chapter 39, gives us most of our information about Papias. His estimate

of him, as a man of very limited understanding, does not deter us from regretting the loss of his writings. The fragments which remain cast such radiance on some of the dark points of the Christian evidences. Paley and all the school of evidence-writers cite him as proving the existence of our Matthew and Mark. But he is now generally seen to prove the very reverse.

Let us first examine his statement in regard to Matthew. As given on the authority of Eusebius, it reads that "Matthew composed the _logia_ [oracles or sayings] in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone interpreted them as he was able."

Now it is somewhat curious that Papias, probably in the second half of the second century, should be the first to give currency to the tradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel if that Gospel had been in existence 100 years.

But that the work referred to was not the same we now have is manifest from its name _logia_, discourses, sayings, or oracles. It would be an utter misnomer for an historical narrative beginning with a detailed history of the genealogy, birth and infancy of Jesus, and the preaching of John the Baptist, and concluding with an equally minute account of his betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, giving all his movements and miracles, and which has for its evident aim throughout the demonstration that Jesus was the Messiah. Our Gospel, not written by, _but according to_ Matthew, has no such title.

Moreover, ours is a Greek and not a Hebrew Gospel. The testimony of Papias on this point is explicit It is, moreover, confirmed by a consensus of all the Fathers: Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine, and all others who allude to Matthew's Gospel declare that it was written in Hebrew. Now our Gospel is considered by the most competent authorities an original document. There is no ground whatever for considering it a translation, even if we knew that Matthew's Gospel had been properly translated, instead of everyone interpreting it as he was able. Many of the quotations in it from the Old Testament are taken not from the Hebrew but directly from the Greek Septuagint. Its turns of language have the stamp of Greek idiom, and could not have come in through translation. So that there is no reason for even indirectly connecting our Canonical Gospel according to Matthew with the _logia_ which Papias had heard were composed by him.

This position is somewhat strengthened when we find in the Fragments of Papias, p. 442: "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out." Theophylact, after quoting this passage, adds other particulars, as if they were derived from Papias. He says that Judas's eyes were so swollen that they could not see the light, that they were so sunk that they could not be seen, even by the optical instruments of physicians; that the rest of his body was covered with runnings and worms, etc.

If Papias knew from Matthew that Judas had already hanged himself, and further from the Acts of the Apostles that he had fallen headlong in a field and burst asunder, it was really too hard to inflict on poor oft-killed Judas these additional cruelties. Surely it were better _that_ man had never been born, though in that case we know not how Christian Salvation would have been brought to the world. It seems as if each new Christian writer felt himself at liberty to invent a new death for Judas, who was divinely appointed to bring about their redemption. By Paul's saying Jesus appeared to the twelve (1 Cor. xv., 5), it is evident he knew nothing of Judas's suicide.

Among the fragmentary remains of Papias is one found in Eusebius, who tells us that: "He also relates the story of a woman accused of many crimes, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." It would thence appear likely that if Papias saw and quoted from any Gospel, though we have no other evidence than this that he did either, it was from the Gospel to the Hebrews, which some have thought the original of Matthew, and which would agree with the language in which he declares Matthew to have written. Orthodox writers endeavor to make out that here Papias alludes to the story found in the eighth chapter of John. But surely if Eusebius knew the story in John was the same he would not have ascribed it to another Gospel. In truth there is no evidence that John's narrative of the woman taken in adultery was extant even in the time of Eusebius. It is an undoubted interpolation contained in no ancient manuscript of value, and may have been taken from some tradition similar to that found in Papias, yet certainly not the same since Papias speaks of many crimes, John only of one.

We think the reader will agree with Dr. Samuel Davidson, who in his "Introduction to the Study of the New Testament," vol. i., p. 383, 1882, says: "There is no tangible evidence to connect the present Gospel with the Apostle Matthew." Even the orthodox apologist, Neander, admits "Matthew's Gospel, in its present form, was not the production of the Apostle whose name it bears, but was _founded_ on an account written by him in the Hebrew language, chiefly (but not wholly) for the purpose of presenting the discourses of Christ in a collective form" ("Life of Christ," cap. ii., sec. 4, p. 7). An admission sufficient to destroy the credit of any profane work much less a divinely inspired record of the sayings and doings of an alleged God.

The author of "Supernatural Religion," vol. i. p. 486, 1879, says: "It is manifest from the evidence adduced, however, that Papias did not know, our Gospels. It is not possible that he could have found it better to inquire 'What John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the Lord.... say, if he had known of Gospels such as ours, and believed them to have been actually written by those Apostles, deliberately telling him what they had to say. The work of Matthew being, however, a mere collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the Apostle himself said of the history and teaching of the Master. The evidence of Papias is in every respect most important. He is the first writer who mentions that Matthew and Mark were believed to have written any works at all; but whilst he shows that he does not accord any canonical authority even to the works attributed to them, his description of those works and his general testimony comes with crushing force against the pretensions made on behalf of our Gospels to Apostolic origin and authenticity."

We will now look at his testimony to Mark. "Mark," he tells us, "having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered, though he did not arrange in order the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

This description likewise shows that our actual second Gospel could not, in its present form, have been the work of the Mark referred to. Mark or Marcus was an extremely common name in the early Christian period.

In the first place, our Gospel is no more like a man's preaching than it is like an epic poem. It has, moreover, no Petrine characteristics. Mark does not give the important passage about Christ's church being built upon Peter (Matt, xvi., 18); nor the distinguishing addition "called Peter," in the calling of Simon; nor the narrative of Peter's miraculous draught of fishes; of his walking on the sea; his being sent to prepare the Passover, or the reproachful look of Jesus when Peter denied him. It also omits the expression "bitterly" when the cock crew, and Peter wept. These omissions have been attributed to Peter's excessive modesty. Apart from the absence of any evidence of this trait in the Apostle whom Paul withstood to his face because he was to be blamed, it must have been a peculiar kind of modesty indeed to omit important passages and events lest the chief Apostle should seem too prominent, and to suppress the bitterness of his penitence!

But Irenaeus tells us the Gospel of Mark was written after Peter's death, while Clement of Alexandria makes out that he wrote it at the request of friends which, when Peter knew, he neither hindered nor encouraged. So from these accounts, neither of which accord with Papias, it would appear that Mark had no motive for lessening the prominence of Peter. Peter is alleged to have died about the year 60; so that, Papias dying about the year 165, and writing late in life, his evidence on behalf of Mark's Gospel would be about 100 years after it is alleged to have been written. This applies with equal force to Matthew. But so marvellous are the contents of these Gospels that even the most certain evidence of their existence 100 years later would be very unsatisfactory.

It will also be noticed that Papias no more mentions a _Gospel_ of Mark than he does of Matthew. What he speaks of is not an inspired narrative, but records written from memory. Now if Mark wrote from memory he did not write from inspiration. The argument for the genuineness of the Gospel is at the expense of its inspiration. But the evidence from the numerous passages in which Mark agrees with Matthew and with Luke is overwhelming that it is not an original document written from memory at all, but with the writer having other documents directly before him. This is admitted by all the best critics.

Papias says Mark did not arrange in order the things which were said and done by Christ, and that he was careful to omit none of the things which he heard. How can this apply to our Gospel, which we have seen omits many most important things with which Peter was most especially concerned, and which moreover is the most orderly and consecutive of the Gospels. Canon Sanday says ("Gospels in the Second Century," p. 151): "The second Gospel _is_ written in order, it is _not_ an original document. These two characteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape the document to which Papias alludes." And again (p. 155): "Neither of the two first Gospels, as we have them, complies with the conditions of Papias' description to such an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them." Once more (p. 159), "I am bound in candor to say that, so far as I can see myself at present, I am inclined to agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' against his critics, that the works to which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their present form."

Dr. Davidson (Introduction to N. T., vol. i., p. 539, 1882,) declares: "A careful examination of Papias's testimony shows that it does not relate to our present Gospel, nor bring Mark into connection with it as its author. All we learn from it is, that Mark wrote notes of a Gospel which was not our canonical one."

The description of Papias would lead us to expect, not a regularly concocted Gospel, but fragmentary reminiscences of Peter's preaching. It seems altogether more likely that the allusion is to the work known as the "Preaching of Peter," which was undoubtedly popular in early Christian times, and which was used by Heracleon and Clement of Alexandria as authentic canonical Scripture. Since Papias gives no quotations whatever from these alleged writings of Matthew and Mark the whole matter remains a bare tradition resting on the authority of this weak-minded Father. We are unaware if he took the slightest pains to test the truth of the statements made. It is highly improbable that he did anything of the kind. Dupin says: "The judgment that ought to be given concerning him is that which hath been already given by Eusebius, that is to say, that he was a very good man, but very credulous, and of very mean parts, who delighted much in hearing and telling stories and miracles. And since he was exceedingly inquisitive, and inclined to believe everything that was told him, it is not to be admired that he hath divulged divers errors and extravagant notions as the judgments of the Apostles, and hath given us fabulous narratives for real histories, which shows that nothing is so dangerous in matters of religion, as lightly to believe, and too greedily to embrace, all that hath the appearance of piety without considering in the first place how true it is" ("A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers," vol. i., p. 50, 1692).

Traditions coming from such a source could be of very little value. It is, however, certain that Papias preferred tradition to any book with which he was acquainted He says: "For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living abiding voice "--a saying which doubtless included the books of Matthew and Mark he referred to, and possibly others of the "many" who had written "a declaration of those things which are surely believed among us," referred to by Luke. Jeremiah Jones thinks he refers to spurious productions, as "he never would have said this concerning any inspired book" ("New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament," vol. i., p. 24). The idea of a Christian bishop preferring uncertain tradition to the sure and certain testimony of an infallibly inspired revelation is well-nigh incredible to a Protestant apologist.

This extreme credulity is evinced throughout the slight fragments which has come down to us. He relates on the authority of Philip's daughters that a man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison and received no harm. After this we are not surprised at the information that the government of the world's affairs was left to angels, and that they made a mess of it. It is noticeable that while mentioning Matthew and Mark, and especially mentioning John, he never ascribes to the latter any such writing as our fourth Gospel The only saying which he does ascribe to him: "The days shall come when vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches," etc., is not only uncanonical but entirely dissimilar to the style of both Gospel and First Epistle, though not to that of the Apocalypse. Dr. Davidson considers his notices of St. John preclude Papias from having believed him to be the author of a Gospel Had he known of such a document he would surely have mentioned it as much as Matthew and Mark, and Eusebius would not have failed to reproduce the testimony.

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, seems to have been a fair average specimen of the early Christian. Probably he was very devout and pious, but most certainly he was not strong in intellect, and was ready to give credence to old wives' tales concerning the Christ or his Apostles. It is upon such authorities as these that the whole fabric of historical Christianity rests.

V.

JUSTIN MARTYR.

Justin, who is said to have derived his surname from having suffered martyrdom about a.d. 166-167, is the first of the Fathers who shows any detailed acquaintance with the statements found in the Gospels. A large number of spurious works have been attributed to him, but we take as genuine the Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. In the first of these (chap, xlvi.) he indicates that he wrote about 150 years after the birth of Jesus. He was born at Neapolis in Palestine, being by descent a Greek, and in the early part of his life a heathen. He tells us he was converted to Christianity by an old man, whom his biographer, Father Halloix, thinks may have been an incarnate angel. Tillemont, the learned Catholic historian, considers this highly probable. Fabricius thought it was Bishop Polycarp, but Credner considers the narrative a fiction. It is difficult to believe that his Apologies were ever presented to the Roman Emperors or that his Dialogue with the Jew represents an actual controversy with an opponent.

Dr. Jortin speaks of Justin as "of a warm and credulous temper" ("Remarks on Ecclesiastical History," chap, xv., p. 243, vol. i., 1846), aind Mosheim declares "The learned well know that Justin Martyr is not to be considered in every respect as an oracle, but that much of what he relates is wholly undeserving of credit" ("Commentaries," vol i., p. 112; 1813). The Rev. John Jones includes him among those who did not scruple to use forged writings.

In chapters 20 and 44 of his first Apology, for instance, he appeals to the Sibylline book of prophecies respecting Christ and his kingdom, which it has been proved to a demonstration by David Blondell and others, were forged by some early Christians with a view to persuading the ignorant and unsuspecting heathen that their oracles had foretold Christ. Celsus, the heathen, detected and pointed out this falsification.* He quotes spurious productions of Hystaspes, of Orpheus and Sophocles, in which Christians had foisted their own ideas. For not content with counterfeiting the writings of celebrities among themselves, they were equally unscrupulous in regard to the writings of the Pagans.

* Origen, bk. vii;, 53; p. 475:--The Sibyl was appealed to by Theophilus and other early Christian apologists. The author of "Questiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos," a work falsely ascribed to Justin, says that Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, appeals to the writings of the Sibyl. In the present version there is no such allusion.

Justin confidently affirms that Plato and Aristophanes mention the ancient Sibyl as a prophetess, and he gravely relates concerning her being the daughter of Berosus, who wrote the Chaldean history.

He says (1st Apol., chap. xxi., p. 25): "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again and ascended into heaven, we propound _nothing different_ from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." He argues (chap, xxiii., p. 27) that devils inspired the heathen poets and priests to relate beforehand the Christian narratives as having already happened; and makes out (chap, liv.) that the devils, knowing the prophetic words of Moses, invented the stories of Bacchus and Bellorophon; "And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah that he should be born of a virgin, and by his own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of." And so with Hercules and AEculapius. All of which puts us in mind of the learned divine who argued that God put the fossils into the earth less than 6000 years ago, in order to deceive the geologists and exhibit the vanity of human knowledge.

Justin also informs us (Apol., lxvi.) that through the suggestions of wicked demons, bread and wine were placed before the persons to be initiated into the mysteries of Mithras in imitation of the Eucharist. He could believe that Jesus, sitting at a table, actually offered his own body and blood to eat and drink, but the idea that the Christian Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was copied from the Mysteries never struck him. Having plenty of devils he put them to a deal of use. He tells us how they came into existence: "God committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom he appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons" (2nd Apol. v., p. 75). These subdued the human race partly by magical writings and partly by fears and punishments. Not content with inventing the heathen mythology they raised up the Samaritans, Simon and Menander, "who did many mighty works by magic." This is what he says the Jews said of Jesus (Dial, chap. Ixix). Justin twice has the audacity to assert that the Romans erected a statue to the Samaritan Simon, as a god. He gives the inscription Simoni Deo Sancto. To Simon the Holy God. This, if not a fraud, was a very gross error. Apart from the unlikelihood of the story and its absence of corroboration by any heathen writer, a fragment has been found with the inscription "Semoni Sanco Deo," being probably the base of a statue erected to the Sabine Deity, Semo Sancus. He further charges the Romans with human sacrifices in celebrating the mysteries of Saturn; a charge absolutely false and unsupported by any Pagan author, although repeated by the Christian Fathers, Tatian, Cyprian, Tertullian, Lactantius, Epiphanius, etc. Justin also says the devils put forward and aided Marcion the follower of Paul, who accused the other apostles of having perverted the Gospel doctrines. He frequently alleges that the Christians cast out devils in the name of Jesus Christ, and that women and men among them possessed prophetic gifts, but he gives no special instance of any miracle wrought in his own time. He makes maniacs and demoniacs to be possessed by the spirits of the dead, and appeals to "necromancy, divination by immaculate children, dream-senders and assistant spirits" in proof of life after death (immortality he seems to have considered the gift of God). All the early Fathers believed in necromancy. Lactantius ("Divine Institutes,"