quoted by Eusebius. Papias was Bishop of Hieropolis, in Asia Minor, and suffered martyrdom, when an aged man, about the year 164. He was therefore brought up in personal contact, not with the Apostles themselves, but with those who, like Polycarp and others, had been their immediate disciples, and had known and conversed with them. In the passage quoted he states his preference for oral tradition over written documents, and his reasons for it. He says: "If I found some one who had followed the first presbyters, I asked him what he had heard from them; what said Andrew or Peter, or Philip, Thomas, James, John, or Matthew; and what said Andrew and John the Presbyter, who were also disciples of the Lord; for I thought I could not derive as much advantage from books as from the living and abiding oral tradition." And he goes on to give his reasons for not attaching more weight to the two written sources of information which were evidently best known and looked upon as of most authority in his time, viz., the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Mark. He says that Matthew wrote down in Hebrew the Logia, or principal sayings and discourses of the Lord, "which every one translated as he best could," evidently implying that these numerous translations were, in his opinion, loose, inaccurate, and unreliable. As regards Mark, he says that Mark, who had not known the Lord personally, and had never heard Him, followed Peter later as his interpreter; and when Peter, in the course of his teaching, mentioned any of the doings or sayings of Christ, took care to note them down exactly, but without any order, and without making a continuous narrative of the discourses of the Lord, which did not enter into the intention of the Apostle. Thus Mark let nothing pass, jotting down a certain number of facts as Peter mentioned them, but having no other care than to omit nothing of what he heard, and to change nothing in it."

66

This testimony of Papias is very valuable and very instructive. In the first place, it seems conclusive that the Gospel of St. John was not known to him, and not received in the early Christian Churches of Asia Minor as a work of authority. Had it been so received, Papias must have known of it, brought up as he was at the feet of men who had been John's disciples, and bishop of a Church closely connected with those of which, if there is any faith in tradition, John had been the patriarch and principal founder. And if he had known of such a written Gospel as that of St. John, and believed it to have been really written by the "beloved disciple," the Apostle second only, if second, to St. Peter, it is inconceivable that he should have expressed such an unqualified preference for oral tradition, and made such an almost. contemptuous reference to written documents. He must have said: "For, with the exception of the Gospel of the blessed John, I found that little was to be got from books.

It seems clear, therefore, that although the Gospel of St. John may contain genuine reminiscences of an early date, and possibly some which really came from the Apostle himself, the work in its present form could not have been written by him, and must have been compiled at such a late date as to have been unknown in the Christian Churches of the East in the time of Papias.

The same remark applies to the Gospel of St. Luke, of which Papias has equally no knowledge, and which, from internal evidence, appears to be a later edition of the two earlier Gospels, or of the original manuscripts from which they were taken, altered in places to

meet objections of a later date, as where the injunction to "go into Galilee; there shall ye see him," is changed into "as he spoke unto you when he was yet in Galilee," obviously to reconcile the statement with the subsequent belief that the Ascension took place at Jerusalem.

There remain the two original Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Mark. Volumes of erudition have been written to try and reconcile them with one another, and with the other two Gospels, and to explain the extraordinary resemblances and no less extraordinary differences. Translations have been heaped on translations, and successive editions and revisions piled on one another until the edifice toppled over by its own weight, but, after all, we have nothing better to rely on than the statement of Papias, which there is no reason to mistrust. The basis of the three Synoptic Gospels was probably a collection of facts and anecdotes written down in Greek by Mark, and of discourses written in Hebrew by Matthew. These have been worked up subsequently, at unknown dates, and by unknown authors, aided possibly by oral traditions, into connected narratives or biographies of the life and teachings of the Founder of the religion.

Possibly, though by no means certainly, we have in the present Gospel according to St. Matthew the nearest approach to the original Logia or doctrinal discourses, and in the present Mark the nearest approach to the original notes recorded by Mark from the dictation of St. Peter.

As regards the Gospel according to St. John, it appears perfectly clear, both from the silence of Papias, the absence of any reference to it by other early Christian Fathers until the end of the second century, and still more from internal evidence, that it could not possibly have been written by the Apostle whose name it bears. John, as we know from St. Paul's Epistles, was one of the pillars of the Christian Church of Jerusalem, whose doctrine was in all respects Hebraic, and who opposed the larger idea that a man could be a Christian without first becoming a Jew.

The writer of the Gospel is not only ignorant of matters which must have been well known to every Jew, but he is positively prejudiced against Judaism, and represents it in an unfavorable light. His narrative of the events of the life of Jesus, including the miracles, is totally different from that of the Synoptics, and his view of His character and report of His speeches wide as the poles asunder. To the Synoptics Jesus is the man-Messiah foretold by the prophets; to the author of John He is the "Logos," the incarnation of a metaphysical attribute of the Deity.

The terse and simple clearness of His sayings recorded by the first, is exchanged in the latter for an involved and cumbrous phraseology reminding one of a Papal Encyclical. The amiability and "sweet reasonableness" of the Jesus of the Synoptics, have become acrimonious unreasonableness and egotistical self-glorification in many of the long harangues which are introduced on the most unlikely occasions in the fourth Gospel.

It is evident, therefore, that this Gospel can afford no aid towards a critical examination of contemporary evidence, and that for this we must look almost entirely to such remains of early records as are preserved in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. With these data, how does the evidence stand as regards the miracles of the Resurrection which are the test cases of all alleged miracles?

It is important to observe that the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of St. Mark stop at the 8th verse of the last chapter, and that the subsequent verses, 9-20, have every appearance of being a later addition made to reconcile this Gospel better with the prevailing belief and with the other Gospels. Commentators discover a difference in the style and language, and the appearances are described in vague and general language, very different from the distinct details given of them in the other Gospels, and inconsistent with the formal statement twice repeated in the genuine Mark that they were to take place in Galilee. Moreover, if these verses were really in the original Gospel, it is inconceivable how they should have dropped out in the oldest manuscripts, while it is perfectly conceivable how they should have been added at a later period, when the Fathers of the Church began to occupy themselves with the task of harmonizing the different Gospels.

But if the genuine Mark really terminated with the 8th verse, not only is there no confirmation of the four miraculous appearances, including the Ascension, recorded by St. Paul as being currently believed by the early Christians within twenty years of their occurrence, but there is positively no mention of any appearance at all. A young man, clothed in white, tells three women who went to the tomb that Jesus is risen, and that they were to tell His disciples and Peter that they would see Him in Galilee; an injunction which was not carried out, for the women were afraid, neither said they any thing to any man.'

66

In St. Matthew the young man has become an angel, and as the women return from the tomb Jesus met them and said, "All hail," repeating the injunction to tell the disciples to go into Galilee, where the Eleven accordingly went into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them, and "when they saw him they worshipped him: but some doubted." This is the whole of Matthew's testimony.

St. Luke, again, in his Gospel and Acts amplifies the miraculous appearances almost up to the extent described by St. Paul, though with considerable differences both of addition and omission. The three women become a number of women; the one angel or young man in shining clothes, two; the appearance to the women disappears; Peter is mentioned as running to the sepulchre but departing without seeing anything special except that the body had been removed; the first appearance recorded is that to the two disciples walking from Emmaus, who knew Him not until their eyes were opened by the breaking of bread, when He vanished; the next appearance is to the Eleven sitting at meat with closed doors; and finally there is the crowning miracle of the Ascension, stated somewhat vaguely in the Gospel, but with more detail in the Acts, describing how He was taken up to heaven and received in a cloud, in the sight of numerous witnesses. This is probably the same miracle as that mentioned by St. Paul as having occurred in the presence of "more than five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain alive unto this present;" though he mentions two subsequent appearances-one to James and a second to all the Apostles-of which no trace is found in any other canonical narrative. It is to be noted that all St. Luke's miracles are expressly stated to have occurred at Jerusalem, where Jesus had commanded His disciples to remain, and are, therefore, i direct contradiction with the statements of Matthew and Mark, tha

whatever occurred was in Galilee, where the disciples were expressly enjoined to go.

When we come to St. John, we find the first part of the narrative of the other Gospels repeated with several variations and a great many additional details. Mary Magdalene is alone and finds the stone removed from the sepulchre. She tells Peter and John, who run together to the tomb; John outruns Peter, but Peter first enters and sees the napkin and linen grave-clothes, but nothing miraculous, and they return to their homes. Mary remains weeping and sees, first two angels, and then Jesus himself, whom she at first does not recognize and mistakes for the gardener. The walk to Emmaus is not mentioned, and the next appearance is to the disciples sitting with closed doors. Another takes place after eight days, for the purpose of convincing Thomas of the reality of the resurrection in the actual body, and here apparently the narrative closes with the appropriate ending, "That these things are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." But a supplementary chapter is added, describing a miraculous draught of fishes and appearance to Peter, John, and five other disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee, in which the command is given to Peter to "Feed my sheep," and an explanation is introduced of what was doubtless a sore perplexity to the early Christian world, the death of St. John before the coming of the Messiah.

These are the depositions of the five witnesses, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, in which the verdict "proven" or "not proven must rest in regard to the issue "miracle" or "no miracle."

The mere statement of them is enough to show how insufficient they are to establish any ordinary fact, to say nothing of a fact so entirely opposed to all experience as the return to life of one who had really died. Suppose it were a question of proving the signature of a will, what chance would a plaintiff have of obtaining a verdict who produced five witnesses, four of whom could give no certain account of themselves, while the fifth spoke only from hearsay, and the details to which they deposed were hopelessly inconsistent with one another as regards time, place, and other particulars? The account of the Ascension brings this contradiction into the most glaring light. According to St. Luke and St. Paul this miracle took place at Jerusalem, in the presence of a large number, St. Paul says over 500 persons, before whose eyes Jesus was lifted up in the body into the clouds, and more than half, or over 250 of these witnesses, remained alive for at least twenty years afterwards to testify to the fact. Consider what this implies. Such an event occurring publicly in the presence of 500 witnesses is not like an appearance to a few chosen disciples in a room with closed doors: it must have been the talk of all Jerusalem.

The prophet who had shortly before entered the city in triumphal procession amidst the acclamations of the multitude, and who, a few days afterwards, by some sudden revolution of popular feeling, had become the object of mob-hatred; who had been solemnly tried, condemned, and executed; that this prophet had been restored to life and visibly translated in the body to heaven in the presence of more than 500 witnesses, must inevitably have caused an immense sensation. However prone the age might be to believe in miracles, such a miracle as this must have startled everyone. The most incredulous must have

been converted; the High Priest and Pharisees must, in self-defence, have instituted a rigid inquiry; the Proconsul must have reported to Rome; Josephus, who, not many years afterwards, wrote the annals of the Jews during this period with considerable detail, must have known of the occurrence and mentioned it.

And above all, Matthew, Mark, and John must have been aware of the occurrence; and in all probability, Matthew, John, and Peter, from whom Mark derived his information, must have been among the 500 eye-witnesses. How then is it possible that, if the event really occurred, they not only should not have mentioned it, but partly by their silence, and partly by their statement that they went into Galilee, have virtually contradicted it. The Ascension, if true, was a capital fact, not only crowning and completing the drama of Christ's life which they were narrating with its most triumphant and appropriate ending, but confirming, in the strongest possible manner, the doctrine for which they were contending, that He was not an ordinary man or ordinary prophet, but the Messiah, the Son of God, who had redeemed the world from its original curse and conquered sin and death. One might as well suppose that any one writing the life of Wellington would omit the Battle of Waterloo as that any one writing the life of Christ would knowingly and wilfully omit all mention of the Ascension. It must be evident that whoever wrote the original manuscripts from which the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John were compiled, must either never have heard of the Ascension, or having heard of it did not believe it to be true. This must also apply to the other miraculous appearances said to have occurred at Jerusalem. How was it possible for writers who knew of them to make no mention of them, and virtually contradict them by asserting that they did not remain at Jerusalem, but went to Galilee in obedience to a command to that effect, and that the final parting of Jesus from His disciples took place there?

The most unaccountable fact is the total silence of Mark, who was nearest the fountain-head if he derived his information from St. Peter, as to these miraculous appearances. If his Gospel ended with verse 8 of chapter xvi., as the oldest manuscripts and the internal evidence of the postscripts afterwards added appear to prove, there is absolutely no statement of any such appearance at all. Nothing is said but that three women found the tomb empty and saw a young man clothed in white, who told them that Jesus had risen and gone into Galilee. Now, if there is one fact more certain than another about miraculous legends, it is that as long as they have any vitality at all, they increase and multiply and do not dwindle and diminish. We have an excellent example of this in the way in which a whole cycle of miracles grew up in a short time about the central fact of the martyrdom of St. Thomas à Becket.

If, therefore, Matthew and Mark knew nothing of the series of miracles, which from St. Paul's statement we must assume to have been currently believed by tho carly Christians twenty years after the death of Christ, the only possible explanation is that their Gospels were compiled from narratives which had been written at a still earlier date, before these miracles had been heard of.

We must suppose that Mark really wrote down what he heard from Peter, and that Peter, being a truthful man, though he probably had a sincere general belief that Christ had risen, declined to state facts