On the other side, the reasons for doubting it are: Polycarp refers to the martyr-journey of Ignatius, which is held to be fabulous; he also refers to those of the Ignatian Epistles, which are allowed to be spurious. Still, the Epistle of Polycarp is mentioned by Irenæus, who had been his pupil; so that the question of authenticity may fairly be considered as debatable. Like the Ignatian Epistles, Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians contains passages which have their parallels in the Gospel of Matthew ; though in Polycarp the coincidence is much more perfect. The answer with which sceptical writers meet this fact is that, the Sermon on the Mount (which affords the similarity) must have been so well known by tradition that, the resemblance between our Gospels and any other early writing, when quoting the words of Jesus in this discourse, proves nothing more than that these words were the common property of all Christians. As to the supposed acquaintance with the fourth Gospel, it is Luthardt's notion that Polycarp's alleged acquaintance with the first Epistle of John involves acquaintance with the Gospel also. It necessitates, moreover, the gratuitous assumption that the Epistle and the Gospel were both written by the Apostle. At any rate, the letter to the Philippians contains no quotation from the Gospel. "Even if the alleged writer had known it, he could not have looked upon it as the composition of his teacher, John, because he defended by that very Apostle's example an opinion about the paschal meal which was directly opposed to the fourth Gospel."1

Barnabas is not noticed by the leading orthodox critics in connection with the subject we are discussing.

The Clementine Homilies have already been spoken of as spurious. Their date is unknown, and their doctrine is so widely different from that of the Gospel of John, that although some parallel passages are cited in proof of the authenticity of the latter, we must not exceed our narrow 1 Introduct. to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 329; see also Sup. Rel., ii. 270.

limits by an investigation which could hardly be profitable. The same plea compels us to leave unnoticed the Pastor of Hermas, Diognetus, Basilides, Marcion, and others. Nor is it of the least avail to inquire whether the fourth Gospel was known to writers so late as the end of the second century. The important conclusions to which we are brought by the evidence here referred to is that, nearly up to that time-up to the time of Irenæus-there is no reliable testimony to show that any Gospel was known to the Fathers as the work of the Apostle John, or that the fourth Gospel, whoever was its author, was in existence during the first century and a half after the Christian era.

Whatever weight can be attached to the fact that several of the patristic writers do make use of language which differs but little either in sense or form from corresponding passages in the canonical Gospels, the opposing fact cannot be overlooked that the numerous apocryphal works known to have existed, and the oral traditions. which must necessarily have been in the mouths of almost every Christian, would fully account for these coincidences. Under such circumstances, absolute agreement of language, did it occur, would not authorise the conclusion that any particular one was the original of some other.

The utmost, therefore, that can be urged by the defenders of our Gospels is of a hypothetical and presumptive character; while the arguments of their opponents are backed by well-established truths. The testimony of Papias is as destructive as it is indisputable. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew; our version is in Greek, and is declared to be no translation. Neither Mark nor Luke ever heard or followed Jesus; and the evidence against the authenticity of the fourth Gospel is so crushing (I have not touched upon the incredible supposition that the “unlettered and ignorant" John should be the author of two works so incongruous as the crude and graceless Apocalypse and the elegant and classical fourth Gospel), that

to disregard it would seem to imply an inordinate affection for the doctrine of John, or perhaps for the integrity of the whole Bible.

If, then, the prima facie improbability is so great, and the historical testimony so little worthy of credit, what must be the inevitable inference as to the Christian miracles?

LETTER XIII.

THE next and last aspect of the New Testament that we have to contemplate is the relation it bears to the legendary and mythological phases of older religions. For this purpose we must turn back to our inquiries upon the nature and origin of the mythus. The following remarks, which do but reiterate our former conclusions, apply forcibly to the subject in hand. "The popular traditions, being orally transmitted, and not restricted by any document, were open to receive every new addition, and thus grew in the course of long centuries to the form in which we now find them. This is an important and luminous fact, which is very frequently overlooked in the explanation of mythi; for they are regarded as allegories invented by one person at a stroke, with the definite purpose of investing a thought in the form of a narration." 1

We have seen (and the most orthodox champions of the New Testament do not dispute the fact) that oral tradition preceded the written composition of the Gospels. It is so with every history that is not a diary, and must have been so with this. We know, moreover, that the Gospel histories (whatever may be their date) were composed, not on the spot where the recorded events took place, but at Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and Ephesus. I have endeavoured to show that no one of our Gospels existed in its present form earlier than the middle of the second century. So far as our present argument is concerned, it might be granted that they were written long before this. How

1 Otfried Müller, Prolegomena to a Scientific Mythologie, quoted by Strauss.

long shall we say? A living authority of the highest eminence in the Church, after commenting upon "the mysteries with which the growth of the Gospel is surrounded," remarks: "There will be no danger in accepting as the second factor in the calculation the growth of an oral tradition. The time of the formation of these materials would probably extend from the day of Pentecost to the year 63. During the next ten or twelve years the three Gospels before us were published." This would be toWell, let any one

wards the close of the first century. reflect what oral tradition, rolling up "like a snowball" for half a century, would effect with any materials in any age. Let him then picture the age in which these particular materials were accumulated; also the temper of the accumulators, exalted by a religious enthusiasm quickened by intense desire to believe everything that kept it aflame.

There is no need to suppose that the reporters were consciously untruthful, or that, generally speaking, they intended to deceive. Many of them, no doubt, were aware that, with the multitude whom they sought to convert, a startling miracle would be more persuasive than a moral doctrine. Still, the preconceived requirements of the Messianic character would inevitably mould tradition into befitting shape; while the extraordinary personal influence which Jesus shed around him tended of itself to inspire his memory with awe.

The nature of the miracles performed by Jesus, no less than the miraculous events of his life, betray adherence to certain well-known patterns. In some cases an actual occurrence may have supplied the foundation. In others again-such as the transfiguration-the alliance of the Messiah with Moses and Elias was but the appropriate form of a recognised ideal.2

The miraculous birth of Christ is the first essential sign

1 Archbishop Thomson, The Synoptic Gospels.

2 Though in this case direct pre

cedent is not wanting. Buddha also was transfigured on Mount Sumeru.