ditions? that always hitherto the thaumaturgist has always chosen the subject of the experiment, chosen the means, chosen the public? that moreover, it is, in most cases, the people themselves who, from the undeniable need they feel of seeing in great men and great events something divine, create the marvellous legends afterwards. Till we have new light, we shall maintain, therefore, this principle of historical criticism, that a supernatural relation cannot be accepted as such, that it always implies credulity or imposture, that the duty of the historian is to interpret it, and to seek what portions of truth and what portions of error it may contain."

CHAPTER XIX.

REPLY TO CHAPTER XVIII.

Father Lambert's Chow-chow Method-The Dogma of Atonement-Necessity of Belief and of the Second Birth-Josephus Again-Rev. Lambert's Terrible Mistake about John's Reference to the Ascension--Genealogy of Jesus.

It would be an easy task to point out the fallacies and misconceptions which pervade Chapter XVIII. of the "Notes"-easy and yet annoying to trace multitudinous divisions of subjects. which could and should be combined by careful generalization. I can afford no longer to follow the Father in his chowchow method. I will, however, give a specimen of the kind of proof he offers to overwhelm his adversary.

Ingersoll.—“Is it not more amazing than all the rest that Christ himself concealed from Matthew, Mark, and Luke the dogma of the Atonement, the necessity of belief, and the mystery of the second birth?"

To prove that Christ taught Matthew, Mark, and Luke the doctrine of the Atonement, the Father cites Matthew xx. 28: "Even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many." Also Acts iii. 18: "But those things which God had foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled."

But these passages do not teach the doctrine of vicarious atonement as preached by Paul. Every patriot who dies on the battle-field for liberty gives his life, in an important sense,

as a redemption from slavery, if he fights to redeem a people from servitude. Nor do the words, "which God had foretold by the mouths of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer," aver that Christ died as a propitiatory offering. Many a righteous man suffers for others without becoming an expiatory sacrifice.

In refutation of the charge that the first three evangelists were ignorant of the "necessity of belief," or that it was not taught them by Jesus, we are referred to Mark xvi. 16: "He that believeth not shall be damned." And to Acts xvi. 31: "Believe in the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

It should be remembered:

1. That neither Mark nor Luke was an apostle, and by Christian commentators it is believed that neither of them was of the seventy disciples, and, hence, that neither of them listened to the teachings of Jesus, nor witnessed the miracles which they record as having been wrought by him; and that Matthew, who was an apostle and an eye-witness of the acts of Jesus, does not insist on the necessity of belief as a doctrine taught by him.

2. That in the "Gospel according to Luke," the author does not represent the doctrine in question as having been preached by Christ. But Luke did listen to Paul, and most likely imbibed the doctrine from him.

3. That the passage cited from Mark is not found in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, and by many Christian writers is regarded as spurious.

The Father avers that Matthew taught the doctrine of the "second birth," because he reports Jesus as saying: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In this passage we find no reference to a “second birth." Bap

tism was practised among the heathen as well as among Jews and Christians. Nor in the passage in Mark: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"—even admitting its genuineness. John is the only one of the evangelists who teaches it (John iii. 8). Yet this Gospel is believed by many Christian writers to have been written about A. D. 150.

In regard to the silence of contemporaneous literature respecting the words and works of Christ, Mr. Ingersoll says: "There is not in all the contemporaneous literature of the world a single word about Jesus and his apostles.”

What do these words imply? Simply, that during the life of Christ history and other literature took no note of him and his apostles and of the miracles which the evangelists record.

Yet the Father takes issue with this statement, and refers to writers who make a mere passing reference to Jesus, and in one instance to his brother James; and every one of these writers was born after the death of Christ. Yet the Father calls their writings "contemporary literature."

Here again arises the question of the genuineness of the disputed passage in Josephus.

While absent from home and libraries, I took occasion to write a letter of inquiry on this subject to Rev. Dr. Schlesinger, a learned rabbi, a profound scholar and author, of Albany, N. Y., who very kindly favored me with the followlowing letter:

"DEAR SIR :—In reply to your favor of the 3d, I beg to state that the passage of Josephus you refer to is now so generally recognized as an interpolation, that it is hardly worth while spending a line in proving it again. The passage bears prima facie the stamp of an interpolation: (1.) Because it differs entirely from the usual style of Josephus, and (2) because it interrupts the narrative and has no connection with either the preceding or following; but if you take it out the parts fit nicely.

"Before Eusebius, who is by no means the most ancient father of the church, no one mentions this passage; though in the numerous apologies of Christianity

during the second century, it would have been quoted if it had been in existence. On the contrary, Origen, who lived a century before Eusebius, and was the most learned father of the church, states distinctly (Contra Celsum i. 35) that Josephus was not a believer in Jesus.

66

Hoping that this will satisfy you, I am, dear sir, yours truly,

"DR. M. SCHLESINGER."

The late Albert Barnes (Presbyterian commentator) says: "Josephus, a Jewish historian, and a Few, would not be likely to record anything that would appear to confirm the truth of Christianity" ("Notes on Matthew," p. 33). Surely, Tooley street tailors are becoming numerous.

Lambert.—“ The apostles witnessed the events in the life of Christ as others witnessed them. But unlike others, they were inspired to give a narrative of the events they witnessed."

How do you prove this? The evangelists do not lay claim to inspiration. Catholic authority assures us that the Bible does not and cannot prove itself. On the same authority we are informed that: "With regard to the books of the New Testament which we now possess—these, for the most part, are the fruit of events, and of accidental circumstances-composed not so much for the benefit of the public, as for the consolation and instruction of private individuals" ("The Bible Question," p. 49).

Again, as before quoted: "The Bible neither proclaims its own inspiration nor divine character; an appeal must be made to some testimony or evidence beyond, or outside of the holy volume."

Please furnish us that testimony or evidence.

Mr. Ingersoll wonders at the meagre accounts the evangelists give of that most surprising event, the ascension. Matthew does not mention it. Mark and Luke (admitting the genuineness of that part of Mark's Gospel) dismiss the subject with a single sentence each. John does not refer to