Project Gutenberg's The Lost Gospel and Its Contents, by Michael F. SadlerThis eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online atwww.gutenberg.orgTitle: The Lost Gospel and Its Contents Or, The Author of "Supernatural Religion" Refuted by HimselfAuthor: Michael F. SadlerRelease Date: January 29, 2006 [EBook #17626]Language: English*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LOST GOSPEL AND ITS CONTENTS ***Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net[Transcriber's Note: Footnotes have been relocated to the end of the text. Footnote anchors have been labeled with theoriginal page and footnote numbers.]THE LOST GOSPEL AND ITS CONTENTS;OR,THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" REFUTED BY HIMSELF.BY THE REV. M.F. SADLER, M.A., RECTOR OF HONITON.LONDON:GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET,COVENT GARDEN.1876.PREFACE.This book is entitled "The Lost Gospel" because the book to which it is an answer is an attempt to discredit theSupernatural element of Christianity by undermining the authority of our present Gospels in favour of an earlier form of thenarrative which has perished.It seemed to me that, if the author of "Supernatural Religion" proved his point, and demonstrated that the Fathers of theSecond Century quoted Gospels earlier than those which we ...
Project Gutenberg's The Lost Gospel and Its Contents, by Michael F. Sadler
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,
give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Lost Gospel and Its Contents Or, The Author of "Supernatural Religion" Refuted by Himself
Author: Michael F. Sadler
Release Date: January 29, 2006 [EBook #17626]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LOST GOSPEL AND ITS CONTENTS ***
Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
[Transcriber's Note: Footnotes have been relocated to the end of the text. Footnote anchors have been labeled with the
original page and footnote numbers.]THE LOST GOSPEL AND ITS CONTENTS;
OR,
THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" REFUTED BY HIMSELF.
BY THE REV. M.F. SADLER, M.A., RECTOR OF HONITON.
LONDON:
GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET,
COVENT GARDEN.
1876.PREFACE.
This book is entitled "The Lost Gospel" because the book to which it is an answer is an attempt to discredit the
Supernatural element of Christianity by undermining the authority of our present Gospels in favour of an earlier form of the
narrative which has perished.
It seemed to me that, if the author of "Supernatural Religion" proved his point, and demonstrated that the Fathers of the
Second Century quoted Gospels earlier than those which we now possess, then the evidence for the Supernatural itself,
considered as apart from the particular books in which the records of it are contained, would be strengthened; if, that is, it
could be shown that this earlier form of the narrative contained the same Supernatural Story.
The author of "Supernatural Religion," whilst he has utterly failed to show that the Fathers in question have used earlier
Gospels, has, to my mind, proved to demonstration that, if they have quoted earlier narratives, those accounts contain,
not only substantially, but in detail, the same Gospel which we now possess, and in a form rather more suggestive of the
Supernatural. So that, if he has been successful, the author has only succeeded in proving that the Gospel narrative itself,
in a written form, is at least fifty or sixty years older than the books which he attempts to discredit.
With respect to Justin Martyr, to the bearing of whose writings on this subject I have devoted the greater part of my book, I
can only say that, in my examination of his works, my bias was with the author of "Supernatural Religion." I had hitherto
believed that this Father, being a native of Palestine, and living so near to the time of the Apostles, was acquainted with
views of certain great truths which he had derived from traditions of the oral teaching of the Apostles, and the possession
of which made him in some measure an independent witness for the views in question; but I confess that, on a closer
examination of his writings, I was somewhat disappointed, for I found that he had no knowledge of our Lord and of His
teaching worth speaking of, except what he might be fairly assumed to have derived from our present New Testament.
I have to acknowledge my obligations to Messrs. Clark, of Edinburgh, for allowing me to make somewhat copious
extracts from the writings of Justin in their ante-Nicene Library. This has saved a Parish Priest like myself much time and
trouble. I believe that in all cases of importance in which I have altered the translation, or felt that there was a doubt, I have
given the original from Otto's edition (Jena, 1842).CONTENTS.
PAGE SECTION I.—Introductory 1 SECTION II.—The Way Cleared 5 SECTION III.—The Principal Witness—His
Religious Views 9 SECTION IV.—The Principal Witness—The Sources of his Knowledge respecting the Birth of Christ
19 SECTION V.—The Principal Witness—His Testimony respecting the Baptism of Christ 29 SECTION VI.—The
Principal Witness—His Testimony respecting the Death of Christ 33 SECTION VII.—The Principal Witness—His
Testimony respecting the Moral Teaching of our Lord 40 SECTION VIII.—The Principal Witness—His Testimony to St.
John 45 SECTION IX.—The Principal Witness—His Further Testimony to St. John 53 SECTION X.—The Principal
Witness—His Testimony summed up 60 SECTION XI.—The Principal Witness on our Lord's Godhead 65 SECTION XII.
—The Principal Witness on the Doctrine of the Logos 73 SECTION XIII.—The Principal Witness on our Lord as King,
Priest, and Angel 80 SECTION XIV.—The Principal Witness on the Doctrine of the Trinity 85 SECTION XV.—Justin and
St. John on the Incarnation 88 SECTION XVI.—Justin and St. John on the Subordination of the Son 93 SECTION XVII.—
Justin and Philo 98 SECTION XVIII.—Discrepancies between St. John and the Synoptics 104 SECTION XIX.—External
Proofs of the Authenticity of our Four Gospels 118 Note on Section XIX.—Testimonies of Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, and Tertullian to the use of the Four Gospels in their day 136 SECTION XX.—The Evidence for Miracles 149
SECTION XXI.—Objections to Miracles 162 SECTION XXII.—Jewish Credulity 167 SECTION XXIII.—Demoniacal
Possession 173 SECTION XXIV.—Competent Witnesses 179 SECTION XXV.—Date of Testimony 185THE LOST GOSPEL.
SECTION I.
INTRODUCTORY.
In the following pages I have examined the conclusions at which the author of a book entitled "Supernatural Religion" has
assumed to have arrived.
The method and contents of the work in question may be thus described.
The work is entitled "Supernatural Religion, an Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation." Its contents occupy two
volumes of about 500 pages each, so that we have in it an elaborate attack upon Christianity of very considerable length.
The first 200 pages of the first volume are filled with arguments to prove that a Revelation, such as the one we profess to
believe in, supernatural in its origin and nature and attested by miracles, is simply incredible, and so, on no account, no
matter how evidenced, to be received.
But, inasmuch as the author has to face the fact, that the Christian Religion professes to be attested by miracles
performed at a very late period in the history of the world, and said to have been witnessed by very large numbers of
persons, and related very fully in certain books called the Canonical Gospels, which the whole body of Christians have,
from a very early period indeed, received as written by eye-witnesses, or by the companions of eye-witnesses, the
remaining 800 pages are occupied with attempts at disparaging the testimony of these writings. In order to this, the
Christian Fathers and heretical writers of a certain period are examined, to ascertain whether they quoted the four
Evangelists. The period from which the writer chooses his witnesses to the use of the four Evangelists, is most
unwarrantably and arbitrarily restricted to the first ninety years of the second century (100-185 or so). We shall have
ample means for showing that this limitation was for a purpose.
The array of witnesses examined runs thus: Clement of Rome, Barnabas,
Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Papias of
Hierapolis, the Clementines, the Epistle to Diognetus, Basilides,
Valentinus, Marcion, Tatian, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito of Sardis,
Claudius Apollinaris, Athenagoras, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons,
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, Celsus and the Canon of Muratori.
The examination of references, or supposed references, in these books to the first three Gospels fills above 500 pages,
and the remainder (about 220) is occupied with an examination of the claims of the fourth Gospel to be considered as
canonical.
The writer conducts this examination with an avowed dogmatical bias; and this, as the reader will soon see, influences
the manner of his examination throughout the whole book. For instance, he never fails to give to the anti-Christian side
the benefit of every doubt, or even suspicion. This leads him to make the most of the smallest discrepancy between the
words of any supposed quotation in any early writer from one of our Canonical Gospels, and the words as contained in
our present Gospels. If the writer quotes the Evangelist freely, with some differences, however slight, in the words, he is
assumed to quote from a lost Apocryphal Gospel. If the writer gives the words as we find them in our Gospels, he
attempts to show that the father or heretic need not have even seen our present Gospels; for, inasmuch as our present
Gospels have many things in common which are derived from an earlier source, the quoter may have derived the words
he quotes from the earlier source. If the quoter actually mentions the name of the Evangelist whose Gospel he refers to
(say St. Mark), it is roundly asserted that his St. Mark is not the same as ours. [Endnote 3:1]
The reader may ask, "How is it possible, against such a mode of argument, to prove the genuineness or authenticity of
any book, sacred or profane?" And, of course, it is not. Such a way of conducting a controversy seems absurd, but on the
author's premises it is a necessity. He asserts the dogma that the Governor of the world cannot interfere by way of
miracle. He has to meet the fact that the foremost religion of the world appeals to miracles, especially the miracle of the
Resurrection of the Founder. For the truth of this miraculous Resurrection there is at least a thousand times more
evidence than there is for any historical fact which is recorded to have occurred 1,800 years ago. Of course, if the
supernatural in Christianity is impossible, and so incredible, all the witnesses to it must be discredited; and their number,
their age, and their unanimity upon the principal points are such that the mere attempt must tax the powers of human
labour and ingenuity to the uttermost.
How, then, is such a book to be met? It would take a work of twice the size to rebut all the assertions of the author, for,
naturally, an answer to any assertion must take u