A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot"s Essays.
by Walter R. Ca.s.sels.
INTRODUCTION.
I sincerely rejoice that Dr. Lightfoot has recovered from his recent illness. Of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his republication of the Essays on _Supernatural Religion_ affords decided evidence, and I hope that no refutation of this inference at least may be possible, however little we may agree on other points.
It was natural that Dr. Lightfoot should not be averse to preserving the more serious part of these Essays, the preparation of which cost him so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion of his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and attractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to many. I cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and of temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence and conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume, which is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt to discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious argument. A material part of the volume is composed of such matter.
I cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed.
Personally I am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction, and it is with heretical amus.e.m.e.nt that I contemplate the large part which purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play in stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. In the first moment of irritation, I can well understand that hard hitting, even below the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated theologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should not only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection, is at once an error and a compliment for which I was not prepared.
Anything to prevent readers from taking up _Supernatural Religion_: any misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements.
Elaborate literary abuse against the author is subst.i.tuted for the effective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting.
In the later editions of my work, I removed everything that seemed likely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor questions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. Whilst Dr. Lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes his original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of his Essays by the reiterated condemnation of pa.s.sages which had so little to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the complete edition of Supernatural Religion. Could there be more palpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of his objections? It is not too much to say that in no part of these Essays has Dr. Lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental proposition of _Supernatural Religion_. He has elaborately criticised notes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details: but as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and the reality of alleged Divine Revelation, his volume is an absolute blank. Bampton Lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have frankly admitted that the Christian argument must be reconstructed.
They have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable, crumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose the feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of Dr Lightfoot"s Essays. The substantial correctness of the main conclusions of _Supernatural Religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the reply to its reasoning. The eagerness with which Dr. Lightfoot and others rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the more important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable.
Those who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to be solved really is will not get any help from his volume.
The republication of these Essays, however, has almost forced upon me the necessity of likewise republishing the reply I gave at the time of their appearance. The first Essay appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_, and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _Supernatural Religion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the portions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that readers will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is published with the view of affording a convenient form of reference for those interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those Essays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such further explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my statements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot"s arguments must still be sought in the volumes of _Supernatural Religion_, but I trust that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his allegations and their bearing on my argument.
I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the first time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to wind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show the inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot"s treatment. But I have still more been moved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not contain them.
Dr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think that I am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but I may distinctly say that I have always held that arguments upon very serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. I leave the Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I take my stand upon the basis of reason and not of reputation.
I.
_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT"S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_ [Endnote 1:1]
The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important, that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which may be fallacious.
Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the att.i.tude of silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the case is somewhat different when criticism a.s.sumes the vicious tone of the Rev. Dr. Lightfoot"s article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering severe lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens, falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand.
I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his attack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general detraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be p.r.o.nounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the threadbare maxim: "A bad case--abuse the plaintiff"s attorney," remains in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still is. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with which Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the ma.s.s of such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist"s ingenuity has been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is, however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked"
which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once to reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the weakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which "most critics" are agreed in maintaining." He will probably find that "most critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many points, from most critics.
The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is regarding "a highly important pa.s.sage of Irenaeus," containing a reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy"
would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words "say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of a pa.s.sage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation, in the total absence of the original, that these special words were supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr.
Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what "the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and he then proceeds (-- 2) with indirect construction, indicating a reference to some other authority than himself, to the pa.s.sage in question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This pa.s.sage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text: "In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a note on an earlier page: "The pa.s.sage quoted by Irenaeus from "the Elders" may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of interpretation;" [4:2] and then follows the pa.s.sage in which the indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of "they taught." [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing this testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel."
The reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the justness of the ascription of this pa.s.sage to Papias, and who was not acquainted with all the circ.u.mstances, and with the state of critical opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements, understand the real position of the case.
Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole pa.s.sage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot, now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated treatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the pa.s.sage, there is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing the evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers to this pa.s.sage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _forta.s.se_ (in italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the pa.s.sage, it may, as Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters"
should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab Irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est, utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer, [5:3] who refers to the pa.s.sage, remarks that it is doubtful whether these presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the saying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it merely to abandon the pa.s.sage as evidence connected with Papias, and only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the first half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the translator of Tischendorf"s work into Dutch, and his warm admirer, brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the circle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly separates the presbyters of this pa.s.sage from Papias, and a.s.serts that they may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt, [6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does not attempt to a.s.sociate the quotation with the book of Papias, but merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it is impossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D.
150," refers to this pa.s.sage, and says: "It is precarious to infer with Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters from Papias"s book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it not evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word "elders") loosely, without an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr.
Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on a pa.s.sage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of the eschatological tradition of "the presbyter, a disciple of the Apostles," introduces the words, "and that therefore the Lord said, "In my Father"s house are many mansions."" Here it is equally uncertain whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and whether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel."
[6:4]
With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his while to refer to this pa.s.sage at all. Neither in considering the external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in discussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do apologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer, Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette, Gfrorer, Lucke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it, although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of Zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so indirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of Eusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on neither side is the pa.s.sage introduced into the controversy at all; and whilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with the fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved.
Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as testimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly have produced this pa.s.sage, if they could have maintained it as taken from the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to a.s.sume that any of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the pa.s.sage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in which the quotation is discussed.
This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of Dr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction, a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly trained schoolboy." I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note, the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below, but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai de ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos], for the express purpose of showing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott, beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and that I proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the pa.s.sage is referred, are in no case necessarily to be a.s.sociated with the work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this was already published before Dr. Lightfoot"s criticism appeared, and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2]
With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself.
"Tischendorf"s words," he says, "are "und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der Herr den Ausspruch gethan." He might have spared the "sagen sie,"
because the German idiom "habe" enables him to express the main fact that the words were not Irenaeus"s own without this addition." Writing of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct a.s.sertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters, those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the "habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high authorities of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own.
[9:2]
My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for a.s.serting that the pa.s.sage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing more than the exegesis of his own day.
The second point of Canon Lightfoot"s attack is in connection with a discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a pa.s.sage from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows: "On the strength of the pa.s.sage so translated, our author supposes that Origen"s impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile been "considerably modified," and remarks that he now "treats him as a contemporary." Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen does not say "Celsus _has promised_," but "Celsus _promises_ ([Greek: epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen"s knowledge was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say "If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write," but "If he _did not write_ as he undertook to do" ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]); nor "If he _has commenced and finished_," but "If he _commenced and finished_" ([Greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen"s language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with the earlier pa.s.sages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here "an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey a totally wrong impression of the case.
The argument regarding this pa.s.sage in Origen occurs in a controversy between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report; [10:3] and to avoid antic.i.p.ation of the point, I promise to give the pa.s.sage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this pa.s.sage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick of his precursor"s scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen"s words in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments as follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than a completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic"s poverty. For the a.s.sertion derived from the close of the work of Origen rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]: ""Wenn da.s.s Celsus versprochen hat" [_has promised_] "jedenfalls in seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfa.s.sen, worin u.s.w."
"Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht geschrieben hat" [_has not written_], "so genugt es uns mit diesen acht Buchern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch jene unternommen und vollendet hat" [_has undertaken and completed_], "so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,""
&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly, but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases, but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2]
Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen there may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist.
Instead of depending on the "strength of the pa.s.sage so translated,"
however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of this or any other version of Origen"s words; and, in fact, the point is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than my own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his impressions concerning the date and ident.i.ty of his opponent became considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons.
In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others a.s.sert, on the strength of the pa.s.sage in the eighth book and from other considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of Lucian, there could be no ground for a.s.signing to him an early date; but, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the circ.u.mstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short, scarcely turns upon the pa.s.sage in Origen at all, and that which renders it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors, which can ent.i.tle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of Divine Revelation.
I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of pa.s.sages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as Dr. Lightfoot"s general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot interest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept correction even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The "higher criticism," in which Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.
[13:1]
I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as "a highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking, _en pa.s.sant_, of a pa.s.sage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the "Age of Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally omitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, "and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1]
In vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the pa.s.sage, I proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have Originally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of such a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24, in which "only" has been subst.i.tuted for "never" in deciphering my MS.
Since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation.
I can a.s.sure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition [Greek: ho Baptistes]. [15:1]
I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott"s mode of dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says--
"Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:--
""At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."" ("Canon,"
p. 264)
"The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott"s book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply ill.u.s.trating the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of information, one would suppose. On this pa.s.sage, however, our author remarks--
""Now we have here again an ill.u.s.tration of the same misleading system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to, in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to a.s.sert the fact that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the apologist." ("S.R." i. p. 459)
"Dr. Westcott"s honour may safely be left to take care of itself.
It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these.
I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed Dr. Westcott"s inverted commas, and then founded on the pa.s.sage so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself would have thought of." [16:1]
In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to quote Dr. Westcott"s statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott says: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times, it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration was still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--"names to strike terror into the superst.i.tious"--by whose writings he supported his peculiar views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter;" [16:2]
and he also made use of certain "Traditions of Matthias," which claimed to be grounded on "private intercourse with the Saviour."
[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a "Life of Christ," as it would perhaps be called in our days, or "The Philosophy of Christianity"--but he admitted the historic truth of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony of Basilides to our "acknowledged" books is comprehensive and clear.
In the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c."
And in a note Dr. Westcott adds, "The following examples will be sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [17:1]