THE PROOFS
OF
CHRIST’S RESURRECTION;

FROM A LAWYER’S STANDPOINT.

BY
CHARLES R. MORRISON.

ANDOVER:
WARREN F. DRAPER.
1882.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1882,
By WARREN F. DRAPER,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

All Rights Reserved.

PREFACE.

The present treatise is intended to give what the author has often felt the need of—a compact and thoroughly reliable statement of the principal historical facts to the authenticity and integrity of the New Testament writings concerning our Lord, and the presumptions from them which establish his claims as our Divine Redeemer and Saviour.

The question of his Resurrection from the dead is selected as the pivot, because everything hinges upon it. This question, whichever way it is determined, is decisive. It is a question which greatly concerns every one. It is a question of evidence, and as such is especially deserving of careful inquiry by members of the legal profession. For, as Prof. Greenleaf observed in his work hereafter cited,—“If a close examination of the evidences of Christianity may be expected of one class of men more than another, it would seem incumbent on us, who make the law of evidence one of our peculiar studies.”

As the question of Christ’s Resurrection is the objective point of our inquiries, all other questions are subordinated to it, and examined so far only as deemed material to the main question.

The author has availed himself of a lawyer’s privilege, and made use of the researches, arguments, and conclusions of others who may justly be regarded as authority, and to whom he has given credit as far as practicable, but has endeavored to form an independent judgment in view of all accessible sources of information.

The work is, in the main, as published in a series of articles in the New Hampshire Journal, and also in the Vermont Chronicle, from March 5, 1881, to April 1, 1882, which will explain the use of the common version in the earlier chapters and the New Revision in the later ones.

While the proofs have been marshalled around the principal fact, those to establish the subsidiary question of our Four Gospels and the Book of Acts have been largely centered upon the “Memoirs” mentioned in the confessedly genuine writings of Justin Martyr. Justin, in his First Apology, so called, written before the year one hundred and fifty of our era, and probably ten years earlier, has given a graphic account of the usages in the churches generally. In this account he says that, on the “day called Sunday,” Memoirs of Christ were read with the Prophets, in all their assemblies. Hence, when it is ascertained that these Memoirs were our Canonical Gospels, we make a long stride toward the conclusion of their undoubted authenticity and genuineness.

To all questions of evidence which arise, the author applies legal principles and presumptions derived from experience and constantly acted upon in courts of justice. He asks of the reader a patient perusal to the end, for he confidently believes that the vital fact of Christ’s Resurrection, with all the grand consequences which necessarily follow it, is as susceptible of proof, from undoubted historical facts and solid argument, as any other event in history.

The work is written for busy men in all the walks of life, and the writer has endeavored to make himself understood.

Charles R. Morrison.

Manchester, N. H., August, 1882.

CONTENTS.

THE PROOFS OF CHRIST’S RESURRECTION.

CHAPTER I.
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE.

It is a characteristic of all who deny this and all other miracles, that they beg the whole question to begin with. They assume as an axiom that a miracle is impossible, or impossible to be proved by human testimony. Or, to put it more mildly, in the language of one of their number (Renan[1]), “neither men of the people nor men of the world are competent to prove it. Great precaution and a long habit of scientific research are requisite.” If these are sound axioms, it should be a matter of indifference who were the witnesses, or what their credibility or means of knowledge, since at the best they were but human, and it is not claimed that they were experts or savans after the modern skeptical school, although they might be expected to know whether one who walked with them, and to whose instructions they listened, and from whom they received their commission, were dead or alive.

It is also a comfortable assumption on their part that no one is a scholar who does not agree with their opinion, and many young men who would not be thought to be behind the times are misled by their confident boasting. “No modern theologian,” says Strauss,[2] “who is also a scholar, now considers any of the four Gospels to be the work of its pretended author, or in fact to be by an Apostle or colleague of an Apostle.” The logic of this is, that if any one does so consider them, he is not a scholar. The same kind of scholarship and habit of thinking that induced this wise conclusion brought him at last to the denial of the existence of a personal God or a future life. His experience is instructive, and shows the inevitable tendency of all reasoning that denies the possibility of a miracle or a divine revelation. Mill’s hard logic cannot well be resisted. “Once admit a God, and the production, by his direct volition, of an effect which in any case owed its origin to his creative will, is no more a purely arbitrary hypothesis to account for the past, but must be reckoned with as a serious possibility.” If, then, a miracle may occur, it may be proved[A] by human testimony, for the very motive or reason for its occurrence, or, at least the principal reason, must be its value as an attestation.

And the immense labor which the Tübingen school and every class of skeptics have bestowed in attempts to disprove the authorship of the Four Gospels, shows that they have not much confidence in their axioms after all. Why so anxious as to the witnesses, if it is immaterial who they are, or what they testify to? If a miracle cannot be proved by any evidence, why have they multiplied books to prove or disprove the authorship of the gospels?

THE BEST EVIDENCE.

The best evidence of which the subject admits, is all that is required in courts; and it is sufficient in matters of the highest concern, even in cases of life and death, that a fact be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The best evidence to Christ’s disciples of his resurrection, was that of their own senses. This evidence we cannot have. We are in the position, in some respects, of jurors, who must decide not from their own knowledge, but upon the testimony of others. We have not, however, the witnesses upon the stand, but only what may be regarded as their depositions, and it is made a question whether the writings produced are their depositions.

The question, then, in this stage is, who were the writers of the Four Gospels and the book of Acts? As to the latter, the writer claims to have written a former treatise, and it seems to be taken by both parties to the controversy, that the same person (whoever he was) wrote both books, so that any evidence of Luke’s authorship of the third Gospel, is evidence of his authorship of Acts, and vice versa. And the same is true in respect to the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John.

The best evidence as to the authorship of any of these books which the nature of the subject admits of, is from history and tradition, including in these terms quotations, citations, harmonies, commentaries, translations, and manuscripts.

There are two modes of presenting this evidence. One is to begin with their present acknowledged acceptance, and ascend the stream; the other is to strike tributaries, as near their source as we are able, and descend to the river. The latter will be adopted here in the first instance, and ultimately both modes of proof.

LOST TRIBUTARIES.

One hundred years from the crucifixion, churches had been established in all the cities and in many of the villages of the Roman Empire, from Cappadocia and Pontus on the east, to Gaul on the west, and Christians were very numerous. Tacitus describes those at Rome at the time of Nero’s barbarity, as “a great multitude,” and Pliny, in his letter to Trajan, cir. A.D. 110, affirms that the heathen temples were almost deserted, so that the sacred victims scarcely found any purchasers, and that the “superstition,” as he termed it, not only infected the cities, but had even spread into the villages, of Pontus and Bithynia (Gibbon, p. 576). Hence persons unacquainted with the subject might suppose that it would be easy to adduce abundant proof from writers of the first century, as to what memoirs of our Lord, if any, were in the churches at the time Pliny wrote his celebrated letter. Such, however, is not the fact.

There is no direct historical testimony known to be earlier than the first apology[3] of Justin Martyr to the Roman Emperor, cir. A.D. 139. There are certain fragments written by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, which may be of an earlier date, but this is uncertain. There are also quotations apparently from the third and fourth Gospels, by Basilides,[4] the Gnostic heretic who flourished at Alexandria as early as A.D. 125. There is an epistle to the Philippian church, attributed to Polycarp which Dean Stanley thinks dates about A.D. 130. Its genuineness is not universally admitted. There is an epistle, conceded to be genuine, from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, of the probable date of A.D. 95. There are epistles attributed by some to Ignatius, who suffered martyrdom, cir. A.D. 107, but their genuineness is controverted. There are in addition three other writings known as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Letter to Diognetus, and the Pastor Hermas. They are by unknown authors, and of uncertain date, but were probably written in the latter part of the first or the first part of the second century.

And these are all that have come down to us in any form from the first one hundred years after the crucifixion. That we have no more is easily explained. This period was one of intense activity and violent persecutions. Five (as some reckon them) of the ten general persecutions were within[5] this period. The first was under Nero, A.D. 64, the second under Domitian, A.D. 95, the third under Trajan, A.D. 100, the fourth under Antoninus the Philosopher, and the fifth under Severus, A.D. 127; and, as some of these continued several years, there was scarcely an intermission for three-quarters of a century. The horrible tortures and cruel deaths under Nero are well-known, and, under Domitian, forty thousand were supposed to have suffered martyrdom.

It is no matter of surprise, therefore, that so little has reached us from this early period. Christians were making history, not writing it, and of their writings the most perished. There were hundreds and thousands who well knew what memoirs of our Lord were accepted by the churches in this period, from whose lips no voice comes except in the volume of universal tradition.

[1] Renan’s Life of Jesus, p. 43.

[2] The Old Faith and the New (1874), p. 45.

[A] See also post, [c. 18].

[3] A.D. 138 or 139 is the date most usually assigned to this most important work, although some place it as late as A.D. 150. If his statement in it that “Christ was born 150 years ago” were to be taken strictly, it would make its date A.D. 146 or A.D. 144, according as we allow four or six years as the error for the beginning of the true Christian era; but he may have used the number in a general way. His martyrdom is variously stated at A.D. 165 and A.D. 167.

[4] That the quotations were by Basilides himself Matthew Arnold’s reasoning seems entirely satisfactory, and “no one” he says, “who had not a theory to serve would ever dream of doubting it.” Perhaps it may be permitted to regard Matthew Arnold as a “scholar;” and see Abbot’s “Fourth Gospel,” Boston (1880), p. 86. See also post, [c. 5].

[5] Buck’s Theological Dictionary, and Vol. VII of M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, p. 966.

CHAPTER II.
ADMISSIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS.

With the somewhat scanty and inconclusive evidence from writings of the first one hundred years from the crucifixion, are there any facts that are conceded, and any presumptions from them? There are concessions, and from what motives is immaterial, since there is no doubt of the existence of the facts that are admitted even by those who deny the authenticity of the Gospels. Says Renan[1]: “Not the slightest doubt has been raised by serious criticism against the authenticity of the Epistle to the Galatians, the two Epistles to the Corinthians, or the Epistle to the Romans; while the arguments on which are founded the attacks on the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, and that to the Philippians, are without value.” And it may be added that the genuineness of the Book of Revelations is conceded and insisted upon by most of his way of thinking.

Now, from the four Epistles against whose authenticity “not the slightest doubt has been raised by serious criticism,” and the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny, these facts are as well established as any facts of history can possibly be established:—Jesus Christ was born in Judea in the days of Herod, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He was a most extraordinary character, and a wonderful teacher. He gathered disciples, of whom twelve were called Apostles. After his death, his followers were formed into numerous churches, which, in a few years, extended into all parts of the then known world, and of which there has been a continuous succession till now. If, from their disciples, we know something of the life and teachings of Confucius and Socrates, we should expect as much concerning him whose advent revolutionized the world, within three centuries overturned the old pagan superstitions throughout the Roman Empire, and is still the greatest moral power of the most enlightened nations of the earth. But, if there were any accepted memoirs of him in that first hundred years from his crucifixion, what has become of them? It is incredible that they should have dropped out of existence and there be no history or tradition of it. It is incredible that they should have been lost to churches having a continuous life, or that others should have been substituted for them, and there be no trace of their disappearance or of a substitution. In the churches in every period, the old and the young were together. How, then, was displacement and substitution possible without protest? How was the loss of accepted memoirs possible, so long as there was a continued succession of teachers? Yet none have reached our time other than those which have come to us through all the centuries as authentic writings of those whose names they bear.

By the law of the “survival of the fittest,” all other productions making any pretensions to such a character perished long ago, only fragments of them remain, and our four Gospels are in the churches. There is, therefore, to begin with, the strongest presumption in their favor. “It is,” says Professor Greenleaf,[2] “for the objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of proof.” And from what has appeared it is plain that this “burden” is a very heavy one.[3]

[1] Renan’s Life of Jesus, p. 35.

[2] The Testimony of the Four Evangelists (p. 28, section 10), by Simon Greenleaf, LL.D., 1846. His standard work on evidence is in every lawyer’s library.

[3] See also post, [c. 8].

CHAPTER III.
PAPIAS AND JUSTIN MARTYR.

The fact of the early reception, by the churches, of Memoirs of Christ deemed authentic, probable in itself without any proof, is conclusively proved by writings and to which reference has been made, particularly those of Papias and Justin Martyr.

Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first part of the second century of the Christian era. Though of moderate capacity, and entertaining extravagant ideas of the millennium, he was entirely honest, and there is no reason to question his testimony as to what he was told in respect to Matthew and Mark. He suffered martyrdom about A.D. 163. From fragments of his writings found in Eusebius and in the works of Irenæus, it appears that “John the Presbyter” gave him information in respect to the First and Second Gospels.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether this John was John the Apostle. Eusebius held that he was not, and says that in his day (264-340) there were two tombs at Ephesus, both of which were called John’s. The question of identity is not very material. Papias gives, in explanation, that he imagined that “what was to be got from books” concerning the Lord, was not as profitable to him “as what came from the living and abiding voice.” For this reason, he says, “If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples,[1] which things Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.”

From this, it is plain there were then accredited “books” concerning our Lord. And two of these books are identified by his statement of what he was told by John the Presbyter, that “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of Peter’s instructions,” whom he accompanied (it was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ), “and Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” These extracts prove that the First and Second Gospels were extant, not only when Papias wrote, and when the Presbyter gave him the information, but also some time before. His informant, if not John the Apostle, must have been one who had seen the Apostles or some of them, so that the testimony is very direct.

That Papias does not mention Luke’s Gospel, or John’s Gospel, proves nothing except that he had no occasion to say anything about them, in that connection. The Fourth Gospel may not have been written at the time of the interview with the Presbyter, for the Apostle John lived until about the year 100, and he wrote his Gospel very late in life. It is not quoted by Clement.

And as to the Third Gospel, the occasion for the writing of it is distinctly stated by the author himself, who was well known. And so of the Fourth Gospel; its authorship modestly but clearly appears upon its face. We have mere fragments from Papias not exceeding two or three hundred lines all told. In some of his five books (almost the whole of which have been lost) there may have been references to both Luke and John. Eusebius[2] states that Papias made use of testimonials from the First Epistle of John; but as he does not say that Papias ascribed that Epistle to John, his use of it only proves that it was extant when he wrote. There is, however, a quotation in one of these fragments (v), “In my Father’s house are many mansions,” which is literally as in John xiv. 2, and so, presumptively, was taken from it. It is an interesting fact that the only quotations other than this, by Papias (if those in this fragment are indeed by him), are as in verses 25 to 28 of the 15th of First Corinthians, a chapter which will be found to have great weight in another part of this discussion.

Papias, therefore, probably[3] quotes the Fourth Gospel. But, without such quotation, no inference could be drawn against Luke or John from mere silence. Papias would still prove the First and Second Gospels, leaving the Third and Fourth to stand upon the presumption in their favor stated in our last chapter, and upon positive evidence from other sources.

[1] The quotations from Papias are from Vol. I, of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, translated by Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D.; and so in respect to any of the Apostolic Fathers. The editors say the words, “Which things, etc.,” are usually translated, “What Aristion and John say,” and that such translation is admissible, but that they more naturally mean that John and Aristion, even at the time of Justin’s writing, were telling him of the sayings of the Lord.

[2] Eusebius B. III., c. 39.

[3] The editors call it “mere guess-work” (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. I., p. 444, note). Eusebius makes no mention of it, though his silence is not conclusive against it.

The question is of sufficient importance to warrant the giving of the entire passage from Irenæus in which the quotations appear. It is the last of five short chapters of his work on Heresies. Certain passages are printed in italics, which the reader is specially asked to consider: “As the presbyters say, then those who were deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendor of the city, for everywhere the Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and those who produce sixty-fold, and who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said, ‘In my Father’s house are many mansions;’ for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the wedding. The Presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, ‘For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.’ For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die. But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that the Son may be all in all.” There being no question of the genuineness of this passage from Irenæus, by whom were the quotations, found in it? Now while it is possible they were by Irenæus, to illustrate what ‘the Presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles,’ maintained, the more obvious and natural interpretation is, that they were cited by those Presbyters themselves. This being so, it is not of much consequence whether Irenæus had this information of these views and citations, from Papias (from whom he had obtained like information upon other subjects as to the sayings of the Presbyters), or whether Irenæus had this information of their sayings from other sources. In either event the quotations were made either by Papias, his contemporaries, or predecessors, “disciples of the Apostles.” And of this opinion are Charteris (Canonicity, c. 17, of the Introduction), and Routh, Tischendorf, Wescott, Dorner and Riggenback, as cited in “Supernatural Religion” p. 604.

CHAPTER IV.
THE MEMOIRS INTENDED BY JUSTIN MARTYR.[1]

Great importance attaches to them in connection with other facts.

The date of Justin’s birth is uncertain, being placed as early as A.D. 85, and as late as A.D. 114; Rev. Mr. Wright says about A.D. 100. His martyrdom was about A.D. 165. His father and grandfather were probably of Roman origin. Before his conversion to Christianity, he studied in the schools of the philosophers, but after that he became an Evangelist, and a vigorous writer in defence of the Christian faith. It is probable that he travelled much. He was not the first that wrote an Apology for Christians, but his are the earliest extant. Besides these, he wrote a much larger work (the Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew), a work on the resurrection, and some others; and by some, he has been regarded as the author of the Pastor Hermas. His first and principal Apology, of the probable date of A.D. 138-9, was addressed as follows:

“To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar, and to his son Verissimus, the philosopher, and to Lucius, the philosopher, the natural son of Cæsar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the Sacred Senate, with the whole people of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, native of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.”

Those to whom this formal address was made, would not be expected to know anything about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John; but it was otherwise, in respect to the Old Testament, for Jewish synagogues were in every city, and the Septuagint had been known for three hundred years.

In this Apology he explains some of the teachings of our Lord, and the usages of his disciples; and in respect to the last, are these passages:

“For the Apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread and when he had given thanks said, ‘This do ye in remembrance of me, this is my body;’ and that, after the same manner having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ‘This is my blood;’ and he gave it to them alone.”... “And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all, through his Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits; then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well-to-do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word, takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ, our Saviour, on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday): and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.”

This passage is a part of chapter sixty-six, and the whole of chapter sixty-seven.

The great question is, What were these “Memoirs of the Apostles,” which were thus read with the writings of the Prophets? It is a question of interpretation.

By the rule adopted in courts, these words are to be construed with the context, and in connection with other writings of Justin in relation to the same subject, and also in the light of all the surrounding circumstances.

These precise terms are first used in chapter sixty-seven. The same Memoirs, evidently, in chapter sixty-six, are described as Memoirs “composed” by the Apostles. They are not again referred to in this Apology. They are referred to several times in the Dialogue, chapters one hundred to one hundred and eight, by the following terms: The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs of the Apostles; For in the Memoirs which I say were drawn up by his Apostles and those who followed them; The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs; The Memoirs; The Memoirs; The Memoirs of the Apostles; The Memoirs of Him; The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs. Four times he calls them The Memoirs; three times The Memoirs of the Apostles; five times The Memoirs of His Apostles; and once, The Memoirs of Him, i. e., Christ, as Roberts and Donaldson interpret it,[2] and as the context and the whole scope indicate.

It is plain that the same “Memoirs” are intended throughout, under these various terms.

In chapter eighty-eight of the Dialogue, in mentioning the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus at his baptism, Justin says that when he came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on him like a dove, as “the Apostle of this very Christ of ours wrote.” The incident is mentioned in all four of the Gospels.

But for his explanation elsewhere, it would be inferred that all the “Memoirs” were “composed” by the Apostles. But he carefully explains his meaning, so that the “Memoirs,” or some of them, may have been “drawn up” either by the Apostles, or by those who followed them.

It is obvious that these Memoirs were not biographies or sketches by unknown or irresponsible persons, but writings well understood by the Churches to have been “composed” or “drawn up” by the Apostles, or with their approval.

As Mark was understood to be Peter’s interpreter, so Luke was understood to have been Paul’s companion, and to have written under his sanction. And Paul was an Apostle, although not one of the twelve.

Justin had informed the Roman Emperor[3] of the Apostles, and he gave like information to Trypho.[3] He meant that all who should read should know that what he gave of the life and teachings of Christ was not from irresponsible sources, but from writings expressly sanctioned, if not actually written, by those whom Christ had selected as witnesses.

These Memoirs, therefore, were doubtless understood by Justin, and by the church in general, in city and country, to have been the productions of Apostles or their companions. They were read the same as the Prophets, and placed upon the same footing. Justin, in writing to Trypho, speaks of having believed God’s voice spoken by the apostles of Christ.

And since, in speaking of their actual composition, he uses the plural, “Apostles,” we should look for two or more Memoirs, “drawn up,” by Apostles.

Now what were these Memoirs? What writings will answer the description? Matthew[4] and Mark will, according to what the Presbyter said of them. Were there any others? There should be one more at least, that was written by an Apostle, else wherefore, the plural? The four Gospels that have come down to us, answer the description in every particular. To use a legal phrase,—“From the time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary,” two of them have been accepted in the Church as having been composed by Apostles, and two, by companions of Apostles.

Unless it can be shown that when Justin wrote, there were other Memoirs of Christ that will answer to his description, our four Gospels and no others were intended. Were there any besides these?

[1] The quotations from Justin Martyr are from Vol. II. of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, edited by Roberts and Donaldson.

[2] See post, [c. 7, note 14].

[3] “For from Jerusalem there went out into the world men, twelve in number, ... who proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach all the word of God” (Ap. c. 39). “And by those things which were published in his name among all nations by the Apostles” (ibid. c. 42). “His Apostles going forth from Jerusalem preached everywhere” (ibid. c. 45.) “And further there was a certain man with us whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ” (Dia. c. 81). “For as he (Abraham) believed the voice of God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, in like manner we, having believed God’s voice spoken by the Apostles of Christ, and promulgated to us by the prophets, have renounced even to death all the things of the world” (ibid. c. 119).

[4] The writer of Barnabas, in quoting as in Matthew xx. 16, had used the authoritative Latin formula (it is written) for quotations from Scripture, as follows: “Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, ‘Many are called but few are chosen’” (Ep. of Bar. c. 4).

CHAPTER V.
QUOTATIONS AND CITATIONS.

The apparent or seeming use of our Gospels by Justin and his contemporaries is a fact of great weight in determining whether they are the “Memoirs” referred to by him.

According to the Indexes of Texts by the learned editors of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, John’s Gospel is quoted or cited, twice in Barnabas, once in Diognetus, twice in Hermas, once by Justin, and once by Papias. Mark is quoted or cited, once in Barnabas, twice by Clement, three times by Justin, and once by Polycarp: Acts is quoted or cited once in Barnabas, once by Clement, once by Justin, and four times by Polycarp: Luke is quoted or cited three times in Barnabas, three times by Clement, once in Hermas, fourteen times by Justin, and twice by Polycarp: and Matthew is quoted or cited six times in Barnabas, five times by Clement, twice in Diognetus, nine times in Hermas, forty-seven times by Justin, and seven times by Polycarp.

As to citations, passages deemed such by one, may have been overlooked or regarded differently by another, so that there is not an entire agreement as to the number of citations, i. e. of allusions or references that are not quotations. And it should be understood that in the quotations, the books from which they are taken are not stated, except that Justin indicates that his, in general, are from the “Memoirs.” Their agreement with our Gospels is sometimes literally exact, quite often it is otherwise; and not unfrequently two or three passages are seemingly blended, as if the author were quoting from memory and giving the sense, merely.

It will be sufficient for the purposes of the argument to give examples (except as to the Fourth Gospel) only from Justin, and to omit his quotations from Matthew and Mark, since they are so numerous and not a few of them of considerable length. Of his references, Rev. Mr. Wright says[1]: “Upon examination it is found that of the one hundred and twenty or more allusions which Justin makes to the Gospel history, nearly all coincide as to substance with the statements of either Matthew or Luke. Of the sixty or seventy apparently direct quotations, ten are exact, twenty-five are only slightly variant, while there are thirty-two in which the variation is considerable. But in respect to variations from the original in quotation, it should be remembered that familiarity often leads to carelessness with regard to minute points. Justin, himself, out of one hundred and sixty-two quotations from the Old Testament, has only sixty-four exact, while forty-four are slightly variant, and fifty-four decidedly so.”

If the reader, with the New Testament in hand, will make a comparison in the examples which will be given, he can form his own judgment, which it is conceived, will be no doubtful one. The substantial agreement is very striking even when the language is not identical.

JUSTIN FROM ACTS.

“He was taken up into heaven while they beheld.” (Res., c. 9.) Acts i. 9.

FROM MARK.

“But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist after the resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said, ‘They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be as the angels in heaven.’” (Res., c. 2.) Mark xi. 25.

“And that we ought to worship God alone, he thus persuadeth us: ‘The greatest commandment is, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart, and with all thy strength the Lord God that made thee.”’” (Ap. c. 16.) Mark xii. 30.

“He says, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’” (Res., c. 8.) Mark ii. 17.

FROM LUKE.

The first three are parts of long quotations from the Sermon on the Mount, principally as in Matthew (Ap. cc. 15, 16) Luke vi.: 28, 29, and Matthew vi.: 7, 8, 13.

4. “We are persuaded that every man ... will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when he said, ‘To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required.’” (Ap. c. 17.) Luke xv. 48.

5. “And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good news, saying, ‘Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shall bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the Highest. And thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins,’ as they who have recorded[2] all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believe since by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that he should be born as we intimated before.” (Ap. c. 33.) Luke i. 32, and Matthew i. 21.

6. “As our Lord himself says, ‘He that heareth me, heareth him that sent me.’” (Ap. c. 63.) Luke x. 16.

7. “And again in other words he said, ‘I give unto you power to tread on serpents, and on scorpions and on scolopendras, and on all the might of the enemy.’” (Dial. c. 76.) Luke x. 19.

8. “For he exclaimed before his crucifixion: ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the scribes and pharisees and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’” (Dial. c. 76.) Luke ix. 22.

9. “Just as our Lord also said: ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’” (Dial. c. 81.) Luke xx. 35, 36.

10. “For he taught us to pray for our enemies also, saying, ‘Love your enemies; be kind and merciful as your heavenly Father’ is, for we see that the Almighty God is kind and merciful, causing his sun to rise on the unthankful and on the righteous, and sending rain on the holy and on the wicked.” (Dial. c. 96.) Luke vi. 35, and Matthew v. 45.

11. “But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Highest would overshadow her; wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’” (Dial. c. 100.) Luke i. 35, 38.

12. “For when Christ was giving up his spirit on the cross he said: ‘Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit,’ as I have learned also from the Memoirs.” (Dial. c. 105.) Luke xxiii. 46.

13. “He says, ‘The children of this world marry and are given in marriage; but the children of the world to come neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels in heaven.’” (Res., c. 3.) Luke xx. 34, 35.

14. “And wishing to confirm this, when his disciples did not know whether to believe he had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon him and doubting, he said to them, ‘Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I,’ and he let them handle him, and showed them the prints of the nails in his hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was himself and in the body, they asked him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that he had in verity risen bodily; and he did eat honeycomb and fish. And when he had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, and wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as he had said that our dwelling place is in heaven). ‘He was taken up into heaven while they beheld,’ as he was in the flesh.” (Res., c. 9.) Luke xxiv. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and Acts i. 9.

Before presenting Justin, from the Fourth Gospel, the use of this Gospel by his contemporaries will be considered.

In Barnabas (c. 6) it is said that “He was to be manifested in flesh and to sojourn among us.” (Com. John i. 14.) It is also said in c. 12, in effect, that the brazen serpent was a type of Jesus. (Com. John iii. 14-18.) Another passage in c. 7, although not cited by the editors, is, “Because they shall see him then in that day having a scarlet robe about his body down to his feet; and they shall say, ‘is not this he whom we once despised and pierced and mocked and crucified?’” This may have had reference to what is recorded only in John, as Apollinaris,[3] bishop of Hierapolis (cir. A.D. 170), afterward wrote: “The Son of God, pierced in the sacred side, who shed forth from his side the two things again cleansing, water and blood, word and spirit.”

In Diognetus, c. 6, it is said that “Christians dwell in the world yet are not of the world.” (Com. John xvii. 11, 14, 16.) In c. 11 it is said, “This is he who was from the beginning” (Com. John i. 1); and in the same chapter, “For who that is rightly taught and begotten by the loving Word, would not seek to know accurately the things which have been clearly shown by the Word to his disciples, to whom the Word being manifested has revealed them.” (Com. John i. 14, 18.) There is but a single quotation in this eloquent Letter, which is as in First Corinthians viii. 1, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.”

John alone speaks of Christ as the door, but the figure is often used in Hermas, as, “You saw, he added, the multitude who were building the tower? I saw them, sir, I said. Those, he said, are all glorious angels, and by them accordingly is the Lord surrounded. And the gate is the Son of God. This is the one entrance to the Lord. In no other way, then, shall any one enter into him except through his Son.” (Simil. ix. 12.) John x. This book of Hermas is an allegory in which an angel, in the guise of a shepherd, gives instruction in the doctrines and duties that were held and required by the Church. It has not a single quotation from either the Old or New Testament. But as Dr. Chartris in “Canonicity” (p. 137) well says: “The dignity, mission, and sufferings of God’s Son are prominent in Hermas’ teaching, and remind us of the Fourth Gospel at every turn.”

The supposed quotation by Papias, Fragment 5 (found in Irenæus), “In my Father’s house are many mansions,” has been given in a previous chapter.[A]

Basilides, according to Hippolytus, used as proof-texts the exact passages found in John i. 9 and John ii. 4. Hippolytus first records the comments of Basilides on the sentence in Genesis, Let there be light, and then proceeds as follows: “And this, he says, is what is said in the Gospels, ‘The true light which lighteth every man which cometh into the world.’ And that each thing, he says, has its own seasons, the Saviour is a sufficient witness when he says, ‘My hour is not yet come.’” Those who deny that these quotations[4] were by Basilides, claim that Hippolytus sometimes mixes up the opinions of the master of a school with those of his followers, and so it is not certain that Basilides used these texts. The learned author of “Canonicity,” recently published, p. 173, declares that the difficulties in the way of ascribing those quotations to any other than Basilides, are “enormous.” The reasoning of Matthew Arnold (who is quite far from being rigidly orthodox) is so conclusive that we give the substance of it: “If we take all the doubtful cases of the kind and compare them with our present case, we shall find that it is not one of them. It is not true that here where the name of Basilides has just come before, and where no mention of his son or of his disciples has intervened since, there is any such ambiguity as is found in other cases.... The author in general uses the formula, according to them, when he quotes from the school, and the formula, he says, when he gives the dicta of the Master. And in this particular case he manifestly quotes the dicta of Basilides, and no one who had not a theory to serve would ever dream of doubting it. Basilides, therefore, about the year one hundred and twenty-five of our own era, had before him the Fourth Gospel.”

The Epistles of Ignatius, whether the longer or shorter or Syriac, may be of too doubtful genuineness, or rather, the extent as to which they are genuine is too doubtful to be relied upon, although some of them contain numerous quotations.

[1] The Logic of Christian Evidences. By G. Frederick Wright, Andover, A.D. 1880, p. 190.

[2] Or, as Dr. Abbott translated it, as “those who have written Memoirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, whom we believe,” etc. Fourth Gospel, p. 21.

[3] As quoted (p. 43) in The Supernatural Origin of Christianity. By George P. Fisher, Professor of Church History in Yale College (A.D. 1870).

[A] Chap. 3.

[4] Judge Waite does not even refer to these quotations except to quote from Dr. Davidson in respect to Basilides in general, that “His supposed quotations from the New Testament in Hippolytus are too precarious to be trusted.” He does not seem to have known anything of Professors Arnold and Fisher, or Dr. Abbot, not to mention other very respectable writers within the last ten years, who have regarded the use of the Fourth Gospel by Basilides as sufficiently attested.

CHAPTER VI.
JUSTIN’S USE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

Christ’s pre-existence, not declared in the other Gospels, is frequently referred to by Justin.[1] John alone calls Jesus the Word; Justin often refers to him as such. Justin regards the elevation of the brazen serpent in the wilderness as typical[2] of the crucifixion. He says it denoted salvation to those who flee for refuge to him who sent his crucified son into the world; the idea of God’s sending his Son into the world is peculiar to John. The descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus, is mentioned only in the First and Fourth Gospels. Justin (Dial. c. 88) says that when Jesus “came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on him like a dove, as the Apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote.” Justin (Dial. c. 88) cites, as the words of John the Baptist, “I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying.”

This declaration, “I am not the Christ,” and this application to himself of the language of Isaiah, are attributed to the Baptist only in John (John i. 20, 23, and iii. 28). Hilgenfeld, the latest representative of the Tübingen skeptical school, recognizes[3] here the use of the Fourth Gospel by Justin. And Dr. Ezra Abbot, following Professor Drummond, gives twenty[4] instances (including the express quotation) of the apparent or seeming use of this Gospel by Justin.

The express quotation as in John iii. 3, 5, is as follows: “For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ womb is manifest to all.” (Ap. c. 61.) This is as translated in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Dr. Abbot (p. 29) translates it “Except ye be born again, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew Arnold, “Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Our common version is, “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God;” and in verse 5, “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The revised version, “Except a man be born anew,” or “from above” (margin), “he cannot see the kingdom of God.” There is a substantial agreement in the quotation with John’s Gospel, and unmistakable reference to the interview with Nicodemus, which is found only in John. The most rational inference is that it was from that source.

Justin, in this quotation, was as definite as when (Ap. c. 32) he wrote: “Moses then, who was the first of the prophets, spake in these very words, ‘The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until he come for whom it is reserved; and he shall be the desire of the nations, binding his foal to the vine, washing his robe in the blood of the grape.’” (Com. Gen. xlix. 10, 11.) He does not state where the passage is to be found, and its divergence from Genesis is greater than the difference in the language of Jesus, as quoted by Justin and recorded by John.

Justin, in quoting from the Old Testament, usually gives the name of the prophet, but nothing more; just as he gives this quotation as the language of Christ. He writes Moses said, or Isaiah said, and he also writes Christ said.

The other Apostolic Fathers, in their quotations from the Old Testament, do not usually give the name of the prophet, but only, “It is written,” “God said,” “The Spirit saith,” “The Scripture saith,” and often only “saith,” “The Scripture” in such cases being implied. And, as a rule, they do not quote with literal accuracy or a near approximation to it.

It has been objected, that if this quotation was actually from the Fourth Gospel, more than a single quotation from it should be expected. Let this be tested by the four epistles confessed to be genuine. There is not a single quotation by Justin from either of these acknowledged epistles, and it is doubtful if there is a single reference to them, certainly not in his Apology.

Nor is this all. The epistle to the Galatians (and Renan says, “Thanks to the Epistle to the Galatians!”) is not referred to in any way by Clement, or in Barnabas, or Hermas; nor First Corinthians in Barnabas or Hermas (and but once in Diognetus); nor Romans in Hermas; nor Revelation in Barnabas, or Diognetus, or Polycarp, and but once by Clement.

To account for Justin’s silence, it has been imagined, without the slightest evidence, that Justin was “anti-Pauline.” But how are the omissions by other writers to be accounted for? How did it happen that Clement made no reference to Galatians? It was not from hostility, certainly, for he speaks of “The blessed Apostle Paul.” Yet writing this epistle from the church at Rome, to the church at Corinth, he has but a single quotation from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and but a single quotation from Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, and no reference to Galatians.

The well-known distinction of everyday application in courts of law and elsewhere, between positive and negative evidence, is to be kept in mind. Whether John’s Gospel would be quoted by any writer acquainted with it, might depend entirely upon his object in writing; and so of Galatians, or any of the books of the New Testament. While a single undoubted quotation proves the existence of that which is quoted from, non-quotation may prove nothing at all.

Justin apparently has one quotation from the Fourth Gospel, with many implied references to it. But if there were neither the one nor the other, to infer his ignorance of that Gospel from his silence would be just as sensible as to infer that a lawyer had never heard of Blackstone, or Kent, or Story, because he has not quoted from them.

If Justin in his Apology quoted once from Mark, and once from John, and not at all from Acts, or Revelations, or Paul’s Epistles, it was because his subject did not call for any use of those writings, beyond the use which he made of Mark and John. And if (as was apparently the fact) he quoted Luke six times and Matthew eighteen times in his Apology, it was doubtless because Matthew better served his purpose, or was more firmly fixed in his memory, from his having been born in Palestine, where Matthew’s Gospel was published.

A like explanation accounts for the fact that the Fourth Gospel is not quoted by Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians. Neither does he quote or cite from Revelations.

The result so far is this: The Fourth Gospel, apparently, is quoted by Basilides, and Justin, and Papias; and, in addition, there are many implied references to it. There is about the same amount of evidence in respect to Mark and the book of Acts. The evidence accumulates as to Luke’s Gospel, and from Matthew, the quotations and citations become very numerous.

That these quotations and citations were forgeries is an idea that cannot be seriously entertained by anybody. There were originals from which the quotations were taken; and presumptively, those originals were the “Memoirs” so often referred to by Justin; and presumptively our Gospels were those Memoirs, since they answer the description. And unless it can be shown that other writings that will answer the description were then extant, this presumption is well nigh conclusive.

[1] Ap. cc. 5, 23, 32, 42, 50, 53, 63; Dial. cc. 48, 57, 68, 76, 85, 100, 101.

[2] Ap. c. 60: Dial. cc. 7, 94, 140.

[3] Abbot, p. 45; Fisher, p. 39; Sears, “The Heart of Christ” (A.D. 1873), pp. 46-67.

[4] Abbot, pp. 40-50.

CHAPTER VII.
NO OTHERS PROVED.

The latest work in this country which denies the genuineness of our Gospels, is “The History of the Christian religion to the year two hundred.” (Chicago, 1881.) The author says it is the result of an investigation extending through several years, two of which were spent in the library of congress, “which is peculiarly rich in the department of biblical literature.” He claims that his volume “will be found to be the most complete record of the events connected with the Christian religion during the first two centuries, which has ever been presented to the public.” He shows no lack of ability or disposition to make as strong a case as possible against our Gospels. And he understands the issue. For, he says, the question what Gospels were used by Justin, “is of the highest importance.” In this work, then, if anywhere, should there be proof of other writings than our Gospels, that will meet the requirements of the case. But what do we find? It gives a list of “forty Gospels,” before the decree of Pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. The only marvel is that the list is not longer. The greater portion are the now extant Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, which may be found in Vol. XVI., of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Much confusion, says[1] Dr. Ezra Abbot, has arisen from the fact that the term “Gospel” was in ancient times applied to speculative works which gave the writer’s view of the Gospel, i. e., of the doctrine of Christ, or among the Gnostics, which set forth their gnosis; e. g., among the followers of Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, “The Gospel is the knowledge of supermundane things.” Of all the Apocryphal Gospels, Samuel Ives Curtiss, the well-known German professor in the Chicago Theological Seminary, writes:[2]—

“I shall not waste any ink or paper to prove that the Protevangelium, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Acts of Pilate, etc., in their present forms as known to us and as quoted by Judge Waite, arose at a later period than our canonical Gospels.” ... “A knowledge of the original sources and the literature of the subject would have saved him from this pitiful blunder. I simply refer to Professor Lipsius’ article on the Apocryphal Gospels, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, London, 1880, Vol. II., pp. 700, seq.; and Holtzmann’s Apocryphon des Neuen Testaments, in Schenkel’s Bible Lexicon, Leipzig, 1869, Vol. I., pp. 170 seq. As neither of these articles are by orthodox men, or by those who have the slightest bias toward orthodoxy, they are calculated to inspire confidence in persons of every shade of belief or disbelief. Both are authorities; Meyer’s Conversations-Lexikon says of Professor Lipsius, of Jena, that he is one of the most eminent scholars in Germany.” (See [note 2].)

With this concurring judgment of the most eminent scholars, not much time should be spent upon these Apocryphal books. But a single quotation is given by Judge Waite that is claimed by him to have been made by Justin from either of them. And this (although not to be found in any single passage in our Gospels) may be gathered from different passages, which would be in keeping with Justin’s mode. It corresponds quite nearly, though not precisely, with a part[3] of the description in the Protevangelium of the announcement to Mary. But this no more proves the use of the Protevangelium by Justin than it proves the use of Justin’s Apology by the writer of the Protevangelium. Aside from this quotation, there are a few facts stated by Justin that are claimed, by some persons, to have been taken from the Apocryphal Gospels. One is, that Jesus made ploughs and yokes, which Justin of course would infer, from the fact that it was a part of the business of a carpenter to make ploughs and yokes. Another is, that Jesus was born in a cave. Dr. Thompson, says[4], “It is not impossible, to say the least, but that the apartment in which our Saviour was born was in part a cave. I have seen many such, consisting of one or more rooms in front of and including a cavern, where the cattle were kept.” Justin, who was a native of Judea, added a circumstance well known from tradition, which Luke did not think it of consequence to mention, that the manger was in a cave, i. e., that the stable in which was the manger was in a cave. He had no occasion to resort to books for such a fact. Another is, that Justin refers the Roman Emperor to “Acts of Pilate” as affording evidence of what he had stated concerning Christ’s crucifixion, and the miracles which he had performed. According to the usual course, Pilate should have made a report of the crucifixion. It is supposed that he did, and that it was lost or destroyed. Justin appeals to it, as if then in the archives of the government. Whether he was well or ill informed upon the subject, the document to which he appeals, clearly was not understood by him to be one of the “Memoirs” of Christ, “drawn up” by an Apostle, or a “companion” of an Apostle. Nothing purporting to be Pilate’s report is extant. The Apocryphal book, known as the Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate, does not purport to contain[5] any such report. Another is, that Justin says that Christ was of the House of David; a fact which Jesus himself had declared[6] and which is also referred to, in Acts. The only remaining fact, in respect to the alleged use of the Protevangelium, is in relation to the census. It is claimed that Justin and the Protevangelium agree that it was only to be taken in Judea.[7] But Justin does not so state. It also happens, that while Justin makes mention of Cyrenius, the Protevangelium only says, “And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus that all in Bethlehem of Judea should be enrolled,” saying nothing of Cyrenius. This is followed by an absurd and worthless story of occurrences, by the way. Justin has two references to the census, which will be found in the note.[8] Justin, in stating that there was a census in Judea, does not exclude the idea that it was more general.

Judge Waite, following the anonymous author of “The Supernatural,” and others, also claims that Justin’s statement that at the baptism of Jesus “a fire was kindled in the Jordan,” must have been taken either from the “Gospel of the Hebrews,” or the “Preaching of Paul.” As to the former (as he gives the translation from a fragment from Jerome) it is, that, “certainly there shone around the place a great light,” which is not what Justin said. There is no evidence from any quarter that this “Gospel of the Hebrews” was in existence (other than as Matthew’s Gospel was in existence), when Justin wrote. Nor is there any evidence that it was in use, at any period, except among the Nazarenes (a small Judaizing sect of Christians), and the Cerinthians, and Ebionites, two heretical sects. The very authorities quoted to prove its existence, clearly show that it was never in general use, or accepted by the churches generally. Neither the work itself, nor Jerome’s translation of it, has been in existence for centuries. From what is known of it, it seems to have been[9] the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, “not entire and perfect, but corrupted and curtailed.” It omitted the first two chapters. Some of the corruptions show its true character[10] so far as it varied from Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel; for as Papias wrote, and the Fathers generally believed, Matthew first composed his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect.

“The Preaching of Paul” was less known, and even of less account, than the other. Judge Waite says (p. 229) that it “was referred to by Lactantius and others, and was generally known in the second century.” But he furnishes no evidence of it, and Lactantius died about A.D. 325. As to its contents, Judge Waite only says that “It contained references to the Sybilline writings; also to the fire in Jordan at the time of the baptism of Jesus.” There is no good reason to suppose that it was extant when Justin wrote; and most certainly, it was never received by the churches generally. Eusebius does not seem to have known anything of it, unless to reject it as spurious. He says (Book III., c. 25): “Among the spurious, must be numbered both the books called ‘The Acts of Paul,’ and that called ‘Pastor,’ and ‘The Revelation of Peter.’”

Eusebius also is equally pronounced against the production called the “Gospel according to Peter.” That this “Gospel” was referred to by Justin in the passage before considered (vide c. 4), is the fact to be proved. The first mention of it, was by Serapion[11], who became Bishop of Antioch A.D. 191, fifty years after Justin wrote. He found a few copies of it among his flock, which he replaced, substituting Mark’s Gospel for it, for the reason that he found in it “many things superadded to the sound faith of our Saviour; and some also attached, that are foreign to it.” This bishop seems to have had no knowledge of its existence till that time. It favored the Docetæ, from some of whom it had come into his parish. The pretence that Tertullian referred to it, and intended to assert that in his day the Gospel of Mark was understood to have this Gospel of Peter for its original, has nothing to rest upon but another perversion of Tertullian’s meaning. The passage relied upon is here given with such words in italics as must be supplied to warrant the use which has been attempted to be made of it: “The Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be” what is known as “Peter’s” Gospel, “whose interpreter Mark was.” This forced construction, would make Mark the interpreter, not of Peter, but of the heretical work at some time known by some as Peter’s Gospel. Not Strauss himself, nor even the author of “The Supernatural,” so interpreted Tertullian. What Tertullian wrote was, that “The Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be Peter’s; whose interpreter Mark was.” Marcion mutilated Luke’s Gospel, and Judge Waite says, “Tertullian called him a hound.” If any one in his day had perverted his language as to Mark’s Gospel, so as to make it endorse the work which Serapion (who was a cotemporary of Tertullian) suppressed as heretical, Tertullian would not have been likely to have used a less expressive word than that which he applied to Marcion. Tertullian simply meant, as Papias had written, and the church believed, that Mark was Peter’s interpreter, and in that sense Mark’s Gospel was Peter’s Gospel.

The next writer referred to for “Peter’s Gospel” is Origen, A.D. 230. Origen says: “There are some who say the brethren of Christ were the children of Joseph by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary; and they are induced to this opinion by some passages in that which is entitled (the italics are ours) ‘The Gospel of Peter, or the Book of James.’” When it is considered that Origen, in most explicit terms, declares that our four Gospels “are the only undisputed ones in the whole Church of God throughout the world,” and that of these, “the second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained it to him, whom he also acknowledges as his son in his General Epistle,” the perversion of his language is apparent. Mr. Norton, whose opinion, it is conceded, “is entitled to great weight,” upon a careful examination of the subject, believes that this “Gospel” was not a history or biography of Christ’s ministry at all, but only a doctrinal[12] treatise. Not a single fragment of it has come down to us. There is no evidence from any quarter that it was generally received in the churches at any period; on the contrary, the evidence, so far as it goes, proves that it was not so received. It was the Gospel exclusively used by the Ebionites,[13] and neither Justin nor the majority of Christians in his time were Ebionites. Its very suppression by Serapion is conclusive; and there is nothing to impeach Eusebius’ judgment against it. There is no evidence that it was even in existence when Justin wrote, for the mere fact of its being found by Serapion forty or fifty years after is too remote. Hence, if Justin, in the paragraph before quoted in chapter four, by “him” meant Peter, instead of Christ (which we do not accept),[14] the Gospel of Mark, which in a sense was understood to be Peter’s, was the one intended; and the true construction of the words in question is of minor importance.

Judge Waite has succeeded as well as any one, in his attempt to find other writings than our Gospels, that will meet the necessities of the case. Professor Lipsius, one of the most eminent scholars in Germany, says,[15] “The attempt to prove that Justin Martyr and the Clementine Homilies had one extra-canonical authority common to them both, either in the Gospel to the Hebrews or in the Gospel of St. Peter, has altogether failed.” Of recent writers this side of the ocean, Dr. Ezra Abbot of Harvard College (who has already “a distinguished Continental reputation”), states,[16] after a thorough examination of the whole subject, as some of the results: “We have seen that there is no direct evidence of any weight that Justin used either the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’ (so far as this was distinguished from the Gospel according to Matthew) or the ‘Gospel according to Peter.’ That he should have taken either of these as the source of his quotations, or that either of these constituted the ‘Memoirs’ read generally at public worship in the Christian churches of his time, is in the highest degree improbable.”... “Still less can be said in behalf of the hypothesis that any other Apocryphal ‘Gospel’ of which we know anything, constituted the ‘Memoirs,’ which he cites, if they were one book, or was included among them, if they were several.”

Mr. Rowe’s[17] judgment is, that the facts referred to by Justin, but not recorded in the Gospels, stand to those which are recorded, in the proportion of only four, to one hundred and ninety-six. In other words, that all but four out of about two hundred references, appear in the Gospels. “It is marvellous,” he says, “when we consider the nearness of the time when Justin lived to our Lord’s ministry, that he should have preserved so few incidents respecting it which vary from those in our Gospels, rather than that those to which he has referred should present the slight variations they do; for it is an interval within which traditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.”

[1] P. 16 of “Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,” etc. (1880).

[2] The Daily Inter-Ocean of Feb. 12, 1881. To the same effect, “The Authorship,” p. 98, note 6; The Supernatural Origin of Christianity, by George P. Fisher, D.D., Professor of Christian History in Yale College (1870), p. 191-2; Origin, etc., by Prof. C. E. Stowe (1867), p. 185, c. 7.

[3] “And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time, brought her the good news, saying, ‘Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’” After a dozen lines, the last clause is repeated as follows: “Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, ‘Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’” The last clause seems to have been transferred from Matthew by Justin. The Protevangelium (c. 11) reads as follows: “And she hearing, reasoned with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? And shall I bring forth, as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow thee; wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of the Most High. And thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold the servant of the Lord before his face; let it be unto me according to thy word. And she made the purple and the scarlet and took them to the priest,” etc. The account is preceded by the story that it had fallen to her lot to spin purple and scarlet for the veil of the temple, and that when the angel spake to her she was going with a pitcher to fill it with water. It is not easy to believe that Justin’s simple narrative came from such a source.

[4] The Land and the Book, by W. M. Thompson, D.D., twenty-five years a missionary of the A. B. C. F. M., in Syria and Palestine, Vol. II, p. 503.

[5] The first part contains a graphic account of the trial and crucifixion. At the trial witnesses are represented as appearing before Pilate and narrating different miracles which had been performed. Judge Waite devotes considerable space in comparing these accounts with the Gospel narratives. He argues that the Apocryphal account must have been the earlier one, because of its brevity, and because it does not include all the miracles. This is as if one should infer that the plea of the advocate, or the charge of the judge, preceded the testimony, or the compendium, the history.

[6] Matt. ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; Mark x. 47; xii. 35-7; Luke xx. 30-1; xl. 6; xviii. 38-9; John vii. 42; Acts xiii. 23; Ro. i. 3.

[7] Protevangelium, p. 17; vol. 16, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, pp. 18-19.

[8] Apology, c. 34. “Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea.” Dial. c. 78. “Then he was afraid and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judea under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth where he lived to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region.” Joseph was both of the tribe of Judah, and of the house and lineage of David, and there is no contradiction. It is to be noticed that the census is spoken of as the first census that was taken. Cyrenius, called then procurator, was afterward governor.

[9] See authorities in [Note 2].

[10] “Now my mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my hairs, and brought me to the great mountain even Tabor.” “Jesus said unto him, go sell all which thou possessest and divide among the poor, and come follow me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it did not please him.” Origin, etc., by Professor Stowe, p. 22.

[11] Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, p. 78; Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12; b. 3, c. 25.

[12] Abbott, etc., p. 79; Waite’s History, p. 11.

[13] Abbott, etc., p. 104, Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12.

[14] The entire passage is as follows: “And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the Apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the Memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was he by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua) under whose name the people who survived of those who came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.” The controversy is, whether the personal pronouns “He” and “Him” refer to Jesus, or whether “Him” refers to Peter. Judge Waite says that Justin has ten times “Memoirs of the Apostles,” and five times, “Memoirs,” and not once, “Memoirs of Christ.” It is true we do not find “Memoirs of Christ.” But confessedly the Memoirs intended were of or concerning Christ, and not of or concerning the Apostles, or either of them. Justin used the expression Memoirs of the Apostles just as we say the Gospel of John. They were concerning Christ; he is the grand subject of discourse in all Justin’s writings. And in Ap. c. 33, Justin speaks of those “who have written Memoirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ.” In the proper and highest sense they should only be spoken of as “Memoirs of Christ.”

Judge Waite, after the author of “The Supernatural” (p. 337), says, to refer to the more distant antecedent is contrary to the rule. The rule is of but slight importance as compared to the whole scope. And to apply the rule here, Peter would be the one who changed the names of the sons of Zebedee; for Peter, and not Christ, would be the last antecedent.

[15] As quoted by Dr. Ezra Abbot, pp. 98, 99; see, also, Inter-Ocean of February 12, 1881.

[16] Abbot, etc., p. 103, 104; Inter-Ocean of February 12.

[17] Bampton Lectures for 1877, pp. 279, 281.

CHAPTER VIII.
PRESUMPTION OF PERMANENCY.

In general, says Mr. Phillips,[1] there is a presumption in favor of the continuance of what is once proved to have existed. It is a familiar principle of law, says Chief Justice Parker, that a state of things once shown to exist is presumed to continue until something is shown to rebut the presumption. And this position, says Professor Greenleaf, is founded “on the experienced continuance or permanency of longer or shorter duration in human affairs. When, therefore, the existence of a person, a personal relation, or a state of things, is once established by proof, the law presumes that the person, relation, or state of things continues to exist as before, until the contrary is shown, or until a different presumption is raised from the nature of the subject in question.” With other examples of the application of this presumption, he mentions opinions and religious convictions: “The opinions also of individuals, once entertained and expressed, and the state of mind, once proved to exist, are presumed to remain unchanged until the contrary appears. Thus, all the members of a Christian community, being presumed to entertain the common faith, no man is supposed to disbelieve the existence and moral government of God, until it is shown from his own declarations.” This presumption being founded in reason and experience, is of universal application. It is not conclusive, but stands “until something is shown to rebut it.” It is the basis of Hume’s argument against miracles, but which he misapplies, making it conclusive instead of presumptive evidence. As a presumption, it is strictly applicable to the question in hand, and will be found to have great force. For, from this natural and reasonable presumption, it should be taken, unless the contrary is proved, that the accepted “Memoirs” of Justin’s time remained in the churches. Hence if we can ascertain with entire certainty what “Memoirs” were accepted in the churches in the year 180, and no evidence of displacement and substitution appears, we shall have most satisfactory evidence what “Memoirs” were the ones intended by him in his Apology.

[1] Phillips on Evidence, 4th Am. Ed., 640: 17 N. H. Rep., 409: 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, §§ 41, 42.

CHAPTER IX.
THE MEMOIRS OF THE YEAR ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY.

There is undoubted proof that within forty years from the time Justin wrote his First Apology, our Four Gospels (and no others) with the Book of Acts, were universally received in the church, as we now receive them. It comes from the writings of Agrippa Castor, Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, Apelles, Athenagoras, Basilides, Celsus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Heracleon, Irenæus, Jerome, Marcion, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, Origen, Pantænus, Polycarp, Serapion, Tatian, Theophilus, Tertullian, Valentine, The Letter of the Church of Vienne and Lyons, and the unknown authors of the Clementine Homilies, and the Muratori Canon—Christians, Gnostics, Heretics, and Heathen, all concurring to prove universal reception, beyond a reasonable doubt. So strong is this proof that even Strauss does not deny such reception by the end of the second century, and he admits that there is evidence of an earlier date. He says: “We learn from the works of Irenæus, of Clement Alexandrinus, and of Tertullian, that, at the end of the second century after Christ, our Four Gospels were recognized by the orthodox church as the writings of the Apostles and the disciples [companions] of the Apostles, and were separated from many other similar productions, as authentic records of the life of Jesus. The first Gospel, according to our Canon, is attributed [i. e. by the authors named] to Matthew, who is enumerated among the twelve Apostles; the fourth to John, the beloved disciple of our Lord; the second to Mark, the interpreter of Peter;[1] and the third to Luke, the companion of Paul. We have, besides, the authority of earlier authors, both in their own works, and in quotations cited by others.” As a false witness sometimes admits a part, the better to conceal what is more important, so Strauss admits a state of things as existing at the end of the century, that, beyond dispute, should be carried back to a time at least twenty years earlier. Thus Professor Fisher, in his exhaustive work, says of John’s Gospel (which is conceded to have been the last): “We choose to begin[2] with the unquestioned fact of the universal reception of the Fourth Gospel as genuine in the last quarter of the second century. At that time we find that it was held in every part of Christendom to be the work of the Apostle John. The prominent witnesses are Tertullian in North Africa, Clement in Alexandria, and Irenæus in Gaul.” And Professor Abbot[3] says: “I begin with the statement, which cannot be questioned, that our present Gospels, and no others, were received by the great body of Christians as genuine and sacred books during the last quarter of the second century.”

Theophilus of Antioch, as early as A.D. 180, not only quotes from the Fourth Gospel, as Scripture, but names John as its author, as follows:[4] “As the Holy Scriptures, and all who have the Spirit, teach us, among whom John says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God;’ signifying that God alone was in the beginning, and that the Word was in him. And then he says, the Word was God, and all things were made by Him, and without him there was not anything made.” Theophilus also wrote a Commentary upon the Gospels. Before this time, also, our Gospels and Acts had been included in a list[5] of canonical books received in the churches. They were in their present order, and, as far as their authorship is stated, are attributed to the persons whose names are now assigned to them. And before[6] this date, Celsus (who anticipated Strauss by seventeen hundred years) had cited alleged contradictions in the Gospels, and particularly as to there being one or two angels at the sepulchre. He attempted to ridicule the idea that blood and water came from Jesus’ side—a fact that is stated only in John. He refers to the fact that Christ “after his death arose, and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands had been pierced.” Although he does not name the authors of the books, yet his numerous quotations correspond with them, including Luke and John. And in respect to all of the discrepancies, etc., he says: “All these things I have taken out of your own books,” i. e. Scriptures. “We need,” says he, “no after witness, for you fall upon your own swords.” His work has not come down to us except as contained in Origen’s writings, which, however, quote so fully from it, that it is nearly reproduced. And ten years[7] before this time, Tatian, who had been a disciple of Justin (but after Justin’s death became heretical), wrote a Commentary or Harmony upon the Gospels. He called it Diatesseron, which means the Gospel of the Four. The celebrated Syrian, Father Ephræm, who died A.D. 373, wrote a commentary on it. Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last part of the twelfth century, was also well acquainted with Tatian’s work; and says that it began with John i. 1: “In the beginning was the Word.”

Before this date, Heracleon, a disciple of the Gnostic Valentine, wrote a commentary upon the Fourth Gospel. The work is known[8] to us through many fragments, which Origen has woven into his own commentary on the same Gospel.

Quotations from the canonical Gospels between the periods mentioned are very numerous. It is unnecessary to cite them, or to give other specific proof of a state of things existing as early as 180, as shown by most incontrovertible evidence, whatever doubt may be had as to some items of this evidence. Indeed an earlier date might properly be assumed than that taken as the basis of our argument. Thus Dr. Charteris, in his recent work, says, in view of all the circumstances: “When we pass the middle of the century, and come to the works of Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus (with a quotation by name) we are out of the region of controversy.” (Canonicity, lxxxi.) There were a few persons called the Alogi, a nickname having the double meaning of “deniers of the doctrine of the Logos,” and “men without reason,” who denied John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel. They were probably a few[9] eccentric individuals, who attracted no attention, and none of whose names are preserved. The fact that they appealed to no tradition in favor of their views, denied John’s authorship of the Apocalypse likewise, and absurdly ascribed both to Cerinthus, whom no one supposes could have been their author, shows that they were persons of no critical judgment. They were outside of the churches of which Justin wrote. The reception of the canonical Gospels, to the exclusion of all others, was universal in those churches.

[1] Not the interpreter of “Peter’s Gospel!” (Page 49-50, Vol. 1, of “The Life of Jesus,” etc., 1860).

[2] P. 39 of “The Supernatural Origin of Christianity,” (1870), by Prof. Fisher.

[3] P. 13 of “The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel” (1880).

[4] P. 177 of Prof. Stowe’s “Origin and History of the Books of the New Testament” (1867); Strauss’ Life of Christ, p. 52; Waite’s History, pp. 302, 354; p. 130 of Fisher’s “Supernatural Origin,” etc.

[5] A fragment of this writing was discovered by the Italian scholar Muratori, and from him is called the Muratori Canon. It is written in Latin, but is supposed to have been first written in Greek. The first part of the writing is wanting, so that it begins with Luke, which it calls the “Third book of the Gospel according to Luke.” It was found in the Ambrosian Library, at Milan, in a manuscript containing extracts from writings of Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others. It professes to give a list of the writings that are recognized in the Christian Church. Judge Waite (p. 412) assigns A.D. 190 as its date. Prof. Curtiss says of it: “The most eminent New Testament scholars in America, England and Germany, with a few exceptions, hold that it was written in the last quarter of the second century (the most setting the date at about 170-180 A.D.) Some of them are: Prof. Ezra Abbot, of Harvard College; Drs. E. A. Abbott, Canon Wescott, W. A. Sanday, Credner, Weiseler, Bleek, Reuss, Hilgenfeld, and many others” (Inter-Ocean, February 12, 1881). The Fragment contains internal evidence of the time when it was written. In reference to the “Pastor” it says: This “did Hermas write, very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while his brother Bishop Pius sat in the chair in the church of Rome.” Now Pius was Bishop from A.D. 142 to 157. Waite’s History, p. 232.

[6] In reply to Judge Waite, who assigned A.D. 210 to Celsus, Professor Curtiss says that “Dr. Keim, who belongs to the most liberal German school, and who made a very careful investigation of the subject (Celsus Wahres Wort, Zurich, 1873), sets the date in the year 177 or 178, A.D.” See also Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, London, 1877, vol. 1, p. 436; Fisher, p. 42; “Heart of Christ,” by Edmund H. Sears, 1873, p. 148; Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, etc., p. 58. See also Sanday, p. 262, and Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris, 1880, p. 369. Origen, in one place, in answering his objections, speaks of him as “a man long since dead.”

[7] Pp. 52-53 of Abbot’s Fourth Gospel.

[8] “Tischendorf’s Origin of the Four Gospels,” p. 89.

[9] Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, pp. 18, 20; Fisher, p. 69.

CHAPTER X.
ASCENDING THE STREAM.

Now consider the tremendous force of the proved fact that, within forty years of the time when Justin wrote his First Apology, we reach a period when it is no longer a debatable question whether our Gospels are “the Memoirs” of Christ which were read with the Prophets in city and country. The presumption of continuance attaches. It has before been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, in the year one hundred and forty, there were accepted “Memoirs” of our Lord, which were read with the Prophets in all the churches. There is no evidence whatever that those Memoirs in the intervening forty years were dropped and others substituted for them; therefore it should be presumed that they were in the churches in the year one hundred and eighty; and the Memoirs in the churches at this latter period are positively known and seen, to have been the Canonical Gospels. They have come closer to us, and in the nearer vision we are able to determine their identity with the utmost certainty. And the natural presumption that there was no substitution within the short interval of forty years, is immensely strengthened by the difficulties attending any attempted substitution,—difficulties so great that they must have left unmistakable evidence of conflict upon the page of history. The churches were very numerous, and occupied a territory of more than two thousand miles in extent from Syria to Gaul. Each church had its bishop or presbyter, and elders; and in each church, once in seven days, were the Memoirs of our Lord read with the Prophets. There were hundreds who, from their own recollections, and thousands who, from their parents or instructors, at any given time within these forty years, had perfect knowledge what Memoirs were thus read in the year one hundred and forty. Young men of twenty then, were only sixty, forty years later. Was there a substitution in those forty years, and these bishops, and elders, and thousands of communicants every Sabbath of all ages, not know it; or knowing it had not objected; or objecting, and history have no record of it? Not a few of these were educated men; and indeed all the bishops and elders may be presumed to have been as well versed in the accepted Gospels as in the writings of the prophets. It is to be borne in mind that we are dealing now with the question of substitution within the short period of forty years. A score of names can be given of men living within that time or immediately after, who, from their own recollection or from others, must have had perfect knowledge of the whole subject: Athenagoras, a philosopher at Athens about the year one hundred and sixty; Caius, a presbyter at Rome about the year two hundred; Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, cir. 173; Clement of Alexandria, who became the head of the Alexandrian School in 187; Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who died a martyr in 173; Hegesippus, the historian (whose works are now lost), who died in 180; Hermas, who was prominent toward the close of the century; Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons; Justin himself, whose martyrdom was as late as the year 165; Leonides, the martyr; Melito, Bishop of Sardis; the world-renowned Origen, son of Leonides; Pantænus; Polycarp; Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus; Pothinus the predecessor of Irenæus (and whose martyrdom was about 167); Serapion, Bishop of Antioch; Tertullian, the eloquent Roman lawyer of Carthage; Theophilus, the predecessor of Serapion; and Victor, Bishop of Rome.

It may be said, and with truth, that the Fourth Gospel, whenever introduced, came in not as a substitute, but as a supplement. The evidence, however, is conclusive that by the year one hundred and eighty, it had obtained as permanent a footing as either of the other Gospels. Its reception was as hearty, and the tradition of its authorship as strong, as in respect to the others. To infer that it was the forged product of the period now under consideration, or any other, is as if De Soto had concluded that the mighty stream which he discovered hastening to the Gulf, with deep and rapid current, so wide that a man could scarcely be seen from shore to shore, had its origin not in far-off lakes or mountains, but in some miserable crocodile swamp of the country he was traversing, and but just out of sight. And who forged the Fourth Gospel and imposed it as John’s upon this score of persons, and hundreds of others? Or did these men conspire together, to deceive themselves, the churches, and the world? What name has come down to us from that age, or any other, who was capable of such an undertaking? What forger wrote those discourses of Our Lord with Nicodemus? Or those with the women of Samaria? Or those with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion? Or the parable of the good Shepherd? Or that memorable prayer recorded in the seventeenth of John? That any sane man should attribute either of these to a criminal forger would be incredible, if we were not confronted with the fact. And what sort of a man was this forger of the Fourth Gospel? We have Baur’s conception of him as “A man of remarkable mind, of an elevated spirit, and penetrated with a warm adoring faith in Christ as the Son of God and Saviour of the world!” And Baur thinks it easier to believe (without proof) in the existence of this remarkable genius and elevated character, who would invent fictitious discourses, falsely attribute them to the Christ whom he adored, and forge the name of the beloved disciple, than to believe with the whole body of the Christian Church, that the discourses and utterances were those of our Lord![1] If John did not write the Fourth Gospel, who did? Not one of those who deny his authorship, can give an answer to this question. It is no answer to say that many in the second century believed that Hermas (whom Paul mentions in his Epistle to the Romans), wrote the Pastor or Shepherd of Hermas. Such was not the universal sentiment. The work was never generally received as Scripture. On the contrary, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, while placing the Four Gospels in the list of canonical books universally received, says of “The Pastor,” that it was written “very recently in our times” by another Hermas, a brother of the Bishop of Rome, and that it was read in “some of the churches,” not as Scripture but for “edification,” the same as the Epistle of Clement. It was rejected by Tertullian, not only as Apocryphal, but as hurtful. Nor is it any answer, to say that the so-called Epistle of Barnabas was early attributed to Barnabas the Levite. In the first place, it is by no means certain that this tradition was unfounded. From the little we know of Barnabas, it would be rash to conclude that he could not have written it. If uninspired, he may have written just such a book. In the second place, no one ascribed it to him till the time of Clement of Alexandria, and it was ranked by Eusebius among the “spurious” writings, which, however much known and read in the church, were never regarded as authoritative. Eusebius also places The Pastor Hermas in the list of writings whose authorship is disputed. The Fourth Gospel rests upon an entirely different basis. There was but one tradition in respect to it, and from our first knowledge of it, it was regarded as authoritative, and its authorship was undisputed; for the slight exception of the few individuals, called the Alogi, is of no account. It was included in the commentaries and harmonies to which reference has been made; and such works would not have been written until the books upon which they were based had been long enough in the churches for a felt need of commentaries upon them. It was quoted as Scripture by Theophilus, and John its author was expressly named as moved by the Holy Ghost. In the Muratori Canon, it was placed as Scripture in the list of Canonical books, universally received. And that it could not have come in after the year one hundred and forty, or have been received unless it was genuine, will be still more obvious from a more particular consideration of some of those who accepted it. Pantænus, who was at the head of the Alexandrian school in the year one hundred and eighty, was (says Eusebius) distinguished for his learning. Before his conversion he was a Stoic philosopher. After that, and before he became the head of the Catechetical school, he traveled extensively as an Evangelist. He went as far as the Indies, where he found that the Apostle Bartholomew, who had preceded him, had left the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. Pantænus could not have been ignorant of the “Memoirs,” which were accepted in Justin’s time, and he lived until the year two hundred and twelve. We have no direct evidence from him; but Clement, his pupil and successor, and noted for his learning, could not have been ignorant of the opinions of Pantænus; and from Clement there is the strongest testimony. He flourished between A.D. 165 and 220, and became head of the Alexandrian School in A.D. 187. Origen, his successor, with his great genius and acquirements, and extensive travel, and from his father Leonides, and his predecessors Clement and Pantænus, must have been fully informed of the “Memoirs” which were in the churches in the year one hundred and forty. And he says, that he has “understood from tradition, respecting the Four Gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of God throughout the world,” that the first was by Matthew, the second by Mark, “who composed it as Peter explained to him,” the third by Luke, the companion of Paul, and “last of all” John “who reclined upon the breast of Jesus,” has left one Gospel, in which he confesses that he could write so many that the whole world could not contain them. Tertullian, the celebrated lawyer, says, “Of the Apostles, John and Matthew published the faith to us.” In defending the Gospel of Luke against the mutilation of the heretic Marcion, he positively affirms that all the churches founded by the Apostles accepted, not Marcion’s abridgment of Luke, but a well-known form which had been “received from its first publication;” and that the other Gospels had been received from the same sources in authenticated copies. “In his abundant writings,” says Norton,[2] “there is not a chapter in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, from which he does not quote,” and from most of them his quotations are numerous. Tertullian was born at Carthage about A.D. 160, and from his conversion, about the year one hundred and eighty-five, he entered with great earnestness and ability into a vindication of Christianity, and the discussion of various questions connected with it. This able advocate could not have been misinformed of the usages of the churches less than half a century previous to the time when he entered upon his work.

The evidence of Irenæus is still more conclusive. He was born in Syria about A.D. 120, and he was therefore twenty years old when Justin wrote. His teacher was Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and his immediate predecessor at Lyons was Pothinus. Polycarp, at his martyrdom, was asked to save his life by denying Christ. “No,” he said, “eighty and six years have I served him and he never did me any injury; how, then, can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?” Pothinus, at his martyrdom, cir. 177, was more than ninety years old. The lives of these two men reached far back into the first century. They were at, or past, middle life when Justin wrote, and presbyters of important churches; and it is utterly incredible that they should not have known what “Memoirs” were read in their churches in Justin’s time. And it is equally incredible that Irenæus, the disciple of the one and the immediate successor in office of the other, and himself twenty years old when Justin wrote, should not have been as well informed upon this subject. Yet Irenæus quotes[3] from our Gospels and Acts, as Scripture, ascribes their authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and says that such was the accepted tradition in all the churches. After referring to the others, he says of the Fourth Gospel: “Afterwards John, the disciple of our Lord, the same that lay upon his bosom, also published the Gospel while he was yet at Ephesus, in Asia” (Eu. v. 8). And again[4]: “All the Elders testify, who were conversant with John, the disciple of our Lord, in Asia, that he delivered these things.” About A.D. 180, in a treatise against heretics, he appeals to the canonical Gospels with as much confidence that they are all well known and accepted by Christians, as any would do at the present day. Tischendorf[5] says the number of passages where Irenæus has recourse to the Gospels is about four hundred, and about eighty of these in John. Sanday[5] estimates the quotations from John in this treatise at seventy-three. But Clement, and Origen, and Pantænus, and Polycarp, and Pothinus, and Tertullian, were not better informed upon this subject than Serapion, who so promptly suppressed the heretical Gospel of Peter, or than Theophilus, his immediate successor, who was the first after Papias (other than the author of the Muratorian Fragment) to mention any of the four Gospels by name, or than the author of this Fragment, or than many intelligent officers and members of the numerous churches from the Euphrates to the Seine.

With such evidence and from such sources, and the entire absence of any evidence of substitution, it may well be regarded as morally certain, that none occurred. What was probable, from the seeming use of the Canonical Gospels by Justin and his contemporaries, has become a moral certainty. The Memoirs which, in the year one hundred and eighty, were universally accepted, were the same that forty years before were read with the Prophets, in city and country, in all the churches every Sabbath day. Of this there can be no doubt. The Memoirs of the year one hundred and eighty, were our Canonical Gospels; and the Memoirs of the year one hundred and forty, were our Canonical Gospels. And we take our stand with Justin, with these Gospels in our hands, only forty years from the death of John, the beloved disciple, and at the close of a hundred years from the crucifixion of our Lord. And still we ascend the stream.

[1] Wright’s Logic, etc., p. 187, Tischendorf, p. 43.

[2] Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, etc., Part II. c. 1; Wright, p. 187.

[3] Wright, pp. 188, 189, Tischendorf, p. 35.

[4] Stowe’s Origin, etc., p. 176.

[5] Origin, etc., p. 35; Wright, p. 189.

CHAPTER XI.
STILL ASCENDING THE STREAM.

The evidence thus far has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at the writing of Justin’s First Apology, the Canonical Gospels were read with the Prophets in city and country, on “the day called Sunday,” as authentic Memoirs of our Lord. Assuming the date[1] of this Apology to have been A.D. 138 or 139, the time was a little over one hundred years from the Crucifixion, and less than eighty years from the death of Mark and Luke, and all the Apostles other than John, and only forty years from his death. How long were these periods as they affect the argument from the universal reception of the Gospels in Justin’s time, and from the universal tradition in their favor which accompanied such reception? The writer has within two days (in April, 1881) met with three persons who saw Lafayette on his visit to New England in 1824. One of them distinctly remembers the sentiment[2] which Lafayette gave at Concord, and another shook hands with him. There were hundreds of Revolutionary soldiers present, some of whom the General recognized and called by name, although he had not seen their faces for more than forty years. This was in 1824. Whittier’s poem describes one of these soldiers, as he now remembers him, at the time of Monroe’s tour in 1817, sixty-four years ago:

“Once a soldier, blame him not,

That the Quaker he forgot,

When to think of battles won,

And the red coats on the run,

Laughed aloud Friend Morrison.”

And throughout the country there are thousands now living[A] who well knew men who were in active life during the War of the Revolution. In the Granite Monthly for December, 1880, was published the Diary of Rev. Timothy Walker of Concord, for the year 1780, and there were earlier Diaries kept by him which have been preserved by his descendants. The Diary of Matthew Patten of Bedford, from 1750 to 1790, is in the custody of Charles H. Woodbury, Esq., of New York. The Congregational church at Concord, of which Timothy Walker was the first pastor, November, 1880, celebrated its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. There are several towns in New Hampshire, as Londonderry, Dover, Exeter and Portsmouth, that were settled earlier than Concord; and some of them as early as 1623. The landing of the Pilgrims was two hundred and sixty years ago. It seems but as yesterday. A century from the Crucifixion was no longer than a century now; and as an event, to be remembered, the Crucifixion was as much greater than the Landing of the Pilgrims as the glory of the noonday sun is above that of the feeblest star in the most distant heavens. The time that has elapsed since Timothy Walker wrote Diaries which are now in existence is as long as from the Crucifixion to Justin’s Apology; more than thirty years longer than from the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to Justin’s Apology; and sixty years longer than from John’s death to Justin’s Apology. The churches in Justin’s time were not dealing with writings from a dim and misty past, or of limited or infrequent use. None were as ancient as Walker’s Diary; the last had not seen half its years; they were in all the churches, and read every Sabbath day. The argument which proves that there was no substitution between 140 and 180 is as much more forcible to prove that there was no substitution between the years 100 and 140, or between the years 60 and 100, as those times were nearer the great events which the Gospels recorded. If, for example, there were accepted Memoirs of our Lord in the churches in the year 100, from the presumed continuance of a state of things the existence of which has been proved,[3] it should be presumed that they remained in the churches till Justin’s time, there being no evidence to the contrary. And so there would be the same (or greater) difficulties in the way of displacement and substitution, between the year 100 and the year 140, as between the year 140 and the year 180. Justin and his contemporaries had from their own recollection,[4] or from others, whether parents, teachers, presbyters or bishops, as great facilities for knowing what Memoirs were accepted in the churches forty years before, as had Irenæus and his contemporaries in respect to the period of forty years before one hundred and eighty. And there was a succession and continued life in the churches from 100 to 140, the same as from 140 to 180. This reasoning is applicable to Clement and his contemporaries, and shows that Memoirs which were in the churches in the year 100 could not have displaced accepted and generally received Memoirs of any previous period. We know from the Epistle of Clement, as clearly as from Justin’s Apology, how Christians loved and adored their Divine Lord and Master, and how strongly attached they must have been to any Memoirs of him, which they accepted as authentic. And the testimony of Pliny is, that Christians in his day were accustomed to meet before daybreak and sing a responsive hymn to Christ as God. It is utterly incredible that accepted Memoirs of Christ, thus worshipped, should have been thrown aside by presbyters or bishops, and hundreds of churches, throughout the Roman Empire, without a shock that would have left unmistakable evidences of it in history. There being an entire absence of any evidence of displacement and substitution, it is morally certain there was none. John’s Gospel, however, stands upon a different footing, since it came in not to displace, but to supplement. John lived to the close of the first century. Who dared to forge a spurious Gospel in his name, so soon after his death that it had obtained such a footing in the churches, at the end of forty years, as to be quoted as his production? Who, during that period, was capable of composing it? And how were hundreds of presbyters or bishops, and churches, from Syria to Gaul, persuaded to receive a spurious Gospel, as the genuine work of the beloved disciple who was in life within the personal[4] recollections of many? It is a fact to be emphasized, that neither this Gospel, nor the others, can be assailed on historical or traditional grounds. There is but one history or tradition concerning them. The objections to them are either negative or speculative, mere assumptions, not supported by any history or tradition.

The first use of the four Gospels of which there is any history, is in statements of facts found to be recorded in them, and in quotations of teachings of Christ, corresponding with them. The first description of them after Papias, is that of “Memoirs” of Christ, “drawn up” by Apostles and companions of Apostles. The first mention of them by the names of the writers, ascribes their authorship to the men whose names they now bear. There is no history or tradition of a time when the first Gospel was ascribed to any but Matthew, or the second to any but Mark, or the fourth to any but John[5], or the third, with Acts, to any but Luke. The standing objection that none of them is mentioned by name till the time of Theophilus, and Irenæus, and the writer of the Muratori Canon, is not of the slightest consequence as opposing evidence. For, if these Gospels were not mentioned by name, neither were any[6] others; and surely we are not expected to believe that there were no originals, from which the many quotations, from Clement of Rome, in the year 97, down, were taken. This objection proves too much. For it proves, if it proves anything, that there were no Gospels or writings to answer to the quotations, which, under the circumstances, is a palpable absurdity. Besides, it is not true in respect to the First and Second Gospels, for Papias, certainly as early as the middle of the second century, and probably before the year 140, gave the names of Matthew and Mark respectively, as their authors, the latter being “the interpreter of Peter.”

[1] Judge Waite controverts the generally received opinion of the date of Justin’s First Apology. Verissimus became Cæsar in 139, but he is not addressed as Cæsar, but as “philosopher.” In reply to this, Mr. Waite says, that the same is true of the Second Apology, “which is admitted by all to have been written after 139.” In the first place, there is considerable uncertainty which of the Apologies was first written, and some critics maintain that what is called the Second was a preface to the First, and others still that it was a continuation of the First. (See introductory notice to Vol. II. of the A. N. C. L.) In the second place, the address to Urbicus in the so-called Second Apology, was not by Justin. He only gives it as the language of one Lucius, in narrating an occurrence which, for aught that appears, may have taken place before the year 139. Mr. Waite also says that Justin would be but twenty-five years of age in 139. He might have written his Apology in 139, nevertheless. And there are many who put his birth earlier than the year 114, and some as early as the year 85. There are no certain data by which to determine the time of his birth. Again he says that Marcion did not come to Rome till about 140, and that Justin (c. 26) refers to him as being “even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some God greater than the Creator.” But Justin meant to express his abhorrence of his doctrines. He refers to him as “a man of Pontus,” and again (in c. 58) as “Marcion of Pontus,” and says the devils put him forward. He nowhere describes him as being of Rome or at Rome. In his extensive travels he doubtless knew of him while he was at Pontus. Judge Waite also says that, if in the year 139, Justin would have said that Christ was born 140 years ago, instead of 150. But correcting the error for the beginning of our Era, the time would have been A.D. 146, or 144, as we allow four or six years for the error, and Justin, using round numbers, would more naturally have taken the longer period. There is nothing therefore in Judge Waite’s arguments to change the opinion in what he concedes to be “the very valuable Encyclopedia of McClintock and Strong,” and of Page, Neander, Lemisch, Roberts and Donaldson, Sears, Fisher, Eusebius, (c. 8) and many others, assigning the year 139. See also Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris (1880) p. lv. It is, however, not essential to the argument from the First Apology, whether it was written in the year 139, or 144, or 146, or even 150 of our Era. By as much as it lengthens the period from the death of John to the date of the First Apology, it shortens the time between that date and the year 180.

[2] “The memories of Light Infantry Poor and Yorktown Scammel.”

[A] Rev. Simeon Parmelee, D.D., celebrated his one hundredth birthday at the house of his son-in-law Hon. E. J. Hamilton, ex-mayor of the city of Oswego, N. Y., Jan. 16, 1882. His intellect was clear, and to those who called he had an ever ready response, and replied happily and wittily to the addresses. He had been in the ministry from 1808 to 1869, and, for years after, preached occasionally. His eldest daughter is 72 years of age, and his descendants now living, number 53. Upon his 90th birthday he wrote a hymn of considerable merit. When 100 years old, he remembered with vivid freshness the Inauguration of George Washington, although at that time but in his 8th year. See Congregationalist, Jan. 25, 1882.

[3] See Phillips, Parker, and Greenleaf, as quoted in c. 8.

[4] Justin in his First Apology (c. 15) refers to many of sixty or seventy years of age, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood.

[5] Prof. Fisher (p. 69) says, that besides the few individuals called the Alogi, or men “without understanding,” there is no allusion to the denial of John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel by any writer, before the latter part of the fourth century.

[6] As to the controverted reference in Justin’s Apology to “Memoirs of Him,” see [c. 4], and [c. 7, note 14]. That, if correctly interpreted by Judge Waite, could only have been Mark’s Gospel.

CHAPTER XII.
IN THEIR PROPER REPOSITORIES.

Certain propositions have been established by facts and arguments that cannot be successfully controverted:

(a) The advent of Christ and its stupendous results.

(b) The formation of numerous churches which by the end of the first century were in all parts of the Roman Empire, with presbyters or bishops and elders in every church, and many thousands of communicants.

(c) They regarded him with the greatest reverence and affection, obeying his commands as their Lord and Master, paying him divine honors, and for his sake joyfully yielding up their lives.

(d) Of his disciples and followers, twelve, called Apostles, were understood to have special authority from him in the Church.

(e) From the nature of the case we should look for the reception in these numerous churches, of Memoirs of their Lord which they would deem authentic, and at so early a period, that they would be able to determine whether they were authentic or not.

(f) To such Memoirs, once accepted, they would be so strongly attached that they could not be displaced and others substituted for them, in hundreds of churches in all the Roman Empire, without such controversy as would have left indubitable evidence of it.

(g) As far back as history goes, doctrines[1] were taught, facts asserted, and quotations made, corresponding with the Canonical Gospels, and such use was continued until a time when there is a positive identification of them by name. Within this period there was one writer making numerous quotations and references, who declared that the writings from which he quoted, and to which he referred, were “Memoirs” of Christ “drawn up” by Apostles or companions of Apostles.

(h) There is no proof of the existence of writings other than those Gospels answering to his description, or corresponding with the quotations; and finally within forty years of his first reference to these “Memoirs” they are clearly seen to be the Canonical Gospels.

(i) From first to last there is no evidence whatever of displacement of Gospels previously accepted, and the substitution of others for them in the churches generally.

(j) The Fourth Gospel is of such a character, and was in use so soon after the death of its author (and who is also stated as its author in the Gospels itself), as to make the idea of attempted and successful forgery in the highest degree improbable.

(k) And these Gospels within less than eighty years from the death of the Apostles other than John, and within forty years of his death, were read with the Prophets in the churches, in city and country, every Lord’s day, and accepted as Apostolic.

(l) From the earliest period they were where they should be if authentic, and where they could not have been, unless accepted as authentic.

Some illustrations have already been given in chapter eleven of the brief interval between the Apostles and Justin Martyr. Let any intelligent reader of sixty, from his own recollection, or any young person, from the recollections of others with whom he is acquainted, determine for himself. The writer was admitted to the Bar almost forty years ago; he has within a few months seen an original deed[2] of land in Londonderry (the home of his ancestors) executed one hundred and fifty years ago; he has in his possession certified copies of certificates of marriages and births, in his own genealogical record—going back from one to two hundred years, in one instance two hundred and thirty years, and these certificates would be received as evidence in any Court. They would be received, because made by the proper custodian of public documents, found in the proper repository for them. The presumption of law in such case is the judgment of charity. It presumes that documents found in their proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, are genuine. A deed forty years old, followed by a possession agreeing with it, is admitted in evidence without other proof of its execution. Our Gospels in Justin’s time were where they should have been, if authentic. The Church was the proper repository for authentic Memoirs of its Founder. Our Gospels were there. They were in their proper repository. And upon every principle that rules in the administration of justice, or in the common affairs of life, it must be presumed that they were rightfully there. Their rejection is not “the judgment of charity.” It reverses the maxim that fraud is not to be presumed. It charges forgery, of which there is no evidence, upon persons whom it finds it impossible to discover and identify. It imputes ignorance and indifference to multitudes who had every opportunity for knowing the truth, and who were willing to suffer all things for their convictions of the truth. It presses, as of vital consequence, trivial objections and alleged errors in chronology, geography and history, which (if made out) would not for a moment be thought sufficient to successfully impugn the authenticity of any secular work as well supported by external evidence. It is unnecessary to further consider such objections.[3] It is no exaggeration to say, that the various theories and speculations of those who deny the genuineness of the Gospels are, in the main, but ingenious attempts at the solution of the problem: “Given, the impossibility of miracles, what may be supposed to be the true history of Jesus Christ?” The only consistent answer that could be made, would be that upon such an hypothesis, it is impossible to determine what was his life or character. But, given, the possibility of miracles (and if there is a God they must be possible), there is no reasonable doubt of the authenticity of the Gospels, and the book of Acts. They come to us from their proper repositories, and must be presumed to be rightfully there. They are proved to have been in those repositories within but a short period from the death of the Apostles. They were accepted as Apostolic, and as having been drawn up by Apostles or companions of Apostles. If such undoubted reception, and use, and tradition, at so early a period, and thence until now, cannot be trusted, no credit can be given to any writings or history from ancient times. They can be trusted. The stream which eighteen hundred years ago was issuing from Apostolic times and the hills of Palestine, has flowed onward, enriching and blessing the nations.

[1] Mr. Waite assumes that Clement did not hold to a literal resurrection. Clement’s language admits of no such construction, although in writing to Christians who understood all about it, he was not as definite upon this point, as Justin in his address to a different class. Clement refers to the resurrection in c. 24: “Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which he has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first fruits by raising him from the dead.” And again in c. 42, after saying that the Apostles were commissioned, he adds: “Having therefore, received their order, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the Word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand.” The force of this language is not controlled by any means, by reference to the day’s following the night, and the springing up of the fruits of the earth, from the sowing of the seed.

[2] The deed dated June 16, 1731, was by David Morrison, one of the grantees in the Charter of Londonderry of 1722, to his brother-in-law, David McAlister. This deed with another from the same grantor to William McAlister dated February 24, 1746, are now in the possession of Jonathan McAlister, Esq., a descendant of David and an owner of the original granted land.

[3] One other correction should be made. Judge Waite arbitrarily assigns Cerinthus to the year 145. He gives no reason or authority for it. It is the testimony of all antiquity that Cerinthus was contemporary with the Apostle John, and that John died about the year 100. Irenæus, upon the authority of Polycarp, says that John, being about to enter a bath and finding Cerinthus within, drew back saying: “Let us even be gone lest the bath should fall to pieces,—Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, being within.” See Vol. II., Encyclopedia of McClintock and Strong, p. 190.

CHAPTER XIII.
INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPELS.

As stated in former chapters, this is to be presumed till the contrary is shown. There is, however, strong confirmation from many sources.

First.—The writings of the Apostolic Fathers present to our view the Christ of the Gospels, in his advent and life, ministry and teaching, death and resurrection. In particular, his resurrection from the dead is cited by Clement (A.D. 97) as an earnest of that of his followers, and as a proof that he came forth from God. The greatest of miracles, and the central fact of Christianity, appears in the earliest writings (outside of the New Testament), the date of which can be determined. Judge Waite, in his “wonderful hundred[1] years of silence by Christian writers” concerning the miracles of Christ, is oblivious of what he had before stated, that aside from the Gospels, there are left of the first century “only the Epistles of Paul, the one Epistle of Clement of Rome, some slight notices by Jewish and heathen writers, and the few legends and traditions preserved in the writings of the Fathers.” Such an argument from silence, where there are no writings extant, is not befitting a judge.

Second.—The earliest quotations substantially agree with the Canonical Gospels. Some of those by Justin Martyr have been given in chapters five and six, and those by Clement may be found in the Note.[2] These quotations by Apostolic and Christian Fathers, afford ample[3] means for comparison, and no variations appear to indicate any changes to affect the character or teachings of our Lord. Professor Fisher says[4] of Justin’s references, that they embrace “not more” than two sayings of Jesus that have not substantial parallels in the four Evangelists. The first is, “In what things I shall apprehend you, in these will I judge you,” which is found also in Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus. The second is, “There shall be schisms and heresies,” a prediction referred also to Christ by Tertullian. These sayings may have come from tradition. It seems not improbable that they were current expressions, embodying what Jesus taught[5] respecting the standard by which men shall be judged according to the light which they have received, and divisions in the same household. (See [cc. 6 to 8] ante).

Third.—The facts in Christ’s history referred to by the Fathers, with very rare exceptions (the most of which were stated and explained in chapter seven), correspond with the Evangelists. The exceptional facts are such as would naturally have been derived from tradition, and they in no way change the life or character of our Lord as they appear in the Gospels. The marvel is, that they should be so few and unimportant, considering that some of the writers lived at a time when[6] “traditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.”

Fourth.—Marcion’s Gospel (written as early as the year 145), except in intentional omissions and mutilations, for which he was sharply called to an account by Tertullian, presents a substantial agreement with Luke’s Gospel. Judge Waite claims that it was earlier than Luke’s; but the almost unanimous verdict of scholars is against him. Indeed, Professor Fisher, in the March number of the Princeton Review for 1881 (p. 217), says: “That Marcion’s Gospel was an abridgment of our Luke is now conceded on all hands, even by the author of ‘Supernatural Religion.’ Dr. Sanday has not only demonstrated this by a linguistic argument, but has proved by a comparison of texts that the Gospel of the Canon must have been for some time in use, and have attained to a considerable circulation, before Marcion applied to it his pruning-knife. There is no reason to doubt that he took for his purpose a Gospel of established authority in the Church.” Professor Curtiss also says that “the weight of scholarship is overwhelmingly in favor of the priority of Luke.” And he quotes from the last edition of the “Supernatural Religion,” the admission referred to by Professor Fisher. Its anonymous author says that Dr. Sanday’s very able examination “has convinced us that our earlier hypothesis is untenable; that the portions of our third Synoptic, excluded from Marcion’s Gospel, were really written by the same pen which composed the mass of the work; and, consequently, that our third Synoptic existed in his time, and was substantially in the hands of Marcion.” Dr. Sanday[7] shows, as he expresses it, that Marcion’s Gospel stands to Luke’s “entirely in the relation of defect. We may say entirely, for the additions are so insignificant—some thirty words in all, and those for the most part supported by other authority—that for practical purposes they are not to be reckoned. With the exception of these thirty words inserted, and also some slight alterations of phrase, Marcion’s Gospel presents simply an abridgment of our St. Luke.” That Marcion’s Gospel was not one of Justin’s “Memoirs,” is plain from his calling him a wolf,[7] “sent forth by the devil.” Although Marcion’s Gospel is not in existence, except as reproduced from the works of Tertullian and Epiphanius, its agreement with Luke (with the exceptions which they pointed out) becomes important evidence that Luke is to-day as it was in the year one hundred and forty-five.

Fifth.—Our Gospels and Acts before the close of the second century of our era were translated into other languages, and the Syriac, Coptic and Latin versions which have come down to us with some imperfections and slight variations, are in substantial agreement with our present version in all that is material. A translation of a given date presumably represents a text of greater age than itself. Hence the manuscripts from which these translations were made were older than the year two hundred, and probably older than the year one hundred and fifty.

Sixth.—The early and continued multiplication of copies affords strong evidence. Those who copied from originals deemed authentic would certainly endeavor to make exact copies. As these Memoirs were read in all the churches, and, doubtless, in Christian families and Christian schools, they soon became very numerous. There was fraternal intercourse between the churches. Any substantial difference in the copies would be noticed. Any such differences would be transmitted in copies made from these copies, and so on, to the manuscripts which have reached us. The number of copies before the tenth persecution (commenced A.D. 300, and lasting ten years) must have reached many thousands.[8] So complete was then supposed to be the extinction of Christianity, that coins were struck and inscriptions set up, recording the fact, that the “Christian superstition” was now utterly exterminated, and the worship of the gods restored by Diocletian, who assumed the name of Jupiter, and Maximian, who took that of Hercules. This persecution, in addition to the destruction of life, was specially[9] directed to the destruction of copies of the Scriptures.

Seventh.—Constantine, their successor, in the year 331, caused fifty copies of the Scriptures to be made for Byzantium, under the care of Eusebius of Cæsarea, the church historian. The manuscript discovered by the celebrated Tischendorf, in 1859, at the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, is believed to be one of those copies, and to be the oldest[10] Greek manuscript in existence. If one of the fifty, it is more than fifteen hundred years old. It is called the Sinaitic Codex. The second rank belongs to the Vatican Codex. Its date is probably not later than the fourth century. The next in the order of time is the Alexandrian Codex. Its date is the latter part of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth century. The Vatican has been in the Vatican Library since 1445. The Alexandrian was sent, in 1628, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I., and is now in the British Museum. The Sinaitic was presented by its discoverer to the Emperor of Russia. There is no doubt whatever that these three manuscripts were written back of the “dark ages,” and at a time when the true text could be known with great exactness, and was comparatively free from errors. With these, there are fifty manuscripts that are a thousand years old. There are, it is estimated, more than seventeen hundred manuscripts of the whole, or portions, of the New Testament, ranging in date from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Providence, says Tischendorf, has ordained for the New Testament more sources of the greatest antiquity than are possessed by all the old Greek literature put together. The number of manuscripts of the Greek Classics, says[11] Professor Stowe, is very small compared with the Greek Testament manuscripts, and the oldest of them scarcely reaches nine hundred years. There are such differences between the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrian manuscripts as indicate that no two of them were taken from the same original. A little reflection will convince any one, that while no single copy may be literally exact from its original, the multiplication of copies adds greatly to substantial accuracy as the result of the whole. For although there is a tendency to a repetition of some errors, by different copyists from the same original, as where successive sentences end with the same word, yet, in general, different copyists would make different errors, one in one part of the instrument, and the other in another, and, where the copies are numerous, they mutually correct each other. So it happens that in the different manuscripts of the New Testament, with different readings of many thousands (counting all trifles, like the omission to dot an i or cross a t in English chirography, as different readings), there is substantial agreement. It is a fact to be emphasized, says[12] Professor Fisher, “that the Scriptures are almost utterly free from wilful corruption;” and he endorses the opinion of the great critic, Bentley, that the real text “is competently exact in the worst manuscripts now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them.” And examining the subject in hand from a lawyer’s standpoint, the worst manuscript, or translation, or version, is sufficient for the purposes of the argument. And to cite once more the great authority of Professor Greenleaf,[13] to the genuineness of the Four Gospels: “The entire text of the Corpus Juris Civilis is received as authority in all the courts of Continental Europe, upon much weaker evidence of its genuineness; for the integrity of the Sacred Text has been preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects beyond any moral possibility of corruption; while that of the Roman Civil Law has been preserved only by tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing school to watch over and preserve it from alteration.”

And now (1882) the New Revision, both of the text and of the translation, by scholars who have no superior, and the careful product of ten years’ labor, has been long enough before the world to know the results. Not a single fact or witness to the Resurrection is lost, and not a single doctrine is changed, while many passages are better understood.

[1] He puts the date of the Epistle of Barnabas, A. D. 130, but it is generally placed earlier.

[2] “Be merciful that ye may obtain mercy; forgive that it may be forgiven to you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge so shall ye be judged; as ye are kind so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure ye mete with the same it shall be measured to you” (c. 13). Matt. vi. 12-15; Matt. vii. 2; Luke vi. 36-38. “This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (c. 15). Matt. xv. 8; Mark vii. 6. “Woe to that man! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling block before one of my elect, yea it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about his neck, and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before any of my little ones” (c. 46). Matt. xviii. 6; Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark ix, 42; Luke xvii. 2.

[3] The entire Gospel could be reproduced from those writings, including Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

[4] The Princeton Review for March, 1881, p. 201.

[5] Matt. x. 34-36; Luke x. 13-15; Luke xii. 47-53.

[6] Bampton Lectures for 1877, p. 221, by the Rev. C. A. Row, M. A., Pembroke College, Oxford, Prebendary of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

[7] Ap. I., cc. 22, 58. See also Sanday’s Gospels of the Second Century, p. 214, and “Canonicity,” by A. H. Charteris, D. D., 1880, pp. 76, 393.

[8] Norton estimates the number by the close of the second century at sixty thousand, which may be a large estimate.

[9] Vol. VII. of McClintock and Strong, p. 966; Neander’s Church History, Vol. I., p. 148. Neander says that Feb. 22, A.D. 303, on one of the great pagan festivals, at the first dawn of day, the magnificent church of Nicomedia (then the imperial residence) was broken open, the copies of the Bible found in it were burned, and the whole church abandoned to plunder and then to destruction. The next day was published an edict that all assembling of Christians for the purpose of religious worship was forbidden; churches were to be demolished to their foundations; all manuscripts of the Bible should be burned; those who held places of honor and rank must renounce their faith, or be degraded; those belonging to the lower walks of private life to be divested of their rights as citizens and freemen; slaves were to be incapable of receiving their freedom so long as they remained Christians; and in judicial proceedings the torture might be used against all Christians of whatsoever rank. “It is quite evident,” says Neander, “that the plan now was to extirpate Christianity from the root.” But it was the darkness which preceded the dawn, for this was the last of the Pagan persecutions.

[10] A facsimile steel engraving forming the frontispiece to Tischendorf’s New Testament, gives specimens of the Greek text in which these three manuscripts are severally written. The difference in the style of the text is one great means by which experts determine the age of the manuscript. The oldest manuscripts are written in large, square, upright capitals; and they are called Uncials. The later manuscripts are written in flowing scripts; they are called Cursives. The proportion of Uncial to Cursive manuscripts is about one to ten. The Cursive was introduced in the tenth century.

[11] Origin and History of the Books of the New Testament, by Prof. C. E. Stowe, A.D. 1867, pp. 31, 62.

[12] In Scribner’s Monthly for February, 1881, p. 617.

[13] An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the rules of Evidence administered in Courts of Justice, etc. By Simon Greenleaf, LL.D., Royal Professor of Law in Harvard University (A.D. 1846), p. 28.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.

The question of their credibility is before that of their inspiration. If uninspired, they may have given us everything essential to the determination of Christ’s resurrection. If inspired, inspiration may have been bestowed in such a manner as to leave them subject to some of the limitations of human testimony. If reliable accounts of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection, of our Lord, were to be published to the world, it was of the last importance that they should not carry upon their face the appearance of collusion and contrivance. Let any one who is disturbed by any seeming contradictions or errors, consider for a moment what would be the consequence if they did not exist. If each writer narrated the same occurrences and teachings and in the same terms, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to believe that they were independent witnesses. And so, if each should give all of the same occurrences and teachings, although in different terms, or a part of them, but in the same terms, it would be almost as difficult to believe that we have independent witnesses. As it is, no question can arise. Neither of them covers the whole ground, and where the same matters appear, it is, in general, except in brief passages easily remembered, in different terms. We are sure there was no collusion. We are sure we have the testimony of independent writers. This is conceded. Says Judge Waite (pp. 311, 313): That the Gospels “are not merely copied one from the other, with changes, is the almost unanimous verdict of Biblical scholars.” And in this, he expresses the verdict of those who reject, not less than of those who accept the Gospels. Among the limitations attending mere human testimony, are, that, ordinarily, no witness will state the whole of any transaction, and no two witnesses will state it in precisely the same terms, unless there is fraud or collusion, and the testimony of each is but the recital of something that has been committed to memory. Another limitation is, that even with two or more witnesses, errors to some extent will come in. There will be some lack of correct observation, or some misrecollection,—not only the omission of a part, but positive misstatement by one or more of the witnesses. The whole transaction is to be gathered from all the witnesses. And the law, having respect to human infirmities, says it is enough in all cases to prove the substance of words alleged to have been spoken, or the substance of the issue, in any civil or criminal cause; immaterial errors of time, or place, or distance, or other circumstance, will be disregarded. Now it is conceivable that the Evangelists, under the guidance of the Divine Spirit, may have been left (to some extent) subject to these limitations, in order that their testimony, conforming to these laws of observation and memory, be the more credible. Hence, whether the Evangelists, in this stage of the inquiry, be regarded as inspired or uninspired, it is labor lost, to adduce alleged errors[1] or contradictions which, if made out, could not seriously affect their honesty and general competency. In order that a witness receive our confidence, we should be satisfied of his means of knowledge, his capacity to ascertain the facts, and his disposition to give a correct account of them. Two of the writers, Matthew and John, were of the twelve (and John was the beloved disciple) and hence they had the best possible means of knowing the facts. Matthew, from his business of a tax-gatherer, may be presumed to have been sharp, shrewd and observant. John, from his most intimate association, was pre-eminently qualified to give testimony. He gives it with solemnity equal to an oath: “And he that saw bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe” (c. xix. 35). “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name” (c. xx. 30, 31). Again, after stating what Peter asked concerning the disciple “whom Jesus loved,” and what followed, it is said: “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and who wrote these things; and we[2] know that his testimony is true” (c. xxi. 20-24). This Gospel, obviously written later than the others, omits much that is contained in them, and is, so to speak, of higher order. The first incident mentioned in it, is the witness borne to Christ by the Baptist. It gives none of the parables, so abundant in the Synoptics.[3] It relates but two of the miracles recorded in them, i. e. the feeding of the five thousand, and the walking upon the water, (c. vi. 1-21). It adds six miracles not recorded in the Synoptics (among which is the raising of Lazarus), numerous conversations and discourses of the greatest interest, and facts relating to the crucifixion and resurrection, of great weight as evidence. It is written in purer Greek than the others; its style[4] is elegant and graceful; it gives every indication of calm, thoughtful and deliberate composition, and in these respects tends to confirm the uniform tradition that it was the ripe product of a mind and heart, enriched, quickened, and vitalized, by familiar intercourse with our Lord and the truths which he declared, as well as by the Spirit promised to the Apostles. Men with favorable native gifts, become educated fast under such influences.

It affords about the only means for a connected chronological history of our Lord’s ministry, which is seen to have embraced a longer[5] period, than could have been ascertained from the Synoptics.

Although Mark was not one of the twelve, the character of his Gospel in its life-like description of events, and its omitting nothing[A] where Peter was prominent, confirms the tradition, that he was an attendant upon Peter’s ministry, and was his interpreter. Nine-tenths[6] of the incidents related in Mark are also recorded in the other Gospels.

Luke was an educated man, and, as he incidentally discloses, a companion of Paul in a part of his journeyings. His Gospel was evidently drawn up with great care. In the prologue (c. i. 1-5) he gives a reason for his writing, and the sources of his information. “Many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.” These things, he says, “were delivered unto us by those who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the Word.” He was stimulated to give an additional narrative (“having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first”) for the satisfaction of his friend, Theophilus, and in order that he might know “the certainty of those things,” wherein he had been instructed. No historian could enter upon his work in a better spirit, or with more excellent qualifications and opportunities. In a subsequent treatise which in terms refers to the former, he finds nothing to retract or qualify. Can any one tell why Luke, as a historian, is not entitled to as much credit as Josephus?

In comparing the Gospels with each other, or with Josephus, it should be constantly borne in mind, that omission (except under special circumstances) is not contradiction. The facts of history, like the conclusions of a jury, are to be drawn from all credible sources, and the transaction deemed to be as shown upon all the evidence. Positive testimony from a single witness may prove a fact against the negative testimony of any number of witnesses, who are silent upon the subject.

It is also to be remembered that the Gospels are not so much connected histories, as reminiscences of events and teachings, with but little regard (sometimes an utter disregard) to their chronological order. Neither Gospel is, of itself, any approach to a connected history from Christ’s birth to his ascension. The events, so far as known to us, are to be gathered from them all. Mark begins with the Baptist at the river Jordan, and John at about the same time. It is not to be inferred that they knew nothing of the infancy, or childhood, or young manhood of Jesus. Matthew omits the presentation at the temple, the vision to the Shepherds, and other incidents; and Luke omits the visit of the Wise men, the slaying of the children, the flight into Egypt, and other incidents. But in so doing, neither contradicts the other; nor does Josephus, by his silence concerning these events, contradict the Evangelists. He may have been ignorant of some of these events, for he was not born until the year 37, and, being a Jew and not a Christian, he might not choose to mention those which had come to his knowledge.

Luke’s Gospel may or may not have made use of writings then in existence relating to Christ (but which never found general acceptance), and the same is true of the First and Second Gospels. It is no impeachment of their credibility. Every historian makes such use of materials that he deems reliable, as best answers his purpose, and his history is none the less trustworthy on that account. Hence, as a matter of evidence, it is of no consequence how many or how few, previous manuscripts may be traced in our Gospels, or either of them. Such writings had an ephemeral existence, never came into general use, and the Four Gospels and no others were the accepted Gospels in all the churches. Whatever literature of the kind preceded them perished so early that it cannot be told when it disappeared, or what was its character or completeness.

The Evangelists give every mark of honest witnesses. Their story is simple, straightforward and unimpassioned, even under circumstances calculated to arouse resentment. They seem intent upon nothing but the giving of a truthful narrative, not sparing themselves or extenuating their own faults. Their frequent incidental allusions to matters of government, custom, nationality, etc., and minuteness of detail, are such as would never be found in false witnesses. “A false witness,” says Mr. Greenleaf, “will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is danger of being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts equally circumstantial.”

It would detract nothing from the credit of the Evangelists, if, in the multitude of their incidental references, error should be found in a few of them, for some error is inseparable from all human productions; and their inspiration may not have been so circumstantial as to exclude immaterial errors.

With such differences as show most convincingly that the Evangelists are independent witnesses, there is such unity in the character and life of Christ, as exhibited by them, as shows the same original for the likeness. This essential unity of the Gospel is evidenced by the fact that not a single church or communion exists, that does not accept all the Gospels, if either.

From internal evidence, it is extremely probable that the Synoptics were written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke was certainly written before Acts, and the history in Acts is not carried later than the year 62, eight years before that event. As the four undisputed Epistles were all written before the year 60, the logical order will be to present the testimony of Paul to the Resurrection before that of the Evangelists.

[1] President Bartlett believes that notwithstanding its long line of exposure, the outer historical difficulties seem reduced to the solitary question of the taxing under Cyrenius. (The Princeton Review for January, 1880, p. 44.) Aside from any question of inspiration, it is improbable that Luke made a mistake. Justin Martyr, who wrote at a very early period, in his Apology to the Roman Emperor, refers to this taxing as a well known event (Ap., c. 34). He again refers to it in his Dialogue (c. 78) as being the first census taken in Judea under Cyrenius. Celsus, who was not wanting in skill or inclination to attack at all points, found no occasion here. It may well be that a person holding the office which Cyrenius held at the first enrolment was called a “procurator.” Or Luke in speaking of this enrolment may have referred to Cyrenius by the title which he afterwards bore; or Cyrenius may have been in the office twice. President Bartlett also concludes with Warrenton that there is not any instance of a really inapposite quotation from the Old Testament, although the quotations are sometimes inaccurate. He also concludes that the instances of alleged contradictions may be reduced to five, and that there is no insurmountable difficulty in reconciling them. But, for reasons stated in the text, the inquiry is not material to our argument.

[2] Many suppose that the “we” are the Elders at Ephesus. But if so, why did they not sign? The “we” preceded by the unmistakable reference to John and followed by the first person singular, in the closing verse, is as likely to have been John.

[3] “Synoptics”—a word often used by writers at the present day to designate the first three Gospels.