Project Gutenberg's A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays, by Walter R. Cassels

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net


Title: A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays

Author: Walter R. Cassels

Release Date: September 24, 2004 [EBook #13433]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS ***




Produced by David Ross <davidross@despammed.com> and Freethought
Archives <freethought@despammed.com>






PRODUCTION NOTES:
A Reply to Dr Lightfoot's Essays
by Walter R. Cassels (4-Sep-1826 to 10-Jun-1907)
Originally published anonymously in 1889.
Transcribed by the Freethought Archives <freethought@despammed.com>





A REPLY TO DR LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS

BY THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"




LONDON
1889





INTRODUCTION.


I sincerely rejoice that Dr. Lightfoot has recovered from his recent
illness. Of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his
republication of the Essays on _Supernatural Religion_ affords decided
evidence, and I hope that no refutation of this inference at least may
be possible, however little we may agree on other points.

It was natural that Dr. Lightfoot should not be averse to preserving
the more serious part of these Essays, the preparation of which cost
him so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion
of his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and
attractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to
many. I cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and
of temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence
and conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume,
which is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt
to discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious
argument. A material part of the volume is composed of such matter.
I cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed.
Personally I am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction,
and it is with heretical amusement that I contemplate the large part
which purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play
in stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. In the first
moment of irritation, I can well understand that hard hitting, even
below the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated
theologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should
not only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection,
is at once an error and a compliment for which I was not prepared.
Anything to prevent readers from taking up _Supernatural Religion_:
any misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements.
Elaborate literary abuse against the author is substituted for the
effective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting.
In the later editions of my work, I removed everything that seemed
likely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor
questions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. Whilst
Dr. Lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes
his original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of
his Essays by the reiterated condemnation of passages which had so
little to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the
complete edition of Supernatural Religion. Could there be more
palpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of
his objections? It is not too much to say that in no part of these
Essays has Dr. Lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental
proposition of _Supernatural Religion_. He has elaborately criticised
notes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details:
but as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and
the reality of alleged Divine Revelation, his volume is an absolute
blank. Bampton Lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have
frankly admitted that the Christian argument must be reconstructed.
They have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable,
crumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose
the feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of Dr Lightfoot's
Essays. The substantial correctness of the main conclusions of
_Supernatural Religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the
reply to its reasoning. The eagerness with which Dr. Lightfoot and
others rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the
more important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable.
Those who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to
be solved really is will not get any help from his volume.

The republication of these Essays, however, has almost forced upon me
the necessity of likewise republishing the reply I gave at the time of
their appearance. The first Essay appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_,
and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _Supernatural
Religion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the
portions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that
readers will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is
published with the view of affording a convenient form of reference
for those interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those
Essays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such
further explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my
statements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot's arguments
must still be sought in the volumes of _Supernatural Religion_, but I
trust that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his
allegations and their bearing on my argument.

I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any
alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the
first time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to
wind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show
the inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more been
moved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier
reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not
contain them.

Dr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think that
I am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but
I may distinctly say that I have always held that arguments 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.





       CONTENTS


   I.  A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"

  II.  THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES

 III.  POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

  IV.  PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS

   V.  MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES

  VI.  THE CHURCHES OF GAUL

 VII.  TATIAN'S "DIATESSARON"

VIII.  CONCLUSIONS

       [ENDNOTES]

       INDEX.





I.

_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_
[Endnote 1:1]


The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important,
that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work
should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his
remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible
that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge
fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and
in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws
and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose
perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained
application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel
otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes
which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing
more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which
may be fallacious.

Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of
silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the
face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the
case is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of
the Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the
December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering severe
lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance
and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens,
falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to
me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his
impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I
fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold
so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and
I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat
Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand.
I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his
attack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience
and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general
detraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be
pronounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the
threadbare maxim: "A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains
in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still
is. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in
translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with
which Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well
founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of
such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of
the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not
weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has
been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of
Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is,
however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there
is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which
have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked"
which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change
the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once
to reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to
sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the
weakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has
the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which 'most
critics' are agreed in maintaining." He will probably find that "most
critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune
to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many
points, from most critics.

The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is
regarding "a highly important passage of Irenaeus," containing a
reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers
that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive
and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy"
would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf
in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words
"say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of
a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation,
in the total absence of the original, that these special words were
supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of
Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr.
Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what
"the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and
he then proceeds (Sec. 2) with indirect construction, indicating a
reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in
question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This
passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of
Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of
Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text:
"In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears
to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a
note on an earlier page: "The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the
Elders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of
interpretation;" [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the
indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of
"they taught." [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the
slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing
this testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital
bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel."
The reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the
justness of the ascription of this passage to Papias, and who was not
acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical
opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements,
understand the real position of the case.

Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole
passage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he
was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion
to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom
I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot,
now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated
treatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against
Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there
is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate
the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is
no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing
the evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers
to this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in
italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as
Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points
out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters"
should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo
cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab
Irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est,
utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer,
[5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether
these presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the
saying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it
merely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, and
only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the
first half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the
translator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer,
brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the
circle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly
separates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts that
they may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt,
[6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does
not attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, but
merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it
formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does
not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it is
impossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D.
150," refers to this passage, and says: "It is precarious to infer with
Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters
from Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back
to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it not
evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without
an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr.
Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on a
passage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of
the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the
Apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, "In
my Father's house are many mansions."' Here it is equally uncertain
whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and
whether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something
borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel."
[6:4]

With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his
while to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the
external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in
discussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do
apologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer,
Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette,
Gfroerer, Luecke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it,
although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of
Zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so
indirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of
Eusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on
neither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and
whilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with
the fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of
apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved.
Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as
testimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly
have produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken
from the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that any
of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the
passage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject
generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in
which the quotation is discussed.

This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to
dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in
maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All
that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there
is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely
discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of
Dr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what
I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But
although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who
says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what
was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction,
a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly
trained schoolboy." I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note,
the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below,
but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai
de ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos], for the express purpose of
showing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point
is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make
any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott,
beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and
that I proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the passage
is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the
work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended
to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation
made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had
been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately
withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different
from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my
argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which
Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it
as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this
was already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared,
and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2]

With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is
practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself.
"Tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der
Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,'
because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact
that the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition." Writing
of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not
altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the
contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he
has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted
to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct
assertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters,
those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not
giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of
most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the
"habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high
authorities of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own.
[9:2]

My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the
passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived
from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a
quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these
words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the
Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing
more than the exegesis of his own day.

The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with
a discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage
from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows:
"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes
that Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile
been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him
as a contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which
everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen
does not say 'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek:
epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledge
was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say
'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'If he _did not
write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]);
nor 'If he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'If he _commenced and
finished_' ([Greek:_arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language
itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with
the earlier passages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the
triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here
"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey
a totally wrong impression of the case.

The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy
between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report;
[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the
passage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary
observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually
fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose
rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The
manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this
passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself
by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick
of his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words
in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments
as follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than a
completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's
poverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen
rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words
of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition
of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]:
"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in
seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten
Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.'
'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht
geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genuegt es uns mit diesen
acht Buechern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch
jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_],
'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'"
&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly,
but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words
of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon
these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases,
but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2]
Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen there
may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered
as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist.

Instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated,"
however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of
this or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point
is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than
my own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his
adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the
conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his
impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became
considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons.
In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that
his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a
little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he
is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean
actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to
whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians
which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as
a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert,
on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other
considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I
proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of
Lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date;
but, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus
attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the
circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against
Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated
about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short,
scarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders
it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the
Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors,
which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of
Divine Revelation.

I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding
translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of
passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and
expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main
issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural
context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as
Dr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot
interest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept
correction even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite
content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair
spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in
which Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely
rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.
[13:1]

I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical
errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and
magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his
apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as
"a highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking,
_en passant_, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the
"Age of Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally
omitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read,
"and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1]
In vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the passage,
I proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have
Originally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of
such a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24,
in which "only" has been substituted for "never" in deciphering my MS.
Since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot
points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon
the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation.
I can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him
the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once
distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition
[Greek: ho Baptistes]. [15:1]

I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks
me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of
dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says--

    "Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:--

    "'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who,
    as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,'
    p. 264)

    "The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's
    book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating
    the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of
    St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark
    was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of
    information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author
    remarks--

    "'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading
    system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to,
    in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as
    St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics
    are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only
    have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact
    that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition
    represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers
    that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the
    interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been
    the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and
    infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal
    of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the
    allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the
    apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459)

    "Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself.
    It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these.
    I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed
    Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage
    so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be
    sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself
    would have thought of." [16:1]

In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to
quote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott
says: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times,
it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian
doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration
was still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary
prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror
into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar
views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2]
and he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which
claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.'
[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a
'Life of Christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or
'The Philosophy of Christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth
of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them
as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony
of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear.
In the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain
references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c."
And in a note Dr. Westcott adds, "The following examples will be
sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [17:1]

Not a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary
statements, for a full criticism of which I must beg the reader to
be good enough to refer to _Supernatural Religion_, ii. pp. 41-54.
Setting aside here the important question as to what the "gospel"
of Basilides--to which Dr. Westcott gives the fanciful names of a
"Life of Christ," or "Philosophy of Christianity," without a shadow
of evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance,
that the statement that Basilides "admitted the historic truth of
all the facts contained in the canonical gospels" rests solely upon
a sentence in the work attributed to Hippolytus, to the effect that,
after his generation, all things regarding the Saviour--according
to the _followers_ of Basilides--occurred in the same way as they
are written in the Gospels. Again, it could scarcely be supposed
by an ordinary reader that the assertion that Basilides used the
"canonical gospels"--there certainly were no "canonical" gospels
in his day--"as Scripture," that his testimony to our 'acknowledged'
books is comprehensive and clear, and that "in the few pages of
his writings which remain there are certain references" to those
gospels, which show "his method of quotation," is not based upon
any direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages
in an epitome by Hippolytus of the views of the school of Basilides,
not ascribed directly to Basilides himself, but introduced by a
mere indefinite [Greek: phesi]. [17:2] Why, I might enquire in the
vein of Dr. Lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of
the fact, which completes the separation of these passages from
Basilides, that the Gnosticism described by Hippolytus is not that
of Basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that
period, and notably Hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting,
as it might seem, by the use of an indefinite "he says," sentiments
into the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed
by his later followers? As Dr. Lightfoot evidently highly values
the testimony of Luthardt, I will quote the words of that staunch
apologist to show that, in this, I do not merely represent the views of
a heterodox school. In discussing the supposed quotations from the
fourth Gospel, which Dr. Westcott represents as "certain references"
to it by Basilides himself, Luthardt says: "But to this is opposed
the consideration that, as we know from Irenaeus, &c., the original
system of Basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the
'Philosophumena' is pantheistic. We must recognise that Hippolytus,
in the 'Philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect
responsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples,
so that from these quotations only the use of the Johannine Gospel
in the school of Basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the
part of the founder himself." [18:1]

It is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilides
regarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did
not know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work,
supplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if the
heretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity,
the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before
us. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the single
sentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileides
kan Glaukian epigraphetai didaskalon, hos auchousin autoi, ton Petrou
hermenea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statement
exactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order
to show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so much
stress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcott
says: "At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter.' [19:2]
Now we have here, again, an illustration," &c.; and then follows the
passage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the words
of Clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as St. Mark,"
seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilides
which I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to see
any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does,
let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the
strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, and
then founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after
the direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those inverted
commas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement,
and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well
indicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is,
that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. He
has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed
to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderful
illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness which
pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [19:3] It rather
exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article.

Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour may
safely be left to take care of itself." It would have been much better
to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such
advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would
be the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in
the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any
other have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt
motives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise,
and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost
that I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly
possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in
particular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and
unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which
should be more impartially made.

Dr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the
arguments of my adversaries. "The author," he says, "does indeed single
out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and
on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines
of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in
the same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes." [20:1]
I am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having had compassion
upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me
"samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists
which I have ignored.

The first of these with which he favours me is in connection with
an anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being
spoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested
regarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier
passage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:--
"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found
in any common source of information, that when the Latin version
(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated
into the original language, [Greek: tois sun auto], the 'anachronism'
altogether disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently
attach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for
not troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope,
may find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on
"Christian Literature and Doctrine," says: "In the ninth chapter
Ignatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians
of patience ... In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information
with regard to 'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur
only in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of the
difficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words
'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek:
peri ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean,
'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wish
particulars) and those who _were_ with him.' But even the Greek could
not be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is
no reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty
presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter." [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot,
however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugn
translations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handling
the tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen.
Here it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rock
of grammar."

The next example of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of
apologists which I have ignored is as follows:--

    "Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion
    of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by
    Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict
    interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in
    his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative,
    but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already
    lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct,
    entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and
    its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main
    question at issue." [22:1]

I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced
without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias
himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much
more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords
any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our
believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they
are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it
cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him,
the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch
as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels;
and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so
clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written
documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a
discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence,
it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of
Divine Revelation.

The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of
reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following:

    "Again, when he reproduces the Tuebingen fallacy respecting 'the
    strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the
    often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer
    refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the
    words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these
    words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of
    initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that
    Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as
    misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tuebingen
    interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which
    we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists'
    might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1]

I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I
merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single
sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation
in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and
we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus
opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in
fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does
he not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that
Hegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that,
instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the
anti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based
upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain?
It was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling
against Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I
have to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the Acts
of the Apostles.

"And again," says Dr. Lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored
weightier lines of reasoning,

    "in the elaborate examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical
    quotations ... our author frequently refers to Dr. Westcott's book
    to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are
    discussed at great length. Why, then, does he not once mention
    Dr. Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin Martyr's
    quotations from the Old Testament as throwing some light on the
    degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the
    Gospels? A reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_
    will have his eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind when
    he turns to Dr. Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves,
    misnames, and misquotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot
    be said that these are unimportant points." [24:1]

Now the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination of
Justin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work;
and when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what
seemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention.
[24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations are
derived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the
very numerous citations in his writings "does Justin profess to give
the exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs.'" [24:3] The reason why I do
not feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcott
here mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note
quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it right
to omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer is
put in italics: "For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader
may be referred to Canon Westcott's work 'On the Canon,' pp. 112-139.
Dr. Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations
are different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for his
variations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident that
so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no
proof of identity is possible_." [24:5] It will be observed that
although I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer those
who desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his
work. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the
writings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to
what documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether
they afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, which
can warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous
contents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, for
instance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerous
quotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which
has an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of our
Gospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the Old
Testament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of
Divine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, I
probably go much further into the examination of Justin's "Memoirs"
than was at all necessary.

Space, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances,
regarding which Dr. Lightfoot says: "In every instance which I have
selected"--and to which I have replied--"these omitted considerations
vitally affect the main question at issue." [25:1] If Dr. Lightfoot had
devoted half the time to mastering what "the main question at issue"
really is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might
have spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. If
such considerations have vital importance, the position of the question
may easily be understood. Dr. Lightfoot, however, evidently seems to
suppose that I can be charged with want of candour and of fulness,
because I do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic
reasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have
rejected them as useless. He again accuses me, in connection with the
fourth Gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of "apologetic"
writers, and he represents my work as "the very reverse of full and
impartial." "Once or twice, indeed," he says, "he fastens on passages
from such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main
arguments remain wholly unnoticed." [26:1] I confess that I find it
somewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which I am said
to "make capital" and those which Dr. Lightfoot characterises as "their
main arguments," if I am to judge by the "samples" of them which he
gives me. For instance, [26:2] he asks why, when asserting that the
Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited
to a single year, and his preaching as confined to Galilee and
Jerusalem, whilst the fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus
between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over three
years, and refers to three passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem:

"Why then," he asks,

    "does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as
    Matt. xiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ...
    _how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the
    expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate
    other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not
    recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested
    also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St.
    Luke, 'I do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall
    be perfected,' 'I must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day
    following_,' points to the very duration of our Lord's ministry, as
    indicated by the fourth Gospel. If so, the coincidence is the more
    remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while
    wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical
    import." [27:1]

Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry
into the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape
charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations
of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like
this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task;
and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself could not contain all the books that should be written." It is
very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any
other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but
is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not
exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not
only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his
work? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship
of the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the
explanations offered.

Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why,
when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character
of the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of
Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that
the whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?" [27:2]
Now my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse and
fourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: "The language in
which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New
Testament;" [28:1] and further on: "The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and
abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of
Galilee." [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: "Instead of the Hebraistic Greek
and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and
ignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the
purest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of
the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and
beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world," &c. [28:4]
In another place I say: "The language in which the Gospel is written, as
we have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other
Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according
to Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost
invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is
distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this
respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels." [28:5] I
believe that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language
of the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost
wholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth
Gospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other,
and that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might be
supported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of
"wholly ignoring" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived,
I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: "The difference of the
_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is,
of course, in a high degree remarkable ... As regards _grammar_, the
Gospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek." He
argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter,
and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse
wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written
otherwise. "The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional
emancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancient
prophetic style. Presently he proceeds: "If, then, on the one hand, the
Apocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author
was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the
Gospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and
Palestinian." Luthardt maintains "that the style of the Gospel betrays
the born Jew, and certainly not the Greek," but the force which he
intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the
conclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulf
between the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable." [29:1] This
result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic
character of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different
from my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent an
apologist as Bleek: "The language of the Apocalypse in its whole
character is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents
grosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilst
the language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyond
comparison more grammatically correct." [29:2] I am merely replying,
to the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding
the language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very different
arguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemma
which I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merely
dependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the
aggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on the
one hand and the Gospel on the other.

Space only allows of my referring to one other instance. [30:1] Dr.
Lightfoot says--

    "If by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes
    care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._
    the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting
    altogether to notice others."

In a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:--

    "Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar
    with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not
    mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that
    there was no such place (as Sychar, [Greek: Suchar]), and apologetic
    ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is
    altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages in
    the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar or
    Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Geographie du Talmud,' p. 169 f. Our
    author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch, ('_Zeitschr.
    J. Luth. Theol._,' 1856, p. 240 f.) _He cannot have read the
    article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport_."
    [30:3]

I may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which
I have taken the liberty of putting in italics. If it be possible
for an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers
of the "Contemporary Review," at least, for this style of criticism,
to which, I doubt not, they are as little accustomed as I am myself.
There is no satisfying Dr. Lightfoot. I give him references, and
he accuses me of "literary browbeating" and "subtle intimidation;"
I do not give references, and he gives me the lie. I refer to the
article of Delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he
rejects the identification of Sychar with Sichem, and apparently
because I do not quote the whole study Dr. Lightfoot courteously
asserts that I cannot have read it. [31:1]

My statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place
as Sychar--I ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admit
anything"--but I thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity is
severely taxed to explain the difficulty," I had sufficiently excepted
apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are
advanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture which
identifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner's
supposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a
secretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle,
and that Sichem is meant, and I state the "nickname" hypothesis of
Hengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception of
some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but not
identical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no place
bearing, or having borne, the designation of Sychar is known. The
ordinary apologetic theory, as Dr. Lightfoot may find "in any common
source of information,"--Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," for
instance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: "Sychar was either a
name applied to the town of Shechem, or it was an independent place."
This authority, however, goes clean against Dr. Lightfoot's assertion,
for it continues: "The first of these alternatives is now almost
universally accepted." Lightfoot [32:1] considered Sychar a mere
alteration of the name Sichem, both representing the same place.
He found a reference in the Talmud to "_Ain Socar_," and with great
hesitation he associated the name with Sychar. "May we not venture"
to render it "the well of Sychar"? And after detailed extracts and
explanations he says: "And now let the reader give us his judgment
as to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relation
with our 'well of Sychar.' It may be disputed on either side." Wieseler,
who first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of Lightfoot,
argues: "In the first place, there can be no doubt that by [Greek:
Suchar] Sichem is meant," and he adds, a few lines after: "Regarding
this there is no controversy amongst interpreters." He totally rejects
the idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation,
which he says is "unprecedented." He therefore concludes that in
[Greek: Suchar] we have _another_ name for Sichem. He merely submits
this, however, as "a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader,"
[32:2] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. Lightfoot
and Wieseler are substantially followed by Olshausen, [32:3] De Wette,
[32:4] Hug, [32:5] Bunsen, [32:6] Riggenbach, [32:7] Godet, [32:8]
and others. Bleek, [32:9] in spite of the arguments of Delitzsch and
Ewald, and their Talmudic researches, considers that the old town
of Sichem is meant. Delitzsch, [32:10] Ewald, [32:11] Lange, [32:12]
Meyer, [32:13] and others think that Sychar was near to, but distinct
from, Sichem. Luecke [33:1] is very undecided. He recognises the
extraordinary difference in the name Sychar. He does not favourably
receive Lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name of
Sichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentioned
in the Talmud to Sichem, which he thinks is "very doubtful," and he
seems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of Sichem into
Sychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of such
an explanation. Ewald condemns the "Talmudische Studien" of Delitzsch
as generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, and
his views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him that
Sychar cannot be the same place as Sichem, he points out that the
site of the _valley of the_ well of the Talmud is certainly doubtful.
[33:2] He explains his own views, however, more clearly in another
place:--

    "That this (Sychar) cannot be the large, ancient Sikhem, which, at
    the time when the Gospel was written, was probably already generally
    called _Neapolis_ in Greek writings, has been already stated; it is
    the place still called with an altered Arabic name _Al 'Askar_, east
    of Naplus. It is indeed difficult to prove that Sychar could stand
    for Sikhem, either through change of pronunciation, or for any other
    reason, and the addition [Greek: legomene] does not indicate, here any
    more than in xi. 54, so large and generally known a town as Sikhem.
    or Flavia Neapolis." [33:3]

Mr. Sanday, [33:4] of whose able work Dr. Lightfoot directly speaks,
says:--

    "The name Sychar is not the common one, Sichem, but is a mock title
    (='liar' or 'drunkard') that was given to the town by the Jews.
    [33:5] This is a clear reminiscence of the vernacular that the
    Apostle spoke in his youth, and is a strong touch of nature. It is
    not quite certain that the name Sychar has this force, but the
    hypothesis is in itself more likely than, &c.... It is not,
    however, by any means improbable that Sychar may represent, not
    Sichem, but the modern village Askar, which is somewhat nearer to
    Jacob's Well."

To quote one of the latest "travellers and apologists," Dr. Farrar says:
"From what the name Sychar is derived is uncertain. The word [Greek:
legomenos] in St. John seems to imply a sobriquet. It may be 'a lie,'
'drunken,' or 'a sepulchre.' Sychar may possibly have been a village
nearer the well than Sichem, on the site of the village now called El
Askar." [34:1] As Dr. Lightfoot specially mentions Neubauer, his opinion
may be substantially given in a single sentence: "La Mischna mentionne
un endroit appele 'la plaine d'En-Sokher,' qui est peut-etre le Sychar
de l'Evangile." He had a few lines before said: "Il est donc plus
logique de ne pas identifier Sychar avec Sichem." [34:2] Now, with
regard to all these theories, and especially in so far as they connect
Sychar with El Askar, let me quote a few more words in conclusion, from
a "common source of information:"--

    "On the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of
    this identification. _'Askar_ begins with the letter 'Ain, which
    Sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and
    enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ... These
    considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading
    to any conclusion on the identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless,
    as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not
    nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be." [34:3]

Mr. Grove is very right.

I have been careful only to quote from writers who are either
"apologetic," or far from belonging to heterodox schools. Is it not
perfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonably
identified? The case, in fact, simply stands thus:--As the Gospel
mentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must have
been such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for
it. It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome there
was no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have
not since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations.

With regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes
constitute a "subtle mode of intimidation" and "literary browbeating,"
Canon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to those
who maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support
me. It is very possible, considering the number of these references,
that I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shall
very thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he may
be good enough to point out. Instead of intimidation and browbeating,
my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further
to examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them
discussed. It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions
with perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by
anyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made
acquainted with the true state of the case. As Dr. Mozley rightly and
honestly says: "The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief
rather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any
strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many,
if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would
not find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as
they appear to find it." [36:1]

I shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarks
regarding my 'conclusions,' nor shall I proceed, in this article, to
discuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his
misunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the
Supreme Being. I am almost inclined to think that I can have the
pleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before
coming to a close. When I read the curiously modified statement that I
have "studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universal
Father, or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God," it seems clear
to me that the _Supernatural Religion_ about which Dr. Lightfoot has
been writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his own
imagination. That work cannot possibly have contained, for instance,
the chapter on "Anthropomorphic Divinity," [36:2] in which, on the
contrary, I studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in such
a "Personal God" as he means. In no way inconsistent with that chapter
are my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic Jewish
Divinity a Supreme Being manifested in the operation of invariable
laws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence and
security. If Dr. Lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me of
inconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt which
view must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation to
secure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of the
last page of my work.

Dr. Lightfoot, again, refers to Mr. Mill's "Three Essays on Religion,"
but he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. I confess
that I do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and I
hope that, hereafter, I may have an opportunity of explaining what they
are; but I am surprised that Dr. Lightfoot has failed to observe how
singularly that great Thinker supports the general results of
_Supernatural Religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreement
almost in words. If Dr. Lightfoot had studied Mill a little more
closely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing:
"Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first
part, the second and third are altogether superfluous. It is somewhat
strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole work
should be devoted to this needless task." [37:1] Now my argument in the
first part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it is
quite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one that
miracles are _antecedently_ incredible. Having shown that they are so,
and appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and the
amount of evidence requisite to establish it, I proceed to examine the
evidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that,
although miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless took
place. Mr. Mill clearly supports me in this course. He states the main
principle of my argument thus: "A revelation, therefore, cannot be
proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of
supernatural facts. And we have to consider, whether it is possible to
prove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required to
prove them." [37:2] Mr. Mill decides that it is possible to prove the
occurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and after
showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says:
"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive
evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words,
the positive evidences of miracles. And I have already admitted that
this evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exception
equally certain with the rule." [38:1] Mr. Mill's opinion of the
evidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared with
my results:

    "But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is
    not, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence
    of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand,
    but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in
    the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts
    asserted on their alleged testimony are not of the transcendent
    character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the
    impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be
    little room for doubt. On the contrary, the recorded miracles are,
    in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely
    difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are
    hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by
    human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature." [38:2]

It is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, to
confirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that I
enter into an examination of the four Gospels, as the chief witnesses
for miracles. To those who have already ascertained the frivolous
nature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour to
examine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that an
ecclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records should
represent such a process as useless. In endeavouring to place me on the
forks of a dilemma, in fact, Dr. Lightfoot has betrayed that he
altogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehend
the position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historical
enquiry. Instead of being "altogether superfluous," my examination of
witnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly been
represented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of the
remaining documents of the New Testament. I foresaw, and myself to some
degree admitted, the justice of this argument; [39:1] but my work being
already bulky enough, I reserved to another volume the completion of
the enquiry.

I cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so much
which is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussion
of a great and profoundly important subject. Dr. Lightfoot is too able
and too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors or
faults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, and
instead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me,
it would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour to
refute my reasoning. I have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoid
fair fight, and I feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who,
differing _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous ability
attacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy due
even to an enemy. Dr. Lightfoot will not find me inattentive to
courteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whatever
he may think, I promise him that no one will be more ready respectfully
to follow every serious line of argument than the author of
_Supernatural Religion_.





II.

_THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES._ [Endnote 40:1]


This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but
both in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjected
to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of
opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to
review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express
my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed
generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its
completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my
conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the
courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must
necessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a
course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not
diminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments.

There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of
argument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have
objected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition
advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have
been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is
only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now
I contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the
philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to
completeness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation
is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently
incredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be
antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is,
therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent
incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that
certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry
into the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third
parts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until
other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ...

The second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has
frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to
prove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of
the second century. This error is of course closely connected with that
which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how
anyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of
the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The
fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the
Gospels. The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that,
so far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in
the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently
incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the
Gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to
have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and
truth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish
some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument
has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at
the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as
evidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear
and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for
the canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary
requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of
serious consideration.

It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special
gospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in
existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief
as the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without
shaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however,
totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious
belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the
sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors
urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual
occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out
of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took
place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious
age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful
investigation, have written an account of them, and other persons,
equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I venture
to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring
can have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the
relation of miracles to the order of nature.

The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the
statement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences
precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain 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
Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account
for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic 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 position 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. Even if we took the statements of
Irenaeus 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.

After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced
against this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the
truth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which able
divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main
argument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by
inference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who have
professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically
attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth
defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have
shown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable
breach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference
to the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no
sense of my own individual share in its maintenance.

I must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who,
with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most
elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and
official zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot
and Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my
book. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of
course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in
reply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has
assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred,
although I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so
in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of
hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or
error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main
argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr.
Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at
all weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to
details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent
against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed
against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such
words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may
have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render
it worth while once for all to meet it in detail.


The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by
Dr. Lightfoot regarding the "SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS." [45:1] I had called
attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers,
under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious
limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as
singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province more
especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence
occupies a prominent place." Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this
"mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will
not be at all ambiguous." I might again agree with him, but that
unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for
the Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only
the eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere
that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or
say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that
they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and
authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present
at least, limited to Eusebius.

The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole
of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete
blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal
works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I
supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their
lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not
contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary
that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main
argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has
expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it,
and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose
that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot
says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of
Eusebius:--

    "This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis
    of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how
    much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to
    be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his
    foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he
    piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether
    neglected to do." [46:1]

Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his
belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:--

    "If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part
    of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces."
    [46:2]

I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must
allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the
importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the
representations made in the above passages are a very strange
exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with
criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and
strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever,
and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an
amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that
vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion,
proved that I have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an
inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it
was. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument
which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding
some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be
withdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is
to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers
regarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of
three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not
find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works
mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing
Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in
this does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact
that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers
contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have
we any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of
Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius
warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these
writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical
books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend
to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was
the purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements,
which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose
that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any
kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand?
Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and
Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The
reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement
Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _Supernatural
Religion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has
asserted.

We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He
carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared
intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention
or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of
the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words,
merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his
statement into three paragraphs. He says:

    "Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings
    in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage.

    "(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any
    ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek:
    tines hopoiais kechrentai]);

    "(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only
    professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell
    about them_ ([Greek: tina peri ton endiathekon eiretai]). Any
    _anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the
    others ([Greek: ton me toiouton]), will be recorded.

    "(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will
    allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise."
    [48:1]

In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we
can differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to
point out mere quotations of the books which he considered
undisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in
the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John,
which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be
undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he
omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in
the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to
the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down
as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did
mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged
himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much
might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little
importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing
it. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise
include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations
of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very
subsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it
altogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had
occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they
could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book
quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done
nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In the
evidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfully
have received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely
any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to
establish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If this
point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position?
We are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the
Gospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
Corinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the other
hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any.

The only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius
is precisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his
promise and practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient
writer "has something to _tell about_" the Gospels, "any _anecdote_
of interest respecting them," Eusebius will record it. This is the
only information of the slightest value to this work which could
be looked for in these writers. So far, therefore, from producing
the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _Supernatural
Religion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself,
Dr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of
Eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner.

    Before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under
    discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of
    Eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the
    matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have
    to tell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that
    Eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the
    Gospels and other canonical works. [50:1] Upon two occasions he
    quotes the account which Clement of Alexandria gives of the
    composition of Mark's Gospel, and also cites his statements
    regarding the other Gospels. [50:2] In like manner he records the
    information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart about the
    four Gospels and other works, [50:3] and what Origen has to say
    concerning them. [50:4] Interrogating extant works, we find in fact
    that Eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or
    interesting regarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot
    says that Eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which
    justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the
    case of Irenaeus. He says: "Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal
    passage in this author relating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus,
    _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1, 1) he omits to mention others which contain
    interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the
    question, _e.g._ that St. John wrote his Gospel to counteract the
    errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii.
    11, 1)." [51:1] I must explain, however, that the "interesting
    statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted,
    is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only
    in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it
    from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well
    have passed it over. Dr. Lightfoot further says: "Thus too when he
    quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the
    Asiatic Elders who were acquainted with St. John, [51:2] he omits
    the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important
    bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for it declared
    that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus
    confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the
    apparent chronology of the Synoptists." [51:3] Nothing, however,
    could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to
    represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to support the one
    at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he enters into an
    elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy
    between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular
    quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three
    Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after
    the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the
    other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not
    embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the
    extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the
    Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could
    not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although
    Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the
    Presbyters who were acquainted with John.

It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to
record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the
undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant
writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the
conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three
writers with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silence
of Eusebius."

I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high
estimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that
he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings.
Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the
martyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for
the statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus,
Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of
Joseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by
reference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story
regarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who
were brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of the
martyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the early
Church; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account of
Hegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to the
statement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of
Eleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions
his observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about
the Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general
state of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] I
mention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them
in turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have
escaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works
were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these
was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a
single remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate
inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus
did not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, as
Eusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man of
whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in
confirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding the
composition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, as
well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that
Eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by
Hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he
speaks with so much respect.

    I have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted
    anything with regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to
    go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No
    one can read Eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care
    with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially
    apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any
    doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to
    the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles
    called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and
    the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having
    written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully
    quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently
    made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to
    the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of
    the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics.
    The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the
    tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution
    under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in
    support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the
    close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the
    persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command
    given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as
    also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the
    historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded
    Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the
    latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and,
    according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He
    states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist,
    governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his
    return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan
    succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from
    Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account
    of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must
    be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly
    put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he
    gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his
    account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition,
    which he states to have been John's receiving the other three
    Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did
    not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this
    reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings
    of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very
    extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully
    considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at
    variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably
    omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them.
    [54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking
    of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and
    interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings
    attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting
    traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities,
    would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any
    information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so
    frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any.

In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius
quotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark,
[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative
regarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in
confirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose
that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not
have enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their
information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if
Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of
the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?
Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not
only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case
which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had
to say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very
reference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims
of the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it still
more certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth
Gospel,--and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have
had something, to tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The
first quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop
of Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the
words of the Presbyters, "what John or Matthew or what any other of the
disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John,
disciples of the Lord, say." [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly
points out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the
former, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles,
evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly
distinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this
proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of
John in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the
name of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second
of the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation.
What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the
subject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted
with both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very
moment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I
am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the
peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of
Eusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or
fourth Gospels.

I need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning
equally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a few more words
to say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he intended
to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the
constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following
statement, which he prints in italics: "_The silence of Eusebius
respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in
its favour_." [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by
Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means,
not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are
witnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply
that if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel
by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century,
classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does
not undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is
very small.


Professor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection
with "THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES," [57:1] which is equally abortive and
limited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which
the article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that
readers may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy
is carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of
misstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute
criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression
that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most
right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It
is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like
this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not
possible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course
entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even
alive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a
spirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be
accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown
that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon
himself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to
all such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, with
some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the Ignatian
Epistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which
they commit themselves.

Dr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon
which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its
difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says:
"The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the
student of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the
considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate.
A writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of
familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally
expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with
some diffidence." [58:1] My critic objects that I express my opinions
with decision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would
here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for
Dr. Lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question
make it easy for me. It requires but little logical perception to
recognize that Epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult
to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels.
The statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack,
and war is declared in the following terms:

    "The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use
    such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery
    of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references
    to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the
    author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon
    it. It becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer
    shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies
    us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his
    arguments." [59:1]

This sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play
a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to
them--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would not
be in the least degree affected.

The first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is
one of mere critical history. I wrote: "The strongest internal, as well
as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led
(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most
genuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted
by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the
epistles." [59:2]

Upon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:--

    "No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results
    of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac
    epistles than this." [59:1]

It will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one
who is preaching "diffidence." When we come to details, however,
Dr. Lightfoot admits: "Those who maintain the genuineness of the
Ignatian Epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to
be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." He seems to
consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or
six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation
of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the
five names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles
may be added those of Milman, Boehringer, de Pressense, and Dr. Tregelles,
which immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he
limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I
certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the
three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly
of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still
consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the
Epistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With
regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say
that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which I correct in this
edition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity
prefer the Curetonian version. The Tuebingen school are not unanimous
on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek,
for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the
priority of the Curetonian "im hoechsten Grade wahrscheinlich." Volkmar,
Lipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says:

    "The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this
    point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of
    the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him,
    retracted his former opinion on both questions alike." [60:2]

Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has
only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but,
whilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are
spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He
first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added:
"An dem relativ groessern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenueber der
kuerzeren griechischen halte ich uebrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In
the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says
quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt ueberzeugt, dass der Syrer in
zahlreichen Faellen den relativ urspruenglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl.
meine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard
to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only
matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny
the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms.

Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by
analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject
given in an earlier passage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems
to pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather
tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his
attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the
accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error
and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is
as follows:--

    "These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest
    scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be
    the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not
    admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius,
    prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider
    them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As
    early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were
    expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed
    to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and
    Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully
    shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts,
    more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth
    century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although
    the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now.
    That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller
    examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have
    confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise
    that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established,
    and that they can only be considered later and spurious
    compositions.(4)" [62:1]

In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Boehringer,
Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot
proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his
explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both
to call more immediate attention to the point:

          THE TRUTH.                 |    DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
                                     |
_Many of the ablest critics have     | "These references, it will be
pronounced them to be the only       | observed, are given to illustrate
authentic Epistles of Ignatius,      | _more immediately_, though perhaps
whilst others_ who do not admit      | not solely, the statement that
that even these are genuine letters  | writers '_who do not admit that
emanating from Ignatius, _still      | even these_ (the Curetonian
prefer them_ to the version of       | Epistles) _are genuine letters
seven Greek Epistles, _and consider  | emanating from Ignatius, still
them the most ancient form of the    | prefer them_ to the version of
letters_ which we possess.           | seven Greek Epistles, and consider
                                     | them the most ancient form of the
                                     | letters which we possess.'" [62:2]


It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this
sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian
Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that
sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether
of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative
priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main
statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws
light" upon the point by the following remarks:--

          THE TRUTH.                 |   DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
                                     |
_Cureton, Bunsen, Boehringer, Ewald, | "The reader, therefore, will
Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_        | hardly be prepared to hear that
maintain both the priority and       | not one of these nine writers
genuineness of the Syriac Epistles.  | condemns the Ignatian letters
_Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves
distinct recognition of the letters  | leaves the matter in some
in any form. Of the Vossian          | uncertainty while inclining to
Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die    | Bunsen's view; the other eight
Echtheit dieser Recension ist        | distinctly maintain the
keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian
priority of the Curetonian "in the   | letters." [63:1]
highest degree probable."            |
                                     |
_Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles,  |
as I have already said, but          |
maintains the priority of the        |
Syriac.                              |


Dr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of
the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury.
Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but
would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note
was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct.

Continuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the
ground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so
early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed
regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius,
and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared
them to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: "The criticisms of
Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the
Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at
that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections
were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3]
This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of
Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says:

    "The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz
    did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the
    contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says
    that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen
    the position of the Papal power, &c.'" [64:4]

Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for
Chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles
as evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts
of them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg
Centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing
them to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension were
before Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them:
"... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece
leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non
referunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas
epistolas, vel inde colligitur." He then shows that quotations in
ancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius
are not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolis
igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus:
transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum
regni Pontificii." [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he
"damns them with faint praise." The whole of the discussion turns upon
the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my
critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade
more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received
from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation.

Dr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and
here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as
follows:

    "(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
    Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c.
    &c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae
    Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix."

Upon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:--

    "But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they
    are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted
    from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the
    Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.'" [65:2]

As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is
"the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the
whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he
persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for
which they are quoted." It is difficult, without entering into minute
classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of
a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course
of critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large
class--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch,
illustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case
on my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase,
decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the
Epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did
not fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise
the part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts,
more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to.

Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and
would probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel,
Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook
pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." So
far, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in
succession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they have
been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the
main." Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the
text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of
the Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and
all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I
should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed
"_doubts_ more or less definite," which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot
says that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far
as I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." His very
denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more
or less definite." "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether,"
Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the
Epistles with new arguments." But I have never affirmed that he
"rejected them altogether." Casaubon died before he fulfilled the
promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he
might have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not
necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard to
Rivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in a
subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop
Usher's edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion
to "that form of the Epistles." [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by
Pearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of
the writers referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius
varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse:
tum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio
Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." He
then goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles
and the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more
decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio
sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus
illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit." [67:3]

The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for
convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it
as follows:--

    "The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:--"'[Wotton, _Praef.
    Clem. R. Epp._ 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into Original Nature, &c.,
    Evang. Church, Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p