Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion | Page 6

and certainly
far more satisfactory than the book which lies before me?
2. And the difficulty of the popular identification will be found to
increase as the investigation proceeds. There is a second point, also, on
which our critics are unanimous. Our first reviewer describes the author
as 'scrupulously exact in stating the arguments of adversaries.' Our
fourth reviewer uses still stronger language: 'The author with excellent
candour places before us the materials on which a judgment must rest,
with great fulness and perfect impartiality.' The testimony of the other
two, though not quite so explicit, tends in the same direction. 'An
earnest seeker after truth,' says the second reviewer, 'looking around at
all particulars pertaining to his inquiries.' 'The account given in the
volume we are noticing,' writes the third, 'is a perfect mine of
information on this subject, alloyed indeed with no small prejudice, yet
so wonderfully faithful and comprehensive that an error may be
detected by the light of the writer's own searching and scholarly
criticism.'

Now this is not the characteristic of the book before me. The author
does indeed single out from time to time the weaker arguments of
'apologetic' writers, and on these he dwells at great length; but their
weightier facts and lines of reasoning are altogether ignored by him,
though they often occur in the same books and even in the same
contexts which he quotes. This charge will, I believe, be abundantly
substantiated as I proceed. At present I shall do no more than give a
few samples.
Our author charges the Epistle ascribed to Polycarp with an
anachronism [11:1], because, though in an earlier passage St Ignatius is
assumed to be dead, 'in chap. xiii he is spoken of as living, and
information is requested regarding him "and those who are with him."'
Why then does he not notice the answer which he might have found in
any common source of information, that when the Latin version (the
Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is retranslated into the
original language, [Greek: tois sun autô], the 'anachronism' altogether
disappears? [11:2] Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the
discussion of Papias [11:3], why does he not even mention the view
maintained by Dr Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a
strict interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object in his
'Exposition' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative, but to
interpret and illustrate by oral tradition one already lying before him in
written documents? [11:4] This view, if correct, entirely alters the
relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and its discussion was a
matter of essential importance to the main question at issue. Again,
when he reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the strong
prejudice' of Hegesippus against St Paul [12:1], and quotes the
often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer
refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the words,
'Eye hath not seen, etc.', why does he not state that these words were
employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of initiation, and
consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that Hegesippus refers to the
words, not as used by St Paul, but as misapplied by these heretics?
Since, according to the Tübingen interpretation, this single notice
contradicts everything else which we know of the opinions of
Hegesippus [12:2], the view of 'apologists' might perhaps have been

worth a moment's consideration. And again, in the elaborate
examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical quotations [12:3], in which
he had Credner's careful analysis to guide him, and which therefore is
quite the most favourable specimen of his critical work, our author
frequently refers to Dr Westcott's book to censure it, and many
comparatively insignificant points are discussed at great length. Why
then does he not once mention Dr Westcott's argument founded on the
looseness of Justin Martyr's quotations from the Old Testament, as
throwing some light on the degree of accuracy which he might be
expected to show in quoting the Gospels? [12:4] The former Justin
supposed to be (as one of the reviewers expresses it) 'almost
automatically inspired,' whereas he took a much larger view of the
inspiration of the evangelical narratives. A reader fresh from the
perusal of Supernatural Religion will have his eyes opened as to the
character of Justin's mind, when he turns to Dr Westcott's book, and
finds how Justin interweaves, mis-names, and mis-quotes passages
from the Old Testament. It cannot be said that these are unimportant
points. In every instance which I have selected these omitted
considerations vitally affect the main question at issue.
Our fourth reviewer however uses the words which I have already
quoted, 'excellent candour,' 'great fulness,' 'perfect impartiality,' with
special reference to the part of the work relating to the authorship and