diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/67151-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67151-0.txt | 6732 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 6732 deletions
diff --git a/old/67151-0.txt b/old/67151-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 0c50f18..0000000 --- a/old/67151-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6732 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Proofs of Christ's Resurrection; -from a Lawyer's Standpoint, by Charles R. Morrison - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Proofs of Christ's Resurrection; from a Lawyer's Standpoint - -Author: Charles R. Morrison - -Release Date: January 12, 2022 [eBook #67151] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Stephen Hutcheson, Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was - produced from images made available by the HathiTrust - Digital Library.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PROOFS OF CHRIST'S -RESURRECTION; FROM A LAWYER'S STANDPOINT *** - - - - - - - THE PROOFS - OF - CHRIST’S RESURRECTION; - - FROM A LAWYER’S STANDPOINT. - - BY - CHARLES R. MORRISON. - - [Illustration] - - ANDOVER: - WARREN F. DRAPER. - 1882. - - Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1882, - BY WARREN F. DRAPER, - In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. - - _All Rights Reserved._ - - - - -PREFACE. - - -The present treatise is intended to give what the author has often felt -the need of—a compact and thoroughly reliable statement of the principal -historical facts to the authenticity and integrity of the New Testament -writings concerning our Lord, and the presumptions from them which -establish his claims as our Divine Redeemer and Saviour. - -The question of his Resurrection from the dead is selected as the pivot, -because everything hinges upon it. This question, whichever way it is -determined, is decisive. It is a question which greatly concerns every -one. It is a question of evidence, and as such is especially deserving -of careful inquiry by members of the legal profession. For, as Prof. -Greenleaf observed in his work hereafter cited,—“If a close examination -of the evidences of Christianity may be expected of one class of men more -than another, it would seem incumbent on us, who make the law of evidence -one of our peculiar studies.” - -As the question of Christ’s Resurrection is the objective point of our -inquiries, all other questions are subordinated to it, and examined so -far only as deemed material to the main question. - -The author has availed himself of a lawyer’s privilege, and made use -of the researches, arguments, and conclusions of others who may justly -be regarded as authority, and to whom he has given credit as far as -practicable, but has endeavored to form an independent judgment in view -of all accessible sources of information. - -The work is, in the main, as published in a series of articles in the -_New Hampshire Journal_, and also in the _Vermont Chronicle_, from March -5, 1881, to April 1, 1882, which will explain the use of the common -version in the earlier chapters and the New Revision in the later ones. - -While the proofs have been marshalled around the principal fact, those -to establish the subsidiary question of our Four Gospels and the Book -of Acts have been largely centered upon the “Memoirs” mentioned in the -confessedly genuine writings of Justin Martyr. Justin, in his First -Apology, so called, written before the year one hundred and fifty of our -era, and probably ten years earlier, has given a graphic account of the -usages in the churches generally. In this account he says that, on the -“day called Sunday,” Memoirs of Christ were read with the Prophets, in -all their assemblies. Hence, when it is ascertained that these Memoirs -were our Canonical Gospels, we make a long stride toward the conclusion -of their undoubted authenticity and genuineness. - -To all questions of evidence which arise, the author applies legal -principles and presumptions derived from experience and constantly acted -upon in courts of justice. He asks of the reader a patient perusal to -the end, for he confidently believes that the vital fact of Christ’s -Resurrection, with all the grand consequences which necessarily follow -it, is as susceptible of proof, from undoubted historical facts and solid -argument, as any other event in history. - -The work is written for busy men in all the walks of life, and the writer -has endeavored to make himself understood. - - CHARLES R. MORRISON. - -MANCHESTER, N. H., August, 1882. - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - CHAPTER PAGE - - I. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE 7 - - II. ADMISSIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS 12 - - III. PAPIAS AND JUSTIN MARTYR 14 - - IV. THE MEMOIRS INTENDED BY JUSTIN MARTYR 18 - - V. QUOTATIONS AND CITATIONS 23 - - VI. JUSTIN’S USE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 30 - - VII. NO OTHERS PROVED 34 - - VIII. PRESUMPTION OF PERMANENCY 43 - - IX. THE MEMOIRS OF THE YEAR ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY 45 - - X. ASCENDING THE STREAM 50 - - XI. STILL ASCENDING THE STREAM 57 - - XII. IN THEIR PROPER REPOSITORIES 63 - - XIII. INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPELS 67 - - XIV. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS 74 - - XV. THE APOCALYPSE AND THE FOUR EPISTLES 81 - - XVI. HIS PREDICTIONS CONCERNING HIMSELF 89 - - XVII. ORDER OF EVENTS 101 - - XVIII. SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS 110 - (_False Assumptions._) - - XIX. SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS 120 - (_Affirmative Evidence._) - - XX. LOGICAL RESULTS 134 - - INDEX 143 - - - - -THE PROOFS OF CHRIST’S RESURRECTION. - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -SOURCES OF EVIDENCE. - - -It is a characteristic of all who deny this and all other miracles, -that they beg the whole question to begin with. They assume as an axiom -that a miracle is impossible, or impossible to be proved by human -testimony. Or, to put it more mildly, in the language of one of their -number (Renan[1]), “neither men of the people nor men of the world are -competent to prove it. Great precaution and a long habit of scientific -research are requisite.” If these are sound axioms, it should be a matter -of indifference who were the witnesses, or what their credibility or -means of knowledge, since at the best they were but human, and it is not -claimed that they were experts or _savans_ after the modern skeptical -school, although they might be expected to know whether one who walked -with them, and to whose instructions they listened, and from whom they -received their commission, were dead or alive. - -It is also a comfortable assumption on their part that no one is a -scholar who does not agree with their opinion, and many young men who -would not be thought to be behind the times are misled by their confident -boasting. “No modern theologian,” says Strauss,[2] “who is also a -scholar, now considers any of the four Gospels to be the work of its -pretended author, or in fact to be by an Apostle or colleague of an -Apostle.” The logic of this is, that if any one does so consider them, -he is not a scholar. The same kind of scholarship and habit of thinking -that induced this wise conclusion brought him at last to the denial of -the existence of a personal God or a future life. His experience is -instructive, and shows the inevitable tendency of all reasoning that -denies the possibility of a miracle or a divine revelation. Mill’s hard -logic cannot well be resisted. “Once admit a God, and the production, by -his direct volition, of an effect which in any case owed its origin to -his creative will, is no more a purely arbitrary hypothesis to account -for the past, but must be reckoned with as a serious possibility.” If, -then, a miracle may occur, it may be proved[A] by human testimony, for -the very motive or reason for its occurrence, or, at least the principal -reason, must be its value as an attestation. - -And the immense labor which the Tübingen school and every class of -skeptics have bestowed in attempts to disprove the authorship of the -Four Gospels, shows that they have not much confidence in their axioms -after all. Why so anxious as to the witnesses, if it is immaterial who -they are, or what they testify to? If a miracle cannot be proved by -_any_ evidence, why have they multiplied books to prove or disprove the -authorship of the gospels? - - -THE BEST EVIDENCE. - -The best evidence of which the subject admits, is all that is required -in courts; and it is sufficient in matters of the highest concern, even -in cases of life and death, that a fact be proved beyond a reasonable -doubt. The best evidence to Christ’s disciples of his resurrection, was -that of their own senses. This evidence we cannot have. We are in the -position, in some respects, of jurors, who must decide not from their -own knowledge, but upon the testimony of others. We have not, however, -the witnesses upon the stand, but only what may be regarded as their -depositions, and it is made a question whether the writings produced are -their depositions. - -The question, then, in this stage is, who were the writers of the Four -Gospels and the book of Acts? As to the latter, the writer claims to -have written a former treatise, and it seems to be taken by both parties -to the controversy, that the same person (whoever he was) wrote both -books, so that any evidence of Luke’s authorship of the third Gospel, is -evidence of his authorship of Acts, and _vice versa_. And the same is -true in respect to the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John. - -The best evidence as to the authorship of any of these books which -the nature of the subject admits of, is from history and tradition, -including in these terms quotations, citations, harmonies, commentaries, -translations, and manuscripts. - -There are two modes of presenting this evidence. One is to begin with -their present acknowledged acceptance, and ascend the stream; the -other is to strike tributaries, as near their source as we are able, -and descend to the river. The latter will be adopted here in the first -instance, and ultimately both modes of proof. - - -LOST TRIBUTARIES. - -One hundred years from the crucifixion, churches had been established -in all the cities and in many of the villages of the Roman Empire, from -Cappadocia and Pontus on the east, to Gaul on the west, and Christians -were very numerous. Tacitus describes those at Rome at the time of Nero’s -barbarity, as “a great multitude,” and Pliny, in his letter to Trajan, -_cir._ A.D. 110, affirms that the heathen temples were almost deserted, -so that the sacred victims scarcely found any purchasers, and that the -“superstition,” as he termed it, not only infected the cities, but had -even spread into the villages, of Pontus and Bithynia (Gibbon, p. 576). -Hence persons unacquainted with the subject might suppose that it would -be easy to adduce abundant proof from writers of the first century, as to -what memoirs of our Lord, if any, were in the churches at the time Pliny -wrote his celebrated letter. Such, however, is not the fact. - -There is no _direct_ historical testimony known to be earlier than the -first apology[3] of Justin Martyr to the Roman Emperor, _cir._ A.D. 139. -There are certain fragments written by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, -which may be of an earlier date, but this is uncertain. There are also -quotations apparently from the third and fourth Gospels, by Basilides,[4] -the Gnostic heretic who flourished at Alexandria as early as A.D. 125. -There is an epistle to the Philippian church, attributed to Polycarp -which Dean Stanley thinks dates about A.D. 130. Its genuineness is not -universally admitted. There is an epistle, conceded to be genuine, from -the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, of the probable date of -A.D. 95. There are epistles attributed by some to Ignatius, who suffered -martyrdom, _cir._ A.D. 107, but their genuineness is controverted. There -are in addition three other writings known as the Epistle of Barnabas, -the Letter to Diognetus, and the Pastor Hermas. They are by unknown -authors, and of uncertain date, but were probably written in the latter -part of the first or the first part of the second century. - -And these are all that have come down to us in any form from the first -one hundred years after the crucifixion. That we have no more is -easily explained. This period was one of intense activity and violent -persecutions. Five (as some reckon them) of the ten general persecutions -were within[5] this period. The first was under Nero, A.D. 64, the second -under Domitian, A.D. 95, the third under Trajan, A.D. 100, the fourth -under Antoninus the Philosopher, and the fifth under Severus, A.D. 127; -and, as some of these continued several years, there was scarcely an -intermission for three-quarters of a century. The horrible tortures and -cruel deaths under Nero are well-known, and, under Domitian, forty -thousand were supposed to have suffered martyrdom. - -It is no matter of surprise, therefore, that so little has reached us -from this early period. Christians were making history, not writing -it, and of their writings the most perished. There were hundreds and -thousands who well knew what memoirs of our Lord were accepted by the -churches in this period, from whose lips no voice comes except in the -volume of universal tradition. - -[1] Renan’s Life of Jesus, p. 43. - -[2] The Old Faith and the New (1874), p. 45. - -[A] See also _post_, c. 18. - -[3] A.D. 138 or 139 is the date most usually assigned to this most -important work, although some place it as late as A.D. 150. If his -statement in it that “Christ was born 150 years ago” were to be taken -strictly, it would make its date A.D. 146 or A.D. 144, according as -we allow four or six years as the error for the beginning of the true -Christian era; but he may have used the number in a general way. His -martyrdom is variously stated at A.D. 165 and A.D. 167. - -[4] That the quotations were by Basilides himself Matthew Arnold’s -reasoning seems entirely satisfactory, and “no one” he says, “who had -not a theory to serve would ever dream of doubting it.” Perhaps it may -be permitted to regard Matthew Arnold as a “scholar;” and see Abbot’s -“Fourth Gospel,” Boston (1880), p. 86. See also _post_, c. 5. - -[5] Buck’s Theological Dictionary, and Vol. VII of M’Clintock and -Strong’s Cyclopedia, p. 966. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -ADMISSIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS. - - -With the somewhat scanty and inconclusive evidence from writings of the -first one hundred years from the crucifixion, are there any facts that -are conceded, and any presumptions from them? There are concessions, -and from what motives is immaterial, since there is no doubt of the -existence of the facts that are admitted even by those who deny the -authenticity of the Gospels. Says Renan[1]: “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.” And it may be added that the genuineness of the Book of -Revelations is conceded and insisted upon by most of his way of thinking. - -Now, from the four Epistles against whose authenticity “not the slightest -doubt has been raised by serious criticism,” and the writings of -Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny, these facts are as well established as any -facts of history can possibly be established:—Jesus Christ was born in -Judea in the days of Herod, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He -was a most extraordinary character, and a wonderful teacher. He gathered -disciples, of whom twelve were called Apostles. After his death, his -followers were formed into numerous churches, which, in a few years, -extended into all parts of the then known world, and of which there has -been a continuous succession till now. If, from their disciples, we -know something of the life and teachings of Confucius and Socrates, we -should expect as much concerning him whose advent revolutionized the -world, within three centuries overturned the old pagan superstitions -throughout the Roman Empire, and is still the greatest moral power of the -most enlightened nations of the earth. But, if there were any accepted -memoirs of him in that first hundred years from his crucifixion, what has -become of them? It is incredible that they should have dropped out of -existence and there be no history or tradition of it. It is incredible -that they should have been lost to churches having a continuous life, -or that others should have been substituted for them, and there be no -trace of their disappearance or of a substitution. In the churches -in every period, the old and the young were together. How, then, was -displacement and substitution possible without protest? How was the loss -of accepted memoirs possible, so long as there was a continued succession -of teachers? Yet none have reached our time other than those which have -come to us through all the centuries as authentic writings of those whose -names they bear. - -By the law of the “survival of the fittest,” all other productions making -any pretensions to such a character perished long ago, only fragments -of them remain, and our four Gospels are in the churches. There is, -therefore, to begin with, the strongest presumption in their favor. -“It is,” says Professor Greenleaf,[2] “for the objector to show them -spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of -proof.” And from what has appeared it is plain that this “burden” is a -very heavy one.[3] - -[1] Renan’s Life of Jesus, p. 35. - -[2] The Testimony of the Four Evangelists (p. 28, section 10), by Simon -Greenleaf, LL.D., 1846. His standard work on evidence is in every -lawyer’s library. - -[3] See also _post_, c. 8. - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -PAPIAS AND JUSTIN MARTYR. - - -The fact of the early reception, by the churches, of Memoirs of Christ -deemed authentic, probable in itself without any proof, is conclusively -proved by writings and to which reference has been made, particularly -those of Papias and Justin Martyr. - -Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first part of the -second century of the Christian era. Though of moderate capacity, and -entertaining extravagant ideas of the millennium, he was entirely honest, -and there is no reason to question his testimony as to what he was told -in respect to Matthew and Mark. He suffered martyrdom about A.D. 163. -From fragments of his writings found in Eusebius and in the works of -Irenæus, it appears that “John the Presbyter” gave him information in -respect to the First and Second Gospels. - -There is a difference of opinion as to whether this John was John -the Apostle. Eusebius held that he was not, and says that in his day -(264-340) there were two tombs at Ephesus, both of which were called -John’s. The question of identity is not very material. Papias gives, -in explanation, that he imagined that “what was to be got from books” -concerning the Lord, was not as profitable to him “as what came from -the living and abiding voice.” For this reason, he says, “If, then, any -one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their -sayings, what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by -Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the -Lord’s disciples,[1] which things Aristion and the Presbyter John, the -disciples of the Lord, say.” - -From this, it is plain there were then accredited “books” concerning -our Lord. And two of these books are identified by his statement of -what he was told by John the Presbyter, that “Mark, having become the -interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of -Peter’s instructions,” whom he accompanied (it was not, however, in exact -order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ), “and Matthew put -together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted -them as best he could.” These extracts prove that the First and Second -Gospels were extant, not only when Papias wrote, and when the Presbyter -gave him the information, but also some time before. His informant, if -_not_ John the Apostle, must have been one who had seen the Apostles or -some of them, so that the testimony is very direct. - -That Papias does not mention Luke’s Gospel, or John’s Gospel, proves -nothing except that he had no occasion to say anything about them, in -that connection. The Fourth Gospel may not have been _written_ at the -time of the interview with the Presbyter, for the Apostle John lived -until about the year 100, and he wrote his Gospel very late in life. It -is not quoted by Clement. - -And as to the Third Gospel, the occasion for the writing of it is -distinctly stated by the author himself, who was well known. And so of -the Fourth Gospel; its authorship modestly but clearly appears upon its -face. We have mere fragments from Papias not exceeding two or three -hundred lines all told. In some of his five books (almost the whole of -which have been lost) there may have been references to both Luke and -John. Eusebius[2] states that Papias made use of testimonials from the -First Epistle of John; but as he does not say that Papias ascribed that -Epistle to John, his use of it only proves that it was extant when he -wrote. There is, however, a quotation in one of these fragments (v), “In -my Father’s house are many mansions,” which is literally as in John xiv. -2, and so, presumptively, was taken from it. It is an interesting fact -that the only _quotations_ other than this, by Papias (if those in this -fragment are indeed by him), are as in verses 25 to 28 of the 15th of -First Corinthians, a chapter which will be found to have great weight in -another part of this discussion. - -Papias, therefore, probably[3] quotes the Fourth Gospel. But, without -such quotation, no inference could be drawn against Luke or John from -mere silence. Papias would still prove the First and Second Gospels, -leaving the Third and Fourth to stand upon the presumption in their favor -stated in our last chapter, and upon positive evidence from other sources. - -[1] The quotations from Papias are from Vol. I, of the Ante-Nicene -Christian Library, translated by Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James -Donaldson, LL.D.; and so in respect to any of the Apostolic Fathers. The -editors say the words, “Which things, _etc._,” are usually translated, -“What Aristion and John say,” and that such translation is admissible, -but that they more naturally mean that John and Aristion, even at the -time of Justin’s writing, were telling him of the sayings of the Lord. - -[2] Eusebius B. III., c. 39. - -[3] The editors call it “mere guess-work” (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, -Vol. I., p. 444, note). Eusebius makes no mention of it, though his -silence is not conclusive against it. - -The question is of sufficient importance to warrant the giving of the -entire passage from Irenæus in which the quotations appear. It is the -last of five short chapters of his work on Heresies. Certain passages -are printed in italics, which the reader is specially asked to consider: -“As the _presbyters_ say, then those who were deemed worthy of an abode -in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, -and others shall possess the splendor of the city, for everywhere the -Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But -there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce -an hundred-fold, and those who produce sixty-fold, and who produce -thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second -class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and -that on this account the Lord said, ‘In my Father’s house are many -mansions;’ for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable -dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by -the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is -the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the -wedding. _The Presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles_, say that this -is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they -advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend -through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and -that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it -is said by the apostle, ‘For He must reign till He hath put all enemies -under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.’ For in -the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to -die. But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that -He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things -shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject -unto Him that put all things under Him, that the Son may be all in all.” -There being no question of the genuineness of this passage from Irenæus, -by whom were the quotations, found in it? Now while it is possible they -were by _Irenæus_, to illustrate what ‘the Presbyters, the disciples of -the Apostles,’ maintained, the more obvious and natural interpretation -is, that they were cited by those Presbyters themselves. This being so, -it is not of much consequence whether Irenæus had this information of -these views and citations, from Papias (from whom he had obtained like -information upon other subjects as to the sayings of the Presbyters), -or whether Irenæus had this information of their sayings from other -sources. In either event the quotations were made _either_ by Papias, -his contemporaries, or predecessors, “disciples of the Apostles.” And -of this opinion are Charteris (Canonicity, c. 17, of the Introduction), -and Routh, Tischendorf, Wescott, Dorner and Riggenback, as cited in -“Supernatural Religion” p. 604. - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - -THE MEMOIRS INTENDED BY JUSTIN MARTYR.[1] - - -Great importance attaches to them in connection with other facts. - -The date of Justin’s birth is uncertain, being placed as early as A.D. -85, and as late as A.D. 114; Rev. Mr. Wright says about A.D. 100. His -martyrdom was about A.D. 165. His father and grandfather were probably -of Roman origin. Before his conversion to Christianity, he studied in -the schools of the philosophers, but after that he became an Evangelist, -and a vigorous writer in defence of the Christian faith. It is probable -that he travelled much. He was not the first that wrote an Apology for -Christians, but his are the earliest extant. Besides these, he wrote -a much larger work (the Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew), a work on the -resurrection, and some others; and by some, he has been regarded as the -author of the Pastor Hermas. His first and principal Apology, of the -probable date of A.D. 138-9, was addressed as follows: - - “To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus - Cæsar, and to his son Verissimus, the philosopher, and to - Lucius, the philosopher, the natural son of Cæsar, and the - adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the Sacred - Senate, with the whole people of the Romans, I, Justin, the son - of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, native of Flavia Neapolis - in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf - of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly - abused, myself being one of them.” - -Those to whom this formal address was made, would not be expected to know -anything about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John; but it was otherwise, in -respect to the Old Testament, for Jewish synagogues were in every city, -and the Septuagint had been known for three hundred years. - -In this Apology he explains some of the teachings of our Lord, and the -usages of his disciples; and in respect to the last, are these passages: - - “For the Apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are - called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined - upon them; that Jesus took bread and when he had given thanks - said, ‘This do ye in remembrance of me, this is my body;’ and - that, after the same manner having taken the cup and given - thanks, he said, ‘This is my blood;’ and he gave it to them - alone.”... “And we afterwards continually remind each other - of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and - we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are - supplied, we bless the Maker of all, through his Son Jesus - Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called - Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather - together to one place, and the Memoirs of the Apostles or the - writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits; - then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally - instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. - Then we all rise together and pray, and as we before said, when - our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and - the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings - according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; - and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of - that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are - absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are - well-to-do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what - is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the - orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any - other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the - strangers sojourning among us, and in a word, takes care of - all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all - hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which - God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made - the world; and Jesus Christ, our Saviour, on the same day rose - from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of - Saturn (Saturday): and on the day after that of Saturn, which - is the day of the Sun, having appeared to his apostles and - disciples, he taught them these things, which we have submitted - to you also for your consideration.” - -This passage is a part of chapter sixty-six, and the whole of chapter -sixty-seven. - -The great question is, What were these “Memoirs of the Apostles,” which -were thus read with the writings of the Prophets? It is a question of -interpretation. - -By the rule adopted in courts, these words are to be construed with the -context, and in connection with other writings of Justin in relation -to the same subject, and also in the light of all the surrounding -circumstances. - -These precise terms are first used in chapter sixty-seven. The same -Memoirs, evidently, in chapter sixty-six, are described as Memoirs -“composed” by the Apostles. They are not again referred to in this -Apology. They are referred to several times in the Dialogue, chapters one -hundred to one hundred and eight, by the following terms: The Memoirs of -His Apostles; The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs of His Apostles; -The Memoirs of the Apostles; _For in the Memoirs which I say were drawn -up by his Apostles and those who followed them_; The Memoirs of His -Apostles; The Memoirs; The Memoirs; The Memoirs; The Memoirs of the -Apostles; The Memoirs of Him; The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs. -Four times he calls them The Memoirs; three times The Memoirs of the -Apostles; five times The Memoirs of His Apostles; and once, The Memoirs -of Him, _i. e._, Christ, as Roberts and Donaldson interpret it,[2] and as -the context and the whole scope indicate. - -It is plain that the same “Memoirs” are intended throughout, under these -various terms. - -In chapter eighty-eight of the Dialogue, in mentioning the descent of the -Holy Ghost upon Jesus at his baptism, Justin says that when he came out -of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on him like a dove, as “the Apostle -of this very Christ of ours wrote.” The incident is mentioned in all four -of the Gospels. - -But for his explanation elsewhere, it would be inferred that _all_ the -“Memoirs” were “composed” by the Apostles. But he carefully explains his -meaning, so that the “Memoirs,” or some of them, may have been “drawn up” -either by the Apostles, or by those who followed them. - -It is obvious that these Memoirs were not biographies or sketches by -unknown or irresponsible persons, but writings well understood by the -Churches to have been “composed” or “drawn up” by the Apostles, or with -their approval. - -As Mark was understood to be Peter’s interpreter, so Luke was understood -to have been Paul’s companion, and to have written under his sanction. -And Paul was an Apostle, although not one of the twelve. - -Justin had informed the Roman Emperor[3] of the Apostles, and he gave -like information to Trypho.[3] He meant that all who should read should -know that what he gave of the life and teachings of Christ was not from -irresponsible sources, but from writings expressly sanctioned, if not -actually written, by those whom Christ had selected as witnesses. - -These Memoirs, therefore, were doubtless understood _by Justin, and by -the church in general_, in city and country, to have been the productions -of Apostles or their companions. They were read the same as the Prophets, -and placed upon the same footing. Justin, in writing to Trypho, speaks of -having believed GOD’S VOICE SPOKEN BY THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST. - -And since, in speaking of their actual composition, he uses the plural, -“Apostles,” we should look for two or more Memoirs, “drawn up,” by -Apostles. - -Now what were these Memoirs? What writings will answer the description? -Matthew[4] and Mark will, according to what the Presbyter said of them. -Were there any others? There should be one more at least, that was -written by an Apostle, else wherefore, the _plural_? The four Gospels -that have come down to us, answer the description in every particular. To -use a legal phrase,—“From the time whereof the memory of man runneth not -to the contrary,” two of them have been accepted in the Church as having -been composed by Apostles, and two, by companions of Apostles. - -Unless it can be shown that when Justin wrote, there were _other_ Memoirs -of Christ _that will answer to his description_, our four Gospels and no -others were intended. _Were_ there any besides these? - -[1] The quotations from Justin Martyr are from Vol. II. of the -Ante-Nicene Christian Library, edited by Roberts and Donaldson. - -[2] See _post_, c. 7, note 14. - -[3] “For from Jerusalem there went out into the world men, twelve in -number, ... who proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by -Christ to teach all the word of God” (Ap. c. 39). “And by those things -which were published in his name among all nations by the Apostles” -(_ibid._ c. 42). “His Apostles going forth from Jerusalem preached -everywhere” (_ibid._ c. 45.) “And further there was a certain man with us -whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ” (Dia. c. 81). “For -as he (Abraham) believed the voice of God, and it was imputed to him for -righteousness, in like manner we, having believed God’s voice spoken -by the Apostles of Christ, and promulgated to us by the prophets, have -renounced even to death all the things of the world” (_ibid._ c. 119). - -[4] The writer of Barnabas, in quoting as in Matthew xx. 16, had used -the authoritative Latin formula (_it is written_) for quotations from -Scripture, as follows: “Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, -‘Many are called but few are chosen’” (_Ep. of Bar._ c. 4). - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -QUOTATIONS AND CITATIONS. - - -The _apparent_ or seeming use of our Gospels by Justin and his -contemporaries is a fact of great weight in determining whether they are -the “Memoirs” referred to by him. - -According to the Indexes of Texts by the learned editors of the -Ante-Nicene Christian Library, John’s Gospel is quoted or cited, twice in -Barnabas, once in Diognetus, twice in Hermas, once by Justin, and once -by Papias. Mark is quoted or cited, once in Barnabas, twice by Clement, -three times by Justin, and once by Polycarp: Acts is quoted or cited once -in Barnabas, once by Clement, once by Justin, and four times by Polycarp: -Luke is quoted or cited three times in Barnabas, three times by Clement, -once in Hermas, fourteen times by Justin, and twice by Polycarp: and -Matthew is quoted or cited six times in Barnabas, five times by Clement, -twice in Diognetus, nine times in Hermas, forty-seven times by Justin, -and seven times by Polycarp. - -As to _citations_, passages deemed such by one, may have been overlooked -or regarded differently by another, so that there is not an entire -agreement as to the number of citations, _i. e._ of allusions or -references that are not quotations. And it should be understood that in -the _quotations_, the books from which they are taken are not stated, -except that Justin indicates that _his_, in general, are from the -“Memoirs.” Their agreement with our Gospels is sometimes literally exact, -quite often it is otherwise; and not unfrequently two or three passages -are seemingly blended, as if the author were quoting from memory and -giving the sense, merely. - -It will be sufficient for the purposes of the argument to give examples -(except as to the Fourth Gospel) only from Justin, and to omit _his_ -quotations from Matthew and Mark, since they are so numerous and not a -few of them of considerable length. Of his references, Rev. Mr. Wright -says[1]: “Upon examination it is found that of the one hundred and twenty -or more allusions which Justin makes to the Gospel history, nearly all -coincide as to substance with the statements of either Matthew or Luke. -Of the sixty or seventy apparently direct quotations, ten are exact, -twenty-five are only slightly variant, while there are thirty-two in -which the variation is considerable. But in respect to variations from -the original in quotation, it should be remembered that familiarity often -leads to carelessness with regard to minute points. Justin, himself, out -of one hundred and sixty-two quotations from the Old Testament, has only -sixty-four exact, while forty-four are slightly variant, and fifty-four -decidedly so.” - -If the reader, with the New Testament in hand, will make a comparison in -the examples which will be given, he can form his own judgment, which it -is conceived, will be no doubtful one. The substantial agreement is very -striking even when the language is not identical. - -JUSTIN FROM ACTS. - - “He was taken up into heaven while they beheld.” (Res., c. 9.) - Acts i. 9. - -FROM MARK. - - “But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist - after the resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said, - ‘They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be as - the angels in heaven.’” (Res., c. 2.) Mark xi. 25. - - “And that we ought to worship God alone, he thus persuadeth us: - ‘The greatest commandment is, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy - God, and him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart, and with - all thy strength the Lord God that made thee.”’” (Ap. c. 16.) - Mark xii. 30. - - “He says, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to - repentance.’” (Res., c. 8.) Mark ii. 17. - -FROM LUKE. - - The first three are parts of long quotations from the Sermon on - the Mount, principally as in Matthew (Ap. cc. 15, 16) Luke vi.: - 28, 29, and Matthew vi.: 7, 8, 13. - - 4. “We are persuaded that every man ... will render account - according to the power he has received from God, as Christ - intimated when he said, ‘To whom God has given more, of him - shall more be required.’” (Ap. c. 17.) Luke xv. 48. - - 5. “And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at - that time brought her good news, saying, ‘Behold, thou shalt - conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shall bear a son, and he shall - be called the Son of the Highest. And thou shalt call his name - Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins,’ _as - they who have recorded[2] all that concerns our Saviour Jesus - Christ have taught_, whom we believe since by Isaiah also, whom - we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that he - should be born as we intimated before.” (Ap. c. 33.) Luke i. - 32, and Matthew i. 21. - - 6. “As our Lord himself says, ‘He that heareth me, heareth him - that sent me.’” (Ap. c. 63.) Luke x. 16. - - 7. “And again in other words he said, ‘I give unto you power to - tread on serpents, and on scorpions and on scolopendras, and on - all the might of the enemy.’” (Dial. c. 76.) Luke x. 19. - - 8. “For he exclaimed before his crucifixion: ‘The Son of Man - must suffer many things, and be rejected by the scribes and - pharisees and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’” - (Dial. c. 76.) Luke ix. 22. - - 9. “Just as our Lord also said: ‘They shall neither marry nor - be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the - children of the God of the resurrection.’” (Dial. c. 81.) Luke - xx. 35, 36. - - 10. “For he taught us to pray for our enemies also, saying, - ‘Love your enemies; be kind and merciful as your heavenly - Father’ is, for we see that the Almighty God is kind and - merciful, causing his sun to rise on the unthankful and on the - righteous, and sending rain on the holy and on the wicked.” - (Dial. c. 96.) Luke vi. 35, and Matthew v. 45. - - 11. “But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel - Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of - the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Highest would - overshadow her; wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her - is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to - thy word.’” (Dial. c. 100.) Luke i. 35, 38. - - 12. “For when Christ was giving up his spirit on the cross he - said: ‘Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit,’ _as I have - learned also from the Memoirs_.” (Dial. c. 105.) Luke xxiii. 46. - - 13. “He says, ‘The children of this world marry and are given - in marriage; but the children of the world to come neither - marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels - in heaven.’” (Res., c. 3.) Luke xx. 34, 35. - - 14. “And wishing to confirm this, when his disciples did not - know whether to believe he had truly risen in the body, and - were looking upon him and doubting, he said to them, ‘Ye have - not yet faith, see that it is I,’ and he let them handle him, - and showed them the prints of the nails in his hands. And when - they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was himself - and in the body, they asked him to eat with them, that they - might thus still more accurately ascertain that he had in - verity risen bodily; and he did eat honeycomb and fish. And - when he had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection - of the flesh, and wishing to show them this also, that it is - not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as he had said - that our dwelling place is in heaven). ‘He was taken up into - heaven while they beheld,’ as he was in the flesh.” (Res., c. - 9.) Luke xxiv. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and Acts i. 9. - -Before presenting Justin, from the Fourth Gospel, the use of this Gospel -by his contemporaries will be considered. - -In _Barnabas_ (c. 6) it is said that “He was to be manifested in flesh -and to sojourn among us.” (Com. John i. 14.) It is also said in c. 12, -in effect, that the brazen serpent was a type of Jesus. (Com. John iii. -14-18.) Another passage in c. 7, although not cited by the editors, is, -“Because they shall see him then in that day having a scarlet robe about -his body down to his feet; and they shall say, ‘is not this he whom we -once despised and _pierced_ and mocked and crucified?’” This _may_ have -had reference to what is recorded only in John, as Apollinaris,[3] -bishop of Hierapolis (_cir._ A.D. 170), afterward wrote: “The Son of God, -_pierced_ in the sacred side, who shed forth from his side the two things -again cleansing, water and blood, word and spirit.” - -In _Diognetus_, c. 6, it is said that “Christians dwell in the world yet -are not of the world.” (Com. John xvii. 11, 14, 16.) In c. 11 it is said, -“This is he who was from the beginning” (Com. John i. 1); and in the same -chapter, “For who that is rightly taught and begotten by the loving Word, -would not seek to know accurately the things which have been clearly -shown by the Word to his disciples, to whom the Word being manifested has -revealed them.” (Com. John i. 14, 18.) There is but a single _quotation_ -in this eloquent Letter, which is as in First Corinthians viii. 1, -“Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.” - -John alone speaks of Christ as the _door_, but the figure is often used -in _Hermas_, as, “You saw, he added, the multitude who were building the -tower? I saw them, sir, I said. Those, he said, are all glorious angels, -and by them accordingly is the Lord surrounded. And the gate is the Son -of God. This is the one entrance to the Lord. In no other way, then, -shall any one enter into him except through his Son.” (Simil. ix. 12.) -John x. This book of Hermas is an allegory in which an angel, in the -guise of a shepherd, gives instruction in the doctrines and duties that -were held and required by the Church. It has not a single _quotation_ -from either the Old or New Testament. But as Dr. Chartris in “Canonicity” -(p. 137) well says: “The dignity, mission, and sufferings of God’s Son -are prominent in Hermas’ teaching, and remind us of the Fourth Gospel at -every turn.” - -The supposed quotation by Papias, Fragment 5 (found in Irenæus), “In -my Father’s house are many mansions,” has been given in a previous -chapter.[A] - -_Basilides_, according to Hippolytus, used as proof-texts the exact -passages found in John i. 9 and John ii. 4. Hippolytus first records the -comments of Basilides on the sentence in Genesis, _Let there be light_, -and then proceeds as follows: “And this, he says, is what is said in the -Gospels, ‘The true light which lighteth every man which cometh into the -world.’ And that each thing, he says, has its own seasons, the Saviour is -a sufficient witness when he says, ‘My hour is not yet come.’” Those who -deny that these quotations[4] were by Basilides, claim that Hippolytus -sometimes mixes up the opinions of the master of a school with those of -his followers, and so it is not certain that Basilides used these texts. -The learned author of “Canonicity,” recently published, p. 173, declares -that the difficulties in the way of ascribing those quotations to any -other than Basilides, are “enormous.” The reasoning of Matthew Arnold -(who is quite far from being rigidly orthodox) is so conclusive that we -give the substance of it: “If we take all the doubtful cases of the kind -and compare them with our present case, we shall find that it is not -one of them. It is not true that here where the name of Basilides has -just come before, and where no mention of his son or of his disciples -has intervened since, there is any such ambiguity as is found in other -cases.... The author in general uses the formula, _according to them_, -when he quotes from the school, and the formula, _he says_, when he -gives the dicta of the Master. And in this particular case he manifestly -quotes the dicta of Basilides, and no one who had not a theory to serve -would ever dream of doubting it. Basilides, therefore, about the year one -hundred and twenty-five of our own era, had before him the Fourth Gospel.” - -_The Epistles of Ignatius_, whether the longer or shorter or Syriac, may -be of too doubtful genuineness, or rather, the extent as to which they -are genuine is too doubtful to be relied upon, although some of them -contain numerous quotations. - -[1] The Logic of Christian Evidences. By G. Frederick Wright, Andover, -A.D. 1880, p. 190. - -[2] Or, as Dr. Abbott translated it, as “those who have written Memoirs -of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, whom we believe,” etc. -Fourth Gospel, p. 21. - -[3] As quoted (p. 43) in The Supernatural Origin of Christianity. By -George P. Fisher, Professor of Church History in Yale College (A.D. 1870). - -[A] Chap. 3. - -[4] Judge Waite does not even refer to these quotations except to quote -from Dr. Davidson in respect to Basilides in general, that “His supposed -quotations from the New Testament in Hippolytus are too precarious to be -trusted.” He does not seem to have known anything of Professors Arnold -and Fisher, or Dr. Abbot, not to mention other very _respectable_ writers -within the last ten years, who have regarded the use of the Fourth Gospel -by Basilides as sufficiently attested. - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -JUSTIN’S USE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. - - -Christ’s pre-existence, not declared in the other Gospels, is frequently -referred to by Justin.[1] John alone calls Jesus the Word; Justin often -refers to him as such. Justin regards the elevation of the brazen serpent -in the wilderness as typical[2] of the crucifixion. He says it denoted -salvation to those who flee for refuge to him who sent his crucified -son into the world; the idea of God’s sending his Son into the world -is peculiar to John. The descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a -dove, at the baptism of Jesus, is mentioned only in the First and Fourth -Gospels. Justin (Dial. c. 88) says that when Jesus “came out of the -water, the Holy Ghost lighted on him like a dove, _as the Apostles of -this very Christ of ours wrote_.” Justin (Dial. c. 88) cites, as the -words of John the Baptist, “I am not the Christ, but the voice of one -crying.” - -This declaration, “I am not the Christ,” and this application to himself -of the language of Isaiah, are attributed to the Baptist only in John -(John i. 20, 23, and iii. 28). Hilgenfeld, the latest representative of -the Tübingen skeptical school, recognizes[3] here the use of the Fourth -Gospel by Justin. And Dr. Ezra Abbot, following Professor Drummond, gives -twenty[4] instances (including the express quotation) of the apparent or -seeming use of this Gospel by Justin. - -_The express quotation_ as in John iii. 3, 5, is as follows: “For Christ -also said, ‘Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom -of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born -to enter into their mothers’ womb is manifest to all.” (Ap. c. 61.) This -is as translated in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Dr. Abbot (p. 29) -translates it “Except ye be born again, ye shall in no wise enter into -the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew Arnold, “Except ye be born again ye shall -not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Our common version is, “Except -a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God;” and in verse -5, “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into -the kingdom of God.” The revised version, “Except a man be born anew,” -or “from above” (margin), “he cannot see the kingdom of God.” There -is a _substantial_ agreement in the quotation with John’s Gospel, and -unmistakable reference to the interview with Nicodemus, which is found -only in John. The most _rational_ inference is that it was from that -source. - -Justin, in this quotation, was as definite as when (Ap. c. 32) he wrote: -“Moses then, who was the first of the prophets, spake in these very -words, ‘The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from -between his feet, until he come for whom it is reserved; and he shall be -the desire of the nations, binding his foal to the vine, washing his robe -in the blood of the grape.’” (Com. Gen. xlix. 10, 11.) He does not state -_where_ the passage is to be found, and its divergence from Genesis is -greater than the difference in the language of Jesus, as quoted by Justin -and recorded by John. - -Justin, in quoting from the Old Testament, usually gives the _name_ of -the prophet, _but nothing more_; just as he gives this quotation as the -language of Christ. He writes _Moses said_, or _Isaiah said_, and he also -writes _Christ said_. - -The other Apostolic Fathers, in their quotations from the Old Testament, -do not usually give the name of the prophet, but only, “It is written,” -“God said,” “The Spirit saith,” “The Scripture saith,” and often only -“saith,” “The Scripture” in such cases being implied. And, as a rule, -they do not quote with literal accuracy or a near approximation to it. - -It has been objected, that if this quotation was actually from the Fourth -Gospel, more than a single quotation from it should be expected. Let this -be tested by the four epistles confessed to be genuine. There is not a -single quotation by Justin from _either_ of these acknowledged epistles, -and it is doubtful if there is a single reference to them, certainly not -in his Apology. - -Nor is this all. The epistle to the Galatians (and Renan says, “Thanks to -the Epistle to the Galatians!”) is not referred to in any way by Clement, -or in Barnabas, or Hermas; nor First Corinthians in Barnabas or Hermas -(and but once in Diognetus); nor Romans in Hermas; nor Revelation in -Barnabas, or Diognetus, or Polycarp, and but once by Clement. - -To account for Justin’s silence, it has been imagined, without the -slightest evidence, that Justin was “anti-Pauline.” But how are the -omissions by other writers to be accounted for? How did it happen that -Clement made no reference to Galatians? It was not from hostility, -certainly, for he speaks of “The blessed Apostle Paul.” Yet writing -this epistle from the church at Rome, to the church at Corinth, he has -but a single quotation from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and but a -single quotation from Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, and _no_ -reference to Galatians. - -The well-known distinction of everyday application in courts of law and -elsewhere, between positive and negative evidence, is to be kept in mind. -Whether John’s Gospel would be quoted by any writer acquainted with it, -might depend entirely upon his object in writing; and so of Galatians, or -any of the books of the New Testament. While a single undoubted quotation -proves the existence of that which is quoted from, non-quotation may -prove nothing at all. - -Justin apparently has one quotation from the Fourth Gospel, with many -implied references to it. But if there were neither the one nor the -other, to infer his ignorance of that Gospel from his silence would be -just as sensible as to infer that a lawyer had never heard of Blackstone, -or Kent, or Story, because he has not quoted from them. - -If Justin in his Apology quoted once from Mark, and once from John, and -not at all from Acts, or Revelations, or Paul’s Epistles, it was because -his subject did not call for any use of those writings, beyond the use -which he made of Mark and John. And if (as was apparently the fact) he -quoted Luke six times and Matthew eighteen times in his Apology, it was -doubtless because Matthew better served his purpose, or was more firmly -fixed in his memory, from his having been born in Palestine, where -Matthew’s Gospel was published. - -A like explanation accounts for the fact that the Fourth Gospel is not -quoted by Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians. Neither does he -quote or cite from Revelations. - -The result so far is this: The Fourth Gospel, apparently, is quoted by -Basilides, and Justin, and Papias; and, in addition, there are many -implied references to it. There is about the same amount of evidence in -respect to Mark and the book of Acts. The evidence accumulates as to -Luke’s Gospel, and from Matthew, the quotations and citations become very -numerous. - -That these quotations and citations were forgeries is an idea that cannot -be seriously entertained by anybody. There were originals from which -the quotations were taken; and presumptively, those originals were the -“Memoirs” so often referred to by Justin; and _presumptively_ our Gospels -were those _Memoirs_, since they answer the description. And unless it -can be shown that _other_ writings _that will answer the description_ -were then extant, this presumption is well nigh conclusive. - -[1] Ap. cc. 5, 23, 32, 42, 50, 53, 63; Dial. cc. 48, 57, 68, 76, 85, 100, -101. - -[2] Ap. c. 60: Dial. cc. 7, 94, 140. - -[3] Abbot, p. 45; Fisher, p. 39; Sears, “The Heart of Christ” (A.D. -1873), pp. 46-67. - -[4] Abbot, pp. 40-50. - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -NO OTHERS PROVED. - - -The latest work in this country which denies the genuineness of our -Gospels, is “The History of the Christian religion to the year two -hundred.” (Chicago, 1881.) The author says it is the result of an -investigation extending through several years, two of which were spent -in the library of congress, “which is peculiarly rich in the department -of biblical literature.” He claims that his volume “will be found to -be the most complete record of the events connected with the Christian -religion during the first two centuries, which has ever been presented -to the public.” He shows no lack of ability or disposition to make as -strong a case as possible against our Gospels. And he understands the -issue. For, he says, the question what Gospels were used by Justin, “is -of the highest importance.” In this work, then, if anywhere, should -there be proof of _other_ writings than our Gospels, that will meet the -requirements of the case. But what do we find? It gives a list of “_forty -Gospels_,” before the decree of Pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. The only marvel -is that the list is not longer. The greater portion are the now extant -Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, which may be found in Vol. -XVI., of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Much confusion, says[1] -Dr. Ezra Abbot, has arisen from the fact that the term “Gospel” was -in ancient times applied to speculative works which gave the writer’s -view of the Gospel, _i. e._, of the doctrine of Christ, or among the -Gnostics, which set forth their _gnosis_; _e. g._, among the followers -of Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, “The Gospel is the knowledge of -supermundane things.” Of all the Apocryphal Gospels, Samuel Ives Curtiss, -the well-known German professor in the Chicago Theological Seminary, -writes:[2]— - - “I shall not waste any ink or paper to prove that the - Protevangelium, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Acts of Pilate, - etc., in their present forms as known to us and as quoted - by Judge Waite, arose at a later period than our canonical - Gospels.” ... “A knowledge of the original sources and the - literature of the subject would have saved him from this - pitiful blunder. I simply refer to Professor Lipsius’ article - on the Apocryphal Gospels, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of - Christian Biography, London, 1880, Vol. II., pp. 700, _seq._; - and Holtzmann’s Apocryphon des Neuen Testaments, in Schenkel’s - Bible Lexicon, Leipzig, 1869, Vol. I., pp. 170 _seq._ As - neither of these articles are by orthodox men, or by those who - have the slightest bias toward orthodoxy, they are calculated - to inspire confidence in persons of every shade of belief or - disbelief. Both are authorities; Meyer’s Conversations-Lexikon - says of Professor Lipsius, of Jena, that he is one of the most - eminent scholars in Germany.” (See note 2.) - -With this concurring judgment of the most eminent scholars, not much -time should be spent upon these Apocryphal books. But a single quotation -is given by Judge Waite that is claimed by him to have been made by -Justin from either of them. And this (although not to be found in any -_single_ passage in our Gospels) may be gathered from different passages, -which would be in keeping with Justin’s mode. It corresponds quite -nearly, though not precisely, with a _part_[3] of the description in the -Protevangelium of the announcement to Mary. But this no more proves the -use of the Protevangelium by Justin than it proves the use of Justin’s -Apology by the writer of the Protevangelium. Aside from this quotation, -there are a few facts stated by Justin that are claimed, by some persons, -to have been taken from the Apocryphal Gospels. _One_ is, that Jesus made -ploughs and yokes, which Justin of course would infer, from the fact that -it was a part of the business of a carpenter to make ploughs and yokes. -_Another_ is, that Jesus was born in a cave. Dr. Thompson, says[4], “It -is not impossible, to say the least, but that the apartment in which our -Saviour was born was in part a cave. I have seen many such, consisting -of one or more rooms in front of and including a cavern, where the cattle -were kept.” Justin, who was a native of Judea, added a circumstance -well known from tradition, which Luke did not think it of consequence -to mention, that the manger was in a cave, _i. e._, that the stable in -which was the manger was in a cave. He had no occasion to resort to books -for such a fact. _Another_ is, that Justin refers the Roman Emperor to -“Acts of Pilate” as affording evidence of what he had stated concerning -Christ’s crucifixion, and the miracles which he had performed. According -to the usual course, Pilate should have made a report of the crucifixion. -It is supposed that he did, and that it was lost or destroyed. Justin -appeals to it, as if then in the archives of the government. Whether -he was well or ill informed upon the subject, the document to which he -appeals, clearly was not understood by him to be one of the “Memoirs” -of Christ, “drawn up” by an Apostle, or a “companion” of an Apostle. -Nothing purporting to be Pilate’s report is extant. The Apocryphal book, -known as the Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate, does not purport to -contain[5] any such report. _Another_ is, that Justin says that Christ -was of the House of David; a fact which Jesus himself had declared[6] -and which is also referred to, in Acts. The only remaining fact, in -respect to the alleged use of the Protevangelium, is in relation to the -_census_. It is claimed that Justin and the Protevangelium agree that it -was only to be taken in Judea.[7] But Justin does not so state. It also -happens, that while Justin makes mention of Cyrenius, the Protevangelium -only says, “And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus that all -in Bethlehem of Judea should be enrolled,” saying nothing of Cyrenius. -This is followed by an absurd and worthless story of occurrences, by the -way. Justin has two references to the census, which will be found in the -note.[8] Justin, in stating that there was a census in Judea, does not -exclude the idea that it was more general. - -Judge Waite, following the anonymous author of “The Supernatural,” and -others, also claims that Justin’s statement that at the baptism of Jesus -“a _fire_ was kindled in the Jordan,” must have been taken either from -the “Gospel of the Hebrews,” or the “Preaching of Paul.” As to the former -(as he gives the translation from a fragment from Jerome) it is, that, -“certainly there shone around the place a great _light_,” which is not -what Justin said. There is no evidence from any quarter that this “Gospel -of the Hebrews” was in existence (other than as Matthew’s Gospel was in -existence), when Justin wrote. Nor is there any evidence that it was -in use, at _any_ period, except among the Nazarenes (a small Judaizing -sect of Christians), and the Cerinthians, and Ebionites, two heretical -sects. The very authorities quoted to prove its existence, clearly -show that it was never in _general_ use, or accepted by the churches -generally. Neither the work itself, nor Jerome’s translation of it, has -been in existence _for centuries_. From what is known of it, it seems -to have been[9] the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, “not entire and perfect, -but corrupted and curtailed.” It omitted the first two chapters. Some -of the corruptions show its true character[10] so far as it varied from -Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel; for as Papias wrote, and the Fathers generally -believed, Matthew first composed his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect. - -“The Preaching of Paul” was less known, and even of less account, -than the other. Judge Waite says (p. 229) that it “was referred to by -Lactantius and others, and was generally known in the second century.” -But he furnishes no evidence of it, and Lactantius died about A.D. 325. -As to its contents, Judge Waite only says that “It contained references -to the Sybilline writings; also to the fire in Jordan at the time of -the baptism of Jesus.” There is no good reason to suppose that it was -_extant_ when Justin wrote; and most certainly, it was never received by -the churches generally. Eusebius does not seem to have known anything of -it, unless to reject it as spurious. He says (Book III., c. 25): “Among -the spurious, must be numbered both the books called ‘The Acts of Paul,’ -and that called ‘Pastor,’ and ‘The Revelation of Peter.’” - -Eusebius also is equally pronounced against the production called the -“Gospel according to Peter.” That this “Gospel” was referred to by -Justin in the passage before considered (_vide_ c. 4), is the fact _to -be proved_. The first _mention_ of it, was by Serapion[11], who became -Bishop of Antioch A.D. 191, fifty years after Justin wrote. He found -a few copies of it among his flock, which he replaced, substituting -Mark’s Gospel for it, for the reason that he found in it “many things -superadded to the sound faith of our Saviour; and some also attached, -that are foreign to it.” This _bishop_ seems to have had no knowledge of -its existence till that time. It favored the Docetæ, from some of whom it -had come into his parish. The pretence that Tertullian referred to it, -and intended to assert that in his day the Gospel of Mark was understood -to have this Gospel of Peter for its original, has nothing to rest upon -but another perversion of Tertullian’s meaning. The passage relied upon -is here given with such words in italics as must be _supplied_ to warrant -the use which has been attempted to be made of it: “The Gospel which -Mark published is affirmed to be” _what is known as_ “Peter’s” _Gospel_, -“whose interpreter Mark was.” This forced construction, would make Mark -the interpreter, _not_ of Peter, but of the heretical work at some time -known by some as _Peter’s Gospel_. Not Strauss himself, nor even the -author of “The Supernatural,” so interpreted Tertullian. What Tertullian -wrote was, that “The Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be -Peter’s; whose interpreter Mark was.” Marcion mutilated Luke’s Gospel, -and Judge Waite says, “Tertullian called him _a hound_.” If any one in -his day had perverted his language as to Mark’s Gospel, so as to make it -endorse the work which Serapion (who was a cotemporary of Tertullian) -suppressed as heretical, Tertullian would not have been likely to have -used a _less_ expressive word than that which he applied to Marcion. -Tertullian simply meant, as Papias had written, and the church believed, -that Mark was Peter’s _interpreter_, and in _that_ sense Mark’s Gospel -was Peter’s Gospel. - -The next writer referred to for “Peter’s Gospel” is Origen, A.D. 230. -Origen says: “There are some who say the brethren of Christ were the -children of Joseph by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary; -and they are induced to this opinion by some passages in that _which -is entitled_ (the italics are ours) ‘The Gospel of Peter, or the Book -of James.’” When it is considered that Origen, in most explicit terms, -declares that our four Gospels “are the only undisputed ones in the whole -Church of God throughout the world,” and that of these, “the second is -according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained it to him, whom he -also acknowledges as his son in his General Epistle,” the perversion of -his language is apparent. Mr. Norton, whose opinion, it is conceded, “is -entitled to great weight,” upon a careful examination of the subject, -believes that this “Gospel” was not a history or biography of Christ’s -ministry at all, but only a _doctrinal_[12] treatise. _Not a single -fragment of it has come down to us._ There is no evidence from any -quarter that it was _generally_ received in the churches _at any_ period; -on the contrary, the evidence, so far as it goes, proves that it was not -so received. It was the Gospel exclusively used by the Ebionites,[13] and -neither Justin nor the majority of Christians in his time were Ebionites. -Its very suppression by Serapion is conclusive; and there is nothing to -impeach Eusebius’ judgment against it. There is no evidence that it was -even in existence when Justin wrote, for the mere fact of its being found -by Serapion forty or fifty years after is too remote. _Hence_, if Justin, -in the paragraph before quoted in chapter four, by “_him_” meant Peter, -instead of Christ (which we do not accept),[14] the Gospel of Mark, which -in a sense was understood to be Peter’s, was the one intended; and the -true construction of the words in question is of minor importance. - -Judge Waite has succeeded as well as any one, in his attempt to find -_other_ writings than our Gospels, that will meet the necessities of the -case. Professor Lipsius, one of the most eminent scholars in Germany, -says,[15] “The attempt to prove that Justin Martyr and the Clementine -Homilies had one extra-canonical authority common to them both, either -in the Gospel to the Hebrews or in the Gospel of St. Peter, has -altogether failed.” Of recent writers this side of the ocean, Dr. Ezra -Abbot of Harvard College (who has already “a distinguished Continental -reputation”), states,[16] after a thorough examination of the whole -subject, as some of the results: “We have seen that there is no _direct_ -evidence of any weight that Justin used either the ‘Gospel according to -the Hebrews’ (so far as this was distinguished from the Gospel according -to Matthew) or the ‘Gospel according to Peter.’ That he should have -taken either of these as the source of his quotations, or that either of -these constituted the ‘Memoirs’ read generally at public worship in the -Christian churches of his time, is in the highest degree improbable.”... -“Still less can be said in behalf of the hypothesis that any other -Apocryphal ‘Gospel’ of which we know anything, constituted the ‘Memoirs,’ -which he cites, if they were one book, or was included among them, if -they were several.” - -Mr. Rowe’s[17] judgment is, that the facts referred to by Justin, but -not recorded in the Gospels, stand to those which _are_ recorded, in the -proportion of only four, to one hundred and ninety-six. In other words, -that all but four out of about two hundred references, appear in the -Gospels. “It is marvellous,” he says, “when we consider the nearness -of the time when Justin lived to our Lord’s ministry, that he should -have preserved so few incidents respecting it which vary from those in -our Gospels, rather than that those to which he has referred should -present the slight variations they do; for it is an interval within which -traditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.” - -[1] P. 16 of “Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,” etc. (1880). - -[2] The _Daily Inter-Ocean_ of Feb. 12, 1881. To the same effect, “The -Authorship,” p. 98, note 6; The Supernatural Origin of Christianity, by -George P. Fisher, D.D., Professor of Christian History in Yale College -(1870), p. 191-2; Origin, etc., by Prof. C. E. Stowe (1867), p. 185, c. 7. - -[3] “And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time, -brought her the good news, saying, ‘Behold thou shalt conceive of the -Holy Ghost and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the -Highest, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people -from their sins.’” After a dozen lines, the last clause is repeated as -follows: “Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, ‘Thou shalt -call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’” -The last clause seems to have been transferred from Matthew by Justin. -The Protevangelium (c. 11) reads as follows: “And she hearing, reasoned -with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? And -shall I bring forth, as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the -Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow -thee; wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall -be called the Son of the Most High. And thou shalt call his name Jesus, -for he shall save his people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold the -servant of the Lord before his face; let it be unto me according to -thy word. And she made the purple and the scarlet and took them to the -priest,” etc. The account is preceded by the story that it had fallen to -her lot to spin purple and scarlet for the veil of the temple, and that -when the angel spake to her she was going with a pitcher to fill it with -water. It is not easy to believe that Justin’s simple narrative came from -such a source. - -[4] The Land and the Book, by W. M. Thompson, D.D., twenty-five years a -missionary of the A. B. C. F. M., in Syria and Palestine, Vol. II, p. 503. - -[5] The first part contains a graphic account of the trial and -crucifixion. At the trial witnesses are represented as appearing before -Pilate and narrating different miracles which had been performed. Judge -Waite devotes considerable space in comparing these accounts with the -Gospel narratives. He argues that the Apocryphal account must have been -the earlier one, _because_ of its brevity, and because it does not -include _all_ the miracles. This is as if one should infer that the plea -of the advocate, or the charge of the judge, preceded the testimony, or -the compendium, the history. - -[6] Matt. ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; Mark x. 47; xii. 35-7; Luke xx. 30-1; -xl. 6; xviii. 38-9; John vii. 42; Acts xiii. 23; Ro. i. 3. - -[7] Protevangelium, p. 17; vol. 16, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, pp. -18-19. - -[8] Apology, c. 34. “Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, -thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you -can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, -your first procurator in Judea.” Dial. c. 78. “Then he was afraid and -did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was -taken in Judea under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth where he lived to -Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of -the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region.” Joseph was both -of the tribe of Judah, and of the house and lineage of David, and there -is no contradiction. It is to be noticed that the census is spoken of as -the _first_ census that was taken. Cyrenius, called then procurator, was -afterward governor. - -[9] See authorities in Note 2. - -[10] “Now my mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my hairs, and -brought me to the great mountain even Tabor.” “Jesus said unto him, go -sell all which thou possessest and divide among the poor, and come follow -me. But the rich man _began to scratch his head_, and it did not please -him.” Origin, _etc._, by Professor Stowe, p. 22. - -[11] Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, p. 78; Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12; b. 3, c. 25. - -[12] Abbott, etc., p. 79; Waite’s History, p. 11. - -[13] Abbott, etc., p. 104, Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12. - -[14] The entire passage is as follows: “And when it is said that he -changed the name of one of the Apostles to Peter; and when it is written -in the Memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed -the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which -means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was -he by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua) under -whose name the people who survived of those who came from Egypt were -conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.” The controversy -is, whether the personal pronouns “He” and “Him” refer to Jesus, or -whether “Him” refers to Peter. Judge Waite says that Justin has ten times -“Memoirs of the Apostles,” and five times, “Memoirs,” and not once, -“Memoirs of Christ.” It is true we do not find “Memoirs of Christ.” But -confessedly the Memoirs intended were of or concerning Christ, and not of -or concerning the Apostles, or either of them. Justin used the expression -Memoirs of the Apostles just as we say the Gospel of John. They were -concerning Christ; he is the grand subject of discourse in all Justin’s -writings. And in Ap. c. 33, Justin speaks of those “who have written -Memoirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ.” In the proper -and highest sense they should only be spoken of as “Memoirs of Christ.” - -Judge Waite, after the author of “The Supernatural” (p. 337), says, to -refer to the more distant antecedent is contrary to the rule. The rule is -of but slight importance as compared to the whole scope. And to apply the -rule here, Peter would be the one who changed the names of the sons of -Zebedee; for Peter, and not Christ, would be the last antecedent. - -[15] As quoted by Dr. Ezra Abbot, pp. 98, 99; see, also, _Inter-Ocean_ of -February 12, 1881. - -[16] Abbot, etc., p. 103, 104; _Inter-Ocean_ of February 12. - -[17] Bampton Lectures for 1877, pp. 279, 281. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - -PRESUMPTION OF PERMANENCY. - - -In general, says Mr. Phillips,[1] there is a presumption in favor of the -continuance of what is once proved to have existed. It is a familiar -principle of law, says Chief Justice Parker, that a state of things -once shown to exist is presumed to continue until something is shown to -rebut the presumption. And this position, says Professor Greenleaf, is -founded “on the experienced _continuance_ or permanency of longer or -shorter duration in human affairs. When, therefore, the existence of a -person, a personal relation, or a state of things, is once established -by proof, the law presumes that the person, relation, or state of things -continues to exist as before, until the contrary is shown, or until -a different presumption is raised from the nature of the subject in -question.” With other examples of the application of this presumption, -he mentions opinions and religious convictions: “The _opinions_ also of -individuals, once entertained and expressed, and the _state_ of _mind_, -once proved to exist, are presumed to remain unchanged until the contrary -appears. Thus, all the members of a Christian community, being presumed -to entertain the common faith, no man is supposed to disbelieve the -existence and moral government of God, until it is shown from his own -declarations.” This presumption being founded in reason and experience, -is of universal application. It is not conclusive, but stands “until -something is shown to rebut it.” It is the basis of Hume’s argument -against miracles, but which he misapplies, making it conclusive instead -of presumptive evidence. As a presumption, it is strictly applicable -to the question in hand, and will be found to have great force. For, -from this natural and reasonable presumption, it should be taken, -unless the contrary is proved, that the accepted “Memoirs” of Justin’s -time _remained_ in the churches. Hence if we can ascertain with entire -certainty _what_ “Memoirs” were accepted in the churches in the year 180, -and no evidence of displacement and substitution appears, we shall have -_most satisfactory evidence_ what “Memoirs” were the ones intended by him -in his Apology. - -[1] Phillips on Evidence, 4th Am. Ed., 640: 17 N. H. Rep., 409: 1 -Greenleaf on Evidence, §§ 41, 42. - - - - -CHAPTER IX. - -THE MEMOIRS OF THE YEAR ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY. - - -There is undoubted proof that within forty years from the time Justin -wrote his First Apology, our Four Gospels (and no others) with the Book -of Acts, were universally received in the church, as we now receive -them. It comes from the writings of Agrippa Castor, Apollinaris, Bishop -of Hierapolis, Apelles, Athenagoras, Basilides, Celsus, Clement of -Alexandria, Eusebius, Heracleon, Irenæus, Jerome, Marcion, Melito, Bishop -of Sardis, Origen, Pantænus, Polycarp, Serapion, Tatian, Theophilus, -Tertullian, Valentine, The Letter of the Church of Vienne and Lyons, -and the unknown authors of the Clementine Homilies, and the Muratori -Canon—Christians, Gnostics, Heretics, and Heathen, all concurring to -prove universal reception, beyond a reasonable doubt. So strong is -this proof that even Strauss does not deny such reception by the _end_ -of the second century, and he admits that there is evidence of an -_earlier_ date. He says: “We learn from the works of Irenæus, of Clement -Alexandrinus, and of Tertullian, that, at the end of the second century -after Christ, our Four Gospels were recognized by the orthodox church -as the writings of the Apostles and the disciples [companions] of the -Apostles, and were separated from many other similar productions, as -authentic records of the life of Jesus. The first Gospel, according to -our Canon, is attributed [i. e. by the authors named] to Matthew, who is -enumerated among the twelve Apostles; the fourth to John, the beloved -disciple of our Lord; the second to Mark, the interpreter of Peter;[1] -and the third to Luke, the companion of Paul. We have, besides, the -authority of earlier authors, both in their own works, and in quotations -cited by others.” As a false witness sometimes admits a part, the better -to conceal what is more important, so Strauss _admits_ a state of things -as existing at the _end_ of the century, that, beyond dispute, should -be carried back to a time at least twenty years earlier. Thus Professor -Fisher, in his exhaustive work, says of John’s Gospel (which is conceded -to have been the last): “We choose to begin[2] with the unquestioned -fact of the universal reception of the Fourth Gospel as genuine in the -last quarter of the second century. At that time we find that it was -held in every part of Christendom to be the work of the Apostle John. -The prominent witnesses are Tertullian in North Africa, Clement in -Alexandria, and Irenæus in Gaul.” And Professor Abbot[3] says: “I begin -with the statement, which cannot be questioned, that our present Gospels, -and no others, were received by the great body of Christians as genuine -and sacred books during the last quarter of the second century.” - -Theophilus of Antioch, _as early_ as A.D. 180, not only quotes from the -Fourth Gospel, as Scripture, but names John as its author, as follows:[4] -“As the Holy Scriptures, and all who have the Spirit, teach us, among -whom John says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with -God;’ signifying that God alone was in the beginning, and that the Word -was in him. And then he says, the Word was God, and all things were made -by Him, and without him there was not anything made.” Theophilus also -wrote a Commentary upon the Gospels. Before this time, also, our Gospels -and Acts had been included in a list[5] of canonical books received in -the churches. They were in their present order, and, as far as their -authorship is stated, are attributed to the persons whose names are -now assigned to them. And before[6] this date, Celsus (who anticipated -Strauss by seventeen hundred years) had cited alleged contradictions in -the Gospels, and particularly as to there being one or two angels at -the sepulchre. He attempted to ridicule the idea that blood and water -came from Jesus’ side—a fact that is stated only in John. He refers -to the fact that Christ “after his death arose, and showed the marks -of his punishment, and how his hands had been pierced.” Although he -does not _name_ the authors of the books, yet his numerous quotations -correspond with them, including Luke and John. And in respect to all of -the discrepancies, etc., he says: “All these things I have taken out of -your own books,” i. e. Scriptures. “We need,” says he, “no after witness, -for you fall upon your own swords.” His work has not come down to us -except as contained in Origen’s writings, which, however, quote so fully -from it, that it is nearly reproduced. And ten years[7] before this time, -Tatian, who had been a disciple of Justin (but after Justin’s death -became heretical), wrote a Commentary or Harmony upon the Gospels. He -called it Diatesseron, which means the Gospel of the Four. The celebrated -Syrian, Father Ephræm, who died A.D. 373, wrote a commentary on it. -Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last part of the twelfth century, was -also well acquainted with Tatian’s work; and says that it began with John -i. 1: “_In the beginning was the Word_.” - -Before this date, Heracleon, a disciple of the Gnostic Valentine, wrote -a commentary upon the Fourth Gospel. The work is known[8] to us through -many fragments, which Origen has woven into his own commentary on the -same Gospel. - -Quotations from the canonical Gospels _between_ the periods mentioned -are very numerous. It is unnecessary to cite them, or to give other -specific proof of a state of things existing _as early_ as 180, as shown -by most incontrovertible evidence, whatever doubt may be had as to some -items of this evidence. Indeed an earlier date might properly be assumed -than that taken as the basis of our argument. Thus Dr. Charteris, in his -recent work, says, in view of all the circumstances: “When we pass the -_middle_ of the century, and come to the works of Tatian, Athenagoras, -and Theophilus (with a quotation by name) we are out of the region of -controversy.” (Canonicity, lxxxi.) There were a few persons called the -Alogi, a nickname having the double meaning of “deniers of the doctrine -of the Logos,” and “men without reason,” who denied John’s authorship of -the Fourth Gospel. They were probably a few[9] eccentric individuals, who -attracted no attention, and none of whose names are preserved. The fact -that they appealed to no tradition in favor of their views, denied John’s -authorship of the Apocalypse likewise, and absurdly ascribed both to -Cerinthus, whom no one supposes could have been their author, shows that -they were persons of no critical judgment. They were _outside_ of the -churches of which Justin wrote. The reception of the canonical Gospels, -to the exclusion of all others, was _universal_ in those churches. - -[1] Not the interpreter of “_Peter’s Gospel!_” (Page 49-50, Vol. 1, of -“The Life of Jesus,” etc., 1860). - -[2] P. 39 of “The Supernatural Origin of Christianity,” (1870), by Prof. -Fisher. - -[3] P. 13 of “The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel” (1880). - -[4] P. 177 of Prof. Stowe’s “Origin and History of the Books of the New -Testament” (1867); Strauss’ Life of Christ, p. 52; Waite’s History, pp. -302, 354; p. 130 of Fisher’s “Supernatural Origin,” etc. - -[5] A fragment of this writing was discovered by the Italian scholar -Muratori, and from him is called the Muratori Canon. It is written in -Latin, but is supposed to have been first written in Greek. The first -part of the writing is wanting, so that it begins with Luke, which it -calls the “Third book of the Gospel according to Luke.” It was found in -the Ambrosian Library, at Milan, in a manuscript containing extracts from -writings of Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others. It professes to give a list -of the writings that are recognized in the Christian Church. Judge Waite -(p. 412) assigns A.D. 190 as its date. Prof. Curtiss says of it: “_The -most eminent New Testament scholars_ in America, England and Germany, -with a few exceptions, hold that it was written in the last quarter of -the second century (the most setting the date at about 170-180 A.D.) Some -of them are: Prof. Ezra Abbot, of Harvard College; Drs. E. A. Abbott, -Canon Wescott, W. A. Sanday, Credner, Weiseler, Bleek, Reuss, Hilgenfeld, -and many others” (_Inter-Ocean_, February 12, 1881). The Fragment -contains internal evidence of the time when it was written. In reference -to the “Pastor” it says: This “did Hermas write, _very recently, in our -times_, in the city of Rome, while his brother Bishop Pius sat in the -chair in the church of Rome.” Now Pius was Bishop from A.D. 142 to 157. -Waite’s History, p. 232. - -[6] In reply to Judge Waite, who assigned A.D. 210 to Celsus, Professor -Curtiss says that “Dr. Keim, who belongs to the most liberal German -school, and who made a very careful investigation of the subject (Celsus -Wahres Wort, Zurich, 1873), sets the date in the year 177 or 178, A.D.” -See also Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, London, -1877, vol. 1, p. 436; Fisher, p. 42; “Heart of Christ,” by Edmund H. -Sears, 1873, p. 148; Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, etc., p. 58. See also -Sanday, p. 262, and Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris, 1880, p. 369. Origen, -in one place, in answering his objections, speaks of him as “a man long -since dead.” - -[7] Pp. 52-53 of Abbot’s Fourth Gospel. - -[8] “Tischendorf’s Origin of the Four Gospels,” p. 89. - -[9] Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, pp. 18, 20; Fisher, p. 69. - - - - -CHAPTER X. - -ASCENDING THE STREAM. - - -Now consider the tremendous force of the proved fact that, within -forty years of the time when Justin wrote his First Apology, we reach -a period when it is no longer a debatable question whether our Gospels -are “the Memoirs” of Christ which were read with the Prophets in city -and country. The presumption of _continuance_ attaches. It has before -been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, in the year one hundred and -forty, there were accepted “Memoirs” of our Lord, which were read with -the Prophets in all the churches. There is no evidence whatever that -those Memoirs in the intervening forty years were dropped and others -substituted for them; therefore it should be presumed that they were in -the churches in the year one hundred and eighty; and the Memoirs in the -churches at this latter period _are positively known and seen, to have -been the Canonical Gospels_. They have come closer to us, and in the -nearer vision we are able to determine their identity with the utmost -certainty. And the natural presumption that there was no substitution -within the short interval of forty years, is immensely strengthened by -the difficulties attending any attempted substitution,—difficulties so -great that they must have left unmistakable evidence of conflict upon -the page of history. The churches were very numerous, and occupied a -territory of more than two thousand miles in extent from Syria to Gaul. -Each church had its bishop or presbyter, and elders; and in each church, -once in seven days, were the Memoirs of our Lord read with the Prophets. -There were hundreds who, from their own recollections, and thousands -who, from their parents or instructors, at any given time within these -forty years, had perfect knowledge what Memoirs were thus read in the -year one hundred and forty. Young men of twenty then, were only sixty, -forty years later. Was there a substitution in those forty years, and -these bishops, and elders, and thousands of communicants every Sabbath -of all ages, not know it; or knowing it had not objected; or objecting, -and history have no record of it? Not a few of these were educated men; -and indeed all the bishops and elders may be presumed to have been as -well versed in the accepted Gospels as in the writings of the prophets. -It is to be borne in mind that we are dealing now with the question -of substitution within the short period of forty years. A _score_ of -names can be given of men living within that time or immediately after, -who, from their own recollection or from others, must have had perfect -knowledge of the whole subject: Athenagoras, a philosopher at Athens -about the year one hundred and sixty; Caius, a presbyter at Rome about -the year two hundred; Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, _cir._ -173; Clement of Alexandria, who became the head of the Alexandrian -School in 187; Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who died a martyr in 173; -Hegesippus, the historian (whose works are now lost), who died in 180; -Hermas, who was prominent toward the close of the century; Irenæus, -Bishop of Lyons; Justin himself, whose martyrdom was as late as the year -165; Leonides, the martyr; Melito, Bishop of Sardis; the world-renowned -Origen, son of Leonides; Pantænus; Polycarp; Polycrates, Bishop of -Ephesus; Pothinus the predecessor of Irenæus (and whose martyrdom was -about 167); Serapion, Bishop of Antioch; Tertullian, the eloquent Roman -lawyer of Carthage; Theophilus, the predecessor of Serapion; and Victor, -Bishop of Rome. - -It may be said, and with truth, that the Fourth Gospel, whenever -introduced, came in not as a substitute, but as a supplement. The -evidence, however, is conclusive that by the year one hundred and eighty, -it had obtained as permanent a footing as either of the other Gospels. -Its reception was as hearty, and the tradition of its authorship as -strong, as in respect to the others. To infer that it was the forged -product of the period now under consideration, or any other, is as -if De Soto had concluded that the mighty stream which he discovered -hastening to the Gulf, with deep and rapid current, so wide that a -man could scarcely be seen from shore to shore, had its origin not in -far-off lakes or mountains, but in some miserable crocodile swamp of the -country he was traversing, and but just out of sight. And _who_ forged -the Fourth Gospel and imposed it as John’s upon this score of persons, -and hundreds of others? Or did these men conspire together, to deceive -themselves, the churches, and the world? What name has come down to us -from _that_ age, or any other, who was _capable_ of such an undertaking? -What _forger_ wrote those discourses of Our Lord with Nicodemus? Or those -with the women of Samaria? Or those with his disciples on the eve of -his crucifixion? Or the parable of the good Shepherd? Or that memorable -prayer recorded in the seventeenth of John? That any _sane man_ should -attribute either of these to a _criminal forger_ would be incredible, if -we were not confronted with the fact. And what sort of a man was this -forger of the Fourth Gospel? We have Baur’s conception of him as “A man -of remarkable mind, of an elevated spirit, and penetrated with a warm -adoring faith in Christ as the Son of God and Saviour of the world!” -And Baur thinks it _easier_ to believe (without proof) in the existence -of this remarkable genius and elevated character, who would _invent_ -fictitious discourses, _falsely_ attribute them to the Christ whom he -_adored_, and _forge_ the name of the beloved disciple, than to believe -with the whole body of the Christian Church, that the discourses and -utterances were those of our Lord![1] If John did not write the Fourth -Gospel, _who did_? Not one of those who deny his authorship, can give -an answer to this question. It is no answer to say that many in the -second century believed that Hermas (whom Paul mentions in his Epistle -to the Romans), wrote the Pastor or Shepherd of Hermas. Such was not the -universal sentiment. The work was never generally received as Scripture. -On the contrary, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, while placing -the Four Gospels in the list of canonical books universally received, -says of “The Pastor,” that it was written “very recently in our times” -by another Hermas, a brother of the Bishop of Rome, and that it was -read in “some of the churches,” not as Scripture but for “edification,” -the same as the Epistle of Clement. It was rejected by Tertullian, not -only as Apocryphal, but as hurtful. Nor is it any answer, to say that -the so-called Epistle of Barnabas was early attributed to Barnabas the -Levite. In the first place, it is by no means certain that this tradition -was unfounded. From the little we know of Barnabas, it would be rash to -conclude that he could not have written it. If uninspired, he _may_ have -written just such a book. In the second place, no one ascribed it to him -till the time of Clement of Alexandria, and it was ranked by Eusebius -among the “spurious” writings, which, however much known and read in -the church, were never regarded as authoritative. Eusebius also places -The Pastor Hermas in the list of writings whose authorship is disputed. -The Fourth Gospel rests upon an entirely different basis. There was but -_one_ tradition in respect to it, and from our first knowledge of it, it -was regarded as authoritative, and its authorship was undisputed; for -the slight exception of the few individuals, called the Alogi, is of -no account. It was included in the commentaries and harmonies to which -reference has been made; and such works would not have been written until -the books upon which they were based had been long enough in the churches -for a felt need of commentaries upon them. It was quoted as Scripture -by Theophilus, and John its author was expressly named as moved by the -Holy Ghost. In the Muratori Canon, it was placed as Scripture in the -list of Canonical books, universally received. And that it could not -have come in after the year one hundred and forty, or have been received -unless it was genuine, will be still more obvious from a more particular -consideration of some of those who accepted it. Pantænus, who was at the -head of the Alexandrian school in the year one hundred and eighty, was -(says Eusebius) distinguished for his learning. Before his conversion he -was a Stoic philosopher. After that, and before he became the head of the -Catechetical school, he traveled extensively as an Evangelist. He went as -far as the Indies, where he found that the Apostle Bartholomew, who had -preceded him, had left the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. Pantænus could -not have been ignorant of the “Memoirs,” which were accepted in Justin’s -time, and he lived until the year two hundred and twelve. We have no -_direct evidence_ from _him_; but Clement, his pupil and successor, and -noted for his learning, could not have been ignorant of the opinions -of Pantænus; and from Clement there is the strongest testimony. He -flourished between A.D. 165 and 220, and became head of the Alexandrian -School in A.D. 187. Origen, his successor, with his great genius and -acquirements, and extensive travel, and from his father Leonides, and his -predecessors Clement and Pantænus, must have been fully informed of the -“Memoirs” which were in the churches in the year one hundred and forty. -And he says, that he has “understood _from tradition_, respecting the -Four Gospels, _which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of -God throughout the world_,” that the first was by Matthew, the second by -Mark, “who composed it as Peter explained to him,” the third by Luke, the -companion of Paul, and “last of all” John “who reclined upon the breast -of Jesus,” has left one Gospel, in which he confesses that he could write -so many that the whole world could not contain them. Tertullian, the -celebrated lawyer, says, “Of the Apostles, John and Matthew published -the faith to us.” In defending the Gospel of Luke against the mutilation -of the heretic Marcion, he positively affirms that all the churches -founded by the Apostles accepted, not Marcion’s abridgment of Luke, but a -well-known form which had been “_received from its first publication_;” -and that the other Gospels had been received from the same sources in -authenticated copies. “In his abundant writings,” says Norton,[2] “there -is not a chapter in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, from which -he does not quote,” and from most of them his quotations are numerous. -Tertullian was born at Carthage about A.D. 160, and from his conversion, -about the year one hundred and eighty-five, he entered with great -earnestness and ability into a vindication of Christianity, and the -discussion of various questions connected with it. This able advocate -could not have been misinformed of the usages of the churches less than -half a century previous to the time when he entered upon his work. - -The evidence of Irenæus is still more conclusive. He was born in Syria -about A.D. 120, and he was therefore twenty years old when Justin wrote. -His teacher was Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and his immediate predecessor -at Lyons was Pothinus. Polycarp, at his martyrdom, was asked to save -his life by denying Christ. “No,” he said, “eighty and six years have I -served him and he never did me any injury; how, then, can I blaspheme -my King and my Saviour?” _Pothinus_, at _his_ martyrdom, _cir._ 177, -was more than ninety years old. The lives of these two men reached far -back into the first century. They were at, or past, middle life when -Justin wrote, and presbyters of important churches; and it is utterly -incredible that they should not have known what “Memoirs” were read in -their churches in Justin’s time. And it is _equally incredible_ that -Irenæus, the disciple of the one and the immediate successor in office -of the other, and _himself_ _twenty years old_ when Justin wrote, should -not have been as well informed upon this subject. Yet Irenæus quotes[3] -from our Gospels and Acts, as Scripture, ascribes their authorship -to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and says that such was the accepted -tradition in all the churches. After referring to the others, he says of -the Fourth Gospel: “Afterwards John, the disciple of our Lord, the same -that lay upon his bosom, also published the Gospel while he was yet at -Ephesus, in Asia” (Eu. v. 8). And again[4]: “All the Elders testify, who -were conversant with John, the disciple of our Lord, in Asia, that he -delivered these things.” About A.D. 180, in a treatise against heretics, -he appeals to the canonical Gospels with as much confidence that they -are all well known and accepted by Christians, as any would do at the -present day. Tischendorf[5] says the number of passages where Irenæus has -recourse to the Gospels is about four hundred, and about eighty of these -in John. Sanday[5] estimates the quotations from John in this treatise -at seventy-three. But Clement, and Origen, and Pantænus, and Polycarp, -and Pothinus, and Tertullian, were not better informed upon this subject -than Serapion, who so promptly suppressed the heretical Gospel of Peter, -or than Theophilus, his immediate successor, who was the first after -Papias (other than the author of the Muratorian Fragment) to mention any -of the four Gospels by name, or than the author of this Fragment, or than -many intelligent officers and members of the numerous churches from the -Euphrates to the Seine. - -With such evidence and from such sources, and the entire absence of any -evidence of _substitution_, it may well be regarded as morally certain, -that none occurred. What was probable, from the _seeming_ use of the -Canonical Gospels by Justin and his contemporaries, has become _a moral -certainty_. The Memoirs which, in the year one hundred and eighty, were -universally accepted, _were the same_ that forty years before were read -with the Prophets, in city and country, in all the churches every Sabbath -day. Of this there can be no doubt. The Memoirs of the year one hundred -and eighty, _were_ OUR CANONICAL GOSPELS; and the Memoirs of the year one -hundred and forty, _were_ OUR CANONICAL GOSPELS. And we take our stand -with Justin, with these Gospels in our hands, only forty years from the -death of John, the beloved disciple, and at the close of a hundred years -from the crucifixion of our Lord. And still we ascend the stream. - -[1] Wright’s Logic, etc., p. 187, Tischendorf, p. 43. - -[2] Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, etc., Part II. c. 1; Wright, p. -187. - -[3] Wright, pp. 188, 189, Tischendorf, p. 35. - -[4] Stowe’s Origin, etc., p. 176. - -[5] Origin, etc., p. 35; Wright, p. 189. - - - - -CHAPTER XI. - -STILL ASCENDING THE STREAM. - - -The evidence thus far has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at the -writing of Justin’s First Apology, the Canonical Gospels were read -with the Prophets in city and country, on “the day called Sunday,” as -authentic Memoirs of our Lord. Assuming the date[1] of this Apology to -have been A.D. 138 or 139, the time was a little over one hundred years -from the Crucifixion, and less than eighty years from the death of Mark -and Luke, and all the Apostles other than John, and only forty years from -his death. How long were these periods as they affect the argument from -the universal reception of the Gospels in Justin’s time, and from the -universal tradition in their favor which accompanied such reception? The -writer has within two days (in April, 1881) met with three persons who -saw Lafayette on his visit to New England in 1824. One of them distinctly -remembers the sentiment[2] which Lafayette gave at Concord, and another -shook hands with him. There were hundreds of Revolutionary soldiers -present, some of whom the General recognized and called by name, although -he had not seen their faces for more than forty years. This was in 1824. -Whittier’s poem describes one of these soldiers, as he now remembers him, -at the time of Monroe’s tour in 1817, _sixty-four years ago_: - - “Once a soldier, blame him not, - That the Quaker he forgot, - When to think of battles won, - And the red coats on the run, - Laughed aloud Friend Morrison.” - -And throughout the country there are thousands now living[A] who well -knew men who were in active life during the War of the Revolution. In the -_Granite Monthly_ for December, 1880, was published the Diary of Rev. -Timothy Walker of Concord, for the year 1780, and there were earlier -Diaries kept by him which have been preserved by his descendants. The -Diary of Matthew Patten of Bedford, from 1750 to 1790, is in the custody -of Charles H. Woodbury, Esq., of New York. The Congregational church at -Concord, of which Timothy Walker was the first pastor, November, 1880, -celebrated its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. There are several -towns in New Hampshire, as Londonderry, Dover, Exeter and Portsmouth, -that were settled earlier than Concord; and some of them as early as -1623. The landing of the Pilgrims was _two hundred and sixty years ago_. -It seems but as yesterday. A century from the Crucifixion was no longer -than a century now; and as an event, to be remembered, the Crucifixion -was as much greater than the Landing of the Pilgrims as the glory of -the noonday sun is above that of the feeblest star in the most distant -heavens. The time that has elapsed since Timothy Walker wrote Diaries -which are now in existence is as long as from the Crucifixion to Justin’s -Apology; more than thirty years longer than from the martyrdom of Peter -and Paul to Justin’s Apology; and sixty years longer than from John’s -death to Justin’s Apology. The churches in Justin’s time were not dealing -with writings from a dim and misty past, or of limited or infrequent -use. None were as ancient as Walker’s Diary; the last had not seen half -its years; they were in all the churches, and read every Sabbath day. -The argument which proves that there was no substitution between 140 -and 180 is as much more forcible to prove that there was no substitution -between the years 100 and 140, or between the years 60 and 100, as those -times were nearer the great events which the Gospels recorded. If, for -example, there were accepted Memoirs of our Lord in the churches in -the year 100, from the presumed _continuance_ of a state of things the -existence of which has been proved,[3] it should be _presumed_ that they -remained in the churches till Justin’s time, there being no evidence to -the contrary. And so there would be the same (or greater) difficulties -in the way of displacement and substitution, between the year 100 and -the year 140, as between the year 140 and the year 180. Justin and his -contemporaries had from their own recollection,[4] or from others, -whether parents, teachers, presbyters or bishops, as great facilities for -knowing what Memoirs were accepted in the churches forty years before, -as had Irenæus and his contemporaries in respect to the period of forty -years before one hundred and eighty. And there was a succession and -continued life in the churches from 100 to 140, the same as from 140 to -180. This reasoning is applicable to Clement and his contemporaries, and -shows that Memoirs which were in the churches in the year 100 could not -have displaced accepted and generally received Memoirs of any previous -period. We know from the Epistle of Clement, as clearly as from Justin’s -Apology, how Christians loved and adored their Divine Lord and Master, -and how strongly attached they must have been to any Memoirs of him, -which they accepted as authentic. And the testimony of Pliny is, that -Christians in his day were accustomed to meet before daybreak and sing a -responsive hymn to Christ as God. It is utterly incredible that accepted -Memoirs of Christ, thus worshipped, should have been thrown aside by -presbyters or bishops, and hundreds of churches, throughout the Roman -Empire, without a shock that would have left unmistakable evidences -of it in history. There being an entire absence of any evidence of -displacement and substitution, it is _morally certain there was none_. -John’s Gospel, however, stands upon a different footing, since it came -in not to displace, but to supplement. John lived to the close of the -first century. _Who dared_ to forge a spurious Gospel in his name, so -soon after his death that it had obtained such a footing in the churches, -at the end of forty years, as to be quoted as his production? _Who_, -during that period, was _capable_ of composing it? And how were hundreds -of presbyters or bishops, and churches, from Syria to Gaul, persuaded to -receive a spurious Gospel, as the genuine work of the beloved disciple -who was in life within the personal[4] recollections of many? It is a -fact to be emphasized, that neither this Gospel, nor the others, can -be assailed on historical or traditional grounds. _There is but one -history or tradition_ concerning them. The objections to them are either -negative or speculative, mere assumptions, not supported by any history -or tradition. - -The first _use_ of the four Gospels of which there is any history, is in -statements of facts found to be recorded in them, and in quotations of -teachings of Christ, corresponding with them. The first _description_ of -them after Papias, is that of “Memoirs” of Christ, “drawn up” by Apostles -and companions of Apostles. The first mention of them _by the names of -the writers_, ascribes their authorship to the men whose names they now -bear. There is no history or tradition of a time when the first Gospel -was ascribed to any but Matthew, or the second to any but Mark, or the -fourth to any but John[5], or the third, with Acts, to any but Luke. The -standing objection that none of them is mentioned _by name_ till the time -of Theophilus, and Irenæus, and the writer of the Muratori Canon, is not -of the slightest consequence as opposing evidence. For, if these Gospels -were not mentioned by name, neither were any[6] others; and surely we are -not expected to believe that there were _no originals_, from which the -many quotations, from Clement of Rome, in the year 97, down, were taken. -This objection proves too much. For it proves, if it proves anything, -that there were _no_ Gospels or writings to answer to the quotations, -which, under the circumstances, is a palpable absurdity. Besides, it -is not true in respect to the First and Second Gospels, for Papias, -certainly as early as the middle of the second century, and probably -before the year 140, gave the _names_ of Matthew and Mark respectively, -as their authors, the latter being “the interpreter of Peter.” - -[1] Judge Waite controverts the generally received opinion of the date -of Justin’s First Apology. Verissimus became Cæsar in 139, but he is not -addressed as Cæsar, but as “philosopher.” In reply to this, Mr. Waite -says, that the same is true of the Second Apology, “which is admitted -by all to have been written after 139.” In the first place, there is -considerable uncertainty which of the Apologies was first written, and -some critics maintain that what is called the Second was a preface to -the First, and others still that it was a continuation of the First. -(See introductory notice to Vol. II. of the A. N. C. L.) In the second -place, the address to Urbicus in the so-called Second Apology, was -not by _Justin_. He only gives it as the language of _one Lucius_, in -narrating an occurrence which, for aught that appears, may have taken -place before the year 139. Mr. Waite also says that Justin would be but -twenty-five years of age in 139. He might have written his Apology in -139, nevertheless. And there are many who put his birth earlier than the -year 114, and some as early as the year 85. There are no certain data by -which to determine the time of his birth. Again he says that Marcion did -not come to Rome till about 140, and that Justin (c. 26) refers to him -as being “even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe -in some God greater than the Creator.” But Justin meant to express his -abhorrence of his doctrines. He refers to him as “a man of Pontus,” and -again (in c. 58) as “Marcion of Pontus,” and says the devils put him -forward. He nowhere describes him as being _of_ Rome or _at_ Rome. In -his extensive travels he doubtless knew of him while he was at Pontus. -Judge Waite also says that, if in the year 139, Justin would have said -that Christ was born 140 years ago, instead of 150. But correcting the -error for the beginning of our Era, the time would have been A.D. 146, -or 144, as we allow four or six years for the error, and Justin, using -round numbers, would more naturally have taken the longer period. There -is nothing therefore in Judge Waite’s arguments to change the opinion in -what he concedes to be “the very valuable Encyclopedia of McClintock and -Strong,” and of Page, Neander, Lemisch, Roberts and Donaldson, Sears, -Fisher, Eusebius, (c. 8) and many others, assigning the year 139. See -also Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris (1880) p. lv. It is, however, not -essential to the argument from the First Apology, whether it was written -in the year 139, or 144, or 146, or even 150 of our Era. By as much as -it lengthens the period from the death of John to the date of the First -Apology, it shortens the time between that date and the year 180. - -[2] “The memories of Light Infantry Poor and Yorktown Scammel.” - -[A] Rev. Simeon Parmelee, D.D., celebrated his one hundredth birthday at -the house of his son-in-law Hon. E. J. Hamilton, ex-mayor of the city of -Oswego, N. Y., Jan. 16, 1882. His intellect was clear, and to those who -called he had an ever ready response, and replied happily and wittily to -the addresses. He had been in the ministry from 1808 to 1869, and, for -years after, preached occasionally. His eldest daughter is 72 years of -age, and his descendants now living, number 53. Upon his 90th birthday -he wrote a hymn of considerable merit. When 100 years old, he remembered -with vivid freshness the Inauguration of George Washington, although at -that time but in his 8th year. See _Congregationalist_, Jan. 25, 1882. - -[3] See Phillips, Parker, and Greenleaf, as quoted in c. 8. - -[4] Justin in his First Apology (c. 15) refers to many of sixty or -seventy years of age, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood. - -[5] Prof. Fisher (p. 69) says, that besides the few individuals called -the Alogi, or men “without understanding,” there is no allusion to the -denial of John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel by any writer, before -the latter part of the fourth century. - -[6] As to the controverted reference in Justin’s Apology to “Memoirs of -Him,” see c. 4, and c. 7, note 14. That, if correctly interpreted by -Judge Waite, could only have been Mark’s Gospel. - - - - -CHAPTER XII. - -IN THEIR PROPER REPOSITORIES. - - -Certain propositions have been established by facts and arguments that -cannot be successfully controverted: - -(_a_) The advent of Christ and its stupendous results. - -(_b_) The formation of numerous churches which by the end of the first -century were in all parts of the Roman Empire, with presbyters or bishops -and elders in every church, and many thousands of communicants. - -(_c_) They regarded him with the greatest reverence and affection, -obeying his commands as their Lord and Master, paying him divine honors, -and for his sake joyfully yielding up their lives. - -(_d_) Of his disciples and followers, twelve, called Apostles, were -understood to have special authority from him in the Church. - -(_e_) From the nature of the case we should look for the reception in -these numerous churches, of Memoirs of their Lord which they would -_deem_ authentic, and at so early a period, that they would be able to -_determine_ whether they were authentic or not. - -(_f_) To such Memoirs, once accepted, they would be so strongly attached -that they could not be displaced and others substituted for them, in -hundreds of churches in all the Roman Empire, without such controversy as -would have left indubitable evidence of it. - -(_g_) As far back as history goes, doctrines[1] were taught, facts -asserted, and quotations made, corresponding with the Canonical Gospels, -and such use was continued until a time when there is a positive -identification of them by name. Within this period there was one writer -making numerous quotations and references, who declared that the writings -from which he quoted, and to which he referred, were “Memoirs” of Christ -“drawn up” by Apostles or companions of Apostles. - -(_h_) There is no proof of the existence of writings _other_ than -those Gospels answering to his description, or corresponding with the -quotations; and finally within forty years of his first reference to -these “Memoirs” they are clearly seen to be the Canonical Gospels. - -(_i_) From first to last there is no evidence whatever of displacement of -Gospels previously accepted, and the substitution of others for them in -the churches generally. - -(_j_) The Fourth Gospel is of such a character, and was in use so soon -after the death of its author (and who is also stated as its author in -the Gospels itself), as to make the idea of attempted and successful -_forgery_ in the highest degree improbable. - -(_k_) And these Gospels within less than eighty years from the death of -the Apostles other than John, and within forty years of _his_ death, were -read with the Prophets in the churches, in city and country, every Lord’s -day, _and accepted as Apostolic_. - -(_l_) From the earliest period they were where they should be if -authentic, and where they could not have been, unless _accepted_ as -authentic. - -Some illustrations have already been given in chapter eleven of the brief -interval between the Apostles and Justin Martyr. Let any intelligent -reader of sixty, from his own recollection, or any young person, from -the recollections of others with whom he is acquainted, determine for -himself. The writer was admitted to the Bar almost forty years ago; he -has within a few months seen an original deed[2] of land in Londonderry -(the home of his ancestors) executed one hundred and fifty years ago; -he has in his possession certified copies of certificates of marriages -and births, in his own genealogical record—going back from one to two -hundred years, in one instance two hundred and thirty years, and these -certificates would be received as _evidence_ in any Court. They would -be received, because made by the proper custodian of public documents, -found in the proper repository for them. The presumption of law in such -case is the judgment of charity. It presumes that documents found in -their proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, are genuine. -A deed forty years old, followed by a possession agreeing with it, is -admitted in evidence without other proof of its execution. Our Gospels -in Justin’s time were where they _should_ have been, if authentic. The -Church was the proper repository for authentic Memoirs of its Founder. -_Our Gospels were there._ They were in their proper repository. And upon -every principle that rules in the administration of justice, or in the -common affairs of life, it must be presumed that they were _rightfully_ -there. Their rejection is _not_ “the judgment of charity.” It reverses -the maxim that fraud is not to be presumed. It charges forgery, of -which there is no evidence, upon persons whom it finds it impossible -to discover and identify. It imputes ignorance and indifference to -multitudes who had every opportunity for knowing the truth, and who were -willing to suffer all things for their convictions of the truth. It -presses, as of vital consequence, trivial objections and alleged errors -in chronology, geography and history, which (if made out) would not for -a moment be thought sufficient to successfully impugn the authenticity -of any secular work as well supported by external evidence. It is -unnecessary to further consider such objections.[3] It is no exaggeration -to say, that the various theories and speculations of those who deny -the genuineness of the Gospels are, in the main, but ingenious attempts -at the solution of the problem: “Given, the impossibility of miracles, -what may be supposed to be the true history of Jesus Christ?” The -only consistent answer that could be made, would be that upon such an -hypothesis, it is impossible to determine what was his life or character. -But, given, the possibility of miracles (and if there is a God they -must be possible), there is no reasonable doubt of the authenticity of -the Gospels, and the book of Acts. They come to us from their proper -repositories, and must be presumed to be rightfully there. They are -proved to have been in those repositories within but a short period from -the death of the Apostles. They were accepted as Apostolic, and as having -been drawn up by Apostles or companions of Apostles. If such undoubted -reception, and use, and tradition, at so early a period, and thence -until now, cannot be _trusted_, no credit can be given to _any_ writings -or history from ancient times. They _can_ be trusted. The stream which -eighteen hundred years ago was issuing from Apostolic times and the hills -of Palestine, has flowed onward, enriching and blessing the nations. - -[1] Mr. Waite assumes that Clement did not hold to a literal -resurrection. Clement’s language admits of no such construction, although -in writing to Christians who understood all about it, he was not as -definite upon this point, as Justin in _his_ address to a different -class. Clement refers to the resurrection in c. 24: “Let us consider, -beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a -future resurrection, of which he has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the -first fruits by raising him from the dead.” And again in c. 42, after -saying that the Apostles were commissioned, he adds: “Having therefore, -received their order, and being fully assured by the resurrection of -our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the Word of God, with full -assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom -of God was at hand.” The force of this language is not controlled by any -means, by reference to the day’s following the night, and the springing -up of the fruits of the earth, from the sowing of the seed. - -[2] The deed dated June 16, 1731, was by David Morrison, one of the -grantees in the Charter of Londonderry of 1722, to his brother-in-law, -David McAlister. This deed with another from the same grantor to William -McAlister dated February 24, 1746, are now in the possession of Jonathan -McAlister, Esq., a descendant of David and an owner of the original -granted land. - -[3] One other correction should be made. Judge Waite arbitrarily assigns -Cerinthus to the year 145. He gives no reason or authority for it. It is -the testimony of all antiquity that Cerinthus was contemporary with the -Apostle John, and that John died about the year 100. Irenæus, upon the -authority of Polycarp, says that John, being about to enter a bath and -finding Cerinthus within, drew back saying: “Let us even be gone lest the -bath should fall to pieces,—Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, being -within.” See Vol. II., Encyclopedia of McClintock and Strong, p. 190. - - - - -CHAPTER XIII. - -INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPELS. - - -As stated in former chapters, this is to be presumed till the contrary is -shown. There is, however, strong confirmation from many sources. - -_First._—The writings of the Apostolic Fathers present to our view the -Christ of the Gospels, in his advent and life, ministry and teaching, -death and resurrection. In particular, his resurrection from the dead is -cited by Clement (A.D. 97) as an earnest of that of his followers, and as -a proof that he came forth from God. The greatest of miracles, and the -central fact of Christianity, appears in the earliest writings (outside -of the New Testament), the date of which can be determined. Judge Waite, -in his “wonderful hundred[1] years of silence by Christian writers” -concerning the miracles of Christ, is oblivious of what he had before -stated, that aside from the Gospels, there are left of the first century -“only the Epistles of Paul, the one Epistle of Clement of Rome, some -slight notices by Jewish and heathen writers, and the few legends and -traditions preserved in the writings of the Fathers.” Such an argument -from silence, _where there are no writings extant_, is not befitting _a -judge_. - -_Second._—The earliest quotations substantially agree with the Canonical -Gospels. Some of those by Justin Martyr have been given in chapters -five and six, and those by Clement may be found in the Note.[2] These -quotations by Apostolic and Christian Fathers, afford ample[3] means for -comparison, and no variations appear to indicate any changes to affect -the character or teachings of our Lord. Professor Fisher says[4] of -_Justin’s_ references, that they embrace “not more” than two sayings of -Jesus that have not substantial parallels in the four Evangelists. The -first is, “In what things I shall apprehend you, in these will I judge -you,” which is found also in Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus. -The second is, “There shall be schisms and heresies,” a prediction -referred also to Christ by Tertullian. These sayings may have come from -_tradition_. It seems not improbable that they were current expressions, -embodying what Jesus taught[5] respecting the standard by which men shall -be judged according to the light which they have received, and divisions -in the same household. (See cc. 6 to 8 _ante_). - -_Third._—The facts in Christ’s history referred to by the Fathers, -with very rare exceptions (the most of which were stated and explained -in chapter seven), correspond with the Evangelists. The exceptional -facts are such as would naturally have been derived from tradition, -and they in no way change the life or character of our Lord as they -appear in the Gospels. The marvel is, that they should be so few and -unimportant, considering that some of the writers lived at a time when[6] -“traditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.” - -_Fourth._—Marcion’s Gospel (written as early as the year 145), except in -intentional omissions and mutilations, for which he was sharply called to -an account by Tertullian, presents a substantial agreement with Luke’s -Gospel. Judge Waite claims that it was earlier than Luke’s; but the -almost unanimous verdict of scholars is against him. Indeed, Professor -Fisher, in the March number of the _Princeton Review_ for 1881 (p. 217), -says: “That Marcion’s Gospel was an abridgment of our Luke is _now -conceded on all hands_, even by the author of ‘Supernatural Religion.’ -Dr. Sanday has not only demonstrated this by a linguistic argument, but -has proved by a comparison of texts that the Gospel of the Canon must -have been for some time in use, and have attained to a considerable -circulation, before Marcion applied to it his pruning-knife. There is -no reason to doubt that he took for his purpose a Gospel of established -authority in the Church.” Professor Curtiss also says that “the weight -of scholarship is overwhelmingly in favor of the priority of Luke.” -And he quotes from the last edition of the “Supernatural Religion,” -the admission referred to by Professor Fisher. Its anonymous author -says that Dr. Sanday’s very able examination “has convinced us that our -earlier hypothesis is untenable; that the portions of our third Synoptic, -excluded from Marcion’s Gospel, were really written by the same pen which -composed the mass of the work; and, consequently, that our third Synoptic -existed in his time, and was substantially in the hands of Marcion.” -Dr. Sanday[7] shows, as he expresses it, that Marcion’s Gospel stands -to Luke’s “entirely in the relation of _defect_. We may say entirely, -for the additions are so insignificant—some thirty words in all, and -those for the most part supported by other authority—that for practical -purposes they are not to be reckoned. With the exception of these thirty -words inserted, and also some slight alterations of phrase, Marcion’s -Gospel presents simply an _abridgment_ of our St. Luke.” That Marcion’s -Gospel was not one of Justin’s “Memoirs,” is plain from his calling -him a wolf,[7] “sent forth by the devil.” Although Marcion’s Gospel -is not in existence, except as reproduced from the works of Tertullian -and Epiphanius, its agreement with Luke (with the exceptions which they -pointed out) becomes important evidence that Luke is to-day as it was in -the year one hundred and forty-five. - -_Fifth._—Our Gospels and Acts before the close of the second century of -our era were translated into other languages, and the Syriac, Coptic -and Latin versions which have come down to us with some imperfections -and slight variations, are in substantial agreement with our present -version in all that is material. A translation of a given date presumably -represents a text of greater age than itself. Hence the manuscripts from -which these translations were made were older than the year two hundred, -and probably older than the year one hundred and fifty. - -_Sixth._—The early and continued multiplication of copies affords -strong evidence. Those who copied from originals deemed authentic would -certainly endeavor to make exact copies. As these Memoirs were read in -all the churches, and, doubtless, in Christian families and Christian -schools, they soon became very numerous. There was fraternal intercourse -between the churches. Any substantial difference in the copies would -be noticed. Any such differences would be transmitted in copies made -from these copies, and so on, to the manuscripts which have reached -us. The number of copies before the tenth persecution (commenced A.D. -300, and lasting ten years) must have reached many thousands.[8] So -complete was then supposed to be the extinction of Christianity, that -coins were struck and inscriptions set up, recording the fact, that the -“Christian superstition” was now utterly exterminated, and the worship -of the gods restored by Diocletian, who assumed the name of Jupiter, and -Maximian, who took that of Hercules. This persecution, in addition to -the destruction of life, was specially[9] directed to the destruction of -copies of the Scriptures. - -_Seventh._—Constantine, their successor, in the year 331, caused fifty -copies of the Scriptures to be made for Byzantium, under the care of -Eusebius of Cæsarea, the church historian. The manuscript discovered by -the celebrated Tischendorf, in 1859, at the convent of St. Catherine, -on Mount Sinai, is believed to be one of those copies, and to be the -oldest[10] Greek manuscript in existence. _If_ one of the fifty, it is -more than fifteen hundred years old. It is called the Sinaitic Codex. -The second rank belongs to the Vatican Codex. Its date is probably not -later than the fourth century. The next in the order of time is the -Alexandrian Codex. Its date is the latter part of the fourth century or -the beginning of the fifth century. The Vatican has been in the Vatican -Library since 1445. The Alexandrian was sent, in 1628, by the Patriarch -of Constantinople, to Charles I., and is now in the British Museum. The -Sinaitic was presented by its discoverer to the Emperor of Russia. There -is no doubt whatever that these three manuscripts were written back of -the “dark ages,” and at a time when the true text could be known with -great exactness, and was comparatively free from errors. With these, -there are fifty manuscripts that are a thousand years old. There are, it -is estimated, more than seventeen hundred manuscripts of the whole, or -portions, of the New Testament, ranging in date from the fourth to the -sixteenth century. Providence, says Tischendorf, has ordained for the -New Testament more sources of the greatest antiquity than are possessed -by all the old Greek literature put together. The number of manuscripts -of the Greek Classics, says[11] Professor Stowe, is very small compared -with the Greek Testament manuscripts, and the oldest of them scarcely -reaches nine hundred years. There are such differences between the -Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrian manuscripts as indicate that no two -of them were taken from the same original. A little reflection will -convince any one, that while no single copy may be literally exact from -its original, the multiplication of copies adds greatly to substantial -accuracy as the result of the whole. For although there is a tendency -to a repetition of _some_ errors, by different copyists from the same -original, as where successive sentences end with the same word, yet, in -general, different copyists would make different errors, one in one part -of the instrument, and the other in another, and, where the copies are -numerous, they mutually correct each other. So it happens that in the -different manuscripts of the New Testament, with different readings of -many thousands (counting all trifles, like the omission to dot an _i_ -or cross a _t_ in English chirography, as different readings), there is -substantial agreement. It is a fact to be emphasized, says[12] Professor -Fisher, “that the Scriptures are almost utterly free from wilful -corruption;” and he endorses the opinion of the great critic, Bentley, -that the real text “is competently exact in the worst manuscripts now -extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted -or lost in them.” And examining the subject in hand from a lawyer’s -standpoint, the _worst_ manuscript, or translation, or version, is -sufficient for the purposes of the argument. And to cite once more the -great authority of Professor Greenleaf,[13] to the genuineness of the -Four Gospels: “The entire text of the Corpus Juris Civilis is received -as authority in all the courts of Continental Europe, upon much weaker -evidence of its genuineness; for the integrity of the Sacred Text has -been preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects beyond any moral -possibility of corruption; while that of the Roman Civil Law has been -preserved only by tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing -school to watch over and preserve it from alteration.” - -And now (1882) the New Revision, both of the text and of the translation, -by scholars who have no superior, and the careful product of ten years’ -labor, has been long enough before the world to know the results. Not -a single fact or witness to the Resurrection is lost, and not a single -doctrine is changed, while many passages are better understood. - -[1] He puts the date of the Epistle of Barnabas, A. D. 130, but it is -generally placed earlier. - -[2] “Be merciful that ye may obtain mercy; forgive that it may be -forgiven to you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge so -shall ye be judged; as ye are kind so shall kindness be shown to you; -with what measure ye mete with the same it shall be measured to you” (c. -13). Matt. vi. 12-15; Matt. vii. 2; Luke vi. 36-38. “This people honoreth -me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (c. 15). Matt. xv. 8; -Mark vii. 6. “Woe to that man! It were better for him that he had never -been born, than that he should cast a stumbling block before one of my -elect, yea it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about -his neck, and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he -should cast a stumbling-block before any of my little ones” (c. 46). -Matt. xviii. 6; Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark ix, 42; Luke xvii. 2. - -[3] The entire Gospel could be reproduced from those writings, including -Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. - -[4] The _Princeton Review_ for March, 1881, p. 201. - -[5] Matt. x. 34-36; Luke x. 13-15; Luke xii. 47-53. - -[6] Bampton Lectures for 1877, p. 221, by the Rev. C. A. Row, M. A., -Pembroke College, Oxford, Prebendary of St. Paul’s Cathedral. - -[7] Ap. I., cc. 22, 58. See also Sanday’s Gospels of the Second Century, -p. 214, and “Canonicity,” by A. H. Charteris, D. D., 1880, pp. 76, 393. - -[8] Norton estimates the number by the close of the second century at -sixty thousand, which may be a large estimate. - -[9] Vol. VII. of McClintock and Strong, p. 966; Neander’s Church History, -Vol. I., p. 148. Neander says that Feb. 22, A.D. 303, on one of the -great pagan festivals, at the first dawn of day, the magnificent church -of Nicomedia (then the imperial residence) was broken open, the copies -of the Bible found in it were burned, and the whole church abandoned to -plunder and then to destruction. The next day was published an edict -that all assembling of Christians for the purpose of religious worship -was forbidden; churches were to be demolished to their foundations; all -manuscripts of the Bible should be burned; those who held places of honor -and rank must renounce their faith, or be degraded; those belonging -to the lower walks of private life to be divested of their rights as -citizens and freemen; slaves were to be incapable of receiving their -freedom so long as they remained Christians; and in judicial proceedings -the torture might be used against all Christians of whatsoever rank. “It -is quite evident,” says Neander, “that the plan now was to extirpate -Christianity from the root.” But it was the darkness which preceded the -dawn, for this was the _last_ of the Pagan persecutions. - -[10] A facsimile steel engraving forming the frontispiece to -Tischendorf’s New Testament, gives specimens of the Greek text in which -these three manuscripts are severally written. The difference in the -style of the text is one great means by which experts determine the age -of the manuscript. The oldest manuscripts are written in large, square, -upright capitals; and they are called Uncials. The later manuscripts are -written in flowing scripts; they are called Cursives. The proportion -of Uncial to Cursive manuscripts is about one to ten. The Cursive was -introduced in the tenth century. - -[11] Origin and History of the Books of the New Testament, by Prof. C. E. -Stowe, A.D. 1867, pp. 31, 62. - -[12] In Scribner’s Monthly for February, 1881, p. 617. - -[13] An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the rules -of Evidence administered in Courts of Justice, etc. By Simon Greenleaf, -LL.D., Royal Professor of Law in Harvard University (A.D. 1846), p. 28. - - - - -CHAPTER XIV. - -THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS. - - -The question of their credibility is before that of their inspiration. -If uninspired, they may have given us everything essential to the -determination of Christ’s resurrection. If inspired, inspiration may -have been bestowed in such a manner as to leave them subject to some of -the limitations of human testimony. If reliable accounts of the life, -teachings, death, and resurrection, of our Lord, were to be published -to the world, it was of the last importance that they should not carry -upon their face the appearance of collusion and contrivance. Let any one -who is disturbed by any seeming contradictions or errors, consider for -a moment what would be the consequence if they did not exist. If each -writer narrated the same occurrences and teachings and in the same terms, -it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to believe that they -were independent witnesses. And so, if each should give all of the same -occurrences and teachings, although in different terms, or a part of -them, but in the same terms, it would be almost as difficult to believe -that we have independent witnesses. As it is, no question can arise. -Neither of them covers the whole ground, and where the same matters -appear, it is, in general, except in brief passages easily remembered, -in different terms. We are _sure_ there was no collusion. We are sure we -have the testimony of independent writers. This is conceded. Says Judge -Waite (pp. 311, 313): That the Gospels “are not merely copied one from -the other, with changes, is the almost unanimous verdict of Biblical -scholars.” And in this, he expresses the verdict of those who reject, -not less than of those who accept the Gospels. Among the limitations -attending mere human testimony, are, that, ordinarily, no witness will -state the whole of any transaction, and no two witnesses will state it -in precisely the same terms, unless there is fraud or collusion, and -the testimony of each is but the recital of something that has been -committed to memory. Another limitation is, that even with two or more -witnesses, errors to some extent will come in. There will be some lack -of correct observation, or some misrecollection,—not only the omission -of a part, but positive misstatement by one or more of the witnesses. -The whole transaction is to be gathered _from all_ the witnesses. And -the law, having respect to human infirmities, says it is enough in all -cases to prove the _substance_ of words alleged to have been spoken, or -the substance of the issue, in any civil or criminal cause; immaterial -errors of time, or place, or distance, or other circumstance, will be -disregarded. Now it is _conceivable_ that the Evangelists, under the -guidance of the Divine Spirit, may have been left (to some extent) -subject to these limitations, in order that their testimony, conforming -to these laws of observation and memory, be the more credible. Hence, -whether the Evangelists, in this stage of the inquiry, be regarded as -inspired or uninspired, it is labor lost, to adduce alleged errors[1] -or contradictions which, if made out, could not seriously affect their -honesty and general competency. In order that a witness receive our -confidence, we should be satisfied of his means of knowledge, his -capacity to ascertain the facts, and his disposition to give a correct -account of them. Two of the writers, Matthew and John, were of the twelve -(and John was the beloved disciple) and hence they had the best possible -means of knowing the facts. Matthew, from his business of a tax-gatherer, -may be presumed to have been sharp, shrewd and observant. John, from his -most intimate association, was pre-eminently qualified to give testimony. -He gives it with solemnity equal to an oath: “And he that saw bare -record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that -ye might believe” (c. xix. 35). “And many other signs truly did Jesus -in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; -but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, -the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name” -(c. xx. 30, 31). Again, after stating what Peter asked concerning the -disciple “whom Jesus loved,” and what followed, it is said: “This is the -disciple which testifieth of these things, and who wrote these things; -and we[2] know that his testimony is true” (c. xxi. 20-24). This Gospel, -obviously written later than the others, omits much that is contained in -them, and is, so to speak, of higher order. The first incident mentioned -in it, is the witness borne to Christ by the Baptist. It gives none of -the parables, so abundant in the Synoptics.[3] It relates but two of the -miracles recorded in them, _i. e._ the feeding of the five thousand, -and the walking upon the water, (c. vi. 1-21). It adds six miracles -not recorded in the Synoptics (among which is the raising of Lazarus), -numerous conversations and discourses of the greatest interest, and -facts relating to the crucifixion and resurrection, of great weight as -evidence. It is written in purer Greek than the others; its style[4] -is elegant and graceful; it gives every indication of calm, thoughtful -and deliberate composition, and in these respects tends to confirm the -uniform tradition that it was the ripe product of a mind and heart, -enriched, quickened, and vitalized, by familiar intercourse with our Lord -and the truths which he declared, as well as by the Spirit promised to -the Apostles. Men with favorable native gifts, become educated fast under -such influences. - -It affords about the only means for a connected chronological history of -our Lord’s ministry, which is seen to have embraced a longer[5] period, -than could have been ascertained from the Synoptics. - -Although Mark was not one of the twelve, the character of his Gospel in -its life-like description of events, and its omitting nothing[A] where -Peter was prominent, confirms the tradition, that he was an attendant -upon Peter’s ministry, and was his interpreter. Nine-tenths[6] of the -incidents related in Mark are also recorded in the other Gospels. - -Luke was an educated man, and, as he incidentally discloses, a companion -of Paul in a part of his journeyings. His Gospel was evidently drawn -up with great care. In the prologue (c. i. 1-5) he gives a reason for -his writing, and the sources of his information. “Many have taken in -hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most -surely believed among us.” These things, he says, “were delivered unto -us by those who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of -the Word.” He was stimulated to give an additional narrative (“having -had perfect understanding of all things from the very first”) for the -satisfaction of his friend, Theophilus, and in order that he might know -“the _certainty_ of those things,” wherein he had been instructed. No -historian could enter upon his work in a better spirit, or with more -excellent qualifications and opportunities. In a subsequent treatise -which in terms refers to the former, he finds nothing to retract or -qualify. Can any one tell why Luke, as a historian, is not entitled to as -much credit as Josephus? - -In comparing the Gospels with each other, or with Josephus, it should -be constantly borne in mind, that _omission_ (except under special -circumstances) _is not contradiction_. The facts of history, like the -conclusions of a jury, are to be drawn from all credible sources, and the -transaction deemed to be as shown upon _all_ the evidence. _Positive_ -testimony from a single witness may prove a fact against the _negative_ -testimony of any number of witnesses, who are silent upon the subject. - -It is also to be remembered that the Gospels are not so much connected -histories, as reminiscences of events and teachings, with but little -regard (sometimes an utter disregard) to their chronological order. -Neither Gospel is, of itself, any approach to a connected history from -Christ’s birth to his ascension. The events, so far as known to us, are -to be gathered _from them all_. Mark begins with the Baptist at the -river Jordan, and John at about the same time. It is not to be inferred -that they knew nothing of the infancy, or childhood, or young manhood of -Jesus. Matthew omits the presentation at the temple, the vision to the -Shepherds, and other incidents; and Luke omits the visit of the Wise men, -the slaying of the children, the flight into Egypt, and other incidents. -But in so doing, neither contradicts the other; nor does Josephus, by his -silence concerning these events, contradict the Evangelists. He may have -been ignorant of some of these events, for he was not born until the year -37, and, being a Jew and not a Christian, he might not choose to mention -those which had come to his knowledge. - -Luke’s Gospel may or may not have made use of writings then in existence -relating to Christ (but which never found general acceptance), and the -same is true of the First and Second Gospels. _It is no impeachment of -their credibility._ Every historian makes such use of materials that he -deems reliable, as best answers his purpose, and his history is none the -less trustworthy on that account. Hence, as a matter of evidence, it -is of no consequence how many or how few, previous manuscripts may be -traced in our Gospels, or either of them. Such writings had an ephemeral -existence, never came into general use, and the Four Gospels and no -others were the accepted Gospels in all the churches. Whatever literature -of the kind preceded them perished so early that it cannot be told when -it disappeared, or what was its character or completeness. - -The Evangelists give every mark of honest witnesses. Their story is -simple, straightforward and unimpassioned, even under circumstances -calculated to arouse resentment. They seem intent upon nothing but the -giving of a truthful narrative, not sparing themselves or extenuating -their own faults. Their frequent incidental allusions to matters of -government, custom, nationality, etc., and minuteness of detail, are -such as would never be found in false witnesses. “A false witness,” says -Mr. Greenleaf, “will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his -testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there -is danger of being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts -equally circumstantial.” - -It would detract nothing from the credit of the Evangelists, if, in the -multitude of their incidental references, error should be found in a -few of them, for some error is inseparable from all human productions; -and their inspiration may not have been so circumstantial as to exclude -immaterial errors. - -With such differences as show most convincingly that the Evangelists are -independent witnesses, there is such unity in the character and life -of Christ, as exhibited by them, as shows the same _original_ for the -likeness. This essential unity of the Gospel is evidenced by the fact -that not a single church or communion exists, that does not accept _all_ -the Gospels, if _either_. - -From internal evidence, it is extremely probable that the Synoptics were -written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke was certainly written -before Acts, and the history in Acts is not carried later than the year -62, eight years before that event. As the four undisputed Epistles were -all written before the year 60, the logical order will be to present the -testimony of Paul to the Resurrection before that of the Evangelists. - -[1] President Bartlett believes that notwithstanding its long line of -exposure, the outer historical difficulties seem reduced to the solitary -question of the taxing under Cyrenius. (The _Princeton Review_ for -January, 1880, p. 44.) Aside from any question of inspiration, it is -improbable that Luke made a mistake. Justin Martyr, who wrote at a very -early period, in his Apology to the Roman Emperor, refers to this taxing -as a well known event (Ap., c. 34). He again refers to it in his Dialogue -(c. 78) as being the first census taken in Judea under Cyrenius. Celsus, -who was not wanting in skill or inclination to attack at all points, -found no occasion here. It may well be that a person holding the office -which Cyrenius held at the first enrolment was called a “procurator.” Or -Luke in speaking of this enrolment may have referred to Cyrenius by the -title which he afterwards bore; or Cyrenius may have been in the office -twice. President Bartlett also concludes with Warrenton that there is not -any instance of a really inapposite quotation from the Old Testament, -although the quotations are sometimes inaccurate. He also concludes that -the instances of alleged _contradictions_ may be reduced to five, and -that there is no insurmountable difficulty in reconciling them. But, for -reasons stated in the text, the inquiry is not material to our argument. - -[2] Many suppose that the “we” are the Elders at Ephesus. But if so, why -did they not sign? The “we” preceded by the unmistakable reference to -John and followed by the first person singular, in the closing verse, is -as likely to have been John. - -[3] “Synoptics”—a word often used by writers at the present day to -designate the first three Gospels. - -[4] The Apocalypse is quite different in style and in respect to pure -Greek. For these reasons and others some of the early Fathers denied that -the Apostle wrote it. But such was the early tradition. Justin Martyr -refers to him as the author, and as Dr. Sears, in his Heart of Christ, -well argues, these differences are sufficiently accounted for by the -highly excited state of mind in which the Apocalypse was written; and he -points out many agreements both in doctrine and mode of expression. - -[5] Three years, and possibly four. - -[A] Its omission of Peter’s want of faith, as recorded in Matthew 14-30, -is an exception. - -[6] Wright’s Logic, etc., p. 210; Norton’s Genuineness, etc., Vol. I., p. -188; Wescott’s Introduction, cc. 3 and 4. - - - - -CHAPTER XV. - -THE APOCALYPSE AND THE FOUR EPISTLES. - - -While all Infidels, from Celsus before the year 180 to Waite, in 1881, -have agreed that “either Jesus was not really dead, or he did not -really rise again,” some[1] of them have assumed the one, and some the -other alternative. Strauss, with Celsus, doubts the reality of the -resurrection, rather than the death. Schleiermacher, on the other hand, -held that Jesus returned again to life from a state of lethargy; and this -view, although not the position generally taken by skeptics, is still -held by a very few. - -There have been two institutions in the Christian church, the Lord’s -Supper and the Lord’s day, that have testified from the beginning that -Jesus was really dead, and did really rise again from the dead. They -displaced the Jewish Passover and the Jewish Sabbath, both strongly -entrenched in the law of Moses and long established custom. Such -substitution can be accounted for, only upon the hypothesis of the -fullest conviction of the death and resurrection of our Lord. The Lord’s -day is referred to by Paul in First Corinthians (c. xvi.) under the -designation of “the first day of the week,” and is mentioned by John -in Revelation (c. i. 10), where he says, “I was in the Spirit on the -Lord’s Day.” The Lord’s Supper has great prominence given to it by Paul -in the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians. Those to whom he writes -are admonished not to eat “of that bread,” or drink “of that cup,” in -an unworthy manner, “For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this -cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” As to the origin of -this sacrament, he says, “I have received of the Lord that which I also -delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was -betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake and said, -Take, eat; this is my body broken for you; this do in remembrance of -me: and after the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, -saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye as oft as -ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” This Epistle was written as early as -the year[2] 57, or within 27 years after the Crucifixion. It is not to be -doubted that such a command would be observed from the first formation -of any church. Both the death and resurrection of Christ appear in the -book of Revelation. He is called “The first begotten of the dead” (c. -i. 5), “He that liveth and was dead” (c. i. 88), “The Lamb as it had -been slain,” before whom the four living creatures and the elders (as -representing the whole Church) fall down, saying, “Thou art worthy to -take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and -hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, -and people, and nation” (c. v. 6 to 10). And John says that he was in -exile, “for the Word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ” -(c. i. 9). What was this “testimony,” other than that which Luke says -in Acts (c. iv. 2) was given by Peter and John when the Sadducees were -“grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus Christ -the resurrection from the dead;” or other than that, given by Peter in -the presence of John, (c. iii. 15) that the Jews had “killed the Prince -of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead; _whereof we are witnesses_.” -Even from the book of Revelation[3] alone, were there no other proof, -should we conclude that _John_ testified that Jesus died and rose again. - -This was the burden of _Paul’s_ preaching and the inspiration of his life. - -Nor do we stop with Paul. From his writings we know that all the Apostles -and the whole Church from the beginning, maintained the same grand theme -with all the strength of conviction of which men are capable. He had been -preaching three years prior to the first visit to Jerusalem referred -to in Galatians (c. i. 18). At this visit he had “returned again,” to -Damascus. His leaving Damascus was probably the time when he was let -down from the wall in a basket, as stated in Second Corinthians (c. xi. -33), and the city was then held “under Aretus the King.” Fourteen years -after his conversion or his escape (it is uncertain which), he went up -to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with him. The precise date -of his conversion is unknown, but was approximately[4] in the year 36. -He writes of the last visit mentioned in Galatians, “that when James, -Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was -given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; -that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” -From that time, then, if not before, with the full recognition of all -the Apostles, he became distinctively the Apostle to the Gentiles. And -at the first visit mentioned, he saw James, the Lord’s brother, and also -Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. Afterwards, he went into the -regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face unto the churches -of Judea, but they had heard, “That he which persecuted us in times past -now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed;” and he says, “they -glorified God in me” (c. i. 18-24). He says in the thirteenth verse, “Ye -have heard of my conversation in time past, in the Jews’ religion, how -that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted it.” - -As there is no doubt what “the faith” was, which he preached after his -conversion, so there is no doubt what “the faith” was “which once he -destroyed.” Within three years after the commencement of his ministry, he -saw James the Lord’s brother, and abode with Peter fifteen days; and at -the expiration of the fourteen years, _all_ the Apostles were ready to -give him the right hand of fellowship. As there is no doubt what “faith” -_he_ preached (which was the same which he had destroyed), so there is -none as to what faith the _others_ preached, and _had_ preached from the -beginning. _His conversion was within six years of the Crucifixion._ -As he from that time preached Jesus and the Resurrection, there is no -doubt but that Jesus and the Resurrection were preached during the six -years before his conversion. Hence, from Paul’s four Epistles (whose -genuineness is beyond controversy), we are inevitably carried back to -the first ministry of _any_ of the Apostles, for the time when the -doctrine of the Resurrection was _first_ proclaimed. This conclusion is -reached without recourse to the testimony of either of the Evangelists; -and believers may say with Renan, though in a different spirit, “Thanks -to the Epistle to the Galatians!” If from this Epistle the _precise_ -commencement of the ministry of Peter and John cannot be determined, it -must be inferred that it was before, and apparently some time before, -Paul’s conversion, which, as has been seen, was _within six years_ of the -Crucifixion. For this reason, as well as many others, the importance of -Paul’s testimony can hardly be overestimated. - -But in order that its full force may be better apprehended, it may be -useful to present it more in detail, as: In Romans “God commendeth his -love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” -(Rom. v. 8); “Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more” (Rom. -vi. 9); “Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is even -at the right hand of God” (Rom. viii. 34); “Declared to be the Son of -God, with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection -from the dead” (Rom. i. 4); “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in -thy heart, that is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt -confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart -_that God hath raised him from the dead_, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. x. -8, 9); And to the Galatians—“Paul, an Apostle, not of men, neither by -man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who _raised him from the -dead_” (Gal. i. 1); And to the Corinthians—“Now if Christ be preached -that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no -resurrection of the dead!” “But if there be no resurrection of the dead, -then is _Christ_ not risen;” “And if Christ be not risen, then is our -preaching vain, and your faith is also vain;” “Yea, and we are found -false witnesses of God because we have _testified_ of God that he raised -up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not” (1 -Cor. xv. 12 to 16); “For I delivered unto you FIRST OF ALL that which -I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the -Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day -according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the -twelve; after that he was seen of about five hundred brethren at once, -of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen -asleep; after that he was seen of James; then of all the Apostles; and -last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time; for I am -the least of the Apostles and am not meet to be called an Apostle because -I persecuted the Church of God” (1 Cor. xv. 3-10). - -We know not with what body Jesus appeared to Paul six years after his -ascension; nor with what body or just when his saints shall rise. But -when Paul says that Christ, having died for our sins, was _buried_ and -rose again the _third day_, and was seen by those enumerated, it would -be a most violent perversion of language to infer that it was not a -_material_ resurrection. His flesh had not then seen corruption, and he -had not yet ascended. The state of things had changed at the time he was -seen by Paul, and hence the mode of his appearance was different. Paul -could not have been ignorant that the Apostles were persuaded that they -beheld and handled the corporeal body of their risen Lord, and if he -had entertained a different idea of the character of the appearances to -them, he could not have written as we have quoted. As will be shown in -subsequent chapters, he had “received,” a corporeal resurrection, and so -he “delivered.” - -These four Epistles of Paul were written about A.D. 58, or within -less than thirty years from the Crucifixion. By them, two things are -established beyond dispute. _First_, the doctrine of the Resurrection, -whether true or false, is not a _myth or legend_, in any sense in which -those words are commonly understood, or in any sense in which they -should ever be used. Nor are the appearances or _supposed_ appearances -of our risen Lord, mentioned by Paul (whether they be regarded as real -or not), _myths or legends_. The _doctrine_ of the Resurrection was not -the product of a subsequent age; it was received from the beginning. Nor -were the _appearances_ of our risen Lord, which were the basis of that -doctrine, the product of a subsequent age. A skeptic, if he will or must, -may say that the doctrine is not true, and that the appearances which -were accepted as evidence of it were not real; but he cannot without an -abuse of language say that the one, or the others, are _myths or legends_. - -_Second_, the Apostles and early disciples most intensely believed the -doctrine to be true, and the appearances to be real. Even Strauss is -compelled to admit their sincerity. He concedes that the Epistle to the -Corinthians is undoubtedly genuine. And he says that on its authority, -“One must believe that many members of the primitive church who were -yet living at the time when this Epistle was written, especially the -Apostles, were convinced that they had witnessed appearances of the risen -Christ.” (Strauss’ Life, etc., p. 832.) And this is generally conceded by -all skeptics at the present day who have any claim to be even tolerably -informed upon the subject of the Resurrection, and any disposition to -deal with it in any spirit of fairness. This narrows our inquiry very -much. Thus far we rest on solid ground. We start with the fact fully -established, that we are not dealing with myths, or legends, concerning -a remote transaction. We know precisely what convictions in respect to -the Resurrection were entertained at the very time of the transaction, -by those best qualified to judge; and we also know many of the facts, -upon which these convictions were based. We may say, if we choose, that -the supposed appearances were not real; but we cannot say they are an -_afterthought_. They must have been entertained from the very beginning, -certainly as early as the day of Pentecost. The Apostles believed with -most intense earnestness, that they had seen their _Risen Lord_, and had -received from him their Commission to disciple all nations, baptizing -them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. - -Their honesty being conceded, the only question remaining is, _were -they deceived_? Mistake on their part could only have been in one or -two things; either that he did not die upon the cross, or else that -he was not alive afterward. And here it is important to observe, that -the Evangelists do little more than give to some extent the times and -circumstances of transactions already declared, in the Epistles, to have -occurred. Of course those transactions as they were understood when the -Epistles were written, _had_ their times and circumstances. Paul declared -what he had “received,”—that Jesus _died_ and was _buried_. The Gospels -state the time and the attending circumstances. Paul declared, as he had -“received,”—that Christ _rose again the third day_. The Gospels state -the circumstances. Paul declared, as he had “received,”—that Jesus after -he rose on the third day, was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, after -that by about five hundred brethren, after that by James, and then again -by all the Apostles. The Gospels and the first chapter of Acts state the -circumstances of some, though not of all, of these several appearances. -From what we know already from Paul’s Epistles, further information -from some source should be expected; and the Evangelists afford that -information. We must believe that they state the _circumstances_, as they -were understood when Paul wrote his Epistles, and as they were understood -when the Resurrection was first proclaimed on the day of Pentecost. As -the principal facts, _i. e._ the Resurrection and subsequent visible -appearances till the Ascension, were not an afterthought, neither are -the _circumstances_ attending them as recorded by the Evangelists, an -afterthought. In respect to these circumstances, we can see and know -what the Apostles _supposed_ they saw, and heard, and knew. - -The Evangelists, therefore, by stating circumstances not specified by -Paul, enable us to determine more certainly, whether the Apostles were -deceived. And what they state of Christ’s predictions of his death and -his resurrection, may also help us to determine whether the Apostles were -deceived. - -[1] Strauss’ Life of Jesus, Vol. II., pp. 843-4; Godet’s Com. on St. -Luke, A.D. 1881, p. 511. - -[2] Conybeare and Howson’s Life, etc., of Paul, p. 962. - -[3] Judge Waite will not admit John’s authorship, and he cites Eusebius -cc. 3-39, as having attributed the Apocalypse to John the Presbyter. -This may indicate a present “tendency” by skeptical writers to shift -their ground. Eusebius, however, only states that there were two, John -the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, and that “it is probable that the -second, if it be not allowed that it was the first, saw the Revelation -ascribed to John.” Justin Martyr had long before (Dial., c. 81) in -express terms given John the Apostle as the author; and such is the -general verdict of scholars. - -[4] Conybeare and Howson, pp. 438, 961, 964. - - - - -CHAPTER XVI. - -HIS PREDICTIONS CONCERNING HIMSELF. - - -In the account of Christ’s crucifixion by Matthew and Mark, it is -recorded that they which passed by railed on him, saying,—“Thou that -destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself”; and -that witnesses had testified to the same accusation, but did not agree. -The disagreement seems to have been, that some (Mark xiv. 58) testified -that he said,—“I will destroy this temple that is made with hands and -in three days I will build another made without hands,” and the others -(Matthew xxvi. 61) “I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build -it in three days.” The Evangelists properly characterize both classes -as _false_ witnesses. Jesus had not said, “_I will_ destroy,” nor “I -am _able_ to destroy,” but, “Destroy (_thou_) this temple.” It was not -a destroying by _him_, but by _them_; and it was the temple of his own -body. It was the earliest, and in some respects the most striking of his -predictions of his death and resurrection. It was on the occasion of his -cleansing the temple at the first Passover. The Jews demanded of him, -“What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things?” Jesus -said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” The -Jews therefore said, “Forty and six years was this temple in building, -and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of -his body. When, therefore, he was raised from the dead his disciples -remembered that he spake this, and they believed the Scripture and the -word which Jesus had said.” (John ii. 13 to 22.) - -It must have been soon after this Passover, and certainly before John -the Baptist was cast into prison, that Jesus said to Nicodemus, that, -as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son -of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal -life. (John iii. 14, 15.) Nicodemus does not appear again, until his mild -protest to the rest of the Sanhedrim,—“Doth our law judge a man except -it first hear from himself, and know what he doeth?”[1] They answered -and said unto him, “Art thou also of Galilee? Search and see that out -of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” He was silent. (John viii. 45 to 52.) -But when Jesus had been put to death as a malefactor, no longer afraid, -he comes with Joseph of Arimathea, bringing a mixture of myrrh and -aloes, about a hundred pounds weight, and they gave the Crucified One a -princely burial. (John xix. 39, 40, 41.) What had wrought this change in -Nicodemus? The lifting up upon the cross, was to _him_ assured proof that -Jesus was a true “prophet, and more than a prophet.” - -On more than one occasion in his early ministry, Jesus in reply to a -demand for a sign from heaven had said, “There shall no sign be given -but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for as Jonah was three days and three -nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be three days -and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew xii. 38 to 40; -Luke xi. 29.) That he should be there only three days and three nights -implied his resurrection. To any objection that he was not in the tomb -any part of three nights, the customary[2] use of language among the Jews -is a sufficient answer. In the _Talm hieros_, it is said that a day and a -night together make up a period; and a part of such a period is counted -as the whole. It is a received[3] rule among the Jews that a part of a -day is put for the whole. Yet that the prediction was expressed in such -terms, is strong evidence of the truthfulness of the record. As Godet -well says, “Who would ever have dreamed of _falsely_ putting in the mouth -of Jesus the expression three days and three nights, when in actual fact -the time spent in the tomb did not exceed one day and two nights?” - -Jesus, when called to account for healing on the Sabbath day, answered: -“My Father worketh even until now, and I work.” For this cause, -therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only -broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself -equal with God. In reply Jesus said: “For as the Father raiseth the dead, -and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will ... Verily, -verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh and now is, when the dead shall -hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.... -Marvel not at this, for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the -tomb shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done -good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done ill, unto -the resurrection of judgment.” (John v. 1 to 29.) - -In his discourse in the Synagogue at Capernaum, concerning the manna, he -said to the Jews: “The bread which I give is my flesh (that is, my life), -for the life of the world.... For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood -is drink indeed.... Many therefore of his disciples when they heard, -said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can hear it?’ But Jesus knowing in -himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, ‘Doth this -cause you to stumble? _What_ then if ye behold the Son of man ascending -where he was before.’” (John vi. 30 to 63.) - -His first distinct announcement that he should be put to death and -be raised from the dead, was upon Peter’s confession,— “Thou art the -Christ the Son of the living God;” and it doubtless was in consequence -of this confession. It was after John the Baptist had been put to -death, and after the third Passover, but before the time had come for -a public declaration of his Messiahship; for he charged the disciples -that they should tell no man that he was the Christ. The place was in -the coast of Cesarea Philippi, near the sources of the Jordan. With -verbal differences, the same account substantially is given by each -of the Synoptics, and as follows: “From that time began Jesus to show -unto his disciples, how that he must go into Jerusalem and suffer many -things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and the third day -be raised up.” (Matthew xvi. 21.) “And he began to teach them that the -Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and -the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days -rise again.” (Mark viii. 31.) “The Son of Man must suffer many things -and be rejected of the elders and the chief priests and scribes and be -killed, and the third day be raised up.” (Luke ix. 22.) Such is the -testimony of these three witnesses. They agree also, that he warned the -disciples not to anticipate worldly glory, but the reverse. Peter, from -_his_ conception of the Messiahship, treated Christ’s predictions of his -death as but gloomy forebodings, and began to rebuke him, saying, “Be it -far from thee, Lord; this shall never be unto thee.” But he turned and -said unto Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling block -unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men.” -(Matthew xvi. 23; Mark viii. 33.) - -Six or eight days after these transactions Jesus took with him Peter -and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray; and he was -transfigured before them. As they were coming down from the mountain -“he commanded them to tell the vision to no man until the Son of Man be -risen from the dead.” (Matthew xvii. 1, 2; Mark viii. 2 to 9; Luke ix. -28 to 36.) Mark adds (doubtless from Peter), that they kept that saying, -questioning among themselves, what the rising again from the dead should -mean. - -Elijah’s appearance suggested to them the question, “Why do the scribes -say that Elijah must first come?” To which Jesus replied, “Elijah is come -already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they listed. -Even so shall the Son of Man also suffer of them.” Then understood the -disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist (Matthew xvii. 10 -to 13). Mark (ix. 12 to 14) puts the reference to the Son of Man in the -form of a question: “And how is it written of the Son of Man that he -should suffer many things and be set at naught? But I say unto you that -Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they listed, -even as it is written of him.” In either form his own death is predicted. - -After the transfiguration he went to Capernaum, passing through Galilee. -“And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, ‘The Son of Man -shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and -the third day he shall be raised up.’ And they were exceeding sorry.” -(Matthew xvii. 22, 23.) “‘The Son of Man is delivered up into the hands -of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three -days he shall rise again.’ But they understood not the saying, and were -afraid to ask him.” (Mark ix. 30 to 32.) “‘Let these words sink into -your ears: for the Son of Man shall be delivered up into the hands of -men.’ But they understood not this saying, and it was concealed from them -that they should not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask him about -this saying.” (Luke ix. 44, 45.) It is not necessary to suppose that -it was otherwise concealed than by their dullness of apprehension, and -preconceived opinions. - -At the feast of Tabernacles, Jesus said to the officers whom the -Pharisees had sent to take him: “Yet a little while am I with you, and -I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me and shall not find me: and -where I am ye cannot come.” (John vii. 32 to 35.) - -He said the same to the Pharisees or the “Jews,” the day following the -feast as he taught in the temple; and they said, “Will he kill himself, -that he saith whither I go ye cannot come?” In reply, after repeating his -previous declaration, he said, “When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, -then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but -as the Father taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is -with me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the things that are -pleasing to him.” (John viii. 21 to 30.) - -In the parable of the good shepherd spoken soon after the Feast, Jesus -says: “I am the good shepherd ... and I lay down my life for the -sheep.... Therefore doth the Father love me because I lay down my life -that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me, but I lay it -down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it -again. This commandment received I of my Father.” (John x. 11 to 18.) - -He said to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth -on me, though he die yet shall he live.” (John xi. 25.) - -As he was going up to Jerusalem to the Passover at which he was to -suffer, he again repeated his announcement to his disciples. “Behold we -go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief -priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall -deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, to scourge, and to crucify; and -the third day he shall be raised up.” (Matthew xx. 18, 19.) “Behold, we -go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief -priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall -deliver him unto the Gentiles; and they shall mock him, and shall spit -upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days -he shall rise again.” (Mark x. 33, 34.) “Behold we go up to Jerusalem, -and all the things that are written by the prophets shall be accomplished -unto the Son of Man; for he shall be delivered up unto the Gentiles, and -shall be mocked, and shamefully entreated, and spit upon; and they shall -scourge and kill him; and the third day he shall rise again. And they -understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them; and -they perceived not the things that were said.” (Luke xviii. 31 to 34.) - -Immediately after (as it would seem), the mother of James and John came -with them with the request, that the sons might sit one on his right -hand, and one on his left hand, in his kingdom. The ten were moved with -indignation. But Jesus said, “The Son of Man came not to be ministered -unto, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matthew -xx. 20 to 28; Mark x. 45.) - -Six days before the Passover, he came to Bethany, where Lazarus was whom -he had raised from the dead, and they made him a supper in the house of -Simon; and Mary (the sister of Lazarus) anointed his head and feet with -very precious ointment. This excited the anger of Judas. Jesus said, “Why -trouble ye the woman, for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye -have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always, for in that she -poured this ointment upon my body she did it to prepare me for burial. -Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the -whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for -a memorial of her.” (Matthew xxvi. 6 to 13; Mark xiv. 3 to 10; John xii. -2 to 8.) - -Immediately after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, on the first day of -the week of his crucifixion, he was told that certain Greeks desired to -see him. It was to him a sign of his glorification among the Gentiles, -and, therefore, of his death. He answered, “The hour is come that the Son -of Man should be glorified. Verily, verily I say unto you, except a grain -of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but -if it die, it beareth much fruit.... Now is my soul troubled; and what -shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I -unto this hour.... And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all -men unto myself.” But this he said signifying by what manner of death he -should die.” (John xii. 20 to 22.) - -The parable of the wicked husbandman (to be found in all the Synoptics) -represents them as killing the son and heir, by whom, as the context -shows, our Lord was intended. And Jesus said, “Did ye never read in the -Scriptures: - - ‘The stone which the builders rejected, - The same was made the head of the corner; - This was from the Lord, - And it is marvellous in our eyes.’ - -Therefore, say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from -you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. -And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces; but on -whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.” (Matthew xxi. 42 -to 45; Mark xii. 1 to 12; Luke xx. 9 to 10.) - -And every day he was teaching in the temple; every night he went out and -lodged in the Mount of Olives till the third day of the week (Tuesday) -with which his public ministry ended; and then he departed from the -temple, never to return. - -When he had finished his teaching in the temple, he said unto his -disciples, “Ye know that after two days the Passover cometh, and the Son -of Man is delivered up to be crucified.” (Matthew xxvi. 2.) - -Peter and John, as he had directed, made ready the Passover, and when the -hour was come, he sat down, and the Apostles with him. And he said unto -them, “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I -suffer.” (Luke xxii. 7 to 15.) - -All the Evangelists state, that Jesus at the Passover supper said to the -twelve, “One of you shall betray me”; and two of the Evangelists say that -he designated the traitor, by the giving of the sop. (Matthew xxvi. 21 to -25; Mark xiv. 18 to 21; Luke xxii. 21 to 23; John xiii. 21 to 35.) - -After giving him the sop, Jesus said to Judas, “That thou doest do -quickly;” and he having received the sop, went out straightway to carry -out that which he had before agreed; _and it was night_. (Luke xxii. 2 to -6; John xiii. 26 to 30.) - -After Judas had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the son of man glorified, -and God is glorified in him; and to Peter he said, Whither I go thou -canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow afterwards.” (John xii. -36, 37.) - -To the institution of the Lord’s Supper, there is the testimony of -the three Synoptic Gospels, and that of Paul; four witnesses; and its -constant observance from that time to the present. It was to commemorate -his death to the end of the world,—“Take, eat, this is my body.... Drink -ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant which is shed for -many unto remission of sins.” (Matthew xvii. 26 to 28.) “Take ye; this -is my body.” “This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many.” -(Mark xiv. 22 to 25.) “This is my body which is given for you; this do in -remembrance of me.... This cup is the new covenant in my blood, _even_ -that which is poured out for you.” (Luke xxii. 18 to 22.) “This is my -body, which is for you; this do in remembrance of me.... This cup is the -new covenant in my blood; this do as oft as ye drink _it_ in remembrance -of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim -the Lord’s death till he come.” (1 Corinthians xi. 23 to 28.) - -To his saying that he would go before them into Galilee after his -resurrection, there are _two_ witnesses. It was after they had sung -their hymn, and had gone out unto the Mount of Olives. “All ye shall be -offended in me this night; for it is written I will smite the shepherd, -and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am -raised up I will go before you into Galilee.” So, Matthew. Mark’s account -is: “And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended; for it is -written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered -abroad. Howbeit after I am raised up I will go before you into Galilee.” -(Matthew xxvi. 31, 32; Mark xiv. 27, 28.) - -That Peter should thrice deny that he knew him, is proved by _all_ the -Evangelists. “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, that this night before -the cock crow[4] thou shalt deny me thrice.” (Matthew xxvi. 34, 35.) “I -tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, until thou shalt -thrice deny that thou knowest me.” (Luke xxii. 34.) “Verily, verily, I -say unto thee, the cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.” -(John xiii. 38.) Mark (probably from Peter himself) says that when Peter -said, “Although all should be offended, yet will not I,” Jesus said to -him, “Verily I say unto thee, that thou to-day, _even_ this night, before -the cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice.” “But he spake exceeding -vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like -manner said they all.” (Mark xiv. 26 to 31.) - -Yet in the discourse which followed, Jesus again says, “Behold the hour -cometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, -and shall leave me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is -with me.” (John x. 31, 32.) - -“Yet a little while, and the world beholdeth me no more; but ye behold -me; because I live ye shall live also.” (John xiv. 19, 20.) - -“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you; not as the world -giveth I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be -fearful.” - -“Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved -me ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father, for the Father -is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that -when it is come to pass ye may believe.” (John xiv. 27 to 31.) - -“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for -his friends. Ye are my friends if ye do the things which I command you.” -(John xv. 13, 14.) - -“But now I go unto him that sent me, and none of you asketh me, Whither -goest thou? But because I have spoken these things unto you sorrow hath -filled your heart.” (John xv. 5, 6.) - -“A little while and ye behold me no more, and again a little while and ye -shall see me.” (John xv. 16.) - -“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the -world shall rejoice; ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be -turned into joy.” (John xvi. 20.) - -“And I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to -thee.” (John xvii. 11.) - -“Again the high priest asked him and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, -the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am, and ye shall see the Son -of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of -heaven.” (Mark xiv. 62.) - -To Pilate he said, “I am a king”; and “Thou wouldst have no power against -me, except it were given thee from above.” (John xviii. 33 to 37; xix. -11.) - -To the penitent thief he said, “Verily, I say unto thee, to-day shalt -thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke xxiii. 43.) - -When he had cried with a loud voice HE SAID, “FATHER, INTO THY HANDS -I COMMEND MY SPIRIT.” (Luke xxiii. 46.) And all the Evangelists, four -witnesses, say that he “gave up,” or “yielded up,” the ghost. - -There is as much evidence of these utterances (and they are not _all_ of -his predictions, in some form, of his death and resurrection), as there -is of any of his sayings upon any subject, and they are so interwoven -with the entire narrative that is impossible to set them aside, and -leave anything to which we can safely assent as historically true of all -his recorded acts and words. There is no alternative, except to believe -that he uttered these predictions, or else to arbitrarily set aside -the testimony of the four Evangelists, as well as that of Paul. It is -impossible to save their character as honest witnesses, and deny that -Jesus at various times, and in different ways, foretold his death and the -circumstances attending it, and also his resurrection, and that after he -was raised from the dead, he would go before them into Galilee. Not that -we have the _precise_ words, neither more nor less, that he uttered. In -no instance do any two of the five witnesses give _precisely_ the same -words. Their testimony is in accordance with what usually[A] occurs, with -honest witnesses. The witness says, “I cannot give the exact words, or -all of them.” He is told to give the substance of what was said; and he -does so to the extent of his recollection, using some of the same words, -doubtless, but in the main expressing the idea in language of his own. -Yet there is sufficient certainty, for the court or jury, in matters -of the greatest concern. It is, in the highest degree, unreasonable to -demand more of the Evangelists. It is also to be borne in mind that -neither of them professes to give all of our Lord’s sayings; and John, -writing much later than the others, purposely omitted many things as -having been already sufficiently stated. - -If, then (as it cannot be doubted was a fact), Jesus plainly foretold -his death, why did it take his disciples by surprise? The answer to -this question may be that not till within six months of the close of -his ministry were they thus told; those months were crowded with his -teachings and miracles, multitudes were following him; he had just before -entered Jerusalem as they might expect their Messiah would do, amidst the -hosannahs of thousands; and they were so filled with their visions of his -glory, and their false conceptions of the predicted Messiah, whom they -believed him to be, that they could not understand him. Their mistake -under the circumstances was a natural one. (See also _post_, c. 19.) - -[1] Canon Farrar’s Life of Christ, c. 13; Lange, ditto, Vol. II., p. 29; -John ii. 13-22, and iii 22-25. Here, and in all _subsequent_ references, -the citations are from the Revised Version of the New Testament, unless -otherwise stated. - -[2] Lange, Vol. II., p. 273, note, citing Stier, ii, 171. - -[3] Lange, Vol. II., p. 273, note; Godet on Luke, p. 265; Whitby, as -quoted by Scott, on Matthew xii. 40; Genesis i. 5; Daniel viii. 14, with -Genesis vii. 4 and 17; Deuteronomy xiv. 28, with xxvi. 12; 1 Samuel xx. -12, with v. 19; 2 Chronicles x. 5, with v. 12; Matthew xxvi. 2, with -xxvii. 63 and 64; Luke ii. 21, with i. 59; 1 Kings xx. 29; Esther iv. 16; -Greenleaf on the Evangelists, etc., 268, 269 and notes. - -[4] The cock crows about midnight and about three in the morning, which -was the beginning of the fourth watch. Galicinium (Cock-crowing) standing -alone means the latter time; so that the same time is referred to by all. -Greenleaf’s Testimony, etc., p. 436, and citations. - -[A] See _post_, c. 19. - - - - -CHAPTER XVII. - -ORDER OF EVENTS. - - -Whatever difficulties may exist as to minor points, all the facts -necessary to a correct decision of the question of the Resurrection -may be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the order of their -occurrence.[A] - -That Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate is the testimony of -all history. That his crucifixion was the day before the Jewish Sabbath -is proved by all the Evangelists, and the constant observance of the -First Day of the week as the Lord’s Day. - -Having been condemned to death, and his execution entrusted to Roman -soldiers, there is the strongest presumption that the sentence was fully -executed. This presumption is confirmed by all the Evangelists, by Paul -in all his Epistles, and by the constant teaching of all the Apostles. -On the day of Pentecost, Peter boldly said, Ye men of Israel, Jesus of -Nazareth being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge -of God, “ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay;” and no one -called in question the fact of his death. Again, at the healing of the -lame man, he declared, “Ye denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked -for a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince of Life;” -this charge he repeated before the Sanhedrim; and there was no denial. -When Peter and John, after their release from prison, were brought before -the Council, one charge against them was: “Ye have filled Jerusalem with -your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” Stephen, -when brought before the Council, declared, “Ye have now become the -betrayers and murderers ... of the Righteous One.” If there could have -been the slightest doubt of the actual death of Christ, the Council would -have furnished the evidence. - -John solemnly declares that “one of the soldiers, with a spear, pierced -his side, and straightway there came out blood and water.” It was a -thrust by a Roman soldier to make the fact of death absolutely certain. -It was such a result as would have followed, if, from excessive labors -and extreme agony, there was a collection of water about the heart, -or if from like causes, and as Dr. Stroud and other eminent surgeons -suppose,[1] the cause of his death was a rupture or breaking of the heart. - -And, finally, not less than forty times, on different occasions, and in a -variety of ways, had Jesus foretold his death. He instituted a Sacrament -to commemorate it; he said to the penitent thief: “This day shalt thou be -with me in Paradise;” and in the extreme moment, “Father, into thy hands -I commend my Spirit.” It is not possible to accept the hypothesis of his -return to life from a state of lethargy, without destroying _his_ moral -character, as well as that of his disciples. Where was he, when Peter and -Stephen were charging home his death upon the guilty Jews? Where was he, -when Stephen suffered martyrdom for his sake, and when his apostles and -disciples were preaching his death and resurrection? - -Even Strauss is constrained to say “The whole country-side knew that he -was dead.” - -He was buried. So says Paul, and[2] all the Evangelists. As the day of -the crucifixion was drawing to its close, that the bodies should not -remain on the cross[2] upon the Sabbath (for that day[2] of the Sabbath, -was a high day), the Jews asked of Pilate that the legs of those who had -been crucified might be broken,[2] and they be taken away. The soldiers -brake the legs of the others, but not of Jesus, for they found that he -was already dead; and his death was assured by one of the soldiers. -Thereupon Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man and a counsellor, begged the -body of Jesus. Pilate, after he knew from the centurion that he was -dead, commanded it to be delivered. Joseph, with Nicodemus, wound it in -fine linen with spices, and laid it in his own new tomb, hewn out in the -rock, rolled a great stone “to,” or “against” the door, and departed. -The sepulchre was “nigh at hand,” otherwise, there would not have been -time for the burial before the coming in of the Sabbath. The next[3] day -the chief priests and Pharisees or some of them, obtained from Pilate a -guard, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone (Matthew xxvii. 62, -66). - -The objection that they could not have known that Jesus had said, “After -three days I will rise again,” is well answered by Alford: “Not the -saying, but its meaning was hid from his disciples.” Judas knew it, and -may have informed the chief priests and Pharisees of it; and they may -have known it from other sources, for it was not spoken in secret. Nor -with their perverse rejection of him while they could not deny his works, -is it improbable that they might have some apprehension of the necessity -of a guard? We are not to judge them from our standpoint, but from -theirs. They did _not_ believe that he was the Messiah (Acts iii. 17; 1 -Corinthians ii. 8). They said and doubtless believed, after a fashion, -“He deceiveth the people” and “casteth out devils through the prince -of the devils.” Their guilty fears were the occasion of this increased -certainty of his resurrection. The mention of a guard by Matthew -(although not by the other Evangelists), is in perfect keeping with his -previous occupation, which had led him to make, and observe, precautions -against fraud. It was, in his view, as in ours, an important fact that -their precautions against imposition had reacted upon themselves. His -narrative is unimpeached. It was published early, and his statement of -the appointment of a guard was not contradicted. - -The facts must stand that Jesus died, and was buried; and at the -instance of his bitterest foes, soldiers guarded his tomb against the -little company of his frightened followers. - -At a very early hour on the first day of the week it was known that the -stone had been rolled away, and the body of Jesus was not in the tomb. -Such is the testimony of all the Evangelists. This great fact is at the -threshold of our inquiry. It must be accounted for. The Christian’s -explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead, and an angel of the Lord -descended and rolled away the stone. The account which the soldiers were -induced to circulate was, that his disciples came by night and stole him -away while they slept. This story was current among the Jews when Matthew -wrote[4] his Gospel, and when, nearly a hundred years after, Justin -Martyr wrote to Trypho the Jew. It ought not to be difficult to determine -which explanation is the true one. - -As soon as Mary Magdalene (who was of the company of women who came first -to see the sepulchre), saw that the stone was rolled away, she ran to -Peter and John, saying, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb -and we know not where they have laid him.” (John xx. 2.) - -The other women[5] entered into the sepulchre, and found not the body of -Jesus, but saw two angels, one of whom said to them, “He is not here, he -is risen; but go your way and tell his disciples and Peter, that he goeth -before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him as he said unto you.” -(Why should the Apostles be told that Jesus would go before them into -Galilee, if he was to show himself to them that very day at Jerusalem? -Both to prepare them for the interview at Jerusalem, and in order that -the tidings might be carried to all the disciples, the most of whom were -in Galilee.) - -They departed quickly with fear and great joy, and told these things unto -such of the Apostles as they found in the city; but “these words appeared -in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them.” (Luke xxiv. 11.) - -As soon as Peter and John knew from Mary Magdalene, of the open -sepulchre, they ran both together, but John outran Peter and came -first to the tomb; “and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen -clothes lying; yet entered he not in. Simon Peter therefore also cometh, -following him, and enters into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen -clothes lying and the napkin that was upon his head, not lying with -the linen clothes, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then entered in -therefore the other disciple also, which came first to the tomb, and he -saw and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he must -rise again from the dead. So the disciples went away again unto their own -home.” (John xx. 1-10.) - -Such is the circumstantial account given by John of the state of things -at the tomb, as they found it before Jesus appeared to any one, and -before they had received any information that he had risen from the dead. -The body was not there. It could hardly have been removed by friends, and -they both be ignorant of it. Had it been taken by enemies? There were the -linen clothes, and there, rolled up in a place by itself, was the napkin. -Who had arranged them thus? “All had been done calmly, collectedly. -Neither earthly friends nor earthly foes had done it; the one would not -have stripped the garments from the body, the other would have been at -no pains so carefully to arrange[6] and deposit them.” So John must have -reasoned and, perhaps recalling what Jesus had said, he _believed_. He -believed from what he _saw_, and not from the Scriptures, for as yet he -knew not from them, that the Christ “must rise again from the dead.” It -is not probable that he then avowed his conviction. He trusted that Jesus -would, in due time, reveal himself to them all. - -The particulars of his appearance to Mary Magdalene appear in the Fourth -Gospel. She was not expecting to see him, and, blinded by her tears, -she knew not that it was Jesus until he spoke her name, doubtless in -a familiar tone. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, -_Rabboni_, which is to say, Master. She _would_ have clung to him. Jesus -had told his disciples before his crucifixion that he was to go to the -Father. But this event was yet in the future; and when she would detain -him, Jesus saith to her, Touch me not (or Take not hold on me) for I am -not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren and say to -them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and my God, and your -God. This would remind _them_ of what he had told them; and would remind -_her_, as Peter afterwards was reminded, that she would best manifest -her love by willing service. She obeyed. But those to whom she told it, -when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. -(Mark xvi. 17.) - -The other women after delivering the message of the angels, returned. -And behold Jesus met them saying “All Hail.” And they came and took hold -of his feet and worshipped him. Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: -go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they -see me. (Matthew xxviii. 9, 10.) Matthew, speaking in a general way, -does not distinguish this appearance from that to Mary Magdalene, but -blends the two together. The salutation was different, and the message -and the circumstances were different. Nor is it, as Strauss (p. 813) -vainly imagines, any objection to the hypothesis of separate appearances, -that it involves “a restless running to and fro of the disciples and -the women;” for under the intense excitement it could hardly have been -otherwise.[7] - -Jesus joined himself to two of the disciples on their journey to Emmaus, -discoursed to them by the way, and made himself known in the breaking -of bread. One of them was Cleopas, the other (his name not given) is -supposed[8] to have been Luke. When they left Jerusalem, the woman had -reported the message from the angel. Peter and John had returned from -the tomb, but no one had seen the Risen Lord. The time of their leaving -was before Mary Magdalene had told that she had seen the Lord. The day -therefore must have been considerably advanced before Jesus appeared to -her. - -It was toward evening, when Jesus sat down with them to meat. Their eyes -were opened and they knew him, and he “vanished out of their sight.” - -And they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the -eleven gathered together and them that were with them, saying, “The Lord -is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.” - -This, as we learn from Paul, was the first appearance to any of the -Apostles. The time and place are not mentioned. We only know that it was -before the arrival of the two disciples. Emmaus[9] was about eight miles -from Jerusalem. The narrative seems to indicate that the event had but -just occurred. - -The two disciples rehearsed the things that had happened. As they spake, -Jesus himself stood in the midst of the disciples, and said, “Peace be -unto you.” But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they -beheld a spirit. He said unto them, “Why are ye troubled, and wherefore -do reasonings arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, that it is I -myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye -behold me having.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands -and his feet; and while they still disbelieved for joy and wondered, he -said unto them, “Have ye here anything to eat?” and they gave him a piece -of broiled fish. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke xxiv. -35-43.) - -But Thomas, who was not with them, having said, “Except I shall see in -his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of -the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe,” Jesus -eight days after stood in their midst and said, “Peace be unto you.” -Then saith he to Thomas, “Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and -reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, -but believing.” Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God.” -Jesus saith unto him, “Because thou hast seen me thou hast believed; -blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.” (John xx. -24-29.) - -After these things Jesus manifested himself at the Sea of Tiberias, to -Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, James, John and two others. It was on this -occasion that he three times asked Simon Peter, “Lovest thou me?” and he -signified to him by what death he should glorify God. This is said to be -the _third_ time that he manifested himself to the disciples, _i. e._, to -the Apostles when they were together. (John xxi. 1-23.) - -Then he appeared (says Paul) to above five hundred brethren at once, -of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep. -Paul is speaking only of manifestations to Apostles or some of them. -The Apostles surely were not absent from this great assembly. All the -circumstances indicate that it was the meeting which he had provided[10] -for, before his crucifixion, and that it occurred on a mountain in -Galilee. - -Then he appeared to James. Paul is our authority. Neither time, -nor place, nor circumstance is given. It is strong confirmation of -the genuineness of our writings that there is no disclosure of the -particulars of the interview with either Peter, the first of the -Apostles, or with James, our Lord’s brother. Jesus doubtless had -something to say to each for himself alone, and none of the sacred -writers have lifted the veil. - -At the end of the forty days he led the Apostles out over against -Bethany, gave them his final charge, and lifted up his hands and blessed -them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he parted from them, and -was carried up into heaven. (Luke xxiv. 50-53; Acts i. 1-12.) - -Such are some of the proofs of his resurrection. Their sufficiency as -evidence of it, and its logical results, remain to be considered. - -[A] And hence there is no occasion to inquire whether the Evangelists -agree precisely as to the details (as far as given) of his arrest, or -trial, or crucifixion. That he was arrested and tried and crucified is -admitted on all hands. - -[1] Alford on John’s Gospel. Lange, Vol. III., pp. 333, 334. Stroud on -the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. Friedlieb, p. 167. The Last -Day of Our Lord’s Passion, by Rev. Wm. Hanna, LL.D., c. 13, and Appendix. -Barnes’ Notes, Vol. II., p. 386. - -[2] 1 Corinthians xv. 3, 4; Acts xiii. 28, 29; Deuteronomy xxi. 22, 23; -John xix. 31-39; Luke xxxiii. 50-54; Mark xv. 42-46; Matthew xxvii. 57-60. - -[3] It does not appear that there was a formal meeting of the Sanhedrim, -and the act may have proceeded from the more violent members of it. The -time may have been during their Sabbath, or at its close, which would -have been in season. Lange, Vol. III., p. 343; Farrar, c. 62. - -[4] Matthew xxviii. 15; Dialogue, c. 108. - -[5] Mary, the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod’s -steward, and other women from Galilee who beheld the sepulchre and -where he was laid. They may not have come all at the same time, but in -different companies. Matthew xvii. 55, 56, and xxviii, 1-7; Mark xv. 40, -41, 47, and xvi. 1-8; Luke xxiii. 49, 55, 56, and xxiv. 1-10; John xx. 1; -Lange, Vol. III., pp. 362, 368. - -[6] The Forty Days after Our Lord’s Resurrection, by Rev. William Hanna, -LL.D., p. 53. - -[7] The words “as they went to tell his disciples,” in our common -version, are wanting in the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts. Their -omission in the Revised Version removes a difficulty. The true text does -not state _when_ it was, that Jesus met them. - -[8] Lange, Vol. III., p. 383. - -[9] All attempts to identify this with certainty, out of the numerous -villages in the vicinity of Jerusalem, have failed. See Lange, Vol. III.; -Robinson, Vol. III., pp. 146-150; Barnes’ Notes, Vol. II., p. 107. - -[10] 1 Corinthians xv. 6; Matthew xxviii. 7, 10, 16; Mark xvi. 7, 15, 18; -Lange, Vol. III., p. 411; Farrar, c. 62; Hanna’s Forty Days, c. 8, p. -185; c. 9, p. 229; Geikie, c. 64. - - - - -CHAPTER XVIII. - -SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS (FALSE ASSUMPTIONS). - - -Evidence which ought to convince a reasonable man should be deemed -sufficient. - -The standing objection from the days of Celsus, that Jesus should have -shown himself after his resurrection to his enemies, is unreasonable. It -is as if one should refuse to believe the transfiguration, the raising of -the daughter of Jairus, or the agony in the garden, because not witnessed -by the multitude, and by only Peter, James, and John of the Apostles. - -His humiliation and sufferings were ended. Not again was he to be mocked, -and scourged, and crucified. Those who had wilfully rejected him, would -have been no more convinced than before. They had said he cast out -devils through the prince of devils. They had plotted to put Lazarus -also to death, whom he had raised up before their eyes. They had bribed -the soldiers to report that his body had been stolen. They would have -proclaimed that he was not dead, or else that his return to life was by -the agency of Satan. To return to those who had put every insult upon -him, and were ready to renew the attack, could only have been to their -swift destruction, and the time for this had not come. - -And even if some of them had believed, it would have added nothing to the -proof. Any one who now refuses to accept the genuineness of the Gospel, -or the credibility of the writers, or, accepting both, refuses to believe -upon the testimony of his disciples, would not be convinced by any amount -of evidence. There would remain every question of credibility, and, in -addition, that of personal identity, as to which only those intimately -acquainted with him were fully qualified to judge. - -The proofs will be found sufficient by those who are disposed to lay -aside preconceived adverse opinions, and believe the fact when it is -proved. - - -PROOF IS POSSIBLE. - -The event _may_ have occurred. By this is meant that it cannot be said -that its occurrence is, in the nature of things, an impossibility. - -The existence of the Lord God Almighty, the Jehovah of the Scriptures, -may be real, as accepted by the reason and conscience of most men in -civilized nations. It may have been within his power to raise his Son, -Jesus Christ, from the dead; and there may have been sufficient reasons -for the exercise of this power. He may have been able to do this, without -violating, or suspending, any law of his universe. The resurrection may -have been as conformable to law as the death of the body. The law of -gravitation is neither violated nor suspended, but merely overcome, in -numberless instances every day, by the introduction of what is, under the -circumstances, a greater force; and it may be a universal _law_ that the -greater force (other things being equal) shall overcome the less. If it -were true that the like had never occurred, it cannot be maintained that -God has not in any instance done something which he had not done before, -and of which consequently there had been no previous experience. “Men,” -says Dr. Taylor,[1] “are continually reaching results which the forces of -nature, left to themselves, never could have caused; and if this be so -with men, why should we deny to God the possibility of intervening in a -similar way, and so producing effects that are not merely supernatural, -but superhuman?” And why, we ask, should we deny to him the possibility -of doing something which he has not done before; “My Father _worketh_ -hitherto,” said Jesus, “and I work.” - -“The[2] affirmation of the impossibility of a miracle carries with -it the elimination of God out of the universe.” There is no escape -from this conclusion; and consequently there are those who admit the -possibility[3] of miracles, even while denying that they can be proved. - -The event, then, _may_ have occurred. _It is a question of evidence_. - -Again, if Christ did rise from the dead, he would give his disciples -sufficient evidence of it. He could give to the bodily senses and -perceptive powers which they had as other men have (and which -“experience” tells us, may be trusted when they have a fair chance), such -proofs of his resurrection that they could believe it, and rationally -believe it. This may be said to be almost a truism. To concede that -God could, and did, raise Jesus Christ from the dead, and deny that he -could, or would, afford evidence of it, if not an utter absurdity, is in -the highest degree unreasonable, and we are not trying to convince any -but reasonable men. To what end should he perform this miracle, and yet -afford no evidence of it? The question right here is not whether _we_ -have sufficient evidence for our assurance, but whether his _disciples_ -could reasonably be convinced of his resurrection, assuming that it -really took place. - -Then if _they_ might rationally believe what actually occurred, upon -evidence furnished _them_, those to whom they declared it, and we to -whom their testimony has come, may _also_ believe it. If they were not -bound to reject the evidence of their own senses, because of previous -experience or the want of it, neither were those to whom they preached, -nor we ourselves, bound to reject it. - -In other words, assuming that Christ did rise from the dead, and assuming -that satisfactory proofs of his resurrection were given to his disciples, -it is not _impossible_ that sufficient evidence of both of these facts -may be accessible to us. To deny this, is to say that Christ must die and -rise again, in every age, and in every place, where there are nations or -persons, whether few or many, who have not before witnessed such events. -Yet to this absurdity must Hume’s famous argument from experience come. - -If Jesus rose from the dead, the fact was susceptible of proof to his -disciples. It was susceptible of proof to those who believed it on the -testimony of his disciples. It is susceptible of proof to one to whom -that testimony is transmitted. Assuming his resurrection to be true, it -would be more wonderful than a miracle, if all means of a rational belief -in the fact were the exclusive property of his immediate disciples; and -their contemporaries and all after them, to the end of time, be compelled -in the exercise of right reason to reject it, notwithstanding it is true. -Hence we say as the basis of further argument that the resurrection _may_ -have occurred; and if it did occur, we undoubtedly have such evidence of -it as may be accepted by a reasonable man. Leaving, then, the possible -for the probable, in a matter that is but a question of evidence. - - -WHAT ARE THE PROOFS? - -The fact of Christ’s resurrection was proclaimed by his Apostles and -disciples from the beginning of their ministry, commencing on the Day of -Pentecost, fifty days after the crucifixion. This fact was, as expressed -by Paul, that Christ “died,” and was “buried,” and was “raised on the -third day;” and by Luke that “he showed himself alive after his passion, -by many proofs,” appearing unto the Apostles whom he had chosen[4], for -forty days, “and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God;” and -by Peter, “whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death because -it was not possible that he should be holden of it:” and “Ye killed the -Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” - -The evidence being conclusive that such was the proclamation, how is it -to be accounted for? The obvious explanation is, that the Apostles so -preached because they so believed, and because such was the fact, and -they had sufficient evidence of it: and this has been accepted by the -church these eighteen hundred years. - -How do infidels account for the preaching of the Resurrection within -fifty days after the crucifixion? _Some_ have claimed that his death -was not real, and that he recovered from a swoon. This is disproved by -the evidence to which we have referred[4], and, although once held by -Paulus and others, has by later skeptical writers been “treated with -contempt.”[5] “The whole country-side,” says Strauss,[6] “knew that he -was dead.” Roman executioners made sure work. Pilate refused his consent -to any removal until he had instituted an inquiry, and knew that Jesus -was dead; nor is it possible to accept the hypothesis of a return from -mere lethargy or trance, without destroying his moral character. This -hypothesis may be put aside. - -_Others_ have claimed that the Apostles did not believe what they -preached. To accept this view we must conclude that, without motive and -against every motive, and “amidst sufferings the most grievous to flesh -and blood, they persevered in a conspiracy to cheat the world into piety, -honesty and benevolence.” Conscience and common sense revolt against such -a theory, and it shares the fate of the other. It has, says Professor -Milligan,[7] “been abandoned by every inquirer to whom a moment’s -attention is due.” - -The _final_ refuge of most infidel writers, is the theory of visions. -By this they mean that the appearances of our Lord were either optical -illusions, or mere hallucinations. - -Some, like Dr. Hooykaas[8] in Holland, and Judge Waite[8] in this -country, claim that the doctrine preached was _not_ that Christ’s _body_ -was raised up, but that his _spirit_ came back from Hades, or the place -of departed spirits. We have before[9] shown that such a conception -is an entire perversion of the language of Paul, as well as of the -Evangelists. And Mr. Hooykaas’ argument that we are never told that Jesus -rose “from death,” far less “from the grave,” but always “from the dead,” -does not agree with the record; and if it did, the inference would be -unwarrantable. When the angel said to the woman, “Why seek ye the living -among the dead? he is not here but is risen,” they were not looking -for him in Hades! Peter, in the passage from which we have quoted, -distinguishes between Hades and the grave, for he says, that David, -“foreseeing, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was his -soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God -raise up.” - -Now, by what evidence is the theory of visions or optical illusions to -be tested? By the _whole_ evidence? By suppressing a part, and changing -the rest? Judicial fairness requires that the whole be considered, just -as it comes to us, reconciling such parts as may be reconciled, and -adopting the more probable view in case of any seeming contradictions, if -there _are_ any. Yet those who deny the resurrection adopt a course that -could not be tolerated in any judge or jury, or secular historian. They -_suppress_, or _supply_, as best suits their theory. - -Thus some of them assume that there were no appearances at Jerusalem, -although the contrary is plain in all the Evangelists. Even Mark, whom -Strauss treats as giving the oldest tradition, represents the women as -going to the sepulchre. This implies that they were at Jerusalem, if the -sepulchre was at Jerusalem. Were they there alone? Mark, in saying that -“the disciples left Jesus when he was arrested, and fled,” does _not_ -say that they fled from Jerusalem. On the contrary, he, in the same -chapter, speaks of Peter as following Jesus afar off, and then denying -him. And so in the Fourth Gospel, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is -said to have been so near to the cross, that Jesus could say unto him -“Behold thy mother!” They would not leave Jerusalem till the end of the -Feast. This continued one week, the first day and the last being “an holy -convocation.” Although they fled at first, they rallied; and they did not -leave Jerusalem till they had conformed to the requirements of the law. -Mark also, in giving the direction, “Go tell his disciples and Peter,” -“He goeth _before_ you into Galilee,” implies that they had not yet gone -into Galilee. - -They also assume that the Apostles believed because of Mary Magdalene’s -faith. _This is pure fiction._ Peter and John knew that the tomb was -empty, before the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Matthew does not mention -her statement that she had seen the Lord, nor John the reception which -she had. Mark[10] says that they, when they heard that he was alive, -and had been seen of her, “disbelieved;” and Luke[11] (referring to all -the women) says that their words “appeared in their sight as idle talk, -and they disbelieved them.” There is not the slightest allusion to Mary -Magdalene, or to the company of women, in the Acts of the Apostles, -or either of the Epistles. How idle, then, is Renan’s boast,[12] that -“the glory of the Resurrection belongs to Mary of Magdala.” Indeed it -might appear to us that there should have been some reference to her. -The explanation, probably, is twofold: Among the Greeks,[13] women were -not competent witnesses; and Paul and the Apostles rested their faith -upon appearances to Apostles, either alone or in company with others, -they being the constituted witnesses. When one was to be substituted for -Judas, Peter[14] said that the choice must be made from those “which -have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out -among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was -received up from us; of these must one become a witness with us of his -resurrection.” And Paul makes no reference to the journey to Emmaus. - -They also assume that the Apostles were in a state of mind conducive to -misleading fancies. The reverse of this is true. It must, however, be -conceded that the idea of a restoration to life of one who had been dead -was not strange to them; for three[15] such instances were recorded in -their Scriptures, and they had witnessed three miracles of the kind. But -these were in respect to persons who, after they were raised up, lived -and died as other men; and they were brought to life by some visible -agency, as by a prophet in the name of the Lord, or Jesus by his own -word. The resurrection which the disciples came to believe was, on the -contrary, to a temporary sojourning with them, and then an ascension -before their eyes; and it was accomplished by no visible hand. - -And although Jesus had predicted his death and resurrection, they could -not understand the one, any more than the other, because they could -not conceive how that their Messiah could suffer death at the hands -of his enemies. The evidence upon this point is most conclusive; and -its scope was admirably put by Gilbert West,[16] four generations ago. -“This, therefore, being their settled notion of the Messiah, can we -wonder their former faith in him should be extinguished, when they saw -him suffering, crucified, and dying, and, instead of saving others, not -able to save himself? To prepare them for these events he had indeed -most circumstantially foretold[17] his own sufferings, death, and -resurrection; but the Apostles themselves assure us that they did not -understand those predictions till some time after their accomplishment; -and they made this confession at a time when they were as sensible of -their former dullness, and undoubtedly as much amazed at it as they now -pretend to be who object to it against them; so that their veracity -upon this point is not to be questioned.... They had conceived great -expectations from the persuasion that he was the Christ of God; but these -were all vanished; their promised deliverer, their expected king, was -dead and buried, and no one left to call him from the grave as he did -Lazarus. With his life, they might presume, ended his power of working -miracles; and death, perhaps, was an enemy he could not subdue, since it -was apparent he could not escape it, and hence their despair.” - -And hence we say, when the third day was ushered in there was no one of -all his disciples at the sepulchre to welcome him. Those who loved him -most, came but to embalm his body. Mary Magdalene beheld _not_ her risen -Saviour, but an empty tomb; and her hurried tidings were _not_ that he -is risen, but, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we -know not where they have laid him.” When Jesus even speaks to her, she -at first supposes him to be the gardener, and says, “If thou hast borne -him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.” -Peter and John beheld no vision, but only “the linen clothes lying, and -the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but -rolled up in a place by itself.” The other women do not see Jesus until -after they have found that the sepulchre is empty, and have been told by -the angels, “He is risen, even as he said: COME SEE THE PLACE WHERE[18] -THE LORD LAY.” The two disciples, some hours after, had heard, not that -he had been _seen_, but that certain women who were early at the tomb -found not his body, and were told by angels that he was alive; and that -the absence of the body had been confirmed by those of their company who -visited the tomb. And finally, the Apostles, instead of _expecting_ to -see him, refused to believe upon the testimony of the women, and were -only convinced by the evidence of their own senses. - -[1] Taylor on the Gospel Miracles (1881), p. 17. - -[2] Id., p. 25. - -[3] “We do not say a miracle is impossible; we say there has been no -instance, up to this time, of a proved miracle.”—Renan’s Life of Jesus, -etc., p. 57. - -“What I insist on is, that a miracle cannot be established by human -testimony.”—Ingersoll, _North American Review_ for November, 1881, p. -514. The skeptical author of _Supernatural Religion_ in defending himself -against the criticism that upon his theory his historical argument is -unnecessary, in his preface to the sixth edition, says: “The preliminary -affirmation is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are -antecedently incredible. The counter allegation is that although miracles -may be antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. -It is, therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent -incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that certain -miracles occurred, and this involves the historical inquiry into the -evidence for the Gospels. Indeed many will not acknowledge the case -to be complete until other witnesses are questioned. This would leave -the question of Christ’s Resurrection to be determined as a matter of -evidence; and of course evidence enough to induce a reasonable conviction -would be sufficient to overcome the antecedent improbability.” But he -dare not trust himself or his readers to an examination of the evidence -upon this basis. For when he is pressed with the testimony of the -Apostles to the Resurrection, and is compelled to concede their honesty, -he says (p. 1050), “The belief that a dead man rose from the dead and -appeared to several persons alive is at once disposed of upon abstract -grounds.” That is, his pretended examination of the evidence is a sham, -and when he cannot meet it, it is at once disposed of “upon abstract -grounds!” - -[4] See chap. xvii. pp. 101-2, _ante_, pp. 101, 102. - -[5] Milligan on the Resurrection of Our Lord, p. 76; Strauss, Vol. II., -pp. 846-866. - -[6] The Old Faith and the New (1875), p. 80. - -[7] On the Resurrection, etc., p. 80. - -[8] The Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 464; Waite’s History, etc., p. -26. - -[9] See chap. xv, p. 85, _ante_, p. 85. - -[10] Mark xvi. 11. - -[11] Luke xxiv. 11. - -[12] The Apostles, by Ernest Renan (1866), p. 61. - -[13] Adams’ Roman Antiquities, p. 284; Condition of Women, by L. Maria -Child, Vol. II., p. 3. - -[14] Acts i. 15, 21, 22. - -[15] 1 Kings xvii.; 2 Kings iv.; 2 Kings xiii. 21; Matthew ix.; Luke -vii.; John xi.; Hebrews xi. 35. - -[16] Gilbert West on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of -Jesus Christ. Boston, 1834 (first published in England in 1747), p. 67. - -[17] See chap. xvi, p. 89, _ante_, p. 89. - -[18] “The cerements were there, but the body was gone. Whither? Had it -been stolen and hidden? Who would have been the thieves? Friends or -foes? Not friends; for how could their faith be made heroic for their -crusade against the world’s unbelief by a theft and a carcase? Not -foes; for it was their interest to prevent the disappearance of the -body, that there might be ocular demonstration of the falsity of the -predicted resurrection. The fact of the actual resurrection of our Lord -is a rock-of-ages that never can be moved.”—Commentary on Mark, by James -Morrison, D.D. (1882), p. 445. - - - - -CHAPTER XIX. - -SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS (AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE). - - -Holding, then, the objectors to the historical record, and keeping in -mind that the question is narrowed down to the hypothesis of visions on -the one hand, or to a true resurrection on the other, _what evidence had -the Apostles and immediate disciples that they were not deceived_? - -First and foremost, they had the empty tomb. They knew[1] that the body -was neither left on the cross, in violation of the Jewish law, nor -thrown to the “dust-heap,” in violation of the Roman law which required -a delivery to the friends as soon as claimed, but was placed in the -sepulchre, as attested by all the Evangelists, as also by Paul. They knew -that _they_ had not taken it away, and that if the Jews had, they would -have been but too ready to produce it when, only a few days after, it -was boldly proclaimed, that that Jesus whom they had crucified, God had -raised from the dead. It was the absence of the body that first arrested -the attention of the women, and also of Peter and John, and which, with -the orderly arrangement of the grave clothes, induced a conviction of -the truth in the mind of John, before Jesus appeared to any, and sent -Peter to his home “wondering.” And these same facts (the good faith of -the disciples themselves being undoubted), can never be explained, in any -rational way, otherwise than by the fact of the Resurrection. There is a -great truth in Professor Keim’s expression[2] that: “It is upon an empty -tomb that the Christian Church is founded.” - -They had _further_ proof, in subsequent appearances to individuals -singly, to the collective body of Apostles, and to the multitude of -believers, under circumstances that satisfied them, and should convince -us, that they were not deceived. - -There are several things to be considered, in determining whether they -were deceived. First, in respect to time. There were no appearances -till after the fact that the tomb was empty was fully understood, _nor -till some hours after_. This lapse of time has been overlooked by most -writers; and, from want of attention to it, inconsistencies as to -occurrences at the sepulchre, as to the number and appearance of angels, -the companies of women, the persons composing them, the messages received -and carried, and the appearances to them, of our risen Lord, have been -imagined, that are easily explained, upon the very natural hypothesis of -several transactions of like character during the six hours or more[3] -which elapsed before the journey to Emmaus. At that time no one had seen -the Lord; for it cannot be doubted that his appearance would be reported -as soon as possible after its occurrence. When Jesus joined the two -disciples, their eyes were “holden,” until in a long discourse he had -prepared them for a revelation of himself. Peter must have meditated some -hours upon the absence of the body, before Jesus showed himself to him. -It was not till after this, and after the return of the disciples from -Emmaus, that he said to the others, “Peace be unto you.” Then a whole -week, before he returns. Then, probably after a longer interval (for they -returned to Galilee), he shows himself at the Sea of Tiberias. Then, -after some days, to above five hundred brethren, at a place to which they -had been directed to go by the angels, and by Jesus both before and after -his resurrection. Then to James. And then at Jerusalem to the Apostles, -whom he led out over against Bethany; and while he blessed them, he -parted from them and was carried up into heaven. - -In all this, we see how they were prepared to exercise a sober and -intelligent judgment, so that neither they, nor we, should be in doubt -whether what they beheld was their risen Lord, or a phantom of their own -imagination. - -And will any one tell us, right here, what better proof Jesus _could_ -have given his disciples, of his Resurrection? If the evidence was -sufficient for them, it may be sufficient for us, unless we are prepared -to say that the miracle shall _be repeated whenever it is challenged_! -Was it essential to a reasonable conviction on their part that the -Scribes and Pharisees should also be convinced? (Nicodemus, and Joseph of -Arimathea, _were_ convinced.) It must be admitted that the disciples, of -all others, were qualified to judge, if any persons could be qualified. -What force could the belief of the Sanhedrim have added to the testimony -of their own senses? - -Assume, as a hypothesis, the reality of Christ’s resurrection, we again -ask, What proof of it _should_ have been given his disciples that was -not given? They had the same kind of proof, during forty days, that -they had before his crucifixion. He walked with them, talked with them, -instructed them, ate before them, and with them (Acts. x. 41), called -things to their remembrance, opened to them the Scriptures, and gave them -their great commission to disciple all nations; and, to preclude all -questioning, said, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle -me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me have. -And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.” And to -Thomas, eight days after, he said, “Reach hither thy finger and see my -hands; and reach thy hand and put it into my side: and be not faithless -but believing.” - -We do not accept Origen’s[4] view that Jesus after his resurrection -and before his ascension “existed in a body intermediate, as it were, -between the grossness of that which he had before his suffering and the -appearance of a soul uncovered by such a body,” although it now has the -support of able writers. The general[5] sentiment of the Church from the -beginning has been against it. It is not warranted by the record, and -it involves more mysteries and difficulties than it escapes. We fully -agree with Judge Waite[6] that, according to the Canonical Gospels, “The -very body in which Jesus was crucified, and which was buried by Joseph -of Arimathea, is raised from the dead, appears to the disciples, is not -only seen but felt, and Jesus himself, in the flesh, as he was before he -was crucified, calls for fish to eat to satisfy his disciples that he -was not a spirit; that his body was not spiritual, but material and human -like theirs;” and also with a very different man (Mr. Barnes), who, with -his usual good sense, says: “It was necessary _first_ to establish the -proof of his resurrection, and that could be done _only_ by his appearing -_as he was_ when he died;” and also with Drs. McClintock and Strong in -their invaluable Cyclopedia, that: “According to the Scriptures the -disciples were assured by the testimony of their own senses that the body -of Christ after his resurrection was the same identical body of human -flesh and bones which had been crucified and laid in the sepulchre.” -(Vol. VIII., A.D. 1879.) Peter’s testimony (as recorded in Acts x. 41) -that Jesus after he was raised up was made manifest, not to all the -people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us -“who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead,” seems just -as decisive as the Canonical Gospels. And so of John’s testimony (1 John -i. 1), “that which we beheld, and our hands handled.” - -Our Lord was in the tomb less than thirty-six hours, and his flesh “did -not see corruption.” His body, apparently, was as human as that of -Lazarus after he was raised. The criticism that it is not said that there -was _blood_ seems frivolous, for there could be no living flesh or bones -without blood-vessels and blood. Although for the time he forbade Mary -Magdalene to touch, or rather to detain him, he permitted the other women -to take hold of his feet, and directed the Apostles to handle him. Mary -Magdalene saw him as a man, and supposed him to be the gardener, until he -called her by name. The two disciples conversed with him as a man; and -that they did not know him was only because their eyes were “holden.” His -sudden disappearance after the repast, and equally sudden appearance in -the midst of the Apostles, at most present no greater difficulties than -his transfiguration, his walking upon the sea, his passing through his -enemies when they were about to throw him down the cliff (all before his -crucifixion), or the opening of the prison doors to two of the Apostles. -The doors, even if bolted and barred, may have opened as to Peter, or -those present may have been so preoccupied that a perfectly natural but -silent withdrawal in the one case, and entrance in the other, were simply -unnoticed. - -As the man Christ Jesus, he rose from the dead, and angels, as porters, -having rolled away the stone, he came forth in visible human form, and -with the same body that was crucified. He would have been seen by his -disciples, if they had been “watching and waiting” for him, and by the -guard, if they had not become “as dead men;” perhaps in order that they -might not behold him, for he had said, “Yet a little while and the world -beholdeth me no more.” (John xiv. 19.) - -As the man Christ Jesus, he showed himself to his disciples forty days; -and then, with a body, until then, of flesh and blood, as human as that -of Elijah, before _he_ was taken up, ascended into the heavens. - -Thus, in his rising from the dead, and in the change _at his ascension_, -he typified both the dead who shall be raised, and the living who shall -be “changed.” - -And any conception of him as less corporeal from his resurrection to his -ascension than before, does not conform to the record, and, by so much -as it makes him less corporeal and tangible, it impairs the force of the -evidence. - -Each one of the Apostles had as much evidence that Jesus was alive after -his crucifixion, as he had that Peter or John or Thomas was alive, and -evidence of just as high a character. And this proof by facts addressed -to their own intelligence and bodily senses of sight, and hearing, and -feeling, was continued forty days. There is no conflict in the evidence -on this point. - -Every lawyer knows that omission is not contradiction. Even when -witnesses profess to give the whole, it rarely or never happens that -some will not state something which others omit, and not unfrequently a -witness is called to testify to a part only, and does not undertake to -give the whole. - -This is the precise truth in respect to the Evangelists. Not one of -them professes to state all that occurred after the crucifixion, or all -the instances of our Lord’s appearing to his disciples. Each writes for -the particular object he has in view. And there is a great liability -to mistake, if one forgets that it is true in narratives in respect to -transactions subsequent to the crucifixion, as well as before, that there -is often a passing from one event to another with nothing to indicate but -that they were immediately connected in point of time, when, in fact, -there was a considerable interval between them.[A] - -Of the ten specified instances of his appearing, Matthew speaks of -two, Mark of three, Luke of three, John of four, and Paul of five, or -seven;[7] but neither contradicts the other, nor Luke’s statement in his -subsequent “treatise,” that Jesus showed himself alive after his passion -“forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God.” - -The instances were sufficiently numerous, the time long enough, and the -acts tangible enough, to afford as undoubted proof as that which they had -of the existence and bodily presence of each other. Peter might as well -have doubted the denial of which he had so bitterly repented, as to have -doubted that it was his Master who said unto him the third time, “Simon, -son of John, lovest thou me?” and all of them might as well have doubted -that they had ever listened to his teaching, as to have doubted the -commission which they received from him. - -The evidence that was personal to themselves we cannot have. We know they -had it, and were capable of judging concerning it, and we can see that -it was of a character that might be justly deemed conclusive. - -There is, besides, much that is common to us with them. The judgment was -not of one but of many, and not from a single appearance to one of their -number, but from many appearances to different persons, at various times, -and under circumstances most favorable to a true apprehension, usually in -open day; and it would be passing strange if each and all were deceived -by their own senses. - -These appearances were never repeated after the ascension. None of the -disciples under any excitement ever again saw their Lord as the man -Christ Jesus walking the earth as before; or saw him coming to the earth, -although they all believed that he would speedily return in like manner -as they beheld him going into heaven. Stephen saw him not upon the earth, -but “standing on the right hand of God.” Paul saw him, and “was not -disobedient unto the heavenly vision” (Acts xxvi. 19). John saw him, in -vision, not only as “the Son of Man” in glorious array, but as “the Lion -of the tribe of Judah,” and also as a “Lamb standing as though it had -been slain,” in the “midst of the throne” (Revelation i. 12-20, and v. -5-8). - -Their subsequent experience is consistent, if they had been dealing with -realities. But if all their interviews during those forty days were a -delusion, and the ascension a delusion, it is wholly inexplicable that -their imagination or senses never played them false afterward. They -believed that he would soon return, just as strongly as they believed -that he had ascended, and yet they never saw him returning, or as having -returned. - -If delusions created the faith, how much more should the faith multiply -the delusions, and such appearances (as Godet[8] has well put it) “go -on increasing as the square of the belief itself.” Yet at the very time -when they should have multiplied, if they were _not_ real, they ceased -altogether! - -We have, as the disciples had, our Lord’s predictions[9] of his death -_and_ resurrection (for the two events were generally referred to in the -same discourse), and the prophecies concerning him. - -The greatest obstacle to their acceptance of his resurrection was their -inability to comprehend his death if he were indeed the true Messiah. And -hence we find that Jesus in the walk to Emmaus, opens to the disciples -the Scriptures concerning himself, and says, “Behoved it not the Christ -to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?” We may well suppose -that with other prophecies, he interpreted to them what Daniel had -said (c. ix. 26) that “after three score and two weeks, shall Messiah -be cut off, but not for himself;” and that wonderful chapter in Isaiah -(the fifty-third) so descriptive of his passion, that it seems “as if -written at the foot of the cross;” and all the sacrifices for fifteen -hundred years; and that it was not possible “that the blood of bulls -and goats should take away sins;” and as Moses lifted up the serpent -in the wilderness, even so was the Son of Man “lifted up.” And so to -the Apostles he explained the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it -is written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead -the third day.” (Luke xxiv. 45, 46). He reminds them what he had said, -that all things must needs be fulfilled which were written in the law -of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning himself (Luke -xxiv. 44). The angels say to the women, “Tell his disciples and Peter -he goeth before you into Galilee, and there shall ye see him as he said -unto you” (Mark xvi. 7); and also, “Remember how he spake unto you when -he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up -into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise -again” (Luke xxiv. 6, 7). And we find that when the disciples understood -the mystery of his death, they joyfully accepted the proofs of his -resurrection; and Peter, who had said, “Be it far from thee, Lord, this -shall never be unto thee” (Matthew xvi. 23), on the day of Pentecost -could explain that Jesus (whom God had “raised up, having loosed the -pangs of death”), was delivered up to be crucified and slain “by the -determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”; and that David spake of -his resurrection. (Acts ii. 22-31.) - -Not only do the prophecies point to his resurrection, but as already[9] -shown, Jesus himself foretold it as well as the manner and circumstances -of his death; and it is more rational to accept it, than to believe -that such an One as is portrayed in the Gospels was either false or -mistaken. “Which of you convicteth me of sin?” has found none to accept -the challenge in eighteen hundred years! On the contrary, as Dr. Taylor -has said,[10] “Before the portraiture which the Evangelists have painted, -men of every age have stood in rooted admiration.” And as J. S. Mill -concedes,[11] “It is of no use to say that Christ, as exhibited in the -Gospels, is not historical: for none of his disciples or their proselytes -were capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to him, or imagining the -life and character revealed in the Gospels.” - -His resurrection was a moral necessity from his own character as -delineated in the Gospels, even our enemies themselves being judges. -His could not have been “the richest of human lives,” as declared by -Hooykaas,[12] nor his utterances “the most beautiful moral teaching that -humanity has received,” as avowed by Renan, if his power to lay down his -life and “to take it again” were at the best a mere delusion. - -His predictions of his death and resurrection, as we have before shown, -are so interwoven with the entire narrative, that it is impossible to set -them aside and leave anything to which we can assent as true, of all his -recorded acts and words; and there is no alternative except to believe -that he uttered them, or else to arbitrarily set aside the testimony of -the four Evangelists, as well as that of Paul. - -_That the Christ of the Gospels_ should rise from the dead, as he said, -_is in the highest degree probable_. Only by his resurrection could he -vindicate himself from the charge of blasphemy. Without it, the cross was -a gibbet, a monument of folly if not of crime. Without it, the sacrament -which he instituted on the eve of his crucifixion, keeps in perpetual -remembrance the falsity of his pretensions, his impotency to save himself -from his enemies. Without it, the taunt of those who mocked him, “He -saved others, himself he cannot save,” was merited. Without it, while one -might pity him for his sufferings, we should the more sympathize with the -Sanhedrim in protecting the people from a visionary enthusiast, if not -a wilful impostor, and inflicting (although by irregular methods) the -penalty for blasphemy expressly commanded by the Mosaic Law. - -It cannot be too strongly stated that there is no middle ground. If he -was what he claimed, his resurrection was already assured. If he was not -what he claimed, he could not have been the exalted character eulogized -by those who deny his resurrection, and before which the world bows in -reverence. - -If he was what he claimed, we can see a grand and all-sufficient reason -_why_ God (if there _be_ a God) should by miracle give the highest -possible authentication to his mission. - -He said, “I am the light of the world;” and the world was in darkness. He -said that he came forth from God, and he ought to show his credentials. -He said he was the Son of God, and that he always did those things that -pleased Him; which he could not do, if he set up claims destitute of -foundation. He said, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, -even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth, may -have in him eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His -only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but -have eternal life.” - -The great central truths which he declared in all his teachings, were the -_fact_ of sin, the need of a Saviour, and that he is a Saviour. - -If sin, as all experience testifies, is universal, always downward, -and its end when finished death, the redemption of multitudes[B] of the -human race from its power to holiness, and bliss, and endless progress, -as “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ,” was an object _worthy_ of -divine interposition, and only an atheist should look upon such a miracle -of redemption as impossible or improbable. - - “’Twas great to speak a world from naught, - ’Twas greater to redeem.” - -Christ’s resurrection being established, the darkness over the land, the -rending of the veil, the coming[13] out of the tombs, the ministry of -the angels in the garden before his betrayal, and at the sepulchre, the -earthquake, the rolling away of the stone, and the fear that came upon -the watchers, were fitting accompaniments of the transactions which they -surrounded. - -Nor, if some of them are not mentioned by other historians, are they -overthrown, for omission is not contradiction, in history any more than -in courts. Why should Josephus, who was not born till some years after -the crucifixion, and not a Christian, be expected to mention them? And -as to Greek and Roman writers, even Renan[14] says that “it is not -surprising that they paid little attention to a movement which was going -on within a narrow space foreign to them. Christianity was lost to their -vision upon the dark background of Judaism.” - -And so his being seen by Stephen the first martyr, by John in the -Apocalypse, and by Paul on the way to Damascus, are in harmony with the -record of his resurrection and ascension, and may be said to confirm them. - -Yet it may be questioned if Paul would have been so absolutely certain -that Jesus (against whose followers he was breathing out threatening -and slaughter) said to him, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” but -for the previous appearances. If he would, he does not rest the case -upon the one to himself. He gives the others first, and then adds, “And -last of all ... to me also.” While there is a mutual support, the most -solid basis for _our_ belief is, in the incontrovertible and tangible -appearances which preceded Paul’s conversion; and when John would declare -the _certainty_ of their faith, he says, “That which we have heard, that -which we have seen with our eyes, that which we have beheld, and our -hands handled.” (1 John i. 1). - -And viewing the indubitable proofs of his resurrection, in their relation -to the prophecies concerning him, the necessity for his advent, his -predictions concerning himself, his character and works and teachings -from his incarnation to his ascension, the lives and deaths of his -Apostles, the wonderful enlargement of his little church, when the -Apostles “with great power gave their witness of the resurrection of the -Lord Jesus,” and its equally wonderful continuance, extension, moral -influence, inspirations and hopes, they rise to the sublimity of moral -certainty. - -These things cannot rationally be accounted for unless there is a God, -and if there is a God, as all courts of justice everywhere assume, and -universal conscience declares, to refuse assent to the conclusion to -which they necessarily lead,—the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the -dead,—cannot be the exercise of right reason. - -Least of all should lawyers, accustomed to weigh evidence, refuse to -believe upon the testimony of others. As Gibson, the great chief justice -of Pennsylvania, said: “Give Christianity a common law trial; submit the -evidence _pro_ and _con_ to an impartial jury under the direction of a -competent court, and the verdict will assuredly be in its favor.” - -We have not the witnesses before us; but it is every day’s practice to -prove historical facts by any approved and general history, and such -are our Gospels and Epistles; and they are confirmed by sacraments and -institutions that continue to our times, and will continue to the end of -the world. - -Nor does the sufficiency of the proofs depend upon any question of the -_precise_ extent of the genuineness of the Gospels, or their _exact_ -agreement. Men accustomed to weigh evidence know that it is enough if -the substance of the issue is proved, and that a literal agreement is -never to be expected in honest witnesses. In all the great facts of -the Resurrection, the Gospels and the Epistles concur. This has been -found satisfactory to such standard authors in the legal profession as -Blackstone and Kent and Story, such masters of the rules of evidence as -Starkie and Greenleaf, and such giants as Lord Brougham, John Marshall, -Theophilus Parsons, Jeremiah Mason and Daniel Webster, and many others -both of the dead and the living, and no historical event rests on a -firmer basis. - -Some of its logical results will be suggested in the concluding chapter. - -[1] See _ante_, c. 17, p. 101, and Godet’s Defence, etc., 1881, p. 106. - -[2] As quoted by Godet, p. 49. - -[3] See _ante_, c. 17, p. 101. - -[4] Origen against Celsus, Book II., c. 42. - -[5] See editor’s note to Lange’s Life of Christ; McClintock and Strong, -Vol. VIII., p. 1055; Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, p. 804; -Barnes on John xx. 21; Scott on John xx. 19. - -An able article by Professor Robinson of the Union Theological Seminary, -N. Y., on the Nature of Our Lord’s Resurrection-body will be found in the -_Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1845, p. 292. He thus distributes the opinions -on the subject: “On this subject three different opinions have prevailed -more or less at various times in the church. Some have held that the -body of Christ was changed at the resurrection as to its _substance_, so -that it was in its substance a different and spiritual body. Others have -regarded the Lord as having had after the resurrection the _same_ body as -before, but glorified; or, as the earliest writers express it, changed as -to its qualities and attributes. The third and larger class have supposed -that the body with which Christ rose from the dead was the same natural -body of flesh and blood which had been taken down from the cross and laid -in the sepulchre.” - -This article we had not read until after writing chapter 19, but our -convictions are confirmed by his thorough discussion of the subject. He -concludes that the evidence of the reality of our Lord’s human body, -from the Resurrection to the Ascension, is even stronger than that for -any other forty days, since Jesus was specially careful to assure his -disciples of the fact. - -[6] History, etc., p. 335. - -[A] For example, it is an entire misconception of Luke’s Gospel to -conclude from it that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection; -and his account in Acts makes this certain, it being conceded that both -works were by the same writer. - -[7] Paul seems to have grouped appearances. We may paraphrase thus: “And -that he was seen of Cephas; then of the twelve _on three occasions_.” - -[8] Defence, etc., p. 105. - -[9] See _ante_, c. 16, p. 89. - -[10] The Gospel Miracles, etc., p. 48. - -[11] As quoted by Dr. Taylor, p. 41. - -[12] The Bible, etc., p. 51; Renan, p. 135. - -[B] See Rev. vii. 9-17. - -[13] Those who came out of the tombs “after his resurrection,” it may be -presumed, had recently deceased (for they were recognized, as it would -seem), and they appeared only to those who, like Simeon and Anna the -Prophetess, had been looking “for the consolation of Israel;” and not -to those who had rejected him. Their coming was so overshadowed by the -principal events to which it was merely an incident, that it is mentioned -only by Matthew, and even he gives no information of who they were, or -anything of their subsequent history. - -[14] The Apostles, by Ernest Renan, p. 227. - - - - -CHAPTER XX. - -LOGICAL RESULTS. - - -Of these we mention only the following: - -_First._—Since the proofs of Christ’s Resurrection are incomparably -greater than those of any other miracle, and its consequences are beyond -conception more glorious, it is the part of wisdom to force the issue -upon it. The decisive battle of the world in respect to the miraculous -in Christianity is to be fought right here, and all other engagements -are mere skirmishes. It is well it is so. Christ’s Resurrection is our -Gibraltar. If we cannot hold this position, we cannot hold any. But we -do hold it, and with it the whole field of controversy upon the subject. -Let any one who doubts or denies the reality of miracles, meet the -overwhelming proofs of this the greatest of all miracles. If he cannot do -it, he should yield; and it is no dishonor to be vanquished by the truth. -If, after examining these proofs, he still imagines that he can overcome -them, he is beyond the reach of argument. - -_Second._—As it is the central fact of Christianity, the keystone in -the arch of the Christian Faith, those who reject it have no right to -the Christian name. Strauss is so far to be commended that, when by his -myths and sophistries he had brought himself to deny the one, he had the -manliness not to appropriate the other. And of those of his fellows who -still cling to it for its supposed advantages, he sarcastically says: -“Reasons they may have, but reason they have none.” Chadwick, Hooykaas, -Miln, Savage and others,[1] who talk of their “Church of the Future,” -may well follow his example. If they refuse, there is as little sense -as piety in a recognition, or _quasi_ recognition, of them as ministers -of the Gospel, when at the best they are only popular lecturers to mere -social or literary, if not infidel clubs, that choose to be called -Churches or Religious Societies. This no doubt is distasteful to those -who are looking for the time when all sects shall fraternize on a common -level of skepticism and indifference. But if we have any colors we should -stand by them. Fidelity to truth and to the Master requires a separation -uncompromising and complete from all who deny Him. It is safe to be as -tolerant as Jesus and his Apostles. (See John viii. 21; 2 Corinthians vi. -14, 15; Revelation i. 4, 5; 1 Corinthians xv. 16, 17, 18; 1 John ii. 12, -23; 1 Peter i. 3, 4; 2 Peter ii. 1, 2; Revelation ii. 6; Acts v. 30-33; -Acts iv. 11, 12.) - -_Third._—It authenticates his mission and vindicates his claims to the -utmost. By it God affixed the seal of his approval, and evermore declares -as by a voice from heaven, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well -pleased: hear ye Him.” - -His teachings are no longer opinions to be accepted or rejected as they -meet with our approval, but authoritative and final. They are not the -speculations of sages and philosophers, either of olden or recent times, -to be weighed in the balance of human reason, but everlasting truth to be -received and obeyed without doubting or questioning. - -Since Christ’s resurrection is assured, Webster well declared,[2] as -every man in the exercise of right reason must, “I hold it my duty to -believe, not what I can comprehend or account for, but what my Master -teaches me.” - -By this, of course, it is not intended that we are not to exercise our -reason as to the genuineness of the teachings ascribed to him, or their -proper meaning, or, in other words, as to textuality, inspiration, -translation, and interpretation. In each of these departments there -is and will be ample room for the greatest research, and the ripest -scholarship. In respect to all these, is doubtless true now, as when -spoken by Robinson, that, “The Lord has more truth yet to break forth out -of his holy word.” - -But when in a teachable spirit, we know what Jesus taught, it is the end -of controversy. - -_Fourth._—A necessary consequence from his Resurrection must be an -undoubted assurance that we have the means of knowing what his teachings -were, so far as they are essential to our guidance in this life and -preparation for that which is to come. The very idea of a revelation is -that it shall be so made known, that it can be understood, trusted in, -and obeyed, by those to whom it is given, and for whom it is intended, -so far at least, as shall be necessary for the regulation of their own -conduct. - -_Beyond this_, we cannot claim, as a logical result of Christ’s -Resurrection, and do not now inquire. And we find that through all the -years since our Lord’s ascension, while the church has had essential -truth, and there has been substantial[3] agreement in different copies -and versions, there have always been and still are, unsolved questions of -genuineness, translation, interpretation, and inspiration. In respect to -the last, Ingersoll’s demand[4] that if the writers of the Gospels were -inspired there should be but one account, or, if more than one, there -should be _no_ contradiction, is unwarrantable; and his own concession -proves it. “As a rule,” he says, “where several persons testify to the -same transaction, while agreeing in the main points they will disagree -upon many minor things, and such disagreement upon minor matters is -generally considered as evidence that the witnesses have not agreed -among themselves upon the story they should tell. These differences in -statement are accounted for from the facts that all did not see alike, -and that all did not have the same opportunity for seeing, and that all -had not equally good memories. But when we claim that the witnesses -were inspired, we admit that he who inspired them did know exactly what -occurred, and consequently there should be no contradiction in the -minutest detail.” This is very poor logic. For although “He who inspired” -did know exactly what occurred, there may have been the best of reasons -for not inspiring a full record of all that occurred, or an exact record -in all respects of what is recorded; and it must be presumed that such -an inspiration would be given as would be most conducive to the end in -view. And a like answer disposes of his confident assertion, that “_one_ -inspired record of all that happened ought to be enough.” _He_ would have -Divine wisdom sacrifice everything else for the sake of uniformity and -precise accuracy in incidental and immaterial matters. In other words he -would tithe “mint and anise and cummin,” at the expense of “weightier -matters.” The Gospels were separately written at different times, -according to the needs in the first instance of the particular classes -for which they were immediately intended, and ultimately for the wants of -the whole world. Each by itself was as complete and accurate as it was -best it should be; and the whole taken together are as full and exact, -as it is best they should be. And looking beyond the particular classes -to whom they were first given, to all generations and peoples, it was of -supreme importance that they should be _believed_; and in order to this, -that they should be so written as not to carry suspicion of collusion -or fabrication upon their face. Mr. Ingersoll knows that the testimony -of four witnesses agreeing in the main points, while differing in minor -matters, is more satisfactory than the testimony of one. If there were -nothing to be counted but numbers, the evidence would be four times -as strong. It is more than four times as strong. For, as Mr. Starkie -says,[5] and every lawyer knows, “The credibility of testimony frequently -depends upon the exercise of reason, on the effect of _coincidences in -testimony_, which, if collusion be excluded, cannot be accounted for -but upon the supposition that the testimony of concurring witnesses -is true; so much so that their individual character for veracity is -frequently but of secondary importance.” But to have this effect it is -_indispensable_ that _collusion_ be excluded. And it is of vastly greater -consequence that we be certain that we have (as it is conceded we have) -independent accounts of the crucifixion than it is, for instance, that -the inscriptions over the cross as given by the four Evangelists should -precisely agree, or that either should have been the exact words that -were written. In fact, while they all agree that the accusation was “_The -King of the Jews_” (which is all that is material), no two of them agree -with each other. But as Professor Greenleaf says, no greater certainty -is called for. “The same[6] verbal exactness is not necessary in -historians whose aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public -inscriptions.” - -If but one account, there would be the absence of that personality -and variety, which we now have, and more especially the want of that -conclusive proof which comes from independent witnesses. - -If the Gospels had been written as Mr. Ingersoll says they should have -been if inspired, the objections against them, if not insurmountable, -would have been tenfold stronger. And why should not Divine wisdom so -inspire as to secure the best possible results? And although two of the -writers were Apostles, and to the Apostles was the Holy Spirit given to -teach them “all things,” and bring to their remembrance “all things” -which Jesus had said unto them (John xiv. 26), this does not necessarily -imply an exact transmission of all the words spoken. Regard should be had -to the substance of things in this, as in other matters, and not to mere -verbal accuracy, except in those rare cases in which it is important to -know the precise language used. - -It may safely be affirmed that there is _no_ discrepancy in relation to -any essential fact, or important doctrine or duty. And it is just this -degree of certainty and accuracy, that we should expect from our Lord’s -true Messiahship as proved by his Resurrection. - -_Fifth_.—By it, we know that he had power to impart to his Apostles to -whom he entrusted the establishment of his church, and to Paul whom he -especially selected as an Apostle to the Gentiles, inspiration and the -gift of miracles. As the Father sent him into the world, even so he sent -them into the world (John xviii. 18); and what things soever they should -bind, or loose, on earth, should be bound or loosed in heaven (Luke -xxi. 14-16). Miracles were attestations of their Apostleship, “God also -bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold -powers and by gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.” -(Hebrews ii. 4.) - -With the writings of John the volume of inspiration was complete. If any -miracles were wrought after his time (which is questioned by many[7]), -there are none sufficiently authenticated to be of any evidential value -to us. - -But there is in every true Church, and will be to the end of time, what -is of greater importance than the working of miracles, the convicting and -transforming power of the Holy Ghost; and any community, by whatever name -it may be called, that has not this attestation is not a true Church of -the Lord Jesus Christ. The promise of the Comforter who shall “convict -the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment;” and “Lo! I am -with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” are as immutable as the -throne of God. - -If the Gospel had been only a “civilization,” as Mr. Chadwick terms it, -it had never been known outside of Judea. It is because it is the “wisdom -of God, and the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,” -that it has gained its marvellous victories, overturning Pagan Rome, and -in these later days transforming even Madagascar, the Sandwich Islands, -and the cannibals[8] of the Fiji Islands into Christian communities. - -_Sixth_.—In our conception of Jesus as our Saviour, we should not -separate his death from his resurrection and ascension. If he died for -our sins, he rose again for our justification. He is now exalted as a -Prince and a Saviour at the right hand of the Father, to give repentance -and the remission of sins. United to him by faith, and changed into his -image, our resurrection is assured by his, and because he lives we shall -live also. As oft as we “eat this bread and drink this cup,” we do show -forth his death TILL HE COME. “Henceforth,” (said[9] the great Apostle) -“there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord, the -righteous judge, shall give to me at that day, and not only to me, _but -also to all them that leave loved his appearing_.” “And[10] the Spirit -and the Bride say, Come; and he that heareth let him say, Come; and he -that is athirst let him come; he that will, let him take the water of -Life freely.” - -[1] It is one of the marvels of sin and shows the effrontery of Satan, -that Hooykaas, who is about as rank an infidel as Strauss himself, should -be pastor at Rotterdam, a Doctor of Divinity, and entitle his book, which -laboriously excludes everything miraculous or supernatural in relation -to Jesus, “The Bible for Learners.” Mr. Chadwick, while admitting that -he is not a Christian in the original sense of the word, argues against -Strauss (with whom he agrees in sentiment) the right to apply the term -to himself, but meaning by it only “a stream of tendency,” “freedom, -progress and civilization.” “It may be,” he says, “that some of you -conceive that my definition of Christianity does worse than include -those who are at pains to prove themselves not Christians. It includes -the dangerous classes of society; it includes the men of vice and crime. -There is no doubt of it.” (See _Free Religious Index_ for March 17, -1881, March 24, 1881, and March 31, 1881.) Mr. Miln recently _preached -a sermon_ upon “The Church of the Future,” from which he said all -speculative beliefs as a condition of membership will be excluded, even -the belief in a personal Deity. (See _Index_ for February 23, 1882.) He -does not believe in prayer other than communion with himself. (See _New -York Observer_ of February 23, 1882.) If Mr. Savage has not yet gone as -far, he stops but little short of it. - -[2] So expressed in a creed drawn up by him in 1807. (See -_Congregationalist_ of February 15, 1882.) A copy of this creed was -read at the centennial anniversary of his birth (January 18, 1882) by -the Congregational Church of Salisbury, New Hampshire. He joined this -church on profession of faith September 13, 1807, and never removed his -connection. (See _New Hampshire Journal_ of January 28, 1882.) - -[3] See chap. xiii. p. 67, _ante_. - -[4] In the _North American Review_ for August, 1881, p. 118. - -[5] Starkie on Evidence, Vol. II., Sec. 10, and note upon Hume. - -[6] Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists, p. 478. - -[7] History of God’s Church, by Enoch Pond, D.D., p. 606. And as to Judge -Waite’s “many cases of resurrection from the dead, handed down in the -ancient mythologies” and by heathen writers, it will be soon enough to -notice them whenever there shall be a serious attempt to run a parallel -between the evidence in support of them, and that which proves the -resurrection of our Lord. And so of the whole swarm of lying wonders, -whether found in heathen writers, the Apocryphal Gospels, or exhibited -by modern conjurors or spiritualists,—senseless, frivolous, for no -worthy object, and, beyond the mystery accompanying them, supported by -no reasonable proof. Our Saviour told his disciples “beforehand” that -“there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great -signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” -(Matthew xxiv. 24.) Paul told Timothy that “the Spirit saith expressly -that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to -seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisies of men -that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron.” -(1 Timothy iv. 1, 2.) This will be strange to any modern Sadducee who -believes there is “neither angel nor Spirit,” but the Christian will do -well to give heed. - -[8] Within the last thirty years, through the labors of English Wesleyan -missionaries, there has been an entire moral renovation of cannibals, -once revelling and rioting in every excess of atrocity and bestial shame. -Now there are nine thousand churches and thousands of communicants, -fourteen thousand schools and nearly fifty thousand scholars: and out -of a population of about one hundred and twenty thousand, over one -hundred thousand are reckoned as regular attendants at the churches. -Cannibalism has been voluntarily abandoned, save by a single tribe, in -eighty inhabited islands: idolatry has been abjured, and all traces of -it swept away. And to-day a gentle and refined English woman, as Miss -Gordon-Cumming in her book, At Home in Fiji, testifies, can travel these -islands alone, mingling with the people, rambling through their villages, -sleeping in their huts and eating at their tables, with none to molest -her or make her afraid. (See Rev. Edward Abbott, in _Congregationalist_ -of February 15, 1882.) - -[9] 2 Timothy iv. 8. - -[10] Revelation xxii. 17. - - - - -INDEX A. - -ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND ANCIENT AUTHORS AND WRITINGS. - - - Absence of the body of Jesus. See Empty Tomb. - - Acts and Luke, have one author, 9, 77. - - Acts, quoted from, by Justin, 23, 24, 26. - when written, 79. - - Acts of Peter and Paul (Apocryphal), 37, 38. - - Acts of Pilate (Apocryphal), 34, 35, 36, 41, note 5. - - Admissions and Presumptions, 9, 12, 13, 22, 43. - See, also, Renan, Strauss, Waite. - - After-thought, Resurrection is not an, 6, 86. - - Aged disciples, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62, note 4. - - Agrippa Castor, testimony of, 45. - - Alexandrian Codex, 70, 71, 73, note 10. - - Alogi, 47, 48, 53, 60, with 62, note 5. - - Ambrose, 48, note 5. - - Ancient Deeds and Records, are evidence, 58, 59, 64, 65. - - Andrew, the Apostle, 14. - - Angels, as porters, 124. - at the Sepulchre, 104, 106, 118, 127, 130. - - Announcement, to Mary, 25, 35, 41, note 3. - - Antoninus, 10, 18. - - Apelles, testimony of, 45. - - Apocalypse, authorship of, 12, 48, 80, note 4, 88, note 3. - Quotations from, 32, 81, 82. - - Apocryphal Gospels, 34-42, 140, note 7. - Justin did not use, 34-42. - - Apologies of Justin Martyr, 18-67. - dates of, 5, 10, 11, note 3, 18, 57, 58, 61, note 1. - - Apollinaris, testimony of, 27, 29, note 3, 45. - - Apostles, sincerity of, 74, 78, 86, 114. - - Apostleship, requisite for, 116, 119, note 14. - - Appearances, of the Risen Lord, 7, 81-89, 105-109, 115-126. - corporeal and material, 26, 66, 85, 107, 114, 122-124, 132, note 5. - Jerusalem, 105-108, 115, 121. - none such after Ascension, 126, - on the mountain, 85, 87, 107, 108, 109, note 10, 121. - Paul’s enumeration of, 85, 87, 107, 108, 125, 133, note 7. - sea of Galilee, 108, 121, 125. - to James, 87, 108, 121. - to Mary Magdalene, 105, 106, 116, 117, 121, 123. - to Peter, 85, 87, 107, 123. - to the Eleven, 85, 87, 107, 108, 109, note 10, 113, 121. - to the five hundred, 85, 87, 108, 109, note 10, 121, 125. - to the two disciples, 106, 107, 116, 118, 121, 123, 124. - to the women, 106, 109, notes 5 and 7, 115, 116, 118, 121, 123, - 125. - to Thomas, 107, 108. - why not to Sanhedrim, 110, 122. - - Appearance, to Paul, 130, 131. - in the Apocalypse, 130. - to Stephen, 126, 130. - - Aretus, the King, 83. - - Aristion, 14, 16, note 1. - - Ascending the Stream, 50-66. - - Ascension, change at, 108, 124. - Luke’s, account of, 125. - - Athenagoras, testimony of, 45, 47, 51. - - Authority of Jesus, vindicated, 135. - - Authorship of Acts, 9, 46, 77. - of Apocalypse, 12, 32, 48, 88, note 3. - of the Fourth Gospel. See same. - - - Barnabas and Titus, 10, 53, 83. - - Barnabas, Epistle of, 10, 23, 53. - Date of, 10, 67, 72, note 1. - Quotes Matthew as Scripture, 22, note 4. - Uses the Fourth Gospel, 23, 26. - - Bar-Salibi, on Tatian, 47. - - Bartholomew, 54. - - Basilides, used the Fourth Gospel, 10, 11, note 4, 27, 28, 45. - time of, 10, 28, 34. - - Begging the question, 7. - - Best evidence, what is, 10. - - Blasphemy, or a true Resurrection, 129. - - Bodily senses may be trusted, 124, 125. - - Brethren of Jesus, 39. - - Burial of Jesus, certainty of, 102, 103, 109, note 2. - - - Cæsarea Philippi, 91. - - Caius, of Rome, testimony of, 51. - - Canon of Muratori, see Muratori Canon. - - Cappadocia and Pontus to Gaul, 9, 50. - - Cave, birth of Jesus in, 35, 36, 41, note 4. - - Celsus, first Heathen writer against Christianity, 45-48, 110. - Date of his writing, 46, 48, note 6. - Quoted our Gospels, 45, 46, 47. - Theory of, 81, 88, note 1. - Makes no reference to Cyrenius, 79, note 1. - - Census in Judea, 36, 41, note 8, 42, 79, note 1. - - Central Fact of Christianity, 134. - - Central Truths of the Gospel, 129. - - Cerinthians, 37. - - Cerinthus and John, 48, 66, note 3. time of, 66, note 3. - - Certainty in courts, 99. - - Children of Joseph, 39. - - Christian Era, true date of, 11, note 3, 12, 61, note 1. - - Christianity, supposed extinction of, 70. - not a mere civilization, 139. - - Chronology of the Gospels, 76, 77, 80, note 5. - - Church at Lyons, 45. - - Church at Vienne, 45. - of Rome to Corinth, 10. See Clement of Rome. - - “Church of the future,” 134, 140, note 1. - - Chuza, Herod’s Steward, 109, note 5. - - Chrysostom, 48, note 5. - - Citations by Justin and others, 23-40. - - Claudius Apollinaris, testimony of, 45, 51. - - Clement of Alexandria, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 56, 68, 72, note 3. - - Clementine Homilies, 45. - - Clement of Rome, 10, 15, 59, 60, 66, note 1, 72, note 2. - date of his Epistle, 10. - quotations in, 23, 32, 66, note 1, 72, note 2. - upon the Resurrection, 66, note 1, 67. - - Cleopas and Luke, 106. - - Cock-crowing, 97, 100, note 4. - - Codex, Alexandrian, 70, 71, 73, note 10. - Sinaitic, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7. - Vatican, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7. - - Commentaries and Harmonies, 45, 47. - - Coming of Christ, 81, 126, 139. - - Coming out of the tombs, 130, 133, note 13. - - Confucius, 12. - - Constantine, 70. - - Copies, multiplication of, 69, 70. - - Coptic Version, 69. - - Corporeal Resurrection, 26, 66, note 1, 67, 85, 122, 123, 124, 132, - notes 4, 5. - - Corinthian church, 10. See Clement of Rome. - - Corinthians, Epistles to, - conceded to be genuine, 12, 86. - quotations from, 16, 17, 18, note 3, 31, 32, 81-87. - upon the Resurrection, 81-87. - when written, 79, 82, 88, note 2. - - Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of the Civil Law), 72. - - Credibility of the Evangelists, 74-81, 99, 101, 108, 114, 122, 124, - 125, 131, 132, 136, 138. - Of witnesses, tests of, 75, 77, 78, 99, 124, 131, 132, 136, 137. - - Cross, inscription upon, 138. - - Crucifixion of Jesus—conceded, 12, 101. - differing accounts of, 101, 125. - - Crucifixion of Jesus, surrounding circumstances, 130, 133, notes 13, - 14. - - Cursive manuscripts, 73, note 10. - - Cyrenius, taxing under, 36, 41, note 8, 79, note 1. - - - Damascus, Paul at, 82, 83. - - Darkness over the land, 130, 133, note 14. - - Day, how reckoned, 90, 100, notes 2, 3. - - Death of Jesus, certainty of, 101, 102, 103, 114, 117. - - Denial of Peter, predicted, 97, 98. - - Destruction of copies, 73, note 9. - of Jerusalem, 79. - - Diatessaron of Tatian, 45, 47. - - Diocletian, 70. - - Diognetus, letter to, 10, 23, 27. - - Dionysius of Corinth, 51. - - Disagreement of witnesses against Jesus, 89. - - Docetæ, 38. - - Domitian, persecutions under, 11. - - - Earlier writings, use of in Gospels, 78. - - Ebionites, 37, 39. - - Elders or Presbyters, testimony of, 17, note 3, 55, 60, 80, note 2. - - Elijah’s ascension, 124. - His coming, 92. - - Emmaus, locality of, 107, 109, note 9. - journey to, 106, 107, 121. - was late in the day, 106, 107. - - Empty Tomb, must be accounted for, 104, 106, 116, 118, 119, note 18, - 120, 132, note 2. - - Ephesus, tombs at, 14. - - Ephræm (the Syrian Father), 47. - - Epistles, that are conceded, 12, 84. - quotations from, 31, 32, 81-87. - when written, 79, 82, 85. - - Epistle of John, 9, 15, 123. - - Epistles of Paul, 12, 31, 32, 79, 81-87. - - Errors in copying, 71, 72. - of witnesses. See Credibility. - - Eusebius, fifty copies by, 70. - on different subjects, 14, 15, 16, note 2, 37, 38, 53, 70, 88, - note 3. - - Evidence, rules of, 9, 13, 22, 43, 77, 78, 124, 131, 136, 138. - - Experience, reasoning from, 12, 43, 112, 124. - - - False Assumptions, corrected, 110-117. - - Fifty copies by Eusebius, 70. - - Fire in the Jordan, 37. - - Flesh, implies blood, 123. - - Flight into Egypt, 78. - - Forgery of John’s Gospel, absurdity of, 52, 60, 64. - - Fourth Gospel, early use of, by or in, - Agrippa, Castor, 45. - Alogi, 47, 48, 53, 60, with 62, note 5. - Apelles, 45. - Apollinaris, 27, 29, note 3, 45. - Athenagoras, 45, 47. - Barnabas, 23, 26. - Basilides, 10, 11, note 4, 27, 28, 45. - Caius, of Rome, 51. - Canon of Muratori, 45, 48, note 5, 53, 56. - Celsus, 45, 46, 47, 48, note 6. - Church of Lyons and Vienne, 45. - Claudius Apollinaris, 45, 51. - Clement of Alexandria, 45, 46, 51, 54, 56, 68, 72, note 3. - Clementine Homilies, 45. - Commentaries and Harmonies, 45, 46, 47, 53. - Coptic Version, 45, 69. - Diatessaron of Tatian, 45, 47. - Diognetus, 23, 27. - Dionysius of Corinth, 51. - Elders at Ephesus, 55. - Hegesippus, 51. - Heracleon, 45, 47, 49, note 8. - Hermas, 23, 27, 51. - Hippolytus, 27, 28. - Irenæus, 45, 51, 55, 56, 72, note 3. - Justin Martyr, 23, 30, 31, 34-67. - Leonides, 51. - Melito of Sardis, 45. - Muratori Canon, 45, 48, note 5, 53, 56. - Origen, 39, 45, 51, 54, 56, 72, note 3. - Pantænus, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56. - Papias, 15, 16, note 3, 23, 27, 33. - Polycarp, 45, 51, 55, 56. - Polycrates, 51. - Pothinus, 51, 55, 56. - Serapion, 38, 39, 45, 51, 56. - Tatian, 45, 47. - Tertullian, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56, 72, note 3. - Theophilus of Antioch, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 56. - Translations, 45, 51, 69, 70. - Valentinus, 45, 47. - Victor of Rome, 51. - - - Galatians, conceded genuineness of, 12. - evidential value of, 82-87. - quotations from, 32, 80-87. - when written, 79, 82, 88, note 2. - - Galicinium or cock-crowing, 97, 100, note 4. - - Galilee, appearances, 85, 87, 107, 108, 115, 121, 125, 133, note 7. - meeting in, 97, 104, 108, 109, note 10. - predictions of His death, 93 to 100. - - Gelasius, Decree of Canonicity, 34. - - Genuineness of Canonical Gospels, 67-73. - legal presumption of, 13, 22, 43, 63, 64, 65. - See, also, Credibility, Memoirs. - - Gnostic Heretics, 10, 45, 51. - - Good Shepherd, 93, 94. - - Going up to Jerusalem, 94. - - Gospel of Nicodemus (Apocryphal), 35, 36. - - Gospel of Hebrews (Apocryphal), 35, 37, 40, 42. - - Grand motive for Resurrection of Christ, 111, 129, 130. - - Grave clothes, evidence from, 105, 109, note 6, 119, note 18. - - Greek Classics, manuscripts of, 71, 73, note 11. - - Greek and Roman historians, 9, 10, 11, 130, with 133, note 14. - - Greeks, interview of, with Jesus, 95. - - Guard of soldiers, 103, 104, 109, notes 3 and 4, 124. - - - Hades not the grave, 115. - - Hebrew, Matthew written in, 15, 37. - - Hebrews, (Apocryphal), Gospel of, 35, 37, 40, 42, note 10. - - Hegesippus, testimony of, 51. - - Heracleon, testimony of, 45, 47, 49, note 8. - - Heretics, testimony of, 45, 47, 51. - - Hermas, authorship of, 10, 18, 48, note 5, 52, 53. - citations in, 27. - date of, 10, 48, note 5. - used John’s Gospel, 23, 27. - - Hermas, Bishop of Rome, 48, note 5. - - Hippolytus, 27, 68. - - Historical difficulties, 65, 67, 68, 79, note 1. - See, also, Credibility. - - Historical facts, how proved, 9, 131. - See, also, Legal Presumption. - - - Ignatius, Epistles of, 10, 28. - - Inspiration, extent of, 75, 132, 136. - - Irenæus, testimony of, 14, 16, note 3, 45, 55, 56, 66, note 3, 72, - note 3. - on Papias, 14, 15, 16, note 3, 27. - on Presbyters, 16, note 3, 27. - to John’s Gospel, 45, 51, 55, 56. - - Integrity of the Gospels, 67. - - Intervals between appearances, 121, 122. - - - James, appearance to, 87, 108, 121. - - James, the Apostle, 14, 83, 85. - - James, the Lord’s brother, 83, 85. - - Jairus’ daughter, 110. - - Jerome’s translation, 37. - testimony of, 45. - - Jerusalem, appearances at, 105-108, 115, 121. - - Jewish Sabbath, displaced by Lord’s Day, 81, 82. - - Jewish Passover, displaced by Lord’s Supper, 81, 82. - - Joanna, wife of Chuza, 109, note 5. - - John and Cerinthus, 66, note 3. - - John, the Apostle, 14, 15, 102, and _passim_. - at the Cross, 115. - at the Sepulchre, 105, 106, 120. - time of his death, 15, 56, 57, 58, 64, 66, note 3. - See Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel. - - John, the Baptist, 92. - - John, the Presbyter, 13, 14, 15, 17, note 3, 21, 88, note 3. - - John’s Epistle, 9, 15, 123. - - John’s Gospel, character of, 75, 76, 78. - See Fourth Gospel. - - Josephus, testimony from, 12. - compared with Luke, 77, 78. - silence of, no proof, 77, 78, 130. - when born, 130. - - Joseph of Arimathea, 90, 103, 122. - - Justin Martyr’s writings, 14. - birth, character and martyrdom, 14, 18, 36, 51, 61, note 1. - - Justin Martyr, on the Apocalypse, 80, note 4, 88, note 3. - does not quote Epistles, 31, 32, 33. - on Cyrenius, 79, note 1. - on guard of soldiers, 104, 109, note 4. - used the Fourth Gospel, 30-67. - - Justin’s Apologies. See Apologies, etc., and Memoirs Intended, by - Justin. - - - Lactantius, time of, 37. - - Lapse of time as evidence, 13, 22, 64, 65. - - Latin Version, 69. - - Law, the Resurrection conformable to, 111, 112. - - Lawyers should investigate, preface and 131. - - Laying down His life, 93, 94. - - Legal presumptions, - of genuineness, 13, 22, 43, 67. - of permanency, 13, 22, 43, 50, 59, 62, note 3. - of rightfulness, 13, 22, 43, 65, 66. - - Leonides the martyr, 51, 54. - - Lifting up the Serpent, 30, 89, 90, 129. - - Lineage of David, 36, 42, note 9. - - Literal Resurrection, 66, note 1, 85, 112, 123, 124, 132, note 5. - - Logical Results of the Resurrection, 134. - - Lord’s Day, evidential value of, 81, 82. - displaced the Jewish Sabbath, 81, 82. - - Lord’s Supper, evidential value of, 81, 82, 96, 97, 102, 129. - displaced the Passover, 81, 82. - - Lost Tributaries, 9, 67. - - Lucius, time of, 61, note 1. - - Luke’s qualifications as a witness, 21, 45, 57, 77, 78. - compared with Josephus, 77, 78. - was a companion of Paul, 21, 45. - - Luke’s Gospel, character of, 9, 48, note 5, 76, 77, 78. - was mutilated by Marcion, 38, 45, 54, 68, 69, 72, note 7. - quotations from, by Justin, 25, 26, 33. See Memoirs, etc. - - Lyons and Vienne, 45. - - - Manuscript copies of Gospels, 69, 70, 71, 72. - - Marcion, time of, 61, note 1, 68. - “Wolf of Pontus,” 38, 61, note 1, 69, 72, note 7. - - Marcion’s Gospel, date of, 68. - an abridgment of Luke’s, 38, 45, 54, 68, 69, 72, note 7. - proves genuineness of Luke, 45, 68, 69. - - Mark as Peter’s interpreter, 15, 21, 38, 39, 45, 46, 57, 61, 76. - character of his Gospel, 76, 77. - See Memoirs, etc. - - Material Resurrection, 26, 66, note 1, 85, 122, 123, 124, 132, note 5. - - Martha and Lazarus, 94. - - Matthew’s qualifications, 14, 15, 75, 103. - character of his Gospel, 15, 37, 76 to 78, 80, note 6. - first in Hebrew, 15, 37. - See Memoirs, etc. - - Mary Magdalen, not mentioned by Paul, 116. - at the Sepulchre, 104, 105. - beholds the Risen Lord, 105, 106, 117, 121, 123. - but disciples incredulous, 105, 106, 116. - Renan’s empty boast, 116, 119, note 12. - - Mary the Mother of James, 109, note 5. - - Maximian, 70. - - Melito of Sardis, testimony of, 45, 51. - - Memoirs Intended by Justin, 18, 34, 45, 50-67. - of the year one hundred and eighty, 45, 64. - no others proved, 34, 64. - no others substituted, 50 to 57, 64. - summary of evidence, 63, 64. - were Our Gospels, 18 to 67. - - Miracles, cessation of, 139, 140, note 7. - are not impossible, 7, 65, 111, 118, note 2, 3. - conformable to law, 111, 112. - gift of, to the Apostles, 138, 139. - grand motive for, 111, 129, 130. - may be proved, 8, 111, 112, 113, 118, note 2, 3. - - Mythological resurrections, 140, note 7. - - Moral necessity of Christ’s Resurrection, 128, 129. - - Multiplication of copies, insures correctness, 69, 70, 71. - - Muratori Canon, date of, 48, note 5. - where found, 48, note 5. - what it is, 45, 48, note 5, 53, 56. - - Myths and Legends, disproved, 86, 87, 88. - - - Nazarenes, 37. - - Nero’s Persecution, 9, 11. - - Nicodemus, 31, 52, 89, 90, 103, 122. - - Nicomedia, Persecution at, 73, note 9. - - - Omission is not Contradiction, 16, 16, note 3, 32, 36, 67, 77, 124, - 125. - - Opening of prison doors, 124. - - Order of Events, 101. - - Origen, 39, 45, 47, 49, 51, 54, 56, 72, note 3, 122, 132, note 4. - against Celsus, 47, 49, 132, note 4. - against “Peter’s Gospel,” 39, 45. - on genuineness of Our Gospels, 45, 54, 72, note 3. - on Resurrection Body, 122, 132, note 4. - - - Pagan Nations, Christianized, 9, 10, 12, 13, 139, 141, note 8. - - Pagan Persecutions. See Ten Persecutions. - - Pantænus, testimony of, 45, 51, 53, 54, 56. - - Papias, character and martyrdom, 14, 15. - - Papias, fragments of his writings, 10, 14, and note 3 on pp. 16-17, - 37. - on Mark’s Gospel, 14, 15, 37, 56. - on Matthew’s Gospel, 14, 15, 37, 56. - probably used John’s Gospel, 15, 16, note 3, 33. - - Passover and the Lord’s Supper, 81, 82. - - Passover week, 115. - - Pastor Hermas, see Hermas. - - Part of a day for the whole, 90, 100, notes 2, 3. - - Paul’s conversion, date of, 83, 88, note 2. - testimony to the Resurrection, 81 to 87. - visits to Jerusalem, 82, 83. - - Paul’s conceded Epistles, 12, 67, 84, 86. - when written, 79, 82, 85, 88, note 2. - their great value as evidence of Christ’s Resurrection, 12, 81 to - 88. - - Peter’s change of character, 127, 128. - at the tomb, 104, 105. - charge to, 108. - denial, 97, 98. - rebuked, 92, 97. - See Appearances. - - Peter’s Gospel (Apocryphal), 20, with 22, note 2, 38, 39, 40, 42, - note 14, 45, with 48, note 1, 62, note 6. - - Philip, the Apostle, 14. - - Philippians, Epistle to, 12. - - Physical cause of Christ’s death, 102, 108, note 1. - - Pilate, assured of Christ’s death, 103, 114. - - Pliny’s Letter to Trojan, 9, 12, 59. - - Ploughs and Yokes, 35. - - Polycarp, testimony of, 10, 23, 33, 45, 51, 55, 56. - his Epistle, 10, 33. - his martyrdom, 55. - - Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, 51. - - Positive and Negative Evidence, 32, 36, 67, 77, 124, 125. - - Pothinus, testimony of, 51, 55, 56. - - Preaching of the Resurrection, - as early as Day of Pentecost, 83, 84, 101. - disproves Myths or Legends, 85, 86. - must be accounted for, 113, 114. - theories upon, 113, 114. - - Preaching of Paul, (Apocryphal,) 37. - - Predictions of His Death and Resurrection, - by Himself, 89 to 97, 102, 128, 129. - by the Prophets, 127, 128. - why not understood, 100. - their great force as evidence, 102. - - Preface, 5. - - Presumptions, see Legal Presumption. - - Presentation at the Temple, 78. - - Previous Resurrections, 116, 117. - - Proclamation of the Resurrection. See Preaching, etc. - - Proof of the Resurrection possible, 111, 112. - and sufficient, 115 to 133. - - Prophecies of the Resurrection. See Predictions, etc. - - Protevangelium (Apocryphal), 34 to 42. - - Public Ministry, termination of, 76, 80, note 5, 96. - - - Quotations in the Second Century, - from Old Testament, not exact, 24, 31. - from Gospels, not exact, 23, 24, 31, 47. - name of writer not given in quoting, before Theophilus, 45, 46, 47, - 53, 56, 67. - See Barnabas, Clement, Hermas. - - Quotations by Justin Martyr, - from Acts, 23, 24, 33. - from John, 23, 30, 31, 32. - from Luke, 23 to 27, 33. - from Mark, 23, 24, 32. - from Matthew, 23, 24, 33. - - Quotations, by Irenæus, 45, 51, 55, 56. - by Origen, 45, 72, note 3. - by Papias, 15, 16, note 3. - by Presbyters, 16, note 3. - by Theophilus, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 56. - by Tertullian, 38, 45, 54, 55, 68, 69, 72, note 3. - - - Relation of Gospel to Epistles, 87, 88. - - Reminiscences, and not connected Histories, 77. - - Rending the Veil, 130. - - Repositories for the Gospel, 63, 64. - - Resurrection of Jesus Christ, antecedently probable, 128, 129. - sufficiently proved, 112 to 133. - - Resurrection Body, 26, 66, note 1, 67, 85, 122, 123, 124, 132, notes - 4, 5. - - Revelations, generally conceded, 12, 88, note 3. - quotations from, 32, 81, 82. - style differs from Gospel, 76, 80, note 4. - sufficiently accounted for, 76, 80, note 4. - - Revised Version, 72, 100, note 1, 109, note 7. - - Roman Civil Law, text of, 72, 73, note 13. - - Romans, Epistle to, conceded, 12. - quotations from, 31, 32, 81 to 87. - when written, 79, 82. - - - Salome, 109, note 5. - - Sanhedrim, 82, 98, 101, 103, 109, note 3, 110, 113, 120, 122. - - Saturn-day, Sunday, 19. - - Septuagint, 19. - - Serapion, testimony of, 38, 39, 45, 51, 56. - - Severus, persecution under, 10. - - Slaying of the children, 78. - - Shepherds, visit of, 78. - - Sinaitic Codex, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7. - - Sincerity of the witnesses conceded, 74, 86, 87, 114. - - Sign of Jonah, 90, 100, notes 2, 3. - of temple of his body, 89. - of Brazen Serpent, 89, 90, 129. - - Silence not contradiction, 16, 16, note 3, 32, 36, 67, 77, 124, 125. - - Socrates, 12. - - Soldiers’, fabrication, 103, 104, 109, note 4, 124. - - Sources of Evidence, 7 to 10. - - Spear of the Soldier, 102, 114. - - Stephen’s vision of Christ, 126, 130. - - Substitution of Gospels, disproved, 50 to 67. - - Sufficiency of the Proofs, 110 to 130, 132, 137, 138. - - Superscription on the Cross, 138, 140, note 6. - - Suppression of Evidence, 115. - - Survival of the fittest, 13. - - Sybilline writings, 37. - - Synoptics, meaning of, 76, 80, note 3. - - Syria and Cilicia, 83. - - Syriac Version, 69. - - - Tabernacle predictions, 93. - - Tacitus, the Historian, 9, 12. - - Tatian, the Heretic, 45, 47, 48. See Diatessaron. - - Ten Persecutions, 11. - - Tertullian, the distinguished Lawyer, 38, 45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 68, - 72, note 3. - - Theophilus of Antioch, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 56. - - Theophilus of Antioch, quoted John by name, 46, 51, 53. - - Theophilus, the friend of Luke, 77. - - Thessalonians, Epistles to, 12. - - Thomas the Apostle, 14. - - Tiberias, appearances at, 108, 121, 125, 133, note 7. - - Time, how reckoned by the Jews, 90, 100, note 3. - - Titus and Barnabas, 83. See Barnabas. - - Toleration, rule for, 135. - - Tombs, at Ephesus, 14. - - Tradition, 9, 53, 54, 66, 67, 68. - - Trajan, persecution under, 9, 10, 12, 59. - - Transfiguration, 92, 123. - - Translations, 69, 70. - - Trypho the Jew, 18, 19, 20, 21, 104, 109, note 4. - See Justin Martyr. - - - Uncial manuscripts, 73, note 10. - - Unity of Gospels, 79. - - Usages in Justin’s time, 19. - - - Valentinus, evidence from, 45, 47. - - Vatican Codex, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7. - - Victor, Bishop of Rome, 51. - - Vienne and Lyons, 45. - - Vision, theory stated, 114. - disproved, 114 to 132. - - - Walking on the Sea, 123. - - Wise men of the East, 78. - - Witnesses in Court,—see Credibility, etc. - women not competent, 116, 119, note 13. - - Women at the Sepulchre, 104 to 106, 109, note 5, 115, 116. - - - Yielding up the Ghost, 99. - - - Zebedee’s Sons, 42, note 14, 90 to 100. - - - - - -INDEX B. - -ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO MODERN AUTHORS, EVENTS, AND WRITINGS. - - - Abbot, E. A., D.D., on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5. - - Abbott, Rev. Edward, on Fijis, 141, note 8. - - Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel by Ezra Abbot, D.D., LL.D. - (Boston, 1880.) Frequent citations from, 10 to 48. - - Abbott, Cyclopædia of Religious Knowledge, by Lyman Abbott, D.D., - LL.D., cited, 122, 132, note 5, with 122. - - Adams’ Roman Antiquities, 119, note 13. - - Alford (Dean) 103, 108, note 1, with 102. - - Ambrosian Library, 48, note 5. - - Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 16, notes 1, 3, 22, 23, 30, 34. - - Arnold, Matthew, on Basilides, 28, with 10, and 11, note 4. - - - Bampton Lectures, 40 with 42, note 17, 68 with 72, note 6. - - Barnes, Albert, on site of Emmaus, 109, note 9. - on the Resurrection Body, 123, 132, note 5. - - Bartlett, Pres., on the slight historical errors, 79, note 1. - - Baur, J. C., on Fourth Gospel, 52. - - Bentley, on genuineness of Gospels, 71. - - Blackstone, 32, 132. - - Bleek, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5. - - Buck’s Theological Dictionary, 11, note 5. - - - Cannibals Christianized, 139, 141, note 8. - - Canonicity,—See Charteris. - - Chadwick’s Views of Christianity, 134, 139, 140, note 1. - - Charteris, Prof. A. H., D.D., on Basilides, 28. - date of Celsus, 49, note 6. - date of Justin’s Apology, 61, note 1. - early universal use of Gospels, 47. - Fourth Gospel, 17, 27, 28, 47. - Marcion’s Gospel, 72, note 7, with 69. - Papias, 17. - Pastor Hermas, 27. - - Child, L. Maria, 119, note 13. - - Congregationalist, 58, note, 140, note 2, 141, note 8. - - Conybeare and Howson’s Life of Paul, 82, 83, with 88, notes 2, 4. - - Credner, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5. - - Curtiss, Prof. Samuel Ives, D.D., on Apocryphal Gospels, 34, 35, 39, - and 40 with 42, notes 15, 16. - date of Celsus, 48, note 6. - date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 6. - Judge Waite, 35, 48, note 6. - - Cursive manuscripts of Gospels, 73, note 10. - - - Davidson, Samuel, cited by Waite, 29, note 4. - - De Soto, 52. - - Donaldson and Roberts, 16, notes 1, 3, 20, 22, note 1, 23, 30, 61, - note 1. - - Dorner on use by Papias of John’s Gospel, 17. - - Drummond, Prof., on Justin’s use of John’s Gospel, 30. - - - Early settlements in New Hampshire, 58. - - - Farrar, (Canon), 100, note 1, 109, note 3. - - Fisher, Prof. George P., D.D., on Alogi, 62, note 5. - date of Apocryphal Gospels, 41, note 2, with 34. - date of Celsus, 49, note 6, with 46. - date of Justin’s Apology, 61, note 1. - date of Muratori Canon, 46, 48, note 5. - genuineness of text of Gospels, 67, 71, 72, note 4, 73, note 12. - John’s Gospel, 27, 29, note 3, 33, note 3, with 30. - Justin’s Quotations, 46, 48, notes 2, 4, 62, note 5, 67, 68, 72, - note 4. - Marcion’s Gospel, 72, note 4, with 68. - Theophilus, 46, 48, note 4. - - Free Religious Index, 140, note 1. - - Friedlieb, on physical Cause of Death, 102, 108, note 1. - - - Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, by Cunningham Geikie, D.D., - (1880), cited page 109, note 10, with page 108. - - Gibbon’s Rome, 9. - - Gibson, Ch. Justice, 131. - - Gilbert West,—See West. - - Godet, Prof. F., D.D., 88, note 1, 90, 100, note 3, 126, 132, notes - 1, 2, 133, note 8. - upon Possibility of Miracles, 132, notes 1, 2, with 111. - upon Sign of Jonah, 88, note 1, 90, 100, note 3. - upon Vision Theory, 126, 133, note 8. - - Gordon-Cumming, in Fiji, 141, note 8. - - Granite Monthly, 58. - - Greenleaf, Prof. Simon, LL.D., on cock-crowing, 100, note 4, with 97. - credibility of witnesses, 78, 137, 138, 140, notes 3, 6. - genuineness of Gospels, 13, 72, 73, note 13. - presumption of Permanency, 43, 44, note 1, 66. - presumption of Rightfulness, 13, 44, note 1, 66. - sign of Jonah, 100, note 3, with page 90. - superscription on the Cross, 138, 140, note 6. - truth of Christianity, 132, 138, 140, note 6. - - - Hanna, Rev. William, LL.D., on cause of death, 109, note 1, with 102. - empty tomb, 105, 109, note 6. - Galilee meeting, 109, note 10, with 108. - - Hilgenfeld on Justin’s use of John’s Gospel, 30, 33, note 3. - on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5. - - Hooykaas and his Bible for Learners, 114, 119, note 8, 128, 133, note - 12, 134, 140, note 1. - - Holtzmann, on Apocryphal Gospels, 35. - - Hume’s argument from experience, 43, 112. - - - Ingersoll on inspiration, 136, 137, 138. - on miracles, 112, 118, note 3. - - Inter-Ocean (Chicago), 41, note 2, 42, note 15, 16. - - - Kent, Chancellor, 32, 132. - - Keim, Dr., on date of Celsus, 48, 49, note 6. - on the empty tomb, 120, 132, note 2. - - - Lafayette’s visit, 57, 62, note 2. - - Landing of the Pilgrims, 58. - - Lange’s Life of Jesus, on cause of death, 108, note 1, with 102. - Cleopas and Luke, 106, 109, note 8. - Galilee meeting, 108, 109, note 10. - guard of Soldiers, 109, note 3, with 103. - journey to Emmaus, 106, 109, note 8. - lifting up the Serpent, 89, 90, 100, note 1. - locality of Emmaus, 109, note 9. - sign of Jonah, 100, notes 2, 3, with 90. - women at the Sepulchre, 104, 109, note 5. - - Lemisch on date of Justin’s Apology, 61, note 1. - - Light Infantry Poor, 62, note 2, with 57. - - Lipsius, Prof. of Jena, on date of Apocryphal Gospels, 35. - that Justin did not use them, 40, 42, note 15. - - Lord Brougham, 132. - - - Madagascar Christianized, 139. - - Mason, Jeremiah, 132. - - Marshall, Ch. Justice, 132. - - Matthew Arnold. See Arnold. - - McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, on Cerinthus, 66, note 3. - Pagan Persecutions, 11, note 5, 73, note 9. - Resurrection Body of Christ, 123. - - Meyer’s Lexicon, on date of Apocryphal Gospels, 35. - - Mill, J. S. concedes, Christ Historical, 128, 133, note 11. - miracles possible, 8. - - Miln, on “Church of the Future,” 134, 140, note 1. - - Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord, by William Milligan, D.D., - Prof. etc. in the University of Aberdeen. (London, 1881), - Cited, 114, 119, notes 5, 7. - - Morrison, James, D.D., on Empty Tomb, 119, note 18. - - - New Hampshire Journal, Preface and 140, note 2. - - New York Observer, 140, note 1. - - Neander, on the date of Justin’s Apology, 61, note 1. - destruction of Church, etc., at Nicomedia, 73, note 9. - - New Revision, 72, 100, note 1. - - North American Review, 118, note 3, 140, note 4. - - Norton, on Peter’s Gospel, 39, 42, note 12, 56, note 2. - on Genuineness of Our Gospels, 54, 56, 76, 80, note 6. - on number of Copies of Gospels, 73, note 8, with 70. - - - Page on date of Justin’s Apology, 61, note 1. - - Parker, Joel, Ch. Justice, 43. - - Parmelee, Dr. Simeon, great age of, 57. - - Parsons, Theophilus, Ch. Justice, 132. - - Patten’s Diaries, 58. - - Paulus, Theory of, 114. - - Phillips, on Presumptions, 43, 44, note 1. - - Pond, Dr. Enoch, as to cessation of Miracles, 140, note 7. - - Princeton Review, 68, 72, note 4, 79, note 1. - - - Renan, Ernest, admissions by, 12, 13, note 1, 84, 112, 130, 133, - notes 12 and 14. - demands expert testimony, 7. - denials, 7, 11, note 1, 112, 118, note 3. - idle boasting, 84, 116, 119, note 12. - upon Christ’s teachings, 128, 133, note 12. - upon silence of Historians as to occurrences at the Crucifixion, - 130, 133, note 14. - - Reuss, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5. - - Riggenback, on use by Papias of John’s Gospel, 17. - - Roberts and Donaldson, 16, notes 1 and 3, 20, 22, note 1, 23, 30, 61, - note 1. - that Justin did not cite Peter’s Gospel, 20. - - Robinson’s Holy Land, 109, note 9. - - Robinson, John, the Pilgrim Father, 135. - - Robinson, Prof., on the Resurrection Body, 122, 132, note 5. - - Routh, on Papias’ use of John’s Gospel, 17. - - Rowe, Prof. See Bampton Lectures. - - - Salisbury Church. See Webster. - - Sanday, Dr., on quotations by Justin, 24. - by Irenæus, 56. - dates of Celsus, Muratori Canon, 48 and 49, notes 5, 6. - that Marcion’s Gospel is an abridgment of Luke, 68, 69, 72, note 7. - - Sandwich Islands Christianized, 139. - - Savage, on the “Church of the Future,” 134, 140, note 1. - - Schleiermacher, theory of, 81, 88, note 1. - - Schenkel’s Lexicon, on date of Apocryphal Gospels, 35. - - Scott, Thomas, D.D., that part of the day is counted for the whole, - 90, 100, note 3. - upon Resurrection Body, 122, 132, note 5. - - Scribner’s Monthly, 73, note 12. - - Sears’ “Heart of Christ,” 30, 33, note 3, 49, note 6, 61, note 1, 80, - note 4. - - Smith and Wace’s Dictionary, 35. - - Spiritualists, 140, 141, note 7. - - Stanley (Dean) as to date of Polycarp’s Epistle, 10. - - Starkie, on coincidences, 137, 140, note 5. - on Christianity, 132. - - Stier, that part of a day is counted for the whole, 90, 100, note 2. - - Story, Judge, 32, 132. - - Stowe, Prof. C. E., on Apocryphal Gospels, 35, 41, note 2. - Elders at Ephesus, 56, note 4, with 55. - Gospel to Hebrews, 37, 42, note 10. - Greek Classic Copies, 71, 73, note 11. - John’s Gospel, 48, note 4. - Theophilus, 48, note 4. - - Strauss, David, Admissions by: - actual death of Jesus, 81, 102, 114, 119, note 6. - sincerity of witnesses, 86. - universal use of the Gospels, by the end of the Second Century, 45, - 46. - false theories of, 7, 8, 81, 88, note 1, 106, 115. - became an atheist, 8. - how far commended, 38, 134. - more candid than Waite, 38. - - Stroud, on physical cause of Death, 102, 108, note 1. - - Supernatural Religion. An Inquiry into The Reality of Divine - Revelation. (Anonymous.) Referred to pp. 17, 42, note 14, 68, - 69, 112, with 118, note 3. - - - Taylor, William, D.D., on Miracles, 111, 118, note 1, 128, 133, note - 10. - - Thomson’s “Land and Book,” 35, 36, 41, note 4. - - Tischendorf, Constantine, discoverer of the Sinaitic Codex, 70. - on Commentary of Heracleon, 47, 49, note 8. - on difference in Manuscripts, 73, note 10. - on number of manuscript copies, 71, 73, note 10. - on quotations by Irenæus, 56, note 3, with 55. - on use, by Papias, of John’s Gospel, 17. - - Tübingen School, 8, 30. - - - Uncials, number of, 73, note 10. - - - Waite, History of the Christian Religion to the year Two Hundred. By - Charles B. Waite, A. M. Second Edition, Chicago (1881), 34. - - Waite, C. B., admits Gospels do not copy from each other, 74. - - Waite, C. B., his mistakes as to Apocalypse, 88, note 3. - Apocryphal Gospels, 35, 36, 41, note 5. - Basilides, 29, note 4. - Clement of Rome, 32, 66, note 1, 67, 72, note 2. - Celsus, 48, note 6. - Cerinthus, 66, note 3. - Justin Martyr, 5, 10, 11, note 3, 61, note 1. - Marcion’s Gospel, 38, 45, 54, 68, 69, 72, note 7. - Muratori Canon, 48, note 5. - Peter’s Gospel, 20, note 2, 38, 39, 40, 42, note 14, 48, 62, note 6. - Resurrection body, and Paul, 85, 114, 119, note 8, 122. - with other matters too numerous to mention. - - Walker, Timothy, Diaries of, 58. - - Webster, Daniel, 132, 135, 140, note 2. - his creed, 135, 140, note 2. - his church membership, 140, note 2. - - Warrenton, on quotations from O. T., 80, note 1. - - Weiseler, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5. - - Westcott, 17, 80, note 6. - - Wesleyan Missionaries, 141, note 8. - - West, Gilbert, on resurrection, 117, 119, note 16. - - Whitby, that a part of a day is put for the whole, 100, note 3. - - Whittier’s Poem, 57. - - Wright. The Logic of Christian Evidences. By Rev. G. Frederick - Wright, Andover, Mass. (1880), cited or quoted, 18, 24, 28, - note 1, 56, notes, and 80, note 6. - - - Yorktown Scammel, 62, note 2. - - - - - -ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS. - -W. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, ANDOVER, MASS. - - -Among the Andover Publications will be found choice and valuable books -for intelligent readers; also works for the special use of Theological -Students and Clergymen. The Catalogue embraces works on the Evidences -and Defences of Christianity, Devotional books, Essays in Philosophy -and Theology, Church History, Discrepancies of the Bible, Hermeneutics, -Commentaries on various books of the Old and New Testaments, Harmonies of -the New Testament in Greek and in English, Grammars of the New Testament -Greek, Hebrew Lexicon and Grammars, etc. - -Descriptive Catalogues sent free on application. All books sent by -mail postpaid, at the prices annexed. A special discount of twenty per -cent is given to clergymen and theological students, excepting on the -“Bibliotheca Sacra” and those books which are marked by a *. - -Address - -W. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, ANDOVER, MASS. - - -_Books Published by W. F. Draper._ - -=Remarks on the Internal Evidence for the Truth of Revealed Religion.= By -THOMAS ERSKINE, Esq., Advocate. Third American, from the Fifth Edinburgh -Edition. 16mo. 75 cents. - - “The entire treatise cannot fail to commend the positions which - it advocates to intelligent and considerate minds. It is one of - the best, perhaps _the_ best, of all the discussions of this - momentous subject.”—_Congregationalist._ - - “This argument of Erskine for the Internal Evidence of the - Truth of Revealed Religion, is the most compact, natural, and - convincing we have ever read from any author.”—_Christian - Chronicle._ - - “No man ought to consider himself as having studied theology - unless he has read and pondered and read again ‘Erskine on the - Internal Evidence.’”—_Independent._ - -=Five Discourses on St. Paul.= To which is added a Discourse on Fatalism. -By ADOLPHE MONOD. Translated from the French by Rev. J. H. MYERS, D.D. -12mo. 90 cents. - - “The aim of the author is to present an estimate of the - character, labors, and writings of the Apostle Paul in the - light of an example, and to apply the principles which actuated - him, and which he maintained, to Christians of the present - day.”—_Boston Journal._ - - “A book unsurpassed in its department, in any language, for - manly eloquence, thorough research, profound reflection, a most - earnest, glowing, winning Christian spirit, united with an - exact appreciation of the great Apostle’s character and work, - and a wise, cautious, but bold and unflinching, application of - his teachings to the times in which we live.”—_The Translator._ - - “A masterly and most eloquent delineation of the inner life of - the great Apostle.”—_Evangelical Quarterly._ - -=_Writings of Archbishop Whately._= Published under the sanction of the -author, from the latest revised edition; viz. - -=Essays on some of the Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul.= 12mo. -Cloth extra, gilt tops. $1.50 - - “Dr. Whately’s writings are characterized by sound thought - and solid judgment. Clear and solid sense is his peculiar - characteristic. He is often ingenious, generally candid, almost - always plain and transparent.”—_Bibliotheca Sacra._ - - “An excellent work.”—_New York Evangelist._ - - “The Archbishop’s writings are a part of the sterling - theological letters of the age, and ought to be possessed by - all the studious and thoughtful.”—_Journal and Messenger._ - - “This book had passed through at least eight editions in - England before its publication in this country. Dr. Whately - is always entitled to a hearing. Never profound, he is always - clear; never very original, he is always instructive; never - disgustingly dogmatic, he always seems to feel a serene - assurance that he has exhausted the whole subject, and that - his verdict is final; always positive and didactic, he is - yet never extreme, but always takes the middle and moderate - view.”—_Watchman and Reflector._ - -=Essays on some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion, and -Historic Doubts concerning Napoleon.= 12mo. pp. 264 and 48. Bound in 1 -vol. Cloth extra, gilt tops. $1.50 - -=Historic Doubts concerning Napoleon.= 12mo. Paper covers. 25 cents; -cloth, 40 cents. - - About the year 1821 Whately published this Essay anonymously. - It was designed as an answer to Hume’s objections to the - credibility of the Christian miracles. Following Hume’s method, - Whately gravely argued the improbability of the existence - of the first Napoleon, and demonstrated that, on Hume’s - principles, the testimony in relation thereto could not be - credited. - -=The Contemplations and Letters of Henry Dorney of Uley, -Gloucestershire.= 12mo. $1.00 - - The Contemplations and Letters of Henry Dorney were held in - high estimation by Madam Phebe Phillips. The copy which she - used, came down to her as an heirloom from her pious ancestors, - and was ranked, on her private table, next to her Bible and - hymn-book. So highly did she esteem the work, that she copied - out, with her own hand, a large part of the volume for the use - of a friend. It is now reprinted as a precious memorial of one - of the honored founders of the Theological Institution. - -=Bible History of Prayer.= By C. A. GOODRICH. 12mo. $1.25 - - “The aim of this little volume is to embody an account of the - delightful and successful intercourse of believers with heaven - for some four thousand years. The author has indulged a good - deal in narrative, opening and explaining the circumstances - which gave birth to the several prayers. - - “The author does not aim to write a treatise on prayer, or to - comment on all the references to prayer in chronological order, - but to dwell on its nature and importance, and make suggestions - on the most important allusions to prayer, as indicated all - along for four thousand years. He explains the circumstances - connected with the prayers of these holy men.”—_Religious - Union._ - -=Messianic Prophecy and the Life of Christ.= By Rev. W. S. KENNEDY. 12mo. -$1.25 - - “The plan of the author is to collect all the prophecies of - the Old Testament referring to the Messiah, with appropriate - comments and reflections, and then to pursue the subject - through the New Testament in the life of Christ as he appeared - among men. The reader will find the results of Hengstenberg - and Neander here gathered up, and presented in a readable - shape.”—_The Presbyterian._ - - “This work exhibits the prophetic element in the Messianic - argument in an analytical shape, and with peculiar - force.”—_Episcopal Recorder._ - - “The general idea of the book is a very happy one, and it has, - on the whole been well wrought out.”—_The Lutheran._ - -=Theologia Germanica.= Which setteth forth many fair Lineaments of -Divine Truth, and saith very lofty and lovely things touching a Perfect -Life. Edited by DR. PFEIFFER, from the only complete Manuscript yet -known. Translated from the German by SUSANNA WINKWORTH. With a Preface -by the Rev. CHARLES KINGSLEY, Rector of Eversley; and a Letter to -the Translator, by the CHEVALIER BUNSEN, D.D., D.C.L., etc.; and an -Introduction by PROF. CALVIN E. STOWE, D.D. 16mo. Cloth, $1.25; calf, -$2.50 - - This treatise was discovered by Luther, who first brought it - into notice by an edition which he published in 1516, of which - he says: “And I will say, though it be boasting of myself, and - ‘I speak as a fool,’ that, next to the Bible and St. Augustine, - no book hath ever come into my hands whence I have learnt, or - would wish to learn, more of what God and Christ, and man, and - all things, are.” “A precious lump of pure gold in a flag of - earth and stone.” - - “This little volume which is brought out in antique style, is, - apart from its intrinsic value, a curiosity of literature. It - may be regarded as the harbinger of the Protestant Reformation. - No fewer than seventeen editions of this book appeared in - his lifetime, and up to the present day it has continued to - be a favorite manual of devotion in Germany, where it has - passed through certainly as many as sixty editions.”—_Evening - Traveller._ - - “I value it _exceedingly_, so vivid and so rich is it, - on the great ideas of _sin_, and _salvation through - Christ_.”—_Congregational Herald._ - - “A most valuable, interesting, and instructive volume, upon the - most vital points of Christianity.”—_Lutheran Standard._ - -_=Haley. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.=_ By -John W. Haley, M.A. With an Introduction by Alvah Hovey, D.D., Professor -in the Newton Theological Institution. Crown 8vo. pp. xii and 473. $1.75 - - =From Professor Edwards A. Park.=—“I do not know any volume - which gives to the English reader such a compressed amount of - suggestion and instruction on this theme as is given in this - volume.” - - =From the Presbyterian Quarterly.=—“The book is honest, candid, - and painstaking. It will be found useful to all students of the - sacred volume.” - - “An able book, containing a clear and dispassionate discussion - of a momentous subject. It stands unique in a field of its - own.”—_Independent._ - - “As an example of thorough and painstaking scholarship, as a - serviceable handbook for all Bible students, and as a popular - defence of revealed truth, it will take high rank, and fill an - important place which up to this time has been conspicuously - vacant.”—_Congregationalist._ - - “It would be difficult, by any amount of labor, to produce - anything more convincing and satisfactory.”—The _Interior._ - -_=Haley. The Hereafter of Sin=_: What it will be; with Answers to Certain -Questions and Objections. By Rev. John W. Haley, author of “Alleged -Discrepancies of the Bible.” 16mo. 75 cents. - - “It presents, in a calm and admirable manner, the Scriptural - doctrine of future retribution, divested, indeed, of the - literalism with which it is sometimes presented, and - showing its accordance with the deductions of a sound - philosophy.”—_Zion’s Herald._ - - “It is a scholarly, clear, dispassionate, and conclusive - argument in favor of what is known as the common or orthodox - view of future punishment. The whole discussion is conducted in - a spirit of courtesy and fairness towards all opponents which - does credit to our current controversial literature.”—_The - Interior._ - -_=Wright. The Logic of Christian Evidences.=_ By Rev. G. Frederick -Wright. 16mo. $1.50 - - “Beginning with a general statement of the principles of - inductive and deductive logic, which are illustrated by ample - examples drawn from the whole field of modern science, it - advances to the consideration of the personality, wisdom, and - benevolence of the Creator, as seen in nature; to the place of - miracles in the Christian system; to the specific evidences - of Christianity as discerned in the early history of the New - Testament, and in the characteristics of the Christians of the - first and second centuries; and to the historical probability - of Jesus and his immediate followers having been either - impostors or deluded enthusiasts.”—_Literary World._ - - “The book would form an admirable text-book for Bible-classes - or college classes, and will give solid comfort and strength to - all readers who have any desire to be able to give a reason for - believing.”—_Rev. Dr. Thomas Hill in the Bibliotheca Sacra._ - -_=Wright. Studies in Science and Religion.=_ By Prof. G. Frederick -Wright, author of “The Logic of Christian Evidences.” 16mo. $1.50 - - “The chapter on inductive reasoning, with which the book opens, - is as full, explanatory, and convincing as any one could wish, - despite the fact it occupies only twenty-six pages.... The - grand point contended for and carried is that ‘Christianity, - in its appeal to historical evidence, allies itself with - modern science rather than with the glittering generalities of - transcendentalism,’ and that in its beginnings science has no - advantage over religion in solidity of basis.”—_The Leader._ - - “The article on Prehistoric Man, now appears for the first - time. It is illustrated by a number of maps and cuts which - enhance the interest of the story. The southern limit of the - ice of the Glacial Epoch in North America is traced, and the - connection of human implements therewith is shown.”—_Oberlin - Review._ - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PROOFS OF CHRIST'S -RESURRECTION; FROM A LAWYER'S STANDPOINT *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |