I am quite aware that our author states the case differently; but I am unable to reconcile his language with the facts. He writes as follows [49:2]:—
'He (Eusebius) states however, that Papias "made use of testimonies from the First Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter." As Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages from Papias, we must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds.' [49:3]
For the statement 'as elsewhere' our author has given no authority, and
I am not aware of any.
The note to which the number in the text (^5) refers is 'Ad Phil. vii.;
Euseb. H.E. iv. 14.'
I cannot help thinking there is some confusion here. The passage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how Polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle of St John, which has been alleged by modern writers, but is not alleged by Eusebius. This same chapter, it is true, contains the words 'Watch unto prayer,' which present a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this one expression: the strong and unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,' whereas the quotations from I Peter in Polycarp are numerous. Thus in c. 1 we have 'In whom, not having seen, ye believe, and believing ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 8: in c. 2, 'Girding up your loins,' from 1 Pet. i. 13 (comp. Ephes. vi. 14); 'Having believed on Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave Him glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 21; 'Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing,' from 1 Pet. iii. 9: in c. 5, 'Every lust warreth against the Spirit,' from 1 Pet. ii. 11: in c. 8, 'Who bore our sins with His own body ([Greek: to idiô sômati]) on the tree,' from 1 Pet. ii. 24; 'Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,' from 1 Pet. ii. 22: in c. 10, 'Lovers of the brotherhood,' from 1 Pet. ii. 17; 'Be ye all subject one to another,' from 1 Pet. v. 5; 'Having your conversation unblamable among the Gentiles, that from your good works both ye may receive praise, and the Lord may not be evil spoken of in you,' from 1 Pet. ii. 12 (comp. iv. 14 in the received text). I am quite at a loss to conceive how any one can speak of these numerous and close coincidences as 'very insufficient grounds.' And though our author elsewhere, as, for instance, in the quotations from the Fourth Gospel in Tatian and in the Clementine Homilies [50:1], has resisted evidence which (I venture to think) would satisfy any jury of competent critics, yet I cannot suppose that he would hold out against such an array of passages as we have here, and I must therefore believe that he has overlooked the facts. I venture to say again that, in these references to early writers relating to the Canon, Eusebius (where we are able to test him) never overstates the case. I emphasize this assertion, because I trust some one will point out my error if I am wrong. If I am not shown to be wrong, I shall make use of the fact hereafter [50:2].
This investigation will have thrown some light upon the author's sweeping assertions with respect to the arbitrary action which he supposes to have presided over the formation of the Canon, and still more on his unqualified denunciations of the uncritical spirit of Eusebius. But such was not my immediate purpose.
Hypotheses non fingimus. We have built no airy castles of criticism on arbitrary à priori assumptions as to what the silence of Eusebius must mean. We have put the man himself in the witness-box; we have confronted him with facts, and cross-examined him; thus we have elicited from him his principles and mode of action. I may perhaps have fallen into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable. If they are not, I shall be obliged to any one who will point out the fallacy in my reasoning; and I pledge myself to make open retractation, when I resume these papers in a subsequent number. If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part of the argument in Supernatural Religion has crumbled to pieces.
Our author is quite alive to the value of a system of 'positively enunciating.' [51:1] 'A good strong assertion,' he says, 'becomes a powerful argument, since few readers have the means of verifying its correctness.' [51:2] His own assertions, which I quoted at the outset of this investigation, are certainly not wanting in strength, and I have taken the liberty of verifying them. Any English reader may do the same. Eusebius is translated, and so are the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
I now venture on a statement which might have seemed a paradox if it had preceded this investigation, but which, coming at its close, will, if I mistake not, commend itself as a sober deduction from facts. The silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in its favour. Its Apostolic authorship had never been questioned by any Church writer from the beginning, so far as Eusebius was aware, and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses. It was not excused, because it had not been accused. In short, the silence of Eusebius here means the very opposite to that which our author assumes it to mean.
If any one demurs to this inference, let him try, on any other hypothesis, to answer the following questions:—