But if this was the motive of the insertion, what was its source? Have we not here one of those ill.u.s.trative anecdotes which Papias derived from the report of the elders, and to which he 'did not scruple to give a place along with his interpretations' of our Lord's sayings? Its introduction as an ill.u.s.tration of the words in John viii. 15 would thus be an exact parallel to the treatment of the saying in Matthew xxvi. 29, as described in the first part of this paper [205:1]. A reader or transcriber of St John, familiar with Papias, would copy it down in his margin, either from Papias himself or from the Gospel of the Hebrews; and hence it would gain currency. The _Codex Bezae_, the oldest Greek ma.n.u.script by two or three centuries which contains this narrative, is remarkable for its additions. May we not suspect that others besides this pericope (I would name especially our Lord's saying to the man whom He found working on the sabbath) were derived from this exegetical work of Papias? At all events Eusebius speaks of it as containing 'some strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other matters more or less fabulous ([Greek: muthikotera]),' which Papias derived from oral tradition.

5. I have already suggested [205:2] that the notice relating to St Mark in Papias might have been given to explain some peculiarities in the Second Gospel, _as compared with St John_. This conjecture, standing alone, appears to have a very slight value, but it a.s.sumes a higher importance when we find that a writer who was a younger contemporary of Papias speaks of St Mark's Gospel in this same way and with this same motive.

The extract from the Muratorian fragment relating to the Gospels has been given above [205:3]. The writer is obviously desirous of accounting for the differences in the four Evangelists. As the fragment is mutilated at the beginning, we cannot say what he wrote about the First Gospel. But the half sentence which alone survives of his account of the Second Gospel tells its own tale; 'Quibus interfuit et ita tamen posuit.' It is evident that he, like Papias, describes St Mark as dependent on the oral preaching of St Peter for his information respecting Christ's life. He 'set down' such facts as he knew from having been 'present' when the Apostle related them to his hearers. If the words themselves had left any room for doubt, it would be cleared up by his account of the Third Gospel, which follows immediately. St Luke, he tells us, was a follower of St Paul, and so wrote his Gospel; 'but _neither_ did _he_ ([Greek: all' oud' autos]) see the Lord in the flesh,' and so he gave such information as came within his reach. On the other hand, he declares that the Fourth Gospel was written by John, a personal _disciple_ of Christ, at the instance and with the sanction of other personal disciples like himself. Hence, he argues, though there must necessarily be differences in detail, yet this does not affect the faith of believers, since there is perfect accordance on the main points, and all the Gospels alike are inspired by the same Spirit. At the same time, the authority of the Fourth Gospel is paramount, as the record of an immediate eye-witness; and this claim John a.s.serts for himself in the opening of his Epistle, when he declares that he has written what he himself had seen and heard.

Probably, if the notice of St Mark had not been mutilated, the coincidence would have been found to be still greater. Even as it stands, this account throws great light on the notice of Papias. The Muratorian writer lays stress on the secondary character of St Mark's account; so does Papias. The Muratorian writer quotes from the First Epistle of St John in evidence; so did Papias. We are not told with what object Papias adduced this testimony from the Epistle; but it is at least a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the Muratorian writer. It should be observed also that Eusebius mentions Papias as quoting not only the First Epistle of St John, but also the First Epistle of St Peter. May not the two have been connected together in the context of Papias, as they are in the notice of Eusebius? It is quite clear that Papias had already said something of the relations existing between St Peter and St Mark previously to the extract which gives an account of the Second Gospel; for he there refers back to a preceding notice, 'But afterwards, _as I said_, he followed Peter.'

Would he not naturally have quoted, as ill.u.s.trating these relations, the reference to the Evangelist in the Apostle's own letter, 'Marcus my son saluteth you' (1 Pet. v. 13)? If the whole of the Muratorian writer's notice of the Second Gospel had been preserved, we should not improbably have found a parallelism here also. But, however this may be, the resemblance is enough to suggest that the Muratorian writer was acquainted with the work of Papias, and that he borrowed his contrast between the secondary evidence of St Mark and the primary evidence of St John from this earlier writer. And such a contrast offers a highly natural explanation of Papias' motive. The testimony of the elder respecting the composition of St Mark's Gospel was introduced by him, as we saw, to explain its phenomena. Though strictly accurate in its relation of facts, as far as it went, this Gospel had, he tells us, two drawbacks, which it owed to its secondary character. The account could not be taken as _complete_, and the order could not be a.s.sumed to be strictly _chronological_. In other words, compared with other evangelical narratives which Papias had in view, it showed _omissions_ and _transpositions_. A comparison with St John's narrative would yield many instances of both. We have ample evidence that within a very few years after Papias wrote, the differences between St John and the Synoptic Gospels had already begun to attract attention. The Muratorian writer is a competent witness to this, nor does he stand alone. Claudius Apollinaris, who succeeded Papias in the see of Hierapolis, perhaps immediately, certainly within a very few years, mentions that on the showing of some persons 'the Gospels seem to be at variance with one another' [207:1]. He is referring especially to the account of the Crucifixion in St Matthew and St John respectively.

It is much to be regretted that the Muratorian writer's account of St Matthew also has not been preserved; for here again we should expect much light to be thrown on the corresponding account in Papias. Why did Papias introduce this notice of the Hebrew original of St Matthew? We may suspect that the same motive which induced him to dwell on the secondary character of St Mark's knowledge led him also to call attention to the fact that St Matthew's Gospel was not an original, but a translation. I turn to an exegetical work of Eusebius, and I find this father dealing with the different accounts of two Evangelists in this very way. He undertakes to solve the question, why St Matthew (xxviii.

1) says that the resurrection was revealed to Mary Magdalene on the evening of (or 'late on') the sabbath ([Greek: opse sabbaton]), whereas St John (xx. 1) places this same incident on the first day of the week [Greek: te mia ton sabbaton]; and among other explanations which he offers is the following:--

The expression 'on the evening of the sabbath' is due to the translator of the Scripture; for the Evangelist Matthew published [Greek: paredoke] his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue; but the person who rendered it into the Greek language changed it, and called the hour dawning on the Lord's day [Greek: opse sabbaton] [208:1].

He adds, that each Evangelist corrects any misapprehension which might arise--St Matthew by adding 'as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week,' St John by a similar qualifying expression 'when it was yet dark.' Being acquainted with the work of Papias, Eusebius might have borrowed this mode of explanation, if not this very explanation, from him.

But it may be urged that on this hypothesis the motive of Papias must have appeared in the context, and that, if it had so appeared, Eusebius must have quoted it. The reply is simple. Papias must in any case have had some object or other in citing this testimony of the presbyter, and none is given. But I would answer further, that under the supposed circ.u.mstances Eusebius was not likely to quote the context. As a matter of fact, he has not done so in a very similar case, where he tears out a fragment from a pa.s.sage in Irenaeus which intimately affects the relations of the Evangelists to one another [209:1]. He commences in the middle of a sentence, and extracts just as much as serves his immediate purpose, leaving out everything else. On this point, I am glad that I can reckon beforehand on the a.s.sent of the author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself. Speaking of this extract from Irenaeus, he says, 'Nothing could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to represent any discordance between the Gospels [209:2].' I do not indeed join in the vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of Eusebius.

Wherever I have been able to investigate the charge, I have found it baseless. We have ample evidence that Eusebius was prepared to face the difficulties in harmonizing the Gospels, when the subject came properly before him. But here he might fairly excuse himself from entering upon a topic which had no bearing on his immediate purpose, and which once started would require a lengthy discussion to do justice to it. Moreover it is obvious that he is very impatient with Papias. He tells us twice over that he has confined his extracts to the very narrowest limits which bare justice to his subject would allow [209:3]; he warns his readers that there are a great many traditions in Papias which he has pa.s.sed over; and he refers them to the book itself for further information. Though exceptionally long in itself compared with his notices of other early Christian writers, his account of Papias is, we may infer, exceptionally brief in proportion to the amount of material which this father afforded for such extracts.

6. I have said nothing yet about the direct testimony of a late anonymous writer, which (if it could be accepted as trustworthy) would be decisive on the point at issue.

In an argument prefixed to this Gospel in a Vatican MS, which is a.s.signed to the ninth century, we read as follows:--

The Gospel of John was made known (manifestatum), and given to the Churches by John while he yet remained in the body (adhuc in corpore const.i.tuto); as (one) Papias by name, of Hierapolis, a beloved disciple of John, has related in his exoteric, that is, in his last five books (in exotericis, id est, in extremis quinque libris); but he wrote down the Gospel at the dictation of John, correctly (descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte). But Marcion the heretic, when he had been censured (improbatus) by him, because he held heretical opinions (eo quod contraria sentiebat), was cast off by John. Now he had brought writings or letters to him from the brethren that were in Pontus [210:1].

No stress can be laid on testimony derived from a pa.s.sage which contains such obvious anachronisms and other inaccuracies; but the mention of Papias here courts inquiry, and time will not be ill spent in the endeavour to account for it. It will be worth while, at all events, to dispose of an erroneous explanation which has found some favour. When attention was first called to this pa.s.sage by Aberle and Tischendorf, Overbeck met them with the hypothesis that the notice was taken from a spurious work ascribed to Papias. He supposed that some one had forged five additional books in the name of this father, in which he had gathered together a ma.s.s of fabulous matter, and had ent.i.tled them 'Exoterica,' attaching them to the genuine five books. To this work he a.s.signed also the notice respecting the four Maries which bears the name of Papias [210:2]. This explanation might have been left to itself if it had remained as a mere hypothesis of Overbeck's, but it has been recently accepted by Hilgenfeld. He speaks of these five 'exoteric'

books, as attached to 'the five esoteric or genuine books;' and to this source he attributes not only the account of the four Maries, but also a notice relating to the death of St John which is given by Georgius Hamartolos on the authority of Papias [211:1].

This however seems to be altogether a mistake. We find no notice or trace elsewhere of any such spurious work attributed to Papias. Moreover these t.i.tles are quite unintelligible. There is no reason why the five genuine books should be called 'esoteric,' or the five spurious books 'exoteric.' About the notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in error. It is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of Hierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin lexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere hypothesis, as Hilgenfeld a.s.sumes, but an indisputable fact, as any one can test who will refer to the work itself, of which MSS exist in some libraries, and which was printed four times in the fifteenth century [211:2]. Nor again does the pa.s.sage in Georgius Hamartolos give any countenance to this theory. This writer, after saying that St John survived the rest of the twelve and then suffered as a martyr ([Greek: marturiou katexiotai]), continues:--

For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eye-witness of him, says in the second book [Greek: logo] of the 'Oracles of the Lord' ([Greek: ton kuriakon logion]) that he was slain by the Jews, having, as is clear, with his brother James, fulfilled the prediction of Christ.... 'Ye shall drink my cup,' etc. [211:3]

Here we have an obvious error. The fate which really befell James is attributed to John. Georgius Hamartolos therefore cannot be quoting directly from Papias, for Papias cannot have reported the _martyrdom_ of John. But, on the other hand, Papias seems plainly to have been the ultimate source of his information. The work is precisely and correctly quoted. The general tenor accords with the main object of Papias'

book--the exposition of a saying of Christ, and the ill.u.s.tration of it by a story derived from tradition. This being so, the error is most easily explained by a lacuna. In the intermediate authority from whom Georgius got the reference, some words must have dropped out; a line or two may have been omitted in his copy; and the sentence may have run in the original somewhat in this way; [Greek: Papias ... phaskei hoti Ioannes [men hupo tou Rhomaion basileos katedikasthe marturon eis Patmon, Iakobos de] hupo Ioudaion anerethe], 'Papias says that John [was condemned by the Roman emperor (and sent) to Patmos for bearing witness (to the truth) while James] was slain by the Jews' [212:1].

The hypothesis of a spurious Papias therefore is wholly unsupported; and we must seek some other explanation of the statement in the Vatican MS.

This pa.s.sage seems to be made up of notices gathered from different sources. The account of Marcion, with which it closes, involves an anachronism (to say nothing else), and seems to have arisen from a confusion of the interview between St John and Cerinthus and that between Polycarp and Marcion, which are related by Irenaeus in the same context [213:1]. The earlier part, referring to Papias, is best explained in another way--by clerical errors and mistranslation rather than by historical confusion. The word 'exotericis' ought plainly to be read 'exegeticis' [213:2]. In some handwritings of the seventh or eighth century, where the letters have a round form, the subst.i.tution of OT for EG would be far from difficult [213:3]. In this case _extremis_, which should perhaps be read _externis_, is the Latin interpretation of the false reading _exotericis_. Thus purged of errors, the reference to Papias presents no difficulties. We may suppose that Papias, having reported some saying of St John on the authority of the elders, went on somewhat as follows: 'And this accords with what we find in his own Gospel, which he gave to the Churches when he was still in the body'

[Greek: eti en to somati kathestotos]. In this contrast between the story repeated after his death and the Gospel taken down from his lips during his lifetime, we should have an explanation of the words _adhuc in corpore const.i.tuto_, which otherwise seem altogether out of place.

The word _const.i.tuto_ shows clearly, I think, that the pa.s.sage must have been translated from the Greek. If St John's authorship of the Gospel had been mentioned in this incidental way, Eusebius would not have repeated it, unless he departed from his usual practice. On the other hand, the statement that Papias was the amanuensis of the Evangelist can hardly be correct, though it occurs elsewhere [213:4]. Whether it was derived from a misunderstanding of Papias, or of some one else, it would be impossible to say. But I venture to suggest a solution. Papias may have quoted the Gospel 'delivered by John to the Churches, which _they_ wrote down from his lips' ([Greek: ho apegraphon apo tou stomatos autou]); and some later writer, mistaking the ambiguous [Greek: apegraphon], interpreted it, '_I_ wrote down,' thus making Papias himself the amanuensis [214:1]. The _dictation_ of St John's Gospel is suggested, as I have said already [214:2], by internal evidence also.

Here again, so far as we can judge from his practice elsewhere, Eusebius would be more likely than not to omit such a statement, if it was made thus casually. This seems to me the most probable explanation of the whole pa.s.sage. But obviously no weight can be attached to such evidence.

Like the statement of John Malalas respecting Ignatius, which I considered in a former paper [214:3], it is discredited by its companionship with an anachronism, though the anachronism is not so flagrant as those of John Malalas, and the statement itself does not, like his, contradict the unanimous testimony of all the preceding centuries.

But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ closes with an argument, which he seems to think a formidable obstacle to the belief that Papias recognized the Fourth Gospel as the work of St John:--

Andrew of Caesarea, in the preface to his commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility'

([Greek: to axiopiston]) of that book, or in other words, its Apostolic origin.... Now, he must, therefore, have recognized the book as the work of the Apostle John, and we shall hereafter show that it is impossible that the author of the Apocalypse is the author of the Gospel; therefore, in this way also, Papias is a witness against the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel [214:4].

This argument however is an anachronism. Many very considerable critics of the nineteenth century, it is true, maintain that the two works cannot have come from the same author. I do not stop now to ask whether they are right or wrong; but the nineteenth century is not the second.

In the second century there is not the slightest evidence that a single writer felt any difficulty on this score, or attempted to separate the authorship of the two books. It is true that Eusebius mentions one or two authors, whose works unfortunately are lost, as using the Apocalypse, while he does not mention their using the Gospel; and this negative fact has obviously misled many. But here again the inference arises from a fundamental misconception of his purpose. I have shown [215:1] that his principles required him to notice quotations from and references to the Apocalypse in every early writer, because the authorship and canonicity of the work had been questioned by Church writers before his time; whereas it would lead him to ignore all such in the case of the Fourth Gospel, because no question had ever been entertained within the Church respecting it. This indeed is precisely what he does with Theophilus; he refers to this father's use of the Apocalypse, and he ignores his direct quotations from the Gospel. The inference therefore must be set aside as a fallacy. Beyond this, all the direct evidence points the other way. There was indeed a small sect or section of men outside the pale of the Church, before the close of the second century, who rejected the Gospel, but they rejected the Apocalypse also. Moreover they ascribed both _to a single author_, and (what is more important still) this author was Cerinthus, _a contemporary of St John_ [215:2]. Thus the very opponents of the Gospel in the second century are witnesses not only to the very early date of the two writings, but also to the ident.i.ty of authorship. On the other hand, every Church writer without exception during this century (so far as our knowledge goes) who accepted the one accepted the other also. The most doubtful case is Justin Martyr, who refers by name to the Apocalypse; but even Hilgenfeld says that it is difficult to deny the use of the Gospel of St John in his case [216:1]. Melito again commented on the Apocalypse; and there is ample evidence (as I trust to show hereafter) that he recognized the Fourth Gospel also. Both books alike are used in the Letter of the Gallican Churches (A.D. 177). Both alike are accepted by Theophilus of Antioch, by the Muratorian writer, by Irenaeus, and by Clement. It is the same during the first half of the third century. Tertullian and Cyprian, Hippolytus and Origen, place them on an equal footing, and attribute them to the same Apostle. The first distinct trace of an attempt to separate the authorship of the two books appears in Dionysius of Alexandria [216:2], who wrote about the middle or early in the second half of the third century. Even he argues entirely upon considerations of internal criticism, and does not pretend to any traditional evidence. He accepts both works as canonical; and he questions the Apostolic authorship, not of the Gospel, but of the Apocalypse.

VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN.

[FEBRUARY, 1876.]

It has been stated in a former paper that at the fall of Jerusalem a remnant of the Apostolic company, together with other primitive disciples, sought a new home in Asia Minor [217:1]. Of this colony Ephesus was the head-quarters, and St John the leader. Here he is reported to have lived and laboured for more than a quarter of a century, surviving the accession of Trajan, who ascended the imperial throne A.D. 98 [217:2]. In this respect his position is unique among the earliest preachers of Christianity. While St Peter and St Paul converted disciples and organized congregations, St John alone was the founder of a school. The prolongation of his life after the Church was firmly rooted, and his fixed residence in the midst of a compact Christian society, combined to give a certain definiteness to his personal influence, which would be wanting to the labours of these more strictly missionary preachers. Hence the traditions of St John are more direct, more consistent, and more trustworthy, than those which relate to the other Apostles.

Thus we may, without any great impropriety, speak of the 'school of St John.' The existence of such a body of disciples gathered about the veteran teacher is indicated by notices in various writers. The author of the Muratorian fragment, for instance, speaks of this Apostle as writing his Gospel at the request not only of his fellow-disciples, but also of his 'bishops' [218:1]. Clement of Alexandria again, among whose teachers was one from this very district, and probably of this very school [218:2], represents him as going about from place to place in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, appointing bishops and providing in other ways for the government of the Churches [218:3]. More especially Irenaeus, who had received his earliest lessons in Christianity from an immediate disciple of St John, appeals again and again to such a body as preserving and handing down the correct tradition of the Apostolic doctrine and practice. He describes these persons in one place as 'the elders who in Asia a.s.sociated with John the disciple of the Lord'

[218:4]; in another as 'all the Churches which are in Asia,' specifying more particularly the 'Church in Ephesus ... the true witness of the Apostolic tradition' [218:5]; in a third as 'those who saw John face to face' [218:6], or 'the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord'

[218:7]; in a fourth as 'the elders who were before us, and who also were pupils of the Apostles' [218:8]; in a fifth 'as the elders who have their succession from the Apostles' [218:9]; in a sixth as 'the elders, disciples of the Apostles' [218:10], with similar expressions elsewhere.

The prominent members of this school in the first age were Polycarp of Smyrna and Papias of Hierapolis, of whom the former survived beyond the middle of the century, and the latter probably died not many years before. In the next generation the most famous names are Melito of Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who flourished in the third quarter of the century. They again are succeeded by other writers, of whom the most celebrated was Polycrates of Ephesus, already an old man, when in the last decade of the century a controversial question obliged him to take up his pen in defence of the traditions of his Church.

Asia Minor appears to have been far in advance of the other Churches of Christendom in literary activity, during the second century. This pre-eminence was due mainly, we may suppose, to the fact already mentioned, that it had become the second home of the Apostles and primitive teachers of Christianity. But the productiveness of the Asiatic Christians in this respect was doubtless stimulated by the pressure of opposition. This region was the hot-bed of heresies and the arena of controversy. Nor is it unimportant to observe that the main subjects of discussion were of such a kind as must necessarily have involved questions intimately connected with the Canon. Montanism, with its doctrine of the Paraclete and its visions of the New Jerusalem, would challenge some expression of opinion respecting the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St John, if these writings were disputed. The Paschal controversy courted investigation into the relations between the narratives of the Synoptists and the Fourth Evangelist. Marcionism, resting as it did on the paramount and sole authority of St Paul's Epistles and of the Pauline Gospel, would not suffer friend or foe to preserve silence on this fundamental question. And so again, though in a less degree, the disputes with Cerinthians, with Ophites, with Basilideans, with Valentinians, with all the various sects of Gnostics, could not have been conducted, as we see plainly from the treatises of Irenaeus and Hippolytus, without constant appeals to the testimony of written doc.u.ments--thus indicating, at all events roughly, the amount of authority which the writers accorded to the more prominent books of our New Testament Canon. To men like Irenaeus or Eusebius, who had this extensive literature in their hands, the teaching of this Church generally, as well as of the more prominent individual writers belonging to it, could not have been open to question. Their approval of its orthodoxy therefore, either by silent a.s.sent or by studied panegyric, is a fact of real moment.

Over and above this relation to the books of the New Testament generally, the two points to which modern controversy directs attention, and which therefore deserve special consideration in any review of the writers belonging to the school of St John, are--_first_, what indications the extant fragments and notices contain, that they recognized or rejected the Fourth Gospel; and _secondly_, what can be learnt from these same sources as to the degree of authority which they accorded to the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Polycarp and Papias have been discussed in my earlier articles [220:1].

In the case of both these fathers, a recognition of the Fourth Gospel has been inferred from the use made of the First Epistle; in the case of the latter, from other indications also. As regards St Paul the testimony of Polycarp is as full and explicit as it well could be; while, on the other hand, the meagre fragments of Papias do not in themselves warrant any inference on this point.

The next extant doc.u.ment in chronological order is the account of Polycarp's martyrdom, written immediately after the occurrence (A.D.

155), and addressed to the Churches of the neighbouring province of Pontus, more especially to the Christians of Philomelium. In this letter the brethren of Smyrna draw a parallel between the sufferings of their martyred friend and the Pa.s.sion of our Lord, which is suggested by some remarkable coincidences. 'Nearly all the incidents,' we are told at the outset, 'which preceded (his death) came to pa.s.s that the Lord might exhibit anew to us a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel; for Polycarp remained that he might be betrayed, as did also the Lord'

[220:2]. This account is thus the earliest instance of a favourite type of hagiology, which sees the sufferings of Christ visibly reflected and imaged in detail in the servants of Christ, and of which ancient and mediaeval biography furnishes numerous examples. This idea of literal conformity to the life and Pa.s.sion of Christ runs through the doc.u.ment.

Some of the coincidences are really striking; but in other cases the parallelism is highly artificial. The name of the convicting magistrate is Herod, and special stress is naturally laid on this fact [221:1]. The time of the martyrdom is the pa.s.sover--'the great sabbath,' as it is here called [221:2]. Polycarp's place of refuge is ascertained from information elicited by torture from a youth, apparently a slave in his employ. This poor boy, much more sinned against than sinning, is cruelly compared to Judas; and we are told accordingly that Polycarp, like our Lord, was 'betrayed by them of his own household' [221:3]. When apprehended, he is put upon an a.s.s, and thus taken back to the city [221:4]; and this is of course intended as a parallel to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. His pursuers come on horse-back and in arms, 'as against a robber' [221:5]. When he is apprehended, he prays, 'The will of G.o.d be done' [221:6]; and so forth. These parallels, at the same time that they show the idea dominant in the mind of the narrators, are a valuable testimony to the truth of the narrative itself, where so much violent treatment is necessary to produce the desired effect [221:7].

Most of the incidents have their counterparts in the circ.u.mstances of the Pa.s.sion, as recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists alone or in common with St John. This is natural; for they refer to external events, in which the Synoptic narrative is rich. But there are exceptions, where the writers obviously have the account of the Fourth Evangelist in their mind. Thus we are told that at the crisis of Polycarp's fate a voice came from heaven, saying, 'Be strong, and play the man, Polycarp'

[221:8]. 'And the speaker,' it is added, 'no man saw; but the voice those of our company that were present heard.' This corresponds to the voice which St John records as addressing our Lord from heaven, and as imperfectly apprehended by the bystanders [222:1]. Again, Polycarp, in consequence of a vision, predicts that he shall be burnt alive [222:2], though at the time the intention obviously is to throw him to the wild beasts, as the games are going on. A fortuitous circ.u.mstance frustrates this intention, and brings about a fulfilment of his prophecy as to the manner of his death [222:3]. Just in the same way in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is represented as 'signifying by what death He should die'

[222:4]. Death by crucifixion seemed altogether unlikely at the time, for His enemies were the Jews, and this was not a Jewish mode of punishment; but by an accidental turn of circ.u.mstances He was transferred from the Jews to Pilate, and so His prediction was fulfilled [222:5]. Again, it is related that when the fire would not consume the body of the saint, his persecutors 'ordered an executioner to go up to him and thrust a small sword into him. When he had done this,' we are told, 'there came forth [a dove and] a quant.i.ty of blood' [222:6]. The parallel to the incident recorded in St John's account of the crucifixion is obvious [222:7]; and just as the Evangelist lays stress on his own presence as an eye-witness of the scene, so also do these hagiologers, when relating a strange occurrence at his martyrdom. 'We saw a great marvel,' they say, 'we to whom it was given to see; and we have been saved that we might relate to the rest what happened' [222:8].

And lastly, as St John emphasizes the fact that everything was accomplished in the death of Jesus [222:9], so also they declare of Polycarp, that 'every word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been and shall be accomplished' [223:1]. To these facts it should be added that the dying prayer of Polycarp contains two coincidences with the phraseology of the Fourth Gospel--'the resurrection of life,' 'the true G.o.d' [223:2].

MELITO, bishop of Sardis, flourished soon after the middle of the second century. This fact appears from two of his works, to which we are able to a.s.sign an approximate date. His treatise 'On the Paschal Festival,'

he himself tells us, was written while Sergius Paulus was proconsul of Asia [223:3]; and the recent investigations of M. Waddington into the fasti of this province have led to the result that this proconsulate should probably be dated about A.D. 164-166 [223:4]. Again we are informed that he addressed his 'Apology' to M. Antoninus (A.D. 161-180) [223:5]. It appears however from an extant fragment, that L. Verus, the colleague of M. Antoninus, was no longer living; for Melito speaks of prayer on behalf of the emperor's son (Commodus), without mentioning his brother and co-emperor (Verus). Now Verus died in the very beginning of the year 169. On the other hand ancient authorities a.s.sign the Apology to the year 169 or 170; and, as there is no reason for rejecting their statement, we may suppose that it was written soon after the death of Verus. Probably its date was ascertainable within a year or two from internal evidence. This Apology however is regarded by Eusebius as the latest of Melito's writings [223:6]; and, as the catalogue of his works comprises some twenty treatises at least, his literary activity must have extended over a considerable period of time, so that we shall probably not be far wrong if we place the commencement of his career as an author about the middle of the century. He appears to have died soon after the Apology was written. In the last decade of the century Polycrates mentions him among other worthies of the past who had gone to their rest [224:1]. He was buried at Sardis. From the context it may be inferred that he did not suffer martyrdom, like so many of his famous contemporaries, but died a natural death.

These chronological notices suggest that Melito was born in the early part of the second century, within a very few years after the death of St John. During the greater part of his life at all events, he must have been a contemporary of St John's disciple Polycarp, who was martyred at an advanced age in the year 155 or 156; and likewise of Papias, who had conversed with personal disciples of Christ, and seems also to have survived till towards the middle of the century. As the communications between Sardis on the one hand, and Smyrna and Hierapolis on the other, were easy, a prominent man like Melito, whose religious zeal led him on one occasion to undertake a distant journey to Palestine, would be sure to cultivate the acquaintance of these older teachers, even if circ.u.mstances did not throw him directly in their way.

Thus Melito is a significant link of connection with the past. At the same time he holds an equally important position with respect to the succeeding age. It can hardly be doubted that among the Asiatic elders, whose authority Irenaeus invokes so constantly, Melito must have held a prominent place. It may be suspected that he was the very Ionian whom Clement of Alexandria mentions among his earlier teachers [224:2]. It is quite certain that his writings were widely known and appreciated in the generations next succeeding his own. He is quoted or referred to by Polycrates at Ephesus, by Clement and Origen at Alexandria, by Tertullian at Carthage, by Hippolytus at Rome.

I have already mentioned that he was a very voluminous writer. Eusebius gives a catalogue of his works, which however he does not profess to be complete. The historian's knowledge was obviously limited by the contents of the library which his friend Pamphilus had gathered together at Caesarea. The t.i.tles of these works are as follows:--_On the Paschal Festival_ (two treatises) [225:1], _On the Life of the Prophets_, _On the Church_, _On the Lord's Day_, _On the Nature of Man_, _On Creation_, _On the Obedience of Faith and on the Senses_, _On the Soul and Body [and Mind]_, _On Baptism_, _On Truth_, _On the Creation and Generation of Christ_, _On Prophecy_, _On Hospitality_, _The Key_, _On the Devil and on the Apocalypse of John_, _On a Corporeal Deity_, _An Apology to Antonius_, _Selections from the Law and the Prophets_ [225:2]. Besides these works here enumerated, other writings of Melito axe quoted elsewhere under the t.i.tles, _On the Incarnation of Christ_, _On the Pa.s.sion_, _On the Cross_, _On the Faith_ [225:3], though some of these may perhaps represent the same works to which Eusebius refers under other names. Comprising this wide range of subjects, doctrinal, exegetical, practical, and controversial, the works of Melito must have furnished the next succeeding generations with ample data for determining his exact theological position. To them it must have been clear, for instance, whether he did or did not accept the Gospel of St John or the Epistles of St Paul. It was hardly possible for him to write on the Paschal question without indicating his views on the Fourth Gospel. It is almost inconceivable that he should have composed a controversial treatise against Marcion without declaring himself respecting the Apostle of the Gentiles. The few meagre fragments which have come down to us supply only incidental notices and resemblances, from which we are left to draw our own inferences; but where we grope in the twilight, they were walking in the broad noonday.

Eusebius has happily preserved Melito's preface to his _Selections_, which is of considerable interest. The work itself comprised pa.s.sages from the Law and the Prophets relating to the Saviour and to the Christian faith generally ([Greek: peri tou Soteros kai pases tes pisteos hemon]), arranged in six books. It seems to have been accompanied with explanatory comments bringing out the prophetical import of the several pa.s.sages, as Melito understood them. In the preface, addressed to his friend Onesimus, at whose instance the work had been undertaken, he relates that having made a journey to the East and visited the actual scenes of the Gospel history, he informed himself respecting the books of the Old Testament, of which he appends a list.

The language which he uses is significant from its emphasis. He writes that his friend had 'desired to be accurately informed about the _old_ books' ([Greek: mathein ten ton palaion biblion eboulethes akribeian]).

He adds that he himself during his Eastern tour had 'obtained accurate information respecting the books of the _Old_ Testament ([Greek: akribos mathon ta tes palaias diathekes biblia]).' From these expressions Dr Westcott argues that Melito must have been acquainted with a corresponding Christian literature, which he regarded as the books of the New Testament. To any such inference the author of _Supernatural Religion_ demurs [226:1], and he devotes several pages to proving (what n.o.body denies) that the expressions 'Old Testament,' 'New Testament,'

did not originally refer to a written literature at all, and need not so refer here. All this is beside the purpose, and betrays an entire misunderstanding of the writer whom he ventures to criticize. The contention is not that the expression 'Old Testament' here in itself signifies a collection of books, and therefore implies another collection called the 'New Testament,' but that the emphatic and reiterated mention of an _old_ Biblical _literature_ points naturally to the existence of a _new_. To any one who is accustomed to weigh the force of Greek sentences, as determined by the order of the words, this implied contrast must, I think, make itself felt. It is impossible to read the clauses, having regard to the genius of the language, without throwing a strong emphasis on the recurrent word _old_, which I have therefore italicized, as the only way of reproducing the same effect for the English reader. Dr Westcott therefore is perfectly justified in maintaining that the expression naturally implies a recognized New Testament literature.

And if this reference is suggested by strict principles of exegesis, it alone is consonant with historical probability. It is a fact that half a century, or even more, before Melito wrote, the author of the epistle bearing the name of Barnabas quotes as 'Scripture' a pa.s.sage found in St Matthew's Gospel, and not known to have existed elsewhere [227:1]. It is a fact that about that same time, or earlier, Polycarp wrote a letter which is saturated with the thoughts and language of the Apostolic Epistles [227:2]. It is a fact that some twenty or thirty years before Melito, Justin Martyr speaks of certain Gospels (whether our Canonical Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for my present purpose to inquire) as being read together with the writings of the prophets at the religious services of the Christians on Sundays, and taken afterwards as the subject of exhortation and comment by the preacher [227:3]. It is a fact that about the same time when Justin records this as the habitual practice of the Church, the heretic Marcion, himself a native of Asia Minor, constructed a Canon for himself by selecting from and mutilating the Apostolic and Evangelical writings which he found in circulation. It is a fact that Dionysius of Corinth, a contemporary of Melito, speaks of certain writings as 'the Scriptures of the Lord,' or 'the Dominical Scriptures.' and denounces those who tamper with them [228:1]. It is a fact that Irenaeus, who had received his early education in Asia Minor, writing within some ten or twenty years after the death of Melito, quotes the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the great majority of the Apostolic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, as Scripture, declaring more especially of the Four Gospels, that they had been received by the Churches from the beginning, and treating all these writings alike with the same deference which they have received from subsequent generations of Christians ever since. The inference from these facts (and they do not stand alone) is obvious. If Melito knew nothing about books of the New Testament, he must have been the only bishop of the Church from the banks of the Euphrates to the pillars of Hercules, who remained in this state of dense ignorance--Melito, who could refer to the Hebrew and the Syriac while interpreting a pa.s.sage of Genesis, and who made careful inquiries respecting the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures in the very land where those Scriptures had their birth.

The extant fragments attributed to Melito are meagre and scattered [228:2]; but, supposing them to be genuine, they afford ample evidence of the theological views of this father, while indirectly they indicate his general relation to the Canon in a way which can hardly be mistaken.