POSITIONS TAKEN BY UNBELIEVERS.

Unbelievers as a class deny the genuineness of all but a few of the New Testament books, and assign to them dates too late for apostolic authorship. The most learned and ingenious of the class are the German writers of the Tübingen school, so called from the University of Tübingen, in which the founder of the school, Ferdinand Christian Baur,1 and several of its later writers were Professors. In this chapter we shall confine our remarks in the main to the positions and arguments of these writers, because, in so doing we shall be able to thoroughly test the conclusions reached in our former chapters on this subject, and because a refutation of their arguments will involve a fortiori the refutation of all that have been advanced on the negative side of the question.

Their scheme of dates and authorship according to Schwegler, one of the most advanced thinkers of the school, is as follows:2

1. They recognize as genuine, the Apocalypse, and four of Paul's Epistles, viz.: Romans, I. and II. Corinthians, and Galatians.  

2. They assign the Gospel of Luke, Acts of Apostles, and Hebrews, to about the year 100, and Colossians and Ephesians to a little later date.  

3. All the other books they place between 115 and 150 A. D., except II. Peter, which they date about the year 200.  

From this it appears that in reference to the five books in the first class there is no dispute; that in reference to the five in the second class the question of date is narrowed down to a period of about forty years, the time between the year 100 and the received dates; and that in reference to the rest no date later than A. D. 150 is assigned to any except II. Peter. The evidences then, by which we have traced this last epistle back from the year 200, and the others back from the dates just mentioned to the period in which their reputed authors were living, are all that are called in question. We will now proceed to examine in detail the principal objections urged against these evidences.  

The evidence of catalogues is unassailed, except that drawn from the Canon of Muratori,3 the early date of which is called in question. That it was written as early as the year 170, is evinced by the following remark in the document itself: "Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently in our own time in the city of Rome, while his brother Pius was occupying the bishop's chair in the church at Rome." As Pius held office from 142 to 157, the author could scarcely speak of that period as being very recent, and "in our own time," if he were writing much later than the year 170. But the author of Supernatural Religion, the best representative in England of the Tübingen school of rationalists, claims that this expression may have been used by a writer living in "an advanced period of the third century,"4--with how much reason we leave the reader to judge. In view, however, of the admission that all of the books except II. Peter came into existence before the year 150, and of the fact that this Epistle is not found in the Canon in question, the objector has nothing to gain on the main question by establishing, were it possible, a later date for this document. We may therefore regard the evidence which we have presented from catalogues as being virtually unassailed.

The same may be said of the evidence from translations presented in Chapter II.; for although a later date than that which we have assigned to the four versions from which this evidence is drawn has been contended for, yet the admission by the objectors that all the books contained in the Peshito Syriac and the Old Latin were in existence before the date assigned to these (A. D. 150), and that all the other books were in existence at the date which we have assigned to the Coptic versions (A. D. 200), renders nugatory, as respects this question, the attempt to bring these versions down to later dates.

The only parts of the preceding evidence which are seriously contested, are those in Chapters III. and IV., the evidence from quotations, and the internal evidence. In regard to the former, the contest begins with the quotations cited from Justin Martyr, all the evidence which we derived from Irenaeus being admitted, except that referring to II. Peter, which we have defended in Chapter III. Moreover, the concession already mentioned, that all the books except this short Epistle were written before Irenaeus wrote, would render superfluous any contest over his quotations.

The dispute concerning the evidence from Justin turns chiefly upon what he says about the Gospels. It is denied, of course, that he quoted II. Peter, and on this point we have presented our own reasonings in Chapter III. As to the other books which we have represented him as quoting, the genuineness of First Corinthians, Romans, and Revelation, is admitted, while Colossians and Hebrews are assigned to the year 100 or a little later, farther back than the memory of Justin reached. But the Gospels are the books on which the proof of the divine origin of Christianity chiefly depends, and the admission that Justin made use of these would throw their origin back so far as to break up entirely the scheme of dates adopted by the school whose views we are representing: consequently they have contested very hotly the evidence on this point.

The contest concerns wholly the question, whether the Memoirs which Justin so freely quotes and describes, are our four Gospels, or some previously existing documents. The infidel position is, that they were not our Gospels, but apocryphal documents which alone were used up to Justin's time, and that our Gospels were written afterward and substituted for these older narratives. The principal arguments in favor 01 this position, and the answers to them, we shall now state.

I. Justin does not name the author or authors of his Memoirs. This is held as proof that he did not know the names, and that therefore the Memoirs were not our Gospels. The argument is supposed to be strengthened by the fact that in a large majority of his quotations from the Old Testament he docs name the books or authors quoted; and by the fact that in citing the Apocalypse he names John as its author. It is especially argued from this last circumstance, that he could not have known a Gospel by John, or he would likewise have mentioned his name in connection with it.5

That this argument is without force is seen from the following considerations. First, in arguing with the heathen Emperor and the unbelieving Jew, after stating that the facts he gives were attested by writings of Apostles and their followers, nothing would have been gained by giving the writers' names. It was their relation to the facts recorded that gave them credence, and not their names. Second, it was the custom of early Christian writers, even of those who, according to the admission of modern skeptics, certainly used our Gospels, to quote them anonymously, and it would have been strange if Justin had done otherwise.6 Even since the introduction of printed books, with chapters and verses, it is quite customary to cite the Scriptures in the same way; for the only value of special references is that it enables the reader to more readily find the passages quoted. Third, Justin's quotations from the Old Testament were almost exclusively the predictions that had been fulfilled in Christ, and in arguing on this subject with the Jew Trypho, it was necessary for him to be explicit. It is precisely in this way that he was led to name John as the author of the Apocalypse, for he was quoting from him a prediction concerning the millennium.7 Justin's failure, then, to give the names of his authors, has no bearing on the question at issue.

2. On comparing Justin's quotations from the Memoirs with the corresponding passages in the Gospels, it is found that there are many verbal differences, and from this it is argued that the Memoirs and the Gospels can not have been the same books.8  

These differences consist partly in slight alterations and transpositions of words, and partly, as in the instances cited below in the last note, in the commingling of passages from different writers. Whether they furnish any evidence of having been taken from some other source than our Gospels, depends upon Justin's habit in making quotations--whether or not he was in the habit of quoting with verbal accuracy. We are at no loss to ascertain his habit in this respect, for it is exhibited in his numerous quotations from the Old Testament. He quotes Old Testament writers with similar verbal variations, and he commingles passages from different authors as if he were quoting but one.9 This refutes the argument. His evident purpose in making these variations, when he does it intentionally, is to bring out what he supposed to be the meaning, or to indicate some application of the text by a modification of its words.10 But much the greater number of his variations is unquestionably due to quoting from memory. This appears from the fact that in a large majority of the instances in which the same passage is quoted twice or three times its phraseology is more or less varied every time.11 In the time of manuscript books it was far more inconvenient to open to a passage and copy it verbatim, than it is now with our printed books divided into chapters and verses, yet the number of free quotations to be found in print is even now very large. We conclude, then, that Justin's verbal variations from our Gospels furnish no evidence that he did not quote them.

3. A ground of argument at first sight more serious than the preceding, is the fact that Justin quotes utterances of Jesus and of others connected with him, that are not found in our Gospels in any form; from which it is inferred that his Memoirs were not our Gospels.12 We give the three most conspicuous examples. He represents Jesus as predicting, in his warnings to the disciples (Matt. xxiv. 24), the coming of "false apostles," as well as false Christs and false prophets; in his account of the mockings around the cross, he quotes among the other taunts of the people, "Let him come down and walk," the word walk not occurring in our Gospels; and he cites from Jesus the saying, "In whatsoever I find you, in this will I also judge you."

The last of these is not found in our Gospels at all, and Justin must have derived it from some other written source, or from tradition. He does not say that he found it in his Memoirs, and consequently it can not be used as proof that the Memoirs contained it. Moreover, it is the only entire sentence which he quotes from Jesus that is not in the Gospels, and it is not at all remarkable that, living as he did, when sayings of Jesus orally transmitted may still have been in circulation in large numbers, he quotes one of them. Paul makes a quotation of this kind derived from a similar source (Acts xx. 35).

The other two variations from the gospel text are accounted for by Justin's habit of expanding the text while quoting it. As false apostles had appeared (II. Cor. xi. 13; Rev. ii. 2), it was but a slight departure from the letter of the prediction and none from the meaning, to represent them as included among the false teachers against whom the warning was uttered. And in quoting the words of those who mocked Jesus on the cross, he was but expressing more fully their meaning when, to their saying, "Let him come down," he added the words, "and walk." They did not mean that he should come down to sit, or to lie down, but to walk about and show that he had recovered from the maiming of the crucifixion. Surely these additions to the text can not be regarded by a serious mind as proof that the Memoirs were not our Gospels.

4. In the fourth place, it is alleged that Justin mentions facts derived from his Memoirs that are not found in the Gospels and that are contradictory to them.13 Three specifications are sufficient to test this allegation as a source of argument.

First, it is said that Justin, contrary to the Gospels, derives the genealogy of Jesus from David through Mary.14 This Justin does, but it is not contradictory to the Gospels. The genealogy given by Luke has been understood by the majority of scholars from the earliest times as doing the same, and it is but fair to suppose that Justin so understood it. Moreover, the words of the angel quoted by Luke as addressed to Mary imply the same thing. Speaking to her of her own son who was to be born without an earthly father, he says to her: "The Lord God shall give to him the throne of his father David." The use of the won! father here would have been unintelligible to her had she not been a descendant of David. Second, Justin states that when Jesus descended to the water to be baptized, "a fire was kindled in the Jordan," and that among the words addressed to him from heaven were these: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."15 But these words actually existed in some early MSS. of Luke, and they are still found in one Greek MS., and in the Old Latin version.16 He may therefore have quoted them from his copy of Luke. As for the fire on the river, he does not claim to have learned this from the Memoirs, but he uses language that implies the reverse. He says: "When Jesus came to the Jordan where John was baptising, when He descended to the water both a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and the apostles of our Christ himself recorded that the Holy Spirit as a dove lighted upon him."17 This careful citation of the apostles for the latter fact alone implies that for the former he had not their authority. The incident was legendary, and it was quite widely circulated in the second century.18 Third, in referring to the arrest of Jesus by the Jews, Justin says, "There was not even a single man to run to his help as a guiltless person;" and this is held to be a contradiction of what is said in the Gospels about the attempt of Peter to defend his Lord.19 But Justin evidently refers to help from without, and not to the fruitless attempt of Peter. The expression, "run to his help," shows that he refers to persons at a distance, and not to those who were standing by his side.

5. It is alleged in confirmation of the preceding arguments, that Justin's quotations agree in their variations from the Gospels with certain apocryphal gospels, and with quotations made by persons who are known to have used them.20 This is true in a few instances, but it proves nothing more than that Justin and the authors of these works had some common source of information whence these variations were derived. It can not be proved that any of the apocryphal gospels were credited to "followers of the apostles," as were a portion of the Memoirs cited by Justin.

In answer to the very decisive fact that Justin speaks of his Memoirs as being "called Gospels," showing that this was the name by which they were more commonly known, and furnishing strong evidence that they are those which still bear the same title,21 it is answered, that this expression is probably an interpolation in Justin's works.22 But no evidence of interpolation has been found, and therefore the answer amounts to nothing.

A very-complete and altogether sufficient refutation of the theory that Justin's Memoirs were other than our Gospels, is, found in the fact admitted on all hands, that in the days of Irenaeus and of the author of the Muratorian Canon, only about twenty years after Justin's works appeared, our Gospels were in universal use as apostolic documents. This fact, in order to be reconciled with the theory, requires the supposition that Justin's Memoirs were the recognized apostolic Gospels up to the year 150, and that ere the year 170 four other Gospels materially different and bearing the names of different authors, come to be substituted for them without a word of remonstrance or comment by any writer of the day. Mr. Westcott demanded of the author of Supernatural Religion an explanation of this anomaly, and his reply was, that it was "totally unnecessary" for him to account for it--a tacit confession of inability.23  

The evidence from the writings of Papias, who stands next in our list of authors, is contested as vigorously as that from Justin. It is contended that the Matthew and Mark mentioned by him were not our two Gospels under those names, but older documents, and of quite a different character. In regard to Matthew the following positions are taken  

First, it is affirmed, that the term by which Papias designates the subject matter of Matthew's work, "The Oracles," shows that it was not a history like our present Matthew, but a collection of the sayings of Jesus.24 It is admitted that the term refers to the sayings of Jesus regarded as divine oracles, but the inference that the book thus designated can be no more than a collection of these sayings is denied. In giving titles to books it is common to name them after some subject which is conspicuous in them, even when it occupies but a small part of the space. The title Gospel is itself an instance of this, as are also the titles Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and others in the Old Testament. Now the "Oracles" of Jesus occupy much the greater part of Matthew's book, for besides his shorter sayings and conversations, it contains nineteen formal speeches from his lips covering more than half the pages of the book. Mark, on the other hand, devotes to formal speeches only 28 per (rent, of his space. To distinguish Matthew, then, as having composed "the Oracles," is a correct representation of his work as we have it, and it is a more appropriate expression than the word Gospel. Neither Papias nor Justin was pleased with the latter title.

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul uses this term for the Old Testament Scriptures in general, saying of the Jews, "They were entrusted with the Oracles of God" (Rom. iii. 2.) The term Oracles, then, is an appropriate expression for the subject matter of Matthew's Gospel, and Papias showed good sense in using it.

Second, it is argued that the work of Matthew, which Papias mentions, can not be our Matthew, because that was written in Hebrew and this in Greek.25 The question turns upon the meaning of Papias. If he means that the only composition by Matthew known to him was composed in Hebrew, then the conclusion, so far as his testimony is concerned, is logical. But that it is unfair to construe his language thus is evident from the fact, that later writers who are known to have had our Greek Matthew, and to have believed that it came from Matthew's pen, speak in the same way of the original composition. So speak Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and others.26 That they do so, proves clearly that the use of such language is not inconsistent with a knowledge of the Greek Gospel of Matthew, nor with the belief that Matthew himself composed the latter. Papias, then, like them, may have had the Greek Gospel and may have believed that it came from Matthew, notwithstanding the assertion in question. The only rational way in which these authors could have held this double position, was by believing that Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew and then in Greek. It is a fact, however, not to be overlooked in this connection, that not one of the writers referred to, including Papias himself, claims to have seen the Hebrew Gospel.27 Its use had necessarily been eonfined to Jewish Christians; and it had gone out of use with the disappearance from the church of its Hebrew element.

Third, it is argued that Papias could not have known the Gospels of Luke and John, or he would have mentioned them also; and Eusebius, through whom alone we have knowledge of what he wrote, would have recorded the fact: for, it is said, "Eusebius never fails to state what the Fathers say about the books of the New Testament."28 This argument contains two assumptions: First, that Papias would certainly have mentioned these two Gospels, had he known them; and second, that had he mentioned them Eusebius would have noted the fact. That the last is a false assumption appears from the plan which Eusebius followed in writing of such matters. After mentioning the books of the New Testament which had been disputed, and those which had been undisputed, he declared it his plan to name the previous writers who had made use of any of the former, and to quote what had been related by them concerning the latter.29 In carrying out this plan, he fails to mention many express quotations from the undisputed books made by writers whose works have come down to us, although he uses these works frequently for other purposes. Had these works been lost, like those of Papias, this argument would have been applied to them also, and how falsely we can easily see.30 It should also be carefully observed that the citation which he does make from Papias is in perfect keeping with his plan. It is not a quotation made by Papias from Matthew or Mark, but a piece of information which he gives concerning the origin of these two books. In regard to Luke and John, Papias had no occasion to record such information, because Luke tells his readers plainly the origin of his book (i. 1-4), and that of John was well known in the region in which Papias lived, for there John had published it after many then living were born. The absurdity of the argument that Papias knew nothing of the Gospels of Luke and John because he mentions them not, and that if he had known them and mentioned them Eusebius would certainly have said so, is strikingly exposed by Dr. Lightfoot as follows: "Not only is it maintained that A knows nothing of B. because he says nothing of B, but it is further assumed that A knows nothing of B, because C does not say that A knows anything of B." 31

Fourth, it is urged that even if Papias knew some of the New Testament books, he regarded them as of little importance, seeing that he preferred oral tradition as a source of information.32 This argument misrepresents the reason which he gives for preferring the living voice to books, and it falsely assumes that the books referred to are his Gospels. The facts of the case are these: He writes a work in five books under the title, "Exposition of Oracles of our Lord." The oracles which he expounds are contained in sacred books, among which Matthew and Mark are expressly mentioned. In his preface to this Exposition, he speaks of the aids which he employed, saying: "But I shall not regret to subjoin to my interpretations also for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I have received it from the ciders, and have recorded it in order to give additional confirmation to the truth by my testimony;" and in this connection he adds: "For I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving."33 The benefit referred to is in the way of confirming his interpretations; and his comparison is not that of the living voice with the books on which he was commenting, but that of the former with books which were used as helps in his Exposition. In brief, he was commenting on the Gospels, and he derived more help in this task from conversing with men who had seen the Apostles, than from reading the books of uninspired men. If a commentator on the Gospels could enjoy the same privilege to-day, he would probably prize it as highly.

Fifth, it is urged as a special objection in reference to what Papias says of Peter's connection with the book of Mark, that this can not refer to our Mark because in this Peter is less conspicuous than he must have been in that, and less so than he is in the other Gospels.34 That Peter is far less conspicuous in Mark's Gospel than in the other three is true; for nearly all of the incidents which reflect credit on Peter are omitted by Mark.35 This, however, instead of proving that the statement of Papias can not have reference to our second Gospel, bears in the opposite direction; for unless Peter was a vainglorious man, of which there is not the slightest indication, a narrative derived from his oral teaching would make him less conspicuous than one derived from other sources. Mark's Gospel, then, is in this particular precisely what we should expect if the representation of Papias is true.

Sixth and last, it is argued that our Mark can not be the one of which Papias speaks, because the latter says that Mark "did not arrange in order the things which were either said or done by Jesus," whereas our Mark has "the most evident character of orderly arrangement."36 It is true that Mark's Gospel has an orderly arrangement, but its order is quite different from that of the other gospels, and notably from Matthew's which in some other respects it most resembles. Such is the difference that should one form a conception of the order of events from reading Matthew, as Papias probably did, and as many beginners in Gospel study now do, he could but be struck, on reading Mark, with the very thought expressed by Papias, that Mark has not arranged in order (that is, in the order of time) the things done and said. Not until he had made a careful study of the two gospels with reference to chronological order, would he think otherwise. The remark of Papias, then, is precisely the remark that he would naturally make if, in preparing his work on the Oracles of the Lord, he had been chiefly absorbed in the study of Matthew where these Oracles are so abundantly found.

In regard to the testimony of the still earlier writers whom we have cited, Polycarp, Barnabas and Clement of Rome, the only position taken by infidel writers worthy of serious consideration, is this: that the quotations which are cited from them were derived not from our New Testament books, but from other documents older than these and from oral tradition.37 The express quotations are not, of course, disposed of in this way, because they can not be; and these have forced the admission that the Epistle to the Romans, the two to the Corinthians, and that to the Galatians, together with the book of Revelation are genuine. There is no doubt that in those early times many sayings of Jesus not recorded in our Gospels were current among the disciples, and it is altogether probable that some of them were adopted by these writers, as at least one was at a later period by Justin; but that the mass of those found in these writers and also found in our New Testament books were derived from other sources, is an assumption supported by no proof and in itself it is wholly improbable. It could be adopted only by one who had previously and from other considerations reached the conclusion that these writers wrote at an earlier period than the New Testament writers. The argument is illogical, because it assumes the very thing in dispute. If it be said that though it may not be certain that these passages were derived from such other sources, they certainly may have been, and that this throws doubt upon the evidence; the answer is, that the number of these quotations is too great, and their correspondence with what is written in the New Testament too close, to allow the probability of such a supposition. The position, therefore, while it is ingenious, and the only one on which a skeptic in regard to the genuineness of our books can stand, must be set aside as arbitrary and illogical.

We shall now consider briefly the objections of rationalists to the internal evidence which we have adduced

Those writers who deny the reality of miracles unite in denying the genuineness of all the gospels in preference to admitting it and charging their writers with deliberate falsehood. This denial is based, not on internal evidence, but on the ground of opinions formed independently of these narratives; and its discussion belongs to the question of the authenticity of the gospels and not to that of their genuineness. If the miraculous accounts are false, the falsehoods may have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as by other Christian writers.

No internal evidence against the genuineness of the first three gospels has been adduced, except such as springs from the theories of the various objectors as to what would have been their characteristics had they been genuine. It is not claimed that any facts mentioned in them or alluded to, were beyond the reach of their reputed authors, or that any of the words employed may not have been known to them. But it is assumed that had they been genuine they would have been more definite in their statements of time, and of the connection of events; and that they would have harmonized more completely with one another in regard to historical details.38 These assumptions are based, like the one in regard to miracles, on purely dogmatic grounds; and the questions which they raise pertain not so much to the genuineness of the gospels as to their authenticity. We defer the consideration of them to Part Third of our inquiry.

In regard to the gospel ascribed to John the case is quite different. Although it was never classed among the disputed books in ancient times, its genuineness has recently become a subject of heated controversy, and chiefly on the ground of internal evidence.39 The discussion has taken a wide range, and has extended to many minute and collateral questions which have but little bearing on the main issue. We will state and consider only those objections which have sufficient plausibility to deserve attention.

1. It is argued from internal evidence that the author of this gospel was not a Jew, as was the apostle .John. The evidence in support of this objection lies chiefly in the fact obvious to every careful reader of the gospel, that the author habitually speaks of the Jews in the third person, as if he were not one of them, and that he distinguishes them constantly from Jesus and his disciples who were also Jews.40

In answer to this objection we remark: First, that this was the most natural way for the author, whether Jew or Gentile, to express himself; for he wrote long after the disciples had become a distinct community, separated from both Jews and Gentiles, and how could he speak so intelligibly of the bulk of the Jewish people who had stood opposed to Christ and his disciples as by calling them the Jews? Second, the apostle Paul, himself a "Hebrew of the Hebrews," had already, long before this gospel was written, made free use of the same phraseology in such expressions as these: "To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;" "Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the Chinch of God."41 The argument in question, if valid, would prove that Paul's epistles were not written by a Jew. Third, both Matthew and Mark, who were confessedly Jews, have left one instance each of the same use of the word, while Luke has left but two, though he is a Gentile and in his writings we would expect, according to this argument, to find it most frequently of all.42 These considerations show that the argument is without force; and not only so, but that the phraseology on which it is based is what we should expect to find.

2. It is said that the difference between the author as represented by himself and the John of the Synoptics, is proof that the author was not John.43 The specifications chiefly relied on to support this assertion, are the following: First-- The author represents himself as being known to the high priest (xviii. 15), and it is held that this could not have been true of the young fisherman of Galilee.44 But the absurdity of this inference is seen in the fact that it is one of the most common things in life for men in high positions to have acquaintance with others in the humblest callings. Second--The author represents himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," whereas, neither in the other Gospels, nor in Paul's Epistles, nor elsewhere except in this Gospel, is John represented as if he occupied such a position; on the contrary, the preeminence is uniformly given to Peter.45 It is true that the preeminence in activity and leadership is elsewhere given to Peter, and it is tacitly conceded to him even in this Gospel; " 46 but the distinction claimed by the author for himself is that of sympathetic affection such as appears in his leaning on the Master's breast at the supper. The two representations are not inconsistent. It is true also that such a relation between John and the Master is nowhere else alluded to; but this is no ground for denying its existence. That it was credited as a fact by the contemporaries of the author is evident from the consideration, that in the absence of such a belief he could not hope to be understood when designating himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." But the belief can not be satisfactorily accounted for unless it had came down to the time at which the Gospel was written as an authentic tradition. Moreover, the evident sincerity of the author forbids the supposition that he falsely represented himself as John by styling himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Third--It is claimed that the author represents himself as not an eye-witness of what he records, by appealing for confirmation of his word to some one who was. The alleged appeal is in the following passages "And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knoweth that he said true, that ye also may believe" (xix. 35). "This is the disciple who beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true" (xxi. 24).47 In regard to the first of these passages we remark, that inasmuch as the author uniformly refers to himself in the third person, the fact that he uses the third person here can not justify the inference that he refers to another. No one who reads the passage without a foregone conclusion can fail to realize that it is but a strong reiteration of the author's own testimony. It is somewhat surprising that he should employ such reiteration in regard to the circumstance to which it is applied, the issuing of blood and water from the side of Jesus, but he may have been led to it by some special doubts on this point prevalent when the Gospel was written. It must be admitted, too, that this appeal to one's certain knowledge of the fact, is an unusual way of supporting one's testimony; but though unusual it is not unprecedented. Paul does the same when he says, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit," etc. (Rom. ix. 1), That John should appeal to the certainty of his knowledge in support of his own testimony is no more singular than that Paul should call up the testimony of his own conscience to support his. In regard to the second passage cited above we remark, that the last clause of it was certainly written by some persons unknown to us, and it is scarcely possible that they could have written this clause without writing the whole sentence. Their purpose was to identify the author of the Gospel with the beloved disciple just mentioned before, and to certify the reliability of his testimony. The form of their statement was evidently suggested by that of the author in xix. 35. If it be thought strange that such endorsement of the testimony of an Apostle would he made by any other persons, we should remember that these persons, though unknown to us, were known to those who first received this Gospel, and that they may have been men whose testimony would add some weight to that of John--they may have been, like him, eye-witnesses of many events in the life of Jesus, and full of the Holy Spirit. To argue as if they were not is to argue from our ignorance.  

3. Another ground of objection is the striking difference between the matter of this Gospel and that of the Synoptics. That this difference is very great, leaving but little matter in common, is known to every student of these narratives; but that the difference does not amount to a contradiction, as all rationalists assert,48 is equally well known by all who have carefully compared them. It grows exclusively out of the plan of the author, which evidently contemplated the presentation of certain events and certain phases of the teaching of Jesus not found in the first three Gospels, and not commonly recited in the oral teaching of the early preachers. The details are so numerous that we can not specify them here; nor is it important that we should, seeing that they are made familiar by any ordinary course of instruction in sacred history. We shall notice only one specification. It is affirmed that the Synoptics limit the teaching of Jesus to one year, and confine his labors to Galilee except the closing scenes at Jerusalem, while the fourth Gospel extends the time to more than three years, and mentions several visits to Jerusalem previous to the last.49 This representation of the fourth Gospel is correct; but it is not true that the other Gospels limit the teaching of Jesus to one year. They date the beginning of his ministry after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and his death in Jerusalem at the beginning of a Passover; but they contain not a word that indicates the length of the interval, or that points to one year rather than three. The sole ground for the assumption is the fact that the only Passover which they mention is the one at which Jesus suffered; but this merely shows that they are silent in regard to other Passovers, not that others had not transpired. Neither is it true that they confine the labors of Jesus, except the closing scenes, to Galilee; for while they describe no visit to Jerusalem till the last, two of them show a knowledge that he had been there often. They do so by quoting the words of Jesus addressed to Jerusalem: "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not;" and Luke still further shows his knowledge of it, by describing a visit of Jesus to the home of Martha and Mary at Bethany, two miles from Jerusalem, previous to his last journey.50 This is a fair specimen of the specifications under this objection; they are all based on false or groundless assumptions.

4. The fourth objection which we shall mention is based on the striking difference between the speeches of Jesus found in the fourth Gospel, and those in the other three. It is held, that if the portraiture of Jesus thus given in the first three is correct, that given in the fourth is so thoroughly different that it must be false, and can not have been the work of an Apostle.51 The principal points of difference on which the objection is based are those in style; in the representation made of Jesus himself; and in the doctrine of salvation which he teaches. His style in the Synoptics is much simpler, and his speeches in the main are much shorter. In them he appears chiefly as the Jewish Messiah; in John, as the Son of (rod. In them he insists chiefly on deeds of obedience and benevolence as the ground of salvation; in John, on faith in himself.

That these distinctions exist is admitted; but the inference' drawn from them is denied. To deny that Jesus could have spoken on different occasions and to different persons in style as different as that to which we refer, is not only to deny the supernatural powers which the Scriptures ascribe to him, but also to deny that versatility of genius which is ascribed to him by all intelligent unbelievers: and that the occasions and persons are different can be seen by a glance at these in the several Gospels. As to his representation of himself, his divinity is not less explicitly asserted in the Synoptics than in John, it is only asserted less frequently and discussed less elaborately.52 That this should be the case can appear strange only to those who deny his divinity, as the objectors do. As to the terms of salvation, while faith is made more conspicuous in the speeches recorded by John, its necessity is constantly implied in the obedience emphasized in the Synoptics. The final test submitted at the close of the Sermon on the Mount, "He that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them," "He that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not," turns upon the faith or the unbelief on which the two courses of action depend; the supreme blessing pronounced on Peter was for a confession of his faith; faith is made explicitly a condition of salvation in the apostolic commission as preserved by Mark, and by implication in that preserved by Matthew; and, in a word, all the matter of the three Gospels is evidently intended to lead men to faith in Christ as a necessary condition of salvation. He who has learned the simple fundamental lesson of the New Testament, that faith and obedience are both necessary to the final salvation of accountable beings, can find no difficulty in the fact that now one of these conditions and then the other receives especial emphasis.

5. The style of the speeches of Jesus is made the ground of another objection to the genuineness of the fourth Gospel. The style of the speeches is the same in its general features, with that of the narrative, and from this it is inferred that they can not be the real speeches of Jesus as they would be recalled by an Apostle; but that they are fictitious speeches composed by the author and put into the lips of Jesus.53 In answer to this we remark, that while the last supposition, if true, would account for the sameness of style, it can as readily be accounted for on a different hypothesis. If we suppose, as the genuineness of the Gospel would require, that Jesus actually spoke in the style represented, the similarity of style is at once accounted for by the natural inclination of an admiring disciple to adopt the style of his teacher. It is certain that, whether John wrote this Gospel or not, his whole mental and moral nature was deeply impressed by Jesus while living, and that during the half century and more in which he had preached and meditated upon the sayings of Jesus previous to the supposed date of this book, this impression was made still deeper; why then should it be thought strange that in speaking on the same subject with his adored Lord, he should have learned to employ the same vocabulary, and to frame his sentences in the same style? Again, it should be remembered that in writing his Gospel, John was translating into Greek both the speeches of Jesus, which had been uttered in the current Hebrew, and his own thoughts, which were conceived in the same tongue. It is the style of this translation which we are considering, and not the original style of either John or Jesus. But the style in which a writer translates his own thoughts into a foreign language and that in which he translates the speeches of another must necessarily be the same so far as fidelity to the original will allow.

6. The last objection which we shall notice is based on the style of the Apostle John. It is claimed by recent skeptics in general, that John was certainly the author of the Apocalypse, and that the radical difference in style between that book and the fourth Gospel forbids the supposition that he also wrote the latter.54 It is claimed, and it is admitted, that while the latter composition is written in purer Greek than any other book of the New Testament, the Apocalypse is remarkable for its Hebraisms, and other defects in style. This difference was observed by the Greek writers of the early church; and it is one of the causes which led many in that period to deny the genuineness of the Apocalypse; for then no doubt existed as to the genuineness of the Gospel.55 It is one of the singular revolutions which characterize skeptical thought, that in the hands of modern unbelievers the scales have turned, and the shafts of doubt are hurled in the opposite direction. In reply to this it is urged by those who believe in the early date of the Apocalypse, that time sufficient elapsed between that date (A. D. 68) and the date of the Gospel (95-97) to allow a marked improvement in the author's use of the Greek language, especially as he spent this period of his life among a cultivated people whose native tongue was Greek.56 By those who assign to the Apocalypse the later date (96) and allow no great difference of time between it and John's other writings, it is answered, that the Hebraisms of the former are to be accounted for by the fact that the book is to a large extent a reproduction of the imagery of the Old Testament prophets, and that it therefore of necessity assumed much of their style.57 Either answer suffices to show that the objection furnishes no adequate reason for denying the genuineness of the Gospel.  

Modern skeptics admit that the author of Acts and of the third Gospel was the same person,58 but they are divided among themselves on the question whether that author was Luke. Some scholars of the Tübingen school deny that Luke had any connection with the authorship; but Baur himself, while denying that he composed the narrative as we have it, supposed that he left memoranda which were used in the final composition. Renan, on the contrary, though he unites with the rest in denying that the book is true to history, contends that Luke is certainly the author of the whole book.59 The only ground on which its genuineness is denied, is its alleged untruthfulness. It is held that it was written for the purpose' of covering up an unreconciled hostility between Paul and the other Apostles, and that to this end many facts were distorted and some invented. Tin: merits of this allegation will be considered in Part Third of this book; but even if it is true, it has no material bearing on the question of the genuineness of the book; for on the rationalistic hypothesis which denies inspiration, Luke may as well be charged with the fraud, as a later Christian writer. Whether the charge is true or false, then, it affords no ground for doubting the genuineness of Acts.

The genuineness of the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, and of both of those to the Corinthians is conceded, as we have already stated, by all modern skeptics.60 There is no  internal evidence in conflict with that which we have presented in Chapter IV., not even in the estimation of the most destructive critics of the present age, except with reference to the last two chapters of Romans which are held in doubt by some of them.61  

The genuineness of first and second Thessalonians, the earliest of Paul's writings, and probably the earliest writings of the New Testament, was never questioned until recent times, and that of the first Epistle was not assailed until the publication of Baur's Life of Paul.62 This author bases his rejection of the first Epistle chiefly on the following grounds: First, that a large part of it contains nothing that the Thessalonians did not already know, being an extended account of their conversion; second, that it contains "reminiscences" of other Epistles known to have been written at a later date than is claimed for this; third, that it contains different and later views of the second coming of Christ (iv. 14-18) than are expressed in I. Corinthians. In regard to the second Epistle, he holds that it borrows its idea of Anti-Christ (ii. 1-8) from the Apocalypse, and must therefore be later than that book; and that the caution about testing the genuineness of any epistle purporting to come from him by the salutation being written in his own hand (ii. 2; iii. 17) implies that it was written after many other of his epistles instead of being among his first.63

In regard to the first of these objections it is sufficient to say, that it is common with Paul, as with all other teachers, to remind persons of what they know when giving them encouragement and exhortation. In regard to the second, it is obviously a mere assumption to say that the ideas and words common to this and other epistles are reminiscences by a later writer, when they may have been, as they purport to be, but repetitions characteristic of the same writer; and that while the account of the second coming of Christ, given in I. Thessalonians is certainly different from that in I. Corinthians, there is no ground for the assertion that it is of later origin. As to the conception of Anti-Christ, it is begging the question to say that it originated in the Apocalypse; for it certainly may have originated with Paul. As to the autograph salutation, it seems that one or more letters purporting to have come from Paul had actually been received in Thessalonica (ii. 2), and there could be no better occasion than this for giving the sign by which all of his genuine letters could be known. Renan says of all these objections that they are "without value;" and of the Anti-Christ, that this idea did not originate with the Apocalypse, for it was current at a much earlier period.64 Thus we have the judgment of one learned Rationalist against that of another in regard to these objections, while the objections are in themselves so trivial as to scarcely deserve serious attention

The three Epistles, Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon, may be considered together, both because they all purport 10 have been written at one time, and to have been curried to their destination by two messengers traveling together;65 and because the former two are assailed on common grounds. The principal ground on which Baur rejects these two is, that they appear to him to contain the doctrine of Gnosticism, a heresy which came into existence after the death of Paul.66 Renan rinds echoes of the same doctrine in them, yet he admits the genuineness of Colossians.67 The charge of Gnosticism is based upon statements concerning the divinity of Christ, and the ranks and orders of angelic beings, which these epistles contain. Eph. i. 20-23; iii. 8-12; vi. 11, 12; Col. i. 15 18. But these conceptions can be regarded as unapostolic only by men who deny the divinity of Christ and reject the revelations in Scripture concerning the spirit world. To a mind not thus prepossessed the objection has no force. A special objection to Ephesians is based on its similarity to Colossians.68 These writers are not willing to admit that Paul could write two epistles near the same time so nearly alike; and yet Renan suggests that Ephesians may have been written by one of Paul's companions while his mind was preoccupied with the words and thoughts of Colossians. If one of these might do it, why not Paul himself? It is a common experience of letter writers, when writing several letters to different persons at one sitting, to use in all of them much of the same matter; and why may not Paul have done the same, especially as these two churches were located in the same country and were exposed to similar dangers?69 Another objection to the genuineness of Ephesians is based upon the fact that the persons addressed were strangers to the writer, and their faith a matter of hearsay; whereas Paul planted the church in Ephesus and lived three years in the midst of it. If it were certain that the epistle was addressed to the church at Ephesus, this objection would have more force than either of the preceding (Eph. i. 15; iv. 20, 21); yet even in that case it would appear very strange that a forger, at a later date, should represent the Apostle as being a stranger to that church. But although this objection is urged with vehemence by Rationalists, they admit, what is well known, that the words "at Ephesus" in the salutation of the epistle are of doubtful genuineness, and that many scholars both ancient and modern have held that the Epistle was addressed to no particular church, or if to any, to that at Laodicea.70 Comp. Col. iv. 16.

Of the epistle to Philemon, Renan remarks, "Paul alone, as far as it appears, was able to write this little masterpiece."71 Yet Baur rejects it on the singular ground that the story of Onesimus involved in its allusions, has the air of a romance.72 The story is certainly an interesting one, but none of its incidents are at all improbable, unless a selfish age like ours should so regard the wonderful generosity manifested in the case by Paul.

Baur claims the credit of being the first author to raise a doubt concerning the genuineness of the epistle to the Philippians.73 He bases his doubt, first, on the Gnostic ideas and expressions which he claims to find in it; especially in ii. 6; second, on the want of a motive or occasion for writing it; and third, on the assumed incredibility of its assertions concerning the effects of Paul's preaching on the Praetorian guard and on Caesar's household.74 Phil. i. 12; iv. 22. The first of these objections has been answered in answering the same when arrayed against Ephesians and Colossians (page 158); the second is contradicted by the epistle itself, for an occasion is indicated in ii. 19-28, and a motive in the exhortations with which it abounds; and the third evinces a most unreasonable incredulity; for Paul was guarded night and day for two whole years by different soldiers of that guard who heard all that he said to his many visitors, and it would be strange indeed if he failed to leaven them and through them their comrades, and even some of the multitudinous attendants on the Emperor's palace, with the doctrine which he was incessantly preaching. Even Renan places this epistle among those tint are "certain;"75 and Farrar expresses the common judgment of critics when he says, "This epistle is genuine beyond the faintest suspicion or shadow of doubt."76

The epistles to Timothy and Titus remained undisputed until the present century, and now their genuineness is impugned only on internal grounds. It is said: First, that they are tinged with Gnosticism, which originated after Paul's death: second, that they indicate a stage of progress in the organization of the church which was not attained during Paul's life; and third, that there is no place in Paul's career for the journeys and incidents to which they allude.77 Other objections of less importance are urged, but by these three the question is to be settled.

It is admitted that the false teachings against which Timothy and Titus were warned (I. Tim. i. 1-7; vi. 20, 21; Titus i. 13-16; iii. 9-11) were in part of the same nature as Gnosticism, but it is a baseless assumption to affirm that no such teaching was introduced before the death of Paul. The heretical ideas had not been systematized as they were afterward, but such ideas always exist in a nebulous form before they are reduced to a system. That they are noticed in these epistles, and alluded to in the earlier epistles to the Ephesians, the Colossians and the Philippians, instead of throwing doubt on the genuineness of these documents, simply proves that these ideas were propagated at this early date.

That a more advanced organization of the church is indicated in these epistles than existed before Paul's death, is another baseless assumption, and one that can be made only by those who deny the credibility of Acts of Apostles: for the organization of churches by the appointment of elders or bishops, and deacons, the only organization alluded to in these epistles, had existed in Judea before the beginning of Paul's missionary tours, and Paul himself thus organized the churches which he planted among the Gentiles.78

The third objection is the only One of the three which has any real force, and should it be decided that Paul's life terminated with his first Roman imprisonment described at the close of Acts, its force would be almost if not altogether irresistible. The following journeys and incidents can find no place in his previous life, though many ingenious scholars have sought one, viz: his departure from Ephesus for Macedonia, leaving Timothy behind him (I. Tim. i. 3); his labors in Crete where he left Titus (Titus i. 5); his wintering in Nicopolis where he desired Titus to join him (iii. 12); and his journeying through Miletus where Trophimus was left sick, and through Corinth where he left Erastus (II. Tim. iv. 20).79 But this argument has force against the genuineness of these Epistles only on the supposition that Paid was not released from his first imprisonment in Rome. This supposition is adopted by those who reject the Epistles as if it were a settled fact; whereas there is positive and uncontradicted testimony that he was released, that he performed other labors during the interval of freedom, and that he was imprisoned a second time before his death. Clement of Rome declares that after he had been seven times in bonds, he reached in his preaching "the boundary of the West,"80 an expression then used for the western boundary of Spain. If Clement uses it in this sense, and not, as some suppose, for Rome (a very unnatural meaning for one living in Rome), we have in his statement the testimony of a competent witness implying Paul's release and the fulfillment of a cherished purpose to visit Spain.81 The Muratorian Canon, written about A. D. 170, also speaks of Paul's departure from the city into Spain as a well known fact;82 and Eusebius, who had searched carefully into the early history of the church, says that his martyrdom did not take place at the time of his first imprisonment, but that he was released, went again upon his ministry, and at a second visit to the city was put to death.83 While the first of these testimonies is indecisive, and while it is possible that in the second there may be a mistake as to the country to which Paul departed, it is scarcely possible that they should all be in error as to the fact of his release. By the side of this testimony we have that of these three epistles, all well attested by external evidence, and all implying journeys and incidents of a later date than the first imprisonment. The conclusion, then, instead of being adverse to the genuineness of the epistles, is in favor of the supposition that the events implied in them occurred after the author's first imprisonment. Were it Christopher Columbus instead of Paul, the date of whose death is in dispute, and should we find well authenticated letters purporting to be his, alluding to journeys and labors which can not have transpired before the supposed date of his death, who would hesitate to decide that the date which has been received is erroneous, and that in these letters we have an additional chapter of his life? This is the conclusion in the present instance that has been reached by many of the ablest critics of the present age, not including those of the Rationalistic school.84 There is only one seeming difficulty in the way of this conclusion, and this is the conflict which it involves between the return of Paul to Ephesus (I. Tim. i. 3) and the saying of Paul to the Ephesian elders, "I know that ye all, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more" (Acts xx. 25). But the context shows that whatever positive knowledge of his own future he enjoyed at that time was through the prophetic foresight of others, not his own--and indeed neither he nor any of the apostles claimed to know their own future by their prophetic powers. This remark, therefore, can be regarded only as a strong statement of his conviction based on the predicted bonds and afflictions awaiting him at Jerusalem. Neither is this conclusion an afterthought, as is charged by Renan,85 gotten up to meet the objection; for although it was doubtless the objection which led to the investigation, the result reached is self-consistent and commends itself to acceptance independently of the objection. It adds a most thrillingly interesting86 chapter to the biography of Paul, one that throws a halo of intenser glory over the sunset of a glorious life.

The question of the genuineness of Hebrews refers not so much to its Pauline authorship as to its authorship by some apostolic man: for, as we have before stated (p. 119), its authorship has been in dispute from a very early period even among those who have accepted it as genuine Scripture. The arguments from internal evidence which have been arrayed against its Pauline origin are more numerous than forcible. They are based partly on the style, which is said to be materially different from that of Paul's undisputed epistles, and partly on statements which it is said Paul could not have made. In regard to the former, the specifications of which are too numerous and minute for discussion here, it is sufficient to say that the departures from Paul's usual style which are found in the epistle are not more numerous than are the words and forms of expression which are peculiar to Paul, so that the latter serve as an offset to the former, and take away the force of the objection.87 As to statements which Paul could not have made, the one which is urged with the greatest confidence is his statement that the great salvation which was at first spoken through the Lord, "was confirmed unto us by them that heard" (Heb. ii. 3). Of this it is said, "The author was not an Apostle, for he classes himself with those who had been taught by the Apostles."88 True, he classes himself with those who had been taught by the original Apostles concerning the words that had been spoken by Jesus, and this was certainly true of Paul; for although he was an Apostle, and although he received by direct revelation, as he affirms (Gal. i. 12) a knowledge of the gospel, yet it is true that his knowledge of the personal ministry of Jesus was derived from the older Apostles, partly before his own conversion and partly after it. The very warfare which he waged against the name of Jesus before his conversion implies a knowledge, though imperfect, of the life and teaching of Jesus. All this he obtained, directly or indirectly, from the older apostles, and it is to this that the remark under discussion has reference. Moreover, in his speech at Antioch in Pisidia Paul refers his hearers for evidence concerning the career of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead, not to his own testimony, but to that of those who came with Jesus from Galilee, "Who," he says, "are now his witnesses to the people v (Acts xiii. 2G-31). The statement in question, then, could have been made by Paul, because it harmonizes both with the facts of the case and with his habit on other occasions. We conclude that there is no sufficient ground to abandon the generally received opinion that Paul wrote the epistle; and none at all to doubt that it came from the midst of the apostolic age.

The only internal evidence that has been urged against the Epistle of James by believers, was based on the opinion held by a few, that its doctrine of justification is contradictory to that of Paul;89 but, as is now universally conceded, there is no such contradiction, and the objection has been abandoned. By Rationalists its genuineness has been questioned on the ground of a supposed allusion to the Epistle to the Hebrews in the use made of the history of Rahab. As Hebrews was written at too late a date for James to have seen it, an allusion to that epistle could not have been made by him.90 But the fact of an allusion is imaginary; for the incident in which Rahab figured has ever been familiar to readers of the Old Testament, and any Jewish writer might have referred to it independently of others.

The Rationalists of the Tübingen school deny the genuineness of the First Epistle of Peter solely on the ground of their favorite theory that there was an antagonism between Paul and Peter to the end of their days, and that this Epistle, in common with some others and the Book of Acts, was written for the purpose of making it appear that this antagonism did not exist. But the theory is based on a false assumption and the inferences drawn from it must therefore be groundless. There is in fact nothing within the Epistle to furnish the slightest ground for doubt that it was written by Peter; its genuineness has never been doubted except by a very few persons;91 and even Renan remarks that "The First Epistle of Peter is one of the writings of the New Testament which are the most anciently and most unanimously cited as authentic."92

With the Second Epistle it is far different. Although the material evidence in its favor is very positive and explicit (see p. 121), yet many believers have in the earliest as well as in the latest times, doubted its genuineness, while unbelievers have rejected it both for the reasons which have led believers to doubt it, and for reasons growing out of their own unbelief in miracles and in prophecy, both of which are attested in the Epistle. The specifications on which these doubts are based may all be grouped under three heads; first, differences of style between this and the First Epistle; second, remarks and expressions which it is thought that Peter would not have used; and third, a supposed copying from the Epistle of Jude to which it is thought that Peter would not have resorted.

1. That a striking difference of style exists between the two Epistles is admitted by all competent scholars, yet the striking similarity which we have mentioned before (p. 122), neutralizes the force of this difference. Even Farrar, who insists with great earnestness upon the force of the argument on the former ground, presents the latter as a reason why he can not regard the Epistle as "certainly spurious."93 When, in addition to this consideration, we reflect upon the variations which a man's style may undergo under change of circumstances, of feelings, and of the subject matter on which he writes; and when we remember that these two short Epistles and the few short speeches of Peter recorded in Acts, are our only sources of information as to what Peter's real style was; it must seem hazardous, if not reckless, to set aside on such ground the solemn assertions of the Epistle itself as to its authorship (see p. 122). From such a conclusion the better instinct of scholars has withheld even those who have attached the greatest weight to this objection, infidel scholars, of course, being excepted.94

2. Of the remarks and expressions which it is thought that Peter would not have employed the specifications are numerous, but with a single exception they are void of force. Many of them are such as would excite no surprise if found in an unquestioned Epistle of Peter, and the others are such that Peter is as likely to have employed them as any man writing in his name. It would require space disproportionate to their value to discuss them individually.95 The one specification which we think worthy of notice here is the remark made concerning Paul's Epistles in II. Peter iii. 14-16. It has been said by some that the words "all of his Epistles" means all of the Epistles now ascribed to Paul, which implies a later date than the death of Peter. But the writer obviously alluded only to those that were known to himself, whether many or few. There is positive evidence in Peter's First Epistle, as we have stated (p. 121), that he had read the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians; and if he had seen Ephesians, he may have seen I. and II. Thessalonians, I. and II. Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians; for all these had been written before the date of Ephesians except the last which was written at the same date. It has also been said, that the words in the passage under discussion, "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things," can not apply to all the Epistles already written by Paul, because the things referred to are not mentioned in them all. The truth of this depends upon what is meant by "these things." The second coming of Christ is the chief theme of the chapter, but the more immediate context (14, 15) limits the thought to preparation for that event--such preparation that we "may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight." Nov this topic is discussed in every one of the Epistles written by Paul before this date, and in six out of the eight the second coming of Christ is itself a conspicuous topic.96 The allegation then is not true. A third objection based on this passage is, that the designation of Paul's Epistles as Scripture belongs to a date later than the death of Peter, this term being applied in the apostolic age to the Old Testament exclusively. But this is a begging of the question; for if Peter wrote this Epistle, then at least one Apostle did apply the term Scripture to the Epistles of another. The main question must be settled in the negative before this affirmation can be sustained.  

3. The objection that Peter would not have adopted from the Epistle of Jude so many thoughts and expressions as are found in common in that Epistle and the second chapter of II. Peter, depends for its relevancy upon the assumption that the latter Epistle is the later of the two, a proposition which is combated with great plausibility by some eminent scholars.97 But waiving this question, and granting the position assumed in the objection as probable, it would appear not more surprising that Peter should himself make use of material previously used by Jude, than that some later writer professing to be Peter should have done so in his name. Nor should it be thought at all incredible that Peter, wishing to emphasize by his own endorsement Jude's earnest exhortation to "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints," may have composed the second chapter of this Epistle just as we find it for this very good purpose. A similar, and even a more remarkable, coincidence of both words and thoughts is found in the Old Testament between Isaiah and Micah; and these prophets, like Peter and Jude, were contemporaries. (See Isaiah ii. 2, 3; Micah iv. 1, 2).

In conclusion, we may safely remark, that the objections which we have just considered can certainly furnish no justification for setting aside as false the solemn assertions of the writer in which he assumes to be the Apostle Peter, and for pronouncing the author of this most edifying and eloquent document an impostor.

The only internal evidence worthy of notice that has been alleged against the genuineness of the Epistle of Jude, is the fact that the author makes a quotation from an apocryphal work called the Book of Enoch,98 and ascribes the words quoted to "Enoch the seventh from Adam" (14). It is thought that neither an Apostle, nor one so nearly related to the Apostles as was the brother of James, would have done this. In answer to this, it may be said, first, that the quotation from an apocryphal book of certain words ascribed in that book to a previous author, is not an endorsement of the book as a whole, but only of the part quoted. Second, it is by no means incredible that among the many written documents in possession of the ancient Jews a genuine prophecy of Enoch may have been preserved, and if so, it would very naturally be copied into any work pretending to give an account of Enoch. Third, it is by no means certain that Jude quoted from the apocryphal book in question, because he may have obtained the prediction from the same source whence it was obtained by the author of this book, that is, from some older document and one that was authentic. From these considerations it appears that the objection is altogether insufficient to set aside as false the writer's assertion that he was the brother of James.

The attempts that have been made to find internal evidence against the genuineness of the First Epistle of John, are so vague and intangible that Dr. Davidson, with allusion to Pharaoh's lean kine, styles them "ill-favored and lean observations."99 Against the other two epistles it has been urged that as the author styles himself not the Apostle, but the Elder, in the opening sentence of each, he must have been some other than John the Apostle. It has even been argued that he was a certain "John the Elder ft mentioned by Papias as having given the latter some items of information which he had gathered from the lips of Apostles.100 But this last conjecture is baseless; and upon a close examination of the language of Papias it appears highly probable that by "John the Elder," he means the Apostle John himself.101 That John should call himself "the Elder" appears quite natural when we remember that if he did write these epistles he was at the time a very old man and the only Apostle still lingering on the earth. Moreover, he was writing briefly to private persons much younger than himself, and there was no occasion to assert his apostolic authority by styling himself an Apostle. The objection, if not as lean and ill-favored as as those brought against the first Epistle, is far-fetched and has the appearance of being the result of preconception rather than of candid investigation.

Against the genuineness of the Apocalypse no internal evidence is adduced, except by a very few critics who regard the Gospel and Epistles of John as genuine, but doubt the genuineness of this book on account of its marked difference from the others in style. As we have stated before (p. the most radical of the rationalistic critics regard it as unquestionably a work of the Apostle John, and they are led to this conclusion not so much by the external as by the internal evidence.

1 Baur's principal works are a Life of the Apostle Paul and a History of Christianity in the first Three Centuries. In these all the essential features of his theory are set forth. He attempts to reconstruct the early history of the church with all that is miraculous and all that tends to the proof of miracles, carefully eliminated. He is regarded as the greatest of modern German rationalists. He died in 1860.

2 This scheme is condensed from Westcott (Canon of New Testament, 6, n. 2). He says, at the conclusion of his note, "Schwegler's theory has been variously modified by later writers of the Tübingen school, but it still remains the most complete embodiment of the spirit of the school in which relation alone we have to deal with it." The last remark is equally applicable to the use which we make of it in this volume.

3 See Chapter I., p. 74.

4 "It is unsafe upon the mere interpretation of a phrase which would be applicable even a century later, to date this anonymous fragment regarding which we know nothing, earlier than the very end of the second or beginning of the third century, and it is still more probable that it was not written until an advanced period of the third century." Supernatural Religion, ii.

5 "That Justin does not mention the name of the author of the Memoirs would in any ease render any argument as to their identity with our canonical gospels incomplete; but the total omission to do so is the more remarkable from the circumstance that the names of Old Testament writers constantly occur in his writings. Semisch counts 197 quotations from the Old Testament, in which Justin refers to the author by name, or to the book, and only 117 in which he omits to do so, and the latter number might be reduced by considering the nature of the passages cited, and the inutility of repeating the reference. . . . The fact is that the only writing of the New Testament to which Justin refers by name is, as we have already mentioned, the Apocalypse, which he attributes to 'a certain man whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation made to him,' etc. The manner in which John is here mentioned, after the Memoirs had been so constantly indefinitely referred to clearly shows that Justin did not possess any gospel also attributed to John. That he does name John, however, as the author of the Apocalypse and so frequently refers to Old Testament writers by name, yet never identities the author of the Memoirs is quite irreconcilable with the idea that they were the canonical gospels." Supernatural Religion, i., 297, 298.

6 Westcott gives the names of twelve writers extending from Tatian of the second century to Eusebius of the fourth, who in their works addressed to unbelievers almost uniformly quote the gospels anonymously, and he closes his remarks on the subject with the statement that Justin "is not less but more explicit than later Apologists as to the writings from which he derives his accounts of the Lord's life and teaching." Canon of New Testament, 116-119.

7 "Moreover also among us a man named John, one of the apostles of Christ, prophesied in a revelation made to him, that those who have believed on our Christ shall spend a thousand years in Jerusalem." Dialogue, c. 81. This is of course only Justin's interpretation of Rev. xx. 1-7.

8 The most striking of these differences are the following: In Justin's quotation of the words spoken to Mary by the angel (Luke i. 31) after the words "shall call his name Jesus," he appends the additional words used by the angel in speaking to Joseph (Matt. i. 21), "for he shall save his people from their sins." Apology, i. 33. In his account of the census ordered at the time of Joseph's removal to Bethlehem, he represents the census as being taken in Judea, whereas Luke has it, "all the world"; and he speaks of Quirinius, as Procurator (ἐπίτροπος) of Judea, whereas he was according to Luke Governor (ἡγεμών) of Syria. Apol. i., 34; Dial, c., 78. In his account of the voice that came from heaven at the baptism of Jesus, he adds to the words in the Gospels the words, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Dial c, 88.

9 Westcott (Canon of N. T. 120-123) quotes a number of passages illustrative of this habit, of which the following is the most striking, and it is sufficient for our purpose. "What then the people of the Jews will say and do when they see Christ's advent in glory, has been thus told in prophecy by Zechariah: 'I will charge the four winds to gather my children who have been scattered. I will charge the north wind to bring and the south wind not to hinder, (Zech. ii. 6; Isa. xxxiii. 6). 'And then shall there be in Jerusalem a great lamentation, not a lamentation of mouths and lips, but a lamentation of heart' (Zech. xxii. 11), 'and they shall not rend their garments, but their minds' (Joel ii. 13). 'They shall lament tribe to tribe'' (Zech. xii. 12-14); 'and then shall they look on him whom they pierced (xii. 10) and say: Why, O Lord, did'st thou make us to err from thy way?' (Isa. xliii. 17). 'The glory which our fathers blessed is turned to our reproach' (Isa. xliv. 11. Sept. Version)."

10 The following are remarkable instances illustrative of both of these purposes. He quotes a well-known passage from Ezekiel (iii. 17-19) in this form: "I have placed thee as a watchman to the house of Judah. Should the sinner sin, and thou not testify to him, he indeed shall perish for his sin, but from thee I will require his blood; but if thou testify to him thou shalt be blameless." Dial. c. lxxxii. "In the writings of Moses it is recorded that at the point of time when the Israelites came out of Egypt, and were in the wilderness, venomous beasts encountered them, vipers and asps and serpents of all kinds, which killed the people; and that by inspiration and impulse of God Moses took brass and made an image of a cross, and set this on the holy tabernacle, and said to the people: Should you look on this image and believe in it, you shall be saved. And he has recorded that when this was done the serpents died, and so the people escaped death." Apol. i. 60, comp. Numb. xxi. 6-9. By parity of reasoning the skeptic should say of these quotations that they certainly must have been taken from some spurious Ezekiel and Numbers, and not from the books known to us by these titles.

11 Westcott has collected in a. brief table all the quotations which Justin makes more than once, and it shows that while there are twenty-three instances of agreement, there are thirty-rive instances of difference. Canon of N. T. 173, 174.

12 Sup. Rel. ii. 286,333,412-16. et at.

13 "Facts in the life of Jesus and circumstances of Christian history derived from the same source, not only are not in our Gospels, but are in contradiction with them." Ib. 286.

14 Ib. 300-302.

15 Ib. 310-319.

16 Westcott on the Can., 158 and n. 4.

17 Dialogue, c. 88.

18 Westcott on the Canon, 159, n. 1.

19 Sup. Rel. II. 329.

20 Ib. .103-332.

21 See chap. III. p. 04.

22 "A single passage has been pointed out in which the Memoirs are said to have been called Gospels in the plural: 'For the Apostles in the Memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels,' etc. The last expression, 'which are called Gospels,' as many scholars have declared, is probably an interpolation." Sup. Rel. ii. 292.

23 "Is it then possible to suppose that within twenty or thirty years after his [Justin's] death, these Gospels should have been replaced by others similar and yet distinct? That he should speak of one set of books as if they were permanently incorporated into the Christian services, and that those who might have been his scholars should speak in exactly the same terms of another collection as if they had had no rivals in the orthodox pale? That the substitution should have been effected in such a manner that no record of it has been preserved, while similar analogous reforms have been duly chronicled? The complication of historical difficulties in such an hypothesis is overwhelming; and the alternative is that which has already been justified on critical grounds, the belief that Justin in speaking of Apostolic Memoirs or Gospels, meant the Gospels which were enumerated in the early anonymous Canon of Muratori, and whose mutual relations were eloquently expounded by Irenaeus." Canon of New Testament, 165. "The last of these general objections to which I need now refer, is the statement that the difficulty with regard to the gospels commences precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how, if no trace of this existence is previously discoverable, the four gospels are suddenly found in circulation at the end of the second century, and quoted as authoritative by such writers as Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account for this." Sup. Rel. ix.

24 "There can be no doubt that the direct meaning of the word λὁγια (oracles) anciently and at the time of Papias, was simply words or oracles of a sacred character; and however much the signification became afterwards extended, that it was not then at all applied to doings as well as sayings. There are many instances of this original and limited signification in the New Testament; and there is no linguistic precedent for straining the expression used at that period to mean anything beyond a mere collection of sayings of Jesus which were estimated as oracular or divine, nor is there any reason for thinking that τά λόγια (the oracles) was here used in any other sense." Ib. I. 464.

25 "If it be denied that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it can not be asserted that he wrote at all. It is therefore perfectly certain from this testimony that Matthew can not be declared the direct author of the Greek Canonical Gospel bearing his name." Ib. 476.

26 The author of Supernatural Religion himself quotes to this effect the words of these and other authors (ii. 471-474) without seeming to know that he thereby furnishes evidence to refute his own argument.

27 This fact is emphasized by Alford (Prolegomena to Greek New Testament c II. § 2) who shows that an apparent exception in the case of .Jerome is not a real one.

28 "Eusebius. who never fails to state what the Fathers say about the books of the New Testament, does not mention that Papias knew either the third or fourth gospel. Is it possible to suppose that if Papias had been acquainted with those gospels he would not have asked information about them from the Presbyters, or that Eusebius would not have recorded it as he did that regarding the works ascribed to Matthew and Mark?" Sup. Rel. II. 484.

29 "But as my history proceeds I will take care along with the successions (of the bishops), to indicate what church writers from time to time have made use of any of the disputed hooks, and what has been said by them concerning the Canonical and acknowledged Scriptures, and anything that (they have said) concerning those which do not belong to this class."' Eccles. Hist. iii. Dr. Light foot's translation.

30 Dr. Lightfoot, in an elaborate article on this question published in the Contemporary Review for January, 1875, presents this answer with great force, and shows conclusively that Eusebius thus dealt with the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus.

31 Contemporary Review, January, 1875, p. 170.

32 "Whatever books Papias knew, however, it is certain, from his own express declaration, that he ascribed little importance to them, and preferred tradition as a more beneficial source of information regarding evangelical history. 'For I held that what was to be derived from books,' he says, 'did not so profit me as that from the living and abiding voice.'" Sup. Rel. II. 486.

33 Eccles. Hist. iii. 39.

34 Sup. Rd. II. 452-455.

35 For the specifications see p. 115.

36 "Now it is impossible in the work of Mark here described [by Papias] to recognize our present second Gospel, which does not depart in any important degree from the order of the other two synoptics, and which, throughout, has the most evident character of orderly arrangement." Sup. Rel. II. 456.

37 The author of Supernatural Religion, after discussing separately the quotations from the authors named, makes the following remark as applicable to all: "Now we must repeat that all such sayings of Jesus were the common property of early Christians, were no doubt orally current amongst them, and still more certainly were recorded by many of the numerous gospels then in circulation, as they are by several of our own." II. 279.

38 Meyer's objection to the genuineness of the gospel of Matthew may be cited as a fair specimen of the mode of reasoning applied by Rationalists to all of the first three gospels, except that, unlike the Rationalists in general, he admits the genuineness of John and uses it to discredit Matthew. He says: "In the form in which the gospels now exist it can not have originally proceeded from the hands of the apostle Matthew. The evidence in favor of this view consists not merely of the many statements of time, place and other things which are irreconcilable with the living recollection of an apostolic eye-witness and a participator in the events, even upon the assumption of a plan of arrangement carried out mainly in accordance with the subject matter; not merely in a partial want of clearness and directness, which is a prominent feature in many of the historical portions (even in ix. 9, ff. included), and not seldom makes itself felt to such a degree that we must in this respect allow the preference to the accounts of Mark and Luke; not merely in the want of historical connection in the citation and introduction of a substantial portion of the didactic discourses of Jesus, by which the fact is disclosed that they were not interwoven in a living connection with the above; decisive, the reception of narratives the unhistorical character of which must certainly have been known to an apostle (such as, even in the history of the Passion, that of the watchers by the grave, and of the resurrection of many dead bodies); the reception of the preliminary history with its legendary enlargements, which far oversteps the original beginning of the gospel announcement (Mark i. 1, comp. John i. 19) and its original contents (Acts x. 37 ff; Papias in Eusebius II. E., iii. 39; the things which were spoken or done by Christ ), and which already presents a later historical formation, added to the original gospel history; the reception of the enlarged narrative of the temptation, the non-developed form of which in Mark is certainly older: but most strikingly of all, the many, and in part, every essential correction which our Matthew must receive from the fourth gospel, and several of which (especially those relating to the last supper of the risen Saviour) are of such a kind that the variations in question certainly exclude apostolic testimony on one side, and this, considering the genuineness of John which we must decidedly assume, can only affect the credibility of Matthew. To this, moreover, is to be added the relation of dependence which we must assume of our Matthew upon Mark, which is incompatible with the composition of the former by an apostle." Introduction to Com. on Matthew, Sec. II.

39 The controversy was opened by Bretschneider in a work published in 1820, under the title Probabilia de Evangelio et Epistolis Joannis Apostoli.

40 "He writes at all times as one who not only is not a Jew himself, but has nothing to do with their laws and customs. He speaks everywhere of the feasts of 'the Jews,' 'the passover of the Jews,' 'the manner of the purifying of the Jews,' 'the Jews feast of tabernacles,' 'as the manner of the Jews is to bury,' 'the Jews preparation day,' and so on. Moreover, the Jews are represented as continually in virulent opposition to Jesus, and seeking to kill him; and the word 'Jew' is the unfailing indication of the enemies of the truth, and the persecutors of the Christ." Sup. Rel., ii. 414.

41 I. Cor. ix. 20; x. 32. See the following: "The Jews require a sign" (I. Cor. i. 22); "Of the Jews five times I received forty stripes save one" (II. Cor. xi. 24); "And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him" (Gal. ii. 13); "Ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews" (I. Thess. ii. 14.

42 "This saying was spread abroad among the Jews" (Matt, xxviii. 15); "For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash," etc. (Mark vii. 3); "He sent unto him the elders of the Jews" (Luke vii. 3); "Arimathea, a city of the Jews" (xxiii. 51).

43 "Without pausing to consider the slightness of this evidence [the evidence that John is the author], it is obvious that supposing the disciple indicated to be John the son of Zebedee, the fourth gospel gives a representation of him quite different from the Synoptics and other writings." Sup. Rel., ii. 425.

44 Ib. 427, 428.

45 Ib. 429-433.

46 See the incidents recorded in i. 42; vi. 68; xiii. 6; xviii. 10; xxi. 3, 7, 11.

47 "That the apostle himself could have written of himself the words in xix. 35 is impossible. After having stated so much that is much more surprising and contradictory to all experience without reference to any witness, it would indeed have been strange had he here appealed to himself as a separate individual." Sup. Rel., ii. 440. "Such a passage, received in any natural sense, or interpreted in any way which can be supported by evidence, shows that the writer of the gospel was not an eye-witness of the events recorded, but appeals to the testimony of others." Ib. 445.

48 "The difference between the fourth gospel and the Synoptics, not only as regards the teachings of Jesus, but also the facts of the narrative, is so great that it is impossible to harmonize them, and no one who seriously considers the matter can fail to see that both can not be accepted as correct." Sup. Rel., ii. 451. This author proceeds through a number of pages to give specifications, all of which are familiar to the ordinary student of sacred history, and none of which are really difficult of reconciliation with the synoptic narratives.

49 "The Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his preaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career culminates at the fatal Passover. The fourth gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus between Galilee, Samaria and Jerusalem, makes it extend at least over three years, and refers to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem." Sup. Rel., ii. 453.

50 Matt, xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34; x. 3S-42. The force of the evidence from the words of Jesus quoted above was so apparent to Strauss that he could evade it only by denying that Jesus uttered them. He says: "This expression can Jesus least of all have used where Luke puts it, on his journey to Jerusalem, and before he had once during his public activity seen that city. But even in Jerusalem itself, after a single stay there of only a few days, he can not have pointed out how often he had attempted in vain to draw its inhabitants to himself. Here all shifts are futile, and it must be confessed if these are really the words of Christ he must have labored in Jerusalem oftener and longer than would appear from the synoptical reports." Life of Jesus, 249. The author of Supernatural Religion evades the issue, and says only this: "Apologists discover indications of a three years' ministry in Matt, xxiii. 37, Luke xiii. 34; 'How often,' etc.; and also in Luke xiii. 32 f.: 'To-day, to-morrow and the third day.'" ii. 453.

51 "The teaching of the one is totally different from that of the others, in spirit, form and terminology; and although there are undoubtedly fine sayings throughout the work, in the prolix discourses of the fourth gospel there is not a single characteristic of the simple eloquence of the Sermon on the Mount." Sup. Rel., ii. 464. "It is impossible that Jesus can have two such diametrically opposed systems of teaching-one purely moral, the other wholly dogmatic; one expressed in wonderfully terse, clear, brief sayings and parables, the other in long, involved and diffuse discourses; one clothed in the great language of humanity, the other concealed in obscure, philosophic terminology; and that these should have been kept so distinct as they are in the Synoptics on the one hand, and the fourth gospel on the other." Ib.470.

52 His divine authority and sonship are affirmed in the following passages: Matt. vii. 22; x. 1; xi. 27; xiii. 41; xvi. 16, 17, 27; xviii. 20; xxii. 42-45; xxv. 31-34; xxviii. 20; Mark ii. 5-10; Luke xxiv. 49.

53 "We have already pointed out the evident traces of artificial construction in the discourses and dialogues of the fourth gospel, and the more closely these are examined the more clear does it become that they are not genuine reports of the teachings of Jesus, but mere ideal compositions by the author of the fourth gospel. The speeches of John the Baptist, the discourses of Jesus, and the reflections of the evangelist himself, are marked by the same peculiarity of style, and proceed from the same mind." Sup. Rel., ii. 471. As regards this assertion concerning John the Baptist, we may remark that the speeches quoted from him in the fourth gospel are necessarily different from those in the Synoptics; for whereas the latter were all spoken before the baptism of Jesus, the former were all uttered after that event and after the temptation; yet it is also true that the latter speeches are closely connected in matter with the former, and they follow the same train of thought respecting Jesus.

54 "It is impossible to assume that the author of the gospel was one and the same person with the author of the Apocalypse, but it is equally impossible to ignore the fact that the evangelist conceived himself in place of the Apocalyptic writer, and meant to use the weight of John's name for the purposes of his gospel," etc. Baur, Church History, i. 154. "Whilst a strong family likeness exists between the epistles [of John] and the gospel, and they exhibit close analogies both in thought and language, the Apocalypse, on the contrary, is so different from them in language, in style, in religious views and terminology, that it is almost impossible to believe that the writer of the one could be the author of the other." Sup. Rel., ii. 386. "We think it must be apparent to every unprejudiced person that the Apocalypse singularly corresponds in every respect--language, construction and thought-- with what we are told of the character of the apostle John by the synoptic gospels and by tradition, and that the internal evidence, therefore, accords with the external in attributing the composition of the Apocalypse to that apostle." lb. 406.  

55 Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote about the middle of the third century, is quoted by Eusebius as closing a discussion of this question with the following remarks: "We may also notice how the phraseology of the Gospel and the Epistle differs from the Apocalypse. For the former are written not only irreprehensibly as it regards the Greek language, but are most elegant in diction, and in the whole structure of the style. It would require much to discover any barbarism or solecism, or any odd peculiarity of expression at all in them. For, as is to be presumed, he was endued with all the requisites for his discourse, the Lord having granted him both that of knowledge and that of expression and style. That the latter, however, saw a revelation, and received knowledge and prophecy, I do not deny. But I perceive that his dialect and language is not very accurate Greek but that he uses barbarous idioms, and in some places solecisms which it is now unnecessary to select; for neither would I have any one suppose that I am saying these things by way of derision, but only with the view to point out the great difference between the writings of these men." Eccles. Hist., vii. 25. Dionysius makes other remarks on the general question which are echoed by modern disputants.

56 "Nor is it difficult to see that in any case intercourse with a Greek-speaking people would in a short time naturally reduce the style of the author of the Apocalypse to that of the author of the Gospel." Westcott, Introduction to John, lxxxvi.

57 "The language of the Apocalypse, in fact, is more akin to the Hebrew than to the Greek, and while the fourth gospel proceeds in propositions of the usual historical and narrative character, the Apocalypse is occupied with visions and imagery corresponding to the He brew diction of the Old Testament, especially to its prophetic and sacred forms of speech." Prof. Lee, Introduction to Revelation, Bible Commentary, 455.

58 "It is generally admitted, although not altogether without exception, that the author of the third synoptic Gospel likewise composed the Acts of the Apostles. The linguistic and other peculiarities which distinguished the Gospel, are equally prominent in the Acts." Sup. Rel. iii. 32. "There can be no doubt that the Acts of the Apostles were written by the author of the third Gospel, and form a continuation of that work. It is not necessary to stop and prove this proposition, which has never been seriously contested. The preface which is at the beginning of each work, the dedication of both to Theophilus, and the perfect resemblance of style and ideas, are abundant demonstration of the fact." Renan, Apostles 13, 14.

59 "A careful study of the contents of the Acts can not, we think, leave any doubt that the work could not have been written by any companion or intimate friend of the Apostle Paul. * * * It is unreasonable to suppose that a friend or companion could have written so unhistoric and defective a history of the Apostle's life and teaching. The Pauline epistles are nowhere directly referred to, but where we can compare the narrative and representations of Acts with the statements of the Apostle, they are strikingly contradictory." Sup. Rel. iii. "It may not be impossible that sketches, collections, narratives, chronicles, especially those concerning the last journey of the Apostle, from the hand of Luke, may have formed the foundation of the Acts. * * * In such passages the author is very willing to be considered as one person with Luke; but he did not venture to declare himself in the character of Luke as the writer of the Acts of the Apostles, for he was well aware of the difference in dates, and could not so completely escape from his own identity." Baur, Life of Paul,. i. 12, 13. Renan, after affirming and arguing that the author of the third Gospel must be the author of Acts, closes the discussion of the question by saying: "We believe, then, that the author of the third Gospel was really Luke, the disciple of Paul." Apostles, 19.

60 "There has never been the slightest suspicion of un-authenticity cast on these four epistles, and they bear so incontestably the character of Pauline originality, that there is no conceivable ground for the assertion of critical doubts in their case." Baur, Life of Paul, i. 246. "Epistles unquestioned and unquestionable; namely, the epistle to the Galatians, the two epistles to the Corinthians, and the epistle to the Renan, Life of Paul, 10.

61 Baur, Life of Paul, i. 352-365; Sup. Rel. iii. 330-336.

62 "The second of the Epistles has already been attacked by criticism , but the first has as yet excited no suspicions." i. 85.

63 "The chief part of the epistle is nothing but a lengthy version of history of the conversion of the Thessalonians, as we know it from Acts. It contains nothing that the Thessalonians would not already know, and the author may have taken his account of the transaction either from the Acts or from some other source." Life of Paul, i. 8-5. "In addition to all this, we find in the narrative reminiscences more or less distinct, of other Pauline epistles, particularly of those to the Corinthians." Ib. So. "It is scarcely probable that an author who expresses his views of the last things with such caution and reserve, as in I. Cor. 15, should, in a writing of earlier date, have entered into the question so fully and given evidence of a belief entirely preoccupied with Rabbinical opinions." Ib. 81. "There can be no doubt, when we consider it, that the key to the chief passage of the epistle, and therefore to the aim and character of the whole writing, is to be found in the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse is the earliest writing in which we find the concrete representation of a personal Anti-Christ." Ib. 324. In reference to the autograph salutation, he says: "Are we to suppose that, at the time when the Apostle had written hardly any epistles at all, pretended Pauline ones had already made their appearance, which called for caution in discriminating, such as is here given (ii. 2), or could he foresee so distinctly, even so early as this, that he would have a large correspondence afterward?" Ib. 95.

64 "Not the slightest doubt has been raised by serious criticism against the authenticity of the epistle to the Galatians, the two epistles to the Corinthians, or the epistle to the Romans; while the arguments on which are founded the attacks on the two epistles to the Thessalonians and that to the Philippians are without value." Apostles, 35. "The only serious difficulty which has been raised against the epistles to the Thessalonians results from the theory of the AntiChrist expounded in the second chapter of the second epistle, a theory apparently identical with that of the Apocalypse, and which would consequently lead us to suppose that Nero was already dead when the piece was written. But this objection permits itself to be overcome, as we shall see in the present volume. The author of the Apocalypse did nothing more than apply to his day a collection of ideas, one part of which dated back to the very sources of the Christian belief, while the other was introduced toward the time of Caligula." Paul, 11. The reign of Caligula began A. D. 37.

65 Tychicus bore the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians (Eph. vi. 21,22; Col. iv. 7,8); Caesiums accompanied him (Col. iv. 9), bearing the note to Philemon (Phil. 11, 12); and all were written while the writer was in prison (Eph. iii. 1; iv. 1; Col. iv. 10, 18; Phil. i).

66 "The numerous echoes of Gnosticism and its peculiar doctrines which are to be found in the three epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians, are sufficient, had we no other ground to go upon, to fix the position of these works in the post-apostolic age." Church History, i. 127. See also ii. 6-31.

67 "The epistle to the Colossians has been subjected to the test of much graver objections. Certain it is that expressions made use of in this epistle to designate the role of Jesus in the bosom of the Divinity, as Creator and prototype of all creation (i. 15), show very plainly alongside the language of certain epistles, and appear to favor the style of the writings attributed to John. In reading such passages we imagine ourselves in complete Gnosticism. * * * Nothing in all tins, however, is decisive. If the epistle to the Colossians is the work of Paul (as we believe it to be), it was written in the latter part of the Apostle's life, at a period in which his biography is very obscure." Paul, 11, 12.

68 "As soon as we admit the epistle to the Colossians to be a work of Paul's, the question puts itself as follows: How could Paul pass his time in disfiguring one of his works, in repeating himself, in making a common letter out of a topical and particular one? This is not exactly impossible; but it is quite improbable." Paul, 17. These words of Renan are almost a copy from Baur's Life of Paul, ii. 2. De Wette, a German scholar who died 1849, was the first to deny the genuineness of this Epistle.

69 "The resemblance of this general epistle [Ephesians] to the Colossians might have resulted either from the fact of one man's writing several letters in a few days, and through preoccupation with a certain number of fixed ideas unconsciously falling into the same expressions; or from the circumstance of Paul's directing Timothy or Tychicus to compose the circular letter after the model of the epistle to the Colossians, but with the rejection of everything of a topical nature." Ib. 18.

70 "In addition to these considerations regarding the external form of the epistle, we have further to consider that if it was actually addressed to the Ephesians, it can not possibly have been written by Paul. They were a church in the midst of which he had lived for a considerable time, and with which he was intimately acquainted; and how could he write to them as to a church that was strange to him, and speak of their faith as a tiling he had learned about through others." Comp. i. 15. The title and address which are found in the text (i. 1) are doubtful; but even in the case that the epistle was not an epistle to the Ephesians, even though the local address were wanting altogether, or ran thus: "To the Laodiceans," this indistinctness and uncertainty of the destination (which even in the last case is not removed) would of themselves afford a presumption against the Pauline origin of the epistle." Baur, Paul, ii. 5, 6. The presumption last spoken of in the extract is not apparent; for certainly Paul may have written an epistle intended as a kind of circular address to several churches and without a local address.

Renan, while denying the genu ineness of the Epistle has this to say about its destination: "The perusal of the so-called epistle to the Ephesians will therefore be sufficient to lead us to suspect that the writing in question was not addressed to the church of Ephesus. The testimony of the MSS. transforms these suspicions into certainty." Paul, 14, 15. For the testimony of the MSS. and other ancient documents, see the notes of Tischendorf, Tregelles, or Westcott and Hort in loco.

71 Life of Paul, 13.

72 After stating the facts which make up the story of Onesimus, Baur says: "This is a very remarkable concurrence of chances, such as rarely indeed takes place." And again he says: "Thus it can not be called either an impossible or an improbable construction of this Epistle, if we regard it as a Christian romance serving to convey a genuine Christian idea." Lift of Paul, ii. 82, 84. So acute a writer could scarcely feel satisfied with such an effort, and he betrays his anticipation of what the learned world would think of it by the following reflections: "In the case of this Epistle, more than any other, if criticism should inquire for evidence in favor of its apostolic name, it seems liable to the reproach of hypercriticism, of exaggerated suspicion and restless doubt, from the attacks of which nothing is safe. What has criticism to do with this short, attractive, graceful and friendly letter, inspired as it is by the noblest Christian feeling, and which has never yet been touched by the breath of suspicion?" Ib. 80.

73 "The critic who first ventured to cast doubt on the genuineness of the Epistle to the Ephesians, [De Wette] has lately asserted of the Epistle to the Philippians that its genuineness is above all question. It is true that no sufficient reasons have been alleged as yet for doubting its apostolic origin; yet I think there are such reasons, and I deem it necessary to state shortly for the further consideration of criticism, what they are." Ib. ii. 45.

74 "This Epistle, like the two we have just discussed, is occupied with Gnostic ideas and expressions, and that not in the way of controversy with Gnostics, but employing; them, with the necessary modifications, for its own purposes. The passage ii. O, one of great importance for dogmatics, and of as great difficulty, can scarcely be explained save on the supposition that the writer's mind was filled with certain Gnostic ideas current at the time." (Ib. 45, 40). "Connected with this there is another consideration which must count as an important element in judging of the Epistle, viz., that we find no motive nor occasion for it, no distinct indication of any purpose, or of any leading idea." (Ib. 52). "We have still to consider what is said in chap. i. 12, both about the progress of the gospel in Rome, and of the deep impression which the captivity of the Apostle and his preaching of the Gospel are said to have produced in the whole Praetorium and throughout the city. This statement stands quite alone and unsupported; it is not corroborated either by the Epistles which profess to have been written from the Apostle's captivity in Rome, or from any other quarter. Yet the fact is not in itself incredible, and no one would have thought of calling it in question had not the author himself taken up into his Epistle another fact which gives us no clear an insight into his plot, that it is impossible for us to take his assertions as simple history. The attention which the Gospel commanded in the whole Praetorium, and in Rome generally, is supposed, as we see from iv. 22, to have had for one of its consequences that there were believers even in the imperial household." Ib. 59.

75 In his classification of the Epistles credited to Paul with reference to their genuineness, be has the following: "Second. Certain Epistles, to which, however, objections have been raised, namely, the two to the Thessalonians and the Epistle to the Philippians." Life of Paul, 10.

76 Farrar. Life and Work of Paul c. xlvi. In the same connection this author very justly satirizes the critics of the Tübingen school in the following terms: "With these critics, if an Epistle touches on points which make it accord with the narrative of the Acts, it was forged to suit them; if it seems to disagree with them, the discrepancy shows that it was spurious. If the diction is Pauline, it stands forth as a proved imitation: if it is un-Pauline, it could not have proceeded from the Apostle."

77 "I was the first to assert, and to give evidence for the assertion, that in these heretics [those combated in the Epistles] we recognize throughout the familiar features of Gnosticism: and nothing of importance has since been urged against this view." Baur, Life of Paul, ii. 99. "A second point in the criticism of the Pastoral Epistles, and one of no less importance than that, just spoken of, is the reference they contain to the government and the external institutions of the church. This second point is intimately connected with the first. The Gnostics, as the first heretics properly so called, gave the first occasion for the Episcopal constitution of the church." Ib. 102. "A further point in the criticism of I he Pastoral Epistles is that it is impossible to find a suitable place for the composition of them in the Apostle's history as we know it." Ib. 10:1. Renan employs the same arguments, and dwells with especial earnestness upon the last. Life of Paul, 12-32.

78 Acts vi. 1-6; xi. 30; xiv. 23; xx. 17, 28 xxi. 18 Phil. i. 1.  

79 The various schemes suggested by German writers to find a place for these events within the period covered by Acts are mentioned by Renan in the course of his successful refutation of them. Life of Paul, 22-30. Farrar can scarcely be said to be too emphatic when he says: "If, indeed, St. Paul was never liberated from his first Roman imprisonment, then the Pastoral Epistles must be forgeries; for the attempts of Wieseler and others to prove that they might have been written during any part of the period covered by the narrative of Acts during the three years' stay at Ephesus, for instance, or the stay of eighteen months at Corinth sink to the ground not only under the weight of their own arbitrary hypotheses, but even more from the state both of the church and of the mind and circumstances of the Apostle which these letters so definitely manifest." Life of Paul, c. lv.

80 "By reason of jealousy and strife, Paul, by his example, pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having reached the boundary of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went into the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance." Epistle of Clement, c. v. Lightfoot's Translation.

81 Romans xv. 28.

82 The passage concerning Acts is defective in the MS., but the words on which the evidence turns are not. The original document may be found in Westcott on the Canon, appendix C. It is thus translated by Dean Howson, Life and Epistles of Paul, 438. "Luke relates to Theophilus events of which he was an eye-witness, as also, in a separate place he evidently declares the martyrdom of Peter, but [omits] the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain." Westcott would insert the word "omits" before the words "martyrdom of Peter." Canon of New Testament, 214.

83 "And here Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, after showing that Paul passed two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large, and that he preached the Gospel without restraint, brings his history to a close. After pleading his cause, he is said to have been sent again upon the ministry of preaching, and after a second visit to the city, that he finished his life with martyrdom. * * * Thus much we have said, to show that the martyrdom of the Apostle did not take place at that period of his stay at Rome, when Luke wrote his history." Eccles. Hist. c. xxii.

84 Among these we may mention Alford, Howson and Farrar, and the writers on these Epistles in Lange's Commentary and in the Bible Commentary.

85 "All this, it must be confessed, resembles an artificial defence on the part of a criminal, who, in order to meet objections is forced to imagine an ensemble of facts which have no connection with anything known. These isolated hypotheses, defenceless and disconnected from all precedents, are, in the law, a sign of guilt, in criticism the sign of apocryphal." Paul 31. Contrary to his usual custom M. Renan here indulges in strong words while his arguments are proportionately weak.

86 The crowning act of this inimitable story is set forth by Farrar (Life of Paul, c. 55) with an eloquence which has seldom been equaled.

87 The reader will find the arguments on this ground in the Introduction to this Epistle in Lange's Commentary, and those on the opposite side in the corresponding place in the Bible Commentary. The question is also discussed in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament and in Farrar's Early Days, c. xvii. Farrar enumerates ten facts by which to identify the author; but all of them except the one mentioned above, so far as they are facts and not inferences, agree fully as well with the supposition of a Pauline authorship as of any other. They are these:

"1. The writer was a Jew, for he writes as though heathendom were practically non-existent. 2. He was a Hellenist, for he exclusively quotes the Septuagint version, even where it diverges from the original Hebrew. 3. He had been subjected to Alexandrian training; for he shows a deep impress of Alexandrian thought, and quotes from Alexandrian MSS. of the Septuagint without pausing to question the accuracy of the renderings. 4. He was a man of great eloquence, of marked originality, of wide knowledge of the Scriptures, and of remarkable gifts in the application of Scripture arguments. 5. He was a friend of Timotheus, for he proposes to visit the Jewish churches in his company. 6. He was known to his readers, and writes to them in a tone of authority. 7. He was not an apostle, for he classes himself with those who had been taught by the apostles. 8. The apostle by whom he had been taught was St. Paul, for he largely though independently adopts his phraseology, and makes a special use of the Epistle to the Romans. 9. He wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem, and while the temple services were still continuing. 10. It is doubtful whether he had ever been at Jerusalem, for his references to the temple and its ritual seem to apply, not indeed to the temple of Onios at Leontopolis, but mainly to the tabernacle as described in the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch."

88 Among those who have doubted the Pauline authorship, the majority in former times ascribed it to Luke; but in recent years the opinion first advanced by Martin Luther that Apollos is the author, has been revived, and it has been adopted by a number of eminent scholars. The arguments in favor of this opinion are forcibly presented by Farrar in the chapter last cited from his Early Days of Christianity.

89 The alleged contradiction lies between James ii. 24 and Romans iii. 28, but the context in the latter epistle shows that Paul speaks of the work of a perfectly righteous life, and in the former James speaks of those works of special divine command by which faith is tested and on which for this reason justification is dependent. Luther once urged this objection, but he afterward withdrew it.

90 This objection is adopted by Baur from De Wette, and the former adds the remark that "Every unprejudiced person must see that an epistle which contains references to that to the Hebrews must be post-Pauline." Life of Paul, ii 308, n, 1.

91 "The first epistle of Peter has always retained its high position in the estimation of the church; nor was there any question as to its authenticity until within the last few years, when rationalism, guided by the sure instinct of antipathy, has assailed it in common with all documents which attest the faith and unity of the primitive church." F. C. Cook, Introduction to I. Peter, Bible Com., § 1.

92 The Antichrist, p. vi.

93 Early Days, c. ix, p. 113. The specifications which prove similarity of style and diction are presented by Prof. Lumby, in his Introduction to I. Peter, in the Bible Commentary.

94 Dean Alford, than whom our age has produced no better Greek scholar, says: "The diversity of style in the two epistles has been frequently alleged. But on going through all that has been said, I own 1 can not regard it, considerable as it undoubtedly is, as any more than can well be accounted for by the total diversity of subject and mood in the two epistles, and by the interweaving into this second one of copious reminiscences from another epistle." Greek New Testament. Vol. IV., Prolegomena, iv., § 4. And Dr. Davidson, though he takes the same view of the argument from style and diction with Canon Farrar, makes the following remarks. "Too much caution can not be used in drawing a conclusion from style and diction, favorable or unfavorable to the authenticity of an epistle. There are many modifying circumstances. A writer appears differently on different occasions. In the present instance we can hardly tell precisely what the peculiar style of Peter was; for the First Epistle is of small compass, and it may have been colored by familiarity with the productions of Paul." Introduction to New Testament, iii. 435.

95 Many of the specifications here referred to were first advanced by Farrar (Early Days, c. ix), nineteen in number. I have answered arguments on all of them seriatim in an article on the Genuineness of Second Peter, published in the July number of the Christian Quarterly Review for 1884.

96 See I. Thess. iv. 13--v. 11; II. Thess. i. 3--ii. 12 I. Cor. xv. 35-58 Cor. iv. 16--y. 11; Rom. ii. 1-16; viii. 12-25; Gal. v. 16-24; vi. 6-10; Eph. v. 25-27; Col. iii. 3, 4.

97 See Prof. Lumby's Introduction to II. Pet. in the Bible Commentary.

98 The Book of Enoch has been preserved from ancient times only in an Ethiopic translation. Three manuscript copies of it were brought to England from Abyssinia by the explorer Bruce, in 1773. Since then translations of it have been made into German and English. In the judgment of a majority of the critics who have examined it, it was written before the Christian era, but how long before is quite uncertain. It is also uncertain whether it was written in Greek or in Hebrew, but the Ethiopic version was made from the Greek. It contains a series of revelations said to have been made by Enoch and Noah. A full account of it is given by Westcott in Smith's Bible Dictionary.

99 Having stated and briefly noticed Zeller's objections on internal grounds, he says: "The pieceding observations will show the flimsy arguments which hypercriticism is not ashamed to adduce. Indeed, there is no proper reasoning in such ill-favored and lean observations advanced against the epistle's authenticity. "Introduction to New Testament, iii. 456.  

100 Papias says: "But if at any time any one came who had been acquainted with the elders, I used to inquire about the discourses of the elders--what Peter or what Andrew said, or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or any one of the disciples of the Lord; and what Aristion and John the Elder, the disciples of the Lord say. For I thought that the information derived from books would not be so profitable to us as that derived from a living and abiding utterance." Quoted from Eusebius and translated by Farrar, Early Days, 619.

101 That such is the meaning of Papias is argued with great force, by Farrar in the appendix to his Early Days of Christianity, Excursus xiv.