and to use them in his name. "And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover."

What reliance is to be placed on the evidence for any of the miracles ascribed to Jesus or to his disciples has next to be considered. It may, however, be added that "in the preaching and Epistles of the Apostles, a couple of general notices excepted (Acts ii. 22; x. 38, f.), the miracles of Jesus appear to be unknown, and everything is built on his resurrection," &c.1

1 Strauss's Life of Jesus, transl., i. 239.

LETTER XII.

IN reviewing the documentary evidence of miraculous revelation contained in the Synoptic Gospels, it is always understood that the gospels themselves are to be subjected to the same impartial scrutiny as any other ancient writings would have to undergo. They profess to be truthful narratives of accomplished facts. No one pretends that they were indited by other than human hands, And it is universally admitted that, not one of the three was composed until many years after the death of Christ. When were they written? By whom were they written? These are the two great questions upon which the value of their testimony entirely depends.

The early ecclesiastical writers whose orthodox opinions entitled them to rank as Fathers of the Church, in their efforts to propagate Christianity, based their instructions upon what was known to them of the life and teachings of its Founder. We should naturally suppose that the earliest of these patristic writers would have the best means of knowing what was the most authentic testimony; also that they would closely adhere to such traditions or to such records as were extant in their day, and which they had reason to look upon as genuine.

Unfortunately the earlier we go back the more fragmentary seem to have been the remains from which the fathers could have gleaned information: worse than this, -the more doubtful is the authenticity of the fragments. Every scrap has been jealously and critically analysed, and the literature on the subject is as interminable as it is wearisome.

A page or two of it will more than suffice for our present purposes.

"From the time of Irenæus the New Testament was composed essentially of the same books as we receive at present; and they were regarded with the same reverence as is now shown to them."1 Irenæus was bishop from 177 A.D. to 202 A.D., at which date he suffered martyrdom. It is to the writers before this time, therefore, that we must look for the knowledge we are in quest of. For Canon Westcott's statement amounts to this: the Gospels, as known to us, were not canonised till the second half of the second century.

Taken according to their priority, these writers may be referred to in the following order :-Clement of Rome, first pope of that name, whose Epistle to the Corinthians may be assigned to the latter half of the first century of our era; Justin Martyr, born about the end of the first or beginning of the second century, martyred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius about the year 165 A.D; Hegesippus, a Jew, born in Palestine about the commencement of the second century, and died at Rome about 180 A.D.; Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in the first half of the second century, suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius 163 A.D. Beyond these four, taken from a long list, it will not be worth our while to investigate.

The most celebrated of the other fathers, whose reputed writings are cited by disputants in support of their respective judgments, are Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch 70 A.D.; Barnabas, the associate of Paul; and Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, born at the end of the first century.

Respecting the "Epistle of Barnabas " and the "Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians," so much doubt has been cast upon their authorship that they cannot lend much weight to the arguments on either side. As to the writings of Ignatius, here is the verdict of the author of "Super

1 A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. By F. Westcott, D.D.

natural Religion :"-" What, then, is the position of the so-called Ignatian Epistles? Towards the end of the second century Irenæus makes a very short quotation from a source unnamed, which Eusebius, in the fourth century, finds in an epistle attributed to Ignatius. Origen, in the third century, quotes a very few words, which he ascribes to Ignatius, although without definite reference to any particular epistle; and in the fourth century Eusebius mentions seven epistles ascribed to Ignatius. There is no other evidence." 1

With reference to the first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (no other writing attributed to him can be accepted as genuine 2), this is of very doubtful origin. Though formerly admitted to the canon, it has long since become apocryphal. At the beginning of the third century Irenæus and other fathers were ignorant of its date. Nor was the name of Clement mentioned in connection with the epistle till towards the end of the second century. Supposing this first epistle of Clement to be authentic, what evidence is to be gleaned from it as to the existence. of our Gospels at the period of its production? Direct reference is made to Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians. This is the only instance in which any of the writings of the New Testament is spoken of by name. There are verbal coincidences with the Epistles both of Paul and of Peter; and there is a resemblance between certain passages in Clement and their parallels in Matthew and Luke -notably in the respective versions of the "Sermon on the Mount." Still, the order in which the sayings are given is entirely different; and although the sense is generally. the same, the language does not agree with that of our Gospels. This verbal difference, say the apologists, is just what might be looked for where the quotations were made from memory. On the other hand, the author of the

1 Vol. i. p. 265.

2 "The first Greek Epistle alone can be confidently pronounced as

genuine." - Canon Westcott, ubi supra.

Epistle frequently designates his quotation as "the words of the Lord Jesus," emphasising his accuracy, as it were, to give greater force to his teaching. Again-and this is of more significance-this Epistle (like those of the other writers which we have to examine) contains many passages which have no parallel whatever in our Gospels, and which must consequently have been repeated from oral tradition, or else from some written sources now quite unknown to Either supposition tells with equal force against our Gospels. For had these been to Clement what they are to us, they could neither have been added to nor neglected; nor could any other source of information have had any weight comparable to theirs.

us.

Justin Martyr is an authority demanding a more lengthened examination. He nowhere alludes to our Gospels or their authors by name; but he tells us that his source of information is certain writings, which he calls "Memoirs of the Apostles," and which contained "all things concerning Jesus Christ." These "memoirs," then, were in Justin's time the only written documents recognised as evangelical. "The written records," says Dr. Westcott in allusion to the memoirs, "were now regarded as the sufficient and complete source of knowledge with regard to the facts of the Gospel."1 "The writings to which he [Justin] appealed were not only complete, but they were publicly attested." That is to say, they were read in the synagogue with the writings of the prophets. What were these memoirs? Were they our Gospels? It might almost be said that the genuineness of the latter hangs by the answer.

As in the Epistle of Clement, many of the quotations from the memoirs differ more in construction than in sense from the corresponding passages in our Gospels. But also, as in the case of Clement, there are numerous sayings and events in the history of Jesus that have no place at all in the Gospels. It has been urged by the defenders of 1 Page 108.