Respecting his treatment of this section of the Canon he is not explicit in his opening statement, and we have to infer it from his subsequent procedure. As this however is uniform, we seem able to determine with tolerable certainty the principle on which he acts. He subjects all the books belonging to this section to the same law. For instance, he mentions any references to 1 John and 1 Peter (_e.g._ in Papias, Polycarp, and Irenaeus), though in the Church no doubt was ever entertained about their genuineness and authority. He may have thought that this mention would conduce to a just estimate of the meaning of silence in the case of disputed Epistles, as 2 Peter and 2, 3 John.

(6) The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse still remain to be considered. Their claim to a place in the Canon is, or has been, disputed: and therefore he records every decisive notice respecting either of them, _e.g._ the quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews in Clement of Rome and Irenaeus, and the notices of the Apocalypse in Justin and Melito [47:1] and Apollonius [47:2], and Theophilus and Irenaeus. So too, he records any testimony, direct or indirect, bearing the other way, _e.g._ that the Roman presbyter Gaius mentions only thirteen Epistles of St Paul, 'not reckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews with the rest.' [47:3]

(7) With regard to the books which lie altogether outside the Canon, but which were treated as Scripture, or quasi-scripture, by any earlier Church writer, he makes it his business to record the fact. Thus he mentions the one quotation in Irenaeus from the Shepherd of Hermas; he states that Hegesippus employs the Gospel according to the Hebrews; he records that Clement of Alexandria in the _Stromateis_ has made use of the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and in the _Hypotyposeis_ has commented on the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter [47:4].

It will have appeared from the above account, if I mistake not, that his treatment of this subject is essentially frank. There is no indication of a desire to make out a case for those writings which he and his contemporaries received as Canonical, against those which they rejected.

The Shepherd of Hermas is somewhere about two-thirds the length of the whole body of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul. He singles out the one isolated pa.s.sage from Hermas in Irenaeus, though it is quoted anonymously; and he says nothing about the quotations from St Paul, though they exceed two hundred in number, and are very frequently cited by name.

It is necessary however, not only to investigate his principles, but also to ascertain how far his application of these principles can be depended upon. And here the facts justify us in laying down the following rules for our guidance:--

(i) As regards the anecdotes containing information relating to the books of the New Testament he restricts himself to the narrowest limits which justice to his subject will allow. His treatment of Irenaeus makes this point clear. Though he gives the princ.i.p.al pa.s.sage in this author relating to the Four Gospels [48:1], he omits to mention others which contain interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the question, _e.g._ that St John wrote his Gospel to counteract the errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans [48:2]. Thus too, when he quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic elders who were acquainted with St John [48:3], he omits the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important bearing on the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, for it declared that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the apparent chronology of the Synoptists.

(ii) As regards the quotations and references the case stands thus. When Eusebius speaks of 'testimonies' in any ancient writer taken from a Scriptural book, we cannot indeed be sure that the quotations were direct and by name (this was certainly not the case in some), but we may fairly a.s.sume that they were definite enough, or numerous enough, or both, to satisfy even a sceptical critic of the modern school. This is the case, for instance, with the quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews in Clement of Rome, and those from the First Epistle of St Peter in Polycarp. _In no instance which we can test does Eusebius give a doubtful testimony._ On the other hand he omits several which might fairly be alleged, and have been alleged by modern writers, as, for instance, the coincidence with 1 John in Polycarp [49:1]. He may have pa.s.sed them over through inadvertence, or he may not have considered them decisive.

I am quite aware that our author states the case differently; but I am unable to reconcile his language with the facts. He writes as follows [49:2]:--

'He (Eusebius) states however, that Papias "made use of testimonies from the First Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter."

As Eusebius, however, does not quote the pa.s.sages from Papias, we must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, a.s.sume from some similarity of wording that the pa.s.sages were quotations from these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds.'

[49:3]

For the statement 'as elsewhere' our author has given no authority, and I am not aware of any.

The note to which the number in the text (^5) refers is 'Ad Phil. vii.; Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14.'

I cannot help thinking there is some confusion here. The pa.s.sage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how Polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle of St John, which has been alleged by modern writers, but is not alleged by Eusebius. This same chapter, it is true, contains the words 'Watch unto prayer,' which present a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this one expression: the strong and unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,'

whereas the quotations from I Peter in Polycarp are numerous. Thus in c.

1 we have 'In whom, not having seen, ye believe, and believing ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 8: in c.

2, 'Girding up your loins,' from 1 Pet. i. 13 (comp. Ephes. vi. 14); 'Having believed on Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave Him glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 21; 'Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing,' from 1 Pet. iii. 9: in c. 5, 'Every l.u.s.t warreth against the Spirit,' from 1 Pet. ii. 11: in c. 8, 'Who bore our sins with His own body ([Greek: to idio somati]) on the tree,' from 1 Pet. ii. 24; 'Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,'

from 1 Pet. ii. 22: in c. 10, 'Lovers of the brotherhood,' from 1 Pet.

ii. 17; 'Be ye all subject one to another,' from 1 Pet. v. 5; 'Having your conversation unblamable among the Gentiles, that from your good works both ye may receive praise, and the Lord may not be evil spoken of in you,' from 1 Pet. ii. 12 (comp. iv. 14 in the received text). I am quite at a loss to conceive how any one can speak of these numerous and close coincidences as 'very insufficient grounds.' And though our author elsewhere, as, for instance, in the quotations from the Fourth Gospel in Tatian and in the Clementine Homilies [50:1], has resisted evidence which (I venture to think) would satisfy any jury of competent critics, yet I cannot suppose that he would hold out against such an array of pa.s.sages as we have here, and I must therefore believe that he has overlooked the facts. I venture to say again that, in these references to early writers relating to the Canon, Eusebius (where we are able to test him) _never overstates the case_. I emphasize this a.s.sertion, because I trust some one will point out my error if I am wrong. If I am not shown to be wrong, I shall make use of the fact hereafter [50:2].

This investigation will have thrown some light upon the author's sweeping a.s.sertions with respect to the arbitrary action which he supposes to have presided over the formation of the Canon, and still more on his unqualified denunciations of the uncritical spirit of Eusebius. But such was not my immediate purpose.

_Hypotheses non fingimus._ We have built no airy castles of criticism on arbitrary _a priori_ a.s.sumptions as to what the silence of Eusebius must mean. We have put the man himself in the witness-box; we have confronted him with facts, and cross-examined him; thus we have elicited from him his principles and mode of action. I may perhaps have fallen into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable. If they are not, I shall be obliged to any one who will point out the fallacy in my reasoning; and I pledge myself to make open retractation, when I resume these papers in a subsequent number. If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces.

Our author is quite alive to the value of a system of 'positively enunciating.' [51:1] 'A good strong a.s.sertion,' he says, 'becomes a powerful argument, since few readers have the means of verifying its correctness.' [51:2] His own a.s.sertions, which I quoted at the outset of this investigation, are certainly not wanting in strength, and I have taken the liberty of verifying them. Any English reader may do the same.

Eusebius is translated, and so are the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

I now venture on a statement which might have seemed a paradox if it had preceded this investigation, but which, coming at its close, will, if I mistake not, commend itself as a sober deduction from facts. _The silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in its favour._ Its Apostolic authorship had never been questioned by any Church writer from the beginning, so far as Eusebius was aware, and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses. It was not excused, because it had not been accused. In short, the silence of Eusebius here means the very opposite to that which our author a.s.sumes it to mean.

If any one demurs to this inference, let him try, on any other hypothesis, to answer the following questions:--

(1) How is it that, while Eusebius alleges repeated testimonies to the Epistle to the Hebrews, he is silent from first to last about the universally acknowledged Epistles of St Paul, such as Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians?

(2) How is it that he does not mention the precise and direct testimony in Theophilus to the Gospel of St John, while he does mention a reference in this same author to the Apocalypse?

And this explanation of the silence of Eusebius, while it is demanded by his own language and practice, alone accords with the known facts relating to the reception of the Fourth Gospel in the second century.

Its theology is stamped on the teaching of orthodox apologists; its authority is quoted for the speculative tenets of the manifold Gnostic sects, Basilideans, Valentinians, Ophites; its narrative is employed even by a Judaising writer like the author of the Clementines. The phenomena which confront us in the last quarter of the second century are inexplicable, except on the supposition that the Gospel had had a long previous history. How else are we to account for such facts as that the text already exhibits a number of various readings, such as the alternative of 'only begotten G.o.d' for 'the only begotten Son' in i. 18, and 'six' for 'five' in iv. 18, or the interpolation of the descent of the angel in v. 3, 4; that legends and traditions have grown up respecting its origin, such as we find in Clement of Alexandria and in the Muratorian fragment [52:1]; that perverse mystical interpretations, wholly foreign to the simple meaning of the text, have already encrusted it, such as we meet with in the commentary of Heracleon? How is it that ecclesiastical writers far and wide receive it without misgiving at this epoch--Irenaeus in Gaul, Tertullian in Africa, Clement in Alexandria, Theophilus at Antioch, the anonymous Muratorian writer perhaps in Rome?

that they not only receive it, but a.s.sume its reception from the beginning? that they never betray a consciousness that any Church or Churchman had ever questioned it? The history of the first three-quarters of the second century is necessarily obscure owing to the paucity of remains. A flood of light is suddenly poured in during the remaining years of the century. Our author is content to grope in the obscurity: any phantoms may be conjured up here; but the moment the light is let in, he closes his eyes and can see nothing. He refuses altogether to discuss Irenaeus, though Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Even if it be granted that the opinion of Irenaeus, as an isolated individual, is not worth much, yet the wide-spread and traditional belief which underlies his whole language and thoughts is a consideration of the highest moment: and Irenaeus is only one among many witnesses. The author's treatment of the external evidences to the Fourth Gospel is wholly vitiated by his ignoring the combined force of such facts as these. A man might with just as much reason a.s.sert that a st.u.r.dy oak sapling must have sprung up overnight, because circ.u.mstances had prevented him from witnessing its continuous growth.

The author of _Supernatural Religion_ was kind enough to send me an early copy of his fourth edition, and I sincerely thank him for his courtesy. Unfortunately it arrived too late for me to make any use of it in my previous article. With one exception however, I have not noticed that my criticisms are affected by any changes which may have been made.

But this single exception is highly important. A reader, with only the fourth edition before him, would be wholly at a loss to understand my criticism, and therefore some explanation is necessary.

In my former article [53:1] I pointed out that the author had founded a charge of 'falsification' against Dr Westcott on a grammatical error of his own. He had treated the infinitive and indicative moods as the same for practical purposes; he had confused the oblique with the direct narrative; he had maintained that the pa.s.sage in question (containing a reference to St John) was Irenaeus' own, whereas the grammar showed that Irenaeus was repeating the words of others; and consequently, he had wrongly accused Dr Tischendorf and Dr Westcott, because in their translations they had brought out the fact that the words did not belong to Irenaeus himself.

I place the new note relating to Dr Westcott side by side with the old [54:1]:--

FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.

| 'Having just observed that a note | 'Canon Westcott, who quotes in this place, in previous | this pa.s.sage in a note (_On the editions, has been understood as | Canon_ p. 61, note 2), translates an accusation against Dr Westcott | here, "This distinction of dwelling, of deliberate falsification of | they taught, exists" etc.

the text of Irenaeus, we at once | The introduction of "they taught"

withdraw it with unfeigned regret | here is most unwarrantable; and that the expressions used could | being inserted, without a word bear an interpretation so far | of explanation or mark showing from our intention. _We desired | its addition by the translator, in simply to object to the insertion | a pa.s.sage _upon whose interpretation of "they taught"_ (_On the Canon_ | there is difference of opinion_, p. 61, note 2), without some | and whose origin is in dispute, it indication, in the absence of the | amounts to a falsification of the original text, that these words | text. Dr Westcott neither gives were merely supplementary and | the Greek nor the ancient Latin conjectural. The source _of the | version for comparison.'

indirect pa.s.sage_ is, of course, | matter of argument, and we make | it so; but it seems to us that | the introduction of specific | words like these, without | explanation of any kind, conveys | to the general reader too | positive a view of the case. We | may perhaps be permitted to say | that we fully recognise Dr | Westcott's sincere love of truth, | and feel the most genuine respect | for his character.' |

Considering the gravity of his accusation, I think that our author might have been more explicit in his retractation. He might have stated that he not only retracted his charge against Dr Westcott, but also withdrew his own interpretation of the pa.s.sage. He might have confessed that, having in his earlier editions a.s.sumed the words to be Irenaeus' own, he had found out his mistake [55:1]; that accordingly he acknowledged the pa.s.sage to be oblique; that therefore, after all, Dr Westcott was right and he was wrong; and that the only question with him now was how best to break the force of the true interpretation, in its bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel.

The reader will not find in this fourth edition, from beginning to end, the slightest intimation of all this. He is left with the impression that the author regrets having used a strong expression respecting Dr Westcott, but that otherwise his opinion is unchanged. Whether I have or have not rightly interpreted the facts, will be seen from a juxtaposition of pa.s.sages from the fourth and earlier editions.

FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.

| 'Now, in the quotation from | 'Now in the quotation from Irenaeus given in this pa.s.sage, | Irenaeus given in this pa.s.sage, _Tischendorf renders the oblique | _Tischendorf deliberately falsifies construction_ by inserting "say | the text_ by inserting "say they;"

they," referring to the Presbyters | and, as he does not give the of Papias; and, as he does not | original, the great majority of give the original, he should at | readers could never detect how least have indicated that these | he thus adroitly contrives to words are supplementary. We | strengthen his argument. As shall endeavour' [55:2] etc. | regards the whole statement of | the case we must affirm that it | misrepresents the facts. We | shall endeavour' etc.

Lower down he mentions how Irenaeus 'continues with a quotation from Isaiah his own train of reasoning,' adding in the early editions--'and it might just as well be affirmed that Irenaeus found the quotation from the Prophet in Papias as that which we are considering.' [56:1] As the reference to Isaiah is in the indicative, whereas the clause under consideration is in the infinitive, this was equivalent to saying that the one mood is just as good as the other, where it is a question of the direct or oblique narrative. This last sentence is tacitly removed in the fourth edition.

In the translation of the infinitive [Greek: einai de ten diastolen] we notice this difference:--

FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.

| But ... there is this distinction.' | 'But there is to be this | distinction.'

The translation of the pa.s.sage containing these oblique infinitives is followed by the author's comment, which is altered thus:--

FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.

| 'Now it is impossible for anyone | 'Now it is impossible for anyone who attentively considers the whole | who attentively considers the whole of this pa.s.sage, and who makes | of this pa.s.sage, and who makes himself acquainted with the manner | himself acquainted with the manner in which Irenaeus conducts his | in which Irenaeus conducts his argument, and interweaves it _with | argument, and interweaves it _with quotations, to a.s.sert that the | texts of Scripture, to doubt that phrase we are considering_ must | the phrase we are considering is have been taken from a book | introduced by Irenaeus himself_, referred to three chapters earlier, | and is in no case a quotation and _was not introduced by Irenaeus | from the work of Papias.'

from some other source_.' |

Here the author has tacitly withdrawn an interpretation which a few weeks before he declared to be beyond the reach of doubt, and has subst.i.tuted a wholly different one for it. He then proceeds:--

FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.

| 'In the pa.s.sage from the | 'The pa.s.sage from the commencement commencement of the second | of the second paragraph (-- 2) is paragraph Irenaeus enlarges upon, | an enlargement or comment on what and ill.u.s.trates, what "the | the Presbyters say regarding the Presbyters say" regarding the | blessedness of the Saints, and blessedness of the Saints, _by | Irenaeus ill.u.s.trates the distinction quoting the view held_ as to the | between those bearing fruit distinction between those bearing | thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one fruit thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and | hundred-fold, so often represented one hundred-fold, and _the | in the Gospel, _by the saying_ interpretation given of the saying_ | regarding "many mansions" being regarding "many mansions."' | prepared in Heaven.'

After this our author, in the earlier editions, quotes a number of pa.s.sages from Irenaeus to support his view that the words in question are direct and not oblique, because they happen to begin with [Greek: dia touto]. It is unfortunate that not one of them is in the infinitive mood, and therefore they afford no ill.u.s.tration of the point at issue.

'These,' he there adds, 'are _all direct quotations by Irenaeus_, as is _most certainly_ that which we are considering, which is introduced in precisely the same way. That this is the case is further _shown_ etc.... and it is rendered _quite certain_ by the fact that' etc.

All these false parallels are withdrawn in the fourth edition and the sentence is rewritten. We are now told that '_the source of his_ (Irenaeus') _quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the exegesis of his own day_ [57:1].' So then it was a quotation after all, and the old interpretation, though declared to be 'most certain' and 'quite certain' in two consecutive sentences, silently vanishes to make room for the new. But why does the author allow himself to spend nine octavo pages over the discussion of this one pa.s.sage, freely altering sentence after sentence to obliterate all traces of his error, without any intimation to the reader? Had not the public a right to expect more distinctness of statement, considering that the author had been led by this error to libel the character of more than one writer? Must not anyone reading the apology to Dr Westcott, contained in the note quoted above, necessarily carry off a wholly false impression of the facts?