have suffered martyrdom as early as A.D. 107 or 116. Of his fifteen extant epistles, eight have been long since condemned as forgeries. The remaining seven reach us in two Greek versions, the second of which is an obviously interpolated version of the first.

Learned theologians have discussed for centuries the rival claims of these two versions; but it remained for Archdeacon Tattam to discover, in 1838-40, in the monastery of St. Mary Deipara, in the Egyptian desert of Nitria, several ancient Syriac MSS., among which were three brief epistles of Ignatius, so much more conformable in style and substance to the apostolic age as to convict the unknown authors of the two Greek versions of literary forgery.

Let us confront primitive simplicity with ecclesiastical innovations. In the Syriac form of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read: Seeing that we have received your abundance in the name of God by Onesimus, who is your bishop in love unutterable, whom I pray that ye love in Jesus Christ our Lord, and that all of you imitate his example, for blessed is he who has given you such a bishop, even as ye deserve.'

In the shorter Greek version of the same epistle we read: Now, the more anyone sees the bishop showing forbearance, the more ought we to reverence him. For we ought to receive everyone whom the master of the house sends to be over his household as we would receive him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would on the Lord Himself.' This is but one of many kindred passages in the Greek versions sustaining episcopal usurpation; and if the epistles of Ignatius could be thus manipu

lated for ecclesiastical purposes, what limit can we place to the corruption of evangelical literature, during the long interval which elapsed between the first written Gospel and the date of the earliest manuscript transmitted to posterity?

Modern theologians industriously collate extant MSS. of the New Testament, with the design of attaining a reliable text; but, as none of these ancient documents are of an earlier date than the fourth century, we are absolutely ignorant of the contents of earlier versions, possibly committed to the flames as heretical when Christianity had corrupted the primitive faith of Galilee.

In the Greek original of our English version of Matthew we therefore see a composite work, combining mythical legends and ecclesiastical interpolations with simple records of the life and teaching of Jesus, suggestive of the welcome presence of a Galilean Apostle, speaking as a faithful witness of the daily life of his great Master. As the testimony of Papias in favour of an Aramaic record of the discourses of Jesus inspires us, therefore, with hope that the compilers of the Greek recension reproduced an approximate version of his oral teaching from an apostolic source, we adopt the first Gospel as the most reliable record of the sayings of Jesus, which we shall endeavour to glean from the fabulous and ecclesiastical interpolations now confusing modern perception of the true Son of Man.

The first two chapters of Matthew identify Christianity with the superstition which depicts the Deity manipulating events that prophecy may be fulfilled; and which, accordingly, invites human co-operation with Providence in the accomplishment of Divine Oracles. We have

already learned the disastrous results of this pernicious superstition from the annals of Israel and Judah, and now await its further development in the story of Jesus of Nazareth.

Hebrew scribes affirmed that prophecy demanded a Messiah of the lineage of David. The compilers of Matthew, accordingly, provided Jesus with a genealogy irreconcilable with, and therefore as apocryphal as, that of Luke. But, if even confirmed by uniformity, it is nullified by Jesus' repudiation of the theory of Messianic descent from David, and cannot therefore have been inserted in the Gospel by an Apostle who records the disavowal of his Master.1 As Jesus was obviously ignorant of the fanciful genealogies of future Evangelists, should not modern Christians cease to identify him with fictions long since exposed through attested facts? The exhumed skulls of prehistoric men, who lived and died on earth in ages remote from Mosaic chronology, have finally disposed of legendary patriarchs of nearly a thousand years, and with them necessarily vanish constructive pedigrees, as mythical as the drama of Eden.

In Matthew the prophetic craze even assumes that unnatural events, incapable of attestation, have actually occurred because supposed to have been predicted by the prophets. Thus sprung into existence the legend of the supernatural birth of Jesus, obviously borrowed from the heathen custom of attributing a divine origin to illustrious men, but sustained by the credulous compilers of Matthew through a misinterpreted passage of Isaiah. All this was done,' they affirm, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the pro

1 Matt. xxii. 41-46.

6

phet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.' The language of Isaiah, however, is― Behold, the maiden or young woman conceives and bears a son '-referring to a contemporary event in the reign of Ahaz, king of Judah, implying no miracle of virgin maternity, which never had any existence except in the imagination of men desirous of investing Jesus with the prestige of divinity; and, in fact, Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) refers, in apologetic defence of the legend, to similar instances of miraculous paternity among the heathen gods.1

Assuming the authenticity of the alleged miracle, how did the principal actors in this marvellous drama sustain their parts? Mary, a betrothed virgin, predestined to the future worship of unborn millions as the illustrious Mother of God, is apparently dishonoured by the expectant maternity of an unmarried woman, and therefore condemned by the law of Moses to summary execution. Although innocent, nothing short of the appearance of the angel Gabriel, proclaiming from the housetops of Nazareth the unsullied purity of the future Queen of heaven, could restore her lost reputation; but, alas! no divine messenger appears to vindicate the apparent victim of female frailty. Her intended husband dreamt that her condition was the result of unconscious intercourse with the spiritual world, and, being a man of marvellous faith, accepted the vision as proof of Mary's innocence. But where were the prying eyes and itching ears of village gossips, seeking the pleasing excitement of social discussion over the latest scandal among the daughters of Israel? Did the kind-hearted Joseph suc11 Apol. xxi.

ceed in baffling the curiosity of Hebrew matrons; or was the unhappy Mary branded as the dishonoured mother of an illegitimate son, saved only from the ruthless grasp of Moses by the infatuated tenderness of an elderly husband, charmed by her beauty to accept the humiliating rôle of a putative father? Or did Joseph, awaking from his dream, publish the miracle of virgin maternity, and satisfy his Nazarene friends and neighbours that the attestation of a naturally impossible event is attainable through a visit to the land of dreams?

The conflicting contents of interpolated Gospels supply the answer to these questions. According to Luke, when Jesus held a learned discussion with the elders in the Temple, both Joseph and Mary were absolutely ignorant of the supernatural origin of his precocious wisdom.1 And according to Matthew, when Jesus proposed to instruct the residents of his own immediate neighbourhood, they exclaimed, Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him.' 2

The fabulous nativity having therefore never been heard of in the family or social circle of Jesus, had he himself any knowledge of the alleged miracle? The reply is obviously negative, for when thus taunted with the humility of his origin, he uttered no word of dissent, but simply claimed the respect of his auditors on the grounds of his prophetic mission. As Jesus did not, therefore, impose the unnatural prodigy on the reason

1 Luke ii. 41-52.

2 Matt. xiii. 55-57.