23. Any method of reconstructing history on these lines is, as I have stated, legitimate and worthy of a Christian who is loyal to his faith. But a view of history that cannot be expressed in terms fit to describe the operation of Divine Providence; that sees in it nothing but huge blunders and gross deteriorations; that regards the Church of Christ as built on fundamental untruth, which only becomes worse and not better as the centuries advance; such a view seems to me to be not loyal and not really Christian. Footnote 74: See, however, the Oxford Society of Hist. Theol., _N. T. in Apost. Fathers_ (1905), p. 84. Footnote 75: Ibid., pp. 64, 67, 69; on the use of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 81-83 (a judicious estimate). Footnote 76: _Ignatius von Antiochien_, pp. 46 ff. Footnote 77: Strangely enough, the Oxford Society’s committee do not mention this phrase, though it presents a stronger case than any of those on p. 31. Footnote 78: _Hibbert Journal_ i. 529. Footnote 79: _Character, &c._ 157. Footnote 80: _Hibbert Journal_ ii. 610. Footnote 81: _Chronologie_, p. 675. Footnote 82: _Die Offenbarung Johannis_, p. 208. Footnote 83: It is pointed out to me by Dr. V. Bartlet that the sentence in the Fragment about the dead raised to life is really a new statement not connected with the sentences preceding which are referred to Papias. I am inclined to think that this is right, and that the authority may be Quadratus. Footnote 84: Since this was written I have had the advantage of seeing in manuscript an argument by Dom John Chapman, presenting in a more attractive shape than I have ever yet seen the view that the only John of Ephesus was the son of Zebedee. All depends upon the truth of the story of this Apostle’s death. It is one of those statements that we can neither wholly trust, nor wholly distrust. There is a real chance that it may be right, and there is an equally real chance that it may be wrong; the evidence, as it seems to me, does not warrant a positive assertion either way. I should be much inclined to think that, if the statement is true, there was but one John at Ephesus, the beloved disciple who was also the Presbyter; and, if the statement is false, there was still but one John, who was both Presbyter and Apostle. But then there comes in the problem of the Apocalypse, which _may_ require two Johns! Footnote 85: Iren. _adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 7. Footnote 86: _Comm. in Joan._ i. 6. INDEX Abbot, Ezra, 12 f., 15. Abbott, Edwin A., xi. Alogi, 65 f., 238, 255. Antioch, 199. Apocalypse, 248-50. Apocryphal Acts, 112. Apocryphal Gospels, 112 f. Apologetics, x, 3-5, 38. Apostle, the title, 105 f. Apostolicity, 41. Aristion, 241; _see also_ Presbyters of Papias. Arnold, Matthew, 225. Athanasius, _Vita Antonii_, 57 ff., 183. Augustine, St., 178. Bacon, Benjamin W., 19, 24 f., 35, 57, 75.