of John, besides remains of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, fragments from Thucydides, and other classical writers.

The most interesting, probably, of all these finds was a leaf of the Gospel of St. Matthew. This page of the Gospel according to St. Matthew is so nearly identical with the corresponding passage in the Greek of Westcott and Hort that it took the keen eyes of Professor Rendel Harris to discover the difference between them. He thinks that he can make out an apostrophe on this page which is not found in the Westcott and Hort text! A copyist might try his hand on the Greek of either of these texts, and he would prove himself skilful if he succeeded in producing a copy as exact as one of these is of the other.

Dr. Winslow, Secretary of the Egyptian Exploration Fund, says of this fragment

"Its date is fixed by some experts at 150 A.D., and by the editors of the Society's publications at fifty or sixty years later."

This fragment of the Gospel, a century and a half older than our two oldest Greek MSS., the Tischendorf Sinaitic and the Vatican, and evidently copied from the same older exemplar, is of no small value, not only as a witness of the practically correct Greek text as now presented by the latest criticism, but as showing that the Gospel was not undergoing an evolutionary process at that early date.

Of the two pages of the Gospel of John, discovered at the same place, Dr. Winslow says

"The fragment of St. John's Gospel forms an important portion, small though it be, of a book of about fifty pages containing that Gospel, dating about 200. We have St. John i, 23-41, except that verse thirty-two is wanting: also St. John xxi, 11-25, except that verse eighteen is missing. The papyrus belongs to the same class with the Vatican and Sinaitic codices."

vi. THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.

The last document to which attention will be directed was discovered long before those which have been mentioned, but as it gives in some ways a more comprehensive view of the early history of the whole New Testament than any of them, it may well take its place at the conclusion of our survey of documents which archæology has caused to shed light on this wonderful Book.

In 1842, M. Villemain, Minister of Public Instruction under Louis Philippe, sent Minoides Mynas, a Greek scholar, to search

libraries in the East for yet undiscovered ancient manuscripts which might be concealed among the heaps of useless material. The result was that he came back with a rare treasure in his hands. It was the Philosophoumena (or Refutation of all Heresies) of Hippolytus. The book was found of great interest as throwing an unexpected and truly astounding light on the Church in Rome in his time. Bunsen (Hippolytus and His Age, vol. ii, page 139) finds Hippolytus quoting or referring to every book of the New Testament except the Second Epistle of Peter. This exception is evidently an oversight, for we find Hippolytus using the expression, "returning to wallow in the same mire," which is evidently from II Peter ii, 22: "The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

Bunsen says (Ibid., p. 144), “The expressions of Hippolytus on the paramount authority of Scripture on all matters of faith and doctrine are as strong as those of the Reformers." Looking into the writings of Hippolytus we find that this is no exaggeration.

Now we are to remember that Irenæus, the teacher of Hippolytus, has exactly the same view of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments alike, and that Irenæus sat at the feet of Polycarp, who was a contemporary of the Apostle John for more than thirty years, and was his devoted pupil. Thus, the testimony of Hippolytus comes through Irenæus and Polycarp from the last of the Apostles. This clearly indicates that the New Testament writings came down with Apostolic Authority.

Here we may pertinently ask the question, Why do we believe that books written a century before our times were written by those whose names they bear? We have no depositions, with a notary's seal on them, of witnesses who saw the writers at their work. We believe because contemporaries of these writers received them as their productions, and the readers who succeeded them down to our own time have suggested no doubt as to their authorship. This is so with the ordinary book which may be of no vital importance to those who received and passed it on.

The case of the writings which form the New Testament is much stronger. They present facts and teachings which those receiving them did consider of vital interest to themselves and others-so vital that thousands were willing to lay down their lives as a testimony of their faith in the truth of them. Such writings surely would not have been received by them and

laboriously circulated, amid untold dangers, as they were by such as Quadratus (in whom we see one of a multitude of devoted messengers), if there had been the slightest doubt of their authorship and authority.

But archæology shows us these writings coming down, not only with this general stream of blood-sealed testimony, but in a distinct and direct current in it.

Another document, the Muratorian Fragment, discovered by Muratori in 1740, containing a list of the New Testament books, has in its proper place the Gospel of John. This is in keeping with the abundant evidence we have already examined of the existence and universal acceptance of the Fourth Gospel as a part of Holy Scripture.

II. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN ITS ENVIRONMENT;

OR THE SETTING OF THE JEWEL.

We will now turn to a class of archæological discoveries more closely linked with history than the documents we have been considering. It is true that in the case of some of the documents, archæology and history unite in bearing witness. Tatian, Aristides, Justin, and Hippolytus are historical personages, so that their testimony is that of witnesses that are known, speaking at a definite period. Thus, the Diatessaron, the Palimpsest, the Apology, and the Refutation are writings of periods that are known, and their testimony is dated. But the dates of the New Testament writings are indicated by other discoveries.

(1) GEOGRAPHICAL-For lack of space the geography of the Holy Land can only be referred to, with the remark that the progress of archæological research has tended constantly to make clearer the fact that the writers of the New Testament were intimately acquainted with its localities, its political divisions and peculiarities of soil, climate and productions. The more it is searched and scientifically examined, the fuller grows the evidence that this is the setting-the only possible setting in all the world for this record of the mission of Him who was born in Bethlehem, was reared in Nazareth, was crucified at Jerusalem and ascended from Olivet. History and archæology combine in confirming the Gospels, which show Him to us in that Holy Land (as said the dying king), " Over whose acres walked those blessed feet, which fourteen hundred years ago were nailed, for our advantage, on the bitter cross."

Without any attempt at classification, we may well look at some of the occurrences recorded in the Gospels and the Acts,

and referred to in the other books, just as a reader opening the New Testament at the beginning and reading through it would come to them, and see whether there is consistency, or inconsistency, with other historical records, and archæological finds.

(2) ENROLMENT.-The first case to meet us is one which has given rise to much discussion. The time of the birth of Christ is stated (Luke ii, 1) as being "in those days" when "there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled." Then the statement is added, "This was the first enrolment made when Quirinus was governor of Syria." No small difficulty has been experienced in reconciling this statement with the historical fact that Quirinus was governor of Syria from 6 to 9 A.D. Abbot Sanclemente and Zumpt made discoveries which led some scholars to think they had made it clear that Quirinus was twice governor, and that the first enrolment took place during his earlier occupancy of this position. But Tertullian had stated that Sentius Saturninus was governor at that time (Ag. Marcion, bk. IV, ch. xix.)

Now the matter is made plain. Saturninus was the civil governor but Quirinus was commander of the forces in Syria and Cilicia before the birth of Christ; and Sir Wm. M. Ramsay has proved that it was "the Roman custom for a general engaged in a frontier war, as the direct representative of the Emperor, to rank superior to the ordinary governor, who carried on his civil duties as usual."* (Was Christ born in Bethlehem? p. 241.)

The fact is now thoroughly established that Augustus ordered a periodic census, or enrolment, to be taken all over the empire every fourteen years, and here we find an instance of such census-taking in Luke's account of the nativity. History shows us plainly that this was no invention of Luke's to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, but rather a fully-established fact.

It has been denied that there was any requirement to go to one's "own city" to be enrolled. But, when we remember the tribal organization of the Jewish nation, and the policy of the Roman administration to allow races to adhere to their age-long customs as far as possible, the probability of Joseph and Mary's going to Bethlehem to be enrolled is clear. Moreover, it is

It should be noted here that it is not stated (in the Greek) that Quirinus was governor” ηγεμων. The words are ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. The verb means primarily "to lead, especially an army, hence to rule, command." See Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon. Naturally, it came also to mean to command or rule in a city, so that this is a secondary, while the former is more in accordance with the primary, signification of the verb "to lead."

stated, on the authority of Sir Wm. M. Ramsay, that "an old order from the Prefect in Egypt, dated 104 A.D. has been recently found, commanding all persons living at a distance to return to their nomes for the then approaching census."

(3) ARCHELAUS.-The plan of Herod to slay the infant Christ, and his cruelty in commanding the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem, are in full accordance with his character as seen in the pages of Josephus. The account which Matthew gives of Joseph's fearing to return to Bethlehem because he was informed that Archelaus reigned in Judea after Herod's death, has a clear explanation in the fact that Archelaus had shown that he had inherited Herod's cruelty as well as the throne vacated by his death. His slaughter of more than three thousand Jews in Jerusalem† shows that Joseph's fears were very natural.

The fact that Joseph went with Mary and the babe to Galilee was due to the fact that Archelaus did not inherit the dominion of his father there, Galilee and Perea having been assigned to Herod Antipas, another son of Herod.

(4) JOHN THE BAPTIST.-There is a remarkable agreement in the account given of the preaching of John the Baptist and his execution by Herod, in Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, v, 2), and that given in the Gospels. Josephus speaks of him as "John called the Baptist," and says, " For Herod slew him, who was a good man and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism, etc." Josephus also tells of Herod's agreement to divorce his wife and marry Herodias.

(5) RULERS.-Luke introduces his account of the preaching of John the Baptist in the manner of a very accurate historian, dating it in a year which he marks with exactness by introducing the names of seven persons then in authority in various capacities, the Emperor Tiberius being the first mentioned with the year of his reign designated. Is it found that any mistake has been made?

These seven persons are spoken of as contemporaries, and occupying certain offices at a designated time, and among them, Annas and Caiaphas are spoken of as the "high priests." There was only one high priest at a time. Is it not a mistake to speak of two at the same time? History shows us that there is no mistake here. When we find that Annas had been appointed high

* Provinces, or minor divisions.

† Antiquities of Jews, XVII, ix, 1-3; Bell. Jud. II, i 3.