Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion | Page 2

[Footnote: See
Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament p. 9.], where it was a
question of weighing probabilities, as is the case in most historical
investigations, to choose invariably that alternative, even though the
least probable, which would enable him to score a point against his
adversary. For the rest I disclaim any personal bias, as against any
personal opponent. The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' as distinct
from the work, is a mere blank to me. I do not even know his name, nor
have I attempted to discover it. Whether he is living or dead, I know
not. He preferred to write anonymously, and so far as I am concerned, I
am glad that it was so; though, speaking for myself, I prefer taking the
responsibility of my opinions and statements on important subjects.
In several instances the author either vouchsafed an answer to my
criticisms, or altered the form of his statements in a subsequent edition.
In all such cases references are scrupulously given in this volume to his
later utterances. In most cases my assailant had the last word. He is
welcome to it. I am quite willing that careful and impartial critics shall
read my statements and his side by side, and judge between us. It is my
sole desire, in great things and in small, to be found [Greek: sunergos tê
alêtheia].
BOURNEMOUTH, May 2, 1889.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1--31 II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS
32--58 III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES 59--88 IV. POLYCARP OF
SMYRNA 89--141 V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS I. 142--177 VI.
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS II. 178--216 VII. THE LATER SCHOOL
OF ST JOHN 217--250 VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL 251--271
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 272--288

DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
291--302 INDICES 303--324

SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.
I. INTRODUCTION.
[DECEMBER, 1874]
If the author of Supernatural Religion [Footnote 1:1] designed, by
withholding his name, to stimulate public curiosity and thus to extend
the circulation of his work, he has certainly not been disappointed in
his hope. When the rumour once got abroad, that it proceeded from the
pen of a learned and venerable prelate, the success of the book was
secured. For this rumour indeed there was no foundation in fact. It was
promptly and emphatically denied, when accidentally it reached the
ears of the supposed author. But meanwhile the report had been
efficacious. The reviewers had taken the work in hand and (with one
exception) lavished their praises on the critical portions of it. The first
edition was exhausted in a few months.
No words can be too strong to condemn the heartless cruelty of this
imputation. The venerable prelate, on whom the authorship of this
anonymous work was thrust, deserved least of all men to be exposed to
such an insult. As an academic teacher and as an ecclesiastical ruler
alike, he had distinguished himself by a courageous avowal of his
opinions at all costs. For more than a quarter of a century he had lived
in the full blaze of publicity, and on his fearless integrity no breath of
suspicion had ever rested. Yet now, when increasing infirmities obliged
him to lay down his office, he was told that his life for years past had
been one gigantic lie. The insinuation involved nothing less than this.
Throughout those many years, during which the anonymous author, as
he himself tells us, had been preparing for the publication of an
elaborate and systematic attack upon Christianity, the bishop was
preaching Christian doctrine, confirming Christian children, ordaining
Christian ministers, without breathing a hint to the world that he felt

any misgiving of the truths which he thus avowed and taught. Yet men
talked as if, somehow or other, the cause of 'freethinking' had gained
great moral support from the conversion of a bishop, though, if the
rumour had been true, their new convert had for years past been guilty
of the basest fraud of which a man is capable.
And all the while there was absolutely nothing to recommend this
identification of the unknown author. The intellectual characteristics of
the work present a trenchant contrast to the refined scholarship and
cautious logic of this accomplished prelate. Only one point of
resemblance could be named. The author shows an acquaintance with
the theological critics of the modern Dutch school; and a knowledge of
Dutch writers was known, or believed, to have a place among the
acquisitions of this omniscient scholar. Truly no reputation is safe,
when such a reputation is traduced on these grounds.
I have been assuming however that the work entitled _Supernatural
Religion_, which lies before me, is the same work which the reviewers
have applauded under this name. But, when I remember that the St
Mark of Papias cannot possibly be our St Mark, I feel bound to throw