Polycarp and Papias, who died about the same time he did, all three being reputed martyrs between A.D. 163 and 168.

The writings of all the Apostolic Fathers prior to and contemporary with Justin do not aggregate more than two hundred full printed pages. The undisputed works of Justin alone exceed those of all the contemporary and prior Fathers.

Justin appears to be the earliest authenticated Christian who recognizes Jesus as born of the Virgin Mary and crucified under Pontius Pilate, and his information is derived from a gospel not now extant, which he calls "Memoirs of the Apostles," and from the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate."

In Justin's time the Gnostics flourished in their zenith. They had a phantom Jesus, who came down from heaven in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar (Marcion's Gospel, A. D. 140), and who seemed only to suffer crucifixion. They also had a Chreistos, who was one of the external uncreated Eons.

Of the writings of the Gnostics only a few fragments have come down to us, such as the Catholic Fathers have seen fit to quote.

Justin had a disciple, Tatian, who embraced Christianity at Rome, but after the death of his master he renounced the doctrine of the incarnation and humanity of Christ, and established himself at Antioch as a Gnostic. We have one small work of Tatian-about forty pages-written between A. D. 170 and 180. Of his other works there are only a few sentences; the Catholic church destroyed all heretical writings. Tatian had a gospel, says Theodoret (A. D. 430) which omitted the genealogies and all other passages showing that Christ was born of David according to the flesh (Sup. Rel. I., 484). Tatian's repudiation, after his migration from Rome to Antioch, of the human savior, is a very significant fact.

Theophilus was bishop of Antioch from A. D. 168 to 181, or later. He calls himself a Christian, and yet in the single work of his extant-about eighty pages-he never mentions Jesus or Christ, and ridicules the idea that a God can be born. He quotes largely from the prophecies of the Sibyl, and sparingly from the gospel, never telling us what Jesus says, but what "the gospel teaches," and what are the instructions of

the "Divine Word." His Christ is simply the Logos, or Word, and he quotes the first sentence of the fourth gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," as what the "inspired (or spirit-bearing) John says." This is the first quotation by any writer from any evangelist by name. Theophilus does not seem to recognize the advent of Christ as having taken place, and dates Christianity from Moses, and even from the beginning of the world. He probably believed neither in the genealogy of Jesus nor in his historical existence.

Athenagoras, the Athenian philosopher and Christian, was the most elegant and perhaps the ablest of the early Fathers. We have about eighty pages of his works, written about A. D. 177. He nowhere mentions Christ or any event of his life; nor does he mention or quote from any gospel, but he puts into the mouth of the "Logos" certain sayings, some of which resemble passages in our gospels and others do not. (Plea for Christians, chapter xxxii). No wonder that neither Eusebius nor Jerome mentions him. He probably did not believe in a historical Jesus.

Hegesippus, a Palestine Jew, became a Christian and wrote five books of historical memoirs after A. D. 177, from which Eusebius made some extracts. The principal one-about the death of the Lord's brother James in Jerusalem-we have heretofore given (chapter xxvi). Hegesippus also describes the persecution of two "grandchildren of Judas, called the brother of our Lord according to the flesh." They owned and cultivated a farm of thirty-nine acres, valued at $1,350. Being brought before Domitian (A. D. 81–96) and questioned concerning Christ and his kingdom, they both avowed themselves adventists, whereupon the emperor dismissed them with contempt as simpletons, and ordered the persecution to cease. Then the two hard-fisted farmers returned and "ruled the churches" (Eus. iii, 20). Again, Hegesippus describes the martyrdom of "Simeon, the son of Cleophas, our Lord's uncle," who succeeded his cousin James as bishop of Jerusa lem about A. D. 68, and was tortured to death in the reign of Trajan (A. D. 198-117) at the age of 120 (Ib. iii, 32; iv, 22). From this it appears that Hegesippus recognized the

humanity of Jesus Christ; and furthermore, he intimates that he suffered a violent death, like that of his cousin Simeon (Eus. iii, 32); nevertheless he says nothing about the genealogy of Jesus except by inference in speaking of his two grandnephews, the aforesaid farmers, who, he says, "were reported as being of the family of David " (iii, 20).

The fragments of the remaining Fathers, Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (A. D 168-170); Melito, bishop of Sardis (170—), and Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis (177-180), throw no light upon the question of a historical Jesus until we come down to the voluminous works of the three great contemporary Fathers, Irenæus, bishop of Lyons (177-202), Clement of Alexandria (189-202 or later), and Tertullian of Carthage (193-220), who established the Catholic or Christian church, based upon the belief in Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary and crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Let any one search the writings of the prior Fathers and find, if he can, one besides Justin who recognizes that fundamental doctrine of the church. Nay, more, let him find one besides Justin, Hegesippus, and possibly the foolish Papias, who distinctly and unequivocally recognizes a historical human Jesus.

[We are aware that two or three passages in the Epistle of Clement and a few more in that of Barnabas seem to imply the existence of a Jesus in mortal flesh. So also of like apparent import are certain passages in Paul's Epistles. This we admitted at the outset to be a formidable point (see p. 18); indeed, it was the only difficulty of any magnitude in our way. But we have demonstrated that Paul knew no Galilean apostles; we showed that his Christ was not the Christ of the evangelists; we have found the earliest trace of his epistles in the hands of Marcion, a Gnostic who denied the humanity of Jesus; and we have proved that Gnosticism existed before the Christian era. Furthermore, we have a right to presume that Paul's writings were tampered with after Marcion's time to suit the Catholic creed. It was our intention further to discuss the question of the nature of Paul's Jesus, but happily we are relieved of all difficulty on this point by the discovery that Paul flourished before the Christian era. And in view of that important discovery may not the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, like those of Paul, be assigned to a very early period, even antedating the Christian era.]

Oh! had we the writings of only a few of the many Gnostics of the second century, doubtless the audacious fraud of the Catholic church would be apparent to the dullest mind.

But even Justin, the earliest champion of a historical Jesus, discloses the prevalence of a contrary belief in his time. In his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew," he puts into the mouth of his opponent this remarkable language:

But Christ-if he has indeed been born and exists anywhere-is unknown, and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elias comes to anoint him and make him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing. (Ch. viii.)

Justin, in reply to this, offered to prove, if Trypho was willing to listen to an account of Christ, that his worshipers had not been deceived" and had "not believed empty fables." At this some of Trypho's friends "laughed and shouted in an unseemly manner," whereupon Justin "rose up and was about to leave," but Trypho held him back by his garments and called for his proofs. Justin, however, would not proceed until the scoffers quitted the place or agreed to listen in respectful silence. Two of them accordingly withdrew in disgust. But when the discussion was resumed Justin turned the subject, and the two theologians talked about Abraham, Moses, and the prophets; nor did Justin allude to the gospel story about Christ for a long time, and when he came to speak of Jesus he said he was born in a cave and cradled in a manger, where he was seen by the Magi. (Ch. lxxviii.)

This agrees only in part with Matthew and Luke, and in part with the apocryphal gospels. Luke says the shepherds came and saw the babe in a manger (ii, 16), but does not say that the manger was in a cave. Matthew says the Magi came and saw the young child in a "house" (ii, 11). Now, a cave might be used as a stable, and a stable might answer for a house; but who would think of calling a cave where cattle were stalled a house?

But the apocryphal gospels have Jesus born in a cave which, from the description, could not have been a stable. Indeed, the "Protevangelion" has the child temporarily removed from the cave to an ox-stall to elude the search by Herod (ch. xxii); and "Pseudo-Matthew" has him removed to a stable on the third day in order to fulfil a prophecy (ch. xiv).

And both these gospels, as also that of the "Infancy," have the adoration of the Magi, angels, or shepherds take place in the cave. (Prot. 21; Pseudo-Matt. 12-16; Inf. 4, 5.)

St. Jerome, who lived at Bethlehem A. D. 400, repeatedly mentions the "cave in which the son of God was born" as then existing, with an "altar within," where "once was the Lord's manger." But before the discovery of the holy places of Palestine by Mother Constantine, the pagan women used to mourn for their beloved Thammuz, i. e., Adonis, in that very cave. It is said to be there still. Antichrist thinks of visiting it some day and chalking on the door Cave Inn.

The Ignatian epistles, which are doubtless later than Justin, contain frequent rebukes of those who deny the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

It is remarkable, however, that none of these rebukes are contained in the Syriac version, which is no doubt the earliest; but on the contrary there are two passages in the Syriac, both of which are repeated in the two Greek versions, which savor of Gnosticism. One is as follows:

Syriac.-Look for him that is above the times, him who has no times, him who is invisible, him who for our sakes became visible, him who is impalpable, him who is impassible, him who for our sakes suffered, him who endured everything in every form for our sakes. (Polycarp iii.)

Short Greek.-Look for him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account, and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes. (Ibid.)

Long Greek.-Look for Christ, the son of God; who was before time, yet appeared in time; who was invisible by nature, yet visible in the flesh; who was impalpable, and could not be touched, as being without a body, but for our sakes became such, might be touched and handled in the body; who was impassible as God, but became passible for our sakes as man; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes. (Ibid.)

The other Gnostic passage is as follows:

Syriac.-There was concealed from the ruler of this world the virginity of Mary and the birth of our Lord, and the three mysteries of the shout which were done in the tranquility of God from the star. (Ephesians xix,)

Short Greek.-Now, the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of noise, which were wrought in silence by God. How, then, was he manifested to the ages? A star shone forth in heaven above ail the other stars, the fight