Catholicism and criticism

Front matter

BAe te HBS Lee Eos Hugueny, Etienne, 1868- Catholicism and criticism

5 ser ye.

Rena

Table Of Contents

I ntroduction.

We believe because we have solid reasons for our belief (Apologetics), and our belief is not contrary to reason (Apology for Dogma). M

F IRST PART.

CHAPTER II. The Jewish-fact

(19) The Diaspora; (20) The Jewish-fact Minimised ; (21) The Unique Case of Jewish Monotheism; (22) Cannot be Explained by Natural Means; (23) The Singular Hope of the Jewish Race; (24) The Prophecies ; (25) Plato’s Just Man; (26) The Poem of Isaiah on the Servant of Jhahve; (27) Its Undeniable Character of Messianic Prophecy; (28) First Reason for the Obscurity of Prophecy; (29) Second Reason; (30) Tight Brought by Jesus; (31) The Blindness. of the Majority of the Jewish People and its Consequences.

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Vv

CHAPTER III. The Catholic Consciousness of Primitive Christianity

(32) Neither Dogmas, Ritual, nor Church? (33) Has Jesus Condemned all Ecclesiastical Authority; (34) The Primacy of Peter in the Acts and at the Council of Jerusalem; (35) The Rule of Faith and the Unity of the Church; (36) “ Thou Art Peter”; (37) The Catholic Consciousness of the First Christians.

CHAPTER IV. Jesus and the Ghurch

(38) Objection—Jesus did not Intend to Establish a Church; (39) Answer—Manifold Assertions of the Gospel. Jesus Calls All Men to be Saved. (40) The Kingdom of God and its Different Significations; (41) New Scheme of Salvation; (42) Separation from the Synagogue; (43) Jesus Appoints Himself Head and Entrusts the Work to New Workers; (44) Impossibility of Passing over so many Assertions which could not have been Inventions; (45) Why the Apostles did not Immediately set about Evangelizing the Gentiles; (46) The Expectation of the Parousia; (47) The Coming of the Son of Man.

Chapter V

The Conversion of St. Paul.

(48) The Fact. (49) The Value of St. Paul’s Testimony. (50) The Psychological Hypothesis of a _ Progressive Conversion. (51) Renan’s Attempt at the Naturalistic Explanation. (52) The Admissions of Rationalists.

CHAPTER VI, The Conversion of the Roman Empire

(53) Facilities Afforded by Providence for the Spread of Christianity and the Obstacles; (54) Opposition of the People; (55) Paganism and the Life of the Ancients; (56) Opposition of the Cultured Classes; (57) Opposition of Imperial Power; (58) Was Persecution a Cause of the Development? (59) The True Cause of the Rapid Growth of Christianity.

CHAPTER VII. The Church and Primitive Sects

(60) Dangers Arising from the Primitive Sects; (61) The Law of Salvation; (62) Episcopacy necessary for the Church; (63) Necessity of a Central Authority; (64) The vi TABLE OF CONTENTS. —

Primacy of Rome. St. Clement’s Testimony; (65) The Testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch; (66) The Witness of Fact; (67) St. Victor and the Easter Controversy; (68) The xercise of the Primacy is Restricted; (69) The “ Real Miracle of Primitive Christianity ” according to Renan.

CHAPTER VIII. The Church and the Churches

(70) Where was Catholic Unity to be Found in the First Centuries? (71) Protestant Disintegration; (72) Union in “Liberty”; (73) Self-worship of Liberal Protestantism, the Logical Outcome of Lutheran Principles; (74) The Anglican Church; (75) Its Divisions; (76) Eastern Churches; the Increasing Authority of the “ Great Church” of the “ Basileus ” Led to Schism; (77) Decline of this Church: the Autocephalic Churches; (78) The Result of their Union; (79) Dogmatic Differences; (80) The Danger in the Future; (81) The Catholic Church.

CHAPTER IX. The Church and Universalist Religions

(82) Buddhism; (83) Its Growth and the Reason; (84) Islamism; (85) Its Success; (86) Compared with that of Catholicism.

CHAPTER X. The Church and the World

(87) Objection: Why are there so many non-Catholics; (88) “ Outside the Church there is no Salvation ”: its Meaning ; (89) The Elements of Catholic Belief; (90) To be Found amongst many non-Catholics; (91) To what the Facilities for Salvation are Compared; (92) The Sin against the Holy Ghost; (93) Answer to the Objection: Degrees of Supernatural Life; (94) The Church “the Salt of the Earth.”

CHAPTER XI. The Church and Sanctity

(95) The Church on Earth is not without Blemish: its Hallowing Influence Affects even Sinners; (96) Fruits of. Sanctity Outside the body of the Church; (97) The Superior Sanctity of the Catholic Church is Confirmed by the Uncompromising Firmness of her Dogmatic and Moral Teaching; (98) By a Comparison of the Heroic Virtue of her Saints with the

TABLE OF CONTENTS. vii

Moral Inferiority of Promoters of Schism and Heresy; (99) By the practice of the Evangelical counsels; (100) By the Superiority of her Devotedness as Shown in her Apostolate; (101) By the Excellence of Conversions to Catholicism; (102) The Moral Influence of Christianity. Morality of Pagan Civilisations; (103) Failure of Philosophy to give a Higher Tone of Morality; (104) Success of Christianity. The Martyrs; (105) Personal Devotedness in the Service of the Poor and the Outcast; (106) Moral Progress Inseparable from Christianity; (107) Deterioration of Non-Christian France; (108) Intense Moral Vitality of Catholic France.

CHAPTER XII. The Church and Miracles

(109) Confidence of the Primitive Church in the Argument from Miracles; (110) Miracles Prove Nothing to the Unbeliever: They do not Exist for Him; (111) Renan’s Challenge; (112) Lourdes the Reply to it, Pierre de Rudder; (113) Marie Lemarchand; (114) Gabriel Gargam; (115) Short Statistics; (116) Miracles can no Longer be Denied a priori; (117) Protestantism and the Miraculous; (119) The “Miracles” of Esculapius; (120) The Objection—*“ Unknown Forces” ; (121) How the Supernatural Intervention of God is Recognized in the Miraculous; (122) Definition of a Miracle; (123) Its Apologetic Significance; (124) How it may be Withstood.

CHAPTER XIII. The Act of Faith

(125) Integral Apologetics. The two Facts, Internal and External; (126) Two Schools of Apologetics; (127) The Internal Fact according to Theology and Experience; (128) Tendencies which are the Basis of the Religious Instinct of Humanity; (129) Peculiar Attractiveness of Catholicism; (130) The Antipathy to which it gives Rise; (131) Some States of Soul. Intuitive Faith; (132) Unsettled Thinkers; (133) Supported by the Internal Fact; (134) Lost’ Through Intellectual Pride; (135) Twofold Revolt of Senses and Intelligence; (136) The Crisis of Youth; (137) The Unbeliever Satisfied; (138) Trials, and the First Steps towards Belief; (139) The Proofs for the Existence of God; (140) Examination and Recapitulation of the Motives for Belief; (141) Premature Conversion; (142) Conversion Consequent upon the Act of Faith.

Viil TABLE OF CONTENTS.

_ APPENDICES.

I. Authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles, date of their composition and of the Synoptic Gospels.

II. The First Martyrs in Gaul.

III. The Eucharistic Miracle at Favernay, 1608.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX.

Vv;

CORRIGENDA.

line 27, and passim, for Jhahve read Jahveh.

22, for the Naturalistic read a Naturalistic. 12, for of the Great Church read in the Great Church. 12, for was read were. 4, read and to the Gentiles. 33, for Agada der Tanniter read Agada der Tannaiten. 43, for tigh read right. 40, for epoBovyto read époBovyTo. 36, for aprés read aprés. 44, for prophétes read prophetes. 24, for It is read Is it. 27, after Israel add Note of Interrogation. 2, after cause ? add reference I. 30, for Dillman read Dillmann. 22, for weravora read merdvora. 17, for karaxupi evovow read kataxupievovow. 18, for express read exercise: for xaretouoia{ovow read Karekouotdovol. 16, for Cesar read Czesar. 31, for expectance read expectation. 39, for vd. read v. 4, for the naturalistic read a naturalistic. 25, for More-Auréle vead Marc-Auréle. 31, for Sybiline read Sibylline. 37, for Jarhunderten vead Jahrhunderten. 17, for Neo-Platonicians read Neo-Platonists, 18, for Jambilicus vead Iamblichus, 14, for religious read religions, 5, for hinderance read hindrance. 38, for Epitre read Epitre. 24, for Handlexicon read Handlexikon. 25, for Abbé read Abbé. 25, for un béte read une béte. 26, for for read in, 29, for Historie read Histoire, 22, 23, for energizes . . . flows read energize . . . flow. 39, for Christiamisme read Christianisme. 14, for Poppoea read Poppaea. 27, for araenam read arenam, 15, for Church, read Church,. 48, for Probléme vead Probléme. 42, for patrie Pratigue Apologetigue vead patrie Pratique Apologétique. 19, for Rennaissance read Renaissance. 37, for Courier read Courrier. 30, for to read but. 34, for Athénes read Athénes. 7, for Cephalophorus read Cephalophorous, 7, for as read like. 39, for Mussalman read Mussulman, 38, for Apotres read Apédtres. 22, and line 30 for arat read drak, 31, for when read after being. 2, for Procés-verbal read Procés-Verbal. 39, for Procés-verbal read Procés-Verbal, and line 40 for copiest vead copyist.

ew

AVA th bs ee

Dey

: Sil ah if : —) e (ivy eaten

. J FEY MEW SB ET Se if Ni Ves ut i ;

TC AW Gal

An!

vs hy fry

Ae RN "Wit

Weer nage

‘ ‘. tA Pty

Ar ite Rr ar ye WENT EN i f ay Pave

1 Wie! ear ids

TA e, , pire pay ry *) hs |

CATHOLICISM AND CRITICISM.

Can a Catholic be discriminating? The question is somewhat delicate, especially for those who attempt to think for themselves. M. Guignebert and others of his school tell us that, “if we would preserve any vital religious belief, we must fling off the yoke of Roman dogmatism, for the desire to believe, to know, and, at the same time to think,” is Utopian and unintelligible. Belief implies ignorance, at least of exegesis, whose conclusions are pitilessly destructive of a faith which unreasonably seeks to impose upon us a dogma that is contrary to reason.!

Let us be critical by all means. It is in the name of criticism that we ask: What is the value of such statements? Unbelievers profess to be absolutely certain of the destructive force of their scientific arguments. Why not let science destroy this Faith of ours quietly, without casting about for any other means than scientific argument to work its destruction? iw

Our opponents, however, need not be anxious in our regard. If, perchance, they have met so:ne who find a difficulty in reconciling the demands of Faith with those of Science, we take leave to inform them that, the Catholic is always at liberty to seek and to find, in the serious study of exegesis, history, science, philosophy and theology, the two-fold

*Modernisme et Tradition Catholique, Paris, 1908. We have no intention of giving any explicit refutation of M. Guignebert’s teachings. This has been already done in the Revue Pratique d’Apologétique, (Fev. 15; Mars. 15, Avril 1, 15, 1908). But as his book lies before us, we shall take notice of, and reply to, his objections as we meet them.

I satisfaction of being guided at one and the same time by Reason and by Faith; in a word, of being a discriminating Christian.

Far from believing unreasonably, we believe on reasons so strong, that the wonder is how anyone can profess to be critical in matters of belief yet remain unaffected by the nature of that divine communication which gives Catholic teaching the authority it undoubtedly possesses.

It will be our endeavour to make this clear in the following pages. We have given this volume the title of Apologetics, as it is a brief exposition of the motives for belief which our Faith commands. We hope to complete the study by an Apology for Dogma, in which we shall show that, however mysterious and controverted these dogmas may be, none are in opposition to the rational data of metaphysics, exegesis, history, or science. —

When we have shown that we have every reason for giving our assent, and that we cannot appeal to any solid reason for withholding it, we shall be in a position to assert that, not only can the critic be a Catholic, but that the thinker who is fully alive to the guarantees of Catholic Dogma and all it implies, cannot refuse to believe it without ceasing to be a critic in the true sense. There can be no question of choice between Catholicism and Criticism.

CATHOLICISM AND CRITICISM.

APOLOGETICS. : Object, Method and Division.

1. “O my God, I believe whatever the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches, because it is Thou Who hast said it, and Thy word is Truth.”

Such is the simple profession of faith that the Catholic Church demands from her children. Is this profession critically justifiabler Is it true that the teaching of the Church is divine? that is, that it comes to us from God with the guarantee of His infallible truthfulness, by a supernatural act, distinct from the divine assistance which is implied in the natural evolution of humanity. We unhesitatingly reply in the affirmative. This affirmation is the condition of our act of faith. The exclusive object of Apologetics ! is to show that this affirmation is well founded, by proving, not indeed with absolute evidence but with moral certainty that the teaching of the Catholic Church is a divine teaching, divinely cuaranteed.

Yet we ask, why this distinction between that which is evident and that which is only morally certain? An example will assist us to understand it. My father comes to tell me that he is almost ruined owing to the failure of his bank. I have immediate evidence that my father is present and speaking to me. [have immediate evidence, from his manner of speech that he is in the full possession of his reason;

‘Father Gardeil, O.P., has rendered signal service to Apologetics . by clearly distinguishing its special object from the various matters that are more or less foreign to it, and which find a place in our manuals of Apologetics. La Crédibilité et VApologetique, Liv. 111, c. 1. Paris, 1908.

nevertheless, I have no evidence that he speaks truly,

and that his bank has failed. Of this I cannot be more than morally certain., These facts are not evident because the inviolable secrecy of the intimate decisions of free will and fickle judgment which regulate all human evidence, will not permit me to demonstrate rigorously that my father neither deceives me nor is himself deceived. On the other hand, my knowledge of his character, prudence,

frankness and affection for me; the improbability of his having been deceived concerning a fact so easily verified and which is of supreme importance to him;

the further improbability that he would deceive me by an untruth without other motive than a wish to ive me pain, forbid me to doubt his word. It is clear T ought to believe that my father tells the truth and that his bank has failed, facts which, while they are morally certain arenot evident tome. Indeed Ihave greater certitude concerning these facts than concerning many truths which can be fully demonstrated, but whose demonstration is somewhat complicated.!

Different from human testimony in which the element of fact either is, or may be evident, while its truthfulness is not evident, divine testimony on the contrary, is presented to us with a guarantee of veracity capable of being fully proved, and it is the fact itself of Revelation that is only morally certain to us and not absolutely evident.

1 Moral certitude differs from absolute evidence and from probability. An evident affirmation is one whose contradictory is inconceivable. A probable affirmation is one whose contradictory possesses some show of truth. While the contradictory is conceivable in the case of moral certitude it is quite improbable. Doubt is therefore unreasonable but possible so long as the assent to a fact which is morally certain, involves consequences that are opposed to the intellectual or moral inclinations of the person to whom it is proposed. In order that the assent may be maintained against all possibility of doubt, some influence of the will upon the intellect is required, which makes such assent akin to an act of faith properly so called. Hence, early theologians in referring to the fact of Revelation, spoke of it is as being evidently worthy of belief, the primal object of faith, the while they showed that it is morally certain. For a more fully developed exposition of the views put forward in this Introduction, we refer our readers to the article on L’Evidence de Crédibilité, in the Revue Thomiste, Mai 1909,

Was this fact evident to the Blessed Virgin and the Apostles? The question is a debated one which we shall not now consider. The majority of Thomistic theologians with Cajetan, and probably St. Thomas himself, give an affirmative answer. Yet great theologians such as Bannez, teach that absolute evidence of the supernatural character of a revelation, necessitates the Beatific Vision and is incompatible with faith.!

Without discussing the question, we may say that theologians of repute are unanimous in asserting that we do not catually possess any demonstration of the fact of revelation so rigorous, as to give us absolute scientific evidence, and manifest how intrinsic and transcendent is the interdependence hetween Catholic teaching and the Divine Will. This fact of revelation, while not more evident than the truthfulness of human testimony which, when given under exceptional circumstances forces us to assent, is, nevertheless, just as morally certain. And, as we must believe in such veracity on many occasions, though strictly speaking we cannot prove it, so also it is clear that, a reasonable man must believe, that the origin and teaching of the Catholic Church are supernatural, since the grounds for this belief, though they do not afford rigorous demonstration, are nevertheless so cogent and so insistent as to compel our assent.

2. The strict, metaphysical demonstration of the existence of God is scarcely necessary as a preliminary, to prove that, the divine origin and authority of the Catholic Church are truths which are morally certain. But such demonstration is forthcoming, and before concluding we shall have occasion

*Cajetan, Comment Summac, 11" Il’ Q. clxxi art. 5, n. 2 and 5 St. Thomas Sum Theol. II’ te “Q. v. art. 2. Bannez, Comment. Summae, la Pars Q. xxxil. art, I Dub, 2: Il« II*, Q. v. a, I. Secundo conclusio. Evidentia articulorum fidet in testificante non potest esse simul cum Sec. I. Franzelin. De T raditione et Scriptura. De habitudine rationis humane ad divinain fidem. c. iv. prop. 3, to give it in broad outlines. Many Catholics, however, are not so convinced of it that it may not be useful to confirm it, and guarantee it. This may be done by an act of faith, or even by the consideration cf those marvellous works which are so many signs of Revelation. In our Apologetics we presuppose no more than the natural tendency which urges a rational being to affirm, with a certain conviction, the existence of a Supreme Intelligence and Authority that is postulated by “ being” itself, by motion, by the order of the universe, as well as by the deeply rooted convictions of our conscience. We address ourselves even to those who will hesitate regarding the value of these reasonable conclusions. But we do not seek to convince those who hold that the non-existence of God is a demonstrated fact, and that the idea and sentiment of religion is false, for the reason that we do not consider such men to be critical, since it is an opinion universally accepted by all critics, unbelievers and believers alike, that Atheism neither has been, nor can be, demonstrated. We write for all those who are still questioning the worth of their religious aspirations, and we hope that the facts we shall bring forward and examine, will make them at one and the same time, morally certain of the existence of God and of the divine authority of the Catholic Church.

The facts to which we make appeal are: Christ, His life ‘and influence on the world; the fact of Judaism, a preparation for Christianity; the fact of Catholicism, the development and only authentic continuation of the work of Christ. We shall show that these facts imply a number of phenomena, in which we invariably discover the intervention of a free, intelligent Power beyond all known natural forces, and the affirmation that this Power is the God Whom our intelligence seeks, and Who reveals to us the manner in which He may be found. If this affirmation be false, then must we acknowledge that, to falsehood alone does the sovereignty of nature belong, the power to work wonders, and to bring about a progress in human life which truth could never hope to achieve. If we draw back from sucha conclusion, then must we acknowledge the existence of God, and the divine mission of men and institutions, which claim and wield in His name a power that is not merely unique, but which defiies any likely explanation by natural forces known or imaginable. The phenomena of nature reveal the existence and authority of the Maker of the world: still more insistent, still more definite is the voice of supernatural phenomena which, far from upsetting the order of nature as some have said, are its renovation and perfection.

Throughout this apologetic study we shall say nothing of inspiration. This will cause no surprise to the Catholic student. M. Guignebert, Professor of the History of Christianity at the Sorbonne, must assuredly be very ignorant of Catholic teaching, and have preserved his Protestant mental outlook very strongly, ever to have imagined that any Catholic would dream of seeking the fundamental proof of Revelation in a demonstration of the inspired nature of the Scriptures.!

Inspiration is a dogma which is believed and defended, but which cannot be proved by natural reason. Its theological proof presupposes but does not precede faith. When appeal to the Scriptures is made in Apologetics, it is not their authority as divinely inspired writings which is invoked, but what may be theirs as human evidence.?

Certain apologists give to this human authority the same value their faith has taught them to give to the inspired writings. This is an error, not indeed

! Modernisme et Tradition Catholique en France, pp. 13-14, Paris, 1908.

*This refers to Apologetics properly so called, that is when there is question of giving an account of the reasonable basis of our faith, Nevertheless, when there is question of defending Catholic teaching, even the authority of the Church against dissenting Christians, who withal, accept the inspiration of Scripture, it is perfectly legitimate as it is usual to appeal to the divine authority of the inspired writings.

of principle but of practice which we shall strive to avoid. For this reason we shall not appeal to any exegetical statement which cannot be established independently of the guarantee of the authority of the Church: neither shall we make use of those data of Catholic exegesis, the rational proofs of which would demand too lengthy, or too technical an exposition. This procedure, it is true, will deprive us of valuable arguments; but since these arguments are not necessary for our conclusions, it is better not to encumber with them, a demonstration which aims at clearness and brevity.

3. The strictly logical division of our study would give us three chapters and a conclusion: but since the fact of Catholicism is more complex than the other two facts, wig., the Christ-fact, and the Jewish-fact, we shall devote several chapters to its examination. Having shown how Christ proclaimed and revealed Himself to be the Son of God, the authoritative mouthpiece of His Father; how His work had been divinely prefigured, and the way prepared for it by Judaism, we shall show how the first disciples of Jesus were conscious from the beginning of being that Catholic Church which Jesus had willed, which was assured of His divine assistance for all time, and how this conviction of the first Christians which is also ours, is justified in regard to its first assertion by the words of Jesus preserved for us in the Gospel, and'in regard to its second assertion, by all those marvellous phenomena which accompany and secure the life and development of the Church throughout the ages.

We shall conclude with an examination of the legitimacy and conditions of the Act of Faith.

CHAPTER I. The Christ-fact

4—The Creed of Rationalism put to the test. 5—The inexplicable marvel of the Christ-fact. 6.—Our historical documents and their dates. 7W—St. Paul and the Divine Sonship of Jesus. 8—The testimony of the Synoptics. 9—The first discourses in the Acts of the Apostles. 10.—The confession of St. Stephen. 11.—The testimony of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. 12.—The Resurrection; St. Paul’s account of the witnesses to it. 13.—The account in the Synoptics. 14——The empty tomb, and the hypothesis of a common pit. 15.—The Resurrection and history. 16.—The genesis of belief in the Resurrection according to M. Guignebert ; 17——And M. Loisy. 18—Christ is truly risen; is the authoritative Prophet; and Son of God as no creature could possibly be.

4. “Criticism is only permitted to enter the sanctuary in fetters,’ says M. Guignebert in reference to the wise restrictions which faith imposes upon rationalistic systems.! These restrictions are justified, however, once the divine character of Catholic dogma is recognised; since, if this dogma is infallibly true, it cannot be contradicted without error. And rationalistic criticism is itself encumbered with a creed, a dogma, and fetters! We are informed that it is impossible that an Intelligence distinct from the Cosmos, should modify the normal evolution of the natural forces which are its constituents. Whatever appears to contradict this principle, must be either denied a priori, or interpreted in such wise as will bring it under the common law. This is assuredly drastic. For, while both principle and law are indemonstrable except in the case of one who

'Modernisme et Tradition Catholique en France, p. 7. Paris, 1908.

possesses commensurate knowledge of Nature, the Absolute, and their possible relations, they are an utter stumbling-block to the Positivist who will accept only what can be verified by experiment. Yet both principle and law must be adhered to, even though adherence to them receives, it is acknowledged, a severe set-back from the facts of Christ and Christianity! However curtailed the data may be, the problem of Christ still remains a very real enigma to the creed of the unbeliever.

>, yb Vetieat sat. were (true. that the ) Chama phenomenon was only to be understood according to the negative conclusions of historical criticism with all their restrictions, and that Christ was merely a reforming Nabi,! who was crucified for having striven to infuse the spirit of true piety into the ritualistic formalism of his countrymen; who preached the kingdom of his dreams; was held up to veneration by his disciples, and deified by those Gentile neophytes to whom such apotheoses were familiar, the phenomenon would nevertheless be strange and _ unparalleled. How explain the persistent enthusiasm of his disciples for him who, having promised them victory and a kingdom, died on a cross, left suffering to them as his legacy, and a death as shameful as his own? How can the action of those Greek neophytes be accounted for, when, having abandoned polytheism in disgust of idolatry, they hastened to adore a new idol, nay, to hold him up to the adoration of the Judeo-Christians, those zealots of Jhahve, the jealous God? And how can we explain the fact that this monstrous idolatry has become the centre around which the beneficent teachings of eighteen centuries have gathered in harmonious synthesis, and which, despite all opposition, inspires the sublimest loyalty and the most heroic virtues even in our own time?

? Nabi, a Jewish term for the prophets.

6. The conclusions of the best rationalistic criticism only increase the difficulties of the problem. Since we have decided to be brief, we shall not appeal to either the Pastoral, Johannine, or the Catholic Epistles, or to the Apocalypse; a lengthy discussion would be required in order that these writings might be appreciated at their true value as human historical documents. The Fourth Gospel, which according to M. Guignebert “portrays the life, physiognomy, and teaching of Jesus quite differently from the Synoptics, despite all the fevered efforts of theologians,” ! is considered by Harnack to be simply “an elucidated Matthew.” ’ Harnack is right; but as this Gospel is also of later date—the end of the first century—we shall appeal only to the evidence afforded by the Acts of the Apostles, the Synoptics, and those Epistles of St. Paul which are accepted as authentic. And in order to eschew all discussion regarding dates, we accept Harnack’s chronology. His authority in matters of historical criticism is universally recognized, while his liberal Protestantism cannot be suspected of partiality towards supernatural manifestations.$

According to the latest researches of this historian, the Acts of the Apostles (the work of st. Luke, the companion of St. Paul, as is the Third Gospel also from his pen), were probably composed about 60 A.D., certainly before 80 A.D. They

_ *Joannes....ein verklirter Matthaus ist. Lucas der Arzt. C. IV. Leipzig, 1906, p. 118. In a note Harnack insists upon this title and explains it. “If we have called St. John an elucidated St. Matthew, because his aim also is didactic and apologetic, we may with equal justice call him an elucidated St. Mark and St. Luke, for he shares in the aims which dominate both these Evangelists. By means of the historic narrative he strives, like St. Mark, to show that Jesus is the Son of God, and, like St. Luke, to prove that He is the Saviour of the world, in opposition to the unbelieving Jews and the disciples of St. John the Baptist.” (Luke the Physician; 2nd edition, p. 168, note.)

* We do not accept Harnack’s authority blindly, and we shall point out the dates which we regard as doubtful. In Appendix I we shall give a résumé of the arguments by which Harnack supports his conclusions concerning the composition of the Synoptics. We would direct the reader's attention to the suggestive note in Luke the Physician, p. 7.

presuppose the composition of the Third Gospel which itself presupposes the composition of St. Mark’s Gospel, and the Logia, or Sayings of Jesus, as the principal sources of the Gospel of St. Matthew. The gsreat Pauline Epistles were written between 49 A.D., the date of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, and 59 A.D., the latest date to which the Epistle to the Philippians can be referred. !

7. Christ was crucified about the year 30; what did St. Paul think of Him twenty years later? To Paul, Jesus is not merely a reforming Nabi; He is greater than all the prophets. Born of woman and truly man, He is the Son of God who existed before His temporal birth (Gal. iv. 4); Who descended from heaven (1° Cor. xv: 47); had His part in creation (1 Cor. viii. 6); is not the son of God merely as the righteous are, but is God’s own Son (Rom. viti. 32). He existed in the form of God long before He assumed human form; humbled Himself even to the death of the Cross, and merited that exaltation which has placed the Man born of woman at the right hand of God, making Him the Lord Jesus at whose Name every knee in heaven, on earth, and in hell shall bend, since this name is above every other name.