And now that we have come to the end of the purely critical portion of this enquiry, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few words on its general tendency and bearing. As critics we have only the critical question to deal with. Certain evidence is presented to us which it is our duty to weigh and test by reference to logical and critical laws. It must stand or fall on its own merits, and any considerations brought in from without will be irrelevant to the question at issue. But after this is done we may fairly look round and consider how our conclusion affects other conclusions and in what direction it is leading us. If we look at 'Supernatural Religion' in this way we shall see that its tendency is distinctly marked. Its attack will fall chiefly upon the middle party in opinion. And it will play into the hands of the two extreme parties on either side. There can be little doubt that indirectly it will help the movement that is carrying so many into Ultramontanism, and directly it is of course intended to win converts to what may perhaps be called comprehensively Secularism.
Now it is certainly true that the argument from consequences is one that ought to be applied with great caution. Yet I am not at all sure that it has not a real basis in philosophy as well as in nature. The very existence of these two great parties, the Ultramontane and the Secularist, over against each other, seems to be it kind of standing protest against either of them. If Ultramontanism is true, how is it that so many wise and good men openly avow Secularism? If 'Secularism is true, how is it that so many of the finest and highest minds take refuge from it—a treacherous refuge, I allow—in Ultramontanism? There is something in this more than a mere defective syllogism—more than an insufficient presentation of the evidence. Truth, in the widest sense, is that which is in accordance with the laws and conditions of human nature. But where beliefs are so directly antithetical as they are here, the repugnance and resistance which each is found to cause in so large a number of minds is in itself a proof that those laws and conditions are insufficiently complied with. To the spectator, standing outside of both, this will seem to be easily explained: the one sacrifices reason to faith; the other sacrifices faith to reason. But there is abundant evidence to show that both faith (meaning thereby the religious emotions) and reason are ineradicable elements in the human mind. That which seriously and permanently offends against either cannot be true. For creatures differently constituted from man—either all reason or all pure disembodied emotion—it might be otherwise; but, for man, as he is, the epithet 'true' seems to be excluded from any set of propositions that has such results.
Even in the more limited sense, and confining the term to propositions purely intellectual, there is, I think we must say, a presumption against the truth of that which involves so deep and wide a chasm in human nature. Without importing teleology, we should naturally expect that the intellect and the emotions should be capable of working harmoniously together. They do so in most things: why should they not in the highest matters of all? If the one set of opinions is anti-rational and the other anti-emotional, as we see practically that they are, is not this in itself an antecedent presumption against either of them? It may not be enough to prove at once that the syllogism is defective: still less is it a sufficient warrant for establishing an opposite syllogism. But it does seem to be enough to give the scientific reasoner pause, and to make him go over the line of his argument again and again and yet again, with the suspicion that there is (as how well there may be!) a flaw somewhere.
It would not, I think, be difficult to point out such flaws [Endnote 352:1]—some of them, as it appears, of considerable magnitude. But the subject is one that would take us far away out of our present course, and for its proper development would require a technical knowledge of the processes of physical science which I do not possess. Leaving this on one side, and regarding them only in the abstract, the considerations stated above seem to point to the necessity of something of the nature of a compromise. And yet there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as compromise in opinions. Compromise belongs to the world of practice; it is only admitted by an illicit process into the world of thought. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' is doubtless right in deprecating that 'illogical zeal which flings to the pursuing wolves of doubt and unbelief, scrap by scrap,' all the distinctive doctrines of Christianity. Belief, it is true, must be ultimately logical to stand. It must have an inner cohesion and inter- dependence. It must start from a fixed principle. This has been, and still is, the besetting weakness of the theology of mediation. It is apt to form itself merely by stripping off what seem to be excrescences from the outside, and not by radically reconstructing itself, on a firmly established basis, from within. The difficulty in such a process is to draw the line. There is a delusive appearance of roundness and completeness in the creeds of those who either accept everything or deny everything: though, even here, there is, I think we may say, always, some little loophole left of belief or of denial, which will inevitably expand until it splits and destroys the whole structure. But the moment we begin to meet both parties half way, there comes in that crucial question: Why do you accept just so much and no more? Why do you deny just so much and no more? [Endnote 354:1]
It must, in candour, be confessed that the synthetic formula for the middle party in opinion has not yet been found. Other parties have their formulae, but none that will really bear examination.Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, would do excellently if there was any belief that had been held 'always, everywhere, and by all,' if no discoveries had been made as to the facts, and if there had been no advance in the methods of knowledge. The ultimate universality and the absolute uniformity of physical antecedents has a plausible appearance until it is seen that logically carried out it reduces men to machines, annihilates responsibility, and involves conclusions on the assumption of the truth of which society could not hold together for a single day. If we abandon these Macedonian methods for unloosing the Gordian knot of things and keep to the slow and laborious way of gradual induction, then I think it will be clear that all opinions must be held on the most provisional tenure. A vast number of problems will need to be worked out before any can be said to be established with a pretence to finality. And the course which the inductive process is taking supplies one of the chief 'grounds of hope' to those who wish to hold that middle position of which I have been speaking. The extreme theories which from time to time have been advanced have not been able to hold their ground. No doubt they may have done the good that extreme theories usually do, in bringing out either positively or negatively one side or another of the truth; but in themselves they have been rejected as at once inadequate and unreal solutions of the facts. First we had the Rationalism (properly so called) of Paulus, then the Mythical hypothesis of Strauss, and after that the 'Tendenz-kritik' of Baur. But what candid person does not feel that each and all of these contained exaggerations more incredible than the difficulties which they sought to remove? There has been on each of the points raised a more or less definite ebb in the tide. The moderate conclusion is seen to be also the reasonable conclusion. And not least is this the case with the enquiry on which we have been just engaged. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' has overshot the mark very much indeed. There is, as we have seen, a certain truth in some things that he has said, but the whole sum of truth is very far from bearing out his conclusions.
When we look up from these detailed enquiries and lift up our eyes to a wider horizon we shall be able to relegate them to their true place. The really imposing witness to the truth of Christianity is that which is supplied by history on the one hand, and its own internal attractiveness and conformity to human nature on the other. Strictly speaking, perhaps, these are but two sides of the same thing. It is in history that the laws of human nature assume a concrete shape and expression. The fact that Christianity has held its ground in the face of such long-continued and hostile criticism is a proof that it must have some deeply-seated fitness and appropriateness for man. And this goes a long way towards saying that it is true. It is a theory of things that is being constantly tested by experience. But the results of experience are often expressed unconsciously. They include many a subtle indication that the mind has followed but cannot reproduce to itself in set terms. All the reasons that go to form a judge's decision do not appear in his charge. Yet there we have a select and highly-trained mind working upon matter that presents no very great degree of complexity. When we come to a question so wide, so subtle and complex as Christianity, the individual mind ceases to be competent to sit in judgment upon it. It becomes necessary to appeal to a much more extended tribunal, and the verdict of that tribunal will be given rather by acts than in words. Thus there seems to have always been a sort of half-conscious feeling in men's minds that there was more in Christianity than the arguments for it were able to bring out. In looking back over the course that apologetics have taken, we cannot help being struck by a disproportion between the controversial aspect and the practical. It will probably on the whole be admitted that the balance of argument has in the past been usually somewhat on the side of the apologists; but the argumentative victory has seldom if ever been so decisive as quite to account for the comparatively undisturbed continuity of the religious life. It was in the height of the Deist controversy that Wesley and Whitfield began to preach, and they made more converts by appealing to the emotions than probably Butler did by appealing to the reason.
A true philosophy must take account of these phenomena. Beliefs which issue in that peculiarly fine and chastened and tender spirit which is the proper note of Christianity, cannot, under any circumstances, be dismissed as 'delusion.' Surely if any product of humanity is true and genuine, it is to be found here. There are indeed truths which find a response in our hearts without apparently going through any logical process, not because they are illogical, but because the scales of logic are not delicate and sensitive enough to weigh them.
'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' 'I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.' 'Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.' The plummet of science—physical or metaphysical, moral or critical—has never sounded so deep as sayings such as these. We may pass them over unnoticed in our Bibles, or let them slip glibly and thoughtlessly from the tongue; but when they once really come home, there is nothing to do but to bow the head and cover the face and exclaim with the Apostle, 'Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.'
And yet there is that other side of the question which is represented in 'Supernatural Religion,' and this too must have justice done to it. There is an intellectual, as well as a moral and spiritual, synthesis of things. Only it should be remembered that this synthesis has to cover an immense number of facts of the most varied and intricate kind, and that at present the nature of the facts themselves is in many cases very far from being accurately ascertained. We are constantly reminded in reading 'Supernatural Religion,' able and vigorous as it is, how much of its force depends rather upon our ignorance than our knowledge. It supplies us with many opportunities of seeing how easily the whole course and tenour of an argument may be changed by the introduction of a new element. For instance, I imagine that if the author had given a little deeper study to the seemingly minute and secondary subject of text-criticism, it would have aroused in him very considerable misgivings as to the results at which he seemed to have arrived. There is a solidarity in all the different departments of human knowledge and research, especially among those that are allied in subject. These are continually sending out offshoots and projections into the neighbouring regions, and the conclusions of one science very often have to depend upon those of another. The course of enquiry that has been taken in 'Supernatural Religion' is peculiarly unfortunate. It starts from the wrong end. It begins with propositions into whicha prioriconsiderations largely enter, and, from the standpoint given by these, it proceeds to dictate terms in a field that can only be trodden by patient and unprejudiced study. A far more hopeful and scientific process would have been to begin upon ground where dogmatic questions do not enter, or enter only in a remote degree, and where there is a sufficient number of solid ascertainable facts to go upon, and then to work the way steadily and cautiously upwards to higher generalisations.
It will have been seen in the course of the present enquiry how many side questions need to be determined. It would be well if monographs were written upon all the quotations from the Old Testament in the Christian literature of the first two centuries, modelled upon Credner's investigations into the quotations in Justin. Before this is done there should be a new and revised edition of Holmes' and Parsons' Septuagint [Endnote 359:1]. Everything short of this would be inadequate, because we need to know not only the best text, but every text that has definite historical attestation. In this way it would be possible to arrive at a tolerably exact, instead of a merely approximate, deduction as to the habit of quotation generally, which would supply a firmer basis for inference in regard to the New Testament than that which has been assumed here. At the same time monographs should be written in English, besides those already existing in German, upon the date or position of the writers whose works come under review. Without any attempt to prove a particular thesis, the reader should be allowed to see precisely what the evidence is and how far it goes. Then if he could not arrive at a positive conclusion, he could at least attain to the most probable. And, lastly, it is highly important that the whole question of the composition and structure of the Synoptic Gospels should be investigated to the very bottom. Much valuable labour has already been expended upon this subject, but the result, though progress has been made, is rather to show its extreme complexity and difficulty than to produce any final settlement. Yet, as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' has rather dimly and inadequately seen, we are constantly thrown back upon assumptions borrowed from this quarter.
Pending such more mature and thorough enquiries, I quite feel that my own present contribution belongs to a transition stage, and cannot profess to be more than provisional. But it will have served its purpose sufficiently if it has helped to mark out more distinctly certain lines of the enquiry and to carry the investigation along these a little way; suggesting at the same time—what the facts themselves really suggest—counsels of sobriety and moderation.
What the end will be, it would be presumptuous to attempt to foretell. It will probably be a long time before even these minor questions—much more the major questions into which they run up— will be solved. Whether they will ever be solved—all of them at least—in such a way as to compel entire assent is very doubtful. Error and imperfection seem to be permanently, if we may hope diminishingly, a condition of human thought and action. It does not appear to be the will of God that Truth should ever be so presented as to crush out all variety of opinion. The conflict of opinions is like that of Hercules with the Hydra. As fast as one is cut down another arises in its place; and there is no searing- iron to scorch and cicatrize the wound. However much we may labour, we can only arrive at an inner conviction, not at objective certainty. All the glosses and asseverations in the world cannot carry us an inch beyond the due weight of the evidence vouchsafed to us. An honest and brave mind will accept manfully this condition of things, and not seek for infallibility where it can find none. It will adopt as its motto that noble saying of Bishop Butler—noble, because so unflinchingly true, though opposed to a sentimental optimism—'Probability is the very guide of life.'
With probabilities we have to deal, in the intellectual sphere. But, when once this is thoroughly and honestly recognised, even a comparatively small balance of probability comes to have as much moral weight as the most loudly vaunted certainty. And meantime, apart from and beneath the strife of tongues, there is the still small voice which whispers to a man and bids him, in no superstitious sense but with the gravity and humility which befits a Christian, to 'work out his own salvation with fear and trembling.'
[2:1] With regard to the references in vol. i. p. 259, n. 1, I had already observed, before the appearance of the preface to the sixth edition, that they were really intended to apply to the first part of the sentence annotated rather than the second. Still, as there is only one reference out of nine that really supports the proposition in immediate connection with which the references are made, the reader would be very apt to carry away a mistaken impression. The same must be said of the set of references defended on p. xl. sqq. of the new preface. The expressions used do not accurately represent the state of the facts. It is not careful writing, and I am afraid it must be said that the prejudice of the author has determined the side which the expression leans. But how difficult is it to make words express all the due shades and qualifications of meaning—how difficult especially for a mind that seems to be naturally distinguished by force rather than by exactness and delicacy of observation! We have all 'les défauts de nos qualités.'
[10:1] Much harm has been done by rashly pressing human metaphors and analogies; such as, that Revelation is amessagefrom God and therefore must be infallible, &c. This is just the sort of argument that the Deists used in the last century, insisting that a revelation, properly so called,mustbe presented with conclusive proofs,mustbe universal,mustbe complete, and drawing the conclusion that Christianity is not such a revelation. This kind of reasoning has received its sentence once for all from Bishop Butler. We have nothing to do with whatmustbe (of which we are, by the nature of the case, incompetent judges), but simply with whatis.
[18:1] Cf. Westcott,Canon, p. 152, n. 2 (3rd ed. 1870).
[18:2] See Lightfoot,Galatians, p. 60; also Credner,Beiträge, ii. 66 ('certainly' from St. Paul).
[20:1]The Old Testament in the New(London and Edinburgh, 1868).
[21:1] Mr. M'Clellan (The New Testament, &c., vol. i. p. 606, n. c) makes the suggestion, which from his point of view is necessary, that 'S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by Jeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Testament, and of which the passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduction.' Cf. Credner,Beiträge, ii. 152.
[25:1] We do not stay to discuss the real origin of these quotations: the last is probably not from the Old Testament at all.
[27:1] The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also found in Clement of Alexandria.
[34:1] It should be noticed, however, that the same reading is found in Justin and other writers.
[38:1]Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti(Gottingae, 1853).
[39:1]Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften(Halle, 1832).
[40:1]The Epistles of S. Clement of Rome(London and Cambridge, 1869).
[49:1] The Latin translation is not in most cases a sufficient guarantee for the original text. The Greek has been preserved in the shape of long extracts by Epiphanius and others. The edition used is that of Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853.
[49:2] Horne'sIntroduction(ed. 1856), p. 333.
[52:1] Ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1859. [The index given in vol. iii. p. 893 sqq. contains many inaccuracies, and is, indeed, of little use for identifying the passages of Scripture.]
[56:1]Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria,p. 407 sqq.
[56:2] In the new Preface to his work on the Canon (4th edition, 1875), p. xxxii.
[58:1]S.R.i. p. 221, and note.
[59:1]S.R.i. p. 222, n. 3.
[59:2]Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch.p. 74 (p. 82S.R.?).
[59:3]Das nachapost. Zeitalter, p. 126 sq.
[60:1]Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien, p. 64; compare Fritzche, art. 'Judith' in Schenkel'sBibel-Lexicon.
[61:1] Vol. i. p. 221, n. I feel it due to the author to say that I have found his long lists of references, though not seldom faulty, very useful. I willingly acknowledge the justice of his claim to have 'fully laid before readers the actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made' (Preface to sixth edition, p. lxxx).
[65:1] i. p. 226.
[66:1] i. p. 228.
[69:1]Der Ursprung, p. 138.
[71:1]The Apostolical Fathers(London, 1874), p. 273.
[71:2] The original Greek of this work is lost, but in the text as reconstructed by Hilgenfeld from five still extant versions (Latin, Syriac, Aethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the verse runs thus, [Greek: polloi men ektisthaesan, oligoi de sothaesontai] (Messias Judaeorum, p. 69).
[73:1] A curious instance of disregard of context is to be seen in Tertullian's reading of John i. 13, which he referred toChrist, accusing the Valentinians of falsification because they had the ordinary reading (cf. Rönsch,Das Neue Testament Tertullian's, pp. 252, 654). Compare also p. 24 above.
[73:2]Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum, Fasc. ii. p. 69.
[74:1] c. v.
[74:2]S. R.i. p. 250 sqq.
[76:1] Lardner,Credibility, &c., ii. p .23; Westcott,On the Canon, p. 50, n. 5.
[77:1] Since this was written the author of 'Supernatural Religion' has replied in the preface to his sixth edition. He has stated his case in the ablest possible manner: still I do not think that there is anything to retract in what has been written above. Therewouldhave been something to retract if Dr. Lightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles. As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to stand thus. On the one side are certain improbabilities—I admit, improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind—which are met about half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand, there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted in its turn by Irenaeus. Now I cannot think that there is any improbability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to be outweighed by this external evidence.
[81:1] Cf. Hilgenfeld,Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec., Fasc. iv. p. 15.
[81:2] Cf.ibid., pp. 56, 62, also p. 29.
[82:1] But seeContemporary Review, 1875, p. 838, from which it appears that M. Waddington has recently proved the date to be rather 155 or 156. Compare Hilgenfeld,Einleitung, p. 72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius,Der Märtyrertod Polycarp'sinZ. f. w. T.1874, ii. p. 180 f.
[82:2]Adv. Haer.iii. 3, 4.
[83:1]Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche, p. 586; Hefele,Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, p. lxxx.
[84:1] Cf.S. R.i. p. 278.
[84:2]Ent. d. a. K.pp. 593, 599.
[84:3]Apostolical Fathers, p. 227 sq.
[84:4]Ursprung, pp. 43, 131.
[85:1] [Greek: mnaemoneuontes de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon; mae krinete hina mae krithaete; aphiete kai aphethaesetai hymin; eleeite hina eleaethaete; en ho metro metreite, antimetraethaesetai hymin; kai hoti makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi heneken dikaiosynaes, hoti auton estin hae basileia tou Theou.]
[89:1]Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 1. p. 138, n. 2.
[89:2]Einleilung in das N. T.p. 66, where Lipsius' view is also quoted.
[89:3] Cf. Westcott,On the Canon, p. 88, n. 4.
[89:4] As appears to be suggested inS. R.i. p. 292. The reference in the note to Bleek,Einl.p. 637 (and Ewald?), does not seem to be exactly to the point.
[89:5]Apol.i. 67.
[90:1]Dial. c. Tryph.103.
[90:2]Apol.i. 66; cf.S.R.i. p. 294.
[91:1] The evangelical references and allusions in Justin have been carefully collected by Credner and Hilgenfeld, and are here thrown together in a sort of running narrative.
[101:1] This was written before the appearance of Mr. M'Clellan's important work on the Four Gospels (The New Testament, vol. i, London, 1875), to which I have not yet had time to give the study that it deserves.
[103:1] Unless indeed it was found in one of the many forms of the Gospel (cf.S.R.i. P. 436, and p. 141 below). The section appears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Hilgenfeld (N.T. extra Can. Recept.Fasc. iv).
[107:1] In like manner Tertullian refers his readers to the 'autograph copies' of St. Paul's Epistles, and the very 'chairs of the Apostles,' preserved at Corinth and elsewhere. (De Praescript. Haeret.c. 36). Tertullian also refers to the census of Augustus, 'quem testem fidelissimum dominicae nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt' (Adv. Marc.iv. 7).
[110:1]Beiträge, i. p. 261 sqq.
[110:2]Evangelien Justin's u.s.w., p. 270 sqq.
[110:3] The chief authority is Eus.H. E.vi. 12.
[110:4] Cf. Hilgenfeld,Ev. Justin's, p. 157.
[116:1] A somewhat similar classification has been made by De Wette,Einleitung in das N. T., pp. 104-110, in which however the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which I have assumed; several instances of variation which I had classed as decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I may consider this a proof that the classification above given has not been influenced by bias.
[119:1]Beiträge, i. p. 237.
[119:2]S.R.i. p. 396 sqq.
[120:1]Die drei ersten Evangelien, Göttingen, 1850. [A second, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared.]
[120:2]Die Synoptischen Evangelien, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88.
[120:3]Das Marcus-evangelium, Berlin, 1872, p. 299.
[120:4]Beiträge, i. p. 219.
[120:5] Dr. Westcott well calls this 'thepropheticsense of the present' (On the Canon, p. 128).
[122:1] 'This is meaningless,' writes Mr. Baring-Gould of the canonical text, rather hastily, and forgetting, as it would appear, the concluding cause (Lost and Hostile Gospels, p. 166); cp.S.R.i. p. 354, ii. p. 28.
[123:1] i. pp. 196, 227, 258.
[123:2]Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon(ed. Volkmar, Berlin, 1860), p. 16.
[124:1]Adv. Haer.428 D.
[124:2] I am not quite clear that more is meant (as Meyer, EllicottHuls. Lect.p. 339, n. 2, and others maintain) in the evangelical language than that the drops of sweat 'resembled blood;' [Greek: hosei] seems to qualify [Greek: haimatos] as much as [Greek: thromboi]. Compare especially the interesting parallels from medical writers quoted by McClellanad loc.
[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by Mr. McClellan to Philo i.164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase is however [Greek: isos angeloi (gegonos)].
[129:1]S.R.i. p. 304 sqq.
[130:1]Ev. Justin's, p. 157.
[135:1] Scrivener,Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874).
[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more than I did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony. The phenomena of variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributed to allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from different Gospels. But the data will need a closer weighing before this can be determined.
[138:1]Contemporary Review, 1875, p. 169 sqq.
[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argument which follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot's, and is, I believe, in the main sound (Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst?p. 113 sqq., 4th edition, 1866).
[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition ofS. R.that the argument from silence is practically waived. If the silence of Eusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he is silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular Gospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving that the Gospels in questionwereacknowledged. The matter may well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence of Eusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them. I agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that the point is not one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of by other writers, e.g. Strauss and Renan. [The author has missed Dr. Lightfoot's point on p. xxiii. What Eusebius bears testimony to is,nothis own belief in the canonicity of the fourth Gospel, but itsundisputedcanonicity, i.e. a historical fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If I say thatHamletis an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, I mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but that all the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed it to be his.]
[140:1]H. E.iv. 22.
[141:1]S. R.i. p. 436.
[141:2]Einleitung, p. 103.
[141:3]Das Nachapost. Zeit.i. p. 238.
[141:4]Beiträge, i. p. 401.
[141:5]Nov. Test. extra Can. Recept.Fasc. iv. pp. 19, 20.
[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat parallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of Clement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek: aphiete, hina aphethae humin (kai aphethaesetai humin)].
[144:1]Contemporary Review, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf. Routh,Reliquiae Sacrae, i. p. 281ad fin.
[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the 'Ancient Syriac Versions' in Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that 'these words might be a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand' in the Curetonian text.
[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above.
[146:1]H.E.iii. 39.
[147:1] In Mr. M'Clellan's recentHarmonyI notice only two deviations from the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller'sHarmony(the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which there are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20, xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson's EnglishHarmonythree, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these passages vi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place of which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, inCont. Rev., Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf in proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot be maintained. But Tischendorf's Harmony is based on the assumption that St. Luke's use of [Greek: kathexaes] pledges him to a chronological order, and Anger adopts Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark is a compilation from Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious harmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.]
[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining the points of resemblance between the Gospels in different coloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each section.
[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Credner by Bleek and De Wette. The results will be found in Holtzmann,Synopt. Ev.p. 259 sqq.
[154:1] Cf. Holtzmann,Die Synoptischen Evangelien, p. 255 sq.; Ebrard,The Gospel History(Engl. trans.), p. 247; Bleek,Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien, i. p. 367. The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has much plausibility.
[155:1]On the Canon, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word will bear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot's recent investigations, in view of which the two sentences that follow should perhaps be cancelled; seeCont. Rev., Aug. 1875, p. 399 sqq.]
[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touch those of Dr. Lightfoot in theContemporary Reviewfor August and October: neither do Dr. Lightfoot's arguments seem very much to affect them. The method of the one is chiefly external, that of the other almost entirely internal. I can only for the present leave what I had written; but I do not for a moment suppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particular standpoint that I have taken.]
[162:1] The lists given inSupernatural Religion(ii. p. 2) seem to be correct so far as I am able to check them. In the second edition of his work on the Origin of the Old Catholic Church, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admit that the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side, sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonable warning in Reuss (Gesch. h. S. N. T.p. 254) that the Tübingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate the polemical aspect of the writing.
[162:2] It should be noticed that Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, though assigning the second place to the Homilies, both take theterminus ad quemfor this work no later than 180 A.D. It seems that a Syriac version, partly of the Homilies, partly of the Recognitions, exists in a MS. which itself was written in the year 411, and bears at that date marks of transcription from a still earlier copy (cf. Lightfoot,Galatians, p. 341, n. 1).
[163:1] This table is made, as in the case of Justin, with the help of the collection of passages in the works of Credner and Hilgenfeld.
[167:1] Or rather perhaps 'morning baptism.' (Cf. Lightfoot,Colossians,p. 162 sqq., where the meaning of the name and the character and relations of the sect are fully discussed).
[168:1]Hom.i. 6; ii. 19, 23; iii. 73; iv. 1; xiii. 7; xvii. 19.
[170:1] So Tregelles expressly (Introduction, p. 240), after Wiseman; Scrivener (Introd., p. 308) adds (?); M'Clellan classes with 'Italic Family' (p. lxxiii). [On returning to this passage I incline rather more definitely to regard the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], from the group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption. Still the Clementine writer may have had it before him.]
[170:2] ii. p. 10 sqq.
[172:1] ii. p. 21.
[172:2] Preface to the fourth edition ofCanon, p. xxxii.
[174:1]Evangelien, p. 31.
[174:2]Das Marcus-evangelium, p. 282.
[175:1]Synopt. Ev.p. 193.
[176:1]Das Marcus-evangelium, p. 295.
[178:1] A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes and Parsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. vi. 4. For [Greek: sou] there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp. 104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718; Chrys. i. 482 et saepe, al.' Fortuus, 'Iren. (int.), Tert., Cypr., Ambr., Anonym. ap. Aug., Gaud., Brix., Alii Latini.' No authorities for [Greek: humon]. Was the change first introduced into the text of the New Testament?
[178:2]S. R.ii. p. 25.
[179:1]Beiträge, i. p. 326.
[179:2]On the Canon, p. 261, n. 2.
[188:1]Hom.1.in Lucam.
[189:1]H.E.iv. 7.
[189:2]Strom.iv. 12.
[189:3]S.R.ii. p. 42.
[189:4]Ibid.n. 2; cp. p. 47.
[190:1]Ref. Omn. Haer.vii, 27.
[190:2] ii. p. 45.
[191:1]Ref. Omn. Haer.vii. 20.
[192:1]S. R.ii. p. 49.
[197:1]Adv. Haer.i. Pref. 2.
[198:1] ii. p. 59.
[199:1]S.R.ii. p. 211 sq.
[200:1]Strom.ii. 20; see Westcott,Canon, p. 269; Volkmar,Ursprung, p. 152.
[203:1]Adv. Haer.iii. 11. 7, 9.
[203:2]Ibid.iii. 12. 12.
[204:1] The corresponding chapter to this in 'Supernatural Religion' has been considerably altered, and indeed in part rewritten, in the sixth edition. The author very kindly sent me a copy of this after the appearance of my article in theFortnightly Review, and I at once made use of it for the part of the work on which I was engaged; but I regret that my attention was not directed, as it should have been, to the changes in this chapter until it was too late to take quite sufficient account of them. The argument, however, I think I may say, is not materially affected. Several criticisms which I had been led to make in theFortnightlyI now find had been anticipated, and these have been cancelled or a note added in the present work; I have also appended to the volume a supplemental note of greater length on the reconstruction of Marcion's text, the only point on which I believe there is really very much room for doubt.
[205:1] See above, p. 89.
[205:2]Apol.i. 26.
[205:3]Ibid.i. 58.
[205:4] ii. p. 80.
[205:5]Der Ursprung, p. 89.
[205:6] Cf. Tertullian,De Praescript. Haeret.c. 38.
[206:1]Adv. Haer.iv. 27. 2; 12. 12.
[209:1]Das Ev. Marcion's, pp. 28-54. [Volkmar's view is stated less inadequately in the sixth edition ofS. R., but still not quite adequately. Perhaps it could hardly be otherwise where arguments that were originally adduced in favour of one conclusion are employed to support its opposite.]
[210:1] [Greek: oida] for [Greek: oidas] in Luke xiv. 20. Cf. Volkmar, p. 46.
[211:1]Das Ev. Marcion's, p. 45.
[211:2]Ibid.pp. 46-48.
[211:3] 'We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy or trustworthiness of any of their statements' (S.R.ii. p. 100). We have just the remarkable coincidence spoken of above. It does not prove that Tertullian did not faithfully reproduce the text of Marcion to show, which is the real drift of the argument on the preceding page (S.R.ii. p. 99), that he had not the canonical Gospel before him; rather it removes the suspicion that he might have confused the text of Marcion's Gospel with the canonical.
[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette,Einleitung, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.
[213:1]:S.R.ii. p. 110, n. 3. The statement is mistaken in regard to Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. Both these writers would make Marcion retain this passage. It happens rather oddly that this is one of the sections on which the philological evidence for St. Luke's authorship is least abundant (see below).
[215:1] There is direct evidence for the presence in Marcion's Gospel of the passages relating to the personages here named, except Martha and Mary; seeTert. Adv. Marc.iv. 19, 37, 43.
[217:1]S. R.ii. 142 sq.
[217:2] This admission does not damage the credit of Tertullian and Epiphanius as witnesses; because what we want from them is a statement of the facts; the construction which they put upon the facts is a matter of no importance.
[217:3] The omission in 2 Cor. iv. 13 must be due to Marcion (Epiph.321 c.); so probably an insertion in 1 Cor. ix. 8.
[218:1] Tert.Adv. Marc.v. 16: 'Haec si Marcion de industria erasit,' &c. V. 14: 'Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae.' V. 3: 'Ostenditur quid supra haeretica industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,' &c. Cf. Bleek,Einleitung, p. 136; Hilgenfeld,Evv. Justin's, &c., p. 473.
[219:1] 'Anno xv. Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatus est' (Tert.Adv. Marc.i. 19).
[220:1] I give mainly the explanations of Volkmar, who, it should be remembered, is the very reverse of an apologist, indicating the points where they seem least satisfactory.
[220:2] It is highly probable that many of the points mentioned by Tertullian and Epiphanius as 'adulterations' were simply various readings in Marcion's Codex; such would be v. 14, x. 25, xvii. 2, and xxiii. 2, which are directly supported by other authority: xi. 2 and xii. 28 would probably belong to this class. So perhaps the insertion of iv. 27 in the history of the Samaritan leper. The phenomenon of a transposition of verses from one part of a Gospel to another is not an infrequent one in early MSS.
[223:1]Die Synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, pp. 302 sqq.
[224:1] Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it is confirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion.
[229:1] An analysis of the words which are only found in St. Luke, or very rarely found elsewhere, gives the following results.—The number of words found only in the portion of the Gospel retained by Marcion and in the Acts is 231; that of words found in these retained portions and not besides in the Gospels or the two other Synoptics is 58; and both these classes together for the portions omitted in Marcion's Gospel reach a total of 62, which is decidedly under the proportion that might have been expected. The list is diminished by a number of words which are found only in the omitted and retained portions, furnishing evidence, as above, that both proceed from the same hand.
[231:1] This list has been made from the valuable work of Rönsch,Das Neue Testament Tertullian's, 1871, and the critical editions, compared with the text of Marcion's Gospel as given by Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.
[231:2] It might be thought that Tertullian was giving his own text and not that of Marcion's Gospel, but this supposition is excluded both by the confirmation which he receives from Epiphanius, and also by the fact, which is generally admitted (seeS.R.ii. p. 100), that he had not the canonical Luke, but only Marcion's Gospel before him.
[233:1] See Crowfoot,Observations on the Collation in Greek of Cureton's Syriac Fragments of the Gospels, 1872, p. 5; Scrivener,Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, 1874, p. 452.
[233:2] See Scrivener,Introduction, p. 307 sq.; and Dr. Westcott's article on the 'Vulgate' in Smith's Dictionary. It should be noticed that Dr. Westcott's literation differs from that of Dr. Scrivener and Tregelles, which has been adopted here.
[235:1] Cf. Friedländer,Sittengeschichte Roms, iii. p. 315.
[238:1] See p. 89, above.
[238:2]Strom.iii. 12; compareS.R.ii. p. 151.
[239:1] [Greek: Ho mentoi ge proteros auton archaegos ho Tatianos sunapheian tina kai sunagogaen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion suntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasin, ho kai para tisin eiseti nun pheretai.]H. E.iv. 29.
[239:2]Beiträge, i. p. 441.
[240:1]Haer.391 D (xlvi. 1).
[240:2] [Greek: Outos kai to dia tessaron kaloumenon suntetheiken euangelion, tas te genealogias perikopsas, kai ta alla, hosa ek spermatos Dabid kata sorka genennaemenon ton Kurion deiknusin. Echraesanto de touto ou monon oi taes ekeinou summorias, alla kai oi tous apostolikois epomenoi dogmasi, taen taes sunthaekaes kakourgian ouk egnokotes, all' aplousteron hos suntomo to biblio chraesamenoi. Euron de kago pleious ae diakosias biblous toiautas en tais par' haemin ekklaesiois tetimaemenas, kai pasas sunagagan apethemaen, kai ta ton tettaron euangeliston anteisaegagon euangelia] (Haeret. Fab.i. 20, quoted by Credner,Beiträge, i. p. 442).
[240:3] SeeS.R.ii. p. 15.
[241:1]S.R.ii. p. 162; compare Credner,Beiträge, i. p. 446 sqq.
[241:2]Adv. Haer.iii. 11. 8.
[241:3]Beit. i. p. 443.
[241:4] May not Tatian have given his name to a collection of materials begun, used, and left in a more or less advanced stage of compilation, by Justin? However, we can really do little more than note the resemblance: any theory we may form must be purely conjectural.
[242:1] [Greek: Epistolas gar adelphon axiosanton me grapsai egarapsa. Kai tautas oi tou diabolon apostoloi zizanion gegemikan, ha men exairountes, ha de prostithentes. Ois to ouai keitai. Ou thaumaston ara, ei kai ton kuriakon rhadiourgaesai tines epibeblaentai graphon, hopote tais ou toiautais epibebouleukasi.]H.E.iv. 23 (Routh,Rel. Sac.i. p. 181).
[243:1] [Greek: Allae d' epistolae tis autou pros Nikomaedeas pheretai en hae taen Markionos airesin polemon to taes alaetheias paristatai kanoni].H.E.iv. 23_.
[244:1] [Greek: Akribos mathon ta taes palaias diathaekaes Biblia, hipotaxas epempsa soi.] Euseb.H.E.iv. 26 (Routh,Rel. Sac.i. p. 119).
[245:1] Westcott,On the Canon, p. 201.
[245:2] ii. p. 177.
[245:3]Adv. Marc.iv. 1 (cf. Rönsch,Das neue Testament Tertullian's, p. 48), 'duo deos dividens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius instrumenti—vel,quod magis usui est dicere, testamenti.'
[246:1] [Greek: Eisi toinun hoi di' hagnoian philoneikousi peri touton, sungnoston pragma peponthotes agnoia gar ou kataegorian anadechetai, alla didachaes prosdeitai. Kai legousin hoti tae id' to probaton meta ton mathaeton ephagen ho Kurios tae de mealier haemera ton azumon autos epathen; kai diaegountai Matthaion outo legein hos nenoaekasin; hothen asumphonos te nomo hae noaesis auton, kai stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia.]Chron. Pasch.in Routh,Rel. Sac.i. p. 160.
[247:1]S. R.ii. p. 188 sqq. The reference to Routh is given on p. 188, n. 1; that to Lardner in the same note should, I believe, be ii. p. 316, not p. 296.
[247:2]Rel. Sac.i. p. 167.
[249:1] The quotations from Athenagoras are transcribed from 'Supernatural Religion' and Lardner (Credibility &c., ii. p. 195 sq.). I have not access to the original work.
[251:1]Credibility &c., ii. p. 161.
[252:1]Ep. Vien. et Lugd.§ 3 (in Routh,Rel. Sac.i. p. 297).
[252:2]S.R.ii. p. 203;Evv. Justin's u.s.w.p. 155.
[254:1]Wann wurden u.s.w.p. 48 sq.
[254:2]Ursprung, p. 130;S.R.ii. p. 222.
[255:1] Cf. Credner,Beiträge, ii. p. 254.
[256:1]Adv. Haer.i. Praef. 2.
[257:1]Strom.iv. 9.
[257:2] [Greek: Ton Oualentinou legomenon einai gnorimon Haerakleouna] … Origen,Comm. in Joh.ii. p. 60 (quoted by Volkmar,Ursprung, p. 127).
[259:1] 'In affirming that [these quotations] are taken from the Gospel according to St. Matthew apologists exhibit their usual arbitrary haste,' &c.S.R.ii. p. 224.
[260:1]Celsus' Wahres Wort, Zurich, 1873. For what follows, see especially p. 261 sqq.
[263:1] Keim,Celsus' Wahres Wort, p. 262.
[263:2]Ibid. p. 228 sq.; Volkmar,Ursprung, p. 80.
[263:3] The text of this document is printed in full by Routh,Rel. Sac. i. pp. 394-396; Westcott,On the Canon, p. 487 sqq.; Hilgenfeld,Der Kanon und die Kritik des N.T.ad p. 40, n.; Credner,Geschichte des Noutestamentlichen Kanon, ed. Volkmar, p. 153 sqq., &c.
[264:1] See however Dr. Lightfoot inCont. Rev., Oct. 1875, p. 837.
[265:1]Ursprung, p. 28.
[265:2] ii. p. 245.
[266:1] Cf. Credner,Gesch. des Kanon, p. 167.
[266:2]S.R.ii. p. 241.
[267:1] Quoted inS.R.ii. p. 247.
[269:1]Adv. Haer. ii, 22. 5, iii. 3.4.
[270:1]Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, i. pp. 141-143.
[273:1]Geschichte Jesu von Nazara. i. pp. 143, 144.
[273:2]On the Canon, p. 182 sqq.
[275:1] [Greek: Ouch haedomai trophae phthoras, oude haedonais tou biou toutou. Arton Theou thelo, arton ouranion, arton zoaes, hos estin sarx Iaesou Christou tou Huiou tou Theou tou genomenou en hustero ek spermatos Dabid kai Abraam; kai poma Theou thelo to haima aoutou, ho estin agapae aphthartos kai aennaos zoae.]Ep. ad Rom. c. vii.
[275:2] [Greek: Alla to Pneuma ou planatai, apo Theou on; oiden gar pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei, kai ta drupta elenche].Ep. ad Philad. c. vii.
[276:1] Cf. Lipsius in Schenkel'sBibel-Lexicon, i. p. 98.
[277:1] The second and third Epistles stand upon a somewhat different footing.
[277:2] Cf.S.R.ii. p. 269.
[278:1]S.R.ii p. 323.
[278:2]Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, i. p. 138 sq.
[280:1] Cf.S.R.ii. p. 302.
[280:2] SoDial. c. Tryph. 69; inApol.i. 22 the MSS. of Justin read [Greek: ponaerous], which might stand, though some editors substitute or prefer [Greek: paerous]. In both quotations [Greek: ek genetaes] is added. The nearest parallel in the Synoptics is Mark ix. 21, [Greek: ek paidiothen] (of the paralytic boy).
[280:3]Wann wurden u. s. w. p. 34.
[283:1] ii. p. 308. [Has the author perhaps misunderstood Credner (Beit. i. p. 253), whose argument on this head is not indeed quite clear?]
[283:2]The New Testament &c., i. p. 709.
[284:1] SeeApol. i. 23, 32, 63; ii. 10.
[284:2] [Greek: Hae de protae dunamis meta ton patera panton kai despotaen Theon kai uios ho logos estin.] This is not quite rightly translated by Tischendorf and in 'Supernatural Religion:' [Greek: uios], like [Greek: dunamis], is a predicate; 'the next Power who also stands in the relation of Son.'
[285:1] Prov. viii. 22-24, 27, 30.
[285:2] Wisd. vii. 25, 26; viii. 1, 4.
[286:1] Ecclus. xxiv. 9.
[286:2] Wisd. ix. 1, 2; xvi. 12; xviii. 15.
[287:1] Cf. Lipsius inS. B. L.i. p. 95 sqq.
[288:1]Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T. (Halle, 1863), p. 29;Einleitung, P. 43, n.
[288:2]Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien, p. 63.
[288:3] ii. p. 346.
[290:1]S. R.ii. p. 340.
[293:1] The force of the article ([Greek: tou paerou]) should be noticed, as showing that the incident (and therefore the Gospel) is assumed to be well known.
[293:2]S.R.ii. p. 341.
[295:1] Tischendorf,Wann wurden, p. 40; Westcott,Canon, p. 80.
[296:1] ii. p. 357 sqq.
[297:1]Adv. Haer.V. 36. 1, 2.
[297:2]S. R.ii. p. 329.
[298:1] Advanced by Routh (or rather Feuardentius in his notes on Irenaeus; cf.Rel. Sac. i. p. 31), and adopted by Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott. [The identification has since been ably and elaborately maintained by Dr. Lightfoot; seeCont. Rev. Oct. 1875, p. 841 sqq.]
[298:2] It is not necessary here to determine the sense in which these words are to be taken. I had elsewhere given my reasons for taking [Greek: erchomenon] with [Greek: anthropon], as A. V. (Fourth Gospel, p. 6, n.). Mr. M'Clellan is now to be added to the number of those who prefer to take it with [Greek: phos], and argues ably in favour of his opinion.
[299:1] The translation of this difficult passage has been left on purpose somewhat baldly literal. The idea seems to be that Basilides refused to accept projection or emanation as a hypothesis to account for the existence of created things. Compare Mansel,Gnost. Her.p. 148.
[301:1]Adv. Haer.. iii. 11. 7.
[302:1]Haer. 216-222.
[302:2] It should however be noticed that these words are given only in the old Latin translation of Irenaeus and are wanting in the Greek as preserved by Epiphanius. Whether the words were accidentally omitted, or whether they were inserted inferentially, for greater clearness, by the translator, it is hard to say. In any case the bearing of the quotations must be very much the same. If not made by Ptolemaeus himself, they were made by a contemporary of Ptolemaeus, i.e. at least by a writer anterior to Irenaeus.
[302:3]Adv. Haer. ii. 4. 1; cf.S.R.ii. p. 211 sq.
[302:4] The somewhat copious fragments of Heracleon's Commentary are given in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus, p. 938 sqq. Origen says that Heracleon read 'Bethany' in John i. 28 (M'Clellan, i. p. 708).
[305:1] ii. p. 378.
[306:1]S.R.ii. p. 379.
[307:1] There is also perhaps a probable reference to St. John in Section 6, [Greek: taes aionioi paegaes tou hudatos taes zoaes tou exiontos ek taes naeduos tou Christou.]
[307:2]Celsus' Wahres Wort, p. 229.
[308:1] [Greek: ho taen hagian pleuran ekkentaetheis, ho ekcheas ek taes pleuras autou ta duo palin katharsia, hudor kai aima, logon kai pneuma]. See Routh,Rel. Sac. i. p. 161.
[308:2] Lardner,Credibility, &c., ii. p. 196.
[315:1] Tregelles in Horne'sIntroduction, p. 334.
[315:2]Adv. Haer.iii. 11. 8.
[316:1]Adv. Haer.iii. 1. 1.
[317:1] See Lardner,Credibility, &c., ii. pp. 223, 224, and Eus.H.E.ii. 15 (14 Lardner).
[317:2] CompareH.E.ii. 15 and vi. 14.
[317:3]H.E.vi. 14.
[317:4]Strom.iii. 13.
[318:1] For the meaning of this word ('schriftliche Beweisurkunde') see Rönsch,Das N.T. Tertullian's, p. 48.
[318:2]Adv. Marc.iv. 2.
[318:2]Ibid. iv. 5.
[318:4]Ibid. v. 9.
[318:5]Ibid. iv. 2-5; compare v. 9, and Rönsch, pp. 53, 54.
[319:1] Eus.H.E.vi. 25.
[319:2] See M'Clellan on Luke i. 1-4. On the general position of Origen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld,Kanon, p. 49.
[320:1] So Westcott inS.D.iii. 1692, n. Tregelles, in Horne'sIntroduction, p. 333, speaks of this translation as 'coeval, apparently, with Irenaeus himself.' We must not, however, omit to notice that Rönsch (p. 43, n.) is more reserved in his verdict on the ground that the translation of Irenaeus 'in its peculiarities and in its relation to Tertullian has not yet received a thorough investigation;' compare Hilgenfeld,Einleitung, p. 797.
[320:2] Rönsch,Das N.T. Tertullian's, p. 43.
[321:1] Rönsch,Itala und Vulgata, pp. 2, 3.
[321:2] Horne'sIntroduction, p. 233.
[321:3]Introduction(2nd ed.), pp. 300, 302, 450, 452.
[321:4] iii. p. 1690 b.
[322:1] Hilgenfeld, in his recentEinleitung, says expressly (p. 797) that 'the New Testament had already in the second century been translated into Latin.' This admission is not affected by the argument which follows, which goes to prove that the version used by Tertullian was not the 'Itala' properly so called.
[322:2] See Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1630 b.
[322:3]Introduction, p. 274.
[322:4] See Routh,Rel. Sac.i. pp. 124 and 152.
[323:1] See Scrivener,loc. cit.
[323:2] SeeNew Testament, &c., i. p. 635.
[323:3]S.D.iii. p. 1634 b.
[324:1]Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 724.
[324:2]Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments, p. 302.
[324:3]Einleitung, p. 804.
[324:4] See Tregelles,loc. cit.
[324:5] Cf. Hilgenfeld,Einleitung, p. 805. It hardly seems clear that Origen hadnoMS. authority for his reading.
[324:6]Introduction, p. 530. But [Greek: oupo] is admitted into the text by Westcott and Hort.
[324:7] 'The text of the Curetonian Gospels is in itself a sufficient proof of the extreme antiquity of the Syriac Version. This, as has been already remarked, offers a striking resemblance to that of the Old Latin, and cannot be later than the middle or close of the second century. It would be difficult to point out a more interesting subject for criticism than the respective relations of the Old Latin and Syriac Versions to the Latin and Syriac Vulgates. But at present it is almost untouched.' Westcott,On the Canon(3rd ed.), p. 218, n. 3.
[325:1] See Scrivener'sIntroduction, p. 324.
[325:2] Cf. Bleek,Einleitung, p. 735; Reuss,Gesch. N.T.p. 447.
[326:1] This is the date commonly accepted since Massuet,Diss. in Irenaeum, ii. 1. 2. Grabe had previously placed the date in A.D. 108, Dodwell as early as A.D. 97 (of. Stieren,Irenaeus, ii. pp. 32, 34, 182).
[326:2] Routh,Rel. Sac.i. p. 306.
[327:1] Eus.H.E.v. 11, vi. 6. Eusebius, in his, 'Chronicle,' speaks of Clement as eminent for his writings ([Greek suntatton dielampen]) in A.D. 194.
[327:2] The books called 'Stromateis' or 'Miscellanies' date from this reign.H.E.vi. 6.
[327:3]Stromateis, i. 1.
[327:4]Adv. Marc.iv. 5.
[327:5]De Praescript. Haeret. c. 36; see Scrivener,Introduction, p. 446.
[328:1] pp. 450, 451.
[328:2] p. 452. These facts may be held to show that the books were not regarded with the same veneration as now.
[329:1] v. 30. 1.
[330:1]Adv. Haer.iii. 11. 8.
[330:2]Ib. iii. 14. 2.
[331:1] Cf.Adv. Haer.iv. 13. 1.
[332:1] The varieties of reading in this verse are exhibited in full by Dr. Westcott,On the Canon, p. 120, notes 4 and 5.
[336:1] Matt. v. 28 is omitted as too ambiguous and confusing, though it is especially important for the point in question as showing that Tertullian himself had a variety of MSS. before him.
[336:2] St. Matthew's Gospel is wanting in this MS. to xxv. 6; two leaves are also lost, from John vi. 50 to viii. 52.
[346:1]Strom. ii. 20.
[347:1] In a volume entitledThe Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, Macmillan, 1872. I may say with reference to this book—a 'firstling' of theological study— that I am inclined now to think that I exaggerated somewhat the importance of minute details as an evidence of the work of an eye-witness. The whole of the arguments, however, summarised on pp. 287-293 seem to me to be still perfectly valid and sound, and the greater part of them—notably that which relates to the Messianic expectations—is quite untouched by 'Supernatural Religion.'
[348:1] It is instructive to compare the canons elaborately drawn up by Mr. M'Clellan (N.T.i. 375-389) with those tacitly assumed in 'Supernatural Religion.' The inference in the one case seems to be 'possible, therefore true,' in the other, 'not probable, or not confirmed, therefore false.' Surely neither of these tallies with experience.
[352:1] This, perhaps, is one that is apt to be overlooked. In order to be quite sure that the process of analysis is complete it must be supplemented and verified by the reversed process of synthesis. If a compound has been resolved into its elements, we cannot be sure that it has been resolved intoallits elements until the original compound has been produced by their recombination. Where this second reverse process fails, the inference is that some unknown element which was originally present has escaped in the analysis. The analysis may be true as far as it goes, but it is incomplete. The causes are 'verae causae,' but they are not all the causes in operation. So it seems to be with the analysis of the vital organism. We may be said to know entirely what air and water are because the chemist can produce them, but we only know very imperfectly the nature of life and will and conscience, because when the physiological analysis has been carried as far as it will go there still remains a large unknown element. Within this element may very well reside those distinctive properties which make man (as the moralist isobligedto assume that he is) a responsible and religious being. The hypotheses which lie at the root of morals and religion are derived from another source than physiology, but physiology does not exclude them, and will not do so until it gives a far more verifiably complete account of human nature than it does at present.
[354:1] Mr. Browning has expressed this with his usual incisiveness and penetration:—
'I hear you recommend, I might at leastEliminate, decrassify my faith …Still, when you bid me purify the same,To such a process I discern no end,Clearing off one excrescence to see two;There's ever a next in size, now grown as big,That meets the knife: I cut and cut again!First cut the liquefaction, what comes lastBut Fichte's clever cut at God himself?'
But also, on the other hand:—
'Where'sThe gain? how can we guard our unbelief?Just when we are safest, there's a sunset-touch,A fancy from a flower-bell, some one's death,A chorus ending from Euripides,—And that's enough for fifty hopes and fears,As old and new at once as Nature's self,To rap and knock and enter in our soul …All we have gained then by our unbeliefIs a life of doubt diversified by faith,For one of faith diversified by doubt:We called the chess-board white,—we call it black.'
Bishop Blongram's Apology.
[359:1] As to the defects of the present edition, see Tischendorf, Prolegomena toVetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes, p. liii: 'Eae vero (collationes) quemadmodum in editis habentur non modo universae graviter differunt inter se fide atque accuratione, sed ad ipsos principales testes tam negligenter tamque male factae sunt ut etiam atque etiam dolendum sit tantos numos rara liberalitate per Angliam suppeditatos criticae sacrae parum profuisse.' Similarly Credner, in regard to the use of the Codex Alexandrinus,Beiträge, ii. 16: 'Wahrhaft unbegreiflich und unverzeihlich ist es, dass die Herausgeber der kostbaren Kritischen Ausgabe der LXX, welcher zu Oxford vor wenigen Jahren vollendet und von Holmes und Parsons besorgt worden ist, statt cine sorgfältige Vergleichung des in London aufbewahrten Cod. Alex. zu veranstalten, sich lediglich auf die Ausgabe von Grabe beschränkt haben, dessen Kritik vielfach nicht einmal verstanden worden ist.'