assertion is made by a fictitious personage who represents a weak and certainly ill-informed young clergyman ; and, instead of absolute submission, we cannot help asking ‘ What nor yet does he know about it ?’ Nor will the mere novelty ality. | Which is necessary to an original essay for a young doctor’s degree, or for the pages of a Zeitschrift wait- ing for the press, ingenious and interesting though it * Mrs. Humphry Ward, Robert Elsmere, iii. p. 206. LECTURE IV. 1171 often is, be as convincing to all readers as it is to the author. Originality may prove the cleverness of a writer, but it may also take from the force of his writing. The man who attempts to prove that history has all through been a mistake, and the instincts of humanity a delusion ; and expects that the one should be rewritten, and the other abandoned, in conformity with his own original essay, must not be surprised if | other men do not all at once agree with him. Perhaps they will come to do so; but some of them have read a good many such essays, and still have not been led to abandon the opinion that the world is wiser than any one man in it. Time may be naturally asked for in which to test his results, and meanwhile the crop of original essays is not likely to cease, and if he share the fate of his predecessors he may aban- don the views which now seem so certain, or his own originality may be eclipsed by something more original still. The child has often stood upon its father’s shoulders and has seemed to itself—but only to itself—taller than the man upon whose strength it rested. And Time’s youngest child of the nineteenth century may seem to itself—but only to itself—taller than the great past on which it rests. Adults who stand and watch will smile, for Time’s children have had a habit of thinking this in every age ;” and after of the state of that science a hundred years ago, just before 2 Examples of this abound on all sides. One which is of special interest from its connexion with biblical criticism, is found in the opinion which Michaelis formed the dawn of ‘ our age’ :— ‘Whenever I reflect on the year 1750, when the first edition Destruc- tive criti- cism LECTURE IV. all individual men do not grow to be so much taller in the nineteenth century than they were in the first. Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona Multi ; sed omnes illacrymabiles Urgentur ignotique longa Nocte, carent quia vate sacro.* Nor will the positive results of the ‘judgment of centuries’ be cancelled by any criticism which [5 of this Introduction appeared, which I published at that time chiefly as a guide for my academi- cal lectures, and compare it with the more complete editions of 1765, and 1777, I feel a satisfac- tion, and even a degree of as- tonishment, at the progress of learning in the present age: and as during the last ten years in particular the most rapid advances have been made in literature, the present edition of this work, which is a kind of general re- pository, has received a propor- tional increase. I candidly con- fess, not only that my own private knowledge at the time of my first publication was inferior to what it should and might have been, but that the performance itself was written in too much haste: and yet this very imperfect edition had the honour of being translated into English, and of undergoing a re-impression even at the time when the second much more com- plete edition was already published in Germany. The republic of letters is at present in possession of knowledge, of which it had no idea in the middle of this century ; and I may venture to affirm, that the last-mentioned period bears the same analogy to the year 1787, as the state of infancy to that of manhood. We were unable at that time to form an adequate judgement on many important topics, and the opinions of the learned were divided on the most ancient and most valuable manu- BCLIDtS: +... ‘The system of biblical criticism has been placed in a new light, and reduced to a state of greater certainty: but it is unnecessary to swell the preface with a de- scription of the treasures that have been opened, and the dis- coveries that have been made in this enlightened age, as they are arranged under their respective heads in the course of the present Introduction.’ John David Mi- chaelis’ Introduction to the New Testament, Eng. Trans. by Herbert Marsh, 1793, vol. i. pt. 1; Preface to German original of ed. 4, quoted in Preface, pp. iii, iv. 3 Hor. Carm. iv. 9. 25. LECTURE IV. dies: merely negative and destructive. There are cer- tain broad facts of human life and history to be accounted for. If a man says, ‘ You are all mis- taken. You are all like children in the nursery. Believe me, for I have attained to adult knowledge, and know what I am talking about; if you could only see your delusion as 1 see it from the higher platform on which I stand, you would abandon it in a moment. It is really absurd for people in this nineteenth century to be living in mud huts con- structed without any knowledge of the elementary principles of architecture’—he must not be sur- prised if he finds that there is a prejudice in favour of general fact and in opposition to individual fancy. Nor must he be surprised if he is asked to show that his fuller knowledge provides not only a theory, but a practical working rule by which the past may be measured and the present be lived ; and if ordinary men ask leave to remain in the mud huts of their present ignorance until the house which he would build for them has got a little beyond the plans. If, then, ‘ our age’ is to cancel the ‘judgment of centuries,’ it must be by the destructive criticism of clear, consistent, measured proof that this judgment is wrong ; and by the constructive criticism of a defi- nite, established judgment, which it is prepared to substitute for that which it would destroy. How far has it hitherto succeeded in this double task with regard to the Fourth Gospel ? not sufficient ; construc- tion de- manded. Evanson, 1731- 1805. The Dis- sonance. The author. The work, 174 LECTURE IV. It has been customary to date the commencement of the destructive criticism of the Fourth Gospel from the appearance of a small work on The Dissonance of the Evangelists, by Edward Evanson, which was pub- lished in 1792.4. The work consists of two hundred and eighty-nine small octavo pages, of which thirty- three are devoted to ὃ. John, and deal with the usu- ally alleged discrepancies between this Gospel and one or more of the other three, especially that accord- ing to ὃ. Luke. The author’s previous career was scarcely such as to qualify him for the task which he undertook, though he himself thought that it was. He had for reasons not connected with the present ques- tion, resigned his position as a clergyman in 1778, and trusts his mind has been perfectly unbiassed and impartial in its investigations ; | because he had been unconnected for above fifteen years with any religious sect or party whatsoever, disdaining the office of a teacher of so plain a thing as Christianity, considered as a lucrative occu- pation, and too far advanced in life to have any temporal interest in view.° He admits the authenticity of S. Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles in terms which must sound strange to some of his successors :— We have here, then, every kind of evidence, whereof the nature of the case admits, to convince us of the genuine 4 The Dissonance of the Four ward Evanson, A.M., Ipswich. yenerally received Evangelists, aud = MDCCXCII. the Evidence of their respective ° Ibid. Preface, p. ix. Authenticity examined. By Ed- LECTURE IV. 17d authenticity and veracity of both these histories ; and with these, for my own part, I am abundantly satisfied.® On the other hand, he had long been induced to reject three of the four generally received Gospels, as spurious fictions of the second century, unnecessary and even prejudicial to the cause of true christianity, and in every respect unworthy of the regard which so many ages have paid to them.’ This preference for $. Luke is the more remarkable, as in the author’s opinion Prophecy is by far the most satisfactory and the only lasting, supernatural evidence of the truth of any Revelation.® Of the author’s critical discrimination you will form a sufficient opinion from the following sentence :— I think it my duty to add briefly my reasons for expunging also out of the volume of duly authenticated scriptures of the New Covenant, the Epistles, to the Romans—to the Ephesians —to the Colossians—to the Hebrews—of James—of Peter— of John—of Jude,—and, in the book of the Revelation, the Epistles to the seven churches of Asia.? Of the cogency of the reasons for rejecting the Epistle to the Romans, which, as far as 1 know, no modern critic in England or Germany rejects, and as a final example of the author’s critical powers, let us take the following comment on the salutation to ‘ Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine’ :—" δ Dissonance, wt supra, p. 111. ® Ibid. p. 256. 7 Ibid. p. 255. 1, Rom. xvi. 13. 5 toed. p: 6. unworthy of the subject. The replies. 176 LECTURE IV. And if there is any reason to believe that St. Paul’s mother was then living, is it credible, that an old woman of Tarsus in Cilicia, whose son was so wonderfully appointed to preach the Gospel, and who was occupied in that com- mission in Asia and Greece, should leave her native country and such a son, and ramble after other preachers of the Gospel, at so advanced an age, to the far distant metropolis of Italy ?2 The whole work is indeed quite unworthy of its subject, and would be unworthy of your attention were it not for the conspicuous position which has been assigned to it. There is some difficulty in avoiding the suspicion that it has been referred to and quoted much more frequently than it has been seen or read. It is now rare, and, except as a name with which to head a list, has passed into merited oblivion ; but it caused no small stir when it was published. Several answers at once appeared, among them one by Dr. Joseph Priestley,’ the well-known Unita- A rian minister, and one by 2 Dissonance, ut supra, p. 260. 3 [Tetters to a Young Man, part ii., 1793. 4 An Essay on the Authenticity of the New Testament (1793). As an example of the state of biblical knowledge in the last century, which isimportant to us as account- ing for the spread of the opinions of the English Deists and others, it may be noted that when Mr. Simpson, who had completed his course at one of the best classical schools in the country, and at St. Mr. David Simpson.* John’s College, Cambridge, and taken his degree, became a can- didate for the ministry, he did not possess a Bible, and that when he bought one he hid it from his friends lest he should ‘incur the imputation of Methodism.’ Me- moir of the Author by Edward Parsons, pp. vi, vii, in Simpson’s Plea for the Deity of Jesus, 1812. The above is an example from Yorkshire. It may be interesting to supplement it by one from Somerset which is furnished by LECTURE IV. Lei second and posthumous edition of Evanson’s work appeared in 1805, and certain principles in it were discussed in the Bampton Lectures of 1810, and the Lecturer gives in his preface some facts about the book for an ‘obscure student of the history of re- ligious controversies.’ ἢ The battle was soon shifted from English to German ground. The opening years of the nineteenth century were in Germany fruitful alike in literature, criticism, patriotism, philosophy, religion. Fichte at Jena, and later at Berlin, Jacobi at Munich, were in the fulness of their power, and Schelling was foreshadow- ing his still greater influence. The Romanticists, Herder, Novalis (Hardenberg), La Motte Fouqué, Schlegel, were modifying the currents of cultured thought.’ The University of Berlin was founded in 1810, when Halle had become subject to France, and the following letter from Miss H. c.,’ examined in Hight Discourses More to Mr. Wilberforce, in preached in 1810. Thomas Fal- which she describes her work in coner, Bampton Lectures. Ox- Cheddar: ‘We found more than ford, 1811. Appendix, 1822. Pre- two thousand people inthe parish, _ face, p. v. almost all very poor. ... We ° See the interesting chapters went to every house in the place, on the influence of these writers and found each a scene of the in Hagenbach’s History of the greatest ignorance and vice. We Church im the 18th and 19th saw but one Bibleinallthe parish, Centuries. Eng. Trans. by Dr. and that was used to propaflower- Hurst, New York, 1869, vol. ii. pot.’ Roberts, Memoirs of the Cf. Schwarz, Zur Geschichte der Life and Correspondence of Mrs. neuesten Theologie, pp. 3 sqq. ; Hannah More, ed. 3, 1835, vol. Gervinus, Nationalliteratur, vol.v. li. pp. 295-96. p- 600 ; and esp. Baur, Geschichte > Certain Principles in Evan- der christlichen Kirche, Bd. iv. sow’s ‘Dissonance of the Evangelists, 2te Aufl. pp. 55-60. N German influences. Bearing of these years on the Gospels.’ 178 LECTURE IV. numbered among its first teachers Schleiermacher, Neander, and De Wette. Three years later the students were singing in every street Korner’s songs, which both expressed and roused a patriotism that defied Napoleon’s invading power, and became the spirit of the united fatherland. The peace brought by its side the tercentenary of Luther and the Reforma- tion, and while some men hoped and some men feared that a new reformation lay before them in the not- distant future, the nation, fresh from the throes of its mighty struggle, was baptized anew into the spiritual realities of the great Reformation of the past. These years were naturally not without their direct bearing on the question of the Gospels. The literary catalogues of the period contain references to a large number of books and articles upon our own part of the subject, among which Herder’s Son of God, Saviour of the World,’ the Commentary of Paulus,® the Introductions of Hug,? and Eichhorn,’ and Schmidt,’ the discussion of Justin’s quotations by Winer,’ are the most important. The leading idea of writers who admitted the dissonance of the Evangelists was that the Fourth Gospel was to be maintained, even if this involved the sacrifice of the 7 Herder, J. G., Von Gottes ' Hichhorn, J. G., Hinleitung Sohn der Welt Heiland, 1797. in das Neue Testament, 1810. 8 Paulus, H. E. G., Commen- 3. Schmidt, J. E. C., Histo- tar iiber das Neue Testament, iv. risch-kritische Einleitung ins Neue Theil, 16 Abth., 106 Halfte,1812. Testament, 1804. ° Hug, J. L., Hinleitung in die 3 Winer, G. B., Justinwm Schriften des Neuen Testaments,ed. Martyremevangeliiscanonicisusum 1, 1808. Suisse ostenditur, 1819. LECTURE Iv. 179 others. But if we pass over the period without a more detailed notice, we shall find justification for doing so in the general acceptance of the opinion which Strauss and others express, that Bretschneider is the first writer who deals with the Johannine question in a way which is worthy of modern scientific requirements ;* and that it is from his date that the inquiry becomes one of first importance. Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider was the son of a country pastor in Saxony. He was educated at Leipzig, and having scruples about entering the ministry, for which he had been intended, he de- voted himself for some years to literary and tutorial work. He was afterwards ordained, and in 1816 became general superintendent at Gotha. He filled this office, and was practically head of the church in the dukedom, until his death in 1848. His principal earlier works are two dogmatic treatises, which derive special value from the author’s historical investiga- tions ; and from the calm, sober-minded independence, that refused to sacrifice theology to rationalism on the one hand, or to mysticism on the other. He after- wards more openly opposed the newer teaching of Schleiermacher, Marheineke, and Hase. In earlier life he had also written upon the LX X. and Apocrypha, and his scholarship was further attested by the more mature, and perhaps best known of his books, the Lexicon to the New Testament.’ * Cf. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu > Lexicon manuale Greco-lati- fiir das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, num in libros N. T., 1829. 1864, pp. 90 sq. w 2 Bret- schneider, 1770 1848. Life and earlier works. The Pro- babilia: its pur- pose, and scope. 180 LECTURE Iv. In 1820 Bretschneider published at Leipzig his work on the Probabilities concerning the Nature and Origin of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John.® It was originally written in German, and this accounts for the form of some of the sentences ; but it was published in Latin, for it was not intended for general reading, and the conclusions which the writer suggests tentatively, and submits to the opinions of experts, are put forward only as Probabilities. He expresses this in the following terms :— But we ask you, kind reader, to believe that whatever con- clusions we have come to, we do not regard them as the utter- ances of an oracle, but as things which seem probable after discussion. It is not that in our opinion the Gospel of John is spurious, but only that it seems to be so, though we should have preferred to write is more frequently instead of, for the thousandth time, repeating seems. For we expect, nay, we hope, that the result will be that experts in criticism will teach us better wherever we may have made mistakes, and we will accept their corrections most willingly. For we adopt the words of Cicero’ as our own :— ‘T will explain these things as far as I can, but you must not regard what I say as certain and fixed, as if it were said by the Pythian Apollo; but as said by one frail mortal among many following out probabilities by the help of conjecture. For my part, I cannot go further than to trace resemblances to truth. Let those talk about certainties who say, on the one hand, that they can be perceived, and profess on the other that they themselves are wise.’ ὃ The author excuses himself from. writing a his- tory of the contemporary discussion of the question ® Probabilia de Evangelit et 7 Tusc. Queest. i. 8. Epistolarum Joannis, Apostoli, in- 8 Probabilia, ut supra, Preface, dole et origine, 1820. p. Vill. LECTURE IV. 181 —though he had read most of the writings on either side, and gives a list of them here and in the second edition of his Systematic Exposition of Dogmatic Con- ceptions,” which had been published a year before—on the ground that he wishes to keep his book within due limits, that it was necessary to deal with the more important issues only, and that the establish- ment of truth would be in itself the refutation of error.! The book is accordingly a small one, con- taining only 224 octavo pages, but it consists of a series of important propositions, and there are few arguments of any value in the voluminous literature of the later discussions, the germ of which may not be found here. The first question which he examines is, Whether the Fourth Gospel is worthy of credit in its reports of the discourses of Jesus, and whether it is more worthy of credit than the earlier Gospels.? And the conclusion to which he comes is— We seem not to be far from the truth when we determine that the discussions between Jesus, the disciples, the Jews and the Baptist are not real, but are, at all events, to a very great extent imaginary, and that the author of the Gospel was not a companion of Jesus, nor a hearer of his teaching ; and this opinion is strongly confirmed by the fact that cir- cumstances can be shown to have existed in the state of Christianity in the second century which account for the writer's presentation of these discussions between Jesus and ® Systematische Entwickelung al- 1 Probabilia, ut supra, Preface, ler in der Dogmatik vorkommenden p. vii. Begriffe, 2 ed., 1819. 2 Ibid. cap. i. ad init. p. 1. The Jo- hannine discourses, largely imaginary. The author not the Apostle, nor a Palestin- lan, nora Jew. Gospel sprung from 182 LECTURE IV. his adversaries. ‘This is discussed more fully in a subsequent chapter.? He next proceeds to give reasons for the pro- position— that it was neither the Apostle John nor any other com- panion of Jesus who had himself seen and heard all things who composed the Gospel, but a man who lived later, and used traditions written or unwritten.‘ The third point to be established is— that it is probable that the author of the Gospel was neither a Palestinian nor a Jew;° and this is shown by the dogmatic expressions ;° by forms of speech which a born Jew would not have used ;‘ by the way in which the writer makes himself prominent in the Gospel, and his anxiety to establish his own trustworthiness ; ὃ by the illus- trations of Jewish matters in which the author has made serious mistakes all through ;’ and, lastly, by the author’s special error about the Paschal supper. When Bretschneider comes to the task of con- struction, from which he does not shrink, he finds a point of departure in the statement of Justin that the Jews sent chosen men from Jerusalem through the whole world to denounce the godless heresy of the Christians,” and that there sprung up in the begin- 8 Probabilia, ut swpra, cap. 111. 7 Ibid. pp. 91-92. ad fin. p. 64. 8 Ibid. pp. 110-113. 4 Ibid. cap. ii. ad init. p. 65, ° sbid. pp. 92-100. ad fin. p. 82. ' Ibid. pp. 100-110. 5. Ibid. cap. 111. ad init. p. 83. ? Dial. c. Tryph. pp. 234 and ὁ Ibid. pp. 83-90. 335. Ibid. p. 115. LECTURE IV. 183 ning and middle of the second century an apologe- tic zeal among Christians which could have had no place until it was excited. The Fourth Gospel, with its obviously apologetic and polemic purpose, is the result. This accounts for the form of dialogue, for the dogmatic argument, for the anti-Jewish rigour, for the choice of material, for the omissions. This explains the frequent opposition of Jesus to ‘ the Jews’ as distinguished from ‘the people’ or ‘ the multitude’; the discussions; the want of sense on the part of the Jews, who constantly pervert the meaning of Jesus, for the second-century writer is depicting the Jews of his own day; the disputes about dogmas, which were not matters of controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees of his time, but were discussed between Christians and Jews in the second century.” It explains also, as he thinks, the choice of miracles, and specially the absence of all cases of possession ; * the absence of precepts and parables, and the presence of discourses and a hidden gnosis ;° the presentation of a life of Jesus which is the reflection of the Logos.° And this, lastly, sheds light on individual passages of the Gospel.’ The author then proceeds to ask whether the authority of the Gospel can be established from the Apocalypse, and finds, after a criticism of the views of 3 Probabilia, ut supra, pp. 116-119. δ Ihnd. pp. 125-129. 4 Ibid. pp. 119-123. 7 Ibid. pp. 129-149. 5. Ibid. pp. 123-125. Jewish anti- Christian zeal, cannot be supported from the Apoca- lypse, nor from Epistles. The Epistles them- selves not proved to be Johan- nine, 184 LECTURE IV. Eichhorn and Bertholdt, that even if it could be proved that the Apocalypse was by the Apostle John, which he regards as very doubtful, that would not strengthen the argument for the authorship of the Gospel—nay, it would, by reason of the manifest difference of the books, weaken it.® Can it be established from the Epistles? The argument based upon grammar and diction which Bertholdt adopts from Schulze is valid; if the Epistles were written by the Apostle John, it follows that the Gospel proceeded from the same author. But the argument can be inverted with equal validity ; if the Gospel was not written by the Apostle John, it follows that the Epistles cannot be ascribed to him. Further, the Epistles, as the shorter and less deve- loped writings, and as writings in which the author is less prominent, must depend upon the Gospel, not the Gospel upon the Epistles. . They nowhere claim to be by S. John, and contain things which rather suggest that they are not ; nor is there sufficient ex- ternal testimony to establish the Epistles themselves, much less to establish the Gospel by their means.’ Bertholdt’s arguments are, in his opinion, conclusive as against Lange and Cludius, who had lately ques- tioned the authorship of the First Epistle, but they will not bear all that the writer seeks to prove by them. Identity of authorship is not necessarily Johannine authorship. There is no proof that the Epistle be- longed to the first century, or that the Apostles were ® Probabilia, ut supra, pp. 150-161. 5. Ibid. pp. 161-164. LECTURE IV. 185 ever known as presbyters, or that the Apostle John was on account of extreme old age called ‘ presbyter ’ in a special sense. When the testimony of Papias, and Polycarp, and Ireneus is examined, it is not found to be sufficient. There is really nothing in the Epistles which proves that they were by the Apostle John, and there is nothing to prevent our gathering from the Gospel that the Epistles also are not genuine. On the other hand, the Epistles tend to strengthen the opinion that the Gospel could not have been written by 8. John.’ Bretschneider then proceeds to deal with the ex- The most ancient witnesses who are thought to have affirmed the authenticity of the Gospel—let them be heard, and their authority tested. The nature of the testimony is to be considered. There is no perfect—that is, clear and express—testimony to the Johannine authorship in the second century until its close, when we have it in Theophilus of Antioch, certain Valentinians, and Ireneus.? The testimony of the church at Ephesus ;* of Barnabas, of Polycarp, of Ignatius, of the First Epistle of Clement of Rome ; of the doubtful Recognitions ; of the Homilies ;* of the Sibylline Oracles ;° of Justin Martyr and Tatian ; ° of Celsus,’ of Hermas, of the Book of Henoch, of the testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs, of the Acts of Pilate, of the ternal evidences. 1 Probabilia, ut supra, pp. 165-177. 2 Ibid. pp. 178-181. 5. Ibid. pp. 182-183. 4 Ibid. pp. 184-188. ὅ Ibid. pp. 189-190. δ Ibid. pp. 191-194. 7 Ibid. pp. 195-199. and strength- en adverse views about Gospel. The external evidences not sufficient. Weight of opposing internal evidence. Place probably Egypt. Summary. 186 LECTURE IV. Gospel of Nicodemus, of the Gospel to the Hebrews ; ὃ of the Montanists ;° of Valentinus and the Valen- tinians ; of Heracleon ; ' of Irenzus ;" of Theophilus of Antioch ;? are tested : and the conclusion is deduced that the external evidences are not sufficient in weight or antiquity or number to prove the authenticity of the Gospel ; much less, therefore, do they prevent our concluding that the Gospel was not written by John —a conclusion which so many and so great internal arguments commend. Nor would the conclusion be different if we had external evidences, more and weightier than we have ; for while internal evidence is of first importance in all works of very great antiquity, it is specially so in Christian writings, on account of the many fictitious books which were accepted by the credulous negligence of the first ages.* As regards the place from which the Fourth Gospel sprung, it seems to have been first used by the Valentinians in Egypt, and to have been taken by them to Rome and thence to Gaul ; and if we suppose that at the time the Gospel was taken to Rome it came also from the Alexandrians through Theophilus to Antioch, and was published in Asia Minor, there is no further difficulty from the external evidence. The place and person may both be doubtful, but this seems certain : that the author was not the Apostle John, nor a companion of Jesus, nor a Christian ὃ Probabilia, ut supra, pp. 200-204. 2 Ibid. pp. 214-217. ° Ibid. pp. 205-211. 3 Ibid. p. 218. 1 Ibid. pp. 212-213. 4 Ibid. pp. 219-220. LECTURE IV. Δ 197 sprung from or living in Palestine, nor a Jew by birth ; but that he was some Christian of Alexandrian training, and filling the office of a presbyter, and that he made use of tradition and some written document. It is most likely that he lived in Egypt, partly from the line which he took on the Paschal question, partly because his doctrine agreed very largely with Gnos- ticism ; and it is probable that the Gnostics first knew his Gospel in Egypt, strongly approved of it, took it to Rome, and gained general acceptance for it by the authority of the Roman church.° It is threescore years and ten since these views were modestly submitted to the judgments of the learned—Eruditorum judiciis modeste subject is part of the title—and the case for the negative criticism has never been put with more cogency. Subsequent writers have been less modest, but also less learned. They have alleged some new facts and many new fancies. They have filled our book-cases with erudi- tion, in the midst of which Bretschneider’s little volume has taken a back shelf and has been hidden from view; but they have derived from it more than they have always known, and the advocate who to- day wants a brief from which to plead against the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel will find his case stated nowhere so well as here. The learned theologians of the time did not receive Bretschneider’s work in the spirit in which he sub- mitted it to them. Reviews, pamphlets, books assailed 5 Probabilia, ut supra, pp. 221-224. Import- ance of the book. Bret- schneider convinced by replies. Definite and repeated retracta- tion. * Question is settled.’ 188 LECTURE IV. him on all sides. He himself tells us that many of them were extremely passionate and bitter, and that the Minister von Einsiedel publicly denounced him as ‘the John-slanderer.’® But, with a patience which has not always been manifested in this contro- versy, he none the less studied the replies; and at the end of two years, when the second edition of his Handbook of Dogmatics* was published, he was con- vinced that his arguments had been fully answered, and frankly withdrew his conclusions. After two years’ further thought he took occasion to repeat this retractation in a review article.2 Four years later a third edition of the Handbook of Dogmatics was pub- lished, and the author reprinted part of the preface of the second edition which contained the statement of his change of view, and also called attention to the fact in a note in the body of the work. His book, as he tells us in emphatic language, which he took every opportunity to repeat, had accomplished its purpose. The Probabilities had brought out proofs of the authenticity. The question is settled for the theo- logical public.’ ὁ Autobiography, translated by iAchte Quellen gebraucht, weil Professor G. E. Day in Bibliotheca die Zweifel an der Aechtheit Sacra, April 1853, p. 259. dieser Schriften, die ich vor 1 Handbuch der Dogmatik, einiger Zeit dem gelehrten Pub- 1822. likum vorlegte, von mir selbst nur ® Tzschirner’s Magazin fiir als Anfragen angesehen worden christliche Prediger, 1824, pp. sind, welche die Veranlassung 153-167. geben méchten, dass der Beweis 9. “Bei der biblischen Kritik der Aechtheit dieser Schriften, der habe ich auch die Johanneischen mir noch unvollkommen schien, Schriften ganz unbedenklich 215. griindlicher gefiihrt werde, und LECTURE IV. 189 I do not claim Bretschneider as in himself a strong witness in favour of the Johannine authorship, though there might be good ground for doing so ; but he at least furnishes conclusive evidence that at the close of the first generation of this century, de- structive criticism had directed its strongest forces against the citadel only to be driven back in the at- tempt. Strauss tries to minimize the force of Bret- schneider’s withdrawal, though he was ready to wel- come the danger and violence of the attack, by the statement that his general theological position was not deep enough to bear all that followed from a rejection of the Fourth Gospel; and marvels at the prejudice of a man like Schleiermacher, who says that he was not moved for a moment by the doubts which had been put forward, though it was just as well that they had been discussed.! But Bretschneider’s true position is revealed in the singularly candid posthumous autobiography which weil ich nach den dariiber erschie- nenen Beurtheilungen und ange- kiindigten Schriften wohl hoffen darf, diese Absicht véllig erreicht zu sehen.’—Preface of 1822. ‘Ich sehe jetzt diese Sache fiir das theologische Publikum als erle- digt an.’—Note to reprint of fore- going in ed. 3, 1828, p. viil. ‘Der Zweck, den meine ‘‘ Pro- babilia de Evangelii et episto- lar. Joannis apostoli indole et origine ” (Lips. 1820. 8.) hatten, nimlich die Untersuchung tiber die Aechtheit der Johanneischen Schriften neu anzuregen, und weiter zu fiihren, ist erreicht worden, und die aufgestellten Zweifel kénnen nun wohl als erledigt angesehen werden.’— Ibid. p. 268. Repeated and en- larged ten years later, ed. 4, 1838, vol. i. p. 343. Cf. esp.the explana- tion of the Johannine Discourses, Ibid. pp. 362 sq. 1 Strauss, Das Leben Jesu fiir das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, 1864. Schleiermacher, LHinleitwng, 1]. § 15, pp. 90 sqq. Cf. infra, pp. 212 sq. Bret- schnei- der’s character in Auto- biography. 190 LECTURE IV. has been published by his son.?, He was before all things a man of calm severe reason. He would accept no statement which could not be expressed and proved as a logical proposition. Nothing was so distasteful to him as obscure and unintelligible mystic talk. He grew into an attitude of strong and even bitter oppo- sition to Schleiermacher and his followers, whom he regarded as largely under the influence of Schelling, and the attacks in the Lvangelical Church Journal ὃ and elsewhere, drove him further and further from In 1832 he suc- ceeded Zimmermann as editor of the General Church the orthodoxy of his earlier days. Journal,* and used it as a means to oppose the reaction against rationalism.’ So far from recalling the state- ments of the Probabilia on account of their conse- quences, it is more likely, if we are to trace the subtle currents of bias, that he was induced to write them on account of the prominence given to the Fourth Gospel by Schleiermacher, and that he withdrew them because he saw no possible ground left on which they could be honestly maintained. But in his later years he was a controversialist rather than a critic, and regarded the episode of the Probabilia as one that he did not care to recall. 2 Bibliotheca Sacra, ut supra, Oct. 1852 and April 1855. 5 Hvanyelische Kirchen-Zeitung, Berlin. * Allgemeine Darmstadt. » ©The active antagonism into Kirchen-Zeitung, which he was now thrown with the revived orthodoxy, had the natural effect of rendering his tendency towards _ rationalism more decided. He had begun with being a rationalistic supranatura- list; he ended with being at most a supranaturalistic rationalist.’ Bibliotheca, Oct. 1852, p. 659. LECTURE IV. 191 No name has been better known to the readers and thinkers of our own generation than that of Strauss, and although his work does not add much to the criticism of the Fourth Gospel, I should expose myself to fair censure for passing over one who is generally thought to be a strong adverse witness, if he were not included in our brief review. David Friedrich Strauss, whose sixty-six years of life extended from 1808 to 1874, was born at Lud- wigsburg in Swabia. His father, who had been en- gaged in trade, lost a large part of his means, and a temperament naturally morose became embittered, though he professedly followed the strictest lines of orthodox religion. He seems at no time to have had much sympathy with, or influence over, his son, and what he had did not extend to the son’s later manhood. The mother is said to have cared less for the outward forms of religion, but to have been a woman of healthy judgment and natural kindness which was often tested, and of warm affection for her son. At the age of thirteen the lad left the little day- school at Ludwigsburg for the seminary at Blau- beuren, which was then an evangelical college, but was called a ‘monastery’ from its earlier history. How big with issues for the after days of his own life, for the life of many another, was the day on which this step was taken! Here he met Christian Marklin, his fellow in work and play, his fellow in the doubts and struggles of his later life. He has himself given a sketch of Miirklin, ight indeed, but, Strauss, 1808- 1874. Home life. Blau- beuren. Tubingen. 192 LECTURE IV. like all he touched, showing the master’s hand, and important to us, for in telling the friend’s life and thoughts he has told his own.® At Blaubeuren he found Kern the philologist, to whom he owed so much, and above all he found Baur, who, like himself, had gone there as a boy to school, and now, after a distinguished career at Tiibingen, had come back to teach. Five years later, the boys themselves went to the evangelical college or Sti/t in the same university. Kern and Baur soon followed as teachers. Ferdinand Christian Baur was in 1826 appointed Professor of Historical Theology in the old evangelical Uni- versity of Tiibingen ; and David Friedrich Strauss, a small-featured, delicate, overgrown youth of eighteen, was in his class-room. These days of Blaubeuren and Tiibingen are full of interest, but this is not the place or time for treating of them. The visits to his friend and townsman Kerner, that supra-supra- naturalist at Weinsberg; the period in which Strauss was led captive by clairvoyance, or perhaps by the fair ‘clairvoyante of Prevorst,’ her prophecy that he would always remain a believer ; the steps by which he was led from this yeast stage through Jacob Boehme to Schelling, Schleiermacher, Hegel ; his bril- liant examination and his popularity as an evangelical preacher in a country village ; his views of an esoteric ereed for the library and an exoteric doctrine for the pulpit ; his appointment and short stay as a teacher aut Maulbronn; the resignation and visit to Berlin ὁ Christian Marklin, ein Lebens- wnd Charakterbild, 1851. LECTURE IV: 193 with the special desire to hear Hegel lecture ; the preliminary visit to Schleiermacher, who told him of Hegel’s sudden death ; his host’s displeased surprise when he thoughtlessly answered that the chief purpose of his visit to Berlin was thereby foiled ; the way in which he was impressed by Schleiermacher’s lectures ; his return to Swabia ; his appointment in 1832 as Re- petent at Tiibingen, in the beloved school of the older evangelical pietism, of Flatt and Storr and Bengel, and now presided over by Steudel, the most famous theo- logian and preacher of Wiirtemberg, great-grandson of Bengel, and his spiritual as well as lineal descendant ; the influence produced by the young tutor’s lectures ; his retirement to give himself to literary work ;— these things are told, and many more than these, by Strauss himself, by Baur, by Schwarz, in articles and memoirs, by friends and by foes, and with special interest in the charming sketch, which, with the loving hand of lifelong friendship, Dr. Eduard Zeller devoted to his memory.’ Three years had almost run their course since the appointment to Tiibingen. They were years of quiet calm for the Church. Since Hegel’s death in 1831, the influence of Schleiermacher and Schelling had be- come supreme. Philosophy and theology were one. Criticism was hushed into silence. Men of the severer orthodoxy, like Hengstenberg, who was now teach- ing at Berlin and editing the Lvangelical Church Journal, or of the carefully balancing, born critical 1 Dawid Friedrich Strauss in his Life and Writings, 1874, Eng. Trans. 1879. O Berlin. Tutor at Tiibingen. Influence of Schlei- ermacher. The calm of 1834. The storm of 1835 caused by the Leben Jesu. The replies. 194 LECTURE IV. turn of mind of De Wette, or of the developing broader views of Bretschneider, who was opposing both Hengstenberg and Schleiermacher in the General Church Journal,’ did not much like the peace. But when Schleiermacher died in 1834, he left a position and an influence in theology and philosophy and their harmonious interdependence, which was with- out an example. The sky was clear as that of a summer’s day, and no cloud was to be seen on the horizon, when suddenly, as by the crash of thunder, Germany, and then France, England, America, the theological world, was aroused to know that a terrific | storm was at hand. It took its rise in the University of Tiibingen from which Strauss issued the first volume of his L7fe of Jesus in 1885. It was a bitter fate for Steudel, who mourns for the young man who sent forth the electric spark as it were from his own study.’ Had he not himself settled all theological difficulties by protesting against them in his work on the Dogmatics of the Evangelical Protestant Church, which had been only just published ? 5 But the spark would not have become the lightning flash nor have heralded the storm if the atmosphere had not been charged with electricity, and if Steudel and a host of others who attempted to reply to Strauss, had 8 Allgemeine Kirchen-Zeitung, Cf. Baur, Geschichte der christlichen ut supra. Kirche, vol. v., 1862, p. 364. 9. Das Leben Jesu kritisch bear- * Glaubenslehre der evangelisch- beitet, 1835-6. protestantischen Kirche, 1834. ᾿ς Aus seinem Cabinet heraus.’ LECTURE IV. 195 not lent themselves as conductors for the fluid. Every village pulpit had its own antidote to the poison ; every candidate for a theological degree had as a thesis his own unanswerable answer; every church journal had its own editorial settlement of the ques- tion. And in this way the book was advertised throughout the world, and hundreds read it who would otherwise have never heard of it. And when they read it, they found it interesting, while the replies were dull ; for it was written in good German, and the answers in bad. Strauss was, like Renan, a born artist in words, and most people are more attracted by the pictures, the ornaments, the carvings and gildings of a house than they are by the founda- tions. But the foundations are more important if we are going to live in the house, and if it is to be to us a home to shield us by night as by day, in winter as in summer, in all the storms of life and death, in time, in eternity. It has often been said that there was nothing new in Strauss’s L2fe of Jesus. The critical methods which Heyne had introduced, and Wolf had applied to Homer, and Niebuhr to early Roman history, had already been applied by Vater, De Wette, and others to the books of the Old Testament, and even in the New Testament the way was not wholly unprepared. The discussions of the origin and relation of the Gospels had led also to a growing conviction that the explanation was to be found in the existence of an oral Gospel. Here there were grounds for the superstructure of the theory of a2 ‘ Nothing new’ in the Leben Jesu, Critical methods. The mythical theory. Later in- vestiga- tions of myths. Position of Bunsen, 196 _ LECTURE Iv. myth, and once started it was carried with mecha- nical rigidity through every detail of the life of Jesus. Strauss honestly believed himself to be abso- lutely free from prejudice, but he was bound hand and foot by the dogmas of the Hegelian Left. The individual is nothing, and therefore historical records which treat of the individual are of no authority. The Infinite cannot manifest itself in the finite, and therefore the incarnation as told in the Gospels is impossible. Humanity is the true incarnation of God, the child of a known mother—Nature ; of an unknown father—Spirit. The immanence of God is absolute, and miracle is therefore impossible. The legends of the Old Testament which grew round the Messianic idea were mythically applied to the person of the historic Jesus. The Church portrayed, not the Jesus whom Apostles saw, but the Christ which myth unconsciously created. I must not, however, be tempted to wander so far from my immediate subject as to state, and far less to criticise, the philosophical theology of Strauss. Later investigations have taught us that upon any theory of myths they belong to the infancy of the na- tion and not to its manhood.? The vigorous com- mon sense of Baron de Bunsen at once cried out :— But the idea of men writing mythic histories between the time of Livy and Tacitus, and of St. Paul mistaking such for realities ! 4 3. Cf. the able articles Myth, * Letter to Dr. Arnold, Oct. 1836. Mythical Theory, Mythology, in Life of Arnold, by Dean Stanley, McClintock and Strong’s Cyclo- ed. 12, vol. ii. p. 52, note. pedia. New York, 1880. LECTURE IV. 197 Ullmann held Strauss in a grip from which there Ulmann, was no release when he asked History or Myth?° If the Church unconsciously developed the Christ, then who or what developed the Church? And in Baur. the greater mind of Strauss’s master there was already growing a theory of tendency, which, what- ever else it was to do, was certainly to deal a death- blow to the theory of myth. Strauss’s critique of the Life of Jesus contained The Leben Jesu con- no critique of the Gospels which were the source of tained no that life. He admitted that this was a weak point of thay when Baur called attention to it.© His whole theory ΜΠ is however based upon an assumption of the spurious- ness of all the Canonical Gospels, and especially of that of the Fourth Gospel. If this be really a Gospel according to 8. John, the mythical theory of Strauss is at an end; and yet so uncertain is he of his ground, that in the preface to the third edition, which was published in 1838-9, he is not quite sure that the Gospel was after all not the work of ὃ. John. It is not that he is drawn over to the conviction that it is Apostolic ; but that the work of Neander and the growing conviction of De Wette have told upon him, and he is no longer sure that it is not. But in the fourth edition, which followed in 1840, he is again quite sure. And this on no secondary question, but Incredible on one which was at the very foundation of his whole eanity theory. This uncertainty is so incredible that I 5. Historisch oder Mythisch? Hamburg, 1838. δ. Cf. Lecture V. p. 231. about John, described by Baur. Strauss’s life between the third and fourth editions. 198 LECTURE IV. prefer to put it before you in the words of Baur, his tutor and friend :— Nothing is more indicative of the position of criticism at that time than the confession which Strauss makes in the pre- face to the third edition of his Life of Jesus. The alterations which occur in this new edition all depend more or less on the fact that a renewed study of the Fourth Gospel had made his earlier doubts of this gospel themselves in their turn doubtful. Not that he was convinced of its authenticity, but that he was no longer convinced of the contrary. In the peculiar position of the characteristics of this most remarkable gospel, trustworthy and incredible, likely and unlikely, cross- ing and colliding with each other, he brought forward in the first development of his work, with polemical zeal, just the adverse side which it seemed to him had been neglected. Since then the other side has gradually received its due from him, but he was not in a position to do as almost all other living theologians even to De Wette did—that is, sacrifice at once the opposite considerations. Is it possible for a man to be more wavering and uncertain on one of the chief problems of New Testament criticism ? And yet even this utterance is made only that in the next edition of the Life of Jesus he might withdraw this doubting of his own doubt.’ But a good deal had occurred between the issue of the third and fourth editions. His mother died in March 1839, and with her the chief joy and solace of his life had gone. The father, never in sympathy with him, had been embittered by the publication of his book, and the mother’s last days had been saddened by storms which broke upon the peace of home. The brother lay weak and ill. His friends sought for him 7 Strauss, Leben Jesu, Preface schichte Jesu, 1876, p. 32. Cf. to ed. 3, 1838-9; and Hase, Ge- Lecture V. pp. 230 sq. LECTURE IV. 199 work and hope without, to draw him from these mise- ries within. He was nominated this same year to the chair of Christian Dogmatics and Ethics at Ziirich. He did not think his views to be inconsistent with the duties which would devolve upon him, and gladly accepted it; but feeling ran so high, that forty thousand signatures were attached to a public protest. Strauss darf und soll nicht kommen! became the cry of an excited populace. In vain did the would-be professor explain his views in a letter to the burgo- master and citizens. In vain did his friend Professor Orelli explain for him. Strauss darf und soll nicht kommen ! was the reply which the people were ready to maintain by force of arms. In vain did the ministry at length yield, cancel the appointment, and pen- sion the professor. It was too late. Ziirich would have none of Strauss, and Ziirich rose in insurrection and deposed a government which had tried to force him upon them. It is never very profitable to speculate upon what might have been. What if that mother had not died, if that father had been full of sympathy and guiding love, if that brother had been strong and well ? What if the professor’s chair had brought that disturbed mind into contact with the thoughts and needs of student life, and outside the contracted circles of itself and its one fixed idea? We know not. We know what was. There came in the following 8 The Opinions of Professor Eng. Trans. from 2nd ed., 1844, David F. Strauss, etc., 1865. of original. Nomina- tion to Ziirich, Fourth edition and the Christ- liche Glaubens- lehre. 200 LECTURE IV. year the fourth and most extreme edition of the Life, written for the first time in the German character that it might be accessible to the people, and there came also a work on Christian Dogmatics i their historical development and in their struggle with modern know- ledge. This was the completion of Strauss’s original plan, to write a work upon the idea—BLegrifi—as well as one upon the representation— Vorstellung—of theo- logical truth, which he had done in the Life of Jesus. For our present purpose the work is important, as it foretold the appearance of a book which would be based upon sounder principles than Bretschneider’s Probabilia, and would settle the question of the Gospels in the light of fresh knowledge of early Church history. The reference is said’ to be to the singular work of Liitzelberger,? who visited Strauss this year and published his book soon afterwards. It aimed at proving that John was never in Ephesus or Asia Minor, that he died before a.p. 55-57, and that the Gospel was written in the neighbourhood of Edessa, about A.D. 135-140. But this work seems of too little importance for the weighty words of Strauss’s reference, and I cannot help thinking that the work of Baur was that of which he prophesied, not without some knowledge.* ® Die christliche Glaubenslehre * Die kirchliche Tradition dber in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicke- den Apostel Johannes und seine lungundim Kampfe mit der moder- Schriften, wm ihrer Grundlosigkeit nen Wissenschaft, 1840. Seeesp. nachgewiesen. Leipzig, 1840. vol. i. pp. 194-196. 5 But see Bleek’s criticism on 1 Ebrard, Wissenschaftliche Kri- — Liitzelberger in Beitriige sur Evan- tik, 1842, pp. 1049 5α. note. Darm- gelien-Kritik, 1846, pp. 88 sqq., stiidter Kirchenzeitung, Jan. 1841. and 224 sq. LECTURE IV. 201 For more than twenty years Strauss produced no theological work. He has himself told, and therefore he wishes everybody to know something of what his life was during this period. Without the home which his mother’s love had always blessed, refused the work for which he had always hoped, his friends had rejoiced to watch the influence which was exercised over him by Friiulein Agnes Schebest, a lady whose natural gifts and acquired power had won for her a prominent position on the operatic stage. They were betrothed in August 1842 ; five years later they dis- solved, by mutual agreement, a union which neither could endure longer. He told the story of these years in one touching sentence from a short paper on Memories of my good Mother, which he wrote for his daughter on the day of her confirmation :— The mother left me behind in a wild storm which Fate had brought upon me, and the brother in a still more totter- ing state; but often ieee I since thought it a happy thing that she ad not live to see the worse storm which a few years later dashed my life’s barque upon the rocks.‘ In the political troubles of 1848, Strauss was pressed by the extreme liberals of Ludwigsburg to become a candidate for the Frankfort parliament, and against his own judgment yielded to their wishes. He was not returned, but obtained a seat in the second chamber of Wiirtemberg. The fact is not without 4 Kleine Schriften, Neue Folge, meine lieben Kinder. Geschrieben 1866, pp. 233-269: Zum Anden- auf den Confirmationstag meiner ken an meine gute Mutter. Fiir Tochter, den 11. April, 1858. No theo- logical work in period 1840.- 1864. Agnes Schebest. Strauss in parlia- ment. Other iite- rary work. The new Leben Jesu, 1864, 202 LECTURE IV. importance to us as it throws further light upon the character of the man, that to the indignant surprise of his constituents he was found to be on the conserva- tive side. He published his addresses to the electors in Six Theological Political Popular Speeches, and tells them in the preface how he had been convinced that direct elective proceedings hold good all the less, the more unlimited is the right of election... . Again, he writes in a letter of May 30, 1849 :— . if I have only to choose between the despotism of the prince and the masses, I am unhesitatingly in favour of the former . . . the last drop of blood in me abhors the autho- rity of demagogues as the extreme of all evils.® His critical powers found a congenial sphere dur- ing this period in a series of biographical and literary works which do not fall within our subject, but I shall venture to suggest to anyone who would know the chastened beauty of the mind and life of Strauss, and would know how deeply it was penetrated by the spirit of the life of Jesus, in the midst of much from which we shrink—the loving heart asserting what the analytical intellect denied—a half-hour’s study of the address on renunciation, which he delivered in 1863 over his brother’s open grave.® In 1864 Strauss came back again to his earlier work in a new Life of Jesus composed for the German ° Zeller, Strauss, ut supra, pp. 1866, pp. 341-351. Worte des 90, 93. Andenkens an Friedrich Wilhelm “ Kleine Schriften, NeueFolge, Strauss, Feb. 24, 1863. LECTURE IV. 203 People.” It was new, and not new, for it was largely an attempt to find a place for the later investigations of Baur and others, within the circle of the author’s mythical theory ; and he follows Baur in placing the Fourth Gospel after the middle of the second century. The preface prepares us for what we are to expect in the book. The first edition of the Leben Jesu, written twenty-nine years before, had been written for theologians, since the laity were not yet sufficiently prepared for it. But now the author writes for the laity and endeavours to make himself clear to every man of culture and thought. As for professional theologians, he does not care whether they read his book or πού. The interval has taught him on the one hand that these questions are not to be kept from the public, for they have been brought home to them by those who were his most determined foes; and, on the other hand, theologians are of all people those who can least attain to an impartial judgment, for they are at the same time judge and party in the suit. To question the evangelic history is, they think, to endanger the clerical order, and self-preservation 15 the first law of life. If Christianity ceases to be a miracle, they cannot play their favourite réle of miracle-workers ; they will have to keep to teaching and give up blessing, and the work is less easy and less productive. He must turn to the people because 7 Das Leben Jesu fiir das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, 1864. © 1bid..p.-4. written for the laity, ‘ theo- logians’ are the least im- partial, M. Renan, earlier Lives of Jesus, 204 LECTURE IV. the theologians will not hear, as ὃ. Paul turned to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected his Gospel. When once the best among the people shall have at- tained the height of rejecting what most of the clergy insist on offering them, these clergy will have to yield before the force of advanced public opinion. He addresses himself therefore to the people, and issues not so much a new edition, as a new work developing the oldidea ; and he takes the opportunity of referring to more recent works, answering objections and cor- recting his results by later researches by himself and others. If ever a new edition of the original work is needed—he did not see that the day had long gone by for needing it—it is to be based upon the first edition with some slight modifications from the fourth, that is, his views are to be preserved in their ex- tremest forms. He hails with joy M. Renan’s work, which ap- peared just as his own was completed. Condemned as it was by a large number of bishops and by the Roman Curia, it must necessarily be a work of merit. It has its defects, but only one fundamental fault [that is, the acceptance of the Fourth Gospel ].° Nor is the promise of this preface disappointed when we come to the critical introduction which fol- lows in the body of the work. The author clears the ground by showing how all the preceding Lives of Jesus—the earlier ones of Hess and Herder, the detailed work of Paulus, the Manual of Hase, the ® Leben Jesu, 1864, ut supra, Ὁ. xviil. LECTURE IV. 205 posthumous Lessons of Schleiermacher—had all failed for different reasons, and pre-eminently because their writers did not see how certain it was that documents which told of the supernatural could not possibly be historical. And the subsequent works of Neander, Ebrard, Weisse, and Ewald were all in his opinion’ reactionary, and are criticised in terms which I refrain from quoting. Even Keim,’ while flattering himself that he satisfies scientific requirements, is really steeped in theological illusion, but he is far in advance of the ordinary writers of Lives of Jesus, and even of M. Renan? When Strauss comes to his criticism of the Gos- pels as the sources of the Life of Jesus, the absence of which, as we have seen, Baur had proved to be a serious defect in the earlier form of the work, he satisfies himself that there is no certain trace of the three first Gospels in their present form, until towards the middle of the second century,’ that is, for fully a hundred years after the events are supposed to have taken place ; and this interval everybody will admit to have been long enough for the growth of fictitious elements in all parts of the evangelic record. He supposes that no one will deny this, not even the theologian, if he has not wholly broken with criticism. But the theologian, by way of compensation, as The reference is not to Keim’s = liche Entwickelung Jesu Christi, larger Jeswvon Nazara, which did 1861. not appear until 1867-72, but to * Leben Jesu, 1864, ut supra, his Inaugural Lecture at Ziirich op. 37. Vie de Jésus, 1863. at the end of 1860, Die mensch- 5. Ut supra, p. 61. critique of the Gospels, the ‘ theo- logian ’ clings to the Fourth Gospel. Weakness of the external evidence: Papias, 206 LECTURE IV. Strauss thinks, clings more firmly to the Fourth Gospel as the work of an Apostle and an eyewitness, and the solid foundation of the history of primitive christianity. This must surely be founded upon internal evidences, for of external testimony the Fourth Gospel is only more destitute than the other three. Papias tells us at least that Matthew composed a Hebrew Gospel, but of a Gospel of John we have no evidence that he says a word. It is true that we know Papias only through Eusebius, but as the his- torian set himself to collect the testimonies in favour of the books of the New Testament, and as he quotes Papias in favour of the First Epistle of John, the silence of Eusebius about the Gospel is almost equi- valent to that of Papias himself. And the silence of Papias is the more significant as he speaks expressly of his zeal in seeking for traditions of John; and further, as he was a bishop in Asia Minor and a friend of Polycarp, he had every facility for being exactly acquainted with the Apostle who passed his last years αὖ Ephesus. The attempt to make Papias witness to the Fourth Gospel indirectly through the Epistle, must in Strauss’s opinion fail, since Eusebius simply tells us that Papias derived certain quotations from this Epistle as he does from the first Epistle of Peter. It is not necessary to understand him to mean that Papias definitely quoted as words of the Apostle John * Leben Jesu, 1864, ut supra, δ Leben Jesu, Ὁ. 63. Cf. Hist. p. 62. Eccles, iii. 39. 17. ° Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 404 sqq. LECTURE IV. 207 passages which we now find in the Epistle of John. Eusebius might have deduced from a certain resem- blance of expressions or ideas the conclusion that Papias had known the Epistle, and have been deceived, just as theologians in our own days have deceived themselves in similar circumstances. And even if we press the most positive interpretation of Eusebius, and suppose that Papias had really quoted the First Epistle as a work from the hand of the Apostle, we should still have to prove that the Epistle and the Gospel come from the same author. It is granted that there are resemblances, but there are also very marked differences. But the conclusion of the Fourth Gospel itself is the Fourth adduced as a witness. This is in the opinion of Gospel writers like Tholuck a certificate of authenticity suffi- cient to satisfy the most extreme scepticism ;‘ and yet Zeller is quite right in saying that this testimony proves nothing. It is either the assertion of the author himself which would not be testimony, or else it is the assertion of an interpolator which would be of no value. It is equally vain to attempt to support the author- ship by such a reference as that in the second Epistle of Peter® to the putting off the tabernacle, which is supposed to be a reminiscence of our Lord’s words in the last chapter of John, for there is no proof that this Epistle is much earlier than the close of the second century ; or by the resemblance between 7 Leben Jesu, wt supra, Ὁ. 63. — schen Geschichte, p. 276. Die Glaubenwiirdigkert der evangeli- ὃ 2 Peter i. 14; ef. John xxi. 18. itself, Second Epistle of Peter, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, 208 LECTURE IV. S. John and ὃ. Mark, for it does not follow that S. John is the earlier.” Ignatius is supposed to furnish examples of reminiscences of the Fourth Gospel. Perhaps he does. But even if the phrases which are alleged ! are more than specimens of the common religious language of the time, it is certain, Strauss thinks, that the Epistles of Ignatius cannot be placed before the middle of the second century ;* and if the Fourth Gospel had been received as Apostolic from the end of the first century, it would have left deeper marks upon these and other writings of the period. The evidence of Justin Martyr is similarly disposed of. There are numerous and indisputable points of contact with the three first Gospels, but those with the Fourth Gospel are both rare and doubtful. But the doctrine of Justin is allied to that of the Fourth Gospel, and if he had known it to be an Apostolic work, he would have followed it more closely.2 The only reference which is of importance is that in the first Apology to the new birth, which Strauss ex- plains in what was then the usual method of the negative school. He compares it with a passage in the Clementines,? and thinks that both Justin and the writer of the Fourth Gospel had borrowed from a common source in the supposed Gospel of the ® Leben Jesu, ut supra, pp. 64, 5. Cf. Lecture II. p. 81. 65. * Apology, i. 61. Cf. John iii. 1 Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 395 sqq. 3-5. 2 Cf. ibid. pp. 400 sqq. ° Homil, xi. 26. LECTURE IV. 209 Hebrews. The evidence of the Philosophwmena,® the author of which he supposes to be a pseudo-Origen, by no means proves that Basilides or Valentinus knew the Fourth Gospel, for it is not certain that the reference is in either case to the founder of the sect as distinguished from his followers. It is true that Tertullian tells us that Valentinus used a complete Jnstrument—that is, a Testament.® But then Tertullian’s testimony, if it cannot be denied, can be discounted. He was not more capable of distinguish- ing between the founder of the sects and his followers than the pseudo-Origen was, and when he tells us in express terms that Valentinus possessed a complete New Testament, we should do well to inquire no further from him. It is similar to what he tells us of Marcion’s” having rejected, and therefore having known, the Fourth Gospel. Then, as to the attempts, in the absence of external evidence, to prove on internal grounds—the names of the wons, for example—that Valentinus must have known the prologue and other portions of the Fourth Gospel. If this be so, why does Irenzeus quote so many passages of the synoptics and of Paul, and not one from John when he is enumerating the places of the New Testament upon which the Valentinians founded their system of wons?! The quotations from ® Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 960 sqq. 9. Adv. Marcion. iv. 3, 5; De 7 Leben Jesu, ut supra, pp. 67, Carne Christi, ὃ. Cf. Lecture IT. 68. Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 361 sqq. ρ. 94. 8 De Prescript. Heret. xxxviii. 1 Adv. Her. i. 8. 1-4. Cf. Cf. Lecture II. p. 92. Lecture 11. p. 90. Ῥ the Phi- losophu- mena. The internal evidence: the Valen- tinians, the Mon- tanists, the Cle- mentines, the Apo- logists, Theophi- lus, Irenzus. 210 LECTURE IV. John come only in an appendix on Ptolemeus, the disciple of Valentinus, and of him it is admitted from his Letter to Flora that he accepted the Gospel of John as an Apostolic work.” Nor is the commentary of Heracleon doubted. But this letter and commen- tary can hardly be placed earlier than the last thirty years of the second century. The same line of observation applies to the evidence of the Montanists, who are supposed to have derived their idea of the Paraclete from the Gospel of John ; but if we inquire of Eusebius about their earliest connexion with the Church, we find nothing of either the term Paraclete or of the Fourth Gospel. Like the Valentinians, they had originally no knowledge of the Gospel of John; but when it appeared later, both heresies hastened to lay hold of it. The references in the newly discovered portion of the Clemeniines* cannot, in Strauss’s opinion, be denied, nor the passage in the fragments of Apoli- naris,’ nor yet the references in the apologies of Tatian, and Athenagoras, nor in the works of Theo- philus,’ and Ireneus. But Theophilus is not to be accredited, because he does not give us his authority for attributing the Gospel to John; nor is Irenzus, * Leben Jesu, ut supra, p. 68. 446 sq. ; Homil. iii. 53; and Lec- 3 Hist. Eccles. v. 16-19. ture IT. p. 84. * Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 373 sqq. 6 Chron. Paschal. Al. p. 14, ° Leben Jesu, ut supra, Ὁ. 69. ed. Dindorf. Homil. xix. 22. Cf. article by 7 Ad Autolycum, ii. 22. Cf. Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb. 1854, pp. Lecture I. pp. 29 sqq. LECTURE IV. 211 because he does not tell us that he learned the authen- ticity of the Gospel from Polycarp, and because he does not always write with historical accuracy. The Gospel, moreover, was not received without opposition towards the end of the second century, as is known from the Alogi.2 Strauss would emphasize their position, and regrets that they did not them- selves see how strong it really was. They were quite right to reject the Gospel, but it was dogmatic prejudice 1 6 which led them to reject the Apocalypse. And this was a oreat tactical mistake. The relation of the two writings’ is such.that one can no more believe that the same person was author of both works than one can persuade Germans that Lessing composed the Messiah, or Klopstock composed Nathan. The two works represent the extreme poles of New Testament writings: the Apocalypse being the most Judaistic of all, and the Gospel the least so. Modern criticism, especially the school of Schleier- macher, had recognized this distinction, and framed a syllogism with the minor premise, ‘John is the author of the Gospel,’ and the conclusion, ‘John is not, therefore, the author of the Apocalypse.’ The Tiibingen school inverted the minor and derived the conclusion, ‘John is not, therefore, the author of the Gospel ;’ and if one of the two works must have > had the Apostle for an author, it is on all grounds much more likely to have been the Apocalypse than 8 Cf. Lecture III. pp. 123 sqq. 1 Leben Jesu, ut supra, pp. 72, 9. Hist. Eccles. vii. 25. 73. P2 The Alcgi, their tactical mistake in rejecting the Apoca- lypse. Summary. Returns later to the question. 212 LECTURE IV. the Gospel. This view is further supported by the original Asiatic tradition on the Paschal controversy.” To sum up, if we start from our knowledge of John, we do not arrive at the Fourth Gospel; and if we start from our knowledge of the Fourth Gospel, we are in danger of not arriving, or rather, we shall not arrive at 5. John. The result of the examination of the sources of the life of Jesus is that for the Synoptics, considering the interval of several generations between the events which they relate and the final form which they assumed, the possibility of legendary and fabulous traces must be admitted ; while for the Fourth Gospel the alloy of philosophic speculation and conscious fiction is more than possible—it is probable.’ At a later stage in the work Strauss returns to the Johannine question, and examines briefly the position of Bretschneider, Schleiermacher, Weisse, Schweizer, Renan, Baur and his school.* He sees clearly that no intermediate position is possible. When Baur came on the field the Gospel had challenged criticism to a duel to the death. She must break up her armour and place the débris at the foot of the Gospel, or else she must deprive the Gospel of all historic authority and prove it to be a work posterior to the Apostles ; and when so considered to be as clear as it is incomprehensible when it claims to be by an Apostle. To have undertaken this combat, 9 Leben Jesu, ut supra, pp. 76, 77. 3 Ibid. pp. 77-79. * Ibid. pp. 90-94, and 98 sqq. LECTURE IV. 245 and to have carried it through as such combats seldom have been carried through, he regards as the imperishable glory of Baur.® Such in brief outline is the critical foundation, as far as it affects the Fourth Gospel, of Strauss’s new Life of Jesus. Reverence for an adversary so re- nowned compels us to take it into our account, but it is not necessary for us at this moment to consider it at any length. It is like the work itself—new and not new. It is by Strauss, and not by Strauss. The critical part is essentially a presentation of the later results of the Tiibingen school, as the support of his own earlier theories ; and the author avowedly bases them upon the labour of this school. Some of them have met us already ; others will meet us again ; not a few of them almost provoke a smile as we hear them. And this was the highest result of criticism only a quarter of a century ago! But when Strauss had thus set forth the results of the criticism of Baur and his school as the foundation of his own work, it became necessary to see that the older superstructure could be fitted on to this new foundation. He tells us that in his Critical Examination of the Lafe of Jesus he had arrived at the Fourth Gospel by way of the other three, which had served him as a point of departure and had helped him to understand the Fourth. His fundamental conception of what he calls the fictitious element of the Gospels was that of ° Leben Jesu, p. 108. Cf. Lecture V. pp. 230 sqq. Strauss’s critique is really that of the Tiibingen school. The older work will not fit on this new critique. Conscious and un- conscious fiction. Strauss and Baur. 214 LECTURE IV. myth; and by myth he understood the so-called historic wrapping, which certain original conceptions of Christianity had received from the spontaneous fiction of legend. But this formula which he had derived from his study of the fictitious elements of the Synoptics, did not quite adapt itself to the Fourth Gospel. It was necessary to enlarge it, and to replace spontaneous fiction by arbitrary and conscious fiction. Baur’s study of the Fourth Gospel started, however, from the idea of a free composition of religious specu- lation, the fundamental notion of which was to oppose to the divine principle of light and life, incarnate in Jesus, Jewish incredulity considered as the principle of darkness ; and the plan consisted in following step by step the struggle of the two principles and in presenting it in the form of historic drama. This, Strauss tells us, was Baur’s fundamental notion, from which he tried to deduce the distinctive marks which separate the Fourth Gospel from the other three, both as to its composition and its choice and arrangement of the evangelic material. He thinks it an admirable point of view for the Fourth Gospel, but that it is not equally applicable to the other three, and that in consistently applying it to them Baur is sometimes driven to arbitrary expedients.° But Strauss is not quite happy about this union of his own fundamental conception of myth with Baur’s fundamental conception of purpose, and in a ὁ Leben Jesu, ut supra, pp. 108, 109. LECTURE IV. 215 later section he returns to discuss generally the notion of myth.’ In the earlier work he had presented myth as the key of the miraculous records and of other historical difficulties in the Gospels. It was loss of time and trouble, he used to say, to try and reduce stories like that of the star of the Magi, and the transfiguration, and the multiplication of the loaves to the order of natural events ; and, as it was equally impossible to admit the reality of facts so contrary to the laws of nature, it was necessary to take these records for poetic fictions. And when he had to account for the appearance of these fictions at the period of the Gospels, he found the key in the Messianic expecta- tion. As soon as a number of persons saw in Jesus the Messiah, they easily persuaded themselves that all the prophecies and figures of the Old Testament, with the addition of the Rabbinic interpretations, must find their fulfilment in Jesus. Everybody knew that Jesus was born at Nazareth, but the Messiah must in accord with the prophecy of Micah be born at Bethlehem. Tradition had preserved strong words of Jesus against the Jewish love of miracles ; but Moses had wrought miracles, and Jesus must be made to work miracles too. Isaiah had foretold that in the Messianic period the blind should see, the deaf hear, and soon. The very details of the miracles of the Messiah were marked out, and there grew up 7 Leben Jesu, p. 150. 8 Ibid. vol. i. pp. 72 sqq. of ed. 1; pp. 91 sqq. of ed. 4. Re-writing of the theory of myth. Bruno Bauer, 1809- 1882, Volkmar. Earlier and later theories of myth. 216 LECTURE IV. naturally in the early Christian community uncon- scious fictions that these works had been actually wrought by Jesus. This was the fundamental principle of Strauss’s earlier work, but nearly thirty years have now passed, and meanwhile Bruno Bauer has been trying to prove that the Messianic idea, so far from being wholly rooted in Jewish theology, took its rise only with John Baptist, and attained definite proportions only about the late date of the composition of the Gospels, and then not among Jews but among Christians : ” while Volkmar has asserted a middle position and is not prepared to go so far as Strauss in the pre- Christian details of the Messianic idea.’ And there comes back once again the difficulty which more especially concerns our present subject. Strauss sees that he cannot apply the view of myth which suited the simple and legendary poetry of the earlier Gospels to what he calls the more or less con- scious inventions like those of the Fourth Gospel. He tries to justify himself by the usage of the older writers on myths down to Heyne. Modern mytholo- gists, and especially Welcker, had reserved the term myth for the primitive, natural, unconscious legend ; but the earlier writers who had created the term, had applied it to all religious traditions which were not historical, whatever their source was. And while Welcker’s distinction is good as between fictions ° Leben Jesu, ut supra, p. 150. Synoptiker, vol. i. pp. 181, 391-416. Kritik der Evangeliengeschichte der 1 Die Religion Jesu, pp. 112 sqq. LECTURE IV. 7 which all admit, as in Greek history, the critic of the Gospels has to ask, in the face of assertions that they are historically true, not what is the distinction between myths and myths, not whether the Evangelist is consciously or unconsciously a poet, but whether his narrative is poetry or history.” Strauss is disappointed to find that his theory of myth is after one generation really dead, and the depth of his disappointment is read in the bitterness of his words. Ewald he believes to be really a disciple of the mythical school, who banishes the terms myth and mythical from the whole domain of Biblical exegesis only because he had not first thought of it himself. He quotes with approval the opinion of an English writer that Ewald is one ‘to whom the celebrity of any opinion not emanating from himself is sufficient reason for condemning and con- tradicting it,’ who ‘wraps his virtue in an obscurity of inflated verbiage,’ and who acts on the maxim ‘Denounce your adversary in unmeasured terms for what he says, and then in slightly varying language quietly adopt his suggestions,’’ and is not sorry to see how well the great man of Géttingen is known on the English side of the Channel.’ He is not pleased even with Baur, upon whom he is seeking to support himself, for though Baur has not absolutely excluded myth from the evangelic 2 Leben Jesu, ut supra, pp. 156, and its Antecedents, 1863, pp. 343, 157. 345, 351, note. But cf. pp. 250 sq. 3 Mackay, The Tiibingen School * Leben Jesu, ut supra, p. 158. Strauss’s disap- point- ment. His view of Ewald, and Baur. The mythical theory dead. Myth cannot live with Design. 218 LECTURE IV. history, he avoids it as much as possible and speaks of the theory of myth as the complete opposite of his own. Strauss thinks that he is playing the γόϊο of a conservative at his own expense, and naturally does not quite see what right he has to do so. In this new Leben Jesu, having regard to the results of Baur, Strauss has made more prominent the idea of intentional and conscious fiction, but he still clings to the earlier terminology of myth with the tenacity of a man who loves his own idea as a mother loves her child, and even when it is wounded—dead—loves it yet the more, and declares it cannot be dead and shall not die.? But it was dead. Baur was right. His own position was the very antipodes of that of Strauss, and a man cannot stand upright on both sides of the globe at the same moment. The new work came too late. It is slain by the very strength to which it clings. Myth cannot be conscious and unconscious. Unconscious Myth can- not live in the embrace of deliberate Design. Strauss cannot support himself on Baur, even if Baur be willing that he should. It must be a duel to the death, and as between those combatants no one doubts who remainsthe victor, though the giant generously keeps the button on his foil. Strauss darf und soll nicht kommen ! is now the watchword, not of the burghers of Ziirich led by their clergy, but of the thinkers of 5 Leben Jesu, ut supra, p. 159. LECTURE IV. 219 Christendom led by their most eminent scientific teachers of every shade of opinion. And while scientific opinion was thus convinced that the mythi- cal theory of the Gospels was at an end, the lighter popular opinion that had fed upon Strauss was caught by the new work of M. Renan which had appeared the previous year, and had substituted a theory of legend for that of myth, and had placed the Fourth Gospel at the close of the first century.° Strauss has no further word to speak on the criticism of the Fourth Gospel. It is not for us to dwell therefore on later words, which both from their intellectual contradictions and their unba- lanced tone were a. shock even to his friends. It is not for us to dwell on the lessons of a we manguée. We have one conclusion to draw which cannot be questioned. Strauss makes no substan- tial addition to the destructive attack on the Fourth Gospel. His sketch of criticism which 1 have briefly set before you is, as we have just seen, nothing more than a presentation of the extremer views of the Tiibingen school as the foundation of a position which that school had shattered.’ I will not further claim that Baur and Strauss stand on 6 Cf. Lecture V. pp. 255 sq. Hvangelien, pp. 349 sqq. ; Zeller, 7 Cf. Lecture V. passim. Die dusseren Zeugnisse,—Theol. Strauss himself quotes the follow- Jahrbiicher, 1845 and 1847 ; Hil- ing authors as his authorities:— genfeld, Die Hvangelien, pp. 344 Bretschneider, Probabilia, pp. 566. ; Die Evangelien Justins, pp. 178 sqq.; Baur, Kritische Un- 292 sqq. tersuchungen uber die kanonischen Renan’s theory of legend. Strauss makes no substan- tial addition to the criticism. oF0 LECTURE IV. different sides of the equation and cancel each other, though such claim may be in some measure sus- tained, because 1 regard Baur, in general mental grasp, and in special criticism of this Gospel, as be- yond all comparison greater than Strauss. With Baur and those who more or less closely followed him, it will be my duty to deal in the next lecture. LECTURE V ‘OUR AGE’ BAUR: THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL. OTHER NEGATIVE THEORIES THESE PROFESSORS ARE UNDER STRONG TEMPTATIONS TO PRODUCE NEW THEORIES IN BIBLICAL CRITICISM, THEORIES MARKED BY VIGOUR AND RIGOUR; AND FOR THIS PURPOSE TO ASSUME THAT THINGS CAN BE KNOWN WHICH CANNOT, TO TREAT POSSIBILITIES AS IF THEY WERE CERTAINTIES, TO MAKE SYMMETRY WHERE ONE DOES NOT FIND IT, AND SO TO LAND BOTH THE TEACHER, AND THE LEARNER WHO TRUSTS TO HIM, IN THE MOST FANCIFUL AND UNSOUND CONCLUSIONS. THERE ARE FEW WHO DO NOT SUCCUMB TO THEIR TEMPTATIONS, AND BAUR, I THINK, HAS SUC= CUMBED TO THEM. “EVEN WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THE LEARNING, TALENT, AND SERVICES OF THESE CRITICS, | INSIST UPON THEIR RADICAL FAULTS; BECAUSE, AS OUR TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY BREAKS UP, GERMAN CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE IS LIKELY TO BE STUDIED HERE MORE AND MORE, AND TO THE UN- TRAINED READER ITS VIGOROUS AND RIGOROUS THEORIES ARE, IN MY OPINION, A REAL DANGER. THEY IMPOSE UPON HIM BY THEIR BOLDNESS AND NOVELTY. TO HIS PRACTICAL HOLD ON THE BIBLE THEY CONDUCE NOTHING, BUT RATHER DIVERT FROM IT; AND YET THEY ARE OFTEN FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH, ALL THE WHILE, THAN EVEN THE TRADITIONAL VIEW WHICH THEY PROFESS TO ANNIHILATE.’ Matthew Arnold, LECTURE V. And not even so did their witness agree together.—Mark xiv. 59. Wuew the theological world was startled by the appearance of Strauss’s Life of Jesus, there was at least one man to whom it caused no_ surprise. Ferdinand Christian Baur foresaw what was coming from his former pupil, and he had often spoken to him about it. The results of his own more matured judgment were given to the world after those of Strauss, and he naturally occupies a later place in our studies ; but he was by sixteen years an older man. The son of a Wiirtemberg village pastor, born at Schmieden, near Stuttgart, in 1792, he came to Blau- beuren when only eight years old, his father having been appointed to the office of deacon of the parish. At the age of thirteen he, too, went to the seminary there; and afterwards to the University of Tiibingen. You will remember, perhaps, from our study of Strauss how close the connexion between the little seminary and the university was; how, when Strauss went to Blaubeuren, he had Baur to teach him ; and how in Tiibingen he was again the pupil of the newly- made professor. Baur inherited and adopted the The new Ttibingen school. Baur, 1792— 1860. Evangeli- cal sym- pathies, Influenced by Schlei- ermacher and Hegel. Work at Blau- beuren and Tiib- ingen. 224 LECTURE V. evangelical traditions of both school and university.' His first published work was an essay on Kaiser’s δὲ}- lical Theology in Bengel’s Archives,’ and so little did he openly break with the current views of the time and place, that he was not only Professor of Historical Theology, but also Regent of the Sut or hostel, which was the usual residence of Protestant students who were being trained for the ministry, and he took a warm interest in it to the day of his death. Like all foremost minds among theological students of that day, he was largely influenced by the teaching of Schleiermacher,* and the impulse of this master is felt in his first important work Symbolics and Mythology.’ Like Strauss, he passed from Schleiermacher to Hegel, and, like Strauss, he carried into all his after work, with unflinching adhesion, the principles of the Hegelian Left. Unlike Strauss, his life was one great whole. He spent nearly sixty years at Blau- beuren and Tiibingen, and for more than thirty years, that is, from 1826 to 1860, fulfilled the duties of his professorship with consistent devotion. The chair, you will remember, was that of Historical Theology, and to this subject, in all the length and breadth of its extent, the energy of his rarely equalled powers was devoted. Few men ever worked so ' Cf. Dr. Karl Kliipfel’s Ge- wards, pp. 389-457, are by Baur. schichte und Beschreibung der 2 Archiv fiir Theologie, 11. 656. UOniversitiét Tiibingen, 1849. The 3 Cf. Lecture VI. p. 300. sections on the Evangelical Theo- 4 Die Symbolik und Mythologie, logical Faculty and the Evan- oder die Naturreligion des Alter- gelical Seminary, from Storr on- thums, 3 vols., 1824-5. LECTURE V. 225 hard ; four o’clock in the morning, winter and summer, was his hour for rising. Few men ever produced so much. Few men ever attained, and fewer have preserved, so high a standard of excel- lence. He is not, like Strauss, carried away, and he does not carry his readers away, by the mere beauty of thought or form. I doubt whether his readers are often carried away at all. It is for ordinary people hard enough work to keep up with him. [Ὁ is some- times not unlike walking across a ploughed field. It is a ploughed field. He has been working at virgin soil, has been right through it from end to end, and has turned over every inch of the ground ; but the walking is not very easy, and some of us may well be thankful to men stronger than ourselves who have walked in front of us, and have here and there made paths across it. Let us look for a moment at the extent of the field in which this one man has done pioneer work. I have already referred to an important early book. The following is a list of his other writings in chronological order. It is probably not quite complete, but is sufficiently so for our purpose :— 1. On the Derivation of 3. On the Opposition be- Lbinitism, or the Christ-Party | tween Protestantism and Catho- at Corinth. licism, in answer to Mohler’s 2. On Mancheism.® Symbolics." ° Die Christuspartet in der ko- ® Geschichte des Manichiiismus, rinthischen Gemeinde u.s.w., Zett- 1831. schrift fiir Theologie, 1831, iv. 61, 7 Gegensatz des Katholicismus and 1836, iv. 1. und des Protestantismus, 1834. Q Extent of his lite- rary work. Books, 226 4. On Christian Gnosis, or the Christian Philosophy of Religion.§ 5. On the so-called Pasto- ral Epistles of the Apostle Paul.? 6. Time and Occasion of the Kipistle to the Romans.! 7. On the Origin of the Episcopate.” 8. History of the Doctrine of the Atonement.? 9. History of the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarna- tion of God (8 vols.).4 10. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ.’ 11. Critical Examination of the Canonical Gospels, their Relation to each other, their Origin and Character 6 8 Die christliche Gnosis, oder die christliche Religionsphilosophie, 1835. 9 Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulus u.s.w., 1835. ' Ueber Zweck wu. Veranlassung des Rimerbriefs u.s.w., Zeitschrift fiir Theologie, 1836, iii. 59. * Ueber den Ursprung des Epi- scopats, 1838. 3 Geschichte der Lehre von der Versihnung, 1838. * Geschtchte der Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes, 1841-3, 3 vols. > Paulus der Apostel Christi, 1845 and 1866. © Kritische Untersuchungen tiber Jesu LECTURE V. 12. Manual of the History of Dogmas ;* enlarged in the posthumous 13. Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas.® 14. The Gospel of Mark.® 15. On the Lpochs of Church History.} 16. Church History of the First Three Centuries.” And the important post- humous works: 17. Church History from the Fourth to the Siath Cen- tury.* 18. Church Middle Ages.* 19. Modern tory.” History of the Church His- die kanonischen Evangelien u.s.w., 1847. 7 Lehrbuch der christlichen Dog- mengeschichte, 1847. 8 Vorlesungen tiber die christliche Dogmengeschichte, 1865-7, 3 vols. 9. Das Marcusevangeliwm, 1851. 1 Die Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung, 1852. 2 Die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1853. 3 Die christliche Kirche vom Aten bis zum G6ten Jahrhundert, 1859. 4 Die christliche Kirche des Mit- telalters, 1861. > Die christliche neuern Zeit, 1863. Kirche der LECTURE V. 20. Church History of the Nineteenth Century.® 227 21. Lectures on the Theo- logy of the New Testament. Besides these there were numerous articles in the Tiibingen Review, τὰ Zeller’s Year-book, and, after 1857, in Hilgenfeld’s Revew. Some of these shorter writings are of primary importance for our own study ; for example :— 22. On the Composition and Character of the Johannine Gospel.§ 23. The Johannine KHpis- tles.° 24. Introduction to the New Testament. 25. The Johannine Ques- tion and the Latest Answers.? 26. Answer to Dr. Karl Hase’s Letter on the Tiibingen School. 27. On Johannine Ques- ὁ Die christliche Kirche des 19ten Jahrhunderts, 1862, ed. 2, 1877. 7 Vorlesungen wber neutesta- mentliche Theologie, 1864. 8 Ueber die Composition und den Charakter des Johanneischen Evan- gelium, Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1844. 9. Die Johanneische Briefe u.s.w., Theol. Jahrb., 1848. 1 Die Hinleitung wm das Neue Testament u.s.w., Theol. Jahrb., 1850, 1851. * Die Johanneische Frage αι. ihre neuesten Beantwortungen, Theol. Jahrb., 1854. tions: Justin Martyr and the Paschal Controversy. 28. Reply to Dr. Steitz on the Paschal Controversy of the Karly Church. 29. The Tiibingen School and its Present Position, a Reply to Weisse, Weizsécker, and Hwald,® the second edi- tion of which appeared but a short time before the author’s death. > An Herrn Dr. Karl Hase wU.s.w., Beantwortung des Send- schreibens—die Tiibinger Schule, 1855. * Zur Johanneischen Frage : 1. Ueber Justin d. M. gegen Luthardt. 2. Ueber den Paschastreit gegen Steitz, Theol. Jahrb., 1857. ° Entgegnung gegen Herrn Dr. G. ΕἸ. Steitz tiber den Paschastreit der alten Kirche, Zeitsch. f. wiss. Theol., 1858. ὁ Die Tiibinger Schule wu. ihre Stellung zur Gegenwart, 1859, ed. 2, 1860. and shorter writings. Baur’s me- thod of investiga- tion. 228 LECTURE V. There is the field. Where are the paths across it? Baur has himself made one such path in his sketch of Church History in the Nineteenth Century,‘ which was edited after his death by Dr. Zeller. It is little to the credit of English theology that, while so much of Strauss was soon translated, no work of Baur’s appeared in English until, by the aid of the Theological Translation Fund,* Paul the Apostle was translated in 1873-5, and The Church History of the First Three Centuries in 1878-9. These are both paths that we may safely walk on. The Paul the Apostle is, aS we shall see, a necessity for the understanding of Baur’s work. The First Three Centuries is his own summary of his chief positions. The second German edition of this work was published in the year in which he died. The English translation is from the third edition issued three years afterwards, and it therefore represents in convenient form the author’s latest views. Baur arrived at his criticism of the Fourth Gospel by an altogether different road from that of Strauss. He had commenced his investigations long before his pupil. His studies of the two Corinthian Epistles first led him to a careful examination of the Apostle Paul’s relation to the older Apostles. He was con- vinced that the Epistles themselves gave sufficient data for concluding that the older and commonly accepted view of an entire harmony must be 7 Die christliche Kirche, ut supra, 1862 and 1877. 8 Theological Translation Fund Library, 1873, ete. LECTURE V. 229 abandoned, and that there was really an opposition which went so far that the Jewish Christians ques- tioned δ. Paul’s authority. A more exact examination of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which he, fol- lowing Neander, brought into prominence as im- portant for the earliest history, left him with a deeper impression of the significance of this opposition in the post-Apostolic period. And it became more and more clear that the opposition of the two parties, the Pauline and the Petrine or Judaistic—which must, he thinks, be distinguished much more sharply than has hitherto been done, in both the Apostolic and post-Apostolic period—had a marked influence not only on the form of the Petrine speeches, but also on the composition of the Acts of the Apostles. The first results of these investigations he published in the Tiibingen Review in 1831." His examination of the doctrine of Gnosis led him to the Pastoral Epistles, with the result that, in 1835, he published his reasons for believing that they were not the work of the Apostle Paul, but that they sprung from the same party tendency which, in the second century, was the ruling formative principle of the Church. Continued occupation with the Pauline Epistles, and a deeper steeping in the spirit of the Apostles and of Pauline Christianity, fixed more and more the opinion that there was an essential difference between the four chief Epistles of 5. Paul and the ° Kirchengeschichte des 19ten Cf. Tuibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theo- Jahrhunderts, ed. 2, 1877, p. 417. —logie, 1831, 4tes Heft. Pauline and Pe- trine parties. Four Pauline Epistles. At first took no part in the ‘ Johan- nine ques- tion.’ Consi- dered it to be a‘tend- ency- writing.’ 230 LECTURE V. shorter ones, and that the authenticity of several, if not all, of these latter was very doubtful. These re- sults he carried out and published in his treatise on Paul the Apostle, quite independently of Strauss. He had now brought into the field of history a period which by dogmatic prepossession had been up to this time excluded from it. Admit Ebionitism and Paulinism as the factors of the historic formation of this period, and all is clear. And, in spite of oppos- ing voices, he believes he is justified in affirming that the old and groundless views of the closed unity of the Canon were for ever destroyed.’ Thus ended the first period of Baur’s critical labours. When Strauss’s Life of Jesus appeared, Baur re- mained during the general agitation a silent observer. He knew all about it before it was published, as we have seen, but he refrained from taking any part in the discussion, because he had not yet made the deeper studies which he felt to be necessary. But when he had made the Johannine Gospel the subject of a course of lectures, he felt himself able to introduce a new and independent position with regard to the evan- gelical history. The fundamental distinction of this Gospel from the Synoptics was so convincing, that he at once formed the opinion that it also was a ‘tendency-writing,’ the earliest possible date for which was A.D. 160, and he published this opinion in the 1 Kirchengeschichte, ut supra, pp. 117, 118. LECTURE V. 51 Theological Year-book for 1844. There he felt was a new platform gained for the criticism of the evan- gelical history. If the Fourth Gospel is no historical writing like the others, if it has undoubtedly an ideal tendency, then it can no longer be placed by the side of the Synoptics, and opposed to them. The Straussian tactics and method of operation—to slay on the one hand the Synoptics by John, and on the other hand John by the Synoptics, with the result that no one knows when to stop—are no more possible.’ Baur is careful to add that he does not mean to assert that we have in the Synoptics a purely historical presentation, but that we have in them an altogether different. his- torical basis from that which we have in John.* But the question then presents itself to him, If once one of the Canonical Gospels is shown to be a tendency- writing of avery definite kind, ought not one or more of the Synoptic Gospels to be placed in the same category ? This leads to a fuller examination of the Gospel of Luke, which was published in the Theolo- gical Year-book for 1846.° These investigations of the Gospels were united in one volume in 1847, and this formed the second chief work on the criticism of the New Testament.® The narrower the circle is thus made in which 2 Theologische Jahrbiicher. Tii- 212 sqq. bingen, 1844. * Kirchengeschichte, ut supra, 3 Cf. Strauss’s objection to this ρ. 419. statement by Baur, Leben Jesu fiir ° Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1846. das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, 1864, 5 Kritische Untersuchungen, ut pp. 61 sqq.; and Lecture IV. pp. supra, 1847. Applica- tion of the principle to the ‘mythical theory.’ Combina- tion of results. 52 LECTURE V. the original tradition of the Gospels is to be sought, the simpler and easier, in Baur’s opinion, becomes the business of the critic. The whole question is now centred in the Matthew Gospel. The widely extended mythical theory of Strauss is reduced to narrow dimensions. Once make it certain that some of our Canonical Gospels are to be regarded as ‘tendency-writings,’ and the question arises whether, where hitherto myth has been supposed to be neces- sary, the tradition has been modified in the interest of the author’s literary tendency, or else is pure fiction. As the tendency, which must be recognized to be the specific character of some of the Gospels, can have its ground only in the peculiar circumstances in which their authors wrote, that is, in the party divisions which existed among them, so the stand- point for the criticism of the Gospels is to be found only in the whole sphere in which such phenomena manifest themselves. We must not draw the his- torical circle too narrow, and it is obvious how important if is, not orly in the Apostolic, but also in the post-Apostolic period, to take cognizance of everything which can give more exact knowledge of the different directions in which divisions took place. These investigations of the Gospels naturally attach themselves to the earlier conclusions from the Pauline Epistles. There is the foundation and firm support. On the other hand, the post-Apostolic periods, of which our Canonical Gospels are the pro- LECTURE V. 233 ducts, contribute to the presentation of a clearer and concrete form.‘ There are three stages of the development :— The first period extends to the destruction of Jerusalem in Α.Ὁ. 70. The documents are, the First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Romans—these four and only these four being genuine Pauline Epistles—-and the Apocalypse, which is certainly the work of J ohn, ὁ and represents an origi- nal Ebionite Christianity i in opposition to Paulinism. The second period extends from a.p. 70 to 140. The documents are, first the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which belong to the Jewish wars under Ha- drian, then the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel of Mark, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the pseudo- Pauline Epistles, and finally the Catholic Epistles. The characteristics of this period are the first en- deavours on both sides towards moderating the antagonism. The Jewish Christians no longer in- sisted upon the requirements of circumcision. The Pauline party were anxious to heal the breach, and hence sprung the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. The third period extends from a.p. 140. The extremes of the Ebionites on the one hand, and of the Gnostics on the other were now abandoned. This is marked in practice by the Roman church and the watchword ‘Peter and Paul,’ and in idea by the 7 Kirchengeschichte, wt supra, p. 420. Three stages : (1) to A.D: 70. The docu- ments. (2) A.D. 70-140. The docu- ments. (3) From A.D. 140. The docn- ments. 234 LECTURE V. Fourth Gospel. The documents of this period are the Pastoral Epistles and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles.® The Jo- The Johannine Gospel is represented as being τ ~ most clearly of all the result of a deliberate second- century purpose. On both the great questions of theological discussion which troubled the Church in the second century, Gnosticism and the Paschal con- troversy, it is an obvious re-writing of the original evangelic tradition from a point of view which repre- sents in time, A.D. 160 or 170, and in place Asia Minor, or more probably Alexandria. The authenticity of the Gospel is, indeed, for Baur not the main question. The tendency and the character of the writing are essential to his position. Followers Nor did Baur stand alone as Strauss did. The of Baur: chief teacher in the University of Tiibingen had attracted an enthusiastic circle of disciples, and these formed a cluster around him, each one taking his own special line, and all contributing to the strength of the master’s position. A title which had formerly belonged to the leaders of evangelical pietism was, from local connexion, naturally transferred to them, and this new Tiibingen school became an important factor in the theological history of the nineteenth century. A course of lectures would be needed for even an outline of its history. I shall not attempt it in a small part of one. Let me only remind you that the group was illumined by the brilliancy of 8. Cf. Holtzmann, H. J., Hinleitung, ed. 2, 1886, pp. 188 sq. LECTURE V. bo oN) Or Albert Schwegler, who had already prepared the way by a history of Montanism,’ and by criticisms on Liicke and Bruno Bauer,' and now presented to the world the first graphic, perhaps too graphic, account of the master’s teaching ;” that it was supported in its earlier years, though not without criticism, by the grave and solid learning of Albrecht Ritschl, who contributed works on Zhe (Gospel of Marcion and the Canonical Gospel of Luke,’ and the Origin of the Old Catholic Church ;* by the prolific Adolf Hilgen- feld, now Professor at Jena, and editor, from its commencement in 1857, of the Journal for Scientific Theology which bears his name,’ who wrote early works on The Clementine Recognitions and Homilies.® The Gospel and Epistle of John,’ The Gospel of Mark,’ Primitive Christianity,? and is now, perhaps, best known by his valuable Introduction to the New Testa- ' by the Tiibingen colleague, Késtlin, who wrote On the Johannine System of Doctrine,” and On the Origin and Composition of the Synoptic Gospels, ment 5 ° Der Montanismus und die christliche Kirche des 2ten Jahr- hunderts, 1841. δ Die clementinischen Recogni- tionen und Homilien, 1848. 7 Das Evangelium und die Briefe 1 Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1842. 2 Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner Entwicklung, 2 vols. 1845-1846. 3 Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Inwas, 1846. 4 Die Entstehung der altkatho- lischen Kirche, 1850. > Zeitschrift fir liche Theologie. wissenschaft- Johannis nach ihrem Lehrbegriff, 1849. 8 Das Marcusevangelium, 1850. ° Das Urchristenthum, 1855. 1 Historisch-kritische Einleitung an das Neue Testament, 1875. * Der Lehrbegriff des Evange- lhumsund der Briefe Johannis, 1843. 5 Der Ursprung und die Kompo- sition der synoptischen Evangelien, 1853. Schwegler, 1819_- 1857. Ritschl, 1822- 1889. Hilgen- feld, 1823- Kostlin, 1819— Volkmar, 1809- Holsten, 1825- Zeller, 1814- 236 LECTURE V. and also did good service in the reviews ;* by the Ziirich professor, Volkmar, whose special work in re- lation to the earlier days of the school was to meet objections from quotations in Marcion, Justin, and the Clementines, and afterwards to represent its ex- treme Left ;° by the Heidelberg professor, Holsten, who came later into the field and has devoted his thoughts chiefly to the special position of Pauline theology ;° and, chief of all the early band, though he in later years, like Schwegler, retired from the teach- ing of theology to undertake that of philosophy, came the Berlin professor, Eduard Zeller, Baur’s pupil at Blaubeuren and Tiibingen, and afterwards his son- in-law, the friend, editor, and biographer of Strauss, editor of portions of Baur’s works, editor from 1842 to 1857 of the Theological Year-book * which bears his name, and contributor of some of the chief articles ὃ 4 Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1850, 1851. ° Das Evangelium Marcions, 1852 ; Ueber Justin den Médrtyrer, 1853; Hin new entdecktes Zeug- miss: Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1854, pp. 446-462 ; Die Religion Jesu, 1857, cap. viii. ; Der Ursprung unserer EHvangelien, 1866, pp. 91-110. ὁ Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus, 1868; Das Evan- geliwm des Paulus, 1881 ; Die drer urspriinglichen noch wngeschrie- benen Evangelien, 1883. 7 Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1842— 1857. ® See especially Die diusseren Zeugnisse tiber das Dasein und den Ursprung des vierten Evangeliums, 1845, pp. 577-656. (The Fourth Gospel cannot be traced back beyond a.p. 170.) Hinige wei- tere Bemerkungen ἰδοὺ die diussere Bezeugung des vierten Evangeliums, 1847, pp. 136-174. Ueber die Citate aus dem vierten Evangelium in den Philos Origenis, 1853, pp. 144-152. Noch ein Wort wiber den Ausspruch Jesu bei Justin Apol., i. 61, 1855, pp. 138-140. And four important articles—Das Urchristenthum, Die Tiibinger historische Schule, Ferdi- nand Christian Baur, Strauss und Renan—reprinted in Vortrdge wnd Abhandlungen, 2nd ed. 1875. LECTURE V. 237 in it, author of a short History of the Church,’ and of a treatise on the Acts of the Apostles,’ which, apart from its special theories, is a work of ripe and careful scholarship and of permanent value. Never was theory supported by more learning, ability, or enthusiasm. Never did theory more en- tirely collapse. If we look at it we shall, 1 think, find little difficulty in explaining the failure. The foundations of Baur’s edifice are the principles of the Hegelian Left, for, like many another disciple of Hegel, the moment he had embraced these principles he was fettered by them. The wonderful skill and untiring work of which I have spoken was, after all, slave-labour. His field is cultivated as field hardly ever was, but it is in the narrow valley in which the master placed him. Mentally, as well as physi- cally, he never left Tiibingen ; he never got beyond his work, so as to look at it from without; and a stripling who will ascend the hills on either side can see this giant working in his narrow valley as though it were the universe; while mountain rises above mountain and beyond the horizon there are hills and valleys of which none of us have ever thought, in the vast infinity of the universe of God. But the Hegelian trichotomy draws the limit beyond which Baur cannot go. Thesis, antithesis, momentum, higher unity——this is the law which is to explain all ° Geschichte der christlichen ihrem Inhalt wnd Ursprung kri- Kirche, 1848. tisch untersucht, 1854. 1 Die Apostelgeschichte nach Baur bound by the Hege- lian Left. Develop- ment of philo- sophy. Baur’s theory an arch, 238 LECTURE V. things in heaven and earth, and the waters which are above and beneath them. Meanwhile philosophy has been claiming its own development, and has asserted that Hegel is not its last prophet. This assertion has perhaps been made more loudly in Germany than in England. It has been said that there are more Hegelians in Oxford than there are in Berlin. It has been said that Oxford is the happy place to which good German philoso- phies hope to go—after they are dead ; but this was by anenemy. The life at Oxford is too vigorous to be affected by anything which is dead. But other places and persons are not always so blessed, and the corpses of not a few dead theories have lately been sent about the country ; and, now galvanized by science, now wire-pulled in ignorance like puppets are at country fairs, have seemed to be actually alive ; and they have greatly terrified a good many innocent country people, and children of all ages who knew nothing about the batteries and could not see the wires. But whatever may be the present vitality of the Hegelian philosophy, of which I will not venture to speak, except to say that many of us at least have still much to learn from it in its own proper sphere, there can, I think, be little doubt about the edifice which the Tiibingen school reared upon it. This edifice forms, let us remember, an arch. Every stone of the arch supports and is supported by its neighbour. The foundations on either side are, on LECTURE V. 239 the right, the four undoubted Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse, dated before the year a.p. 70— there is your thesis, definite and fixed: on the left, Matthew and Luke, dated a.p. 1380-140 — there your antithesis, equally definite and equally fixed. Then come the stones on either side: Acts, Mark, Hebrews, pseudo-Pauline letters, Catholic letters, Ephesians, Colossians. The pseudo - Clementines must have a place, for they suggested the whole thing, and show a middle stage of progress ; the pastoral Epistles are so late that they come near the top of the arch; and finally, as the last stage of the development, the crown to which all leads on either side, the key which binds all together in unbroken and unbreakable unity,—the Johannine Gospel and Epistles. All this is very wonderful. It is like the struc- tures one has seen inadream. It is like the castle made of wooden blocks of stone in the nursery. It will hold together as long as you leave it alone, but you must not touch it to see if the stones are real. You would not be so cruel. They please the child. And were this structure simply a chapter in a novel, or a plan drawn upon paper, you would not touch it ; but it is an arch over which you are asked to walk, and the abyss below is deeper than youcan see. And when you begin to think of what these stones are, of the quarries from which they came, of their shape and size—for most of us after all do know. something about the individual stones—you first wonder by what The arch tested. The foun- dations doubted. The work- men ques- tioned : 240 LECTURE V. possible skill and contrivance they have found their place in this arch. There are some of the workmen about still, and we can ask them to explain the whole thing to us. But no, let us not put questions, or perhaps they will say by-and-by that they did not understand us, and that their answers therefore mean nothing. Let us take out our note-books and listen, and we may hear a good deal. ‘There is a group looking at the foundation on which the first stones rest. They are not quite sure that it is all rock ; indeed, there are serious signs of fissure and col- lapse. The Tiibingen Schelling has been lecturing at Berlin in place of the Tiibingen Hegel, and though Baur regarded the whole Schelling episode as a piece of excellent comedy,’ it is surprising how able men believe in it. Trendelenburg has followed ; Herbart and Lotze have been lecturing at Gottingen; Ulrici at Halle. Strange things have been said by the younger Fichte and others in the Journal for Philo- sophy.2 What does it all mean? Can it be that Hegel is after all human clay, though it be of a very fine quality, and not eternal rock? But look, they say, at the enormous weight of this arch ; nothing short of rock can possibly bear it. And there is Volkmar. We know what a clever workman he is, and how if we consult some pages 2 *Das ganze Auftreten Schel- ling’s in Berlin war ein wahrhaft komisches Schauspiel, das mit grossem Gepriinge aufgefiihrt wurde. Kine Hauptrolle spielte dabei Neander.’ Kirchengeschichte des 19ten Jahrhunderts, ed. 2, 1877, p. 405. 3 Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie, founded in 1837 to oppose He- gelianism. LECTURE V. 241 of modern English writing—he is not now perhaps so much quoted in Germany—he appears as a chief authority on this arch. He is carefully measuring that big foundation stone on the left. What! there surely cannot be anything wrong there! But he is very much afraid there is. It is a thousand pities, for the whole process of development depends upon it. Yes! it is in the wrong place, it must come out. He has talked to a good many of his friends and they, espe- cially Késtlin, agree with him.* The original Gospel is a primitive Mark,” and the date is probably a.p. 73. There is Hilgenfeld, a workman who has done an enormous amount of good work on the arch itself He is left in a sort of perma- As one of the original workmen, and now getting on for and round about it. nent charge and is a thoroughly honest man. seventy years of age, anything he says is valuable, and if you listen you will have no difficulty in hear- ing a good deal, for he often talks about it. Look, he is now examining the foundation stone on the right. He says it is not quite safe. There are some awkward holes about it which must be filled up. First Thessalonians and Philippians and Philemon have by mistake been put in the wrong places, and must be taken out and put in here. Then he looks at 4 Kostlin, Κα. R., Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synopti- schen Hvangelien, 1853. See esp. pp. 310-385. ° Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Hntwickelung, 1857 ; Der Ursprung wnserer Evangelien, 1866 ; Marcus wnd die Synopses, u.s.w., 1869, 2te Aufl. 1876 ; Jesus Nazarenus, 1881 and 1882. See pp. 7 sq., and esp. the ‘Chro- nological Survey of the written sources of the Life of Jesus,’ on pp. 18 sqaq. R Volkmar, Hilgen- feld, Ritschl, 242 LECTURE V. the foundation stone on the left. It is very serious. Volkmar is right. The architect was really alto- gether wrong. His foundation is impossible. But Volkmar is also wrong; it is not a Mark which is wanted. That comes second. The first stone is Matthew, which exactly tits the place, and it comes from the Apostle himself from about a.p. 50-60, though it was a little retouched between a.p. 70-80. Then he looks at the spring of the arch and the key- stone. These too will have to be altered. The Clementines are much too early. John is much too late. He has talked to a great many workmen and they all agree with him that the Clementines come after John, except one whose name he does not know, and he is not a German.® Altering the key-stone of an arch is a very dangerous matter, but this really cannot remain as it is.’ And there is—or rather we must say was, for he too has departed from us—the greatest workman of them all, Albrecht Ritschl. Hardly one of the regular workmen at any time, he built buttresses rather than the arch, but these gave the strength on which many rested. If you watch him, you will see that he has been pulling them down, and that the arch which had depended upon him is left without his strong support. Now that he has had time for further 6 Cf. Lecture II. p. 84; and AHistorisch-kritische Hinleitwng in Lecture VII. pp. 374 sq. das Neue Testament, 1875; Zeit- 7 Hilgenfeld, Die vangelien schrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theo- nach ihrer Entstehung wnd ge- logie, 1875, p. 582. schichtlichen Bedeutung, 1854 ; LECTURE V. 243 testing, he thinks that John belongs to the founda- tion, not to the crown. Listen to him :— In order to prevent misunderstandings, I would explain that I consider the Gospel to be authentic, not only because the denial of its authenticity raises far greater difficulties than its acceptance, but also because the presentation of the revelation of Jesus in the three other Gospels requires for its completion the discourses in John.® Karl Holsten is almost the only other original workman, for Schwegler died many years since, after leaving this work, and Zeller long ago gave up arch-building of this kind. Holsten is said to have been the only faithful workman the architect had in his last days. He may have the plans and be able to put the whole right. But when we listen to him, we find that he also regards that left founda- tion stone as altogether wrong. It ought not to have been Ebionitism, it ought not to have been any one of the Canonical books. The only stone which will really fit the place and bear the structure is the gospel of Peter.” And now having looked at this arch, let us try to 8 ‘Um Missdeutungen zu Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altka- begegnen, erklire ich, dass ich das Evangelium fiir echt halte, nicht nur, weil die Leugnung seiner Echtheit viel gréssere Schwierig- keiten darbietet, als deren Aner- kennung ; sondern auch weil die Darstellung der Verkiindigung Jesu nach den drei anderen Evan- gelien ihre Ergiinzung durch die _Reden bei Johannes _fordert.’ tholischen Kirche, 2te Aufl., 1857, pp. 48 sqq. See also Theologische Jalrbiicher, 1851, pp. 500 sqq., and esp. Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie, 1861, pp. 429-459. ® Holsten, Die drei urspriing- lichen noch ungeschriebenen Evan- gelien, 1883. Die synoptischen Evangelien nach der Form ihres Inhalts, 1885. See esp. pp. 165 sqq. RZ Holsten. The arch a ruin. French writers: Stap. 244 LECTURE V. interpret it. It does not represent too strongly the adhesion of the whole system of Baur, or the way in which that system is builded together into one or- ganic whole ; and it is impossible to remove any one of the interdepending stones, much more to touch one of the foundations or the key of the system, without bringing the structure to the ground. It 1165 before us, therefore, as a magnificent ruin, whose fall has been wrought by the tools of the builders themselves. A ruin, and therefore it is ignorance or worse than ignorance to speak of it in the pre- sent as a firm foundation on which we may in full confidence build our lives; but a magnificent ruin which no future architect can neglect to study, and from which he cannot fail to draw really great ideas, and from the stones of which have been gathered, and will be gathered, forms of fair and wondrous beauty, fit to take their place upon the eternal rock and to grace the temple of the Lord. Perhaps we ought also to note that the methods and results of the school were presented to French readers by M. A. Stap, a Belgian writer, in a series of articles in the Revue Germanique which were afterwards republished in his Historical and Critical Studies on the Sources of Christianity, in 1864. The fifth study deals with the Fourth Gospel, and presents it on the well-known principles of the school with 1 Etudes historiques et critiques Paris, 1864 ; ed. 2, 1866, pp. 232- sur les Origines du Christianisme, 348. LECTURE" V2" 245 little addition of fresh investigation or result. He finds everywhere a total absence of historical proba- bility, and proof that it is in the fullest sense a work of theology and not one of history. It was unknown in the Church until after a.p. 155, when it began to attract attention, and was not written before the time of Valentinus, that is, after A.p. 130-140. M. Gustave d’Eichthal, author of a considerable work on The Gospels,” is a disciple of the same school, and in a striking preface devotes some pages to the Johannine question. He lays special stress on the anti-Jewish and mystic tone, and on the connexion between the Gospel and Gnosticism, in which, as well as in the view of its date, he is avowedly a follower of Hilgenfeld. But neither of these French writers makes any material addition to the work of their German precursors. Before passing from the Tiibingen school, I should like, however, to present, not my own view of it, but that of two German writers, to whom I shall have to refer again,’ and whose competence to speak on any question of New Testament criticism is fully admitted. It is now more than forty years since the typically independent, and in the true sense freethinker, De Wette, wrote the following words :— It will perhaps disappoint many that I have not entered more fully into a refutation of Baur’s destructive criticism ; 2 Les Evangiles, 1863. Seeesp. vol. i. Preface, pp. xxv sqq. 3 Cf. Lecture VI. pp. 307 and 319. D’Eich- thal, 1804- German criticism of the Tiibingen school : De Wette, Meyer. The Partition Theories. 246 LECTURE V. but, on the one hand, this would have taken more space than I have at my command, and, on the other hand, I hold such a refutation to be superfluous. Such extravagant criticism 15 self-destructive, and its only value is that, by exceeding all limits, it must awaken the feeling of the necessity of self- restraint.* And it is a quarter of a century ago since Meyer, the late veteran of New Testament commentators, summed up as follows the chief negative theories of that day :— We older men have already seen the time when Dr. Paulus and his inventions were in vogue; he died, and no disciple remained. We lived through the Strauss storm thirty years ago, and in what loneliness might the author now celebrate his jubilee. We saw the Tiibingen constellation arise, and even before Baur departed hence the brightness had waned. A renewed and firmer basis of the truth which had been attacked, and a more complete recognition of it, were the blessings which the wave left behind ; and so will it be after the present surge.° Side by side with the negative criticism of Evan- son, Bretschneider, Strauss, and Baur, and extending indeed from the earliest days of the modern doubts about the Fourth Gospel until the present time, a line of writers has existed, more or less connected with each other, and more or less fully holding that por- tions of the Gospel are authentic, but that it is not as a whole the work of 5. John. Among the first 4 Kurzgefasstes exegetischesHand- Aufl. p. vii. Cf. Eng. ed. of 18735’ buch: Apostelgeschichte, 1848, 3te Preface by Dr. Dickson, pp. viil Aufli., Preface v, vi. and xii; and Lecture VI. pp. 319 ° Kommentar, Romer, 1865, 4te 566. LECTURE V. 247 to express this view at the close of the last century was Jacob ©. R. Eckermann,® who thought the most remarkable discourses were Johannine, and the connecting history was by one of his friends, but Christoph Friedrich von Ammon, in the Erlangen Programme of 1811, sought to show ‘that John the author of the Gospel is a different person from the editor.’ Heinrich E. G. Paulus? thought John was witness and guarantee of the Gospel, but the author was a disciple—that it was composed and arranged by one of the later Christians who was a hearer of John’s, and perhaps a disciple of the Gnostic philosophy.! Dr. Christian Hermann Weisse, who was a pro- fessor of philosophy at Leipzig, gave this line of he afterwards retracted this opinion.’ criticism a more prominent position. He was a jurist and a disciple of Hegel, and at first a friend of Strauss, who speaks, however, of these works as showing the mixture of sound criticism and dilet- tante idiosyncrasies which characterized the whole standpoint of Weisse.? The discourses of Jesus and ὃ Theologische Beitriige, 1796, 9 Review of Bretschneider’s Ueber die sichern Griinde des Glau- bens, Bd. v. st. 2, p. 147. Cf. Rettig, Ephemerides exeyetico-theo- logice, 1824, fasc. ii. pp. 57 and 95. Cf. Lucke, Commentar, 1840, p-.91. 7 Erklirung aller dunkeln Stellen des Neuen Testaments, 1807, vol. ii. 8 ‘*Docetur, Johannem Evan- gelii auctorem ab editore hujus libri diversum.’ Cf. Liicke, Com- mentar, 1840, Th. i. p. 97. Probabilia in Heidelberger Jahr- biicher der Literatwr, 1821, pp. 112-142, and of Liicke’s Com- meniar, ibid. pp. 227-261. ' *Qompositum esse et digestum a sericri Christiano, Joannis au- ditori, forsitan gnosticz dedito philosophie.’ Cf. Rettig, ut supra, Fasc. il. pp. 83 sq. * Leben Jesu fiir das deutsche Volk, 1864,: p. 36; cf. Hase, Geschichte Jesu, 1876, pp. 129 sq. Ecker- mann, 1754— 1837. Ammon, 1766— 1850. Paulus, 1761- 1851. Weisse, 1801~- 1866. Schenkel, 1813- 1885. 248 LECTURE V. of John Baptist are studies from the Apostle’s hand, but they were written down simply for the purpose of recording the doctrine. It was after the writer's death that the disciples combined these studies with connecting historical matter and oral teaching mto the present Gospel. It is therefore inferior to the Synop- tists, and especially to Mark, as a source of history.’ Dr. Daniel Schenkel,* Professor of Theology at Basel and Heidelberg, carried out to further develop- ments the main ideas of Weisse. There are two chief collections of speeches, the one extending to the end of the 12th chapter, the other from the 13th to the end of the 17th chapter. These are Johannine. The history, and many details in the middle of the speech-sections, belong to a later hand. Schenkel afterwards so far agreed with the Tiibingen school that he regarded the Gospel as altogether an ideal composition, but he thought it should be derived from Asia Minor about Α.Ὁ. 110-120, and that it is thus indirectly connected with the Apostle and Ephe- sus.” Later still he gave up all connexion between the Gospel and the Apostle, and abandoned the resi- dence of John in Asia Minor ;° and in his latest work, The Christ of the Apostles,’ he placed the Gospel 3 Evangelische Geschichte, 1838 ; Christusbild der Apostel, wnd der Die Evangelienfrage, 1856. nachapostolischen Zeit, 1879, pp. * Theologische Studien und Kri- 188 sqq. tiken, 1840, pp. 762, 771; review > Charakterbild, ed. 1, loc. cit. of Neander, Weisse, and Strauss. 6 Ibid. ed. 4, loc. cit. Charakterbild Jesu, 1864, pp. 29 7 Christusbild, loc. cit. sq.; ed. 4, 1873, pp/ 25 sq. ; LECTURE V. 249 in the middle of the second century, and derived it from Asia Minor or Alexandria. | Dr. Alexander Schweizer,*® Professor of Theology at Ziirich, in his Gospel of John, which was pub- lished in 1841, a work of high tone and great acute- ness, endeavoured to show that the events which have Galilee as their scene are in their present form by a later hand.? The Johannine ministry of Jesus was limited to Judxa, but this portion 15 of true his- torical character, and the discourses are authoritative. The additions were later than John’s death, but before the Gospel was first published.t| This view was in part adopted and developed by Kriiger-Velt- husen,” but had been meantime abandoned by the author.* Herr Johann Rudolf Tobler, a Ziirich pastor, who some thirty years ago attracted much attention by his works on the Fourth Gospel, thought some portions of the Gospel came from the Apostle himself in Aramaic, but that these amount to less than one- tenth of the whole. Special features, and chrono- logical and geographical notices, mark an original witness, who was the Apostle John ; but these por- tions were added to and worked up by Apollos, the 8 Das Evangelium Johannes i. 21 8q., xvi. 30, xvill. 9, xix. nach seinem innern Werthe und 35-37. seiner Bedeutung fiir das Leben ' Das Evangelium Johannes, ut Jesu kritisch untersucht, Leipzig, swpra, p. 276. 1841. 2 Leben Jesu, 1872. 9 John, capp. 11. 1-12, iv. 44- 3 Protestantische Kirchenzeitwng, 54, vi. 1-26, and also cap. xxi., 1864, pp. 362 sqq. and some smaller insertions, capp. Schweizer, 1808- Tobler. Ewald, 1803- 1875. 250 LECTURE V. author also of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who thus produced a spiritual Gospel which was opposed to Judaism and in favour of Hellenism. The place is Ephesus, and the time the first century.’ Dr. Heinrich Ewald,’ the very apostle of untram- melled thought, received in 1858, after his expulsion from Gottingen, a call to Tiibingen, where he was professor for ten years; but no man was a more de- termined opponent of Baur and the Tiibingen school. He held with characteristic freedom and characteristic strength his own views of the historic value of the discourses and the narratives of the miracles in the Fourth Gospel; but this does not weaken the force of his position as to the authorship. The Apostle some- where about the year a.p. 80 composed his Gospel, availing himself of the help of trusted friends, who ten years later, but still before the Apostle’s death, added the twenty-first chapter. Here ® another hand appears more freely than in the Gospel itself, though it was not wholly absent even there.’ LEwald’s de- finite views as to the authenticity have been made familiar to English students by Oxford and Cam- bridge teachers, to whom I have already made refer- * Die Evangelienfrage vm allge- — senschaft, Gottingen, 1851, pp. 150 meinen u. die Johannesfrage insbe- sq. ; 1853, pp. 92 sq. ; 1860, pp. sondere, 1858 ; Zeitschrift fiir wis- 83 sq.; 1865, pp. 212 sq.; Die senschaftliche Theologie, 1860, pp. Johanneischen Schriften, 1861, 1. 169 sqq.; Evangeliwm Johaumnis pp. 1-59; Geschichte des Volkes nach dem Grundtext, 1867 ; Grund- —_ Israel, 1868, vil. pp. 287 sq. ziige der evangelischen Geschichte, 6 John, cap. xxi. 24, 25. 1870. 7 Ibid. cap. xix. 35. ° Jahrbiicher der biblischen Wis- LECTURE V. Wot ence. This is a quotation from an article by Ewald which Canon Liddon makes with approval :— Those who since the first discussion of this question have been really conversant with it, never could have had and never have had a moment’s doubt. As the attack on St. John has become fiercer and fiercer, the truth during the last ten or twelve years has been more and more solidly estab- lished, error has been pursued into its last hiding-places, and at this moment the facts before us are such that no man who does not will knowingly to choose error and to reject truth, can dare to say that the fourth Gospel is not the work of the Apostle John.® These are words which Bishop Westcott quotes with the comment, ‘ For the rest Ewald’s calm and decisive words are, I believe, simply true’ :— That John is really the author of the Gospel, and that no other planned and completed it than he who at all times is named as its author, cannot be doubted or denied, however often in our times critics have been pleased to doubt and deny it on grounds which are wholly foreign to the subject: on the con- trary every argument, from every quarter to which we can look, every trace and record, combine together to render any serious doubt upon the question absolutely impossible.® Professor Karl von Hase,' whose death is one of Hase, the many which critical science has mourned over during the last few months, had been known to suc- cessive generations for more than half a century, not 8 Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, Gospels, ed. 3, p- x. Aug. 1863, review of Renan; 1 Geschichte Jesu, 1876, 1.6. an Gratry, Jésus-Christ,p.119; Lid- enlargement of the Leben Jesu, don, Bampton Lectures, 1866, ed. edd. 1-5, 1829-65; Die Tiibinger 13, 1889, p. 220. Schule—Sendschreiben an Baur, ® Westcott, Introduction to the 1855. 1800- 1889. 252, LECTURE V. only as a first authority on the history and dogma of the Church, but as a defender of the Fourth Gospel in the method of Schleiermacher, differing from his master chiefly m that he ascribed the Apocalypse also to the Apostle.” But in the History of Jesus, which was published in 1876, he advances the opinion of his old age, that the Gospel is not the immediate work of the Apostle. In Asia Minor, and especially in Ephesus, there had been formed through the nar- rations of John, who was one of the last and most revered of the eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus, a Gospel-tradition which was quite distinct from the Galilean. After the death of John, perhaps a decade or more, this Johannine tradition was written down by a gifted disciple of the Apostle. The disciple has lived in the thoughts of his illustrious master, and has written only as the master himself would have written. Thus arose a ‘Gospel according to John,’ which in the next generation became a ‘Gospel of John.’ And yet Hase was, like Strauss,*? doubtful of his doubts. He had for many years fought against them, and was to the end least of all in agreement with those who are confident in setting aside this Gospel. He confessed with a sad heart that he could not be sure of the full Johannine authorship, though he had expressed this in the last edition of his Manual, and he feels that opinion may change again.' * Cf. Strauss, Leben Jesu fiir 52, cf. pp. 611, 612, Kirchenge- das deutsche Volk, pp. 23 sq. schichte, 1885, i. pp. 183 sq. ; and 5. Cf. Lecture IV. p. 198. Kirchengeschichte. Lehrbuch, 1886, * Geschichte Jesu, ut supra, p. pp. 37 sq. LECTURE V. 253 Dr. Reuss, until recently professor at Strasburg, who writes now in French and now in German, but who since the annexation of Alsace has become a German citizen, has been for half a century prominently known as an independent member of the liberal party of the Lutheran church. His works® which relate to the present subject are everywhere marked by great ability, and by a striking combination of reverence and freedom. In the earlier works he accepts the Johan- nine authorship, but thinks that the speeches are to be largely traced, not with Baur to metaphysical conceptions, but to religious mysticism. In the later editions of his well-known History of the Canon in 1874 and 1887, he admits the ‘ double element,’ and in the Johannine Theology ® published in 1879 he no longer holds in the full sense the direct Johannine authorship. The author, in his opinion, distinguishes himself from 8. John in more than one passage, but In Dr. derives his materials immediately from him. Reuss’s own striking words :— If we are authorized by the form of the Fourth Gospel to see in it more than a simple biography, this first impression is amply confirmed by the contents and substance of the book. It is in reality a theological treatise, as much asthe Epistle to > Ideen zur Hinleitung in das EHvangelim Johannes—Denkschrift der theologischen Gesellschaft zu Strasburg, 1840; Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften, Neues Testa- ment, ed. 1, 1842 ; ed. 2, 1853; ed. 5, 1874, Eng. Trans. 1884; ed. 6, 1887; Histoire de la théo- logie chrétienne aw siécle aposto- lique, 1852 ; Eng. Trans. 1872; Théologie Johannique in La Bible, Noweau Testament, vi® partie, 1879. ὁ Théologie Johannique, ut su- pra, pp. 40 sq. Reuss, 254 LECTURE V. the Hebrews, and more so than any of 8. Paul’s Epistles. It is an exposition of the Christian faith inasmuch as the person of Christ is its centre. It is diminishing its intention to say that it is a pragmatic history of the struggle between the Jews and their unrecognized and rejected Saviour; it is, on the contrary, a picture of the world’s opposition (in all ages) to the Light which comes from God, full of grace and truth. This does not imply that this theology has no historic basis. On the contrary, the Johannine Gospel is a striking proof that all Christian theology is raised on such a basis, and that in this it is distinguished from a purely philosophic theology. But we affirm that the author had no intention of teaching his hearers history ; he knows it, or supposes it to be known, and undertakes to interpret it, to reveal its inmost meaning, to show that here are other things besides popular teaching, or miracles that appeal to the imagination, or tragic com- plications, such as are met with throughout the annals of humanity.‘ The Fourth Gospel has come to us without the author’s name, like most of the other elements of which the sacred volume iscomposed. Criticism has shown itself power- less, either to raise traditional opinion above all serious and legitimate doubt, or to relegate this document to an inferior position and assimilate it to the literary productions of a _ second generation which had lost to some extent the crea- tive genius of their predecessors. We consider that this is a providential warning for religious science. Ideas are more essential than proper names, and the value of the former is independent of the certainty of the latter.’ It is significant that the sixth edition of the His- tory of the Canon no longer treats of the Fourth Gospel immediately after the Synoptics, but deals with it after the Epistle of Clement. But the ex- ternal evidence for the Johannine authorship may 7 Théologie Johannique, 1879, p. 12. 8 Ibid. p. 108. LECTURE V. 209 still, he thinks, be possibly convincing: and the strongest objection is the yet weightier evidence for the Apocalypse, which cannot be by the same writer as the Gospel.’ M. Renan draws! a sharp distinction between the authentic and the unauthentic portions of the Gospel, but his principle of division is exactly op- posed to that of those who preceded him. It is not the historical setting, but the discourses, which are now questioned. The history, indeed, is to be pre- ferred to that of the Synoptists, but the discourses are ‘tirades prétentieuses, lourdes, mal écrites,’ and it is not by these that Jesus founded his divine work.? In the preface to the thirteenth edition, Renan gives a summary of the views which were held as to the Fourth Gospel. His own view in the first edition 18 :— The Fourth Gospel is in the main the work of the Apostle John, but it has perhaps been edited and retouched by his disciples. ‘The facts which are related in this Gospel are direct records of Jesus, but the discourses are often free com- positions, which express only the author’s conception of the mind of Jesus. His view in the thirteenth edition and afterwards i The Fourth Gospel is not the work of the Apostle John. It was attributed to him by one of his disciples about the year 100. The discourses are almost wholly fictitious; but 9 Geschichte, ut supra, ed. 6, Ὁ Vie de Jésus, 1863; ed. 17, 1887, p. 249. 1882. aNd | 0) pipe Renan, 1823- Sabatier, 1839- 256 LECTURE V. the narrative portions contain valuable traditions, which go back in part to the Apostle John. After referring to the opinion which places the Gospel well on in the second century, he adds :— I cannot go wholly with this radical party. I hold always to the belief that the Fourth Gospel has a real connection with the Apostle John, and that it was written towards the end of the first century.* Dr. Sabatier, Professor of Theology in the Protes- tant Faculty of the University of Paris, is the author of an essay on the Sources of the Life of Jesus,* which is largely devoted to the Fourth Gospel and intended to support the Johannine authorship. But in a later article, in Lichtenberger’s Encyclopedia, Dr. Sabatier gives up the immediate authorship, and thinks the writer to be one of John’s disciples who has edited the Gospel history after the form known in Asia Minor. The Apocalypse was the work of the author himself : the Gospel is a spiritualized apocalypse written by a disciple. Dr. Sabatier remains convinced that the roots of the thought of the Fourth Gospel are to be found in the Apocalypse and in the Jewish-Christian theology generally, not in Paulinism. The develop- ment from the teaching of Jesus to the theology of John is natural and without a break, and it is this which explains its incomparable serenity.” 3 Ut supra, ed. 18, pp. x, xi; de Jésus, les trois premiers Evan- ef. ed. 17, 1882, pp. Iviii sq., giles et le quatriéme, 1866. 477 sq. > Encyclopédie des Sciences reli- 4 Essai sur les sowrces de la vie gieuses, 1880, vii. pp. 181-193. LECTURE V. 207 Professor Karl von Weizsiicker, who became Baur’s successor in the professorial chair at Tiibingen in 1861, published in 1864, after several essays in the Year-Book for German Theology of which he was editor,® his remarkable Investigations of the Gospel History.’ John is, he thinks, the indirect, a trusted disciple ‘of the Apostle is the direct, author; or it. might have been composed by disciples after the Apostle’s oral teaching or notes. The whole Gospel has a double character. At every point it is an his- torical report of the sayings and deeds of Christ ; but it is also an ideal composition, and every detail of the representation has a double sense. In his latest work on the Apostolic Age, published in 1886, and re- published in the present year,® Dr. Weizsiicker takes the age of the Apostles, properly so-called, to end at the year A.D. 70. The following thirty years are the Johannine period. There was a Johannine school in Ephesus. The two principal works which bear the name of John probably came from the school of the Apostle, but neither is the work of John, who re-’ mained a Jew and formed ἃ Jewish-Christian church.’ At the time the Gospel was written the Apostle was dead, but his death had not long taken place." Dr. Wendt, the Heidelberg professor, has in part 6 Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche 1886. Cf.thevaluable criticism by Theologie, 1857, pp. 154sqq.;1859, Loofs in Theologische Literaturzei- pp. 685 sqq.; 1862, pp. 619 sqq. tung, 1887, No. 3, pp. 51-61 ; ed. 7 Untersuchungen tiber die evan- 2, 1890. gelische Geschichte, 1864, 1. Theil, 9. Ibid. ed. 2, pp. 504 sq. 11. pp. 220-302. ' Ibid. p. 536. 8. Das Apostolische Zeitalter, Weiz- sicker, 1822- Wendt, 1853- The negative school : German 258 LECTURE ν. renewed and has also carried to fresh issues the theories of Weisse and Schenkel. He thinks, in his Doctrine of Jesus,’ that there is a genuine historical document issuing from John which corresponds to the Logoa used by Matthew. In the original Logia these dis- courses are confined to the last days of Jesus, but are by the editor made to extend over the whole ministry. Use is also made of sources of Pauline thought, and of the Acts of the Apostles. He finds traces of Hebrew origin in the part which has the primary historical document for a basis, and thinks that the writer was an Ephesian disciple of John.’ These writers, while they differ much from each other, agree in the opinion that the Gospel is in part, if not in whole, directly or indirectly, to be traced to the Apostle John. A number of other writers who are lineal descen- dants of the Tiibingen school, and are characterized by a similar boldness and a similar freedom, but are not strictly bound by either the principles or the results of their predecessors, may be conveniently grouped together and spoken of as ‘the present ne- gative school.’ The school will naturally have three chief divisions, the German, the Dutch, the English. It will be sufficient to notice the following :— Dr. Theodor Keim, to whom reference has already 2 Die Lehre Jesu, 1886,i. pp. in Theologische Literatwrzeitung, 215 sq. 1886, No. 9, pp. 197-200. 3 Cf. review by MHoltzmann LECTURE V. 259 been made in this course of lectures,* and whose too early death, in 1878, left a gap which has not yet been filled, held that the Gospel has an historical purpose, but that the writer is no eye-witness or setter forth of objective facts. He is everywhere under the control of the subjective idea. Before he comes to the history of Jesus, he gives a philosophic view of the universe, which is that of Philo. Dr. Keim thinks that when a historian begins with philosophy, he will adapt that which actually happened to suit his point of view.® The writer of the Fourth Gospel, in his opinion, finds the Logos before the creation of the world and traces it through all preceding history, and describes the life of Jesus in accordance with this idea and from this exalted standpoint. Unlike Luke, he declines to give a full history of Jesus,° and gives such a selection of details as will maintain the judgment of faith as to the person of Jesus, in opposition to Gnostic unbelief. The date is the time of Trajan, a.p. 100-117. Ina later recasting of Dr. Keim’s work, which was of a more popular character, the date is placed at about 4 Cf. Lecture I. p. 3. ohne Zweifel unter Kaiser Trajan > Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 1867-71, i. pp. 103-172 ; Dritte Bearbeitung, 2te Aufl.1875, pp. 38 sq., 377 sq. ; cf. Hausrath, Neu- testamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 1873, 111. pp. 565-625 ; 1877, iv. pp. 376 sqq. ® John, cap. xx. 30. 7 *Die dusseren Zeichen erge- ben: das 4. Evangelium ist in den Anfiingen des 2. Jahrhunderts zwischen 100-117 nach Chr. ent- standen, immerhin so spit nach den Synoptikern und nach dem Firsten der Synoptiker, dass es alle Miithe hatte, neben ihrer in den Gemeinden immer schon be- festigten Auctoritiit sich seine Bahn zu brechen.’? Keim, Ge- schichte Jesu von Nazara, 1867, Bd. 1. p. 146. m bo Keim, 1825— 1878. H. Holtz- mann, 1832- 260 LECTURE V. A.D. 130.5 The author is a Christian of Jewish origin, belonging to the Dispersion of Asia Minor. Dr. Heinrich Holtzmann, now professor in Stras- burg, a prolific author, whose recent Jntroduction to the New Testament has placed him in the first rank of writers on this subject, holds that the Gospel is an ideal composition based upon Synoptic material, of about the same period as the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas, and that it was generally admitted into the Church after about a.p. 150. The Logos Gospel is not so much a history of the life of Jesus as a picture of His inmost being. It is no more pure fiction than the assertion in 5. Matthew :— All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him ; ° and the solution of the problem is to be found in the balance of the ideal and historical elements. He holds that the Gospel was in the hands of Justin, A.D. 150, but that in Barnabas and Clement, Α.Ὁ. 93-125, we are only in a Johannine nebula. The star of the Gospel had not yet risen. “Das Evangelium ist also sqq.; Lehrbuch der Hinleitung in wahrscheinlich erst um’sJahr130 das Newe Testament, ed. 2, 1886, geschrieben worden;.. .’? Ed. pp. 438-488; Die Gnosis und das 1875, ut supra, p. 40. Johanneische Evangeliwm, 1877 : 9 Matt. xi. 27. cf. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche 1 In Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon, Theologie, 1869, pp. 62 sqq., 155 1869-1871, art. Hvangelium nach sqq., 446 sqq.; 1871, pp. 336 Johannes, ii. pp. 221 sqq., and art. sqq.; 1875, pp. 40 sqq.; 1877, pp. Johannes der Apostel, 111. pp. 328 187 sqq. LECTURE V. - 261 Dr. Wilhelm Honig is known to us from a series of remarkable articles on the construction of the Fourth Gospel which were published in filgenfeld’s Review.2 He presents a scheme with two main divisions, the one consisting of the first eleven chap- ters, and the other of the remainder of the Gospel, each division having an introduction and three parts.° The whole work is arranged in accordance with a preconceived plan of threes, and therefore is not historical.* Dr. Albrecht Thoma has already occupied our attention by his special investigations into Justin’s use of the Fourth Gospel.’ He is also the author of a work of high order on the origin of the Gospel, in which he regards the Evangelist as a Christian Philo, a child of the Alexandrine Judaism which proceeded from the chief school in Ephesus. He thinks that he is identical with the presbyter of the Second and Third Epistles of John, and somewhat later than the insurrection of Bar-Kochba, a.p. 132 or 133; and that he attempted to form a mosaic of the Logos-Christus revelation on the basis of the religious philosophy of Alexandria. He finds materials for his allegorical work in the Synoptic Gospels, the Old Testament, the writings of Philo, the substance of the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline development of > Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche pp. 85 sqq. : οἵ. Holtzmann, H. Theologie, 1871. J., ibid. 1881, pp. 257 sqq. ; and 3 John, cap. i.-xi. and xii.-xxi. LHinleitung, wt supra, p. 401. 4 Zeitschrift, ut supra, pp. 585 > Cf. Lecture II. pp. 73 sq. sqq.; 1883, pp. 216 sqq. ; 1884, Honig. Thoma, 1844— Mangold, 1825- 1890. Oscar Holtz- mann. 262 LECTURE V. It follows that the work The Fourth Gospel is only the setting of the Logos doctrine in a life of Jesus.° doctrine, the Apocalypse. can have no historical value. Dr. Wilhelm Mangold, professor at Bonn, and editor of the later editions of Bleek’s Introduction,’ appends to the more conservative pages of his author, a series of footnotes characterized by remarkable ability and fairness, but in the spirit of, and sometimes with the results of, the more negative criticism. His view of the Fourth Gospel is that the external evi- dence is scarcely less strong than that of the Synoptic Gospels, and would be sufficient to certify it, if the internal grounds for accepting the authenticity did not oppose, as it at least up to the present appears, insuperable difficulties.® Herr Oscar Holtzmann is a younger brother of the Strasburg professor, to whom we have just referred, but his work on the Gospel of John” is the result of independent and careful research ; and, while less pretentious than many, it is perhaps not less valuable than any work of this school. The Fourth Gospel is for him a Christian book of devo- tion, rather than an artistic presentation of a philo- sophy of religion, and he here avowedly sides with ® Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaft- ment, ed. 4, 1886. Cf. Lecture liche Theologie, 1877, pp. 289 sqq. ; 1879, pp. 18 sqq., 171 sqq., 273 sqq. ; Die Genesis des Johannes- Hvangeliums, 1882. τ Hinleitung in das Neue Testa- VI. p. 314. 8 Einleitung, ut supra, p. 388, note. ® Das Johannesevangelium un- tersucht wnd erklirt, 1887. LECTURE V. 263 Luthardt, and not with Thoma.!. The Gospel is, he thinks, grafted on the post-Pauline literature which was influenced by Alexandrine Judaism. The teach- ing of Paul and that of Philo are elements in its com- position. The author is a Jewish Christian living between A.p. 70 and 135, and his dependence upon the Luke Gospel makes it probable that he did not write before A.D. 100.2 It is hardly possible to assign a more exact date than the first quarter of the second century.° It is especially worthy of notice that Holtzmann follows Thoma and Keim in holding that the author was a Jew by birth,’ and still more important that so | weighty an authority as Schiirer, writing in July 1887,° thinks this opinion to be in the highest degree probable. The modern Dutch school, which has of late years taken a prominent place in advanced criticism and subjective theories, and is duly heralded by a special Theological Journal,’ may for the present purpose be represented by Scholten, the late Emeritus Professor of Leyden, though, as Dr. Salmon remarks, it became as hard for a young professor, anxious to gain a reputation for ingenuity, to make a new assault on a New Testament book, as it is now for an Alpine club man to find 1 Das Johannesevangeluum, 5 Cf. Schiirer’s review in Theo- W.8.W., Ὁ. 4. logische Literaturzeitung, 1887, No. * Ibid. p. 79. 14, p. 331. 3 Ibid. p. 173. ὁ Theologisch Tijdschrift. 4 Ibid. p. 74. Dutch: Scholten, 1811- 1885. 264 LECTURE V. in Switzerland a virgin peak to climb. The consequence has been that in Holland, Scholten and others, who had been counted as leaders in the school of destructive criticism, have been obliged to come out in the character of conservatives, striving to prove, in opposition to Loman, that there really did live such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, and that it is not true that every one of the epistles ascribed to Paul is a forgery.” Scholten’s chief treatise is The Gospel according to John,® published in 1864, in which he asks :-— Is the fourth Evangelist John the son of Zebedee?... . the writer of the Apocalypse? .... a Palestinian Jew? . adew?? And to each question he gives a negative answer. His view of the Fourth Gospel is that it is an ideal conception of the evangelical history. It is the highest form of the revelation of Christianity, and has attained this height by assuming the ele- ments of truth which it found in Gnosticism, and in the doctrines of Marcion and Montanus. It thus 7 Introduction, ed. 2, p. 379. Cf. Holtzmann, H. J., Hinleitung, ed. 2, pp. 192-3. 8 Historisch-kritische Inleidung in de Schriften des Niewwe Testa- ments, 1853, ed. 2, and in Ger- man, 1856; Schrifter van den Apostel Johannes ὧν Bijbelsch woordenboek, Amsterdam, 1855— he here takes the Gospel to be Johannine ; Het Evangelie naar Johannes, 1864-66—German by Lang, 1867—French by Réville, in Revue de Théologie, Strasburg, 1864-66 ; De oudste getwigenissen, and in German, Die diltesten Zeugnisse, by Manchot, 1867 ; Het Apostel Johannes in Klein- Asié, 1871—and in German, by Spiegel, 1872. ° Ts de vierde evangelist Jo- hannes, de zoon van Zebedeiis ? .... deschrijver der Apocalypse? . een palestijnsche Jood? . eenJood ?’—Het Evangelie naar Johannes, ut supra, part v. pp. 399-440. LECTURE V. 265 freed Christianity from the authority of the Old Testament, and from Jewish-Christian and Petrine elements. Such passages as— Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. And this is the will of him that sent me, that everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have ever- lasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and 1 will raise him up at the last day. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.! are insertions, perhaps by the hand which wrote the twenty-first chapter. The Logos become flesh is king in a realm of truth, and the Paraclete is the principle of truth. Baur, in his opinion, is wrong in thinking that the author wished to support the Eastern view of the Paschal question; he established the Pauline spiritualism which would abolish all feasts. The author is a philosophically trained Gentile-Christian, and the date is about 150. In Scholten’s later work, The Oldest Witnesses,” he can find no trace of the Gospel before 170, and in discus- sing the residence in Asia Minor he came to the 1 John v. 28, 29; vi. 40, 44; 2 Die iiltesten Zeugnisse, p. xii. 48. 180. English : Tayler, St 1869. 266 LECTURE V. conclusion that John was never in Asia Minor and was not the author of the Apocalypse.* The modern negative school has had few advo- cates of any prominence among English writers upon the Fourth Gospel—they have for the most part con- tented themselves by speaking of the work as already accomplished on the Continent ; but the following demand notice at our hands :— Mr. J. J. Tayler, formerly Principal of Manchester New College, in an able and thoroughly candid but, as it seems to me, an unconsciously partial criticism, assigns the Gospel to the first half of the second cen- tury. The writer’s investigations are made at first hand, but he is largely guided by Hilgenfeld, especi- ally on the Paschal question,* to which he devotes no small part of his inquiry. It cannot but be re- gretted that it has been impossible to have the judg ment of so real a scholar and thinker, since the new lights which have been shed upon the criticism of the Fourth Gospel during the last twenty years. The opinion which Mr. Tayler formed was that the Gospel is not the work of the Apostle, and was probably written by John the Presbyter. He has little doubt that the author of the Gospel and the First Epistle were one and the same person. The ° Cf. Hilgenfeld in opposition Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1872, pp. to this: Zeitschrift fiir wissen- 325-330, and in Appendix to schaftliche Theologie, 1872, pp. German edition of the Zeugnisse. 349-383, and Scholten’s reply in * Cf. Lecture VIII. p. 424. LECTURE V. 267 Gospel and the Apocalypse cannot be by the same author.” Mr. Tayler found how impossible it was, in every case but that of Paul, to establish satisfactory evidence of direct personal author- ship: and came at length to the full persuasion, that the one point of importance to ascertain respecting any particular book, was simply this;—that, whoever might have written it, it belonged to the first age, while the primitive inspiration was still clear and strong,—and that it could be regarded as a genuine expression of the faith and feeling which then pre- vailed.® The work entitled Supernatural Religion” was published anonymously, and the name of the author The book created for the moment a great sensation, and six has never been authoritatively declared. editions were issued in a little more than twelve months.’ This treatise is not primarily a critical discussion on the Fourth Gospel. It is, like the work of Strauss, occupied with other matters, and a writer who undertakes an inquiry about the Fourth Gospel, after he has placed before his readers a lengthy 5 An Attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, especially in its Relation to the Three First, London, 1867; ed. 2, by J.[ames]| M.[artineau], 1870 ; The Theological Review, vol. v. pp. 373-401, July 1868, review of Davidson’s Introduction: cf. infra, pp. 272 and 285. ὁ Preface, ut supra, 1867, p. vil. 8 Preface, recently republished, in a reply to Dr. Lightfoot’s essays, to ed. 6, March 15, 1873. This preface contains a reply to criticisms on the work. The contents of the original edition are arranged as follows :—Part I. Miracles, vol. i. pp. 1-216 ; Part Il. The Synoptic Gospels, vol. i. pp. 217-490; vol. 1]. pp. i Wid: .1,42 vols, 1874s eds. 7. ‘complete edition, carefully re- vised,’ 1879. 1-250; Part III. The Fourth Gospel, vol. ii. pp. 251-492. Super- natural Religion. Opinions of this work by 268 LECTURE V. negative criticism on miracles and the supernatural, can hardly be said to approach the historical investi- gation with an open mind. The expectation will be raised—and it is not disappointed—that the author has adopted the extremer opinions of some continental writers, and that he thinks the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel to be on all grounds wholly unworthy of credit. For the sake of compari- son with some writers of the same school, the follow- ing statements may be noted :— The external evidence that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse is more ancient than that for the authorship of any book of the New Testament, excepting some of the Epistles of Paul.° | Whilst a strong family likeness exists between the Epistles and the Gospel, and they exhibit close analogies both in thought and language, the Apocalypse, on the con- trary, is so different from them in language, in style, in religious views and terminology, that it is impossible to believe that the writer of the one could be the author of the other.! The publication of this work naturally attracted the attention of scholars ; and the criticism of Bishops Lightfoot and Westcott, of Drs. Sanday and Ezra Abbot produced permanent additions to theological literature.” Further criticism is not now needed, but the general character of the book may be briefly indicated by two or three examples. The following ° Supernatural Religion, ed. 1, * Cf. Lecture VI. pp. 336 and part iii. vol. ii. p. 392. 343 sqq. ' Ibid. p. 388. LECTURE V. 269 notes will serve to show Dr. Zahn’s view as to the author’s treatment of the Tenatian question :— What I have already said against the author of the book Supernatural Religion, who mixes up different recensions and reiterates the most trifling arguments of others, must suffice. Volkmar had a follower in the writer of the book Super- natural Religion, more audacious even than himself. Similarly as to Polycarp :— The author of the book Supernatural Religion also, doubt- ing whether he should say that the whole was supposititious or that it was interpolated, repeated the arguments of Dallaeus which had been refuted a thousand times. Lightfoot an- swered him splendidly, and in every way argued with great ability on the integrity and authenticity of the Epistle.° Ten years after its publication, when the con- troversy had ceased and the book was well-nigh for- gotten, this was Dr. Salmon’s judgment upon it :— The extreme captiousness of its criticism found no approval from respectable foreign reviewers, however little they might be entitled to be classed as believers in Revelation. Dates were assigned in it to some of our New Testament books so late as to shock anyone who makes an attempt fairly to judge 3 ¢ Contra auctorem libri Super- natural Religion 1. 264 sq., recen- siones diversas confundentem et aliorum levissima argumenta ite- rantem sufficiunt, quae dixi Ign. 117 sq.’ Patr. Ap. Opp. fase. ii. 1876, p. vi. * “Sectatorem [Volkmaro] audaciorem habuit scriptorem libri Supernatwral Religion, i. 268,’—Ibid. p. xii. ipso auctore 5. *Ktiam auctor libri Super- natural Religion, i. 274-278, ed. 2, haesitans, utrum totam supposi- ticlam, an interpolatam diceret, argumenta Dallaei sexcenties re- futata repetivit. LEgregie illi re- spondit et omnino de integritate atque authentia epistulae optime disputavit Lightfootius (Contemp. Review, 1875, May, p. 838-852). Ibid. p. xlv. Zahn, Salmon. Abbott, 1838- 270 LECTURE V. of evidence. And the reason is, that the author starts with the denial of the supernatural as his fixed principle. . . . This book . .. . obtained a good deal of notoriety by dint of enormous puffing, great pains having been taken to produce a belief that Bishop Thirlwall was the author. The aspect of the pages, bristling with learned references, strengthened the impression that the author must be a scholar of immense reading. The windbag collapsed when Lightfoot showed that this supposed Bishop Thirlwall did not possess even a schoolboy acquaintance with Greek and Latin, and that his references were in some cases borrowed wholesale, in others did not prove the things for which they were cited, and very often appealed to writers whose opinion is of no value. But what I wish here to remark is, that what really made the book worthless was not its want of scholarship, but its want of candour. . . . want of candour vitiates a book through and through. There is no profit in examining the conclu- sions arrived at by a writer who never seems to care on which side lies the balance of historic probability, but only which conclusion will be most disagreeable to the assertors of the supernatural. For myself, I find instruction in studying the results arrived at by an inquirer who strives to be candid, whether he be orthodox or not; but I have little curiosity to find out the exact amount of evidence which would leave a captious objector without a word to say in justification of his refusal to admit it.® Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, late Master of the City of London School, must be classed among those who do not admit S$. John’s authorship or Justin’s use of the Fourth Gospel, but his able and interesting articles are, as might have been expected from a scholar of the writer’s position, widely different in tone from the preceding English work. His general 6 Historical Introduction to the New Testament, ed. 2, pp. 9, 10. LECTURE V. 201 conclusion as to the external evidence, based upon a somewhat cursory examination, is that, although some of the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, expressed in words similar to the words of the Fourth Gospel, was probably current in the Ephesian church towards the end of the first half of the second century, yet it was not by that time widely used, if at all, as an authoritative document; nor have we proof that it was so used till the times of Irenzeus, z.e., towards the end of the second century, by which time the Gospel was authoritatively quoted as a work of John; and those who so quoted it probably meant by ‘ John,’ John the son of Zebedee, the apostle.” After a fuller examination of the internal evidence the writer comes to this conclusion :— It is more easy to arrive at negative than at positive re- sults, when evidence is so slight ; but it seems probable that the author, attempting to give the spiritual essence of the gospel of Christ, as a gospel of love, and assigning the Ephesian Gospel to the beloved disciple who had presided over the Ephesian church, by way of honour and respect (for the same reasons which induced the author of the 2nd Epistle of Peter to assign that Epistle to the leading apostle), and being at the same time conscious that the book (though representing the Kphesian doctrine generally, and in part the traditions of John the apostle, as well as those of Andrew, Philip, Aristion, and John the elder) did not represent the exact words and teaching of the disciple—added the words ‘We know, &c.,’ partly as a kind of imprimatur of Andrew, Philip, and the rest; partly in order to imply that other traditions besides those of John are set forth in the book ; partly to characterize the book as a Gospel of broader basis and 7 Article Gospels, in Encyclo- Fourth Gospel, in Modern Review, pedia Britamvica, ed. 9, 1879, 1882, pp. 559-588 ; 716-756. CE. vol, x. p. 824; Justin’s Use of the Lecture II. p. 80. Davidson, 1807- His Jntro- duction. Dedica- tion. 212 LECTURE V. greater authority than the less spiritual traditions issuing from non-apostolic authors, which our evangelist desired to correct or supplement.® Dr. Abbott thinks that ‘there is unusually strong evidence to show that John the apostle wrote the Apocalypse ;’ and regards the First Epistle, with Dr. Lightfoot, ‘as a kind of postscript to the Gospel.’ ὃ But the most important representative of the negative school among English writers is Dr. Samuel Davidson, who has occupied for nearly half a cen- tury a prominent place among biblical critics. This writer's direct influence on the study of English biblical criticism must have been considerable, and his indirect influence has been probably still greater. It is therefore necessary to our present subject—the negative criticism of our age—to devote to it more space than could be afforded to writers whose emi- nence might seem to have stronger claims. For this reason the statement of his position has been reserved for the close of the present lecture. His earlier work, an Jntroduction to the New Testa- ment,’ published just forty years ago, specially appeals to the suffrages of scholars. Its opening page bears the well-known words of Milton :— It is to the Learned that I address myself, or if it be thought that the Learned are not the best Umpires and Judges 8 Article Gospels, ut supra, p. ' An Introduction to the New 841. Testament, 3 vols. 1848-51. ® Ibid. pp. 818, 819. LECTURE V. ΟἿΣ of such things, I should at least wish to submit my Opinion to Men of amature and manly Understanding, possessing a thorough Knowledge of the Doctrines of the Gospel ; on whose Judgments I should rely with far more Confidence, than on those of Novices in these Matters. And the closing paragraph of the preface contains the same thought :— If it obtain the approbation of competent judges, his time will not have been spent in vain.? The author is himself a competent judge of the newer criticism, and refers to it in the following cris <—— It is the Writer’s belief that the books of the New Testa- ment are destined ere long to pass through a severe ordeal. The translations of various Continental works which have recently appeared in England, and the tendency of certain speculations in philosophy, indicate a refined scepticism or a pantheistic spirit which confounds the objective and the subjective, or unduly subordinates the former to the latter. Many are disposed to exalt their intuitions too highly, to the detriment of the his- torical, as Kant did his ‘ Pure Reason.’ These observations will serve to show why the Author has gone with considerable fulness into objections that have been urged in modern times against the New Testament books, and especially against the Gospels. He thinks it highly probable that such objections will appear in one shape or other in this country. Hence he has partially anticipated their currency. . . . Hence the Author has noticed the researches of the Tii- bingen school of theologians, not from a desire to make known extravagant and startling assertions to an English Public, but because his work would not otherwise have been complete ; and because he thinks it not improbable that similar doubts 2 An Introduction, etc., p. x. The newer criticism, The author’s position. 274 LECTURE V. may be introduced into England, and may meet with accept- ance from certain minds which are predisposed to welcome the new and the destructive however intrinsically false.’ In another place the author tells us that He has intentionally overlooked no source of information with which he is acquainted, English or foreign ; and if he has not everywhere chosen to specify each one, it should be recollected that he had to exercise his own judgment in mentioning the most important, and such as are least known to general readers.‘ Once again he reminds us that He has prosecuted his studies in the New Testament by day and by night, for several years, in the belief that though the work to which he had committed himself was indeed most difficult, it behoved him, while life and health remained, to do something for the illustration and defence of God’s holy word, at a time when scepticism of a peculiar order prevails in the land. He can truly say, that he has tried to be impartial in his inquiries, divesting himself of preconceived notions as far as they might impede research. . . . He must say, however, that he has no sympathy with the avowed advocates of systems, creeds, and parties. . . . He appeals to the honest lovers of truth—to the patient inquirers after God’s will in the New Testament—to the anxious and humble student of books claiming to be sacred because of heavenly origin.” The author who set this task before himself, and entered upon it in this spirit of freedom and devotion to truth, had special qualifications for his work. He was in the prime of his manhood.’ He had been for 5 Introduction, ut swpra, vol. 1. > Ibid. vol. iii. 1851, pp. xi, xii. 1848, pp. vi, vii. δ. Forty-one to forty-four : born 4 Ibid. vol. ii., 1849, pp. v, vi. 1807. LECTURE V. 279 six years, 1835-1841, Professor of Biblical Criticism at Belfast to the General Synod of Ulster ; and for a like period, from 1842, Professor of Biblical Litera- ture and Ecclesiastical History in the Lancashire Independent College at Manchester. The University of Aberdeen had conferred upon him the degree of LL.D. in 1838, and he had already published a series of important works on this and cognate subjects.’ In writing the /ntroduction, the author was, as he himself informs us, encouraged by the favourable opinions of scholars in this land, in Germany, and in America, whose names stand in the fore- most rank of learning,® and, excepting a somewhat excessive strength of statement from which the writer is seldom free, the favourable opinion was fully earned. The book had no equal in the English language at the time ; it has in some respects no equal now. The portion of the work which is devoted to the Fourth Gospel contains 147 closely printed large 8vo pages, which deal with all the chief problems con- nected with the authorship. The following extracts will sufficiently show the result of the writer’s careful inquiry :— It is difficult to say what evidence would be satisfactory to some. Much depends on the disposition with which they 7 Lectures on Biblical Critic- Lcclesiastical Polity of the New ism, 1839 ; Sacred Hermeneutics, Testament, 1848, Schaff-Herzog, 1843 ; Gieseler’s Compendium of Encyclopedia ; Supplement, p. 49. Ecclesiastical History, translated 8 Ut supra, vol. iii. p. xi. from the German, 1846-47 ; πο His view of the Fourth Gospel. Conclu- sion as to 276 LECTURE V. commence their researches, for they may have a strong feeling against the acceptance of all testimony, except what the circumstances of the case do not warrant. It is natural to seek for express and direct testimonies; but they cannot always be found. In the field of criticism, approximations to historic truth will necessarily constitute the results beyond which an inquirer cannot go. He must combine the materials before him, weigh minute circumstances, and draw conclusions in many cases where irresistible evidence is wanting. He must be often contented with probability instead of certainty. It is idle to demand tangible proof on every occasion.® Again— When those who date the origin of our Gospel in the second century venture to specify the precise time or nearly so at which it appeared, it is easy to demonstrate the impossibility of its immediate and general reception as a sacred book by the catholic church. On their hypothesis it started, as if by a miracle, into common use and authority. There was none to detect or expose the fraud. Men who had been John’s dis- ciples, or who had conversed with him or his disciples, did not venture to raise their voice against the supposititious work. All were deceived, or disgracefully silent respecting the imposture. They discarded other apocryphal productions ; they would not admit other spurious Gospels, while they un- hesitatingly adopted this. Whoever can believe the truth of such a representation is far more credulous than the early Christians, whose easy faith forms an object of his contempt.! A oaln— In bringing our remarks on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel to a close, we cannot refrain from expressing our deep and growing conviction of the historical fidelity by which the sacred document is pervaded. ‘That it bears the impress of ® Introduction, ut supra, vol. i. 1 Ibid. vol. i. pp. 270, 271. p. 254. LECTURE V. 21 the beloved disciple, fresh and vivid from his tender spirit, appears to us unquestionable. And that it purports to be from his pen is not less apparent. There are, it is true, difficulties connected with it which may never be satisfactorily resolved, amid our ignorance of the circumstances in which it appeared ; but such difficulties belong in part to every ancient book, and are immeasurably increased in the present case, on the suppo- sition of our Gospel having originated in the second century on Hellenistic ground. The man who could exhibit such a por- trait of Christ from his own reflection and fancy at that later period, must have been a prodigy to which the century pre- sents nothing approaching to a parallel; for it need not be told how barren that century was in individuals of creative intellect and large heart, like the author of the document in question. And then it must be maintained, not only that he produced a work equally removed from the anthropomor- phic, material religiousness, as from the narrow intellectuality of his day, but that he remained in miraculous concealment. The spirit, elevated so far above his countrymen and contem- poraries, giving utterance to such aspects of Christ’s character as have attracted universal humanity in all future time, con- tinued unknown. Lxerting, as he did, immeasurable influence on the consciousness of the Christian church, he was always buried in impenetrable obscurity. And yet he was able to procure universal acceptance for his work as though it really belonged to an apostolic time, and to an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ. He completely succeeded in his impos- ture. The few great ideas which he clothed with flesh and blood, commended themselves with astonishing readiness to the mind and heart of the Christian world, undetected in their source, age, and aim. ‘Those who can believe all this, with Baur and his school, have renounced all claim to genuine historical criticism, by abandoning themselves to a reckless caprice, where calmness of investigation and unbiassed love of truth are entirely wanting.? 2 Introduction, ut supra, vol. 1. pp. 311, 312. its authen- ticity. Second Introduc- tion. Change ot view 278 LECTURE V. Less than twenty years later Dr. Davidson published his second Introduction.? He regarded it not as a new edition of the earlier work, but as an essentially new work. He was determined to conduct his investigations as though he had never written on the subject. He claims, and no one will question the claim, that twenty years’ study may well modify, correct, or enlarge views to which an honest though less perfect investigation had formerly led.‘ His views are, again, not put forward lightly, but after anxious thought.’ When and under what influences the process of modifying, correcting, and enlarging commenced is not told. In 1848 the conviction of the historical fidelity of the Fourth Gospel is so strong that an expression of it cannot be refrained, and it is still ‘erowing.’® In the preface to the concluding volume of the work,’ the same general tone is maintained.® In 1868 the growing tree of 1851 has been plucked 3 An Introduction to the Study geblieben, wie in der Auflage von of the New Testament, 2 vols., 1868...’ Schiirer, Theologische 1868. In the second edition of Literatwrzeitwng, 1882, No. 17, this work, published in 1882, the ρ. 394. matter is rearranged and in part * Ut supra, 1868, vol. i. pp. vii, rewritten so as to incorporate the viii. more recent negative criticisms. 5. Ibid. p. ix. The standpoint is the same, and 6. Ut supra, vol. 1. 1848, p. 311. there are no material additions. 7 May 15, 1851. ‘Der Standpunkt des Verfassers ὃ Ut supra, vol, iii. 1851, pp. xi, im Allgemeinen ist aber derselbe xii. LECTURE V. 279 out by the roots, and hardly any mark of its exist- ence left behind, for another tree of sturdy growth has taken its place. The later views have long been in process of formation ; but the earlier views seem also to have satisfied the author’s convictions, for he himself frankly tells us :-— Though often requested by correspondents to write another book, he could not think of doing so while his earlier one remained unexhausted.? The new views of the Fourth Gospel cannot be better described than in the words which the author himself applies to the difference between the John of the New Testament and the writer of the Gospel :— The development . . . is too great for belief. It is not a development, so much as an entire change of views—an interior metamorphosis which could not have been followed by a serenity perfectly free from traces of the process it succeeded. We can hardly suppose that the mental conflicts of the writer had entirely passed away.! It is not merely that the writer now holds the date to be ‘about a.p. 150,’ and naively confesses, Keim’s date, a.D. 110-117 under Trajan, makes it exceedingly difficult to disprove Johannine authorship.? It is not that he has modified many of his views and arrived at different results ; but at almost every chief point in the discussion the later opinions are the 9. Introduction, ut supra, 1868, 2 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 426. Keim vol. i. p. vil. afterwards put the date at about 1 Tbid. vol. ii. p. 442. 130: supra, p. 260. on the Fourth Gospel. Similar treatment of the Acts. 280 LECTURE YV. exact opposite of the earlier ones. It is as though a corrector for the press had written ‘for 18 read 7s not, for is not read is passim.’ Nor is the reader allowed to see anywhere the process by which the change is arrived at. The discussion of ‘The Gospel of John’ occupies 146 pages of the new work. Much of it is entirely new, much of the old matter is entirely omitted, and the reader is allowed to wade through these pages without a hint that the author had more fully still established all through the opposite con- clusions, and without an attempt to show that the earlier statements are erroneous or the earlier argu- ments inconclusive. Nor is this inconsistency of criticism confined to Ὁ. John. To examine it at any length would be beyond the limits of the present inquiry, but the discussion of one other book—the Acts of the Apostles, which comes next in order, and the treat- ment of which is intimately bound up with our present subject—will provide another illustration of the writer’s method. In 1868 this is his opinion :— These observations lead to the conclusion that the object of the writer was conciliatory. He had two parties in view, Jewish- and Gentile-christian, which he wished to bring nearer to one another. In the interest of that object he moulds the history. A Gentile-christian himself, and regard- ing Paul as the great apostle, he shows how near he comes to Peter and the other apostles in conduct and sentiments, while fully equal to them in official qualifications. . . . To further Pauline Christianity by bringing the two ecclesiastical parties more closely together, was the author’s leading aim. LECTURE V. 281 This opinion is confirmed by the third gospel, in which the writer was actuated by a like purpose. . . . From the con- tents of the first chapter compared with the end of the gospel, an interval of several years must be put between the two books, bringing the date of the Acts to about a.p. 125.3 So far our author. Now here are Hegel’s trinity and Baur’s tendency pure and simple. Previous quotations show that the writer had, in 1848-51, already examined and rejected these theories as a whole. The following words will show his view of them as applied to the Acts :— In taking leave of this topic, we hesitate not to assert that the idea of the book being fabricated by a later unknown writer, with whatever motive he set about the task, involves the improbable, not to say the impossible, at every step. ‘The fabricator must have had the Pauline epistles before him, and studied them with the most minute attention. After becoming intimately familiar with their contents, even to the smallest and apparently the most unimportant particulars, he sat down to write in such a way as to incorporate many notices derived from them with his materials. Here he needed consummate skill, lest the deception should be detected. The art demanded for the work was of the most refined and exquisite nature. Where did such a man appear in the early times of Christianity? It is impossible to point to a pheno- menon so marvellous as this. ‘The wakefulness and talents of the person who palmed the history on his own generation as the authentic production of Paul’s companion, must have been extraordinary. Not so constructed are the forgeries of that period. They are clumsy and inartificial. They have there- fore been detected long ago by the test of fair criticism. But the book of Acts has stood this test, unshaken. It was reserved indeed for Hegelianism to expose its alleged preten- 3 Introduction, 1868, ut supra, vol. ii. pp. 280, 282. Criticism on this change, 282 LECTURE V. sions: a species of hypercriticism which would soon reduce the genuine histories of all antiquity to nonentities or forgeries. But we are confident that the credibility of the Acts will be universally acknowledged long after the negative criticism has vanished away like every temporary extrava- gance of unbridled reason, or rather of unbridled scepticism. If there were the least prospect of Baur’s opinion regarding the Acts becoming current, we should refer the reader to Kling,! who has satisfactorily exposed and refuted the attempt to give the history a mythic character, or in other words to reduce it to an apologetic fiction.° Now there are more than ordinary reasons for treating the work of Dr. Samuel Davidson with respectful deference. The venerable author is more than fourscore years of age, and is therefore pro- tected from the shafts of criticism. But truth de- mands from us a reverence more entire even than that which we owe to age; and when a critic of Dr. Davidson’s position is put forward as one of the few men among us who is free from prejudice, and whose opinion should therefore command our assent, it is clearly a duty which cannot be rightly avoided, to inquire what is the real value of that opinion. In the presence of the exaggerated estimate of German works on the New Testament so often made, not by German but by English writers, in deprecia- tion of the works of their countrymen, and the high estimate of Dr. Davidson’s work on the ground that it represents the latest result of German scholar- * Theologische Studien und Kri- 5. Ut supra, vol. ii. 1849, pp. 51, tiken, 1837, Heft ii. pp. 290-327. 52. LECTURE V. 283 ship, the following extract from a review of the second edition of his new Introduction, by Dr. Emil Schiirer, is not unimportant. It will hardly be necessary to state that Dr. Schiirer does not write from the point of view of a conservative orthodoxy, or of belief in the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. The broad platform of the Literary Journal, which is edited by Dr. Schiirer in connexion with Dr. Harnack, and the high character of its articles, are known to all students :— Davidson was a student in Germany, and is well acquainted with German literature. He prizes it highly, almost too highly, even to the point of being unjust towards researches in his own country. For his summary rejection of all recent English commentaries on the New Testament (p. vi. imperfect, however, as are all English commentaries of recent origin) is not justified in view of Lightfoot’s valuable works. With his preference for German literature, he confines himself almost solely to the works of German theologians whom he mentions, and with whose views he deals. If it were not for the garb of a foreign language, one might often fancy that this book was written in Germany. The author has not, however, made very full reference to recent German literature. Among reviews, he chiefly uses Hilgenfeld’s Review of Scientific Theology, while other contributions to the subject of the New Testament which have lately appeared in German reviews are almost entirely ignored. In other ways his use of recent literature is very limited, although the survey as a whole is brought down to the latest date. This survey of recent literature, however, as well as several modifications in his own views, have necessitated various incidental changes in the present edition.® ® Schiirer, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1882, wt supra, No. 17, p. 394, by Schiirer. Both views cannot be right. His position between the two editions. 284 LECTURE V. Dr. Davidson may have always been, and may now be, and it is not intended in the slightest degree to suggest that he has not been, or is not, a perfectly candid inquirer after truth, but his judgment may have been quite unconsciously warped by circum- stances, just as that of other men has been. If the Dr. Davidson of forty years ago, writing with so much preparation and with so many advantages of every kind, and with such a solemn sense of respon- sibility, was in any degree right in his views of the Fourth Gospel, then the Dr. Davidson of to-day is in the same degree wrong. It is a case of Hume and Mackintosh over again,’ and we are bound to form our own opinion as to which view is the correct one. It should be based upon a perusal of both works. To my own mind the earlier work has a calm dignity of strength which is absent from the later one; and for my own part I have little doubt that an en- tirely impartial mind, trained to examine and esti- mate evidence, would, if his reading were limited to the works of Dr. Samuel Davidson, decide in favour of the Johannine authorship. And in the case of Dr. Davidson, as in the case of Strauss,® much had passed between the two editions of his work. In the year 1857 he resigned the Professor- ship of Biblical Literature and Ecclesiastical His- tory in the Lancashire Independent College, ‘in consequence of an adverse vote of the managing committee, apparently founded upon the view of 7 Cf. Lecture I. pp. 12 sq. 8 Cf. Lecture IV. p. 108. LECTURE. V; 285 inspiration expressed in the second volume of the tenth edition of Horne’s Jntroduction,’® that is, upon a question of Old Testament criticism which had nothing whatever to do with the authenticity and genuineness of the Fourth Gospel or of any book of the New Testament. Dr. Davidson’s position in this controversy, especially in the attack which was made upon his scholarship,’ was one in which he deserved, and received, the full sympathy of his brother critics of all schools ; but it is impossible not to ask what would have been the result if the vote of the major- ity of the committee of the Lancashire Independent College had been a different one. It is impossible not to regret that Dr. Davidson has not given us more full reasons for his change of view in the almost numberless points in which that view has been changed; and it is impossible not to feel that the claim made by his friends*—I know of no occa- sion on which he has made any such claim for him- self—that he is the striking example of absolute freedom from bias, when compared with men whose scholarship and integrity and freedom from bias are certainly as little subject to question as his own, and whose position in criticism has been a well- ordered and consistent whole, is one which cannot be sustained. ® Schaff- Herzog, Encyclopedia ; * See e.g. Atheneum, No. Supplement, p. 49. 3232, 5th October 1889, p. 448 ; 1 See, e.g. Dr. Davidson, his Nineteenth Century, March 1889, Heresies, Contradictions, and Pla- p. 468. giarisms, 1857, by two graduates. 286 LECTURE V. The two latest critics : The second edition of Mr. Tayler’s essay, to which reference has been made in this lecture,? was published after his death under the editorial care of his. friend and successor Dr. James Martineau ; but the work has no important additions from the editor’s hand. Dr. Martineau’s remarkable position in the Dr. James Marti- neau, 1805- regard of this generation of thinkers has been gained on the field of philosophy and ethics, rather than on that of criticism or exegesis ; but between the years 1872 and 1875, he published a series of papers in a New England monthly periodical,* which included some essays on the Fourth Gospel. The series was not completed, because the periodical itself came to an end, and occupation with the important works which have in the meantime been given to us and have met with most thankful acceptance, has hitherto prevented their author from presenting them in a finished and a permanent form. aeons: But during the interval which has occurred in ral posi- aad this course of lectures, in consequence of the arrange- ment of the University terms, Dr. Martineau has published a volume on authority in religion, which is largely a re-working of the earlier papers, and includes some sections on the writings that are com- monly ascribed to ὃ. John.” The author discloses 5 Supra, pp. 266 sq. 4 Old and New, Boston. The papers on the Fourth Gospel were published in the numbers for July and August, 1874, vol. x. pp. 47- 58 and 201-222. The motto of the magazine is suggestive : ‘The New does not supplant the Old, but completes it.’—Everett. 5 Martineau: The Seat of Au- thority in Religion, 1890, pp. 189- 243 and 509-12. LECTURE V. 287 his position in the preface, which tells us ‘ that, under such guidance as that of Scholten, Hatch, Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, Harnack, and Weizsiicker,® even a veteran student may find it possible, with no very wide reading, to readjust his judgments to the altered conditions of the {1π|6. 7 And of these writers it would seem, if we may judge by results, that Scholten has been chief guide in so far as con- cerns the writings of 8. John. But it will be pos- sible to state Dr. Martineau’s conclusions very briefly and in his own words. On the unity of composition he thinks :— Whether or not it rightly bears the name of the apostle John, it is, at all events, free from the doubts and complica- tions arising from the process of growth out of prior materials of different dates: it needs no analysis into component elements ; it is plainly a whole, the production of a single mind,—a mind imbued with a conception of its subject con- sistent and complete, and not less distinct for being mystical and of rare spiritual depth.’ On the power of detecting the author by the writing, he says :-— No such divination is possible; and wherever a critic pretends, by the mere keenness of his unaided eye, to have detected the writer in some unheard-of quarter,—like the Ziirich scholar who made out that this very Gospel was certainly the production of Apollos,°—we justly look on the 6 But cf. Weizsicker’s view of 8 Op. cit. p. 189, and Article in the Fourth Gospel as stated in Old and New, ut supra, p. 47. this lecture, supra, p. 257. ° ‘Die Evangelienfrage, Denk- 7 Seat of Authority, ut supra, schrift, Ziirich, 1858.’ Cf. supra, Preface, p. vi. pp. 249 sq. His views on the unity of composi- tion. Author. External evidence. 288 LECTURE V. pretension as audacious, and its proofs as a waste of ingenuity. We are absolutely dependent, for the first suggestion of an author’s rame, on the witnesses who speak of it; and any disabilities attaching to these witnesses must seriously affect our reliance on their reports, and throw a greater burden on the internal confirmatory proofs. The primary and substan- tive evidence is testimonial; which, once given, may gain weight by various congruities, or lose it by incongruities in the writing itself; but which, if not given, can be replaced by neither.’ The results of the external testimony are stated as follows :— Can we, then, sum up the testimony of our witnesses to any definite result? From various quarters the line of their evidence seems to converge upon one time for the origin of this Gospel. [Probably] not known to Justin (about 155), but possibly to the author of the Clementines (about 170) ; not in the hands of Valentinus (about 160), but in those of his disciples, Ptolemzeus and Herakleon (180 and 190); not used by Marcion (about 150), but by Marcionites of the next generation; cited by Apollinaris (about 175); for the first time named by Theophilus of Antioch (about 180); the fourth Gospel would seem to have become known in the sixth or seventh decade of the second century, and to have ceased to be anonymous in the eighth. Time must be allowed, prior to these dates, for its gradual distribution from the place of its nativity to the literary centres of the church and of the Gnostic sects. But even the most liberal allow- ance, which, consistently with the habits of the age and the organization of Christendom, can be claimed for this purpose, will leave us a long way from the apostolic generation. We cannot confidently name any earlier date than the fifth decade of the century. [This conclusion will not be affected, 1 Seat of Authority, wt supra, p. 191 ; and Article, p. 48. LECTURE V. 289 even if we allow Justin to have had the Gospel in his hands.” | Turning to the internal evidence, Dr. Martineau Says =< [The conclusion seems forced upon us, that the Apostolical authorship of the fourth Gospel receives no adequate support from either claim on its own part, or competent external testimony.* | And, again :— These several features do not encourage us to look for the fourth evangelist anywhere within the circle of the twelve; and against his identification with John in particular special objections force themselves upon us from his recorded character.* On the relation to the Apocalypse, our author willingly embraces Vischer’s theory—that this writ- ing is a Christian overworking of an original Jewish document—which obtained considerable acceptance in 1886 through Harnack’s testimony,’ and concludes that :— [It cannot therefore have been issued before a.p. 136, and is altogether post-apostolic. .. . 2 Op. cit. p. 208; Article, p. 58. The portions in the text marked thus [ ] are not in the Article. 5. Op. cit. p. 211. Not in the Article. 4 Op. cit. pp. 216 sq. ‘These several features do not forbid us to look for the fourth evangelist anywhere within the circle of the twelve; and against his identification with John in par- ticular special objections force themselves upon us from the re- corded character and extant book of this apostle.’ Article, ut supra, p. 206. ° Die Offenbarung Johannis eine Jiidische Apokalypse in Christlicher Bearbeitung; mit einem Nachwort von A. Harnack, 1886.’ Π Internal evidence. The Apo- calypse. The Pas- chal con- troversy. The *‘ Marks of Time.’ 290 LECTURE V. What then is the effect of the new discovery (if such it be) respecting the Apocalypse or the question of authorship for the fourth Gospel ? Simply this: the Apocalypse is put out of court altogether as a witness in the case. Stripped of its own apostolic pretension, it has nothing to say either for or against that of the Gospel: and the old-argument against either from its violent contrast with the other can no longer be pressed.°* | On the Paschal controversy his remarks lead to the statement :— | Here, then, is the whole authority of the Apostle John, his personal habit, and the usage which formed itself under his influence, brought to bear against the historical statement and doctrinal conception of the fourth Gospel. How could this be, if at Smyrna, at Ephesus, and throughout the region where his name was a power, that Gospel had been current as his legacy, and its representation of the last earthly days of Christ had been received as accredited by him? ‘The features of his life and thought which these traditions preserve are precisely what this Gospel resists and banishes.’ When he considers the ‘Marks of Time,’ he thinks :— Not only is the evangelist other than the apostle [and other than the Ephesian John of the Apocalypse]: he plainly belongs to another age. He uses a dialect, and speaks in tones, to which the first century was strange, and which were never heard till a generation born in the second was in mid-life.® From all quarters, then, does evidence flow in, that the only Gospel which is composed and not merely compiled and ® Seat of Authority, ut supra, 8 Op. cit. p. 236; Article, p. p. 227. 217. The portions in [ ] are not 7 Op. cit. p. 235; and Article, in the Article. p. 217. LECTURE V. 291 edited, and for which, therefore, a single writer is responsible, has its birthday in the middle of the second century, and is not the work of a witness at all.? Later in the work he discusses briefly the rela- tion of the First Epistle to the Gospel, his opinion being :— [But though long held in suspense by the apparent equipoise of the evidence for and against their identity of origin, | am at last more impressed by a few fundamental differences of religious conception pervading the two writings, than by several agreements in terminology and secondary categories of thought, which point to some common relation to the same school.'] It would be quite unnecessary to criticize the results at which Dr. Martineau has arrived, even if it were consistent with our purpose to do so. They represent the negative standpoint of twenty years ago as seen in Mr. Tayler’s work, with the fresh lights of Scholten and others, whose names Dr. Martineau has told us. We do not need to be reminded that these results would be fatal to some of the chief positions” of other leaders of the negative criticism which we have already considered ; nor yet that Dr. Martineau’s guides are not the only or the most important authorities of the last twenty years 9 Op. cit. p. 242; Article, ρα then the whole series of argu- 221. ments against the authorship of 1 Op. cit. p. 509. Not in ὑπὸ the Gospel on the ground of the Article. differences between these writings * If, for example, the Apo- would be cancelled. calypse is not the work of 8S. John, The First Epistle. Dr. Hugo Delff, 1840- LECTURE V. upon the subject of the Fourth Gospel. It is a serious defect that this veteran thinker has not allowed other lights also to fall upon his pages. Dr. Martineau is not, moreover, the only writer on the philosophy of religion who has lately directed his attention to criticism, and has given us the mature results of his studies during this Easter vacation. Dr. Hugo Delff, who had before written several treatises on religious and philosophical subjects, pub- lished last year a work on the History of Jesus of Nazareth,? and has now completed the statement of his views by a special essay on the Fourth Gospel.‘ He has certainly devoted considerable attention to the chief authorities on the subject, which he has studied both in the Hebrew and the Greek sources ; and he is not lacking in confidence as to the results. He cannot indeed understand—it is nothing short of ridiculous—-that men had not long ago seen that which is so simple and obvious now that he has seen it. The parallel which occurs to him is that of Columbus and the egg.” Nor will he have it called 3 Die Geschichte des Rabbi Jesus von Nazareth. No date. Pref. Pfingsten, 1889. See esp. pp. 67-207. 4 Das vierte Evangelium, em authentischer Bericht wiber Jesus von Nazareth wiederhergestellt, dibersetzt wnd erklirt, 1890. Vor- bericht, ‘im Miirz.’ 5 ‘Wir haben nun also hier aus bester Quelle erfahren, dass unser Verfasser ein Jude aus priesterlichem oder hohepriester- lichem Geschlecht, und nicht der Apostel Johannes war. Das Neue und zwar je einfacher, je niher legend, also je frappanter es ist, erscheint paradox. Aber man befreie sich nur vom Vorurtheil, zwinge sich, mit Unbefangenheit, mit Objectivitit zu sehen und zu lesen, so wird es einleuchtend. Ks ist zwar licherlich, dass man nicht lingst das Richtige erkannt bo Le) 9 LECTURE V. a theory: it is nothing short of a historical dis- covery.° Our philosophers are agreed in the fullest assur- ance that no word of the Fourth Gospel can be rightly assigned to the Apostle John ; but here their agreement begins and ends. | One thinks that ‘. we are thrown upon the remains of popular tradition collected by our syn- optists,’ . which ‘cannot pretend to carry the guarantee of known and nameable eye-witnesses.’ ‘ The other thinks that he has vindicated the Fourth Gospel as the work of an eye-witness and ‘the one historical title-deed of Christianity.’ ὃ Dr. Martineau is quite certain that the work is by one writer, whoever he may be.? Dr. Delff is not less satisfied that, in addition to the universally recog- nized interpolations, in which he includes the twenty- first chapter, he can detect a number of smaller ones, and several very considerable sections, which are no part of the original.' hat. Aber das KEinfachste ist Die immer das Schwerste, das Nachst- legende das Entfernteste; es geht wie mit dem Hi des Columbus. Auch rihrt die mangelnde Ein- sicht daher, dass bisher fast nur Theologen sich mit diesen Fragen Kpigonenthums gewesen.’ Geschichte, ut supra, p. 72. δ “Meine Auffassung ist also keine Hypothese . . . sondern ein historischer Fund.’ Das vierte Evangelium, u.s.w., ut supra, Vorbericht, p. vii. beschaftigt haben, also Solche, die entweder als Verfasser durch- aus den Apostel Johannes haben wollten, oder Einen, der nicht nur nicht Apostel, sondern auch nicht einmal Augenzeuge, sondern dogmatischer Speculant spiitesten 7 Martineau, ut supra, p. 249. 8 Delff, Das vierte Evangeliwm, ut supra, p. 1. 9 Ut supra, p. 189. ' “Tn meiner ‘‘Geschichte des Rabbi Jesus” habe ich nach- gewlesen, dass das vierte Evan- Views of these critics on eye- witness, unity, period, subjective criticism, 294 LECTURE V. Dr. Martineau regards it as established that the writer of the Fourth Gospel ‘uses a dialect, and speaks in tones, to which the first century was strange, and which were never heard till a genera- tion born in the second was in mid-life ;’?... ‘not till we listen to the Apologists, in the time of the Antonines, does this new language fall upon the ear.’ ° Dr. Delff thinks it to be clear that the work is distinctly the product of Judaism ; that it belongs to Jerusalem, when the sacred city was still standing ; and that its special purpose was not that the heathen, or even the Jews, in a wide sense, but that the class to which the writer belonged—the rulers, the chief priests—should believe.’ Dr. Martineau thinks that ‘wherever a critic pre- tends, by the mere keenness of his unaided eye, to have detected the author in some unheard-of quarter, . we justly look on the pretension as audacious, and its proofs as a waste of ingenuity.’® Dr. Delff regards the theory that the author was a person named John, a dweller in Jerusalem, of high-priestly rank,° who became a disciple of Jesus, and after the 20, 11—19.’ Das vierte Evan- gelium, ut supra, p. 11. Cf. Ge- schichte, ut supra, pp. 97 sqq. gelium in der Gestalt, in der es in den Kanon aufgenommen ist, ausser den allgemein anerkannten Interpolationen : 5, 4. 7, 53—8, 12 und Cap. 21 noch verschiedene andre enthalt, und zwar kleinere die folgenden: 2, 17. 21. 22. 4, 44. 6, 44. 54. 7, 39. 12, 16. 33. 13, 20—groéssere 1, 1—6 und 9—19. 2,1—11. 4. 46—fin. 5, 19—30. 6, 1—30, 37—40. 59. 12, 26—31. > Ut supra, p. 236. $ Ibid. p. 237. * Das vierte Evangelium, ut supra, pp. vill, ix. > Ut supra, p. 191. δ. But cf. Weizsaicker, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, 1890, p. 500. LECTURE V. 295 destruction of Jerusalem found his way to Asia Minor and became in the recollections of the next generation the ‘presbyter John,’ but is wholly distinct from the Apostle John, as his own discovery, which solves the chief problems, not only of the Fourth Gospel, but of Christianity itself. But I need not weary you with the details. Our philosophical critics of to-day are not unlike the more ordinary critics who have gone before. [15 not too much to assert that while they agree that the Gospel is not written by the Apostle John, they not only differ, but they are diametrically opposed as to every fact and every reason upon which that opinion is supported. Here our sketch of the history of the negative criticism of the Fourth Gospel, which, imperfect as it has necessarily been, may, I fear, seem to have been unduly extended in proportion to our time, must be brought to a close. We may not now pause to characterize it, as a whole or in its separate parts. The words of our text are :— And not even so did their witness agree together. We will in the next lecture consider, in so far as its limits will permit, the position of modern positive criticism in relation to our subject. 7 Das vierte Evangelium, wt supra, p. 1. compared, and found to be diametri- cally opposed. Conclu- sion. ὦ ἢ Vi Wy |" bal bp uy Me aA A es he Φ ΟῚ ἣν md fo? Ce ie ove ‘OUR, AGH? THE POSITIVE CRITICISM ‘IF THE SUBJECT BE EXTENSIVE——IF IT BE ONE OF THE GREAT DEPART- MENTS INTO WHICH HUMAN KNOWLEDGE |S DIVIDED——-A CAREFUL STUDY OF IT, CONTINUED FOR SEVERAL YEARS, OR EVEN FOR A LARGE PART OF A LIFE, COMBINED WITH FREQUENT MEDITATION, AND, IF POSSIBLE, PERSONAL OBSERVATION, ΙΒ REQUISITE IN ORDER TO ENABLE A MAN TO UNDERSTAND IT THOROUGHLY AND TO TREAT IT WITH A SOUND AND COMPREHENSIVE JUDGMENT. ALL THE GREAT LUMINARIES OF SCIENCE, WHETHER MATHE- MATICAL, PHYSICAL, METAPHYSICAL, ETHICAL, OR POLITICAL, HAVE FULFILLED THIS CONDITION. NONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE ACQUIRED THE AUTHORITY WHICH THEIR OPINIONS, AS: SUCH, INDEPENDENTLY OF THEIR REASONS, POSSESS. IF THEY HAD NOT APPLIED ALL THEIR MENTAL FACULTIES DURING A LARGER PART OF THEIR LIVES TO THE SUBJECTS ON WHICH THEY AWROKE. ᾿ς *THE AGREEMENT OF COMPETENT JUDGES UPON A SPECULATIVE OPINION ΙΒ ANALOGOUS TO THE AGREEMENT OF CREDIBLE WITNESSES IN THEIR TESTIMONY TO A FACT, THE VALUE OF THEIR CONCURRENT TESTIMONY IS MORE THAN TEN TIMES THE VALUE OF THE TESTIMONY OF EACH.“ SO THE JOINT PROBABILITY OF THE AGREEMENT OF TEN COMPETENT JUDGES IN A RIGHT OPINION IS FAR GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE PROBA- BILITIES OF THE RECTITUDE OF THE OPINION OF EACH TAKEN SEPAR- ATELY.” . uy . . +» » ‘REASON DOES NOT FORBID, BUT PRESCRIBES A RELIANCE UPON AUTHORITY. WHERE A PERSON Ι5. NECESSARILY IGNORANT OF THE GROUNDS OF DECISION, TO DECIDE FOR HIMSELF IS AN ACT. OF SUICIDAL FOLLY. HE OUGHT TO RECUR TO A COMPETENT ADVISER, AS A _ BLIND MAN RELIES UPON A GUIDE.’ Cornewall Lewis. * Cf. Campbell, p. 52. LECTURE VI. At the mouth of two witnesses or three shall every word be established. — 2 Cor, ‘xit.. 1. We have already felt how impossible it is within the limits of two lectures to draw even a brief out- line of the negative criticism of this century, and it certainly would not be easy, within the limits of one, to trace with anything like fulness the suc- cession of thinkers who have been led by the attack upon the Fourth Gospel to examine the position of their opponents, and to re-examine the grounds of their own convictions; and who, as a result of this testing process, have maintained and strengthened their belief in the Johannine authorship. I am the less careful however to present in its fulness this part of our subject, as even a cursory examination of it must show how strong the position is, and I shall willingly content myself with a reference to some representative thinkers. The immediate results of the works of Evanson and Bretschneider have been sufficiently before us, and I pass therefore at once to consider the witness of Schleiermacher. Friedrich Schleiermacher had already made his Introduc- tion. Schleier- macher, 1768-— 1834. His posi- tion, influence, and character. 300 LECTURE VL mark when the University of Berlin was founded in 1810, and after taking a leading part in its organization became in name the first Professor, and in reality the most important living teacher, of Theology. De Wette was at first (from 1810 to 1819) his colleague in the new University, and among his pupils were Bleek, Liicke, Neander, Nitzsch, Ullmann, Julius Miiller, and for a time Strauss. ‘This is not the place to speak of the far-reaching extent of Schleiermacher’s work and influence, which have left perhaps, if all things are considered, a deeper and wider impression than those of any man in this century. The Life and Letters of the modern Plato have been placed within our reach and help us to realize something at least of what the man was.’ If you would know Schleiermacher, read, for example, the youth’s letter to his father, when passing through a crisis of faith which but for the son’s confidence and the father’s affection might have shattered his life.* Meditate upon the man’s declaration to his friend Jacobi, ‘ Understanding and feeling in me also remain distinct, but they touch each other and form a galvanic pile. To me it seems that the innermost life of the spirit consists in the galvanic action thus produced in the feeling of the understanding and the understanding of the feeling, during which, however, the two poles always remain 1 Jonas u. Dilthey, Aus Schleier- 1860. Dilthey, Leben Schleier- macher’s Leben in Briefen, 4 vols. | macher’s, 1867. 1858-61 ; the earlier part in Eng- 2 Life, by F. Rowan, i. pp. 46 lish by Frederica Rowan, 2 vols. 566. Cf. Dilthey, Leben, pp. 23 sqq. LECTURE VI. 301 deflected from each other.’* Be present for a moment at the final gathering of the family on earth. He has been racked for days by acute sufferings. He says :— ‘Inwardly I enjoy heavenly moments. I feel con- strained to think the profoundest speculative thoughts, and they are to me identical with the deepest religious feelings.’ He pronounced the words of consecration at the Holy Communion immediately before his death, and added :—‘ On these words of the scrip- ture I rely; they are the foundation of my faith. . . . In this love and communion we are, and ever will remain, united.’* Such was the man, Friedrich Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher was a theologian and a philosopher rather than an expert in biblical criticism, and was concerned with the present rather than with the past, and with the contents of the Bible rather than with its form; but in the early part of his literary life, he had devoted attention to the criticism of some of the books of the New Testament, and that in a spirit of extreme freedom.? One result of this, well known to English readers, is the Crztical K'ssay on the Gospel of S. Luke.6 Another result, which is not so well known, is his work on the frst Epistle to Timothy.’ 3 See the whole letter in Life, by F. Rowan, 11. pp. 280-84. Cf. Lichtenberger, Histoire des idées religieuses, tom. il. p. 66. 4 Life, ut supra, 11. pp. 337-39. Cf. Histoire, ut supra, 11. pp. 237-38. ° Cf. Reden θεν die Religion, ed. i. 1799. 6. Critical Essay on the Gospel of S. Luke, with Introduction by the translator (Mr. Connop Thirlwall, afterwards Bishop of S. David's), 1825. 7 Ueber den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulos an den Timotheos, His writings. Free treatment of New Testa- ment, Special views on the Fourth Gospel. 302 LECTURE VI. And this free treatment of the New Testament writ- ings was continued in his later studies, for we find him in effect giving up also the Apostolic authorship of the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Hebrews, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistles of James and Jude. While doubtful about the Acts of the Apostles and the Synoptics, and most doubtful of all about the Apocalypse,® he takes the position that the Johannine Christ is the true historic Christ, and that the Syn- optic sketches are to be corrected from this picture. Christianity would be a phenomenon without explana- - tion if it were founded only on the Synoptic Gospels. His special views on the Fourth Gospel appear first in a series of Hxplanations appended to the third edition of the Discourses on Religion, which was published in 1821, at the height of the excitement caused by Bretschneider’s Probabilia. In one of these Lxplana- tions, which comes at the end of the fifth discourse, he says :— Nothing can well betray less appreciation of the essence of Christianity and of the person of Christ Himself, and espe- cially less historic sense and comprehension of the way in which great events come to pass and the conditions in which they must find their real basis, than the opinion which was some time ago quietly introduced—that John had mingled much of his own ideas with the discourses of Christ. Now, however, that this view has secretly strengthened and fortified 1807. Stimmtliche Werke, Abth. Werke, 1845, Abth. i. Bd. 8, pp. i. Zur Theologie, Bd. 2. 315-344. S Hinleitung ins Neue Testament. LECTURE VI. 303 itself and adopted critical weapons, it risks the more destruc- tive assertion, that John did not write the Gospel, but that it was a later author who invented this mythical Christ. But how it could be possible for a Jewish Rabbi, with humani- tarian sentiments, a somewhat Socratic system of ethics, a few miracles (or, at least, what others took for miracles), and a talent for introducing happy maxims and parables—for when we have said this we haye said all, indeed he will have to be forgiven a few follies according to the other Evangelists— how a man like this could have produced such an influence as a new religion and Church—for such a man, had he existed, would not have been worthy to be compared to Moses and Mahomet—all this is left to our own comprehension. Yet the issue must be a critical battle, for which those who love and reverence the Johannine Son of God are doubtless already arming themselves.°® In Schleiermacher’s /ntroduction to the New Testa- ment * he bases the Apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel on the consistency of the presentation, and sweeps away any difficulties in detail by the strength of the impression as a whole—Die Macht des Total- Eindruckes, as he was wont to say.2. These principles ° Reden εἶδον die Religion. gelium zusammen gestellt sind, Werke, Abth. i. Bd. 1, 1843, pp. 447 sq. ; and the critical edition of 1879, pp. 297 sq. This is by G. C. b. Piinjer, who gives a concise and interesting account of the different editions in his Introduction. 1 Hinleitung, ut supra, pp. 315- 944. * * Hs ist also recht gut, dass diese Sache einmal zur Sprache gebracht ist, und alle Zweifels- grinde gegen das Johannesevan- und soscheint es auch Bretschnei- der gemeint zu haben, der seine Hypothese spiter so gut wie zuruck genommen hat. Aber dass unter diesen Hinzelheiten irgend Etwas von solcher Erheblichkeit sel, dass man gegen den Total- eindruck des ganzen die Aecht- heit bezweifeln miisste, wird wohl Niemand mehr meinen.’ Kinleitung, wt supra, p. 840. Cf. p. 315. Johannine author- ship upheld through- out. Neander, 1789- 1850. 304 LECTURE VI. were further illustrated in the author’s Life of Jesus,’ where he goes so far as to assert that to the Johannine Gospel must be given the priority of time * as well as of position ; indeed it became almost an axiom of Schleiermacher and his school, that the Fourth Gospel was beyond question ; and that if discrepancy should ever be established between it and the Syn- optics, the former was to be at all costs accepted. Among the youths of Germany who felt the wave of the great influence which was exercised by Schlei- ermacher’s Discourses on Religion was David Mendel, the son of a Jewish pedlar, who was living at Ham- burg with a poor and worse than widowed mother, and was supported at the gymnasium by the liberality of friends. Of this lad, when grown to manhood, a living writer whose special knowledge and judy- ment give him every right to command our confi- dence, says that he was ‘the most original pheno- menon in the literary world of this nineteenth cen- tury,’° and general opinion has held him to be father of the modern philosophic, as distinguished from the previous dogmatic, history of the Church. Trained Evangelien nur erst zerstreut und wurden erst spiiter gesammelt.’ . . Leben Jesu, ut swpra, p. 420. Cf. 3 Das Leben Jesu, 1832, ed. Riitenik, 1864. Werke, Abth. i. Bd. 6, pp. 87-44. This ‘ Lecture’ on the Quellen was delivered on May 23, 1832. 4 *Sehen wir aber die Sache so an: das Evangelium Johannis ist das erste, zu der Zeit als Johannes sein Evangelium schrieb, existir- ten die Bestandtheile der anderen Strauss, Der Christus des Glaubens u.s.w. Kritik des Schleiermacher’- schen Lebens Jesu, 1865, pp. 45 sqq. 5 Schaff, Germany; its Uni- versities, Theology, and Religion, 1857, p. 270. LECTURE VI. 305 to be a jurist, he was being fashioned as a historian ; brought up in Judaism, he was being prepared to teach the history of the development of Christianity. In his seventeenth year David Mendel carried his convictions into practice by being publicly baptized in Hamburg, and, true to the ancient custom of his race, signified the change of being by a change of the From Feb- ruary 25, 1806, onwards he was no longer a Jew, Mendel, but a new man in Christ Jesus, Neander (Newman ).° Of the special qualifications of this Christian-Jew to judge of a Christian-Jewish writing, of his minute name which distinguished that being. acquaintance with Gnosticism and. the philosophies of the second century which engaged his attention from the first,’ of his trained historical mind and vast his- torical knowledge, of his whole-hearted devotion to his studies and his students during the thirty-eight years of his professoriate in Berlin, it is hardly ne- cessary to make mention. Such was the general fitness of Neander to form an opinion upon the Fourth If we remember also that he commenced Gospel. his work in Berlin in 1813 by a course of ‘ Lectures Ὁ As many variations occur in nesses (Taufzeugen). the accounts, it may be well to refer to the original entry in the baptismal register of the church of St. Catharine, Hamburg, which is quoted by Krabbe, August Ne- ander, 1852, p.18. The Christian names chosen, Johann, August, Wilhelm, were those of the wit- 7 De fidei gnoseosque christiane idea. . . secundum mentem Cle- mentis Alex. Heidelberge, 1811. Genetische Entwickelung der vor- nehmsten gnostischen Systeme, 1818. Anti-Gnosticus: Geist des Tertul- lianus u. Hinleitung in dessen Schriften, 1825. xX Change of name. Special qualifica- tions. His opinion. 306 LECTURE VI. on ὃ. John,’ and completed it in 1850 by announcing from his deathbed a course of ‘ Lectures on the Gospel of S. John,’ and that he prepared with scrupulous care four editions of his Life of Jesus, extending from 1837 to 1845—the significance of these years will be borne in mind—we shall be prepared to value rightly the following statement about the Fourth Gospel :— It could have emanated from none other than that ‘beloved disciple’ upon whose soul the image of the Saviour had left its deepest impress. So far from this Gospel’s having been written by a man of the second century (as some assert), we cannot even imagine a man existing in that century so little affected by the contrarieties of his times, and so far exalted above them. Could an age involved in perpetual contradictions, an age of religious materialism, anthropo- morphism, and one-sided intellectualism have given birth to a production like this, which bears the stamp of none of these deformities? How mighty must the man have been who, in that age, could produce from his own mind such an image of Christ as this? And this man, too, in a period almost desti- tute of eminent minds, remained in total obscurity! Was it necessary for the master-spirit, who felt in himself the capacity and the calling to accomplish the greatest achievement of his day, to resort to a pitiful trick to smuggle his ideas into cir- culation ? And then, too, while it is thought sufficient to say of the three other Gospels that they were compiled from undesigned fables, we are told that such a Gospel as this of John was the work of sheer invention, as lately Dr. Baur has confessed, with praiseworthy candour. Strange that a man, anxious for the credit of his inventions, should, in the chronology and topography of his Life of Christ, give the le to the Church traditions of his time, instead of chiming in with them ; stranger still, that in spite of his bold contradiction of the LECTURE VI. 307 opinions of his age in regard to the history, his fraud should be successful! In short, the more openly this criticism declares itself against the Gospel of John, the more palpably does it manifest its own wilful disregard of history.® One of Schleiermacher’s first colleagues and most intimate friends in the new University of Berlin, was Dr. Wilhelm de Wette, and no one of the band laboured more earnestly in the interests of rational theology and scientific conceptions of both the Old and the New Testaments. He had prepared a considerable work on the Pentateuch, which was anticipated by the publication of Vater’s Commentary in 1803, and was therefore published only in abstract, and as a supplement to Vater’s work. This, with other early essays, sufficiently shows the liberal point of view, to say the least, from which De Wette approached his studies. A letter of generous sympathy—more generous, perhaps, than wise—to the mother of Ludwig Sand, a student who in a passionate impulse of liberal patriotism had murdered one whom he thought to be an advocate of oppression, reveals the strong tendency, which runs all through De Wette’s work, to protect at any cost the weaker side, and to be held back by no reverence for conventionalities from that which seemed to him to be right. But that letter cost him his professor’s chair, and cost the young university one of its ablest men. In vain Schleiermacher and others pleaded for their colleague, in vain they pleaded 8 Neander, Das Leben Jesu Christi, ed. 4, 1845, pp. 11, 12. Eng. Trans, 1851, pp. 7, 8. x. 2 De Wette, 1780- 1849. Early essays. His character. Liberal views. The Johannine question. 308 LECTURE VI. for the interests of the university. The autocratic king would hear of no excuse, and in 1819 De Wette left Berlin for a temporary retirement at Weimar, whence he was to be called in 1823 to Basel. Here for twenty-six years he devoted himself to the work of his professorship and to philanthropic labours, such as the formation of a ‘ Society for protecting the ’ and was Greeks against the oppression of the Turks ; throughout a consistent leader of the party of pro- gress. He has sketched his own character in a novel, Theodore, or the Consecration of the Sceptic,®? which he wrote at Weimar in 1822, and to which Tholuck replied in the True Consecration of the Doubter." The late Dr. Schenkel, who was De Wette’s pupil, and had himself certainly no leanings to conservative orthodoxy, speaks of his memory with touching gratitude, and represents the leading principle of his theological labours to be that ‘truth in none of its relations of life, least of all in theology and the church, can exist without freedom, or freedom with- out truth.’ ? De Wette was in the thick of the discussion on the Johannine question through the whole period of Evanson, Bretschneider, Strauss, and Baur, and it is 9 Theodor, oder des Zweiflers logieu. Kirche, dieWahrheit nicht Wethe, Berlin, 1822. 1 Die Lehre von der Siinde u. vom Versihner, oder die wahre Weihe des Zweiflers, ed. 7, 1851, Hamburg. * “Dass in allen Verhiltnissen des Lebens, zumal aber in Theo- bestehen kann ohne die Freiheit, u. die Freiheit nicht ohne die Wahrheit.’ Schenkel, W. M. L. de Wette und die Bedeutung seimer Theologie fiir wnsere Zeit, 1849, p. 111: LECTURE VI. 309 natural to expect both that he should write on the subject, and that he should lean to the negative view. He did write on the subject, both in his /ntroduction to the New Testament, the editions of which extend from 1826 to 1848, and in his Concise Evxegetical Commentary, the editions of which extend from 1837 to 1846.° In the first edition of the /ntroduction, when the effect of Bretschneider’s Probabilia was still strongly felt, De Wette was inclined to take a middle course, and to regard the authorship as not proven. After the publication of the theories of Strauss and Baur, and under the influence of Bleek’s Contri- butions to Criticism of the Gospels,* he became more conservative. | In the fifth edition of the Jntroduction, 1848, he says :— Τὸ will be found that 1 have placed myself decidedly more than heretofore among the defenders of the Gospel of John, although I am still far from being so decided as my friend Bleek. os And again :— A critical conclusion which denies to the Apostle John all share in this Gospel, and declares the same to be of later origin, not only involves the odious but inevitable confession 3 Lehrbuch der historisch-kriti- Newen Testament: Johannes, ed. schen Hinleitung in die kanonischen 1, 1837 ; ed. 3, 1846. Biicher des Neuen Testaments, ed. * Cf. mfra, p. 314. 1, 1826; ed. 5, 1848; Kurzge- > Preface to ed. 5, Eng. Trans. by fasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum F¥rothingham, 1858, pp. viiand viii. The Intro- duction. The Commen- tary. Liicke, i761 1855. The Berlin group. 310 LECTURE VI. that the author was a forger, but is opposed by the impro- bability that Christian antiquity accepted a Gospel which differed in important points from the evangelic tradition without having found a sure and satisfactory ground in its apostolic authority.6.... And again in his Commentary :— The recognition of the Johannine authorship of our Gospel will even after the latest and most violent attacks never lose its hold in the Church, though it is to be hoped we shall learn to test the doubts which are brought against it with less prejudice; and criticism will as little solve the problem of explaining the mysterious origin of this Gospel as she will lift the veil which rests upon the early history of Christianity.” Another of the group of Schleiermacher’s pupils and friends was Dr. Gottfried Liicke, who joined him as a lecturer at Berlin in 1816, and was afterwards Professor of Theology in the new University of Bonn 1818-27, and in Gottingen 1827-55. Liicke, in his Commentary,® which is known to all students of the Johannine writings, speaks of Schleiermacher as his ‘spiritual father ;’° and reminds his old friend Hoss- bach of the scientific revolution caused by Schleier- macher, De Wette, and Neander, and of their studies together in the crisis which followed the year ‘thirteen.’' And in De Wette’s Handbook to the ® KHinleitung, ed. 5, Eng. Trans. des Evangelisten Johannes, 1820 ; 1858, ut supra, Ὁ. 212. ed.*) 2, 1858: eds τ 9. partis. 7 Handbuch zum Neuen Testa- 1840. ment, ed. 3, Bd. i. Th. 3, p. 9. ° Ibid. ed. 3, p. viii. ὃ Commentar wiber die Schriften ' Tord. p. vii. LECTURE VI. 31} New Testament, which is dedicated to Liicke, there is a touching reference to the good old days when we lived and worked and disputed together in Berlin, and often had the never-to-be-forgotten Schleiermacher in our midst.? Of Liicke’s Commentary, De Wette says with jus- tice that with the first appearance of this work began a new and better era of New Testament interpretation,® and to this day it remains the classic and unequalled Commentary on 8. John. The author did not con- fine himself to exegetical studies, but they had the chief attraction for him, and the opus magnum of his life was the interpretation of ὃ. John’s writings. He brought to his task stores of wide and accurate learning, and applied to it for the first time the principles and results of exact philological and gram- matical knowledge. But he never forgot that the religious sense is also a necessary qualification for un- derstanding a religious work. He is an artist, a poet, a mystic, as well as a grammarian, a philologer, a thinker. ‘No man,’ to use his own expression, ‘ can really seek, but the man who hopes to find’; and while others were forming theories of what the Fourth Gospel ought to have been and then making its facts agree with their theories, Liicke’s receptive spirit was really seeking, really finding, what the Fourth Gospel was ; and it was to him through the whole 2 Handbuch, ed. 3, Johannes, Bd. i. Th. 3, Dedication. > Thid. The Commen- tary. The religious sense. Acquaint- ance with the newer theories. 312 LECTURE VI. course of his investigations, as it was to Schleier- macher, ‘the chief, the most delicate, the most pro- found of all the Gospels.’ 4 Not that Liicke remained ignorant of, or un- interested in, any of the newer theories. He dis- cusses the authorship and cognate questions with full reference to them.® Let his own words tell us his relation to these theories :— I have diligently used the newer exegetical works on the Gospel and have gladly learnt from them. I have also been careful to examine the more recent and critical treatises on its genuineness and authenticity, and as far as in me lies IT have honestly tested them. You will find that though IT am unshaken in my convictions I have at the same time gladly recognized truth and right on the opposite side. It is, indeed, no good to disguise from oneself and others weak points and defects in the historical and exegetical grounds of belief, when once they have made themselves felt. A hidden blemish is the most dangerous. Only the real and the true, only the perfectly sound can bear the searchings of faith and of knowledge. JI have therefore given up much in the interests of truth that seemed to me untenable, however dear it had become to me.° And again :— Where I have to learn from others I seek the truth and accept it, when once clearly shown, without caring whether the man with whom I find it be rationalist, pietist, or any- thing else, or whether he be my friend or my foe. That is my orthodoxy.’ * Cf. Lichtenberger, Histoire > Commentar, ed. 3, pp. 89- des idées religieuses, 1873, tom. ili. 246. pp. 124-5. 6 Ibid. ed. 3, pp. ix sq. * Ibid. p. xii. (9) LECTURE VI. 918 The result of his investigations pursued in this spirit and with resources such as up to that time had certainly never been combined in any writer on the Fourth Gospel, and pursued, let us again remind ourselves, in the very midst of the negative criticism, when the impulse of the attack was felt as a living power and not merely as an abstract theory—the third edition from which I am quoting was published in 1840—is that Liicke accepts the common opinion that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel,® and that Ephesus is the place at which the Gospel was written ;° but thinks that there are no data by which the time can be fixed within nearer limits than from the seventh to the tenth decades of the first century ; and that it was not earlier than the year a.p. 80, but that how near it was to the death of the Apostle, cannot be definitely stated.! Dr. Friedrich Bleek was also, like Liicke, a pupil and friend of Schleiermacher, and, under his influence, began to lecture at Berlin in 1818. Five years later he obtained a professor’s chair there, but left it in 1829 for the professorship at Bonn which furnished the work of his life. All men agree in their estimate of the massive solidity of Bleek’s learning and the absolute fairness of his judgment. ‘He seems to me,’ says the English essayist, who has himself shown the greatest mastery of Baur’s theory, ‘nearly the 8 Commentar, ut supra, pp. 6-160. ® Ibid. pp. 161 sq. 1 Ibid. p. 167. Result of his criti- cism. Bleek, 1795- 1859. Estimate of his powers. Earlier writings. The Beitrage. The Introdue- tion. 314 LECTURE VI. only opponent of Baur I have met with worthy, both from his candour and his ability, to cope with him.’? These qualities were first fully appreciated when Dr. Bleek published an edition of the Epistle to the Hebrews.* He wrote for the Berlin Society for Scientific Criticism, in 1844, a review, which was published in that and the following year,* of Ebrard’s Scientific Criticism of the Gospel History.’ The review attracted considerable attention, for it contained sub- stantial additions to the subject, which was one that had occupied a prominent place in the writer’s winter course of professorial lectures. It was republished, in an enlarged form, in 1846, and dedicated to De Wette.® It deals principally with the Johannine ques- tion, and is justly regarded as an able, impartial, and convincing defence of the authenticity of the Gospel. De Wette acknowledges its effect upon himself.’ After Bleek’s death his lectures on /ntroduction to the New Testament® were edited by his son. The later editions? have been edited by Dr. Mangold.' The Johannine problem is treated with great fulness and erudition, and a portion of it has been published The additions of separately as a French treatise. 7 R. H. Hutton, Theological Essays, ed. 3, 1888, p. 209. ἡ Brief an die Hebrder, 1828- 36-40. * Jahrbiicher fiir wissenschaft- liche Kritik, 1844, Bd. ii. Nos. 61-65 ; 1845, Bd. i. Nos. 41-46. ὅ Vide infra, p. 317. “ Beitriige zi Evangelien- Kritik, 1846. 7 Vide supra, p. 309. 8 Einleitung in das Neue Testa- ment, ed. 1, 1860; ed. 2, 1866. 9. Kd. 3, 1875; ed. 4, 1886. ' Cf. Lecture V. p. 262. 2 Ch. Bruston, Etude critique sur Pévangile selon Saint Jean, 1864. LECTURE VI. 915 Dr. Mangold bring the work up to the present date with an erudition which is in harmony with Bleek’s, though the opinion as to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is not. He is not himself able, as we have seen, to accept the authenticity, because he feels the force of the objection on internal grounds ; but he bears abundant witness to the ability and candour of Bleek himself, who held throughout the Johannine authorship in the fullest sense. No man filled a more prominent place in the eyes of the churches, the nations, the philanthropists, the scholars of the last generation than the Baron de Bunsen. The pupil of Heyne and Lachmann; the early friend of Niebuhr and Neander, and in this country of Arnold, Maurice, Hare, and Stanley; the patron of Holtzmann and De Lagarde; himself a scholar, a theologian, a jurist, a statesman, a man of affairs, and in touch with the first minds of Europe ; a layman also, and one of singular freedom from prejudice—unless it be a prejudice for freedom—his opinion is of exceptional value both from his access to evidence, and his power of forming a judgment upon it. It is none other than Dr. Thomas Arnold who writes of Baron de Bunsen :— I could not express my sense of what Bunsen is without seeming to be exaggerating; but I think if you could hear and see him even for one half-hour, you would understand my feeling towards him. He is a man in whom God’s graces and gifts are more united than in any other person whom 1 ever saw. I have seen men as holy, as amiable, as able; but Bunsen, 1791— 1860. Arnold’s opinion of im. Fourth Gospel a ‘ cardinal point.’ 316 LECTURE VI. I never knew one who was all three in so extraordinary a degree, and combined with a knowledge of things new and old, sacred and profane, so rich, so accurate, so profound, that I never knew it equalled or approached by any man.® And to Bunsen the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is a cardinal point of faith. To him if there is no historic ὃ. John, there is no historic Christ, there is no Christianity :— If the Gospel of John is not an historical treatise by an eye-witness, but a myth, then there is no historical Christ, and without an historical Christ universal belief in Christ is a dream —all Christian knowledge hypocrisy or delusion, Christian reverence for God an imposture, and, finally, the Reformation a crime or madness.? 3 Stanley, Life and Correspond- ence of Dr. Arnold, 1844, vol. ii. p. 137. 4 Handbuch, ut supra, Eng. Trans., Preface, pp. viii, ix. Cf. Lecture V. Ὁ. 246, Y Delight in Luther's testimony. Lechler, 1811- 1889. His works. Doctrinal forms prove Johannine author- ship. Change of view. aoe LECTURE VI. the University of Leipzig, was, in his student life, a pupil of Baur at Tiibingen ; and to this master he was probably indebted in large measure for the remark- able power of analyzing and tracing forms of thought which characterized his works. We have examples of this in the History of English Deism, John Wichif and the Period before the Reformation, and other important books and essays. In 1851 he published a work on The Apostolic and post-Apostolic Times, which had gained the prize of the Teyler Theological Society in Haarlem two years before. A remodelled edition appeared in German in 1857, and a third edition in 1885, which was published in English in the fol- lowing year. The author has maintained through- out, in opposition to his teacher Baur, that the forms of doctrine contained in the Fourth Gospel with the Johannine Epistles and the Apocalypse are consist- ent with Apostolic authorship, and admit of no other explanation. In the third edition the venerable author has in effect produced a new work, and in particular has, in both the Apostolic and post-Apostolic periods, considered the Life before the Doctrine, whereas — in the earlier editions, in conformity with the terms of the prize, he had considered the Doctrine before the Life. In making this fundamental change, he says :— 6 Das apostolische und das nach- Lehre und Leben dargestellt, ed. apostolische Zeitalter, mit Riicksicht 1, 1851; ed. 3, 1885; Eng. auf Unterschied und Einheit ὧν Trans., 1886. LECTURE VI. DOR I do so with the conviction that for individuals as well as mankind, in the divine education of the human race and in sacred history, life and experience are the foundation, while consciousness, thought, and teaching form the superstructure. Godet says on John 111. 3, with truth and beauty :-— ‘Une nouvelle vue suppose une nouvelle vie.’ In this way I touch upon a fundamental view that uncon- sciously dominated the master of the ‘critical school,’ and that still seems to prevail among many of its advocates. I refer to intellectualism, to which the world of thought and knowledge appears as a thing moving’ round itself and con- cluded within itself; while the ethical world of action and suffering, especially of life that streams from the fountain of everlasting life, is to all appearance non-existent and unin- telligible.’ ... Apart from such portions as have been worked out afresh and fully, all that I give has been subjected to re- peated and honest examination. Onall sides the writings and treatises relating to the entire subject published in the last decades, so far as they were accessible, have been thoroughly examined, and many former judgments changed.® But his judgment of the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse has undergone no change :— We abide firmly by unity of authorship, and recognize both writings as apostolic and Johannine.?® Dr. Bernhard Weiss, professor at Berlin, occupies a well-recognized position in the first rank of living theologians and New Testament critics. His works extend over a wide field, but those which deal with our present subject would even if they stood alone justify 7 Das apost. Zeitalter, ut swpra, 8: Toid. p. tx. ed. 3; Eng. Trans. pp. vii sq. ° Ibid. vol. ii. p.. 165. wi Intellec- tualism. Abides by view of S. John. Weiss, 1827.- His νΟΙΚ5.. Johannine author- ship main- tained through- out. Summary 924 LECTURE VI. the author’s high reputation for learning as well as for both exact and wide grasp of thought. He published a work on the Doctrinal System of John in 1862, and has since treated the subject more fully in the Biblical Theology of the New Testament, in the Life of Jesus, in his editions of Meyer’s Commentary, and in the valuable Introduction to the New Testament, the second edition of which appeared only last year. Throughout this remarkable series of works, the Johannine authorship is consistently maintained, and they form from their moderation and candour as well as from their learning, on both sides of the question, one of the strongest presentations of the ancient view which has been written in modern times.’ Dr. Weiss’s conclusions are summarized in the following extract from his latest work :— The solution of the Johannine problem must begin at the point where Baur instituted his criticisms. It may be pos- sible to perceive many departures of the fourth Gospel from the older ones, and to apprehend many features peculiar to it and much of the material as ideal, explaining them by new points of view from which the author set out. But it con- tains a fulness of detail of every kind, of supplements to the synoptic tradition, of direct contradictions to it and even of intended corrections of it, which the ingenuity of criticism ' Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, vols., 1883-4, esp. vol. i. pp. 90- 1862 ; Lehrbuch der biblischen 210; Lehrbuch der EKinleitung in Theologie des Neuen Testaments, das Neue Testament, 1886, ed. 2, ed. 1, 1868; ed. 4, 1884; Eng. 1889; Eng. Trans., 2vols., 1887-8; Trans. 5 vols.,1885, esp. vol. ii.pp. Meyer’s Evangeliwm des Johannes» 311-416 ; Das Leben Jesu, 2 vols., ed. 6, 1880; ed. 7, 1886. 1882 ; ed. 2, 1884 ; Eng. Trans., 3 9 9 σι LECTURE VI. can never trace to the author’s ideal views, but on the con- trary present difficulty of union with them. And it is un- questionable, that the author, who only made the reception of his work difficult through these departures from the tradition that prevailed in the Church, was limited by definite recollections or traditions which would no longer have existed in the second century. Besides, all assumption of ideal inventions is inconsistent with the weight which the Gospel lays upon the actuality of what it narrates, as Beyschlag in particular has convincingly proved; and it can be well shown that the speeches of Christ in the Gospel are absolutely ἡ unintelligible as mere expositions of the theology of logos- philosophers. But criticism has not succeeded in fixing the date of the Gospel viewed as a pseudonymous production. Apart from the fact that it is much unsettled respecting this point, the post-Apostolic time of the second century presents no person, nor even any definite tendency of thought from which a work of such spiritual significance as criticism itself allows the Gospel to be, could have emanated. The work cannot be either the cause or the product of a reconciliation of contending opposites in the second century, since such re- conciliation did not take place ; on the contrary, the struggle between ecclesiastical consciousness and gnosis only became sharper after Judaism had been overcome. And yet both parties frequently appealed to this very Gospel with like zeal ; the gnostics first, so that the Church had every reason for disavowing a pseudonymous production so suspicious. ‘The greatest riddle is always the pseudonymity itself. It is in- conceivable that the unknown could connect his writing directly with the Apocalypse which, according to the concep- tion of its relation to the Gospel set forth by criticism itself, and in spite of all that has been said about a certain affinity of the two works, is still thoroughly adverse to the Gospel. So also is the way inconceivable in which the writer claims for himself identity with the Apostle John, though this is only indirectly or slightly intimated; a procedure opposed to that of all pseudonymous writing; as is the fact that he of his conclu- sions — Luthardt, 1823- His works devoted to the Johan- nine ques- tion. 326 LECTURE VI. directly vouches for his own ocular testimony, which can only be pronounced a plain deception.? Dr. Christoph Ernst Luthardt, formerly professor at Marburg, 1854-56, and since 1856 at Leipzig, has exercised a great influence as a prominent leader in the Lutheran church, an eloquent preacher and lecturer, a literary editor,’ as well as an author. His more critical studies have been chiefly devoted to the Johannine question,’ and these works extending over a period of more than thirty years, have become widely known to all students of the subject in their English It will be sufficient for our present purpose of estimating modern criticism as well as in their German form. on this question, to quote the following paragraphs from S. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, a work which owes no small part of its value to the careful editing and references of an American scholar, Dr. Caspar Gregory :— We can now sum up the results of our inquiries as to the external attestation of the fourth gospel. We see that as soon as traces of the gospel meet us, it is testified to, both inside and outside of the Church, as a work of John’s, and asa book of unquestionable apostolic authority. But these traces 2 Weiss, Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, Eng. Trans. 1887-8, vol. ii. pp. 399, 400. 3 Theologische Literaturblatt, Ewangelisch - wtherische Kirchen- zeitung, and Zeitschrift fiir kirch- liche Wissenschaft‘wnd Leben. * De Compositione Evangelit Joannei, 1852 ; Das Johanneische Evangelium, 1852-3, 2 vols.; ed. 2, 1875-6; Eng. Trans., 1878, 3 vols. ; Der Johanneische Ursprung des vierten Evangeliums, 1874; Eng. Trans., with valuable biblio- graphical appendix by Gregory, 1875 ; Evangelium nach Johannes in Strack und Zéckler’s Kurzge- fasster Kommentar, 1886. LECTURE VI. 597 and this testimony go beyond the middle of the second century, and drive us back to the beginning of it. Now it is fixed that the apostle John lived at Ephesus, and that till late, to Trajan’s time. And it is just there that we have to seek for the home of John’s gospel. But the nearer to the time of John we are forced to go back with this book, the more impossible it is that the recollections of the apostle, which were still so fresh and general, would have so generally, and without opposition, let such a book as the gospel is be pressed on them if it had not been apostolic, and above all, if it had been so foreign to John’s sphere of thought and to his leanings as men say it 15. Therefore the external testimony attests the Johannean composition. The character of the book itself must needs make this supposition impossible if we are not to believe this testimony. In that case there would be nothing left for us but to let this book stand asan insoluble problem. The ques- tion is, whether or not the character of the book itself forbids its composition by John. We may close these inquiries, then, with this result: That, choosing the most moderate expression, nothing has come in our way that disproved the tradition as to the Johannean Result. origin of the gospel, but much that served to confirm it. | The decision of the Tiibingen criticism and its successors, with which the acts of this critical process were declared to be closed, was far from corresponding with the real contents of the subject, and from being ratified by the facts. In it one must make up his mind to take the Johannean question not as a historical but as a psychological question. His- torically, the matter is as clear and decided as the case can be in such historical and critical inquiries. The question only concerns the psychological possibility. But we have seen that this question is not so insoluble as to be able to make a point for appeal against the historical evidence.° 5 Der Johanneische Ursprung, Eng. Trans. 1875, pp. 162-3 and 278-9, Godet, 1812- Convic- tion by impres- sion, and by scientific study. 328 LECTURE VI. Dr. Frédéric Godet, professor at Neuchatel, the pupil of Neander, and the tutor of the late Emperor of Germany from 1838 to 1844, published the first edition of his Commentary on the Gospel of S. John in 1863-65. The second edition, completely recast, appeared in 1876-77, and a third edition, in which the work is again brought thoroughly up to date, in 1881-85.° It has been translated into English on both sides of the Atlantic,’ German—in which form it has passed through several editions— Dutch, and Danish. Perhaps no Commentary on S. John has entered so fully into the spirit of the text ; and the author’s fine intuitive power is accompanied by a broad and vigorous intellectual grasp, which is specially felt all through the Critical Introduction in the first volume.’ The result of his studies is best expressed in his own words :— The result of this renewed study has been a yet firmer scientific conviction of the authenticity of the writing which the Church has transmitted to us under the name of John. There is another kind of conviction which arises in the heart from simply reading such a book. ‘This conviction does not increase, it is spontaneous and hence complete from the first moment. It resembles that confiding love at first sight, that full and final impression to which thirty years of mutual life and devotion can add nothing. Scientific study cannot form such a tie: what it can do, is only to ward off the hostile attacks which would threaten to 6 Commentaire sur 1 Lvangile de pletement revue,’ 1881-85. Saint Jean, 1868-65, 2 vols. ; 71877, and from ed. 3, New ed. 2, ‘complétement refondu,’ York, 1886. 1876-77, 3 vols.; ed. 3, ‘com- 8 Ed. 3, pp. 1-376. 29 Od LECTURE VI. loosen or sever it. I can truly say I have never felt this scientific certainty so fully confirmed, as after this fresh exa- mination of the proofs on which it rests, and of the arguments recently advanced against it.° Dr. Willibald Beyschlag has been since 1860 Professor of Theology in the University of Halle, and is an acknowledged leader of the liberal-evangelical party.’ On the Johannine Question,’ and a recent important work on the Life of Jesus. During his Jong public career Dr. Beyschlag has consistently maintained with freedom of thought and wide critical knowledge the full Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Among his numerous writings is a volume Soon after the publication of his German work on the question, he wrote two remarkable articles on The Gospel of John and Modern Criticism in an ° * Le résultat de cette étude re- nouvelée a été chez moi la convic- tion scientifique toujours plus ferme de Vauthenticité de l’écrit que lEglise nous a transmis sous le nom de Jean. 1] y a une con- viction d’une autre nature qui se forme dans le cceur ἃ la simple lecture d’un pareil livre. Cette conviction ne s’accroit pas; elle est immédiate, par conséquent compléte dés le premier instant. Elle ressemble & la confiance et & amour du premier regard, ἃ cette impression décisive ἃ lintégrité de laquelle trente années de vie com- mune et de mutuel dévouement n’ajoutent rien. ‘L’étude scientifique ne saurait former un semblable lien: ce qu’elle peut faire, c’est unique- ment d’écarter les pressions hos- tiles qui menaceraient de le re- lacher ou de le briser. Eh bien, je puis dire que jamais je n’ai senti cette assurance scientifique aussi affermie qu’aprés ce nouvel examen des preuves sur lesquelles elle repose et des raisons récem- ment alléguées contre elle.’ Com- mentaire, ut supra, ed. 3, tom. 1. pp. vi and vii. ' The Mittelpartei, represented by the Deutsche Evangelische Blitter, of which he has been editor since 1876. * Zur Johanneischen 1876. 5. Das Leben Jesu, 2 vols. 1885 Frage, Bey- schlag, 1823- Examina- tion of Baur’s theory. Result. Zahn, 1838- 330 LECTURE VI. English Review,’ which are mainly an examination of Baur’s theory as compared with the internal evidences furnished by the Gospel itself. This is the result at which he arrives :— Lastly, it is inconceivable that the Gospel should have been composed in the second century. Not to speak of the great character which is in it, which far exceeds anything that the second Christian century has produced, and which would have left behind no trace and no memory of itself, by name, apart from these writings, the spirit of the century does not harmonize with that of the book. That spirit had already become traditional and ascetic, and it was no longer one that would be stirred by purely religious questions but by strongly theological and ecclesiastical ones. And by them this remarkable book is entirely untinged, yea, it is alto- gether of another cast. It is an historical monstrosity which the anti-Johannine criticism proposes for our acceptance. But we are compelled to say, on the contrary, that only a previous knowledge of the personality speaking in the Gospel, only the notorious authority of the eye-witness and apostle, from the first moment appealing on behalf of the book, could have opened the way for the acceptance and recognition of a Gospel, departing so much from all tradition, and that in an age so careful of tradition, and already in possession of the Synoptists.* Among the later German writers on this subject, I will ask your permission to take the evidence of two. One of these is Dr. Theodore Zahn, who is eminent as a writer on many subjects connected with the early history and literature of the Church. He was 4 Contemporary Review, Oct. and Noy. 187 i 5. Ibid., loc. cit. Ὁ. 948. LECTURE VI. Bou formerly privat-docent at Gottingen and professor at Kiel and Erlangen, and has lately succeeded to the chair at Leipzig vacated by the death of Dr. Lechler. The eminence and learning of Dr. Zahn are placed beyond all question, even by those who differ most from some of his conclusions. Were evidence needed, the edition of the Hpzstles of Ignatius and Polycarp,$ and the Investigations for a History of the New Testa- ment Canon and the Ancient Church Literature,’ which have appeared at intervals during the last ten years, would more than supply it. And with eminence and learning, there is an individuality and independence which refuses to call any man master, or to think any opinion unquestionable. At length the History of the New Testament Canon,® for which so much ἃ preparatory work had been done, has begun to appear. The first volume is now in our hands, and two more are to follow. We have already the history down to Origen; and though some portions of the arguments await further development in certain pro- mised Hacursuses, we have enough to show that all the weight of Professor Zahn’s general erudition and minute knowledge of the history of the second cen- tury, is to be thrown without any hesitation into the scale in favour of the full Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and its acceptance from the δ Patrum Apostolicorum Opera: Neutestamentlichen Kanonsundder Von Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, altkirchlichen Literatur, 1881, etc. 1876, fase. 11. 8 Geschichte des Neutestament- 1 Forschungen zur Geschichte des lichen Kanons, Bd. i. 1888-9. His inde- pendence. The His- tory of the anon. The Fourth Gospel. Franke, 1853- The Old Testament in John. Scope of work. ee LECTURE VI. first. Here, as elsewhere, Dr. Zahn, with character- istic freedom, puts forth some opinions which are peculiar to himself, and will probably remain so ; but on the subject of our present inquiry there is in his view no room for question. The other German scholar to whose evidence 1 invite special attention is a young and, in this country, comparatively unknown writer, Dr. August Hermann Franke, formerly a privat-docent at Halle, and director of Tholuck’s clergy school, but since the publication, in 1885, of the work to which I am about to refer, Professor of Theology at Kiel. This work is entitled The Old Testament in John,’ and, in addition to being a strong vindication of the Johan- nine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, is specially important in that it approaches the study of the Gospel in the right way, always remembering what the commentators on Ὁ. John have but too con- stantly forgotten, that the Divine subject and the human author were alike Hebrew, both in speech and the circumstances of life, and that the roots of the thought and language must alike be found in the Old Testament. Professor Franke commences with the inquiry, What is the attitude of the Gospel to the Old Cove- nant, its people, its revelation, its writings ? The second and chief part of the work deals with ® Das alte Testament bei Jo- und Beurtheilung der Johanneischen hanes, ein Beitrag zur Erkliirung Schriften. Géttingen, 1885. LECTURE VI. 300 the Old Testament foundation of the doctrinal con- ceptions in the Gospel. In some points this is the common Old Testament groundwork which underlies all New Testament doctrine, including the Fourth Gospel. This is illustrated by the doctrines taught concerning God, the world, eschatology, the Messiah. But there is also a specific Johannine type of doctrine, and the essential argument of the book is that the Old Testament lies necessarily at the root of this doctrinal individuality. The proofs are based upon an examination of the following doctrines :—Salva- tion in Christ as the fulfilment of that given in the Old Testament ; the manifestation of God in Jesus Christ ; the covenant sacrifice and the atonement ; the new commandment ; eternal life through com- munion with God ; the new society. The third division of the work treats of the Old Testament as the basis of the external form of the Johannine writings. The inquiry is here made as to the Johannine use of the words of the Old Testament, the use of the original text and the Septuagint, and the point of view from which John interpreted the Old Testament. The result of this careful and minute examination goes far to prove—even when we have drawn the pen through some more or less fanciful conjectures!'—that the author of the Fourth Gospel must necessarily have been a Hebrew-speaking Jew of the first century, and * Cf. esp. review by Riehm in Studien und Kritiken, 1885, pp. 563-582. Johannine type of doctrine. Form of he writing. Theauthor a Hebrew- speaking Jew of the first century. Other writers. 334 LECTURE VI. in this proof Professor Franke makes a substantial addition to the evidence in favour of the authenticity. Space would fail me for even a brief enumeration of other modern writers who have been convinced that, the Fourth Gospel is really the work of the Apostle whose name it bears, and have felt constrained to offer their evidence in its favour; but the following names, at least, must be added: Olshausen, the Biblical commentator ;? the brilliant and able, though erratic, Thiersch ;* Baumgarten-Crusius, the Jena Professor of Theology ;* Andrews Norton, the American Unitarian divine : ὃ our own Greek Testa- ment commentators Alford® and Wordsworth 7 Bishop Alexander,® the rock of whose scholarship is none the less solid for being clothed with forms of poetic beauty ; Frederick Denison Maurice,’ ex- pounder of S. John in life and word ; Astié,’ the 2 Die Aechtheit der wer cano- nischen Evangelien, 1823 ; Nach- weis der Echtheit des Newen Testa- ments, 1832 ; Biblische Commentar, edited after author’s death by Ebrard and Wiesinger, 1837-62 ; Commentary on the Gospels, Clark’s Library, 1846. 3 Versuch zur Herstellung des hist. Standpunkts fiir die Kritik der N. T. Schriften, 1845 ; Hinige Worte iiber die Aechtheit der N. T. * Schriften, 1846; Die Kirche in apost. Zeitalter wu. die Entstehung der N. T. Schriften, 1852. * Theologische Auslegung der Jo- hanneischen Schriften, 1848. Part 11. 1845. Posthumous. > Genuineness of the Gospels, 1837-44 ; ed. 2, 1846: see esp. evidence of Justin and the early Heretics. Cf. Lecture II. p. 68. ® Greek Testament, 1849-61. 7 Greek Testament, 1856-60, 1872. ὃ Commentary on Epistles of S. John, 1881, ed. Canon Cook ; and Epistles of S. John in the Ex- positor’s Bible, 1889. ® Gospel of St. John, 1857. τ Explication de V Evangile selon Saint Jean, 1863-4. LECTURE VI. 9.9.9 Professor at Lausanne; Tischendorf,? known as ἃ textual critic to us all ; Thenius,® to whom it was the Gospel of Gospels ; Fisher,’ Professor at Yale College ; Uhlhorn,’ in various essays, especially the series on Modern Presentation of the Lives of Jesus; Riggen- bach,° who answers Volkmar, and Van Oosterzee,’ who answers Scholten ; De Pressensé* in many works, especially the Jésus Christ; Richard Holt Hutton,® author of the ablest essay on Baur in the English, perhaps in any language ; Schaff,' especially in the edition of Lange’s Commentary, and the History of the Church; Milligan,? Professor at Aberdeen, in separate essays and in the Commentary, where he had the great advantage of Moulton® for a co-worker ; Liddon* and Leathes® and Wace,° our Bampton Lecturers ; McLellan,’ whose learned work is un- * Lange's Commentary, 1872, new edition, 1886; and History of tne Christian Church, New York, 2 Wann wurden unsere Evange- lien verfasst ? 1865-6. 5. Das Evangelium der Evange- lien, 1865. * Essays on Supernatural Origin of Christianity, 1866 ; Article in American edition of Smith’s Dic- tionary of the Bible, 1868 ; Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, 1885. 5 Vortriige ... 1866. & Die Zeuanisse, 1866. 7 Das Johannes - Evangelium, 1867 ; Eng. Trans. 1869. 8 Jésus-Christ, son temps, sa vie, son cewvre, 1866. 9. Theological Essays, 1871, ed. 3, 1888. Lebens Jesu, 1858, ed. 3, 1886, &ec. 2 Contemporary Review, 1867 - 68-71 ; Journal of Sacred Litera- ture, 1867. * Popular Commentary on S. John’s Gospel, 1879. * The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 1866, ed. 13, 1889. ° Witness of St. John to Christ, 1870 ; Religion of the Christ, 1874. ° The Gospel and its Witnesses, 1883. 7 Four Gospels, 1875. Value of their testimony. 336 LECTURE VI. happily but a fragment ; Lias* and Murphy,’ whose works on the doctrinal system furnish evidence of high value ; Ezra Abbot,’ whose name has occurred to us already ; Charteris,’ Professor at Edinburgh, and author of a singularly modest and able work on Canonicity ; Plummer,®? my own colleague at Dur- ham ; Schanz,* Professor at Tiibingen, and one of the ablest modern commentators of the Roman church ; Reynolds,’ President of Cheshunt College, who has lately contributed an original investigation of striking cogency and freshness ; and the Abbé Fillion,® whose recent work on the Bible contains a valuable Intro- duction to the Gospels, and especially to the Gospel according to ὃ. John. This is not merely a list of names : it represents a body of men, differing in nationality, language, church, and creed, but, without an exception, able and careful scholars, who have thought out the pro- blem for themselves. We may not accept all their statements, but their convictions have been formed side by side with, and in full consideration of, the negative criticism of the Gospel ; and their combined witness is at once in the strongest degree condemna- 8 Doctrinal System of St. John, * Commentar, 1885. 1875. > Pulpit Commentary : ὃ. John, ® Scientific Basis of Faith, 1873. Introduction, 1888. 1 External Evidences, 1880. ® Introduction générale aux 2 Canonicity, 1880. Evangiles ; Sainte Bible, avec Com- 5 Greek Testament: St. John, mentaires, 1889. 1882. LECTURE VI. Bus tory of this criticism, and in the strongest degree confirmatory of the Johannine authorship. Four names are absent from the above list which will occur to all English-speaking students as repre- senting the most trustworthy body of opinion on this subject. I have reserved them for somewhat fuller notice, because I venture to submit that the opinions of Bishop Lightfoot, Bishop Westcott, Dr. Salmon, and Dr. Sanday form in combination a weight of evidence upon this subject which not only overbalances any similar combination, but is in itself absolutely unique. I will first ask you to think for a few moments of the witnesses and then of their evidence. Of Bishop Lightfoot’s special qualifications to pronounce an opinion, a careful estimate was pub- lished three or four years ago by one of the few men who is thoroughly able to judge :— What, it may be asked, are the particular qualities which have won for Bishop Lightfoot so pre-eminent a place, by the universal consent of all competent judges both in England and on the Continent? It is necessary here to weigh our words ; for though the impression which Bishop Lightfoot has left upon the public mind is a very distinct one, yet when a comparison is suggested with other illustrious names, it is not enough to use general phrases, and it becomes im- portant to single out special points which are most character- istic and distinctive. I should be disposed to say, then, that the place which Bishop Lightfoot holds was due not only to his possession, but to his very remarkable balance and com- bination, of a number of distinct excellences—exactness of scholarship, width of erudition, scientific method, sobriety of Z Four English names reserved for special treatment. Character of the witnesses : Bishop Light- foot, 1828-89. Bishop Westcott. 338 | LECTURE VI. judgment, lucidity of style.?.. . All through his writings we feel that we have before us the Senior Classic, who was at home in Thucydides and Plato before he was at home in St. Paul; he had shown his skill in many a piece of finished classical composition before he undertook to repro- duce the Greek of Polycarp where the Latin only was extant ; and it was his practised hand and trained sensitiveness to Greek idiom that made itself felt in his felicitous emenda- tions of Clement and Ignatius. It is here that the Cambridge scholar has the advantage over his German competitors. . . . In reference to exegesis. and criticism, I doubt if it is any exaggeration to say that up to the date* of his transference to Durham, not a monograph of any importance in England, France, Italy, or Germany seems to have escaped him... . His critics may hold different opinions themselves (based very probably in large part upon the materials which Bishop Lightfoot has given them), but I do not remember to have seen or heard of an instance in which he was convicted of what we should call a mistake. . . . We have only to think of the range of his published works to realise what this means.? Other writers have had a scientific method, and yet they do not command the same degree of confidence. It is impossible altogether to eliminate the individual element in critical decisions, and the peculiar reliance which is placed in those of Dr. Lightfoot is due to the sense that they have been most carefully and judicially weighed. . . . He never takes up an idea hastily; and if he is slow to give his thoughts expression, they come with all the more weight of maturity when they are expressed.' Of the scholarship, the knowledge, the thought, the delicate powers of perception and intuition which 7 Dr. Sanday in the Hxpositor, 9 Dr. Sanday, wt supra, pp. 18, July 1886, pp. 19, 14. 19, 20. 8 There was no occasion to fix 1 Ibid. pp. 21, 22. this limit. LECTURE VL 339 the present Bishop of Durham has devoted for half a century to the New Testament writings—-their con- tents, their text, and their history—and above all to the writings of 5. John, it is unnecessary to remind an English student. Many scholars and thinkers felt what one of their number said, when the Commentary on the Fourth Gospel was published :-— To appreciate in any degree the merit of Professor West- cott’s work—the fullest, the most finished, the most entirely decisive of its kind, we incline to think, in the whole compass of English theological literature—it is necessary to see what the most advanced position of sceptical criticism actually is, that it may be perceived how quietly and completely it is pulverised by this great master.? Of the special value of Dr. Salmon’s judgment, like testimony from a like competent authority is at hand :— Dr. Salmon’s ‘ Historical Introduction to the New Testa- ment’ is one of those remarkable books which can only be pro- duced at rare intervals, and of which the importance depends on a singular combination in their subject-matter, their author- ship, and the circumstances in which they appear. . . . The name of Dr. Salmon is of Huropean reputation, and the weight it carries is all the greater, because this reputa- tion was originally gained in another field of labour. Dr. Salmon’s works have, for many years, been the standard treatises for advanced students in some of the highest branches of modern mathematical science. They still hold their ground, notwithstanding the great progress which has been made in the abstruse subjects of which some of them treat. They have been translated into two or three of the Continental languages, and the eminence they have won was * Church Quarterly Review, Jan. 1880, p. 329. Z2 Dr. Salmon. 340 LECTURE VI. marked, not long ago, by the election of their author to the rare distinction of a Member of the French Institute.* .. . Considering the prevalent superstitious worship of science and its high priests, it must add to the attention a man can command if he is one of the initiated in this mystery. Dr. Salmon speaks with full authority in this respect, and he is one of the most eminent of the many examples around us, including the present President of the Royal Society, that profound scientific knowledge is fully compatible with a devout faith in the Creed of Christianity. . . . It will be seen, that the real truth is, that the inveterate prejudice is on the part of the chief opponents of Christian tradition. But it is none the less valuable that the truth should be main- tained, as in this volume, in a spirit which must impress every fair reader with the scientific calmness of the writer's spirit and method. ‘ Although,’ says the author in his Pre- face, ‘my work may be described as apologetic in the sense that its results agree in the main with the traditional belief of the Church, I can honestly say that I have not worked in the spirit of an advocate anxious to defend a foregone conclu- sion. I have aimed at making my investigations historical, and at asserting nothing but what the evidence, candidly weighed, seemed to warrant.’ The tone, no less than the method, of Dr. Salmon’s argument fully sustains this claim, and engages, from the outset, the reader’s confidence. One feels oneself in the hands of a quiet and masterly guide, who is only con- cerned to point out to us the facts with which we have to deal, and who will not press a single conclusion merely because it conforms to his own inclination or presump- tions. . . . In discussing any question of criticism, Dr. Salmon writes in just the same manner as if he were investi- gating a problem in conic sections or the higher algebra.* 8 Since these words were writ- Copley Medal of the Royal Society ten, the high academical distinc- (1889) have been conferred on tion of the Provostship of Trinity Dr. Salmon. College, Dublin (1888), and the * Quarterly Review, Oct. 1886, high scientific distinction of the pp. 460-463. LECTURE VI. 341 Our own Professor of Exegesis has been fewer years before the world than any one of the three with whom he is here grouped ; but if a like number of years 1s given him for his work, a future generation of scholars will probably think him not the least competent of the group to express an authoritative judgment on the present question. It was to the Johannine problem that Dr. Sanday devoted his first published work ; and it is this problem which has occupied much of his later studies. He has the pecuhar fitness for it which comes from the addition to sound scholarship and an untiring power of taking pains, of a delicately balanced judgment which appre- ciates the weight of every objection and sympathizes with the feeling of every difficulty. The reader of Dr. Sanday’s writings may sometimes think that he carries this sensitiveness to modern objections too far; and that he is too ready to invert the legal maxim and to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt ; but the balanced mind which estimates even the trifling weight of a passing theory is never unaffected by the solid weight of historic fact, and the final judgment is definite and clear. It is the more necessary to invite attention to the really remarkable position of these English divines, because, on the one hand, some continental writers seem to live in unhappy ignorance of them ; and, on the other hand, many English students, taking omne agnotum pro magnifico, seem to think it necessary to their reputation as scholars, to give ready credence to Dr. Sanday. Their position unnoticed by Bleek, Weiss, Meyer. 342 LECTURE VI. the last essay which has appeared in a Zeitschrift, or, as German is now more commonly known, to the last thesis which has been printed at a Dutch university. They import rushlights from abroad, apparently un- aware that they have sunlight at home. It is very much to the loss of German science, and it is in itself almost incredible, for example, that in a book so full and able, and in most respects thoroughly up to date, as the last edition of Bleek’s Introduction® by Mangold—a work extending to more than a thousand closely-printed pages—there is hardly a reference to any writer of this group. Ephesians, Colossians, Phi- lippians and the Ignatian question are dealt with in 1886 without a reference to Bishop Lightfoot ; and the writings of 5. John, and the Canon of the New Testament, without a reference to Dr. Westcott ! Weiss’s Introduction is later still. I have already referred to its excellence. In the preface, printed in English in 1887, the author says :— Of actual fellow-workers on the problems of the New Testament I hope I have forgotten none. But I have not been able to follow up foreign literature to any extent.® There is no trace of any acquaintance with a single English writer. Nor is this serious omission amended in the German edition of last year. Meyer’s Commentary on the Gospel of S. John® has passed through seven German editions, of which the " Cf. supra, p. 314. δ Cf. supra, pp. 324 sq. Τ᾽ Cf. supra, pp. 319 sq. LECTURE VIL. 343 last was issued by Dr. Weiss in 1886. Heis apparently quite unaware that Dr. Westcott had published his great work seven years before—though he has ‘ natu- rally ’ referred to the modern English editions of the text—and he explains that he makes no use of the third edition of Godet’s Commentary, because it had not yet been translated from French into German.?® But in England at least we know what value to attach to the evidence of these witnesses. I will de- tain you but a few moments by reference to it. And first, the evidence of Bishop Lightfoot. I have already quoted his final opinion, based upon the internal evidences of the Fourth Gospel.? This is his view of the external evidences written in 1876, and republished last year :— We have now reached the close of the second century, and it is not necessary to pursue the history of the School of St. John in their Asiatic home beyond this point. . . . Out of a very extensive literature, by which this school was once represented, the extant remains are miserably few and frag- mentary; but the evidence yielded by these meagre relics is decidedly greater, in proportion to their extent, than we had any right to expect. As regards the Fourth Gospel, this is especially the case. Ifthe same amount of written matter— occupying a very few pages in all—were extracted accident- ally from the current theological literature of our own day, the chances, unless 1 am mistaken, would be strongly against our finding so many indications of the use of this Gospel. In every one of the writers, from Polycarp and Papias to Polycrates, we have observed phenomena which bear witness directly or 8 Op. cit. 2te Hilfte, p. viii. ® Cf. Lecture IIT. p. 165. Their evidence : Bishop Light- foot’s: Theschool of S. John in second century. 344 LECTURE VI. indirectly, and with different degrees of distinctness, to its recognition. It is quite possible for critical ingenuity to find a reason for discrediting each instance in turn. An objector may urge in one case, that the writing itself is a forgery ; in a second, that the particular passage is an interpolation ; in a third, that the supposed quotation is the original and the language of the Evangelist the copy; in a fourth, that the in- cident or saying was not deduced from this Gospel but from some apocryphal work, containing a parallel narrative. By a sufficient number of assumptions, which lie beyond the range of verification, the evidence may be set aside. But the early existence and recognition of the Fourth Gospel is the one simple postulate which explains all the facts. The law of gravitation accounts for the various phenomena of motion, the falling of a stone, the jet of a fountain, the orbits of the planets, and so forth. It is quite possible for any one, who is so disposed, to reject this explanation of nature. Provided that he is allowed to postulate a new force for every new fact with which he is confronted, he has nothing to fear. He will then ‘gird the sphere With centric and eccentric scribbled o’er, Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb,’ happy in his immunity. But the other theory will prevail nevertheless by reason of its simplicity.! Again :— Irenzeus is the first extant writer in whom, from the nature of his work, we have a right to expect explicit infor- mation on the subject of the Canon. Earlier writings, which have been preserved entire, are either epistolary, like the let- ters of the Apostolic Fathers, where any references to the Canonical books must necessarily be precarious and incidental (to say nothing of the continuance of the oral tradition at this " Contemporary Review, xxvii. pp. 495-6 ; Essays on Supernatural Religion, 1889, pp. 249 sq. LECTURE VI. 345 early date as a disturbing element); or devotional, like the Shepherd of Hermas, which is equally devoid of quotations from the Old Testament and from the New; or historical, like the account of the martyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons, where any such allusion is gratuitous ; or apologetic, like the great mass of the extant Christian writings of the second century, where the reserve of the writer naturally leads him to be silent about authorities which would carry no weight with the Jewish or heathen writers whom he addressed. But the work of Irenzeus is the first controversial treatise addressed to Chris- tians on questions of Christian doctrine, where the appeal lies to Christian documents. And here the testimony to our four Gospels is full and clear and precise.’ This is the definite witness of Bishop Westcott :— As far, therefore, as indirect internal evidence is con- cerned, the conclusion towards which all the lines of inquiry converge remains unshaken, that the fourth Gospel was written by a Palestinian Jew, by an eye-witness, by the disciple whom Jesus loved, by John the son of Zebedee.? Again :— Three passages (John i. 14; xix. 35; xxi. 24) appear to point directly to the position and person of the author. . . The general result of the examination of these passages is thus tolerably distinct. The Fourth Gospel claims to be written by an eye-witness, and this claim is attested by those who put the work in circulation.‘ Again :— In considering the external evidence for the author- Bishop West- cott’s: Internal evidence. External ship of the Fourth Gospel, it is necessary to bear in mind evidence. 2 Contemporary Review xxviii. 3. The Gospel according to St. pp. 419, 420; Essays, ut supra, John, ed. of 1886, p. xxv. p. 271. * Ibid. pp. xxv and xxviii. All evi- dence points in one direc- tion. Dr. Salmon’s: Gospel and 346 LECTURE VI. the conditions under which it must be sought. It is agreed on all hands that the Gospel was written at a late date, towards the close of the first century, when the Evangelic tradition, preserved in complementary forms in the Synoptic Gospels, had gained general currency, and from its wide spread had practically determined the popular view of the life and teaching of the Lord. And further, the substance of the record deals with problems which belong to the life of the Church and to a more fully developed faith. On both grounds references to the contents of this Gospel would naturally be rarer in ordinary literature than references to the contents of the other Gospels. Express citations are made from all about the same time.’ Again :— In reviewing these traces of the use of the Gospel in the first three quarters of a century after it was written, we readily admit that they are less distinct and numerous than those might have expected who are unacquainted with the character of the literary remains of the period. But it will be observed that all the evidence points in one direction. There is not, with one questionable exception, any positive indication that doubt was anywhere thrown upon the authen- ticity of the book. It is possible to explain away in detail this piece of evidence and that, but the acceptance of the book as the work of the Apostle adequately explains all the phenomena without any violence; and hitherto all the new evidence which has come to light has supported this universal belief of the Christian Society, while it has seriously modified the rival theories which have been set up against it.® The evidence of Dr. Salmon is not less remark- able :— I do not think it necessary to spend much time on the proofs that the first Epistle and the Gospel are the work ° The Gospel, ut supra, p. XXviil. 6 Tbid, p. xxxii. LECTURE VI. 347 of the same writer. . . . It would be waste of time if I were to enumerate and answer the points of objection to this view made by Davidson and others of his school, whose work seems to me no more than laborious trifling.. These microscopic critics forget that it is quite as uncritical to be blind to re- semblances as it is to overlook points of difference. . . . I am sure that any unprejudiced judge would decide that while the minute points of difference that have been pointed out between the Gospel and the first Epistle are no more than must be expected in two productions of the same writer, the general resemblance is such, that a man must be devoid of all faculty of critical perception who cannot discern the proofs of common authorship. The main reason for denying the common authorship is that, if it be granted, it demolishes certain theories about St. John’s Gospel.’ Again :— The Fourth Gospel, as I have said, has been the subject of far more serious assaults than the others. If the others are allowed to have been published soon after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, the fourth is not assigned an earlier date than the latter half of the second century. Such, at least, was Baur’s theory; but in the critical sifting it has under- gone, the date of the fourth Gospel has been receding further and further back in the second century, so that now hardly any critic with any pretension to fairness puts it later than the very beginning of that century, if not the end of the first century, which comes very close to the date assigned it by those who believe in the Johannine authorship.*® Again :— Now, with respect to external evidence, I have already expressed my belief that John’s Gospel stands on quite 7 Historical Introduction to the New Testament, ed. 2, 1886, pp. 210, 211. δ. ps 213: First Kpistle by same writer. Date of Gospel. External evidence. Conditions of author- ship met only by 8. John. Dr. Sanday’s. Advance of positive evidence. 348 LECTURE VI. as high a level of authority as any of the others. Suf- fice it now to say that if it be a forgery it has had the most wonderful success ever forgery had: at once received not only by the orthodox, but by the most discordant heretics —by Judaising Christians, Gnostics, Mystics—all of whom owned the necessity of reconciling their speculations with the sayings of this Gospel.® Again :— The author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew.!.... The writer was a Jew of Palestine? .... I regard it, then, as proved that the writer of the fourth Gospel was a Jew, not very distant in time from the events which he relates. Is there, then, any reason why we should refuse credence to the claim, which he himself makes four times, to have been an eye-witness of our Saviour’s life (i. 14; xix. 35; xxi. 24; 1 John i. 1)? There is nothing against admitting this claim, but everything in favour of it? .... IJ think we may also conclude that the writer had been a disciple of the Baptist as well as of our Lord.*.... And no account of the matter seems satisfactory but the traditional one, that the writer was the Apostle John.° This is the evidence of Dr. Sanday, taken from his Inaugural Lecture before this University :— It is now some ten years since I published ἃ book (Authorship of the Fourth Gospel) on the subject, and in the meantime this question, too, has not stood still. I have already alluded to the remarkable change in the aspect of the external evidence. When I wrote I excused myself from dealing with this on the ground that its results were in- conclusive. This could not be said now. Justin, Tatian, ® Historical Introduction, wut 3 Ibid. p. 275. supra, pp. 215, 216. 4 Ibid. p. 276. ' Tbid. Ὁ. 268. ὃ Ibid. p. 284. 2 Ibid. p. 271. LECTURE VIL 349 the Clementine Homilies, no longer give an uncertain sound. If only the textual argument of which I have spoken holds good—and I have great confidence that it will be found to hold good—then it seems to me that the date of the Gospel is all but demonstrated. As it is, the date assigned to it by some eminent critics has become little less than ludicrous in the light of our fuller knowledge. Baur’s 160-170, Volkmar’s 155, Scholten’s 140, are all dates at which not only is it certain that the Gospel existed, but highly probable that it was already translated, or at least being translated, and that with a text some way advanced on the road of corruption. Jam running a little ahead of the proof in asserting this, but not, I suspect, very far. Dies docebit. But if the case is made out in all its strength, a priori con- siderations must yield, and the Gospel must take rank as the work of a contemporary, as it professes to be.® The Gospel of St. John presents an unique phenomenon. It contains two distinct strata of thought, both quite unmistake- able to the critical eye ; and in each of these strata, again, there are local peculiarities which complicate the problem. When it comes to be closely investigated, the complexities of the problem are such that the whole of literature probably does not furnish a parallel. The hypothesis of authorship that shall satisfy them thus becomes in its turn equally compli- cated. It is necessary to find one who shall be at once Jew and Christian, intensely Jewish, and yet comprehensively Christian ; brought up on the Old Testament, and yet with a strong tincture of Alexandrian philosophy ; using a lan- euage in which the Hebrew structure and the Greek super- structure are equally conspicuous; one who had mixed personally in the events, and yet at the time of writing stood at a distance from them; an immediate disciple of Jesus, and yet possessed of so powerful an individuality as to impress the mark of himself upon his recollections; a nature capable of the most ardent and clinging affection, and yet an unsparing δ An Inaugural Lecture: The Study of the New Testament. Oxford, 1883, pp. 28, 29. Internal evidence. One key only fits the wards. Conclu- sion: Persona- lity. Anony- mity. Evidence largely 350 LECTURE VI. denouncer of hostile agencies of any kind which lay outside his own charmed circle. There is one historical figure which seems to fit like a key into all these intricate wards,—the figure of St. John, as it has been handed down to us by a well-authenticated tradition. I can conceive no second. If the St. John of history did not exist, he would have to be invented to account for his Gospel.’ In presenting to you this sketch of modern criti- cal opinions, which, imperfect as it is, must now be brought to a close, | have made no attempt—though in our age it has been not seldom put forward as an excellence—to look at opinions altogether apart from the personality of those who have formed them. I make no claim to be able to estimate testimony without reference to the person who testifies. ‘The author of Supernatural Religion, in the Introduction to his Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays, adopts the opposite point of view, which he expresses in the following words :— I may distinctly say that I have always held that argu- ments upon very serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. I leave the Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I take my stand upon the basis of reason and not of reputation.® And ‘Testimony, as Dr. Johnson reminds us, ‘is like an arrow shot from a long bow ; the force of it depends on the strength of the hand that draws it. 7 The Study of the New Testament, ut supra, p. 32. 8 A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot’s Essays, 1889, p. vi. LECTURE VI. 501 Argument is like an arrow from ἃ cross-bow, which has equal force though shot by a child”? But history is not chiefly a question of pure reason, and evidence is largely a question of reputation. What we want to know is, not what the very ablest man may from his own point of view conceive that the first and second century ought to have been, but what the first and second century were. And the special value of Bishop Lightfoot’s testimony to us is, not that he spoke from the throne of a bishop, but that he spoke as a prince among scholars, placed upon his throne by the universal suffrages of students. It is not that he was the successor of prince-bishops, and himself a prince among bishops, but that he was the humblest and most laborious of students who in singleness of purpose sought the truth with energy which knew not what it was to be weary, with in- dustry which knew not what it was to leave the remotest byways of knowledge unexplored, with anxious care which wiped the very dust from the scales of judgment which he held; who never trusted himself nor asked a reader to trust him, and never bade you take a step with him on a road which was not supported by arches of thought and builded up by buttresses of minute investigations. Of a witness to the first and second century, as to ° Boswell says that Johnson under Crossbow, in a slightly called this ‘a beautiful image in different form, as from Boyle. Bacon’; but it is given in the See Hill, Boswell’s Lifeof Johnson, later editions of the Dictionary, — vol. iv. p. 281. a question of reputa- tion. Requisites ina witness: full know- ledge, perfect honesty. 352 LECTURE VI. a witness to any incident, the first requisite is, Was he there ? Did he see what took place ? Now Bishop Lightfoot, pre-eminently among men who have lived in this century, fulfilled this requisite. He never at- tempted to write a page before he had investigated the principles and facts which he meant to teach. Start- ing from highest intellectual and moral gifts, with every advantage of most exact academic training, the early history of the Church became a first aim in all To him the persons, the places, the incidents of the first Christian his studies. He essentially went there. centuries became a living reality. The skeletons of the chroniclers were clothed with the flesh and blood He moved among them in the familiar intercourse of old acquaintance. And when he came to testify, he ‘ testified what he had seen.’ * of real persons. And the second requisite is, absolute honesty. I have read to you some opinions of others on the work of Bishop Lightfoot. echoes of the Church’s wailing when he was taken Our ears still listen to the from us. His transparent character is known to us. It is as the brightness of the sun, in the presence of which the earth-born mist of suspicion vanishes 1 ‘Thedistinction betweentesti- satisfactory to my understanding. mony, argument, and authority may be briefly summed up thus :— ‘In questions of testimony, I believe a matter of fact, because the witness believes it. ‘In questions of argument, 1 believe the conclusion to be true, because it is proved by reasons ‘In questions of authority, I believe a matter of opinion, be- cause it is believed by a person whom I consider a competent judge of the question.’ Sir George Cornewall Lewis, On the Influence of Authority in Opinion, 1875, p. 18. LECTURE VI. 908 away. ‘ We know that his testimony is true.” Who will think that such testimony is independent of the great personality which stands behind it? I have chosen this personality to illustrate our position because of its acknowledged characteristics, and be- cause I may speak more freely of one who, while in the freshness of memory he is still with us, has in bodily presence been taken from us ; but who will not also feel that, while this witness stands in the foremost rank, he is accompanied and followed by others whose personality joins with his, and that these witnesses together with their witness make the positive evidence of this age a strong confirma- tion of and a substantial addition to that of the centuries which have gone before, and a solid support for that of the centuries which are yet to come? At the mouth of two witnesses or three shall every word be established. In the next lecture it will be my duty to give some account of the results which are to be derived from recent discoveries and other actual additions to our knowledge of our present subject. AA ἐσ Ὺ δ ἡ ts @of \t ΒΨ they "ἅ μη jsf) Ἵ bhCT Uni, VEE ‘OUR AGE’ RECENT ADDITIONS TO OUR KNOWLEDGE AP OTN AEIOMEN TI AOZAN EINAI; TINS FAP OT; TIOTEPON AAAHN AYNAMIN ἘΠΙΣΤΗΜΗΣ H THN AYTHN; AAAHN. ἘΠ AAAQ APA TETAKTAI AOZA KAI ΕΠ AAAQ EMISTHMH, KATA THN [AYTHN] AYNAMIN EKATEPA THN ATTH2. ΟΥ̓ΤΩΣ. Plato. LECTURE VII. Therefore every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like untoa man that is a householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.—Matt. xiii. 52. ‘Our age’ is remarkable not only for the eminent writers who have given to us the benefit of their thoughts on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, but also for positive additions to our knowledge of the subject, the first numbers, probably, of an ex- tended series, the results of which no one can esti- mate.! 1 What, for example, would be the effect of the discovery of the complete works of Papias? And we may be near to it. They were perhaps knownin the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries, as appears from the following extract :— ‘Utinam vero ad nos usque pervenissent illa! Ht supererant quidem szeculo xili ineunte, ut e codicum MSS. catalogo circa annum Christi 1218 confecto eru- dimur quem ex ecclesiz Nemau- sensis tabulario erutum, cl. Me- nardus haud ita pridem evulgavit : ut proinde viri eruditissimi recte conjecisse existimantur, quod Trithemii quoque zetate, ut ipse- met innuere videtur, szeculo nimirum xv exeunte, eadem ex- stitisse potuerint: licet Caveus The earth has revealed facts which have for et Fabricius neutiquam id sibi persuadeant.’ S. Papias Hiera- politanus Episcopus, Notitia 11]. Migne, Series Greca, 1857, tom. v. p. 1254. About the same time there seem to have been four copies of the works of a Papias in the library of the monastery at Canterbury, one of which is de- scribed as ‘mpfectus,’ and one has the words ‘Luce ΡῈ Wyn- CHELESE’ attached. Bibl. Cotton. Galba, E. IV. pp. 194 col. 2, 135 col. 2, 187 col. 1, 148 col. 3. Bernard gives references to two other works of a Papias, one in the Cathedral Library at Worcester, the other in the Library of Robert Burscough. Catalogi Librorum Manuscriptorum, 1697. State- ment of the subject. Width of field. 358 LECTURE VII. centuries lain concealed beneath its surface. Monas- teries and libraries have rewarded the patient inves- tigation of scholars by discoveries of priceless value. Language has furnished its students with the key of hidden treasures. Criticism has, in the hands of its masters, arrived at inductions which must take their place in the domain of established fact. In entering upon this part of our subject it will at once be seen that a vast field of inquiry is presented to our view, and that we must limit our- selves to a mere reference to large portions of it. We cannot, for example, enter into any details of the interesting work of the Palestine Exploration Fund, of that of Mr. Wood in Ephesus, or of Mr. Ramsay in Asia Minor ; we must remind ourselves only of the discoveries of the Codex δὶ, Codex Sangallensis, Codex Tischendorfianus iii., and Codex Holmiensis ; of the Curetonian Syriac ; of the Epistle of Barnabas, of portions of the so-called Homilies of Clement of Rome, and of the Didache. But let us do this much at least, for our familiar knowledge may lead us to forget how much additional light has come to us, and is still coming to us, in this ‘ our age.’ Nor ought we to be unmindful how textual criti- cism in the person of students such as Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, Burgon ; and in these later days in the hands of Westcott and Hort, Gregory, Sanday, Wordsworth, and White, has dis- covered the links by which the text of our present copies of the Gospel is to be traced at least well LECTURE VII. 359 back into the second century. Nor yet ought we to forget how, in special departments of this field, the labours of the Archbishop Bryennios in the East, of Cardinal Pitra and of Commendatore de Rossi in Rome, of the Abbé Martin in Paris, of Dr. Belsheim in Sweden, of the rising school of textual critics in Holland, of Professors Zahn, Von Gebhardt, and Harnack in Germany, of the American Professors Hall and Warfield, of the Dublin Professors Gwynn and Abbott, of many others whom these names do but represent, are daily increasing the mass of evidence ; and how the results all lie in the same direction. But there are some additions to our knowledge which claim from their immediate connexion with our own subject a fuller, though it must still be a fragmentary, notice.’ And in the first place let us consider the import- ance of a discovery in the practical utilization of which the University of Oxford took considerable part. M. Mynoide Mynas, a Greek scholar in the employ of the French Government, who had been sent out by M. Villemain, the Minister of Public Instruction, on a search expedition among the libraries of the Greek monasteries, brought from Mount Athos in 1842, among other MSS., one of the fourteenth century, 2 Cf. generally Lechler’s slight have been saved some trouble in but interesting tract, Urkwnden- references, had I met with it funde zur Geschichte des christ- before this lecture was in print. lichen Alterthums, 1886. I might M. Ville- main’s search ex- pedition. Dis- coveries by M. Mynas. The Philo- sophu- MENA 360 LECTURE VII. containing ten books, which professed to include a Refutation of all Heresies.* Among the other trea- sures which M. Mynas had acquired were a transcript of the long-lost ables of Babrius, a MS. of the Dialectica of Galen, and one of the Gymnastica of Philostratus ;* and attention was first naturally directed to these works of more general interest. The MS. treatise to which [I am inviting your pre- sent thought was not on a very attractive subject, and M. Emmanuel Miller, one of the officers of the Bibliotheque Nationale, in which these treasures had been deposited, described it in 1844 simply as a Manuscript of the fourteenth century on cotton paper, containing a refutation of all heresies.2 The MS. was incomplete, beginning in the middle of the fourth book, but apparently had never contained books ili. ; and book x., which is a summary of the work, gives nothing of the contents of books i.-iv. Further investigation convinced M. Miller that the MS. was part of the Philosophumena which had been published by Gronovius and the Benedictine editors as the work of Origen. He thereupon proposed to the delegates of the Clarendon Press to undertake the printing and pub- 3 \ “ δι ν "»ὄ Κατα TAG@V αἱιρεσεῶν ἔλεγχος. * Cf. Rapport adressé a M. le réfutation de toutes les hérésies. Cet ouvrage, dun autewr anonyme, Ministre de Vinstruction publique, par M. Mynoide Mynas, chargé Mune mission en Orient in the Revue de Bibliographie Analytique, 1844, v. pp. 80 sqq. ° § Manuscrit en papier de coton, du XIVe siécle, contenant une est divisé en dix livres; mais les trois premiers manquent, ainsi que la fin.’ Ut swpra, p. 91. Cf. Origen’s Philosophumena ; or Re- Ffutation of all Heresies, ed. Miller, Oxford, 1851. Preface, p. v. LECTURE ὙΠ: 9501 lication of the work. His proposal was commended by Dr. Gaisford, to whom he was known as a Greek scholar, and in 1851 the work appeared under the title, Origen’s Philosophumena, or Refutation of all heresies. The first three books and part of the fourth are wanting, as we have just seen, in the Paris MS.; but M. Miller found it possible to supply the first book from four previously known MSS. in Italian libraries. When attention was once directed to the work, it attracted the notice of scholars far and wide. A striking example of this is found in the fact that an article from the pen of Professor Jacobi, of Berlin, controverting M. Miller’s view of the authorship, appeared in the Methodist Quarterly Review of New York in October of the same year.’ From a careful examination of the contents of the work, Professor Jacobi comes to the conclusion that it could not be by Origen, but that it was certainly by a contemporary of Origen. Everything points, in his opinion, to the presbyter Caius, or to Hippolytus. But Caius he remembers was specially distinguished by his opposition to Cerinthus, of whom our author has nothing new to tell us. Caius ascribed the Apocalypse to Cerinthus, our author to the Apostle John ; Caius was a strenuous opponent, our author probably an advocate, of sensuous chiliastic views. If the matter of the work is minutely examined, it 8 Origenis Philosophumena sive edidit Emmanuel Miller. Omnium Heresium Refutatio. EH 7 Methodist Quarterly Review, Codice Parisino nune primum Oct. 1851, pp. 645-652. edited by M. Miller. Views held by Jacobi, Duncker and Schneide- win, Bunsen, 362 LECTURE VII. falls in so strikingly with all we know of Hippolytus, as to leave little room for doubt that it was written by him; and it is also known that a work bearing this or a similar title was ascribed to Hippolytus by Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and Nicephorus, and that on the back of the seat of the statue of Hippo- lytus, which had been dug up at Portus in 1551, there were the names of writings which our author claims as his own. Professor Jacobi enlarged this article, and republished it in the fuller form in the German Journal for Christian Knowledge and Chris- tian Life.® Meanwhile Dr. Duncker had quite independently ascribed the treatise to Hippolytus in a review of M. Miller’s work in the Gottingen Literary Adver- tiser,? and undertook to produce an edition of the MS. This he commenced in conjunction with Dr. Schneidewin, but unhappily died before half the work was printed. His colleague completed and published the book in 1859, and their edition became the classical authority.’ Meanwhile also the Baron de Bunsen, who as a statesman and a diplomatist had special interests in 8 Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir christ- liche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1851, Nos. 25, 26; 1853, Nos. 24, 25. 9. Gottingische gelehrte Anzei- gen, 1851, Stiick 152-155. See also the valuable English treatise by Wordsworth, S. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome, ed. 2, 1880 ; and the article by Dr. Salmon, Hippolytus Romanus, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Chris- tian Biography, vol. iv. pp. 783- 804. 1 Cf. Hippolyti Refutatio om- nium Heresium, ed. Duncker et Schneidewin, Gottingen, 1859. LECTURE VII. 363 the Great Exhibition of 1851, had written to Arch- deacon Hare telling him how in the midst of it all, he had been interested in this new discovery of a monu- ment of early Christianity, which he thinks to be the most important made on that ground for a century. His attention had been called to it by Dr. Tregelles, who told him what importance Dr. Routh attached to it, and he accordingly at once sent for the book and examined it for himself. He also came quite independently of other inquirers to the conclusion ἡ that it is the work of Hippolytus, and published the results of his investigations at great length. Dr. Lommatzsch, the editor of Origen, had also written to Bunsen to express the opinion that the work could not be attributed to Origen, and that in his opinion it was the work of Hippolytus. Dr. von Dollinger followed in 1853,? admitting that the treatise is by Hippolytus, but seeking to prove from the character of the work that the author must have been a schismatic and an anti-pope. The Abbé Cruice felt convinced that the work was not written by Hippolytus, and in the valuable Introduction to his edition of it, arrives at the hesitat- ing result that it is a ‘work ascribed to Origen.’ 4 Baur was of opinion that the work was by Caius, 2 Hippolytus and his Age, 1852, * Etudes surdes . . . . Philoso- 4 vols., esp. Five Letters to Arch- phuwmena, 1853: Histoire de deacon Hare, vol. i. ; Christianity V Eglise de Rome, 1856 ; and esp. and Mankind, 1854, 7 vols. Philosophumena, sive Heresium 5 Hippolytus und Kallistus, omniwm Confutatio, opus Origeni 1853, Eng. Trans. Plummer, 1876. = adscriptum, Paris, 1860. Lom- matzsch, Von D6l- linger, Cruice, Baur and Fessler. Consensus of opinion in favour of Hippo- lytus. Import- ance of the dis- covery. 364 LECTURE VII. and was supported by Fessler, from the opposite Tiibingen camp,’ but he has now no following in this view, and indeed seems himself to have aban- doned it.® titschl, Volkmar, Overbeck, and, with the ex- ception of Lipsius (who is still doubtful, and quotes the work as pseudo-Origen), almost every authority of first importance now accepts the view that the discovery of Mynoide Mynas has really placed in our hands an original work of Hippoly- tus which dates from the first quarter of the third century. The interest and importance of the work, which this University had the honour of giving to the world, have not been overrated. Now for the first time we hear of Justin the Gnostic ; now we know something more than the names of Monoimus, and of the Pera- ticl; now we have a much fuller treatment than before of the doctrines of Simon Magus and the Simonians. Now for the first time in the history of Gnosticism there was presented a theory not of dualism, but of pantheistic monism, not of emanation from the higher to the lower, but of evolution from the lower to the higher. The position of Basilides at the beginning of the second century, as disclosed in this work, which was unknown in modern times until it was issued by the Clarendon Press of this ° Theologische Quartalschrift, 6. Christenthum und christliche 1852, ii. pp. 299 sqq.; Theolo- Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhun- gische Jahrbiicher, 1853, Heft 1, derte, 2te Aufl. 1860, p. 344. 3, and 1854, Heft 3. LECTURE VIL. 365 University less than forty years ago, reminds more than one of its exponents’ of the position of Hegel in the nineteenth century. The question naturally arose, and was eagerly discussed:—Is this the true Basilides? Are we to accept the statements of Hippolytus as representing the founder of the school, or have they been influ- enced by the teaching of later disciples ? It is of course just possible that the explanation of the dif- ference between this new picture and the features previously known to us, is to be found in an exoteric and esoteric doctrine, or that Hippolytus presents the doctrine in an earlier, and Ireneus in a later stage of the development, both being alike representa- | tions of the personal Basilides. But most thinkers have felt that they must choose between the old and the new ; and whether we count names, or weigh them, a strong preponderance of the best critical opinion is in favour of the view that we have in the pages of Hippolytus a faithful representation of the original work of Basilides himself. This deduction is based upon an examination of the passages in Hippolytus, and a comparison of them with the por- tions of the Hvegetica of Basilides which are known to be preserved in Clement of Alexandria ; and this view has been accepted by, among others, Jacobi,® 7 Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, sententias ex Hippolyti libro κατὰ 1875, edited by Bishop Lightfoot, πασῶν αἱρέσεων nuper reperto illus- Ρ. 147; Schaff, History of the travit 1852, Zeitschrift fiir Kir- Church, vol. 11. p. 453. chengeschichte, 1876-7, i. pp. 481 8 Basilidis philosophi gnostici 56. Which is the true Basilides? Critics generally prefer Hippo- lytus. Excep- tions. Opinions 366 LECTURE VIL. Baur,’ Uhlhorn,' by Gundert, though he thinks that there is a dualistic principle in the Hippolytean account,” and by Moller.’ On the other side, Hil- genfeld prided himself on being the first to oppose this view, and has remained consistent in his convic- tions. He has been followed by Lipsius, whose opinion is of great weight, but who has taken an exceptional line on the whole of the Hippolytean question ;° by Volkmar,® and by Scholten.’ In our own country the prevailing opinion that Hippolytus represents the original Basilides has been maintained in a lecture delivered before this University by the late Dean Mansel, as Professor of Ecclesiastical His- tory,® and in an article by the Cambridge Professor, Dr. Hort, which leaves little room for any further investigation into our present material for knowing 9 Christenthum und christliche Kirche, ut supra, 16 Aufl. 1853, * Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1856, i.; Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaft- pp. 187 sqq.; 2te Aufl. 1860, pp. 204 sqq. 1 Das SBasilidianische System mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Angaben des Hippolytus, 1855. 2 Das System des Gnostikers Basilides in Zeitschrift fiir lutheri- sche Theologie wnd Kirche, 1855, pp. 209-220; and 1856, pp. 37- 54. 3 Geschichte der Kosmologie im der griechischen Kirche bis auf Origenes, 1860, pp. 944 sqq. ; Zeit- schrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theo- logie, 1862, iv. pp. 452 sqq.; and Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, 1877-78, ii. pp. 422 sqq. liche Theologie, 1862, pp. 400 sqq., and especially 1878, pp. 228 sqq. 5. Der Gnosticismus, sein Wesen, Ursprung und Entwickelungsgang, 1860, pp. 101 sqq.; Zur Quellen- kritik des Epvphanios, 1866, pp. 101 sqq. ; Die Quellen der dltesten Ketzergeschichte, 1875, pp. 118 sqq. ὁ. Hippolytus und die rémischen Zeitgenossen, 1855; Ursprung unserer Evangelien, 1866, pp. 70 566. 7 Oudste Getuwigenissen, 1866, pp. 69 sqq. 8 Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 1875, wt supra, pp. 144-165. LECTURE VII. 367 the whole position of Basilides. Dr. Hort’s inquiries lead him to conclude that— The freshness and power of the whole section, wherever we touch the actual words of the author, strongly confirm the impression that he was no other than Basilides himself. Thus we are led independently to the conclusion suggested by the correspondence with the information of Clement, whom we know to have drawn from the fountain-head, the Huegetica. . . . We shall therefore assume that the eight chapters of Hippolytus (vil. 20-27) represent faithfully though imperfectly the contents of part at least of the Hxegetica of Basilides. . . .° M. Renan reached a similar conclusion quite independently, but having done so he is naturally more positive :— The author of the Philosophumena has without doubt made this analysis from the original works of Basilides.! This judgment has been arrived at, and is now generally held by critics of all schools of opinion, quite apart from any theory as to the Fourth Gospel. It is the result of an investigation into the sources of our knowledge of Gnosticism, arising out of the dis- covery and publication of the Philosophumena.? ® Art. Basilides in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. i. p. 271. 1 ¢ T/auteur des Philosophumena a sans doute fait cette analyse sur les ouvrages originaux de Basi- lide.’ L’Eglise Chrétienne, 1879, p- 158, note. 2 It is worthy of special remark that the reading which is given by all the editors in the opening sentence of this section is, as they themselves note, in opposition to the Parisian Codex, which is their sole authority. They read: Βασιλείδης τοίνυν καὶ Ἰσίδωρος, ὁ Βασιλείδου παῖς γνήσιος καὶ μαθητὴς, φασὶν εἰρηκέναι Ματθίαν. . .. (Duncker οὐ Schneidewin : Cruice. Miller makes the ob- of De: Hort, and M, Renan, This con- clusion in- dependent of any view of the Fourth Gospel. But this Basilides contains clear quo- tations from the Gospel. Meaning of φησίν, 308 LECTURE VIL. But when we come to read these eight chapters, which with great probability, not to say ‘ without doubt,’ represent faithfully a work of Basilides, we meet with two passages which are—I think we may now say ‘without doubt ’—verbal quotations from the Fourth Gospel. The first of these quotations occurs in the twenty- second chapter of the seventh book, which is upon ‘ the origin of the world and upon sonship.’ In the earlier part of the chapter there has been a definite mention of Basilides, and this is followed by a series of refer- ences in the singular number, ‘he says.’* In the midst of the series there is one plural reference to the school generally, ‘as these men say.’* Then the singular recurs, and is followed until the definite quotation, ‘ And this, he says, is that which is spoken of in the Gospels,’ He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.° vious mistake of correcting P, Hofstede de Groot, Basilides, Ματθίαν, which he gives as the reading of the Codex, into Mar@aiov. All read φασὶν ; all give the MS. reading φησίν.) Taken in connexion with the contents of the section, and the remarkable use of the word φησίν, it is probable that the singular is to be preferred as indicating that the teaching is that of Basilides, in which the son played only a subsidiary part. They are, as teachers, one person, not two. Cf. Deutsche Ausgabe, 1868, p. 4. 3 ΄ φησίν. 4 ¢ λέ Sy ὃ Ὁ ὡς λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνδρες οὗτοι. 5° Ἐπεὶ δὲ ἦν ἄπορον εἰπεῖν προβολήν τινα τοῦ μὴ ὄντος θεοῦ γεγονέναι τι οὐκ ὄν,--- φεύγει γὰρ πάνυ καὶ δέδοικε τὰς κατὰ προβολὴν τῶν γεγονότων οὐσίας ὁ Βασιλείδης---ποίας γὰρ a , a ͵ “ ε , προβολῆς χρεία, ἢ ποίας ὕλης ὑπό- θεσις, ἵνα κόσμον θεὸς ἐργάσηται, , « > , ΜΝ καθάπερ ὁ ἀράχνης τὰ μηρύματα, ἢ θνητὸς ἄνθρωπος χαλκὸν ἢ ξύλον ἤ τι τῶν τῆς ὕλης μερῶν ἐργαζόμενος LECTURE VIL. 569 The second quotation occurs in the twenty-seventh chapter of the same book, which deals with ‘the des- tiny of the creature,’ where, in the midst of a series of references in the third person singular, ‘he says,’ ® we read :— Now that each has its own seasons (he says), the Saviour is sufficient proof when he asserts ‘Mine hour is not yet come.’? | That Hippolytus here represents some one as quot- ing the Fourth Gospel is admitted on all sides ; it is indeed quite impossible to deny it. I confess that I λαμβάνει; ᾿Αλλὰ εἶπε, φησί, καὶ ἐγέ- Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ νετο; καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν, ὡς λέγουσιν οἱ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρ- ἄνδρες οὗτοι, τὸ λεχθὲν ὑπὸ Μωσέως: χόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.-- Γενηθήτω φῶς, καὶ ἐγένετο Johni. 9. φῶς. Πόθεν, φησί, γέγονε τὸ φῶς; 5 > , > \ , ΄ ἐξ οὐδενός: οὐ γὰρ γέγραπται, φησί, πόθεν, GAN’ αὐτὸ μόνον ἐκ τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ λέγοντος, ὁ δὲ λέγων, φησίν, οὐκ ἦν, οὐδὲ τὸ γενόμενον ἦν. Τέγονε, φησίν, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ , ΄- , ¢ , , κόσμου, ὁ λόγος ὁλεχθείς "γενηθήτω φῶς, καὶ τοῦτο, φησίν, ἔστι τὸ λε- , » - > , 5 ‘ γόμενον ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις" Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Hippolyti Refutatio omnium Heresium, vii. 22. Ed. Duncker et Schneidewin, p- 360. δ φησίν. σ ‘ , o δ. ~ a 7 Ὅτι δὲ, φησίν, ἕκαστον ἰδίους Καὶ λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς Τί y+ , c A c ‘ λέ 4 > A \ , Μ y+ a ες ἔχει καιρούς, ἱκανὸς ὁ σωτὴρ λέγων ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ε 2 ee Οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα pov, καὶ of ὥρα pov.—John ii. 4. μάγοι τὸν ἀστέρα τεθεαμένοι" ἦν γὰρ, φησί, καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπὸ γένεσιν ἀστέρων ~ > a καὶ ὡρῶν ἀποκαταστάσεως ἐν τῷ , , ol μεγάλῳ προλελογισμένος capa. Ibid. vii. 27, p. 876. Critical opinions : Bunsen’s, 370 LECTURE VII. should have thought it to be also impossible to deny that Basilides is himself here referred to, were it not that it has been denied. I know not who else in the whole school stood out so prominently that he could be referred to for an ipse dixit. For the purposes of our present inquiry it is not indeed of primary im- portance to ascertain whether this is the language of Basilides or of a disciple who represents him. If the disciple accepted the Gospel, he did so because the master had done so before him. But as a matter of literary criticism I invite you to a perusal of the context of the passages. ‘They are now easily within reach, and I submit that the natural, nay, more, the only reasonable interpretation of the whole is, that we are here reading the words of the founder of the school. We saw but just now that, as a question of history and philosophy, and quite apart from any inquiry about the Fourth Gospel, a remarkable con- sensus of critical opinion had expressed itself in favour of the view that these chapters come from the original Basilides. A certainly not less remarkable consensus of opinion, regarding the question now as one of the Fourth Gospel—you will of course see how the separate lines of investigation support each other —may be alleged in favour of the view that Basilides is quoting δ. John. Baron de Bunsen, to whose investigations of Hip- polytus we have referred, states in the preface to his work :— We have here, amongst others, quotations from the Gospel LECTURE VII. ay | of St. John by Basilides, who flourished in the beginning of the reign of Hadrian, or about the year 117; furnishing a conclusive answer to the unfortunate hypothesis of Strauss, and the whole school of Tiibingen, that the fourth Gospel was written about the year 165 or 170.8 Dr. Keim says—I quote from the English transla- tion of the Jesu von Nazara :— In the first place, it is certain that the Philosophowmena repeatedly and distinctly introduce the Johannine quotations of Basilides, and of no other; ‘he says’ and not ‘ they say,’ as it would have been were the writer quoting Isidore and the chorus of successors: and if the possibility of some confusion is admitted—though the evidence of such confusion is weak— yet the fact remains sufficiently clear that the fourth Gospel actually existed in the time of Basilides, and that the Gnostics—masters and scholars—eagerly laid hold of the book.® On a question which is much more one of literary perception than of theological learning, you will attach very high importance to the opinions of M. Renan and of Mr. Matthew Arnold. M. Renan says without hesitation :— Basilides makes use of the New Testament for the most 8 Hippolytus, ut supra, ed. behalten, sosehr der Aufweis des 1852, vol. i. p. v. 9. ‘Tm Voraus ist hier sicher, dass jene Schrift wiederholt bestimmt die johanneischen Citate des Basi- lides einfiihrt und keines Andern, “er sagt” und nicht ‘‘ sie sagen,” etwa Isidor und der folgende Chor ; und mag man die Μὸρ- lichkeit einer Verwechslung vor- Rechtes schwiichlich ist, so fallt die Thatsache genugsam in’s Gewicht, dass Johannes zur Zeit des Basilides wirklich existirte und dass die Gnosis nachweislich in den Meistern und Schiilern sein Buch eifrig ergriff.’ Jesu von Nazara, 1867, vol. i. p. 144; Eng. Trans., 1876, vol. i. p. 196. BR? Keim’s, M. Renan’s, Mr. Arnold’s. 372 LECTURE VIL. part in accord with the general consent, excluding certain books, especially the Epistles to the Hebrews, to Titus, to Timothy, but admitting the Gospel of John." Mr. Arnold is not less certain :— Now it is true that the author of the Philosophumena sometimes mixes up the opinions of the master of a school with those of his followers, so that it is difficult to distinguish between them. But if we take all doubtful cases of the kind and compare them with our present case, we shall find that it is not one of them. It is not true that here, where the name of Basileides has come just before, and where no mention of his son or of his disciples has intervened since, there is any such ambiguity as is found in other cases. It is not true that the author of the Philosophumena habitually wields the subjectless he says in the random manner alleged, with no other formula for quotation both from the master and from the followers. In general, he uses the formula according to them (κατ᾽ αὐτούς) when he quotes from the school, and the for- mula he says (φησί) when he gives the dicta of the master. And in this particular case he manifestly quotes the dicta of Basileides, and no one who had not a theory to serve would ever dream of doubting it. Basileides, therefore, about the year 125 of our era, had before him the Fourth Gospel.? Mr. Arnold follows the author of the Philoso- phumena to an earlier stage in Gnostic development in the East, and finds the predecessors of Basilides 1 ¢J] se servait du Nouveau Tes- ἃ Tite, ἃ Timothée, admettant tament, tel ἃ peu prés que le Jl Evangile de Jean.’ LD’ Fglise consentement général avait fait, Chrétienne, 1879, p. 162. excluant certains livres, en par- * God and the Bible, 1875, pp. ticulier les Epitres aux Hébreux, 268 sqq. LECTURE VII. 918 in the Naaseni or Ophites*? and the Ρεγαΐβ. These are his words :— So we must take the Naaseni and the Peratz, whom the author of Supernatural Religion dismisses in a line as ‘ obscure sects towards the end of the second century,’ we must take them as even earlier than Basileides and the year 125. Mr. Arnold continues :— These sects we find repeatedly using, in illustration of their doctrines, the Fourth Gospel. We do not say that they use it as John’s, or as a canonical Scripture. But they give say- ings of Jesus which we have in the Fourth Gospel and in no other, and they give passages from the author’s own prologue to the Fourth Gospel.* Τ have had occasion in a previous lecture to refer to the Clementine Homilies and to the fact that they are connected with an interesting modern discovery.° Our earliest knowledge of this work comes from Turrianus, who in his treatise on the Apostolic Canons in the sixteenth century ° made use of a MS. of the Homilies which is not now known. They were printed by Cotelier in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers of 1672, from one of the Colbertine MSS. in the Library at Paris. The manuscript was, how- ever, both defective—breaking off in the middle of the nineteenth Homily—and manifestly corrupt. Clericus published three editions, 1698, 1700, 1724, but without any fresh MS. authority. Schwegler > Cf. esp. Honig, Die Ophiten, > Lecture II. pp. 83 sq. 1890. ὁ Defensio pro Canonibus Apo- * God and the Bible, 1884, p. stolorum et Epistolis Pontificum, 155. Lutetiz, 1573. The Cle- mentine Homilies. Dressel’s discovery, 1837-53. Quotation now admitted 374 LECTURE VII. published an edition of the work in 1847, which did not add much to what had gone before. Meanwhile, in 1837, Dr. Albert Dressel had observed, in the Ottobonian Library at the Vatican, a MS. of the early part of the fourteenth century which contained the hitherto unknown portion of the Homilies. From defect of eyesight caused by unskilful treatment, and by pressure of work which he thought more im- portant, he was obliged to postpone the publication of his proposed edition of the MS. A further delay was caused by the scarcity of modern books in Rome. At length the work was published in Gottingen in 1853.’ Now the sixteen years during which this MS. was known to Dr. Dressel, but not yet published, were the most vigorous years of the Tiibingen school. The denial that the Fourth Gospel was quoted in the Clementines was necessary to the position of the school, and the denial was made both by Baur and by his followers, Zeller, Schwegler, and Hilgenfeld ; ὃ but here was a MS., the authenticity of which could not be denied, and it contained a quotation the source of which could not be questioned. Hilgenfeld and Volkmar at once admitted, in Baur and Zeller’s Year-book, that this was undoubted; and Hil- genfeld called attention to the changed position in various subsequent works.’ 7 Clementis Romani... Ho- pp. 446-7 and 534. Cf. especially milie Viginti .. . 1853. Hilgenfeld, Kvritische Untersuch- 8. Baur, Kritische Untersuchun- ungen diber die Evangelien Justin’s gen, etc., 1847, p. 576. der clementinischen Homilien und ® Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1854, Marcion’s, 1850, with his Evange- LECTURE VII. 919 There was no ground for discussion upon this point now left. On all hands the reference to the Fourth Gospel was admitted, and by no one more frankly than by Strauss in the Life of Jesus for the German People, which was published in 1864.! Zeller was particularly unfortunate in his asser- tions, for he published in the Tiibingen Year-book an article upon the Citations from the Fourth Gospel in the Refutation of All Heresies, in which he declares that it is in vain men seek for any knowledge of the Fourth Gospel in the Clementine Homilies.? This article was published in the year 1853, in Tiibingen, and at that moment Dressel’s new discovery, which was to establish that knowledge beyond question, must have been already in type at Gottingen. Another remarkable story of discovery in our own time is connected with the Diatessaron of Tatian,’ lien, 1854, p. 346, and his note in the Hinleitung in das Neue Testa- ment, 1875, p. 43. Cf. also refer- ence to position of author of Supernatural Religion in Lecture 11. p. 84. 1 “In dem erst kiirzlich aufge- fundenen Schlusse der clementi- nischen Homilien ist unliugbar die Geschichte vom Blindgebo- renen, Joh. 9, beriicksichtigt, vielleicht auch an einer andern Stelle, Joh. 10, 3.’ Das Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 69. * “Die clementinischen Homi- lien, deren Bekanntschaft mit Johannes man vergeblich darzu- thun sucht.’ Theologische Jahr- biicher, 1853, p. 145. ° Cf. Lightfoot, Contemporary Review, May 1877, and Essays on Supernatural Religion, 1889; Ezra Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1880 ; Adolf Har- nack, Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. i. Heft 1, and art. Tatian in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1888, xxill. p. 80; Moller, art. Tatian in Herzog-Plitt, Real-Hncyklo- pidie xv. Ὁ. 208; Fuller, art. Tatian in Smith and Wace’s Dic- tionary of Christian Biography, vol. iv. p. 783; Hemphill, Dia- tessaron, 1888. on all sides. Zeller’s unfortu- nate assertion, Tatian’s Diates- saron. The modern discovery. 376 LECTURE VII. the pupil of Justin. A dozen years ago when public attention was much excited by the appearance of the work entitled Supernatural Religion, and by some wise and many unwise reviews of it and replies to it, one of the questions to which special thought was directed was the old dispute of the critics whether this Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Four Gospels, which was known to have been composed by Tatian, did or did not include the Fourth Gospel. That the pupil of Justin Martyr was acquainted with the Gospel was clear enough from his Apology ;* but how different would the position be could it be fully established that he had or had not received and handed on, as a sacred writing of the Church, the Gospel according ἰο δ. John. And at that time no one of the disputants seems to have had the least idea that the key to this lock was not only close at hand, but had been discovered, and was waiting to be used. It had been for some years on Bishop Lightfoot’s book- shelves, as he himself tells us ; but it was in Arme- nian, and he had not then the means of sifting the four volumes which contained it.° The learned Dr. Lip- sius of Jena does not seem to have been aware, when he wrote the article on Apocryphal Gospels for the Dictionary of Christian Biography, that the Armenian version of the Dvuatessaron had been published.® Dean Payne Smith, one of the few English scholars * Oratio ad Grecos, capp. iv. ° Essays, ut swpra, 1889, p. 278. Vv. xiii, xix., ed. von Otto, ὁ Smith and Wace’s Dictionary Corpus Apologetarum, tom. vi. pp. of Christian Biography, vol. ii. 18, 20, 22, 60, 88. p. 713, col. 2. LECTURE VII. OnE who could have read it, must have had it in his hands when he wrote for the same work the article Ephraim the Syrian, for he refers to the commentary on ὃ. Paul’s Epistles in the third volume of the Armenian translation of Ephrem’s works,’ and the translation of the Diatessaron was lying unnoticed in the second volume all the while. Bishop Lightfoot’s article was published in May 1877,° and the volume of the Dictionary of Christian Biography which contains the articles by Dean Payne Smith and Dr. Lipsius was published in 1880. And yet the Armenian translation of the works of Ephrem had been published by the Mechitarist monks as long ago as 1836, this Armenian translation had been noticed by Dr. de Lagarde in 1862, and at the very moment when all this discussion was taking place, had already been issued in a Latin translation from the press at Venice. The history of the Diatessaron is long, and our time is short. The story has often been told during the last ten years, and there is no need for me to tell it with any fulness again. The chief facts will suffi- ciently illustrate the importance of this recent addition to our knowledge. Now, in the first place, it was known from Reference to the Eusebius that Tatian had composed a Harmony of work the Four Gospels which he called a Diatessaron, though it is not clearly established that Eusebius 7 Dictionary, ut swpra, p. 141, 8. Contemporary Review, May col. 1. 1877. by Eusebius, and Epi- phanius. 378 LECTURE VIL. had any personal acquaintance with the work. His language seems, indeed, to imply that he was speaking of a commonly known matter of fact :— But their chief and founder Tatian formed a sort of con- nexion and compilation of the Gospels, I know not how, which he called the Diatessaron. This work is current in some quarters (with some persons) even now.? Epiphanius tells us how, after the martyrdom of Justin, Tatian went to the East and fell into all sorts of errors, and adds :— The Diatessaron Gospel is said to have been composed by him, but some persons call it the Gospel according to the Hebrews.! That is, Epiphanius himself knows nothing about it, and gives two reports which were current in his time. The second of these reports is a natural mistake of people who had heard of this Gospel in the region of Edessa, and of the Gospel of the Hebrews in the region of Aleppo, and understanding the language of neither, knowing only that they were both Oriental and both supposed to be heretical, took them to be the same. When he comes to speak in his own person of the Gospel according to the Hebrews he, as other Catholic writers, follows the Ebionites in connecting it with 9. Ὃ μέντοι ye πρότερος αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸς ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς τὸ “Διὰ Teo- odpev’ ὃ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. Hist. Eccl. iv. 29. See especially Bishop Lightfoot’s note on οὐκ oi) ὅπως, op. cit. p. 278: and τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν * Hemphill, Diatessaron, ut supra. Introd. p. xiv. 1 Λέγεται δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον (Scaliger text, εὐαγγε- λίων) ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι ὅπερ, Κατὰ ἉἙβραίους tives καλοῦσι. Her. xlvi.1; ed. Oehler, Corpus, tom. ii. p. 710. LECTURE VIL: 379 the Gospel according to 8. Matthew.? Beyond these notices in Eusebius and Epiphanius, we do not meet the Diatessaron on purely Greek ground, and these writers only prove that it was unknown in the Greek church. In the Western Church it is unnoticed under circumstances which make it practically certain that it was unknown until the time of Victor, bishop of Capua, in the sixth century, a name which will be remembered from its connexion with the Codex Ful- densis, and with a work on the Paschal Cycle. Victor found a Latin compilation of the four Gospels without any name or indication of authorship, and he was led by the passage of Eusebius, to which 1 have referred, to think it must be the same as the work by Tatian. His identification was not accepted by scholars, and as late-as Dr. Ernest Ranke’s edition of the Codex Fuldensis,’ it was generally thought that he had made amistake. ‘To this point we must presently return. This ignorance of the Dvatessaron in the Greek and Latin churches confirms the impression which is on every ground probable, that Tatian’s Duatessaron was written in Syriac and for the use of Syriac- speaking churches.* And when we come upon 2 Her. xxviii. 5; xxx. 3, 138, andrino authore in Orthodoxo- 14; ed. Oehler, tom. ii. pp. 222, grapha Patrum Monum. Basilez, 246, 262, 264. 1855, pp. 116 sqq. 3 Codec Fuldensis. Novum 4 This view is accepted by Testamentum Latine interprete Bishop Lightfoot, Zahn, and Hil- Hieronymo ex ManuscriptoVictoris genfeld, and now by De Lagarde Capuani, 1868. Cf. Hvangeliorwm and Bithgen. Cf. Fuller, art. quatuor Harmonia, Tatiano Alex- Tatian, ut supra, Ὁ. 801 col. 1; Not known in Western Church. Known in Syrian Church. Written in Syriac. Homilies of Aphrahat. Doctrine of Addai. Theodoret. 380 LECTURE VII. Oriental ground we at once meet with it. The erudition of the late Dr. William Wright has given good reason for believing—and Zahn and Lipsius are agreed in believing—that the quotations in the Homilies by the Persian sage and bishop, Aphraates, or more accurately Aphrahat, who flourished in the middle of the fourth century, are made from this Harmony ;° and Zahn’s views are accepted fully, perhaps too fully, by Dr. Georg Bert in a German translation of the Homilies which has _ recently appeared.° This is further confirmed by the Doctrine of Addai, an apocryphal Syrian work, which is assigned with much probability to the middle of the third century, and which professes to give an account of the church at Edessa. The people are described as coming together ‘to the prayers of the service, and to [the reading of] the Old Testament and the New of the Diatessaron.’ * The widespread use of the Dvatessaron in the Catholic churches of the East in the first half of the fifth century is illustrated by Theodoret, bishop of Wordsworth, Church History to the Council of Nicwa, ed. 4, 1889, p. 482, note by J(ohn) S(arum) ; and especially the interesting note in Hemphill, Diatessaron, App. A, pp. 53-4. > Wright, Homilies of Aphraates (Syriac), vol. i. 1869. Cf. espe- cially Zahn, Forschungen, 1881, vol, i. pp. 72-89. ὁ Bert, Aphrahats des persischen Weisen Homilien aus dem Syrischen dibersetzt und erliiutert. Von Geb- hardt u. Harnack, Texte u. Unter- suchungen, 1888, Bd. ui. Heft 3 and 4. 7 Cureton, Ancient Syriac Docu- ments, 1864, p. 15; Phillips, The Doctrine of Adda, 1876, p. 34 and note. On the text, see note in Ezra Abbot, Authorship, ut supra, p. 53. LECTURE VII. 381 Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, from a.p. 420 or 423 to A.D. 407 or 458, who testifies that ‘ Tatian composed the Gospel which is called Diatessaron,’ and tells us how he found more than two hundred copies in use and put them away, and introduced in their place the Gospels of the four Evangelists.® Our next firm ground is reached only after a con- siderable leap. Dionysius Bar-Salibi, an Armenian bishop of the twelfth century, speaks of a Commentary which was written on the Diatessaron by the well- known Syrian Father, Ephraim of Edessa. His state- ment " distinguishes the Diatessaron of Tatian from a Harmony by Ammonius—the two works being wholly different in arrangement—and says that it began with ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ He also speaks of a third and later Diatessaron composed by Elias of Salamia, who could not find the work of Ammonius and constructed one to supply its place. He himself quotes the works of Tatian and Ammonius in the same passage of his Commentary, making their distinctness absolute.? In the year 1836 the Mechitarist Fathers of the 8 Kal τὰ τῶν τεττάρων evayye- λιστῶν ἀντεισήγαγον EvayyéAva.— Hereticarum Fabularum Compen- dium, i. cap. 20; ed. Migne, iv. p. 372. ® Assemani, Bibliotheca Orien- ‘as, 1. p. Of ; {| pp. 159 sq: 1 ¢Preter Ephremum vero, Chrysostomum, Cyrillum, Mosen Barcepham, et Joannem Daren- sem, quibus Bar-Salibeeum usum fuisse supra dixi, auctores hi ab ipso citantur : videlicet, Dionysius epist. ad Timotheum, fol. 262. Clemens epist. adversus eos, qui matrimonium rejiciunt, fol. 155. Ammonit, et Tatiani Diatessaron, fol. 30.’ Ibid. ii. p. 158 ; cf. Bishop Lightfoot, Essays, 1889, wt supra, pp. 280 sq.; Hilgenfeld, Hinlei- tung, p. 77. Bar- Salibi. The Me- chitarist Fathers. Dr. MOsinger. Ezra Abbot. 382 LECTURE VIL. Monastery of San Lazaro, in Venice, published the collected works of Ephraim in Armenian, in four octavo volumes, the second of which contained this Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, from an Arme- nian version of the fifth century. The work natu- rally attracted little attention, the Armenian language being hardly known in Western Europe; but Father Aucher, one of the monks of San Lazaro, made a literal Latin translation, which he placed in the hands of Dr. Mésinger, Professor of Biblical Criticism, at Salzburg, who compared it with one of the Armenian codices and published it in Venice in 1876.7 European scholars did not, as we have seen, at once awake to the importance of the discovery. A passing notice appeared, indeed, in Schiirer’s Literary Journal ὃ but does not seem to have attracted attention ; and by a strange fate it remained for Dr. Ezra Abbot, in a paper to which I have more than once referred, read before a Ministers’ Institute in America, to invite the atten- tion of scholars in Europe to this treasure from the East, which had long been hidden, and now had been made known in their midst. ‘The important contri- butions of Drs. Zahn, Harnack, Wace, and others, soon followed ; and there is now a general agreement among the scholars who have devoted special atten- tion to this subject, that we have in our hands a commentary which is written in Armenian of the 2 Aucher and Mésinger, Hvan- 3 Theologische Literaturzeitung, gelit concordantis Expositio facta a 1878, No. 25, p. 607. Sancto Ephremo, Venice, 1876. LECTURE VII. 383 fifth century, which Armenian is an extremely literal translation from the Syriac, which Syriac is a writ- ing of Ephrem, which writing of Ephrem is his Com- mentary on the Diatessaron of Tatian. The special contribution which Dr. Wace made to the subject was the investigation of the relation between the Diatessaron of Tatian and the Harmony of Victor of Capua, to which reference has already been made; and the result of an elaborate ana- lysis is to establish their substantial identity, with the natural difference that in Victor’s Gospel the text of Tatian appears in Jerome’s Latin, whereas Ephraim’s Commentary was upon the Syriac text. Another link, which we must not now be tempted to follow, connects Tatian not only through a Latin translation with Victor, but through an old German translation of Victor’s Latin Coder, with the Saxon epic the Heliand,* with the martyr Boni- face, and with much of old German literature and Christianity.° While these investigations were being published by Dr. Wace in an English periodical, Dr. Zahn was issuing from the press his elaborate monograph on the Diatessaron,’ which not only dealt minutely with all the historical and other side questions, con- firming the results which Dr. Wace and others had arrived at independently, but also attempted 4 Deutsche Dichtungen des Mit- pp. 1-11; 128-137; 193-205. See telalters. IV. Heliand, by Riickert, zbid., 1882, pp. 161-171; 294-312. 1876. ° Forschungen, 1881, vol. i. ὅ Dr. Wace, Expositor, 1881, Tatian’s Diatessaron. Dr. Wace. Dr. Zahn’s restora- tion of the text. Older than the Cure- tonian Syriac. Result stated by 384 LECTURE VII. to reconstruct, on the basis of Mésinger’s edition of Ephraim’s Commentary, together with the quotations in Aphrahat, the original text of the Dvatessaron. Whatever opinion may be formed as to some of the results of this bold attempt, which have naturally been challenged, the work remains as a striking ex- ample of critical acumen and devoted labour. It may not be proved that the Diatessaron was originally written in Syriac, though this, if Dr. Harnack will allow me to say so, is now hardly doubtful, or that the Syriac of Tatian proves the still earlier existence of the Syriac of Cureton. This latter point Zahn has himself abandoned. In a letter which he was kind enough to address to me, dated April 24th, 1888, he says :— In reality I have not changed my first opinion. Only that I am now agreed with Bithgen in Der griechische Text des Oureton’schen Syrers, 1885, that the Syriac of the Diatessaron is older than the Curetonian. I had not examined this side of the question with sufficient thoroughness when I first wrote upon it.’ But in any case this one great fact remains. Here is in substance Tatian’s Diatessaron. The fact itself and the consequences which are to be drawn Cur. 7 “Im Wesentlichen habe ich meine anfingliche Ansicht nicht geiindert. Nur darin bin ich jetzt mit Bathgen Der griechische Text des Oureton’schen Syrers, 1885, einverstanden, dass das syrische Diatessaron alter ist als der Syrus Diese Seite der Frage hatte ich nicht griindlich genug erwogen, als ich zuerst dariiber schrieb.’ Cf. Geschichte des Neutestament- lichen Kanons, 1888, Bd. i. pp. 406 sq. LECTURE VII. 385 from it will gain in emphasis by being expressed in the words of Dr. Adolf Harnack, who is not too friendly a critic of Zahn :— In details much of what Zahn has given as belonging to the text of the Diatessaron remains problematical, . . . but in all the main points his restoration has been successful. The rediscovery of such a work is in a variety of ways of the very highest importance for the early history of Christianity. . We learn from the Diatessaron that about 160 A.D. our four Gospels had already taken a place of prominence in the church and that no others had done so; that in particular the Fourth Gospel had taken a fixed place alongside of the three synoptics.® Nor does the romantic history of the Diatessaron end here. The interest which was excited by Dr. Zahn’s remarkable investigations led to the publica- tion of fuller information than had been previously available about an Arabic MS. of the Diatessaron which was known to exist in the Vatican Library.® Zahn himself knew it only from the writings of Assemani, Rosenmiiller, and Aberklad ;! but in the fourth volume of Cardinal Pitra’s Analecta Sacra, which was published in 1888, there appeared a full account of this version from the pen of Father Ciasca,? with a half promise that he might at some time in the future be able to edit it. Meanwhile his account of 8 Encyclopedia Britannica, Spicilegio Solesmensi parata, tom. 1888, xxiii. p. 81. iv. pp. 465-487 (De Tatiani 9 Cod. Vat. Arab. xiv. Diatessaron Arabica Versione, P. 1 Forschungen, ut swpra, pp. Augustinus Ciasca, Ordinis S. 294-298. Augustini, published also separ: ? Cardinal Pitra, Analecta Sacra ately). C CO Dr: Harnack, Arabic MS. in Vatican, Arabic MS. in Egypt, edited by 386 LECTURE VII. it confirmed Zahn’s opinion of its close connexion with the Syriac Dzatessaron.® Leisure did not come to Father Ciasca more than to others, and the MS. was therefore handed over, in 1885, to Professor de Lagarde,t who proposed to edit it, but to him came difficulties of both time and type, and the work was returned to Father Ciasca. Meanwhile the vicar apostolic of the Copts, Rmus Antonius Morcos, when on a visit to Rome, was shown the treasures of the Vatican, and on looking at this Arabic MS. remembered that he had seen one like it in Egypt. He forwarded the Egyptian treasure to Rome, and it proved to be such a beautiful specimen of caligraphy that the scribes of the Vatican selected it to publish as an offering to the pope at his jubilee. This gave Father Ciasca the opportunity of editing, 3 ¢Td vero (ut ad rem nostram veniamus) potiori ratione dici debet de Diatessaron in codice arabico Vaticano No. xiv. con- _ tento, ut ipse Zahn suspicatus est, qui ejusdem codicis integram editionem perutilem putat. a- dem omnino opinio nobis est, qui, si facultas esset, id libenter prestaremus. Verum cum an- gustia temporis, saltem hoc anno, id operis perficere minime sinat, contenti erimus talem exhibere codicis descriptionem que satis sit ad confirmandum viri eruditi opinionem, intimum nempe dari nexum inter hoc opus ac syriacum Diatessaron. Quinimo cum textus arabici codicis e fonte syriaco directe proveniat, ut inferius fuse probabitur, fit inde, ut ejusdem larga notitia, non modo ad con- frmandum textum = syriacum quoad Evangeliorum concordan- tiam, verum etiam ad ipsum tex- tum restituendum, plurimum valeat.’ Analecta, ut supra, p. 466. * “Septem tantum pagellas im- pressit, quas edidit in Nachricten von der kiniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg- Augusts-Universittit wu Géittin- gen, 17. Miirz, 1886, No. 4, pagg. 151-158.’ Tatiani Evangeliorwm Harmonize Arabice nunc primum ex duplici codice edidit et transla- tione Latina donavit P. Augus- tinus Ciasca, Rome, 1888, note, Bim LECTURE VIL. 387 with an introduction full of interesting information, both the Arabic MSS. of the Diatessaron in a work which appeared at Rome in 1888.° The Codex Bor- goanus, as Ciasca called the second MS., is professedly an Arabic translation from the Syriac of Tatian’s Diatessaron, and supplies many of the lacune which existed in the Vatican MS. The claim to be a translation of the Diatessaron is fully borne out by a comparison of Father Ciasca’s Latin rendering with Professor Mésinger’s rendering of the Armenian version; and both these Arabic versions afford, as their learned editor shows, strong support to the various steps by which, during the last few years, we have been led to the restoration of Tatian’s Diatessaron. Padre Ciasca. As we pass from it, let us remember that if these Import- steps are established, and if we are really in the pre- sence of a Harmony of the Four Gospels which was composed by Tatian the pupil of Justin, and included our present Fourth Gospel, then there follow neces- sarily not only the deductions which I gave just now in the words of Dr. Harnack, but the more important deduction still that it cannot be reasonably doubted that the Fourth Gospel was received by Justin as by Tatian, and that the Gospels of the pupil were iden- tical with the Memoirs of the master.® Another instance in which recent investigations have cast light upon a point which is of considerable 5. Ciasca, Tatiani, ut supra. ® Cf. Lecture II. pp. 70 sq. co 2 ance of this discovery. The mar- tyrdom of Poly- carp. Older view, ΑΙ 167. The key. Usher, Pearson, and others. 388 LECTURE VII. importance in connexion with our subject, is the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp.’ Five and twenty years ago the date which was accepted by almost universal consent was the year A.D. 167. This was supposed, but without sufficient reason, to be based upon a passage in the Chronicon of Eusebius, which was read as though it placed the martyrdom in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius, while, as a matter of fact, the martyrdom is not placed opposite the year, but below it, without a date, and grouped with other events.2 The mistake was one which it was easy to make, and which when made it was natural to follow. An independent key to the chronology of Poly- carp is furnished by the life of the rhetorician, A/lius Aristides, who refers twice, in certain Sacred Dis- courses which are included in his works, to one Quadratus, a proconsul of Asia, that is, to the pro- consul who was in office at the time of Polycarp’s martyrdom. The keen sight of dited cht yenes τοῖο Hug clue; and it was afterwards investigated by Valesius, Bishop Pearson, and Cardinal Noris, but without very satisfactory results. Masson carried the inquiry further,’ fixing the date at a.p. 166; but his whole ’ Bishop Lightfoot, Fathers, 1885, i. pp. 629 sq.; ed. 2, 1889, i. pp. 646 sqq. ' 8 Bishop Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 629, ed. 2, vol. i. p. 647. The Armenian version of the Chroiicon is quoted on pp. 557 sqq. Cf. Apostolic: ‘ Husebit Chronicorum Canonum, ed. Schoene, 1866, tom. ii. p. 170. ® Aristides, Ἱεροὶ λόγοι, ed. Dindorf, 1829, vol. ii., contains Masson’s Collectanea Historica ; first published with Jebb’s Ari- stides, Oxford, 1722. LECTURE VII. 389 argument is vitiated by the mistaken interpretation of Eusebius. | A hundred years later Letronne ' showed that the chronology must be pushed back, and Borghesi? in the next generation carried his conclusions further by the light of special study of the tenure of Roman offices. He placed the condemnation of Polycarp by Quadratus in A.D. 155. In the year 1867 Μ. Waddington followed * with a complete reconstruction of the chronology of Aristides. The key-stone is the proconsulship of Julianus, who is also mentioned by Aristides, and this date is fixed by an apparently unimportant inscrip- tion which was discovered in March 1864 by Mr. J. T. Wood in the excavations at the Odeum in Ephesus,* together with an Ephesian medal com- memorating the marriage of M. Aurelius (Verus Ceesar) and Faustina.? After most minute investiga- tion and careful dovetailing of incidents—we cannot here follow the remarkable detailed argument—M. Waddington came to the conclusion that Quadratus was proconsul of Asia in A.D. 155-56, and that the ‘great Sabbath’ on which Polycarp was martyred was sur 1 Letronne, Recherches V Egypte, 1823, pp. 257 sqq. 2 Borghesi, Iscrizioni di Sepino, 1852. 3 Waddington, Vie du Rhéteur Aelius Aristide in Mémoires de VInstitut, etc.; Inscriptions οὐ Belles Lettres, 1867, xxvi. pp. 209 sq.; and Fastes des Provinces Asia- tiques in Le Bas and Waddington’s Asie Minewre, Inscriptions Gtrec- ques et Latines, 1870, tom. 11. pt. i. pp. 655-744 ; No. 188, pp. 726 sq. ; Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus, 1877; Studia Biblica, Oxford, 1885, No. ix., Randell. * Waddington, op. cit. Inscr. V. lil. p. 6. ° Waddington, op. cit., Mé- movres, Ὁ. 211. Letronne and Borghesi. — M. Wad- dington decides for Feb. 23, A.D. 155. General accept- ance of this result. 390 LECTURE VIL. the twenty-third day of February a.p. 155. This is the year, you will remember, which had been fixed by the earlier inquiries of Letronne and Borghesi. A result which shifted one of the chronological pivots of the second century backwards by eleven years was not likely to escape the crucible of the critics, and every known test was speedily applied to it. By the consent of almost all competent judges it has in every respect stood these tests. It is not only Letronne, Borghesi, and Waddington who now place the martyrdom of Polycarp in A.p. 155, but also Renan,® Aubé,’ Volkmar,’ Funk,’ Zahn,’ Egli,? Friedliinder,2 Marquardt,‘ Schiller,? Harnack ; ° Lipsius,’ Hilgenfeld,* and Von Gebhardt,’ prefer a.p. 156 ; Keim! and Bishop Wordsworth? were not con- vinced ; Wieseler®? and Uhlhorn* adhered to the older date.° 6 [?Antéchrist, p. 566; and L’ Eglise chrétienne, pp. 452 sq. 7 Histoire des Persécutions, pp. 319 sq.; La Polémique paienne, 1878, pp. 184 sq. 8 Jenaer Literaturzeitung, 1874, No. 274, p. 291. 9 Patr. Apost.Opp., 1878, i. pp. lxxxill, xciv sq. 1 Tbid., 1876, ii. p. 165. 2 Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaft- liche Theologie, 1882, 1884, 1888. 3 Sittengeschichte Roms, iii. pp. 440, 442, 654. * Rémische 1873, i. p. 375. > Geschichte der Rimischen Kai- serzeit, 1883, i. 11. p. 684. Staatsverwaltung, 6. Encyclopedia Britannica, ed. 9, vol. xix. art. Polycarp, p. 415. 7 Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaft- liche Theologie, 1874, pp. 188 sq. 8 Ibid. pp. 325 sq. 9. Zeitschrift fiir historische Theo- logie, 1875, pp. 377 sq. 1 Aus dem Urchristenthum, Bd. i. 1878, pp. 90 sqq. 2 Church History, i. pp. 161 sq. 8. Die Christenverfolgungen der Ctsaren bis zum 3ten Jahrhundert, 1878, pp. 75 sqq. ; Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1880, pp. 141 sqq. 4 Art. Polykarp in Herzog- Plitt, Real-Encyklopidie, ed. 2, vol. xii. pp. 103 sqq. > Cf. for these references : LECTURE Vik 391 Bishop Lightfoot signified his acceptance of M. Waddington’s results as early as 1875,° and after- wards in his editions of the Apostolic Fathers” sub- jected the whole question, including M. Waddington’s essays, to a minute re-investigation, which, while it confirms that learned author’s results, does so with the addition of matter which is not less important than that of M. Waddington himself. The correc- tion of the error of centuries in the interpretation of the Chronicon of Eusebius, of which I have already spoken, has in effect removed the only serious diffi- culty in the way of accepting the year a.p. 155 as the date of the martyrdom. The importance of this rectification of date to the present question will be seen when it is remembered that Polycarp was eighty-six years old at the time of his death,* and that [renzeus speaks of him as a dis- ciple of John, and as appointed bishop of Smyrna by Apostles ; and again speaks of ‘the successors of Polycarp to the present time,’® that is, from a.p. 177 to a.p. 190. If he lived from a.p. 70 to a.v. 155, both statements are natural; if from a.p. 81 to A.D. 167, neither is free from difficulty. Living Richardson, Bibliographical Syn- opsis, 1887, p. 10; and Bp. Light- foot, Apostolic Fathers, 1889, pt. ii. vol. i. pp. 667 sqq. The simpleststatement of the question in English will be found in Har- nack’s art. Poli carp, ut supra. ὁ Contemporary Review, May 1875, pp. 827 sq. 7 Ed. 1, 1885 ; ed. 2, 1889. ® Martyrdom of Polycarp, cap. ix. Cf. Bishop Lightfoot’s note, Apost. Fathers, 1889, pt. ii. vol. i, paar. 9. Adv. Her. iii. 3, 4; ed. Har- vey, li. pp. 12. Bishop Light- foot’s investiga- tions confirm it. Import- ance of this date. 392 LECTURE VIL. from A.D. 70 to 155, his life and work link together S. John, Ignatius, Florinus, Justin, Tatian, Irenzeus ; and they become an argument for the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, the force of which it is impossible to deny. The In the fourteenth number of the Dublin Herm- Herm- athena. athena, a collection of papers published from time to time by the members of Trinity College, and looked for by scholars with an interest which is seldom disappointed—this number was published in 1888, and the paper to which [ am about to refer is dated on Hippo, July in that year—appeared an article by Dr. Gwynn, ins an¢ the successor to Dr. Salmon in the chair of divinity, which is entitled Hippolytus and his ‘ Heads against Cuius. It gave us for the first time five passages from an inedited MS. of a Syriac Commentary on the Apocalypse, Acts, and Epistles, of Dionysius Bar- Salibi, to whose Commentary on the Gospels I have but just now referred. The MS. is part of the ftich Collection acquired by the British Museum in 1830. The Heads against Caius are replies made by Hippolytus to some objections which Caius made to the Apocalypse, on the ground that it was opposed to the teaching of the Gospels and 8. Paul. In the first of these replies—I pass over the ob- jection of Caius which is not material to our inquiry—Hippolytus explains the passage ‘the day of the Lord cometh as a thief,’ by a reference to the children of light who walk not in the night, LECTURE VII. 09 which is certainly Ephesian and probably Johannine.’ In the fifth ‘Head’ Hippolytus uses the words ‘the Prince cometh and findeth no sin in me,’ which are a definite quotation from the Fourth Gospel. Caius is spoken of in these replies as ‘the Heretic, and it is clear that he did not, and that Hippolytus did, accept the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse. It seems to be equally cer- tain that Caius as well as Hippolytus accepted without any question the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel. When 1 turn to the other side of this part of our evidence, and ask what fresh facts have been dis- covered which tend to cast doubt upon the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, I find no answer to the question. I cannot assert that no such fact is pro- ducible, but I must confess that if it is I have spent a good deal of time in a fruitless search, and that 1 shall be much surprised if it has been made acces- sible in the ordinary channels by which such facts are made known. Pr Jonn πὶ 10%) xi Eph. v. 8. 2 John xiv. 30. ‘ Observe that the quotation from St. John xiv. 30, follows the reading εὑρίσκει, or εὑρήσει, for ἔχει. This reading is found in some copies, and in early patristic citations, and is given in the margin of the Harkleian ver- sion. It is noteworthy, that it is 35, 36; adopted into the text of the New College MS. of that version, sup- posed to be the result of a recen- sion made by Barsalibi, and known as the Codex SBarsalibeus. I supply the diacritic point under iat from Bodl.’— Hermathena, No. xiv. Hippolytus and_ his ‘ Heads against Caius,’ 1888. Dr. Gwynn’s note, p. 417. Both accepted the Fourth Gospel. No dis- coveries oppose Johannine author- ship. Frag- ments of Papias do not oppose, but support. Weight of this negative proof. 394 LECTURE VII. Some stress was laid last γραῦν, ἡ indeed, on the discovery of fresh fragments of Papias which are probably from the Ecclesiastical History of Philip of Side, who wrote in the early part of the fifth century. The fragment which affects the Johannine question and makes Papias say that John the theo- logian and James his brother were put to death by Jews,” had been met by anticipation by Bishop Lightfoot, who, as long ago as 1875, explained quite satisfactorily ° the similar blunder of Georgius Hamar- tolos, which is also given on the authority of Papias.’ It is, moreover, more than counterbalanced by a frag- ment of Hegesippus in the same collection, which states that Domitian confined the Apostle and Evan- gelist John in Patmos.® And this negative proof which is furnished by recent additions to our knowledge is not less signifi- cant than that which is positive. In the very nature of things the positive evidence must be fragmentary. > See Jiilicher, Theologische Lite- raturzeitung, 1889, No. 13, pp. λέγει, ὅτι ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ Θεολόγος καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ ᾽Ἰου- 331 sqq.; and cf. Hilgenfeld, δαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν, Ibid. No. 6, p. Einleitung 1875, p. 63, and Zeit- 170. schrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theo- ὁ But cf. on the other side logie, 1875, p. 269. 4 Neue Fragmente des Papias, Schiirer in Theologische Literatur- zeitung, 1890. No. 6, p. 142. Hegesippus und Pierius in bisher unbekannten Hxcerpten aus der Kirchengeschichte des Philippus Sidetes von Dr. C. de Boor—Von Gebhardt und Harnack, Texte wnd Untersuchungen, Bd. v. Heft 2, pp. 165-184. ͵ ΄“-“ ΄ ’ 5 Παπίας ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ [7 ‘ « 7 Bishop Lightfoot, Contempo- rary Review, October 1875 ; Essays on Supernatural Religion, 1889, pp. 211 sq. 8 καὶ τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ evayye- λιστὴν ᾿Ιωάννην ἐν Πάτμῳ περι- De Boor, ut supra, No. ὦρισεν. 3, p. 169. LECTURE VII. 395 Its value lies in the fact that it is fragmentary. A coin in Ephesus, an inscription in Phrygia, a burial chamber in Rome, a MS. in a monastery, a site in Samaria or Galilee—these are, if you will, not more than fossils of a past life, but, differing each wholly from the other, they tell of that life with unquestionable certainty, and they speak in voices of perfect harmony. Is further evidence asked for ? It exists in the fact that the whole field of our recent discoveries has disclosed not a single instance of coin, or inscription, or MS., or evidence of any kind what- ever, which is, I will not say inconsistent with the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, but which even suggests that any other person had ever been named or thought of as the author. I pass now to another branch of recently acquired evidence, which is not indeed independent of the discovery of new materials, but depends mainly upon the re-investigation of materials which were already known ; and my choice of instances is guided by their importance, by their general acceptance, and by the fact that it will be possible to state them briefly and refer to a full discussion which les immediately to hand. First among these instances will come naturally the Ignatian Epistles. The storehouse of materials relating to this subject which has been gathered during nearly thirty years by Bishop Lightfoot " 9 Apostolic Fathers, part ii., hardt, Harnack and Zahn, Patrum 1885, ed. 2, 1889. Cf. Von Geb- Apost. Opp., fasc. ii. 1876 ; Zahn, Re- inves- tigation of materials. The Ignatian Epistles. Bishop Lightfoot convinced on investi- gation. Dr. Zahn’s statement of the change. 396 LECTURE VII. contains much that has been made accessible in our own age: as the Syriac Recension, edited by Cureton in 1845 and 1849 ; the Armenian, edited by Peter- mann, also in 1849 ; the Coptic Additions, published by Father Ciasca in 1883, and by Bishop Lightfoot himself in 1885; and all has been subjected to microscopic re-examination. The result is a decisive judgment for ‘the priority and genuineness of the seven Vossian Letters.’ ὦ It is the more striking because it is not the opinion with which the investigation was commenced. In the dissertation on ‘ The Christian Ministry,’ attached to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, the author writes :— Throughout this dissertation it is assumed that the Syriac version represents the epistles of St. Ignatius in their origi- nal form. .. . At the same time, I agree with Lipsius that the epistles of the short Greek recension cannot date later than the middle of the second century; and if so, they will still hold their place among the most important of early Christian documents.” The change of opinion is indicated in 1875, and is complacently described by Zahn in these words :— But there are at present in England—where excellent service was of old réndered on the Ignatian question—those who value truth more than the opinions of their countrymen, though these opinions have been received with the greatest Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873; Polycarp, 1885, vol. i. Preface, Funk, Die Echtheit der Ignatian- p. vii. ischen Briefe, 1883. * Epistles of S. Paul, Philip- 1 Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius, pians, eds. 1-3, 1868-73, p. 2382. LECTURE VII. 397 applause in other countries; and it is to me a special satis- faction to observe that J. B. Lightfoot, a man of sober judg- ment, and having great weight through his exquisite learning, who formerly took Cureton’s side, has gradually come over to my opinion.® . . . In a paper published in the Contemporary fteview, February 1875, he said with great modesty that he could not decide between the three epistles of Cureton and the seven of Eusebius, but he wrote to me on the sixteenth of December in the same year in the following terms: I ought to explain that, since I wrote the article on Ignatius, I have been more and more strongly impressed with the unity and priority of the seven Epistles as representing the genuine Ignatius.‘ In 1879, in the new edition of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, the bishop gives the following note on his change of view :-- In the earlier editions of this work I assumed that the Syriac Version published by Cureton represented the Epistles of Ignatius in their original form. I am now convinced that this is only an abridgment and that the shorter Greek form is genuine; but for the sake of argument I have kept the two apart in the text. I hope before long to give reasons for this change of opinion in my edition of this father.® 3 Patrum Apost. Opp., ut supra, Be Vi. 4 “At sunt etiam hodie in Britannia, optime quondam de Ignatio merita, quibus magis amica veritas, quam opiniones e Britannia ortz, quamvis magno exterorum applausu excepts ; ac magno me affecit gaudio, quod I. B. Lightfootium, sobrii judicii virum ac doctrina exquisita pol- lentem, qui 6 _Curetonii parte quondam steterat, paullatim in eandem mecum convenire sen- tentiam cognovi. . .. cum in tractatu edito in Contemporary ᾿ Review 1875 (Febr.) p. 358 mo- destissime dixisset hesitare se utrum tres epistule Curetonii ac _septem Eusebii genuine habende essent, litteris die 16 Dec. 1875, ad me datis hee mecum commu- nicavit... .’? Patrum Apost. Opp., ut supra, p. vi, foot-note. > Philippians, ut supra, ed. 1879, p.' 234, note. Result. Still fresh materials 598 LECTURE VII. In 1885 Bishop Lightfoot writes :— Indeed Zahn’s book, though it has been before the world some twelve years, has never been answered; for I cannot regard the brief and cursory criticisms of Renan, Hilgenfeld, and others, as any answer. And then adds, as always, modestissime— Moreover there is much besides to be said which Zahn has not said.® Another's estimate of what the bishop has himself said will help us to see the importance of the judg- ment which he has given :— It has been our wish to exhibit in all its bearings the main questions which Dr. Lightfoot has sought to answer; and we have no hesitation in saying that he has answered these questions with triumphant success. The genuineness of the Vossian letters has been finally established ; the wisdom of Ussher has been fully vindicated ; and the Ignatian contro- versy has been set at rest, with little chance or none of being again reopened. Dr. Lightfoot’s mode of dealing with the evidence which his unwearied toil has brought together, will commend itself even to those who may take up the book with prepossessions in favour of the Tubingen school of critics ; and his main conclusions will, beyond doubt, be accepted by all impartial and independent students and thinkers. Those who can appreciate, further, the critical skill, the vast labour, the wide range and variety of learning, and the conscientious care needed for the achievement of this great task, will feel erateful for efforts which, in spite of all hindrances and dis- tractions, have been crowned with decisive success.’ Nor has even the short period since Bishop Lightfoot’s work was published been without its ® Apostolic Fathers, ut swpra, 7 Edinburgh Review, No. 335, Pref. p. vii. July 1886, pp. 136-7. LECTURE VIL 399 additional evidence. A second edition appeared just before his death. He was able to announce fresh converts, including M. de Pressensé, who had pre- viously expressed a strong view against the Vossian recension, and is able to refer to additional materials, in versions, manuscripts and inscriptions, all of which support the view which he had adopted.® Dr. Harnack is well known to hold views differ- ing widely from those of Bishop Lightfoot on import- ant questions connected with the Ignatian Epistles, and he expresses these with his usual candid friend- liness in his review of the bishop’s work. But he has no doubt about the genuineness :— Whether these Epistles are genuine or not, is one of the main problems of early Church history. Upon the decision of this question depends more than can be indicated in a short sketch. After repeated investigations, the genuineness of the Epistles seems to me certain, and I hold the hypo- thesis of their spuriousness to be untenable. In this conclu- sion I agree with Lightfoot, and I also thank him for having removed many difficulties in detail which I had previously felt.° Dr. Harnack has held in connexion with his general view of the chronology of the bishops of Antioch, an opinion which is probably peculiar to himself as to the possible date of the Ignatian Letters, and his latest expression of it 1s :— 8 Cf. Apostolic Fathers, 1889, and Schiirer has just endorsed the pt. ii. vol. i. Preface, pp. vii, viii. opinion (Ibid. 1890, No. 6, p. 142) 9. Expositor, Jan. 1886, p. 10. —as ‘wohl die gelehrteste und Cf. Theologische Literaturzeitung, sorgfaltigste patristische Mono- 1886, No. 14, pp. 316-319, where graphie, welche im 19. Jahrhun- Harnack speaks of this work— _ dert erschienen ist.’ confirm the view. Dr. Harnack’s judgment. Date of the Epistles. Johannine quotations about A.D. 110. 400 LECTURE VII. The Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp were probably written after the year A.D. 130.) But a consensus of the judgments of scholars has practically determined that the death of Ignatius cannot be placed later than A.p. 117.? One of the results of modern investigation then is that we possess seven Letters written by Ignatius, and addressed severally to the Ephesians, the Mag- nesians, the Trallians, the Romans, the Phila- delphians, the Smyrneans, and Polycarp. Nor is there further place for intelligent doubt that these Epistles contain quotations of the Fourth Gospel : 1 Expositor, March 1886, p. 192. Cf. Harnack, Die Zeit des Igna- tius, u.s.w., 1878. 2 ‘His martyrdom may with a high degree of probability be placed within a few years of A.D. 110, before or after.’ Bishop Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers, ed. 1889, pt. ii. vol. i. p. 30. ‘... we shall be doing no injustice to the evidence by setting the probable limits between a.D. 100-118, without attempting to tix the year more precisely.’ Ibid. vol. ii. p. 472. The following is a summary of the opinions of the chief autho- rities :— a.p. 105-117. Zahn, Smith. A.D. 107. Usher, Ruinart, Tille- mont, Ceillier, Gallandi, Busse, Wieseler, Mohler, Funk, Roberts, and D. Schmid. A.D. 114. Borghesi. A.D. 115. Chronicon Paschale, Ba, Volkmar, Ueberweg, Kurtz. A.D. 115-6. Lloyd, Pagi, Grabe, Smith, Routh, Gieseler. A.D. 116. Pearson. A.D. 1581. Harnack. See Richardson : Bibliographi- cal Synopsis, 1887, p. 15. 3 Tt is not within the compass of a note to examine these quota- tions fully, but the following references will justify the state- ment in the text. The numbers refer to the pages of the edition of Ignatius in Bishop Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, pt. ii. vol. ii. 1889. Ephes. ν. : ἐὰν μή τις ἢ ἐντὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ὑστερεῖται τοῦ ἄρτου [τοῦ Θεοῦ], pp. 43, 44. Rom. vil. ; ἄρτον Θεοῦ θέλω, 6 ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, κ. τ. A. These passages are best taken together, as both are clearly sug- gested by the Gospel (cf. John vi. 27, 31, 33, 48 ; and for the context the whole passage, vi. 27-59). The LECTURE VIL. that is, the result of our widely accepted criticism θυσιαστήριον is here the court of the congregation, and seems to be suggested by the Manna of S. John, pp. 225, 226. Two lines before the passage just quoted, the letter to the Romans contains the expression ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν ἡ καὶ λαλοῦν t—‘ Doubt- less a reference to John iv. 10, 11, as indeed the whole passage is inspired by the Fourth Gospel,’ p. 224. If we adopt the reading ζῶν ἁλλόμενον from the Interpola- tor’s text, we have a further striking parallel with John iv. 14. Ephes. vi.: οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν δέχεσθαι, ὡς αὐτὸν τὸν πέμψαντα. p. 46. John xiii. 20. Ephes. xvli.: Διὰ τοῦτο μύρον ἔλαβεν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς [αὐτοῦ] ὁ Κύριος, ἵνα πνέῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀφθαρ- σίαν. Cf. John xii. 3. ‘ Joannes vero exhibet quod preetermiserunt Matthzeus et Marcus, ἡ δὲ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς TOU μύρου." Zahn, Patr. Apost. Opp. ut supra, p. 22. ‘ Zahn truly remarks that the allusion here implies a know- ledge of 5. John’s Gospel.’ Pp. 72, 73. Ibid. : τοῦ ἄρχοντος τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦτου,.., Again, cap. xix. Magn. 1} Trall. iv., Rom. vii., Philad. G., Cio John: xi: 3); xiv οὖ: mute 11 0 70. Magn. vii.: Ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ Κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὺς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν, 401 present most learned and on the Ignatian question, k.7.A.. p. 121. ‘Respicere Igna- tium ad Joann. v. 19, 30; x. 30; xv. 4; xvi. 15, tantum non affirmo,’ Zahn, ut supra, p. 35; cf. Const. Apost. p. 54, 23, ed. Lagarde ; cf. also John viii. 28. Ibid. ad fin.: eis ἕνα ὄντα, Ὁ. 123. ‘Quoniam autem redux e mundo apud patrem versatur, apte dic- tum est: eis τὸν ἕνα. . . non ἐν τῷ ἑνί. Cf. Joann. i. 18,’ Zahn, ut supra, p. 35. Cf. also Johni. 1; Rill Oy MV. 10. 928. xvi, 10) ΤῸ; 17, 28. The chapter of the Epistle to the Magnesians to which these references are made, occupies ten lines in the large print of Bishop Lightfoot’s edition. Magn. viii. ad fin.: ὃς κατὰ πάν- Ta εὐηρέστησεν τῷ πέμψαντι αὐτόν. Ρ. 126. Cf. John viii. 29. Rog. 111. ad fin.: ὅταν μισῆται ὑπὸ κόσμου. Cf. John vii. 7; xv. 18,19’; xvi. 14 5 15 Johw is 13: p. 205. Philad. vii.: ofdev yap πόθεν ἔρχεται kat ποῦ ὑπάγει, a definite quotation from John iii. 8. ‘The coincidence is quite too strong to be accidental. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that the passage in the Gospel is prior to the passage in Ignatius. The application in the Gospel is natural, The application in Igna- tius is strained and secondary ; nor is his language at all explicable, > B Other con- temporary writings. Epistle of Polycarp. 402 LECTURE VIL. is to assert that the Fourth Gospel was received by Ignatius and by the churches of Asia Minor, includ- ing the church of Ephesus, at a date which 15 earlier— it may be several years earlier—than the year Α.Ὁ. 117. The dates of the Epistle of Barnabas and of the Didache are too uncertain for us to lay much stress upon them here as witnesses—both may be earlier than the death of the Apostle John; but they, as well as the Epistles of the Roman Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, at least support the Johannine authorship of the Gospel by a stream of Johannine doctrine and phraseology which is too strong to have been accidental.* Closely bound up with the question of the Ignatian Letters, and standing or falling with them, is the genuineness of the Epistle of Polycarp.” This is a Letter of the martyr to the church at Philippi, exist- ing in a Latin translation which was first published in 1498. Of the Greek, only part has been preserved, and this was first edited in 1633. The external except as an adaptation of a familiar passage,’ p. 266. Philad. ix.: αὐτὸς dv θύρα τοῦ πατρός, Of. John x. 9 and Rev. iii. 8. Bishop Lightfoot notes that this latter image is also in a letter to the Philadelphians, pp. 274, 275. * Cf. Patr. Ap. Opp., wt supra, esp. the Indices: and Charteris, Canonicity, 1880, pp. i-xxxiii and 167-176. Reference may also perhaps be permitted to the article ‘John, Gospel of,’ in the forth- coming edition of Dr. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. For the Didache, cf. Von Gebhardt u. Har- nack, Texte u. Untersuchungen, Bd. ii. Heft 2 ; Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual, ed. 3, 1889; and Plummer, article in the Church- man, July 1884. > Cf. Bishop Lightfoot, op. cit., i. pp. 562 sq. LECTURE VII. 408 evidence of its genuineness includes Irenzus, who speaks of ‘a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp, written to the Philippians’; Eusebius,® who quotes the testimony which the Epistle bears to the Igna- tian Letters ;“ and Jerome, who tells us ὃ that it was publicly read in the churches of Asia. Everything in the Letter itself supports the statements which are thus made about it, and Dr. Harnack is justified in saying :— It would certainly never have occurred to any one to doubt the genuineness of the epistle, or to suppose that it had been interpolated, but for the fact that in several passages reference is made to Ignatius and his epistles.% But, if the Ignatian Letters are independently proved to be genuine, this argument against the Letter of Polycarp is not only cancelled, but it gives a considerable positive quantity on the other side. The Ignatian Letters are genuine: then the only argument against the Polycarp Letter disappears. The Polycarp Letter is genuine: then it strongly confirms the genuineness of the Ignatian Letters, which has been independently established. The importance of the genuineness of the Letter of Polycarp in the present question is indirect but therefore of the greater value. Beyond question it bears witness to the First Epistle of 8. John, and ° Adv. Her. iii. 3,4; ed. Har- Benedict., Verona, 1735, tom. ii. vey, li. pp. 14 sq. p. 849. τ Hist. Eccles. iii. 36. ° Encyclopedia Britannica, 8 De Vir. clust.cap. xvil.; ed. 1885, xix. p. 414. Dp. 2 Dr. Har- nack’s view. Import- ance of the Letter. Silence of Eusebius. 404 LECTURE VIL. equally beyond question is this Epistle a witness to the Gospel. The Letter dates from the martyrdom of Ignatius,—after the journey of Ignatius to Rome, and before Polycarp had heard of the martyrdom ; that is to say, not later than A.D. 118, perhaps as early as A.D. 112, there is a Letter of Polycarp which quotes as authentic the First Epistle of ὃ. John, which itself is subsequent to the Fourth Gospel and was written by the same hand. The name of Bishop Lightfoot will be remembered also in connexion with an induction which is, I venture to think, second in far-reaching importance to nothing which he has left to us on the early history of the Church. I refer to the essay on the Silence of Huse- bius, which was first published in the Contemporary Review in January 1875, and again in the collected essays on the work entitled Supernatural Religion last year.” This is not an example of new material, but a generalization from already existing materials. Eusebius is the chief source of information about the ecclesiastical literature of the second century ; and this induction, which is based upon a minute exa- mination of particulars, and was placed before the world as a distinct challenge now fifteen years ago, has acquired the position of a law of interpretation, the value of which cannot be too highly estimated. Let me read it to you in the author’s own words :— 1 Cf. Lecture VI. pp. 346 sq. 2 Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 32-58. LECTURE VII. 405 ‘ Hypotheses non fingimus. We have built no airy castles of criticism on arbitrary ὦ priori assumptions as to what the silence of Husebius must mean. We have put the man him- self in the witness-box; we have confronted him with facts, and cross-examined him; thus we have elicited from him his principles and mode of action. I may perhaps have fallen into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main conclusions are, | believe, irrefragable. If they are not, I shall be obliged to anyone who will point out the fallacy in my reasoning; and I pledge myself to make open retractation. .. . ‘I now venture on a statement which might have seemed a paradox if it had preceded this investigation, but which, coming at its close, will, if I mistake not, commend itself as a sober deduction from facts. The silence of Husebius respec- ting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in its favour. Its Apostolic authorship had never been questioned by any church writer from the beginning, so far as Husebius was aware, and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses. It was not excused, because it had not been accused... . ‘Tf any one demurs to this inference, let him try, on any other hypothesis, to answer the following questions :— ‘(1) How is it that, while Eusebius alleges repeated testimonies to the Epistle to the Hebrews, he is silent from first to last about the universally acknowledged Hpistles of St. Paul, such as Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians ? ‘(2) How is it that he does not mention the precise and direct testimony in Theophilus to the Gospel of St. John, while he does mention a reference in this same author to the Apocalypse ? ‘ And this explanation of the silence of Eusebius, while it is demanded by his own language and practice, alone accords with the known facts relating to the reception of the Fourth Gospel in the second century.’ ὃ 5 Essays, ut supra, pp. 51-2. Syriac ver- sion of Eusebius. Cureton. Dindorf. 406 LECTURE VIL. Nor is it by silence only that Eusebius is speak- ing, and about to speak, afresh to this generation. Up to the year 1855 the great work of the Father of Church History was known to us from Greek sources only, and of the available Greek MSS. none are earlier than the tenth century. But Canon Cureton published in that year a selec- tion of Syriac documents, and gave an extract with a translation of a Syriac version of the Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius.* In 1871 Dr. Dindorf published in his own edition of Eusebius the following note from Canon Cureton :— I am occupied in preparing an edition of the ancient Syriac version of the Kcclesiastical History of Eusebius. I have two manuscripts of it at my disposal. One, most kindly lent to me by His Majesty the Tzar, from the Imperial public library at S. Petersburg, dated a.p. 462. This volume con- tains, with certain lacune, books 1.--ἶν. and viii.—x. Of books v. and vu. only small portions remain, and book vi. is wholly wanting. ‘The Nitrian manuscript, preserved in the British Museum, which I am now collating with my copy of the Petersburg manuscript, is of somewhat later date (the date has been erased and is no longer legible), but very carefully written. It contains books i.—v. almost complete. ὅ Professor Dindorf gives a specimen of the version from a comparison of the texts of the British Museum and the Imperial Library at ὃ. Petersburg. This he was enabled to do through the kindness of Professor William Wright and Professor Ludolph Krehl. 4 Spicilegium Syriacum, 1855, 5 Eusebius, ed. Dindorf, tom. pp. 56-60. iv. Pref. pp. vi sq. LECTURE VIL. 407 In 1880, Professor Adalbert Merx announced, at the meeting of the Oriental Congress at Florence, that Professor Wright had prepared an edition of this version, which he hoped to publish together with an English translation and notes by Dr. Field, who is known to us all as the learned editor of the Hexapla of Origen.° But Dr. Merx heard the first news of this Syriac MS. when he was at Venice, learning Armenian ; and his friend and tutor, P. Arsenius Sukrean, in- formed him that an Armenian version of Eusebius had been printed the year before. He was convinced, and gives reasons which are, I think, fully convincing, that the Armenian is not made from the original in Greek but from the Syriac, and that it contains the sections which are wanting in the Syriac. The Armenian has also independent notes of time which confirm the early date assigned to the Syriac version. This throws us back then far into the fourth century, and makes it probable that not long after the work of Eusebius became known in Greek, it was known also in Syriac, and thus made accessible to both Eastern and Western Christendom. This view is confirmed by the practice of Cyril of Alexandria, who at the beginning of the fifth century published his work On the Faith in both Greek and Syriac.‘ You will see of what immeasurable importance 5 Atti del iv. Congresso imterna- 7 Wright, Catalogue of Syriac zionale degli Orientalisti. Firenze, MSS. im the British Museum, 1880, vol. i. pp. 199-214. Di-div; pi (19: Armenian version. Merx. Syriac Apology. 408 LECTURE VII. this discovery may prove to be. It may reveal to us, with a certainty which has not been attainable in modern times, the history of the Church during the first three centuries ; and it is already known that it fully confirms the history on which we have been hitherto dependent. Cureton and Wright and Field and Bishop Lightfoot are no longer with us in bodily presence; but it is to be hoped that the work pre- pared, now some years ago, may be forthcoming without much delay. Professor Merx writes to me on the last day of last year with reference to the Armenian version :— I hope I will get assistance to complete the whole, which is difficult for me as it is to be printed in English, so that without the correcting eye of an Englishman it cannot be accomplished. I have referred in an earlier lecture® to an Apology addressed to the Emperor Antoninus, which was also given to us from the same Collection of Nitrian MSS. by Canon Cureton in 1855.2 Many critics of weight regard this Apology as really the work of Melito, and some would identify it with the Apology of which we have fragments in Eusebius.’ The matter is not one of sufficient importance to justify our further discussion of it. There seems to me good ground for not ascribing it to Melito him- self, and equally good ground for believing that it dates from his period. It is interesting as showing 8 Lecture I. p. 35. ® Spicilegiwm, ut swpra, pp. 41-56. 1 Hist. Eccl. iv, 26. LECTURE VIL. | A409 the kind of evidence which has been lying all around us though we knew it not, and the wide field which is open for the investigation of scholars. But the time has now arrived when this division of our subject must be brought to a conclusion. I have endeavoured in the three lectures of the Lent term to set before you ‘the judgment of centuries’ upon the Fourth Gospel, and have in the four lectures of this term tried to examine the criticism of ‘our age.’ I am well aware how fragmentary the treatment of so wide a subject has necessarily been, but I have de- sired to give every important witness some hearing, and especially every witness who has anything to adduce against the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Your patient endurance will con- firm my conviction that while some names have been passed over, others might have been omitted without serious loss. And, now, what does it all prove? Where is this destructive criticism, which is, by a definite and compact body of measured proof, to establish the fact that the convictions of all previous ages are a series of mistakes, and that ‘ our age has cancelled the judg- ment of centuries’? Evanson, Bretschneider, Strauss, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Renan, Scholten, Keim, Davidson, and the rest—where is their collective wisdom, where the fixed results of their investiga- tions? By what laws of evidence is a case to be supported in which almost every witness contradicts Conclu- sion. No body of nega- tive cri- ticism which is not self- destruc- tive. The positive is to the negative criticism ast=n, 410 LECTURE VII. the witness on his own side who has gone before, and then contradicts himself ? What is the value of that man’s evidence who tells us plainly, first, that he is certain, then that he is doubtful, then that he is doubtful about his doubts, then that he is certain as to his doubts about his doubts—but thinks his opinion may yet change? What verification is pos- sible for theories which assure us now that the Gospel is the growth of unconscious myth, now the result of deliberate design ; now that its roots are meta- physical, now that they are mystical; now that the work is clearly composite, now that it is absolutely one; now that the discourses are trustworthy, but not the history ; now that the history is trustworthy, but not the discourses ; now that the author is clearly a Jew, now that he is certainly a Greek ; now that he is a Syrian, now that he is an Alexandrian ; now that the whole teaching bears the impress of Philo, now that it is permeated by the Gnosticism of Basi- lides ? What dependence can be placed upon inves- tigations which assure us with equal confidence that the gospel was written in A.D. 180, 170, 160, 150, 140, 120, 110, or even far back into the first century? If all these clashing, contradicting, self-destroying, each-other-cancelling theories of ‘our age’ are now placed beside the calm and deliberate judgment of the second and all succeeding centuries, and with the posi- tive judgment and knowledge of our own day, what is the effect ? Is it less than to divide positive unity by a positive zero, and is not the result a positive LECTURE VII. 411 infinity ? As I am speaking these words, a sentence from Strauss comes back to my thoughts, and I know not how better to express my meaning—it will not be thought that Strauss applied his words in quite the same sense :— The subjective criticism of the individual is like a water- pipe which any urchin can stop up for a time. Criticism, when in the course of centuries it accumulates objectively, rushes along like a roaring river, against which dams and dykes are powerless.” I will not detain you by asking what answer the negative criticism of this century would give to the legitimate demand that it should find an author who would meet the complex conditions of the Johannine problem ;* though, as we have seen,* the ‘judgment of centuries’ could not be cancelled by any body of destructive criticism even if it existed. The answers are valueless, as the guesses about Nathaniel or Apollos, or they are worse than value- less. Is it not almost incredible that a man, know- ing anything of the Origins of Christianity, should have thought of Cerinthus as the author of the Fourth Gospel? But this suggestion comes from M. Renan.’ [5 it not more than incredible that any 2 ‘Die subjective Kritik des Einzelnen ist ein Brunnenrohr, das jeder Knabe eine Weile zu- halten kann: die Kritik, wie sie im Laufe der Jahrhunderte sich objectiv vollzieht, stiirzt als ein brausender Strom heraus, gegen den alle Schleussen und Damme nichts vermégen.’ Die christliche Glaubenslehre, 1840, i. Preface, pix: 5. Cf. the opinion of Dr. Mar- tineau, quoted in Lecture V. p. 287. 4 Cf. Lecture IV. p. 173. > “Tout est possible ἃ ces Sugges- tions of author other than S. John valueless. The river of the past strength- ened in 412 LECTURE VII. one who had ever read a chapter of this Gospel should have suggested that the disciple whom Jesus loved, the original author of the Gospel, was Judas Iscariot? But this is the distinction of Herr Ludwig Noack, who published four erudite but most repulsive volumes on the Life of Jesus, in 1870-71.° These are not dams or dykes—they are mere drains, which the roaring river carries away without leaving a mark behind. Meanwhile, the nineteenth century has been like those which have preceded it. On every hand fresh fountains of deeper knowledge, fresh streams of posi- tive criticism, have contributed to the volume of the époques ténébreuses ; et, si VE- glise, en vénérant le quatriéme Evangile comme l’ceuvre de Jean, est dupe de celui qu’elle regarde comme un de ses plus dangereux ennemis, cela n’est pas en somme plus étrange que tant d’autres malentendus qui composent la trame de Vhistoire religieuse de Vhumanité.’ L’Eglise Chrétienne, 1879, p. 54. Cf. ‘Jean, ἃ ce qu'il parait, repoussait les doctrines de Cérinthe avec colére.’? Les Evan- giles, 1877, p. 420. 6 Aus der Jordanwiege nach Golgatha. Darstellung der Ge- schichte Jesu auf Grund freier geschichtlicher Untersuchungen iiber das Evangelium wnd die Evan- gelien. Mannheim, 1870-71. I cannot advise anyone to ex- perience the pain of referring to a work which reaches a deeper depth than any which I have else- where known with any pretension to scholarship or thought. The Fourth Gospel is treated in vol. 11. pp. 37-236. The following passage will sufticiently show the writer’s view of the authorship : ‘Wir erkennen also im BusEN- JUNGER des vierten Evange- liums den J upas THAaDDAUS oder LEBBAUS der synopti- schen Ueberlieferung und finden diesen nicht verschieden von dem andern Judas, der in letzterer als Verrither bezeichnet’ . . . Ibed. p. 190. After this, nothing will cause surprise, or it would seem startling to learn that Golgotha is not in Jerusalem but in Sa- maria at Kefer Zud,and that Gab- batta = Gennatha, with much more of the same nature and the same value. Ibid. iv. pp. 78 and 141- 143. LECTURE VII: 413 flood ; and the river of the past rolls on in the present fuller, stronger, more irresistible than it has ever been before. And now I trust that the technicalities which have wearied us too long are ended. In the next and concluding lecture, I hope to deal for the most part with the influence which modern thought should have on our conceptions of the spiritual realities of the Fourth Gospel. the pre- sent. “art j 7 a Weary. rel a: 3 ἐμὴν ΟΝ ΟΝ Ἂ Ἢ a ie ae: % he ἌΝ ; Εν. ᾿ ὧν ia ee iy ἢ γ᾽. ᾽ ᾿ ' Md 5 pay A ? - 7 Ne Pay Ae a ae ee ᾿ Mae an, ᾿ Ve Ἧ iy LECT ORE VEE INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL THE PROBLEM OF TRANSLATION AAAA KAI EAN ΦΗΣ AEIZON MOI TON OEON SOY, ΚΑΓῺ Ol EINOIMI AN AEIZON MOI TON ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ ΣΟΥ KATQ ΣΟῚ AEIEN TON @EON MOT. . . . . . . ΠΑΝΤΕῈΣ MEN ΓᾺΡ ΕΧΟΥ͂ΣΙ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΥ͂Σ, AAAA ENIOI ΥΠ0Ο- ΚΕΧΥΜΕΝΟΥ͂Σ KAI ΜῊ ΒΛΕΠΟΝΤΑΣ TO ΦΩ͂Σ TOY HAIOY. ΚΑΙ OT ΠΑΡΑ TO ΜΗ ΒΛΕΠΕΙΝ TOTS ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ HAH KAI OTK ἘΣΤΙΝ TO ΦΩ͂Σ ΤΟΥ HAIOY ΦΑΙΝΟΝ, AAAA EAYTOTS AITIAZ@NSZAN ΟἹ ΤΥΦΛΟΙ KAI TOTS ἙΑΥΤΩ͂Ν OFOAAMOTS. Theophilus. LECTURE VIII. Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.— John xx. 30, 31. Ir you have been good enough to follow the argu- ments which I have endeavoured to place before you in the earlier lectures of this course, you will, I believe, admit that sufficient reason has been shown for accepting the judgment of ages expressed now by tradition, now by the religious consciousness of the community or of the individual; here by decree of council, or statement of a Father of the Church, there by the inner light, or the canons of historical and literary criticism. You will, I believe, also admit that sufficient reason has been shown for refusing to accept the statement that any consistent body of negative criticism has arisen in our own age which can cancel that judgment ; and for believing that in this century, as in the Christian centuries which have preceded it, there has been an accumulating mass of evidence in favour of the genuineness of the writing which we are justified in calling, without trace of uncertainty in our voice, ‘The Gospel ac- cording to 8. John.’ I shall also venture to hope, EE Results from earlier lectures. The Fourth Gospel is ‘accord- ing to ὃ. John.’ Inspira- tion is of the es- sence, not of the form. 418 LECTURE VIII. though I confess my confidence is here less sure, that no one will be unprepared to admit that, when the writer of this Gospel claims that his Master promised His abiding spiritual presence to the Church and promised the inspiration of the Comforter in these words,— But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you, ! the promise was made and fulfilled for ‘ all things,’ for the substance, that is, and not for the mere form of the revelation of Christ Himself. In other words, it will, I trust, be admitted that even in this most spiritual Gospel, it is the matter, that is to say the eternal reality, and not the form, that is to say the tem- poral expression of the reality ; the essence of the truth and not the accident of language, construction, word ; the spirit which quickeneth, and not the letter which killeth ;—that it is the matter, essence, spirit, not the form, accident, letter, which is inspired. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ ; it is the Gospel accord- ing to S..John. The treasure is divine; the vessel is earthen. [I am making no claim on behalf of this writing, or any other writing of the New Testament, that it is more than the earthen vessel in which the treasure of inspired truth is contained. The ‘ Word of God’ is contained in, but 15 not identical with, the written or spoken word of even inspired men. The necessity of human thought which seeks some 1 John xiv. 26. LECTURE VIII. 419 visible form of the Divine, and is rightly satisfied in the Incarnation and spiritualized in the Ascension, has expressed itself when these doctrines have not been known or have not been fully grasped, as in idolatry, in human infallibility, in Mariolatry, in sen- suous modes of worship, so also in a bibliolatry which claims for the material form the divinity which be- longs only to the spiritual essence. But the treasure would not be affected, even if the vessel which con- tains it were cracked or marred. It should not there- fore seriously disturb our faith in the divine Gospel, if the immediate connexion of this one outward form of it with the Apostle John were much less certain than it is; nor should it greatly concern us if some or all of the many flaws which microscopic critics think that they have found in this earthen vessel were really to be seen there, though the more they are exainined by men of sober vision, the more they are found to be in the critic or in the instrument of his criticism, in the eye or in the microscope, and not in the object upon which they are directed. If, then, I make no claim for even this Gospel according to S. John that it is in the external form which is human, absolutely free from every possibility of error, I do claim none the less that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which it contains, is divine, and that to the divine there can be no ascription of error. But this discussion of modern criticism and the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel has not been to EE? The vessel is not, the contents are, divine. This dis- cussion not an apologia. This Gos- pel the treasure of humanity. Danger of missing it. Differ- ences ne- cessary in revela- tion ; 420 LECTURE VIII. me simply an academical exercise. I may be mis- taken, but in my own view, it is not an apologia for a creed. Had it been that, there could have been no justification either for my presence in this place, or. for my absence from the practical work of ‘that state of life unto which it hath pleased God to call me.’ The justification to myself at least, for venturing to address you, is the conviction that this writing is the most sacred in our worlds of time and space, that it contains the fullest revelation of God to man, that in the depth of this divine treasure there is the truest satisfaction of human needs, and the truest solution of human problems for the nineteenth century as for the first, for the present as for the past, for the future as for the present: and in the conviction that some men are in danger of missing the treasure, be- cause they claim for the outward form of it a perfec- tion which it has not, and in the very nature of things cannot have ; that other men are in danger of missing the treasure, because they cannot help seeing and attacking the weakness of this claim to outward perfection ; and that other men are in danger of missing the treasure, because amidst these loud and conflicting words of man they cannot hear the still small voice of God. The purpose of the present lecture, then, is to show that while those who accept the results of the previous lectures, and believe that the Fourth Gospel is ‘the Gospel according to ὃ. John,’ have still to LECTURE VIII. 491 meet the problem of the marked differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics, such differences find their explanation in the circumstances under which the Gospel was written, and, so far from causing any difficulty, are even necessary to the fulness of the revelation of God in the varying conditions of man. Now the fourfold frame in which God has willed that the Church should receive the one Gospel of Jesus Christ ought to have made it impossible to confound form and substance ; and though this has not always been the case, any serious attempt to understand the Gospel according to S. John must, in the present state of knowledge, start from the conviction that it is in form widely different from that according to 5. Matthew, or 8. Mark, or ὃ. Luke. When Bretschneider supposes, for example, that if the Gospel of John had remained unknown through the eighteen earlier centuries, and at length had been discovered in the East, and had been published in our own day, we should all have admitted with one voice that the Jesus described by John is very different from the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that both representations could not be at the same time true, and that there would be good reason for our doing so ;” when M. Renan asserts that if Jesus 2 €Si forte accidisset, ut Joannis evangelium per octodecim secula priora prorsus ignotum jacuisset, et nostris demum temporibus in Oriente repertum et in medium productum esset, omnes haud dubie uno ore confiterentur, Jesum a Joanne descriptum longe alium esse ac illum Matthei, Marci et Luce, nec utramque descriptionem simul veram esse posse. Nec ita sine gravi judica- retur ratione.’ Probabilia, 1820, p. 1. Cf. Lecture LV. pp. 181 sq. πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυ- τρόπως. Different forms of the one Gospel. This ex- pressed by Bret- schneider, and Renan. Baur’s view of a tendency- writing, 429, LECTURE VIII. spake as Matthew makes him speak, he could not have spoken as John makes him speak,*® and sends us to our New Testaments, and we read the Sermon on the Mount side by side with the Capernaum discourse of the sixth chapter or the farewell of the sixteenth and seventeenth chapters of ὃ. John, or compare the parables of the one writing with the allegories of the other, we feel that though all this may be explained, too much explanation is not quite satisfactory, and that Dr. Bretschneider and M. Renan have some reason for their opinion. And when Dr. Baur and those who think with him assert that the Gospel is not history but theology, that from beginning to end it is marked by unity of purpose, that it is a Tendenz-Schrift,* and send us to the Gospel itself, and we analyze it, and see how light and darkness, love and hatred, truth and error, life and death, are made the sustaining ideas running through the whole warp and woof of the material ; how just those signs are chosen—they are signs, there is no miracle, but all becomes natural in his intense realization of the Divine presence—which illustrate these thoughts ; and how every sign is the text of a sermon, just as if it were chosen out of the book of nature, answering to the touch of nature’s God, in order that this very sermon should be preached from it ; we * ‘Si Jésus parlait comme le Jésus, ed. 1, 1863, Introduction, veut Matthieu, il n’a pu parler p. xxix. comme le veut Jean.’ Vie de 4 Cf. Lecture V. p. 294, LECTURE VIII. Fs By feel that in this respect Dr. Baur and the tendency school are as wholly right, as Dr. Strauss and his theory of myth are wholly wrong. The Fourth Gospel is a theological unity ; it is marked all through by distinct design; events are so narrated and discourses are so connected with them, as to carry out this design from beginning to end. But it did not need Dr. Baur to tell us this, though at the moment he did great good by telling it. The Gospel itself, in the words which formed its original ending and which supply the text of our present thoughts, tells us clearly—and the statement is repeated in hyperbolic form in the pre- sent ending—that it is a selection of signs, that the selection was made with a definite threefold purpose, and declares what this purpose was :— Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: [And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written. | but these are written, (1) that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, (2) the Son of God; and that (8) believing ye may have life in his name. And when Bretschneider and Strauss and Baur and M. Renan and others agree in the opinion that the whole Gospel is in form different from the Synoptics, and belongs to an altogether different point of view, they agree in stating what no intelligent and well- instructed reader denies. The details of supposed or real differences may be here passed over, because they and the Gospel claims to be so. Difference in form admitted. Details may be here passed over. Thediffer- ence as a whole, the sub- ject of inquiry. 424 LECTURE VIII. take their place in a class of minor questions which belong to the form and not to the essence of the Gospel, and they have been more than sufficiently discussed in recent essays and commentaries. The chief of them may serve as an example in passing : The supposed discrepancies as to the Paschal Feast which have such a prominent place in the arguments of Baur, have been made the subject of minute inves- tigations by Dr. Schiirer,® who in this particular line of Judaistic lore is an acknowledged authority ; and he seems to establish the fact that, whatever the solution of the problem may be, the authorship of the Fourth Gospel—you will remember that he does not himself accept the Johannine authorship °—is in no way affected by it. But the feeling about the discourses and the general tone upon which Dr. Baur and M. Renan have from different pomts of view laid so much stress, 1s one which every student of the Gospel must more or less fully share, though he would in reverence shrink from their particular forms, or per-— haps from any forms of expressing it ; and this is of the essence of the matter and touches the Gospel itself, and therefore lies immediately in the path of our inquiry. 5 De Controversiis paschalibus, secundo p. Chr. nat. seculo exortis, 1809 ; Die Passastreitigkeiten des 2. Jahrhunderts in Zeitschrift fiir die historische Theologie, 1870, pp. 182-284. A good résumé of Dr. Schiirer’s arguments is given in English in Luthardt’s St. John the Author of the Fourth Gos- pel, ed. Gregory, 1875, pp. 154- 165. ὁ Cf Lecture V. p. 283. LECTURE VIII, 425 I have stated but just now, and have elsewhere. tried to show‘ that this difference in the discourses admits to some extent of explanation, and is to some extent exaggerated.® Still, the more the Gospel is read and studied, the more the feeling asserts itself that we are touching an altogether different circle of expressions, constructions, and even modes of 7 Cf. Bishop Ellicott’s New Testament Commentary for English Readers, vol.i. p. 557 ; Hxcwrsus 1), The Discourses in St. John’s Gospel. 8 Dr. Plummer gives the fol- lowing interesting extract from a letter written by Cardinal New- man on July 15, 1878 :— ‘Every one writes in his own style. S. John gives our Lord’s meaning in his own way. At that time the third person was not so commonly used in history as now. When a reporter gives one of Gladstone’s speeches in the newspaper, if he uses the first person, I understand not only the matter, but the style, the words, to be Gladstone’s : when the third, I consider the style, etc. to be the reporter’s own. But in ancient times this distinction was not made. Thucydides uses the dra- matic method, yet Spartan and Athenian speak in Thucydidean Greek. And so every clause of our Lord’s speeches in 8. John may be in S. John’s Greek, yet every clause may contain the matter which our Lord spoke in Aramaic. Again, 8. John might and did. select or condense (as being inspired for that purpose) the matter of our Lord’s dis- courses, as that with Nicodemus, and thereby the wording might be S. John’s, though the matter might still be our Lord’s.? Cam- bridge Greek Testament for Schools, S. John, 1882, p. 100. The following words of Dr. Mommsen will be seen to have also a very important bearing upon the subject :— ‘The position of Asia Minor as occupying the first rank in the literary world of the imperial period was based on the system of the rhetors, or, according to the expression later in use, the sophists of this epoch—a system which we moderns cannot easily realise. The place of authorship, which pretty nearly ceased to have any significance, was taken by the public discourse, somewhat of the nature of our modern university and academic addresses, eternally producing itself anew and preserved only by way of ex- ception, once heard and talked of, and then for ever forgotten,’ Theodor Mommsen, History of Rome: The Provinces from Cesar to Diocletian. Eng. Trans. 1886, vol, i. p. 363. The key lies in transla- tion. 426 LECTURE VIII. thought, from that with which we are familiar in the Synoptic Gospels; and that while the dis- courses differ from those of the Synoptics, they agree with the style of the author of the Gospel, as we find it in the narrative portions and in the First Johannine Epistle, and even with that of John Baptist and other persons who are introduced as speakers. This difference where we might have expected acreement, and agreement where we might have ex- pected difference, cannot be denied ; and its signific- ance cannot be too strongly asserted. But it would seem to be in entire harmony with the origin and purpose of the Gospel, and in the statement of these I shall seek to find the lessons with which to con- clude this course of lectures. The key to the Fourth Gospel lies in translation, or, if this term has acquired too narrow a meaning, transmutation, re-formation, growth; nor need we shrink from the true sense of the terms, develop- ment and evolution. I mean translation in language from Aramaic into Greek ; translation in time ex- tending over more than half a century, the writer passing from young manhood to mature old-age ; translation in place from Palestine to Ephesus ; trans- lation in outward moulds of thought from the sim- plicity of Jewish fishermen and peasants, or the ritual of Pharisees and priests, to the technicalities of a people who had formed for a century the meeting- LECTURE VIII. 497 ground, and in part the union, of the philosophies of Hast and West. If we earnestly attempt to realize the life of the Apostle and the circumstances under which the Gospel was composed, it will lead us to understand how this process of development must have taken place in the inspired writer, and how absolutely essential it was to the purpose of his writing. 5. John must upon any plan of his life which can be set forth with fair show of probability, have spent thirty years or more at Ephesus.? Bilingual! from boyhood, as Galilaans of his time and his position usually were, in the earlier part of life perhaps pre- dominantly Hebrew, he would by necessity of cir- cumstance become in the latter part predominantly Greek. His special work is to be Apostle and over- seer of a church which S. Paul had planted, which δ Le nom moderne @’Ephése, Jépoque chrétienne. On y em- Aia-Solouk, parait venir de ‘Ayia θεολόγου ou “Aytos θεόλογος.᾽ [6 . Reference to coins, in Wood’s Ephesus, 1877, pp. 182-3, which were struck at Ayasalouk, and bear the name ‘ Theologos,’ and go ‘far to prove that St. John’s church was erected at that place.’] ‘Il est vrai qu’on prononce et qu’on écrit souvent Aiaslyk (Arundell, li. 252), ot Yon est tenté de voir la terminaison turque lyk. Mais Vorthographe correcte est Solotik (voir Ibn-Batoutah, ii. p. 308). Comparez Dara-Soluk, pres de Sardes. La porte qui donne entrée & la citadelle peut dater de ploya des sculptures paiennes, qu’on interpréta dans un sens chrétien.? Renan, Saint Paul, 1869, p. 342, note 2. ' Those who do not agree in his conclusions will nevertheless thank Dr. Alexander Roberts for his valuable contributions to the discussion of this subject. They are given, with a fair statement of the objections, in the author’s Realiza- tion of the Apostle’s position. Life in Ephesas. Greek the Language of Christ and .~ his Apostles, 1888. But cf. Dr, Neubauer’s learned essay On the Dialects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ: Studia Biblica, 1885, pp. 39-74, The Church. The con- course of /¢ peoples. The sects of philo- sophy. 428 LECTURE ὙΠ]. from its very seedtime had grown up in the midst of such discussions as we know to have taken place, for instance, in the school of Tyrannus.? Apollos, the eloquent Alexandrian, is an example at once of the links which bound Ephesus to surrounding cities and influences, and of the’ kind of teacher who was wel- comed by the growing Church. ‘The Pauline Letters to the Ephesians, the Colossians, Timothy, are evi- dence in thought and word of the deeper philoso- phical form in which the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ had been imparted to them ; and of the dangers which had already arisen, and threatened to arise in more abundant measure, from the subtlety of thought, the tendency to uncontrolled speculation, the claim to Gnosis falsely so called, which charac- terized alike the later Greek and the Oriental culture, and sprung into vigorous life nowhere so fully as in Asia Minor and Alexandria, where these cultures were united. And outside the fold of the Church, what a seeth- ing mass was there of contending systems, all claim- ing a hearing ; many claiming, each for itself, that it was the one solution of the mystery of Being, of all things in heaven and earth and sea! What a Babel of confused tongues, while the speakers thought to raise their towers to the very heaven of heavens! Chrysostom tells us that ‘ All the sects of Grecian philosophy cultivated their science in Ephesus,’® and 2 Acts xix. 9. Lampe, Commentarius, 1724, vol. 5 Homil. I. wm Joannem. Cf. i. p. 51. LECTURE VIII. 429 we know from the story of Justin Martyr’s conver- sion,* the kind of inquiries which men made there in the generation after John, and which men doubtless made in the second half of the first, as they certainly did in the first half of the second century.> Jews were there in large numbers from the first planting of | the Church, and the numbers multiplied after the de- | struction of Jerusalem.® Judeo-Christians, Ebionites, Essenes left their traceable marks upon the currents of the great stream of Asiatic thought. Syrians and other Easterns were there, and the special forms of Oriental Gnosticism, the Naasenes and the Ophites, which appear at the opening of the second cen- tury, must have had their roots deep in the first. i Men were there from the further East, and voices might have been heard telling how the mystery of Being had found its solution in the life and doctrine of Gautama whom they called the Buddha, and that in Nirvana was the highest good of perfect life, a half-true and therefore all-false pantheism which told men then, as it tells some men now, that the highest 4 Cf. Lecture II. pp. 58 sq. 5 ¢Ephese devenait pour un temps le centre de la chrétienté, Rome et Jérusalem étant, par suite de la violence des temps, des séjours presque interdits au culte nouveau.’ Renan, L’ Antéchrist, 1873, p. 209. δ ‘Le point du monde romain ou la vie était alors le plus sup- portable pour les juifs était la province d’Asie. ΠῚ y avait entre la juiverie de Rome et celle d’Ephése des communications per- pétuelles. Ce fut de ce cdté que se dirigérent les fugitifs.’. .. Ibid. p- 206. 7 *T?Asie Mineure était alors le théatre d’un étrange mouve- ment de philosophie syncrétique ; tous les germes du gnosticisme y existaient déjai.’? Renan, Vie de Jésus, 1879, p. lxxi. Cf. Lecture VII. pp. 372 sq. The East, 430 LECTURE VIII. being is the ceasing to be, and that the first philosophy of human life is to deny the first’ postu- lates of individual existence, which Intellect, and Will, and Conscience, and Feeling, with distinct but united voice demand. And there from time to time were men who told of emanations and incarnations of the Divine, of which they had learned by tradition and from sacred books that had come down to them hoary with antiquity ; for to those acutest thinkers ᾿ οὗ Aryan stock, incarnation seemed to be an actual and West. Philo. necessity, though to some among ourselves it has seemed an impossibility, of thought. And there were many from the West, from Egypt and Rome and Greece. Some of them might have been heard to speak of strange religious mysteries ; of animals sacred in their nation from the earliest records, because to them they represented God ; of colossal forms transcending all experience and suggesting the Infinite ; of apotheosis, that antithesis to incarnation, the attempt to bridge from the human side the gulf between man and God; of idolatry, which is at once the caricature of and the witness to incarna- tion ; of personification, by which every power of nature and thought of man might become a god ; of temples for the body, dead yet not dead; of transmigrations of the spirit, the same and not the same. And more frequently and consistently than any of these strange voices, might have been heard the teaching of the eclectic philosopher, Philo. Somewhat older than the Apostle, but for many LECTURE VIL 431 years a contemporary, an Alexandrian Jew of high position and exceptional culture, steeped in Rabbinic lore, and yet so permeated by Plato, that men often said ‘ Philo is platonising, or Plato is philonising ; "ἢ | dissatisfied with the literal explanation of the origin of Being which he learnt in the synagogue, and seeking in the mysticisms of the far East what he could not find in the West, at once an effect and a cause of the philosophy of Alexandria and Ephesus, placing in the forefront of his teaching the method of allegory which has ever characterized the Alexan- drian schools, using every possible term to express the union of matter and spirit, grasping alike from Rabbis and from Stoics the doctrine of the Logos as the link between God and man, and yet holding it as it were in solution, uncertain whether there is one Logos ὁ or many, almost saying es _yet never fully saying, that the Logos is a a Af ~~ And all this was beneath the shadow of the great The cultof Diana. temple of Diana of the Ephesians, with its hierarchy ; and courses of trained theologi® and exegetes—of Diana ~ 8 The literature of Philo and In immediate relation to our the Logos is almost inexhaustible. It is a satisfaction to be able to refer to two quite recent English treatises which from different points of view are equally thoughtful and learned :—the late Dr. Edersheim’s article Philo in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iv. pp. 357 sqq.; and the invaluable induction of Dr. Drummond in his Philo Judzxus, 2 vols., 1888. present inquiry reference may be made, in addition to the better known treatises, to Soulier, La Doctrine du Logos chez Philon d’ Alexandrie, Turin, 1876; Klas- sen, Die alttestament!. Weisheit τι. der Logos, u.s.w. 1879; and Jean Réville, La Doctrine du Logos dans le quatriéme Evangile et dans les euvres de Philon, 1881. ° The theologi are named in an inscription from the Great Theatre The city. 452 LECTURE VIII. who had come down from heaven and was worshipped as the source of life on earth ; for this temple was to last for yet two centuries, and images of the god- dess and her shrine represented the highest truth to men, women, children, not alone in the great city of Ephesus, but in all the region round about. The outline of daily life at Ephesus which is thus suggested may be easily expanded and coloured, for the literature! of the subject is no longer scanty. Tt will of course be remembered that Ephesus was on the one hand a great commercial centre and port, and on the other a luxurious Eastern city, the de facto capital of the province of five hundred towns.” of Ephesus. Cf. Wood, Dis- coveries at Ephesus, 1877, p. 22 (θεολόγοι). 1 Cf. Guhl, Ephesiaca, 1843, esp. cap. iii. pp. 78-140; Falkener, Ephesus and the Temple of Diana, 1862; Wood, Discoveries im Ephesus, 1877; Renan, S. Paul, 1869, pp. 329-349; Lewin, Life and Epistles of S. Paul, ed. 3, 1875, vol. i. pp. 313-414 ; Farrar, Life and Work of S. Paul, vol. 11. pp. 1-44; De Pressensé, L’ Ancien Monde et le Christianisme, ed. 4, 1889; Mommsen, History of Rome, ut supra, pp. 320-367 ; Plumptre, S. Paul in Asia Minor, pp. 89-138. 2 ¢The proper metropolis of the province was Pergamus, the residence of the Attalids and the seat of the diet. But Ephesus, the de facto capital of the province, where the governor was obliged to enter on his office, and which boasts of this ‘ right of reception at landing’ on its coins ; Smyrna, | in constant rivalship with its Kphesian neighbour, and, in defiance of the legitimate right of | the Ephesians to primacy, naming» itself on coins ‘the first in great- | ness and _ beauty ;’ ancient Sardis, Cyzicus, and several others strove after the same honorary right.” Mommsen, History of Rome, ut swpra, vol. i. pp. 329 sq. ‘ But, if the Roman merchants were to be found here apparently ~ in every large and small town, even at places like Ilium and Assus in Mysia, Prymnessus and Traianopolis in Phrygia, in such numbers that their associations were in the habit of taking part along with the town’s burgesses in public acts ; if in Hierapolis, in the very | ------ς.-.-.---.-. LECTURE VIII. 433 Business and pleasure,? not philosophy or religion, brought most who came there from afar; but the time and the people were marked by a great up- heaving of the spirit of religious inquiry, and there the interior of Phrygia, a manu- facturer (ἐργαστής) caused it to be inscribed on his tomb that he had in his lifetime sailed seventy- two times round Cape Malea to Italy, and a Roman poet de- scribes the merchant of the capital who hastens to the port, in order not to let his business-friend from Cibyra, not far distant from Hierapolis, fall into the hands of rivals, there is thus opened up a glimpse into a stirring manu- facturing and mercantile life not merely at the seaports. Language also testifies to the constant in- tercourse with Italy ; among the Latin words which became cur- rent in Asia Minor not a few proceed from such intercourse, as indeed in Ephesus even the guild of the wool-weavers gives itself a Latin name. τῶν λαναρίων, Wood, Ephesus, city, n. 4). Mommsen, History of Rome, ut supra, pp. 360 sq. 8 ‘Tl yavait dessiécles qu’ Ephése wétait plus une ville purement hellénique. Autrefois, Ephése avait brillé au premier rang, du moins pour les arts, parmi les cités grecques; mais ἃ diverses reprises, elle avait permis aux moeurs de |’Asie de la séduire. Cette ville avait toujours eu chez les Grecs une mauvaise réputation. La corruption, Vintroduction du luxe étaient, selon les Grecs, un ( Συνεργασία effet des mceurs efféminées de VIonie ; or, Ephése était pour eux le centre et Vabrégé del’Ionie. La domination des Lydiens et celle des Perses y avaient tiré énergie et le patriotisme; avec Sardes, Ephese était le point le plusavancé de Vinfluence asiatique vers l’Eu- rope. L’importance excessive qu’y prit le culte d’Artémis étei- gnit l’esprit scientifique et favorisa le débordement de toutes les su- perstitions. C’était presque une ville théocratique: les fétes y étaient nombreuses et splendides ; le droit d’asile du temple peuplait la ville de malfaiteurs. De hon- teuses institutions sacerdotales S’y maintenaient et devaient cha- que jour paraitre plus dénuées de sens. Cette brillante patrie d’Héraclite, de Parrhasius, peut- étre d’Apelle, n’était plus qu’une ville de portiques, de stades, de gymnases, de théatres, une ville dune somptuosité banale, maleré les chefs-d’ceuvre de peinture et desculpture qu’elle gardaitencore. ‘Quoique le port ett été gaté par la maladresse des ingénieurs d’Attale Philadelphe, la ville s’agrandissait rapidement et devenait le principal emporium de la région en dega du Taurus. C’était le point de débarquement de ce qui arrivait d’Italie et de Grece, une sorte d’hdtellerie ou d’entrepot au seuil de l’Asie. Des F F The Apostile’s work, 434 LECTURE VIII. is little danger of exaggerating the force of the religious movements of which Ephesus was the centre, and of which the history in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles is an instructive example. Among the influences of such a daily life as this, John must have lived for more than a quarter of a century. He was a shepherd of the flock of Christ. We know something of the impression which his ministry left from the familiar stories of the bow,* of the robber,® of the encounter with Cerinthus,® of the populations de toute provenance s’y entassaient, et en faisaient une ville commune, ot les idées socialistes gagnaient le terrain quwavaient perdu les idées de patric. Le pays était d’une richesse extréme ; le commerce, immense ; mais nulle part l’esprit ne se montrait plus abaissé. Les inscriptions respirent la _ plus honteuse servilité, la soumission la plus empressée aux Romains. On efit dit ’universel rendez-vous des courtisanes et des viveurs. La ville regorgeait de magiciens, de devins, de mimes et de joueurs de fliite, d’eunuques, de bijoutiers, de marchands d’amulettes et de médailles, de romanciers. Le mot de “nouvelles éphésiennes ” désignait, comme celui de ‘‘ fables milésiennes,” un genre de littéra- ture, Ephése étant une des villes ou Von aimait le plus ἃ placer la scene des romans d’amour. La mollesse du climat, en effet, dé- tournait des choses sérieuses ; la danse et la musique restaient Vunique occupation ; la vie pu- blique dégénérait en bacchanale ; les bonnes études étaient délais- sées. Les plus’ extravagants miracles d’Apollonius sont censés se_passer ἃ Ephtse. L’Ephésien le plus célebre du moment ot nous sommes était un astrologue nommé Balbillus, qui eut la con- fiance de Néron et de Vespasien, et qui parait avoir été un scélérat. Un beau temple corinthien, dont les ruines se voient encore au- jour(’hui, s’élevait vers la méme époque. C’était peut-étre un temple dédié au pauvre Claude, que Néron et Agrippine venaient de ‘‘tirer au ciel avec un croc,” selon le joli mot de Gallion.’ Renan, ut supra, pp. 335-9. * Cassian, Collationes, xxiv. c. 21, ed. Hurter, 1887, pp. 781 sq. > Clem. Alex., Quwis dives sal- vetur ? ὃ 42, ed. Klotz, tom. 111. pp. 353 sqq. 6 Iren. Adv. Her. iii. 4, ed. Harvey, tom. li. pp. 12 sqq. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. ili. 28 ; iv. 14. LECTURE VII. 435 message of love.’ How often must this disciple whom Jesus loved have told them about His life, His deeds, His words! How often must he have realized the promise that the Comforter would bring all things to remembrance whatsoever the Master had said to him! What a number of things must have been related in all those years, by the disciple who had heard most from Jesus, and from personal en- dowment and imparted grace had been most recep- tive of what he had heard! How almost natural becomes the exaggeration of some Ephesian church- men, who had listened to all this :— And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written. How often must Holy Baptism which lies at the root of one discourse in the Gospel,* and Holy Eucharist which lies at the root of another ’—though the institution of neither sacrament is mentioned, since both were of old-established usage long before the Gospel was written—have revealed the power of sacramental grace and the very presence of Christ in their midst! How often must the chief pastor of the Church have come into personal contact with the doubts and difficulties of inquirers and catechumens, just as an English | bishop in Calcutta or Ceylon would talk out the | difficulties of some Brahman or Buddhist, in his own 7 Jerome, in Hpist. ad Galatas, Sacred and Legendary Art, ed, 3, vi. 10, ed. Bened. Veron, 1737, vol. i. pp. 166 sqq. pp. 528 sq. Cf. Mrs. Jameson, 8 John iii. 1-22. 9 John vi. 43-59. Ἐπ9 and teach- ing. 436 LECTURE VIII. technical language, and from his own point of view! How often must he have given addresses which no Luke lived long enough to record, based it may be upon the Pauline model, for the Acts of the Apostles was probably in his hands; and have shown that He whom they also ignorantly groped after, was declared to them in the person of Jesus Christ ; that all this seeking after God in human form that mind of man may grasp Him, this Messianic hope, this apotheosis, this theory of incarnations, this personification, even this idolatry, this doctrine of Logos, this system of Gnosis, all this every day talk of Arche, and Propator, and Zoe, and Monogenes, and Anthropos, of . Grace and Glory and Truth, and the rest, by which men made successive links to reach from earth to heaven, that it all meant the yearning of the soul after God, yes, the yearning of humanity for a visible conception of God, and that all this was fulfilled in the Gospel which he declared unto them! How often must he have told some student of Philo, or some Gnostic disciple of Cerinthus in the course of those years :— In Arche was the Logos, and the Logos was face to face with God, yea the Logos was God. The same was in Arche face to face with God. All things were made by him, and apart from him was not anything made. That which hath been made was Zoé, in him; and the Zoé was the Phos of the Anthrépot; and the Phés is ever shining in the darkness, and the darkness overcame it not.! .Ν ᾽ > € U ‘ , e > > - 1 EN APXH ἦν ὁλόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. > \ \ ͵ ‘ \ > ς λ / , ὃ ᾽ > - ἣν "δ ‘ ‘ ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. πάντα Ov αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς LECTURE VIII. 437 Or again :— And the Logos became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we looked upon his Dowa, the Dowa of the Monogenés from with a Father, full of Charis and Alétheia.? Or again :— Because of his Pleréma we all received, and Charis growing out of Charis. For the Law was given through Moses, Charis and Alétheva came to be through Jesus Christ. No man hath ever yet seen the nature of God. Monogenés who is God, and who is ever in the bosom of the Father, he hath been the Hzegete.? They were living in a world of shadows; he had the reality of realities to declare to them. They said that the Word was now a creature, now an ideal abstraction, now a mere appearance, now limited by another principle in creation, now the creative idea of God. He said that the Word was ‘in the begin- ning,’ ‘was God,’ ‘became flesh,’ that ‘all things were made by him,’ and ‘ without him was not any- thing made that was made.’ They spoke of philo- sophies of the origin of being, and of the knowledge and glory of God. He spoke of one who had taber- > PANES: 7, > A oa a ’ > αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ EV. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν ΞΕ νει Ae 2 ae ΔΕΣΜΆ \ “- αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἣν τὸ φῶς ΄ > ‘ \ ΄- ΄“΄ τῶν ἀνθρώπων" καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. . .. 2 Καὶ ὁ λύγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ » , > ἘΠῚ δ ‘ > , ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα A , > ~ 7 ς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογε- A Υ͂ , U νοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος 1. , = καὶ ἀληθείας" . .. 8 σα » Le , > ~ Ore ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ΄- ΄“ , > / Ν ΄ > Ἁ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος" ὅτι ὃ νόμος διὰ Μωυσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ > “ a 3 4 A > ‘ Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. John i. 1-6, and 14, 16-18, The close of life Natural desire for a record. The tradi- tional account of the origin of the Gospel. 438 LECTURE VIIL nacled among men, upon whose glory he had gazed, who was the Only-begotten of the Father, of whose fulness of grace and truth he had received. They spake of visions of God. He declared that no man had seen God at any time; that the Only-begotten, who was in the bosom of the Father, He had been the Exegete, the Interpreter who had declared Him to man. And now the years of his life, already lengthened beyond the natural span, were drawing toaclose. He had written nothing of all that he had taught of the wondrous words and deeds of Christ. He had per- haps expected that the end of the dispensation would come before the end of life. The Gospel he had so often declared was well known in the Church ; but his spiritual children could see that the time was at hand when his voice would be heard no more, and they therefore entreat him to give them the blessing of a record which should remain with them, and tell them in his own words something of all that Jesus had done, and of all that Jesus had said. The very early tradition of the Muratorian Frag- ment,* which there is no sufficient reason to question and which is confirmed by the Alexandrian Clement, relates how his fellow disciples and bishops exhorted him ; how he bade them fast with him for three days, and tell each to other what revelation he might re- 4 Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, 1867, pp. 32 sqq.; cf. Lecture I. pp. 42 sqq. LECTURE VIII. 439 ceive about writing the book ; how in the same night it was revealed to Andrew, that John should describe all the events in his own name, but they should all assist him in revising his work.? It is natural to imagine that more than one of his fellow disciples had made notes of what he had often told them ; it is natural to imagine that some younger hand® actually held the pen with which the Gospel was written ; it is not impossible that the style of a born Ephesian scribe through whose mind and hand the words passed, as the divine Paraclete brought all things to the Apostle’s remembrance, and the old man spake the words which were re-kindled in his thoughts, may have left its mark, on here and there a word, on here and there a form of expression that was thus fashioned after the exact idiom of the Ephe- sian speech. This is possible, perhaps probable; but it seems to be beyond question that the Ephesian life of the Apostle had been so interpenetrated by the atmosphere in which he lived, that he could not have spoken the Fourth Gospel in the last decennium of the first century and in Ephesus, in any other language than that in which we find it; and further that, if he had done so, he would have spoken in a language which could not be understood by the people, and would have missed the very purpose for which he spoke. It follows that the whole external form in > Cf. Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. 1840, pp. 185 sqq. Hist. Eccles, vi. 14; ibid. 111. 24 ; ὁ Cf. the closing scene of Bede’s and Liicke, Commentar, ed. 3, life, Lecture III. pp. 162 sq, The circle of disci- ples and friends. The work, if Johan- nine, ne- cessarily Ephesian. Example: The doc- trine of the Logos. 440 LECTURE VIIL which the Gospel is clothed was Ephesian, and necessarily Ephesian, because it was Johannine, but that the whole inner reality of the truth which was expressed in this form was the Gospel of Jesus Christ, brought home to the Apostle’s mind, as he himself claims in his record of the promise, by the special guidance into all truth, and the vivifying of faculty to recall the teaching of Christ Himself, which is the work of the Holy Ghost.’ The doctrine of the Logos, the divine Word, for example, does not seem to have been, in the form at least in which it meets us in the Prologue of the Gospel, any part of the direct teaching of Jesus. It seems to have been suggested by the various statements about the Logos which the Plato- nists, the Philonists, the Ebionites, the Docetists, the Dualists, of Ephesus were constantly making. It meets these half-statements in a series of definite utterances, which take almost the form of a creed, all of which can be gathered from the teaching of Jesus as the Apostle knew and remembered it, and under the inspiring guidance of the Holy Spirit were thus gathered. The very term Logos, which he alone of the New Testament writers uses in this technical sense, was doubtless used by him because it was floating in the stream all around him. He had been familiar with it from the days of Galilee and the synagogue, for every Jewish boy who heard the Targums read, heard of the Mémrd da-Yéyé,° the 7 John xiv. 26. ; wT NOD CE. Levy, Worterbuch . . . Ταγρινηυΐην, 8.0, LECTURE VIII. 44] Word of Jehovah, and it can perhaps be proved that the distinctive characteristics of the Johannine doc- trine of the Logos are to be traced to the Targums rather than to Philo, though, be it remembered, Philo’s own conceptions had been moulded by gee rather than by Greek influences.? It had been from childhood stored up in his memory, and had grown with his life ; and now in old age he heard men constantly speaking, in strangely varying terms, of the Logos. Meanwhile he had been a companion of the life of Jesus,’ had felt His power, had seen the reality of the heavenly glistering through the form of the earthly, had witnessed the risen life, and the fulfilment of the promise of Pentecostal gift, had for more than fifty years known the power of that life in Church and sacrament and individual soul, as he had known it in himself, had seen the Logos in Apocalyptic vision ;’ and these men who think themselves wise and claim special Gnosis, and wear the garb of philosophers, are | for ever talking of the Zogos, without understanding what they say. What they dimly conceived, that he could plainly declare; what they yearned for, that he had been commissioned to give :— That which was from Arche, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the revelation of lite-—the Logos which is Zée—-(and the life was manifested, and we 9 Of. Westcott, Gospel accord- Commentary, 1879, vol. i. pp. 552 ing to S. John, 1882, pp. xv-xviii; 566. (Watkins). and Excursus, Doctrine of the 1 John i. 14. Word in Ellicott’s New Testament 7 Rev. xix. 19. Transla- tion ex- plains the uniform tone of thought and ex- pression, and the opposing views of critics. 449 LECTURE VIII. have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was mani- fested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with The revelation of eternal life in the Incarnation ; that is the doctrine of the Logos. If, by your kind attention, I have been in any degree able to convey what I mean by saying that the key to the Fourth Gospel is to be found in trans- lation, it will not be necessary to offer any further ex- planation of the general and uniform tone of thought and language which admittedly permeates the Gospel from end to end; nor will you fail to see what is the truth which underlies the at first sight perplexing phenomena, that men of established critical eminence have arrived at so many, and so apparently diverse conclusions, with regard to its origin and scope :— It is Hebrew in matter and form, more so than any book of the New Testament. It is distinctly anti-Jewish, and the most widely universal book of the New Testament. It is obviously influenced by the thought and language of Philo, and is written by a Jew of Alexandrian culture. It contains Pauline elements, and is manifestly composed, in part at least, of Pauline materials. It is Gnostic, both in the main ideas and in the ex- pressions. It is Montanist, and this accounts for the doctrine of the Paraclete. * 1 John i. 1-3. LECTURE VIII. 443 All these statements are true; and no one of them is true. The Gospel is not J ae not Hellenic, not Philonian, rt Alexandrian, not Pauline, not Gnostic, not Montanist ; but it is all these, and more than these. There is no one of these views which, if properly expressed, is not true of the Gospel, and is not even necessary to the conception of the Johan- nine authorship which I have sought to present to you. A Hebrew of Hebrews, the fundamental pur- pose of the writer is that men might believe that ‘Jesus is the Messiah’; but he is a Hebrew with whom the forms of Judaism have passed away. The temple has been overthrown; Jerusalem has been destroyed. He gazes not upon the Sea of Galilee, but upon the Mediterranean, which washes the shores of the civilized world, and upon the great avenues to the East. He looks not upon fishermen’s boats, but-;1pon the ships of commerce and traffic, which link peoples whom the sea does but seem to divide. The Church has gathered in of all nations, and_his Judaism has widened into universalism, because he has seen that it was, in the providence of God, a pre- paration for a religion of humanity ; and the second fundamental purpose of the Gospel is therefore that men might believe that Jesus is ‘the Sonof God.’ It must have had elements of Philo, though they are fewer than men have sometimes thought, for Ephesus was as Philonian as Alexandria was.. It must have had elements of Paul, for John is the Apostle of the completion, as Paul was the Apostle of the founda- No human view ex- presses the fulness of the divine. ¥ ; 4 Transla- tion a problem for all time. 444 LECTURE VIII. tion. It must have had forms parallel to those of Gnostic and Docetic thought, for it was to meet these strivings after truth. Its doctrine of the Paraclete gave rise, it may be, to the later perversions of Mon- tanism, but was of especial necessity for a people who talked of Paracletes* without knowing what meaning really underlay the words, and for a church some of whom had not, up to ὃ. Paul’s visit, even heard that there was a Holy Ghost. The man who will think out what ὃ. John was, and what Ephesus was, and what the Gospel according to ὃ. John must have been, will find that it must have contained all these and many other elements ; and if he will analyze it, he will find that it does contain them. Lach critic has been proud of his own prism, and by means of it has seen his own human parti-coloured light ; while all taken together prove that the Gospel is more than human, and that in the harmony of all the varied hues of finite knowledge is the clear light of in- finite and eternal truth. And this process of translation is necessary not only for the first century and for Ephesus ; but for every time and for every place. ‘The problem has presented itself, and has been now more now less fully met—more fully as Theology has exercised, less fully as she has abdicated her sovereignty of the sciences 4 Of. Excursus on The mean- mentary, 1879, pp. 561 sqq. (Wat- ing of the word Paraclete ἴθ kins). Ellicott’s New Testament Com- 5 Acts xix. 2. LECTURE VIII. 445 —in the whole history of the Church. Let me ask you to inquire how far it is the problem of the nine- teenth century, the problem of the England of to-day, the England which has formed so much of the world in the past, and is making still more in the present ; the problem of the Oxford of to-day, the Oxford which has made so much of the England of the past, and is, God blessing her, to make still more of the England of the future. We look not upon the Lake of Galilee, nor yet upon the land-locked Mediterranean, but upon mighty oceans, whose waters are the highways of continents. Our ports are filled, not with the boats of fishermen, or the small vessels of an inland sea, but with huge and swift merchant ships of peace, and armed ships of war, whose circuit is the known world. Steam and electricity have spanned the oceans, and we speak across the great deeps. The printing-press has made it possible, and education has made it actual, that the progress of knowledge should be no longer the privi- lege of a caste, but the common heritage of the brother- hood of man. We are members of an empire upon which the sun never sets. Queen Victoria has reigned for more than fifty years over dominions compared with which the empires of the East, of Greece, of Rome, of Alexander, of Augustus, of Charlemagne, of Napoleon, sink into insignificance. The Queen of England and Empress of India reigns to-day over more Moham- medan subjects than the Sultan does. She has prob- ably more Buddhists among her peoples than she has The problem of to-day. 446 LECTURE VIII. Christians, though the proportion is quickly changing.® The English language has extended its sway more rapidly even than the English rule ; it is taught now in every country in the world ; and a careful autho- rity has estimated that at its present rate of progress This spread of empire, this binding into one great nation- it will within a century become universal. ality of so many diverse peoples, with diverse his- tories, languages, customs, religions, gods ; this unity of language, which is fast making it possible for the English press to speak to all humanity : 7 this union for the first time in the history of the world, of the rule of empire, and of the sway of speech, of first- century Rome and first-century Greece, under one sceptre ; this new world across the Atlantic, the West which is daughter and friend of the East, happily her rival only in the arts and blessings of peace, in no sphere more happily or more successfully her rival than in those studies which have for their immediate aim the knowledge of the Word of God and the history of His Church upon earth ; these vast terri- tories won for the sciences, the arts, the manufactures ; 6 Cf. Monier Williams, Budd- Dictionary of Statistics, 1886, p. hism, 1889, pp. xiv to xviil. 7 In 1801, out of every 1,000 persons on the globe, 129 are esti- mated to have been English- speaking. In 1883 the proportion was 271 to the 1,000. Every other European language shows a marked decrease in the ratio, except German, which has been about stationary. Cf. Mulhall’s 275. ‘That the future of civilisa- tion is in the hands of the English- speaking race is aS sure as any unaccomplished fact can be.’ See interesting calculation by Mr. Arnold-Forster, from which this result is deduced, in the Nine- teenth Century, Sept. 1883, vol. xiv. pp. 386-401. LECTURE VIII. 447 this accumulation of immense wealth in the hands of the few ; this spread of political power among the many ; these social and political questions which are everywhere pressing for solution at our hands; above all, this seething medley of all religions and no religions—Platonists, and Philonians, and Gnostics, and Docetists, teachers from the far East, teachers from the far West, spiritualism—that credulity of the incredulous—magical arts, luxury, voluptuousness, sensuousness—what does it all mean ? Are we living in a nineteenth-century Ephesus ? Have we present with us every element of the Ephesus of the first century on a wider, grander scale ? But where are the 5. Paul and the S. John, the translators of truthintotruth? Are they with us in very deed in the Church they helped to found, and in the Gospel they preached? Are their very writings read in the Church to-day? We answer‘ Yes ;’ but the answer is half-hearted, for we must confess that these writ- ings are not being fully translated and read in the thought and language of the nineteenth century, and that men often cannot understand them, and there- fore think that they belong to another sphere of being and have nothing to do with their own real life. And are not the Universities— Universitates, what a wide width of meaning in the very name!—the foundations of our spiritual ancestry to promote ‘true religion and sound learning,’ the very eyes of this our great empire—eyes of the intellect, eyes of the spirit—to look forth on the vast world which A nine- teenth- century Ephesus, Relation of Univer- sities to this problem. leaders. 448 LECTURE VII. lies before them, and then to look within into the treasury of God richly stored with all the fulness of truth which has been gathered in all these centuries of life? And are they not to utter the voice, the word, spoken, written, printed, which shall in our English language, the chosen vessel of God, proclaim the truth of heaven to meet the wants of man? Have not men who live physically and mentally on the circumference of this great circle of English and English-speaking humanity, the right to look to its centres for the illumination which they have re- ceived from God? Have we not the right to ask that our spiritual guides, the Bishops and Fathers of our Church, and our intellectual guides, the Patres Conscripti of our commonwealth of thought, will lead us, as they alone have the right to lead, as they alone have the power to lead? There is a vast army ready to a man to follow, even to the death, if they could be but quite certain that the voice which cries ‘ Forward’ is a voice which has the right to speak, and does speak, in the name of eternal truth, in the name of the eternal God! Is it answered, ‘ That voice can only come from the Truth, who is the very Word of God. He is ’ the Interpreter of the Father. Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid’? Yes! a thousand times yes! But the church at Ephesus was not only a foundation, but a growth. Not more diverse were the materials of metal, wood, stone, jewels ; nor more varied the forms in each component part of LECTURE VIL 449 the great whole which grew together and made the temple of Ephesus the glory of Asia. This infinite variety serving to form unity in the master-builder’s hands, this growth to completeness, this sacred shrine of the deity, is made, when every part is thought of as endowed with life, to represent to us the Church of the living God. The members of it are spoken of as ‘fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone ; in whom each several build- ing, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.’* ‘Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, to-day, yea, and forever.’ ‘God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.’ The Gospel according to S$. John was not the less divine, because it was the Gospel of the close of the first century, and not the Gospel of the earlier decades. It was not the less divine because it met the philosophical needs of men of its own day, and did not speak in the tones of another period. It was not the less divine, because it was the Gospel of Ephesus, which Ephesians needed ; and not the Gospel of Galilee, which they did not need, which they could not have understood, and for which they would not have cared. Is it answered: ‘ But S. John was specially inspired for this special work, and although we believe in the presence of Christ and of the Holy Spirit in the Church, we cannot add to the sum of Apostolic and divine truth’? Quite so; but 8 Ephes. ii. 19-21. GG Difficulty of the task. 450 LECTURE VIII. this very truth, which is God’s fullest revelation to the world, is in a language—I do not mean of word, but of thought—which is to thousands, millions of our brother men, either dead because they cannot un- derstand it, or rejected because it seems to be opposed to other forms of thought which they believe to be true. It is not addition, it is not diminution, it is not substitution, it is not change of essence, it is translation, for which the plea is made. And this translation of thought is one of the hardest tasks of life. It requires a full and intimate knowledge of the system from which, and of the sys- tem into which, you would translate. And yet men sometimes attempt the task with a knowledge of only one, or it may be of neither, system. And so we have gospels for England, gospels for the nine- teenth century, which may have much of the Gospel and very little of the nineteenth century, or may have much of the nineteenth century and very little of the Gospel ; or may, as is too often the case, have very little of the Gospel or of the nineteenth century. And yet these are taken to represent our teaching and our faith. Men who might have special gifts for such a task shrink from it, for they see more clearly than others how full it is of danger and of difficulty. It is not for them, they think: it is for their leaders. And if here and there a rarely gifted soul has felt called of God to make the attempt, his work has had the stamp of no authority. Our own Church and universities have now no formal imprimatur for LECTURE VIII. 45] the works of their individual sons ; but they often have a very real Index prohibitorum, or at least expurgandorum. A translation must necessarily differ in form from the original ; how easy it is to think, and how much easier to say without thinking, that the substance differs too! How easy to start the suspicion of heresy, to let loose the not always chained but always blind passions of party-feeling and prejudice, to sully, by dragging it into the arena of strife, even the pure robe of truth ! These are problems, the solution of which the Church and the age would alike accept without demur from those who are their acknowledged representa- tives, but no one else can hope to solve them. These are difficulties in which none but leaders can lead; for only leaders can build the present upon the great past, only leaders can mould the present into a greater future. The popular opinion which is born of the present is to be formed, and not to be obeyed; but only leaders can form it. Never I believe were there more apparent difficulties, never fewer real ones than to-day. Never were there so many influences for right and truth and God, running parallel to each other, sometimes crossing and thwarting each other, always and quite unnecessarily falling short of the united force of a great army banded together for the service of the Lord of Hosts. I do not speak without consciousness of, or with- out thankfulness for, much that has been, that is being α6 2 Only leaders can lead, Leaders must lead. 452 LECTURE VIII. done. I come from a diocese to which Oxford has given a Butler and a Van Mildert, to which Cam- bridge has given a Lightfoot and a Westcott. These are but examples. England, India, the Colonies, America, the Mission field could tell of many like instances, and of the responsive touch of humanity to every gift of higher spirit, and thought, and life. The English-speaking world is not unmindful, for ex- ample, of the boon of a translated bible, nor of many individual efforts to interpret it; but the great problem of translation, in all the width of its mean- ing, still lies before us at every step, and there are to-day large numbers of earnest inquirers after truth outside the building of the Catholic Church, which should be the teacher of all truth, because they are groaning beneath ‘heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne’; while they who ‘sit in Moses’ seat’ them- selves ‘ will not move them with one of their fingers.’ These difficulties are but spectres which haunt the darkness of ignorance, and would vanish before the light of knowledge. And is not God saying in the presence of this intellectual darkness and moral chaos, ‘ Let there be light’? Is not the Church, the body of the Incarnate Logos, to be the Light shining in darkness ? Dominus illuminatio mea. Yes; and the darkness shall overcome it not. I have endeavoured to state a problem which arises out of, though it is much wider than, my sub- ject, and constantly confronts Christian people in their daily work. I have no qualification for solving it ; LECTURE VIII. 453 but I have ventured to express it in the presence of those who have every qualification. It must become more and more acute. The enemy is loud in as- sertion. His forces are kept upon the stage, and they therefore seem to be much more numerous and powerful than they are. But many of our volunteers, and some of our regulars, have been disheartened by uncertainties, divisions, falterings in our own camp. The enemy will not hurt us; but we may hurt our- selves. Leaders must lead if the victory is to be won. Yes: in our philosophy and our criticism, our polity and our action, leaders must lead. And as I have no qualification for solving this problem, I shall make no attempt to do so; but I shall seek to suggest tomy younger brethren for their individual help, some lines on which each may for himself work out a course of inquiry, which will lead him to see that the Fourth Gospel is as truly a Gospel for the nineteenth century as it was for the first, and that in the translation of it into modern thought and speech lies the answer to the problems of life. Now what are the characteristics of the thought of the nineteenth century which lead men to assert Hints for younger hearers, Character- istics of present- that the doctrines of the past, and especially those of deenk the Fourth Gospel, must give way before them ? I am not a ‘ man of science,’ and I can only judge by what I read in books, or what men who know are good enough to tell me. But 1 am told that among Law and principle. 454 LECTURE VIII. the great intellectual products of this age are what is called the law or principle of conservation of energy, the law or principle of biogenesis, the law or principle of the molecular constitution of matter, and, chiefest of all, the law or principle of evolution ;? though signs are not wanting, as the meetings of the British Association at Manchester and Newcastle- on-l’yne have reminded us, that even now we are far from finality." I have used the term ‘prin- ciple’ as asynonym for ‘law’ here, because | want the youngest among us to be free from the fallacies which are connected with this very ambiguous word. There is of course nothing of the sense of command or authority about it. We ought not to be led to think and speak of it—though men do; they write it with a big initial letter, and then feel it is something greater than themselves, a link between them and a higher Force or Energy, like the exons of the Gnostics—but we ought not to think of it as anything more than a convenient expression for a generalization from a number of separate instances. Such a generalization may or may not be valid; but, with imperfect human knowledge, it can of necessity have no claim to finality. It may hold for many years or for centuries, as some such generalizations 9. Of. Professor Huxley’s in- teresting sketch of the progress of Science in the Reign of Queen Vic- toria, edited by Mr. Humphry Ward, 1887, vol. ii. pp. 322-387 ; and The Advance of Science, three sermons preached in Manchester Cathedral during the meeting of the British Association, in 1887. ' Cf. Reports, 1887 and 1889, and Weismann, Hssays on Here- dity, Eng. Trans. 1889. And see Dawson, Modern Ideas of Evolu- tion, 1890. LECTURE VIII. 455 have held in the course of history, and then resolve itself into a higher generalization. While it lasts it is a very convenient mode of expression ; it 1s neces- sary for the arrangement of, and for the progress of science ; but it has no binding authority, and it has no power to explain the admitted facts which it tabulates. . There are Jdols even of the museum, and one of them is to suppose, or to speak as though it were supposed, that to find for an observed pheno- menon its own place under an acknowledged law, is to explain it. If the law has a long and difficult name, many of us are half-frightened by it, and are perhaps not honest enough to admit our seeming ignorance, which may be much nearer to true know- ledge than the long name is, and we do not dare to ask what it means, what is there behind it, how does it explain the phenomena which it embraces. But if we ask these questions, and keep asking them until we get at the substance of the answers to them, we shall find that to express a phenomenon in the terms of a higher law, is not so much to explain it as to group it with a large number of other phenomena all waiting for their explanation. Nor should even the youngest of us be left to suppose that there is any such absolute agreement in the expression of these laws, as the assumed infalli- bility of some popes of modern science would have us think. Here, as elsewhere, contradictions of suc- cessive popes, or even in the course of the reign of the same pope, are difficult to reconcile with any Scientific laws not ultimate, The Fourth Gospel and our present ‘laws.’ 456 LECTURE VIII. claim to infallibility. As general councils have erred, so scientific councils have certainly erred, and what the primer of the school-boy will soon scorn to teach, has been held by the leaders of science, and has been expressed even in our own day from presi- dential chairs. No one knows so well as the truly scientific leader that his work is to collect, arrange, tabulate, re-arrange, group in higher unities, the facts of existence; but that of the ultimate explanation of them, he has not even a syllable to speak. The ad- mitted facts of modern science are infinitely greater in number than those of the ancient world; the classes into which they are distributed are fewer and more universal, but when you ask to go behind the colossal cases of this museum of the world, and inquire what it all means, you have got no answer which takes you further than—I am not sure you have any which takes you so far as—the voices which came from Greece, from Alexandria, and the far East, and which may have been heard in Ephesus eighteen hundred years ago. These laws which are said to be the chier scientific products of our own time, may or may not be ulti- mately true. They are probably—let us remove every qualification and suppose that they are absolutely— the highest expression which the world has ever re- ceived of the facts of existence—and let us ungrudg- ingly thank the patient investigators of these and other days. Admit that the museum of the universe LECTURE VII. 457 is rightly labelled, and then, sitting down before any one of its vast cases, open the Fourth Gospel and read it. Read it just as you would read any other book. Read in the light of Philo and other forms of first-century thought, and then in the light of nineteenth-century thought, the first sentence ‘ In the beginning was the Word.’ Do you find it diffi- cult to translate? Shall that greatest of modern thinkers, Goethe, make Faust help you ? "Tis written: ‘In the Beginning was the Word,’ Here am I balked: who, now, can help afford ? The Word ?—impossible so high to rate it ; And otherwise must I translate it, If by the Spirit I am truly taught. Then thus: ‘In the Beginning was the Thought.’ This first line let me weigh completely, Lest my impatient pen proceed too fleetly. Is it the Thought which works, creates, indeed ? ‘In the Beginning was the Power,’ I read. Yet, as I write, a warning is suggested, That I the sense may not have fairly tested. The Spirit aids me: now I see the light! ‘In the Beginning was the Act,’ I write.” Or read again, ‘In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in dark- ness, and the darkness overcame it not.’ Or again, ‘ He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.’ Read these and other words such as these from the first-century Gospel, as you stand before the museums of nine- 2 Goethe, Faust, i. scene 3, Bayard Taylor’s translation. No plea for the temporary expression ef theo- logy or science. The im- mensity of nature. 458 LECTURE VIIL teenth-century science. You need not remove the labels from your cases. You may keep for the present Biogenesis, Conservation of Energy, Molecular Matter, Evolution; but you can engrave the truths of the one Eternal Law, Power, Life, Light, Loree, Energy, Act, Thought, Word,—Gov,—over the portals and upon the foundations of the universe. | You may find it difficult, impossible, to translate into modern scientific expression some of your own ideas as to creation. You may have to see that anthropomorphism is only a necessary form of a childish state of thought, and that God is not a colossal human giant, man made large and made divine. You may have not only to translate S. John, but to sacrifice your former self, unworthy of your higher self and unworthy of your God. I am not pleading that the puerilities of child- hood, or the temporary expressions—scientific or theological—of any age, should be retained. I am pleading for the thankful acceptance of every recog- nized fact of scientific truth. I am pleading that truth revealed in the book of the universe, cannot oppose truth revealed in the book of inspired human- ity. Collect your facts, establish your laws, write your labels, study your museums. Nay; they are too small ; study nature in the great physical world ; realize the awful immensity of that before which you stand ; multiply immensity by immensity as tele- scope or microscope, or a developed sense, or higher LECTURE VIII. 459 trained faculty, brings other worlds within your grasp and e ° e Φ Are you hushed into silence and dare not speak, and hardly dare to hear? And if you still must hear, for there must be an origin of being, and turn to the masters of science expecting an expla- nation, they too are dumb. Who are the modern leaders of humanity whom science bids us hear in this darkness of impenetrable mystery ? Is Mr. Herbert Spencer one? He can but re- assert it :— The production of matter out of nothing is the real mystery... .? Is Professor Tyndall ? It [Evolution] does not solve—it does not profess to solve —the ultimate mystery of this universe. It leaves in fact that mystery untouched. For granting the nebula and its potential life, the question, whence came they? would still remain to baffle and bewilder us. At bottom, the hypothesis does nothing more than ‘transport the conception of life’s origin to an indefinitely distant past.’ ὦ Is Mr. Darwin ? The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us.° Is Professor Clifford ? My conclusion then is, that we do know, with great probability, of the beginning of the habitability of the earth, ‘ 8 First Principles, ed. 4, 1880, tion, ed. 3, 1872, p. 37. p. 34. > Cf. Aubrey Moore, Evolution 4 Scientific Use of the Imagina- and Christianity, 1889, p. 7. Scientific leaders dumb before it: Spencer, Tyndall, Darwin, Clifford, Asa Gray. “ Origina- tion’ the essential thing. 460 LECTURE VIII. about one hundred or two hundred millions of years back, but that of a beginning of the universe we know nothing at all.® Or, lastly, shall we inquire of Dr. Asa Gray, the American botanist, the friend and correspondent of Darwin, who describes his own position as— one who is scientifically, and in his own fashion, a Dar- winian, philosophically a convinced theist, and religiously an accepter of the ‘Creed commonly called the Nicene,’ as the expression of the Christian faith. Can his philosophy cast any ray of light on this abysmal gloom? Thus the selection and preservation, and we may say the eduction, of the actual forms and adaptations, may be scien- tifically accounted for, but not their origination. The origination is the essential thing.’ Yes : all our modern philosophers are without a word to speak in the presence of the essential thing. But while philosophy is dumb, you feel that there must be, there is, a voice which speaks. the origination is the essential thing. And The yearning faculties of humanity cannot be for ever yearning, and never satisfied ... 8 6 Lectures and Essays, ed. 2, 1886, p. 156. 7 Contemporary Review, April 1882, p. 606. 8 ¢Those, then, who believe, as Christians do, that God is the Creator of heaven and earth, hold a view which, whether it is true or not, touches a question on which evolution is wholly silent ; so that, as Professor Huxley puts it, ‘‘ Evolution does not even come into contact with theism consider- ed as a philosophical doctrine.” ’ Aubrey Moore, Evolution and Christianity, 1889, p. 7. I owe the greater part of these refe- rences to Mr, Moore, and I LECTURE VIII. 461 Science is dumb, but in its awful silence Faith hears. Where man dare not speak, God does speak. Tolle, lege. Tolle, lege. Open your Fourth Gospel. Read :— In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the begin- ning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. The only basis for the intellectual explanation of existence, is for the nineteenth century as it was for the first, the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, the Logos who is Zoe, the revelation of life. ‘No man hath ever yet seen God: God only begotten in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.’ Or, again, is it characteristic of modern ethical science to teach that the highest good, the summum bonum of human life, is to be found in the develop- ment of every faculty of human nature; that the standard of right and wrong is not happiness or utility, but the categorical moral imperative whose every command must be implicitly obeyed?* It ° “The good has come to be con- ceived with increasing clearness, thankfully embrace the oppor- tunity of expressing my deep sense of the services rendered by that acute thinker—taken from us, alas! too soon—both to theology and science. Cf. Science and the Faith, 1889, pp. 162 sqq. ; Evolu- tion and Christianity, 1889 ; and Recent Advances in Natural Science an their Relation to the Christian Faith, a paper read at the Church Congress at Reading in 1883. not as anything which one man or set of men can gain or enjoy to the exclusion of others, but as a spiritual activity in which all may partake, and in which all must partake, if it is to amount to a full realisation of the faculties of the human soul. And the pro- gress of thought in individuals, by which the conception of the good The Fourth Gospel. The Incar- nation the only ex- planation of exist- ence. Modern ethical science. The cate- gorical impera- tive. Devotion to duty: Examples. 462 LECTURE VIII. might be an interesting subject for investigation to trace how far modern impulses and standards of morality are an unconscious reflection of the light of revelation, or how far, on principles of development, they are to be regarded as the outcome of truths which have been received by the race or individuals. But, confining our thoughts for the present to the Fourth Gospel, to the morals of the divine life which it portrays, or to the First Johannine Epistle, which 15 an ethical addendum to the theological principles of the earlier writing, I confess it does not seem to be difficult to express the thoughts of the first century in the terms of those of the nineteenth, or rather to show that those of the nineteenth century are in their highest development based upon those of the first. Men who live at a distance and try to watch the movements of young University life, are perhaps struck with the practical outcome of devotion to duty, more deeply than with anything else. Witness the missions to Calcutta and Delhi, and Central Africa. Witness Toynbee Hall and the Oxford House. Wit- ness School and College missions to the neglected idiosyncrasy and circumstances of the individual may determine, to has thus been freed from material limitations, has gone along witha progress in social unification which has made it possible for men prac- tically to conceive a claim of all upon all for freedom and support in the pursuit of a common end. Thus the ideal of virtue which our consciences acknowledge has come to be the devotion of character and life, in whatever channels the a perfecting of man, which is itself conceived not as an external end to be attained by goodness, but as consisting in such a life of self- devoted activity on the part of all persons.’ T. H. Green, Prolego- mena to Ethics, edited by A. C. Bradley, 1883, p. 309. LECTURE VIIL 463 masses of our population. Witness the evidences of sympathy, communion, fellowship, with the brother- hood of man. What is their source? A modern altruism?’ A nineteenth-century gospel of humanity ? But these are trees whose chief roots are found in Christian soil, and they have gladdened the earth with the beauty of their blossom and the bounty of their fruits, just as the soil has been watered by the showers of blessing which God has given in these later days to the revived Church in our midst. Read the Gospel of the first century. Read the writings of δ. John :— God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. This is my commandment that ye love one another, even as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. But whoso hath the world’s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him ? Little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue ; but in deed and truth. We love, because he first loved us. If a man say, 1 love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen. And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also. There are the principles of your highest life and work. There are the principles which, whether ' Cf. Altrwismin Murray’s New and Herbert Spencer, Data of Dictionary of the English Language; Ethics, 1879, pp. 185 sqq. The true principle. Illustra- tions. The shadow of Christ. 464 LECTURE VIII. you know it or not, are the spring of all your work, and which, whether men know it or not, the best life and work of our day are translating from the first century into the nineteenth ; and there are the principles which alone can make that work both effective and permanent. As I was thinking of the modern substitution of ideas which have sprung from Christianity, and which men who shrink from acknowledging Christ Himself are putting forward in the place of Christianity, 1 took up a book in a house where I chanced to stay, in which 1 found these words :-— The Chaplain of a penitentiary records that among the most degraded of its inmates was one miserable creature. The Matron met her with firmness, but with a good will which no hardness could break down, no insolence overcome. One evening after prayers the Chaplain observed this poor out- cast stealthily kissimg the shadow of the Matron thrown by her candle upon the wall.? This was the involuntary homage of a fallen and wretched woman; but, Sirs, are men and women in the strength and vigour of intellectual and moral culture to be stealthily kissing the shadow of the humanity of Jesus Christ, cast as it is upon the uni- verse by the light of the effulgence of His Godhead, or are we to be manfully confessing Him to whom we owe our power to work and think? Stealthily kissing a shadow ? Nay, we are to be in loving adoration kissing the feet of Him who was pierced and nailed upon the Cross for us. ? Bishop of Derry, The Epistles of St. John, 1889, pp. 120-121. LECTURE VII. 465 Is Love written as ‘charity’ or disguised as ‘altruism’ the newly discovered principle of a brother- hood of humanity? Listen to ὃ. John :— Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins. Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. Or again, to take another example with which these lectures must close, it is characteristic of some educated thought of this century to assert that whether there is a personal God or not, is and must remain a mystery; that there cannot be logical proof that He exists, and that there cannot be logical proof that He does not exist; that the assertions of theism and atheism are alike beyond the province of the human intellect;* and that all we can do is to remain in the presence of an un- known and unknowable energy. Agnosticism, for it is a system with a name and leaders and disciples, like one of the hundreds of such theories of the past, has many attractions. The Greek title has some- thing to say for its spread among ourselves ; for, as was remarked long ago, many persons would proclaim with an air of superiority in Greek ‘I am an agnostic,’ 3 * Of all thesenseless babble I not surpassed by the still greater have ever had occasion toread, absurdities of the philosophers the demonstrations of these phi- who try to prove that there is no losophers who undertake to tell God.’ Huxley, Science and Cul- us all about the nature of God ture, 1881, p. 241. would be the worst, if they were ΗῊΗ Altruism. Agnosti- cism. Its attrac- tiveness. Reasons. S. Paul’s 8. John’s. 466 LECTURE VII. who would not be equally willing to proclaim in Latin ‘I am an zgnoramus. Then the fact that it has been adopted by some who are supposed to be leaders of science gives it an attractiveness, a fashion, which has its hold upon weaker minds. It is the correct shade for the season, and it would not quite do for people who are in the circles of modern thought to appear in any other. And above all it is a sort of neutral ground. It asserts nothing positively, and therefore it has nothing to defend. It is the refuge of men of all kinds who have no opinions on the most vital subject possible to thought, or do not quite know what their opinions are, or have not the courage of them, or would like to postpone thinking of them. The special use of the term belongs to our own day.*/ What sort of connexion has the first century with this product of the present? If we study the teaching of 5. Paul and ὃ. John, we shall see that both the name and reality are much older than we sometimes think. §. Paul found men at Athens dissatisfied with their own idea of the gods, ready to embrace any others, and erecting an altar’ to a god they could not know, and Him to whose exist- ence their very agnosticism witnessed, he declared unto them. Writing to their neighbours at Corinth, he reminds them that ‘in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God,’® and 4 Cf. Agnostic in Murray’s New = xvii. 29. Dictionary, ut supra. 6 ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ Tov θεοῦ οὐκ ἔγνω > εὗρον καὶ βωμὸν ἐν ᾧ ἐπεγέ.- ὁ κόσμος διὰ τῆς σοφίας τὸν θεόν, ... Ὕραπτο ATNQSTQ ΘΕΩ. Acts 1 Cor. i. 21. LECTURE VIII. 467 this agnosticism of worldly wisdom was, it will be remembered, a frequent subject of his teaching. S. John, preaching a Gospel to gnostics and agnostics alike, and meeting the congeries of religious and philosophical seekings after God, of which Ephesus was, as we saw, the centre, declares in most positive terms this agnosticism of human intellectual powers: ‘No man hath seen God at any time.’ But the agnosticism which in the negation of its own intel- lectual powers is strictly logical, is in the negation of all outside its powers as strictly illogical. $. Paul and §. John alike preach a Gospel not to the impo- tence of the human intellect, but to the strength and the needs of the faculty of faith :— For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe.’ No man hath seen God at any time; God only begotten in the bosom of the Father, he hath been the interpreter.® The Fourth Gospel preaches to us, brethren, no system of Gnosis. ‘There is to human intellect no proof of axioms in any science, least of all in the science of the Infinite. If we could be anything more than intellectual agnostics, the science could not be of the Infinite, of the Eternal, of God. Butmen who profess to be logical make two tremendous leaps in this discussion, for which there cannot be any valid warrant. The first leap is from ‘I cannot under- stand’ to ‘It cannot be understood.’ Who will in TE Corsi 21. 8: John 1. 18. HEH? Intellec- tual ag- nosticism neces- sarily true. Conclu- sion without premises Examples, 468 LECTURE VIIL moments of calm thought claim or allow the only major premise which supports this conclusion? It is the sort of logic which people learn very easily, but men do not usually admit it when made by any per- sons other than themselves. You may hear it any day :— ‘I can’t get the answer in the book,’ said a little fellow in an elementary school, as he was making his first attempt at vulgar fractions. ‘Iam sure the book is wrong.’ But his certainty only amused. ‘I do not see any not in my text,’ said a well- known Professor of Latin, as one of his pupils was construing in class. ‘No, sir, but it won’t make sense without,’ replied his pupil; but neither the Professor nor the rest of the class were quite convinced. And yet this illicit process from ‘I cannot under- stand’ to ‘It cannot be understood’ runs through page after page of modern so-called religious, and so-called philosophical writing. If men would but write the J of their finite powers as small as it really is, and try to think of what the J of Infinite really means, this false reasoning at least would disappear. The other leap is more wonderful still, for it is opposed to the whole experience and practice of human life. It is that by which a man passes from ‘ It cannot be understood,’ to ‘ It cannot be believed.’ Who will claim or admit any major premise which will warrant this conclusion ? What proportion of human life depends upon our understanding all that LECTURE VIII. 469 concerns it ? What proportion of the events of every day depends upon faith? understanding of any human being ? And in the complete absence of understand- faith ? What, for example, is our What our ing, are we not necessarily driven to the assertion of faith ? Is not the very intellectual paralysis of agnosticism in the presence of the Infinite, the neces- sary assertion of a faculty” higher than intellect ? 9 ΤῈ philosophy has to explain what is, not what ought to be, there will be and can be no rest till we admit, what cannot be denied, that there is in man a third faculty, which I call simply the faculty of apprehending the Infinite, not only in religion, but in all things ; a power independent of sense and reason, a power in a certain sense contradicted by sense and reason, but yet a very real power, which has held its own from the beginning of the world, neither sense nor reason being able to overcome it, while it alone is able to overcome both reason and sense. ‘Tt is difficult at present to speak of the human mind in any techni- cal language whatsoever, without being called to order by some philosopher or other. ‘According to some, the mind is one and indivisible, and it is the subject-matter only of our con- sciousness which gives to the acts of the mind the different appearances of feeling, remem- bering, imagining, knowing, will- ing, or believing. According to others, mind, as a subject, has no existence whatever, and nothing ought to be spoken of except states of consciousness, some pas- Sive, some active, some mixed. I myself have been sharply taken to task for venturing to speak, in this enlightened nineteenth cen- tury of ours, of different faculties of the mind,—faculties being merely imaginary creations, the illegitimate offspring of medizeval scholasticism. Now I confess I am amused rather than frightened by such pedantry. Faculty, facultas, seems to me so good a word that, if it did not exist, it ought to be invented in order to express the different modes of action of what we may still be allowed to call our mind. It does not commit us to more than if we were to speak of the facilities or agilities of the mind, and those only who change the forces of nature into gods or demons, would be frightened by the faculties as green-eyed monsters seated in the dark recesses of our Self.’ Max Miller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, 1873, pp. 20, 21. Agnosti- cism is the asser- tion of faith. The Fourth Gospel appeals to the faculty of faith. Lessons for the indi- vidual. 470 LECTURE VIII. It is to this faculty that the Fourth Gospel appeals, and here it approves itself as the Gospel of the nineteenth century as truly as it was that of the first. A Gospel to the knowledge and under- standing of the first century could have no word to speak to us to-day, for the partial knowledge of that time has vanished away before the more perfect knowledge of later days, as the partial knowledge of the present shall vanish away before the fuller know- ledge of the future. But faith abideth, and to this faith the Gospel speaks, then, now, always :— And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might—this is their purpose, not that ye might know, not that ye might understand; but—believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have—not knowledge, not understanding, nothing partial, nothing temporary, but the pulsating fulness of being which is necessarily eternal—lfe in his name. This, my brethren, is the divine purpose which caused to be written and to be preserved unto this day the most sacred book in the world. Have you ever read it? I do not mean, Have you read or heard read separate chapters, or have you read portions or the whole, with notes and commentaries, as a subject for intellectual pursuit or examination? But have you ever read it as a whole, as a book written that you might believe? If not, you have missed its whole purpose. It is very short. It was intended for states of uncertainty and problems of doubt ; it LECTURE VIII. 471 has met these and solved them in thousands of lives of greatest intellectual strength and attainment, for hundreds of years. Will you read it, that you too may fulfil the divine purpose, and ‘believe that Jesus is the Messiah,’ in Whom the whole past is fulfilled, that Jesus is ‘the Son of God,’ in Whom the whole present and future is contained ; the only Interpreter of God to man, in Whom the problems of life are answered and its mysteries solved ; declaring Him in light which dispels all darkness, in truth which drives away all error, in love which dies to overcome hatred, in life which conquers even death? Will you read it that you in believing may have life in his name? I say, the acknowledgment of God in Christ Accepted by thy reason, solves for thee All questions in the earth and out of it, And has so far advanced thee to be wise. Wouldst thou unprove this to re-prove the proved ? In life’s mere minute, with power to use that proof, Leave knowledge and revert to how it sprung ? Thou hast it; use it and forthwith, or die! ts a aes tay Vie 4 } δ᾿" ae LN Dros Τὰς Seto ἢ Ὶ ie γον ; MP Dy gl ᾿ Pere veel ria | INDEX. ABBOT Apspot, Ezra, 17; on Justin and Fourth Gospel, 75 sq.; on Drummond, 76 sq. ; 268, 336, 375, 380; on the Diatessaron, 382 Abbott, E. A., views on Justin and the Fourth Gospel, 270 sq. ; quoted, 271 sq. Abbott, J. K., 359 Abelard, 152 Aberdeen, University of, 275, 335 Aberklad, 385 Achaia, 116 Achromatism, mental, 8 sq. Ad Autolycum (To Autolycus). See Theophilus Addai, Doctrine of, 380 Ad Nationes. See Tertullian Adventurer, The, quoted, 11 sq. Adversus Hereses. See Irenxus Adversus Marcion. See Tertullian Adversus Praxean. See Tertullian Advocate or judge? See Bampton Lecturer Aflius Aristides, 388 sq. /Elius Publius Julius, 39 /®tians, 117 Africa, 24, 48, 462 ‘ Age, Our,’ 3, 166, 169, 173, 409 sq., 411 sq.; period comprised by, 5; positive additions to our knowledge in, 357 sq. Agnosticism, 12; its attractive- ness, 465 ; modern use of term, S. Paul’s, S. John’s, 466 sq. ; intellectual, necessarily true, 467 ; the assertion of faith, 469 AMPHILOCHIUS Agrippa Castor, Basilides, 100 Albertus Magnus, 152 Alcuin, 152 Aleppo, 378 Alexander, Bishop, 334 ; quoted, 464 Alexander, empire of, 445 Alexandria, 33, 38, 110, 114 sq., 121, 149, 234, 249, 261, 428, 431, 443, 456 ; Catechetical school of, 20. See Church ; Clement Alexis Aristenus, Canon of, 121 Alford, 142, 334 Alogi, the, one apparent exception to reception of Fourth Gospel, 123, 161 ; Harnack and Zahn on, 123 sq.; Hilgenfeld on, 124; name appears first in Epipha- nius, perhaps borrowed from Hippolytus, 124; ascribe Fourth Gospel to Cerinthus, 125 ; doubt as to real existence of, 125 ; evi- dence of, really tends to confirm Apostolic authorship, 125 sq. ; rejection of, by Zeller, 126 ; ne- gative witness of, 127 ; Strauss on, 211 Alsace, 253 Altruism, 463, 465 Ambrose, 151 America, 160, 164, 194, 275, 382, 452 Ammon, 247 Ammonius, Harmony of, 381 Amphilochius of Iconium, his date and connexion’ with opponent of A476 INDEX. AMYCLA Gregory, 116; his view of the Apocalypse, and testimony to Fourth Gospel, 116 sq. ; on the Canon, 117 Amycla, Bishop of, on inspiration, 159 Anastatius of Sinai, quotes the works of Melito, 35; his testi- mony to Melito, 39; Canon of, 121 Anselm, 152 Antioch, 117, 121, 186, 399. See Church ; Serapion ; Theophilus Antoninus Pius, 58 Aphrahat, Homilies of, 380, 384 Apocalypse, the, in Irenzeus, 19 ; not included in all versions, 108; rejected by Dionysius, 110 ; 118; by Cyril, 114; by Gregory Nazianzen, 116; by Theodore of Mopsuestia, 118 ; included by Athanasius, 115; testimony of Amphilochius to, 116 ; no reference to, in Chry- sostom, 119 ; testimony of Phil- aster to, 122; not accepted by Greek church, 122; Hippolytus on, 124; and Caius, 361, 392 sq. ; Alogi ascribe it to Cerin- thus, 125; in Canon of second century, 147; Bretschneider on, 183 sq.; Strauss on, 211 sq.; Baur on, 233; Hase on, 252; Reuss on, 255; Sabatier on, 256; Weizsiicker on, 257 ; Thoma on, 262; Scholten on, 266 ; Tayler on, 267 ; author of Supernatural Religion on, 268 ; Abbott on, 272 ; Martineau on, 289 sq.; 291; Schleiermacher on, 302; Lechler on, 322 sq. ; Weiss on, 325 ; 405 Apolinaris of Hierapolis, 34, 102 ; his date, 36; lists of his works in Eusebius, Theodoret, Pho- tius, 36; other works, 37; ex- tracts in Paschal Chronicle not undoubted, 37 ; reference to the Fourth Gospel by, 37, signifi- cance of writings of, 37 ; their reception by Serapion and other bishops, by Jerome, and Socra- ATHOS tes, 39 sq.; Strauss on, 210; Martineau on, 288 Apollos, 249, 411, 428 Apology, of Tertullian, 22 sq., 63 ; of Theophilus, 29 sq. ; of Athena- goras, 63; to Antoninus, 35, 408. See Justin Martyr Apostles, the, named by Clement of Alexandria, 21; by Tertul- lian, 24 sq.; by Justin, 65 sq., 67 sq. ; by Papias, 96 Apostolic Canons, list of, 121; 373 Apostolical Constitutions, the, quoted, 111; reference to Gos- pels in, 111; Epiphanius on, 117 Aquileia. See Rufinus Aquinas. See Thomas Aristides. See dilius Arius, 127 Arnold, Matthew, 13 ; on Hippo- lytus and Basilides, 101, 371 sq., 973; on Gnosticism, 101 ; quoted, 222 Arnold, Thomas. See Bunsen Arnold-Forster, 446 Arsenius the monk, Canon of, 121 Arsenius Sukrean, 407 Arsinoé. See Hygypt Articles, 156 Asia Minor, 20, 37, 39, 41 sq., 48, 102, 186, 200, 206, 234, 248 sq., 252, 256, 260, 265 sq., 295, 321, 358, 388 sq., 425, 428 sq., 433, 449. See Church Assemani, 381, 385 Astié, 334 Athanasian, pseudo-, synopsis, 121 Athanasius, his date and repre- sentative position, 114 ; iden- tity of his Canon with our own, 114 sq.; its inclusion of the Apocalypse, 115; Didymus, Gregory Nazianzen, and, 115; Epiphanius and, 117 ; Rufinus and, 122 Athenagoras, his position as an Apologist, 63; Apology of, to Marcus Aurelius, 63; use of Justin, 69; Strauss on, 210 Athens, 108, 466. See Church Athos, Mount, 359 INDEX. ATT AUBE Aubé, quoted, 58 sq. ; on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 390 Aucher, and the Diatessaron, 382 Auckland, 163, 165 Augustine, his date and com- mentary on the Fourth Gospel, 122 sq., ; on authority of the Church, 149 sq. ; on authority of the Scriptures, 150 ; 151 Augustus, empire of, 445 Aurelius Cyrenius, 39. See Marcus Aurelius Ayasalouk, 427 Basrivs, 360 Bacchius, 53 Bacon, quoted, 16 ; 152, 351 Bampton, John, will of, 16 Bampton Lecturer, 14; if an advo- cate or judge, 15 sq. ; 42 sq., 73, 335 — Lectures, quoted, 42sq.,131, 177 Bar-Hebreeus, 121 Bar-Kochba, 261. Martyr Barnabas, Epistle of, 97 ; Johan- nine influence in, 143, 402; Bretschneider on, 185; Holtz- mann on, 260 ; 358 Bar-Salibi, on the Diatessaron, 381 ; quotes Ephraim, Ammo- nius, and Elias, 381 ; his Syriac Commentary, 392, 393 Basel, University of, 248 Basil, 149 Basilides, 102 ; and Hippolytus, 89, 100 sq., 364-373 ; and Pa- pias, 100 ; his date questioned, 100; De Groot and Scholten on date of, 100 ; Arnold and Renan on Hippolytus and, 101 ; Strauss on, 209 ; Bunsen, Keim, Renan and Arnold on Fourth Gospel and, 370-373; which is the true? 365 sq. ; Hort and Renan on, 366 sq.; contains quota- tions from Fourth Gospel, 368- 373 ; and meaning of φησίν, 368 sq., 370 sq. ; 410 Bathgen, 379, 384 Bauer, Bruno, view of the Mes- sianic idea, 216 ; 235 See Justin BERLIN Baur, 5, 17,75 ; and the Clemen- tines, 84; and Strauss, 192 sq., 197 sq., 200, 203, 205, 212 sq., 214 sq., 217 sq., 219 sq., 223 sq., 225, 228, 230 sq., 232, 234; quoted, 177, 194, 224-231, 364 ; early years, 223 ; life at Blau- beuren and Tiibingen, 223 sq. ; evangelical sympathies, 223 sq. ; influence of Schleiermacher and Hegel on, 224 ; extent of literary work, 225; list of books, and shorter writings, 225 sq., 227 sq. ; his method of investigation, 228 sq. ; his view of the Pauline Epistles, 229 sq. ; on the Canon, 250; his treatment of Johan- nine question, 230 sq., 234; Fourth Gospel a ‘tendency- writing,’ 230 sq., 422 sq. ; and the Gospels, 231 sq., 423 sq. ; application of theory of tendency to theory of myth, 232 ; stages of development and the docu- ments, 233 sq.; his followers, 234 sq., 236 sq. ; and the Hege- lian Left, 237 sq. ; his theory an arch, 238 sq.; the arch tested, its foundations doubted, 239 sq.; the workmen, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Ritschl, and Hols- ten, questioned, 240 sq., 242 sq. ; the arch a ruin, 244; 246, 250, 253, 257, 265, 281 5η., 335 ; Neander on, 306 ; 308 sq., 313 sq., 319, 322, 324, 330, 347, 349 ; on the Philosophwmena, 363 sq.; on Hippolytus, 366; on the Clementines, 374 ; 409 Baumgarten-Crusius, 334 Baxter, on inspiration, 159 sq. Bec, school of, 152 Bede, 152; his devotion to the Fourth Gospel, 162 8. ; his last days, 162 sq. ; compared with Lightfoot, 164 sq.; 439 Belfast, 275 Belsheim, 359 Bengel, 193, 224 Berlin, 177, 192 sq., 236, 238, 240, 257, 300, 305, 307 sq., 310, 313 sq., 318, 325, 361 A478 INDEX. BERNARD Bernard, 357 Bert. See Aphrahat Bertholdt, 184 Beyschlag, 325; views on the Fourth Gospel, 329 sq. Bible, the, use of term by Chry- sostom, 120; 130, 132 sq., 135 sq-, 147, 149, 151; verbal inspira- tion a new departure in history of, 156 sq. ; external infallibility of, attacked by modern criticism, 157 ; a weapon of Protestant against Roman, 156 sq. ; neg- lect of, in last century, 176 sq; 301 ; new translation of, 452 Blaubeuren, Strauss at, 191 sq. ; Baur at, 123 sq., 236 Bleek, 300, 309; his position, 313 sq.; on the Fourth Gospel, 314 sq. ; and De Wette, 314; Mangold’s ed. of, 314 sq., 342 ; and Ebrard, 317 ; no reference to Lightfoot and Westcott by, 342 ; quoted, 200, 262 Bodenstein of Carlstadt, treat- ment of the Scriptures by, 153 Bodleian Library,. 393 Boehme, 192 Bologna, University of, 152 Bonaventura, 152 Boniface, 383 Bonn, University of, 262, 310, 313 Boor, De, 394 Borghesi, on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 389 sq. ; on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Boswell, 351 Boyle, 351 Bradley. See Green, T. H. Bradwardine, 152 Brescia. See Philaster Bretschneider, 5; his life and earlier works, 179; his Proba- bilia, its purpose and scope, 180 sq. ; his conclusions : discourses largely imaginary, 181 ; author not the Apostle, nor Palestinian, nor Jew, 182 ; Gospel sprung from Jewish anti-Christian zeal, 183 ; cannot be supported from Apocalypse, 183 sq.; nor from Epistles, 184; Epistles not CANON proved Johannine, and strength- en adverse views about Gospel, 184 sq. ; external evidences not sufficient, 185 sq.; weight of opposing internal evidence, place probably Egypt, 186 sq. ; importance of his book, 187 ; its reception, 187 84. ; was con- vinced by replies, retractation, ‘question is settled,’ 188, 190 ; his Handbook of Dogmatics, 188 ; Strauss and, 189, 212 ; his character in Autobiography, 189 sq. ; his opposition to Schleier- macher and Schelling, 190, 194 ; 200, 246, 247, 299, 302, 308 sq., 409; on Fourth Gospel and Synoptics, 421 sq., 423 ; quoted, 179-190, 219 British Association, 454 British Museum, 392, 406 sq. Bruston, 314 Bryennios, 359 ; ed. quoted, 145 Buddha, the, 429 Bunsen, 86 ; on mythic histories, 196 ; Arnold on, 315 sq. ; on the Fourth Gospel, 316; on the Phiiosophumena, 362 sq.; on Basilides, 370 sq. Burgon, 358 Burscough, 357 Busse, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Butler, 452 Byzantium. See Leontius C.msar, 58, 138 Caius, his testimony to the Fourth Gospel, 111 ; Jacobi on, 361 sq.; Baur and Fessler on, 563 sq. ; Gwynn on, 392 sq.; Hippo- lytus and his Heads agaist Caius, 392 sq. Calcutta, 435, 462 Calovius, quoted, 136, 156 Calvin, views on the Scriptures, quoted, 155 sq. Cambridge, University of, 17, 43, 152, 176, 250, 338, 366, 452 Campbell, Principal, quoted, 52 ; 103 Canon, the, history of, 21 ; of New INDEX. 479 CANTERBURY Testament, 42; of Old Testa- ment, 38, 141; Origen on, 108 sq.; Eusebius and, 112 sq. ; Athanasius on, 114 sq.; Gregory Nazianzus, on, 116; Amphi- lochius on, 117; Epiphanius on, 117; Theodore of Mop- suestia on, 118; Chrysostom and, 119 sq. ; of Greek church in Syria in fifth century iden- tical with -Peshito, 120 ; close of, in Hast, 121, 151; history of, in fourth and suc- ceeding centuries, survey un- necessary as all accept the Fourth Gospel, 121 sq. ; Syrian, 121 ; of Hilary, Philaster, and Rufinus, 122; close of, in West, 123, 151; and the Church, 129 sq., 146 sq. ; a question of history, and not of dogma, 147 sq.; reasons of early Church for not providing a Canon, 141 sq., 146 sq.; Catholic, ne- cesary, 147; materials of, in second century, 147 ; tradition, the first formative principle of, 158 ; accepted on Church autho- rity until Reformation, 151 ; Luther and, 154 ; Baur and, 230 Canterbury, Monastic Library at. See Papias Capua. See Victor Caricus. See Serapion Carlisle, Bishop of. See Goodwin Carlyle, 11 Carthage, 33, 38, 108 ; synods of, 123, 151, See Church; Tertullian Caspari, 58, 91 Cassian, 434 Catena, 151. See Corderius ; Patti- son Catholics, acceptance of Fourth Gospel by, 20 Ceillier, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Celsus, 127, 185 Centuries. See Judgment of Century, first century, 351 ; second century, evidence of, 17, 53 ; deductions from it, 102 sq. ; third generation of, 18 sq., CHURCH 102; second generation of, 53 sq., 102 ; first generation of, 95 sq., 102 ; second century, 34, 35, 38 sq., 40 sq., 42 sq., 44 sq., 46 sq., 48 sq.; position of an apo- logist in, 62 sq., 64; 97, 101, 120, 147, 351; third, 107 sq., 120, 148 ; fourth, 112 sq., 120, 148; fifth, 120; sixth, 120; seventh, see Anastatius ; ninth, 36; evidence of sixteen centu- ries, 107-166 Cerinthus,19; Alogiascribe Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse to, 125 ; Jacobi on, 361; Renan on, 411; and δι, John, 434, 436 Ceylon, 435 Charlemagne, empire of, 445 Charteris, 17, 336, 402 Cheshunt College, 336 Chillingworth, 135 Christiania. See Caspari Chronicon. See Eusebius Chronicon Paschale, 400 Chrysostom, John, his date and writings, 119 sq. ; constant use of Fourth Gospel, but no refer- ence to Apocalypse, 119 ; other works printed with his, 119 sq. ; Scriptures are to him Biblia, 120 ; 149; on Ephesus, 428 Church, 8 ; of Lyons, 18, 47; of Alexandria, 20, 47; of Rome, 12, 22, 47, 82, 152, 156 szq., 158 sq., 336, 363 ; of Carthage, 22, 47; corporate life of, 24 sq., 47 sq., 70, 97 ; of Antioch, 27, 47; of Asia Minor, 33, 38, 40 sq., 117, 402; of Rhossus, 40 ; of Athens, 47 ; of Corinth, 47 ; of Ephesus, 47, 144, 185, 402, 428 sq., 448 sq. ; of Hier- apolis, 47; of Sardis, 47; of Edessa, 47, 380 ; life in early years of second century, 97 ; of Italy, 108; Syrian, 120, 379; Armenian, 121; Eastern, 108 sq., 110 sq.; Ethiopian, 121 ; Russian, 121 ; Greek, did not accept Apocalypse, 122 ; Latin, did not accept Epistle to the Hebrews, 122; Western, 111 480 INDEX. CIASCA sq., 122, 379; and Bible, 147, 155 sq.; Lutheran, 156, 253, 326 ; authority of, a reason for accepting Fourth Gospel, 128 sq.; and Scripture, 130 86.» 132, 137 ; early, did not provide a Canon, 141 sq. ; had no need at first for a Canon 146 ; writing not included in special gifts to, 140 ; each, its own teachers and Gospel, 146 ; Catholic idea of, not yet realized, 145 ; depends upon the Scriptures, 149; Au- gustine on authority of, 149 sq.; Jerome on authority of, 150 ; and the council of Trent, 155; has never accepted a mechanical, verbal inspiration, 157 sq.; Protestant churches of Germany, France, Holland, America, 160 ; and the Fourth Gospel, 161 sq.; English, 164, 446, 452; and the promised Comforter, 418; fourfold form of one Gospel received by, 421 ; width of, 443 ;. many still out- side, 452 ; and the Logos, 452 Ciasca, on the Diatessaron, 385 sq., 387; and the Ignatian Epistles, 396 sq. Cicero, quoted, 180 Clarendon Press, the, 360, 364 Clement of Alexandria, 97, 102, 438 ; his date, origin, teachers and pupils, 20 sq.; his Stro- mateis, quoted, 20 sq., 88, 100; his Protreptikos, quoted, 22; no doubt as to Fourth Gospel, 20, 22; his use of Apocryphal writings and gospel of the Egyp- tians, 21; his Hxhortation to the heathen, 22 ; his Paschal Festi- val suggested by Melito, 38 ; his teachers probably include Me- lito, 388; testimony of Socra- tes to, 40; his witness to S. John, 48; Excerpta Theodoti and Doctrina Orientalis, ascribed to, 86; witness to Heracleon, 88; and Theodotus, 92; and Basilides, 100, 365, 367; quoted, 434, 439 CREDNER Clement of Rome, first Epistle of, quoted, 31, 85, 137 ; Johannine influence in, 143, 402; Second Epistle of, 145; Bretschneider on, 185 ;, 254, 338 Clementines, the, quotethe Fourth Gospel, 83 sq., 374 sq.; their probable date, 84 sq. ; views of De Lagarde, author οὗ Super- natural Religion, Strauss, Hil- genfeld on, 83 sq. ; the value of their evidence, 84 sq., 102 ; their antagonism to S. Paul, and 8S. John, 85; their origin, 84 sq. ; Strauss on, 208, 210; Volkmar on, 236; Hilgenfeld on, 242 ; Martineau on, 288; 349, 358 ; our knowledge of, 373; Dres- sel’s discovery and, 374 ; Zeller and, 375 Clericus, 373 Clermont. See Manuscripts Clifford, quoted, 459 sq. Clough, quoted, 106 Cludius, 184 Codex x, 358 Codex Borgianus, 387 Codex Claromontanus, 112 Codex Fuldensis. See Ranke Codex Holmiensis, 358 Codex Sangallensis, 358 Codex Tischendorfianus 111.. 358 Colbertine. See Manuscripts Colonies, the, 452 Constantia, 117 Constantine, 112 Constantinople, 114; Trullan council of, 121; council of Greek church at, 121, 151. See Photius Conybeare. See Bampton Lectures Cook, Commentary, 334 Corderius, Catena of, 118 Corinth, 466. See Church Corpus Apologetarum. See Otto Cosmas Indicopleustes, Canon of, 121 Cotelier, 373 Cowardly Agnosticism. See Review, Fortnightly Credner, 17 ; on Justin, 57; on Eusebius, 113; on the Alogi, INDEX. 481 CRITICISM 125; ed. of Bodenstein, 153; quoted, 112 sq., 115, 118, 316 Criticism, Modern, 3, 4; admits reception of Fourth Gospel at close of second century, 46; attacks infallibility of the Bible, 157 ; of ‘our age,’ 169 sq. ; con- sidered in Lectures IV., V., VI. ; said to have cancelled ‘judgment of centuries,’ 169, 409; assertion of, cannot be accepted as proof, 169 ; nor yet originality, 170 sq. ; destructive, not sufficent, 172 ; constructive, demanded, 173; Strauss and, 211; and the Fourth Gospel, 419 sq. — Negative, position of leaders of, 8, 299; present school of, 258 ; German, 258-263 ; Dutch, 263-266 ; Knglish, 266-292 ; is self-destructive, 409; and question of author of Fourth Gospel, 411 sq. ; no consistent body of, 417 — Positive, 5, 299 sq. ; school of, 299-353 ; summary of, 353, 410; is to the negative as 4=CC, 412 Cruice, on the Philosophumena, 363, 367 Cureton, 35, 3880; and the Syriac, 358, 384, 396 sq., 406, 408 Cyprian, opinion of Tertullian, 22 ; use of the Gospels by, 63 ; his date and position, 111; his testimony to Fourth Gospel, 112; 149 Cyril of Alexandria, 149, 407 Cyril of Jerusalem, his date and position, 113; his reception of four Gospels, 113 ; rejection of Apocalypse 114, 115 ; 121, 149 Cyril Lukar, Canon of, 121 Cyrrhus, 381 Darwin, quoted, 459 ; 460 Davidson, 8, 267 ; admits recep- tion of Fourth Gospel at close of second century, 46; his position, 272, 274 sq.; his first DIONYSIUS Introduction, 272 sq.; on the newer criticism, 273 sq. ; views on the Fourth Gospel, 275 sq., 277, 278 sq., 280, 284 sq. ; his second Introduction, 278 sq. ; views on the Acts, 280 sq., 282; criticism on his change of view, 282, 284 sq. ; by Schiirer, 289 ; 347, 409 ; quoted, 109, 272-282 Dawson, 454 Day, 188 Debeltum. See Alius Publius De Cultu Feminarum. See Tertiul- lian D’Eichthal. See Hichthal Delff, his position and views on the Fourth Gospel, 292 sq. ; compared with Martineau, 293 sq. ; quoted, 292-295 Delhi, 462 Demetrian, 63 Demurrer against Heretics. See Tertullian De Prescriptione Hereticorum. See Tertullian Derry, Bishop of. See Alexander Descartes, 8 ἡ De Viris illustribus. See Jerome De Wette. See Wette Dialogue with Trypho. See Jus- tin Martyr Dialectica. See Galen Diana of the Ephesians, 429 sq. Diatessaron, The. See Tatian Dickson, 246 Dictionary of Christian Biography, 19, 28, 41, 86, 90, 119, 362, 367, 375, 377 sq., 379, 431 Didache, the, Johannine influence in, 148; its title, 145; 358; supports Johannine authorship, 402 Didymus of Alexandria, his date and position, 115; _ rejects Second Epistle of 8S. Peter, 115 Dilke, Lady, quoted, 15 Dilthey, 300 Dindorf, and Eusebius, 406 Diocletian persecution, 149 Dionysius of Alexandria, his date, 109; his position, and ee 482 INDEX. DISCUSSION opposition to Nepos, 110; his acceptance of Fourth Gospel and rejection of Apocalypse, 110 ; his view opposed to later criticism, 110 sq. Discussion, tone of, 6 Doctrina Orientalis. See Valen- tinus Dodwell, 58 Dollinger, Von, letter from, on date of Muratorian Fragment, 45; on the Philosophumena, 363 Domitian, 394 Donaldson, 28, 37 Dressel, his discovery of part of the Clementines, 374 sq. Drummond, James, on Justin and Fourth Gospel, 76 sq., 78 ; Abbot’s opinion of, 76 sq. : quoted, 431 Dublin, 17, 340, 392 Duncker, on Hippolytus, 362 ; and Schneidewin, 89, 101, 362, 367, 369 Duns Scotus, 152 Durham, Bishop of. See Light- foot ; Westcott Easter, 41 Ebrard, quoted, 200, 334 ; Strauss on, 205 ; Bleek and, 314 ; views on the Fourth Gospel, 317 ; on negative criticism, 318 Ecclesiastical History. See Huse- bius ; Socrates Eckermann, 247 Edersheim, 451 Edessa, 200, 378, 381. See Church Edinburgh, University of, 17, 356. See Review Eegli, on date of Polycarp’s mar- tyrdom, 390 Egypt, 20, 48, 86, 108, 114, 186 sq., 386, 430; Arsinoé in, 110 Egyptians, gospel of, 21 Eichhorn, 178, 184 Eichthal, D’, views on Fourth Gospel, 245 Einsiedel, Von, 188 Eleutherus, 19 EUSEBIUS Elias of Salamia, 381 Elkesaites, 85 Ellicott, Bishop, New Testament Commentary (Watkins), 90, 425, 441, 444 Engelhardt, Von, 76 England, 162, 164, 175, 194, 238, 337 sq. ; Queen of, 445 ; spread of English language and rule, 445 sq., 448, 452 ; gospels for, 450. See Church Ephesus, 19, 21, 33, 37 sq., 69, 108, 111, 200, 206, 248, 250, 252, 257, 261, 313, 319, 327, 358, 389, 395, 426 ; life in, 427 sq., 429 sq., 431, 439 sq.; city of, 432, 443 sq. ; 454 sq., de- scription of, in Acts, 428, 434 ; philosophy and meeting of Kast and West in, 428 sq., 490 sq., 456, 467; a nineteenth-cen- tury, 447. See Church ; John ; Polycrates Ephraim, and the Diatessaron, 377, 381 sq., 383 sq. Epiphanius, 57; quoted, 85, 87, 125; evidence to Ptolemeus, 87 sq.; his date and position, 117 ; his list of the Scriptures, 117 ; his use of term Alogi, 124 ; and Hippolytus, 362; and the Diatessaron, 378 sq. Erlangen, 247, 317, 331 Europe, 162, 315 Kusebius, 69; Hist. Eccles. quoted, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 35, 36, 38-42, 85, 91, 94, 96, 99, 100, 109 sq., 145, 206, 403, 408, 434, 439 ; Chronicon, quoted, 28, 29, 388; his testimony to Tertul- lian, 23; testimony to Theo- philus, 27 sq. ; his list of Melito’s works, 34 sq. ; list of Apolinaris’ works, 36; on letter of Sera- pion, 39 sq. ; on letter to Victor of Rome, 41; and Papias, 96, 145; silence of, a witness to use of Fourth Gospel, 97 ; his analysis of writings foresha- dowed by Origen, 109, 112; and Dionysius, 110; his date and position, 112; his testimo- INDEX. 483 EVANGELICAL ny to Fourth Gospel and the Canon, 112 sq. ; his copies made for Constantine, 112 sq.; and Athanasius, 114 sq. ; Strauss on, 206 sq., 210 sq. ; and Hip- polytus, 362; and the Diates- saron, 377 sq.; and date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 388 sq., 390 sq. ; and Epistle of Poly- carp, 403; and Lightfoot, 404 sq.; Syriac version of, 406; Armenian version of, 407 sq. ; and Syriac Apology to Antoni- nus, 408 ‘Evangelical Instrument.’ See Tertullian Evanson, 5, 8; his career, 174; the Dissonance examined, 174 _ sq.; his preference for S. Luke, 174 sq.; his work unworthy of its subject, 176; replies to, by Priestley, Simpson, and Falco- ner, 176 sq. ; 246, 299, 308, 409 Everett, 11 Ewald, 205, 217, 227; his posi- tion and view of Fourth Gospel, 250 sq.; Liddon and Westcott on, 251 Excerpta Theodoti. SeeValentinus Exegesis, Oxford Professor of. See Sanday Eye, achromatic, 8 sq., 12, 17; impossible, 10 Fables. See Babrius Fabricius, 86 Falconer. See Bampton Lectures Falkener, 482 Farrar, 432 Faust, quoted, 457 Faustina, 389 Fessler, on the Philosophumena, 364 Fichte, 177, 240 Field, 407 sq. Fillion, Abbé, 336 Fisher, 335 Flatt, 193 Flavia Neapolis, 53 Flavius Justinus. Martyr Flavius Vespasian, 53 See Justin FOURTH GOSPEL Florence, 407 Florinus, 392 ; Letter to, 98 sq. Formula Consensus Helvetica, 156 Forster. See Arnold-Forster Fortnightly Review. See Review Four Gospels, in Irenseus, 19, 69 ; in Clement, 21; identity of Justin’s Memoirs with, 70; in Origen, 109; in Cyprian, 111 sq.; in Cyril, 113; in the Dia- tessaron, 376 sq., 379, 387. See Tatian Fourth Gospel, the, Keim and, 3 ; modern criticism in relation to, 4, 419sq. ; a problem of present- day thought, 4; position of, in second century, 4; evidence to reception of, in second century, 17 ; accepted as the work of 8. John, 40 sq.; reception of, in- dependent of date of Versions, 46 ; use of, by Irenzeus, 19 sq., 69 sq. ; by Clement, 20 sq., 22 : by Tertullian, 24; by Theo- philus, 29 sq., 31 sq. ; included by himamong ‘Holy Scriptures,’ and author among ‘ spirit-bear- ing men,’ 32; referred to by him in connexion with Old Testament, 32 sq. ; witness to, and reception by churches of Asia Minor, 33 sq., 38, 41; references in Apolinaris to, 37 ; probably quoted by Polycrates, 42; reception of, at close of second century quite certain, 46 sq.; strength of testimony to use of, its extent and unani- mity, 47 ; evidence of Justin to use of, 61, 64; traces of, found in Justin, 65 ; read in Church services between A.D. 130-140, 70, 81; certainly included in Memoirs of Justin, 72 sq.; Thoma on Justin and, 79 56. ; Hilgenfeld on, 75; Abbot on, 75 sq. ; Drummond on, 77 sq. ; Sanday on, 78 sq. ; Westcott on, 80 sq.; quoted by the Clementines, 83 sq. ; quoted in Excerpta Theodoti and Doctrina Orientalis, 86 ; accepted by the Pre 484 FOURTH GOSPEL Valentinians and their school, 87 sq., 89 sq., 91 sq. ; systems of Valentinus and Ptolemzeus imply, 90 ; accepted by Catholics and their school, 90 sq.; unity of testimony to use of, by Catholics and heretics, 91 sq.; Marcion and, 98 sq.; Tertullian and Irenzeus on Marcion’s rejection of, 93 sq. ; cannot be separated from First Epistle, 96, 403 sq. ; Ignatius and, 102; accepted throughout the second century as work of 8. John, 103; facts of the reception of, 107 sq.; fulness of evidence to use of, in third and succeeding centu- ries, 107 ; testimony to use of, by Muratorian Fragment, 108 ; by Versions, 108; by Origen, 109; by Dionysius, 110; by Apostolical Constitutions, 111 ; by Hippolytus and Caius, 111, 392 sq.; by Cyprian, 111 sq. ; by Eusebius, 112 ; included in copies prepared for Constantine, 113 ; use of, by Cyril, 113 sq. ; by Athanasius, 114 sq. ; by Didy- mus, 115; by Gregory of Nazi- anzus,115 sq.; by Amphilochius, 116 sq. ; by Epiphanius, 117 ; by Theodore of Mopsuestia, 117 sq., 119; by Chrysostom, 119 sq. ; undisputed acceptance of, throughout fourth, fifth, sixth, and succeeding centuries, 120 sq., 122; Alogi, the one appa- rent exception to acceptance of, 123 sq. ; commentaries of Jerome and Augustine on, 122 sq. ; work of Hippolytus on, 124; Alogi ascribe it to Cerin- thus, 125 ; no real men who at- tempt to doubt the authenticity of, only whispers of Alogi, 127 ; principles of the reception of, 127 sq. ; received as Apostolic throughout Christendom from end of second to end of eigh- teenth century, 128; reasons for acceptance of, now, 128; in history of the Church, 140; INDEX. FOURTH GOSPEL views held by Christians about, 128 sq. ; accepted on the au- thority of the Church, 128 sq., 130 sq., 192 ; accepted on the inner witness, 132 sq., 134 sq. ; accepted on verbal inspira- tion, 135 sq.; accepted on canons of historical and literary criticism, 137 sq., 139; evidence for genuineness of, superior to that of other early histories, 138 sq. ; aquestion of history, not of dogma, 139 ; how received in Apostolic age, 140 sq. ; no quo- tation of other portions of New Testament as ‘Scripture’ in, 142; how received in _post- Apostolic age, 142 sq.; per- fected tradition of Ephesian Church, 144 ; acceptance of, in the Dark Ages, 151 sq.; received above all, 152 ; induction as to reception of, from the facts and principles, 161 sq.; and the Church, 161sq. ; comprehension exemplified in width of induc- tion, 161 sq. ; Apostolic, and in fullest sense inspired, 162 ; ex- amples of intensity of devotion to, 162; results of the ‘ judg- ment of centuries’ on, 161, 166, 409, 411 sq.; and ‘our age,’ 173, 357 sq., 409 sq., 411 sq. ; commencement of destructive criticism on, 174; question of, in Germany in early years of nine- teenth century, 178 sq. ; Bret- schneider on, 181-190, 421 sq., 423 ; Strauss on, 191, 197, 203 sq., 206-216, 423; result, 212 sq., 219 ; Liitzelberger on, 200 ; Renan on, 219, 421 sq., 423 sq. ; Baur on, 228 sq., 234, 239, 422 sq., 424 ; Hilgenfeld on, 242 ; Ritschl on, 243; Stap on, 244 sq.; d’Hichthal on, 245; and the Partition Theories, 246 sq. ; views of Eckermann, Am- mon, and Paulus on, 247; Schenkel on, 248; Schweizer on, 249; Tobler on, 249 56. ; Ewald on, 250 sq. ; Hase on, INDEX. FOURTH GOSPEL 252; Reuss on, 253 sq., 255; Renan on, 255 sq. ; Sabatier on, 256; Weizsicker on, 257 ; Wendt on, 258; Keim on, 259 sq. ; Holtzmann, H. J., on, 260; Ho6nig on, 261 ; Thoma on, 261 sq.; Mangold on, 262 ; Holtz- mann on, 262; Scholten on, 264 sq.; Tayler on, 266 sq. ; author of Supernatural Religion on, 267 sq. ; Abbott on, 270 sq. ; Davidson on, 275 sq., 277, 278 sq., 280, 284 sq. ; Schurer and, 283, 424; Martineau on, 286 sq., 288 sq., 293 sq. ; Delff on, 292- 295 ; and the positive school of criticism, 299 ; Schleiermacher on, 302 sq., 304; Neander on, 305 sq., 8307 ; De Wette on, 309 sq. ; Liicke on, 310 sq., 312 sq. ; Bleek on, 314 sq. ; Bunsen on, 316; Ebrard on, 317 ; Tholuck and Hengstenberg on, 318 sq. ; Meyer on, 319 sq., 321 ; Lech- ler on, 322 sq. ; Weiss on, 324 sq.; Luthardt on, 326 sq. ; Godet on, 328 sq. ; Beyschlag on, 329 sq.; Zahn on, 331; Franke on, 332 sq. ; other posi- tive writers on, 334 sq., 336; value of their testimony, 336 ; four special witnesses to, 337 ; Lightfoot on, 343 sq., 345; Westcott on, 345 sq. ; Salmon on, 346 sq., 348; Sanday on, 348 sq., 8350; quoted in Basil- ides, 368-373; quoted in the Clementines, though denied by Zeller, 374 sq.; if included in the Diatessaron, 376, 387 ; Har- nack on, 385; importance of date of Polycarp’s martyrdom in connexion with, 391 sq. ; no discoveries oppose Johannine authorship of, 393 sq., 395; fragments of Papias and Hege- sippus support it, 394; recent discoveries in connexion with, 357-395 ; re-investigation of materials in connexion with, 395-409 ; quoted by Ignatian Epistles, 400 sq. ; received by 485 FRANKE Ignatius, 402; and Epistle of Polycarp, 403 sq.; and the silence of Eusebius, 404 sq. ; no body of negative criticism of, which is not self-destructive, 409 sq.; suggestions of author of, other than S. John, value- less, 411 sq.; attributed to Judas Iscariot by Noack, 412 ; interpretation of, 417-470; is ‘according to 8. John,’ 417 sq., 419 sq., 444, 449; its inspira- tion of essence, not of form, 418 sq.; contents, not vessel, divine, 419 sq. ; the treasure of humanity, 420 ; claims to be a tendency-writing, 423 sq. ; dif- ference in form of, admitted, 423 sq. ; difference in discourses of, 424 sq., 426 ; key to, lies in translation, 426 sq., 450; it ex- plains tone and thought of, 442; and opposing views of critics, 444 ; traditional account of origin of, 438 sq. ; if Johan- nine, necessarily Ephesian, 439 sq. ; and doctrine of the Logos, 440 sq.; what it had not, and what it must have had, 449 sq.; more than human, 443 sq.; fundamental purpose of, 443; divine purpose of, 449 sq. ; hints to younger hearers on translation of, 453 sq.; and science, 454-461 ; and our pre- sent ‘laws,’ 456 sq., 458; re- veals the origin of being in the Logos, 461 ; connexion of, with modern ethical science, 462 sq.; true principles of life found in, 463 sq,; and altruism, 465 ; and agnosticism, 4606 sq. ; preaches no system of gnosis, 467 ; appeals to the faculty of faith, 469; its lessons for the individual, 469 sq. ; belongs to the nineteenth century as to the first, 469 ; its divine pur- pose, 469 sq. France, 160, 177, 194, 338 Franke, views on the Fourth Gos- pel, 332 sq. 486 INDEX. FRANKFORT Frankfort, 201 Friedlander, on date of Poly- carp’s martyrdom, 390 Fritzsche, 118 Fuller, 375, 379 Funk, on date of Polycarp’s mar- tyrdom, 390, 396 GAISFORD, 361 Galen, 360 i Galilee, 249, 395, 440, 443, 445, 449 Gallandi, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Gaul, 48, 86, 186 Gautama. See Buddha Gebhardt, Von, 359; quoted, 28 sq., 34, 41, 69, 143, 331, 380, 390, 394 sq., 402 Generation, third, of the second century, 18; second, 53 sq. ; first, 95 sq. ; its meaning often missed, 97 Geneva, 155 Germany, 84, 160 ; opening years of nineteenth century in, 177 sq.; 175, 194, 238, 241, 275, 304, 328, 338, 359 Gervinus, 177 Gieseler, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Gladstone, quoted, 168; 425 Gloucester and Bristol, Bishop of, 13 Gnosticism, work against, by Ireneus, 18; and Valentinus, 85; view of Arnold on, 101; 187, 229, 233 sq., 245, 264, 305, 367, 410; in Ephesus, 428, 429; and the Fourth Gospel, 442 sq., 444 Gnostics, 92, 102; acceptance of Fourth Gospel by, 29 ; 348, 371 sq., 447, 454, 467 Godet, views on the Fourth Gos- pel, 328 sq. ; Meyer and, 343 Goethe, quoted, 17, 457 Golgotha, 412 Goodwin, Bishop, on the Bible, 158 Gospels, written and traditional, 143 ; question of, in Germany in HALLE . early years of nineteenth cen- tury, 178 sq. See Fourth Gos- pel; Four Gospels ; Matthew’s, S., Gospel; Mark’s, 8., Gospel ; Inke’s, 8., Gospel; John’s, 8., Gospel ; Egyptians, gospel of ; Peter, gospel of ; Justin and the Gospels ; Tertullian and the Gospels ; Cyprian and the Gos- pels ; Strauss and the Gospels ; Baur and the Gospels ; Schleier- macher and the Gospels Gotha, 179 G6ttingen, 217, 240, 250, 310, 331, 974 sq. Grabe, 88; on date of martyr- dom of Ignatius, 400 Gratry, 251 Gray, Asa, quoted, 460 Great Missionary Success. See Dilke Greece, 20, 48, 450, 445 sq., 456 Green, J. R., quoted, 163 — T.H., quoted, 462 Gregory, 358 Gregory, ed. quoted, 326 sq., 424 Gregory the Great, 151 Gregory of Nazianzus, his date and position, 115 sq. ; his list of Old and New Testament Scriptures, 116; excludes Apocalypse though quoted, 116 ; his description of 8S. John, 116 ; and Amphilochius, 116 ; 149 Gregory of Nyssa, 149 Groningen, 100 Groot, De, on Basilides, 100, 368 Guardian, The. See Review Guhl, 432 Gundert, on Hippolytus, 366 Gwynn, 359; on Hippolytus and Caius, 392 sq. Gymnastica. See Philostratus HAARLEM, 922 Hadrian, 100, 371 Hagenbach, 177 Hales, Alexander de, 152 Hall, 359 Halle, University of, 177, 240, 318, 329, 332 INDEX. 487 HAMARTOLOS Hamartolos, 394 Hamburg, 304 sq. Hardenberg. See Novalis Hare, 315, 363 Harnack, 17 ; opinion on Theo- philus’ Commentary, 28 56. ; quoted, 28 sq., 34, 41, 69, 143, 283, 331, 375, 380, 385, 394 sq., 397, 399 sq., 402 sq. ; on date of Justin’s First Apology, 58; on the Alogi, 123 sq.; 287, 289, 359, 382; on date of Poly- carp’s martyrdom, 390 sq. ; on the Diatessaron, 384 sq., 387 ; on Lightfoot, 399; on Igna- tian Epistles and Polycarp, 399 84. ; on Epistle of Poly- carp, 403 Harvard, 17, 76 Harvey, Wigan, 17; ed. of Adv. Her., quoted, 19, 20, 69, 85, 87 sq., 91 sq., 94, 97, 124, 148, 391, 403, 434. See Lrenzus Ease, “Von, 5,, 179); 204. 227.; views on the Fourth Gospel, 251 sq. ; quoted, 198, 247 Hatch, 287 Hausrath, 259 Hawkesworth, quoted, 11 Hawkins, quoted, 131 Hebrews, gospel to the, 186 Hegel, and Strauss, 192 sq., 196 ; and Baur, 224, 237 sq.; and Oxford, 238 ; and development of philosophy, 238 ; 240, 247, 281 Hegesippus, Fragment of, 394 Heidelberg, University of, 236, 248, 257 Heinrici, 86, 90 Heliand, The, 383 Hemphill, 375, 378, 380 Hengstenberg, 193 sq. ; views on the Fourth Gospel, 318 sq. Henoch, book of, 185 Heracleon, and Valentinus, 85 ; his date and position, 87 86. ; testimony of Irenzeus, Clement, and Origen to, 88; his writings, 88; and Tertullian, 92; Bret- schneider on, 186; Strauss on, 210; Martineau on, 288 HIPPOLYTUS Herbart, 240 Herder, 177, 204 ; quoted, 178 Hermas, the Shepherd of, 143, 185, 345, 402 Hermathena, the, 392 Herodotus, 138 sq. Hess, 204 Heyne, 195, 216, 315 Hierapolis, 433. See Apolinaris ; Church ; Papias; Philip Hilary of Poitiers, his date and Canon, 122; and Origen, 122; 151 ; Hilgenfeld, 17, 227, 245, 283, 398, 409; admits reception of Fourth Gospel at close of second century, 46; on Justin and Fourth Gospel, 75 ; on the Clementines, 84, 374 sq.; on Ptolemzeus and the Valen- tinians, 88 ; on Heracleon, 88 ; on the Alogi, 124; his works, 235; and Baur’s theory, 241 sq. ; and Volkmar, 242; on the Diatessaron, 379; on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 390 ; quoted, 125, 219, 242, 266, 381, 394 Hill. See Johnson Hippo, synod of, 123, 151 Hippolytus, pupil of Clement, 20 ; mentions Irenzeus and Melito, 38 ; his testimony to use of Fourth Gospel by Valentinians, 89 ; quotes S. John, 89; and Irenzeus, 91 ; and Basilides, 100 sq., 364 sq., 366 sq. ; opinions of Arnold and Renan on Basilides and, 101; his testi- mony to the Fourth Gospel, 111; and Philaster, 122; and the Alogi, 124; his Syntagma of Thirty-two Heresies, and work on Gospel and Apocalypse, 124 ; may have derived informa- tion from Irenzus, 124 ; Jacobi on, 361 sq.; Duncker on, 362 ; Bunsen, Lommatzsch, Von Déllinger, and others on, 363 sq.; Gwynn on, 392 sq.; his Heads against Caius, 392 sq. ; quoted, 368 sq. 488 INDEX. HOLLAND ᾿οδηγός, ed.Gretser, quoted, 35, 39 Holland, 160, 359 Holsten, his works, 236; on Baur’s theory, 243 Holtzmann, H. J., views on the Fourth Gospel, 260 ; 287, 315; on Hippolytus, 366 ; quoted, 131, 234, 258, 264 Holtzmann, O., his views on the Fourth Gospel, 262 sq. Holy Scripture. See Scriptures Homer, 195 Homilies. See Aphrahat ; Cle- mentines Honig, his views on the Fourth Gospel, 261 ; quoted, 372 Horace, quoted, 172 Horne, 285 Hort, 17, 32, 358 ; on Justin, 57 sq.; on Hippolytus and Basi- lides, 366 sq. Hosmer, 11 Hossbach, 310 Hug, 178 Hugo of 8. Victor, 152 Hulsean Lectures. See Good- win Hume, David, quoted, 11; 284 Hurst, 177 Hutton, 314, 335 Huxley, quoted, 454, 460, 465 Icontum, 116 Ignatian Epistles, the ; and Vos- sian recension, 101 sq. ; if by Ignatius, connect Fourth Gos- pel with S. John, 102 ; Strauss on, 208 ; Lightfoot on, 395-402 ; Zahn on, 397; De Pressensé and Harnack on, 399 sq. ; quote the Fourth Gospel, 400 sq. ; and Epistle of Polycarp, 402 sq. Ignatius, 97, 102 ; recent investi- gations of, 101 sq. ; Johannine influence in, 143 ; Bretschnei- der on, 185; 338, 392; date of martyrdom, 400, 404; seven Letters written by, 400; Fourth Gospel received by, 402 India, 445, 452 Innocent the First, 123 Inquiry, width of, 5 ITALY Inspiration, Luther on, 153 sq. ; Calvin on, 154 sq.; Zwingli on, 155 ; extended to letter of Bible, 156 ; mechanical verbal, 156 sq. ; Westcott on, 158 ; Bishop of Carlisle on, 158; Newman on, 158 sq. ; Bishop of Amycla on, 159; Baxter on, 159 sq. ; Neander on, 160; in relation to Fourth Gospel, 418 sq. Instrumentum. See Tertullian Introduction to course of Lec- tures, 3 Ionian. See Melito Irenzeus, his date, 18; bishop of Lyons, 18 ; work against Gnosti- cism, Adversus Hereses, 18, 61; quotes Apology and Dialogue of Justin, 69 ; his use of the Fourth Gospel, 19 sq., 69 ; pupil of Cle- ment, 20; mentioned by Hip- polytus, 98 ; his witness to the Fourth Gospel, 48 ; compared with Justin, 53; unity with Justin, 59, 81; his intimate connexion with and knowledge of Justin, 69 sq., 91 ; connected with Ephesus, Rome,and Lyons, 69 ; and identity of term Gospels with Memoirs of Justin, 72 sq. ; his testimony to Valentinus, 85, 90 sq.; and Ptolemzeus and Heracleon, 87 sqg., 92; named by Tertullian, 90 sq.; and Marcion, 94; and Papias, 96 ; testimony to Papias and Poly- carp by, 97 sq., 99 ; his Letter to Florinus, 98 sq. ; testimony of Socrates to, 40; 43, 102, 365 ; and the Alogi, 124 ; and the four- fold Gospel, 147 ; Strauss on, 209, 211 sq. ; Bretschneider on, 185 sq. ; Lightfoot on, 344 sq. ; and Polycarp, 391 sq.; and Epistle of Polycarp, 403 ; Adv. Her., quoted, 19, 20, 69, 85, 87 sq., 91 sq., 94, 97 sq., 124, 148, 391, 403, 434 — Editor of. See Harvey Isidore, 371 Issus, 40 Italy, 20, 48, 86, 116, 338 INDEX. 489 JACOBI Jacosi, 177, 300; on the Philo- sophumena, 361 sq. ; on Hippo- lytus, 365 Jameson, Mrs., 435 Jarrow, school at, 152, 162 Jebb, 388 Jena, University of, 177, 235, 334, 376 Jerome, on Tertullian, 22; De Viris Ulustribus, quoted, 22, 23, 24, 28, 34, 38, 403; reference to Theophilus by, 28 ; his list of works by Melitoand Apolinaris, 34 ; quotes Tertullian on Melito, 38 ; his testimony to Apolinaris and Melito, 40; his date, and commentary on the Fourth Gos- pel, 122 sq. ; on church authority in matter of the Scriptures, 149 sq., 151 ; 362, 435; on Epistle of Polycarp, 403 Jerusalem, 53; council at, 121; 149, 347, 412, 429, 443 Jesuits, 10 John, S., Irenzus on, 19; and the ‘ spiritual Gospel,’ 21; and the robber, 21; named by Ter- tullian, 25 sq., 27 ; influence of, in Apology of Melito, 35 ; Fourth Gospel accepted as work of, 41, 43, 46 sq.; description of, by Polycrates, 42 ; life and work of, familiar to many, 95 sq.; Polycarp’s personal link with, 48, 95 sq., 391; named by Dio- nysius, 110; described by Gre- gory Nazianzen, 116 ; his know- ledge of other portions of New Testament writings, but he never quotes them, 142; Bret- schneider on 182-85, 421 szq., 423 sq. ; Lightfoot on school of, 343 sq. ; Renan on, 421 sq., 423 sq. ; in fragments of Papias and Hegesippus, 394; 361, 392; and the Gospel, 419, 443 sq., 449 ; realization of his position, 427 sq. ; of his work, 434 sq. ; and teaching, 436 sq. ; close of his life, 438 sq. ; and Philo, 431, 436, 441 ; and Cerinthus, 434, 436; his declaration of the JUSTIN Logos, 440 sq. ; and agnosticism, 466 sq. See also Fourth Gospel — Gospel of, quoted, 30, 31, 32, 42, 87 sq., 89, 107, 207 sq., 249 sq., 259, 261, 265, 369, 393, 400 sq., 417 sq., 435 sq., 437, 440 sq., 467 — Epistles of, 109, 118, 119 sq., 462 ; quoted,442 ; Bretschneider on, 184 sq. ; Strauss on, 206 sq. ; Martineau on, 291; witness of Epistle of Polycarp to, 403 sq. — Revelation of. See Apocalypse John Damascene, list of, 121 John of Salisbury, 152 Johnson, on testimony, 350 sq. Jonas. See Dilthey Judea, 249. See Justin Martyr Judas Iscariot, 412 Judge, advocate or. See Bampton Lecturer ‘ Judgment of Centuries,’ 3, 4 sq. value of, 6; result of, 161 sq., 166, 169, 417 ; contrasted with ‘our age,’ 172 sq., 409 sq., 411 sq. ; considered in Lectures I., ΠῚ EEL. Julian, 127 Julianus, 389 Jiilicher, 394 Junilius, list of, 121 Justin Martyr, 102 ; Dialogus cum Tryphone, quoted, 34, 53 sq., 55, 59 sq., 65 sq., 67, 71; his date and early life, 53 ; training and conversion, 54 sq., 429 ; his con- nexion with a Stoic, Peripatetic, Pythagorean, and Platonist, 54 sq.; his ethics of opinion, 55 sqg.; his writings, 56 sq. ; two Apologies and Dialogue cer- tainly genuine, 56; his First Apology, its dedication, 58 ; a defence of Christians ad- dressed to heathen, 61 sq.; written at Rome, 69; quoted, 53, 54, 56, 59, 65 sq., 67, 71 sq., 77, 91; his own account of the Dialogue, 59 sq. ; its scene at Ephesus, 69 ; written at Rome, 69 ; addressed to Marcus Pom- peius, 60 ; an apology for Chris- 490) INDEX. JUSTIN tianity addressed to Jews, 62; his First Apology and Dialogue only considered, 56; quoted by Irenzeus, 69 sq. ; chronology and dates not accurately known, 56 sq., 58 84. ; opinions of Credner, Volkmar, and Hort on, 57 sq.; discussion of his date of literary interest, 58; does not affect-result, 59; internal evidence of First Apology and Dialogue as to date, 59 sq. ; their evidence as to use of Fourth Gospel, 61 sq.; Trypho and the war in Judea, 59 sq. ; if Trypho is really Rabbi Tarphon, 60 ; and the Gospels, 61; unity of, with Irenzus, 59; nature of an apology, 61 sq.; and position of an apologist in second cen- tury, 62 sq. ; verbal quotation not to be sought in, 63 sq., 72 sq. ; compared with Tatian, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Cy- prian, 63; traces of Fourth Gospel in, 65 sq. ; recurrence of term Memoirs in Apology and Dialogue, 65 sq., 67 sq., 145 ; The Memoirs, 65; Memoirs of the Apostles, 65 sq., 70 ; Memoirs of His Apostles, 66,70 ; his Memovrs, 66 ; Memoirs relate to our Lord Jesus Christ, 67,70; Memoirs com- posed by His Apostles, which are called Gospels, 67, 70; Memoirs which are read on the day called Sunday, 65 sq., 70 ; considered as, a written record of the Lord, 67 ; sacred books, 67 sq. ; of Apostolic authority, 68 ; coming from the Lord, 68 ; his description of the Sunday ser- vice, 65, 67 sq.; use of his writings by contemporaries and followers, 68 sg. ; by Tertullian, 68 sq. ; by Irenzeus, 69 sq. ; his intimate connexion with Ire- neus, 69 sq., 91; link with his pupil Tatian, 70 ; the Diatessa- von a key to the Memwirs, 71, 375 sq., 387 ; his identification of the Memoirs with the Gos- KORNER pels, 71; the Dialogue and the term ‘Gospel,’ 71 sq. ; one term used for outsiders, another for Christians, 72 ; this understood by Irenzus, Tertullian, and others, 72 ; Fourth Gospel cer- tainly included in Memoirs of, 72 sq.; recent investigations on, by Thoma, 73 sq.; Hilgenfeld, 75 ; Abbot, 75 sq. ; Drummond, 76 sq.; Sanday, 78 sq.; West- cott, 80 sq. ; consensus of opinion on, 81 ; his use of Fourth Gospel and belief in Apostolic origin, 81 sqg.; why Fourth Gospel not more fully quoted in, 81 sq.; reasons suggested, 82 sq. ; existing works of, frag- ments, 83 ; named by Tertullian, 90 sq.; his Syntagma against all Heresies, 91; and Valen- tinus, 92; and Marcion, 93; Bretschneider on, 182 sq., 185; Strauss on, 208 sq. ; Abbott on, 270; Martineau on, 288 sq. ; 236, 260 sq. ; 334, 348, 392 Justin the Gnostic, 364 Justinus Priscus, 53 Kaiser, 224 Keim, 5; quoted, 259 sq., 279; on ‘our age,’ 3; on Justin and Fourth Gospel, 82; and Strauss, 205; views onthe Fourth Gospel, 259 sq. ; on Basilides, 371; on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 390 ; 263, 320 sq., 409 Kern, 192 Kerner, 192 Khayyath, 119 Kiel, 331 sq. Kihn, 118 Klassen, 431 Kling, 282 Klopstock, 211 Klotz, ed. of Stromateis, quoted, 20, 21, 88, 100; Protreptikos, 22; 434 Kliipfel, 224 Korner, 178 INDEX. 49] KOSTLIN Kostlin, his works, 235 sq. ; and Baur’s theory, 241 Krabbe, 305 Krehl, 406 Kriiger-Velthusen, 249 Kurtz, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Lagppi-Manst, 118 Lachmann, 315, 358 Lacordaire, 14 Lactantius, 63 Ladd, quoted, 152, 156 Lagarde, De, on the Clementines, 83 sq. ; 315, 379; on the Dia- tessaron, 377, 386 La Motte Fouqué, 177 Lampe, 122, 428 Lancashire Independent College, 275, 284 sq. Lang, 264 Lange, 184, 335 Laodicea, council of, 121, 151. See Sagaris Lardner, 37 Lausanne, 335 Lazaro. See Monastery Leathes, 335 Le Bas, 389 Lechler, his works, and views on the Fourth Gospel, 321, 322 sq. ; 331; quoted, 359 Lectures : I., 3-50; II., 51-104 ; III., 105- 166 ; Ἐν: 167-220 ; W., 221-296; ie 297-354 ; VIL., 355-413 ; VIL. , 415-471 --- Division of, 4, 5 ; subject of, 3 Leipzig, 179 sq., 247, 322, 326, 331 Leontius of Byzantium, and Theo- dore of Mopsuestia, 118 Lessing, 211 Letronne, on date of Ῥο θαυ Β martyrdom, 389 sq. Levy, 440 Lewin, 492 Lewis, Sir G. Cornewall, opinion of, 7; quoted, 298, 352 Leyden, University of, 100 Lias, 335 Lichtenberger, 256, 301, 312 Liddon, on the Old Latin, 42; on the Peshito and Muratorian LOOFS Fragment, 43; on Ewald, 251; 335 Lightfoot, Bishop, 14 sq., 17, 45, 272, 283; quoted, 19, 29, 31, 34, 37, 41 sq., 365, 375 sgq., 377 sq., 381, 388, 391, 394 sq., 396 sq., 398 sq. ,400 sq., 402, 404 sq. ; on the Muratorian Frag- ment, 45; on the first gene- ration of the second century, 97; and Irenzus, 98 sq. ; and author of Supernatural Religion, 48 sq., 267 sq., 269 sq., 350; his intense devotion to 8. John and the Fourth Gospel, 163 sq. ; his last days, 164 sq. ; un- noticed by Bleek and Weiss, 342 ; his character as a witness, 337 sq.; views on the Fourth Gos- pel, 343 sq., 344 sq., 345 ; value of his testimony, 351 sq. ; onthe Diatessaron, 376 sq., 379; on the date of Polycarp’s martyr- dom, 391; on Papias, 394; on the Ignatian Epistles, 395- 402 ; convinced of their authen- ticity, 396 sq.; Zahn on, 396 sq. ; Hdinburgh Review on, 398 ; on Zahn, 398; Harnack on, 399 ; on the silence of Eusebius, 404 sq. ; 408, 452 Lipsius, 17, 19 ; quoted, 86, 90, 125 ; on Hippolytus, 364, 366 ; on Tatian, 376 sq.; on the Diatessaron, 380; on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 390; Lightfoot on, 396 Livy, 138 Lloyd, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Logos, the, doctrine of, 68, 80, 124, 183, 259 sq., 261 sq., 265, 431, 436 sq., 440 sq., 442, 452, 461 Loman, 5; admits reception of Fourth Gospel at close of second century, 46 Lombard, Peter, 152 Lommatzsch, on the Philosophu- mena, 363 London, 270 Loofs, 257 492 INDEX. LOTZE Lotze, 240 Lucius Verus, 58 Liicke, quoted, 115, 247, 310; 235, 300, 439; on the Fourth Gospel, 311 sq., 313; on the newer theories, 312 Ludwigsburg, 191, 201 Luke, 8., Gospel of, quoted by Cle- ment, 22; by Justin, 65, 71; Marcion and, 93 ; Gregory Na- zianzen on, 116; 421 Luthardt, 263; views on the Fourth Gospel, 326 sq.; quoted, 424 Luther, views on the Scriptures, quoted, 153 sq. ; he is to be the judge of what is and is not Scripture, 154; and the Re- formation, 178; quoted by Meyer, 321 Liitzelberger, and Strauss, 200 Lycaonia, 116 Lydia. See Melito Lyons, 33, 69, 345. See Church McCuintock and Strong, Cyclo- pedia, 196 Mackay, 217 Mackintosh, Sir James, 10, 284 ; quoted, 11 McLellan, 335 Mallock, W. H., quoted, 12 Manchester, 266, 275, 454 Manchot, 100, 264 Mangold, views on the Fourth Gospel, 262; and Bleek, 314 sq., 342 Mansel, 365 ; on Hippolytus, 366 Manuscripts, 5; Clermont, 35 ; Syriac, 35, 406 sq.; Chaldee, 118°; Uncial, 120 3sq., 138; Colbertine, 373 ; Arabic, 385 sq. Marburg, 920 Marcion, Tertullian and, 26 sq., 91 sq. ; Theophilus against, 27 ; a witness to Fourth Gospel, 83, 102 ; his date and position, 93; his gospel a mutilated S. Luke, 93; why he did not choose 8. John, 93; Tertullian’s testimony to, 93 sq. ; [renzeus and, 94; estimate of his testi- MELITO mony, 95; Strauss on, 124, 209, 236, 264; Martineau on, 288 Marcus, and Valentinus, 85 Marcus Aurelius, 58, 389. See Apolinaris ; Athenagoras ; Eu- sebius Marcus Pompeius. Martyr Marheineke, 179 Mark, 8., Gospel of, if quoted by Justin, 66; Gregory Nazian- zen on, 116; 223, 421 Marklin, and Strauss, 191 sq. Marquardt, on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 390 Marsh, 172 Martin, 359 Martineau, James, 76; views on the Fourth Gospel, 286 sq., 288 sq., 411; quoted, 267, 286-291; on Justin, Clementines, Valen- tinus, Ptolemzus and Hera- kleon, Marcion, Apolinaris, Theophilus, 288; on Apoea- lypse, 289 sq. ; on Paschal con- troversy and time, 290 sq.; on First Epistle, 291 ; summary of his views, 291 sq. ; compared with Delff, 293 sq. Martyrdom. See Ignatius ; Poly- carp Masson, on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 388 Massuet, 58 Matthew, S., Gospel of, quoted by Clement, 22; by Justin, 65 sq., 71, 82; 12, 64; Gregory Na- zianzen on, 116 ; 260,357, 421 sq. Matthew, the monk, Canon of, 121 Maulbronn, 192 Maurice, 315, 334 Maussul, 119 Max Miiller, on faculty, 469 sq. Mechitarist Fathers, 377, 381 sy. Melito of Sardis, his date, 34 ; literary activity, 34; list of his works, in Eusebius, Ana- statius of Sinai, Syriac frag- ments, 34 sq. ; some genuine, others doubtful, 35 ; Westcott’s opinion on the Apology of, 35 ; See Justin INDEX. 493 MEMOIRS contemporary of Apolinaris, 36 ; significance of his writings, 37; testimony to, by Poly- crates, 38, 41 ; by Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alex- andria, Anastatius, 38 sq. ; re- cognized as an authority in Carthage, Ephesus, Rome, Alexandria, Monasteries of Sinai, 38 sq.; probably the Ionian named by Clement, 38 ; his connexion with the East, 38 sq. ; his use of Justin, 69 ; 102; and Apology of Anto- ninus, 408 Memoirs. See Justin Martyr Mémré da-Yéya, 440 sq. Mendel. See Neander Mental achromatism. See Achro- matism Merx, and Armenian version of Eusebius, 407 sq. Metrophanes Critopulus, Canon of, 121 Meyer, on the Tiibingen school, 246 ; quoted, 324, 343; views on the Fourth Gospel, 319 ; on negative criticism, 320 sq. ; makes no use of Westcott and Godet, 342 sq. Michaelis, quoted, 171 sq. Mildert, Van, 131, 452 Mill, J. 8., 14 Miller, 367; his edition of the Philosophumena, 360 sq., 362 Milligan, 335 Miltiades, 91 Milton, 272 Minucius Felix, use of Justin, Modern criticism, See Criticism Mohler, 225 ; on date of martyr- dom of Ignatius, 400 Moller, on Hippolytus, 366 ; quoted, 375 Mommsen, quoted, 425, 432 sq. Monastery, of ὃ. George, 118 ; of S. Lazaro, 382 Monoimus, 364 Monophysites, work of Anastatius against, 35 Montanism, and the Paraclete, NEUCHATEL 33, 444; Apolinaris and, 36; Strauss on, 210 ; 186, 264. See Tertullian Montfaucon, 119 sq. Moore, Aubrey, quoted, 459 sq., 461 Mopsuestia. See Theodore Morcos, and the Diatessaron, 386 More, Hannah, on the Bible, 177 Mosinger, and history of the Diatessaron, 382 sq., 387 Moulton, 335 Miller, 300. See Max Miiller Mulhall, 446 Munich, 177 Muratorian Fragment, 42, 116 ; Liddon and Westcott on, 49 sq. ; its date, 43 sq. ; not settled, 44 sq. ; Lightfoot and Von Dollin- ger on, 45; question of date will not affect evidence of, 46; its testimony to use of Fourth Gospel in third century, 108 ; and traditional origin of Fourth Gospel, 438 sq. Murphy, 335 Murray, Dictionary of English Language, 463, 466 Mynas, his discoveries, 559 sq., 364 ; quoted, 360 Myth, Strauss on, 196 sq., 214 sq., 216, 423; Bunsen on, 196 ; earlier and later theories of, 216 sq. ; theory of, cannot live with Design, 218 NaasEnI, the, 372 sq., 429 Nablous, 53 Napoleon, 178, 445 Nathaniel, 411 Nazianzus. See Gregory Neander, on inspiration, 160 sq. ; 178, 197, 205, 229, 248, 300, 304 ; his change of name from Mendel, 305 ; special qualifica- tions, 805; on the Fourth Gospel, 305 sq., 307 ; and Liicke, 310 ; 315, 328 Negative criticism. See Criticism Nepos, 110 Neubauer, 427 Neuchatel, 328 494 INDEX. NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE Newcastle-on-Tyne, 454 Newman, Cardinal, on Tertullian, 22 sq. ; on inspiration, 158 sq. ; on discourses in 8. John, 425 New Testament. See Testament — — Commentary. See Ellicott Nicene council, 121 Nicephorus Callistus, Canon of, 121 Nicephorus, Stichometry of, 121, 362 Nicodemus, gospel of, 186 Nicolaitans, 19 Niebuhr, 195, 315 Nisibis, Persian school of, 121 Nitzsch, 300 Noack, attributes Fourth Gospel to Judas Iscariot, 412 Noris, Cardinal, on date of Poly- carp’s martyrdom, 388 Norton, 63, 334 Novalis, 177 Nyssa. See Gregory OckHAmM, William of, 152 Oehler, 17; ed. quoted, 25-28, 57, 63, 85, 87 sq., 91 sq., 94, 117, 122, 124 sq., 378 sq. See Tertullian Old Latin. See Versions Old Testament. See Testament Olshausen, 334 Oosterzee, Van, 335 , Ophites, the. See Naaseni Oratio ad Grecos. See Tatian Orelli, and Strauss, 199 Origen, pupil of Clement, 20; 69, 149, 331, 407; his witness to Heracleon, 88; his date, 108 ; his division of the sacred writings, and full testimony to 5. John and the Fourth Gospel, 109 ; commentaries on Fourth Gospel, 109 ; and Euse- bius, 112; and Hilary, 122; and the Philosophwmena, 360 sq., 900 sq. Otto, Von, 17; Corpus, quoted, 28, 29 sq., 31 sq., 33 sq., 41, 53 sq., 55 sq., 59 sq., 63, 65 sqg., 67, 69, 71 sq., Τῇ, 376; notes, 31, 32; on name Apolin- PEARSON aris, 34 ; on work by Apolinaris, 36 ; on Justin, 66, 71 Overbeck, 364 Oxford, University of, 12, 43, 152, 238, 250, 359, 445, 452 — House, 462 Paci, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Palestine, 20, 114, 187, 348, 426 — Exploration Fund, 358 Pantenus, 20 Papias, 97, 102, 343 ; Apolinaris, his successor, 36; his date, and testimony to the disciples of the Lord, 96 ; probably known to Irenzus, 96 ; his Hxposition, 96 ; its title, 145; his use of the First Epistle of S. John, 96 ; witness to use of Fourth Gospel, 97; testimony of Irenzeus to, 97 ; and Basilides, 100 ; in Eusebius, ‘the living and abiding voice,’ 145; Bret- schneider on, 185 ; Strauss on, 206 sq.; MSS. of, at Canter- bury and Worcester, 357 ; newly discovered fragments of, sup- port Johannine authorship, 394 Papirius, 41 Paraclete, the, 33, 124, 265, 439, 442, 444 Paris, 359, 361, 373 — University, 152, 256 Parsons, quoted, 176 Pascal, quoted, 2 Paschal Chronicle. See Apolinaris Paschal controversy, 33 ; Strauss on, 212 ; Martineau on, 290 Paschal Cycle, 379 Pastor of Hermas, Von Déllinger on, 45 Patmos, 21, 394 Patriarchs, the Twelve, 185 Pattison, M., Catena Aurea, and Essays, 12 sq. Paulus, 178, 204, 318; view of Fourth Gospel, 247 Pearson, 58; on date of Poly- carp’s martyrdom, 388; on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 INDEX. 495 PERATICI Peratici, the, 364 ; Peratx, 373 Peripatetic. See Justin Martyr Peshito. See Versions Peter, gospel of, 40, 66 Petermann, 396 Petersburg, 8., 406 Pfleiderer, 287 φησίν, meaning of, 368 sq., 370 sy., 372 Philaster of Brescia, his date, 122; a historian of heresies, 122 ; probably borrowed from Hippolytus, 122 ; quoted, 125 Philip of Hierapolis, 41 Philip of Side, 594 Philippi, 402 Phillips, 380 Philo, 68, 410 ; and Plato, 430 sq., 441 ; and the Logos, 431 ; and S. John, 456, 457 Philosophumena, the, Strauss on, 209; Miller’s edition of, 360 sq., 362; importance of the discovery of, 364 ; views on, 365 sq.; independent of views on Fourth Gospel, 367 Philostratus, 360 Photius of Constantinople, 39 ; reference to Apolinaris by, 36 ; quoted, 36 sq. ; Canon of, 121 Phrygia, 395. See Apolinaris Pilate, Acts of, 185 Pitra, Cardinal, 35, 359, 385 sq. Pius, Antoninus, 85 Plato, 60, 300, 338, 356; and Philo, 451, 441 Platonist. See Justin Martyr Plummer, 335, 363, 402, 425 Plumptre, Dean, 135, 452 Poitiers. See Hilary Polybius, 139 Polycarp of Smyrna, 41, 48, 97, 102 ; his martyrdom and pro- bable date, 95; modern dis- coveries in relation to, 387- 992 ; older view, 388 ; modern view, 389 sq. ; his personal link with S. John, 95 sq. ; his use of First Epistle of 8. John, 96; his writings, 96; testimony of Trenzeus to, 98 sq., 391; Bret- schneider on, 185; Strauss on, READING 211 ; 143, 269, 338, 343; his Epistle, if genuine, 402 sq. ; his Epistle, and Ignatian Epistles, 402 sq., 404 Polycrates of Ephesus, testimony to Melito by, 38 ; his date, 41 ; letter to Victor of Rome, 41 ; his position and influence, 41 sq. ; accepts the Fourth Gospel as work of S. John, 42; de- scribes S. John, 42 ; 102, 343 Ponticus. See Serapion Pope, quoted, 13 Porphyry, 127 Portus, 263 Positive criticism. See Criticism Postillz, 151 Pothinus, 18 Potter, 86 Praxeas, Tertullian’s reply to, 27 re 6; anti-theological, sq. Pressensé, De, 335; on Ignatian Epistles, 399 ; 432 Prevorst, clairvoyante of, 192 Priestley, on Evanson, 176 Probabilia, the. See Bretschneider Proculus, 91 Protreptikos. See Clement of Alexandria Psalms, the, quoted by Justin, 66 ; by Polycarp, 143 Ptolemzus, and Valentinus, 85 Ξ his date and position, 87 Cr i testimony to, by Irenzus, Kpiphanius 87 sq. ; by Clement and Origen, 88 sq. ; by Hippo- lytus, 89 ; his Epistle to Flora, preserved by Epiphanius, 87 sq. ; edited by Hilgenfeld, 88 ; his system implies Fourth Gospel, 90; and Irenzeus, 92; Strauss on, 210 ; Martineau on, 288 Piinjer, 303 Pythagorean. See Justin Martyr QUADRATUS, 388 sq. Ramsay, 358 Randell, 389 Ranke, ed. of Codex Fuldensis, 379 Reading Church Congress, 80 496 INDEX. RECOGNITIONS Recognitions, the doubtful, 185 Reformation, the, 151; altered view of Scriptures at, 153 sq. ; Luther and, 178 Renan, 5, 14 ; admits reception of Fourth Gospel at close of se- cond century, 46; on Hippo- lytus and Basilides, 101; and Strauss, 195, 204 sq., 212, 219 ; 251; quoted, 8, 9, 10, 29; views on the Fourth Gospel, 255 sq., 411 sq.; on Basilides, 367, 371 sq.; on date of Poly- carp’s martyrdom, 390; 398, 409 ; on Fourth Gospel and Synoptics, 421 sq., 423 sq. ; on Ephesus, 427, 429, 432, 433 sq. Resch, 143 Rettig, 247 Reuss, quoted, 109, 140, 254, 255; views on the Fourth Gospel, 253 Review, North American, 11; Fortwightly, 12, 13; in Guar- dian, 12; The Academy, 45 ; Atheneum, 285; Nineteenth Century, 76, 285, 446; Church Quarterly, 339 ; Quarterly, 340 ; Contemporary, 97, 330, 344 sq., 377, 391, 404, 460 ; Edinburgh, 398 Réville, 264, 431 Reynolds, 335 Rhossus. See Church Rich, the, collection. See British Musewm Richardson, 391, 400 Riehm, 333 Riggenbach, 335 Ritschl, 5; his works, 235; and Baur’s theory, 242 sq.; on the Philosophumena, 364 Roberts. See More Roberts, Alexander, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400; 427 Romanticists, the, 177 Rome, 19, 33, 38, 43, 48, 61, 86, 108 ; and Tertullian, 23, 69 sq. ; and Irenzus, 69; and Justin, 83; and Valentinus, 85; and Marcion, 98 ; and Hippolytus, SCHENKEL 111; 186 sq., 358 sq., 374, 386 sq., 395, 404, 430, 445 sq. See Church ; Victor Ronsch, 17 Roscelin, 152 Rosenmiiller, 385 Rossi, De, 359 ὺ Routh, 41, 363; on date of mar- tyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Rowan, quoted, 300 sq. Riickert, 383 Rufinus of Aquileia, his date and relation to the Canon, 122; and Athanasius, 122 Ruinart, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 SABATIER, views on the Fourth Gospel, 256 Sagaris of Laodicea, 41 Salamia. See Elias Salamis, 117 Salmon, 17; quoted, 37, 44, 151, 362; on the Alogi, 127; on Supernatural Religion, 269 sq. ; character as a witness, 339 sq. ; views on the Fourth Gospel, 346 sq., 348; 392 Salzburg, University of, 382 Samaria, 395, 412 Sand, Ludwig, 307 Sanday, 17; quoted, 29, 41, 338; on Justin and Fourth Gospel, 78 sq., 80; his opinion of Abbot and Drummond, 79; and Abbott, 80; on Lightfoot, 337 sq. ; character as a witness, 341 ; views on the Fourth Gos- pel, 348 sq., 349 sq., 350; 268, 358 Sardis. See Church ; Melito Saxony, 179 Schaff, on Neander, 304, 335 ; 365, 402 Schaft-Herzog, Encyclopedia, 275, 285 Schanz, 336 Schebest. See Strauss Schelling, 177; and Bretschneider, 190 ; and Strauss, 192 sq. ; and Baur, 240 Schenkel, views on Fourth Gos- INDEX. 497 SCHILLER pel, 248 sq.; and De Wette, 308 ; 258, 260 Schiller, on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 390 Schlegel, 177 Schleiermacher, 178, 179 ; Strauss and, 189, 192 sq., 205, 211 sq. ; Bretschneider and, 190, 194 ; influence of Schelling and, 193 ; Baur and, 224, 252; his posi- tion and character, 299, 300 sq. ; his writings, 301 sq. ; treatment of New Testament, 302; and of the Apocalypse, 302; special views on the Fourth Gospel, 302 sq., 304 ; and the Gospels, 302, 304; and De Wette, 307 ; and Liicke, 310 sq. ; and Bleek, 313 Schmid, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Schmidt, 178 Schmieden, 223 Schneidewin. See Duncker Scholten, 5; on Apolinaris, 37 ; admits reception of Fourth Gospel at close of second cen- tury, 46; on date of Basilides, 100; his position, 263; his views on the Fourth Gospel, 264 sq., 266; and Martineau, 287, 291 ; on Hippolytus, 366 ; 335, 349, 409 Schulze, 184 Schiirer, 17; on Davidson, 283 ; and the Fourth Gospel, 283 ; quoted, 263, 278, 382, 394, 399 Schwarz, 177, 195 Schwegler, 17; his works, 235; 236, 243, 373 sq. Schweizer, Strauss on, 212 ; views on Fourth Gospel, 249 Science, ‘ laws or principles’ of, 454 sq. ; not ultimate, 455 sq. ; and Fourth Gospel, 456 sq. ; no plea for its temporary ex- pression, 458 sq.; leaders of, dumb before origin of being, 459 sq. ; ‘origination ’ and, 460 sq. ; modern ethical, 461 sq. Scriptures, 24, 41, 115, 116 sq., 118, 120, 123, 143 sq. ; tradition and interpretation of, 131 ; and SPENCER the Church, 129 sq., 131 sq. 134."sq., 197. 141, 157 ; me- chanical verbal inspiration of, 136, 157 ; not always accepted by Anglican communion, 157 sq. ; or Roman communion, 158 sq. ; or English Protestants, 159 sq.; or foreign Protestants, 160 sq.; New Testament not regarded as, 142; Moses and the Prophets regarded as, 141 ; first quoted by heretics, 146 sq. ; tradition one with, 148 sq. ; de- pend upon the Church, 149; Augustine on authority of, 150 ; Jerome on authority of, 150; how received in Dark Ages and until Reformation, 151 sq. ; altered view of, at Reformation, 152 sq.; Bodenstein’s views on, 153 ; Luther’s views on, 153 sq. ; Calvin’s views on, 154 sq.; Zwingli’s views on, 155; and Council of Trent, 155; infal- libility of, substituted for infal- libility of the Church, 155 sq.; this infallibility attacked by modern criticism, 157 Scrivener, 358 Serapion of Antioch, his date, 39; his letter to Caricus and Ponti- cus, and testimony to Apoli- naris, 39; his position and attention to the Canon, 40; testimony of Socrates to, 40 Sermon, on the Mount, 64, 422. See Lecture Shaftesbury, 14 Sibylline Oracles, 185 Side. See Philip Simon Magus, 364 Simpson, on Evanson, 176 Smith, Payne, Dean, 376 sq. Smith, R. T., on date of martyr- dom of Ignatius, 400: Smyrna, 432. See Polycarp Socrates, Hist. Hccles. quoted, 40; testimony to Apolinaris, Trenzeus, Clement, Serapion, 40 Somerset, 176 Soulier, 431 Spencer, Herbert, quoted, 459, 463 i Kk 498 INDEX, SPIEGEL Spiegel, 264 Stanley, Dean, quoted, 13 86. ; 196, 515 Stap, his works, and view of the Fourth Gospel, 244 sq. Steitz, 35, 227 Steudel, and Strauss, 199 sq. Stoic. See Justin Martyr Storr, 193, 224 Strack and Zockler, 326 Strasburg, 253, 260, 262 Strauss, 5, 8; on Apolinaris, 37; quoted, 179, 198, 200- 219, 231, 247 sq., 252, 304; admits reception of Fourth Gospel at close of second century, 46; on the Clemen- tines, 84; and Bretschneider, 189 ; and Schleiermacher, 189, _ 192 sq., 211 ; home life, 191 ; at Blaubeuren and Tiibingen, 191 sq., 193; at Maulbronn and erlin and return to Tubingen, 193; his contemporaries and surroundings, 192 sq. ; calm of 1834, succeeded by storm of 1835, 194; the Leben Jesu, 194-200 ; the replies, 194 sq. ; ‘nothing new’ in it, 195; critical methods, 195 sq. ; and the ‘mythical theory,’ 195 sq., 214 sq., 216 sq., 218 sq., 423 sq.;and Steudel, 193sq. ; and the Gospels, 195 sq., 196,-213 sq., 215 sq. ; bound by Hegelian Left, 196; and Ullmann, 197 ; and Baur, 192 sq., 197 sq., 200, 203, 205, 212-sq., 214 sq., 217 sq., 219 sq., 223 sq., 225, 228, 230 sq., 232, 234; his uncer- tainty, 197 sq.; life between third and fourth editions, 198 sq. ; nomination to Ziirich, and rejection, 199; fourth edition of Leben Jesu, and Christliche Glaubenslehre, 200 ; and Agnes Schebest, 201; describes his own fate, 201; in parliament, and political views, 201 sq. ; no theological work, 1840-64, other literary work of, 201 sq. ; the new Leben Jesu, 202-219 ; for SYRIAC whom written, 203 sq.; and Renan, 204, 219; reviews earlier Lives of Jesus, 204 sq. ; on Papias and Eusebius, 206 sq., 210; on the Ignatian Kpistles, 208 ; on Justin Martyr, 208 sq. ; on the Clementines, 208, 210; on the Philosophu- mena, 209 ; on Basilides, Valen- tinus, Marcion, Tertullian, 209 ; on Irenzeus, 209 sq., 211; on Theophilus, Tatian, and Athena- goras, 210; on the Alogi, 211; on the Apocalypse, 211 sq.; summary of views on Fourth Gospel, 212 sq.; his critique that of Tiibingen school, 213 ; conscious and uncouscious fic- tion, 214; the Messianic idea, 215 sq.; his disappointment, 217 ; on Ewald, 217 ; 236, 246 sq., 267, 284, 300, 308 sq., 318 sq., 371, 409; on the Clemen- tines, 375 ; on criticism, 411 Stromateis. See Clement of Alex- andria Stuttgart, 225 Sukrean. See Arsenius Supernatural Religion, author οὗ, 14 sq. ; review in The Academy by, 45; admits reception of Fourth Gospel at close of second century, 46; on the Gospels, 48 sq. ; his answer no answer, 49; on the Clemen- tines, 84; his views on the Fourth Gospel, 267 sq. ; criti- cism of Zahn and Salmon on, 269 sq.; on anonymity, 350; and the Diatessaron, 376 ; 375, 404 Supplicatio pro Christianis. See Athenagoras Swabia, 191, 193 Sweden, 359 Swete, 119 Switzerland, 84 Sychem, 53 Sylburg, 86 Syria, 86 Syriac, fragments contain writ- ings of Melito, 35 ; version of INDEX. 499 TACITUS Eusebius, 35; 108, 408. See Cureton Tacitus, 138 sq. Tanner, 151, 148 Tarphon, Rabbi. Martyr Tatian, 57, 82, 102; as an apolo- gist, 63 ; his Discowrse to Greeks, 63 ; a compiler of four Gospels —the Diatessaron—63, 70 sq. ; use of Justin, 69; the Diates- saron a key to Memoirs of Justin, 71, 387 ; Bretschneider on, 185; Strauss on, 210; San- day on, 348; modern discovery of Diatessaron, 375-387 ; Arme- nian version of, 376 sq. ; refer- ence to, by Eusebius, 377, 379 ; and Epiphanius, 378 sq.; not known in Greek and Latin churches, but in Syrian, 379 ; probably written in Syriac, 379 sq. ; older than the Curetonian, 384; Theodoret on, 380 sq. ; commentary on, in Ephraim’s works, 382 sq. ; and Victor of Capua, 379, 383; 292 Tayler, views on the Fourth Gospel, 266 sq. ; Martineau and, 285 sq., 291 Taylor, Bayard, quoted, 457 Teller, 318 Tendency, Baur on, 197, 422 sq. Tertullian, 68, 102; his date, position, and influence, 22; Cyprian on, 22; Jerome on, 22, 23; Cardinal Newman on, 22 sq. ; Eusebius on, 23; his train- ing, 23; native of Carthage, 23; connexion with Rome, 23, 69 sq.; his Montanism, 23 sq.; Tertullianists, 24 ; he quotes fromthe Fourth Gospel, 24; passages from his works, 24 sq.; De Cultu Feminarum, quoted, 23; De Prescriptione Hereticorum, quoted, 25 sq., 85, 92; Adversus Marcion, quoted, 26 sq., 92, 94; Adver- sus Praxean, quoted, 27; Adver- sus Valentinianos, quoted, 91 ; See Justin THEODORE De Resurrectione Carnis, quoted, 92; De Carne Christi, quoted, 94; use of instrumentum = tes- tamentum, 26, 92; Strauss on, 209 ; ‘ Evangelical Instrument,’ 26 ; his testimony to 8. John, 25 sq., 48; his testimony to Melito, 38; his use of the Old Latin, 42 sq.; use of the Gos- pels, 65, 68 sq.; his Apology, and To the Gentiles, 63; his references to the Gospels and Justin, 68 sq., 70; identity of term Gospels with Memoirs of, Justin, 72 sq.; his unity with Justin, Lrenzeus, and others, 90 sq.; his treatment of, and posi- tion with regard to, the Valenti- nians, 91; contrasts Valentinus and Marcion, 91 sq.; and Hera- cleon, 92 ; and Marcion, 93 sq.; probably follows Irenzeus in his treatment of Marcion and the Valentinians, 94; 139; Strauss on, 209 Testament, New, 4, 42, 44, 62, 63 sq.; demand for quotations in second century from, unreason- able, 64 sq.; 107 sq., 109, 112 8)... E14 βὴτ 116} 50. 119 "s0., 128, 133 sq., 135, 188 ; no idea of writings for whole Church in, 140 sq. ; terms used do not include idea of writing, 140; oral traditions and, 141 ; term ‘Scripture’ in, 142; not re- garded as ‘ Scripture,’ 142 sq. ; little formal quotation from, in post-Apostolic age, 142 sq. ; its Canonicity could not be until Catholicity of Church was, 146; the child of the Church, 148 ; 195, 206, 209, 211, 231, 245 sq., 279, 282 sq., 285, 301 sq., 307, 319, 325, 333, 339, 342, 418, 422, 440, 442 — Old, 38, 62, 116, 119, 136, 138, 142, 143 sq., 195 sq., 215, 261, 265, 307, 319, 332 sq., 380, 441 Testamentum. See Tertullian Thenius, 335 Theodore of Mopsuestia, his date 500 | INDEX. THEODORET and position, 117 sq. ; opinion of his opponent Leontius, 118 ; his treatment of the Canon, and reception of Fourth Gospel, 118 sq. Theodoret, his reference to Apoli- naris, 36, 59; on the Diates- saron, 380 sq. Theodorus Balsamon of Antioch, list of, 121 Theodotus, 85, 92 Theologi, the, 427, 431 sq. Theophilus of Antioch, 102; his date, 27 ; three books T'0 Autoly- cus, 27sq. ; its date, 29 ; quoted, 29 sq., 32 sq., 416; compared with quotations from 8. John, 30 sq.; Against the Heresy of Hermogenes, 27; other works, 27 sq. ; use of Rev. of 8. John, 27 ; testimony of Eusebius to, 28; testimony of Jerome to, 28 ; his Commentary on the Gos- pels doubtful, 28 ; opinions of Zahn and Harnack on, 28 sq. ; his view of testimony, 29; his undoubted reference to Fourth Gospel, 29 sq., 31 sq., 405 ; and to S. John by name, 32; his use of Justin, 69; Strauss on, 210 sq. ; Bretschneider on, 185 sq. ; Martineau on, 288 Thiersch, 354 Thirlwall, Bishop, 301 Tholuck, Strauss on, 207 ; reply to De Wette, 308 ; views on the Fourth Gospel, 318 sq. ; 332 homa, on Justin and ὃ. John, 73 sq.; views on the Fourth Gospel, 261 sq., 263 Thomas, 8., 30 — Aquinas, 12, 152 Thrace. See Mlius Publius Thucydides, 138 sq., 338, 425 Tigris, 118 Tillemont, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Tischendorf, 335, 358 Titus Flavius Clemens. SeeClement Tobler, his position and view of the Fourth Gospel, 249 sq. ; Martineau on, 287 VALENTINUS Toynbee Hall, 462 Trajan, 100, 259, 279, 327 Translation, key to the Fourth Gospel, 426, 442 sq., 447, 453; a problem for all time, 444 sq.; relation of Universities to pro- blem of, 447 sq. ; its difficulties, 450 sq. ; only leaders can face it, 448, 450 sq., 452 sq. Tregelles, 358, 363, 438 Trendelenburg, 240 Trent, council of, 121; its date, and action regarding the Scrip- tures, 155, 158 Truth, 15 ; qualifications required to judge of, 7, 8; everything sacrificed to, 16. Of Truth. See Bacon Trypho. See Justin Martyr Tiibingen, 126, 236, 322 — School, New, 211, 213, 219, 223, 234 sq., 238, 245 sq., 248, 250, 257 sq., 327, 364, 371, 374 sq., 398 — University, 192 sq., 194, 224, 234, 336 Turrianus, 373 Tyndall, quoted, 459 Tyne, 162 Tyrannus, school of, 428 UEBERWEG, on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Uhlhorn, 335 ; on Hippolytus, 366; on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 390 Ullmann, 197 Ulrici, 240 Ulster, 275 Uncial manuscripts. See Manu- scripts Usher, on date of Polycarp’s mar- tyrdom, 388 ; 398; on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 VALENTINUS, 245; school of, 19 ; witness of, to Fourth Gospel, 83, 102 ; his date, training, posi- tion, and disciples, 85 sq., 87; his separation from the Church, and value as a witness, 85 sq. ; followers form two schools, 86 ; INDEX. 501 VALESIUS in Kast, Hacerpta Theodoti and Doctrina Orientalis, 86; in West, Ptolemzus and Hera- cleon, 87 sq.; their use of Fourth Gospel, 88 sq.; and Hippolytus, 89 ; his system im- plies Fourth Gospel, and so does the school, 90 ; testimony of Irenzus, Justin and Tertul- lian to, 90 sq., 92; conclusion as to his use of Fourth Gospel, 92 sq. ; Bretschneider on, 185 sq. ; Strauss on, 209 sq. ; Martineau on, 288 Valesius, 388 Vane, Sir Henry, 10 sq. Vater, 195, 307 Vatican, 158, 374, 385 sq., 386 Venables, 28 Venice, 377, 382, 407 Versions, Old Latin and Peshito Syriac, 42 ; Liddon and West- cott on, 42 sq. ; their dates, 42 sq., 108, 198 ; force of evidence if early date established, 44 ; verdict to be awaited, 45 ; ques- tion of date will not affect evi- dence, 46; their testimony to use of Fourth Gospel, 108 ; not all New Testament included, but certainly Fourth Gospel, 108 ; of the Syrian Church, 120 sq. 2 XX, 145.5: Syriac, of EKusebius, 406 sq. ; Armenian, of Eusebius, 407 sq. Victor of Capua, 379, 583 Victor of Rome, 41 Victoria, Queen, 445 Vienne, 345 Villemain, his search expedition, 359 sq. Vischer, 289 Volkmar, admits reception of Fourth Gospel at close of second century, 46; rejects evidence of Epiphanius about Tatian, 57; considers date of Justin does not affect result, 57, 59; on Messianic idea, 216; his works, 256 ; on Baur’s theory, 240 sq. ; Hilgenfeld on, 242; 210, 316, 320 sq., 335, WESTCOTT 349 ; on Hippolytus, 364, 366 ; on date of Polycarp’s martyr- dom, 390; on date of martyr- dom of Ignatius, 400; on Cle- mentines, 374 ; 409 Vossian Letters. See Ignatian Epistles Wace, 235; on the Diatessaron, 382 sq. Waddington, on date of Justin’s First Apology, 58; on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 389 54., 391 Ward, Humphry, 454 — Mrs. Humphry, Robert Els- mere, quoted, 6, 170; New Reformation, quoted, 76 Warfield, 359 Warington, quoted, 144 Wear, 164 Weimar, 308 Weinsberg, 192 Weismann, 454 Weiss, 319; his works, 323 sq. ; views on the Fourth Gospel, 324 sq., 326; notices no English writer, 342 sq. Weisse, 5, 205, 212, 227, 258°; his position, 247 ; views on the Fourth Gospel, 248 Weizsicker, 17, 227, 287, 294; views on the Fourth Gospel, 257 Welcker, 216 sq. Wendover, Mr. See Ward, Mrs. Wendt, views on Fourth Gospel, 257 sq. Westcott, Dr.,1 17 ; quoted, 32, 34, 109, 143, 441 ; on Melito, 35; on the Old Latin, 42; on the Peshito and Muratorian Fragment, 43 sq.; on Justin and Fourth Gospel, 80 sq.; on inspiration, 158 — Bishop, on Ewald, 251; 268, 037 ; on the Fourth Gospel, 345 sq., character as a witness, 338 1 Consecrated Bishop of Durham, May 1, 1890, and after that date re- ferred to as Bishop Westcott. 502 WESTMINSTER sq. ; unnoticed by Bleek, Weiss, and Meyer, 342 sq. ; 358, 452 Westminster, 159 Westphalia, 139 Wette, De, 178, 194, 195, 197 sq., 300; on Tiibingen school, 245 sq. ; his life and liberal views, 307 sq. ; on the Fourth Gospel, 308 sq., 310 ; Schenkel on, 308 ; on Liicke, 310 sq. ; on Bleek, 314 Whately, 14 White, 358 Wieseler, on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 590; on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 ᾿ Wiesinger, 334 Wilberforce, 177 Williams, Monier, 446 Winer, 178 Witness, friendly and adverse, 13 sq.; value of a, 350 sq.; re- quisites in a, 351 sq. Wolf, Bibliothece Hebree, quoted, 60 ; 195 Wood, 358, 989, 432 sq. Worcester, Cathedral Library at. See Papias Word of the Lord, 143 sq., 145, 154 Wordsworth, Bishop, 334, 358 ; quoted, 143, 362, 580; on date of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 390 Wright, on the Diatessaron, 380, INDEX. ZWINGLI 407; on Syriac version of Eusebius, 406 sq., 408 Wirtemberg, 195, 201, 223 XENOPHON, 138 sq. YatxE College, 335 York, school of, 152 Yorkshire, 176 ZAHN, 17, 359; on Theophilus’ Commentary, 28 sq. ; quoted, 31, 60, 72, 87, 93, 145, 395, 402; on the Alogi, 123 sq. ; on Supernatural Religion, 269 ; his position, 330 sq. ; views on the Fourth Gospel, 351 sq.; on the Diatessaron, 379, 380, 383 sq., 385 sq. ; on date of Poly- carp’s martyrdom, 390; on Lightfoot, 396 sq. ; Lightfoot on, 398 ; on date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 400 Zeller, 75; on the Alogi, 126; and Strauss, 193, 202, 207, 219 ; his works, 236 sq.; 227 sq., 243, 318 ; on the Clementines, 374 sq. Zimmermann, 190 Zockler. See Strack Zonaras, Canon of, 121 Ziirich, 199, 218, 236, 249, 287, 917 Zwingli, views on the Scriptures, quoted, 155 PRINTED BY BPOTTISWOODE AND ©O., LONDON NEW-STREET SQUARE RECHNT WORKS. THE SPEAKER’S COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY BIBLE, Explanatory and Critical. With a Revision of the Translation. By CLERGY OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. Medium 8vo. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 6 vols. £6. 15s. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 4 vols. £4. 14s. THE APOCRYPHA: an Explanatory and Critical Commentary. By CLERGY OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. 2 vols. Medium 8vo. 50s. Uniform with the ‘ Speaker's Commentary.’ THE COLLECTS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, to- gether with certain Psalms and Hymns appropriate to the Principal Festivals, rendered into Latin Verse. By C. WorDsworRtH, D.D., Bishop of St. Andrews. Crown 8vo. gilt edges, 5s. THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CREED: being a Discussion of the grounds upon which the Articles of the Apostles’ Creed may be held by earnest and thoughtful minds in the Nineteenth Century. By HARVEY Goopwin, D.D., Lord Bishop of Carlisle. 8vo. 14s. LUX MUNDI: a Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incar- nation. By VARIOUS WRITERS. Hdited by Rev. CHARLES GORE, M.A., Principal of Pusey House, and Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. 8vo. 14s. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS: Canon H. 8. HOLLAND, M.A. Rev. and Hon. ARTHUR LYTTELTON, M.A. Rev. AUBREY MOORE, M.A. Rev. W. Lock, M.A. Rev. J. R. ILLINGWORTH, M.A. Canon F. PAGET, D.D. Rev. E. 5. TALBOT, D.D. Rev, W. J. R. CAMPION, M.A. Rev. R. C. MOBERLY, M.A. Rev. R. Τὶ, OTtTiey, M.A. THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM: a History of Church Opinion from the time of the Apostles. Especially with reference to Heretical and Lay Administration. By Rev. WARWICK ELWIN, M.A. §8vo. 12s. THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. By Gzoraz SALMON, D.D., Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. . 8vo. 12s. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THRE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, By GerorGE Saumon, D.D. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. 9s. THREE COUNSELS OF THE DIVINE MASTER FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. By Dean GouxBury, D.D. Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. OCCASIONAL THOUGHTS OF AN ASTRONOMER ON NATURE ce REVELATION. By Rev. CHARLES PRITCHARD, D.D. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. [ Continued. a Recent Works. THE WITNESS OF THE PSALMS TO CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. By W. ALEXANDER, D.D., Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe. Third Edition, Revised. Crown 8vo. 9s. A CHURCH DICTIONARY: a Practical Manual of Reference for Clergymen and Laymen. By the late Dean Hook. Fourteenth Edition, thoroughly Revised. One Volume. (790pp.) Medium 8vo. 21s. LIVES OF TWELVE GOOD MEN. By the late Dean BuRGON, B.D. Fifth Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 24s. BUDDHISM: its Connection with Brahmanism and Hinduism, and its Contrast with Christianity. By Sir MONIER WILLIAMS. Second Edition. With Index and Illustrations. 8vo. 218. THE STUDENT’S EDITION OF THE ‘SPEAKER’S COM- MENTARY OF THE BIBLE.’ Edited by JoHN M. FULLER, M.A., Professor of Ecclesiastical History, King’s College, London. 6 vols. Crown 8vo. 7s. θά. each. I. GENESIS—DEUTERONOMY. IV. ISAIAH—MALACHI. II. JosHuA—ESTHER. V. GoSPELS—ACTS. 111. JoB—ECCLESIASTES. VI. EPISTLES—REVELATION. DR. WM. SMITH’S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History. Illustrations. 3 vols. Medium 8vo. £5. 5s. DR. -WM. SMITH’S DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES. The History, Institutions, and Antiquities of the Christian Church. Illustrations. 2 vols. Medium 8vo. £3. 13s. 6d. DR. WM. SMITH’S DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIO- GRAPHY, LITERATURE, SECTS, AND DOCTRINES. 4 vols. Medium Svo. £6. 16s. 6d. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. With Notes and aaa are By B. F. Westcott, D.D., Bishop of Durham. Medium 8vo. 10s. 6d. ACADEMICAL ADDRESSES. By Joun Ienatius DOLLINGER, D.D., late Professor of Kcclesiastical History in the University of Munich. Translated, with the sanction of the Author, by MARGARET WARRE. With Portrait. 8vo. [In October. CONTENTS : Significance of Dynasties in History. The Influence of Greek upon the House of Wittelsbach. Western World in the Middle Ages. The Eastern Question in its Beginnings. Jews in Europe. Political and Intellectual Development Relation of the City of Rome to Ger- many in the Middle Ages. Dante, as a Prophet. of Spain The Struggle of Germany and the | Policy of Τρ ΧΥν. Papacy under Ludwig the Bavarian. The most Influential Woman in French Aventin and his Times. History. JOHN MURRAY, Albemarle Street. Princeton Theological Seminary -Speer Libra LAAN 1 1012 0114 Ἴ | bei ν ¥ ah ; ‘ or rer . ᾿ : ἐς ἣ +) , ἢ ἡ" i Pin Ae Ἵ ‘pes νν banat Ν ΠΝ wey LAG ἡ xt ᾿ Ὧν ΠΡ A ai) a if 7 in | i μον ὯΝ iy ᾿ ἤν nia if if i. ᾿ς nf if ᾿ Vy BLU f ἱ A | , 4) > ᾿ ens Y i ¥ ᾿ δὰ ; Ὦ hae i ἍΝ Νὴ ΓΝ J fi ry | 4 Me ae: en iy Pale ae i a) ' ! ἡ oe si Ἢ Me AVY ἤν ἴ due iN wy ; na Ὶ δὴν Lh ΤῊΝ i ‘ ᾿ wth ὯΝ yt i 4 Hh ") i ἯΙ ΓΝ ite Mi VT ear er ἢ napa Sp the me Hh’ Kt i ind ; i rly Caries Le HOY Tk td ὃ ὙΠ νὰ nee ΩΝ υ ny: ἡ ͵ ᾿ ᾿ Νὰ i PAA ETE be ie i iM hy Rent Ἢ ᾿ ἫΝ οι τὸς ἐς > - Uo ee Seis onal cee 1 | | Ve Ae “ae ARNO os en Sa Siem τσοὶ ~