but it is spoken of as a place of provisional deposit, chosen solely because it was near the place of crucifixion, and because the Sabbath drew nigh. In S. Matthew (xxviii. 1-6) one angel appeared to two women in the midst of an earthquake; he appeared to them seated outside the sepulchre on the stone which had closed it. In S. Mark (xvi. 1-6) one angel, or rather a young man, appears inside the tomb to three women, and there is no earthquake. In S. Luke (xxiv. 2-10) two angels appear to several women; and there is no earthquake. In S. John (xx. 1, 11-13) the number of angels is two, and there is but one woman. In S. Mark, the three women, Mary Magdalene being one of them, came to the sepulchre with the intention of embalming the body of Jesus at the rising of the sun, in S. John, on the contrary, it was still dark when the Magdalen came to the tomb and found it empty. It is impossible to reconcile these accounts by supposing that she came twice, for if this latter account describe the first visit, she would not have returned later with spices, and wondered "who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?" (S. Mark xvi. 3.) 4. Another difficulty in the way of accepting the Biblical Infallibility theory is, that the authorship of the Old Testament books, and of some of those in the New Testament is doubtful. Papias, a companion of S. Polycarp, is the first to speak of the Gospels. He says of S. Matthew that "he compiled the sayings of the Lord in the Hebrew language;" and of S. Mark, that he "set down the words and deeds of Jesus, though not in order," as he heard the preaching of the Apostle. Such a description does not tally with either of the first two Gospels as we have them. Our first Gospel contains, undoubtedly, a preponderance of discourses of the Lord, but not discourses exclusively; and the present Gospel of S. Mark does not give a continuous history. Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, makes no allusion whatever to S. Luke or S. John, as authors of our Lord's history. Justin Martyr, who wrote between 140 and 160, speaks of the Memoirs of the Apostles, and says that they recorded everything concerning Jesus Christ, and that these memoirs. were called Gospels, and when he cites "the Gospel" his quotations do not coincide with parallel passages in any of those we have. The earliest recognition of the Gospel of S. John that we know of, is that of the heretic Heracleon (circa A.D. 150), who is said by Origen to have written comments upon it. Theophilus of Antioch is the first orthodox writer who specifies the Apostle John as the author of the fourth Gospel. When we come to examine the Gospels to discover what testimony they bear to the Divinity of Christ, we find them singularly deficient. The three first have not a passage on this point, nor a single word identifying Jesus with God, nor calling Him God. He is named "the Son of Man" and "the Son of God." The first of these expressions in no way implies the divinity of Jesus; it is used frequently to designate the prophets; and in the Sermon on the Mount all those who are peacemakers are called "sons of God," as well as all those who do good for evil.1 The same evangelist calls God the Father of men, and S. Luke calls men the sons of the Most High, the sons of God. If the Evangelists give men the name of sons of God, it is impossible to conclude from them that they give that title to Christ in any other light. In Exodus (iv. 22) God calls 2 vi. 25, 26. 3 S. Luke vi. 35, xx. 36. 1 S. Matt. v. 9, 45, 48. the people of Israel "His first-born son" (1 Chron. xvii. 13); God, in predicting the birth of King Solomon, calls him His son; and in Job (i. 6; ii. 1; xxxviii. 7) the angels are called sons of God. The Bible even gives the name of God to created beings; in Exodus (vii. 1) Moses is called a God to Pharaoh; in chap. xxii. 28, the judges are designated as gods; and (Psalm lxxxii. 1-6) the name of gods is given even to those who "judge unjustly and accept the persons of the wicked." It is therefore quite possible that when the Evangelists used the expression Son of God in reference to Christ they used it with no intention of making Him God. There are also numerous texts in the three first evangels which seem difficult to reconcile with the idea of His Divinity. I need only give references 1 "2" . . On the other hand, the author of the fourth Gospel puts forth higher claims for Christ. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; "2 "He made Himself equal with God; "3 "I and My Father are one;"4 "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." "O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was."6 "And Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God."7 The first Epistle of S. John says also "We know Him that is true: and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."8 1 S. Mark x. 18; S. Luke xviii. 19; S. Matt. xix. 17; xvi. 15, 16; S. Mark viii. 29; S. Luke ix. 20; xxiv. 19; S. Matt. xx. 23; S. Mark x. 40; xiii. 32. speaks of S. Paul, also, is sufficiently explicit. He "Christ who is over all, God blessed for ever; "1 he says of Him that "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God;"2 "By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible—and He is before all things, and by him all things consist."3 "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."+ "The glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."5 In There are, however, passages in the fourth Gospel and in the Epistles of S. Paul, which, I will not say, present a different notion of Christ, but which are apparently inconsistent with the passages quoted above; thus, Jesus declares that He can do nothing of Himself," that He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him; that He speaks nothing of Himself.8 chap. viii. 40, He is represented merely as a prophet; "Ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God." When the Jews reproached Him with making Himself God, He excused Himself by quoting the psalm which "called them gods unto whom the word of God came;" and after the Resurrection He speaks of the Father as "My God and your God" when addressing the Magdalen. 10 S. Paul also presents Jesus not as God, but as sent from God; "the gift of grace is by one man, Jesus Christ;' "The head of every man is Christ,-and the head of Christ is God."12 Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."2 "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."3 In S. Peter's first sermon, recorded in the Acts, Christ is spoken of as "a man, approved of God by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by Him," Who was raised up and exalted by God. 5 S. Stephen speaks of Him as a "prophet like unto Moses," and he calls Him "the Just One." At Caesarea, S. Peter addressing himself to Gentiles, speaks in language which implies that Jesus was inspired, was an envoy of God, but not necessarily God Himself; for he says "God was with Him."7 "It is He which was ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead."8 To resume what has been said, of eight witnesses in the New Testament, six, i.e. SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, Peter, and Jude do not identify Jesus with God. Three, to wit the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, have, on the contrary, texts which express belief in His humanity alone, and S. Luke in the Acts puts similar language into the mouth of S. Peter. Two only, SS. John and Paul, speak of Jesus as one with God, but even they have ambiguous or seemingly contradictory passages. So much for Scripture as an infallible authority. To any one who already believes in our Lord's Incarnation, the passages quoted will not offer much difficulty, for the bringing into prominence of one side of the doctrine is not a negation of the other side; but to one who is simply an inquirer groping for an authority which will make him embrace Christianity instead of Buddhism or Mahomedanism, the Scriptural evidence is by no means conclusive: 2 Eph. i. 3. 1 1 Cor. xv. 28. 4 Acts ii. 22. 7 Acts x. 38. 3 1 Tim. ii. 5. |